Open Phones on the Dividing Line

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. We're going to be getting to some Zoom calls a little bit later on, just a little bit, not too far down the road.

So, Rich posted a how to get into the Zoom thing.

I think there's even a video on it somewhere, I think. Anyway, so we're going to try to get to some

Zoom calls. If you're interested in jumping in, please try to make them calls that could be useful to maybe more folks than just you yourself, or that someone could meaningfully respond to.

I'm just looking at a topic right now, and it's like, it's so specific that it would require a tremendous amount of preparation to meaningfully comment on it.

And there's no way for me to do that, obviously. So anyway, a couple things.

First, since it's in front of everybody right now on social media, the video of the young woman in England who has violated these draconian, tyrannical, 1984, all over again,

I guess you didn't actually read the book in school, laws that have been passed in a number of countries where you are not allowed to say anything about abortion within a certain distance of a place they murder babies.

I mean, it is another way the state clearly sponsors the murder of unborn children.

And so there's this woman, and she's just standing there. She's standing off the road in some bushes, basically, totally silent.

And she's arrested because she was specifically asked, are you praying?

And she said, I might be praying in my head. She was not praying out loud. She's just standing there silently.

And she's arrested for violation. And the cop actually talks about, we need to protect people.

And I just asked on Twitter, I said, what happened to the souls of these people?

What is it like to be the servant of the state and to have to do the things that this guy is doing?

I'm not saying I feel sorry for the guy, because I don't. But I am pointing out to him, who knows, maybe in God's providence, someone might point him to somebody who would say, do you realize, do you understand that there is a day of judgment coming?

The fundamental difference between Western culture today and Western culture only 70 years ago is 70 years ago, everybody knew judgment was coming, that there would be a day of judgment.

And that reality has been, now it takes 12 years, 13 years of public school and university and the complicity of Hollywood and everything else to, and of course the destruction of the nuclear family and everything goes with that, to silence that conscience that is a part of our created nature.

It's taken a lot of work, it's been very purposeful, very purposeful, very intentional, and very successful, very successful.

So you see this happening in Western culture, and you know what's coming for us.

There are places that want to do the exact same thing. We just have this thing called the

Constitution that, though it's got numerous holes blown through it already, and we'll have more unless God does something major in this nation as far as revival is concerned.

These folks in the UK don't have that kind of thing. And so it is amazing to watch, it's sad to even consider what's going on there, and that you cannot stand within a certain distance of a place of the murder of unborn children and pray.

Can you imagine the British people of the 19th century, 18th century, 17th century, if you told them that someday this is what would be going on, that the homosexuality, the profaning of marriage, the grooming of children, the murder of unborn children, just the level of public indecency that is now just...

I had a friend last night, he and his wife were protesting outside of a drag queen story hour thing, and the

Antifa communists showed up. And he just said it was just astonishing, the behavior, the language, the degradation, the human degradation that he...

not only that they were there to protest, but that he saw amongst the people that were there to defend this kind of behavior that I can certainly remember when nobody defended it, and it wasn't that long ago.

It wasn't that long ago. The speed is astonishing. So I can now tell you, and I should have brought this up, sorry.

I was trying to get accordance to put the right

Bible translation where it needs to go. I can now tell you some exciting stuff about February.

Oh, by the way, tonight I'm gonna be with Andrew Rappaport on his Apologetics webcast starting three hours from now,

I believe. Supposed to be. I hope. Well, it's three o 'clock here.

It both starts, I think it's between six and eight. So yeah, mine says 6 p .m.

So look up Andrew Rappaport's Apologetics thing, and I may have to double check that.

I hate the stupidity of daylight savings time.

It is just... Stop it. It's just...

Stop it. Anyway, I'm gonna be on. Evidently, there's a skeptic that called in when

Jason Lyle was on, and so there's gonna be some discussion along those lines this evening.

But our next big trip... What? Was I right? Oh, I thought you were looking up Andrew Rappaport's thing.

Okay. My next big trip, which

I realize... Does anyone else do what we're doing right now?

I don't think so. No. No. As I think on everybody that I've spoken at large conferences with, yeah, no, they don't do this.

No. As usual, we're out here all by ourselves doing what we do. Well, you know, once you have to have the right drugs in your body to be able to fly,

I'm imagining a number of people would be contacting us. So how do you do this again? But which end of the sewer hose goes where?

Yeah, okay. Anyway, we do our road trips, and I do road trips.

Like I said, the last time I was on a road trip, someone expressed sincere disappointment that Rich was not with me, and I explained to him that if Rich and I tried to stay in the same

RV, the result would be the end of Alpha New England Industries, and probably one of the two of us because we're both armed.

So anyway, we will be headed...

Well, I can only go one direction. Man, the more...

California, there is that law they passed where you can now lose your medical license.

I think it goes into effect in just a few weeks. Lose your medical license in California for going against the narrative.

So if you said in 2021 the stuff that is now being proven by study after study after study after study about the dangers of certain medical activities, you can lose your license.

I... California is a communist state run by a mono party, and I have no interest in going there.

There are some fine, wonderful Christian people there, but I also happen to know a lot of fine, wonderful Christian people that are fleeing there.

So yeah, I can't go west, so I go east.

I'm looking like I think I'm going to try to work out the summer trip where I normally go up to Colorado.

I'm going to try to go up the middle of the country all the way to North Dakota when it's not as cold as it is now.

Those of you that are experiencing 40, 50, 60 degrees below zero wind chills, yeah, not coming to that time of year.

The walls on my RV are not that thick. It's got a good heater in it, but no, not doing that right now.

Feel sorry for all of you. It's 65 or so, 66 here today, something along those lines.

Rich is cold. Oh, and he turned on the heater on my end of the office.

It was 55 over here. The funny thing is he turned it off before I got here, but what he forgot was it hadn't been on since last year.

What happens when you run the for the first time? It smells, and so I come walking in, you turn the heater on.

It was 55 degrees down there. I don't stinketh. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.

Hey, I was showing my wife the travel map a couple of days ago, and she's just amazed at all of the dots that are on there all over the country.

But in a lot, and sadly, in a number of places where I'm never going. For roads and tundra.

Yes. So anyway, February, February, sorry, February.

I can tell you right now that we are going to be having a debate in Houston, same location as when was the debate last year?

That was in February, wasn't it? I think it was. I think it was.

Yeah, yeah, I think I would think it was. So it's going to be almost exact. Maybe we're starting a starting a tradition here.

The flyer isn't done yet, so I don't want to get into too much detail. But we are going to have a debate on,

I believe, the 7th or is it the 8th?

I should have been more careful about this. Yeah. Might be the 8th.

Wednesday the 8th. Either that or it's Tuesday the 7th. We'll have the specific details.

I could pull up the email and it'd be right there, but I'm not going to waste your time with that. Anyway, the subject is what is marriage?

And I will be debating an individual who's widely published, but is,

I would describe as fully deconstructed progressivist. So issues of biblical authority and interpretation and all that type of stuff will be front and center.

That's the kind of people we're dealing with a lot, so I'm hoping it will be useful and representational.

It'll be very early on in the trip. I think I leave that Saturday and head that direction.

And then I'm going from there to Louisiana, where I will be speaking on Roman Catholicism.

And then heading north in Louisiana, making a stop up toward Shreveport.

I think it's Shreveport. Anyway. And then heading over to Jeffrey Rice's church, and we will have a debate there.

I know that one is on Saturday the 18th. I believe the conference actually starts on the 16th.

But on Saturday the 18th, I will have a debate.

And what will be interesting about that is, yesterday

I watched a debate between the man

I'll be debating, who's the King James Only representative, and Dan Barker, who

I've debated twice formally, but we had actually engaged a number of times on...

Was Barker part of the Atheist series we did? I think he was.

I think he was, because my first encounter with him was on the Tom Lyka show on KFYI, and I was...

That one too? Really? That's amazing. These go back to the 1980s.

That's how long Dan Barker and I have gone at each other. And so it's fascinating to be on the

King James Only guy's side, obviously, but to be about to debate him, having debated

Dan Barker a number of times, though that's not something I would really be thinking about doing in the future, for various reasons.

So anyways, that will be on Saturday the 18th in, I believe it's Tullahoma, I think is the name, the location there in Tennessee.

And obviously, we'll be putting all this up on the website if you're in the area and you'd like to go to those debates.

So, two debates coming up in February, and hoping for another debate in May, and then of course,

April 1st in Salt Lake City, Jeff Durbin and I will be debating two agnostics on whether morality is possible without God.

So that's a fair number of debates, just for the spring of this year, that's four.

And that'll get us going again. We sort of stalled out there for a while on the formal debate scene during COVID.

And who knows what's going to happen. It's still only

December. And remember, I started hearing about the

COVID stuff in, what was that? January? Yeah, of 2020.

And then all of a sudden, it blows up and goes everywhere. So there you go. So, exciting stuff.

It's going to be, obviously, big prayer request is, when you're traveling, you're meeting people and stuff like that.

And my immune system is a good one, but nothing's perfect.

So, pray for continued health on a very lengthy trip.

Because I don't, I think I'd be, it's going to be one, two, three and a half weeks or so on the road.

So, pray for that. That will be exciting.

I'm excited about it, and looking forward to meeting all of you down there. So, Houston, here we come again.

And I'll be really interested to see how the new truck handles those Houston freeways. Because I don't know if you remember, it was called porpoising.

That was the first time I really started using the bags on the other, really pumping them up.

But now we've got a much bigger vehicle. So we will find out how that's going to work.

Wait, he said we should? Oh, who said? Someone just called you or something?

Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, we can talk about it later.

It's really not the issue right now. But I will admit that it is awfully nice to be able to raise the truck up.

That saved me a number of times. But yeah, we don't need to raise it up much.

That's not our problem. So, anyways. Oh, topics.

Yes. Oh, okay. All right. So we've got one, two, three, four, five, six.

Wow. Okay. Well, that'll probably get us through the rest of the hour. Oh, that's seven.

If we start with Bruce, right? Bruce still there? All right.

I think Bruce is the first one up. So I guess I need to find this thing here. So, you know, this is like 1952 technology.

And we're still, it's, you know, it still works, but you would think we'd have something better now.

All right. Let's talk to Bruce. Hello, Bruce. Hi, Dr. White. How are you? First time, long time, all those things.

It's a privilege to speak to you. Yes, sir. What's up? So I've had the opportunity to speak with the Mr. Jay Dyer.

We debated for about half an hour. I sent that over to Rich, actually.

I'm sure you're a busy man, but if you want to listen, you can. But I just wanted to bring this up. So the thing that I really wanted to hammer him on, although he got into all sorts of things, as you can imagine, canon of scripture and historianism, heresy, etc.

But the thing that was difficult for me to try and portray, and I thought maybe you could help me with this, was, in other words, they're presupposing an epistemology that is not based in the word.

It's based in some corporal authority of the church. And so they raise the question constantly as to where their epistemological standard even arises.

And so to me, they're operating under an authority of scripture, but they're not acknowledging that truth.

So even if they were to say the bishops consenting, you know, under consensus, dogmatize or create doctrine over the years, there's still a standard by which they have to be held to, and they won't admit that that standard is the standard of scripture, whether oral or written.

So I just wanted to know how you would navigate that. You know, it's really, it's basically presuppositionalism, of course, but I just wanted to get your take on that specifically.

Well, and again, for folks that aren't familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy, my perspective on especially the apologists, the

Eastern Orthodox apologists in the West, and Jay Dyer is a clear mixture of things because he's been different things at different times and has moved long ways, and I'm not sure that he really recognizes how he's been influenced by each of the various stopping points he's had in his rather wide journey, but Western apologists for Eastern Orthodoxy are very different than the actual

Eastern Orthodox people that I've interacted with, and one of the things I've tried to explain to people, and one of the reasons

I don't think it would even really be helpful to even try to write a book on the subject, is

Eastern Orthodoxy involves a completely different way of thinking than most of us in the

West are really even capable of doing, and as a result, in the

West, we end up arguing the same topics that we do with Roman Catholicism, but that doesn't really necessarily get to what is taught within countries that are

Orthodox, where you have cultural orthodoxy and you have just widespread expression of orthodoxy, which in most instances creates a nominalism, a cultural form, rather than a really lively spiritual form, but still.

So Russian Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, Ukrainian Orthodoxy now, and all the stuff that's going on with that, those are different things, and one of my criticisms all along, one of my observations has been that it seems to me that orthodoxy is encased in four walls of tradition frozen in time, and so the obvious reality is that even, let's say, let's even push it all the way back to 7th century, that 7th century tradition in the

East is the bedrock, the foundation. There was a lot of development before that, and there was a lot of diversity before that, and so there has to have been, over time, picking and choosing what was going to be allowed to define the liturgy and the understanding of what the liturgy meant and everything that comes from that, and so there has been a process of development, and clearly, historically, there was a movement away from the acceptance of the true nature of scripture as the norma normata that had already begun by that period in time.

Now, it obviously goes much, much, much farther than that in Rome and all the things that happened there, and orthodoxy, at least, has not had the kind of, in most areas, has not had the kind of development that Rome has as far as how far it goes, but still, in those centuries post -Nicene orthodoxy and up into, like I said, let's go ahead and say 7th century, there is still traditional development at that point, and so when you say they're under the authority of scripture, well, everybody claims a place for the authority of scripture.

Rome does, orthodoxy does, all the subgroups and sub -subgroups and flavors over here and flavors over there have to deal with the realities of scripture, but the fundamental question comes down to, and this is a question now taking place amongst

Protestants as well, and that is what is the relationship between the nature of scripture as divine revelation and the nature of tradition as defined by an ecclesiastical body at some point in history?

Now, of course, we know that what's being defined by the

Bishop of Constantinople today is that interpretation is very different than what would have been seen, say, in the 9th century or the 10th century, so there are lenses even in the analysis of tradition, but when you say, well, they're under the authority of scripture, certainly because of the place it had in the liturgy of the church at the time, it can't exist apart from scripture, but the real question for the orthodox person in their own understanding is how necessary and thick is the lens of the liturgy and the tradition derived from the liturgy, and the theology, for example, of the energies and things like, how central is that to being able to understand scripture?

And from what I have seen, what orthodoxy lacks that it horribly needs is the ability for reformation.

Yeah, that's what I brought up to Jay as well, that there's no position that they could even reform past the 8th century.

Right, they can't, not without sacrificing what they believe to be their very identity, in essence.

Now, I'll have to admit, some of the current disputes, the old calendar, new calendar, what's going on in regards to Ukraine, Russia, Moscow, Kiev, all that kind of stuff,

I have to wonder if that couldn't be in some way used to break some of that stiffness.

I would love to see somebody stand up, sort of like, what was the guy's name after the

Reformation? Names escaping me at the moment, but you had a metropolitan patriarch that read

Luther and went, hey, there's some good stuff there, and that caused a huge scandal, but that's the only hope, really, is for there's some kind of light to break through the shadows of the traditions to allow for some kind of reformation to take place.

Yeah, I mean, are you referring to John Huss, or after that? No, it was after that. It was actually after Luther, there was a...

There was a letter written. Yeah, it starts with an L, Lucaris or something like that.

He actually wrote a catechism that was clearly influenced by Reformational thinking, and the scandal of it was, it wasn't coming from, again, the liturgical tradition that everything has to come from.

So, anyway, all of that to get back to, you know, that is the apologetic issue with Eastern Orthodoxy, is can you get someone to recognize the nature of Scripture as Theotokos, and then distinguish that from the tradition, the liturgy?

That's exactly right, yeah. I have an ecumenical meetup pretty regularly. When I say ecumenical, you know,

I have a cigar lounge, and these guys come around, and there's four or five Orthodox guys in a small town where I live, you know,

Reform guys, Catholic guys, and it's the constant issue. It is the issue of the day, every time.

It has to be. You can't... The attempt to get beyond this, sort of like, to be honest with you, take a look at the

Lutheran -Catholic Accord in 99. Trying to pretend that we now have agreement by just simply skipping the word alone.

What does that actually do? It does not actually accomplish any kind of advancement as far as a meaningful discussion is concerned.

And so, by now, we know what the issues are, and we can't go anyplace else.

As much as we'd like to, as much as we want to, the parameters have already been defined, and every generation has to lay that stuff out and recognize how important it is.

And most people don't even discuss these things. You know, we've got our... The other Paul down in Australia does the same kind of thing you're talking about doing, and he's constantly meeting with Orthodox guys and stuff like that.

And every time I just sort of look at it, I just go, yeah, that's the same stuff I was arguing about before the internet on what was called

Phytonet, and in the Bible echo of Phytonet in the late 1980s.

There's nothing going to the sun, right? We're doing it again.

And I'm not saying that to say it's irrelevant. It's not. But I'm just simply saying there are definitional things.

You can't ignore them. You can't pretend they're not there. Yeah. And Jay even claims to be a presuppositionalist.

And so we have this debate regularly amongst the other acolytes of Jay Dyer. And, you know, their presupposition, they just claim, well, we have a different presupposition, right?

And so it's always to the authority of scripture is the issue. And they've basically borrowed this strange version of Vantillian apologetic and presupposed the church as opposed to the authority of scripture.

It's fascinating because, again, years and years and years ago, one of the things that struck me was when

Scott Hahn converted, he started using Presbyterian reformed language to try to express specifically tridentine soteriological concepts that led to him being viewed as this guy with these great insights when in reality, he was just using language that he'd brought over from where he started and sort of tried to redefine these things.

And again, nothing new under the sun. It's same old, same old.

So it still needs to be discussed and dealt with while we have the freedom to do so,

I suppose. But yeah, it all ends up coming back to exactly what

I'd identified, and whether we're talking with Rome or Orthodoxy, it comes down to that.

Though I have spoken with Orthodox people that would say that from their perspective, there is a clear distinction between the authority of that which is theanoustos and that which is not.

And that which is theanoustos is not dependent upon lesser authorities for its continuation or its proclamation.

So they see those as aids, but not as necessary. But then again, those conversations were 40 years ago.

I don't even know if those folks are still alive. Well, I appreciate it, Dr. White.

I don't want to jeopardize all the time here. But if you ever get a chance to speak to Jay, it would be an interesting conversation. I'd love to see it.

Yeah, it would be interesting. It would have to be on something that would not...

I've looked at his YouTube channel, and I'll be honest with you. Sometimes I'm just like, uh, what?

I mean, he addresses pretty much everything. I think he's pretty much recording every day, and it's a wide variety of stuff.

And my only concern is I want stuff that's done to have an audience wider than just simply one person who...

Like, to give you an example, Jerry Matitox is no longer relevant to Roman Catholic apologetics.

He's just not. But thankfully, the topics that we debated years and years and years ago still are.

If you get into stuff with certain people that just have a sort of a unique niche group, and then they go off five years later, how relevant is what you did?

That's the question. So we'll see what'll happen with that. But I appreciate it, Bruce. Thanks, Dr. White.

Have a good day. All right. Thank you. God bless. Thank you. Okay. Let's talk to Quentin.

I'm gonna have to talk faster, or say less, I guess, than I was before, because that took too much time.

But it was an interesting subject. Quentin. Good afternoon, Dr. White. How are you? Yes, sir.

How are you? Doing well, yes. I just wanted to ask a quick question regarding examining the claims of Roman Catholicism, historically speaking.

So what are some sources you would recommend for going in -depth on the history of the papacy or Mariology and things like that?

Or would you just recommend maybe in -depth church history more generically? No, there are lots of useful works out there.

The classic Protestant works are by Goode, G -O -O -D -E, by Whitaker, and I think

Whitaker is being published by Soledad Gloria, I think.

It's out there. And George Salmon, which actually, interestingly enough,

Jeff Durbin mentioned to me just a few minutes ago that George Salmon is available on Kindle now, which is cool.

But Salmon's book, The Infallibility of the Church, you can sometimes grab a used copy someplace, but I don't think it's been in print since the 50s.

But I was told, like I said a few minutes ago, that it is available on Kindle. So that's going to, if you want a

Lutheran source, Martin Chemnitz, C -H -E -M -N -I -T -Z. But then there's just excellent material out there.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Popes is really, really interesting, because it is not attempting to defend the idea of a papacy or something like that.

So it's honest in, for example, mentioning what really is the reality, that there was no monarchical episcopate, there was no one bishop in Rome until around 140

A .D. And then talking about, probably not in quite the same graphic detail as Philip Schaaf does in his eight -volume

History of the Christian Church, but talking about the pornography, the utter degradation of the papacy in the 8th and 9th centuries.

Well, 9th, 10th centuries, sorry. And the buying and selling of the papacy, and really the low point in it.

But also dealing with when it then reached the heights of its power, the degradation that brought.

The money, and the women, and the military, and all the rest of that stuff. Stuff that even

Luther observed with his own eyes when he visited Rome in 1510. So, Oxford Encyclopedia of the

Popes, things like that can be really helpful as well. And yeah, so that's a place to start, depending on what you're focusing on, because there's specific areas.

Papacy is obviously one. The development of sacramental theology over time, the development of the priesthood over time, the development of purgatory over time, their entire books on that subject.

You get a lot of Roman Catholic authors who are, these days, are brutally honest about the development of those things, and that they were not actually apostolic, but they came about over time later on.

And certainly, the Marian dogmas are the weak point.

They really, really are. It's just so abundantly clear that the early church did not view

Mary the way that modern Roman Catholicism does, and that was a long and clearly obvious evolutionary process that was not based upon some type of apostolic tradition.

So yeah, that'll get you started, I would think. Okay, yeah,

I appreciate it. The majority of my background was more piss -lops to Babylons kind of stuff. Yeah, no.

More of a balanced kind of approach. Yeah, I appreciate it very much.

Okay, thanks for calling. All right, thank you. Thank you, Quentin. Okay, well, this will be interesting.

And I have no idea how to pronounce the name, but Devonta? Devonta?

Okay, all right. Good evening, brother. Can you hear me? I can. Okay, it's

Devonte. Oh, Devonte, okay. But it's spelled

D -E -V -O -N -T -A? Right, so that usually throws people off because they think it's supposed to be like a soft sound.

They think it's supposed to be an E. It's an A. You're not incorrect. It has some sort of symbol on top of it.

We grew up in different cultures, so I don't know if you're familiar, but there's an R &B group. There was a guy in it named

Devonte, and my mom named me after this man she never met. So that's where my name comes from.

Now you've got me going, yeah, okay. Yeah, I think I do remember that. Yeah, all right.

Well, there you go. You're not alone in pronouncing it that way. All right, what's up?

Yes, sir. So in my watching your videos, please don't ask me to say which one because I don't remember.

You've done a lot. You remember that better than me. But there's a video where you were talking about how whenever people start studying

Roman Catholicism, what you've often seen is somebody will say, oh, well,

I see this church father that believe X. Rome teaches X. Rome must be true, right?

And you've said, well, not necessarily. That's not really the way that you're supposed to do history.

So I've heard you say before, more specifically referring to transubstantiation, and if I misrepresent what you said, please correct me.

But you had essentially said like, it is true that in the

Fathers, you see them talking about the real presence of Christ. But that is not the same as later medieval language with transubstantiation, because they're not using, like you said,

Aristotelian categories talking about accidents and substance. Is that correct? Or am I misrepresenting?

Right. Okay. Here was my question. And you've, brother, read more church history than me.

So if I have a misunderstanding, correct me. As I've read, like some fathers like Ambrose of Milan and Cyril of Jerusalem, though they're not using the words accident and substance,

I'm gonna be honest, it sounds like they're describing transubstantiation, though they're not using those words.

So it's, I guess I'm just saying like, what is, they're not using those terms, but they seem to be describing that reality.

So like, I don't know. Give me an example, because the, you know, both of those, when you look at a guy, especially when you mention

Ambrose, he's extremely influential for Augustine, and it's

Augustine who makes it very clear that the church has been deprived of the physical presence of Christ, that the body of Christ is in heaven and will not be on earth again until his second coming, and he specifically uses this language and talks about he who has believed eats with the teeth and drinks with the mouth, and he puts those in the context not of transubstantiation but of faith and so on and so forth.

So if Ambrose is utilizing some type of categories that would differentiate between what is physically seen and what is spiritually present.

Now, there's a difference between, you know, maybe what you're thinking of is the fact that what you have in earlier writers who do not have

Aristotle's categories anywhere else is the discussion of the reality of spiritual presence that goes against what you see with the physical eyes.

So, I mean, that's just a part of, that's a part of really any discussion of the now and the not yet.

We are seated in the heavenly places with Christ, but we don't yet see that. I mean, that's just sort of a discussion of the fact that what the eyes see and what is true spiritually are two different things, and so maybe that's what you're making reference to,

I don't know. But where would you, when you have people like Augustine and even

Gregory after him utilizing language that is clearly not transubstantiation, and that type of language doesn't come in until the 10th century, what kind of language are you saying speaks to you as if it was?

Right, and thank you for explaining that. So, like, more specifically, focusing on Ambrose and his book

On the Mysteries, there's a section where he's about to start talking about the

Lord's Supper, and he says, talking to the catechumens, and perhaps you will say to me, how do you assert that I see bread and wine?

I mean, how do you assert that this is the body of Christ? What I see is bread and wine. And Ambrose says, and that is what remains for us to prove.

But let me remind you, I'm not talking about what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, because even, he says, because the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because even by blessing, nature itself has changed.

And he starts giving examples from the Old Testament, like with, you're more biblically literate than me, so forgive me if I say the wrong prophet.

It's Elijah, or Elijah, with the incident with the axe head, where it falls into the water, and the prophet makes it float back, and Ambrose is like, but the nature of the axe head is to be heavier than that of water, but the water,

I mean, but the axe head floated to the top. And he starts talking about examples in the Old Testament where the nature of something was changed.

So that's, to be more specific, and thank you for asking, that's what I meant by, this sounds like he's talking about the nature of things being changed, that's more specifically what

I was referring to. And he was specific, you know, if you use an example like that, you're talking about a specific miracle that had a specific purpose.

And again, the idea of the real presence of Christ is very much a part of the early church, that he's spiritually there, but the whole concept, because remember, transubstantiation is not just the idea that there is a spiritual reality under the physical, what can be seen with the physical, or sensed.

For example, it still tastes like bread, it still tastes like wine, it doesn't taste like blood.

It's not just that. When you understand what is being defined by transubstantiation, it becomes the foundation of the idea that this is a sacrifice, it's a perpetuatory sacrifice.

And by the time of Ambrose, you do have a development, because you used the term there, of the concept of the priesthood and the power of the priesthood in the blessing of the elements.

And that's going to become extremely important once you get into the medieval period and you get all of the sacramental connections that come along with this, all the miracles, the bleeding hosts, and all the rest of the stuff.

It becomes very much associated with the idea of the priest and his power to consecrate the host.

So that has now, it's in the position of being developed, but it has reached a certain level in Ambrose that can be seen, for example, in his view of his own authority as a bishop and things like that.

So that now has taken place, and so you have in the instruction to the catechumens there that you just read from, he's explaining how

Christ is present spiritually, and he's associating it with a sacramental theology.

That was, again, if you go back to the 3rd century and Cyprian, Stephen, the

Novatian controversy, the Donatist controversy, sacramentology is developing at that point in time.

Now, what's fascinating is this couldn't be apostolic, because if you've seen my debate with Mitch Pacwa on the papacy, there really is, and I mean, he doesn't say that straight out, but he says there is a development where presbyters become priests, so on and so forth.

But there were no priests for a long period of time, so you can't have the kind of sacramental transformation that is necessary in the doctrine of transubstantiation to make this an unbloodied sacrifice, a statutory sacrifice, etc.,

etc. And what's interesting is when you look at the Didache, when you look at references in Tertullian and things like that, it's the prayers of not an ordained priesthood, but it's the prayers of the church that the presence of Christ is associated with in the gathered body.

It's not some kind of a – well, it does not have the sacerdotal, sacramental necessity of the priest that you have in later theology.

And so, with all these things, it's something that develops from a number of different threads coming together.

And so, yeah, you can see in Ambrose, but then you have in Augustine, who learns from Ambrose, the statements, we don't have

Christ's body. So, what does that mean? The real presence is it remains spiritual.

It is not a changing of the substance.

It is the experience of the spiritual reality that will then be changed over time into the concept of transpantiation.

But again, until you can have that idea and the categories that Ambrose simply doesn't have in any other aspect of his theology, you just can't make the connection that that's what he's talking about.

And I think most modern Roman Catholic writers – not the apologists, but they're scholars – would admit that it's a developmental thing over time, and that the most important element of that was when you get

Aristotelian categories at a later point in time, that certainly becomes vitally important for Thomas Aquinas in all of his theology as well.

So, that's what's missing, and that's why I say you have to stick with the real presence as a spiritual reality, not as a changing of substance while accidents remain the same type of a situation.

Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. I'll be sure to keep this in mind as I get your Roman Catholic controversy book.

Somebody gifted me with a Barnes & Noble gift card, and I said, say less. I've been waiting to get this. Sounds good.

All right. Thanks for calling. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. God bless. All right. Let's get to Stephan.

Hi, Stephan. We lost Stephan? Stephan's not here.

Okay. How about Ryan? Ryan is here. Hello, Ryan.

Hello, Dr. White. Yes, sir. Okay. So, regarding my topic, it was supposed to be about debates and the dates of these events, but you kind of went over that.

Would it be taboo to change my topic? I'll try to keep it in line with what you've been going over. Well, throw it out there.

We'll see. All right. So, my topic is I'm fairly new to a reformed position as far as theology because I came out of the

Word of Faith church not too long ago after going up there my whole life, and God just opened my eyes through many different things.

I came across your videos through Alpha and Omega and also Apologia. And I was wondering, how did you get to the level you were as far as the scholarship with the words you use, the amount of things that you know and you're familiar with?

What do you think it takes for a new Christian to start to even begin that journey? Well, I had the blessing of growing up in a

Christian family, and so I've been exposed to Scripture and a high view of Scripture my entire life.

We were not reformed, and so there were limitations that certainly

I've come to understand in later life. But to be honest with you, basically,

I was just a really good student, okay? I always was in school. I was the kid that didn't get in trouble.

I was the kid that didn't get demerits. I was class valedictorian in my junior high school, class valedictorian in my high school, you know, full -ride scholarship to college, and graduated magna cum laude, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

So, I've always had a good memory, which is what's really bugging me about getting older now because I don't anymore.

Well, it's interesting. My memory is not good about stuff that doesn't matter, but when it comes to debates or things like that, that stuff sticks.

So, it's just sort of the way I have often said there are many scholars who should never debate because one of the things you have to be able to do to debate is to be able to multitask and to be able to respond quickly to inquiries.

So, I've often told the story of this tremendous scholar that I had dinner with one night in Berlin, of all places, and this guy knew everything there was to know about Desiderius Erasmus.

I mean, he just is one of the leading scholars in the world, but when you would ask him a question, he would literally sit there and stare at you silently for about 30 seconds.

Now, 30 seconds is a long time. That's called dead air, okay? He would sit there formulating his response for about 30 seconds before he started speaking.

Now, it was brilliant when it came out, but that doesn't work in a debate, you know?

Sometimes in a debate, I only have 60 seconds to come up with a response, so if I spend 30 of it just staring at you, that's not going to really help me out a whole lot.

So, it's not that I'm particularly smart or brilliant or anything, it's just that when it comes to doing debates and things like that,

I'm able to respond quickly, I'm able to bring things to mind quickly. Obviously, what was really, really important in my experience was learning the biblical languages and having facility with them.

There's a level of confidence that comes with that as well, but, you know, it's...

And I don't try to... There are some people who, you know, just mix a tremendous amount of Greek and Latin and Hebrew and everything and everything they say.

I don't do that. Normally, if I'm going to raise some phraseology or terminology,

I'm going to explain why, and I'm actually trying to demythologize scholarship.

I'm trying to help people to understand that there isn't some huge chasm between you and Christian scholars other than vocabulary.

If you knew the words, you'd be able to have the conversations, and you learn the words by reading.

And I'm very much an auditory person, which is why I do most of my reading anymore by listening.

While I'm driving, for example, now that I travel by driving, I spend hours and hours listening to that stuff, and just as I said that,

I started thinking about this last trip I was on. I was listening to the oral arguments at the

Supreme Court over the Creative... Was it 303?

Creative case they just heard just a few weeks ago, and I remembered something that Sotomayor was saying as I was turning off of the freeway to go to a

Love's Travel stop to get gas. So in other words, I'm indexing what I'm listening to by what I'm experiencing at that point in time.

A lot of people can't do that. They have to be sitting in a quiet room concentrating with a yellow marker and a paper book to be able to do that kind of thing.

So it's just... The Lord makes us all different, and honestly,

I think one of the reasons I end up looking smart in a debate is I can handle time.

I was watching... I mentioned the debate to another caller just a few moments ago. Neither one...

And Dan Barker was one of them. You would think this guy, he claims to be so, so smart, would have figured this out by now. Neither one of them had a timer.

So they're constantly having to ask how much time I got, and that interrupts people, and it interrupts your...

You don't look like you know what you're doing. So I only look like I know what I'm doing. I don't necessarily do, but I look like it because I know how to handle time and get things done, but we need to get them done and stuff like that.

So don't look too highly at scholars.

I mean, there are some guys that are just absolutely super, super brilliant, but these days, most of the most brilliant scholars, sadly, are only scholars in a narrow area.

What you really want to try to shoot for is having a broad basis of knowledge of the history of the

Bible, the history of the world, all sorts of things like that. And no one today can even come close to ancient people.

We used to talk about a Renaissance man who was somebody who had significant knowledge in every area of human knowledge.

Well, we know too much today. You can't do that. No one's that brilliant. And so don't be in any way intimidated by people who have a larger vocabulary.

Just keep growing your vocabulary, and you'll all of a sudden discover that you can keep up with everybody. Yeah. Yes, sir.

That's good. Okay, Jim. Thank you so much, Dr. Dwight. And right before I leave, quick tip, your best tip for a new dad, just really quick.

A new what? A new dad, like a new father. What would be your best father? Wow. Well, I haven't been a new dad in 33, almost 34 years now, so I could give tips for grandfathers easier than dads now.

But you know, it's funny. I asked my dad when my wife was pregnant with her first child,

I said, how did you instill in me such a desire to not disappoint you?

Because, you know, I didn't get into the trouble that a lot of teenagers get into, because I could just see what it would do to my parents, and the look that I would receive would just crush me.

And so I asked, how did you instill that in me? And he looked at me and said, son,

I don't have any idea. He said, but we just simply from the beginning have always, you know, directed you to Scripture and to honoring

God with whatever gifts God gives to you. And so I wanted to have, you know, the surefire bullet from my dad, but he didn't give it to me.

There isn't simple things. But I'll give you a real simple thing. The best way to teach your son to be a good man and to be a good husband someday is to love your wife in front of your children.

How's that? That's good. All right. That's good. I'm going to interject here because James's father had a major impact on me in my 20s, and there was a...he

had a number of sayings, but one of the sayings that he had just stuck with me. There's never an excuse for bad behavior.

And he just had this not stern, but incredibly solemn look on his face when he would say that.

And you really did not want to be the one he was looking at when he said that to you. He really didn't.

So, yeah. Yeah. Well, there you go. There you go. See, someone else who learned from my dad. So hopefully that's helpful for you, brother.

Thank you so much, Dr. Wright. Have a good one. All right. Unless you have to run,

Rich, I'm ready to...I can still roll here. Let's talk to Josh. Hi, Josh. Hello, Josh.

Hey, sorry about that. No problem. Thanks for taking my call, Dr. Wright. Honored to talk to you. The only thing

I would add to that last caller is when my kids were little, I would lay next to them at night and listen to James White debates.

The only downfall to that is they argue really well with me now.

So that's a double -edged sword right there. That is a double -edged, believe me, because that's my daughter.

Yeah. When you see the videos and Summer is sitting on the front row, then you realize later on, yeah, well, you only got yourself to blame.

My wife gave up arguing with my daughter when she was about 10. So anyway.

Anyways. Hey, I wanted to talk to you real quick about Ukraine. My wife and I have a ministry that we help run.

We work really closely with a pastor out in Ukraine. We're engaged on a daily basis with the people and we just love them.

And we're seeing amazing things happening through God and through really what's happening there.

And it threw me a little bit, and it has lately, some of the rhetoric we're hearing when it comes to support of Ukraine and the financial support our government's offering in particular.

And you had tweeted it was yesterday about that. Yeah. And I guess it's scary.

It is scary. It's scary because I wonder you go ahead. Well, look, I know where you're going with it because, you know, when this thing first started, you know,

I see the pictures of the building in Irpin where I taught going up in flames because it's been bombed, it's been shelled by the

Russians. And, you know, it's just natural for me to be, you know, very much, yay.

But then I've just had to, I've had to come to the realization, I was there in 2014 when the quote -unquote revolution took place.

I landed, I literally landed in Kiev about four hours before the

Americans said, don't go to Ukraine. Well, I remember you going through that.

Yeah. And so I didn't know anything about the geopolitical stuff going on there.

But the reality is, as I see things right now,

I'm torn between two things. One is I want to see Nick and all the people associated with the church there safe and able to minister and able to do all the things they're doing.

And I don't want to hear that any of them have been killed. And so I don't want the Russians taking over and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

At the same time, Zelensky gives me the heebie -jeebies and there's something wrong here.

We don't know where all this money's going. And we're escalating this thing. And now we're talking

Patriot missiles. And you've got a guy in Russia with 6 ,000 nuclear warheads.

And it just seems to me, for example, NATO? Really? I sit back and I go, wait a minute.

We went this close to nuclear war with Russia over Cuba.

And that's the exact same thing. Putting, making Ukraine part of NATO is the same thing as making

Cuba part of the Russian sphere of influence. And we would not allow it. And now we're trying to do it over there.

It just seems to me, I'm very, very, very concerned. I do not trust my government. I do not trust my government at all any longer.

I'm sorry. I used to. I don't anymore. And so it does seem to me that Ukraine has become a mechanism for,

I'm not sure exactly what the end goal here is, but I think that the

American government is using Ukrainian lives to accomplish something else that is horrible.

And so I look at my own country and I go, would we do something like that? Yep. Answer is yes, we would definitely do something like that.

And so how do you put that together with the fact that there are beautiful Ukrainian Christians?

Well, in 2019, the last big trip

I took over there, I taught in Samara, Russia. And there are wonderful Christians in Samara, Russia.

And so there are wonderful Christian people. And I'll never forget, I was there in European and it just struck me the first time that I attended a chapel service at the school there to hear these beautiful Slavic voices singing in Russian songs that I know in English.

But I was raised, I was a child of the Cold War. I was raised thinking our nuclear weapons were aimed at them and theirs were aimed at us, and those were the two, they were the big baddies.

And now I'm there listening to Christians singing and realizing, my goodness, this never really crossed my mind as to how

I was raised and how I grew up. So how do I put all this together? The Ukrainian, you've been to Ukraine then, right?

My wife was there just a couple of weeks ago, actually. Okay. All right. But you haven't.

I haven't yet. No. Okay. All right. If you ever go, and of course things could be different now.

I was only there in peacetime. But I was in a taxi cab coming from the airport out to Irpin.

And I'm telling you, I was literally, I mean, it was, I don't know if you can see me right now, but I'm just holding on because the road is so rough.

It is horrific. And the taxi driver, he looks in the rear view mirror and he sees me just barely holding on back there.

And in the worst broken English you'll ever hear is probably the only thing he'd say in English.

He goes, Ukrainian massage. She had a very similar account.

Well, and, and I asked, I asked my friends, I'm like, can't you all fix the roads?

And they all just looked at each other and said, well, the money has been allocated, but you need to understand.

The Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt as is Russian government. I mean, it's just, it's just the way things are.

It's how they live. And it's just expected. And so there is tremendous corruption in the

Ukrainian government. And I'm just very, very, very concerned that all we're doing is laundering money and killing

Ukrainians in the process and extending this whole thing out. If we had leaders in the

United States that would be leaders and we don't right now, we wouldn't be talking about Ukraine and NATO.

We would take that completely off the table and we would try to find a way to have peace. But that's not going to happen because there's something going on here.

I'm, it looks really obvious. We were the ones that ones that took out the pipeline. And why

I, I cannot fathom all of it. All I know is throwing billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars in there and escalating and escalating and escalating could get a billion people killed.

And once the nuclear bombs start going off, wow, that's a tragedy of monumental proportions.

So it's, I would say in answer to your question, how do you support Ukrainian believers?

You give them everything if we can't, it's difficult to do, but you give them everything they need to be able to continue doing the things that they're doing.

But the idea of extending this war forever, um,

I, uh, the Ukrainian people are eventually going to have to stand up and say something about that too, as, as the

Russian people are. I mean, the number of lives that have been lost already is making Vietnam look like a, like a scratch.

It's terrible. It's horrific. It really, really is. Um, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that leadership in either country is willing to, or ours, um, or in NATO especially, is willing to do what needs to be done to actually bring an end to all of this stuff.

So, so I am torn, but I, I'm not torn about the fact that it, um, what we saw yesterday, what we saw yesterday was choreographed with, with, um, uh, costumes and everything else.

Let's just, let's just be honest. There is, there's no reason for Zelensky to be dressing the way he's dressing or anything else like that.

This is all meant to communicate something. Um, and I, I don't think that it's overly helpful for our brothers and sisters over there.

I really don't. So, well, I appreciate, appreciate you expanding on, on your thoughts there and making a little more nuanced argument of it.

Right. Because I think that's always, you know, our heart is, I get the geopolitical conflict, but to your point, oh man, the people, right.

The people that we know and love and support. Yeah. We don't want them to get lost in it.

And to your point on, on either side, right. Right. Either side of the government there. Right. I mean, those are, those

Russian soldiers dying, um, in the neighboring country is still a horrific death.

And there are a lot of grieving people in, in Russia that are very, very afraid as well.

So, you know, uh, what do you do? It's, um, it's, it's horrible. All right.

Thanks. Thanks brother. Thanks for your call. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. God bless. Um, let's, let's press on real quick.

Uh, anybody left? Um, Jacob's here. Okay. All right,

Jacob. Yeah. Uh, Hey, um, I'm calling from Portland, Oregon out here. I'm sorry to talk to you.

I know. Well, I'm actually moving to Salt Lake City in March with my wife, so we're getting out. Well, I hate to tell you, but, um,

Salt Lake, the Mormons have gone nutty. Oh, we, yeah, we know.

We know. We're okay with it. We're excited for the church environment there and the weather will be a little less rainy.

I'll put it that way. Well, yeah. Okay. Almost any place is. Yeah. So, so where, where in Salt Lake are you going?

Uh, we're going actually right to the South Jordan area. We're actually going to be going to a Wade's church.

Oh, I was going to say, I was going to say, well, I could recommend a church. It's a great church.

We got to visit one week and meet with Wade. I've talked to him on the phone. He's a great guy. Wade Orsini has the biggest heart in ministry.

He's the kindest person I've ever met. One of the kindest people. There's no, there's no question about it.

He and Andrew are great, great guys. And so that's great. I'm glad to see that you're heading that way.

Yeah, it'll be fun. Um, so my question's about God's law. Um, I'm, uh, just, uh, dabbling in the depths of, um, just understanding theonomy and, um, what that means and just how

God's law relates. I argue with my Presbyterian friends about it a lot, but one, one argument I came up with with my brother recently, my brother, he's theologically really conservative, you know, abortion's wrong, all of these other things, but he kind of aligns with William Lane Craig on a couple of things.

He wouldn't consider himself reformed, but he goes to a Baptist church. He, um, him and I get into it a lot. He considers himself libertarian.

And when we talk about the need to disciple the nations, he, um, he just tries to press back a lot on like, well, what, on what basis are we, um, are we as Christians, um, told to bring about the law of God in our country?

And then he'll press me because he's libertarian on like, oh, well, what's a country. And then I'll be like, well, by that standard, should we be invading countries and forcing them to stop abortions and bombing them?

You know, like he, he tries to create these analogies that, you know, with his libertarian mindset to reduce my argument to absurdity.

I don't really know how to combat that. I'm still reading, um, I have Joe Boots' book, um, The Mission of God.

Right. And there's, and there's, and there's a chapter in, uh, in The Mission of God.

Um, it was interesting, uh, because it, it refers to, um, libertarian theonomy.

And he's, he's, yeah, he's, he's talking about, um, Rush Dooney's perspective and look, any, anyone, and, and look, as soon as you say the term theonomy, you, you, you make all sorts of people break out in hives.

And, and, uh, I've told the story that, that I never, I never gave the phrase, um, um, a fair analysis because when

I was in, um, seminary, uh, Westminster came out with its book against theonomy.

And I mean, Westminster is Westminster. So if Westminster says it's bad, it must be bad. And, and I, um,

I didn't, you know, it was just something that you kept at an arm's length. And then of course,

I've heard people describing it in so many absurd different ways that just, just be prepared for all of that, uh, if you, if you use the terminology.

But those of us that I, that I know of that are actually, um, serious about, um, living it out, and all we're saying in essence is that God's law accurately reflects his character and his will for all of mankind.

And therefore, when you recognize blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh, and then you recognize a sin as a reproach to any nation, well, if you don't want to have a reproach upon your nation, you need to know how to live in light of how

God has made this world to function. And how, how do we have that information?

Well, there are some Christians that would say the, the Mosaic law doesn't tell us. And I'm, I'm just like, what, what do you mean it doesn't tell us?

Uh, when, when, you know, Jesus quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and, and loving your neighbors yourself is smack dab in the middle of the holiness code.

And so years ago, when I preached through the holiness code, um, I, I really came to see how, uh, brilliant a light was found in, in these, these texts and, and some really difficult texts you had to really dig into yielded, uh, wonderful, uh, results as well.

And so, um, but the point is, as Joe will point out in, uh, in the mission of God, um, none of this.

And in fact, the last, um, sweater vest dialogue I had with, with Doug Wilson, we, we raised this issue in regards to all the

Christian nationalism stuff. And that is outside of the work of the spirit of God in changing hearts and minds.

Um, you're, you're not going to have anyone who wants to be subject to God's law.

The only way for, um, the, the melding together of theonomy and post -millennialism, for example, uh, is if there is a massive work of the spirit of God to where you, you have a large number of people who want, they, they literally want to have

God's blessing upon their nation. You can't force that upon anybody. You can, you preach it, you teach it, you prophetically, uh, tell, uh, the people in charge, this is how

God has set up his world. You live in his world and you can't escape his world. So here is, here is how to live in his world and to have life in this world.

Um, you, you make all those, you do all of that, but there are times when God blesses that.

And then there are times when God uses that to, uh, basically as judgment upon a that he's bringing to destruction.

So the church has had both experiences in, in history. Um, but the idea of, um, forced subjugation, um, does simply doesn't work.

Now, if you've got, if you've got 75 % of the population is Christian, then the law becomes the law.

And, and that, that's, that's how, that's how you do things. That's how it was in the United States initially.

Um, there, I mean, the idea that this nation was founded with the idea, um, that you should, you should defend drag

Queens story hours, um, demonstrates, you know, nothing about how the nation was founded or what was believed by the founders or everybody who lived in the nation at the time.

There has been a revolution that has taken place and it's been a revolution the other direction. And so, um, uh, if you have 75%, if you have a

Christian consensus, as there was at the founding of this nation, um, that's going to be reflected in, in the laws.

Um, if that consensus declines over time because of apostasy and all sorts of other things, then you see what's happening in our context and, and you deal with it from there.

But for me, the whole issue in regards to, uh, theonomy really is, uh,

Jeremiah 31. Uh, I will write my law upon their hearts. What law? Well, it's the law of Christ.

Okay. When Christ died upon the cross, he was fulfilling God's wrath based upon what again?

What law? So all this attempting to make fine distinctions so you can just get rid of, um, what we, what we have in, uh, in God's law.

I just don't see how it works. It doesn't, it doesn't function. So it's not a matter of bombing other nations to get them to stop, stop abortions, but it is, it is sending missionaries, uh, to proclaim to them, um, the

Lordship of Christ. And, um, when people turn to Christ, they want to know how to serve

God and God's given us a revelation. And, uh, my Bible has 66 books in it, not just 27.

Yeah, no, that's, that's, that's true. Uh, and I know that, um, I'm kind of mainly in the

Bonson right now. Does Rush Dooney have some, uh, some people have said he has more extreme views.

I have read very little, if any, by Rush Dooney. So like finish, finish, read, read

Boot. Uh, Boot will help to give you a lens for, uh, Rush Dooney.

Um, because Rush Dooney is huge. There's a lot there. Um, and yes, he does have some extreme views on certain things, but Joe goes through a lot of that stuff in the mission of God.

So I think that would be helpful. Okay. Well, thank you so much for answering my question. I appreciate it.

All right. Thanks. Uh, and, uh, when, when do you get into Salt Lake? Uh, we're leaving, uh, probably in the first, second week of March, my wife and I'll be moving out there.

Well, um, we have a, we have a debate in Salt Lake City. Jeff Durbin and I will be doing a debate, uh, on April 1st in Salt Lake, uh, our ethics, our ethics, our ethics possible without God.

So, um, the church, if I'm there, I'll be attending. Alrighty. We'll look forward to seeing you then.

Thanks for your call. All right. Last one. Let's talk to Kent.

Hello, Kent. Hi, this is Ken. I'm calling in from Indiana.

So I know you've gone a little longer, so I'll try to keep this quick here. Um, my question mainly has to do with keeping theological balance when it comes to, especially just, uh, your relationships with others.

So I'll just read my question here. What is your advice for keeping theological balance and not giving in to those who feel the need to kick anyone out of the kingdom who doesn't, who don't agree with all your theological or cultural specifics?

So an example for this would be, um, say like a Calvinist comparing, uh, who has a relationship with Arminians or maybe people who are more moderate politically, if you're more of a conservative, uh, just for more of the context of the question.

Um, I'm a little bit newer to, um, I guess reformed beliefs.

And sometimes I think I have a tendency to want to have pretty strong views.

And then there's just thoughts that sort of come in where it's like, well, if this person, um, that I have a relationship with doesn't believe

X, then clearly they're not a Christian. When I know that's not true because I know a lot of times they're family members.

I know they love the Lord. Um, but sometimes I struggle with trying to not be more extreme.

Right. Well, if you're sort of new, you may have not heard the, the, uh, the phrase cage stage, um, where I have heard that a little bit from some of your videos.

Yes. Yes. Cage stage is where it's better to put a Calvinist in a cage so he won't hurt himself or others.

Uh, and then once he gets to a point of maturity, we can, we can let him out and, uh, he won't, he won't harm himself or anyone else.

And I fully understand it. I get it. And it's a very good question. And it is a matter of maturity over time.

Um, and I fully understand the, um, the pressures because the mindset is, well, look, it's so clear to me.

Uh, it should be clear to you if you have the spirit of God, the problem is, especially for a reformed person that doesn't work because, um, for most of us, we lived a major portion of our

Christian life before we came to understand the doctrines of grace. And that doesn't mean we became

Christians the day that we, that we figured this whole thing out. And if it was

God's grace and his spirit that led us to these understandings, then we have to go, you know,

God shows that time in my life, uh, to bring me to an understanding of these things. And that other person may not yet be at that point.

And so I can't, I can't pretend to be God and demand that right now they need to, uh, you know, change their views and agree with me.

Uh, God may have a purpose why, uh, they continue with their, their perspectives.

Uh, he did for me, and I know he has for, for others as well. And so if it's up to God, then we're, we're trying to force his hand, uh, at, at that point.

We, we can't do that. So the important thing is to know what the, the main things are and to not constantly be harping on in your own mind.

Yeah, okay, you say that, but if you believe this, and that means this, this, this, and this, and that eventually means you're going to be wrong on something over here.

Um, be thankful for the fact that you have blessed inconsistencies in your own theology, and you still do, and you always will, and that there are blessed inconsistencies in other people's theologies as well.

And, uh, don't, don't give into the sort of fundamentalist mindset that if anyone disagrees with me, that, that makes my faith less secure.

That's, it shouldn't matter what other people believe. Um, your faith should be based upon, uh, your relationship with Christ and, and the scriptures, and what happens to other people shouldn't change any of that.

Uh, so, uh, you know, keeping, keeping that in mind and always, uh, just, just praying that, that God's grace will be upon anyone who names the name of Christ.

Um, that doesn't mean you become wishy -washy and, and become easily deceived by people or stuff like that.

But it, I, I do think that our internet world, um, forces us to respond so quickly that we don't have time to think through in a mature and patient fashion.

You know, in the past, uh, scholars would have, for example, a big, huge dispute.

It could last for years because it would take that amount of time for the books to be written and, and, uh, parcels to be delivered and, and, and stuff like that.

You had a lot of time and you could modify your, your responses as a result.

Um, today, I think we, we just, we don't, we don't act with patience and we feel pressure to, to make a snap judgment.

And, uh, we've, we've just got to move, we've got to move away from that and show patience, you know, read, read

Job, read Job and the Proverbs a lot. There's a lot, there's a lot in the Proverbs about being slow to anger and, and slow to speak and not making rash decisions and things like that.

And that'll, I think that helps a lot as well. All right. Uh, thank you very much for your answer.

Uh, and just thank you overall for your ministry. Um, I came out of a, I grew up in like a

Mennonite Anabaptist context and, uh, I think Reformed theology is, um, just brought a lot more of a richness to my faith.

Excellent. Excellent. Well, thanks Kent. Thanks for your call. Thanks for your patience as well. Yep. All right.

God bless. All right. Well, we weren't gonna, weren't going for that long, but that's okay.

Cause I've still got, unless you didn't look it up, I've still got an hour and a half till the program,

I think. Well, you've been busy. Oh yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah.

Well, we always get good calls. We always get good calls here and a wide variety of topics that we've, uh, we've addressed today.

So hopefully that's useful to you. Um, we will not see you or talk to you again until after, um,

Christmas day. And so I hope that, uh, you and yours will truly be focused upon the things that matter, that you'll have tremendous fellowship of the faith and the celebration of the incarnation.

And, um, um, we appreciate your support. We will see you next week,

Lord willing. Um, and hopefully have a little bit more details for you on some of those debates coming up as well.