Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Romans 5, Adam and Christ, and the Charge of Universalism

Dear Dave and TA if Calvinism is true biblically then how does it reconcile its belief that God predestined some to hell before they were born? With Romans 512 and 518. Dave, let me read Romans 512 and 518.

Romans 512. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned and 518 therefore as by the offense of one Judgment came upon all men to condemnation.

Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. David see all in here that all men. Mm-hmm. Yeah, all men that would make those verses I would think problematic for Calvinist, but how do they respond is?

As you know. Well Tom first of all Whoever wrote wrote this in said that how they reconciled God predestined some to hell Before they were even born. Now the Calvinist some would accept that but many Calvinist would deny that.

They in fact some Calvinist would say God didn't predestine anybody to hell. He just let him go. Well Christ didn't die for them so they couldn't possibly escape hell could they you don't even have a gospel for them to believe.

Well, yeah, but God didn't predestine there. He just let them go. He's not providing salvation for them but Dave this verse says wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and.

So death passed upon all men. That all have sinned in that isn't this a condition necessary to be predestined to hell. Or let's say even if they don't isn't that a condition that needed to take place in other words.

This wasn't something that God did before the beginning of time, which a Calvinist would tell you that's the way it works. Yeah, but all his sins so all. By by nature of sinners and because of that all are headed for for hell.

Okay, let me find this verse that we're looking at let's look at verse 18 again because I think that would be the toughest one for the Calvinist. Romans 5 18 therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.

Even so by the righteousness of one the free gifts came upon all men unto justification of life. Well, how does the Calvinist get around that same way he got around John 3 16 for God so loved the world.

He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believe in him. We have it to understand that means the world of the elect. So when it says The free gift came upon all men unto justification. Well, no, wait a minute.

That doesn't mean all men. Actually, it means all of the elect you see but whoever wrote this question David what about just before that? As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men. Did it only come upon the elect?

No, see you've got a parallelism here. You've got a tip for tat or whatever. It's the same as you have an Isaiah 53 all We like sheep have gone astray. We've turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all now.

Who went astray all? Mankind all have sinned. Well, then all the ones who sinned their iniquity was laid upon Christ and it does say John the Baptist to say behold the Lamb of God Who beareth away the sins of the world?

But the Calvinist gets around it by saying when it's talking about those who have sinned that's everybody. But when it's talking about those for whom Christ died. No, no, that's only the elect that could only be the election then they can argue.

Well, wait a minute, then that would mean that some of Christ's blood was shed. It was shed in vain. If not, everybody gets saved, but he dies for everybody. But it says he came to save sinners. Well, but if he doesn't save some of the sinners that he came to save.

Then the Bible isn't true. So they have all kinds of arguments Tom. But what do we come down to but there are some tough verses. There are so many verses that are very clear. This is one of them. All men on the condemnation all men unto life.

It's very clear or if we went to 1st Timothy 2 verse 4 He would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Well, how do they get around that? Well, all that means all of the elect.

Some Calvinists would say others like John MacArthur if you look in his MacArthur study Bible he says no God has two wills a will of desire and a will of decree. He really desires all to be saved, but he doesn't decree for all to be saved.

So now we have a God who what I thought he could do anything He wanted to do and he really desires for all to be saved. But then he stopped short of bringing him to salvation. Tom Calvinism is. Do I dare to say I think it maligns God.

The Bible says God is love and we retitled the book what love is this you say God loves everybody. But he doesn't want everybody to be saved or he wants to be saved when he doesn't say what love is this?

Well, that's just a great way to start the program, isn't it? I Was sent that clip and I immediately asked now is there a date provided because It said it had been posted just very recently in the within the past few weeks.

Obviously a lot of my comments will be based upon assuming that this is a fairly recent Clip I mean the the number on it indicated March of this year. But if it was just posted a few weeks ago, you know, I don't know but it's I'm going to have to assume that this is after our Encounters after the writing of the book and so the comments that would have go from there you'll notice a few things of course that is TA McMahon and Dave Hunt on the Bree and call and Just a few things.

Do you notice I wrote an open letter to Dave Hunt. What? 2002 somewhere around in there forget what the date was. I suppose I could pull it up and look at it, but I wrote an open letter to Dave Hunt years ago in which I Explained to him the fact that we're not talking about the world of the elect in John 3.

That there is no word whosoever in John 3. It is all the believing ones in John 3 and. Has any of that registered? No, because Dave is still making the same mistakes on the text that he made when we did our first radio program on Kpxq many many years ago.

He cannot accept correction and and does not show a whole lot of understanding of even the issues that are raised to him. It reminds me of his comments about John Piper's book on the justification of God well there's just a whole lot of Greek and other languages in there and that's just you know, you just don't need all that stuff and For his followers that you know that works that sort of ends all meaningful exegesis in the New Testament or of the Old Testament or any meaningful apologetics against anyone who would provide an in-depth critique of Christian belief, but.

That's just sort of the way it is. Then you heard The argument from Isaiah 53 all we like sheep have gone astray. Well who went astray? Well, everybody did. Therefore all of erwin's sins has been laid on Christ, but.

Who is saying this. Who is making this confession of being sinners. Do all people make that confession of being sinners? No, all we like sheep have gone astray. Look at Isaiah 53. He will see his seed.

He will justify the many intercede for transgressors. And is this anything new. Have I not brought these things up to Dave Hunt's attention before. Of course I have. Does he show any any knowledge of having worked through these things.

No because again for people who are in that form of fundamentalism their tradition and the Word of God are the same thing and Therefore to even consider that their tradition could be wrong is to question the Word of God itself and so while it's perfectly consistent to read Isaiah 53 and to recognize the confession of the people of God there and to see the consistency in the text.

That escapes mr. Hunt's attention and mr. McMahon for that matter. But did you see what happened with with the text I I started off without any introduction so you could just listen. That was was heads or tails made out of Romans chapter 5.

Was anything in the context mentioned. Was was the the obvious fact. What do any of these do either of these men show any knowledge? Of having taken the time to find out what godly men of the past have said about Romans chapter 5 and and and availed themselves of their wisdom and insight.

I Saw no evidence of it myself. Do they they seem to have any idea that what you have here is two? Humanities those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ and. That all who are in Adam received death from Adam and all who are in Christ receive life from him.

But did you catch what Dave hunt ended up doing if you follow his? Argumentation on 518 that is the argumentation of universalism if You do not see the distinction between Adam and Christ and recognize that there is a that while all are in Adam Not all are in Christ and that the all's are Limited by the person to whom they are referred to all in Adam all in Christ if you don't see that.

You are preaching universalism now. Dave hunt doesn't like systematic theology. And he doesn't do systematic theology, and he thinks that you know if you do that that you know. You know he just wants to be biblical see.

But what he does in the process is he ends up preaching systematic theology out of his ignorance of systematic theology. That's the problem with that kind of anti intellectualist mindset. That says you know it's a little bit similar to George Bryson and some of the comments He made when we played his mp3s.

You know we just don't do that systematic theology stuff. Well, you're gonna one way or the other or you're gonna make mincemeat out of the text itself. And what it allegedly is teaching and what he does in 518.

Is he says this is a simple tax? This is this is straightforward this must cause the Calvinist all sorts of problems. Has he ever even read a reformed exegesis. Has he read Calvin or Murray or Moo or any of these people no of course not of course not and and doesn't have any interest in doing that whatsoever.

So he's talking to the top of his head at this point, but be it as it may he says well. Hey, this is this is straightforward. This is this is simple stuff. So then let's do one transgression their result of condemnation to all men and all men of course.

Means every single human being therefore even so through one act of righteousness. Their result of justification of life to all men. So there you go. All we got to do is just make this theoretical. Oh wait wait a minute, so is the condemnation theoretical.

You see if you don't see that the all men is all men and Adam all men in Christ if you don't see the two Humanities here you can't escape universalism here. Because if the if the all men of the first phrase Transgression resulted combination condemnation to all men that is not a hypothetical condemnation.

That is a real condemnation and. Therefore the second phrase if you're gonna ignore what's come before if you're gonna ignore Great Christ and Adam if you're gonna ignore that the the free gift is not like the transgression if you're just gonna Skip from 12 to 18 like they did show no understanding of the text.

Nothing about exegesis you're just gonna manhandle this text show no respect for it you respect your traditions born you respect the Bible. The result is Dave hunt just taught universalism now would he deny that of course he would but that's the problem is what he says and what he does are two different things because there's no desire to be consistent and.

So you have all this stuff about well. You know the Calvinists have this argument they have that argument and in the process you end up massacring Romans chapter 5 and then accusing Calvinist of course of maligning God and blobby blah blah blah blah blah.

So there you have there you have a you know we haven't haven't played anything by Dave hunt a long time and that was Sent over to me an email, and I thought well, okay. That was that was definitely worth a little a little attention, and then I want to play something else for you.

We're gonna be covering a number of topics today on the program before we get back to the Bible answer man. And maybe even talk a little about Steve Ray but I want to cover some other stuff first because be honest with you, I'm sick and tired of Romanist apologists and I use that term specifically for those who their ultimate authority is nothing but Service to Rome and that definitely is descriptive of Steve Ray and Phil provost making people like that but I'm I'm sick and tired of the of the hypocrisy the double standards the The insults the dishonesty and all the rest that stuff.

You know you can only document things so clearly and so forcefully so many times you know when everybody's putting the same black and white figures up on the screen and Somebody you know wants to try to hold me accountable For the gay and homosexual tradition the Mormons of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Sweden borg enists.

As if that's all due to solo scriptura folks hey buy my newest DVD and go with me on a pilgrimage. You know after a while you just you just want to go oh come on, please is there somebody serious out there.

Is there is there somebody who's who's? Please you know so I want to try to deal with some actually serious stuff and Leave that stuff a little bit too later because it's just it's just so silly here is a section of a Presentation made by my opponent almost next month.

It's almost September. The the crews and the debate are coming up fast, and if you have been sitting on the fence folks get off those fences quickly. Because there's not much time left. I'll be debating Shabir Ali on the issue of the atonement October 19th in Seattle and Part of this presentation he was giving a presentation on the divine proofs of the prophethood of Muhammad and He focused in upon a surah that I likewise have focused in upon surah 112.

Ali class the purity the sincerity and I think he rightly Since he is the head of the the Dawa Center up there in Toronto, Toronto. And Dawa is is basically giving an answer an apologetic a defense An Invitation to Islam since he's the head of that he views surah 112 is sort of laying out the means by which Dawa is to be is to be offered and So he mentioned surah 112.

We've talked about surah 112 before on on the program. Let me just give you a brief run-through of it again and say he is Allah the one and only all of the eternal absolute he beget if not nor is he begotten and There is none like unto him.

I have mentioned that third ayah Cool who Allah ahad. I'm sorry. That's that's the first one not that's the first ayah not the the third ayah the third ayah talks about begetting and that begettal. Use the term Yalad which is very parallel to Hebrew usage for Yalad Yulid to give birth a young child remember Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages and the assertion is that he beget if not nor is he begotten and This is where Islam, you know, really we have to understand what Islam is saying and did Muhammad understand what it means to say Jesus the Son of God and What is the Islamic the the Quranic understanding of the Trinity and all these things related to it and So it's important stuff and He addresses this now.

Obviously, this is not a discussion of the whole story. But what he's doing is he's presenting surah 112 as an evidence of the divine nature of the Quran. But in the process says some interesting things.

So I wanted to listen to what he had to say respond to some of it and then we'll move on to other topics. Here's here's Shabir Ali on surah.

112 a simple example that you can appreciate very easily think of the Surat Al-Ikhlas. It is a very simple surah. It expresses the core beliefs of Islam and you can find that there is a constant rhythm a rhyme a beat throughout it.

And everything is in place. No word extra and nothing short of what needs to be said. So cool starting with that say it is a directive to the Muslim how to give dower to the to the Christian. Stay cool.

Oh Allah who I had he is Allah the one that is our first statement of belief shared by Muslims and shared By Christians. We start with what is common and we see where that leads us Allah. Allah is eternal.

They will agree with that just as we will.

Now, let me just stop right there just for a moment because I do want to respond to some of these things I mentioned I have written about this in the blog. I went through surah 112 and I mentioned that when we say Allah the one and only ahad is related linguistically to a had in the in the shema shema history.

Oh Yahweh Elohim Yahweh a had he is one but but The assumption the overriding presuppositional assumption of the Muslim and the oneness Pentecostal. As well as the Jehovah's Witness. Is that a had? That oneness in the shema of Deuteronomy.

That that is a oneness of person that is Unitarianism. That this is a unitarian Presupposition and of course the Trinitarian Christian says there's a oneness of being there is only one being that is God.

But that being is is unlimited eternal. And is shared by three divine persons the Father the Son the Holy Spirit. That's a had does not demand of us Unitarianism and I've mentioned many times that you have to you know be aware of the fact that people are going to assume that Jehovah's Witnesses one is Pentecostals whoever.

And that this is a common issue that we need to deal with now. Up to this point then as long as we do not insert these Unitarian presuppositions. Certainly there are all sorts of biblical passages that parallel this and in fact. I would say parallel this with considerably more beauty Than you find it in the Quran again beauty is a subjective thing and that's one of the reasons I find this particular means of trying to prove the divine origin of the Quran to be less than convincing.

But Allah we say Yahweh is the one and only Yahweh the eternal absolute. There's no problem there. You can find all sorts of texts in Jeremiah and Jeremiah chapter 10 and in Isaiah 40 through 48 that would parallel these things and go beyond these things as long as that that oneness.

That is asserted in ahad and in Samad the eternal absolute though. You don't read into those Arabic terms some kind of Unitarianism which later Islam of course does. But as far as just the overarching concept of God's Absoluteness sure no problem.

And what what Shabir is basically saying is of this point. We don't have a divisions. Well. Maybe maybe not depends on whether those Unitarian presuppositions are being snuck in.

It follows by logical necessity that if Allah is only one and if he is a summer Then he does not beget nor is he begotten because look if he begets then he will have a child and the child would have to be godlike so you would have two of them and since there is only one you cannot have two.

And If he was you led if he himself was given birth to that means he would have a father. If he has a father the father would be older than him. Why doesn't him more eternal than he is and you cannot have one who is more a summer than a summer?

So here's here's the assumption on the part of a You know, I've heard Shabir referred to as an imam I've heard him referred to as a sheikh. I Confess some level of ignorance of exactly how those terms are officially defined and how they vary from location to location but Here here you have someone who clearly is very knowledgeable Demonstrating that it it seems that the Muslim cannot break out of The limitations of the Quranic categories and actually listen to what it is that Christians are saying when they say that there is a relationship of father and son between the father and Jesus between the first and second persons of the Trinity.

That this relationship is an eternal relationship. It did not take place in time. Hence one is not quote-unquote older than the other that this is not a physical Relationship of a parent and a child with a mother which seems to be how Muhammad understood What he had heard second and third hand from Christians in his travels and as they would sit around the campfire at night and talk and so though.

Certainly this information is available. To Shabir Ali it is very difficult for the believing Muslim to break out of the limiting categories of the Quran. Especially when those limiting categories simply are insufficient to express the issues that they allegedly are addressing which specifically would include the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and So the the criticism that was just leveled at the Christian doctrine the Trinity doesn't actually address what?

Christians believed at the time of the writing of the Quran and Before then it doesn't address the eternal nature of the relationship of the Father the Son the Spirit and So it is limited in its understanding of these terms Both to beget and to be begotten.

Yaludin Yolad those two terms obviously we would not say that God's being is begotten in any way. But the relationship between the persons is one that is revealed to us of Father Son and Spirit we can we have to be given a way to distinguish between Father Son and Spirit and So they take that because of Muhammad's misunderstandings they take that to be a physical relationship a Derivation forcing the Sun therefore while a godlike being to be a second God who is not as old as the first God and hence the repetitive charges of polytheism on the part of Islamic apologists toward Christianity.

That last phrase there is none Comparable unto him. Many texts in the Bible say the exact same things to whom will you liken me? Yahweh demands of his people in the demonstration of his uniqueness as God, but it does not follow That that uniqueness is tied to presupposition Lee a Unitarian assumption.

I'm like him. You see we can compare two human beings one is stronger than the other. But there is nothing to compare God to because he is I had and he is a summit. A short Surah that rhymes throughout.

Coho. I had a lot of summer. Let me edit while I'm you learn. Well, let me pull the who before one ahead. There's a constant rhyme and beat throughout it and everything is in place. Nothing excess. Nothing short.

And That is just an example of the literary masterpiece that the Quran is just looking at a short surah like that. Okay, well.

That allowed us to discuss some of the most important things in regards the doctrine of God. But is it really valid to say wow look isn't isn't that isn't that such a wonderful surah and it's so beautiful and balanced and and this demonstrates the divine nature of the Quran.

Well Let's go to a little bit earlier surah that's about the same length Surah 105 and It's a five ayahs long instead of the four ayahs of Ali class. What surah 112 this I'll feel the. Well, I'll just read it for you here's here's.

Let's see if if you find this just compellingly beautiful. So that you can just automatically see that it's divine in origin. Here's here's what it says seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant.

Did he not make their treacherous plan go astray and he sent against them flights of birds Striking them with stones of baked clay. Then did he make them like an empty field of stalks and straw of which the corn has been eaten up.

There it is there's there's surah 105 and It has a historical background that the vast majority of humanity would have no idea what on earth it was. The historical background has to do with story about Abraha the Abyssinian and an army coming against Mecca that had elephants and you know elephants.

Well, we've all seen we've all seen Lord the Rings. We know that elephants are tough to stop, you know I mean that they start swinging things around and white people off of horses and everything else and of course, they weren't quite that big in the elephant, but hey, whatever and As the army was approaching Mecca flights of birds dropped stones of baked clay on them and and And Mecca was saved see now the vast majority of humanity has never heard of this particular story.

About the Abyssinian army coming toward Mecca and birds dropping Baked clay on them and driving them away, but that's what surah 105 is is it's all about. Now when I read that I go, you know, I know lots of texts.

I mean, I'm sorry, but I Think I could make a pretty good argument That there is nothing in surah 105 that comes even close to the Carmen Christian Philippians 2 5 through 11. Okay? There ain't nothing there.

Okay, and so You know if the challenge is will you all produce just one surah like the Quran? Well, I don't think that would be overly difficult to do actually. Now, of course, someone's gonna say well you need to read it in Arabic.

Well, okay, but I don't think that's gonna change much because we can you know read the Carmen Christian Arabic and it'll be pretty too because it's Rhythmic and so on and so forth and that's why this particular alleged proof of the Quran just doesn't work.

It just doesn't carry any water and since it is an alleged proof found in the Quran itself That does make you wonder just a little bit at the standards of the author of the Quran who would think that this would in fact provide a meaningful Argument in regards to the divine nature of the Quran.

So there you have a little discussion of so what are we covered so far? We have we've covered Romans 5 with with Dave Hunt and found him to be teaching universalism without meaning to because he doesn't follow the context and doesn't do exegesis and forgetting about the corrections that have been offered to him in the past in regards to various texts and now we've looked at the Shabir Ali talking about Ali class surah 112 and What it means and how to avoid the presuppositions that they read into the text of Unitarianism.

And so the last section will will deal of course with the Bible answer man broadcast as we have been doing. But before we get to that Yesterday I posted on the blog a number of things the blog sort of exploded for a few days as as it tends to do once in a while and I Don't know I as I saw the post coming from Steve Ray and Steve is now gone off on a pilgrimage and and We know the pilgrimages are just wonderfully holy things.

And so we can't expect much in the way of interaction from from Steve while he's on the pilgrimages. But he's been he's been doing that and as he was packing up and leaving Even though I Am nothing, but a a petty Pope and likened unto a rabid dog and so predictable I'm sure all this thing just said very charitably I mean, I we realize I've gotten the lesson if it's in defense of Rome.

It's always charitable and If it is ever against Rome then Then It's it's by nature not not sure I have a clue what that means I I don't a creek what I.

Can't hear a word. You're saying the pilgrimage in Denver. Oh. Okay, you know everybody was walking by the creek. Well. I mean he's gonna go for a walk by a creek.

Really should have gone with your first instinct on that one. That's called edit that one out of the cool edit file. Because now I gotta stop and explain all this stuff see what he's talking about isn't we were up in Denver in 1993 during World Youth Day.

Everybody had to walk to Cherry Creek State Park for the papal mass. And they called it a pilgrimage. So it was because it was so stinging hot and people were really unhappy about having to walk so far and they walked along this Creek bed to get to the mass site, and we stood alongside the creek well.

It wasn't a creek. It was just sort of a depression in the ground, I guess but. All these people walking by and that's where we stood to pass out our tracks. And so that's what that was all about. I think I need to get a button in here that cuts off your microphone.

Because that that's just the only way to put a little yeah. So anyway When even wonky and channel says the netcast has rolled off the tracks that that's When wonky says we've lost it, that's that's about as bad as it gets so anyway.

In fact now now I'm noticing someone talking about watching the lunar eclipse that you know is the lunar eclipse last night. Full lunar eclipse last night. I even got believe it or not in the middle of night I was still just barely awake enough to hold the camera still long enough.

They actually got some interesting shots of it and given how dark it was so After running outside to turn off the car alarm on the car at 12 something at night, which was fun, too. Anyway boy, we did really lose it.

So what in the world was that it was which which religion am I on now? Oh, yeah, Steve, right, okay. We I guess before Steve left he you know tossed out his his replies and In essence, what was his reply?

Well, I think I captured the essence of it at the end of the blog article that I put out and the blog article Gave an argument. I Gave a little graphic That described who has killed the most Christians over the course of the history of the church and the fifth largest group Killing Christians is the Roman Catholic Church almost five million martyrs on her her hands pretty close to the Muslims at that point and I Made the argument.

What if I just constantly over and over again? Started off my my Discussions with people by saying oh, you're a Catholic apologist. So you you defend the group that is murdered 18 million martyrs. Now see Steve Ray did that you Kevin Johnson was trying to talk to him on his blog last week and What was one of the very first things that he said to Kevin Johnson?

Oh, are you one of those? 33 ,000 Protestant denominations that come from the Reformation. So The parallels perfect here because the actual number of denominations listed by the source is less than 9 ,000 and what I did is I took the numbers and the percentages and I can actually do percentages.

I can tell the difference between five point six and point zero five six percent and 18 million is right around the same increase. That Ray and Staples and these others have been pulling out of this resource for a very very very long time and so I Gave the presentation.

Well, you know. What if you went to the source and discovered that I had been inflating this number and and if I responded by saying oh So you think you think that four point nine million martyrs is okay.

That's an absurd response. That is so clearly Avoiding the weight of the issue you're not avoiding you're not answering the issue and so when Steve Ray Replies both in PDF and I was blogged to me and says Oh James White thinks at 9 ,000 denominations is okay.

Well, I've pointed out it's not 9 ,000 isn't even a meaningful number either at least in the context in which this is being used. Because you can't blame. The 9 ,000 I mean they're including for example oneness Pentecostals In that list that's not because of solo scriptura.

In fact as I have said many many times the reason for divisions and I have decried divisions many times I have in my published writings Defended the importance of the local church. I have spoken against church shopping and church hopping and I wrote a book against Harold camping because he was attacking the church and I've Talked about the church and in pulpit crimes and and of course Steve Ray doesn't read any of those things because he's above Worrying about what rabid dogs have to say so while we will read their materials and respond to their published materials.

They don't have any reason to read we have to say because we're just not bright enough For them to even consider that we might have something to say so so I understand he's never read any of those things.

But that of course leads to his misrepresenting me. But then again, it's okay to misrepresent petty popes and rabid dogs because they don't really have the rights to be represented in a charitable Fashion, but but you can misrepresent them charitably because you're first Roman Catholic.

So anyway, I Have a long history of speaking the truth here, but I have also said this the same thing over and over again and that is The reason for the divisions between believing Christians is not Because of sola scriptura it is because of not practicing sola scriptura.