Bad Arguments Galore: Catholic Answers Against Calvinism, Thabiti Anyabwile On “Silence”

And greetings, welcome to the dividing line it is Early, yes, we

I'm going to be out of town Thursday and a Friday and so we're moving things up just a little bit

So that we can get all the programs in to keep the natives from getting restless and we don't want any

Restless natives. Why'd we start off over over here today? I don't know.

Okay Well, yeah, I don't want to forget

Because that's nice and black because you didn't open the the shutters on the on the camera

I can see that over there right now and it's sort of like leaving leaving the lens cap on a camera type thing

There you go, there you go So There you go.

See I didn't want to forget this Please notice what is what is here now? Rich was going to try to do all sorts of funny stuff and I said no,

I I promised We've got things to do. Okay, there's there's work to be done. He was going to hide them and Kidnap them and send ransom notes and do all sorts of stuff like that But you will see even even the the shoe box itself is has has

Coogee on it But you will notice that the Coogee of the shoe box is very muted

In comparison to to the real thing. Is there something you want? I just want it known that you are no fun

No, what I so I'm not right now. I'm not any fun. No, you are no fun.

It would have been hilarious But no, no, no, give me the shoes now. Okay, I I said

How it is someone got them for us? That I would I would show them off on the program.

I Kidnapped Coogee theme would have been hilarious, but no no, no

No, you and I define hilarious in in different ways, but so There they are

There's well, there's one of the two there are your Your their

Pumas actually, I've always liked Pumas. I wore I wore Pumas when I played high school tennis. I Wore Pumas and I had to buy

I Had this bad habit when serving of dragging the toe of my right foot when

I would serve and We of course were on hardcourt. I mean Nowhere in there.

I don't think there is a clay court. I don't even know that it could be a clay court in Arizona I would just crack and dry and blow away so fast ridiculous

And there's certainly no grass courts either for the same reasons So every tennis in Phoenix is always on hardcourt

Anyways, so I would wear the I'd wear it right to where there's a hole and I had to buy this

Shoe -goo stuff. I'm not sure if that was called but it was sort of a It wasn't glue but it was when it dried it would it would form a sort of rubbery

Something that I would then tear off on the next next time. I was playing playing tennis in high school

But they're Pumas and these are Pumas. They're very very comfortable. So there are the the Coogee's They did arrive and they fit perfectly and thank you very very much.

They're wonderful And notice they're much brighter than than the box itself

So I figure that the the matching Sweater, which is absurdly expensive will end up on eBay at least by 2025

Maybe you know if you can snipe a good, you know a good deal on one Maybe five six seven years from now a used one.

That's about the only way to get it done so so there you go, I want to make sure not to forget and very very thankful to the folks in in in Twitter land who made that possible and And there you go, and I'm not seeing anybody saying see the problem is

I forgot to announce Let's see the DL We've got to announce is live right now

You announced on what Oh No No, I do

I just I Didn't see it. I Didn't see it. I'm seeing some interesting stuff on Twitter right now, but I didn't see that so anyway

So there you go. I said I would do so I did they're very comfy. Thank you very very much and I'm not sure what the wife's gonna say, but we'll we'll see when

She's used to it. She's she's she's used to you know These are coogies I can wear without it being below 80 degrees outside Which it's not going to let's go drop into the 70s briefly for the next couple days and then back up to about 83 or So, but hey, we're not we're not complaining about that too much.

All right Before we get to the Controversial stuff for the day

I wanted to just I like to spend some time in Scripture even before we get to the application of things in on the program

We have many many times Mentioned The reality that first Corinthians chapter 1 should be a text that we especially those who are involved in Christian scholarship or Academia or teaching or anything like that?

we should remind ourselves of over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and And The reason for that is it's so it's so central in reminding us that the the wisdom of God is foolishness to men and there is such a strong temptation on the part of Christian scholars to want to be accepted in the world and To compromise the

Lordship of Christ in the area of knowledge and things like that as a result But It's also a text that Remember how many times

I've talked about in the deity of Christ and We allow ourselves as believers in the deity of Christ to be put into a

Defensive mode by allowing the other side to define which text we're going to be addressing. So you know you have the key texts and They're the text that they know really really well but there's this whole other world of evidence to the deity of Christ in the things that Jesus says and does that that if you

Ask a Jehovah's Witness who believes that Jesus is Michael the Archangel To fit their

Jesus into all the rest of this data It can't work, but we almost never do that.

We never put the shoe on the other foot so to speak and force them to Answer these these particular texts.

Well, I think the same thing is true for those of us who are Reformed we allow ourselves to Almost always be addressing the same texts over and over and over again and Yet there's all sorts of evidence for the doctrines of grace for the sovereignty of God for election and predestination

That is sort of Well, you know act 1348 for example would be a text

Where the primary subject that Luke is addressing is is not predestination election but because he believes in it it comes out in the way that he expresses things and so We we tend to Either put too much weight on those and and then someone can point properly point out well that you know

That's not specifically what he was talking about there. And then it sort of gets shoved off to the side or if we really know that they're there we can present them as Do you notice that you know just as a part of?

The belief of the early church you have the expression of this this concept So in in first Corinthians chapter 1 for indeed

Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for are seeking after wisdom But we proclaim

Christ having been crucified to the Jews indeed a scandal on to the

Gentiles foolishness But and it's only four words our toys stay toys clay toys

But to the elect but to the called ones to the elect both

Jew and Greek Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God so The only way to understand that is to connect it back to verse 18 being saved perishing

Now we know what distinguishes these two groups and specifically it is but to the called to the elect and It it's central to being able to make heads or tails of what's being said.

It explains why the same message is Foolishness and a scandal to some but the power of God and the wisdom of God to someone else

There's there's another text very similar to this In passing when writing his last letter to Timothy Second Timothy 2 8 remember

Jesus Christ risen from the dead descendant of David according to my gospel For which

I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal But the Word of God is not imprisoned for this reason.

I endure all things For the sake of and it's exact same

Phraseology found here for the sake of those who are chosen for the elect So that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory and so in the midst of discussing suffering and trials and tribulations and things like this you have this clear evidence that underlying all of this for Paul is his recognition of the electing grace of God and So, yeah, you do have key texts that that need to you need to go through Romans 9

Ephesians 1 and yeah It's just like with the deity of Christ. You have to be able to deal with the prologue of John And he deals

Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1 and and all the the primary key passages on on the subject but if that's all you have

Then you're missing an entire spectrum of evidence and the same thing is true when we're talking about the doctrines of grace as well it is

Found throughout I love when I love when I look over at Twitter and someone sends me a tweet false

You know, I suppose, you know, we're the best you can do. Ah good.

Okay false to the addendum At Adam Reid Wilson, I had written earlier today you did much more to promote justice in the world if you preached faithfully the

Word of God on Sunday handled the scriptures of care and accuracy and proclaim salvation for sinners by faith in Christ than all the virtue signaling tweets ever posted and Adam Reid Wilson thinks no

Virtue posting tweets are more important than accurately handling the Word of God. There you go.

Adam. Good job I I gave you your five seconds of infamy there because it is in for me Wow, okay

There's all sorts of fun stuff going on there Okay So why do

I mention this? Well, um, I was gonna do a whole radio free

Geneva thing But the article just isn't that long and I know it'll disappoint some of you because you don't get to hear the music but Isn't the music available somewhere?

Now, okay. So if you know if you if you want to hear He put it on is it on like I It's on his on Yeah, Tim Bush on yeah, he's got it on on the web somewhere.

Yeah. Okay. Now he did did he did it? Did he do a mighty fortress without the

DL stuff? The whole thing but then there's also okay. All right, so look him up and and there you go

So Catholic answers put out

Okay, some is someone okay someone someone else. Okay, and it gets really confusing confusing when

Adam responds to Adam who's a different Adam That's that's that's a problem with with the things that Catholic answers put out an article by Tom Nash Now let me give the information about Tom Nash okay,

Tom Nash is a contributing apologist and speaker for Catholic answers a Contributing blogger of the

National Catholic Register and a contributor for Catholic world report He has served the church professionally for more than 25 years including eight and a half as a theology advisor at EW TM He is their author of what did

Jesus do the biblical roots of the Catholic Church and the biblical roots of the mass? He is also a regular member of the fellowship of Catholic scholars

Okay, so Tom Nash Should know what he's talking about But as is so often the case

As we have documented down through the years many many times

Catholic answers puts out some Less than scholarly material

That clearly demonstrates the people writing for them Well don't really do their homework real well, and that's what they did

I am on the Catholic answers tweet list and so a

Article was posted on the 24th Titled are some destined to be damned

Well, I knew what this was gonna be about and it was John Calvin is one of the two most influential

Protestant reformers along with Martin Luther Although he didn't deny man's free will well, you could find a number of places where he's he does he just He just denies libertarian free will he believes that man has a free will in the sense that reform people define that but not in The sense that Roman Catholic people define that in the libertarian sense, although he didn't deny man's free will

Calvin effectively gutted it Because he said all men were preordained by God as to heaven election or hell

Reprobation and so there is nothing we can do to impact our eternal destiny. So immediately

Um, mr. Nash has a clear misunderstanding of the subject that he is pretending to address and unfortunately, a lot of folks

Suffer from the same thing. He is confusing the positive teaching that Calvin gives on the enslavement of the will the depravity of man

The fact that that man does not possess These positive desires in the first place that God has to curb our sin, etc, etc

He's confusing What he should be addressing at that point with another issue

Which is the subject of God's sovereign predestination now There have been those in the history of what

Rome would claim is her own are her own writers Like Augustine who had very strong views on the subject of Election and predestination and issues like that God's chalk got himself into a lot of trouble for for things like that.

Certainly the modern Roman Catholic Church Cannot hold to Augustine's theology and every

Augustinian Roman Catholic has to in some way modify Augustine's Augustine's words, but It's just if you're going to deal with the subject of the will of man then deal with what

Calvin said about the will of man If you're going to deal with what what Calvin said about predestination election or what?

The Bible says about predestination elections and then deal with that, but this is what's weird Calvin seems to say that because God Omnisciently knows all of our choices before we make them.

He must therefore have ordained them to occur Notice that for the for the Romanist Like the traditionalist

Southern Baptist I might note You always reason from man to the divine rather than doing what the

Bible does and Speak from the

Creator to the creation From the divine to the human realm what's up here?

What's true up here? Has to define the reality down here, even if there's different different perspectives this

Determines this not this determining this and so if you want a man -centered theology what you do is you make man's experience the determinative factor in all things and you limit

God and what God can do to what would make sense to man or You you limit

God's ability to know future events or or act

In such a way in his decrees so as to interact with man in time and things that you start with ma 'am and Then you end up with a limited

God the Bible starts with God and invites us to consider our own experience in light of the transcendent realities of who

God is and So that's what you that's what you get here.

So So You have God omnisciently knowing all our choices and Therefore he must have ordained them rather than God's decree

So that God is unchanging and perfect and is not growing and maturing and learning and so on so that God's decree determines all action all actions in time and Then from there deal with the nature of man as the subject of God's decree

You don't do it that way you instead make man the measure and then measure God by man

That's just this is how sinner just are whether they're Romanist or otherwise This is just the the perspective that you that you end up dealing with This is particularly seen in Calvin's commentary on st.

Paul's letter to the Romans now. Yeah, okay couple things remember if you are going to Deal with Calvin, I'm lecturing on Calvin right now in the church history series

If you're going to deal with Calvin remember that Calvin himself pointed you to the

Institutes of the Christian religion as The lens through which everything else he said and did is to be interpreted.

So if you want to know what Calvin believed you go to the Institutes first and Then all his epistolary literature commentaries sermons so on so forth

Needs to be interpreted in light of what he said in the Institute. That's his own his own directions to us and When you do that there are entire sections on predestination election

Which interestingly enough in the Institutes and if you call yourself a Calvinist You should know this in the

Institutes comes right after the longest section in the Institutes, which is on prayer

Good thing that that's that that's the case That's where you go first that's not where Dr.

Nash goes it may be dr. Nash. I'm not sure but mr. Nash anyways, our author is not where he goes instead he goes to Calvin's commentaries, which is a common way of misrepresenting

Calvin, but that's not even the case here wouldn't even get close to misrepresent him because he's instead of if you're gonna go to Romans and address

Calvin's understanding of Predestination and election. Where are you gonna go? Well, probably

Romans 8 & 9 primarily Ah For example

Calvin and his modern modern disciples Cite Romans as evidence that God unilaterally chooses who has saving faith and who doesn't

Again, where would where would you expect this to go the golden chain Romans 8, right? Romans 9 beginning of verse 7.

I mean baseball bat Wow, right what Texas he goes to Romans 3 21 through 25

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law Although law and the prophets bear witness to it the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe

But there's no distinction since all of sin and fall short of the glory of God They are justified by his grace as a gift of the redemption

Which is in Christ Jesus whom God put forward to be an expiation by his blood to be received by faith. Well Okay Um Calvin's going to consistently interpret that in light of God's sovereignty, but that's not the subject in Romans 3 that That that's not where you're gonna go to talk about faith as a gift and stuff like that So He goes on to say the

Catholic Church acknowledges that faith is undoubtedly a divine gift and That no human being can earn his salvation and yet gifts need to be received and maintained and Thus the importance of our free will responses to God again,

I hate to make our non Roman synergist friends uncomfortable but the reality is that you and Rome are on the exact same page on this matter and And they argue very much like you argue and So given

Rome's Sacramental system the necessity of libertarian free will is a given

St. Paul and st. Peter made clear that Jesus came to save everyone 1st Timothy 2 4 2nd

Peter 3 9 now Not gonna spend too much time on this right now But this is another reason why there's a chapter in the book

The Potter's freedom called the big three and there's two of the big three right there and You will find that it is fundamental to Roman Catholic Soteriology to assume they never defend

But to assume the meaning of these two texts despite the fact that any meaningful direct

Exegesis of those texts is not supportive of the application that they or other synergists make

It's just a given you'll find it in in Pretty much it's just all the way through anytime you run into the issue in the

Catholic Catechism It is just a given that those two texts demonstrate a universal salvific will that's just it that's done

There's no attempt to read in fact there's not even really any evidence that I can see that they recognize that there's another perspective at all and That's of course the same same with most synergists whether Roman Catholic or not in addition in addition

Jesus makes clear that our being saved requires our free will cooperation as he affirms to the rich young man in Matthew 19 and the parable of the sheep and the goats and That our

Heavenly Father won't forgive us our trespasses a prerequisite for gaining heaven unless we freely forgive those who have trespassed against us so You have

This concept that the rich young man Somehow He has to have free will cooperation.

Now, of course, there isn't the term free will doesn't appear anywhere Except in the Old Testament about free will offerings or something along those lines of giving something without compulsion, but the idea of the philosophical concept of Libertarian free will just isn't found

In the Bible, but it sure is read into it by the vast by all synergists whether Roman Catholic or or not

The parable of the sheep and the goats again nothing about about to libertarian free will in there

And then Wow, well folks you have to forgive perfectly if you can get into heaven Good luck on that since that means we're all lost because not a one of us has ever forgiven perfectly

And Certainly never outside of the power of the Holy Spirit of God. So which comes first? That's another issue Further Paul affirms the importance of good works and are freely accepting and maintaining the gift of salvific discipleship

And where's he go for that Romans 2 What? the the the condemnation of the self -righteousness of the

Jews somehow actually teaches Importance of good works in our freely accepting and maintaining the gift of salvific discipleship

Good luck on finding that phrase anywhere in the Bible Doesn't exist

Including believing Including believing in receiving faith

So you have to believe in receiving faith, I don't Romans 3 22 don't get it and that certain unrepentant transgressions will prevent us from attaining heaven now interestingly enough,

I mean the the biblical argumentation is just Well, the biblical argumentation is what is

Common in Roman Catholic scholarship. It really is. I'm sorry but Roman Catholic scholarship today is

Absolutely crippled by the massive amount of liberalism, of course together with the traditionalism, but It's it's sad, but you know one of the texts that is cited here and you'll immediately recognize it

It says and that certain unrepentant transgressions will prevent us from attaining heaven 1st

Corinthians 6 9 through 10 Anybody remember that is you should you should these days we've got to know what that is today

Because it is do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God do not be deceived neither fornicators nor Idolaters nor adulterers numerary standard says nor effeminate nor homosexuals

ESV simply says nor homosexuals This is the malachoi arsenic wait I text that we've gone over so many times in the past Nor thieves nor the covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God All that is true.

The problem is the next verse says such were some of you But you were washed but you were sanctified but you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ in the Spirit of our God he's talking about what their life had been Not what their life was now in Christ This is one of the major problems you have with Roman Catholicism because it conflates justification justification and sanctification you end up with this mishmash of Interpretive grids that can never make sense out of what the

New Testament teaches and hence can never give you peace because you will always be

You never have that finished work upon which to base everything So there is gross misuse of 1st

Corinthians chapter 6. So anyway All these passages regarding our freedom

None of them were about our freedom need to be kept in mind. So it's not misread Romans chapter 9 ah

We need to we need to try to cobble something together to create a we got we got to got to keep

Keep people on the reservation Lest we mention Romans 9 and they just get totally blown away

Which forms the foundation of Calvin's theology of salvation So then why'd you go to Romans 3 rather than Romans 9 in particular because Paul speaks in 922 of vessels of wrath made for destruction

Well, I assure you he focused on stuff well before them Calvin infers his doctrine of divinely predetermined reprobation, but instead as Scott Hahn says and when

Scott Hahn speaks everyone listens, that's And but instead as Scott Hahn says the

Apostle is talking about the unfolding of God's plan in history Not designating the destinies of human persons for eternity

And then we I guess are getting a quotation from from the great doctor

Of course, it's actually both But the one is dependent upon the reality of the other that is

He uses individuals Pharaoh and Jacob and Esau he uses individuals to then make

Overarching applications beyond the individuals. That doesn't mean that the individual application wasn't true to begin with Wrath and glory are terms

Paul uses elsewhere in connection with the final judgment yet. Paul is not here concerned with the consignment of destinies

Why not I mean, he's he's gonna be responding to Specific objection and the objection is who resists his will that that's not a nation speaking

Those are individuals speaking who resists his will He is setting forth a scenario for the sake of argument in order to defend

God against the charge of acting unjustly toward Israel Well, not even accurate there

The if you go back to 9 -6 it's not just acting unjustly toward Israel, but that the promises were not being believed by many in Israel and Paul's response is to demonstrate that God had actively engaged in Sovereign selection even in the application of the promise within Israel's own history, which they accepted

He is not living a prophecy reveals who will reach heaven and who will go to hell rather the context indicates that Paul is concerned

With God's freedom to assign different roles different persons in Implementing his designs for history. It's not an either -or

His freedom to do that included his freedom to judge Pharaoh and to destroy

Pharaoh in the Red Sea and Pharaoh's army for following him all

So that his glory might be demonstrated in the destruction of the Egyptian gods God has the right to do that and the people of Israel knew that therefore there could be no objection back to Isaiah 9 -6

Yeah, it's all consistent Hmm Yeah It is a matter of God choreographing the temporal election of some and the hardening of others in order to accomplish his plan of redemption quite true is

Within this historical frame of reference the Lord is a purpose for all vessels of Israel noble and ignoble alike

So remember Han was not raised in Roman Catholicism So Han is the one that gives you that strange admixture of Covenant theology and Roman Catholicism.

It can't work it's it's strange, but There you go

In addition in writing of God's choice of Jacob in salvation history Paul quotes God's words to the

Prophet Malachi as it is written Jacob I love but he saw I hated Romans 9 3 c Malachi 1 3 as any good

Jewish scholar can affirm and we want to use Jewish scholars to interpret the New Testament This ancient semitic expression means that God loved

Esau less than Jacob Not that he predestined Esau let alone his

Edomite descendants to eternal damnation now I just have to stop it's the it's it's hate doesn't mean hate it means love less argument

I Don't know. There's this part of me that just automatically goes. No. Wait a minute. You're you're Roman Catholic, right?

Could you give me the infallible papal proclamation of this and you know, there ain't no such thing

You know whenever we present scripture passages, well, you know, that's just your opinion there, you know

And yeah, that's the problem with solo scripture You want to tell me where? There's been an infallible interpretation of this text provided by the church and you bow and I both know there hasn't been one

So the loved less argument, right I'm sure that's exactly how

Esau took it But anyway, the ancient Israelites certainly didn't teach

Calvinistic divine reprobation See Deuteronomy 23 8

Amos 3 Amos 2 1 through 3 for God's enduring concern for the Edomites Okay I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean even though it's in Amos that it specifically said that Israel alone have

I known That means chosen over against the Edomite Indeed the prophet

Ezekiel proclaims that the righteous man can fall away through his bad choices and the wicked man can repent be restored to Commune with God there again, man

Someday we're just going to have to because it goes on in any event Ezekiel adds I have no pleasure in the death of anyone says the

Lord God's to turn live The constant misuse of Ezekiel 18 and the fact that the key and we do actually have a

Video on this it was a Wednesday night service. It's on my website It's on the dr.

Oakley thing The YouTube channel at dr. Oakley 1689.

I I recorded a Wednesday night service years ago On Ezekiel 18 because I was just every few years.

I end up getting frustrated by how many people grossly misrepresented And we'll have to post that again

Further God portrays Christians as vessels of mercy and thus implies that unbelievers whether Jews or Gentiles are vessels of destruction

Yet Paul does not teach them believing Jews for example are predestined to damnation because we see him otherwise praying and working for their salvation

Again God desires that all be saved but some may choose to rebel against God without repentance. So again you take your misapplication of 1st

Timothy 2 4 2nd Peter 3 9 you make that your interpretive lens and so instead of seeing that Paul does recognize that some of his enemies are vessels of wrath

You assume well We see him praying for them and working for their salvation

So he can't believe that because he also believe this over here No, God ordains the ends as well as the means he calls us to be witnesses

We do what he calls us to do We want to be vessels of mercy in their lives, but we don't know who the elect are

That doesn't mean the elect do not exist. It doesn't mean it's not God does not have that divine decree

Finally if Romans 9 were read in isolation. Well so far it hasn't been read at all Calvin's view might seem more plausible even though although even then the standard of love for Calvin's God Would fall far short of that espoused by mere human mothers and fathers who desperately desire all of their children to attain heaven now here you really see the wishy -washy nature of modern

Roman Catholic theology And It is wishy -washy

Here here you have the Sentimentality of work. We're all just God's chillins.

And since we're God's chillins Then he's just gonna do everything you can to save every single one of us.

And so he'd never have predestination election it's like I remember reading in the

Gospels That authority has to be given to people to believe and therefore to become the sons of God That Jesus said to the

Jews you are of your father the devil We are not born as children of God we become children of God through regeneration

This assumes the exact opposite that we're all just God's chillins and he's just gonna do everything he can

This is how you get universalism This is how you get inclusivism and that's why the vast majority of the prelates in Roman Catholic Church They are either inclusivists or universals.

That is not the position That was taken earlier in Roman Catholicism by any stretch of the imagination

If infinite creatures made in God's image and likeness have such loving concern for their children How much more should we accept from we expect from the infinite eternal

God? Indeed in arguing for God's sovereignty the way he does Calvin and wittingly

Blasphemes God by presenting him as a capricious tyrant who is responsible for the greatest evils consigning men and women to hell without giving them

Any real opportunity to accept or reject them again. This is why this would have been a great Radio Free Geneva thing because this is exactly the misrepresentation that you you get from the fundamentalist

Baptist And yet this is from again someone who's a part of the

Catholic Scholars Guild and so on and so forth showing absolutely no meaningful

Reading in Reformed literature to even know how basic objections like this have been thoroughly answered for a very very very long time good grief

Augustine refuted this kind of stuff Paul refuted this kind of stuff in Romans 9 This is the exact objection that was made by the objector in Romans 9 and Here he quotes

Romans 9 22 doesn't see the objection doesn't realize he's making the same thing If your objection to Paul is the same thing as that guy you've got a problem

Without without giving them any real opportunity to accept or reject him. There's the Roman concept of You have to be given equal chances.

No, God doesn't give anybody any chances None, you'd be perfectly just we didn't

See Rome doesn't understand the categories of mercy and grace and what real justice is it says

It can't Calvin defends the position by saying we have no right to question God in this matter

But what his critics are questioning is actually Calvin's concept of God's goodness double predestination makes God not the godless sinner responsible for human sin and again is any argumentation provides any interaction with the multiple volume length refutations of this canard and misrepresentation even

Even enter into the possibility here. No, of course not because that's not the purpose of Catholic answers.

That's not the purpose It's not the people you're writing for they don't care whether we agree with them or not they're just trying to insulate their own people and That therefore you get this kind of stuff in contrast

The church teaches that God desires all men and women to be saved and his omniscience Knowing who will be saved and who will not?

Certainly doesn't preclude his giving each person the free will choice to accept or reject his gift of eternal life in the drama of salvation

History, which I would submit to you makes no sense whatsoever. If God knows how is that free will

I mean Can they do something differently no, they can't or God's knowledge would be forfeited which is why

Open theism enters him more than that God and his love seeks out those most in need of his mercy as the

Good Shepherd who seeks out wayward sheep and of course from their perspective That Shepherd can't save anybody without the sheeps help can't they can't

Evidently see that but but there it is So are some destined to be damned another example of just how often

Catholic answers Put stuff out there. That is just bad Really really bad.

All right Gotta get through this gotta get through this Lauren just saw the

Coogee shoes on the DL my eyes my eyes. We used to have a sound file remember, huh?

And you liked it. Oh Okay. Okay. I'll like it too. See there. I liked it, too

Should I show it show him again just to know you didn't I only showed one shoe I could show the other

I'll rat it but this sort of looks a little bit like that just not quite as bright just so I'm that's why I kept It there so everybody can Everybody can see okay.

All right, I gotta get to this On Saturday night

I Saw a Tweet from the

BD and you wheelie Now I do not live on social media

And at times I I can literally go For many days without turning television on Especially these days it's so depressing and so Frustrating as I see my society

Succumbing to utter and complete irrationality. No one teaches logic anymore.

No one knows history anymore the babbling of the left and Even the babbling of the right that is disconnected from a

Christian worldview and that can give it any meaning is very frustrating and I do not have endless patience and there are times you just simply have to turn it off and Focus upon other things just simply to keep your blood pressure down and your heart rate down everything else but I had seen a tweet from the

BD now the BD and I have met once we spoke on Islam together in Canada many many years ago and So I am holding the

BD on your wheelie to the Standards of truthfulness and argumentation that we would share as Christian apologists.

He has debated I believe he's debated Bassam Zawadi. I think it was Bassam that he debated overseas once We have debated some of the same people and therefore

I am simply holding him to the exact same standards that I would demand I be held to in Scholarly debate.

It's all I'm doing. I'm treating him as a brother in Christ and And as a result demanding that he be truthful and Accurate in his argumentation what he presented was not truthful was not accurate

I am going to refute it. It is not a matter of opinion. This is a false bad argument

I am saying that as a person who has taught apologetics on the graduate level for decades as Someone who studied logic it is not rational.

It is not defensible It is a false argument And he did not even try to attempt defend it as a sound argument once I point out what the problem was

Here it is Now after I read this I did not respond to it immediately

It was Saturday night Sundays coming I Had other stuff going on.

I've got a lot of stuff going on And not necessarily pleasant stuff going on But I decided to go ahead and respond to it two hours after it was posted

It wasn't sort of some knee -jerk reaction. Oh, I can't believe I said that I thought about it I thought well, you know it is it my hope was in responding to it that the

BD would go yeah, that wasn't really fair was it and Dial it back.

I was wrong About that. So here you as you know on in Twitter, you have to read bottom to top instead of top to bottom

Um, here's what he said The common thread between the pipe bombs mailed to 13 to 14 persons the

Louisville shooter who attempted to enter a black church before killing two at Kroger and the murder of Jewish person and shooting of police officers in Pittsburgh is white supremacy

Another commonality and I checked to several timelines to be sure none of the major folks on Twitter So strident in their opposition to social justice had anything to say about any of those events or the white supremacy

That undergird them complete silence is not Justice and then not even a lament or a praying for the families

Now I Think you need to be aware of the fact That You know people asked so what what was going on You know what what could explain this as far as Where where he's coming from well, let me see if I mmm,

I might not brought that up. I have a a picture From the what's this called?

The frequency conference in Philadelphia Anthobedi was there along with Dr.

Moore and Matt Chandler and Pastor Mason, this was the place to be if you're woke.

Okay, this was the Center of wokeness This past weekend, so in other words, he's been listening to critical race theory and intersectionality and social justice stuff being screamed at him

In fact just give you a sense Matt Chandler is there and Matt Chandler Posted this can you can you put this up?

I guess I have to plug it in so you can hear it Matt Chandler posted this With the commentary man.

I'm going to explode So here's here's part of the the frequency stuff

Okay, so there's Matt Matt Chandler right then was saying I'm going to explode now.

I think it may be because he was too close to fall back monitors Which will make anyone's ears explode in a situation like that I can tell

I would be deaf Absolutely, no time at all but yes, so Matt Chandler was going to explode there and so I my theory is

That just like the MLK 50 thing when he came out with you your grandpappy killed

Martin Luther King stuff So you need to hold your parents and your grandparents accountable for what what they did

I think that's what was going on here you did all excited about this stuff and The results are are the results so as I thought about this

I Responded and point out a couple of the obvious obvious problems first of all

This assumes that virtue signaling Instantaneous social media virtue signaling is somehow demanded in our modern day

Because for example the synagogue shootings Horrific thing and and this is this is another thing is just bothering me tremendously

There was a day When you did not have to tell people

I think that's terrible There was a sufficiently commonly held worldview that Would say for everybody for everybody that Everybody knows that this was a terrible horrible thing and especially

Christians There's there's actually the implication here that those who have criticized the unbiblical

Definition of social justice and the the the this movement and he clearly had me in mind as well as others basically everyone who wrote

The statement is what he he's gonna admit is he was taking a shot at though He doesn't name anybody.

So it's nice and vague so you can apply it to anybody you want. That's another part of the problem but The assertion is well, you know, it's

They haven't said anything This is unjust Because it has to do with white supremacy and what's the only thing that would tie all that together because they're actually white supremacists

There was a day When especially at least in the church you you actually had enough respect for someone else who claimed the name of Christ to assume

That they would believe what the Bible says that mass murder is evil and it's pure virtue signaling

It is capitulating to the world Capitulating the world to say oh you've got to rush to your social media things and talk about all this type of stuff

More on that a little bit later on What happened in Pittsburgh is horrific?

absolutely horrific and Then the I had not I had not even heard

The only the only reason I knew anything about Pittsburgh was I had seen stuff going by on Twitter I had not turned on the television and I'll tell you why

Because have we not learned this by now, especially on weekends when people are away

That much of what you're gonna get in the first few hours even first few days is pretty much a waste of your time

How many times have people had to walk back this story and walk back that story admit?

Well, you know we were told that this had been said but it really wasn't said and you know Because these these news sources are doing everything they can to have something to say once they go wall -to -wall with it

They keep repeating the same things and we were heard this over there or that over there The reality is you're not really gonna get the solid stuff

Until a few days later and it's gonna be in serious written articles and even then these days there is reason to really wonder and So do forgive us

Those of us who not only will tune out once in a while But who then when we want to interact with something we'll do so slowly and carefully

Oh My that's a terrible thing to do. No, it's the right thing to do

Okay, so I hadn't I hadn't even heard of this Kroger thing and there seems to be

Misrepresentation on Thabiti's part even today as to what happened in the Kroger thing The reports

I heard didn't have the way he had it. So again Who's to know until the actual facts are made available in?

in meaningful Reporting full -length articles from serious journalists few as they might be these days or legal proceedings

So You have three things and I'm sorry, but I have yet to see even today

Having taken some time to listen to some more I have yet to see that a meaningful argument can be made that the

Thing that ties all this together is some concept of white supremacy I don't see that these three people were somehow joined at the hip by being part of the same group and As soon as you start trying to push these narratives you end up twisting

The reality of why these people do the things they're doing look the guy at the at the synagogue is just simply a

Jew hater I've never understood that I can never understand it. But folks, please

Don't you realize that? anti -semitism Jewish hatred is

Worldwide and has infected a massive portion of non -white people

That has nothing to do with white supremacy at all If you start pushing these narratives you end up distorting the truth.

I Mean, there's just so many problems here. It's just stunning That someone of the

Beatty's intelligence and training could be throwing this stuff out. Just stunning so You've got that problem.

You got her you got it. You got to respond fast I thought there's something in Proverbs about being slow in your response, you know taking some time to think through it and Maybe more than just two hours

Maybe a couple days. It's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. Don't accuse people of sin for things that are not sin

But then the follow -up Another commonality and I checked to several timelines to be sure

Well, there wasn't almost anything in my timelines because I've got other things going on None of the major folks on Twitter so strident in their opposition to social justice

Had anything to say about any of the events or the white supremacy that undergird them

So we need to accept his conclusions his extremely premature conclusions that there it is white supremacy behind all of that and then having made the accusation ignoring the reality that And this is what was so stunning.

How do you know any of us are even keeping up? How it's Saturday night?

You may be Rocking out at your conference. I was preaching act 6 the next day.

It's not the easiest chapter in the world. I Had other things to do do forgive How do you know people aren't traveling?

I was just overseas I know of at least one of these quote -unquote critics that was asleep during this time because he's not in the

United States He's about 10 hours out away This Even and this is a man who travels overseas.

Can you imagine if someone turned this around on him? Can you imagine if someone said well, obviously it's a

BD. It doesn't care anything about this because yes, and he was overseas The injustice of it is so obvious the hypocrisy of it is so obvious that That's why

I had hoped that once I responded you go. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry I'm just I'm just upset about this and I you know, you know

So many things here that are in that are in error but so you assume that we're all sitting there watching

TV like you are and We've all got our social media stuff up and we're sitting going. Oh boy

I better not talk about any of this because It's white supremacy and well, we're white supremacists

Why else would it be what what else is being insinuated here? It's exactly what's being insinuated

Complete silence is not justice Complete silence is irrelevant in this situation

If we if we were in charge of a news network Making the editorial choice choices as to what was being covered and we chose not to cover these things

Well, at least you'd have something to complain about we are not Doing that that's not our job.

Not a one of us has ever Said that we are the gatekeepers for all social knowledge

Never made that claim. There's all sorts of stuff. I don't talk about I've said over and over again a man's gotta know his

Limitations and So there's lots of stuff. I don't talk about has nothing to do no rational argument could possibly be made by anyone who honors logic and reason and truthfulness and honesty and consistency that would say that every time something happens, you've got to run to your

Twitter feed and Virtue signal to everybody. I think that's bad. I think that's bad. See I'm good

Is this what we've been reduced to It's stunning Now I responded very calmly and In a brotherly fashion because I really honestly hoped that the response would be well, you know

What what can I say I was a little upset, you know

So what is how does he respond? So I wrote about four or five tweets.

I said, you know, I expected better of you. This is this is this is not fair This is fallacious argumentation at every level

Here is his response So, let me see if I'm tracking you. You don't know much about at all about recent events.

That's true You're certain. You know, I can't know what's widely reported now.

That's not representation Well, all sorts of things are widely reported doesn't make them true

Especially shortly after an incident. I mean, that's just naivete and misrepresentation and you feel you must comment on my thread

Well, you did aim it at me, didn't you? Actually at your first point you'd have sent you should have simply kept quiet.

Oh So I get to impugn your motives I get to attack you on Completely fallacious grounds and you just shut up.

That's what I was just told just shut up Wow, okay, so I said hey you can dismiss me all you want

He says not dismissing you pointing out your own introductory points Which have taken seriously calls into question why you are once again

Pronouncing so authoritative about something you admit you're not up to speed on that's not dismissing you but holding you to your own premise

What he was ignoring obviously is my objection had nothing to do with the events my objection had to do with the absurdity of demanding that we

Virtue signal on ours on our things or we're not doing justice. We are if you're not doing justice.

What are you doing? So what he was saying is it's in just for us not to be

Commenting immediately not coming Monday not after the Lord's Day Immediately we need to be on social media condemning these things even though as far as I could tell the first thing the

Beatty said About the shooting was to condemn us Where was the just general condemnation before that or could you just simply assume that oh

So we can assume that for you, but you can't assume that for us Huh, well, that's interesting a little unfair

So, let me let me let me before I look at some of those. Let me apply this

Let me apply this to the Beatty's own. Let me use his own standards here. Okay, I Want to know why the

Beatty on your wheelie has not condemned the killing of Kenjuan D Scott over the weekend.

I In the Beatty's Social media material Kenjuan D Scott.

Why not the Beatty since you haven't said anything about it I think there's something more here.

That silence is not justice. You are doing you want injustice? There's something more going on here is because of because of how he died

Now he's probably sitting there well, I I have a feeling you won't watch he'll be told about by somebody else

But if you were to watch he'd be sitting there going who's that and he's gonna

Google the name You'll find out that Kenjuan D Scott 23

Was shot and killed about 1055 a .m. This past weekend in Chicago as part of the ongoing genocide of blacks by other blacks in Chicago five killed 43 shot

One weekend Five killed 43 shot one weekend. I didn't hear a word about it from anybody and It happens pretty much every weekend, doesn't it?

Yeah Don't hear a word about it So by his own standard this must mean that the

Beatty is a black Supremacist right because this is black -on -black violence. So he's not talking about black -on -black violence.

So therefore he's a black supremacist Case closed. I'm done See how simple and stupid that is

That's absurd That is not how we should be reason that is not how should we should be behaving.

That's how the Beatty's behaving and When pressed on it, all he does is double down All he does is double down He says yes, but it only takes one tweet to do so like this one.

You can skip all the unnecessary posturing. So I'm posturing Second pointing out silence is no lower

It's not low at all than the false attribution of positions and name -calling you do on a regular basis.

So You want to substantiate that You want to notice how many times he will make accusations?

He's made accusations of white supremacy. He's made accusations of silence that had absolutely nothing to do with anything Now he's making accusations of name -calling on a regular basis

So if it's a regular basis, it should be really easy to back this up, right? Notice how many times

I will challenge him To back up accusations he's making and so far to this point of right now zero

Documentation of anything that he has made allegations nothing nothing Somebody's gonna come along and drag out

Brad Mason's slander piece. I'm sure that's about all they've got. That's the best they can do and that's Pilot who he itself so Then I pointed out

I'll pull this down here I pointed out the to Coco a fallacy he was making and That is well

If You know, okay, if I made a false exit, well you do it all the time That's the to Coco a fallacy

Well you do And so I point this out again. I'm dealing with the beady as a fellow apologist

He's supposed to have the highest standards of argumentation. That's Silly me.

I thought that's what we Christian apologists had to do. I thought I thought that it was it wasn't just when debating

Muslims, but Maybe we should have the same standards when when even when you're arguing amongst us, but you think

I think so so He says to me You mean the same kind of error

You participate in with the social justice statement pots calling kettles

James Okay, turning off for tonight. I hope you have a great Lord's Day tomorrow You mean the same kind of error you participate in with the social justice statement that now

I was talking about the to Coco a fallacy so It would really be helpful because we can't get people to provide meaningful interaction

I mean, it's normally very surface level or it's it's talking about stuff. We're not even attempting to dress and stuff like that Here's an opportunity

Wow, I'd like to see you know when he first came out I was like, I don't say anything special here. Everybody believes that and you know, which one is it?

I Mean even said at one point I could sign that I won't but I could sign that there's nothing nothing special about that Okay, so where's what?

Mmm the same kind of error you participate in with the social justice statement That would be so useful to have some documentation of what that is, right?

And so but he says I've gone to bed. So I'm gonna make the allegation and then I'm gone So my response to him

Was a such an allegation begs documentation to BD and you know that you may sign off But I will respectfully and repeatedly demand you back up that allegation

I do not believe you can do so Okay, is that fair?

I've had so many people talking about how ungracious I have been Who's being gracious here? Is it gracious to make allegations and not back them up?

Is it gracious to accuse people of harboring feelings of white supremacy and not back that up? Who's being ungracious here folks.

I just I have asked five people so far today. Well, you know, you're just so Sarcastic and stuff like that Document it

What the one thing the one guy did ask your wife? Wow, it's great to yeah,

I I wonder if these these folks respond in the same way, so So I asked

You know this I didn't say a hand Sunday few people made comments

I didn't say on Sunday The BD rights

It's really telling especially when all one would need to do is say something as simple as such hate is contrary to the gospel sinful

Not to be opposed or even this is evil But I don't didn't feel led to say anything at this point.

Some are protesting too much. It seems again doubling down and defending the indefensible you do not have to go on social media to virtue signal if evidently

The BD is now operating on the assumption That we are not his brothers in Christ Because if we were then you can assume that we believe that murder is evil,

I Mean the only way to interpret this is you all are white supremacists That's more important to you than the gospel itself.

That seems to be what he's saying. How else do you interpret that? That's that's shameful

That's that's what this has come to come to not coming from my side I'm just Tony's beaded the exact same standards that I Would have held him to we first spoke.

I think in You know 2006 2008 forget what it was exact same standards

No change The BD such hate is contrary to the gospel sinful not to be opposed.

That's a given. Are you seriously suggesting? That we don't believe that Or that we have to What would everyone's social media thing be but but a constant repetition of that about everything happening?

You didn't say that about the death all the deaths in Chicago this weekend. So what does that mean? Absolutely positively nothing.

It means nothing just like everything you've been saying means nothing Then why did you do it because you were all?

hopped up on social justice juice Because you're all excited there been all that preaching and all that fiery stuff and I'm gonna take a shot at those guys

It's a cheap shot It's hypocritical, but I'm gonna double down on it.

Even when it's demonstrated that my argumentation is completely fallacious completely fallacious

Then he admits It is very much a poke in the eye, which is what he's what he had said to us

But not the sort you're asserting the poke is from a group of leaders so vocal about what Joe's justice is and is not

It's telling they're silent in the face of such clear injustice. It could tell us a number of things, but I stated what

I thought so once again You've got to do it in my time frame.

I don't care If you don't even know what's going on. I don't care if you have the country

I don't care if you prefer to make sure of your facts beforehand

So you don't make stupid statements. None of that matters. It doesn't matter. You must virtue signal right now and You are silent and I say to you saying that we are silent in this matter is simply absurd.

It's a lie It's a lie. The whole statement was about justice.

We're not silent on this We just don't engage in this kind of Social media surface level posturing virtue signaling

Rile up the troops and let's divide everybody before Sunday service Because that's what you did.

I didn't do that. I didn't write it You wrote it you kept it nameless So it could be applied to the widest number of people as possible and have the most divisive result to it

Is that not true? Is That not true Namely such silence in the face of such moral evil is not justice saying it's not justice is not saying they don't care

Haven't privately prayed or commented or themselves guilty of the animus that led to the attacks.

It's saying it's not justice That's all now. This is Where the beady has to be

Criticized because this is the passive -aggressive Your grandparents and parents were complicit in the death of Martin Luther King a

Few days later, but I didn't really mean to say that Stuff.

It's not justice, but it's not injustice and I can't prove you even knew what was going on or you know but you know, um

And and I'm not saying that they are guilty of the animus that led to the attacks But I threw that out there and if they hadn't responded

I wouldn't have cared if anybody came to that conclusion Because that's what the original tweets insinuated and So at least there was a small walk back there, but not an overly honest walk back

Let me see So he finally the last one here white supremacy three basic points white supremacy hate is the root of these tragedies

Leading folks who've taken upon themselves to lecture us all about biblical justice are conspicuously silent Silent as a group on these tragedies despite their lectures silence is not justice and so he repeats it once again and Doubles down all of it.

He simply will not He will not admit okay. I know this is completely unfair.

It's grossly unfair It's it

I Would never allow this to be applied to myself. It could be applied to me I just I just gave you an example of applying to him this standard.

It could be done a thousand times over every week If he's gonna follow his own standard

He's gonna have to now live in Twitter and he's got to be constantly scanning He's got to set up five or six screens and have different things on them and just be constantly

Virtue signaling every time something horrible happens because there's a lot of horrible things happening in the world Thankfully, I'm not gonna follow him like that and criticize him that way and I hope nobody else says either

No, the answer is for him to go. All right. All right. Okay. I'm sorry. That was a

Bogus argument Whether someone tweets on On anything at any period of time is irrelevant

I can't set up the time frame as to when people are supposed to virtue signal their views on something and Yeah, you know what?

I would want people to assume that they could know what I believe about such horrible tragedies without me having to trot out there

And say yes, I think nuclear bombs are bad when they go off in the city. I mean the level

Hmm now I specifically He also there's there's two others he said to me so you think the claim

I made here cannot be allowed to pass in silence But you don't have any concern for your and many of your anti -sjw

Colleagues silence in light of last week's murders and attempted assassinations. I'm gonna let you hang on to your faux outrage faux outrage

So again, my argument was against the fallacious nature of his argumentation.

He ignores that in full outrage And I said, okay brother. I wanted to give you a chance to either substantiate your statements or walk them back

You have chosen disrespect instead. I will not respond in kind I will however calmly and accurately dissect your divisive actions from the weekend on today's dividing line

This was this morning to which he responded ma 'am That's all you're ever really looking for is some fodder for the

DL If I ever thought you'd have a fair and honest engagement without twisting things

I'd engage you But as I've said before you're almost in a league by yourself for mangling

Understandings so have at it to which

I said, would you I said if I recall I said was I would ask you to substantiate

That as well, but given that you have not chosen to substantiate any of the allegations you've made so far

We'll go from there so one of us Can quote the other provide documentation?

Any other just throws out the accusations and when challenged? Yeah So the

BD if you think you can defend the argumentation that All the signers of that statement

Should have been not only watching Fox News over the weekend or MSNBC you might prefer that or CNN or something else and Hanging on every word and believing every

Report that comes in in those first few hours, which are normally completely fallacious But if you want to defend that idea and that therefore we should be on our social media feeds

Virtue signaling to the whole world. This is a terrible horrible thing because How could the world know?

I mean the world might think that we think it's wonderful Because we've consistently said that in the past If you want to try to defend any of this stuff

Given what you just said right there. You wouldn't be willing to do it. I'm willing to schedule a time I'm gonna travel this week, but we'll do it next week if you really think that your original series of tweets was fair and Defensible for what they said at that time.

Don't try to don't try to walk it back now. It's too late Then let me know

Everybody's been saying well, we just need to have there needs to be give -and -take here. Okay but what there can't be and what there will not be is

Well, you know, let's just let's just respect one another and let's just let each other's arguments go

No, the Beatty's arguments were false. They are untruthful. They are illogical they violate the fundamental rules of truthfulness and consistency and debate and they are inappropriate for a

Christian That's a fact that can't change we can't gloss over that with nice warm feelings for one another

That was wrong to do period. It's all there is to it.

It's all there is to it This isn't this isn't what color is that dress?

Well, you know, I don't know or what can I hear? Well, it depends how old you're older. No, it's it's none of those things

This is a matter of whether we can identify Truthful argumentation and reasoning and false argumentation and reasoning or not and sadly the conclusion

I'm coming to for many people who even call themselves Christians today is Yeah, it's just a matter of opinion.

Just a matter of opinion Well, they're not gonna be doing too well in the apologetic realm if they actually do

Believe that so there you go I think

You know as I've looked at the individuals out there, I mean obviously What the

BD doesn't understand is nine months from now 12 months from now

I Will hear I will see people saying things well, you know like the

BD demonstrated you're a white supremacist and I'll go What?

Well, you know remember when when you didn't say anything you did injustice in regards to the synagogue shooting

That's what I get That's what I get. And when people well, you should just You should you should just you know, be gracious.

I Think being truthful is being gracious and I just simply ask how many times was

I? Disrespected insulted slandered dismissed By the

BD on your Billy right there and I didn't respond by Saying anything other than I'm gonna take your arguments apart man, because I'm holding you to the same standard that I thought we shared together

Evidently that's changed too because the BD has changed a lot since 2006 2008 it's changed a lot and That's what's happening here, too.

So there you go Didn't expect to go this long wanted to be done by four o 'clock, but I didn't so there you go

But I think rather thoroughly went through that material Rather fully

I let him I read a lot of stuff from him You can judge it for yourself as to whether I was fair in my response to it

So right now the plan is to be back on Wednesday because as I said quick trip this so this weekend

So be back on Wednesday Lord willing and we'll see you then Oh Okay, well, um,

I Don't really know anything about this, but I guess right now if you

Like go to our web store and stuff or if you've set us up because I know

I have a setup as my Amazon smile thing Most of us use

Amazon. It's just too easy to use not to and I have

Alpha Omega as my Amazon smile donor and it's normally a pretty small percentage but I guess for a through Friday The Amazon smile thing is ten times the normal amount

Who knew All right, the links at a omen org so I Unfortunately bought a

Lens for my camera last week and that would have been that would have been very helpful I wish I had known it was coming, but I didn't so Rich wanted me to let you know about that.

And and once again, thank you. Thank you very very much thank you very very much for the Fuji shoes and And that's very encouraging.