March 7, 2006

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Matthew 23 in Context and the Charge of Eisegesis

That is phone number 877 -753 -3341, a toll-free number available all across the United States. It always interests me that there are so many who, behind a keyboard, are so brave and so strong in their denunciations of yours truly and other people of like-minded beliefs, but when it comes to this time on a Tuesday morning or on a Thursday afternoon, for some reason, all of a sudden, they need to be taking their cats to have their teeth flossed and their dogs need a walk and they need to check the air pressure on their tires and just amazing how, at that particular point in time, they can't find the time to pick up a phone and dial that number, especially since we have a long history.

You can listen to the dividing line. You can listen to Pierre. Pierre has called in over and over and over again over the years and we've never put Pierre on hold and just lectured him or anything like that.

And we have a long history of treating people who do call, as rare as that might be, and disagree with respect and getting things accomplished. And yet, for some odd and strange reason, you get these folks and they are just so brave behind keyboards, they just, you know, will rip and snort and they'll just really talk about how they've got it all figured out.

But for some odd reason, for a lot of folks, you know, for a lot of folks who do what I do, I'm one of the most easily accessible people around, aren't I? I mean, twice a week, live, call in, here we are.

And yet, for some odd reason, they don't want to call in and point these things out. There's a fellow who's started running around the blogosphere just recently named, he calls himself Charles. Don't know who he is.

I've tried to look for a profile and stuff. There's nothing there. You know, anonymous folks are easy. But, you know, maybe he's come up with something, I don't know. But he has started a rather sad little blog.

I say sad because, you know, everyone has a right to put up a blog and to say what they want to say. But when you're addressing theological issues, especially when you claim to be a Christian, I think personally we have a much higher standard that we need to not only hold ourselves to, but it should be natural for us to be held to a higher standard.

And this particular fellow, you know, I think if you have to be anonymous, that says enough right there about where you're coming from. I would really be shocked if the phone were ever to ring and this man were to call.

I just, I get the, after a number of years now, you start to, you know, develop sort of a profile of these types of folks. And he's put up a blog. And I was just looking at what he posted for Saturday, March 4th.

James White's Eisegesis of Matthew 23, 37, part one of three. So we haven't gotten all of it yet. This is just part one. And when you use Wikipedia as your source for explaining what Eisegesis is versus exegesis, that's not a good place to start.

But looking at it, I just I was immediately amazed. Do these folks just not think that anyone is is capable of thinking through what they're saying? I, I, it just amazes me. He, he quotes Matthew 23, 37, and at least thankfully, he does not do what what Dave Hunt does regularly.

And what so many others do regularly in miss citing it. And that's nice. And it's not it's not found. It's actually quoted from a translation of the King James. That's good. Good thing. At least for me, I have to fight that battle in this particular context.

But he calls Matthew 23, 37. He doesn't quote the rest of the chapter or anything like that. And that's all right. Problem is doesn't actually make reference to where this appears. And that's going to be one of the major problems here, of course, for for anonymous Charles.

Charles, the brave, cites it and says the verse is so simple, even a child can understand it. Well, yeah, that's true. Just like a child can understand John 6, 37. However, hopefully we would teach our children to read Matthew 23, 37 in its context.

And of course, Matthew 23, 37 is at the end of a very lengthy diatribe on the part of the Lord. And hopefully our children, we would teach them that you do not interpret the end of a lengthy diatribe without any reference to what came before it.

And Matthew 23 is one of those passages that people today don't like a lot. They don't like it because of the fact that it's very politically incorrect in a post Holocaust world. What Jesus says about the Jewish leadership here is extremely unpopular.

That's why it doesn't even appear in many modern works on the subject of first century Judaism, because it's just considered to be out of bounds and it can't really explain anything to us as to what what the Jews really believed, so on and so forth.

And so it's just dismissed. And so I'd like to read the context first, since Charles, the brave, forgot to do so. Beginning at verse 13 of Matthew chapter 23,. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people.

For you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Please just notice that just right at the beginning of the woes, what's the first woe? What is the first word of judgment that is brought against?

Oh, by the way, Charles doesn't like this kind of exegesis. I guess this is what makes it is Jesus, because I'm actually explaining the context. He doesn't like the fact that you'd actually go in depth and and talk a lot about context and things like that.

He just wants to go with the child can understand. Let's not worry about the rest of stuff. So I may be, you know, missing his his mark for being a true exegete by going through this and and pointing out themes, context, things like that.

That just gives you an idea, I think, of where some people are coming from. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. For you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

So the very first woe is one that differentiates between the scribes and Pharisees who are hypocrites and someone else. These these people, these people who who are entering in the scribes and Pharisees are trying to stop them.

They're trying to hinder them. Notice that's the very first woe. Keep that in mind. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses and for a pretense you make long prayers.

Therefore, you receive greater condemnation. Sexual variant there. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte. And when he comes becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Woe to you, blind guides who say whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing. But whoever swears by the gold, the temple is obligated. You fools and blind men, which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?

And whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing. But whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated. You blind men, which is more important, the offering of the altar that sanctifies the offering?

Notice what he's doing. He is clearly making reference to common statements, common assertions of the scribes and the Pharisees in their teaching of the people. And he is demonstrating the foolishness of this type of thinking.

Therefore, whoever swears by the altar swears both by the altar and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears both by the temple and by him who dwells within it. And whoever swears by heaven swears both by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you tithe mint and dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law, justice and mercy and faithfulness. And these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

You blind guides, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.

You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Now, of course, again, these would be extremely offensive words, because these were people who prided themselves in their scrupulosity, in their scruples of keeping every little bit of the law, of washing the hand and one hand going over the other hand at the right time and in the right way, in the right order and all these things.

And to say that you're full of dead men's bones, which, of course, go back to the Old Testament law, and you discover that those who, for example, were defiled by the touching of the dead body or by the touching of bones would be put outside the camp for a period of time, etc., etc.

So, what they're saying is, even though you've made the outside look very, very good, you're very scrupulous in your observation of the law, yet inwardly you're actually defiled, absolutely defiled. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.

I'm sorry, back up verse 28. So, you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous and say, if we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.

Please note, just in passing, that in the context leading up to verse 37, these Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees, these individuals are said, here's the context, something about the blood of the prophets, shedding the blood of the prophets, the prophets had been sent and they say, we wouldn't have been involved in killing them.

But Jesus says, so you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of the guilt of your fathers, you serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes. Who is this being sent to? The brood of vipers, right? The leaders? Okay, there's a reason why I'm emphasizing this. It's something that Charles the Brave missed in his own quote-unquote exegesis of the text, and we'll see that when we look at what he said.

Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

And if you look at that particular passage, it's one of those important passages in regards to Old Testament canon issues and all the rest of that stuff we won't get into right now, but that would basically be Genesis to 2 Chronicles, which was the canon at the time, 2 Chronicles being the last in the Hebrew order of the canon.

Truly, truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. And so here's the context. There's what leads up to Matthew 23, 37. There's what wasn't found anywhere in Charles' first section.

He makes reference to my book, The Potter's Freedom, and he does better, thankfully, than Dr. Geisler did, in that he gives the right page numbers in The Potter's Freedom as to where this appears. So if you may not be aware of what I'm referring to there, but I was referring to the fact that in the appendix provided by somebody, I to this day do not believe that it was written by Norman Geisler.

He's responsible for it, of course, in his book, but I don't believe it was written by Norman Geisler. I believe it was written by undergraduate students. It was quotations from undergraduate papers that were sort of sewn together into one mess of things that make Gail Ripplinger's writings look coherent.

And I went through all that a number of years ago. You can still, I imagine, get the dividing lines where I did that, and of course there's an article on the website that documents all of this. If you think those are harsh words, wait until you actually read the fact that the majority of the page references in the appendix aren't even correct.

It's just amazing. I've never honestly seen anything put out in any way, shape, or form that was that bad. It was just that bad. Yes, it's the exact same appendix that Dr. Kainor has been recommending to folks.

It's just like, okay, you recommend it. There's going to be some of those folks that are going to take the time to read my response and go, oh, my goodness. And that's all the documentation I sent to Dr. Kainor, which he has always ignored and never responded to.

Well, anyways, he gets the pages, right? Pages 136 through 139. And what are some of the things that I point out in this section? I said the first fact to ask Kainor in examining a passage of scripture is context, which we just did.

This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews. I think we've established that. Matthew 23 contains the strongest enunciations of scribes and Pharisees in all the Gospels, and I don't think there's anyone who would argue that point either.

Who, then, is Jerusalem? In the text, Jerusalem, Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Who, then, is Jerusalem? It is assumed by Arminian writers, and maybe by a few Armenians, too, but pretty much just by Arminian writers, that Jerusalem represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work and the will of Christ.

And is that not the normal utilization of the text? It is the normal utilization of the text. You just quote it. You skip the children part. You skip the context. You skip the fact that this is the end of a lengthy condemnation, and you just read into it, Well, actually, I'm going to assume that the gathering here means gathering for eternal salvation.

I'm going to assume that even though the context is not a satirological context in regards to the cross or faith or, you know, like John 6 or John 8 or John 10 or John 3, I'm going to ignore all of that.

I'm going to assume these contexts, and I'm just going to cite this verse out of its context, and this proves, to use the words of Charles the Brave here, this verse annihilates, annihilates the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace and unconditional election.

Annihilates it. Both of them. Now, of course, we might stop a second and say, how does it annihilate unconditional election? I mean, if it was God who chose these people, and maybe he didn't choose these people, and they were not, I mean, it doesn't really actually directly address that, but Charles is a little confused on a lot of things like that.

And so, anyways, it annihilates the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace and unconditional election. That's what we're being told. And so, raise the question, who is Jerusalem? But upon what warrant, I ask, do we leap from Jerusalem to individual Jews?

The context of that lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is to them that he refers here. This is clearly seen in that, one, it is to the leaders that God sent prophets.

Is that not what we read? Is that not what verse 37 says? Then we backed up in the context, and it was the leaders who were saying, oh, we wouldn't have killed the prophets, we wouldn't have killed the prophets, and yet, does not Jesus say you testify against yourselves?

The context established that, right? Yeah. Okay. Number two, it was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them. Yep, that's true. Number three, Jesus speaks of your children, differentiating those to whom he is speaking from those the Lord desired to gather together.

And number four, the context refers to Jewish leaders, scribes, and Pharisees. None of these are actually really, I think, questionable issues, but I will be taking the task out of context, of course.

And we'll see that in just a moment when we expose Charles' misuse and misreading of things. So I continue to say, a vitally important point to make here is that the ones who the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who were not willing.

Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children, that they, the leaders, would not allow him to gather. Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminians seeking to establish freewillism.

The children of the leaders would be the Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The you would not, then, is referring to the same men indicated by the context, the Jewish leaders who were unwilling to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ.

This verse, then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23 .13. And what is Matthew 23 .13? That's the beginning of the woes. So what do we have here? We have something called book-ending.

It's very common. John uses it in the prologue, for example, where you have a statement at the beginning, and then you restate it in another way at the end, and this sums up your discourse. And what was Matthew 23 .13?

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people, for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. So this is the commentary that I offered in the chapter on the Big Three, Matthew 23 .37, 1 Timothy 2 .4, 2 Peter 3 .9.

So let's go to Charles the Brave. And he talks about Gil's comments on this, and 1 ,500 words that Gil used, and that's nice and, of course, utterly irrelevant. Anyway, Gil and White argue that Jerusalem, Jerusalem refers not to all of Jerusalem, but only to the Jewish leaders.

The children were not unwilling. Only the leaders of Jerusalem were unwilling. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders and is not speaking to all of Jerusalem. Well, yes, he clearly is differentiating between those Jewish leaders, scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites, beginning at verse 13 all the way to verse 37.

That's the context. And, of course, if that's going to be attacked, then we're going to have to deal with the entirety of the context. Now, here is the first bit of refutation approving of my eisegesis reading into the text.

Their reasoning, White gives four points. We'll examine the first point today and look at the others at a later date. White's reason number one, it is to the leaders that God sent prophets. Now, let me back up the truck here and remind you of what I had actually said so you can examine for yourself and see exactly how these folks work.

What I wrote at the end of, bottom of page 137, beginning of page 138. The context would not lead us to conclude that this, how do you make the leap? But upon what warrant do we leap from Jerusalem to individual Jews?

The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders and it is to them that he refers here. This is clearly seen in that, number one, it is to the leaders that God sent prophets.

Now, stop. Did I say that there was never any time in the Old Testament where prophets were sent to anybody but Jewish leaders? And is there anyone who would think I was saying that if you read the text in context?

Not only my context, but is it not clear what I'm referring to? If you read Matthew 23, how many times in the preceding verses do you have the reference to prophets being sent to these individuals and they being held accountable for their blood?

It's right there. There's entire verses right in the immediate context. But Charles doesn't read the immediate context. The immediate context is irrelevant at this point. You just got to defend the world against Calvinism and so how we would normally treat the text on any other subject becomes irrelevant.

So, listen to what Charles says. He quotes just that one reason, and there were four that I gave. These are all contextually. It is to the leaders that God sent prophets. That's the immediate conversation right before this.

Read it yourself. Number two, it was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them. Number three, Jesus speaks of your children, differentiating those to whom he is speaking from those the Lord desired to gather together.

And number four, the context refers to Jewish leaders, scribes, and Pharisees. Okay? Nothing really controversial there unless you just don't want to hear what the text is saying. And so here's Charles' commentary.

When I read this, I almost fell off my chair laughing. I'm sorry, fell out of my chair laughing. White says that God sent the prophets to the leaders and not to the people. The Bible says otherwise. Now, wait a minute.

I never said that. White says that God sent the prophets to the leaders and not the people. No, I didn't say that. I said in this context, the Lord was talking about his having sent prophets to the leaders.

He's not talking about any other ministry of prophets here. There is one context, the context of his holding the leaders accountable for the blood shed from Abel to Zechariah, son of Berekiah, and he is saying that these Jewish leaders, these Jewish leaders will be held accountable.

Is that not what the text says? Is that not the context? And so what does he do? He takes that, misrepresents what I said, assumes something that no logical or rational person would have thought that I would have said, and then starts quoting from Ezekiel 33 or Jeremiah 19 or Daniel, da-da-da-da-da, and closes with, White should put away John Gill and read the Old Testament.

He might learn something. James White, color him Old Testament handicapped. And that's it. There's the end of it. That's the demonstration of eisegesis on the part of Charles the Brave. Now, I would invite Charles to call.

I would. Open invitation, Charles. I'm going to invite you to call this program. We'll do an entire program. I'm leaving tomorrow. I'm going to be ministering down in Alabama near the University of Auburn.

I'll be speaking on the uniqueness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ for some folks there that have been invited, and I'm going to be talking about the Da Vinci Code and a bunch of stuff over the course of this next week down there in Alabama.

And I apologize that I haven't put that up on the blog the way I needed to, but we were still putting stuff together right up to the last moment. And I think it's graceheritagechurch .org, I think. I'll try to get something up just in case some of you would like to try to make some of that.

I'll be preaching Sunday there at the church there. So I won't be here Thursday, but Lord willing, back and hopefully in one piece on next Tuesday. And, Charles, I would love to have you on the program to dialogue directly about Matthew 23, 37.

I would like to give you that. You can say to everybody, all the people listening, here's a wonderful opportunity for you to prove your point, to be able to demonstrate that I can't respond to this compelling argumentation about your falling out of your chair laughing and my being Old Testament handicapped.

Let's find out. Maybe you'll be one of the very first of these folks who, as I said, are so brave behind the keyboard, just so willing to throw this stuff out there and get a few little followers. But for some reason, when it comes to my offering you the opportunity of actually interacting with me, for some reason people won't do it.

I wonder why that is. Could it be that you lack the courage of your convictions? Could it be you know that you can't answer the questions that would be asked of you? Could it be you know these things?

If so, then why are you doing what you're doing? It's dishonest. Amazing, amazing point. Looking at the comments here real quickly, someone patted Charles in the back. Excellent post, he says. By the way, I like your point about James White being Old Testament handicapped.

That's the problem with Calvinists. They don't seem to meditate on the entire book of Scripture. You know, it's been my experience, actually, that it's Reformed churches that tend to actually spend the most time with the Old Testament.

I think it's my church that reads through the entirety of the Old Testament on Sunday evenings and in fact preaches. In fact, right now, if I recall correctly, I believe we're preaching through the book of Numbers.

Yes, Numbers in the evenings. We still have evening services, by the way, at our church. Yeah, that's very interesting. It applies to both Testaments and to Calvinists. There's a real problem in Genesis with Cain.

We clearly see God seeking out a lost man. They call Cain totally depraved, which is not a Bible term. Do you think they know that? Oh, James White is a bully. Nice blog. Can't wait for Parts 2 and 3.

James White is a bully. Glad to see you see him taking him on. I guess that was Werner Schmidt that said that. I guess if you suggest to people that they might want to actually dialogue and debate and actually have things going back and forth to where you actually have to answer direct questions based on the text, that that makes you a bully.

Ah, interesting. Well, reading some of this stuff is very, very, very interesting. No two ways about it. White's skills, eisegesis. It's going to be interesting. It's nice to at least see somebody trying to interact because when they do interact, when they actually say, well, let's look at the text, doesn't the text continually demonstrate its truthfulness?

Are we not able to demonstrate over and over again the reality of what the text is saying? And it only clarifies it. That's a good thing. That's a nice thing to see. Well, anyway, so someone might want to say to Charles eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one.

There's a phone number. That's the number you can call. And we'll be we'll be waiting for you, Charles. And we'll be waiting for these. Of course, if you want to try to repair this first one, that might be a good might want to be a good idea before going on the second one, because you need a little something more than just simply saying you fell out of your chair and a few little snide personal remarks.

That's not exegesis, Charles. That doesn't help you any. Really, what you might want to try to do is go back and now demonstrate where I said anything like what you said I said. That would be the first thing you need to do.

And then you need to deal with the context. You need to deal with the immediate context. And then we can we can move on from there. But you're really you start off in the wrong foot. You've sort of fallen over right at the start.

So you might want to go back and fix that. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one. We'll take your phone calls right after this break. We'll be right back.

Trinity, the Forgotten Trinity, and the Roman Catholic Controversy

Do your best and nothing less to be blessed. Try to save your soul from death. It's all works righteousness, you know. Can I manufacture grace myself in some religious place by weeping hard on your face, saying prayers to some dead saints?

You know, the Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, the Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity.

Dr. John MacArthur, senior pastor of Grace Community Church, says James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike. Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at aomin .org.

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the papacy, the Mass, purgatory and indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself. They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

Calls with Pierre on Scripture, Authority, and Context

And welcome back to the Dividing Line. We have just completed looking at a blog entry by Charles the Brave. We didn't use his real name, but he's one of those anonymous type guys. We'll just refer to him as Charles the Brave.

He started spamming various blogs a couple of weeks ago. And so now he's started his own little blog. And at least, you know, like I said, he quoted Matthew 23, 37 correctly. And I think that's a step in the right direction.

Wow, boy, when that's something that's good, you know that you're dealing with some difficult things. 877 -753 -341 is the phone number. And that's the number that I guess Pierre heard me mention him.

And it had been a while, Pierre, but you called in anyways.

Yeah, I was planning to call you anyway before you brought up my name. Oh, well, there you go. Because of the conversation last podcast. On what subject was that? I think that was the one with Dave Hunt.

Oh, yes, good old Dave and his other gentleman. Anyway. Oh, T .A. McMahon. T .A. McMahon, I guess. Yes. Yeah, I'm really not sure that Dave would be overly excited by the fact that he keeps causing an LDS fellow to call in.

I think he would. Have you ever talked to Dave?

I never have. Ah, you ought to. No, I'm sure he would not, but I guess it's an interest of mine. And particularly since I really feel that you have misunderstood the scriptures and you have misapplied them.

Not that I have any, although I did at first, any idea that I'm going to somehow convert you.

Well, we just sort of let the listeners decide who's handling the scriptures correctly and who isn't. And I think, Pierre, most of the time we end up going back to the fact that the scriptures aren't your final authority.

I mean, you have other scriptures. I think that the, yes, well, I mean, the scriptures certainly are an authority. But they're not your final authority. The final authority, of course, for us as Latter-day Saints is the living without question.

Right. And so fundamentally exegesis is not going to lead to the true meaning of the text. The true meaning of the text for you is going to be determined by whatever the current prophet and apostles say it is, even if that changes over time.

That's why I said that fundamentally when you get right down to it, that's why we always end up disagreeing. I can show you all the reasons in the world why your interpretation violates the context, but since that's not your final authority.

Well, I'm not really relying on that. I'm not even looking at what the apostles and prophets said. I'm just looking actually at just the text of the scriptures as they're presented to us. And it has to do with the way you decide what certain words mean to you.

And, of course, the blogger that you quoted on your own blog, I guess he was sending you e-mails. Yes. Having the cart pull the horse type thing, which I think is what actually... I'm not sure what you're referring to, Pierre.

I'm sorry. Just a couple of days ago, he made a statement that basically what you're doing is you're putting the cart before the horse. Meaning to say that you have decided that Calvinism is true, and therefore whenever you run into a scripture that runs contrary, you find a way to word things so that it changes the meaning of scripture.

What you have, in essence, is a misogynistic contortion of scripture. Right.

Right, which the only way to prove that actually is for people to interact, and that way I can challenge them and say, okay, if that's what you're accusing me of, all right, here are the lexical sources.