The Ludicrous, Yet Fully Accurate, Charge of Marcionism, and Austin Fischer's Opening

And welcome to the dividing line on uh let's see. It's tuesday isn't it. Yes. But we're doing it in the afternoon and i don't know what's going to happen the rest of the week because i'm heading out of town uh tomorrow morning thursday night friday night and sunday morning we'll be speaking on church history doctrines dates and dead guys is the um tale of the um that that'll just pack the place out.

Let me tell you if you if you just want to have you know i'm in it for the money folks. And uh i just you know the big crowds um you know we almost uh we had to try to find some places as big as joel osteen's place uh because we're talking about early church history and i i if we might we might have two dozen people.

We might we might get two dozen people. Was that joe osteen or joel. Yeah joe osteen um who. Um the lesser lesser known younger brother of joel um but yeah we um we're out there going for the big big bucks anyway we i i hope um if you if you take the time up there in boulder to to come out on thursday night and friday night uh to make it worth your while and uh to keep your interest because obviously i think church history is rather important and um it's nice to know where we came from and um i'm obviously convinced that you can't really make heads or tails out of the weirdness going on uh in the world today um if you don't know something about how we got to where we are and that is a real problem a real problem with most of the people in our uh in our nation today is uh they don't know anything about history.

But anyways so that means i will not be here on thursday and i don't know what's gonna be going on on thursday. Have you uh you don't know what's going on either. Okay so maybe something maybe not have to watch the blog facebook twitter stuff like that um but i don't know i don't know uh but we'll be back next week and wow i didn't have my calendar up here but uh the trusty computer should bring it up fairly quickly um yeah we got two weeks after that pretty much straightforward and then boop then uh uh i'm actually gonna be doing my first um non-stop flight from phoenix uh to uh heathrow never done that before um i've always done the bleep bleep thing um and sometimes bleep and then bleep bleep like we did back in february like uh get to the airport um land at the airport airport close uh get to another airport um have the plane have hydraulic fluid shooting all over the place and it lands uh oh that was this this trip should go nice and smooth because that one was just that was ugly that was just ugly uh so so the camera's working so i can say hi to the westcott kids.

Hi kids how you doing the westcott and hort kids actually um yeah i don't think westcott and hort were married. No that was uh they were anglicans but that was a different century thankfully so there wasn't any problem there anyway.

Um so anyways two weeks so the 15th to the 19th the 22nd the 26th we're good and then uh the next week we head for south africa and so obviously we continue uh to ask uh especially for your uh prayers support for all of us uh south africa.

Um there's uh lots to be done. I don't think i'm there as long this time and that's good because i think rudolph said that i've got like um five debates seven lectures in six days so um however that works out um there there you go uh okay this morning this morning this morning i've started using evernote now and uh it's really cool and uh you can just throw everything into into one thing and thanks to the person who a couple weeks ago said i expect to see this on your ministry resources.

Yeah i got the um the new and i've discovered the new pen that i got will record mp3. I didn't think that it would so i've got a backup now i'm still gonna use the other one for the mp3 because it's got a little bit more opening for really doing the recording part but this one will do it too um and uh so that's pretty cool.

So i'll have two different ways of getting that uh during debates and stuff. But this is the pen that allows me to be writing in a journal and it goes straight to my ipad and then i i got this working real fast.

You just select these snippets and then just swipe on your ipad and it converts it to text immediately and it it did not it did not miss a single word in my test in the test writing that i did converting my handwriting.

Of course i i print i don't handwrite. So um that's sort of how that works anyways. But it does a good job converting it and that's really neat because i've got some projects where it would actually be easier for me to be writing notes than typing notes just simply because the sources that i'm working on that's gonna be really really neat um but i don't even know how i got on that.

Um oh i was just thanking somebody from twitter uh for for directing me to that for all the abuse i take on twitter and all the people i've had to block there have been some good things that have come through there.

I i it's easy to get um cynical and negative i think sometimes and just yeah i just want to turn it all off because of all the stupidity and sometimes facebook is okay. Yeah yeah yeah well i i know what's going on in my kids lives now uh there you go i told you you know facebook's all right and i should i should put up on facebook that i'm completely pixelated on my uh on my monitor up there um and uh i see an arrow going around up there anyway uh it was on um facebook this morning.

No no no no no no uh it was on my feedly i have a feedly feed and i saw roger olson's response. Um and uh what is martianism. My response to a ludicrous now remember we're not talking about warp speed.

We're talking about ludicrous speed. My response to a oh no we'll get somebody to complain about that too. Did you know we had somebody complain that i've mentioned um star trek he doesn't live in a monosteady.

Wow. Okay. Well anyway no we never did get the borg cube. I'm a little i'm a little bummed about that. I i'm i'm hoping that the folks that said they were gonna do that didn't have problems or you know their car got totaled or you know things like that happened.

But i'm i'm gonna have to look for that that link because i'm gonna have to go wash a few cars or something because i that borg cube would still just be really really cool. Right there that's that's where it's got to go is because the tribble is holding the spot down.

Right there see the treble. There's anyhow roger olson responded uh to the ludicrous accusation that he's a uh that he's a martianite. And here's what he had to say. Um it has recently come to my attention that some some critics some critics are accusing me of martianism.

A few commentators have thrown that wild accusation at me based on my suggestion my questioning the literal interpretation of some old testament text of tariff. Once again i i don't understand why dr olson won't just come clean here.

Let's just be honest. This isn't about interpretation. It's about the nature of the text. Hello. We haven't been clear upon this. This isn't a matter of interpretation. This isn't a matter of well you take it literally.

And i take it uh less than literally. What you're saying is what you said in the comm box comments back and forth that we read rather extensively last time. Uh dr olson uh is that the hebrews accurately recorded their thoughts about god.

Now that's real obvious what you're saying what you're saying is that the nature of the text is not the honest us. It's not god breathe. It's men's thoughts about god. Which is why you can go. Well you know my god would never do that.

And if you look at these through the lens of jesus which you pretend you can create out of whole cloth. I mean i say to you there is no lens of jesus without the god-breathed tanakh the torah the nevi 'im and the ketuvim.

None of the new testament writers would have had any concept of what you're talking about. Not a one. You show me one dr olson one that viewed the old testament scriptures the way you do. Just one. Show me some evidence.

Give me some evidence from the new testament. Dr olson that the new testament writers said well you know you know that old testament stuff. Uh you know they were just accurately recording what they were thinking about god.

That's that's how matthew viewed it. Right. You know when he quotes jesus saying have you not read what was spoken to you by god saying this. And that's certainly what peter meant when he said men spoke from god as they were carried along by the holy spirit.

Um oh no you're saying they weren't speaking from god. Um but that they were accurately reflecting their thoughts about god. But you're saying that their thoughts were inaccurate because god didn't ever tell them to be the instrument of punishment against these nations.

So just be straight up about this and that that's one of the things that you know i wanted to point out here. And we will get to austin fisher. We have we have the technology. We have the time. We don't have six million dollars.

But we have the technology. Oh no i did it again. Oh man well you gotta answer all these emails. I don't i don't have that. You don't even send them to me. If you didn't mention them in channel or something like that i'd never even know.

So i'm just gonna i'm not even gonna worry myself anyway i'm gonna get to austin fisher. But look folks on one on one level i i sort of i sort of feel badly for roger olson. I do. Um the reality is that in the the spectrum of well this shirt is really um all frumply i just looked up the thing went.

Wow have you ever ever even met an iron. Uh just just the way it's going that's a little bit better. Yeah uh that's that's slightly better uh but anyway um in the broad spectrum of the theological realm roger olson is a is a raging conservative which only tells you how completely whacked the theological realm is because i've had roger olson in my uh apologetics feed for a number of years and that's where i have the roman catholics and all sorts of other folks too um in other words i'm not he's not in the feed of folks on my side because i've read his stuff and he's way off to my left and he's his view of scripture is very very very different from yours and mine.

The most of the people that would watch this program or listen to this webcast but you and i i hope recognize what a small tribe we are and that especially when it comes to the old testament uh the number of people that accept the old testament for what the old testament proclaims itself to be for what the tanakh the torah the net never even the ketevim to use the more standard uh terminology amongst uh jews for the hebrew scriptures the the number of of scholars and just people in general that actually accept that for what it says it is knowledgeably understanding its background history history and things like that.

Pretty small group pretty small group. And so we need to keep that in mind. And i think the reason that so many of us have responded to olson i mean he did that series you know you know why i'm not a calvinist why i'm not an arminian with michael horton and they went out and did their little you know promo tour at least they would talk dave hunt would never never allow it to happen.

We did our book but um uh the the reality is that um we hold him because of where he teaches which doesn't mean anything anymore. Sorry but teaching at baylor that that's that's irrelevant um or any of the schools associated there with um we we sort of inappropriately hold him to a standard of conservatism that he clearly has denied for a long time.

Um so uh would not a large portion of old testament scholarship be martianite today. Oh yeah you bet you bet they don't believe that god had anything to do with this. They don't believe in the god of the old testament.

They don't believe this inspired scripture. They don't believe that it's trustworthy that it's the honest yeah you bet um the percentage of believing uh scholarship especially in the old testament area area is sadly small.

They're still there. Thanks b for that. But um they will admit that they are very much uh in in the minority. And so i think the only reason that i've been concerned about what brian zond has said or what uh roger olson is saying is because people tend to think that these folks are actually in our camp when the reality is on a fundamental level they're not.

And what this means is um what what it means is this helps us to see the different kinds of arminianism that are out there um the the roger olson arminianism is not the southwestern baptist theological seminary seminary arminianism.

Um there is an arminianism the arminianism that refuses to do what olson and zond are doing in basically saying you know the old testament is uh just men's thoughts. You know they're they're not willing to do that.

Well hopefully at uh southwestern and so that that option of just getting rid of the god of the old testament because i mean reform theology takes all scripture as a whole. You're you're you're recognizing that the new is the fulfillment of the old and and that therefore you have connection you have fulfillment.

You have greater things in the new. Yes but you have the same god through all of this and and you can't do. Oh that's just the god of the old testament. Uh that's just the god of the hebrews the old testament.

And now we've got jesus is now we know better. You can't do that and have a meaningful doctrine of scripture. Some of you remember when i was talking with austin fisher on unbelievable i i said i said austin i don't see i don't see any basis for you to continue to have a meaningfully conservative view of scripture.

Uh the people that are endorsing your book the things that you're saying when you say you're not all upset about open theism etc etc i don't see any basis for you to continue to hold a meaningfully conservative view of scripture a consistent view of scripture.

I came out in this debate. I've i'm afraid i have to go told you so uh pretty obvious didn't take much to tell you that. But but that's exactly what's what's going on here. So what you end up with are the philosophical armenians like olson and others that have clear authorities that are not derived from scripture.

They're derived from their own you know whatever sources they want their pietism or whatever. Um but it's not going to be a it's not even going to really pretend to be biblical. They're they're not going to sit there and try to come up with a an argument from john chapter 6.

It's not going to do it then over the other side the people that remain biblically conservative the fact the matter is their arguments. You can simply take them apart as we've done on this program over and over and over again.

Man we should have just fired up the uh radio free geneva theme for this one. Actually uh same thing. And so you end up with the david allens and their uh and the current southern baptist convention attempts to get around uh original sin and romans 5 and and the strange incoherent theories of atonement that uh where they're stuck they're stuck with with penal substitutionary atonement which is a reformed theology trying to meld that with some kind of denial of the specificity of god's decree of election.

And the result is a mess just a royal mess. And uh so those are two different kinds of of armenianism that you end up with and they are not a whole lot alike. Now you will find some people drawing from from both traditions but they're really very very different in their in their mindset and in and in where they're coming from.

So uh that's what we see here in uh in in roger roger olson. So um let me at least address this and we'll get to austin fisher. Um anyone who throws that accusation me is either ignorant of what i have said or ignorant of the meaning of martianism or both.

Actually neither as we will see by all credible accounts marshy on the second century christian heretic after whom the heresy martianism is named did two things that defy his heresy. First he proposed a christian canon of scriptures that exclude all the hebrew scriptures our old testament and many of the apostles writings.

His truncated canon included only portions of what we now call the new testament that he considered purely gentile and not hebrew. The reason for this was he viewed the god of the old testament as a demiurge which is the point he gets to next.

Second he denied that the hebrew god the god of the hebrew scriptures was the god and father of our lord jesus christ. Instead he argued that the god as he would put it the hebrews was a demi-urge a demented or evil demi-deity.

Now the specific motivation from our shown is gnosticism dualism uh the the the god of the pure god of the gnostic worldview could not create material which is evil. So you've got the the eons the play roma finally have a demi-urge.

It's still a divine being but far enough removed from the pure god to be able to create uh the uh physical world. And that's what that's what yahweh ends up being. Martianism is by all credible accounts a denial of the inspired status of the old testament.

Um yeah status of the old test. I'm not sure why i use that type of terminology but it is a denial that what you have in the tanakh is god breathed coming from the one true god of all of creation. Now the motivation from our shown is different from that of olson.

But the result's the same. If olson tells us that god did not command these things and that what and the reason for this is that this is simply the hebrews learning about their god then the nature of the tanakh is human.

It's human. Jesus never taught that none of the new testament apostles taught that. That's a modern teaching. Well okay modern teaching in the form that's taking right now to try to avoid the problems of biblical theology.

But it's a it is a denial that the hebrew scriptures are the honest us. And that's what olson's talk. He wants to try to avoid saying this out loud. But let's just be honest if what he is saying if the words he's used mean anything then what he's saying is the reason we can get around these texts of terror which is simply another way of saying that god actually used his covenant people in a few incident instances as the means of his punishment of sinners.

But the way around that is to say no god never did that the hebrews thought god wanted him to do that. And so what you have as god speaking and commanding in the new in the old testament is not god speaking commanding at all but what follows from that.

Because if that's true then what the hebrews did was terrible and horrible and wrong. And the god they attributed it to would be like a demiurge. Wouldn't he. Yeah i would think so. So number two. A denial of belief in the true deity of the yahweh of the hebrew religion.

However in popular usage the term has come to be applied to any denial of the old testament as not equally inspired with the new testament. Well equally inspired as what you have. A you have a range here.

I mean it's either theanoustas or it isn't. It's either god speaking or it's not. And there isn't any question about what the new testament writers thought about this. None. In other words uh the german christians the 1930s were martianites.

Whether they knew it or not insofar as they rejected the old testament is inspired. Well 1930s. Uh german rationalism goes way before that. Uh yeah german liberalism british liberalism american liberalism french liberalism whatever it is.

Uh definitely uh joins with martian in denying the full inspiration of the tanakh. No question about that that's just sort of a given. Um what might make it a little bit more relevant is that at least they were claiming to be christians whereas it might be irrelevant to call an atheist a martianite who denies the inspiration doesn't believe there's a god.

So anyway then he says the issue here that i've raised for consideration discussion has never been whether the old testament or any portion of inspired baloney. I'm sorry i'm losing i'm losing what little respect i had for roger olson because he just won't face the issue here.

That's exactly what the issue is. Exactly what the issue is. If you're going to sit there and tell your readers that what you have in the old testament is the jewish people learning about yahweh and stumbling and failing and committing genocide by mistake in the process.

Don't tell me that's inspired. I mean really let's let words have meanings here. Dr olson the issue is and has always and only been hermeneutics. How best to interpret portions the old testament. Really hard to take a professor seriously who can be so dunderheaded when it comes to category mistakes.

I mean really come on man you don't think that the nature of the text is directly related to the very hermeneutical issue that you're raising. I i'm. And and your response to the hermeneutical question is that this wasn't god speaking but the text says it was so.

The only way that answer can have any meaning is that you're denying that it's actually god speaking. And hence is they honest us. I i wow. Um it's amazing. Uh christians have always disagreed about that.

Going back to their church fathers themselves not including martian who was not a church father origin tertullian both wrote against martian. But neither interpret the whole testament literally doesn't matter.

Neither one of them said what you say. Yes origin was out in nana land did tremendous damage. No question about it. But neither one of them had the gall to say what you say roger olson that the old testament text is just the jews learning about their god that it's not the honest us.

It's not god speaking. Uh all the allegorical interpretation of the world is going to take away the fact that you are ultimately addressing the nature and therefore based on the nature making your hermeneutical application.

Um would the critics who accuse me of martianism apply that epithet to all the church fathers who interpreted portions of hebrew scriptures allegorically. I doubt it. No we wouldn't. Because they didn't say what you said.

You're just you're just not honest enough to stand up and say yes. This is the words of man. It's not the word of god. Just be honest about it. Just be straightforward. It's the only way your system makes any sense.

If this is just the hebrews learning about their god and they made some mistakes. Big mistakes. Horrible genocidal mistakes. But mistakes all the same. Then just just be honest about it. Quit ducking it.

You've said it. Just stand up behind it. In fact my opinion as far as their knowledge about church history and theology at all that accusation aimed at me not only misses the mark but his sheer demagoguery.

I've never advocated expelling any part of the old testament for the christian canon. No you've just evidently advocated uh completely changing the nature of the canon from that which is the anastas to that which now includes the mistaken thoughts of man that led to genocide.

Nor have i denied the inspiration of any portions the old testament. What do you mean by inspiration. What's inspired. If this is just the hebrew people learning about god and lying about god by saying well god told us to wipe these people out.

He was we were wrong. They were wrong. God never said it. That's inspired again. Meaningless rhetoric. Meaningless rhetoric. Um and i will say it again nobody takes every part of the old testament literally again uh confusion of categories.

In fact in my view taking the old testament text of terror literally contributes to the problem of implicit practical martianism. Why did martian deny the inspiration hebrew scripture as well. There are almost certainly several reasons.

But one was the old testament text of terror taken literally no they had to do with the fact that he was influenced by gnosticism and dualism and the and the creator the creation being evil the spirit being good.

That was the motivation in my opinion for whatever it's worth the only worthwhile reason even to respond to such a ludicrous accusation is the teachable moment for those open to facts. Well we'll see who's open to facts.

At least one of us will name names and read what the other one's saying uh while the other one uh won't do that because well you know that's just not something that we should be doing. Okay. So there was this morning's very weak very very weak attempt to get around now austin fisher is a student of roger olson.

So we can draw a direct parallel direct line here uh to where austin is getting his ability to do the things that he is uh that he is doing. Um it would be interesting to ask austin now directly uh if he accepts olson's statement uh that the hebrew christians were accurately recording um their thoughts about god rather than these being the actual words of god.

If you can't see what the difference there is and if you play around with ignoring the difference you're just you're not helping anybody and uh you're just being dishonest with the text. So let's um let's get into austin's presentation.

They were talking pretty fast. But they'll be talking faster because i said at one point too it's just it's just the one just the one click just one little thing it's not going to cause any problem. Um it just helps us get through a little bit faster.

So eight minutes only takes about seven and a half minutes. So so yeah that's that helps uh. But let's uh let's start with uh with uh with austin fisher. So uh during my time as a calvinist which was a while i would explain which was a while.

Well of course it was well it was more than 30 seconds uh but again uh austin could you just come straight out because you know he didn't really say in the book. But could you just come straight out how long was it and how old were you.

Because i'll be proving honest with you if you were like 17 to 20 maybe that long. Um strong suggestion here stop calling yourself a former calvinist say you know there was a period of time when i was young that i read john piper and i was enamored with uh with what piper had to say.

And you even read the potter's freedom though interestingly enough you make a number of statements that i refuted in the potter's freedom without refuting the reputation of them that i gave in the potter's freedom which i did also notice you were more willing to use biblical arguments or at least quote scriptures than with me.

You didn't want to quote those scriptures. Me i'm really wondering austin do you really really think that if we got down to the text you could um you could defend the things you're saying right now. Um but my suggestion to you is um i just really think there's something really stretching honesty to represent yourself.

The way you're representing yourself. You were never a reformed theologian. You were never a reformed pastor. Uh as far as i can tell you were never a part of a meaningfully reformed church. Um and the period of time and the age in your life um i mean it really bugs me when i watch the dean show and they have people on who are former christians who are now muslims.

Who were christians for two years. They were christians when they were a teenager in high school they were involved in youth leadership. And now they're being viewed as experts on christianity on the dean show by the muslims.

That bugs me. It also bugs me if i became an armenian. Okay i've got a little cred wrote some books did some debates been a pastor you know stuff like that. Um you just don't have any cred. Sorry you you were never a pastor.

You didn't write anything. And you were just too young for it to be any type of badge on your shoulder. Sorry. I just find it to actually diminish greatly the weight of what you're saying. Because if you even have to make that argument um then it seems you sense that the rest of what you have to say doesn't have nearly as much weight.

Unless you have to prop it up with this. Well i was uh you know no you weren't.

Unconditional predestination like this that before the world existed god decided to choose certain individuals for salvation and then just pass over and leave the rest of humanity in its fallen state.

Now immediately you say boy you haven't even given him 30 seconds. No i have. I can't. Because this debate was lined up in such a way that it it went way too fast way too short a period of time. And you know sometimes that's just the way it is.

But the result was one of the one of the primary issues is that the focus of this debate was completely anthropocentric. I mean that the calvinists tried um but uh the armenians succeeded partly because of the way that the the thesis was stated the two dcs were stated to uh really center the attention upon man.

And that's a problem uh because the reformed understanding is the center the focus the reason for all of this is focused upon god's self-glorification and his own intention. Um so to immediately dodge that and go to well the result of god's having chosen to create in this particular fashion is that there are going to be those who are saved and those who are not um just unfortunately part and parcel of what you deal with when you're dealing with this type of debate and the reform side has to take time to emphasize to people.

And this is this is where again and this this makes perfect sense. When you're talking with people the natural human tendency is to put man in the center. It's not natural for man to come at this go. Well i really want to see what this has to do with god first.

That's not. That's not how man functions. We focus upon ourselves and so it is always the requirement for us to be emphasizing the fact that this has to first and foremost be centered upon god and what god has revealed about himself and that we are but the creatures of god.

That's that's a disadvantage that we have. But um obviously the advantage of being reformed is advantage disadvantage. What does that really mean. The only person who's ever going to come to truly embrace these things is the person whose heart the holy spirit works to open up their eyes to their own true condition to the gracious act of god to the authority of god's word spirit of god.

Doesn't do that anybody's brief flirting with it will be just that brief flirting with it and nothing more. And do not be surprised when you see people who briefly flirted with the truth leaving that truth and embracing something else.

Now it is interesting to me that in the vast majority of instances not every but in the vast majority of instances that i know of where someone has flirted with this once they leave they don't stop at some pretty orthodox conservative position.

And that's what we're seeing here. And that's what we will be seeing here. The the one major failure of this debate is that the real position of austin fisher and brian zahn really wasn't forced out of them.

They they did not have to defend a position. They were only attacking a position. That's easy. That's easy. Um but you know there's gonna be a debate this weekend. Uh no yes saturday that's the that's this weekend the 13th brian zahn's gonna be debating michael brown.

You know what's on substitutionary atonement. Because brian zahn denies it considers it. You know you remember you know the the steve chalk stuff from from england divine child abuse. Yeah that's where.

That's where zahn's coming from. And uh you know the irony of course is that substitutionary penal substitutionary atonement is a reformed doctrine. And michael's going to be defending that. Um so yeah.

Well you know i michael knows that i've i've pressed him on that very issue in our debates. You're inconsistent brother. Um may may the debate help you to see this. It might not sound fair. It usually does it when.

You hear the first time that god chooses some and not others but you've got to remember that everybody deserves hell so those who get it are just getting justice whereas the elect get mercy. And i'm guessing this is probably how daniel and timothy will explain it but they'll get a chance to correct me if i'm wrong.

Um so i think there are some problems there but we'll move on because i think there's some bigger fish to fry. And the rabbit hole goes a little bit deeper because in calvinism it's not that god just permits or allows the fall and then chooses some and leaves others but rather it's that god ordains and god predestines the fall and then chooses some and he.

Likes others. So it's not now listen very carefully to the formation of austin's argument through the inappropriate mixture of categories and use of language. He is going to pretty much reject the idea that there is a prescriptive will of god and that there is the decretal will of god not going to allow that distinction to stand which again is one of the things that requires him eventually i think to adopt a sub-orthodoxy of because reformed theologians didn't run there because they were mishandling the text of scripture they were forced there because there's no other way to understand what scripture is actually saying but to see that distinction that is there.

And so what you're going to hear is an anthropomorphizing of god so that god wants. And that term want is going to be used in the of desire. God wants sin god wants evil as if this comes from some lack on god's part and he desires these things failing to see the distinction between having a holy and just purpose in bringing something to into existence and having something reflect the wants and desires of god in the expression of his holy character.

Um once you did once you don't allow those those biblical passages to stand which again is where you and what we were just talking about with olson is not just an academic exercise. Um it it the the entire reformed understanding is forced upon us by our understanding of revelation itself.

We have to deal with all these texts. We have to apply a consistent hermeneutic because without that then we're stuck exactly where roger olson is pietistically choosing which texts to believe. Which texts not to believe.

Since we won't go there since the new testament writers didn't go there since lord jesus didn't go there. The irony here is that our synergistic friends are going to be talking all about jesus hermeneutic even though they just leave jesus floating out in the in the ether someplace disconnected from history and disconnected from the various scriptures he directed us to.

Um but we don't go there because we simply have a more co the coherent meaningful doctrine of scripture. And and i i don't know how many times i've said over the years. But if you don't have a high view of scripture you're never going to believe the things we believe.

And and my dear reformed brethren don't be overly shocked and surprised when you encounter people who think that what you believe is just horrible because someone who's not under the authority of the word of god is going to think that way.