Caller Driven Show

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. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Acts 16 and the Philippian Jailer’s Household

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. Regularly scheduled time. Yes, we did this just yesterday just over 24 hours ago, I guess but we are back again this time caller driven or tweet driven if you'd like dividing that line on Skype.

8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number or Dr. Oakley 1689 on Twitter in fact start off with a question that was tweeted a number of hours ago by a fellow by the name of Peter would and as soon as I saw that I said would.

Is that like that Pommy the guy down in Sydney? David old and his response was shared a womb at the same time. I think that means they were twins. I think that's Mike. That's my guess. That's biologically that would that would probably be the best guess on that.

So this would be David brother. Who is I guess still in the land of enlightenment? Still in England rather than in exile down under which is where David is. We're not sure exactly what David did deserve that but it's okay because we're gonna try to get back there.

Looking at August of 2011 for the the great Return to Australia. I hope that works out anyway, he had a question and it's. Yeah, you know. It's something about social media that when you only have a hundred and forty characters when you have to go through a number of things.

Here just to get to the question, but I'll see if I can figure it out here on tweet deck. I want to know how confessional believers baptism fits with all of the Philippian jailers household being baptized.

Scripture only gives us the jailer making a confession of faith. Doesn't this passage fit the model of baptizing believers go to the next tweet, which is actually that was two tweets now. We go to the next tweet children as disciples based on their parents faith now.

This of course is a common text that we've addressed a number of times. In the debates, in fact, I think it's yeah, it's come up in every single debate. We've done the one back in 1995 the one we did at New Mexico State University the one that we did with Pastor Shishko the one we did with Greg Strawbridge and the I don't even list it as a debate, but the discussion that I had with a Presbyterian brother down in Brisbane, Australia.

Last I've done actually I've done five debates on that subject now. But we only make available. I think two of them the most to two most recent ones I recall anyway, we've addressed this issue a number of times.

Let's remind everybody what the text says and I will then scroll all of this up so that if you Send me something on Twitter. I'll actually get it. That's dr. Oakley 1689 for other questions. You would have act 16 31 through 35.

They said believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved you and your household and they spoke the word the Lord to him together with all Who were in his house? Please note that and he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds and immediately he was baptized.

He and all his household and he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly having believed in God with his whole household now the argument that has been made is that the phrase rejoiced greatly is singular and so you have only this one individual is rejoicing and so I've actually had some of my Reformed brethren say that Only he believed in God.

That the rest of his household even though the word had been spoken them. They had not believed in God. Now this one to me really makes me scratch my head. Because if my Reformed brethren are using this then I really wonder what they're thinking when they We have some we have some email questions really.

Did we have them before the show start and did you tell me about this? No, good. Thanks. Appreciate that very kind of you. Thank you very much. Uh here what? You were busy. So was I. But I would have made room to be prepared to give even better answers if I had known them anyway.

Here's here's here's the point. First of all, the Word of the Lord was spoken to him together with all who were in his house. So either they believed or they rejected. If they rejected the Word the Lord could someone please tell me How this man is rejoicing greatly having believed in God with his whole household.

Did his whole household believe or not? Certainly if they rejected the word that was spoken to them. No, and furthermore, how could there be infants in the house to whom the Word of the Lord was spoken?

So whoever is in his house could understand the proclamation of the gospel and The man rejoices and if they are rejoicing together with him if you say only he had believed some people try to say it only says he believed and The with his whole household is just they rejoice so they reject the gospel but rejoice with him that he accepted it.

When does that ever happen? It doesn't it just doesn't make any sense the obvious meaning of the text is that they proclaim the gospel to everybody in the household and They believed it says having believed in God with his whole household and that's why there's rejoicing so There's nothing here about Baptizing infants babies baptizing people on the basis somebody else's profession or anything like that and to try to read it that way ends up Creating a situation where you've got a man rejoicing even though his family has rejected the gospel.

And yet he's and and yet they are rejoicing together with him that he's accepted the gospel, which is just I'm sorry. This doesn't make an ounce worth of sense. So No, I would say that this this text does not substantiate that perspective at all eight seven seven seven five three three three four one or dividing dot line on Skype.

2 Peter 2:1 and the Meaning of “Master”

And Then we have a question via Twitter and it is it's a big one. It's one we've addressed a number of times before. But again, it's it takes us back to the original languages in 2nd Peter chapter 2. When we have the question is specifically is ESV study Bible equates master in 2nd Peter 2 1 is Jesus this one really really puzzles me help.

It might be in fact, it probably is. But I don't understand what the question is. Because The again the term master is despotase. It's not courteous and The bought them again. If this is this if this is in reference to his sacrifice and this is the only place in all the New Testament where the price the sacrifice is not mentioned and So again the text in the 2nd Peter chapter 2 verses 1 and 2 addressed on our website in the Reformed Theology section lengthy discussion that can be found there.

Yes, sir. Those questions that you know, we could have given better answers to than we will but we'll we'll do our best.

Baptism as an Eschatological Sign

Okay. Well the first email that I have here is from Lee and he says dr. White I am a Reformed Baptist and very grateful for your ministry. I was listening to the November 11th 2010 dividing line yesterday and enjoyed your response to the gentleman from Australia.

Regarding infant baptism. Australia right at the 46th minute of the podcast. You mentioned that baptism is always eschatological. I listened intently and have relistened to your further explanation, but I'm still not quite sure what you meant with that statement.

Can you elaborate on that for me a little more? I did completely understand that baptism isn't looking forward in hope that a person child or infant will one day be converted.

Just would like clarification on the above statement you made. Yeah when you use the term eschatological people automatically Categorize that in a way that I didn't mean it and that was my explanation in other words it is it is.

When I said that it's it's eschatological what I mean by that is that it's it's looking at a completed Situation it's not looking forward to a hoped-for situation. It is looking back on a completed situation.

It is a finished thing. It is it is a a sign of that which has already happened it even. And this is I've always found this to be odd. And in fact, I Did I put it on I think I might have it on my Kindle and I just haven't gotten to it yet.

There's a new book out I think from Reformed Baptist Academic Press, I'm not certain I'd have to double-check on this. I've just been busy with other areas and it's hard to keep up with every area but I saw a book that had been released within the past six months, I think and The argument basically is that the Westminster Confession is inconsistent at this point and I've always thought this and my Presbyterian brothers pulling their hair out, but just just bear with my my Baptist meanderings here, but The the to say that baptism is the sign of our union with Christ and Then to say we give it in hopes for that union to take place in the future.

That's the very issue that the federal guys The federal theology guys go after in essence is they say look you're being inconsistent. They're saying you should not call your children to repentance and regeneration because You're then questioning the promise that you have given them in baptism.

If it is a sign of one's union with Christ the idea is a sign of a future Fulfillment. I just never see baptism functioning that way in the New Testament. And so that's what I meant by eschatological.

It is it is always looking back at the Uncompletedness of what it means rather than forward to a hope for fulfillment that in many instances we simply have to admit There is no future fulfillment. Because we do not have I'm sorry I know there are people who believe this but We do not have a promise that every single one of our offspring the part of the elect that's just not there.

There are people who think it's there, but I'm sorry, it's not.

Calvinism and Humility

Yes, sir. Okay. Our second one is from Eric. So there's only two. It maybe I'm now getting phone calls from people saying I can send emails in for questions on the on the show. Oh.

Great, you mean through the contact thing? Yes. So that we might be good. I'm expecting a contact thing. In fact, I'm surprised we didn't get it from Australia from this morning. So if you got one, let me know.

Oh, okay. Well sure from Brisbane. From Brisbane. He's been yes, we said that correctly Brisbane. One of the first questions I was asked when I was in Brisbane By someone who set it up is very very serious was how in the world did you find out how to actually say Brisbane?

Because everybody comes the United States. It's nice to be here in Brisbane and they're like, yeah, so anyways, yes.

Okay, so Eric asks an interesting question that I think Would help for you to clarify. I get this a lot.

I'm he asks. I'm interested. Oh, I see what you're doing. You just don't have time to answer all these things. You're just gonna throw a mat. Okay. I got you. I got bones is open for you. Go. I'm interested in.

Calvinist philosophy in relation to the understanding of humility. If you have any material, please let me know and I was very intrigued by that because I. There's a lot of people out there a lot of Armenians who think that Calvinism is merely a philosophy.

Interesting. Well, I would interpret if I if I had seen that email Before I sat down here. I would have been interpreted that I would interpret the use of the term philosophy there not so much as a philosophical system as in What is the Calvinist understanding of why we should live in humility or something like that?

That's how I would have taken that. All right, so Taking it in that way. I would recommend to who was the who was the Eric Eric, I would recommend to Eric That There is a little booklet called the practical implications of Calvinism written by pastor Albert Martin that was published I think by Banner of Truth Trust and it is a tremendous Brief.

I I would assume it was probably a sermon. It's short enough to have been a sermon. It will rip the arrogant hide off of any Calvinist I assure you it really explains why it is that if you really do believe in sovereign grace and You really do believe that it's nothing of yourself.

And if you really do believe that it's an eternal choice of God and it there wasn't Anything to where he looked forward and saw something in you that made him go. Oh, isn't he wonderful. I'll choose him.

If you really believe all that stuff Then you have absolutely positively no basis whatsoever upon which to be arrogant about your salvation Prideful about people who Don't see things the exact same way you do Etc. Etc. Etc.

He really makes it very very very clear That oh, it's available online for free. Thank you very much Fibbo online Grace online library org. There is a printer friendly version of it at grace online Library org and that's one word So go to grace online library org look up practical implications of Calvinism and you will be able to get it right there.

I highly recommend all my Calvinistic friends read it. Because it it does take the hide right off. Yeah and we need that because the tendency of the human being is to Is to become prideful. So I would say that the Calvinist philosophy on humility Is that if you are the object of God's sovereign grace if you know your absolute unworthiness before God And there's nothing in you that detracted God's grace.

That's the greatest reason in the world to be humble. Okay, I've got another one. I'm glad you do especially since why isn't the phone ring? I do not know.

It's it the phones do are working. Yes, they're working perfectly because we have a new provider I know that working with and it.

But but why isn't really many calling. Because I I even tweeted earlier and we have a net split.

Romans 2 and Sola Fide

All right. All right. All right. All right,. Jerry writes Romans 2 7. Jerry writes Jerry. Hmm Jerry with a G done done done done. Romans 2 7 is used to refute the doctrine of Sola Fide. They interpret that that they interpret that by doing good God will give eternal life.

How do I respond to this argument? Well Romans 2.

Really needs to be a text that if you've Picked up the God who justifies you might want to take a look at what Romans 2 is about because there's a couple texts in Romans 2 that are utilized by those who oppose Sola Fide and Sola Gratia the freeness of God in salvation and This is one of them.

To those who by patience and well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality He will give eternal life, but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness there will be wrath and fury.

Now if someone is trying to say that it is patiently Seeking for glory and honor and immortality that results in your reception of eternal life then the only person who could really say this would be a Pelagian a person who believes that it is solely on the basis of your actions that you receive eternal life and That evidently with Apart from grace you can be one who by patience and well-doing seeks for glory and honor and immortality and Apart from grace those others who are self-seeking do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness.

They receive wrath and fury and it's just there's nothing descriptive about the text. It is all prescriptive. But the thing again, you have to keep in mind is the difference between reading these texts prescriptively and descriptively if you read them as prescriptions then All of salvation the Bible is mission impossible.

There's just there's no way because this is if you read this as a prescription as to how You obtain eternal life then you need to go to first John and you're gonna need to love perfectly and you need to do righteousness perfectly and the whole point that Paul's gonna get to is That if it is perfect obedience to anything, which is what this would be I mean what what is patient well-doing seeking for glory and honor and mortality if it is not keeping the law if it is not Keeping the highest example of God's revelation of what it is that is pleasing to him.

So you either have that route which it which demands perfection. That's the whole message of Romans and Galatians is if you're gonna walk down that line if you're gonna make this prescriptive. Then you have to do it perfectly.

You can never mess up. There's no there's no forgiveness for messing up. There's no mercy or grace down that road. He who lives by these things He he'll buy by things will live by these things. That's that's how it goes.

But if you recognize these as descriptive rather than prescriptive Then you understand what's being said. This is a description of those who will receive eternal life. What is their life like? Well by patience and well-doing they seek for glory and honor and immortality not thinking That what they're doing is going to earn something from God.

That's the very attitude that is going to be identified as what does not bring salvation in Romans chapter 4 those who work the wage they receive. It's what they're it's what's due those who do not work, but believe in him and justifies in godly.

Their faith is credited them as righteousness. This is a description of the saved and how they live and a description of the unsaved who are self-seeking. Do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness.

Wrath and fury will be theirs. So these are descriptive texts. They're not prescriptive texts and to turn them into That kind of text is. Well, it's frightening and results in a works salvation system.

Scripture, Sola Scriptura, and Roman Catholic Claims

Did you have any more? Actually, I do this one just in just in this just in and then we have to talk to Alan. Yes, we have to.

All right, dr. White. I share your love and sharing the truth of the gospel with the Catholic people. My question is this without having to go into a complete and detailed explanation of sola scriptura How would you answer a Roman Catholic who asks?

Where does the Bible make the claim that there are no infallible words from God found outside of Scripture?

Well, you can't avoid defining the doctrine because first of all There are only some Roman Catholics who would even make that claim in the first place. That is the positive claim that is being made. Is that there is they are new sauce revelation outside of Scripture?

The person making the positive claim is the one who has to substantiate it and so if the person is making a Assertion there is the honest revelation. They are new sauce revelation outside of Scripture.

They have to show it to you. Where is it? How do you know? This is the honest house? We all we know that all Scripture is the honest house, but this must be outside of Scripture. So we're. Upon what basis are we to believe there is some type of God-breathed revelation outside of Scripture?

What is it? What's its nature who did it come from? Does this mean the canon is still open is is this something from the Council of Nicaea? Is this something from Vatican to? Show us substantiate the assertion because.

The only thing that we know of that is the honest us. On the basis of divine revelation is divine revelation. So either divine revelation ended and the cannons closed, which is the official position of Rome.

Or there's something more which is more the functional position of Rome but you see they don't want to go that far because they know they cannot substantiate these things and When you start looking at how these dogmas have been defined, especially the most recent ones.

Go go anywhere after the first few hundred years when you look at the process the political process the chicanery that was involved. The the politics involved nobody wants to call that they honest I'll say it it destroys the the elevated nature of all of revelation to even try to associate such things so when the person is making a positive claim that there is this kind of Divine revelation.

They're the ones that have to show you Where they get that from. I mean, would you really allow a Mormon to get away with just assuming the Book of Mormons inspired? You have to challenge that you have to challenge that assertion.

There's a positive assertion being made. That's that's what you have to do. And by the way before we go to Alan. And do you have any other? Okay, before we go to Alan, I did want to since it's somewhat similar and it'll also help us to slide right into Alan's question.

I saw on a blog this morning a quote from Scott Haunt that I want to interact with just briefly. It says priests are fathers because they give new life divine life through baptism. But their obligation does not end with the pouring of the water.

They go on to nourish the life of their spiritual offspring through the Eucharist. They discipline their children through penance. They instruct through their teaching and preaching and teaching in short.

They raise their congregations to full Christian maturity as contributing members of God's household. Ephesians 2 19. Now the problem of course is That there is no such thing as a sacramental priesthood in the New Testament nowhere.

It does not exist honest. Roman Catholic apologists and theologians recognize that it is a much later development. I would direct anyone to the debate that I did with Mitch Pacwa on this very subject of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Ephesians 2 19 has nothing to do with a priest who is called father who has some sacramental authority who by the words of Consecration can turn the elements and the body soul blood and divinity of Jesus Christ who is called father and has these kinds of powers and there's nothing like that in all of Scripture and The establishment of a Romanist priesthood, which is what you have in various and sundry Denominations and groups and so on so forth the establishment I think attracts Horribly from the biblical teaching that a all the people of God Amount to a holy priesthood that Every one stands before God and has that direct relationship with God that the priesthood used to used to separate the people from God as a mediator and now we have direct access to God as One and dwelt by the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ.

The way has been opened. The veil has been torn. It also detracts horribly from the high priesthood of Jesus Christ and The finished work that is his and it's no surprise then that this mediating priesthood has in essence stitched the veil back up and through the superstitious act of this allegedly Eucharistic sacrifice Reinstituted that which was just a shadow of what was finished and completed in the cross of Calvary.

And so when you hear Roman Catholics like Scott Hahn and others who are apostates who once professed the truth and now deny the truth Talking about this. You'll notice there's only one citation given in that quote and had nothing to do with priests because there are none in the New Testament and That's just the essence and as I think of it of Of Roman Catholicism that level having said that we have a question on the subject of Roman Catholicism a very practical one.

Let's talk to Alan. Hi Alan.

Hi, dr. White. How are you, sir? Yes. Man, I'm good. I'm doing great.

How are you? Well, you know what? I saw my first picture of you night before last and. And you and I both are causing a lot of people to go dude. What happened to you.

Well, I found out that if you eat less.

You will lose weight. You know what? I I found that out too, but I added I add to that a massive amount of aerobic exercise. That.

Anyway, that's not why you call. No, I'm in my car right now. So if it gets too loud, let me know but I'm calling because What would what? What do you so this is a serious topic? The background is that a friend of my wife has a child that has a son that has passed away after 12 days he had a disease he was baptized immediately upon his birth in the Roman Catholic Church because He knew this would happen.

Which also tells me that they are more conservative Roman Catholics because I I don't know the official position in Rome. I think it's now that unbaptized children do go to Go to heaven. I could be wrong on that.

Yeah, I saw. Okay. All right, so but they they baptized him immediately and this morning she referenced her son as Thank you believes him to be in heaven. Their funeral is tomorrow. There will be high mass my wife is struggling with because she's never been to mass and She doesn't know I am NOT going.

I I don't think that she should go. I don't think she will. I don't know yet. But um, I guess what the would you be okay with attending the Liturgy of the Word? Portion of the mass and ducking out during the Liturgy of the Eucharist or just avoiding the whole thing.

Yeah, it's uh. It's a question. I've been asked, you know personally by a lot of folks. Generally Hasn't been in regards to a young infant that has has died at this very early age. Obviously, but you know a relative Friend who dies.

There's going to be mass. You know, what do you do. And I I very very strongly believe that the Eucharistic sacrifice the Roman Catholic Church is Certainly Amongst the most serious blasphemies against the finished work of Jesus Christ that I know of.

Agree. Agreed.

It's a huge argument against the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ an assault on his priesthood. And there's more than that that takes place. There's prayer for the dead, right? There is some cases prayer to the dead and.

So it's more it's more in the second after the Nicene Creed is recited. I have in the past ducked out now. I'm not sure that I'll go to any portion of the mass. It would be violating one's conscious to go to the first part of it.

Well for me personally.

No, it would be absolutely impossible for me to do that. The only time I've ever been at a mass was to Observe and study sort of like going to a Mormon ward or something like that. To observe and to see what's going on and to document things and things like that but in a context like this, you're going as one of the mourners and.

For me, it simply would not be possible. Obviously what I would seek to do Would be to I would hope Put this way best case scenario. Prior to this happening there would have been an opportunity where I could have explained what I believe About the sacrifice of Christ so there'd be a basis for the the other party knowing why I can't go.

But that's the best case scenario. Yeah, frequently, yeah frequently you can't go there. So what you're looking for is an opportunity in the future and I would say in the future. You know the day of a funeral or you know Two weeks after the death of an infant or something like that is probably not the time To be attempting to discuss this but looking for an opportunity to very positively present One's belief about the finished work of Christ in the context of of why one finds the mass to be just so completely different and That's one of the things sort of ties together what I said yesterday about Jack chicken all that stuff and the death contract and all the rest of stuff because you see you can make a very positive Presentation about the finished work of Christ if you happen to have a biblical theology of the atonement and not just a wishy-washy evangelical view of the atonement but if you have a real view of the atonement and a finished work of Christ and and a Hebrews view of the atonement then you can present that and the contrast will just be so stark To what you have in Romanism and in the mass that you hardly even have to raise the subject you it's it's right there In what you're saying?

And so that's that's what I would be looking for the opportunity of doing. But personally, no, I cannot I cannot subject myself to taking the role of one who is sitting and and observing that kind of blasphemy against the work of Christ, I understand and I.

In your life and died can still go then. You know, you're not it doesn't it's not perfect. It's not a perfect work, right?

It does not perfect anyone for whom it is made. Which is why You see that the sad reality of people during the medieval period for example leaving their substance to Various monastic orders so that many many many masses would be said in their behalf to try to get them out of purgatory.

Realizing that that mass could not even spring a person from purgatory. There would have to be many of them because the the mass itself has a finite value to it. Because the person receiving it is is finite.

And so there there is no perfection based upon the sacrifice of the mass even though the claim is that this is a Representation of the one sacrifice of Christ. And as I've said as I've been saying now since 1990 when my first book came out the fatal flaw if you don't have a biblical view of the Atonement if you have an Armenian View of the Atonement you cannot argue this point with a Roman Catholic because you don't really believe that sacrifice of Christ perfected anyone at all.

Norman Geisler cannot argue against the mass the way that I do. Because in his perspective the death of Christ only makes men savable it does not save anyone at all. There is no perfection in it because there is no specific group for whom it is made.

It's not personal in that sense. So the only the only way to argue against the Roman position that is forceful and biblical is To have a consistently biblical view of the Atonement which many evangelicals do not have today.

Yeah, I would rather them be happily inconsistent Though than to avoid drifting into heresy or you know becoming an open theist or you know becoming a Roman Catholic. So but yeah, you're correct. They can't argue because they do not believe in true substitutionary Atonement, right?

But you know, and that's fine. But you know what my pizza is gonna get cold. I'm here at the Papa John's. I gotta get this pizza. Wait a minute pizza. You're eating pizza. Once in a while, yeah, but now instead of eating a whole pizza for myself, I might have two pieces.

Okay. Well, I would be interested in this particular case the belief I assume would be for a 12-day-old infant that he will not be going and no certainly the mother believes that referencing him as a.

Saint and that one who is in heaven. Yeah, that's that. That's obviously pushing it a little bit. But yeah, yeah. The whole limbo thing has been put on limbo. So yeah.

I think Benedict got rid of that. All right, Alan. I'll let you go. I'll talk to you later.

All right. Thanks. Stay skinny. Thanks. All right. God bless. Bye-bye. Stay skinny. Alan and I, you want to take a break? Really? Do we have to? I'm being told that we absolutely have to take a break.

We've got we've got three calls. Okay, all right, we'll be right back right after this.

Alpha and Omega Ministries is pleased to introduce the Christmas Morning CD by Todd Lindstrom. Passion and peace are what sets Todd's music apart from others. These 12 instrumental favorites will bless and inspire you as you entertain guests and spend a Christmas morning with your family.

You can find this beautiful music that celebrates the birth of our Lord in the bookstore at AOMN .org.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .AOMN .org.

What is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book. Chosen, but free. A new cult. Secularism. False prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen. But free. You'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org.

Presuppositionalism, the Image of God, and Naturalism

And we'll go back to the dividing line. Not sure why we had to take a break there because now we have almost no time At all for us for our callers, but we're gonna take him. Anyways, let's we have two from Atlanta.

That's weird both on Skype. Let's talk with Harold from Atlanta, hi Harold.

Hello Harold. Yes, sir, oh yes, okay. Hi. Yes. I just had a question about how to sort of engage a philosophy professor of mine. I'm going for a degree in philosophy right now and a secular college and.

Let me just ask you is there a particular reason for that. I mean, what's. Going for a degree in philosophy. What's. What's your hope for goal?