Mega-Size DL Response to Mike Riccardi and Derrick Brite

Opening Concerns About the Livestream and the Trinity Controversy

Welcome to The Dividing Line, welcome to another way of live streaming The Dividing Line. Since yours truly managed to get us kicked off of Twitch only last week for daring... Well, I don't know if you all saw if you all saw the side-by-side comparison of ballerinas today.

So I think it was posted yesterday now that I think about it. I was just simply observing the reality of the world and There you go. You're not allowed to do that in the clown world in which we live today.

So anyway, we are Doing all sorts of new things. I have predicted 10 minutes before it all crashes and burns. Rich is having to use new software and all the rest this kind of stuff to make this work so Being the Scotsman that I am.

I'm expecting disaster. We'll see but thank you for tuning in today this evening. For those of you in the East Coast we have important stuff to talk about. I Tony Arsenault on Twitter a couple days ago Tweeted if you haven't listened to the Trinity lecture by Mike Riccardi from the most recent Shepherds conference make time today to do that.

It is by far the clearest and most straightforward explanation and refutation of the EFS error. And the various errors of the theology proper errors Being propagated by James White Owen Strand and others from the GBTS seminary school of thought now, I'll be honest with you.

I haven't a clue. What theology proper errors are I have? Obviously, there's something in his mind at that point. He's not expressing it very clearly and He even said that his sentence was unclear when I said you do realize I don't hold to EFS or anything like that and Sentence may it sound like I did but what I don't know what the only If if I were to be asked define what?

Grace Bible Theological Seminary school thought would be. It would be the all-sufficiency of Scripture and the need to have scripture as the source of all of our theology and practice maybe. Obviously, that's not what Tony Arsenault had in mind.

But he's not the only one. Who thought that? Mike Riccardi's talk Was at least partially aimed at yours truly. I had a friend listen to it and it didn't really think it was about me clearly the Matthew 24 36 section brief as it was was about me and Once I got a chance to listen to it.

I thought that a number of the comments made in the first half hour were about me nothing after that because the rest of it was a theological and philosophical argument against eternal functional subordination.

Which I've never held and all honest people know that. Though many dishonest people try to make it sound like I do and so it was only that first half hour that you know, I was like, okay and And that was first two points in regards to methodology and things like that.

So Given there were a number of people asking me about it. And it does give us an opportunity to Once again clear the air of the fact that right now, unfortunately There are a number of people there is a concerted organized effort To marginalize this voice and this ministry on this topic.

Students are being told numerous utterly untrue things about me and They are supposed to believe these things on the basis of the authority of those that are telling them these things. The problem is I think I think people will eventually find out that That kind of authoritarianism does not work.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has found that out. The Watchtower has for many many many years was able to change theology change direction and Since they could control the information flow for their people They could get away with it.

Then came the internet TV VHS stuff like that had opened up a few avenues, but especially once the internet became a ubiquitous aspect of life. They couldn't they couldn't do that anymore. They couldn't make those types of changes their people would be exposed to the evidence that demonstrates that they're making things up as they're going along and so We're just gonna keep telling the truth and if people try to Marginalize this try to silence us try to say don't listen.

You know, that's their right, but they will answer for whatever it is. They're telling people or anything else just as I will answer for everything that I have to say. There is a day of judgment coming and We say that to the rest of the world, but it's it's true within the church as well.

So We're just gonna I want to have a friendly response I'm gonna have to over and over again say I don't know if this is aimed at us if it is Here's where it's misrepresenting us or here's how I would view something like this.

But hopefully that'll be useful to to everyone and then I am going to be responding to Derek Bright a doctoral student at Puritan Reform Theological Seminary Who wrote a lengthy screed on tweet on Twitter.

I believe it was yesterday and it is very helpful because it sort of Collects together all the slander and lies are being told about me and gives us opportunity to Refute all of at the same time and clear the air and then say and if people keep saying these things then you know Mark them and know where they're coming from in essence is Where we're going.

Divine Simplicity, Inseparable Operations, and the Source of Authority

So instead of struggling with audio the audio the audio and I'm not Not sure if the video Yeah, I haven't seen video. I just realized it was sent to me was audio. The audio is out there. You can listen to the entire presentation.

It's about an hour and a half long as I recall but I have a transcript of it and It is an electronic transcript, so I'm hoping it's fairly accurate it seems to be fairly accurate the few times that I listened to the Audio and was reading the transcript.

It was it was accurate at that point in time, but I'm going with the electronically derived transcript. So let's just dive in. This is from Mike Riccardi's presentation first half hour very early on the doctrine of divine simplicity that God's attributes are identical to his essence and Well, that means the divine attributes are therefore identical to one another in God these he's going over the Issues that he identifies as Trinitarian controversies, I'm really not sure that They're it's not that they're disconnected from the Trinity, but their theology proper type controversies in many situations but Yes the doctrine of divine simplicity that God's attributes are identical to his essence and Whether that means the divine attributes are therefore identical to one another in God so add intro and once again The the key element here that unfortunately was was not clear I I think in dr. Riccardi's presentation so much of this actually goes back to and for me is Not Trinitarian argumentation it is authority argumentation.

It's where we start. What is our starting place now? I'm very thankful that at one point dr. Riccardi refers to the biblical to biblical Trinitarianism biblical and historical Trinitarianism is a term that he used once and I'm thankful that because I've been criticized for doing that and in fact, there's a number of things that dr. Riccardi said that were directly you know, he talks about the One what three who's Which I've been criticized for again from the Neotomus Multiple times so I'm thankful for that and I wouldn't be overly surprised if the first place that he heard that was for me.

So there's a there's a lot of interface there's a lot of connection here, but the thing that Concerns me from the start and will all the way through this discussion is That people are thinking that we're arguing about Theology proper and Trinitarian stuff and yeah, we are discussing those things, but it's the origin and source of where we derive our interpretation and understanding.

That is the issue it is first thing that I recognized in December of 2021 I think it was Before everything sort of blew up is Great tradition the relationship of external interpretational grids the nature of scripture itself and how it is supposed to be that which from which we derive our Our theological our theological statements and the fact that we all say and dr Riccardi will say and we say that scripture is is The norma normata it is the unnormed norm.

But how does that work? How does that actually function? That's the real issue and it will be all the way through here. So when we're talking about divine simplicity, you can have biblical divine simplicity.

Where you can make a biblical case from the actual words of scripture and the concepts of scripture. And Say that God's being cannot be constructed of lesser parts based upon monotheism and God's eternality and the fact that everything that else that exists is created by God himself and therefore if it's less than God then it Was created by God you can make that argument.

That's very different from Thomistic divine simplicity. The same thing with the next the next section the doctrine of inseparable operations whether all of God's acts Like his essence are undivided and indivisible such that each divine person is equally active in every divine action.

If what we mean by that is the unity of God's activities the fulfillment of the one divine decree of God. Then all well and good. If we are talking about Thomistic inseparable operations, I think it raises insuperable problems for the biblical Revelation of the existence of three divine persons and the interaction that they have with one another.

You cannot have Meaningful interaction between the divine persons in a Thomistic concept. Because you have you have imported Aristotelian Metaphysics that are not big enough. They're too restrictive. They just simply cannot handle Divine revelation and so you have to shove stuff out.

That's that's one of the big issues very very very very big issues. It's going on here. There's been the question of canonic Christology what it means for the Sun to have emptied himself in the incarnation and whether he's laid Aside some or all of his divine attributes to become genuinely human and once again, we've addressed this thousand times before and I would say what we have said in regards to a voluntary veiling of certain aspects of the Sun's Divine prerogatives So that he can function as the Messiah Is in perfect harmony with what has been taught Over there in California for a long long time.

If that's changing, okay, just come straight out and say, you know what? We've been all always been wrong about that. We're gonna change it but None of that means that the Sun ceases to be the Sun. That the Sun can in any way shape or form change in essence.

The issue is what? Divine prerogatives were veiled and This is this is this is language been used by Christians for a very very long time. I'm not talking a hundred years I'm talking way way back. What what was it that the Sun had to do in Taking on that human nature to be able to function as the Messiah.

That'll come back up again in regards to Matthew 24 36 and We'll talk about that then and Undergrading all of this there have been debates about the methodology Methodologies that are employed to give the various answers to all these questions.

Exactly. Biblicism versus the great tradition. Literal grammatical historical hermeneutics versus census planar and spiritual interpretation even an Increasingly and increasingly the place of Thomas Aquinas ought to have in our theologizing about the doctrine of God.

Well, that's those are those are many of the issues. I would point out that one of the biggest names being cited in this resourcement Today Is Dr. Craig Carter who wrote an article in the TMS Journal Spring of last year.

And So we have interacted with him, of course. He won't interact back and in fact only misrepresents what we have said and we've documented that and he has made no effort to recover from the documentation of his misrepresentations.

But he has done that and it that is a that is a established fact and so These sources are out there as well. These debates over which so many within reformed evangelicalism are so divided cannot be things that we are divided over.

Because though they are complex and though they are difficult and though they are mysterious each of these matters relates fundamentally the fundamental doctrine of Christianity itself. Well, they they do.

But one thing that is clear is that there has been a and there needs to be a freedom for differing emphases. In a discussion of what becomes speculative theology once we are once we go past The direct revelation of Scripture once once we're no longer talking about what the Apostles themselves would have even recognized as part of their proclamation.

There there has to be Freedom of having a different emphasis. I'm not talking about Denying monotheism or something along those lines, but we recognize for example that Calvin held a view in regards to certain aspects of Trinitarianism and and Christology that would be considered to be a minority view even amongst reformed but Until recently you didn't.

Check them out the window for that. There was there needs to be a level of maturity and confidence that allows For discussion of differing views once you get to the point of dealing with speculation. The problem is very often down through church history.

People will elevate speculation to dogma. Rome has certainly done that over and over again and we reject Rome having done that. But that means we can't then turn around start doing it ourselves in the process.

It's very dangerous. The triunity of God is the heart of the Christian faith. There is no Christianity without it because there's no Christianity without God and the Trinity is who God is. No, no disagreement about that unless again, the connection then becomes and if you don't buy Thomas's Final formulations of these things then you aren't actually believing in the Trinity and without Thomas's formulations then You're gonna become a tritheist or this there the other thing that's where the problem comes in.

And we look around us and see dear friends and partners in ministry suddenly in a web of disagreement About matters related to the Trinity. There's a real sense in which it ought to make us tremble because the Trinity is the doctrinal nerve center of Christianity.

Agreed I'll be I'll be honest with you as one who has been defending the doctrine of Trinity Apologetically globally for decades. This web of disagreement Part of it and two-thirds this presentations focused on EFS Part of it Really launched in 2016 not because a bunch of people changed their perspectives, but because there was a very strong Denunciation of what was becoming a more popular definition of things shall we say that had sort of flown under the radar and and After 2016 could not fly in the radar any longer anyway.

What has happened since then has been prompted by an insistence on a certain group within Reformed camps that the only way to deal with these things is to No longer have the freedom to discuss these topics without going straight to the heresy charge and To Do something that we did not think about doing at least the vast majority of us did nothing about doing before and that is to elevate External sources of authority specifically to mystic metaphysics and the Summa Theologica to a Much higher position than it ever had before.

Certainly there are people than Protestantism suddenly evangelical seminary Norman Geisler even R .C. Sproul Mainly because of John Gerstner who were big big big fans of Thomas Aquinas, but the vast majority of us were not and Many of us will never be.

But that's been one of the major changes and this web of disagreement The the past two three years of it has been primarily due to that Emphasis upon a Particular A particular version of quote-unquote classical theology.

That's where that has that has come from. The brothers who are on opposite sides of some of the questions asked above all confess one God and three persons. No one is openly espousing Arianism or modalism or tritheism.

Well, I'm glad to hear that but the problem is people are espousing positions on EFS or simplicity or inseparable operations and Just I stopped just for a moment. It seems that's this Simplicity and inseparable operations here are being defined not in a biblical sense But in a Thomistic sense, and I think there there would be a lot of people know on the on the other side Who would say there is no biblical doctrine of simplicity or inseparable operations.

It has to be Thomistic and then I think there's others that are trying to adjust to this new reality around them and they just haven't there's not willing to come to that conclusion yet, but But the problem is people are espousing positions on EFS or simplicity or inseparable operations That tend toward some of those great errors and this is the this is the key issue.

When I responded to the EFS controversy in 2016 initially, you know One of my concerns was that It seemed to me That EFS would tend toward Some form of Subordination ism not just in relationship, but in being and For many many decades I had agreed with Calvin's gut feeling That unless you confess the Sun is out of the Oz That he is that he has a seity in himself you cannot have a derived a seity that's just doesn't work and again one of the differences I believe in why different people are taking different perspectives on these things is that in Much of the Academy today Interaction with Non-christian perspectives or even interaction with Roman Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy with Christian cults and isms or Religions outside of what would be identified as having a connection Christian at all is Very rare.

But and while Calvin would not have considered himself a Relief a an expert on global religions or something like that He did have to engage with those who were already casting doubts and questions upon the doctrine the Trinity and upon well everything in Christianity, you know, the the radical Reformation Open up the door to question everything and He was thinking through these objections He he had to deal with with surveyed us long before he revealed who surveyed us was Michael Villanueva and so I Honestly do believe and it's not just because I am a Christian apologist and one that has been a Christian apologist for 40 years.

But I honestly see that When we're talking about tending toward these great errors That's very helpful. If you've actually engaged people who believe in those errors to be able to know whether your gut feeling is Correct or just too much hot salsa over lunch it can be a can feel the same thing, but not not actually have the same result and so When I hear people saying well, you know, if you don't hold the Thomas's position this is going to lead to an ice go, but it never has and I can tell the people saying this don't know anybody that actually Teaches the errors that they say this quote-unquote tends toward which removes a lot of the credibility for saying that it tends towards such errors when I read videos discussion of inseparable operations I go.

And this is this is again where I'm constantly misrepresented by the way when you misrepresent things when you when you When I hear someone repeating what allegedly think that I've said and it's not even close then I know That there's something else operating in in the situation and What I have said about Vidu's discussion is Not that he is a modalist or the people who believe that are modalist.

What I have said is You could never take this position into debate against modalism and hope to prevail and hope to be able to say anything that would help a modalist To come to understand the truth. So Just a matter weeks ago in Louisiana.

I had the opportunity to go to a wonderful small Baptist Church in a small area in northern, Louisiana and Do a presentation on how the Bible Presents the existence of the three divine persons and differentiates them and you can do that.

It can be done it does not require you to stand upon your head and it did not require me to ever quote Thomas Aquinas. Or anyone earlier than Thomas Aquinas. I didn't have to quote Augustine. I didn't have to quote Basil or Chrysostom or anybody else.

I Can let the Apostles do that and it helped people to understand it helped people who were involved in oneness theology to understand and I'm sitting here telling you That a complex Convoluted you have to learn 14 new Latin terms and 12 new Greek terms.

Presentation on the nature of God is Not going to have the long-term effect upon Christ's sheep that opening his word to them will. It's one of my great concerns and I'm I am unashamed to say that The only thing that Hurts me.

Is it so many people who would have applauded my saying that 15 years ago are this very same people trying to shoo people away from listening to me now. It's strange. So when we say these things tend towards some of those great errors we have to be we have to be very careful as to what we're saying.

And That's why. That's why it's just so strange that what we do when I've what have we done when I've Critiqued Craig Carter. We've put his book on the screen and read it and We'll outline stuff. Okay.

When we when we talked about, you know, Vita's got like you put his book up there you read it you read sections from it and And then you interact with it. How about doing that on the other side? No, they don't want to do that.

Don't don't listen to those folks. Oh, no. No, just just listen to us. Mmm, that's probably. That's problematic no one is openly denying the Trinity well good I've had few people get close to saying I was.

But there are guys not told who are holding positions. The logical entailments of which do strike at the implications of historic Biblical Trinitarianism, there's the phrase. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Riccardi Biblical Trinitarianism and so we need to press hard after unity on these matters.

Well, okay I know I certainly have Laid out why I feel that some of the positions being adopted by the Thomists logically entail Problems with historic biblical Trinitarianism. Okay, so You bet make the argument but make it biblical.

Not you just haven't read enough Thomas if you just read enough Thomas if you read this scholar and Thomas and that's all you'd understand. All these things that's what we get back all the time. All the time, okay.

But that incomprehensible God is not unknowable he has revealed himself amen and So we are to press after the Bible's answers to these questions. Yes, that means even Thomas Basil Gregory Athanasius Augustine.

Do we hold all of them accountable? How? How do you do so if you Again have people who are saying as Craig Carter has said that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity Achieves its highest development 1 ,200 years after the birth of Christ in Thomas Aquinas.

How do you test that claim? By the Bible, how do you press after the Bible's answers these questions because this this is my big issue and that Is a consistent Thomistic position would say the Bible doesn't address these things.

We're past the Bible we're into doctrinal development and the great tradition now and I'm still a Baptist and My believing Presbyterian brothers with whom I disagree on infant baptism will also agree with me that.

For them the only way to truly hold to believing infant baptism is from biblical categories and not traditional categories. This is what it's all about this is where it all this is where the rubber meets the road is.

What will be the final source of authority that we will be utilizing so we are to press after the Bible's Answers to these questions even under the sharpening one another who are on different sides this issue yes, but it has to be the Bible's answers not the Bible as forced into the strictures of A Thomistic theology, that's just absolutely necessary.

But it is worth the long difficult wearying conversations of another hasn't been a lot of conversations. You know for example When I did an entire program walking through some of the claims of Craig Carter for which he you know Misrepresented me and then blocked me and stuff like that.

That's not a conversation and Then the people pushing his material. They didn't get engaged in conversation. I didn't see any kind of Response to what I said other than hey, you're just you're just digging in your heels.

Oh Okay. Show me where I was wrong in my interpretation of what Craig Carter was saying or my response to what he was saying silence nothing. And again, if you go well, we're only talking about TMS here.

Hey, I'm not the one that edited the journal That had him writing in it Which included a footnote referencing the book that I'm quoting from all the time on great tradition exegesis. It's right there in the TMS journal look it up for yourself spring of last year Craig Carter's right there who invited him.

Why was he invited. That might be a question to ask, huh? And Then I did an entire presentation on Reform biblicism and I grounded it and I'm gonna do some more on this in the future, by the way. There's another excellent source it's been pointed out to me by someone else that I Will have to give credit to because that is something you need to do need to give credit to your sources.

But I Almost hesitate to do so simply because I don't want to get that person in trouble. But it as it may I Built that entire presentation, which I know has been mocked by certain people in leadership at masters sadly.

Not not by interacting with it, but just mocking it. I did that whole thing by putting an Important key section of Calvin's response to Saddletto on the screen and walking through it putting it in its context its historical context.

What was going on with Saddletto. Saddletto important person. He's he he set up the Council of Trent that was years later, but vitally important person in Roman Catholic history and a great scholar on the Roman Catholic side and here is here is interaction here is An excellent historical source the definition of reformed biblicism.

I Have not seen anything in response to that nothing. Mockery sure. Actually walking through Saddletto. No one will touch of the 10-foot pole. So where are these where are these conversations and If what I'm being told by many independent sources.

Is that men who I've done conferences with and Everything over the years are telling people don't listen to James White. He's gone off the deep end. Who's not having the conversation? If you want to say I've gone off the deep end.

Let's debate it. Oh. Come to California. You know, I'm not sure if I if I jumped him jumped my truck and head to California right now whether I'd beat the Chinese Troops there. Okay. I mean that's how bad things are over there.

But there are other places we could do that. There are other places. It'd be willing to do it. They really would. Anyways, um, but it is worth the long difficult wearying conversations one another it's not worth the Twitter bickering, right?

Cantankerous snark-filled snipes on the internet internet edify. No one boy, I I'll be honest with you. I happen to know I'm gonna name names here. I'm gonna be straight up front with you. I'm gonna be honest with you here.

I Know that Mike Riccardi was meeting with Richard Brassellus yesterday on the campus and you want snark. Richard Brassellus is now the king of snark and I tried to reason with Richard. I tried to Richard back up, dude.

You're don't use solo scriptura as a punchline and a joke. Well doesn't change anything. So, um, where's the snark coming from? Hmm? Uh cantankerous snark-filled snipes on the internet edify no one and those who engage that way show themselves too mature for the task of doing theology at all and Frankly they shouldn't be taken seriously.

I don't know who's referring to. But okay but if we can get face-to-face if we get voice-to-voice pen-to-pen with one another and Press one another to be scrupulous in our exegesis and our reasoning.

Who has been begging? for exegesis since December of 2021. Who. Hi, who's been offering exegesis. Who else has been offering great tradition exegesis. Press one other to be scrupulous in our exegesis and in our reasoning.

And a spirit of brotherhood. Eager to preserve the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace. Believing the best about those whom we fully acknowledge are our brothers in the Lord and trusting the spirit of God.

Will do his work of illumining the truth to those who seek him diligently. If we can do that it will be worth it. That sounds great. That does not explain at least two meetings that I know of over the past year.

Where I was one of the primary subjects of this conversation. I don't have secret meetings of people like that so I Just hope then if you were involved with that you might go. Oh, I'm uncomfortable with this.

That would be a good thing to be uncomfortable with first I want to. So the two the two the two things by the way, here's where he lines that up first I want to comment on methodology. Second. I want to address the metaphysics that underlie these discussions.

That was the first half hour. It really broke into parts fairly easily. So methodology metaphysics, those are the issues it cannot go and it cannot go without saying That I am that we all ought to be passionately committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Amen. That the six six books the Old and New Testaments are the sole Infallible authority on all matters of Christian doctrine. Amen. That the Bible reigns as the supreme judge by which all controversies religion are to be determined.

Exactly the Norma Normata. But there's a vast difference between saying Sola Scriptura and doing Sola Scriptura a vast difference and What I'm discovering is when you do Sola Scriptura. Especially when you apply to Thomas Aquinas what you'll be accused of is Sola Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura.

That's what Rome does. That's what the Neotomists do. They've done it over and over again over the past couple of years and By which all creeds and confessions all the church fathers and all the teachers throughout church history are to be examined including Thomas Aquinas and his clear obvious pretty much acknowledged by everybody dependence upon a commitment to Aristotle's Metaphysical categories which were based on Aristotle's theology of God, which was absolutely aberrant not just sub biblical but anti biblical and the result is That you have Certain aspects of the fullness of divine revelation that simply have to be muted to fit Aristotle's perspectives.

And that comes through no matter how much you love Thomas. He didn't escape those strictures and the question is how would you even know? How can you test Thomas. I have sat in this chair and I have read I've stood in the studio over there and I've put up on the screen the words of Thomas Aquinas on numerous different topics.

Read them in context had nobody say well, no they'll always say you just haven't read enough Thomas our Scott Clark did that this last week and Everybody you just haven't read enough Thomas, you know, okay.

But never have I had had anyone come back and say no no, no you you misquoted him here or there's this this context change. Never when I walked through his Face Plantingly bad comments in Romans chapter 4 or Seeing activities the Virgin Mary in the book of Isaiah, and we're not talking about Isaiah 7 either.

Silence just quietness. On the other side, so yes all teachers thought church history are to be examined. That means their Conclusions cannot form the framework that then becomes necessary for the interpretation of Scripture, right?

Right. So all those so I would I would assume that anyone agreeing with dr. Riccardi here would just break out in hives at Craig Carter's insistence that Nicene orthodoxy needs to be prior to the reading of the text in New Testament, right?

Right because because all those creeds all those confessions need to be tested by scripture. But if you can't understand the scripture without those creeds of confessions, and you can't test those creeds of confessions, right?

We can't skip over this part guys. You got to answer this you've got you've got to be able to say yeah that one's prior to the other. Okay. We don't believe any doctrine simply because it was codified in a creed or taught by a preferred theologian.

Amen. You see we we have to start here have to agree with that. But the great but if you're a great traditionalist you can't and you would say at least anarchy. Right you would we believe the theology we believe because we have been convinced that such doctrine is biblical that's only way to be a Baptist.

If you're gonna be a great traditionist if you're gonna be hey, and I've had reformed Baptists. You know pushing the great tradition stuff and you know. We've got to get connected this stuff and this is the only way to defend the Trinity.

I've had them say that you can't be a Baptist if you believe that you will not be a Baptist if you believe that Credo baptism is not the great tradition. I think it's much earlier than the great tradition, but that's the whole point.

Once you believe you need the great tradition and once you accept its authority and its interpretational function. There's no way to there's no way to examine it. You're sort of you're stuck at that point.

You you're this is there. That it is either expressly set down in scripture or by good and necessary Consequence maybe to do some scripture. I would much rather use the Baptist way of saying that. Because I've heard good and necessary consequence used for a lot of stuff.

Is it there's a better way of putting that at the same time I am also convinced and you ought also be convinced that the creeds of Nicaea and 381 and Calzone 451. Why not say Constantinople? It's they're gonna get confused if they look up Nicaea 381 was 325.

Anyway, and Calzone 421 are accurate expressions. Expositions of the biblical teaching on the triunity of God and on the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in Christ. Okay fine. Make the biblical defense of Nicaea and Calzone on as I have done for many many years but recognize that what you're defending is biblical theology and that in so doing in Looking at either of those councils you are purposefully and openly not accepting the theology and Authority of the canons and decrees that come from the same councils and I'm not even talking about Nicaea too.

I mean, obviously. That's way way out there far much farther down the road, but it's the same principle. Why do we reject Nicaea too? Because it's hilariously unbiblical. Well, who are you to do that?

So we have to be consistent. We have to recognize we are being biblicist even with Nicaea and Calzone on right. I've met many a person who had no earthly idea what Nicaea? What's the sixth can the council Nicaea?

If point zero one percent of evangelicals could answer that question off the top of their head, I'd be stunned. Okay, so we By nature have to be consistent. We are being biblicist in regards to our view of ecclesiology sacramentology baptism, obviously all of these things we're being biblicist.

Is there a reason why we shouldn't be biblicist on everything is every speculation? Say from the Cappadocian fathers infallible doctrine for us now. Because I I've read church history for years and years and years and when I would read stuff I would critically go.

Yeah, it's not an argument I would ever use in a debate. I appreciate that he thought that was great insight, but I It would be indefensible biblically and I think for example if it was a interpretation of a Pauline text something like that.

I sometimes I've gone and Paul would have no idea how he came up with that from what he said. Because unfortunately origin Influenced a lot of people after him including Augustine every time I run across some kind of You know where Augustine's throwing Genesis under the bus because he just can't believe all that's that literal stuff in Genesis and because the neoplatonism that was Part and parcel of his every Bone in his body.

I just learned a long time ago to Read him and go. Okay, so he had a different view on that. Okay, don't have to but now all of a sudden Other people are coming along going. Oh, but we need to wait. Ooh, we need to be Christian.

Platonists say No, we don't. So just just be self evidently clear on what the source of authority for Nicaea and Cal's on actually are and That even then we are rejecting elements of those those councils.

We're only accepting the creedal statement. And by the way, Cal's on Nicaea was rejected for 40 years after it after it was promulgated and Calcedon never created the unity. It was intended to create.

There are still major churches existing today that we reject Cal's on it did not it did not accomplish What it was it hoped to accomplish at the time. Scripture alone is the norming norm. Which is not normed.