David Allen on Romans 8 Fully Examined; Fundie Calvinists

Alpha & Omega Ministries iconAlpha & Omega Ministries

15 views

Took the time to go through the entirety of David Allen’s section on Romans 8:32 -34 from both of his published books and to interact with his claims regarding particular redemption. Then we moved on (after about an hour) to talk about Doug Wilson, Federal Visionism, and related topics. About 95 minutes today. Visit the store at https://doctrineandlife.co/

Comments are disabled.

00:36
Well greetings and welcome to the dividing line the first real cool day of the fall season here in Arizona only gonna be getting into the 70s today got to the mid 40s last night.
00:47
It's wonderful. It's great and so we are excited about that and We'll definitely keep you awake for the rest of the program as long as you're watching by by a video
00:59
Anyway, I want to do something I've had the books sitting over here for weeks now
01:06
Actually, and I haven't gotten to doing the subject There's been lots of other things in the way and there's lots of things we could be talking about that maybe if I get through this in time we can talk about some of the weirdness going on in social media and things like that the fact that we currently have a
01:25
Non -functional United States government and various is under things like that, but so does the UK and there's just If you want to start talking about things you can just talk forever about what's going on in Northern Ireland and everything else
01:37
But we won't do that at the moment Instead I want to address
01:42
I want to okay got to be careful how I say this
01:52
Back in 2000 whenever it was that when I wrote the potter's freedom and I was doing the research on it.
02:05
I was tracking down all of Norman Geisler's books that were cited in his own book and Really attempting to do the best job
02:15
I possibly could in Accurately representing him. We were still on good terms one another that wasn't gonna last long
02:24
I Remember, I wrote to dr. Geisler having obtained his books and I've mentioned before the the initial edition of the chosen free
02:37
Did not have a scripture index or at least a meaningful one It certainly wasn't exhaustive and I was actually paying people in the chat channel we had at that time with Amazon gift certificates to Go through page by page
02:57
His book and track down every reference to certain verses so I'd say, okay I'll give you $20 to find all the references to such -and -such a verse and I Had done that with John chapter 6 and So I wrote to dr.
03:15
Geisler and I asked him If he had ever
03:22
Anywhere provided a full exegesis of John 635 to 45 the key central text for for John 6 and He wrote back and said well, yeah in the book and The section had been
03:43
Talked about a little bit over here a little bit over there a little bit over there There was no there was no exegesis of John 6 there was this verse doesn't mean this that verse doesn't mean that in different places but that's not the same thing as providing an exegesis of John chapter 6 and So I wrote back and provided every page in the book that mentioned
04:06
John chapter 6 and said There's no exegesis of John 6 here.
04:11
And that's when I got the little postcard back said if you publish I will respond And that was the last
04:19
Meaningful or semi -meaningful Corresponds I had from dr. Geisler We have made the statement we have over the years in You know, we almost could have made a today a radio free
04:33
Geneva and made everybody excited We have over the years made the assertion that Arminianism Struggles to provide consistent coherent exegesis of the key texts
04:53
Where scripture specifically addresses the issue of the relationship between God's freedom and man's freedom
05:00
The nature of God's freedom the nature of man's enslavement to sin the context of grace election choosing predestination atonement
05:13
The continuance of salvation apostasy these key areas
05:21
Armenians really struggle to provide contextual consistent interpretation of the key texts and the text that they say we struggle on are not key texts there the the topic is not
05:40
The subject of soteriology So, you know, we're talking about interpreting all of Romans 8 and 9 and They're talking about looking at a phrase in 1st
05:52
John 2 to Huge difference between the two so a couple months ago
06:00
Something happened on Twitter in regards to dr. David Allen and some statements he made about Romans chapter 8 and so some blog articles got written.
06:11
We looked at a Blog article that dr. Allen wrote on Romans 8 and we took it apart demonstrated.
06:19
It was Not exegetically based and of course what most people would say is well
06:25
Okay, it's just a blog article. Well anymore you can live or die based upon a tweet, but Anyway, it's just a blog article and so people would say well what you need to do is you need to get
06:40
Dr. Allen's real works. I mean look at the size this beast the extent of the atonement
06:46
You got it. You got to get that. Okay Okay, so we did and Interestingly enough that's not what this books about This book is is not does not contain exegesis.
07:05
It's a historical Theological discussion in some ways
07:11
I Mentioned it as a whole section about me and In fact, if you look up Romans 8 one of the only references to this section
07:21
Romans 8 is in the section about me White discusses Romans 8 31 to 34 in Hebrews 7 through 10 as affirming limited atonement yet Nothing in either of these passages affirms limited atonement
07:34
That's it There's a there's a footnote number 126
07:40
Among high Calvinists on Romans 8 32. There is a hasty term generalization
07:48
They convert the us Into the general term all in the sense of all the elect irrespective of faith
07:56
Thus arguing that all for whom Christ died will be given all things in the context however, the us explicitly refers to the justified or believers
08:07
The idea is that since God gave his son for those of us who believe How much more will he give us who believe all things?
08:16
Paul also uses the same form of the a fortiori argument in Romans 5 8 through 10
08:21
So that's the footnote and that's similar to what was said in the blog article
08:30
But that's all you're given is The insertion of the necessary Idea on dr.
08:41
Allen's part That what is key in Romans 8 is human belief It's human faith
08:49
Now if you look up the term pistou On its related noun form pistis
08:57
In the book of Romans, you will see it the last time that is used specifically soteriologically is in Romans 5 1
09:05
Therefore haven't been justified by faith. We have peace with God the Lord Jesus Christ a Number of chapters have passed and it won't appear that way again until Romans 9 end of Romans 9
09:17
So the term doesn't appear in Romans 8 That doesn't mean it's not important. That doesn't mean that you can remove it from the context
09:24
But what dr. Allen is doing is he is taking an overarching concept?
09:30
And then what he does is he reads it into any text to avoid what that text might actually be saying
09:35
Even if the the author didn't feel it necessary to insert such material
09:41
But I'm still looking for the exegesis. So as most people know there's another book the
09:48
Atonement Okay, this is this is not as big and this is where you at least get some of the biblical argumentation and Romans 8 32 through 34
10:02
Garners, let's see aside from the citation of the text one to a quote
10:13
Finish of that three four at max five
10:19
Relatively small paragraphs. It's all gets There is no exegesis. I Have not found in How many hundreds 800 pages on that one and 300 pages on that one.
10:35
So 1 ,100 plus pages No meaningful exegesis no positive exegesis of Romans 8 is provided and this is my point
10:46
One of the reasons that the Potter's freedom had the impact that it had and continues to have is that we can present the
10:56
Reformed faith positively straight from Scripture We don't even have to use the terms that are helpful but I remember very clearly
11:06
I've told the story before when I was I was asked to speak on Romans 9 at a
11:12
Brethren Church in Northern and in Ireland Dublin Dublin area and Because of certain background issues
11:30
I had to be very careful how I did this so as to not cause a food fight or a scene and So I simply exegeted
11:40
Romans 9 I did not have to use Calvin or a limited atonement or almost any specialized terminology that wasn't already in the text itself and so We can provide consistent exegesis of John 6 and Romans 8 and Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and all these these passages and provide a positive teaching that is
12:08
Consistent with what we would do if we were speaking on the resurrection or monotheism or the deity of Christ or whatever else it might be
12:15
Arminianism just can't do that the synergistic systems just They that you can't walk through these passages and come up with a positive instead
12:24
What you have to do is say well, it can't mean this because of this and it can't mean that because of that but what it actually does mean you're not told and That's what you see here in.
12:34
Dr. Allen's work is He's writing he was seemingly almost forced in the position of writing against particular redemption limited atonement limiting the damage
12:51
Done by Calvinism to the Southern Baptist Convention but he doesn't provide anything positive and Here you have one of the key.
13:01
In fact, remember he he said in the blog article that This text doesn't necessarily in fact,
13:10
I wonder let me let me just look here real real quickly. I have a search Thing here and Let me see here
13:27
No, I don't I Don't see that James White and the priesthood. No, that's all it goes all the way back to 2016.
13:34
So that doesn't make any sense. I thought it might pop up in Evernote That's a teary ology 101 that ain't that's close enough
13:50
That's almost But no, I didn't pull up anyway, I was gonna see because my my recollection was that he specifically used the the phraseology that this isn't necessarily
14:09
About the atonement, but I'll deal with it. Anyways, because it's got some satirological aspects. He doesn't make that argument here
14:17
Which I found I found interesting but Some might say well, you know, he's just he's just he's just seeking to respond to you all's misuse of the text.
14:29
Well again The best way to do that is to provide a positive
14:35
Presentation as to what the text means. So what I want to do is I want to give you everything he said in his own published work
14:44
Because remember we have invited Dr. Allen to debate these issues exegetically,
14:50
I have said I Will come to Dallas. I Will come to the school.
14:58
I will come to his classroom. I will come to a large speaking area at the seminary wherever they would have it and My invitation would be
15:13
Dr. Allen walks in I Walk in of course,
15:19
I won't use this one because the prints too small to see anyway and probably for him, too But I'll I'll walk in with my now this would give me an advantage.
15:29
I must admit. Okay, I'll walk in with my Jeffrey Rice rebind the post tenor
15:36
Brzok's rebind. That'll pretty much win it for me right there You know because all the all the students are like, oh man, look at that But Greek New Testament's alone
15:50
Hey, the man wrote a commentary on Hebrews for the New American commentary series.
15:55
So no notes Greek New Testament alone and Let's do
16:01
The atonement Or if you don't want to do it that way fine, but let's do an exegetical debate on the atonement at Southwestern we can't do it a
16:13
Southwest. Okay. How about a nice large church nearby? Where the students can still come and would be encouraged to come
16:21
Why can't we do that? Why can't we do that? We can't do that for political reasons not for any other reasons than that And I'll demonstrate.
16:32
Dr. Allen has said I've written about it. Okay I'm gonna read you everything he said
16:39
Here we go. This begins on page 92 I think this is the current published version from From B &H academic
16:52
So This is to be a 2019 So you should be able to find it
17:00
So Bradman Holman page 92 David Allen now,
17:06
I saw stuff on the preceding pages that almost made me I mean, this is right after a quotation about Romans 5 18 through 19 from William Lane Craig Just let that stand there and speak for itself
17:22
Okay, Romans 8 32 34 citation given Guess we might as well
17:29
He would not spare his own son but delivering him up for us all How shall I not with him freely also freely give us all things who should bring a charge against God's elect
17:38
It is God who justifies who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died and furthermore is also risen who is even at the right hand of God who also makes intercession for us now, of course,
17:49
I Would point out as we have we've dealt with this many many times before That's not where the passage starts this is after the golden chain of redemption
17:59
This is after a discussion of predestination election This is after some of the strongest assertions of the sovereignty of God and salvation in all of the
18:07
New Testament These are the next words But here is dr.
18:14
Allen's treatment this passage states several truths concerning the atonement
18:20
First as the subject who delivered him that is Christ up God is the one who initiated the atonement
18:31
Second Paul says that Christ was delivered up Greek paradox in Terminology that is sacrificial in nature.
18:40
It's true Third Christ was offered up for us all in this context.
18:47
Paul is addressing believers and Their current status as having been justified
18:54
Because they have believed in Christ The focus is on the status of believers who are now in relationship with Christ via justification
19:05
I'm gonna come back. I just want you to hear it all first But I'm gonna come back but just please note what was just said there and What I said earlier
19:16
About the last time faith was mentioned what the immediate preceding context was
19:21
Which is not about believers. It's about what God does. This is this is what synergism does
19:28
You can be in the middle of one of the most important texts about what God does to glorify himself
19:35
And what does the sinner just do it's all about man. It's all about me anyway
19:42
Some have attempted to use this text to support limited atonement the argument is as follows
19:48
The all for whom Christ died according to this passage are given all things
19:54
The non -elect are not given all things. Therefore Christ did not die for them This is a modus tollens
20:01
Argument as distinguished from a modus ponens argument with an off or toriori greater to the lesser layer as well
20:10
One if Christ died for you the greater thing You will be given all things including all consequent gifts the lesser things
20:19
To some ie the non -elect are not given the lesser things three
20:25
Therefore Christ did not die for some the non -elect If P You are died for the greater thing then
20:33
Q all things are given the lesser things Not Q some are not given all things therefore not
20:40
P The argument has a valid modus tollens form, but it is an unsound argument
20:47
Then he lays it out all the died for receive all things Some do not receive all things
20:55
Therefore they are not died for Here is the fallacy the us in delivered him up for us all
21:03
Romans 8 32 is Being converted into all for whom
21:09
Christ died when contextually now listen contextually the us refers to believers
21:19
Not all for whom Christ died This line of reasoning fails to recognize that Paul is addressing believers and describing their status as believers in relation to God's blessings
21:31
It Confuses what Paul says to believers and about believers and extrapolates it into an abstract concerning all the elect whether believing or unbelieving but this merely begs the question concerning the extent of the
21:45
Atonement the all this passage refers to all believers as Context makes clear though.
21:52
The word never appears in it context makes clear To conclude for Romans 8 32 that Christ died only for believers and not for anyone else is to invoke the negative inference fallacy
22:06
Paul's not speaking about the elect qua elect Considered as an abstract class the as yet unborn elect and the living but unbelieving elect
22:14
Paul's point is that no condemnation accrues to believers For whom
22:19
Christ died the greatest gift and that they will be given all things the lesser gifts Not that Christ did not die for all unbelievers
22:29
That's it That's it now No Positive effort is made to exegete the text
22:41
Not even not not even if the start that there's there is no effort made the whole thing is to try to Provide a reason in light of these words
22:57
Not to believe what they say Because Look, we've we've walked through this before but let's just just briefly.
23:05
I'll I'll be I'll be short I won't spend a lot of time on it It's been a lot of time out we've already done this but let's just remind ourselves
23:17
The context here began back in verse 28 That and who is the actor
23:24
God? We know that God causes all things to work together for the good
23:29
For those who are the called Those who love God those who are called according to purpose. So you have the called
23:36
You have God causing all things to work together for the good Yet. Yes, it's the specific use of the term clay toys.
23:44
I just I did a study Sunday evening at Apologia, I went through all the uses of Called and chosen in the entire
23:54
New Testament in one sermon. Yeah, I know it was really exciting but we're in Matthew 24 and the section about But for the sake of the elect those days would be shortened.
24:08
So Jeff asked me it was I Had been scheduled a few months ago, you know, it's right after reformcon
24:14
Would you have the Sunday service and he said would you be willing to address that issue? So I thought you know,
24:21
I just want to make sure that our people have have seen the whole all the evidence So let's just look at all the references and people really liked it.
24:27
They like doing it that way It's an unusual way of doing things. That's not normally how I would do it Anyways, there's the term those who are called according to purpose for those whom he foreknew.
24:37
He also predestined To be conformed the image of his son so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren
24:44
Not firstborn amongst all of the universe but firstborn among many brethren and These whom he predestined.
24:52
He also called those whom he called. He also justified those whom he justified. He also glorified so You have the golden chain
24:59
You have the clear you have God's predestination Results in calling this is effectual calling
25:07
Why because all those whom are called are justified So there is a there is a general call
25:14
Which we are involved in giving because we don't know who the elect are but this calling is what
25:19
God does Just as God actively predestines God actively calls
25:25
Those whom he actively calls He actively justifies now, please note something the same
25:31
Apostle who wrote this had written all the chapters beforehand Which had specifically said you're justified by faith, but the word faith doesn't appear here
25:41
Why doesn't it appear here? Because that is the means By which we are justified by God's grace through faith alone
25:53
But our faith does not determine what God can and cannot do
26:00
Our faith is the result of his predestination his calling those whom he calls
26:07
He draws to himself Regeneration gives the gifts of repentance and faith
26:13
Repentance and faith are central. They're vital, but they're the result of what God does What this text is about is the exact opposite of what dr.
26:21
Allen said right here because dr Allen has to turn this into God's talk. What's what's being discussed here?
26:26
What Paul's discussing here is about believers No, what Paul is discussing here is about what
26:31
God the triune God has done That's what's right there so called
26:38
Justified all who are justified by faith That means if you're called by God, you're gonna believe this is in perfect harmony with Romans 9
26:47
John 6 Ephesians 1 Where these things are addressed? Called justified all those who are justified these he also glorified
27:00
Now If you want to object to the idea of viewing the elect as a whole then you need to object here
27:09
Because that's clearly what's being discussed here Right Are these words relevant to us or not?
27:16
Are they only relevant to the to the people who'd already died in in Paul's day? No, these are general statements just as in Ephesians chapter 1
27:24
Ephesians chapter 2 You've died your life is hidden with Christ God Ephesians 2 you've already been seated in the heavenly places
27:32
Well, yeah in the in as a divine general truth that then's worked out in time, right?
27:37
Well, we all recognize that So why object to it when we get to it later on? Many many inconsistencies
27:47
So that is the context but isn't it interesting that That the introductory line of the paragraph isn't quoted by dr.
27:57
Allen What then shall we say to these things if God is for us who is against us?
28:04
Who's the us? I? mean the us is determinative here, isn't it and Given that this is the first line after what
28:13
God does in saving a particular people whom he has predestined Who are called the clay toys?
28:21
The the the chosen ones the called ones back in Verse 28 we're talking about God's elect and that's exactly what he's going to say in verse 33.
28:31
So there is a consistency here That is introduced by the author himself
28:38
We are not we are not importing this This is we are following the exact same
28:48
Hermeneutics That we would use in Defending the deity of Christ or the
28:55
Trinity or the resurrection or any of these other central defining doctrines using the exact same hermeneutics
29:04
So if God is for us who is the us? Who can be against us?
29:13
and Then to answer that question is what verses 32 and following are about why?
29:22
Can no one be against us? He who did not spare his own son
29:28
But delivered him over for us all now, who is the us?
29:35
Dr. Allen his synergistic system Says that the us is determined by the human action of faith
29:45
The word faith does not appear in Romans chapter 8 It hasn't appeared for three chapters
29:53
What does appear is God's sovereign act of predestination
29:59
That defines a particular people and there has been a golden chain of redemption
30:06
That has said predestination calling justification Glorification who can be against us?
30:15
That's the context there is no concern for context here The only concern here is we have to make sure that Southern Baptists don't believe in particular redemption
30:27
That's the ultimate drive of what's in these pages. Not what's in the text of Scripture. I read it to you, right?
30:36
We're gonna look at it again so He would not spare his own son, but delivering him over for us all
30:45
How will he not also with him freely give us all things now? I've never made the argument that is presented in these pages.
30:58
The argument is not That well the died for greater thing lesser things
31:08
The argument is who is the us and What does the death of Christ accomplish?
31:17
That's what it's about. So by introducing all this extraneous Philosophical look at how
31:24
I can throw around terms of from logic Stuff you're distracting from the reality of what the text is actually saying if God is for us
31:37
Who is against us? He who did not spare his own son, and he was right.
31:43
This is sacrificial language But delivered him over for us all exactly. So here this is sacrificial language
31:52
Paretokhen is exactly in the middle of God gave his son
31:58
He gave him son He gave him what? Hupere Hamon for us
32:09
So exegetically as we're following this through who's the us Don't distract us with modus ponens and modus tolens arguments because that's not the argument ours is a much simpler straightforward argument the us are those who are the elect that God predestined and You know, dr.
32:31
Allen, you know That this is as close to a direct statement of particular redemption as could possibly be written and That's why you're distracting it.
32:43
That's why you're going someplace else. You're going. Hey, look over here That's Why you're doing it
32:52
I'm sorry, you've been given this task Think it happens somewhere around 2007 2008
32:58
You've been given this task and you've been faithfully pursuing it But not in a proper way
33:06
But delivered but and as you know, dr. Allen I'll who pair hamon
33:17
So the first is but in our behalf Pantone parado can out on So the emphasis is on the substitutionary
33:32
Aspect of what's found in the words But delivered him over for us all
33:40
That's where the emphasis is found And why is there an emphasis there because what's the question the question is if God is for us who is against us
33:49
So you need to explain who why this us? Has God on their side and it's impossible for even the enemy himself to to bring about their destruction
34:01
Why because the son has been given over by the father in their behalf you see in your view
34:11
That would not answer the question Because in your view the Sun was given over for all sorts of people that the enemy will destroy for eternity
34:22
Well, he doesn't do it He brings about their destruction. He's a means used But from your perspective the
34:29
Sun has been given over for many for whom Condemnation will come that's your view that every single person
34:41
Who will receive condemnation? Will be able to say the
34:47
Sun was delivered over for me That's your perspective. It's not a biblical perspective.
34:54
It may be very common But that's not what Paul is saying here. So gave him over Substitutionarily for us all
35:08
How will he not also with him freely give us all things with him?
35:13
That's not some lesser thing That's all wrapped up in him The whole point that is not even acknowledged here not even touched on Is the actual argument of particular redemption and that is right there
35:32
He delivered him over for us all Everything is found in him and it's for a specific
35:39
Perfect person purpose. How will he not also? with him freely what
35:48
Give us all things. It's the same us You see dr
35:54
Allen doesn't want to have to deal with the fact that he has to play with all sorts of different asses and Us here and an us there and us here and us and they're all defined based on synergistic categories
36:07
When a straightforward reading Is very easy to understand very easy to understand.
36:15
So here's the question We've had two questions verse 31 is a question verse 32 is a question verse 33 begins the question who
36:26
Will bring a charge Against God's elect
36:33
How can you pretend to deal with Romans 8 32 33 in regards to the subject of atonement and not deal with the fact?
36:41
That smack dab in the middle of it is the direct statement that this is about God's elect
36:53
And as we're as if you remember, I'm gonna go back but if you remember He tries to shift the context and saying that's isn't about God's like this is about God Actually, no, this is this is about the status of justified believers, even though he hasn't mentioned that for three chapters now
37:14
That's what it's about and people didn't notice this when they read this book who will bring a charge
37:25
Against God's elect God is the one justifying Same term used in the golden chain who was justified those who were called who was called those who were predestined
37:38
So there's there's only a couple dozen words between here and there
37:45
Has something changed? No So God is the one justifying
37:53
Based upon what in context his calling But but but but but Romans 3
38:00
Romans 4 were justified by faith Exactly. So what is the calling of God going to inevitably result in in the lives of those?
38:11
thus chosen and predestined and called Faith and repentance. That's why they're called gifts.
38:17
That's why Paul can just easily flip past saying Philippians 1 29
38:23
It's been granted to you. Not only to believe in him, but to also suffer for his sake
38:30
Oh granted to me to believe yes It has to be granted to you
38:35
See, it's just part of Paul's thinking. It's just it flows So who shall bring a charge against God's elect
38:44
God's the one justifying Who is the one condemning? Christ Jesus the one who died
38:52
Rather the one raised who is seated at the right hand of God and Who is interceding for us once again if you're going to attempt to deal with the reformed
39:12
Exegesis of this text and you don't even mention our central argument You don't even mention the connection once again of intercession
39:23
With atonement Here you have the son. He's at the right hand of the father right hand of God and he is
39:33
Intercept interceding what who pair? Hey moan the exact same words from verse 32
39:43
Our behalf there is beautiful consistency. You cannot tear it apart.
39:49
You cannot break it up It's right there in front of you So the argument is
39:57
Not a modus tolens modus ponens with an off or teori sub -level It's much more straightforward than that It's the text says
40:07
God predestines They're the elect of God Christ dies for them and because he dies intercedes for them.
40:15
No one can bring a charge against them That's the argument and until you respond to that argument you haven't even touched the issue after 1 ,100 pages of Verbiage that's the issue.
40:35
So let's let's know so this is this is sort of a study in How to avoid the plain meaning of a text
40:47
Now, dr. Allen with all due respect if someone
40:54
Took a text That I had handled in a book And on the basis the original language
41:02
Pointed these things out. I would have to respond in depth people don't do that, but I would have to respond in depth and If you can skip this and simply
41:13
I've said everything I need to say you've made my point You've made my point
41:20
So quotation the text True statements Up to this at the top page 93 in this context
41:31
Paul is addressing believers And their current status is having been justified because they have believed in Christ.
41:38
That is a gratuitous attempt to recontextualize the text out of necessity
41:45
That is not the context and I challenge dr. Allen Demonstrate that from the context explain why the root of Believe is used in John in Romans 6, but it's not used.
42:01
It's not being used to logically there It's a we we believe we will we will rise also It's not about what belief doesn't regards justification.
42:08
The last uses were at the beginning of Romans 5 So are you seriously saying that the context is not?
42:20
Romans 8 28 the golden chain The immediate context right there in front of us.
42:29
You're really saying that our context has found three chapters earlier back in the discussion of justification and works and Abraham That's not the context
42:41
You know, that's not the context so what you're doing is because your ultimate answer is
42:50
It's all about faith You're inserting it into a place where the author chose not to use the word
43:00
It's not in Romans 8. It's not going to occur until the end of Romans 9 in the future.
43:10
So That's here is an example. This is how I Have a lot of people a lot of good believing
43:20
Christians Living their lives working a hard job. They don't have time to reading commentaries they don't have time to reading learning
43:27
Greek or Hebrew or something like that and they say I you know, it's frustrating because I I want to understand the word and I I do my best
43:37
I study as best I can but I keep running into all this material and One person one scholar says one thing another scholar says another thing
43:51
Why is that? well Because sometimes we use our scholarship in a way that is displeasing to the
44:03
Lord We have our traditions and we'll defend our traditions and That's what you've got here, that's what you've got here you have to learn to Critically Analyze what someone says take the good leave the bad.
44:27
I had to learn that in seminary. I Am so thankful now 30 years down the road
44:34
That I had to learn that lesson But it's a hard lesson to learn but it can be done you can learn from people who disagree with you
44:43
But you have to learn to demythologize scholarship You have to learn to think critically and carefully
44:51
God made your brain just like theirs and So here when someone says
44:56
Paul is addressing believers and their current status is having been justified. Wait a minute
45:02
Justified does does occur in the context, but it's in the golden chain and The ones who are justified to those who are called and those who are called were those who were predestined so Why why
45:22
Because and they've been justified because they have believed in Christ no, they've been justified because they were called
45:29
Now they've believed in Christ, but that's the result of their calling You see the synergist is always starting with man and trying to go upward.
45:38
You can't do that Because the New Testament perspective is this is what God has done And there is everything right to call someone to believe in Jesus Christ repent of their sins but that's because we're down here and That's what we see
45:54
This text is talking to us about what God has done What God sees and that's the sure foundation of all this.
46:03
That's why what comes after this Who shall separate us from the love of God? What's that based on what
46:09
God does? This synergistic stuff Destroys the foundation of all that stuff
46:19
Of all that rejoicing and all that high praise be to God for all it Don't have that anymore
46:25
Because you're starting with man So just just note that whole those two sentences at the top page 93
46:34
Re -contextualizing no references are given no citations are given Nothing that would militate against it is even noticed.
46:42
Just believe what you're told. So then we have
46:50
This whole canard of I'm gonna show you how to Do some symbolic logic and we'll do some some some
47:02
P &Q stuff here. And and we're gonna talk about modus ponens with modus tolens and an a fortiori
47:09
Layer as well, and I'm gonna impress you and it has nothing to do with the whole point Nothing to do a whole point
47:16
The whole point is the text says God predestines a certain people Christ dies in their behalf and therefore no one can bring a charge against them because it specifically says the father
47:26
Delivered him the son up for them Specifically and the result of that is that he intercedes for them specifically
47:40
So where do you get? well, yeah, but That's not just them so the
47:47
Sun is interceding for the others as well and Who can bring a charge against God's elect does not leave room for against God's elect
47:58
Who activate their election by their personal act of faith? You're inserting stuff right left and center and to hide it you do the logic thing.
48:10
Hey, look over here I'm gonna do a logic trick. Whoo and Hope no one watches and evidently it's worked pretty well.
48:18
So here's the problem He says here is the fallacy. Oh, well, we all want to know what the fallacy is
48:25
Here is the fallacy the us in Delivered him up for us all Romans 8 32 is
48:33
Being converted into all for whom Christ died when now listen to this
48:41
Contextually the us refers to believers not all for whom Christ died Contextually you mean the context is
48:49
Romans 5 1 and Not the preceding three sentences That's the context here
48:59
You want to try to? Substantiate that by any meaningful rules of exegesis, sir
49:05
But any of the rules of exegesis you yourself laid out in your commentary on Hebrews, sir
49:11
You can't do it and you know it You can't do it and you know it you have decided that the way around the
49:23
Bible's teaching on this subject is to make the human act of faith the central act of salvation that determines
49:35
What God can and cannot do So when the text turns to the ultimate discussion of how all of this could be
49:46
You diminish it you drag it down By limiting it to the human realm what man does rather than recognizing you bet
49:59
Justifications by faith and it's by faith alone and it's never by anything else But that faith is gift of God just as repentance is a gift of God it's the kinds of God leads you to repentance
50:09
Romans had already said and That faith is a gift of God and that is a part of that effective call which includes
50:17
Regeneration and the granting of that gift and the raising the spiritual life and all those other things which is consistent with what was at The beginning of Romans chapter 8 when he says no one can submit the law of God If you're dead in sin
50:31
Can't do it You say otherwise and you take that entire concept and smash it down on top of this you say it's the context when it isn't the context when anyone reading the
50:43
Bible knows what the context actually is and Say job done well
50:51
For people who don't want to believe this the job is done. You're just giving a reason to continue not to believe it
50:57
I get it. I get it So there's no fallacy here the fallacy is the lack of Exegesis that is being offered by dr.
51:10
Allen So this line of reasoning even though we have not had any touching upon actually formed exegesis of this text
51:21
This line of reasoning fails to recognize that Paul is addressing believers and describing their status as believers in relation to God's blessings again,
51:30
I Simply have to go. Where did that come from? Where'd that come from? Would any of you reading
51:39
Romans 8 have come to that conclusion or would you be focused upon Wow, this is all about what
51:46
God does and God was the subject that entire chain. There was nothing in there about man at all
51:52
So, how did the context become what man does? The tradition of synergism
51:59
The tradition of elevating man the position of controlling the grace of God It's the very nature of all of man's religions and it comes into Christianity as well
52:08
Comes into Christianity as well So, I mean that that's it
52:16
I mean once you've recognized that There's nothing left
52:22
There's nothing left to even respond to The end the entire very brief very shallow
52:34
Discussion and You'll notice it wish I'd pulled up the blog article But you'll notice that that was the same argumentation that got repeated a few months ago in the blog article as well and then specifically in response to the challenge to debate
52:59
No reason to I've already done 1200 pages Interact with that. Dr.
53:04
Allen. We just did We just did So there's
53:10
Romans 8 you want to do Hebrews 7 8 9 I'll look up everything you said about them, too We'll do the exact same thing.
53:16
We'll deal with it. Is that what it takes to arrange this debate? I mean,
53:23
I've been very forthright, but I have not been unfair. I read everything you said how many times?
53:32
How many times I? Mean it would be wonderful If my critics out there actually took the time to repeat what
53:42
I actually said Accurately in context, I would think that would be awesome doesn't happen very often doesn't have very often
53:52
But see we can do that we can do that just did that so what are the texts would you like to do?
54:00
What are the texts you'd like to do I Mean, I think John 6 would be great be happy to do that I'm not sure if you have anything on John 6 but the
54:08
Hebrews passages. Hey, that's you've written an entire commentary on Hebrews. I Cannot imagine that you would have
54:14
I would think that you would see that as a as a huge advantage to you Okay, I preached 85 sermons through Hebrews 2 but Still you're published on the subject
54:27
Of course, that would mean I have everything you've written on it as well which might give me the advantage, huh, but Yeah, listening to all those sermons probably not something you'd want to do either though You could just listen to the ones on the relevant section.
54:39
So we would know what the other one has preached or taught or written and published on On those texts and you called me out by name by name
54:55
You won't you won't back up what you said when you call me out by name in published works I just simply suggest the reason is that you know, it's indefensible
55:07
That's all that's that's just that's that's straightforward. Okay. All right. I hope everybody found that to be
55:19
Useful and helpful. Yes, sir before you run away from that you started are you accusing me of running away you didn't yes
55:26
I'm in the zone, dude. Don't accuse me of anything I'll take your lips off And you're wearing a coogee to I certain one of my originals actually.
55:36
Yes. I'm blind now jealous, too You started this off talking about your advantage walking into the debate with a post tenebrous lux
55:48
Bible cover I Do you have that? Do you have one of those in there? No Well, this is this is terrible, but well,
56:01
I only have two I had a phone call this morning from a lady wanting to know what
56:07
Bible she you would recommend for her to get for her husband for Christmas and We had a little chat about What you guys did for?
56:19
Kwaku Yeah, and I but remember something that would have had to have been done months ago
56:26
Jeff Jeffrey Jeffrey is literally six months out. Wow. I didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah, but you know,
56:32
I Just threw it out there and I guess I'm behind the curve now.
56:38
I didn't realize that if Somebody wanted to give their husband a really awesome gift.
56:43
No, I was I was thinking August I saw Jeffrey saying if you want
56:49
Christmas stuff, you got to get yours in now because You know, he doesn't the thing is he doesn't do this on a machine yeah, so it takes a tremendous amount of time for each one and so you can only do so many in a week and There you go, but yeah, and of course if someone's asking what
57:09
Bible to get that's different than what binding to get it in you know
57:16
Bible translations and stuff like that. That's a well, but the presentation of a good
57:21
Bible Oh, yeah, both the cover the pages the translation. It's all of it.
57:27
That's why that's why they gave dr MacArthur one of Jeffrey's Bibles sort of the legacy edition that he had put together and it's it's extremely impressive, but I'll always have the na -28 that started it all
57:43
As famous as he gets and all the pictures I see a brother Jeffrey up there, you know next to John MacArthur and stuff
57:50
I'm always going. Yep, but I've got the na -28 And he knows it so anyway, yeah
57:59
No, I would obviously if you if you want to give somebody something that's gonna Really last a lifetime.
58:06
That'd be a great great thing But you don't want to you don't want to get a post -Tenebrous
58:11
Lux rebind of the New World Translation either So you want to make sure you're getting getting something good.
58:17
There's something it's worthwhile. All right so so much so much has happened and I Haven't really been
58:31
Following some of the stuff that's been going on while I've been speaking Nothing Nothing much you said
58:41
Yeah, well a few interesting things going on but Do I even want to do
58:50
I even want to touch on this is the question Evidently Rich was
58:56
Digging through old dividing lines, which must be a truly exciting thing to do There are people who do it friends and enemies,
59:03
I think more enemies and friends to be honest with you To look for some statements that I made a long time ago.
59:12
In fact, where was that? I don't have whatsapp up.
59:19
So that would be November of 2004. Yeah, it's November 15th of 2004 so Almost exactly.
59:32
Yeah, I've got it now. I'm glad whatsapp comes up faster November 15 2004 so almost almost 15 years of the day.
59:43
We're getting close. It's almost November. So 15 years ago, I Wrote I was looking over yet another statement offered by an ecclesiastical body or group regarding the
59:57
Auburn Avenue Controversy and I was once again struck by the fact that it is tremendously rare to find a meaningful response
01:00:05
Simply because no one evidently is willing to accurately represent the diversity of opinion expressed by author authors loosely identified with the federal vision viewpoint
01:00:20
This was after the debate Yes, this fact it would have been right about a week after the debate so the debate was in Early November.
01:00:30
Yes. Okay. So this is very shortly In fact, if that's the case, then we were on the cruise at this point or it just gotten back
01:00:38
I think you've just gotten back and you were starting to do After action reports stuff like that.
01:00:45
So notice what I'm talking about about the Diversity to accurately represent the diversity of opinion expressed by authors loosely identified with the federal vision viewpoint as I was reading the list of things supposed supposed affirmed or denied just now
01:01:06
I Found that about 30 % of what was said would accurately represent
01:01:12
Douglas Wilson's view But about 70 % He has vehemently denied
01:01:19
I Guess there are some of the more radical writers who would be accurately identified by some of the statements
01:01:26
But as a group the list of affirmations and denials was another example of straw man argumentation
01:01:34
So I did not remember that Specifically That specifically
01:01:43
That far back I Had been addressing the the fact that Federal vision ism is a
01:01:57
Varied group with varied opinions being expressed by individuals within it one of the problems that Just today.
01:02:07
I have been seeing from the small cadre small but very loud cadre of People in social media remember 2004.
01:02:19
Was there such a thing as social media in 2004? Twitter, I don't think it even started that.
01:02:25
No, there wasn't anything like that. We were just Moving away from our format where we were using
01:02:31
HTML pages Over into blog software right beginning that process to give a perspective.
01:02:37
Yeah, mp3s were a very new thing Yeah, we were moving out of real audio, right? Yeah Yeah, so you really didn't have yet the
01:02:47
Concept of social media that we have today, but those within social media today
01:02:56
Who are fixated on Doug Wilson there's there's fixate on this is he
01:03:04
They have the same attitude toward Doug Wilson that MSNBC has about President Trump.
01:03:10
I mean, it's identical Orange man Moscow man same thing Absolutely same thing.
01:03:16
He is just the exact same embodiment of evil for these folks that President Trump is
01:03:24
For the folks at MSNBC or CNN or any of those leftist groups? so The problem is that just as President Trump cannot say or do anything
01:03:40
That is positive or could possibly interpret as positive neither can Douglas Wilson and I Mentioned on social media today the fact that there is a deep strain of fundamentalism
01:03:54
Amongst these people even though they're all reformed And I said on Facebook today, maybe
01:04:02
Twitter as well, I don't remember that when you combine Reform theology with fundamentalism
01:04:12
The result is ugly. It's just ugly
01:04:20
It's one thing for King James only fundamentalists who aren't overly well armed With history or anything else
01:04:30
It's one thing for them to be the mean -spirited people. They are once you give somebody
01:04:36
Nuclear weapons and make them mean -spirited. It's gonna be ugly. It's gonna result and one of the things that fundamentalists do is they expand
01:04:47
The list of essentials and Diminish the list of Adi Afra now.
01:04:54
We've talked about this many times before but it's We are all faced with having to think this through every single day in social media
01:05:04
What's definitional and what is not and your opinions of that may change over time hopefully only because you're thinking things through not because you're simply following the culture or a particular individual or whatever else might be but We are all subject to all sorts of different forces pressing upon us when it comes to where we draw the line as to what is
01:05:33
Definitional and What is Adi Afra so definitional the definitional doctrines define the faith without them?
01:05:41
You don't have the faith then you have important doctrines outside of that. These are these are concurrent rings and so outside of that you've got the next level ring is going to be very very important and Denying that next level ring will probably end up resulting in someone leaving the faith or having severe deformations of faith, but They're still saved and that's where that's where the fundamentalist
01:06:10
Refuses to make these distinctions because in a in a healthy view you have these concurrent rings and There's enough at the center
01:06:21
To be biblical to have the same perspectives as the
01:06:27
Apostles So I criticize the mere Christianity movement because it shrinks
01:06:35
What's definitional To something smaller than what the Apostles did the
01:06:40
Apostles plainly made the gospel the core tenets of the gospel Something you can't compromise on You can't you can't negotiate that one way.
01:06:51
It's non -negotiable Galatians makes that plain if you're gonna anathematize somebody that's it
01:06:59
When John says if you if you don't have the son, you don't have the father also There you go there are certain things that are absolutely definitional and some things that are not so The mere
01:07:11
Christianity movement shrinks down to small liberalism has no core The core is gone because they don't have a word from God Union Theological Seminary can have
01:07:22
Buddhist teaching and nobody cares because there's no core. It's jello It's jello there's nothing left it's not
01:07:29
Christianity It's it's hollow there's nothing there so you got to have the core you've got to recognize the concentric rings and then eventually
01:07:42
What you're dealing with is adiaphora Now adiaphora doesn't mean things don't matter
01:07:51
But they don't define they don't divide and for the fundamentalist there are no adiaphora
01:08:00
Remember I played man, I I first started following that fundamentalist thing on Twitter IFB fundi preachers or whatever it is.
01:08:10
I forget what it is and Listening to Curtis Hudson is sort of fun and then it stops being fun.
01:08:19
It really does it stops being fun The the hey, yeah, hey, yeah, hey that stuff it gets it gets ill it gets old after a while really does and Then you start really seeing the fundiism and when you hear these fundies they will say things like they will you know, talk about Calvinist as heretics and they're all going to hell and Then and those mid trippers.
01:08:46
We all know their heretics, too so in other words if you have a difference of viewpoint about when the speculated
01:08:56
Tribulation would be in one particular Eschatological perspective if there is ever something that defined adiaphora, that would be it
01:09:06
But oh no, you're a heretic it's definitional it's definitional and So when you when you think of fundies you think of the people who make every single thing
01:09:18
Definitional the faith and so if you don't look like them and talk like them and think like them on every single point
01:09:24
You're a heretic remember it was right around a year ago right now when the
01:09:30
NIFB movement Was going strong and they were having their YouTube chats and they're doing their thing
01:09:37
And what do you what do you what were you hearing in every single one? Everybody they go after and they go after by name
01:09:46
They'd go after them for the most picky young tiny little things Because there is no adiaphora.
01:09:54
It's everything is gospel Now, of course, they blew up A whole lot faster than we expected them to but they
01:10:03
It's a spectacular meltdown And we're still going as we have for three and a half decades now
01:10:12
Man we're coming up on 40, dude. I Know how old you are. I know how old you are, but I'll say about the ministry
01:10:20
Come on, we got to do someone write us a note to remind us We've got to do something interesting for our 40th
01:10:30
I just I couldn't remember when I was 20 or 30 or 40 and now I definitely can't remember
01:10:37
Yeah, that's sort of how it goes our our advertising department, they're just not on the ball at all.
01:10:43
That's because they don't exist What was it uncle was it uncle Harry in a wonderful life who had the strings around his fingers?
01:10:48
I don't remember, you know, I remember. Sorry. Sorry. I'll have to watch it again. Anyhow, what was
01:10:55
I talking about? See, that's that's what happens. We get distracted like this When you have that attitude
01:11:03
Being brought into people who are reformed. That's what I see in this Douglas Wilson group is
01:11:10
Man, I'm gonna tell you Not Douglas Wilson's group the anti Douglas Wilson group. Sorry about that that could be confusing some people don't even know
01:11:17
I'm talking about but There is a fundamentalism Because Along with the
01:11:28
Unwillingness to recognize Adi Afra Comes the separationism and you must separate and This is where look
01:11:41
I Will tell you why I make the choices I make on this but I'll stand before my lord to answer for this.
01:11:48
I Can't tell you where to do it. I Can give you my reasoning I can give you my arguments
01:11:55
But the sad thing is a lot of you are so infected by the the mindset of fundy ism that if I Experience greater freedom in association than you do
01:12:09
Well, did I tell the story of the guy in Melbourne that came up to me about Michael Brown, man?
01:12:15
I thought I did dividing line 2033 hey rich.
01:12:27
Did I already talk about this? I don't know We're gonna have to hire
01:12:38
Summers gonna be sitting over there. Yes, dad. You already talked about that. Yeah, you don't wanna know when okay. All right, move on.
01:12:44
Okay No, Clementine will be doing that Clementine will be doing that.
01:12:50
Yeah pongo move on. Thank you, honey. I'll do that It could happen it really really could happen what we're talking about again, um, there's this guy came up to me in Melbourne and He went after me about the fact that I I need to send
01:13:09
Michael Brown to hell and It's that kind of associationalism
01:13:18
Where for some reason today and that's that's what it is here, too And I've mentioned this before I don't think
01:13:26
I could be wrong somebody asked Doug Chocolate asks asked Doug for me.
01:13:33
I Don't think he's debated anyone more often than he has me We've debated in public we've debated in writing if you include the antithesis article
01:13:41
We've debated in writing like three times plus the public debates or at least four times So It's like with Michael Brown I've debated
01:13:52
Michael where I disagree is clearly known and When I disagree on something that's important,
01:14:00
I think I think divine healing and the spiritual gifts are important things and so we've debated them and We've debated them openly and a fundamentalist believes that if you debate somebody about something you must hate them you must hate them as a result and That's one place where immediately
01:14:25
I go doesn't work that way I've debated people that I wasn't overly fond of but it's not a good idea to debate somebody you hate
01:14:36
You will you will probably abuse the truth let alone the audience and the other person if you allow hatred in your heart
01:14:45
That's why there's a lot of people that was it. Don't you dare ever do a debate? And again,
01:14:50
I just ask you to examine your own heart as to why you want to do anything if you're filled with hate but anyway, I have been very clear in my criticisms of Michael Brown We've disagreed.
01:15:04
We've been on this program together But on his program we've done debates and with Doug Wilson but the problem is in the
01:15:14
Fundy mindset what that means is Neither Michael Brown nor Doug Wilson can ever say anything.
01:15:20
That is fundamentally brilliantly true or if they do You can't appreciate it because that's compromise
01:15:29
You really shouldn't be listening to him at all The degree of separation should be never listen to them
01:15:35
But certainly never if you do by mistake do that Never ever ever ever say anything positive about them because they're
01:15:44
Satan incarnate That's fundamentalist mindset so every time
01:15:50
Especially on the social justice stuff in regards to you know, anthropology the
01:15:56
Doctrine of Man Doug Wilson just writes some incredible stuff that just knocks the ball right out of the park and if you say that Again it's a small cadre a
01:16:11
Small really unhappy people. I feel sorry for some of them are former friends, and this is what made them former friends
01:16:20
But they'd and they've gotten you know, that try I think they have all their tweets pre -written because Doug may say something over here about the relationship of men and women
01:16:32
But they are ready with tweets about every bad thing that's happened in Moscow in the past 25 years and They just they just drag it up again and again and again and again and it's the one baseball bat
01:16:48
They've gotten it's just all they do and you just go what a life. I'm sorry. I really am
01:16:56
But you then become the bad person Because you're just not you don't get it.
01:17:05
You're a compromiser and You go so I've made it very clear.
01:17:11
We disagree and Evidently you think that Especially when it comes to the things you're willing to condemn people over I have to condemn people over the exact same things you condemn people over even though because I've been involved in the eldership for over two decades of my life and I know how easy it is to make accusations from outside when you don't when you weren't there
01:17:37
You weren't a part of it. You're only here and you're normally only hearing one half of the story and Often, you know, the other half of the story, but you can't say anything about the other half of the story
01:17:48
Because you're in ministry and you're not supposed to reveal those types of things I Won't I won't condemn the way you're willing to condemn from afar
01:18:00
And so I've now have to be condemned for not joining in the condemnation Yeah, that's how it works
01:18:08
That's how it works. And it's not just the Doug Wilson thing There are people who demand that I again
01:18:14
It's the fundamentalist mindset says you need to condemn whoever I condemn and if you don't then the only reason could be
01:18:24
That you're actually secretly on their side and therefore I must separate from you and therefore
01:18:29
I will condemn you and expose you the problem with that mindset obviously is that It cannot result in anything but the building of teeny tiny little enclaves of people who think identically with one another and There aren't many people who do that and Everywhere I go now
01:18:57
I meet people who have come out of that kind of narrow Barren Shallow graceless kind of religion and Have discovered something much more vibrant and much more alive and I'm It's not it's rich and I didn't sit down one day.
01:19:25
Let's start a ministry for independent fundamentalist Baptist never crossed our mind, but if you just handle all the truth of God and Then you help people to see there are certain things that are absolutely definitional and Then there are certain things that are not that's gonna have that that result and then you're just consistent about so here
01:19:47
I am Here I am going back to the article, you know,
01:19:54
I I specifically said You know 30 % accurately represents
01:20:00
Doug's view 70 % he's vehemently denied That was 15 years ago
01:20:06
That's 15 years ago. I just debated the man and Yet, what am
01:20:12
I doing? I'm saying you need to accurately represent him. There's nothing new about this for me For those of you jumping up and all down People say
01:20:20
I used to be a regular in your chat channel, or I used to do this. I used to die I've been this way all along Were you not listening?
01:20:30
When when could someone point out when I started saying that you need to accurately represent the other side 83 yeah,
01:20:41
I'd be about that might be about 83. Yeah first first radio programs we did on K pxq or kxcg or whatever it was back then.
01:20:50
Who knows? That that's been my my shtick all along that's what's defined us
01:20:57
That's why I can go back 15 years and I'm saying, you know, I just debated this guy
01:21:03
That means I disagree with him But I Know what he believes and you need to accurately represent him.
01:21:12
Why why? People who say I used to be if I'd you know, I've got a bad taste in my mouth about you
01:21:18
Well, you weren't cheering very well before so I went on to say what really bothers me about the consistency of these misrepresentations is
01:21:26
Just that the real issues are almost never addressed because so much of the time is spent on both sides
01:21:31
Making charges and counter charges and trying to correct misapprehensions and the like This was before social media.
01:21:39
That's the sad part Are the federal vision folks at least partly to blame for the confusion, of course
01:21:47
Sometimes they say things in one context that would indicate a more radical position than they were willing to affirm in a less friendly context this leads inevitably to confusion, but I have concluded the majority of the
01:21:58
I Don't think you really meant what you just said and even if you did
01:22:03
I believe you really mean this kind of stuff Is taking place for reasons. I cannot begin to plumb on the other side of the fence.
01:22:11
Well, I can plumb them now Like to turn the water off, but I can plumb them now and that is this fundamentalist mindset.
01:22:20
I Haven't seen much response. The Wilson debate is yet and probably won't until the DVDs come out.
01:22:26
Hopefully very soon Yes, this is before the Internet. Well, it's not before the Internet before It's definitely before YouTube.
01:22:32
I'm not sure when YouTube started. I Remember when YouTube started I was like, ah, that'll never work Sort of like the iPad.
01:22:39
Oh, well. Oh Yeah, I know. I remember and then it would take you forever to download them, too
01:22:46
But outside of the inevitable few for whom I cannot even pronounce my own name without error or various levels of incompetence or stupidity,
01:22:54
I Really do not expect to hear the criticism that I misrepresented Wilson's viewpoints
01:22:59
I refuse to add to the fog bank of confusion that exists already. My desire was to clarify not confuse
01:23:06
Folks, we've been doing the same thing all along and there's the evidence of it So if you if you've got a if you got a problem then you should have had a problem all along I'm in the midst of following up on that find
01:23:22
Because like I told you part of what I do here is remember things Yeah, it may take me a while to get round to it, but I you know,
01:23:29
I think about things and remember them I distinctly remember the programs that you did on this
01:23:37
Making the distinction between that which was presented by Steve Schlissel Was it
01:23:42
Robert Baric? Am I remembering that name? That doesn't sound familiar Baric was the there were three major players in this
01:23:50
Baric Schlissel Schlissel and Doug Wilson and Doug Wilson As you're digging into this was by far the the least extreme.
01:24:00
Yeah, that's all His heyday of federal vision is a Schlissel went much farther. He was restrained
01:24:07
Yeah, and I saw no acknowledgement in the last 24 hours of any of those kind of distinctions
01:24:14
He is the devil incarnate of federal vision ism. But what I had also said what and what you were looking for was
01:24:22
I commented on How federal vision ism gets you to the same point as The new perspective right but by a different road totally different paths and boy did both sides come down on you like a ton of bricks
01:24:38
Back then. Yeah, that's true. That's true. No question about it And this was also right around the same time if I recall correctly
01:24:46
That we had the big controversy. It was southern. Yes The that was in August and September you were dealing with the
01:24:56
Seyfried controversy. Yeah. Yeah, so And that those those articles
01:25:02
I was just looking at him this afternoon again they're absolutely fascinating to go through that history and Actually see you and Al Mohler Yeah, kind of button heads.
01:25:13
Oh, yeah, and oh, but gee, you know We're supposed to have these experiences then toss them overboard, right?
01:25:19
No but You know There's so much more going on here than what 15 years later these so -called experts
01:25:31
That have now come out with all of these Presbyterian statements to deny their Presbyterian brothers
01:25:38
That and the this the one I'm actually looking for is I distinctly remember you getting a whole lot of Presbyterians upset
01:25:44
Because you commented about the fact that the federal vision is the logical outcome outflow of Presbyterian thought
01:25:54
Specifically the statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yeah, because that's what it's about. It's about an interpretation of Westminster and Shock of all shocks as a credo
01:26:04
Baptist I believe that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not only an error But incoherently an error in its doctrine of baptism and about its statements about God's election and What baptism represents?
01:26:20
stunning and anybody who Knows what the controversy is about knows that the one side
01:26:25
Interprets those statements in one way and the other in another way and that's why we ended up having to have two debates on baptism one with a non -federal visionist and one with a federal visionist
01:26:37
Because when I debated the non -federal visionist the federal vision is like well, yeah, of course, he's inconsistent So, of course, you're gonna win that one
01:26:45
And then so you have to debate the federal visionist who is a paedo -communionist and You know you get it for those
01:26:54
We don't know what paedo -communionist, paedo -baptism, baptism of infants, paedo -communion, the giving of the
01:26:59
Lord's Supper to infants And there are those who do that and Doug Wilson is one of them so The Anybody Who suggests that myself or Apologia Church are promoting federal visionism
01:27:23
Obviously doesn't understand what it is or is willing to go you're just so stupid
01:27:31
That while you could never be a federal visionist yourself by Direct obvious confessional statement.
01:27:39
I mean you Even as dr. Clark defined it
01:27:44
Federal visionism in by baptism kept by works. That's how he defined it. Now. That's obviously so simplistic that it could not possibly describe
01:27:53
The various viewpoints that have been expressed even by people who call themselves federal visionists over the past 15 years
01:28:00
But if you're gonna simplify it that far then We cannot be federal visionists because you're never in by baptism.
01:28:09
We don't believe in infant baptism We don't believe that baptism is that mechanism by any stretch of the imagination
01:28:16
So we just must be so stupid that we don't get it that we're promoting people that are actually teaching it right under our noses and So ReformCon took place this past weekend.
01:28:28
And so that's what started all this Well, yeah me and me and chocolate
01:28:33
Knox, but but actually I think it was just the ReformCon Graphic that had me in summer and Jeff, but it also had
01:28:42
Toby and some things, right? But that picture of you sneaking up on chocolate Knox I saw it on Facebook and I know who started this whole mess and It was that picture that sent this whole thing to the moon and it was okay
01:28:56
Knox equals Doug Wilson Doug Wilson equals federal vision federal vision equals
01:29:02
Alpha Omega Ministries. Yeah Yeah, which requires a tremendous amount of historical naivete
01:29:08
And I was just trying to keep Chocolate nervous because he didn't want me in the room while they were doing the program really didn't
01:29:15
I made him nervous So I sat right up front and he kept looking over to me and I was just watching him the whole time
01:29:21
And I loved it. It was a whole lot of fun But anyway, yeah, listen listen to the the the mashup program that cross politic did with sheologians and Was great stuff had nothing to do with federal visionism or anything like that, but but but but there is there is another thing
01:29:42
Doug Wilson founded the patriarchy So he is he is the founder of the patriarchy and evidently summer is a servant of the patriarchy
01:29:52
We got that too That's a whole nother aspect of this that that poisons the well as well.
01:29:59
So anyway, yeah that's This gives you an idea of just how all of this stuff works.
01:30:07
I wasn't gonna get into that But there you go Touch on it in in passing while we're looking at it.
01:30:17
So there's there's Every good reason to debate baptism
01:30:28
I Would love to see a debate I'll go ahead and do it.
01:30:33
Let's just go ahead and blow the whole internet up. Here's what I want to do and There would be a great opportunity for doing this next year and I hope this works out but it may not but I can't force anybody to do it, but I'm willing to do it and I think it would be really helpful to the church as a whole and I Haven't mentioned it
01:30:57
But I really get a gut feeling that he He'd go for it.
01:31:03
He'd be willing to do it Resolved the ordinances of the church established by Christ The Resolved the ordinances that Christ established for his church that Disambiguates it the ordinances that Christ established for his church are for believers only
01:31:30
Myself versus Doug Wilson, you see why that's you see why that's useful.
01:31:38
It's not just paid of baptism It's paid of communion as well. And it's about the nature of The ordinances of the
01:31:47
New Covenant Who are they for? And here's here's the problem
01:32:01
That debate While it would have humor in it because Doug Wilson's in it and me some of you are surprised
01:32:12
When I speak That I can use a little humor myself. In fact,
01:32:17
I thought my my warm socks Song this morning was fairly was fairly Did you see other people continued all the way to the end which
01:32:24
I was impressed by they obviously had more time today than I Did but I can use some humor too, but this is what drive people nuts.
01:32:32
It would not be What the anti Doug Wilson people want it to be
01:32:38
It would not be a jihad it would not be a burning of the stake it would not be a
01:32:45
Thundering of condemnations from the gates of Geneva or whatever else they might think it might be
01:32:52
We've already demonstrated that we can debate a topic in a meaningful
01:33:00
Fair Scholarly and What Cordial fashion.
01:33:08
Yes, it can be done and But here's here's why they would never here's here's why
01:33:15
The anti Doug Wilson people would never be satisfied with it and wouldn't support it it could be done in a brotherly fashion and That's where they go.
01:33:24
Nope Can't do it that way Can't do it that way You've got it.
01:33:29
You've got to start with a man as an unbeliever, but for anybody who's not already there
01:33:36
I think it would be really excellent idea and a really excellent topic and Extremely useful to flesh these things out and at least we'd know at the end of that where everybody stood
01:33:53
And so There's my thought I'd like to see it happen
01:33:59
Not like I don't have anything else going on next year But I'd like to see it happen, but there are some opportunities when that could that could that could take place and So, there you go well, anyways,
01:34:14
I yeah, I wasn't gonna go there, but I was gonna maybe wait till the next program or something like that, but We started talking about it.
01:34:23
So why not? So there you go Yeah, and so I uh, I do recall
01:34:30
That Seyfried situation that was before dr. Moeller and I really knew each other at all But you know the the interesting thing is that in years after that He was the one who made the first move to contact me actually on Subjects regarding to Mormonism because you know dialogues with Mormons contact with people up in Utah and stuff like that and You know, it's interesting
01:35:00
When you're really focused upon The stuff that really matters you can get along with a lot of folks who have
01:35:11
Differences of opinion maybe quirky personalities that That wouldn't normally allow them to get along with a lot of folks.
01:35:19
But you know, if if if your focus is on Advancing the kingdom it's possible to look over those things
01:35:28
Hmm strange how that works, but for a lot of folks that that doesn't work that way. So Anyway, all right folks for listening to the program today
01:35:37
Lord willing. We'll be back on Thursday We've got a couple weeks here again. We do have a debate coming up on the 13th
01:35:43
Have we put a banner out up on yet? Well, we need to get the guys in Atlanta.
01:35:48
We need your banner ad stuff ASAP We've got a debate on the 13th of November in the Atlanta area me and Shabir Ali Make sure that you make sure you're aware of that and then the next weekend
01:35:59
Lord willing London be in London. Hope to see my friends there We'll see you next time.