Commentary on Apologetics from a Review of Portions of the Dillahunty/Scrivener Dialogue

Here we go. Okay, starting over It's working

Yeah, so we're supposed to be starting now even though I don't have anything up on the screen And at least hopefully maybe we have audio now.

I don't know but hey, welcome to the dividing line. There we go Early morning edition that may not have been wise but I don't know.

I don't know, you know, I just remember some guy years years ago That was just you know, all

I was talking about, you know Anyway, here we are We have audio and video all at the same time whether they're synced up or anything who knows but here we are we're early today because I've got an appointment out in East Valley and then tomorrow we are headed for G3 hope to be seeing many of you on Thursday and Friday morning.

I speak Friday morning my assigned topic is in reference to Isaiah chapter 6 and So but I'm one of the first ones up in the morning 9 a .m.

And So you early risers will be able to join me at that time.

I don't rate the evening stuff I'm you know level C type stuff. So we get the morning stuff when people are chugging their

Starbucks to try to stay awake and the big boys get the get the nighttime slots and so So we just if we just go with what we're what we're given and we're looking forward to seeing y 'all there

Um, we do not have a booth this year I let you ask the person on the other side of the window about that That's Neither here nor there.

I'm just like a beer there all that long because I'm gonna be heading on Friday Up to New Hyde Park Baptist Church and on Saturday and Sunday gonna be speaking there on New Testament text reliability issues in regards to where the

New Testament came from things like that at the church there where Doug McMaster's is is pastor has been for a number of years now and I spoke there before Doug did actually many many many moons ago.

So we'll be we'll be up there and So we'll only be a g3 from Basically Thursday morning.

I guess there's a concert Thursday night I know I'm supposed to be doing something with the cross -politic guys.

I think Thursday night. Hope it's Thursday night if it's Wednesday night. Oops And certainly can't be

Friday night because I won't be there but rich will be there through Friday night So if it was Friday night For that program

Then Rich will do it Whatever Who who does know how that would turn out?

I have no earthly idea But on Thursday, I'll have a nice Coogee vest on so I'll be easy to find but on Friday morning

I have to dress up. So I There's absolutely no way on earth

Josh Bice would ever allow me to preach in this A rich as me either so Lots of places on earth that would love me to preach in something like this

But no, no, they got it got to go with what we got to go with anyways So I mentioned that one of the things

I wanted to do is I wanted to review the recent unbelievable debate

They're not formally debates, but you know what? I mean between Matt Dillahunty and Glenn Scrivener can

Can atheism produce a better world and basically the conclusion was either no or we don't know

Dillahunty's fundamental response was I don't know. We haven't been given a chance yet, basically

But Matt Dillahunty is definitely one of the more interesting Atheists out there speaking he at times can be your standard

In your face type atheist and as other times when he manages to hold it in Dillahunty is a former

Christian by his own profession obviously, we would dispute that theologically but be it as it may and hence

Falls into that category that it does seem That atheists in general like former

Christians because there's that that added Element to it in fact,

I mentioned and I think I might have played if I didn't play it I had intended to play it some of the audience

Q &A from the Debate I did play it.

I did play it the debate that Dillahunty did with Saiten Bruggeke and Made reference to a couple times where Quote -unquote former fellow

Christians came up and talked about how their lives are just so much better now that they were they're atheists

It was it was an interesting study in apostasy anyway So we wanted to look at what was said for a couple of reasons and The there's there's there's two one was

I was just utterly amazed at Matt Dillahunty's Summary description of what

Christianity actually teaches Not not that I mean it was it was the standard fare for atheists

But when someone claims that they were once a Christian and that they once were thinking about ministry and going into ministry and then can just Completely massacre any type of meaningful summary and Then demonstrate and this is not unusual at all and then demonstrate that They do not understand the

Doctrine of the Trinity You know if you are once a meaningful Christian and Once had a meaningful understanding of the

Doctrine of Trinity becoming an atheist does not require you to stop having that understanding

And I don't care if it's been 10 years or 15 years. You still should be able to You know accurately represent what you once believed

No that We we saw in the debate up in Salt Lake City the atheists had no idea what the

Doctrine of the Trinity was very easy to misrepresent it and Matt Dillahunty does same thing.

So we're gonna look at at what he said, but then and And this is where a lot of folks go now.

This is the part you shouldn't do It's it's one thing for you to go after the atheist and point out the atheist errors, but why would you?

Engage in a discussion about anything Glenn Scribner said because he did a good job.

He you know Why why would you show cracks in the team in essence and I suppose

I should offer an apologetic as to why it is important to Engage in If you want to call it criticism

Comparison in some way to do what a lot of people just There there are a lot of Christian apologists that simply do not believe

That we should have any type of discussion About differing methodologies by criticizing someone when they're doing a debate now

I Get that Because there I Had I had a guy last last night on Twitter some young guy

He described himself as a community college dropout. That's how he that's how he described himself and he decided to pop into a into a thread to accuse me of having some type of unorthodox view of the

Trinity because in a Q &A session in a debate

Where the discussion was how do you define the term persons? Someone used a certain phrase theologist that well

You'd call it that you call it this you're trying to trying to communicate and they're like I'm not gonna worry about any of the books

That you've written. I'm not gonna worry about any of the formal articles anything else I'm gonna take that one thing read my my idea into it and accuse you of some type of theological aberration

So you have those types of folks out there that will just pick on anything for any reason whatsoever

I I get that and So when you have folks who have never done a debate

They've never answered a single question in cross -examination They've never had to I have

I have a friend. I won't mention him, but he's got a upcoming debate And it's good he's listening right now

I'm sure and he wrote to me a couple days ago, and he's trying to write his opening statement, and it's like How do you get anything meaningful into a 20 -minute opening statement?

I'm like I know I know

It is there are just so many people who sit out there and watch debates and go I could have done better than that who've never even tried and So, you know

You listen to what those folks have to say just sort of smile and go Okay, you know and and you don't want to go, you know

I'd really encourage you to get into debates because you don't want the faith to take that kind of beating I've seen

You know, I remember when those those two poor Baptists debated Keating in Madrid in in Denver and it's just like oh, oh

It's just painful painful painful painful to watch or when Oh Jimmy Swagger when

Jimmy Swagger debated Ahmed D dot Oh Entertaining but you don't know it's you don't you don't you don't watch it.

Anyway, the point being that it's it's one thing When it would be one thing to criticize

What someone's doing if you don't have any experience doing it yourself It's hopefully useful and I've had a lot of people a lot of people found the video we did for example where it just so happened that Frank Turk and I have both debated some of the same people

And specifically in this case the same atheist Who I don't know is involved in leadership anymore.

He got caught up in the me too stuff. But Anyway Silverman And He threw the same question at both of us and we have very different apologetic methodologies and so Comparing my response to Frank Turk's response was

Incredibly enlightening to a lot of people because here you've got the same atheist same question

Here's the two different responses and Then when you discuss it and go and this is why and this is how theology relates to this and this is this is why?

Your theology has to determine your apologetic and and so on so forth. I Think that is while we still have the freedom to do it

Extremely important to be doing and it doesn't mean that I hate Frank Turk That that that's what's that's what the problem with social media is is if you if you criticize somebody

Why do you just hate these people? No, it's not a matter of hating them at all Yeah, but but if you say something bad about them, well

Part of me wants to go Have you ever googled my name?

I get bad stuff said about me every few seconds on on the web

That's That's just how it is but But it is

I think Vitally important. I mean if you want to see how it ends up going the wrong way Look at what's going on the

Southern Baptist Convention where you can't question anybody That's You know, you can't say anything against a fellow

Southern Baptist man. I ran into the 11th commandment in 2004 and got run over by a bus

I wasn't even in the Southern Baptist Convention, but I was teaching for a Southern Baptist school and so Got run over by a bus for daring to question somebody who's now a

Lutheran, I think And appropriately so but anyway, that's that's neither here nor there

The fact is that seeing multiple perspectives. Let me use this. Can I use a quick sports analogy?

For some people just find sports analogies to be helpful then I'll use a theological knowledge The Tour de

France is the greatest bike race in the world Giro d 'Italia Vuelta a

Espana are almost as good but look the the tour is the tour and So probably the most iconic stage in the

Tour de France is L 'Alpe d 'Huez 22 corners switch back up this mountainside

That when they do it, I'm not sure if they're doing it this year or not. I haven't looked yet You'll have over a million people line that route for More than a week beforehand.

I mean, it's crazy. It's insane and The tour has been won

People have built the foundation for having won by winning L 'Alpe d 'Huez so When you when you look at how people have won that that particular stage

There are people who've gone on solo attacks. There are people who've gone from the breakaway There are people who've waited in the peloton and then caught the poor guy, you know 100 meters from the end and and you can by comparing

You don't just look at one video and also look at who won last time you go back as far back as you can and You compare all of the methodologies and all the planning and and where the where the stage was in the course of the race and and what the weather conditions were and you you you look at everything and You're gonna find all sorts of different ways

That people have won and you're gonna learn something from looking at all those different different ways

And so just on on a sports analogy basis It's good to have comparisons of how you approach things theologically speaking

What we learn and what we hopefully will learn today is That the theology you bring into a discussion like this

Should and I think it did and so at least on that than that level. I'm I think it's appropriate that That Glenn Scrivener responded the way that it did but it your answers will reflect your fundamental theology and as a

God centered theology Conflicts with a very man -centered culture more and more and more and more.

I mean this is happening very rapidly There is great pressure

To adopt theological positions that are more defensible or do not hand

The atheist or the critic or the skeptic or whatever whoever you're debating Does not hand them more bombs to throw your direction more weapons to use

There are many people involved apologetics whether they've thought it through or not that fundamentally function upon the idea that You need to minimize

What the enemy can throw at you now? There is a an appropriate

Utilization of that thinking and that is you need to have a decent debate topic That's specific enough that you can

You know sort of force the the conversation to remain in some manageable spectrum

That's not always possible. It doesn't always happen But More to the point when

When you have cross -examination and have a less Less formal and more open discussion like this was it wasn't a formal debate, obviously

Your theological presuppositions should come out and should be clearly seen and The problem is there are certain

Biblical realities that people in our society find to be extremely problematic and We need to realize that I mean we are in the day right now we already know this where the

Bible's teaching on sexual morality is considered to be hateful and so if you

So what are you trying to do as an apologist? Who are you trying to impress?

What's your final goal? If you're if your goal is to score points with them as many people as possible within your audience

There are certain fundamental Christian beliefs that you're gonna have to diminish minimally or deny, otherwise to Get people to like what it is.

You have to say Obviously, I believe we are utterly dependent upon the

Holy Spirit of God to Restrain the rebellion that exists within the hearts of men and Draw men to his truth

You don't you don't diminish the truth in the process that'll sort of come up in just in an extremely extremely extremely controversial aspect of The conversation that that happened, but let me just before we start that once again

There's been some There's a great deal of Discussion pretty much every day on Facebook and other other places as to What anyone means when you talk about presuppositional apologetics and I think as we listen to the conversation, this is going to come back up When I talk about presuppositional apologetics,

I'm simply talking about that apologetics is take seriously the biblical revelation That God has revealed himself that the basis of our knowledge of anything is found first and foremost in our acknowledgement of God and that therefore there we must have a biblical doctrine of God a biblical doctrine of man and That if we have a biblical doctrine of God a biblical doctrine of man that is going to provide us with a solid foundation for understanding the laws of logic rationality

But that I Must continue to function as a

Christian in doing apologetics. I Cannot I dare not I am

NOT allowed to cease being under the Lordship of Christ when

I begin to reason with the unbeliever There is no

Neutral ground Upon which we can stand because anything that exists exists because Jesus Christ made it if it's a fact

Jesus Christ made it a fact and Jesus Christ who finds it and So I cannot abandon the

Lordship of Christ to then attempt to establish the Lordship of Christ so I Do not believe that a non -reformed individual can consistently be a presuppositionalist.

I don't because Part of presuppositionalism is a recognition of the fundamental rebellion of man against the knowledge of God the suppression of the knowledge of God and So I just point out that for example in first Corinthians chapter 1 verse 18

The word of the cross is indeed to those who are perishing foolishness but to those who are being saved to us who are being saved it is the power of God you have a

Message of the cross which contains particular historical and theological assertions and facts the death burial resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecy in his coming the reasons of his coming etc, etc, and so the message of the cross is indeed to those who are perishing foolishness, so there is a description of an individual

Individuals plural as those who are perishing in contrast those who are being saved now

The text is going to say and which one you are is up to God So there is a very strong reformed element in what is said here, but the point is that it's the same message and the conclusion for the one foolishness the conclusion for the other power of God And it is what state you are in That determines how you're going to interpret this

You cannot alter the Logos 2 Staru the message of the cross

So as to make it the power of God to those who are perishing you can't do that If you try to do that it's no longer the message of the cross and And so the point is it is a fundamental biblical reality

Brought out later on by Paul in the same text where he's saying, you know The the

Jews they're seeking signs the Greeks seeking wisdom But to those who are called by God to the elect

Christ the power of God Christ the wisdom of God so on so forth it is a

Fundamental necessity to recognize the work the necessity of the work of the

Spirit of God and That the Spirit of God can actually accomplish what God intends to accomplish in that situation

Not that the we're not talking here some Marshmallow prevenient grace stuff we're talking about the grace of God that actually grants spiritual life insight

Takes out a heart of stone gives a heart of flesh The only the only heart that's ever going to love God is the hardest.

It's a heart of flesh not the heart of stone and in the same way in in Romans chapter 1

You have this exchanging the exchanging They profess themselves to be wise they became fools.

They're foolish hearts were darkened the very seat of What makes man man?

Loses that natural light of revelation when a person is in sin and it is not until There is that fundamental change that that light

Can then function as that light is intended to function? And and will function in in that in that fashion

So the point is that at key elements in New Testament revelation concerning the nature of the fallen man

You have biblical teaching You have direct biblical teaching of the necessity of the work of the

Spirit because of a fundamental problem in in the person who is fallen and This must therefore impact apologetics when you don't have that underlying theology and that is not the majority theology

Never has been why has it never happened because it is utterly Destructive of human pride

It's utterly destructive human pride God's the one who saves We can't save ourselves.

We can't save somebody else. We're totally dependent upon God. We are used of him we are called to be the ones that proclaim his message and we should have a

Boldness to do so, but it is foolishness to think that I can trick somebody into doing the right thing

That I can trick someone into making the right decision and so When you have that understanding it's it's going to fundamentally impact how you do

Apologetics you are going to be looking at the presuppositions That are created by the rebel sinner that fundamentally

Make it impossible for the claims of Christ to be real to that person and You're gonna focus upon that and you're gonna pray that God will use you all the arguments in the world aren't going to change that person's position because they are not a

Moral neutral a neutral moral agent or a moral neutral agent either one Their reasoning has been fundamentally impacted and as long as they are perishing

That message will remain to them foolishness And the only one that can stop them from perishing is the giver of life so apologetics has to be done in the hopes of God's self -glorification in the salvation of his people also recognizing that apologetics has the function of Edifying the

Saints building the Saints up in their faith and Both the proclamation of the message and apologetics has another function

That most people don't even want to think about and that is increasing the judgment of the rebellious Again, I don't want to hear that.

I'm gonna tune you out now but the the fact the matter is that when you have that level of Light being given to someone

Why did Jesus go to Bethsaida? Why did he go to Chorazin? Why'd he go?

Why'd he go to places where they they want to throw him off of a cliff? Hmm Were there people saved there?

Well in God's sovereignty, yes, but the reality is That Jesus said that if Sodom and Gomorrah which were watchwords for the most evil people in in ancient history

Amongst the Jewish people anyways If Sodom and Gomorrah had had the light the

Chorazin and Bethsaida had they would have repented long ago That's not some dumb middle -knowledge argument.

It's a it's making a point and The point is if you can if you can see

God's justice and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah How much more should you see God's justice in the destruction of Chorazin and Bethsaida?

The Son of God walked amongst them The Son of God taught the truth amongst them and They didn't care now you say but but God could have changed their hearts.

Yes, he could have so there is a purpose why God is demonstrating the sovereignty of his grace and the salvation of a specific people and There will not be a single mouth that will open to argue

That God was unjust to judge anyone that he judges Because when the books are opened all the motivations of the heart will be seen and Once again

Question I've asked many times before Romans chapter 9 What if God? willing in patience to deal with vessels of wrath prepared for destruction for what purpose for the demonstration of his power and if you can look into your heart and Honestly say

I want to see God's power glorified I want to see his holiness known.

I want to see his justice done Along with his mercy and his love and his grace

There are not many people who can honestly look in their hearts and say I want to see

God's power Displayed when they do say that it's to give me a

Cadillac or a Lexus or something. That's not what we're talking about the Power there is

God's power in the judgment of sinners in Romans 9 the vessels of wrath prepared for Destruction yeah, it's it's right there in the text.

Okay. So with that let's Let's take a listen.

Oh 1 .6. No, that's not gonna work. They were talking fast enough as it was That wouldn't that would not work at all

All right this is from the unbelievable broadcasting it was last week and This is

Matt Dillahunty Glenn Scrivener, and let's just dive in here really fallacious reasoning

Except that Christianity is about God the human. I mean Foundationally Christianity is

Christ. It's it's foundationally God. The Sun has become God our brother. We've just celebrated Christmas It's it's the the time at which the word became flesh

Which is just a stunning a stunning religious idea that is found nowhere else Disgusting to my

Muslim friends, you know, it's disgusting to the Greco -Roman minds and and yet The Christian claim uniquely is that God took flesh and even became a single cell in Mary's womb

Became the weak and despised thing for the sake of all we can despise things and I think from there you get the principle

That humanity in and of itself has a dignity because God has so dignified it

Otherwise, it's us Elevating humanity to a certain, you know position.

Why should we elevate humanity to a certain position? Why should there be such a thing as human exceptionalism? Why shouldn't there be is is that just a power play, right?

I mean, I don't I'm not just asking that until I yep, you know, you have an answer like what do you think?

I don't I don't really see any reason why it should okay. So that's Glenn Scrivener speaking and I There is there is everything good in talking about the condescension of God incarnation

God choosing the weak things the world around the things that are mighty All of that is true, but I think it has its its deepest reality

In the fact that God is Demonstrating his power his glory and his majesty in the redemption of an undeserving people if you start with the people first then

What the primary purpose is becomes? secondary So I think you need to start with the with the primary and I'd say with an atheist that's not gonna work.

Well, no you still speak the truth but let the atheist deny the truth if you want, but the reality is that The primary purpose is

God's self -glorification and The mechanism that he uses to bring that about Involves the incarnation outpouring of the

Holy Spirit divine actions in the salvation of a particular people And so when you take the last section there and Make it central and then you have to go back and try to Add the actual important stuff on later on.

I'm not sure the foundation is really solid So I would simply say that now Dillahunty is is responding.

Let me pull this back here Yep, you know, what do you think? I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't be well, of course, we're gonna be concerned about our own well -being.

Mm -hmm Can you talk about yeah, there's a moral or is that just a power? So this is the thing when we talk about what is moral so that quite often they'll say well the thing you're describing

That's all well and good, but it's not morality fine. Then I don't care about morality You need to tell me what what you're going because if the only thing you're gonna count is morality is some sort of you know divine command or a a

Supernatural being that serves as a grounding for whatever you want to do That's not what

I think anybody's ever really cared about for morality when we were talking about morals now, of course, you know

As soon as you listen to atheists reasoning about morality. It is always so frustrating because You can never get past the shoelaces

It can never get off the ground Because it's it's all it's just me and it's it's one cosmic accident

Fizzing one way talking to other cosmic accidents that are fizzing another way and it's never gonna get any farther than that You can get a bunch of people to fizz the same direction if you want

But if the next generation decides to fizz otherwise Then that's the good fizz now.

I mean, they're just They're there the need for an objective universal

Ground is built into us. We recognize that this accidental fizzing stuff is never gonna get anywhere

Now now why is that because we live in a world that tells us that that's not going to get us anywhere

We talked about this. We're evaluating the consequences of our actions with respect to some goal and does it ultimately

Increase decrease or have no effect on our well -being, which is why I think Sam went with well -being

I didn't used to use that. I used a different language when I did my Fundamentally agree with Sam Harris that that's something we can objectively measure.

Okay, so this is this is the Sam Harris well -being of human beings as the ultimate moral guide stuff and of course

Get into it right now, but Who gets to define that and we're seeing with with how rapidly?

These definitions are changing today That this is quicksand, I mean

I saw a video yesterday of this This guy in Canada who pretends he's a woman and who tries to get poor women to wax his male parts and files lawsuits and it's just a

Complete deviant Attacking a guy this this reporter comes up to him after after a thing and and After some because he's guys in court all the time because he's constantly filing suit against this that and the other

And and the guy attacks the reporter We're looking at this kind of The society is saying that the rest of us have to celebrate

This level of confusion and insanity The the the library

Cross -dressing drag queen Insanity evil that is just and the society is saying no.

This is this is good for our well -being you've got to have a standard that is meaningful and again, atheism can't get above its own shoelaces and It's with something it just just can't go there

Through say scientific means as long as we know what benefits what generally humans want in their lives

I think you can do objective assessments eject objective evaluation You don't have an objective reason

Why you care about that standard just like you don't have an objective reason why you care about a God if there was a guy there he should come along and kind of Clarify all this

I would think that would be a duty but the the the beautiful story you're talking about where okay here's here's here's where You know at this point, you know, he's talking about morality and all the rest of stuff and now

He you can tell he's been wanting to say this for a while and here it comes You know the most powerful being comes down and becomes a cell becomes one of them

You know one of the weak one of the fallen in order to save them That's an incredibly nice way to package it but that's

I Have I guess a completely different take on it? because the story is a little different the story starts in Genesis where God creates everybody and then it all screws up and then he tries to fix it and it screws up He tries to fix it and it screws up.

It's this parade It's this comedy of errors and then you get to a spot where okay, so You do wonder what

His church background was I don't know I suppose it's out there someplace I'm sure there's somebody out there that has what church he went to or whatever.

I I don't know but There I guess there are people who sort of present the

Christian faith in in that way That you know God made it good and wonderful and all sudden it screws up And so he tries to fix it and screws up again and tries to fix it again

So he's probably talking about the flood and stuff like that and and so if you if you do have the idea of an open theism process theology or some really strange forms of dispensationalism

Where God's trying to do one thing a plan A didn't work with plan B plan C, but Then yeah

Okay That's certain none of those of course reflect any type of historical understanding of scripture or anything along those lines that are very strange and weird, but Yeah God Who's been demanding that we slaughter animals and burn them because he likes barbecue is

Now decided that he's going to come down and take human for now because he likes barbecue

He's gonna mention it before he's gonna. I'm sorry. He's gonna mention it again the sweet sweet smelling aroma

God loves the smell of burning flesh is He's gonna put it and Again, did he really believe that when he was a

Christian did did he really think that it was the specific smell or? Was it the obedience of his people in doing what he commanded them to do?

the recognition of their sin and the thanksgiving for the provision of a means of having peace the

Holy God and Why why the surface? Why is it that so many atheists?

default to the most absurd Literalism I mean there are some absurd literalists that rager guy the you know the

IFB Preacher guy okay there, but they are a very very small number of people

And I I don't get the feeling that he came out of a group like that. Maybe I could be wrong I guess but Whatever it is they're responding to they're not responding to anything that's had serious impact

For centuries thereafter not responding to an Augusta not responding to a Calvin. They're not responding to people like that But did he really believe that you know

God likes barbecue Is that is that really where he's gonna go with that?

Is now decided that he's going to come down and take human form and sacrifice himself to himself for a weekend to fix everything for everybody now there

Do you get the feeling that this is not the first time that Matt Dillahunty has said that I?

I get the feeling that this is a fairly well -worn phrase that he's gonna come down and sacrifice himself to himself now this is where and it's gonna

Glenn's gonna push back on this and I Get the feeling that at least at this point that is what

Matt thinks this is he does not understand The relationship of Father Son and Spirit he does not understand that there is a relationship that exists between the divine persons that Jesus for example in John chapter 17

Specifically makes reference to that time before the world began

When he was glorious in the presence of the Father So there is a relationship

Prostantheon John 1 1 B It almost sounds like Dillahunty has a modalistic understanding of the

Trinity But without Without having been a part of a specifically modalistic denomination

So in other words, he'd be a lot like a lot of evangelicals Who also are modalistic and they're understanding the

Trinity simply out of ignorance and not out of out of confession, which by the way take a look can impress is supposed to be dropping the the sweater vest dialogues number two

Which is on the Doctrine of the Trinity And I was supposed to be released this morning sometimes.

So I'm not sure if it's Because it's only eight something in Idaho right now

Yeah, I was gonna say it may not be up yet, but let me know if you if you track it down Like let people know of that but it's coming out today.

So take a look at it like look for it one way or the other That's not That's blood magic

That is sacrificial blood magic thinking and nothing to do about human value

Blood magic sacrificial blood magic thinking with nothing to do with human value.

Well if you have made your primary argument that God's first priority is human value rather than God's first priority is his self -glorification and Because he's our

Creator and has chosen to glorify himself Through the creation of mankind and the redemption of particular people

Therefore there is a grounding for man's value demonstrate in the cross

See See the importance from my perspective of where you start you got it.

You got to start the main things the plain things Really really really important actually believes that what you what we describe as a human value

Who actually believes that what you what we just described as a summary of Christianity. I mean who actually believed you not

Now this was a this was a video and I didn't watch the video I've only listened to it I Converted to audio so I could listen to it.

Um but I would When I saw the video

I was like I've never seen Justin looking like he was wearing these glasses and He said at the beginning he lost contact lens.

And so he's looking very scholarly in his in his glasses and so He would have looked a little bit different than that, but I I know

Justin well enough I've been in studio with him many many times I Just I'm gonna have to go back and look at a video and and see how he was looking at Matt He was giving that summary because you know,

I fully understand Scrivener sitting there going who believes that what where did you just come up with that from?

I mean and his response well who couldn't It's like Wow Did God come down and become human

God the Son became God our brother. He's still God the Son now the catch me that sometimes is

Thankfully in this situation you have a British accent versus an American accent so you can figure out who's saying what?

So Glenn has said, you know God the Son has become God our brother now I I'm Has has entered into human flesh

For the purpose of the redemption of God's people But did you hear

Dillahunty? Let's listen to a Dillahunty says her Oh God the Son became God our brother He's still God the

Son. He's still God well So do you hear the the

Unitarianism in? Dillahunty's assumption He's not functioning as Trinitarian or at least as someone who ever was or even understands the doctrine of the

Trinity Thank God our brother Are you a non -trinitarian?

I'm sorry. See are you a non -trinitarian? He's thinking that modalistic Unitarianism is the

Trinity I mean I if If Matt Dillahunty's understanding the

Trinity is not modalistic that I don't understand what he's saying here I don't understand what he said before I understand what he's saying now.

I understand how he's responding to Scrivener It just seems to me very very plain this man never understood and I see he never understood the

Athanasian Creed and never understood any of the Because my my recollection is he was some sort of a

Protestant So any of the statements of faith, you know Westminster and it came from that reforms, you know, whatever

He wasn't he wasn't Trinitarian and I I don't see anything in Atheism that would require you to automatically

Lose your understanding of what you supposedly once believed. I I don't don't get that either That's Precisely because I'm Trinitarian God the

Son right became God our brother full of the Holy Spirit Okay, in order to unite us as family back to the same source back to the father so Here what

I hear How would how would I have responded to that? I?

Would have said the second person divine Trinity the Son Took on human flesh

To use the specific You know, look at the

Baptist Catechism. It's does a great job I think it's 23 24 one of those questions

The fullness of human nature not in a fallen state without sin but not just a body either and And The incarnation is real it's the son who became incarnate not the father not the spirit for the purpose of functioning as the

Redeemer of God's people prophet priest and King To the glory of the triune

God because that's sort of how the early church summarized it in Philippians chapter 2. I Think that it is in Philippians 2 5 through 11

The focus is not upon us the focus is upon God to the glory of God the

Father So there's already been an establishment in the mechanism before this that Glenn Scrivener is laid out that the focus is upon mankind and I think that leads to Having to deal with things from a different perspective.

Let's let's put that way. Okay, this is basic God not sacrifice himself

Did God not sacrifice himself again? Who's who is the functional

Unitarian here who is functioning upon? The assumption of Unitarianism.

He does not seem to recognize the distinction between the divine persons He does not seem to recognize that it was not the father who became incarnate

It was not the spirit who became incarnate. It was the son who became incarnate It's just a part of his thinking the father sent the son, but they're the same but they're the same

Modalistic Unitarianism and If someone you know, I've got

Twitter up here if If someone out there knows

What church Matt Dillahunty came from if you could tweet that for me or if you could look it up rich if I don't know if it's

Out there. It may take too long to find it But I I would think

I would remember But it doesn't necessarily because I don't remember reading anything specifically about Matt Dillahunty's past Southern Baptist Well, I've met more than one modalistic

Southern Baptist 25 years

Southern Baptist, that's what Rich is telling me Well, the Baptist faith and message is plainly

Trinitarian but but but but Ah Remember when a

Oneness group or at least with oneness people in it Phillips Craig and Dean sang for the

Southern Baptist Convention One of the things we pointed out at the time is that the Baptist faith and message to 2000 does not contain enough

Specificity on the doctrine of the Trinity to detect modalism at least the modern

UPCI version of modalism And what I mean by that is The statement made by the

Baptist faith and message does not emphasize the

Pre -existent The eternal pre -existence of The divine persons in such a way as to force a modalist to go.

I can't sign that that's It's it's mushy enough to be squeezed into a

Modalistic Understanding it's not it's not what they intended. That's not that that is not an appropriate use of it by any stretched imagination they intended to define the doctrine the

Trinity appropriately, but The the fact is that That is the one area of the doctrine the

Trinity that most evangelicals struggle to express and as a result

The Baptist faith message does not clearly state that If you were to read any commentaries on if you were to read

Anybody who worked on it you you could come to a proper understanding. They're not modalists. They're not promoting modalism

It's not consistent with modalism. But the point is that as it is stated it does not with sufficient clarity

Define that particular issue. So Southern Baptist, huh? Well that okay. Yeah That fits that fits the father sent the son

But they're the same. They're not the same They're part of the Trinity. Yeah, they are that they are one, right?

That's definitely part of the party one though that they're united. Absolutely the father united I mean, we're united at a table, but we're not one

He is plainly Unquestionably Promoting a modalistic understanding of the

Trinity he he so The the fact the matter is Matt Dillahunty was a heretic as a

Christian and as a heretic as an atheist You know and Something tells me that if someone were to point this out to him, he'd go.

Okay. I don't think anybody really knows but He might go but hey

Yeah, maybe I have to do some reading and and Figure out what the actual historical doctrine is if he were to In a non mocking fashion and in a way to it actually seeks to try to understand if he were to read the

Athanasian Creed You cannot read the Athanasian Creed and come up with this It is specifically designed to make sure you can't come up with a unitary and modalistic

Understanding of the doctrine Trinity, but whether he's ever done that I don't know the father's in the

Sun the Sun is in the father So that they are united on a level that is far superior to ours

The father is in the Sun and the Sun is in the father. I'm Not sure that was the best response

Why not just simply say there is one being of God Shared by three divine persons fully by three divine persons father son

Holy Spirit The being of God cannot be divided into parts and pieces

Somewhere along the way you've got to define for him the difference between being in person.

There's there's no way To discuss the doctrine of the Trinity as long as you're stuck with the 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 3 and also equals 1 stuff the you just have to You have to be able to make the distinction that is necessary to be made in understanding

What the doctrine is I I know you don't want to you know when the when the thing drops that Doug Wilson and I did last week

This morning sometime we spent a lot of time talking about what they call the opera ad intra and the opera ed ad extra the the internal operations and external operations of the

Trinity And we're talking about how you recognize father son spirit, and it's easy

When it comes to the roles they've taken in the redemption of mankind in the economy of salvation

It's easy to distinguish between father son and spirit there but how do you do that before eternity beef as as They exist in perfect harmony and love and unity

With one knowledge for the confused people out there Or the people just don't like me and just want to misrepresent me

How do you how do you distinguish Because that's where that's where the argument in regards to patriarchy

ESS eternal subordination the Sun that's that's what we're talking about it gets into the weeds But but it has to How do you distinguish between them

I realize getting into all that stuff With an atheist I don't believable when you're supposed to be talking about can atheism ground, okay,

I get it But there are effective ways to say we're talking about is one being of God And person and being are not the same thing there.

There is a way to to do that, but why does there need to be a blood? sacrifice Well because to to walk away from God to be disconnected from what does anyone else did anyone else as soon as you heard that?

Go Well, that's interesting the first two questions the dr. Cotty Asked me in the mosque in Memphis We don't understand the

Trinity explain that to us and why did a part of God have to die? first two questions and And there there you have there you have you know to walk away from God to be disconnected from life means death, right?

And in the Bible the life is in the blood. Well who made that rule? It's the nature of the case.

Don't you think if God is life God is a god of gun? No God made that rule by his creative decree

So the the universe in which we live that he placed us in for his glory and his purposes

Establishes this reality and you as an atheist Don't have any reality any counter reality to even offer other than utter randomness and chaos

So Differently well if God is the source of life, and we reject life

What does that leave us with death if God wants to unite with us in our death?

What will he have to take on our death so you're talking first of all you're speaking kind of metaphorically here because I'm not rejecting life

I'm rejecting a proposition that there's some eternal life Because I don't see sufficient evidence for it if there is cool but Because I don't see sufficient evidence, but hey if there is cool

What what a worldview It's it has been interesting over the past 30 years or more almost 40 years now to be watching the evolution of atheism

I Remember when George Smith's book came out and you started hearing atheists saying well atheism is not really a rejection of the existence of God It's just more you don't have evidence.

Yeah, they were they were doing the same thing that we do I don't do but people do on our side

Smaller target smaller target, you know less let's say less so we have to prove less

So we so we can win debates is basically what that was all about Got this notion.

Why does there need to be a blood sacrifice at all at some point? We were running around killing animals and doing it because God loved the smell of burning flesh

Literally, it says that mm -hmm now While it's

I know I know what I think I know what part of the objection is It's like the Easter story when they win when atheists will say and then the zombies rose up and marched on Jerusalem and people be like there's nothing in the

Bible about zombies But it does talk about the dead getting up out of the graves and going in there Sadly, it's more often

Christians questioning the reality. That's Sadly but that's that's and we've talked about that before it's the

Matthew section that like Kona and others consider to be Metaphorical or something that and so it's a colloquialism to refer to it as zombies

I don't think even the atheists should by and large are thinking that we're talking walking dead here But it's a shorthand to show that there's

I think there's some Christians that think it's walking dead something That's potentially absurd here an extraordinary claim.

That doesn't have evidence for it. This isn't even that this isn't even an extraordinary claim Doesn't have evidence for it.

This is to me bizarre What is it about killing something? That God needs you to do in order for God to forgive you.

Okay. Now, what's the answer to this? The Old Testament sacrificial system is pointing us toward the fulfillment in Jesus Christ The life is in the blood

Life has been has been forfeited by rebellion and God is going to provide the

Lamb and he Gives us numerous pictures so that when he actually does it we've got the background to understand it

There has to be this overarching purpose that God has and it can't just be focused upon us it has to be

Something that is grander than that so the theology that can answer this is an overarching theology that includes the very sovereign decree of God and It can't open theisms out

Process theology doesn't even get to the start line You all that stuff

Laid to the side if God is The creator of everything including the rules of how all this works.

Couldn't he have come up with rules that don't involve killing things? Mm -hmm. Well, I mean first of all the priest was many other things, but he was also your butcher, right?

You you would eat the lamb after you sacrificed that you would eat the the bull, you know, we we

What if you didn't would it change anything? No Wouldn't change anything at all

What if you what if you just gave it all to the priest But You didn't get any of yourself.

Would that change anything? Fundamentally, I know we go to the butcher. We still sacrifice

Animals and in that sacrifice even today in a very secular sense The death of that animal means our life in in that in that very literal sense

Okay, that animal dies so that we might live and it's just that in the Old Testament It was also teaching a spiritual dimension on top of the barbecues that we all love.

You're from Texas. I'm from Australia We love barbecues. Okay, the vegans are gonna hate us It was a great conversation with cosmic spectacled by the way

On top of that Butchering there was also a spiritual lesson being taught and the spiritual lesson being taught was not that the blood of this pool is paying

For your sin, but but that's there is a Messiah who is coming who will pay for your sins

Because no the blood of goats and bulls cannot pay for sin But God can take responsibility for his handiwork and God did take responsibility for his handiwork

And it was his death that actually paid for sin. Okay got around to it

Eventually, I have to skip ahead and I'm gonna pick up to 1 .2 because it run run short on time and I don't want to have to Bail out on this or just treat it very very surface level in a surface level way except for this

I did a debate in a Church of Christ where I told him I could write a better book than the Bible and I could Prove it to him because I could rewrite it word -for -word reverse its position on slavery and it would be a better book

Because for the people who are looking at this Not so much as metaphorical lessons or like that if they're looking at this as an instruction book for life that book advocates slavery

That's not even a question If you were to say thou shalt not own a human being as property That would be better than saying you can and that you can pass them on and so this was the example

I used for the Kind of like Bible worshippers not the people who go in looking for hey, there's an interesting message here

There's like gonna tell me something about my life. But no, no. No, this is literally word -for -word blog, you know that that type of mindset

Which was Jesus's mindset about scripture is probably more responsible for the harm and damage that a lot of us would lay at the foot of Christianity then

Clint's version for sure I mean, I I don't I don't think Glenn's approach slavery at all And when you start looking at things that that Where you are finding a way to take a message that could easily be viewed as this is a blood magic sacrifice and say well

Life has to consume life to exist and you want to come maybe blow off Why God would have made it that way or why it had to be made that way, which is a weird and interesting theological discussion

Getting rid of those things and keeping the good parts is all I've advocated forever and secular humanism to me is taking good parts

Whether they're found in Christianity Judaism Scientology and who's deciding on in a sense And the good is simply defined by what you regard as the measure of human well -being

Anything that basically points us in that direction Yeah, and it's not and it's not fully defined or anything else but to pretend that we don't have some beginning understanding of it

I think it's a bit ridiculous So what I mean, so I think very briefly in a sense that Matt is sketching out this this idea that there is a secular

Morality, well, there's an example that came along with this When he was listing off societal health versus religiosity and teeing me up for the

Gregory S Paul thing He mentioned divorce rates, but that comes with the presumption that divorce is a bad thing

And I don't believe that I'm recently divorced me and my ex -wife are as good friends now as we ever were and better and we're

Both in agreement. It was absolutely the right thing for us to do And so what's happened here is from my perspective and obviously people can disagree

Religious thinking religious teaching religious dogma has done a number of great to services to human beings

By setting up a notion of a soulmate by setting up the notion that marriage needs to be one went one man one woman

Forever that's caused countless problems by setting up a view of death

That does not allow people to deal with that If we if we started with the notion that death is the eventual consequence of life

It would fundamentally change and that that was the end as far as we knew and anything else would be a bonus It would fundamentally change.

I think how we Treated people while they were still alive and So there's a number of problems here that are rooted in the theology rooted in the notion that there's a

God Which I think if you get set those aside and just focus on the things that actually directly try to benefit human beings

It has to be okay better So it's it's all the benefits of Christianity plus a few more because you haven't got some of the baggage essentially

Well, you know, I mean Matt said that he could write a bit a Bible that's superior to the Bible by reversing its position on Slavery, I think if you started from scratch without the

Bible, though I don't think you and I don't think anyone has Written a book or a series of books or a collection of books a library of books

That has done what the Bible has done for slavery in the world because slavery is a human universal

And it has not been overturned by anyone other than those who took the Bible seriously back in the 18th century

There were evangelical Christians. There were Quakers. There were people who took the Bible seriously So parts of it seriously.

Well, yeah Well, you it's a longer discussion about how you take the Old Testament But okay, so it's a long discussion about how you take the

Old Testament did any of you see the Discussion I I saw just some portions of it.

I didn't follow any of the threads But Day before yesterday,

I know it continued yesterday. I think it was day before yesterday There was a statement made about The American form of incarceration being a form of slavery and Pretty hard to argue against that when you put someone in chains in a in a cage

For a lengthy period of time That is a form of slavery. The freedom is gone.

And in fact, it's in many ways. It's it's worse than the old form of slavery because back then you couldn't leave the plantation, but you had a wife and you had kids and and You know family and you know

You could walk in the fields and stuff like that And instead of being in solitary confinement or stuck with a bunch for the guys in a in a in a cell block someplace and a lot of people made the made the point that there really isn't a meaningful biblical foundation for Mere incarceration as being an issue of justice

Under biblical law if you stole from somebody you had to pay back with reparation

What you stole and so the idea would be if you Do something to someone then you have to Repay you have to Not be just lose your just losing your liberty doesn't do anything for the fear for the victim

And so there is a discussion going on as what is more biblical because There are numerous forms of slavery in the

Old Testament and in the New Testament and the New Testament. You don't have laws establishing forms of slavery

You have exhortations to those who are already in a culture

Which every culture up to that point in time had had forms of slavery of one kind or another

I suppose you could find exceptions somewhere but Assyria Babylon Greece Rome This was this was the context

And so in the New Testament you have exhortations if you are a slave

Do not rebel against your master But seek your own freedom

It is a it is better to be free So if you can bring that freedom about as as there were people in the narrative of the

New Testament who had accomplished that But in the

Old Testament you have different kinds you have you have voluntary

Slavery Sounds weird, isn't it? but that's because it was an economic thing and then you have the issues of war and what people don't understand and I again went over this in the holiness code series and a number of years ago, but a lot of people

Even my vast majority of my friends haven't listened to all that and I fully understand why But the reality is that and Dillahunty doesn't understand this

I don't I Would not hold an atheist accountable to accurately representing the

Bible at this point Anyways, because I just wouldn't expect it if you can't can't accurately represent the doctrine of Trinity I hardly expect you to accurately represent this either

But when someone says that well the Bible just simply could have said this and stopped all of it

Um What they're not understanding is that what that would mean especially in the war context

Was that You'd be raising the black flag. Do you know what raising the black flag means?

In in Western war to raise the black flag meant you're not taking prisoners You will you all wounded all

Who try to surrender will be killed Why do I say that it's real simple

What slavery allowed in war situations was for life to continue because when you destroyed?

the men of a culture and The crops and the houses

What are you gonna do with women and the children? They're not gonna be able to survive You're talking

Remember you're talking subsistence level existence at this time. You're not there there wasn't any There there wasn't any

Red Cross, which is a Christian was founded by Christians. There wasn't a Red Cross to come in and provide food and water if in a war situation you wiped out the men and You wiped out the crops in the process that they're gonna die they're gonna starve to death they're either gonna be eaten by wild animals or They're going to starve to death so When people complain about the slavery situation why it's just you know, it was the mechanism for the preservation of innocent life so you had the war situation and then you had the economic situation where if You know there were droughts and and diseases and all sorts of things that would happen

That Even if you worked extremely hard might put yourself in a position where you could no longer provide for your family

The law allowed for indentured servitude as we would call it or slavery

Where you could sell yourself and your family to someone so that they might live and here's the issue

We are so individualistic in Western society that we're with Patrick Henry. Give me liberty or give me death

That's not a biblical concept there were Paul writes to the

Christians and he writes to slaves and he writes to those who are not going to be able to bring about their freedom and says glorify

God in Whatever situation you find yourself to be in even in the service of your master.

You're actually serving Christ Huh That's what he said deal with it deal with the reality of the fact that the

New Testament gospel goes out into a world where slavery is a reality and It is not a message that says

Rebel and start revolution right now Just doesn't You can pretend you can do whatever you can rightly say that scripture says you are not to steal people and the black slavers in Africa that stole blacks from neighboring tribes and sold them the vast majority going to the

West Indies and to What we would call the Caribbean today not to the United States, but they did come there

That was sinful Paying money for that sinful no twice about it

No, no question about it but don't Be like the atheist who sits here in the 21st century and completely ignores the reality of what was going on back then and say

I could write a better book in the Bible and In doing so what you're doing is you are condemning all these people to death by starvation

That's what you're doing he just made the Bible a better book by ignoring the fact that it's had to exist for over 3 ,000 years and The world is not the same today as it was 3 ,000 years ago

So since things have changed since then then we need to look at what the context were and make proper

Application from there, which is what led to the abolitionist movement and things like that But that takes time and It's so simplistic to go.

Well, you just should you should just automatically know You should just automatically know.

Well, then what do you do with Philemon? What do you do with first and second Timothy? What do you do with Titus?

What what do you do with Ephesians? They just should have known No, you're wrong

You've you've you are trying to turn the Bible Into a 21st century document with 21st century tastes and predilections rather than recognizing that this revelation has been used by God and that every generation has to make application and that it is

Amazing that we can do so and we can do so by looking at the context about by by Understanding what happened in the past where we are now and that there are laws of general equity that we can apply and that we can understand in our day and so when

I hear Matt Dillahunty saying I can write a better book He's just ignorant of history.

It's just it's just a surface level response But let's be honest how many Christian apologists are even going to push back?

They're just going to accept the idea Well, yeah, and and you know how we deal with the Old Testament and again,

I Understand the time pressure. I Get it. You're on a You're on a program.

I can say this with absolute Honesty I've been in the same studio

Okay, I haven't been on this is the big discussions that was actually videotaped so I haven't done that but How many times have

I been I don't believe I understand and and Justin will tell you and I think I think Justin would would agree if someone asked him this

Does James White work with you when it comes to keeping a program moving time?

Getting things done and Justin will say yes, because I've done radio for most of my life

And so I fully understand time constraints All the rest that kind of stuff so I'm I get it and I might have to very very very very very briefly say something, but I would try to say something

I Would want to push back instead of just going well, you know how you deal with the

Old Testament that that you know That that's that's a tough issue Would that a lot of people would say no that you can't do it but the fact is the atheists can read the

Bible just like I can't and They can go to the same text that I go to and say hey the

New Testament Has exhortations to those who own slaves and to those who are slaves

So I could make it better Well, you could make it a document that would require the destruction of the

Roman Empire For the gospel to to go out But that's not making the

Bible better That's showing a fundamental ignorance of how the Bible has functioned down through history all the way back to its inception all the way back

To I would say personally 1 ,400 years before the birth of Christ So that's what what

I'm saying when I say what you know How many and I don't know what

Glenn Scrivener's background is and again I think he did a Good job.

We're contrasting this not by means of trying to say I could have done better. I would have handled it differently in Certain places the emphases would have been different Would that have resulted in different objections from Matt Dillahunty?

Maybe I don't know But by providing the contrast you and the audience have to sit back and go

Huh? Okay. Well, where do I come down on that? Because there's some of you sit in the audience to go

Well, I hear what he's saying But I will never agree with anything. This guy says as long as he's wearing one of those sweaters

No, and if that's if that's what you think then great

But As I've said in many of my classes for for a long long time.

You may disagree with what I have to say I'm just gonna force you to understand why you disagree and to think through The foundations of why you would reject what it is.

I have to say So that's that's the important part. All right so with that looking forward very much to Seeing everybody at g3

Please remember today is the 14th. We only have Less well just right at two weeks until The costs increase on the trip to Rome Israel remember that the

Rome part is Technically separate from the rest of it I mean you have to get to Rome because that's where the crew starts

But those those trips or the day trips are gonna be doing there in Rome Coliseum Vatican places like that around the ancient city

Is a separate issue from specifically so if you've signed in other words if you sign up for the cruise

That doesn't mean you're signing up for that part because we have a lot of people there just to be coming in just do the

Cruise it can't do the other part because just it too much time. I get it fully understand but All that stuff click on the link.

There is a phone number. You can call at Sovereign and you talk to Kathy and to Ryan and to Stuart and whoever it is you end up talking to there and They will be able to help you out with that as well.