September 30, 2003

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White. And good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line.

My name is James White. We're glad to be here this morning. For a while we had announced we weren't going to be here since, well, everything died on us this morning. But resurrection has taken place. I saw a special when I was in Austin on PBS on the Wright Brothers when they first flew.

And that first aircraft. And the amazing things they went through to make that thing work. And the special engine that they themselves built. These guys were really geniuses. They really were. But you look at that first rickety thing and you compare it with what we fly around in these days.

And it was amazing the stuff they overcame. But still, it was not exactly something that I would want to attempt to get more than ten feet off the ground in myself. Because I'd be afraid it would fall apart and I would die.

So that's a little bit like how we do this webcast. It's chewing gum and bailing wire and some of the most unique, imaginative, creative. Creative is a term. Creative technology that exists out there.

Oh, my. Well, in fact, we were discussing this may be. I don't know. I don't remember stuff like this. But this may be the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the dividing line. It started as a, well, it didn't.

We did the dividing line years and years ago. I mean, we started on, what did we start on? Was it, I forget what we started on. It wasn't, no, I don't remember. Anyways, we were on KHEP for a while. I know that much.

And I don't remember if we started on KHEP or KXEG. Neither one of which, KXEG. Neither one of them even exist anymore as far as I know. I think they're country music stations or financial stations or something.

Who knows? Anyway, we started on those. We did this back in the 80s. I mean, we've got tapes of my doing the King James Only stuff in the 1980s. And that was, who could have foreseen what that would turn out to be?

And then we did, you know, we went, like I said, went from one station to another station. And we just didn't do anything for a long time. And then I think about 98, we went back to KPXQ with a half-hour radio program on Saturdays.

And that's how we did it for a while. And then we discovered that, in essence, 98 of our phone calls were coming from the Internet. They had an Internet feed there. And people were listening on the Internet.

And nobody in Phoenix was listening to the program. Well, I'll take that back. There were a few, but they didn't call in. And it was very expensive. And we did not have that money at all. And so we started the webcast.

And lo and behold, here we are a number of years later. And we're still doing it by chewing gum and bailing wire. But, hey, I do have a cost switch now. That's about the biggest advance we've made. Actually, we're using all Windows XP now.

In fact, my laptop is now the least advanced computer on the entire system. It's only a Win 2K unit. But we've got XP running everywhere now. And I must admit, despite the fact that there are many people who believe Bill Gates is the Antichrist, XP does work very, very nicely.

So, anyhow, it's working. And we're here. And I've got lots to talk about. But you might, too, at 877 -753 -3341. This Friday, only a matter of hours from now, we will be in Salt Lake City. And, boy, I was looking at Jerry Madetich's travel schedule.

Good night. I feel like a complete slug. No, I don't, actually. I'm far too busy. But, you know, how in the world this guy even remembers the names of his ten kids? Nine kids and one about to be born or something.

I don't know. Because I looked at his travel schedule. And I don't know how anybody does it. He lives his life in aircraft and taxis and buses and trains and whatever. I don't know how he gets around.

Unbelievable. Just every single night, someplace else. And he's up in New England right now. He was in Canada yesterday. And now he's, I think, in Maine tonight. And he'll be coming to the debate in Salt Lake from New Hampshire, as I recall.

And, anyway, I downloaded something somebody put together for, Here Jerry Madetich on his final 2003 sweep of New England. And some fascinating talks here. But what really struck me was two things. First of all, eight days after we debate.

We debate on Friday, October 3rd. And eight days later, 6 p .m. in, let's see, The Holiday Inn, Tewksbury, Andover. That's in Massachusetts. We have a debate. Listen to the title. Debate. Does the Bible teach the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Hmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? That, of course, is the exact same topic that we are debating. Only a week and a day earlier. Jerry Madetich versus Kyron Murphy, Former Catholic, now Evangelist for Kingsborough Church of Christ.

And I don't know about, you know, Is there anybody up in Massachusetts? If you're listening in the Massachusetts area, And you're planning on going to this thing, I wish you'd drop us a line through the website or something.

I would like to get the tapes of that debate. I would really like to get the tapes of that debate, Because I would like to see if what is presented to Mr. Madetich In our debate has any impact at all On what he says against Kyron Murphy of the Church of Christ.

Now, I may even ask Mr. Madetich some questions about that. I've got some interesting questions. It's just so sad that there's not enough time to really ask all the questions you want to ask. But I also found very interesting on this handout that I'm holding in my hand, I also found very, very interesting the description of Mr. Madetich.

This is, you know, if I wrote bios like Jerry Madetich writes bios, I could really put together an incredible list of stuff. It says, next to a picture that I think was used for our 1990 debate, Can you imagine if we used a picture of me from 1990?

Oh, goodness. No one would even know I was there. I could walk right in and nobody would even recognize me. That's what they're looking for. Internationally known Catholic apologist and scripture scholar, has lectured at Oxford University, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Boston College, University of Notre Dame, Sydney University, Furman, University of Kent in Canterbury, etc.

Former Professor of Theology and Sacred Scripture, Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, Christendom College, Aquinas, University of San Diego, etc. Phi Beta Kappa, MDiv Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, was ABD for PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary, first ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America ever to convert to Catholicism.

Wow, man. I'm dead. Now, when you put all that together, that sounds really, really, really cool. But then you go back over it. Okay. ABD for PhD means All But Dissertation. He didn't finish. And in fact, I sat in the Catholic Answers offices in January of 1991.

Is that when it was? Yeah, I think it was January of 1991. And listened to Jerry talking about how he had till the end of that week to get his dissertation in. And that was 12 years ago. Then again, I've got a number of tapes where Jerry's talking about his soon coming book.

That was 1992. Then I noticed, has lectured at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Boston College. Yeah, he did. It was in a debate with me. University of Notre Dame, Sydney University, Furman, remember we talked about Furman?

No one's opposing him at these things. And has lectured at. That means he went on the campus and talked in one of the rooms. I could start listing stuff like that too. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

Especially when you're not interacting with anybody and doing anything in a meaningful format. But anyways, then he mentions various places. I guess he's been paid to do something at some point in some time along there.

Anyways, it was a fascinating description. And I hope it's the one that is read Friday night. Because especially when it says, and scripture scholar. Former professor of theology and sacred scripture.

Great, well let's hold you to a meaningful definition of those terms in the sense of, handle the scriptures rightly. Be fair with them. Do not play around and joke with them. That's just Friday night at the University of Utah, Orson Spencer Hall, I think is what it's called.

I think we're going to be in the very same room that we were at for the Syngenis debate and the other LDS debate we did. The Potter debate six months ago. And it's not too difficult to find. If you can find the Student Union, it's the building to the south of the Student Union.

That's my recollection. And I'm standing by it. And that'll be 7 o 'clock. So y 'all want to, I know some folks come in from California to see it. So that's pretty interesting. I was, especially when I thought we weren't going to have a program today.

I took some time, time that unfortunately is so short these days. And David King was kind enough to highly recommend to me, and I don't know how he got this because it took me a month and a half to get this because maybe we just have a different edition of it.

I don't know. But Baker Academic has put out in its historical theology section, they're putting out Mueller's Post-Reformation Reform Dogmatics, Volume 2. Highly recommend it. Excellent work. Of course, he is P .J. Zondervan, Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, etc., etc.

And the only thing that bothers me about it, I mean, it is really good. It's a great resource. Awesome number of footnotes. And clearly written. I just, this is just obvious why I'm always going to be, you know, an old fat bald guy someplace and never hit the big time.

I couldn't write about the sufficiency of Scripture, specifically Holy Scripture, the Cognitive Foundation of Theology is the title. First of all, I'm not smart enough to come up with a title like that anyways.

But this is what the Reformers taught and believed about Scripture. And I start reading some of this stuff and I get so excited about it. And it's so, this is passionate stuff. I could not write about this in a non-passionate way.

I could not be, you know, well, then this person said this, and that person said that. I can't do that kind of thing. You know, it's just too exciting to read this stuff. And especially as I was reading through here, I was struck by the confluence of forces against the Reformed perspective on Scripture.

In other words, who were the Reformers, and I'm not, when we're talking about Reformed here, this is talking about the development of Reformed orthodoxy over the next two centuries or so. And so you're going into the 1700s or so.

And the people that they were debating, remember, your conflicts, your fights, what you are having to struggle against, agonizomai, you're having to contend for the faith against, has a tremendous impact upon the expression of your theology.

And we really need to keep that in mind. That is very, very true. I've mentioned many times about the fact that you look at Augustine. Augustine is a tremendous example of a brilliant mind, insightful handling of the Scriptures in many ways, and yet the contradictions in his own theology arose because of the different battle fronts upon which he had to do battle, upon which he was called to do battle.

We've noted the conflict with the Donatists, and that resulted in really a Roman Catholic eventually, not full-blown in his day, but laying the foundations of a Roman Catholic view of the Church and sacraments.

But then on the other side, we have his battle with Pelagius and the Pelagians. And I've mentioned many times B .B. Warfield's insightful statement that the Reformation inwardly considered was just the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church.

Now, you know, when you say someone's contradictory in their theology, they can either be contradictory self-consciously, and there are people that are that way today, they think self-contradiction is actually a good thing, or unconsciously.

And I think that would be the case with Augustine. And the more you're involved in that battle, the more that's going to happen. Well, the same thing is true in regards to the development of Reformed theology as well.

There were battles going on, and of course, most people think, well yeah, there's battles with Rome, and it's quite true. When you look at the writings concerning the soul of Scriptura, concerning the perspicuity of Scripture, the inspiration of Scripture, the clarity of Scripture, that kind of thing.

There is no question that people like Bellarmine, Cardinal Bellarmine, who really formed the central core of Rome's counter-Reformation thrust at the Reformed faith. And you read Bellarmine's works, and he is an expert at, at one hand, affirming the authority and inspiration of Scripture, and then taking everything away, and in essence, arguing the Scriptures are simply too confusing to function as the regula fide.

We need to have a living voice. As if having the living voice of the Pope today, for example, has actually resulted in some sort of unanimity of opinion, but, you know, we've all heard that before. And so, that obviously was a very important thing, and just as Marcion, in the early church, was written against by generations of Christians, so too many of the leading Reformed writers responded to Bellarmine, and to those like him, who propounded this view of Scripture, that it is not perspicuous, it is unclear, it needs to be maintained solely within the context and confines of what Rome defines as tradition, and things like that.

But, that wasn't the only battlefront. And what I found fascinating in reading through this morning, and in Muller's work, was the discussion of the other battlefronts, the Remonstrants, the Arminians, the Sosinians, and the confluence of their perspectives in regards to Scripture.

That is, all of these groups, including, historically, Arminians, had a lower view of the Scriptures in the sense of, and obviously they would disagree with my identification of that, but obviously I believe that if you have a view of Scripture that subjects it to some external authority, that in essence says that it is not clear and perspicuous, it does not provide a singular revelation of God's truth, that it is more inspired in some places, and in fact, of course, the Sosinians went so far as to very clearly deny the fully divine nature of Scripture and inerrancy and things like that.

Infallibility would be the popular term of the day. But all these groups, together, had a lesser view of Scripture, and the Reformers had to defend, the Reformed, I think would be another term I should use, the Reformed had to defend their belief in the soul of Scripture against all of these other attacks, all of these other perspectives.

And isn't it interesting that another thing that all these groups together held in common was their synergism? Now I can just hear people throwing their hands up there. Genetic fallacy! Guilt by association!

No, think about it for just a moment before you turn your mind off. All of these groups that the Reformed had to battle for the highest view of Scripture, all of those groups likewise held to a perspective, a viewpoint on the will of man and the grace of God that was likewise lesser in many ways than the Reformed themselves.

So might there be a reason for that? Might there be a logical, rational connection? Well, we know that all of those groups have a lesser view of the atonement. They all deny substitutionary atonement in its fullest sense.

And hence, as soon as you begin to emphasize the supremacy of man over God's sovereign power and providence, it is not surprising then that these other things begin to collapse as well. And certainly when you see the result of historic Arminianism in Europe and historic Sicilianism, the rise of rationalism and skeptical criticism and all the rest of these things, certainly those things eventually made their way into the state churches who historically were Reformed in Europe and certainly those churches that would be called Reformed in general in Europe today sadly are a mockery of what we're talking about here historically.

But they came in primarily from the outside and to get in, that required a collapse in the apologetic, a collapse in a belief in the highest view of Scripture. And that's what you have taking place. So it's fascinating to read these exchanges and to see the summaries of the arguments being used and not only are many of the arguments the same today, you can go into almost any Catholic chat room today and you're going to hear, not nearly as polished, probably in a very shallow way, but you're going to hear in essence the same incipient skepticism that Bellarmine published hundreds of years ago.

It's going to be the same kind of thing. How often have we all, who have talked with Roman Catholics online, we've corresponded, we've talked after debates, you hear the same thing over and over and over again.

And I was just reading where those many generations before us were pointing out the internal inconsistency of the Roman Catholic position long, long ago. The fact that the arguments they used against Scripture would make their own position incoherent and inconsistent, but it's like, well, but we don't want to discuss that.

We just want to go after Scripture. And that's a fascinating thing. But this confluence of theologies coming from different perspectives, I mentioned in, I think I mentioned in the last Dividing Line, I'm fairly certain that was the one, but after all these years they sort of flow together into one big long blur.

That's somewhat similar, interestingly enough, at least it throws some light on what's happening in the confluence of, and sadly they still call themselves Reformed, and so that term, like so many terms in history, is starting to become almost meaningless because it covers such a wide variety of opinions today.

But the coming together of different viewpoints, including the complete reorientation and rethinking of the foundations of the Reformed faith and what it means. I refer, for example, to the rise of New Perspectivism, the speed with which an abandonment of the historical doctrine of justification, its centrality of the Gospel, the concept of the imputed righteousness of Christ as our sole positive standing before God, all of those things are being thrown off right and left by many who continue to call themselves Reformed.

And then on the other side, you have the conservative writings of people like Douglas Wilson, and the preaching of people like Steve Schlissel, and the presentation there of, well, justification is simply being, as Steve Schlissel says, that just means Jews and Gentiles are together in the covenant.

And that's, of course, what N .T. Wright is saying. He's just coming from a completely different perspective. And you see this conference coming up, I think in March of next year, where Norman Shepard is going to be speaking, and Norman Shepard is representative of this Auburn Avenue perspective, this objective covenant concept where, you know, Triennal Baptism places you in the covenant, and it makes you a Christian.

If you're going to deal with Roman Catholics, you don't deal with the issue of the solace. You grab them by their baptism and call them the faithfulness of the covenant, that kind of thing. And also speaking there is John Armstrong.

And John Armstrong has been one of the main conservative, non-Presbyterian people through whom which the concept of New Perspectivism, as enunciated primarily by N .T. Wright, have been promulgated amongst conservative churches and even amongst those who would have a conservative, apologetic perspective.

I mean, there was, you know, ten years ago, John Armstrong was a strong voice against Roman Catholicism, identified as a false church, things like that. And yet there's been a change. The Reformation and Revival Journal has promoted N .T. Wright's materials.

Dr. Armstrong has followed in N .T. Wright's footsteps. Many relationships that had once existed have ceased to exist. And in the September-October 2003 viewpoint, the newsletter of Dr. Armstrong's ministry out of Carroll Stream, Illinois, Volume 7, Number 4, How I Changed My Mind, Theological Method, by John Armstrong.

He, in essence, attacks foundationalism. The idea that, well, the pop-out on the front page, it says, Strong foundationalists, and this includes many of the most popular Reformed dogmaticians and teachers on the conservative side, seek a steady, unshakable, and certain knowledge.

Well, I never really understood why anyone would seek an unsteady, shakable, and uncertain knowledge. So, yeah, that seems to be the case. But the whole article does reflect the fact that in a large portion of what was historically called Reformed theology, and sadly, Westminster Seminary is full of it these days, there is this abandonment.

And this is what I've talked about many times before, what I've called this discontentment with truth. It really, I think, is expressed rather well in a quotation here from John Jefferson Davis, referring to doing, for some reason, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is the primary whipping boy here.

Obviously, Grudem did his Systematic Theology in the standard way of doing Systematic Theologies. I mean, this could be said of Raymond, or Berkhoff, or whoever. They identify this as the concordance model, going through the Bible and creating a concordance of relevant passages to a particular topic and creating a theology out of it.

And John Jefferson Davis says, the concordance model does not take adequate account of the social context of the theological task and the historicity of all theological reflection. The method tends to promote a repetition of traditional formulations of biblical doctrine rather than appropriate recontextualizations of the doctrines in response to changing cultural and historical conditions.

Now, some of you, especially some of you in the channel, are going, hey, wait a minute, I've heard that before, and in the not too distant past. And you're exactly right, you have. That is very much the same kind of perspective that we have read of late from people who are involved with New Saint Andrews and Doug Wilson and the assertion that, in essence, exegesis is held hostage to cultural contextualization that you really, you know, delving into the text before you delve into 16 zillion other cultural issues is not going to get you anywhere, so on and so forth.

And yet that's coming from two different perspectives. This is coming from more of the liberal perspective and the Auburn Avenue stuff is coming from more conservative and yet there is this confluence that's taking place.

It's a fascinating thing to observe and it's not the first time it's happened and maybe it's always happening and I'm just now getting old enough to see it. That's a possibility too. 877 -753 -3341. We have a break now, I'm so thankful.

It's been a while, but we have a break. We have a break now. 877 -753 -3341. Give us a call, we'll be right back. The history of the Christian church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine.

In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute, James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. Jay Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading.

There is solid meat throughout. An outstanding contribution in every sense of the words. The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at almen .org. Answering those who claim that only the King James Version.

Is the word of God, James White in his book, The King James Only Controversy, examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

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

You can order your copy of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, by going to our website at www .aomen .org.

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler,. But The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free. You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomen .org. Welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White. We're waiting on your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341. Looking into, well, somewhat history and then applying it to the modern situation, it is obviously somewhat well, not somewhat, it is very sad to me to read some of the things I read in this article.

How I Changed My Mind, Theological Method. It is certainly sad, I think, to see the results of this. I do not see how a person adopting this perspective can engage in apologetics, and that's one of the reasons, I guess, why so many individuals do not engage in apologetics and find the encounters that we seek to have that are based upon a belief that God has revealed His truth, has revealed His truth to us.

Clearly, it is knowable. It is not constrained by the confines of culture. There are foundational truths that have been revealed within Scripture. They are not negotiable. The truth of the Gospel is the property of God's people and will always be so.

He will always make sure that we have His truth and can know His truth. You have to have that foundation. You have to have the highest view of Scripture, have the highest plateau upon which to stand, even begin to bother, to engage in theological debate on these issues.

And if you don't have those things, you're not going to bother. You're not going to understand those who do. And so, I guess, it does explain why to engage in this type of activity is rather unusual these days and why those of us who do it are looked upon.

And I've seen it. I've seen it. I will go. I'll go someplace. Maybe I'll be speaking at a church and doing a debate or something like that. And I go to the church and a scholar is a member of that church.

And I'm introduced to this individual and the mention of the debate takes place. And there's this look in the eye. There's this, you know, you must not really understand just how uncertain everything is because I could never do what you're going to be doing.

I mean, I might agree with you that it would be better to hold a particular perspective. But to say that one perspective is actually right, you see what many today and I think what we're really seeing, I honestly, this is my conclusion anyway.

Take it for what it's worth. But I think what we're seeing in this willingness to, in essence, collapse in the battle for justification, collapse in the battle for the highest view of Scripture on the part of many, in scholarship is the result of generations of doing Christian scholarship in the way of the world rather than doing Christian scholarship under the lordship of Christ.

The way of the world means that we spend our time being concerned about being accepted by our quote unquote colleagues in the world, participating in cross-disciplinary dialogues rather than evangelism.

The doing of Christian scholarship outside the realm of service to the church and I think what we're seeing is this this collapse of firm conviction even amongst those who only a few decades ago would have been considered to be at the forefront of such things is the result of the long-term exposure to the acid of human wisdom rather than the constant recognition that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world.

We've wanted to change that. We've wanted to look like we are wise to the rest of the world. We don't want to look foolish. We don't want to start with the cross and a crucified savior. And this is what I have seen within much of Christian scholarship.

I'm sorry but that's been my experience. And I hear it all the time. I see it in the eyes of those who, you know, I made the decision that in my studies I was going to put my ministry to the church first.

Well, then you're not a true scholar. Well, okay, you may be able to teach real well in the sense that your students really they learn a lot from you. Oh, that's not part of scholarship though. No, no, no, no.

We have to have other standards. Where do we get these standards? We don't get them from the New Testament. And the result of all this is a collapse inwardly. It is due to a lack of foundation within the system.

It's not so much that the arguments from the outside are overwhelming the truth or something. It's that the truth has been left hanging in mid-air. And so I read some of these statements and I you know, toward the end of this article by John Armstrong.

So what's the big deal about changing our minds about theological method? Well, in the first place, a different approach to theology could cause a great deal more humility in the pulpit and the pew. Reformed theology is a beautiful and biblical approach to truth, but it does not provide a perfect or fail-safe system that is beyond further question.

Further, other types of theology plainly have a serious contribution to be made to the church. Could I just stop a moment? Other kinds of theology? What does that mean? What does theology mean? I thought it meant the knowledge of God.

So what is other kinds of theology? This relativism. It's soaking every word here. Other types of theology plainly have a serious contribution to be made to the church. Would that include Roman Catholic theology?

Would that include the insights of John Spong? Oh, that's a radical. Okay, how about Hans Kuhn? Rahner? Ratzinger? The new gay bishop of New Hampshire? Where do we draw the line? Upon what basis? I don't know that anyone would be able to tell.

I remain reformed in my world and life view. I remain reformed in my central emphasis upon God, His glory, His grace and His sovereignty, but my reformed theology is more chastened these days. I hope that my theology will remain open to the whole church and continually submit itself to the insights of all the great Christian traditions and what the Bible affirms and denies.

Now that sounds wonderful. But what does it mean? What does it mean? How can the writer of these words debate the great issues of the Reformation any longer? Answer? Can't. Can't! Well, my personal opinion is that it would be better to hold to a reformed perspective, but I'm not saying that that's actually more representation of biblical revelation than another view.

I would never say that. I'm much more chastened now. I thought what was chastening about reformed theology was that it forced you to see yourself as the absolute dependent creature you are who depends upon grace fully, not that it was somehow just one of many acceptable views of the truth.

That's not a chastened reformed theology. That is a shot dead in the head reformed theology. That's not being humble. That's humiliating the truth. Let's get our terms straight here. You know, heresy is always expressed in the warmest and most affirming of language.

The issue here is not replacing theology with something else. This is the error of the pragmatic evangelical baby boomers. The real issue is how do we do theology so that we glorify the living word who reveals God in human history?

How do we listen to him? My change in methodology allows me to enter a dialogue with new eyes and a new willingness to listen and learn from others. It is an evangelical and ecumenical theology in the best sense.

This has made a profound difference in my personal life. Whereas I once saw truth in a closed system created by a very small group of theologians whom I believe wrote the last and best word, I am now willing to listen and learn from all my brothers and sisters who honor Christ and the gospel with me.

Folks, that's the language of Vatican II. And hence, another one who once stood, and oh boy, I hope you I hope you pray for everyone who still stands for truth. Because it can happen to anybody. It can happen to anybody.

You say, you don't believe in eternal security? That's not what I'm talking about. But it's very, very easy to slip into the mindset that says, you know, we're the only ones left out here. You know, I charged to the battlefront, and then I turned around, and to my chagrin I found that I was all alone.

It's easy to get discouraged. It's easy to find yourself on that battlefront saying, well nobody left out here, so why in the world should I continue this fight? When frequently, I'll be perfectly honest with you, you know, I could honestly say, the personal attacks of Catholic apologists and Mormon apologists and people like that, you know, that I expect that.

That's not to say I enjoy it, but I expect that. What really, really makes me at times talk about opening a tire shop in Alaska is the friendly fire. The callous attitude of the people who are supposed to be on your side.

That's what just makes me want to pull my beard out. I was going to say hair, but those of you who know me know that won't work. That's the truly discouraging stuff is the friendly fire. Why don't you do this?

Why won't you write on that? You know, you should do it this way. You should do it that way. And, and, and, and, and, and, and. It's the friendly fire that really gets to you after a while. It's not what people on the other side say.

You expect that. You expect that kind of hatred. You don't expect the, the kind of stuff that's, you know, the older I get, the less I appreciate it, and less I even want to deal with it. I'm going to tell you that much.

And then sometimes, you know, you look at at what's supposed to be on your side, and you see such confusion amongst people that you just, sometimes, you know, many times the prayer in our church is, Lord, as we look around us, it, it, it just seems hopeless.

But we know that you're still in control. Our, our sight is so limited. So very much, you know, we can't see the live, vibrant fellowships on other continents and things like that. I hear about them, and I'm glad they're there.