Victor Paul Wierwille

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 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

John 20:28 and the Debate Over Thomas's Confession

Thank you. Morning. Welcome to the dividing line for those of you who are Time challenged you're probably wondering we had people come in, you know an hour ago. Where is the dividing line and stuff like that?

That's because this last Sunday was when everybody was running around changing their clocks. Unfortunately, I'm still running around changing mine that our radio controlled and don't have an on-off switch for either daylight savings time or something like that.

But anyway, we are here at our regular time and I put a video up a Couple days ago again, it will appear. I don't know a couple months from now on the blog but for those who follow along on the YouTube page, it's Came up I think sometime last week where I played Pretty much everything that had been provided on YouTube anyway of dr Jamal Badawi's comments in a debate with the dr. Rittenhouse of Biola on the deity of Christ.

That was recorded outside interestingly enough on a campus. That would probably be an interesting way of doing things. But anyway one of the Statements that Badawi makes he also made in his debate with William Lane Craig quite some time ago and It has to do with John chapter 20 verse 28.

John 20 28 and of course, this is Thomas's response to the risen Lord. We're addressing Jesus directly. He says my Lord and my God now. There have been all sorts of amazing ways to try to get around what John 20 28 means and they truly are amazing.

I mean the Jehovah's Witness standard answer of this being my Lord my God as if he was Taking God's name in vain or or in shock or some absurd thing like this. That's that's the most common one, but it's very difficult for me not to laugh at such absurdities.

It's very difficult for me not to become rather upset that someone can be so dim-witted. And so cavalier with the text of scriptures to use that kind of argumentation, but there are people who do. Then you have the more sophisticated folks who are trying to get around it by saying well, you know.

These are nominatives not vocatives. And so he's talking about his Lord and his God and that of course is destroyed by the fact that if you simply look at The text that says he said to him Not to somebody else my Lord and my God the nominative is being used in the place of the vocative.

Not an uncommon thing at this time in the development of Koine Greek, etc, etc, etc so. Another way around it, however was was developed back in the 1970s by a small cult leader by the name of Victor Paul Weirwill and Victor Paul Weirwill was of course the founder of the way international which is now split into a billion different Perspectives, I don't know if the way exists any longer if it does it's very very small but back in the 70s was fairly well known and Weirwill wrote a book called Jesus Christ is not God and Unfortunately, dr. Badawi Utilizes this kind of information in fact in his response.

He not only quoted directly from the kingdom interlinear translation of the Christian Greek scriptures of Jehovah's Witnesses. But he likewise then without direct attribution is in this segment that I'm going to play for you here quoting from Victor Paul Weirwill, so this is how he he makes this presentation want to respond to that on the program today.

Christian sources based on their knowledge of the Greek language. They say this is a figure of speech in Greek. When one word is the reality the other one is intensification of that reality. So which means then Lord he's talking to Jesus as Lord and my God means actually according to Christian and sub Christian interpreters you are God like.

You are God like but not God as has been interpreted.

So here is the presentation not overly in-depth, but this is the the presentation that is. Yes, so rich, and I are watching a bird attacking one of our cameras. That's. Hey, it may look like a competitor for food I don't know.

I think he went into a little more detail in his debate with William Lane Craig. Obviously he was hurrying as was written house. This was obviously a very short debate. More of a soundbite type thing, but he is clearly quoting from Jesus Christ is not God my particular edition of this book, and I think there's more than one edition I think some of them changed.

It's the only one I can find right now and this is the 1980 fourth printing 1986 version of Werewolves book. Jesus Christ is not God and he quotes Thomas answers in him. I Lord my God. And he says however an even greater truth is shown by the usage of Thomas addressing Jesus Christ my Lord Am I God it brings to light the precision of a figure of speech now?

You need to know something about werewolf there was no figure of speech that werewolf didn't like and he basically dug out all the books on on Allegories metaphors figures of speech everything you'd find and any text didn't fit into his very odd and strange theology.

He would just simply find some kind of figure of speech category that he could cram it into now. Fundamentally let me take you back to Many many moons ago when I was sitting in second year Greek class with dr. Mike Baird and in second year you learn something called syntax and when you Do second year Greek this is in college level Greek.

You are assigned a certain passage and let's say you're studying genitives that week and so you have to provide a syntactical category for each the genitives in the text you're translating and You have to present it and then here's the key you have to defend it and When you learn the syntactic categories of for example a genitive and there are many There are sort of default categories.

There's the basic meanings of of the terms that are the general normal usage of the genitive. And if you're going to go for a more specific or more unusual or or more rare Syntactical category you're gonna say this words actually functioning this way.

You have more weight put upon you to defend that that less normal more unusual identification so the rarer and rarer category becomes the more evidence you have to be able to provide the stronger your case has to be to Be able to establish that that is the case so I learned early on That if you're if you're gonna make a claim that a certain translation.

And especially if it's a little bit out of the ordinary The onus is on you the weight is on you to demonstrate that there is a a Strong case to derive from the text itself that this is how you're to interpret this particular word.

Well, that is something that evidently Victor Paul Weir will never learned. It just He he just throws it out there. And as long as in some way shape or form it can fit into the category then this must be it.

He doesn't have to he doesn't even bother with trying to defend these things. He doesn't even bother having to explain why he has come up with this and nobody else did. He just throws it out there. And that's just all there is to it and then so you get these little cult group leaders like Victor Paul Weir will throw out a book like this.

It's it's woefully. Without it has no meaningful argumentation whatsoever from a scholarly perspective but then Islamic apologists come along and well, he was a Christian. He talked about Jesus didn't he and He was a scholar.

And so therefore I'm going to quote this as if it has some sort of Relevance and meaning to my situation today. So this is what we're about to encounter here. Going back to where well, he says it brings to light the precision of a figure of speech the specific spigot spigot spigot of each.

The specific figure of speech is called hendi Adi's. Literally the figure hendi Adi's means one by means of two. It's hen de at this one by two. In in Greek whenever two words are used but only one idea intended it is the figure hendi Adi's now.

Please let me stop right there whenever two words are used. But only one idea intended. It is the figure hindi Adi's nuts. It's not true. It's not whenever it's once in a while if the context is supportive and certain other issues Are present in the context maybe but he says whatever.

Now if you were to translate the New Testament this way it would end up as a mishmash of Absurd ideas, but again, that's what happens when you read cult books. One of the two words expresses the fact that the and the other Intensifies it to the superlative degree thus making the statement especially emphatic.

This figure gives considerable cogency to an expression when Thomas exclaimed my Lord and my God he was observing the resurrected Christ as my godly Lord. The word Lord expresses the fact and the word godly intensifies Lord to the superlative degree indeed.

My godly Lord is exactly what Jesus Christ is. And so this is how we're will get surround John 2028 in a book. Of course Jesus Christ is not God where Jesus Christ identify as God. He uses hindi Adi's as his as his way around this and As we just listened to Jamal Badawi repeats this as if this is a common Understanding of Christian scholarship.

And of course, it is not a common understanding of Christian scholarship at all. But how do you respond to something like this? Well, obviously I just provided part of the response. And that is a person who makes this kind of assertion.

The the burden of proof exists for them to prove their point. They're the ones who have to back this up but if you'll look at scholarly grammars, for example, I went into my my library and I pulled out a definition and Colin Smith was in channel and we both got the same same definition at the same time.

I think he may have been using librarnix as I was. I don't remember but you can go to the the blast of Brunner funk Grammar, which is not specifically coin a but general general Greek grammar. And you can read the definition provided by them which Specifically says quote the coordination of two ideas one of which is dependent on the other Hendiities serves in a New Testament to avoid a series of dependent genitives a series of dependent genitives.

The example of Acts 23 6 is given where in most translations you have on account of the hope of the resurrection of the dead which is literally in the Greek the hope and resurrection of the dead but the resurrection of the dead is being taken to Identify in the same way as if you put it into a genitive form.

What the hope is is the hope of the resurrection of the dead? Most of the examples I found interestingly enough were well you have a number from Luke you have some from from Romans 2nd Peter 1 2nd Timothy 2 etc. 2nd Timothy 4 etc. Etc.

But the point is that they were all intended To avoid a awkwardness in of construction using genitives none of them Were in an address. None of them were using that I saw anyways nominatives in in Functioning as vocatives in address with articles and with the word mu my Attached to the terms.

So if this is handy oddies Then it would be the only example following its particular form in all the New Testament and you would of course have to provide tremendous Argumentation from the context to substantiate this kind of translation which we're will does not even try to do Couldn't do and then modern Islamic apologists following after him really should recognize that that is a bit of a problem.

But I Go back to the second year Greek class. I remember very clearly getting into an argument with my professor at one point because I missed a grade by one question and It was on how to syntax one particular heiress as I recall it had to do it it would have been better if this man had been drowned or not been born one two, I forget which one was and I missed I missed an entire grade in that class by that one that one argument and I that's where I learned that you're the one who has to back this up and I've never seen anyone who's even tried to back up handy oddies at John 2028 where will doesn't and So when you find folks just uncritically repeating him as if well, you know here you've got this book.

It's it's not Been reviewed in any positive manner within scholarship itself. But that's representative Christian scholarship. That's what you're encountering when you deal with With Islamic apologists today and so keep that keep that in mind.

When you hear people saying well Christian scholarship says X. Well, you know what? That term Christian scholarship. You could you could prove anything. Based upon saying Christian scholarship just depends on how you want to find it.

How broadly you want to express it, whatever it might be. So keep that in mind. And if you hear folks, then you might want to tell them, you know That really doesn't fit there and you might want to try to prove it if you think that it does.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Doctrine of God

8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. There was a debate last week on iron sharpens iron with F Lagarde Smith and dr. Larry Carino Smith has put out a book against Calvinism and I looked at the book. It was sent to me Chris Arden's and really wanted me to do this debate.

I simply did not have time to do so I I got an email from a Muslim this morning and He and I had started going back and forth a little bit last month On and in fact, I think I've mentioned in the program on al-bukhari and The the concern that that Uthman and others had in light of the the deaths of the qurra that's part of the Quran a large part of the Quran could be lost if further people died and and just the relevance of these things and We had started going back and forth a little bit I do not like doing lengthy email debates because lengthy email debates are only being read by two people and It it just it sucks your time into a black hole and When I was younger, yeah, I had you know I pushed myself more do that kind of thing the older and older have gotten the less and less I've Given much consideration to the many people who run around.

There's another guy over on James Swan's board. I think his name is Matthew Bellisario Roman Catholic and He's he's like William Albrecht everybody in the early church believed in the apocryphal books and the deuterocan everybody you're a fool if you know the Everybody I mean, it's just so patently false.

It's so obvious that Anyone who can come to that kind of concluded everybody in the early church believe like I believe anyone who can look at the early church and come up with that kind of monolithic assertion is Just blind as a bat that there's there they have their their conclusions and there's no reasoning with them.

There's just there's no reason to even try to reason with someone like that because it's just so obvious you know, it's sort of like the flat earthers or You know the people who are always running around looking for conspiracy theories.

I don't bother trying to reason with these folks because You know the meter is not moving. So there's just no reason to even try they've made up their minds. That's it okay, fine you go do your thing and you see how many folks you can convince of your perspective and I'll go do my thing and So similar situation developed here in this discussion with this Muslim.

Because I started to respond and He responded back and I wanted to continue on just because I was enjoying Having the opportunity to to delve into this and it was you know, it's a good thing to be doing.

But I've just got a million things going on. I've got I've got the the rewrite of the King James only controversy, which is going to involve Re-entering every single bit of Greek and Hebrew in the book.

What most people don't know is I originally typeset that book because back in 1994 There was way too much Greek and Hebrew in it for the folks at Bethany house to handle. So I actually typeset that book.

Well, the problem is the fonts we use back then are not the standard Unicode fonts that are used today and so every bit of Greek and Hebrew in that entire book is gonna have to be re-entered by yours truly and so I've got that going on.

I've got debates coming up next week. I'm gonna be speaking on Long Island the week after that. We've got the Steve Gregg thing coming up at the beginning of April. I've got more than enough to keep my plate full, you know 24 hours a day.

With less sleep than I should buy I get and so, you know some things you just it might be enjoyable to do. But you just you just can't do it. Well, I got an email from this morning. Are you gonna retract your your statements or I'm gonna publicly expose you?

It's like oh, no, that would be the first time anybody on the Internet's ever said anything bad about me. I Mean if I've said many times in various meetings that if you google me. And if you believe one-tenth of what you what you read, you're never gonna speak to me again because.

But but notice notice how my enemies frequently tend to quote from each other. I noticed another attack on my credentials as someone posted in channel. They I don't know why they bother posting these things in channel all going back the same Mormon a decade ago.

Who actually now works in distance education, but anyways. Sort of funny but you know and they and they just have to keep recycling this stuff. They can't answer. I mean I've put out 20 books you would think if I'm so stupid if I if I actually can't handle this stuff that it'd be pretty easy to document that from Published stuff, but no, they can't do that.

So they they go after the you know, the the the cheap cheesy Means of attack so. Anyway, so when someone says I'm going to expose you. You go ahead and do that, that'll be the first time that's ever happened.

So, you know, you got all that kind of stuff going on out there as well. So it's it's it's interesting deal. But anyways, I just didn't have time to do. Did I didn't see anything new in Efflegard Smith's book?

It's the standard Arminian philosophical Free will has to be there or love doesn't exist. I'm not really going to try to explain how God can have exhausted knowledge of future events. And I'm really not going to provide much in the way of exegesis type arguments nothing new and Once you get past certain age if you've already dealt with it before the desire to deal with it again.

It's not quite as strong as it used to be. You know There's got to be other people who can do this stuff and Larry Carino did a great job. That's what I've heard I had didn't I haven't even had a chance to listen to the debate.

I Just watched people in channel talking about it. So I didn't even have time to do that. So but James Swan Did a trip me into at least addressing the subject by sending me the closing statement from Efflegard Smith?

On the subject Calvinism, which is quite strident now. It was interesting. That's Just few moments before the program started we had some folks in channel who seemed to be sort of taking the same view of Arminians that he takes of Calvinists and of course those of us who seek to maintain some sort of balance and Who try to avoid falling off the cliff into hyper Calvinism?

Despite the fact of constantly being accused of that by the other side we're pointing out that the balance needs to be maintained and it's not just a simple matter of here the five points sign the dotted line or go to hell and so.

Anyway to listen to Efflegard Smith's comments here. It's a little bit difficult, but I'd like to play at least portion of respond to some of the things were said. Because they were quite Quite quite interesting.

So let's let's listen to what he had to say. I'm actually not starting at the beginning. It's too long wouldn't fit all of it in but when he starts getting to a discussion of Calvinism specifically as creator.

God made his own in his own made man in his own image with free will. But Calvinism maintains that human nature was constitutionally altered as a result of Adam's sin Depriving man thereafter of the innate desire or ability to respond positively to God.

In order for anyone to respond positively to God it would be necessary for God to specifically and selectively Regenerate individuals from their state of total depravity. Now notice just in passing.

While the statements are true, they're not balanced in the sense that it's not just a lack of a desire there is a presence of a strong desire for evil and rebellion which is Reprehensible in God's sight and punishable by immediate Destruction.

That part seems to get lost because from the Arminian perspective man Almost always has to be presented in a much more positive light than the scriptures actually present to him. You have a man who in his fallen state loves his sin and has no interest in the Holy God.

That's what you're dealing with here. You're not dealing with some old poor creature Who you know of God would just be nice to him. He'd like to love God. That's that's not what you have. You have men who who revel in their sin they revel in their rebellion.

They they love their impiety and Are doing everything they can to suppress the knowledge of God that continues to exist within them.

But in keeping with his decree to save only the predetermined elect God Regenerates only his elect and not the not elect. Although God has said to call his elect true faith It is affirmed by Calvinist that God himself gives them the very faith.

He requires of them a faith which supposedly they willingly choose with their now re-enabled free will. But a so-called faith which they cannot possibly refuse to have. In other words.

They are new creatures and they act in accordance with their nature Just as the unregenerate man acts consistently in accordance with his nature. So the regenerated man who is renewed in the image of Christ for some reason embraces Christ.

What a shocking idea that truly is.

Calvinists seem not to appreciate that a faith one can't possibly refuse robs the concept of faith of any meaning.

Only from an Arminian free will perspective because you are defining the concept of faith within a very humanistic Milieu rather than a biblical milieu because what we're saying is the newly created person the person who is resurrected to spiritual life does Inevitably that which is consistent with his nature and since you are made as a new creature in Christ Then to cling to one's creator is Indeed natural to do and this accomplishes God's purpose but only if you again begin with the assertion that in essence what you have to do here.

A you have to have the creation have the same kind of autonomous free will as the creator and The creation's purposes are going to be what's established not the creators purposes.

Would you ever come up with this kind of a concept nor do Calvinist acknowledge that a faith? Necessarily flowing from God's own unconditional election means that in reality the elect are saved neither by faith or through faith but by fiat.

Again confusing and ignoring the the clear distinction made in our own theology specifically in regards to both the God ordaining the ends and the means. If you are going to say what was just said then you cannot have God ordaining any means.

Whatsoever if he ordains means and they don't really have any meaning from what was just said that that is the fundamental assertion. That we we hear in in these words.

Indeed, it could be said that being eternally predestined for salvation at no point where they ever truly lost. To begin with.

Again a gross imbalance one that is repudiated by reformed theology in the recognition that We are saved out of our sins. We were once children of wrath and Since we do not know the identity of the elect either which always comes up in this.

I don't know if you've noticed this over the years as we have criticized and interacted with criticisms of reformed theology, but Over and over again The assumption is somehow we know the identity of the electorate something along those lines which we do not.

We are not given that that God does not have a purpose back. God has a purpose for not giving us knowledge. Some sort of you know making the elect glow green type of a situation but I Know this is a closing statement, and I know this is a closing statement of a number of hours of dialogue.

But one would and I you can tell it's being read and when it was written I don't know, but you would like to think that after a Dialogue on the subject there would be at least a little more accuracy in the representation to the side.

But that hasn't been about my experience at all.

Meanwhile none who are among the non-elect can possibly come to faith because they have not been regenerated to desire half faith. No, because well.

Because they've not been regenerate God has to show mercy and grace to them. God has to refree them from their slavery to sin. How about asking the question do they want to be freed from their slavery to the sin.

Do they want? To repent and believe. And the answer is no so just so to keep throwing this back upon. God is is an odd thing, but it is the essence at least of.

Efflegard Smith's attack upon reformed theology. And thus they remain condemned with no hope of salvation. From the sinful condition over which they also have no control.

Over which they have no control, so this is the the old puppet marionette type thing the poor innocent people being forced to sin. Type misrepresentation, which I I can't say. Because I didn't listen to it had been refuted, but I know Larry Carino and something tells me That he probably had the exact same experience.

I did and that is you can talk to your blue in the face. But our minions just aren't interested in hearing what you have to say about this this particular subject. They've got their categories, and if what you say doesn't fit into it well Then you're just not accurately representing your own position.

We'll continue listening to this and if anybody happens to know how to pick up a phone eight seven seven seven five three three Three four one we'll be right back.

Calvinism, Human Nature, and Divine Sovereignty

Everyone this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet.

They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha-Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses. Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace. Thank you. Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet.

White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned. Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see.

The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day. The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing.

Ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town. Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org.

Just looking channel and Chris and channel mentioned. Of course the same thing. I've said all along that unless Dr. Smith is an open theist almost every Assertion he's just made about Calvinist applies to his own position as well.

And that's why I've said many times open theism is the only consistent Armenian ism. You have to deny to God exhaustive foreknowledge of future events. Or all these criticisms you're making all you're basically saying if you're a classical Armenian who believes that God has knowledge of future events.

Is the Calvinist says God does these things for a purpose his own self-glorification there are many and says he does these things For no reason at all. It's just sort of the way it happens and there's no purpose in it.

There's no Redeeming purpose in it. This is how it is. And I've always found that to be an exceptionally odd Perspective but that's that's what we're dealing with. So we're listening to a flag art Smith's closing statement here providing some responses.

Given the foregoing assumptions Calvinism holds that Christ's atoning death on the cross was never intended for the whole of sinful mankind But only for the already chosen elect. As for Calvinism's insistent belief in limited atonement.

Only disingenuous sophistry can explain away the many unambiguous passages which clearly and plainly teach That God loved the whole sinful world so much the sinner's son that whoever believes in him shall be saved.

So it's disingenuous sophistry to point out that the word whoever isn't in the text that it is. That's one of the reasons I. You know if there had been some meaningful exegesis in this book if there had been something about it That was worthwhile along those lines then I might have been interested in it, but I'm sorry.

You know I'm getting to that age where I realize there's only so many decades left in my life at best and and I'm wanting to. I'm looking down the road and going what do I need to do in my life now? That's gonna have the greatest impact when I'm gone.

I Want to. I want to assist the church. I want to embolden the church. I want to leave something behind for the church. It's gonna be relevant for years, and I'm sorry, but going back over the same well sophistry.

This is the sophistry. Philosophical sophistry the dr. Smith is offering is not on my plate. That's just not what I find to be overly worthwhile any longer. I've said it before.

Nuh-uh is not an apologetic.

Basically yeah, and and sadly and I realize people are impacted by nuh-uh I Realize I can't help people who are going to be impacted by really lousy argumentation. I don't think there's anything you can do if someone can be convinced by bad argumentation irrational and illogical argumentation.

How am I supposed to help them except by engaging in irrational and illogical argumentation the other direction and? If if that's the case then what happened the truth, you know it just you know so anyways.

That's why I didn't get into it and and why I listen to this and do I have any reason to believe? That this this gentleman You know has really dealt seriously Exegetically with Hebrews and its presentation of the atonement and things like that well I don't know.

I don't know I can't comment on on how much of that they got into in the debate. You know once you take calls and and Commercials and stuff on a radio program. I know even doing a week's worth Really leaves you with with very very little time relatively speaking and that in fact.

That's something I've got to talk to Steve Gregg about is that if we're supposed to be doing this five days on his program. And we're simulcasting it through the dividing line here. Is he could be doing commercials.

Because that's really cut down the amount of time that we actually have To discuss these things and so I don't know if his is a paid program. So he doesn't have to do commercials, or I don't know if he's got to take breaks.

I don't know we will have to discuss that and Obviously, I think I'm thinking off top my head here. I need to verify this don't don't write this in stone. Don't get mad at me if this isn't what it is, but I think I I Think I said April three four seven eight nine.

So that's a Thursday Friday, and then seven eight nine. Is a Monday through Wednesday? I think that's what I suggested to him I would have to go back to my email, and and I don't have that in front of me right now.

But I think that's what we're talking about and that's even pretty tight for me because I don't get back until that's that preceding Saturday. And then that following Saturday. I'm taking my Islam class in Golden Gate to the Tempe mosque.

To to meet with the Muslims there and and ask questions and and sort of have a field trip shall we say. And so I got enough stuff going on. But we're gonna do it anyways because you know it does need to be discussed.

And let's go back. And that Christ died for all mankind And that he tasted death for everyone And that he gave himself as a ransom for all men because God does not want anyone to perish but to be saved.

You know every single one of these has a context. You can string them together and ignore their context put them in a completely different Context if you want to. But again, you're not you know who are you seeking to convince?

What are you seeking to do when you do that kind of thing. Is it just to establish a position? Or you're actually seeking to honestly deal with the text and to and to see it as a as a whole. That really is the difference I think between.

Reform theology and Arminian theology in Calvinism's cavalier and breathtaking disenfranchisement of potentially billions of lost souls. Never has the cross of Christ been so emptied of its power. Well there you go.