Open Theism, More 'Just People' and a Follow on Nick Peters on Today's Dividing Line

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday Tuesday Tuesday evening for some of you on the

East Coast and afternoon for those of us Here on the West Coast three topics at least a possible fourth depending on whether I get done with each the other two

Which is possible. I might make it. We'll try anyhow Lots of interesting things to get to here.

I'm going to start with announcement Generally doesn't work this way. Generally, it does not work this way

But Some of you may recall about What You're moving the microphone.

And so you're you're looking does that make you nervous? Yes, very much. So yeah, and it does

Is there something you you wanted to oh, okay. Good. Some of you remember A little while back.

I reviewed the flaming toilet of death Peter Hyatt's video and that was because It had been played

By the fellow up in Salt Lake City that I haven't heard a word about in Ages now, so that was probably

March April somewhere around it. Well, we didn't arrange a debate

This trip up to Colorado because I'm going I leave next week and go up to Santa Fe and you'll be speaking

Santa Fe and We've got information up on the website about that and seeing

Paul skies a father say that three times fast and The guys there at the church where I've been.

That's the only church I've been to in Santa Fe Actually, I don't know if there are any other churches Just where I go and They the poor people there.

They actually like me. I don't know They call the discern conference Having me in all the time.

I'm not sure if that's showing a lot of discernment but anyway and then from there up to Colorado which is my want during the middle of the year as you may have noticed over the past a few years and I'm gonna be doing some insane climbing on a bike up there like up to the ski station in Santa Fe.

That's only 10 -1 I Am going up Mount Evans Lord willing maybe more than once and Mount Evans is 14 ,000 feet above sea level and so I've never been that high on a bike could be interesting, but I'm looking forward to it.

But anyways We were gonna try to work something out With Peter Hyatt, we might still be able to do so.

We're actually get together while I'm up there at some point for September With Peter Hyatt, I hope on the subject of universalism

So I was a little disappointed because I know I wanted to work something out as far as a debate or something like that up there and Then just it's just a few days ago somebody in channel

I think it was in channel or maybe in my email One of the two ways because it's one of our channel rats

Contacted me and said have have you ever declined an invitation to debate Bob Enyart now? I I knew the name

I've been up to Denver so many times that a lot of people had mentioned you two really ought to debate open theism and It had come up sometime since 2005

Because I remember riding in South Mountain Park and listening to something by Bob Enyart on the subject of open theism

There's a number of years ago so I Responded said no,

I've never declined an invitation to debate Bob Enyart Why well somebody's saying that that you did

No, and it says thought cross our mind news up in Denver. So I'm like I Want to see what you can arrange?

Well, lo and behold, this is not normally how it's done But in a very very brief period of time we have arranged for a debate

Tuesday evening July 8th Don't have the time or location yet.

They're working on that up there in the Denver area But sometime Tuesday evening

July 8th, this is assuming that I don't fall off of The mountain in Santa Fe and I don't fall don't die on Mount Evans Which I will have climbed at least once maybe twice prior to this and No offense

Bob, but maybe maybe at 14 ,000 feet open theism will make sense That's a great joke and I went and used it now

I was thinking about waiting till Denver for that that maybe the higher the higher altitude you are and now in Colorado There's a lot of things you can do with Colorado highs.

They're really really are boy Yeah there you can you can do a lot of stuff up there But I well, you know if it actually pans out that the you know, the the track record of your opponents

Listening to your shows. He will never oh, no. No, I think I think I think no No, I I don't in fact when

I mentioned it on my Facebook feed He retweet he read he posted it to did something with his

I don't know he did something with it in face The word is share. Okay, maybe that I know you want to retweet everything because everything surrounds, you know,

Twitter, but you know Facebook It's share. Yeah sharing. Yeah, it's tells you a little bit about Facebook.

But anyway So no, I'm sure they're they're listening in or or if not right now

They will be but anyhow, I'm sure he has a sense of humor. He does does radio.

He has to have a sense Because everybody in radio is insane, but anyhow

I say that as a person who used to work in radio a lot So that's coming up on the 8th so what

I want to do is I want to start off and give you some idea it has been a 13 years was a 2001 was 2001 the

Sanders debate That's and that's the year I have in my mind is 2001.

I Could be wrong about that And I forgot to actually on archive that but it's in it's in Dropbox anyways, but Last time

I really seriously addressed subject of open theism was when I debated John Sanders at Reform Theological Seminary and it's not that we haven't had some comment on it since then but There have been a couple of people who have tried to get

Greg Boyd To debate on that's on that subject, but he doesn't seem interested in it.

And So this will be the first time so There have been some books that have come out since then and I thank everybody who jumped on the ministry resource list today

I think there's I've put a couple other things since there were people going I wanted to help out

But by the time I get there, it's already taken care of So there might still be some things up there

I don't know maybe you can tell me if it's already been taken care of but so I put some stuff up on the ministry source list and Obviously, I've got many hours of writing over the next two weeks to do

There's one thing left on a ministry source resource list right now. That's a more expensive book on homosexuality

No, really that one went it's the Kindle edition on on hell. Okay, you know so Anyways, there's there's still some there's still at least one thing there that someone can grab if they really want to which we appreciate very very much, but So what

I want to do is I want to give you some idea of Where Bob and yards coming from to give you some idea of what the debates going to be about It's very very interesting to me.

You say well, how do you know? I mean, you're just now getting this material Well again, I listened to something a number of years ago and then when

I knew this was a possibility They had called us yesterday because you know, my person talked to their person in the net person, whatever

So this morning I did a fairly short ride at 38 mile ride and so I Put a couple things for the program on and I thought

Let's see what I can grab From Bob Enyart. And so I grabbed this brief little little thing where he was talking to a

Church of Christ I'm sorry, Calvary Chapel pastor Up there in in Denver and So I want to play some portions of that to help you understand and it's interesting because the the perspective that he's coming from is to emphasize he even says that we want to approach this from a

Trinitarian perspective and the emphasis what you're gonna hear is

Well, we believe God is free to change the future and to write a new song there is the

There is the perspective God is free to change future and basically what he's saying is if you believe that God knows the future then

God is stuck It is the future takes on a life into itself. And this of course is my primary

Response is That it creates a view of time and God's knowledge of time

That just does not represent what orthodox Christianity has ever viewed Now obviously my biggest objection to orthodox theism is it's plainly unbiblical

I mean the Bible is clear in its teaching that God not only knows what is knowable in the future as in his own actions but it is just beyond question that God knows the actions of free human creatures and And So obviously

I will be focused upon that But the point is that that in presenting it what he does is he's basically saying well,

I'm defending the freedom of God And I have real problem with that because I don't think that's what you're doing at all

First of all, I don't believe that my God is Unfree because his knowledge of the future is based upon what his own will accomplishes in the future in the first place.

So What you're saying is God is free to do something less Than the perfect will that expressed his decree which created time in the first place

Okay but you know these are things that I will it'll be up to me to be able to point these things out and say

I don't think this is an appropriate way of expressing this because How is

God free if his actions are circumscribed by human Actions that he does not know.

How can you say God is free when on September 10th? 2001 he knew what could possibly happen the next day

But he didn't know if it would happen the next day He knew the plans in the hearts of men but Many of the plans in the hearts of man.

I mean Psalm 33 comes up once again I think Psalm 33 is a is a is a pretty tough text for anyone to deal with who's a mullinist or an open theist or Arminian and by the way, he criticizes our minion ism as well.

At least our minions who hold to a concept of Exhaustive divine foreknowledge Not sure how they have a grounding for that, but that's another issue

So anyway, I wanted to play a little bit of this in the first half hour Then in the second half hour,

I'm going to be responding to William Michael, I'm assuming it's Weiss. I Didn't ask him.

I should have asked him we were chatting on on Because it wasn't I don't believe it was in the film as far as a pronunciation.

I would say why is it could be Wyss? I suppose but Weiss is much more. Well, it's

I don't even know what the background of that is. It looks Eastern European W Y SS that looks very

Eastern European to me or you you use word you use letters for vowels that You know, yeah, no, no, not even

German. No, I mean William Michael sounds a little bit But we'll go with Weiss. Anyways, he was one of the students featured in the just people video from that Was shot at Grand Canyon, which

I found out Yesterday was shot two years ago Was shot two years ago didn't know that But we're gonna respond to some of the things he had to say and he has agreed that once I get back from Colorado I guess he's still in the valley here between semesters

We have to figure out how to move that camera. So it shoots over there and he'll join me in studio Well, as long as I'm nice today,

I imagine I will be but I have Respond to some of the things he said so hopefully that won't be too much of an issue then the last half hour going to be responding to Nick Peters and Defining inerrancy because remember very briefly.

I think it's on the last program or the program before that I mentioned some stuff about the Lordship of Christ and the last chapter of defining inerrancy that really bothered me and So he's responded and so I'll respond again so lots of interesting stuff on the program and if I happen to get through all of that believe it or not,

I have a Video that we might get to but I don't have a lot of confidence.

We're gonna do that Let's listen briefly because I'm not doing much interacting here but let's let's listen briefly to Bob starts off his program here.

This is all the way back seven years ago starts his program off Complaining about what a local

Calvary Chapel pastor said had a caller who asked him some things clearly they've been listening to Bob and Here's the clip that he he didn't he didn't like I'll walk you through it.

Okay, go ahead. Let me start you from the beginning Okay, the person you were listening to on the radio today never listen to them again

Well, I turned it off That be me Bob in your pastor Bob in yard.

Hey, come on never listen again now that I says this is rough This is tough. Well Bob it put yourself in in my position.

I'm a pastor and This Calvary Chapel pastor is a pastor and if you really believe as I believe that open theism is

Fundamentally anti -biblical unbiblical and that it has an Incredible impact on how you and I would respond to tragedy counseling

There's so many. I mean, that's why I've debated this in the past. I think it's important just like you think it's important Wouldn't you warn your sheep away from those who are teaching something you think is fundamentally erroneous

I'm not I'm not sure why you wouldn't take that perspective and then he called into the program of that particular pastor and The pastor knew who it was.

And so here's here's some of that conversation. What can I do for you? I heard the caller you guys were talking about the future and whether the future is settled or open the open theistic argument

Right exactly that the future is open and that God in fact has the power the ability to change the future

For example that God if he wants to he could write a new song Okay, so there's obviously the and Yartian That a word.

Well, we just made one up at the end Yartian Formulation of open theism that God can change the future and write a new song

Now obviously from my perspective that's not the issue Because what you're saying is

God could invalidate his knowledge of the future and Do something less perfect than he had decreed to do because his knowledge of the future flows from his decree to act in a particular way to bring himself maximal glory and So what you're saying is

God's knowledge of what God him of God himself Can be invalidated if God chooses to invalidate his knowledge of himself

So there's gonna be some of the issues that we will we will be looking at but hey,

I'll give you I'll give you props that that's a really Let's put this way

John Sanders didn't come up with a really nice Sort of marketing approach

To what open theism should be about John Sanders approach was You had 1 ,500 years to figure this out.

We're still working on He did say that during the debate, didn't he? I I I sat there going really?

Really okay There you go. We continue on that. God is creative that God could do something creative God is the one who designed the

Garden of Eden, right and Today if God now again God is creative I agree

Does that and his Providence and his decree continues that creativity and It's perfect creativity and it's what he has intended to do from eternity past So much of this argumentation is is

Man -centered looking upward at what God is doing. And once you have a God -centered perspective it this doesn't flow

God wants to we talk about the future and we say it's comforting To think that the future is totally settled, but God exists also and so God he has the ability and notice how the future is is something that exists outside of God here in this mindset and And it's not the future is settled because God has a decree that represents his creativity and his freedom and his self -glorification and Therefore it flows from his his being it's not something that exists outside and constrains

God's freedom It's the expression of God's freedom. God was free to do exactly what was perfect according to his own will and This is this and I'm being consistent here.

Has this not been my criticism of Mullen ism as well That the Mullen ism looks out and goes well the extent of God's freedom was

Limited by the true counterfactuals of human freedom to these particular feasible worlds

I'm what I'm saying is the only people That allow

God to actually be God and to be free and totality

I think that's Calvinist. I really do and I I'll defend that Tuesday July 8

You live in Denver Evergreen Boulder my friends at Flatirons Eric Ellis and the guys yo

Hope you can make it make it down that night once we know where we're going and the power to do new things So I don't think it's heresy

To say that God is a creative God that he still is creative and that he could write a new song

He could do a new thing. Well, it all depends on what direction you go Bob Yeah, if you're if you come from the direction of not the creative power of God But the light knowledge from God that he lacks

Knowledge that he's yet to gain and he waits for our activity to gain that knowledge now here

Again, what is the open Thea saying remember what Sanders said? In our debate.

He admitted God had when God created He had no idea you were going to exist because if he does not know the actions of free human creatures then how could he know any one of us would ever exist because we are the result of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of Decisions by free human creatures.

So there's no way he could know That you as an individual would exist not possible not possible.

So that means God learns God's learning new thing. God learned things on September 11th

God learned things on July 7th in in the UK He knew the possibilities, but even then he hadn't known those possibilities from eternity that's the only way to to Safeguard absolute libertarian freedom, which again

I say only God has we have creaturely freedom. We do not have libertarian Nowhere is the Bible say so the

Bible actually contradicts that concept over and over and over and over and over again only way you can defend that is by saying well if this this this this then this and Have to just ignore the plain passages.

No man is able. No man is able straightforward Which is the more popular open theistic argument?

Well, I hold the very popular open theist position, but forget about mankind for a moment.

Think about just God from eternity past, okay, so this is where he's saying Let's not go talk about man and freedom.

Let's just talk about The Trinity which could be interesting.

At least it'll be different than the Sanders debate To be sure God is creative It's not that the future was always settled

God decided to create he decided how he would design a monarch butterfly

He decided to save us Well, they cause there for a second Bob.

Yeah, he decided to create the monarch butterfly Could he then decide to make the monarch butterfly something different or is that fixed if God wanted to he could design another kind of Butterfly for the new earth.

No, I agree and it's at this point I'm not sure that we're really focusing on what's really important because the issue with open theism is not design issues it is the interaction of God with his creatures

If God had chosen to use a monarch butterfly to change the course of a battle and hence change the entire course of Western civilization

That's the issue and Having decided that could he then undecide to do that or could he have wanted?

to use a monarch butterfly to accomplish something and because of the

Human decision just just the thought just crossed my mind but Sometime over the weekend when

I was riding in Flagstaff If I yeah, I was I was climbing snowball road road, but you don't climb very fast

It's steep. It's long. It's high altitude and at one point. I'm you know going along and I see this

Beetle type it wasn't one of those really ugly ones with the big old legs. It's type beetle type thing in front of me and I had just a split second to decide am

I going to even put out the effort to Get around this thing rather than run over it.

Okay split second I mean because it you know how you just happen to notice it it moves a little bit you see it and You know your your your mind does the

I'm gonna be rolling right there thing and you split second what? What what?

Oh Great. Um, so you you have this split second type thing so I What I decided to do if I recall correctly was to avoid it

Well, what if God had chosen to use that particular bug? That's the bug instead of the monarch butterfly maybe it was a there were some caterpillars out and of course butterflies come from caterpillars and so on so forth and so What if my choice that split -second choice, which

God cannot know What if I had I was just too tired and I ran the thing over Now there's not gonna be the butterfly to do the thing

God wants to do to change the entire course of the world It's a nice guy change everything Hey Yes, that's really where the issue is

Hey, but in the the one that he in the space and time continuum that we live in today Yeah, will the monarch butterfly always be a monarch butterfly or where God speak from heaven and change?

I imagine it will I imagine it will always be but when he creates a new heaven in a new earth He's still the creative God.

It's not as though the future is utterly settled and he's trapped because he's creative You know,

I would agree. I would agree with you. Okay, so then let me ask you Let's say God decides to write a new song

God has the ability to affect the future like our prayers The Bible teaches that our prayers can touch the heart of God Okay, but this this brings us to the the whole prayer issue.

I don't have time to get into today I've got two more topics to get to And I'm already down to five minutes here.

But obviously the issue of prayer extremely important I'm sure that's gonna come up as Did issues relating to Obviously there are only a couple texts that open theists generally tend to focus upon but Abraham sacrifice and Now I know and and that kind of material though We'll get into those but Especially the issue of prayer and What is interesting at this point is obviously

Bob's response to Calvinist is gonna be different than Bob's response to Arminians at this point because the

Perspective being presented by the Calvinist can be very different than that of the Arminian Especially in regards to the actual relationship between the will of God the will of man

And the Arminian has just a completely different viewpoint on it is interesting that the there's a

I According to what I heard here a 250 page debate with a professor from Knox That of course,

I'll turn into mp3. I'll listen to that too But I I didn't see any debates with an

Arminian on The subject now, obviously the Calvary Chapel guy who knows but most

Calvary Chapel guys are not exactly informed But that's you know, this touches on all of these things that's why

I say it really does impact So much of our beliefs as to what we believe God's knowledge involves and could even move his hand before we get to prayers.

Let's talk about this Would it be possible for God to write new theology? Well theology is a statement of reality.

So and at this point I would go What about prophecy? What about?

You know when God says I'm going to do X Y & Z through Cyrus Does he have the freedom to not do

X Y & Z through Cyrus by writing a new song that's that's where That's where I would see a

Little bit better questions might have been asked a little more focused question might have might have been asked that point God's not going to change the truth

Right when Jesus Christ when he suffered for us like he did that was a change right many

Christians are taught that God is utterly immutable. That was a change.

I Don't know what that means Was the incarnation a change in the actual divine being

If that's what's being said, I'd have a serious problem that he can't change in any way But God the

Father loved us so much that he sent his son to die on the cross for us and Jesus Christ suffered for us.

He became sin He became a curse for us as Paul writes and so that was different God the

Father had never before poured out his wrath on the Son and Paul now now what you got here

Again, it's it's it's it's backwards from a biblical perspective. It's from the bottom looking up The Bible gives us a perspective to see this and not end up causing all the contradiction that open theism causes in the

Bible Because what we're what we see is Not that God has changed.

This is simply God's free choice to interact With his people in time was choice that he made from eternity past So Anyways, the point is what's your what you're hearing here is a you know standard enunciation of an open theistic perspective

I Think it has tremendous impact There is a later call.

I won't be able to get to it Let me just summarize it real quickly because we're gonna we're gonna get We're gonna run out of time here because I do need to get the other ones as well

There was a call later on Where Bob talked to a a woman who asked about a text in his ecosystem about where God knows our thoughts and Basically what

Bob said was well, he knows our thoughts not that he will know our thoughts five billion years from now and I I felt first of all, that's that's not really dealing with the text real well because the point of The Ezekiel text was that God always knows our thoughts because he knows us completely

He knows the words before they're on our lips and While I wouldn't try to push that specifically to prove that God knows all future events

I think that's found in Isaiah. That's that's found Ephesians 1 etc, etc the point was that There was a fundamental

Distinction between the view of God which he will not affirm that he is omniscient He would affirm that God learned and Historical Christian Orthodoxy, which wasn't just simply created by speculation but a bunch of people that were influenced by Greek philosophy

There are fundamental issues of God's knowledge his activity his sovereignty his purposes prophecy

The very means by which God demonstrates he's God The very tests he gives us but whereby we can test who is the true

God Fundamentals that is God's absolute knowledge of future events

That's the whole trial of false gods Isaiah 40 to 48. I don't believe an open theist can walk through those texts and survive

At least not in a cross -examination situation. So it's gonna be interesting But once again, it's been so long since we've actually dealt with it that some of you might have been going

What in the world is open he is well, that's gonna be coming up Still coming up rich Okay Yes quick a quick update that was that was

Bob in your calling and in there I kind of thought maybe he was listening and wanted to chime in No, they're up there feverishly looking looking for a venue and he's apparently don't they have a place it

I'm not sure what they're trying to work in here He apparently are working on a they were working on a Calvary Chapel up there and thought

You know the Calvary Chapel guys aren't necessarily his biggest fans kind of the way he and they're certainly not mine either and and he

Thought maybe a call from us might help and I'm like No Yeah, let me say

Yeah, I'm sitting there. I'm remembering a particular Reaction you got from Hank Hanegraaff when you pointed out that George Bryson's position

Logically worked into open theism and they were not happy about that at all Yeah Okay, well anyway

So it's gonna be interesting debate I'm looking forward to it, I think it's important and so there's there's the first First half hour, okay do you have the

Video you do have the video all ready to go over there, right? Okay. Good. Let's move on from there and let's

Transition for those of you who did not see it last week. I think so most of you did We responded to a video that was now,

I know produced two years ago And was sat on for two years

Regarding homosexuality at Grand Canyon University Grand Canyon University is a Christian University here in Phoenix I am as my alma mater.

I was at Grand Canyon when it was Grand Canyon College a Southern Baptist school

From a 19 fall of 1981 till I graduated 1985 I was a double major in Bible and biology single minor in Greek and So I am an alumnus

I taught there As soon as I graduated from from Fuller Seminary.

I was asked to teach church history at Grand Canyon during in 1991

Also, not immediately. It was two years and then a couple years after that. Dr Bill Williams who had been the president when

I first went there. He gave me a presidential scholarship when I graduated from high school he

Made me scholar in residence at Grand Canyon 95 96 97 I believe it's when I did that and so I was teaching church history again and apologetics and a few things there a

Canyon during that time around 2000 Canyon disassociated from Southern Baptist Convention and things started going south

Around 2004. It looked like Canyon was going to close they were deeply in debt and Things weren't weren't going well

Today Grand Canyon is one of the fastest growing universities in America Amazing.

Absolutely. I had no idea. I mean I had driven by the campus all the new buildings

They are putting buildings up Multi -story buildings up at a pace. You would not believe and their plan is to have 30 ,000 students on campus in the not -too -distant

They are providing affordable education, especially in science

Engineering nursing all sorts of stuff. It's it's an amazing story so Obviously given that it's a

Christian University there is a statement of faith. There is obviously a a

Moral standard That is affirmed by the leadership of the

University to have a student produced video that talks about homosexuality on the

On the channel, you know on online is An issue

We reviewed it last week or the week before somewhere around there and Responded to I felt the most important stuff.

One of the things that I had skipped Was the discussion why I mentioned it, but I didn't spend much time on it was a discussion

That that seems to be a Very common thing where there is a discussion of of someone persecuting

Threatening one of The homosexual students one things that really bugs me is

I've discovered since then discovered only yesterday. In fact They only they didn't tell the whole story and by not telling the whole story.

It was deeply dishonest deeply dishonest Because what they didn't bother to say

Though they knew they had to have known this information is that the leadership of Grand Canyon found out about this that very same day and dealt with it immediately and While all those students

Continued at Grand Canyon the student responsible did not Now that changes everything that changes everything

Everything to all of my homosexual friends

This victim mentality thing does not serve your cause very well.

It does not How many times now have we remember the the two lesbians and was a

Washington State someplace talked about the You know the spray painting of nasty stuff on there a year ago

I was told two years ago Yeah, yeah, the color is challenging your source. He said it was

Made as like color Video I can't can't hear you. It sounds like the color is part of the video

He's saying that it was made a year ago. So I was told yesterday. It was two years ago So I've got contradictory.

Yeah, and I let him know that okay so This This this whole victim thing, you know the the lesbians that said that they

Sprayed paint on the on the on their house and stuff like that and then turned out that they did it themselves that does not help anybody and If you all knew what the fact that this was dealt with and didn't include that Bad stuff bad stuff

Um, what was it they said in Peter Pan bad form bad for me You just don't do that.

I'm sorry. It is that this was one -sided. This was badly one -sided enough

To to then have that Anyway the point being that the only person

I've heard from is William And that was on Facebook now most of you know,

I've been trying to do more on Facebook, but I I Still think it was an interface designed by someone in 1996.

I really did and I don't like the interface and I do not get the messages or things like that or friend requests and stuff like that You know rich is the one who wants me on Facebook.

So he said I'll deal with all that Because between the icky stuff that I don't like about the interface and then

When I did try it Back, um, I started getting flooded with all this stuff and and for a while I was trying to deal with my own friend requests and stuff and you'd

I would literally just be sitting there You know clicking clicking. Oh And I finally just one day

I said Forget it. Don't want it Just just just get rid of it and so I don't get that message stuff and all the rest of us so William had actually posted a comment in that thread.

I think it was the 19th or 18th. So I think it was like four or five days ago.

I didn't see it And in fact rich had to point out to me Because he hadn't seen it either and So I want to respond to that but I wanted to play just what it started all of this

From from the video itself. So here's here's the clip that I if I'm correct this my comments in response to this is what?

got William to To respond to me dumb Now we get so caught up in it because I think

I'll start this by saying that thank God is so much less concerned About Homosexual or heterosexual or pansexual whatever sexual you want to be

Thank God so less concerned with that rather than just getting to know the actual people and being relationships with them

If I could use an example It's almost like doing math like no man is ever gonna start with math this giant broad scope of the subject with freaking

Calculus of trigonometry. No, we don't do that in elementary school either. We don't go to the big giant stuff

We start with two plus two and then and four to go on Subtraction and addition long before we ever touch the big stuff

I think the same is true with faith before you can ever argue theologically or semantically about the the versions of the

Bible and Translations and the different rights and wrongs you have to get the basics down first The biggest basic of it all is that Jesus loves you so much and that's anyone that is anyone who wants to be in a relationship

The Bible is not okay, so My response to that there was a lot of stuff there and my response that was

I don't see any evidence that William has listened to the side that he has

Really got a grounding for saying the things in it when you start off saying it's so dumb And I made some comments about that last time around well

He seemed to be offended by that and so he wrote a comment Which I did not see until last evening and Here's here's what said

I want to respond to something You know I started to write a list of things I want to comment on but I don't think that would be very wise of Me to have that conversation here

I think your decision to try and carry out a conversation about touchy subjects like homosexuality and faith on Facebook is plain immature um

I did this on the web and I've This is just part of an ongoing

Discussion that I've been trying to have with a lot of people for a long time This has included debating

Non homosexual representatives of liberal Christianity Bishop John Shelby Spong Barry Lynn Debating homosexuals like Justin Lee and What's the other guy's name you keep telling me

Brad Bradshaw yeah D Bradshaw he was with the Metropolitan Church if I recall correct

Metropolitan Church up in Salt Lake yeah Trying to get Matthew Vines a debate Not accomplishing much there

Excuse me William you're not nearly as interesting as my granddaughter who My daughter just tweeted a picture

Yep, she's she's sticking her finger right in my face on the on the screen and then immediately

Finds water and that's much more interesting than anything else. I have to say so I'm retweeting that to my followers.

Sorry Very very important, and I am currently baby Everyone's baby, but I guess

I think it's because I don't have any hair. I think that's why she's got that connection going

I Bet you if I wore a wig she'd stop calling me, baby, but I'm not gonna do that anyway back to the subject here

I'm not I wasn't trying to have a Conversation on Facebook, but I have the conversation wherever the conversation is available

I've written an entire book on this subject well co -authored entire book on this subject and Have done a fair amount of work on this subject over the years

So I don't know where you get off saying it's plain immature of me

To be trying to carry out a conversation about this on Facebook, I don't get it

Only considering that sitting down with me and talking about this like men would probably be immensely better and far more productive for us both

I have zero interest in having debate over Facebook comments. Yes. I'm calling you out to have a conversation with me in person I Will say this though yes,

I'm contradicting myself. Well. I'm glad that you saw that you're contradicting I said young men of this age need to have mentors and people they can look up to I can instruct them in theology and Unfortunate is our evidence that he's had that happen and your comments

William said that You had the idea that you know you don't start off with calculus and before you can talk about Bible versions

You gotta get this basic stuff down what sounds really good, but I don't think you could actually make that work

How do you get the basic stuff down about what God's will for your life is if you don't know that God's spoken? I don't even know what you're talking about a

Bible translations. What do you mean? Are you talking about? Controversies over the translation of arson equate ace you can engage in a discussion of arson coit ace

I don't think there's any question about it at all you go back to the Greek septuagint. It's as plain as the nose on your face, but That's not the kind of stuff that you're gonna be reading in the pro -homosexual book

Which very rarely interact with the other side one thing? It's absolutely certainly is

That if you look at Michael Brown if you look at my work

Listen to our debates we interact with the other side we read Brownson. We read Boswell We read countrymen scanzoni

Mollenkot Lee vines we read them all I've got a huge. I've got one of the best libraries around of homosexual works

Presenting the quote -unquote Christian view on that from a homosexual perspective I don't see it from the other side

Well yeah that Gagnon guys written something here's a footnote That's it

That's it. I mean Brownson at least who's not a homosexual Brownson had to interact with Gagnon, but that's about it.

That's about it And I can back that up with lots of evidence lots of evidence

So anyway And not only Here's here's Williams comment.

Not only is that an insult. It's self -righteous Where do you get off you have zero right? I mean zero right to make that sort of judgment call based upon two minutes of footage of me speaking

If what you said Could be easily taken apart by someone who has been dealing with a subject longer than you have been alive then

I have a strong foundation thing If I had not done if I could not look in the mirror and say have

I Honestly done the work to listen to the other side over and over and over again and William honestly ask yourself a question.

Have you watched my debate with Justin Lee? with any of these guys If you haven't then you're the one in the situation of not really having a right to say what you say

Which mind you is me and my best novice yes novice attempts to try and reconcile people back to a

God that loves them biblical term It's something that Christ does

We are ministers of reconciliation William only as we proclaim the work of Christ and As I said in my response, this is a gospel issue.

I honestly believe and can I believe? Demonstrate biblically that the position you are adopting fundamentally

Vitiate ends our ability to define the very reason for the gospel in the first one

And that's why it's so important. That's why I spend the time talking about these things that's why

I'm willing to have you sit right down over there when I get back from Colorado, and we'll have a chat about it, but You may feel that you're trying to reconcile people back to God But let's talk about what's actually happening in the message that you're delivering from a biblical

Perspective not from the world's perspective. You get to define what reconcile means you don't have to worry about From a

Christian perspective only the scriptures define what reconcile only the scriptures define what the gospel is

And so something tells me we'll have to have some discussions about what ultimate authority is for a

Christian Because Fundamentally, I've never seen a

Person who promotes homosexuality as an acceptable Christian Behavior and lifestyle

That can maintain a high view of scripture we see it happening with Matthew Vines right now We see it happening you have to undercut the supremacy and sufficiency of scripture

Be able to come up with that You seem to be in the business of making arguments and fights creating a dividing line

And maybe I don't have a doctorate in this stuff But I do see a consistent theme in the New Testament where us as believers are being called to unity

Do you believe in that at all? Good question. I believe in the unity that the

Bible teaches which is a unity of truth I mean, what is the key text in the

New Testament on the subject of the unity of Christian John chapter 17? Jesus is high priest of prayer. They may all be one as we are one and how are we one?

We are one by being sanctified in the truth. Thy word is true So what makes us one is?

Not sameness of thought It is the work of the Spirit of God within us which makes us obedient to the truth of God and That truth has been revealed to us

In the person life ministry of Jesus Christ who is the Word of God and in the inspired scriptures

Which testified to us of what of who he was and what he did? and so The only true unity is a unity.

It's based upon what God has revealed about himself Do you have unity with Mormons?

Well, let's let's take a step back. Do you have unity William with Muslims? They claim to believe in Jesus They claim to be in in the religion that second largest religion in the world that teaches people to love

Jesus Do you have unity with them? How? They deny the

Jesus is the Son of God. They deny the crucifixion. They deny the resurrection. They deny the centrality of Christ no, we don't have unity with Muslims as Much as we may love them as much as we may care for them and pray for them

We can't have unity with them because the only unity that is meaningful is a unity that is based upon a common confession of truth

That is true for each generation that is true in every generation and in every culture

So no, we don't have unity with the Muslim. We evangelize the Muslim. How about the

Mormon? Most people in the world today call Mormonism Christianity, right? It's Church of Jesus Christ Latter -day

Saints. Who are we to judge? I mean, I just must be a real self -righteous person, right?

and yet In many ways Islam is much closer to Christianity than Mormonism ever could be

Can you have unity with a person who believes that God was a man living on another planet and that he had a

God before him? and there is an unlimited number of gods in universe and the Jesus the spirit brother of Lucifer and Do you can you really have unity with someone like that?

How can we be sanctified in the truth as Jesus prayed which is the foundation of our unity

If you don't have a dividing line, how can you do that?

and so I really And this was the background of what I said, which you found to be so insulting.

I don't see in your comments clarity of thought in regards to the nature

If you want to use the big terms of Christian epistemology Your Christian worldview is not well -formed.

It is not consistent and it's not biblical you say it's offensive

For a Christian it can only be offensive if it's untrue if what I'm saying is true. It shouldn't be offensive, right?

That's the issue so you say Believers are being called unity.

Do you believe in that at all? Yes a unity of truth and that is why

I Emphasize so strongly and anybody who knows me you can ask. I emphasize so strongly

Sola scriptura Tota scriptura and the consistency of the

Christian worldview God is not honored by muddled thinking that is Inconsistent now if that's offensive then

I would say to you it's only offending your worldly sensibilities That would never be offensive to a

Christian it would never be offensive to a Christian think about that Think about that.

So there you go My hope is Since William says he's here in the local area and he insists.

This was just a year ago. Okay Then the evidence I was given the information

I was given was a loft but a year ago Um Let's get together sometime after I get back from Colorado Those thunderclouds will be for me the humidity will be up and it'll be that time when we really wish we weren't in Phoenix, but We'll get together and we'll have a discussion of these things right here.

I'm not sure what we're gonna do with this this monitor. I Guess I feel see this is gonna be a little bit a little bit weird.

We'll figure it out We'll probably use this camera. We'll have we'll have two different camera shots the whole nine yards.

We'll we'll make it work Yes, I know. Isn't that beautiful? Look at that.

She looks she is looking Look at that hair,

I mean that is getting long that is really getting long and She said that's baby.

Yeah, so I'm I'm baby And then Will Hoffman just put something on on the family

TV in HD That's scary when I'm looking right into the camera like that with my glowing head

That's that's frightening. That really really is. Thanks, Will No, so I'm wearing my triple bypass that has nothing to do with my heart

That's the bike ride and I don't mind telling people I'm gonna be in the triple bypass Actually the double triple bypass because there are so many people in the double triple bypass.

There are so many thousands what? There are so many thousands of People that when we all put our helmets on we put our sunglasses on we put our cotton spandex shorts on We all look the same.

So I normally don't tell people about where I'm Where I'm gonna be riding and stuff like that But yeah,

I'm doing the triple bypass bike ride the double triple both days 240 miles 21 ,000 feet of climbing at altitude and Yeah Should I tell people well

I Look and I also told The the next guy that I'm gonna be responding to him too, so I I need

I need to stick to my word I'll be happy to talk to him afterwards if he wants to do that, but I I need to I need to be fair.

I Had even written to and contacted Nick Peters and said I'm gonna and it's not an easy topic as he will see so we will we will plan on it and Unless unless there's something there about not being able to do that that I need to move on to the next next topic.

So Okay Third topic tough topic.

Okay. Look I'm a little frustrated with this one. I'm a little frustrated with this one. I'll be honest with you and max.

I'm sorry I've actually started an Evernote list of all the things that I've said I'm gonna get to I wanted to get to more of Max Andrews book.

I'll get to it in time. I don't know what we're gonna be doing next week We're thinking about and John we haven't even contacted

John Samson yet, but we're gonna contact him to see if he's available Because we started looking at the stuff at I just don't know how

I'm gonna be able to do anything next week And we're gonna be doing it early on Wednesday early tomorrow morning, right?

Right tomorrow morning is when we're doing the program 10 a .m. And I'm making you multitask 10 a .m

10 a .m. Tomorrow morning 10 a .m. Wednesday morning is when we're gonna do the program Does if he insists maybe can he call tomorrow morning?

Find out if that's a possibility because I don't I don't have anything necessarily lined up so we can fit

William in then if you want anyways Reggie Turner says we love you.

Mr. Clean. I do look like mr. Clean right now, don't I? Except he was big and bulky and I'm not big and bulky.

I'm I'm training hard for a Massive bike ride. So we're

Anyway Shifting gears a response

James White on defining inerrancy Nick Peters What I did On last program a couple programs ago, that's good for tomorrow.

Okay What I did is I just mentioned in passing this was not

They even say that I I reviewed the book. No, I didn't I made a few comments on the program in passing.

I said I listened to this book Here's a couple things. I liked about here's cool things didn't like about it But this was the one read the whole reason that I even brought it up Honestly, if the book had ended before Nick Peters chapter,

I didn't know the Nick Peters wrote it I like I said had to go home and find out who had if the book had ended prior to The chapter on the

Lordship of Christ doing a scholarship on the Lordship of Christ I never would have mentioned it probably unless someone had called up because while I found it interesting and While I did not agree

With a number of the things that said and while as I said my biggest problem with it was it simplified the issue too much

You've got your contextualizers and you've got your traditionalists. No, you don't you got a whole spectrum got a whole spectrum

I find myself agreeing more with the conservatives and I I didn't say this before But I will now if you want some more criticisms in the book guys lose the academic hubris

Over and over again. Well, Al Mohler really can't talk about this because his doctorates in systematic theology or historical

You have to be a New Testament scholar to even discuss this stuff. Oh, please It was so offensive it was so offensive

I mean and Nick You might careful I've got a pretty close relationship with a certain school, too

So anyway, I Found that jet that really turned me off to the book defining inerrancy was

Well, we don't really need to worry what Al Mohler has to say or what there's your seminary presidents and blah blah blah

And I just I was just like seriously this is a theological issue and If you

New Testament guys can't see the need for the systematic theologians and vice versa I'm no, thanks.

But anyways, I would have Pretty much just you know that might have come up at some point

Maybe is because it's the last chapter in the book but I Was really caught by What Nick Peters said now, let me

Refresh everyone's memory because it was toward the end of the program. You might have forgotten about it the authors holding and Peters a pretty merciless to Norman Geisler and for a lot of the reasons that all of us would understand

Norman Geisler has become the curmudgeon of Christian apologetics and and as he's gotten older He's Said and done a lot of things that just make you go, huh and look

There's nobody he's been a whole lot more nasty to than me, I mean seriously I Can tell you stories.

I've told the story on the dividing line of I mean anybody who owes

Norman Geisler anything is not gonna touch me with a 10 -foot ball All because the

Potter's freedom and Now the Cantor situation but to be honest with you the

Cantor situation is because the Potter's freedom not the other way around It's not because he had just such as all I just love

Eric and Cantor He came to Cantor's Defense because of his detestation of me because of the

Potter's freedom, which he's never read What he detests most of the

Potter's freedom or the 27 endorsements on it. That's what has made him outrageously angry for a long time now, okay

So if anyone has reason to Go after Norm Geisler be me

But I have not made that the issue and in this situation

Nick I I still think you're not hearing what Norm Geisler said Geisler and I'm reading for the book now

Geisler says further This is location 1653 of 1703.

I love the Kindle edition here as Evangelicals we must beware of Desiring a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship

Which is riddled with presuppositions that are antagonistic to evangelical

Christianity now that's what Geisler said and I agree with him.

I Don't think Nick reading your response that you understand What Geisler was saying there or you're not hearing him?

Here's what you said in the book on the contrary I think we should eagerly be desiring this

How are we supposed to make an impact in the world of scholarship if we don't want to sit at the table?

Imagine what it could mean for Christianity if Christians were seen as trusted authorities in each field instead of fearing

Antagonistic presuppositions What happened to correcting them with real scholarship timeout?

Presuppositions are what give rise to the scholarship. That's the point and Your rejection of presuppositional ism as you say

You you say in your response and I'm not a presuppositionalist Well that comes out really clearly right here because I think that's where you missed my point and Geisler's point

Says CS Lewis once talked about what it would mean if Christians were so up on their game in the world of ideas that whenever An unbeliever got a textbook for a class that was written by the best in the field.

That person was a Christian This isn't just in the area of religion What is the best astronomer was a

Christian? What the best heart surgeon was what the best psychologist was what the best lawyer was utterly irrelevant to what he was saying

You've missed it. I'm sorry. You've missed it. The issue is the presuppositions that modern non -christian scholarship demand we embrace

Which includes the denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the supremacy of Christian epistemology in any scholarship we do

We make a radical claim Nick The Jesus Christ created all things and therefore every fact that is a fact is a fact because Jesus made it that way and the world says you cannot start there and the

Christian has to say I must start there and You must start there if you want to have true knowledge

It has nothing to do with this. You can be the greatest heart surgeon in the world, but you do so under the Lordship of Christ And you do so openly proclaiming that and the world says you can't do that and to sit at our table

We will not allow you that's why I don't want to be at their table I want to tell them their table has no legs on it.

Their table is floating in midair. They're living in self -contradiction I'm not a problem doing that That's what presuppositional apologetics is all about If we run from interaction with scholars, then who is going to be the influence on them?

I'm not talking about running from interaction with scholars I'm talking about refusing to accept their denial of the primary presuppositions of Christian epistemology

So to even say if we run from interact, this is what bothered me. That's not what that's not even what

Geisler was saying to do That's not what I'm saying to do If we run from interaction with scholars and who is going to be an influence on them

Are we going to wind up saying that Christianity has nothing to offer in the marketplace of ideas that it cannot compete with what?

When contemporary scholarship shows up are we to say Christianity should be afraid of scholarship? Irrelevant missed the point by a football field

Total football field miss here facepalm In saying all of this I do not think any contextualizing scholar holds the position they do because they want to simply be recognized at the table

Quite the contrary. I wish that were true. I Wish that were true. I've seen it

I've told the story about being the 1998 ETS conference and how offended I was By just that attitude just that mindset glad you haven't seen it

Nick. I have I have I Think they hold the position they do and again This quote -unquote contextualizing scholars

Way too broad, I don't see it as a useful as a useful Moniker, I think they hold the position they do because that is where the evidence leads and that is what we want in scholarship

Evidence must be interpreted within a framework of epistemology. That's what this is all about Now I'm undoubtedly going beyond Geisler I mean,

I know what he was saying in his context, but he's not even consistent here because he hates presupposition. I The one thing we really really really

Say about Norm Geisler, it's Norm Geisler isn't overly consistent on these things We want scholars.

Listen this who will approach the data as fairly and objectively as they can Towards the goal of reaching the most truthful conclusions

We often say we want atheists agnostic and others to put aside their presuppositions to study Christianity. So shouldn't

Christians do the same? No No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

I don't know how many times this is this is the whole point This is a capitulation to the concept that there is a a a neutral possibility in epistemology

That was my problem. So times running out. Let me get to what he said in His in his response

He says I was not surprised to hear it. The review was not a positive one But the same time it is good to have press anyway

Um, well again, it wasn't a review of the whole book it was a review of this one particular chapter

In white's review he wanted to save most of what he had to save the final chapter chat be written by me as I explained because That seemed to go

Sort of out of its way It's it struck me as being a little different than the rest of the book

But anyway when told about I was told well, he certainly got your viewpoint wrong Those who

I shared it with who I consider mentors all were saying the same thing No names are given and no specifics are given unfortunately

That's not the way to do it. It's important to point out I mean I've said you missed it and I've given you

Really good reasons why I say you missed it if you're gonna say I missed it then give me the reasons why

You say well I do later on. Well, let's find out it's important to point out that white Does say he agrees with Geiser on the interpretation of Matthew 27 and should be pointed out that so does my co -author irrelevant

Didn't really bring it up I mean I mentioned it passing but it's irrelevant to my criticism of What was said in regards to what it means to exercise scholarship under the

Lordship of Christ this? This is irrelevant. Okay so then he gets to the

Lordship over scholarship stuff and And White then wants you to hear my response then quotes the response

White says that paragraph really concerns him and is muddled in an amazing way Not a shock that white hones in on presuppositional ism

Yeah Not only presuppositional ism as an apologetic issue, but presuppositional ism as The issue that Norman Geisler was talking about because that's what you were taking issue with and I still feel

This point you totally missed that now. I am NOT a presuppositional ism at all

But it does not mean that recognizing presuppositions played no role whatsoever in my thinking

White thinks that to sit the table of scholarship is to compromise and give in to the presuppositions and to say there is a moral

Neutral ground not just a moral neutral ground an epistemological neutral ground that there is a fact that is a fact the

Jesus didn't make a fact and No as a Christian, I can't go there

I have to challenge that from the beginning Fear the Lord the beginning of wisdoms getting a knowledge this is this is

Basic Christian epistemology, which I realize a lot of evangelicals Compromise on a big big big way.

It's a theological issue But the point again is the quote from Geisler actually said exactly that I mean that's exactly what he said as Evangelicals who must be aware of desiring a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship and then here's the quote

He wasn't saying we should not engage with them He's saying which is riddled with presuppositions that are antagonistic to evangelical

Christianity That was the context, you know, if you want to change the context then change the context

But that's what I was dealing with because that's what's actually in the text I was gonna say on the page, but can you say on the page anymore with Kindle?

Really? Not sure. I guess you can it's on the same location On the screen something like that He also says that it is saying we should lay aside our commitment to the absolute

Lordship of Christ and to the radical elements of that what I'm saying is that our

Commitment to the absolute Lordship of Christ and the radical elements that claim is so basic and so foundational that worldly scholarship which denies these things

Rebellious scholarship which places man at the center of epistemology and Places God outside as an object of knowledge will never let us sit at that table every chair the table

Nick is Marked with Jesus is not Lord. I ain't sitting in that table.

I ain't sitting on that chair. I Can't does that mean

I can't interact these people? No, of course not I'm not running from them I'm challenging them

I'm not gonna sit there at the table and say let's just all talk about what we have in common. They're rebels.

I Have to deal with those issues first. I realize that's not the

General Biola approach, but that's why I criticize that goes on to say

Why tells us that Geisler recognized that sitting the table scholarship is doing that and then adds But I don't know where Nick Peters is coming from Then he says and this is really bugged me at this point

It would have been better off if he didn't know where I'm coming from to try to contact me I'm not hard to find my blog is there my own podcast is there all of them are ways to contact me if he has

No idea where I'm coming from all that need to be done was to ask instead white will proceed to talk about a position Assuming that that is mine, even though by his own words.

He does not know where I'm coming what I meant

I think fairly obviously Nick is not that I was claiming to be an expert and everything you've ever written or done.

I'm not But the context was in your own book in your own words,

I find incoherence I find Contradiction and so it's easy to say

I don't know where he's coming from because this doesn't make sense I wasn't saying wow, I have no idea

But I'm I'm just gonna just make a bunch of comments here. Anyways, come on Nick.

Really seriously. I Mean you're the one that put it in writing and if you

Didn't express it clearly enough and you want to make a bunch of modifications stuff like that That's your fault.

And you know what? I don't have any problem saying that because I'll live with that Because I write too and I'll I will you know, if someone says

You know this paragraph that you wrote misled me then I'm gonna ask them, you know

Show me where in all the stuff that I have quoted just today

I'm Misrepresenting you or don't understand what you're saying. I do understand what you're saying. I just don't find it consistent but incoherent.

I Don't I don't see how it's biblical So that's what I meant when I said,

I don't know where you're coming from here because I find incoherence I think most people found that I think they're right.

I Don't think it was really fair to take that kind of a shot So White says he hopes

I'm saying that we should be seeking to challenge those presuppositions But that that wasn't what Geisler was talking about It's a shame why

I didn't go with this first inclination of what he hoped I was saying what he hopes I'm saying is in fact what I'm really saying in that chapter

White repeats my saying how are we supposed to have an impact? We don't set the table white suggests that we do so by showing the presuppositions that they accept are in fact

Incoherent and by critiquing their worldview now, I would not do it in a presuppositional way But I would in fact challenge them, but the point is

Nick to sit at the table requires you to fundamentally

Surrender the only ground upon which you can stand to challenge. Yeah that's my point and If you didn't get that I think everybody else did now

I can understand look this is I Don't know what else you've written maybe this is one of your first books therefore you're very

Sensitive that I dared to even talk about it. I didn't say oh this guy is an idiot, right? I didn't

I just simply said, you know this really concerned me because it speaks to something that I have mentioned many many times before and that is

I see in a lot of Modern Christian scholarship quote -unquote a

Fundamental fear of confessing the Lordship of Christ in the face of worldly opposition

Now, I know those people are making the very same commitment to their own ultimate authorities and don't realize it

But I have seen so many times New Testament scholars as well since they seem to be the only ones that can actually talk about this according this book

New Testament scholars as well That don't mind holding positions that clearly

Jesus didn't hold and yet they call themselves New Testament scholars why well, because they really do want to be at the table and to be at the table

At least in this context and certainly how I've used it and how Geiser was using it and what you were responding to Involved those very presuppositions that are completely antithetical to the fundamental assertions of the

Christian worldview and so all I was saying was man this This concerns me

This concerns me Then You know,

I want to make sure to look at everything that's that's here White then thinks that my statement about having a

Christian be a trusted authority each field is problematic Can that be given outside of the worldview sometimes

Yeah, who is it the heads up the human genome project a Christian like Francis Collins, okay

But is Francis Collins consistent in his Christian worldview? No and as apologists

Well, at least for me as I do apologetics Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument and And Once again, there is going to be

Jesus said do not be surprised if the world hates you because it hated me first when you're dealing with rebellious scholars

Who have not bowed the knee to Jesus Christ? There is an antipathy to everything that is true just and righteous and This is where in so much of modern

Evangelicalism in the William Lane Craig Non -reformed apologetic world

Whereby jumps off the bandwagon says no. No, I I don't really believe in that radical total depravity stuff

But it's absolutely biblical and that we see it around us every single day there is a radical antipathy

To what is good right honest and just these people will not bow the knee to Jesus Christ and they will not share that table

With anyone who does that's all I was saying and for me

Exercising scholarship under the Lordship of Christ is not something you do under a bushel You don't sneak to church on Sunday and hope that none of your colleagues that you work with on Monday.

No you do that I don't see how that glorifies Christ But a lot of people are doing it a lot of people are doing it

He says the Christians should be seeking to dominate academia and be the most learned people they can be

I'm trying to figure out where that comes from the

New Testament Especially in light of 1st

Corinthians chapters 1 & 2. I would I would not say that What I would say is that Christians whom

God gifts To engage in the field of scholarship to the best

They should do they should pursue that calling the best of their ability But I would not say that every

Christian called to do that because they're not gifted if you're called

To engage in academic pursuits then do it to the glory of God and do it Without hesitation and without Embarrassment at bowing the knee to the

Lordship of Jesus Christ at the beginning of true knowledge is the fear of the Lord but this idea

Basically is that well, I mean, how would we dominate academia in a nation under the judgment of God?

How would that work? I mean, I I don't know what

Nick Peters eschatology is But almost sounds post mill here, but even a good post mill is going to recognize that America or Western culture today is not the kingdom of God and therefore there may well be

Judgment that comes upon a culture that ends up destroying that culture and during that period of time

Christians will be a small minority. How would they dominate academia? I Don't get that So White goes on to say that there are many people who are embarrassed by the open confession

Lordship of Christ over every area of knowledge Again, this is the kind of accusation that would have been good to make absolutely sure of before making a statement about it, huh?

You saying that's not a true statement This especially since he has no idea where it is that I'm coming from and yet seems to know exactly where I'm coming from I wasn't talking about you.

I Was making a absolute statement that there are many people in Academia Who are embarrassed by the open confession

Lordship of Christ over every area of knowledge? try going into any secular institution and making that claim and See what happens

How many Christians are willing to do that? Willing to stand up and make that statement today.

That's not even that's not even a debatable thing White has said how

Dan Wallace endorses the book I am sure Wallace would have told him as well that White's position on me is false.

What position on you? That's what I didn't get on this what position on you?

You seem to be taking general statements and saying well You must be talking about me Missed it missed it badly there.

You know, I'm gonna try to do if you're awake out there That that's that's enough there I I I think

I've made my point on that I it's it's becoming sad, um,

I do want to try to sneak one thing in real quick and I'm gonna have I know I realize I'm gonna have to check change the

Doohickey while we're here for and you're gonna have to play around with it and stuff like that The DDD I just want to show you all something.

This is sort of a preview. Okay, it's a preview Safari there, do you have have the video?

Okay This is a preview I want to review this but I want you to see it first to give you an idea

I'm not even just watch it and what's gonna bug you is it's 7 minutes 30 seconds long.

So it's gonna take us past our time by about 2 minutes 30 seconds But I'm not gonna respond to it yet And I don't know what

I'm gonna get around to doing it But I'm gonna show it to you anyways, because we are gonna respond to this maybe well, maybe we'll do it tomorrow

We can sneak that in with Williams call, but this is from these guys in London called

Dawa made easy If this doesn't show you the fact that we need to study to show ourselves proved and be ready to give an answer

Watch Preacher theologian is unable to answer some basic questions about Jesus Please don't be disturbed by what he does at the end.

Thank you for watching I'm not a conversation. Have we my friend? No, okay, and you're very kind agreed to be filmed and you're gonna give us the message of The message of the gospel and you said you're a born -again

Christian is alright born -again Christian What are you Christian? Okay fine. And while we were setting up the camera, you told me your name is

Daniel is alright, Daniel You're clearly well knowledgeable. And while you were setting up the camera, you said you're a student of theology

Yes, so you're student of religion religious studies and theology religious studies Religious studies and theology of a theologian.

That's brilliant. I think so nice to have a expert to talk with for a change And your name is

Daniel, okay, and You preach the message as well of Jesus of the message of the gospel you be a preacher

I'm a evangelizer evangelize evangelizing means to give dower to spread the message the question

I'd like to ask you is that Daniel do you believe Jesus is God or do you believe

Jesus was somebody sent by God? You're a preacher. You're well knowledgeable. You're a theologian student of theology

So what is in the position is he God or did God send him? Well, I have to ask you do you want me to answer that?

Theologically and When I say theologically, do you want me to present? This evidence from the

Old Testament and the New Testament or the Old Testament or the New Testament Okay, and what

I would say to use this Daniel Would you like me to present this historically as well okay, if I said to you for example, if I saw somebody and I said to you is this a man and and you and No, if you asked me

Is this a man standing here or is it something else and I said to you would you like to join me to answers?

Theologically or from the Quran or from the Hadith or from the old message or the new message or historically?

It doesn't make sense. I mean a man is a man You know what? I mean, but for example if I said to you is it day or night at the moment?

And you said to me should I answer it theologically or historically it's you know Is it a day or night or is it a man or woman simple question is he a man or not?

That's a point is what is Jesus a man? Yes Jesus is not a man.

Jesus is not a man. Okay was a man. Okay, Jesus was a man Fantastic and but is he

God or was he somebody sent by God both? So Jesus is

God and he was sent by God as well So he sent himself. Yes God sent himself to the earth.

Yes, okay So Jesus has all the characteristics of Almighty God. Yes, okay

But in the Bible Jesus, for example, can we agree about God that God doesn't?

Can we agree that God is Almighty? He's all -powerful He's the Alpha and the

Omega which means the first and the last there was no one before him There will be no one after him. He knows everything.

He sees everything and he hears everything. Would you agree that about God? You see the major debate in the second century in the patristic periods was the deity of Christ now

This period so you're saying 200 years after Jesus there was a debate about whether Jesus is

God or not No, I'm talking about a hundred years off into the second century it was the discussion about the nature of Christ because We know

Christ to be when he was on earth to be human and to be divine now

There is many arm evidences of Jesus having a human nature

For it says in verse 14 the word became flesh Now there are also very complicated.

Sorry for most people. This would be too complicated What I'm saying to you. Yeah, so you have to simplify you see we're not theologians like yourself, and we don't know this

Complex thing but what you're saying is 100 years after Jesus left the earth There was debate whether he was

God or not. No, I'm saying that they were discussing the human nature of Christ and a

A Cup of coffee in London our our brother who actually lives in Milwaukee, but claims is always in in London He says why?

Why painful should stop listening to the dividing line in bed? we're causing people in London to have

Divine nature of Christ and they weren't sure whether he's God or not. No, they were just discussing it

No, you can only discuss something if you're not sure if I said to you is it day or night? Clearly you'd say yes.

It's day. We don't need to have a discussion on it But 100 years after Jesus left the earth, they were discussing whether Jesus is

God or not. That's what you're saying So it says in Zechariah 700

B that there is a 45 -minute version of this. I noticed it there. I I Personally would not be able to survive 45 minutes of this

You got to give the Muslims some credit here for a certain level of patience What I'm what it was what things is

I would love to be on the unbelievable radio broadcast with this Muslim So if someone can contact him

Please that would be really enjoyable. I'd like to could I answer this quick? Can I come on? Dawa is easy?

I'll meet you. I'm gonna be in London. I'll meet you and Won't take 45 minutes.

No, well see by the Prophet Zechariah it says this is This is

I'll just read it and I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem The spirit of grace and supplication then they

Then they will look on me whom they pierced

Yes They will mourn for him as one who mourns for his only son and grief for him who grieves of a firstborn now

That's Jesus Christ. How is that Christ died on the cross? He was pierced and he said

I am the Alpha and the Omega the beginning of the act Who's some I can lose some Malacca? Jesus Christ is the beginning that can lose the marker

Jesus is the beginning and the end and the beginning the loss and they who pissed him will see him coming down in glory

Jesus That's it It looks like Muslims are one sorry It looks like Muslims are one you're walking away.

It's Jesus You're speaking in tongue That's Jesus.

That's Jesus. Thank you. I was like you're having a fit or something. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry once again Sorry, it looks like you're having a fit

That is Jesus you act you act that you asked him you asked him, right?

We can talk so he's being done, right? You asked him if he can speak in tongues, so he's doing that he said wait

He said to you he can when he's in the Holy Spirit. You can speak in church days. Yeah, listen

Listen, listen to what I'm saying When the Holy Spirit touches you, you can't stay still

What happened to him? That's But it looks like to most people looks like he couldn't answer the questions. No, you didn't allow me to speak

One thing I know Daniel Daniel was a good is the Holy Spirit in you now Yes, sir. It says in the

Bible when the Holy Spirit is in you that poison won't affect you Could you drink some poison once again Michael Michael don't

Daniel Daniel Daniel? You it looks like Muslims have won again. You're a preacher. You're a theologian.

You're running away and even Michaels running away I'm not running away. I'll get away. No, I'm not running away.

I'm not It looks like the Muslims have won. But what have you won? It's it wasn't it wouldn't say that's enough

He said God told him it's enough because you can't ask the questions, you know, but it looks like Muslims are one He said

God told him he's had enough and you should go away Well, there you go folks

I I only apologize slightly for Torturing you with that but What can

I say Unfortunately for a lot of Muslims, that's the Christianity that they've seen and When you're prepared when you can actually provide answers correct misapprehensions

Wow, what a blessing you can be what a blessing you can be so we'll look a little bit more at the quote

Of course, my problem is why call him a Christian scholar. It clearly isn't a Christian scholar

That's that's just unfair but anyways, that's what's coming up I don't know when tomorrow morning.

Maybe we'll make some comments on that Maybe William will call in who knows what's gonna happen tomorrow morning But it'll be the only other dividing line for the week because after that we are traveling so we'll do our best

We'll see if we can get hold of John Sampson He may find out. Oh, you got hold of him. Oh, okay.

John Sampson's gonna be helping us out. So excellent We will be back Lord willing tomorrow morning 10 a .m.