April 7, 2005

The Gospel as a Radical Message and the Cost of Justification

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

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

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line on Thursday afternoon, the 7th of April already. My goodness, how time is flying and how I'm not getting anything done that I thought I'd be getting done at this particular point in time.

The phone lines are open for, well, for all calls. But especially I would like to invite those that, well, I've invited before to be with us today. Specifically for those individuals that I have invited to back up their brave words that they have posted in various and sundry places.

We won't or probably won't be hearing from Doug C. tonight. Maybe we'll be hearing from Doug C. on Tuesday. If you've been following the blog, you know that I invited him to call. But there have been many others.

There have been dozens and dozens of e-mails that have been sent to us. And, of course, as we've gone on the various Roman Catholic web forums, Catholic Answers, Envoy, Steve Rays, Catholic Convert, all of these wonderful folks who are more than happy to believe every possible negative thing you could ever come up with.

I mean, I am responsible for 9 -11. I'm responsible for various and sundry diseases. Definitely accountable for the various viruses in Africa. The price of gas is my fault. The Exxon Valdez oil spill I had something to do with.

And so anyway, as long as it sounds like you get somebody to not listen to a word that I'm saying, these folks have the ability of coming up with whatever. And so we have invited folks to call today. If they would like to attempt to substantiate the things they've said, a Catholic dude and a Doug C.

And I even contacted a fellow, he said he was going to call, who writes the Nick Maximus. And this is a completely different subject. And now for something new, a completely different subject. That is, he had written, he's an Armenian writing against Calvinists.

And he had made the assertion that I had sort of led a jihad, an inquisition against Dave Hunt and had misrepresented Dave Hunt and all the rest of this stuff. And I said, hey, you know what, I'd be more than happy if you would like to call in.

Because, you know what, I've documented every single thing I have said regarding Dave Hunt. And I would like, I'd really like to have somebody call in and attempt to explain statements about the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, talking about the authorship of acts.

I would find that somewhat entertaining after the past few days, past few weeks, to hear someone attempt and deal with that. But I don't know if that's going to happen. But the number is 877 -753 -3341.

And we're getting a few calls. Of course, I'm looking at my screen. My screen says line four, and I look at my thing. There is no line four. So I'm a little confused. But that's, oh, there we go. You just got to call attention to certain people.

Let them know that there's a difference between a four and a six, especially when there's only six lines. Well, we actually could have 12, but we don't have 12. It wouldn't work that way. And 12 would be a bit of an overkill.

You know what I mean? So anyway, I see three lines right now blinking. So we'll see what happens with that. But I would like to especially give priority, and I will give priority, to those who have made statements on various and sundry web boards and various and sundry contexts concerning myself and the position that we've taken on Roman Catholicism.

I have managed to offend. The thudding sound that you have heard for the past number of days have been churches' doors that I will never walk through again. Well, I probably never have walked through anyways, but due to the fact that there are just so many in our world today who just don't understand.

And you know, when you think about it I was thinking about this last night. All it means and I'm sort of thankful, I really am thankful that this has now come up. Yeah, it's a sad thing to see all these people fawning over the Bishop of Rome and just sending him off into heaven as if the gospel is a completely irrelevant thing and Marian devotion is irrelevant, and hey, as long as you're a nice guy, you say Jesus three times, you're on your way to heaven, let's not worry about atonement, let's not worry about Galatians, let's just get rid of all that stuff.

It's difficult to see all that stuff, but honestly, I think what is happening for a number of folks is that they are recognizing that the gospel is a radical message. You know, we talk about it that way, but this is really illustrating it in a way that I don't think a lot of folks have seen it quite this clearly.

Because if you really, really, really do believe in justification, if you really do believe in justification by faith, if you believe in substitutionary atonement, if you believe these things that we take for granted, there are results to believing these things.

You can't just, you know, if you say you believe it, it'll have some impact elsewhere, see? And we're seeing that, you know, I've actually given presentations, Colin Smith had me give a presentation at his church years ago, on being more than reformed, in other words, what are the, you know, as the booklet from Banner of Truth, the Al Martin booklet, the practical implications of Calvinism, what does it mean to be reformed, and doesn't that have an impact upon the rest of your life, upon how you worship, upon all the rest of these things?

And it does. There's no question about that. And so, here we're seeing, to believe the gospel, to believe in substitution, to believe in these things, is truly to make certain statements, and a lot of folks don't want to make those statements.

They want on one hand, they see what the Bible says, and they see the Bible teaches these things, but now when you see it, and what it means to die fully embracing a false gospel, oh, well, I'm going to back away from that, that's more than, you know, that's more than I could really do, see?

And in fact, I was talking with Steve Camp yesterday, and he was telling me about this person who was talking to him, and he said, well, how do you know, Steve, that in the last five minutes of his life, that the Pope didn't, you know, embrace the true gospel?

And I couldn't help but thinking how incredibly offensive that would be to Roman Catholics, if the Roman Catholics were actually thinking in a rational way, rather than just an emotional way, which seems to be what's going on.

I mean, what an offensive thing to say, that in the last five minutes of his life, he committed from the Roman Catholic perspective, the ultimate act of apostasy, overthrew everything he had ever taught, and did, and stood for.

I said, did you point out to this person, that they better not say that to a believing Roman Catholic, because they're going to have their glasses turned into contact lenses as a result? And he just chuckled at that, but that's what people are running around doing.

That's the other way of doing it, is that, well, you know, okay, I see that there's just no way to fit this teaching. And you know, the Pope's will came out today, and you know, in it you have all the discussions about, you know, Todus to us, and how that's been his lifelong thing, totally yours, directed to Mary, and all that kind of thing.

And people look at that and go, alright, you know, I know enough about the Bible that, that doesn't really fit, that doesn't really plug in there. So, I want to find some other way, and so I can, I'll say that maybe, just maybe, someone snuck a jack chick track into the Pope, or something as if, and you know, if I were a Roman Catholic, I'd find that to be extremely offensive, without any question.

And there's no basis for believing that. There just isn't, it just, there's so many people just, well, I just don't want to look mean. Have you read Galatians recently? Have you read Matthew 23 recently?

Where do we take our lead from? What's our example supposed to be? I think our example should be friends on the WB, or something, on Fox, you know. They're just so nice, I'd like to live next to them, and, you know.

Ay-yay-yay-yay-yay. So, that's what's going on. And, unbelievable, what's been going on in that area. But, hey, I said just a few moments ago, that I had, let me get something into the channel here.

Please, quickly, and, what in the world? You know when you hit control buttons, and it does something you wish you could do again, but you have no idea what control button you just hit. And you search the help file, and you look all over the place, and you never, ever, ever, ever find it all again.

It is so, so very, I don't know, disappointing when you can't find that stuff. I mentioned a few moments ago, that I had run across a, I was directed to a blog article, by one of our channel regulars, Red Goatee, there.

And I had run across the following paragraph. This was in an article from, let's see, what's the date here? This is the 8 .40 a .m. sometime. It doesn't, for some odd reason, give the date. And it's under the title of, What's Worse Than Being Arrogant?

And it says, it's even more amusing to see him, and this is referring to Red Goatee, Alan Hampton, whose name is used here, so. It's even more amusing to see him mention James White, who is one of the most celebrated polemicists in the Calvinistic community today.

Celebrated, I always find to be a funny term. Celebrated and not so celebrated. Anyways, White had in recent times been, in my personal opinion, obsessed in leading a McCarthyism style witch hunt to destroy Dave Hunt, an author who wrote a book questioning the tenets of Calvinism.

The fallout after that book had been released has done much to show the awful bigotry and arrogance typical of Calvinists, who in following White's lead, have harassed, censured, and spread outright lies about Dave Hunt in a spirit of hate, befitting radical followers of Islam.

And so when I saw that, I added a little note, I added a comment at the bottom, and I also discovered that I could get hold of this individual. And I had just put on the post, I said, Sir, I would like to challenge you to have the courage of your convictions.

Call the Divine Line tomorrow between 11 a .m. and noon, Pacific Daylight Time, or Thursday between 4 p .m. and 5 p .m. to defend the slanderous and false assertions you have made here regarding my interactions with Dave Hunt.

Please have your facts in line. I'll have mine. And I gave the phone number. And he responded and said, I may actually call this Thursday, though I'm still debating with myself whether I should bother.

My impressions are mostly based on what you've written about Hunt on your blog, so I have them bookmarked in case I do call. Somebody else wrote, Don't bother throwing pearls. Speak to the sick, the dying, the afflicted, the brokenhearted, the meek, and so on and so forth.

But I sort of think that issues of truth are important. So anyways, that is the background, and that is exactly what Maximus has done. And so we're going to go to line two here, and I don't know if you want me to use the term Maximus for you or not.

Would you prefer a different name?

Responding to Criticism of Dave Hunt and the Need for Truth

Hi, Dr. White. Hi, how are you, sir? Hey, how are you doing? How am I coming in? Am I coming in clear?

You sound pretty good. Should I call you Maximus?

You can call me Max. That's fine. I'll call you Max. Okay.

Well, Maximus was one of my favorite characters in Gladiators.

Yeah, that's kind of the way I got the name from. It was either that or Bush Cassidy.

Oh, okay. I wouldn't exactly see them as a real close parallel. But anyway...

Yeah, but first I just want to apologize for the tone in which I wrote the post. I still, in my personal view, I feel that the way your interactions with Dave Hunt has been, it's been, in my view, really, really nasty.

And I should have been more, you know, I'm the last person on the Earth to tell you this, but I should have been more tactful in the way I...

Well, Max, let me ask you, have you read Debating Calvinism?

I haven't read Debating Calvinism. I've read What Love Is This? And I've read your letters to Dave Hunt and his response to it.

Okay, Max, are you aware of what Debating Calvinism is?

Yeah, I understand. It's like half the book explains your point of view and half the book is from his point of view.

It's a debate. We go back and forth between myself and Dave Hunt. And I can assure you, the vast majority of folks who have read Debating Calvinism would say that one side was very focused and one side was very nasty.

And I wasn't the nasty side. I would direct you to that. But what is it in what I have written about Dave Hunt that could be identified as nasty? What specific terminology, what specific issues led you to believe that there is this witch hunt in regards to Dave Hunt?

What are the specifics? Because I'd like to know. I try to be very careful in what I raise. All the issues I've raised with Dave have been issues of translation. For example, where he said that the best translation of Acts 13 .48, actually the only English translation that presents that is the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Yeah, I was just about to...

In that sense, I actually agree with what you're saying. I don't think he's correct there in terms of... I mean, if the only translation that you can find that supports your point of view is from a Jehovah's Witness Bible, that's not going to be very compelling evidence.

Okay, Max, do you know what happened after I pointed that out to him? I mean, the time frame here is, just in case you're not aware of this, the time frame is he and I did a radio program on the subject of Calvinism back in, I think it was 2000, when I was hosting a radio program here in Phoenix.

I was filling in for somebody. We did a radio program during drive time on KPXQ here in Phoenix. And at the beginning of that particular program, I asked him, I said, now Dave, you and I, because we speak at conferences and very frequently we're both speakers at a conference.

And I said, Dave, you and I have debated together more Roman Catholics than any other two people combined in the world today. And that's true. And I said, but the odd thing is, on the issue of God's grace and the issue of the will of man, you would agree with Rome against the Reformers because you take their viewpoint on that, you actually take the Roman Catholic viewpoint on that, over against the Reform view.

Do you find that to be inconsistent? And Dave's response was, and I put this in the debating Calvinism book, his response was, well, James, I've never read any of the Reformers. I imagine they wrote many books, but I've never read any of them.

And I just want to go with the Bible. Three months later, the first draft of What Love Is This began to circulate. Three months. Now, I don't know about you, but you'd have to be a really brilliant reader to get to the point where you've said, A, I've never read any of the Reformers, and three months later, you're writing a book representing their beliefs.

Okay, that's the first thing. And I wrote to Dave and I said, Dave, you know, I hear you're doing this book. I'd like to really encourage you not to do so. I don't believe you're in a position to do this in a meaningful fashion.

And I was not the only one. I happen to know many ministers like myself who kindly contacted Dave because we've had good relationships with him in the past and said, Dave, don't do this. But he didn't listen to any of us.

He puts out What Love Is This. If you've read What Love Is This, you know that I, R .C. Sproul, and John Piper are the three main living people that he harpoons. He accuses me of twisting the scriptures, misrepresenting the scriptures, giving false teachings.

I mean, he went after me in no uncertain terms. And so when I responded to him, he accused me of elitism and everything else. When I responded to him, I didn't respond to him with anger. I responded to him with facts.

I responded to him with exegesis. And when I did so, he responds by saying, oh, you're an elitist because you think you have to know Greek and Hebrew and all the rest of this stuff. And so, interestingly, what happened is when I exposed his misrepresentation of Acts 13, 48, when we wrote debating Calvinism, he never mentioned what he had said in What Love Is This.

He didn't explain it. It just disappeared. Then, when he wrote the second edition of What Love Is This, he still didn't explain why he had said what he had said, but what he did was he came up with a whole new thing about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early church fathers telling us the first 15 chapters of Acts were actually written in Hebrew.

And no one's ever seen this Hebrew, but a group of scholars that he doesn't name would tell you that if you translated the Hebrew, Acts 13, 48 wouldn't teach Calvinism. Now, what he's saying is we don't even have the original of the first 15 chapters of Acts, which means we don't have an inerrant Bible.

We don't even have the original writings as far as the language of the Bible. I mean, this was one of the most absurd assertions I've ever heard in a theological context in my entire life.

Well, I think I know what he meant from it. I mean, I'm reading the paragraph now, and I think he just made a mistake in the way he worded the paragraph. When he was referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls, he wasn't referring that they demonstrated that the first 15 chapters of Acts were first in Hebrew.

I think he was demonstrating that it showed that Hebrew was the principal language at the time of Jesus. And it was just to demonstrate that Hebrew was very much alive, even though previously it was thought that it was a dead language or rarely spoken or rarely written at all.

And from there, and including to certain quotes from church fathers, early church writers or early church fathers, I think he might have meant the early church fathers, and they refer to the Gospels, not Acts, not the first 15 chapters of Acts, but the Gospels that may have first been written in Hebrew, and then it was kind of like carried over into Greek, so it could be a wider audience.

Hold on a second, Max. First of all, it wasn't all the Gospels. It was primarily Matthew. That's the only real case you can make there. Secondly, let me read...

Not all of it, but some of it might have been first written in Hebrew.

Let me read this so that folks can hear it. This is the specific quote from page 264. It says, The Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as comments from early church writers, indicate that the first 15 chapters of Acts were probably written first in Hebrew.

Yeah, I think that was a mistake. I don't think... He either... It might have been written in Haith, but I believe what he says, when he said that it was a casual statement, and if he had just been a little bit more careful, then I'm absolutely convinced he would have said, not that it was written in Hebrew, but that certain portions of the Gospels, including Acts...

Okay, but that would have nothing...

But, Max, that would have nothing to do with Acts 1348, would it?

1348? No. I haven't even gotten to that point. Yeah, but I think... I have nothing to do with it. I understand his point, though. He's saying that, if you consider that the first 15 chapters of Acts may have been drawn from Hebrew sources, then it might be read slightly differently than it would be if it wasn't.

Well, would you admit, first of all, that there is no Hebrew original of Acts 13, verse 48,.

And that if you're going to... From what I've read, though, the evidence does seem to suggest that there may have been a Hebrew version.

Really? What source do you have for that?

Basically, I've gotten it from several sources. One is called Jerusalem Perspective, the Synoptic Gospels in Hebrew. What does that have to do with Acts? Acts is written by Luke. From that, they also indicate that, because Luke was...

The Gospels, 15 chapters of Acts, from what I've read, was actually one uninterrupted writing, and that was from Hebrew sources, because of the way the Greek, the original way it was drawn from was actually in Hebrew.

Okay, there are a number of scholarly sources that talk about Aramaic or original resources for the sermons in the first 12 chapters of Acts. Not for the writing. I thought it was the first 15 chapters.

There's a number of sources that say that. Not for Luke to have written it, but that Luke had access to Aramaic sources for the sermons that would have been in Aramaic, because when you're preaching in Jerusalem, you're going to be using the language there.

There's no question about that, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with actually presenting a translation from unnamed scholars, quote unquote, based upon a text that no one to my knowledge has ever seen, and you're doing this after having already been refuted in saying that the best translation is found in the New World Translation.

You've never admitted that you made that mistake. You just made it disappear without even a footnote. Now you're coming up with this, and when I bring this out and force Dave to deal with it, is that nasty on my part?

Is that wrong on my part? Or is that being consistent? I'm not saying that you are wrong. Basically, the only thing I'm drawing from is the way you worded it on your blog and how you responded to what he wrote in his newsletter.

Regarding what?

This last thing? I'm actually looking at it. Yeah, I mean, come on, Max. After doing everything that I have done, after writing those open letters to him and got no meaningful response exegetically whatsoever, after discovering, after myself finding these errors in what love is this, and finding that they've been removed without even the honesty of an admission of error in a footnote from the second edition, without removing the attacks on me personally, without removing all that stuff, after all that time, and we write to the Breon call, and they come back with a quotation from a cultic website trying to defend the stuff that had nothing to do with it, and then finally he's forced to admit, I mean, after all...

Wait a minute. When you say cultish website,.

Is this a Messianic Jewish site?

It was the Yahweh site, the anti-Trinitarian site, yeah.

Right, right, yeah, because I was just reading an article about it, and I think, because it sounded similar, but I think by name, Julio Dan...

No, no, no, no, no, the word, every single word was identical, including spacing and punctuation. That's not similarity. So it was ad verbatim? Verbatim without change. It came directly from an anti-Trinitarian website, without even giving, without even giving the source.

If it's the same website, I'm thinking of, I'm not so sure that they're that completely anti-Trinitarian, I think they're just, you know, they're kind of like trying to figure it out, and you know, they consider God.

A three-person, but... Max, Max, I'm sorry, I looked up the sources on the site, and they are part of the Messianic movement that does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, the point is, after, Dave has made excuse, okay, I shouldn't say Dave, the Berean call has made excuse after excuse after excuse for all these things, and how in the world can you possibly say that they can, that that's not a demonstration of the fact that he has not dealt honestly with these things?

So if you look at the final word that I have to say, after going through all that stuff, and to say, well, you were nasty then, yeah, you know what, after someone has, in essence, completely sacrificed truth upon the altar of their own ego, yeah, I'm going to say that, and that might just sound nasty to somebody, but you know, I didn't start that way, and if the man had simply things are saying about him now, but the fact of the matter is, his book is horrible, this isn't the only error, there's all sorts of these kinds of things that I've documented,.

And I have to concede that he definitely did make some mistakes in his first book, I mean he had some good points, but there was certainly times when he was, I kind of think that he went off on a tangent, and he just made clear, you get the impression that.

It was rushed to print, it was just for some reason. Well, remember something Max, two things, A, the first edition was done by a small new publisher, and I happen to know that Mr. Hunt is not overly open to editing, is not overly open to input from editorial sources so therefore, editing is not easily done.

The second edition, he put out himself, and his editor was into the Messianic Jewish stuff, so if you want my opinion, I don't think Dave ever saw this before it hit print, I think he's probably really mad that it ended up there, but since it's under his own name, he's just basically having to throw his hands up in the air and go, thanks guys, appreciate your having stuck that thing in there, which to me, goes to the issue of integrity as well, so what can you say, but Max, my point was, the reason I had left that message was, I didn't lead any type of Jihad or McCarthyistic inquiry into Dave Hunt, in fact, I've documented on my website the fact that when I first contacted him, you know what, I tried very much to get the fella to listen to the fact that some of us have been studying these issues a lot longer than he has, he refused, I wasn't the only one.

I have the impression, because when I read your first letter to him, and then I started reading all these things about it, and then I went to the message board, and then it was just.

One thing after another, and it just deteriorated, I'm not saying it was you, I'm just saying, whoever read the book, they went from everything to calling him a mouth-foaming buffoon, to constantly quote your...

Well believe me, Max, I can show you where Dave Hunt's followers have said everything under the sun about me. Oh yeah, I'm sure there's. My point was, when I read your blog, when you responded to his response on the Dead Sea Scrolls proving Acts was written in Hebrew...

No, I was referring to the fact that the Berean Call, in the attempt to defend that, took a list, they plagiarized the list, they didn't even bother to change a single letter or a single space, they plagiarized the list from a heterodox website that had nothing to do with Acts 13 and sent that out, and yes, I would call that desperation because as it reads, as you have admitted, there's nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls about Acts 13 -40, there's nothing in the early church fathers about Acts being written in that way, and so to ask...

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I think I know what he meant and he just wrote it wrong. But Max, why give him the benefit of the doubt when he has quoted the NWT out of ignorance, he then pulls it, does not admit the error, goes another direction, and now this is try number three on the same passage, okay?

Try number three. No admission so far of error. Nothing saying, oops, sorry, got that one wrong, oops, got that one, none of that. Those things just go bye-bye, they're just edited out without any references.

I would like to know,.

Why does he get the benefit of the doubt and I don't? Because, no, I'm not saying it. I think in his mind that when he made those statements, he was just speculating. It wasn't like, it wasn't crystal clear evidence or solid proof or anything.

It was just, as he said, it was a casual remark regarding the possibility that my... Excuse me. He admitted he... Max, Max, come on. He doesn't consider it. No, I'm not trying to... Max, come on.

What in the text says that? What in what he printed would give any unbiased observer the idea that what he's saying about that is just a casual observation while what he says about John 644 is not a casual...

There's nothing in the text that indicates that. He doesn't say, well, you know, I've heard the theory or, you know, it's interesting to speculate. The word speculation doesn't appear there. You're having...

What you're saying is, well, this is the excuse he came... This is excuse number three for error number three on the same verse and I'm going to buy it. How many times does he... Does he have to go through this before you go, you know what, I don't think Dave Hunt has a clue what he's talking about on Acts 13, 48.

He has no idea what he's talking about. I haven't even mentioned the error he made about the Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon where he said it didn't give ordained as a meaning of Acts 13, 48. It does.

He can't read enough Greek to know that. How many errors do you have to compound before you finally say,.

You know what, Dave should have stuck to the health, wealth, gospel stuff. He's out of his element here. How many does it take? If we're dealing with a matter of pride, I mean, I guess no matter how many times you talk to him or try to convince him that he was wrong or get to publicly acknowledge it, that's probably just going to push him further and further away.

No question. No question. You're exactly right. I don't really have a problem so much with what you're saying because I do, I mean, I'm not a Calvinist, but I do agree with some of your points. I do agree that Acts 13, 48 was not correctly rendered.

I mean, there's certain overt verses and I think that also happens to be true for the Arminian point of view. I mean, you have two basically opposing, opposing. The problem was that you seem to be, I just got the impression that you were deriding him, that you were ridiculing him.

Yes, well, you know what, Like the Dave Hunt decode.

You know, okay, yep, yep. That you poke fun at his mistake. Max, Max, Max, Max, hello, yo, yo, Max, yo, when I say yo, that means yo. So, yeah, after, after three times, yes, that's, you know, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

Okay, after three times of being shown and documented without question that you don't know what you're talking about, if you're going to keep misrepresenting the word of God, then at that point, yep, you're exactly right.

Max, I appreciate your calling. I appreciate you having the integrity to do so. I appreciate your apology for the, for that, that particular phraseology. We've got a number of other callers. Thank you for calling today.

God bless you very much. Let's go ahead and move on as some people on the channel are encouraging me to do so. Let's talk with Ben real quick. Hi, Ben, how are you? Good, how are you? Doing all right.

I have a comment and a question. Okay. I'm from Southern California. I'm sorry. Apologetics major. I'm sorry, Southern California, huh? There are Christians there. Yeah. Wow. Okay. All right. I'm in Riverside.

Oh, my goodness. I am. I work with Kurt Van Gordon in Jude 3 missions. Uh-huh. I'm involved in evangelizing the cult. All right. My first comment is, I bought your book, Scripture Alone. Yes. Oh, thank you.

Excellent. Especially, Exegesis, Letting God Speak. Yes. Uh-huh. Great.

I love it. Great. And Kurt likes you too. We've talked about you before. Well, I've witnessed with him in Utah before. That was, yes, been a while, thanks to all the King James Only guys up there, but anyways.

Anyways, I'm an ex-Roman Catholic. Okay. Before I converted to Evangelical Christianity, after the born-again experience. Uh-huh. I'm aware of the Journey Home Movement. Yes. Which is quite bothersome.

And I am a believer in a sola scriptura, sola fide, and a lot of the other religious books. But I wanted to know, who taught this type of theology between the Church Fathers, and I'm not even sure about their theology.

It seems like I can find a lot of Roman Catholic theology actually in the writings of the Church Fathers sometimes. Like,.

Who taught this type of theology before Luther and other Reformers? Right. Well, a couple of things. First of all, be very careful when you are reading any type of church, not even church books, any type of church history, or early church Fathers.

It is amazing how often I find people, especially, not only Roman Catholics, but because people are conditioned by the debates of Roman Catholicism, they read into the writings of early church writers concepts that those writers would have had no idea of, but we read them backwards.

We read, looking through the lens of history, and we read into the various sundry terms they use, concepts that would have had no meaning to them whatsoever. It's very, very, very common for Roman Catholic apologists to do this.