Parchment and Pen

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 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White. Welcome to the dividing line.

Quick programming note as soon as we are done here on the dividing line I would like to let you know that Sam Shamoon is going to be joining Chris Arnzen on iron sharpens iron, which is 3 o 'clock Eastern Time.

I was on yesterday and Sam will be on in an hour with Chris Arnzen and so what we're gonna do here is as soon as we finish up with our discussion I will just be firing up the feed from WNYG for iron sharpens iron and you can just keep your feed going here and You will be able to listen to that program as well.

Or of course, you can just go over to that feed yourself if you know your persnickety or something. That's okay. But I will just fire it up on my laptop here and we'll pipe it on out to you. So that's a maximum number of folks can listen to Sam Shamoon on Chris Arnzen's iron sharpens iron today and I call in with your questions and comments and so on and so forth.

Get a chance to listen to Sam. So You would think if I was discussing Islam on iron sharpens iron yesterday. We've been listening to the Shabir Ali Mike like Kona debate that that's we'd be continuing.

The Reformation, Roman Catholicism, and the Parchment and Pen Blog

But actually though I do have it queued up. Instead I Want to talk about something that's a really weighing on my heart. In 2005 Mark Knoll who is the McManus professor of Christian thought at Wheaton College?

Published a book co-written with freelance writer Carolyn Nystrom. Published by Baker academic and Paternoster press concurrently, which I find interesting. And it is titled is the Reformation over an evangelical assessment of contemporary Roman Catholicism.

Those of you who get the CRI journal know that the summary review of that book Which appeared in the CRI journal was written by yours truly and it was titled the Reformation denied Mark Knowles and balanced portrayal of the Protestant Catholic divide and the continuing validity of The Reformation.

I would like to read major portions of that for you. If you have not had the opportunity of reading is the Reformation over. I would like to introduce it to you make some critiques of it and then make some application in light of current conversations.

Taking place on a blog called pen and parchment. Parchment and pen. I'm sorry Parchment and pen in regards to Roman Catholicism, and I think We see here the next step in What I can only describe as the degradation of post evangelicalism and the continuing narrowing of the spectrum of those who Recognize what the issues the Reformation were why they're important and how those aspects are applicable to our our day our time the church today and The the rapid influx of a of a worldview into post evangelicalism that simply cannot maintain the kind of strong confessional Christianity that freed Europe from the bondage of Rome.

In fact, it's not even willing to talk about the bondage of Rome any longer at all. Be perfectly honest with you. And that's what I would like to to discuss In reviewing is the Reformation over. Gave some idea of what the book was about.

I'll read that section. So you'll have an idea and then we will go into some of the Discussion of it. The book begins the rather lengthy and at times laborious overview of elements of the past conflict between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism mainly in the United States.

While there is always a Theological element given the topic it is rarely Knowles emphasis. The first two chapters go into the Great Divide. In chapters three and four document the changes that have taken place since Vatican to.

The fifth chapter focuses upon of course in 1994 Catholic Catechism providing numerous citations from the work. While the sixth chapter provides a full discussion including background information on the various documents produced as part of ECT the evangelical and Catholics together movement the seventh chapter documents various kinds of responses to the new situation That has arisen since Vatican to from quote antagonism end quote and critics John MacArthur RC Sproul Michael Horton to partners to converts.

Converts mentioned by name are Thomas Howard Dennis Martin Peter Kreeft Scott and Kimberly Hahn John Michael Talbot Christine Franklin and Robert some genus. The eighth chapter provides an American primarily a political cultural assessment of changes.

And the final chapter provides the answer to the question contained in the title. The book itself is the Reformation over. The answer comes from an oddly selective very questionable reading of the Catholic Catechism and From a document that does not carry dogmatic authority the joint declaration on the doctrine justification from 1999.

You may want to go and back into our archives for the responses I gave to that at that time Noel concludes. If it is true I'm quoting here quote. If it is true as once was repeated frequently by Protestants conscious of their anchorage in Martin Luther or John Calvin.

That justification is the article in which the church stands or falls then the Reformation is over end quote page 232. Any continuing differences this work claims are not about scripture justification the papacy Mary the sacraments or clerical celibacy quote but the nature of the church and Quote page 238.

And all goes on to claim Quote if relatively important. Relatively important theological differences still divide Catholics and evangelicals nonetheless. The contemporary world needs to hear more about what Catholics and evangelicals share in common than about their legitimate disagreements.

And quote page 248 that I would suggest to you is the new mantra of the post-evangelical is. We got to talk about what joins us and not what divides us and the question then becomes the question then becomes Threw me completely off the train there brother that the cruise has nothing to do with what I'm talking about right now my friend I.

I'm normally good at getting notes and and staying where I'm going, but that time it was just like Just blow up the bridge and the train just fell in and okay. We're gonna get back on here. Sorry about that.

What by the way, what do we need to talk about the cruise we didn't. I was a Contributing to your point so if if it's over if the dispute is over who won. What does that have to their cruise where I was debating.

I wasn't talking about the cruise. I was talking about your country your I was following your train of thought. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm looking at studio chat. Don't forget to mention. That's rude. That was I put that up there before we even started the program did just now saw just now see how you are.

I was playing the chat. I was asking the chat. That's why I just completely fell off the there you go. Right off the rails right off the rails. Don't forget to mention cruise folks got a cruise coming up.

It's gonna be a good one. Go on it. Okay back to what we were talking about here. If the dispute is over who won? Yeah, well anyway the work includes by encouraging evangelicals to follow Nathaniel's example and come and see and Look at the situation as has actually come to exist in the Roman Catholic Church.

So we can be in the proper position to consider whether the Reformation is over. Those are quotes and so there is a there is a clear agenda on the part of Mark noel in this presentation and now my response noel's work represents a milestone the continuing movement away from Historic Protestant belief and thought.

The work is highly imbalanced in its presentations and perspective. Surprisingly so the reader who is familiar with historical and theological issues relating to Roman Catholicism and especially the Revitalization of Roman Catholic apologetics over the past 20 years in America cannot be but shocked at the perspective noel presents.

No mention is made of this resurgence groups like Catholic answers men like Carl Keating Patrick Madrid are not to be found anywhere in noel's work. Which given how far it compasses land and sea to find positive references to Catholic Protestant relations is most notable.

The fifth chapter of noel's work is a glowing endorsement of and promotional advertisement for the catechism of the Catholic Church. Extensive citations of biblically sound passages are provided. But while areas of disagreement are noted it is the perspective this book that things like purgatory The mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice and all the related theological Aberrations that have been dogmatically defined by Rome over the centuries are merely ancillary issues and are not to be seen as definitional.

In fact, one can take Rome's statements on justification at face value without seeing them in light of these manifestations of Rome's fundamentally different view of grace and salvation. The fact that there are more individual sections on indulgences in the catechism than there are in justification might be relevant.

But does not appear in this chapter. The imbalance of the book can be seen throughout the text even citing men like Jack Chick without making any reference to chicks. Counterparts on the Roman Catholic side is highly inflammatory.

Sproul and MacArthur get rough treatment at one point prior to a few citations of Sproul the writers opine quote. But rejecting Catholicism is not limited to evangelicals who are paranoid or ignorant in Quote page 187 throughout the work Roman Catholics are portrayed as open-minded deep thinking and literate while Protestants Especially those who would stand firmly against Rome's teachings are seen as barren and shallow.

Roman Catholic authors like GK Chesterton are presented a very positive light while Calvin Edwards Machen or Warfield are not even mentioned. Amazing statements such as quote neophyte evangelical students of church history are almost always startled to find that Christians of the early centuries were Catholic and Quote page 206 appear with sufficient regularity to cause the knowledgeable reader great concern.

Surely no one knows such statements fly in the face of reality. Not a single bishop at Nicaea believe what Rome has dogmatically defined about such topics as the papacy Mary the mass purgatory indulgences and a host of other matters.

The litany of converts to Rome is given without even an attempt at correcting the errant assertions and falsehoods contained in the personal Testimonies of those profiled. While these stories are allowed to stand on their own not a single example of conversion from Roman Catholicism is offered.

The authors recognize how imbalanced this is and offer an explanation. But in doing so the real perspective of the work comes to light. Quote. We're at a different book. It would be important to hear from the many who convert from Catholicism to various branches branches of Protestantism.

Heeding the reasons why people find Christ or see Christ more clearly in one tradition instead of the other involves questions of great importance. But this shared love of Christ also prepares for eternity where at least in the hopes expressed by Peter Kreeft Evangelicals will teach Catholics to sing and Catholics will teach Evangelicals to sculpt and to dance all in praise of God.

End quote pages 207 through 208. Clearly for no and many who think in this fashion The Reformation is indeed over because the issues that separate Roman Catholics and Protestants simply do not touch upon the definition of the gospel any longer.

Justification has been taken care of mainly by disconnecting it from everything else Rome teaches on the subject. Note these words quote. The needy of the world care little whether the Christians before them.

Whether the Christian before them is evangelical or Catholic but much. Whether but much whether they might encounter the love of Christ and the truth of the gospel that can redeem the soul. And quote page 207.

Clearly the love of Christ and truth of the gospel can be found from Knowles perspective in Evangelicalism or in Catholicism. The difference is no longer to find the gospel belief in purgatory indulgences propitiation to the mass priestly absolution the treasury of merit.

None of these things were allowed to hold the Relationship to the gospel that even Rome insisted they bore only a hundred years ago. Finally the normative role of scripture itself the great doctrine of solo scriptura.

Which has been the true foundation of the necessary division between those who believe it and those who reject it is in essence swept under The rug I quote more specifically such Catholics and evangelicals trust equally in the full inspiration and final authority of the Bible.

For many Catholics and evangelicals however it has become important to insist that continuing differences and how best to interpret scripture arise not from significant differences about the character of divine revelation in the Bible as Such but from different customs habits or principles associated with understanding and putting to use a divinely authoritative Bible.

End quote pages 231 to 232 such a perspective Represents the collapse of biblical authority in many Protestant bodies the perspicuity of scripture has been sacrificed upon the altar of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation.

Evidently our forefathers were in error to think the word spoke with such clarity to the issues of the gospel in Summary Knowles work is a modern reminder that while many who are non-catholic have lost focus upon the real issues the Reformation those who are passionate for reformed truth must remain vigilant and Firm that is in essence what I wrote for the CRI journal in response to Mark Knowles book now over on parchment and pen.

The web blog it's called parchment and pen a theology blog Reclaiming the mind org slash blog if you're looking for that. There have been a number of articles that appeared over the past week That are relevant to this very issue and I think represent very much the same mindset as Mark Knowle.

In fact Knowles book has been cited and cited positively in the context of these these conversations. Now one of those who has written is gentleman by name of C. Michael Patton. I do not know C. Michael Patton at all.

I don't know the gentleman. I can't comment on his background or anything else, but The other gentleman who has written I I do know well and considered to be a friend and a brother in Christ. And that is what has caused me to especially be concerned about Some of the statements that I have seen here.

And that is my friend Dan Wallace of Dallas Seminary Dan Wallace his work on Greek grammar his work in textual criticism. His ongoing work in New Testament manuscript Photography currently right now has Is working very very hard at obtaining high quality digital photographs of New Testament manuscripts ancient New Testament manuscripts that have never been photographed before have never been Accessible before very important work.

No question about all of these things. But all of those other things I would suggest you fundamentally exist so that we may proclaim a clear true Perspicuous gospel to the world and as I preached Sunday evening and I put the links on the blog recently Preach Sunday evening at the Phoenix Forum Baptist Church there is this thing called the truth of the gospel and the Apostle Paul was very clear in Saying that they did not put up with false brothers.

This these would be people who claim to be Christians but who Twisted the gospel distort the gospel. We would not put up with these false brethren for even a moment for even an hour. So that the truth the gospel might remain with you.

I think maybe Galatians chapter 2 is verses 5 and following is gap to become somewhat of a of a watchword for those In our in our culture these days who are observing this rather rapid movement. To say that the issues that separate us from Roman Catholics are not definitional and that the gospel can be defined without Defining the issues of justification the finishedness of the work of Christ.

Purgatory indulgences all these things are just ancillary issues. You can believe those things and it's okay. I think we're gonna have to be looking more and more often at Galatians chapter 2 in regards to them.

Now just today so we're nice and up to date. Just today Dan Wallace posted a article on Romans chapter 3 but then at the end he provided a paragraph and it's certainly a paragraph that expresses a sentiment that we have addressed many many many many times on this on this program and I believe that It represents a sentiment that I think completely misses the point, but it's very very common and we're gonna have to respond to it again.

Let me let me read what what dr. Wallace said now. The question we need to wrestle with is this is it essential to believe that faith alone saves in order to be saved? That is is it faith in faith that saves or is it rather that we must embrace Christ alone as our Savior to be saved?

I take it that the latter is the truth. I do believe that faith alone saves us. But whether one consciously holds the soul of Fideh is a different matter. If we put our faith in Christ and understand that he is the God man was able to Was able to offer the perfect sacrifice for our sins and that God has raised him from the dead we can be saved.

I believe that Paul's gospel is the clearest articulation of salvation in terms of God's justice. But it is not the only way to explain the gospel. Most of the other New Testament writers did not speak of it in the same way.

Did they understand it the same way as Paul did that's difficult to tell? Paul puts an emphasis on the legal issue of our standing before God as judge James Matthew Peter Etc focus on our organic connection to Christ.

Both of these are right and they are compatible with one another but some Christian groups emphasize One to the neglect of the other hence confusion accusations of anathema and division of the result.

How do we balance these two views of salvation or to put it more bluntly? Where is grace in our discussion of grace? Well, allow me to respond to these statements. It has often been said that those who insist that soul of Fideh is Definition of the gospel Are saying that instead of believing in Christ you're saying you need to believe in faith.

Faith and faith alone rather than faith in Christ. I think that there's a fundamental misunderstanding here and it is a distinction that I have made. I recall very clearly even when we still were on a radio station many years ago we followed the Bible Answer Man broadcast on Saturdays on KPXQ and and Hank Hanegraaff's guest that time was Norman Geisler and Geisler right toward the end of a program and I remember this very clearly.

Had made the statement that we certainly cannot emphasize the forensic aspects of justification as being definitional or there was no one before Luther who was saved. And he was making reference to the medieval period and things like that.

Now, I think he's completely wrong about that. I don't think that the medieval period or the early church period was as barren of such an understanding as he might like us to think but I Immediately made the distinction at that time.

I said there is a vast difference as We face the situation today that the truth has been clearly proclaimed the truth of what Paul speaks and of course I I view the New Testament as an inspired document inspired by one spirit and therefore I do not set Paul against Peter or Matthew there is one spirit.

Speaking through these men they address different aspects of the gospel, but I do not believe there is any foundation or reason whatsoever to place them in opposition to one another. But I view the teaching of the New Testament as a organic whole and the teaching concerning Justification and the means by which one is made right before God found in Romans 3 Romans 4 Romans 5 Galatians Ephesians, etc Has been so clearly proclaimed in our day that it is not a matter of being ignorant of Sola Fide it is a matter of rejecting Sola Fide there's a vast difference between being ignorant of the issues regarding false Gospels and Hence not being able to articulate a particular Latin phrase such as Sola Fide and there are many Christians who could not articulate the phrase Sola Fide and Knowing what Sola Fide is and specifically knowingly Rebelliously rejecting Sola Fide.

This is a distinction that just is lost on most people today. Because they want to say well, you're saying that every person has to have a perfect profession of faith like you claim to have a perfect profession of faith to be saved and anyone who who has heard me for example responding to hyper Calvinists and attacking them for making perfection of theological Confession the the the means of salvation knows that's not what I'm saying.

But the same time no one can tell me that the Roman Catholic Church From the time of Trent onwards has not fully and completely known Exactly what it is. We are saying exactly what is we're saying Paul was saying and that they have and continue to reject that now point me to the 1999 document all you want it's not dogmatic a and Believe me I've done enough debates through Roman Catholics to know that they don't appreciate it when you use Non-dogmatic sources try to find their faith, which is gonna be another issue is gonna be coming up here.

It's not dogmatic a B. It doesn't actually say anything because One of the things that's truly troubling to me. But it shouldn't be it's not that it's all that new but it's troubling to me to see people doing this who who should know different Should know better.

Saying oh we all believe in salvation by grace alone through faith. That's what ECT said. That's what the 1999 document says. But everybody knows that by utilizing that formulation and just skipping the discussion of the word alone in sola fide.

You aren't answering any questions. There's tons and tons and tons and tons of books and arguments and debates sitting there About what that means and by just closing your eyes and going not gonna worry about that.

You're not answering any of the questions and to say we agree on something that says nothing is to say nothing. It accomplishes nothing and if you try to apply that if you actually try to get cooperation going the Application is going to demonstrate you don't believe the same things and this this alleged unity and harmony doesn't exist if you can't apply your gospel if your gospel is so vanilla so Stripped down to the bare essentials so you can try to create some unity.

You can't apply that in real-life situations. You can't apply that in the construction of the church and the the the the building up of the Saints and the proclamations. Where you can't do it. It's not possible.

That's why the New Testament isn't one page long. There's there's a reason why there's enough of it there that These things are fleshed out. So saying we believe by grace alone through faith. Um. What does that matter.

That's not accomplishing in anything and I honestly I don't think that shows much respect for either side and none of this shows much respect. For those who've come before us to be honest with you Liberal Catholics and let's put it.

Let's let's you know say Protestants who are moving away from their conservative Protestant heritage basically have the view That people up until this century were just a bunch of narrow-minded Dogmatists who didn't really think these things through very far.

They did think these things through that's the problem they they well knew what the ramifications were and I don't think you're respecting The the Pope's sense since Trent. Those who produced for example the the catechism of the Council of Trent.

You're just basically having to sort of laugh those folks off at the clarity of their dogmatic definitions and their insistence that hey You know what if you're gonna define what I believe at least do it on the basis what I've officially said reflects my faith now all this goes back to.

Another issue we get to in a few moments if I get enough time to get to it today and that is. The assertion is being made. I'll go ahead and read it here. Just so you can you can hear what's being said.

Dr. Wallace also said said these these words. He said quote. Again, I continue to be misunderstood about a fundamental point something I've underscored over and over again quote and listen to this. Just as an evangelical is not defined my by majority opinion about what evangelicals believe a Catholic is not defined by official pronouncements about what Catholics believe.

End quote now I You know. The first of all the statement is not balanced in the sense that on the one side has majority opinion. And yes, I it has dogmatic pronouncements. Those are not the same things I would say that I as an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church am defined by what my church Confessionally states we believe and if I stop believing that that means I'm no longer a Reformed Baptist.

Okay, if you're in a Reformed Baptist who denies the imputed righteousness of Christ denies election and denies eternal punishment. That person while he has the political freedom to call himself whatever he wants to is dishonest.

He's not a Reformed Baptist that phrase is definable. There are documents that define what a Reformed Baptist is or isn't. That's why there are folks who since they don't buy into everything that the confession says.

Don't call themselves that they'll call themselves Sovereign Grace Baptist or whatever. But they're just being honest that this is the historical definition, and I don't agree there and so I'm gonna use a different term fine wonderful and I'm standing shoulder-to-shoulder here with John Paul the second who when he came to the United States in the mid 1980s.

And I know this because I was standing outside where he was going to be doing mass at Sun Devil Stadium. Passing out tracks to the many people who were staying there waiting to go in. When he went to Los Angeles he preached against cafeteria style Catholicism where people pick and choose what they will and will not believe and.

So I'm just standing with him, okay. You know Rome. It has never been shy at least not the last century in saying what she believes and in documenting what she believes. Okay, so. Anyway, I I think you can determine what Catholicism teaches and while there are many many many many many many many in Western culture Who no longer believe what Catholic teaches who still call themselves Catholics?

That's that majority that even if it is in the United States a majority of people. That's not what defines Roman Catholicism. Night if you're into a Roman Catholic says hey I believe in solo feeding, and I don't believe in the masses of pictures a pitch Tory sacrifice, okay deal with him Where he is, but don't make that representative Roman Catholicism.

Because it's not Roman Catholicism, and I know many a Roman Catholic Who would agree with exactly what I'm saying every Roman Catholic I've ever debated Would agree with exactly what I just said no no question about it.

Well going back to the first one. We don't believe that it is faith in faith that saves. But we believe that a person who knowing what sola fide is and who rejects it. That's where the the definitional necessary aspect comes in.

Yes, when I was saved. I didn't know what sola fide meant. I didn't I didn't know anything about purgatory indulgences or masses or anything like that. So I'm not in any way shape or form jumping on to the rationalistic hyper Calvinistic bandwagon here.

And I have been in print for a long long time that I believe that there are people Who on a regular basis walk through the door of the Roman Catholic Church? We're gonna go to heaven, but I have always said I have always said you can go back to the first time I started to address this I have always said if a member of the Roman Catholic Communion is an heir of eternal life it is in spite of The teachings of the church not because of the teachings of the church if there is a little Guatemalan grandma who just Believes Jesus can save her and that she needs to be saved and that she doesn't need anybody else to save her well, then she's going to be saved and if she all she may know is priests and Catholicism never seen a missionary else and God's Spirit can Get all that stuff out of the way and give her a pure faith in Jesus now, of course if someone comes along.

And she's exposed the truth. I think if she's truly regenerate she's going to respond to that truth. But not that I can't guarantee that's always gonna happen. So the point is I'm not saying the name over the door is what determines where you go to heaven or not.

It's the gospel that determines that. And yes, there can be a very simple understanding of the gospel that can be believed but the problem is the Bible tells us plainly there are false Gospels and When we go to Galatians, we find that these men they taught you you had to have faith in Jesus.

I see no evidence to believe that there is. Paul doesn't raise any other issue with them other than they added one thing to faith. That's the only thing he raises. That's the only basis upon which he anathema ties is their gospel and if you can seriously Read what Rome says about transubstantiation and the mass Perpetuatory sacrifices the concept of indulgences and purgatory in the treasury of merit if you can seriously read all that stuff and go.

Oh, I died. That's not nearly as bad as what the glad what the Judaizers did then? I don't know what planet you're on. I Really don't because it's very clear to me That Rome has gone much farther much farther out than the Judaizers ever dreamed of going.

And therefore Paul warned about false Gospels. You can't just boil the gospel down to a bare-bones core and say well It doesn't matter what else you pile on top of that. Where do we get that from the New Testament not from our our cultural desire for unity and all the where do you get that from?

The apostolic presentation. You don't get it from Paul. You don't get it from John. You don't get it from Peter. You don't get it from Luke. Where does it come from? That's what I want to know. Where does that come from?

So continues on. There seems to be in this statement I believe that Paul's gospel is the clearest articulation of salvation in terms of God's justice. But it's not the only way to explain the gospel in terms of God's justice.

How about mercy grace purposes eternal decrees the whole nine yards, I mean Paul's explication the gospel is the longest fullest didactic discussion of the subject in all the New Testament and. So it says when when the question is asked did they understand that the same way as Paul did?

If by asking that question we are asking the question did all the Apostles believe that the gospel had been Had been revealed with clarity could be defined and was believed by all of them. Yes. No question.

No question at all if what you're asking is does each of the Apostles in the epistles that we have today Put the same emphasis on the same aspects of the gospel in their particular audiences. Well, obviously not because they're not addressing the same audiences the same issues the same problems.

John puts more of an emphasis for example on a concern about Christological aspects and false Christs in the sense of Gnosticism Gnosticism early early forms of that. And Paul's not addressing that though.

He will get fairly close that in Colossians. So If but if the the idea is here that they have a different understanding. They have they actually have a different emphasis so much so that they're a little bit more like the Orthodox.

Or they're a little bit more like the Catholics and that's the same situation We're in today and and that this is reflected in New Testament. I could not agree less. I could not disagree more with that.

So The final line is or to put it more bluntly where is grace in our discussion of grace? It seems to me that the assertion is that if you insist that the that you need to interpret Trent in the light of what the people who wrote the documents then interpreted them to mean in context historically and If you insist that you need to be consistent with the stream of historical theology of the Roman Catholic Magisterium and you need to allow dogmatic statements to be first and foremost and definition of Roman Catholicism rather than any particular individual Roman Catholic even a Pope Let alone just a non clergyman someplace who just comes up with an idea of what Rome is it seems that if you insist on all those things and if you insist from the From the non-catholic side that the Bible must be made normative.

You've defend sola scriptura. If you if you engage in apologetics as a whole, you're not gracious. You're not gracious. The idea is and I you know, we hear all this we hear this all the time in our in our society that if you believe in in absolutes and You import those into this area then you're being narrow-minded unkind and Ungracious.

I of course reject any idea. That to address these issues and to address them firmly and fully and passionately is to lack grace. I don't believe we show love for God His word his church our fellow believers and those that we believe to be lost.

By engaging in either compromise muddled thinking or inconsistency. That is not the way that you show God's grace. So, I hope that's not what's being suggested but if it is I I disagree. I Disagree firmly and I've already explained why I disagree with the other statement.

That an evangelical is not defined by majority opinion. No, an evangelical is defined by the historical doctrines of evangelicalism, which can no longer really be defined sadly. That's why I have said I don't really consider myself an evangelical in that sense anymore because if TD Jake's is an evangelical and Joel Osteen is an evangelical and Pat Robertson is an evangelical.

What does the term mean? It has no more definitional value Than saying we are all human. What does it mean? The Evangelical movement had been defined by the evangel and it is ironic that is just here Evangelist being said we don't know what it means we can't define it so clearly anymore that we can't tell a difference between what Rome teaches and Eastern Orthodox teaches and any of the Protestant denominations teach they're all world, you know, we just have so much in common.

Oh Paul had a whole lot in common with the Judaizers, too, but I don't see a single positive reference to them. Do you? Do you see any evidence of an ecumenical spirit? With those who have a false gospel and Paul's party calls them Pseudo Adolfo false brethren who sneak in those are not kind words and Many today would oh, well, you know I mean someone posted some some words from Jonathan Edwards and they had to start off with a paragraph before in a paragraph after Apologizing for how nasty Jonathan Edwards is about Rome, but he still makes a good point.

Okay, I understand that you know, I'm not gonna be using quite the same language that Luther did but the fact of the matter is. There's there's a reason to be passionate about some of these things and Paul certainly was and Let's face it.

There are very very few today who would use Paul's language. Why? Well, our culture has changed. Might I suggest that one of the major reasons there are a few people who'd use Paul and Paul's languages is not just because cultures changed but because People no longer have the same confidence and the clarity the revelation of the gospel that Paul did.