Pastor Tony Bartolucci

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three Three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Frank Beckwith, Roman Catholic Apologetics, and the Meaning of Conversion

When I was driving out here because I've thought about your comment that I'm not going to be a Roman Catholic apologist. It occurred to me since your your change to Catholicism is based on the fact that you think Roman Catholicism represents the true church.

Why wouldn't you be a Roman Catholic apologist. And I think you mentioned before well, you're kind of mere Christianity. We talked about this in the phone, but wouldn't mere Christianity now be Roman Catholicism.

No, therefore.

It'd be appropriate to promote that or I was never really a Protestant apologist. I mean if you think about the works that I published in the areas Concerning questions like the existence of God the resurrection Right the issues of abortion all those would apply to both sides.

That of course is a familiar the familiar tones of Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith that I Forgot the date that was spring of 2007. We went through that. In fact, some of you may recall that we Took a lot of heat because we are the first ones to openly announce Frank Beckwith's return to Roman Catholicism and to call for his Stepping down as president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

That was I believe early May of 2007. I would be yeah, I think that's that's correct. And I listened to The interview that took place on Stand to Reason between Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith while writing Yesterday once again and pulled up the old sound file.

Thankfully my faithful computer has survived that long and noticed that pretty much everything that I Listened to and said I would want to talk about that was already what I had marked and talked about two years ago.

But had forgotten that I had talked about. It's just a sign of age, unfortunately as many of you know, I mentioned on my blog back when I was in London back in November that Frank Beckwith's book returned to Rome.

Confessions of an evangelical Catholic had come out from Brazos press. Why the president of the Evangelical Theological Society left his post and returned to the Catholic Church. I'm not sure that I like that title because he Went back to the Catholic Church and had seemed to fully intend to remain as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

So it wasn't well, I'm going to leave my position so that I can go back to Rome. That's not really what happened. But I also understand that Subtitles on books are sometimes forced upon you by people in publishing houses that really shouldn't be doing things like that be that as it may.

I Mentioned on the blog a couple days ago the possibility of putting together sort of a group of folks I know that with the debates coming up in in May in Milwaukee the trip back to New Jersey in June Australia over the summer the possibility of return trip to London at the end of of the year.

And and everything else in between that I'm once again doing the let's bite off as much as you can possibly do. So that you're I would say I'd be constantly running around with my hair on fire. But I've been doing that for so long that it doesn't really matter anymore.

And so given that dr. Beck with a book is only 144 pages long and that includes the end notes and no indices. It's it struck me that it might be better to have a group of folks and one of the folks that has been.

Not so subtly pushing.

That there be a response to this book is actually joined me in studio here and not by his own choice. No. Brought brought a bar to Luce. Yes. I'm gonna do the Jackie Gleason now. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna hum and I'm glad I'm glad you you know we talked yesterday, and you said hey.

Why don't you come down to the studio and watch and watch yeah? And so I came prepared to watch and then you sit me down in front of a microphone. Well, but you're a preacher and so preachers like to sit in front of yes, and do things like that so.

But but at least I got a good night's sleep last night very good. And it's and and back in that tell us about your church back back east give us a little information. Oh, it's a it's a wonderful church.

I wish I had a lot of time to talk about it, but Clarkson Community Church it's in a rural suburb outside of Rochester, New York and I was warm there here. No, no, and that's why you know we have family my wife.

And I have family out here, and so we like to come out here and this time year and hopefully get back to spring. But Clarkson Church. I've been there six plus years was a church one of the oldest churches in Monroe County where Rochester is and Clarkson Community Church was established in 18 16.

Sanctuary was built in 1825 two subsequent additions but had gone through really a hard time and had declined to about 40 50 people and Some good godly core group of people said hey, you know well, what you know what are we looking for?

What is this church need and they said you know we really need a historic preacher and expositor and My desire wasn't to go to such a small church, but I told them when they called me up in fact I told them what we want we really would like to stay in the Arizona area.

That's where all our family is and all and last I checked Rochester was not very close to, Arizona. But I said the magic words. And God just continued to open the doors and the church was not Sovereign grace oriented and just naturally naturally moved in that way.

I'm not a manipulator. But I just came and started preaching the word pretty unusual. It can be very tough. I talked with a fellow. Actually, you may have run into him in our chat channel just a couple nights ago.

And he's been trying to bring a church for quite some time that direction and has run into the proverbial brick wall and Especially when I speak at Founders Conference meetings and stuff talk to a lot of guys in that situation so when you find a group of folks that are are willing to Do what needs to be done light of the Word of God?

It's that's a big blessing. There's a lot of a lot of folks get. They good they go through a lot. Yeah, they get one of my seminary professors said it was sheep shudder. You know you start teaching the doctrines of grace, and they say that's not fair and Let's get a kick out of that.

You're pretty good at doing that. Yes, that's good now Frank Beckwith book you you would come into chat channel Aaron Swallow and go. I can't believe what he's saying. And I'm taking all these notes. Is there something in your background maybe that would cause you to oh, yeah?

I'm being my last name is Bartolucci. Yeah with my Italian heritage is very much Roman Catholic and God you were born into. Yes, and God in his grace. I mean you look at my extended family, and it's all Roman Catholic.

God in his grace called my dad to saving faith first when I was about a junior in high school, and I was very antagonistic against him and had some run-ins with them that God was working in my heart, and I Came to believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

My life was transformed. I realized what it you know I never knew what what he meant that Christ died on the cross and. And he was still up there. Yes exactly and and then I had the wonderful Just blessing of leading my mom to saving faith in Christ in 1983 and she was delivered from alcoholism.

Through that so I've seen the dramatic change in our family the love that we have for Jesus Christ and understanding of his word. It's not religion. It's regeneration as I like to say and I've been able to witness the rest of my family who is Involved in Roman Catholicism and yet You know the lights just not on James.

I think you know what I'm talking about, but So when you read something like this, it's It's more than just simply an academic Exercise you're you're listening to someone who's basically making excuses for a system that simply doesn't offer hope and.

So it's much more much more personal so. That's what's behind that so Basically, you know you were talking about the fact that you've you've typed up all this information from the book and everything else him.

Of course I'm listening to people utilizing Beckwith name now mainly because of The positions that he held specifically as the president evangelical theological society. But not because of him ever having produced any type of meaningful Protestant theology he was a philosopher as a philosopher.

He remains it remains being a philosopher and most of the stuff that he did. He co-authored books on relativism and the abortion issues and and so on and so forth, but as far as Just today. I was I was reading the section where he talks about Starting to attend a Protestant Church, and there was nothing at all about being convinced That the gospel of grace is different than what Rome had.

Nothing like that at all. It's just well you know some Protestants were nice to me, and they invited me to go to church and They seemed to be living out their faith. He does sort of say and I really had not seen anything like this in the Roman Catholic Church.

But you know there's there's I I don't read in here. And did not listen in in the the cocal interview. I did not hear him saying I was convinced that the gospel of sola fide and sola gratia Was absolutely true and that Rome did not possess it.

I don't hear him right. No no not at all and Much like I see some parallels in his arguments to the new perspective on Paul. And I see I don't see it a doctrine of regeneration. About as close as he comes to it as the Roman Catholic doctrine of being born again at baptism Taking John chapter 3 right in that direction, but I don't see a doctrine of regeneration.

And it just obviously what you and I would be looking for because when if if if one of us. If you or I did what he did you would expect I would expect if I met with you. Or I called you up, and I heard that you had done.

There's something like that I would expect to hear some really strong reasoning that I once Placed my faith here. I said I would live and die on on this hill. I've now abandoned that hill and here's why.

Mm-hmm. But that's not what I hear with Frank Beckwith in fact the thing that drove me nuts listening to him and Greg Coakle and Greg Coakle Was a tough tough spot to be in. Very tough spot to be in he came out of Roman Catholicism.

And he does say that he says this is the hill to die on and this is I had never heard this. And this is not what Rome teaches and all the Roman Catholic priests I've ever talked to have said X Y Z to me, and you're telling me something else.

And so this is you know how am I supposed to really know I felt for him? But still one of the things that drove me nuts listening this interview again was the almost the jocularity in Some of the responses that Beckwith offered like I expected Trent to be poking you in the eyes about it, and and I was like It just grated to hear these vitally important issues, and you could tell when when Beckwith got to the point where no more no more of these questions about indulgences and all the rest of stuff I just I want a safe place to tell my story and and You know what what was Coco supposed to do at that point?

You know it was. But I just did not get that sense of someone who had been passionate and now. And you know James to look at that argument Backwards you also get the sense as you go through the book that he never really entirely left Roman Catholicism.

Oh exactly exact in fact. That's one of the things that we need to address it. What I'm basically saying here is Thanks to brother Bartolucci is pushing pushing along here. I think it'd be one of the things that I've already talked to and I and I Need to mention this to you, and you're gonna find out now I've already talked about four guys who are very good in this area and They've all said I'd love to do this and so if you can get five six guys Who right in this area have experience in this area?

To contribute yes Wow all of a sudden many hands make light work and There's the key issues. He's gonna be bringing up You know obviously authorities of issue the issue of authority. The journey of justification the idea that that stuff, which is what I would be addressing.

There's the church history stuff that needs to be addressed the soul scripture stuff that needs to be addressed and we've got some great guys who are experienced writers that that we can we're gonna be putting all this stuff together and and Writing response to dr. Beckwith, but one of the things does need to be addressed is Was well let me let me let me play it again.

I mean this is this is what he himself says. I've been I was thinking when I was driving out here because I've thought about your comment that I'm not gonna be a Roman Catholic apologist. It occurred to me since your your change to Catholicism is based on the fact that you think Roman Catholicism Represents the true church.

Why wouldn't you be a Roman Catholic apologist, and I think you mentioned before well You're kind of mere Christianity. We talked about this in the phone, but wouldn't mere Christianity now be Roman Catholicism.

No, therefore it'd be appropriate to promote that or I was never really a Protestant apologist.

I was never really a Protestant apologist and at the beginning of the interview He talks about how? Even at that Boston College thing where the seeds were planted. Why aren't you a Catholic. Because he had been promoting some stuff the John Paul II and said he mentioned just in passing.

You have to actually listen carefully to hear it. He had been responding to some reformed criticisms of natural law and. So if you look at the people that he was involved with Coming from the Norman Geisler perspective there's a strong element of Roman Catholicism Jesuits in you know Fordham University etc etc went to you know.

He was at Dallas there when he gave that thing and that's again. That's where Mitch Pack was speaking. And I I just just in passing hadn't read the stuff about Pacwa at Martin's or nation until I read this book that was like Oh really.

Fascinating. Well You know I'm wondering maybe we could have a chapter Entitled can you have your cake and eat it to addressing the whole ecumenical issue because he? He really does want to have his cake and eat it, too.

He wants to affirm his Evangelical past and his friends as brothers in the Lord and yet also wants to defend the Roman Catholic Church as the true church. Them having the correct way to justification, but with the idea that well you're okay, too.

You're gonna. You're gonna enter the kingdom also. And then what what I've read from Trent and the unum sanctum and was a 1302 of the bulletin sanctum and Trent Vatican one. You know I don't know things have changed.

Yes. Yes. You know and that is the big issue. I mean does anyone really know what Rome teaches any longer. I mean, let's face it. Almost everything that Coco and Beckwith were talking about regards to justification and indulgence and stuff like that.

How many of the magisterium today? I mean how many of the European bishops are? Not I mean they're clearly inclusivists if not to the point of being mere Universalists any longer now obviously for me that deeply impacts Rome's claims to Infallible authority over time there's got to be consistency over time you can't you can't be going.

You know I remember asking Roberts and Janice once I I sent him that those quotes like from from the Council of Florence where it was saying the Jews and schismatics and Heretics cannot have eternal life and so on and then I quoted a recent thing from John Paul the second one of his more liberal you know universalistic inclusivistic types type statements and His response was well James the church Interprets what the church has always meant and so if the church today Decides that what it was saying back in the 1400s It was inclusivistic then it's inclusivist.

Yeah, now whether anybody back then would have ever dreamed that that's what was being said is irrelevant. And I I can't help but think of a book that I'm actually rereading right now on my Kindle called 1984.

Where you just um you know you can change the past? It's it's you know. Just by the way you think mm-hmm, but weren't we refreshed when Cardinal Ratzinger our present Pope came out and said There's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

I mean the National Council of Churches went ballistic. But I think the rest of us said yes, you know good, but see, but he's doing this. Let's face it if you're the the pontiff in Rome you have to do the same thing JP2 was doing and that is it's like it's almost like it's a two-year cycle one year you throw out the conservative bones for the Conservative side and the next year you throw out the liberal bones for the liberal side, and he's doing the same thing one year.

It's the there's no salvation outside of the church and then the next year it's some inclusivistic statements or Luther was right if understood correctly blah blah blah blah blah blah and that's the only way to keep this massively diverse group of people together and protect the myth of.

Well we are the unified one church. What do you mean you're the unified one church? That's what I'm really enjoying I imagine you're probably enjoying to James Swann's articles on on the on the blog where he's pitting all these Catholics against each other on their biblical interpretation and It and how they get around even admitting today.

He put one up I'm not sure if you've seen it yet where he demonstrates at Tim Staples in Patrick Madrid read the Luke 16 text and the and the and the Man in you know Lazarus and Abraham's bosom and the rich man's of Staples says rich man is in hell and that that is the majority view of the church, but he actually admits that Patrick Madrid puts him in purgatory and It's sort of like Wow, you know you guys keep talking about how soul scripture is a blueprint for anarchy.

But exactly how does that work on your end of things here? You know it's it's great to have that you know people putting that type of stuff out there. Well, that's the frustrating thing is that then the default position as well those weren't infallible statements, right?

Oh, yeah, and who knows which in which statements were infallible and and of course the what I emphasize with Tim Staples in our debate. Many many moons ago in was that already nine years ago two thousand and Fullerton man.

That's that's like that seems like it was very very recent, but as I pressed on him How did anybody in the days of honorius know that honorius his letter was just his own personal opinion? How would anybody know these things you you get to be hundreds of years later, and the church is sort of you know?

Swept the stuff on the rug and now they've you know clean up the mess. How do you know you don't know? How do you know that what's that's a lumen gentium or or a human a vitae or whatever else? 50 years hundred years from now is just going to be viewed as some personal opinion of someone and you know sloughed off the way that So often unum sanctum is today.

It just it just doesn't work and yet we hear these people pushing this stuff all the time well anyway There are just a couple things. I want to get here Patrick. We've got it. We got a call We'll get to you after the break, but I wanted to play just some of the some of the clips here.

Get your comments on it and It just I don't know there was so many things here I was noticing just a few moments ago in the book a brief discussion of James chapter 2 and I I was looking at the the references in the back and of course I didn't I couldn't be overly Impressed with the sources.

I just don't see any evidence that Frank Beckwith I mean have you done any work on the timeline because it seemed to me that from his description to Greg Koukl this was this happened pretty quickly. Basically he says he really started diving into reading in January and by April right had converted.

That's I by his own account in the first part of the book which is Biographical I came up with about three months three months. Yeah, and I'm like alright, so I look for a bibliography. No bibliography.

I looked through the end is it no indices, so you have to start looking through the notes and I'm Not You know overly impressed with the References as far as it doesn't strike me That he looked at a lot of what has been written in response to modern Roman Catholic apologetics and theology I just don't see any evidence that that he did and he would be the first one to admit that that really wasn't his field.

That's what led to the big brouhaha where he accused me of dishonesty because I just I just let his own words speak for himself. This was this was I don't know if you remember this. But this is this is the section that got me in trouble.

Let's let's listen to it. Well go ahead Frank.

Yeah, now you know the number of things that that you know I've I've had to work through intellectually and spiritually through this entire process and one of the things that You know some of the passages you mentioned.

Especially when the term law is used. I mean it's clear to me from reading a number of these passages that when Paul talks about especially in In certain sections of Romans, but not the entirety of Romans, but he's talking about the Mosaic Law and he's actually addressing the question of To the Mosaic Law in order to be joined the church.

And that's the sort of thing that I think he's dealing with in those cases. Do you don't think there's any in a sense?

Parallel to that even if it's not precisely the Mosaic Law that's in view. But any other system of human works that is placed in addition to the work I think that I think that let me stop at this for a moment make comment on it.

It's it's amazing to me to listen to either newly minted reverts or. What's even worse is to listen to evangelicals who start dialoguing with Roman Catholics? And all of a sudden I come up with the Wow Roman Catholics talk about grace.

And in fact the Council of Trent and athematizes anyone who says you can be saved apart from grace. Wow, the Catholics believe in grace and I just want to hit myself with something very hard and heavy because clearly that Protestant or that revert or whatever has never done any reading in in Reformation polemics or anything like that whatsoever.

Clearly I've never read the Council of Trent as I think dr. Beck was gonna admit here in a moment, but That argument is so old that a lot of people don't know this, but I have a Book from Jonathan Edwards on Justification by faith he actually wrote most most people are not aware of that.

They've read his stuff on free wills. Will there be rights book on justification by faith and one of the main arguments that he takes up is responding to Rome. Saying that the law that Paul is talking about is the law of Moses.

It's only the ceremonies that was in the 1700s. There's nothing new here. People just keep retreading it because evangelicals today don't know anything about church history and There there is I think a major difference between a former Roman Catholic who is convicted that I needed to be a former Roman Catholic because Rome does not possess the gospel and Someone who's a former Roman Catholic on the basis of taste.

It's easier for me to do what I want to do as a Protestant than as a Catholic. But hey, you know, it's no big deal. It's okay. I I can. I can you know. Sort of get along one way or the other and It strikes me that what he's just about to say about the Council Trent not I'm maybe poisoning the well here but for those of you who maybe are new to the program and didn't go back and listen to everything that we've done in the past because not everybody can be algo, but It seems to me the way he's about to say is he had never seriously looked at the Council of Trent before this period of time.

He's gonna say he had been misled earlier. He had talked about studying under Montgomery and stuff like that and Lutherans and stuff like that and he says he was misled. Well when someone says I was misled, I don't know how you mislead somebody about a book.

You've actually read. How can the book mislead you know, you're you're a misled on Secondhand I was they misreported to me. What was actually in the Council of Trent and since I didn't check for myself, whatever that seems to be what he says.

He denies that now says oh, no. No, I read the Council of Trent blah blah blah. Well, you listen and see if that makes any sense.

Absolutely, right. Also, you can also apply to any human works that are done without the grace of God in other words One is saved initially that if they want to regenerate initially holy by the work of God in his grace.

That is pretty clear. Mm-hmm, and that's the view that's been held From Augustin believe it or not through the Council of Trent. Mm-hmm. If you read the Council of Trent, which by the way really shocked me.

I was I Expected to read the this sort of horrible Document, you know requiring people to stick pins in their eyes and you know and flagellate themselves. Oh, and it turns out that there are things in there that that are that are quite amazing.

That that that that the initial grace is given to us by God. In fact, there's a condemnation in there for anyone who says that our works depart from grace. Okay. Well, here's again. And this is so and I thought to myself I had not been told I had been.

Misinformed right. I had been misinformed. Well your own eyes cannot misinform you if you had been reading the words on the page. You would not be misinformed clearly what he's saying was I had not read the Council of Trent.

I had just taken what I had been told by Montgomery and by other Lutherans and so on so forth and Now as I dove into this period of reading early church writings and so on so forth and it seems to me It wasn't so much early church writings as compilations of early church writings by Catholic apologists.

And then I read the Council Trent and I was shocked. I was amazed well, I could not be amazed. By reading a book that I had already read so it just strikes me that one of the issues that we're going to need to address is In fact, it might come out like in in the in the title, you know Swimming the Tiber is the big is the big way of describing going in Roman Catholicism.

But here you have a revert going back across the Tiber well how far across had he come in the first place. Had he not been in essence waiting in the shallow waters on the Protestant side all along. I mean his view of man his view of grace his view of natural law were all Much more Roman than then certainly Calvinistic and I think it does say something about The the the Geisler's the world and the people like them.

Where they've made these compromises and stepped away from a fully biblical position the results We might be seeing right here in someone like Frank Beckwith. Yeah, I know James. You may you may know that I I started a sermon series in our church and I entitled it drowning in the Tiber.

If that would be a good yeah, I was I think waiting in the Tiber. You know paddling around the Tiber something along those lines because it just seems to me that very clearly there are a lot of folks who if we use the Tiber as a simile as a as an example of the divide between a Biblical gospel and the Roman Catholic perversion thereof.

There's a lot of people who think that they are Protestants, but they are floating down the Tiber River in a rubber tube drinking a beer because they they just. They they have not gotten out on the other side and turn around and shaken off the the dust they are Protestants of convenience not Protestants of conviction and Personally, you know people like well, you're really upset about Beckwith not really because that doesn't surprise me.

It does not surprise me when I see people Going more deeply into false religion. Because I do believe that so many evangelical churches are filled with driftwood with people who are there for all sorts of reasons other than the conviction of the gospel and.

And I think that we I think that we see that taking place I'll tell you what. Do we really need to take a break or can we we're just gonna fly right through the break here and Invite your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three Three three four one is the phone number.

Go ahead and stay there with me brother while we take a phone call here. It's not quite in the same subject. But who knows maybe it'll be somewhat relevant. Let's head over to An interesting interesting place on the surface of the earth called, California and talk with Patrick.

Hi Patrick. How you doing?

Dr. What. It's a great in-studio discussion today. I feel bad asking an off-topic question.

Well, we'll find some of truly imaginative way to get. But go ahead you call right at the beginning of the program so you've been very very patient.

Well, thank you very much for taking my call. I want to get your opinion on something that I heard in the George Bryson debate if you could comment very briefly. It's the idea That basically you're a Calvinist.

But he won't take responsibility. For being an Arminian, he's just a Christian right? And so then he starts to attack you about Calvin's comments Calvinist from history. But he can't be held to that same standard.

Because he's just a Christian. Mm-hmm. He doesn't have any sort of worldview and and and I've ran into our minions that are like that. Yeah. All the time. They want to attack you about history. They bring up surveyed us And all sorts of things and what's what's a good way to Deal with that sort of argumentation.

Well.

You have identified something that we've all experienced and that is especially people who have come from a Background where they are exposed to a very narrow spectrum. Let's face it. That's pretty much all of us I mean, we're we're primarily comfortable with what we hear within our own church.

And if you're fortunate enough blessed enough to be raised within the church, it's pretty natural for a young person For example to find somebody else's views to be really weird or strange or something like that.

Because you've not heard that in your upbringing or something like that set that's understandable. Hopefully there is a process of maturing over time whereby that changes in the sense that you Recognize you start prioritizing your beliefs and seeing what's core and what's secondary and things like that and one of the problems a lot of Evangelicals have is coming up with that priority and sometimes putting the weight in the wrong place.

Rather than the gospel and who Christ is and the authority of scriptures that ends up out on some eschatological Limb someplace and and they're willing to divide over stuff like that. So it's not uncommon to encounter people who upon hearing about quote-unquote Calvinism Assume that their position is the default position.

And this is what everyone's always believed because well that's what everybody at my church believes and they don't realize that they've come to their position or the people who taught them their Theology came to their position through a historical process themselves.

And so it is necessary often to You know sort of challenge the well, I'm not anything I'm just a biblical Christian idea and you go. Well, you know, that's exactly what I want to be as well but many people who claim to be biblical Christians will grab hold of all sorts of External things and read them into the text of Scripture so it's very important that we do identify where we come down so that we can examine our own position to see whether we're Following a particular tradition.

We're bringing a particular traditional Understanding to the text and it can be very uncomfortable for someone to be challenged on that level and have someone saying, you know You're understanding. There isn't the Word of God.

It's your understanding of what you think the Word of God is saying and I've said many times that I think the most glowing example of How far this can take you into into an area of trouble was Dave Hunt when he and I had that discussion back in 2000 and he he gave this completely isogetical interpretation of John chapter 6 and I simply said to him Dave that those are your traditions speaking and his honest and I believe Dave Hunt Means what he said.

He said to me James I have no traditions and I really think that that's exactly what he thinks. The problem though then is his Tradition becomes the Word of God you question his tradition and you're questioning the Word of God and that's why so many of Dave Hunt's followers can call me a God hater and a Bible hater and a false teacher and blah blah blah blah because they really see that as an attack upon the Word of God itself and so it does take a conversation with a person and one that.

And my suggestion to you would be something along these lines. Sometimes the way to get a person to see this kind of thing is to raise a a separate issue that they don't have as much emotional investment in and Demonstrate how there can be traditional understandings in that area and then Transition back into what we're talking about to say now.

You know your position actually has a historical name. And it's developed over time and are you aware that you know, you're taking this position this position you're making this assertion. Sadly, the vast majority of evangelicals have are not challenged in their churches any longer to test their own beliefs and to recognize that they have not just a worldview but a an entire theological paradigm and People can get very very uncomfortable when you start causing them to bring together.