A Special Pre-Debate Dividing Line

I was gonna say good afternoon. Welcome and then everything just sort of died and I don't have a monitor in here Anyways, so I didn't know what was going on. So hey, it's Friday and rich only guarantees semi-professional work on two dividing lines in a week.

We have caused him to do overtime and therefore no monitor. No sound, you know, whatever. That's just sort of how it works. Why are we doing a program on a Friday afternoon when? Everybody is busy doing other things.

Well, uh. This morning. I watched a video from Professor Layton flowers I'm wondering if this is the same mosquito that was attacking me Wednesday night I was I was telling folks Wednesday. I cut it out when I posted the the the sermon online but I've reached that time in life where I Used to wonder why old people looked so spastic to me.

But now I realized what happens is you get these things called floaters in your eyes and you can't tell whether they're mosquitoes or not. Oh Okay, I was moving fast that's normally not a floater, you know, you just look really dumb doing that.

But this was actually a mosquito. It was a kamikaze guys going for my eyes. I was like, whoa, okay. Wow, it's pretty wild. We got one in here, too. So, um, if I all of a sudden start doing strange things is because I I saw him Against the computer screen or something.

Anyways, I Saw a video a pre-debate message video, I guess Layton flowers took. You know something I did in a previous that just back in what July I did a pre-debate video Before the open theism debate, so I guess that was the idea here, too.

And so I I don't know how long this is gonna be. I just want to respond to some sections of it it's an hour long and I Listened to it Watched it's not all exciting to watch. I have much prettier background than then Layton has which sort of looks like.

Well, someone's that looked like a bathroom stall, but thankfully it's not that it's some sort of a cardboard something I don't know hard to say anyway. But we we both wear the same t-shirts, which is a good thing, which means he shops at tarjay.

When you buy clothes, it's tarjay when you buy eggs, it's target. That's just how that works case. You're wondering anyway. And There there are a lot of things I wanted to say. Thankfully, I didn't take notes.

I couldn't take notes. I was I was doing a horrifically hard Ride on my trainer and I'm really just ridiculously so and So I didn't have an opportunity to take notes. So I just sort of picked the section that I specifically noted in my mind To look at some sections of it fundamentally.

The Real Difference Between the Two Sides

Not if this isn't the case in every debate. But it certainly is the case in this one we both think the other guy just doesn't get it. Just you know, I've read some of the comments of some of the some of the people on his blog or and You know, I just don't get it.

I don't understand class selection. I can read All these books and if you don't repeat it exactly like that, then you don't get it well, and that's how they interpret us saying well, you don't get it and and so.

Yeah, there's there's not a whole lot of communication going on and and I don't know what the debates gonna change that. Obviously the debate would be a better debate if there was a lot of communication and clarity.

I Don't know if that's gonna happen. I I You know What one thing I did learn from this. And I am I'm putting all of the relevant materials on my iPod. I'm doing a huge ride up around topping out around 7 ,000 feet tomorrow and Yeah, and In that process I'm going to be listening to all sorts of stuff.

But one thing that sort of worried me to be honest with you was the fact that Layton flowers said well if you want to know my view of Romans 9 listen to Steve Gregg. Oh, you didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah, rich just fell off his chair in the other room.

Yeah, Steve Gregg. Really? And so I I asked Layton on on Twitter just a few hours ago. I said so. Would you agree with? Steve Gregg who said that the Apostle Paul could have said no. That he could have rejected the Call of Christ on the road to Damascus and he said yes.

Now, of course, he said but would you have rejected that call? And so the idea is oh, but just think how convincing it is to be knocked off your horse. Well Case you haven't noticed God knocks people off their horses all the time in the sense that We according to the Bible live in a world that testifies of the existence of God to the point where?

Man is unapologetic without an apologetic so In light of that man's ability to suppress the knowledge of God is unparalleled and Unless the Spirit of God takes out the heart of stone gives a heart of flesh.

Yeah, there's going to be continued resistance and yes if God had not changed Paul's heart Um Paul would have resisted any kind. I mean he could come up with reasons he could have. He could have said this is this is demonic.

This is against Moses. I'm gonna stand with the father's, you know. There's all sorts of things you could have done so obviously we Fundamentally what you're going to see in this debate. And and please pray that that both sides will be able to be very clear in the expression of their position.

So there will be a very sharp distinction. What's your what you're gonna see in in this debate? I believe the fundamental difference between us is the difference between a theocentric theology and philosophy and an anthropocentric theology and philosophy when you define God's freedom in light of your creaturely experience rather than allowing the scriptures To define the extent and meaning of God's freedom and then from that come to understand what man's Responsibilities man's nature is all the difference in the world all the difference in the world and what you're gonna see is How that impacts exegesis and obviously from my perspective The way to see how this debate answers the question is To ask who is consistent in their application of a hermeneutic to the text in their interpretation the text of Scripture.

Professor flowers directly in this in this video said that I Am more consistent in my theology at the expense of the text. I Obviously took great offense at that and will would love to have him attempt to prove that.

And that's what this debate is about because obviously from my perspective, that's exactly what professor flowers does is he has a system of theology that's based upon certain presuppositions that he Specifically will say is based in mystery and he'll say I do the same thing I do not but he'll say that will show the difference at this point, but He takes that system and then what he ends up doing with Scripture again for me one of the reasons that it's generally my side that's looking for these encounters and the other side that isn't is That I have seen over and over and over and over again When you get the two sides in the room at the same time, like we did with George Bryson the difference in Exegesis and consistency in handling the text becomes very striking becomes very very striking.

So the the topic of course is Romans chapter 9 and That's got to be the the central focus but there will be a portion in the debate where There will be a little broader discussion I would imagine and certainly the audience questions as few as they may be I You know, I look at the schedule and I don't care how Much a moderator cracks the web I've never seen a debate really stay on schedule it just It's just it's just really not possible to do and so we'll we'll see how much comes as far as questions at the end but The way to to look at this debate is to ask the question who's being consistent and In light of that my hope is that we'll be able to see the difference between a very much free will autonomous will Man-centeredness and A focus that starts with God's free will the nature of God and Does not circumscribe him on the basis of well He can't do these things because then it would mean this and therefore our we won't allow that I think professor flowers Probably agrees with Roger Olson's Fundamental assertion least Roger Olson's wide open with it Where he says if God is like the God of Calvin, this isn't and by the way, this isn't Roger Olson.

I One of the things I've really wanted to do and I and I hope you know hope to find time There's just there's just so many things Is I want to review Wesley's sermon? Against Calvinism that so offended Whitfield and That was really the foundation of the division between John Wesley and and and Whitfield back in those those early days of the origins of Methodism and because What Olson is saying is really not much different than what John Wesley was saying and what Roger Olson basically says is if if God turned out to be as the Calvinists say he is I Would not worship him.

I And That that seems to be the essence of this argumentation and that is well God cannot be culpable. Therefore. These things cannot be true and as I've explained many many times what professor flowers does and what many of the individuals in the Southern Baptist Convention who are attempting vainly I would suggest to stem the tide of The knowledge of these things amongst especially amongst the younger generation of ministers is They will they will fundamentally dismiss the meaning fullness and weight of The means that God has chosen to use they just go straight to the decree Ignore the means and Say well if God decreed it skip all this stuff here where he is glorified his attributes are demonstrated and the incarnation takes place put all that stuff out of the side because I didn't realize the matter and you go straight to the final question and that means he has no ground to condemn anybody and Of course, I've said over and over again and he seems to I'll play in here in a second seems to not have heard me That that's the problem that You know, I don't know how many times I can say it but the incarnation proves and demonstrates that the means that God has chosen to bring about his own glorification is vitally important to God and therefore should be to us and So when you just move it out of the way and go from well if there is a decree Therefore he can't judge.

Then you've missed All that biblical teaching about the nature of man image-bearing the very grounds upon which God defines culpability for man. Isaiah chapter 10 I mean Let me just point out to If I could find my Well, this is this is nice.

Oh, there we go. My cursor is stuck on the other computer. Teleport has just gone blah but If I could just point out something here. Well, it's not going to let me point out something here because I I can't enter any.

I Do wish they would fix that little little thing. It's a wonderful thing to have when it works. When you have two computers, but when you when you don't have them working together anymore it's sort of oh.

Can you go back over here now? Let's go back here and back over to this computer. Watch out watch how this works the date the date the day. Well, I would really hate to do this it would be sort of funny if I if I ended up having to do it that way.

Now I refuse to reach down there for the LDS quad. That's yeah, no, no, no, I can't I can't I cannot do this it is it is inappropriate to do that. It just It would cause me I would Cause me some kind of hives or something like that.

Not use the new world translation either. That's that's inappropriate, too. So we'll just go over to this computer and Turn. I wish I could turn the teleport off but It will not it will not do so it is in a full state of rebellion.

First time that's ever happened. Isaiah chapter 10. I Would like to ask some questions as to how this text can be understood if the idea of Autonomy and I would point out that what does what does autonomous will mean?

What what what does that communicate because that is a term that Professor flowers is going to use he's going to use the term autonomy and autonomous will. What does autonomy mean? It means self-law.

Autos and namas. Self-rule self-law and If that's if that's the kind of of Understanding we are to have then. Please please explain to me what's going on in Isaiah chapter 10 because we know that God brings The king of Assyria Against Samaria and Jerusalem.

As my hand has reached the kingdoms of the idols whose carved images were greater than those Jerusalem Samaria. Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols as I have done to Samaria and her images? Okay.

When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion on Jerusalem He will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes so God brings Assyria Against Israel and Punishes Israel according to the very law That he had given in Deuteronomy 28 and 29.

Have you ever noticed there's more about the curses? And you're not me 28 29 there is about blessings. Use the Syria. And then he turns around and he punishes a Syria and this is prophetic. I will do this.

Not well, you know, I just didn't know this was gonna happen. I brought a Syria and I you know Syria looked like a good a good instrument to use and so I brought a Syria against Israel and lo and behold a serious starts acting and does so sinfully.

What would you expect their pagans? And so now I will I will punish them that's that's not. That makes no sense. This is prophetic. This is what he's going to do. And then he says he knows what the motivations of the heart of the king of Assyria is going to be and he is going to punish them on the basis of The motivations of their heart.

How does how does self-law? How does autonomy? Function in a contest context. That's what I'd like to know. That's that I think is is important. To understand. Those are that's one of the one of the main questions.

All right. There also is a well, I'm trying to get trying to get anything to work on this thing right now and Unfortunately, it is not cooperating with anything whatsoever so you do the control alt delete in the Mac version and Restart it.

That's the only way to only way to do it. It lost all all input so I couldn't even I couldn't even start the video. It has never happened before how many how many years how many years of? Have I been using one of these and that's never happened before.

But but I should be honest, let's be honest, that's not a Mac program. That's somebody's hack and Unfortunately, obviously, huh? No, not if you hack them they're not Excuse me how many how many times that we had to reset this beast and started late and things like that because you got the Will they call that so so the blue screen of day is that BSD blue screen of death?

Has Wirecast running a Mac Sam broadcaster running a Mac it doesn't know they probably have significantly more. That's just I just don't have it anyway, oh, I'm sure but trust me I'm sure they do anyway so issues of autonomy, I think are going to maybe come up.

I I Don't know where the debates gonna go because it's supposed to be focused upon the text until the last section where we allow other text to come in maybe Briefly some of those things come up at that point.

I it's really hard to predict. It's hard to It's hard to know and like I said the audience questions come after if I work if I'm recalling correct. And I looked at it just this morning. The audience questions come right at the end after the closing statements and You know sometimes you can't avoid that to be pretty honest with you.

But the audience questions will often take you far far far away from where? You Wanted to be or where you thought you'd be or you plan to be whatever else it might be along those lines and Audience questions, especially on this topic are probably not going to be focused on what we were actually talking about they'll be focused upon a wide variety of of other things and That's just the way it is.

Compatibilist Choice, Creaturely Freedom, and Moral Responsibility

Well, we're not get very far if we don't actually play I Think if I recall correctly, I put it at about about 10 minutes worth of stuff here. I'm gonna have to go back here To Where I was approximately and That means I'm gonna probably be starting in the middle of a sentence or something like that.

So I apologize for that, but that's just what happens when you have to reset it. Do you have the window you got it? All right. Let's let's let's.

It's all plugged in. Let's try it. It is controversial choice or libertarian free will which is the The ability to refrain or not refrain from any given moral action to select between two available options and that the both options have to Actually be available for you to select them.

And so I'm wondering I still don't know how you would define choice the word choice to fit compatibilistic understanding of.

Again late you said you were a Calvinist. That's one of the things that you know. You've you've probably thought that I'm just pretty nasty to you and stuff like that. Look when someone comes along and says I was a Calvinist and the first things I saw from you were I'm a former Calvinist and now I know it's all wrong.

And then you listen to things you look at stuff and you go any Calvinist would know how to answer that question. When I mean when you became a Calvinist you didn't think about these things these are these are the these are the issues that cross my mind.

Obviously I Just simply come back and say I define choice based upon biblical parameters. Did Herod exercise a choice. Answer? Yes. Was Herod held accountable for the choice he made. Answer. Yes. Did what Herod?

Is it clear from Acts chapter 4 that what Herod did was a part of God's eternal decree? Answer yes. Now you have to reject some biblical aspect of the Revelation. To Ignore. You know to come up with this idea of autonomy that Herod's Herod's namas Was above God's namas.

God's decree. Could Herod have done other than what he did in regards to the betrayal of Jesus Pilate Judas the Jewish leaders. Could Jesus have had to come more than once because someone chose to do things differently and Ended up undercutting the sacrificial giving the Son of God.

So could he have had to have been reborn of a virgin at some other later time because he could not accomplish That which was foiled by even the good intentions of man. You see Leighton you want to you want to say?

Oh, I just like to stick with the text. I want to try to avoid philosophy, but you have all sorts of philosophical underpinnings and if you don't. And if you simply say well, I can't answer the Bible doesn't answer those questions you Therefore are saying I am going to come to biblical conclusions based upon presuppositions.

I say the Bible doesn't give me and so you're putting the Bible under an external authority. You are coming to conclusions. You're saying Calvinism is wrong. It can't be that whatever else it is and Yet when I try to go well and you discussed in here What you know, what's the relationship between God's knowledge and what takes place in time?

I mean Steve Gregg is playing around with open theism from his perspective and I've noticed a couple people in Twitter Who were saying basically the same thing about you? They were saying he's an open theist and he doesn't realize he's an open theist.

He's just hasn't gotten there yet. Because people are seeing that if you were pressed for consistency and Layton if you were going outside of the boundaries of What your ministry is right now? You would be pressed on those issues for consistency and if you were I think you would have to you'd have to choose to go one way or the other.

And So I I just anyway choice what what is a compatibilistic choice and be specific if you could. Creaturely freedom you use that terminology instead of free will or something of that nature. And I you know, I Avoid the word free will to because I think it has the wrong connotations.

Because our will is not as free as it could be obviously and it's not as free as God's obviously we have limitations. No matter how much I may want to know a minute. There is a.

Fundamental difference in The nature of God's will versus man's will wouldn't you agree with that? Ours is derivative from his. But when you are by nature Absolutely unique and Independent from the created order Isn't the nature of your will gonna be fundamentally different than the creatures.

It's not just that he is more free. It's that the very nature of God's will as An absolute and the only absolute being. Again the nature of God determines our conclusions on these other things. We don't start from man and reason back to God and then put strictures upon him in light of our experience as human beings and.

Yet, that's really the essence of synergism. It is the essence of the various efforts that man has made to to Restrict and to control the grace of God and make it place it under the control of the autonomous will of man.

That's that's what synergism really is all about.

Arms right now and try to fly. I can't do it because I physical limitations. My will is bound to certain things and I think we would all agree with that. So when I say free will I probably mean something Distinct from what some people may mean when they say we have free will and so you use the term creaturely freedom.

Which I assume has meant from based upon previous discussions means Compatibilistic freedom which John Hendricks on monergism .com. I tried to copy paste and use his definitions. But it obviously failed in doing that.

So.

What he's referring to there was the Failed attempt and I do believe it was a failed attempt because it Ignored the the very nature of the subject that was being addressed. The failed attempt to say that we cannot address the subject of homosexuality as Calvinist and It was it was a a very poor attempt and it did fail badly again.

Creaturely Freedom refers to the fact that we are created as God's creatures and Therefore he gives us certain abilities as image bearers of his they are limited by the way he has made us and We are held accountable For what we do with creaturely freedom.

For example, I do not know the content of the decree of God. I do not know what God has decreed to take place tomorrow. I Cannot be held accountable for that my freedom is circumscribed by my finiteness by my ignorance.

By my nature is a creature by my level of intelligence. The fact the matter is that God holds me accountable within the context that he has made me and placed me. God has under no such limitation in regards to his freedom and The point of all this professor flowers is that the biblical teaching is is that God holds men? Accountable for their actions within the sphere.

He has placed them. You keep trying to raise Questions about how man could not be held accountable within a completely different context within a completely different a context of knowing God's God's sovereign decree In essence to have infallible knowledge.

We do not have infallible knowledge. We are not held accountable for those things the men who crucified Jesus the actual Roman soldiers Will be held accountable for their actions in the context in which they replaced Pilot will have a different nature of accountability.

Because he had greater light Herod will have another kind of accountability because he was a little bit on the loopy side. The Jewish leaders will have the greatest culpability because they had the greatest light they possessed the very Word of God and Yet crucified the Lord of Glory.

So creaturely freedom flows in the fact that we are creatures. It has never been autonomous freedom. It could not be autonomous freedom because multiple autonomous creatures Is a logical impossibility.

I Mean you either gonna have one ultimate ultimately free will or if you have two ultimately free wills They will always clash against one another Unless I suppose the only exception to that rule. The only exception that rule would be within the Godhead itself and you have to have divine unity At that point and that's what brings about the one perfect will of God, even though you have Father Son Holy Spirit so that that actually would substantiate my assertion that you're talking about a situation of almost multiple gods when you have multiple autonomous creatures.

But we're we're straying from getting this actually done sometime today. It's already after 2 30 my time to hear your explanation.

If you could get as detailed at least as John Hendricks was in his article That would be really helpful so that I could at least understand where the diamond. Multidimensional aspects. What you mean by those?

Can you explain those multidimensional aspects or are is that. Is that an appeal to mystery? And if it is as I know John MacArthur appeals to mystery on that point. John Calvin appeals to mystery on that point and most.

Calvinist, what do you mean appeals to mystery on that point? But you say that. But I don't think you keep saying that but I don't think the words mean what you think they mean. If what you mean by that is that God has not revealed to us the content of his divine decree of course if what you mean by that is we can't know what the Bible says on the subject of God being sovereign over all events in time, of course not.

I Mean the Westminster Confession of Faith the London Baptist Confession of Faith. They all say the same things. I Mean the words are pretty straightforward it's not overly difficult to to understand what it's what it's saying and it's it's it's pretty pretty straightforward in the assertions that that what it says and and and What it means is we're not just going well, it's just all mystery.

God who in infinite power and wisdom has created all things upholds directs controls and governs them both animate in an animate great and small. This is the modern language when I just grabbed off the shelf here.

By a province supremely wise and holy in accordance with his infallible foreknowledge and the free and immutable decisions of his will. He fulfills the purposes for which he created them. So his wisdom power and justice together as infinite goodness and mercy might be praised and glorified.

Nothing happens by chance or outside the sphere of God's providence. It's pretty straightforward so so when when you say well they appeal to mystery if if what you mean by that is they recognize that.

The exact contents of God's decree are not known to man, of course, no one would argue with that. What I've said is The Bible is sufficient sir to tell us that God has a sovereign decree that he does whatever pleases him in heaven or on earth and that no one can resist his hand and that he is accomplishing he is working all things after the counsel of his will and.

To say that that's mystery in the sense that well, we don't know I say no we do know. And so I will not appeal to mystery. I will appeal to the direct text of Scripture, which makes these statements Nowhere in Scripture.

We told that man does whatever man pleases we are told the exact opposite of that in the 33rd Psalm man schemes man plots man plans. God frustrates all of them, but everything that God plans he accomplishes.

Who has an autonomous will? In light of Psalm 33 who has an autonomous will man or God? The answer is I think unquestionable absolutely unquestionable and only the adoption of an external philosophy of libertarianism autonomy Can overthrow the clarity of those things?

That appeals a mystery on that question. But I would love to hear your perspective on that and know how you define creaturely freedom and choice in the compatibilistic worldview. Um Next. I mean I can define for you you know in response my definition of freedom or what I would call.

I prefer the term moral responsibility and Responsibility as you've probably heard me say. I believe literally means response able. That person is able to respond to God and so that's a.

Interesting definition of responsible God held The king of Assyria responsible For acting upon the attitudes of his heart. Are you telling me that what that means is the unregenerate pagan king of Assyria?

Had the capacity of doing what is right in God's sight In that context of being brought down against the people of Israel. So so man fallen man. This is where again Romans 5 Fallen an atom. You don't believe that.

I guess if you're a tradition quote-unquote traditionalist, which is a complete Abuse of that term, but that's how it's being used these days. You don't really believe in that. You don't believe it man fell an atom in that sense of that absolute corruption of nature.

Federal headship. Which raises all sorts of questions, but anyway? So man has the capacity in of himself to do what is pleasing to God, right. You know what Romans 4 says about that. Again text after text after text, you know comes into mind at this point and it just.

I'm sure it'll come up in the debate, but when we talk about autonomous will by the way, please understand this. I Believe it was Robert Surginis is a debate if pronouncing his name, right? Hopefully he talks about how he does not affirm autonomous will and it got me thinking about why he was making the distinction.

And and I want to be clear on this point I believe man's will is autonomous in that it makes a choice to sin. The will makes a choice to sin autonomously of God's will in other words separate from. That's what I mean by autonomous separate from.

Distinct from. And there is a separation between our will and God's will when we make a choice to do evil. Okay, so.

Divine Sovereignty, Human Sin, and the Decree of God

What does that mean then To Joseph and his brothers evidently Joseph. Joseph's brothers Autonomously chose to chuck him in a pit. Well, they tried they they tried to autonomously choose to kill him too, but God sort of thwarted that and Then they autonomously chose to deceive their father and Yet did God just come along afterwards and sort of go?

Oh Wow. Joseph's in Egypt. Let me see if I can come up with something to do here with Joseph. That'll be that'll make for some great Sunday school stories cuz I don't know about you. But I've always thought the coat of many colors is really cool.

I mean everybody knows I love Coogee sweaters that that must be where it came from was coat of many colors. That's just my coat of many colors is a Coogee. Maybe that's how it works. I don't know. I mean, it's just I'm sorry sir, but it's so obvious That this is do you recognize sir that that is a Philosophical conclusion not an exegetical conclusion.

I mean given the Bible directly teaches That he who is according the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God cannot is not able so much for autonomy, but is not able and we have multiple examples Given to us of where in the sin of man God's specific prophetically prophesied will is being fulfilled in the crucifixion in the giving of the dreams to Joseph in the words the prophets regarding the coming of the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel that you have Sinful actions of man that clearly without question are a part of the decree of God.

How do you deal with that? Now you want to say well It's separate from the will God does not will that anyone commit evil and what you mean by that is the prescriptive will in his law, he says you shall not you shall honor your father and mother and Joseph's brothers did not do that.

They violated the prescriptive will of God the given. That's why you have to recognize the difference between the prescriptive will of God revealed in his law and The secret will of God is decreed of will By which he intended Joseph to go to Egypt in the exact way that he went that process of betrayal and Potiphar's wife and the interpretation of dreams Was the very process that God Intended to make Joseph the man that he needed to be in that place to save many people alive.

How can you affirm any of that? How can you affirm any of that because I don't see any room for a decree in your theology. I Can see the decree of man. I Can't see the decree of God. How do you do that?

I? Need a Bluetooth headset. We were gonna do that. Remember I've just about pulled this thing out about three times so far. My ears are gonna come off. So put on the list need a blues need Bluetooth.

In fact, you said you had one you had a dongle or something like that. We're gonna we're gonna get so let's let's do it. This thing's gonna hang me up and I'm gonna end up Bleeding all over computer reason because I'm doing this stuff too much and you know, yeah, that's not not be good All right.

That was a good little break there. Let's press on.

So when a creature Satan or ourselves or anyone else makes a choice to do something evil I believe he is making that autonomously of God and that's that's in line with his holiness. That's the positive way of saying autonomous free will.

Autonomously separate from God so God sends Isaiah with a message of condemnation and in the very Establishment of Isaiah's Role as prophet. What does he say? I will harden their hearts. I will make their ears fat lest they turn.

So where is autonomy here? By the way, that's not really the historic use of the term autonomy. We're talking about an autonomous will we're talking about a will that acts outside of any other namas than itself.

In other words, it's a fundamental denial of the sovereign decree of God and. That's why when we hear you saying these things a we'd assume that you'd know this being a quote-unquote former Calvinist.

And so you can't blame us for interpreting your words in the context you provided to us. But then it becomes very clearly you don't think like a Calvinist Could ever think even as a convert from Calvinism, which would lead most of us to think that you like other people May have flirted with certain surface level doc doctrines, but let me tell you something five points is not enough.

That's not what makes you reformed. It's important. It's a part of it, but there's an underlying Recognition of the nature of God there that if you don't have it. Um, you're not really a Calvinist not really Calvinist but again When you talk about autonomy.

You're talking about creatures that exist outside of God's sovereign decree. That act outside of God's sovereign decree and hence there is no Sovereign decree. God created and went. Snake eyes, you know, I mean it that's that's and that's what raises the issues about.

What's your theology is? Positively biblically exegetically in regards to God's knowledge and his purpose in creation and Just simply going back and go. Well, there's been lots of Christians. It didn't didn't sure there's been lots of Christians who have been sub biblical in everything and have been inconsistent in everything.

There's lots of Christians who've never had to take the Christian message outside of Christianity to world religions. But you know what. Why should we follow them in their ignorance? We don't have that luxury anymore.