December 19, 2016 Show with Tyler Dalton McNabb on “The Lure of Rome & Why A Man Once Caught on that Lure Swam Back Through the Tiber & Returned to Protestantism” AND “Reformed Epistemolgy 101 & Why Should it Matter to the Average Christian in the Pew”

Live from the historic parsonage of 19th century gospel minister George Norcross in downtown

Carlisle, Pennsylvania, it's Iron Sharpens Iron, a radio

platform on which pastors, Christian scholars, and theologians address the burning issues

facing the church and the world today.

Proverbs 27 verse 17 tells us, Iron sharpens iron so one

man sharpens another.

Matthew Henry said that in this passage, quote, we are cautioned to take heed whom we

converse with and directed to have in view in conversation to make one another

wiser and better.

It is our hope that this goal will be accomplished over the next hour and we hope to hear

from you, the listeners, with your own questions.

Now here's our host, Chris.

Arnzen.

Good afternoon Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and the rest of humanity living

on the planet Earth who are listening via live streaming.

This is Chris Arnzen, your host of Iron Sharpens Iron, wishing you all a happy Monday on this

19th day of December 2016, and we are running out of days

in 2016.

Before I introduce our guest today and our topic, I want to remind you that in

just a matter of weeks we are going to be having the Iron Sharpens Iron Great

Debate at the Carlisle Theater, the 900 -seat Carlisle Theater

in historic Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

This theater dates back to the early 1920s and has been restored to its original

grandeur and beauty.

This is going to be a debate between Reformed Baptist scholar and apologist Dr.

Tony Costa, who is professor of apologetics at Toronto Baptist Seminary, and

Roman Catholic apologist Robert Syngenis, founder of Catholic Apologetics International.

Their theme is going to be, Marry Sinless Queen of Heaven or Sinner Saved by

Grace, and that's going to be Friday, January 13th at 7 p .m.

at the Carlisle Theater.

Tickets are only $5 a piece because we just have to cover the cost

of renting the theater and everything else surrounding this event like hotels and airfare and all

kinds of stuff.

So we hope that you come from wherever you are to this event.

In the past we even had people fly, we had 30 people fly from the

Netherlands one year when I was running a debate between Dr. James R. White and a Muslim

apologist.

So wherever you live we hope that you come to this debate.

I already know that some of our listeners in Virginia are driving up for this debate.

For more details you can email me at chrisarnsen at gmail .com.

Please put debate in the subject line.

Also I am having our next Iron Sharpens Iron pastors luncheon.

That's the day before the debate, Thursday January 12th, 11 a .m. to 2 p .m. at

the gorgeous Carlisle Vault, which is a historic bank here in Carlisle going

back to the early 20th century that was restored, or should I say transformed,

into a catering hall.

It's a gorgeous place.

This is absolutely free of charge for men in ministry leadership, whether you're a pastor,

elder, deacon, perhaps you run a parachurch organization.

We would love to have you there.

I'm sorry we cannot accommodate the wives at this event.

This is a men's only luncheon, absolutely free of charge.

Dr. Tony Costa, who I mentioned earlier, is speaking at this luncheon.

Every man that attends is going to receive a heavy sack

filled with brand new books donated from major publishers all over the United

States and the United Kingdom.

Hundreds of dollars worth of free books.

There's nothing for sale at this luncheon.

I don't permit anyone to sell anything.

Everything that you receive from the meal itself to the gifts, it's all free of

charge.

And I just got off the phone seconds before our guest called into the studio, just got off the phone

with Ligonier Ministries.

They are shipping out a hundred free books by Dr. Stephen Nichols that we are going

to have there giving out to the pastors.

And so we hope that you come to that, and if you want more details on that, put luncheon in

the subject line and email me at ChrisArnzen at gmail .com.

C -H -R -I -S -A -R -N -Z -E -N at gmail .com.

And you could also use that same email address for our guest today to ask questions.

Please put question in the subject line, perhaps even

put radio question in the subject line.

Today we are talking about a very controversial issue, the lore of Rome and why a man once

caught on that lore swam back through the Tiber and returned to Protestantism.

I'm talking about Tyler Dalton McNabb, professor of philosophy

humanities at Houston Baptist University, and he specializes in epistemology and philosophy

of religion.

And he is discussing that issue today because he himself was for a time a

Protestant apologist, then converted to Roman Catholicism, and then left and returned

to Protestantism, and we're going to find out why.

But it's my honor and privilege to welcome you back after many years to Iron Sharpens Iron, Tyler.

Dalton McNabb.

Howdy, great to be here.

Thanks for having me on today.

Looking.

Forward to the discussion.

Yes, in the first hour we're going to be talking about the lore of Rome, in the second hour we're going to be talking about Reformed

Epistemology 101 and why it should matter to the average Christian in the pew,

and we hope that you remain tuned in for the entire two hours

with Tyler Dalton McNabb.

But before we even go into either of those subjects, Tyler, I'd like to find

out about your own upbringing, the religion of your home, if any,

how you came to Christ, and then we'll get into the subject at.

Hand.

I grew up in a home in Texas that, like most homes in Texas,

at least on paper, might, as a Christian, specifically

Baptist,

but

didn't really,

reading the Bible on a regular basis or attending church on a regular basis,

maybe a slightly above that in

Texas, in Houston, Texas.

And yeah, I think it was about the age of 16 where I really

encountered Christ, however you want to parse it.

I became an agnostic during high school and was pretty much on the

brink, teetering on the brink, of going full nihilism, full believing that

there's no God, there's no morality, there's no meaning, that sort of thing, because I thought that

those things weren't plausible on atheism.

So I ended up having a religious experience through reading

Messianic prophets in my

life, at least in a tangible way,

and I got right with God.

I stopped doing what I knew I wasn't supposed to be doing and just had this all -in -great love

for the Lord, continued on until I received

a PhD in

philosophy.

So, in between, I did end up traveling to Rome,

as mentioned.

I was used a few

seconds by

beauty on

the outside, a

tradition having a sort of, coming from a very low church Baptistic,

wanting something that extended

a thousand years, being able to study church history in the medieval times and the patristics

and feeling like I

had my tradition was a part of that, of things like this,

sort of helped guide me and moved me into this particular direction.

But also, as you mentioned, I'm no longer a Roman Catholic or an Eastern

Catholic, and so I guess we

can talk about...

Sure.

Well, going back to your childhood, when you said it.

Was an above -average, the activity of religious activity and commitment in your home was

above average, at least in your impression of what you saw around.

You, what exactly would that entail?

Yeah, so it's slightly above average.

Just in regard to, I knew the gospel...

And this was a Baptist home?

Yes, that's right.

And we went to church, you know, we were better than those who went to

church only on Christmas and Easter, regular

and so far as

every Sunday or maybe, you know,

we were better than that,

but we definitely, I wouldn't like faithfully involved in the church

or anything like that, as the scriptures call us to be.

So, I wouldn't call us sort of a faithfully involved Christian home or something like

that, but definitely knew right from wrong, definitely knew the gospel in its

propositional form and decent theology.

Now, when I

became acquainted with you originally, probably somewhere.

In the neighborhood of, I don't know, 2010, maybe a little bit earlier

than that, you had already risen to a stature

of being a very respected scholarly Protestant Christian.

When I even had you on as a guest on my program, you were affiliated with Jeremiah Cry,

a very thoroughly Calvinistic, open -air preaching ministry,

and I believe that is why I had you on the program, it was affiliated with that.

So you, being lured into Roman Catholicism, unlike many people,

you were not just some average person in the pew that had

a very shallow concept of what the

gospel and what the scriptures were, somebody that could have easily been blown to and fro

by every wind of doctrine.

You were somebody who seemed to be very deeply knowledgeable of the faith and

respected, and you perhaps had already had your doctorate, I don't know, but how, I

mean, when you were talking about the beauty of Rome seducing you or luring you, that seems to be

very often what you hear from people, like when you listen to the Journey Home television

broadcast or watch that on EWTN or whatever television network people are

watching that on, where they have interviews primarily with former Protestants

who either are returning to Catholicism of their youth or

are becoming Catholic for the first time.

But that very often is the appeal, I mean people joke about it being the smells and bells, but that

very often is a very big part of that.

So tell us about that, what was it about that that started to draw you, even though you already

had seemingly very firm footing in.

Protestant theology?

Yeah,

first to be open, so as a Reformed

background, I would have probably even considered myself roughly within the A .W. Pink sort of

tradition, and I thought that

Catholicism taught

doctrines, anti

-gospel, you know, was in conflict with intention with the gospel,

was in tension with honoring God with all of our heart, mind,

body, and strength, and

seriously the claims.

I never really took it

seriously.

And in graduate school, doing a

degree in philosophy, I started reading Catholics, and I started reading

and realizing,

you know, you're in

mind that Catholics were, say, analogous to Jehovah's Witnesses or something like that, right,

and reading these Catholics were taken back.

And as soon as I did that, I sort of began to have a bit of an affinity with

the Catholic Church.

You know, these were my brothers, these were the guys I'm in arms with fighting

the evil duality, namely the naturalist,

right?

The atheist.

Does Rome really believe such -and -such, or, you know, does Rome really believe that?

And then I would say we all have

biases of some sort, but

nonetheless, and came to the conclusion that either A

or B, they do, but they have a lot more justification.

I'm not speaking about a specific doctrine now, but just, you know,

various sorts of views in which Reformers are constantly in conflict

with Catholics on it.

And so, yeah, that really opened the door for

me, actually, you know, analyzing certain evidences and putting me in that sort

of...it was quite conducive for me believing in

Rome.

The other thing that, at the time, was I was sick and tired

of going back and forth on certain secondary doctrines, because that

was a big one, right?

My Presbyterian Reform brothers, my Anglican brothers, my Orthodox,

and arguing that this is the

way, infant baptism, you know, it's a biblical traditional, you know, we forgot to do it.

And then my Baptistic brothers saying we shouldn't, going back and forth, reading scholar after scholar on both

sides, coming up, just feeling one

way one week, and then another way the next week.

And a followable

interpreter really sort of became a nice thought,

effective way in how we can have unity

now, was also really useful in

conjunction with me, for the first time, really analyzing Catholic arguments, and

sort of somewhat of a non -biased way, things in the background

environment for me switching sides.

Yeah, in fact, when I have spoken with and heard some of the more prominent

apologists who were Presbyterian or other, or from other

branches of Protestantism, that lure of papal infallibility

just seemed to clean up a lot of the unanswerable

questions for them in regard to how can we trust what we believe in.

What we are reading in the Bible is a correct interpretation, and of

course, they began to believe, these folks that converted to

Rome, they began to believe that Sola Sceptora is a

blueprint for anarchy, because every man in their minds, they

believed that that meant every man could interpret the Bible the way he or she chose

to.

And there was going to be no security of

biblical orthodoxy in that, or even in Christian orthodoxy, because obviously

the Church of Rome does not believe in Sola Sceptora, they believe in the heavy weight

and importance and vital role of tradition as well in the Magisterium.

So, it seems that even if the other areas of

Roman Catholicism at first seemed anything from

very disturbing or horrific to annoying or troublesome,

they were buying into all of those things just because they immediately said, Well,

if the Church of Rome has an infallible interpreter, if it has

an infallible Magisterium, then no matter what I think about these other things, they must be true.

Whether or not I think it is right to pray to Mary, and whether I think it is right

that I need to confess my sins to a priest and receive the sacrament of penance, and all these other things

that are a part of the Roman system, it seems that those things,

as distasteful as they may initially have been for Protestants, they bought into them because of the

infallibility of the Magisterium teaching that they swallowed.

Now, would that be something in your own experience, or did you actually just immediately

find these other things beautiful and precious?

I know Scott Hahn has said something to the effect that when he was

watching people receive the Mass, he began to salivate, and he no longer wanted to have

the Eucharist just in his mouth, he wanted it in his stomach or something.

It was a very romanticized idea of this

Eucharist that just totally captivated him.

So, what was your experience?

So, I saw certain doctrines.

From my point of view now, I don't

see

I do think that they're

that there

Are a lot of people in Rome who are practicing idolatry, but I do think that

there is a quote -unquote

evangelical lens that one could read Catholic doctrine in.

We can get to that in a bit, if you want, but as for answering your question, I did

think that Rome taught heresy, and so I wasn't willing to forego my mind.

I still had to come up with some sort of coherent response to certain doctrines,

say, by works, or Mary worship, or something like that.

That's typical justification for these

things, before I could go there.

I wasn't willing to go there.

I did crave the Eucharist, as you mentioned,

but that wasn't

exegesis and typical theology.

I let my mind totally go there, and

the only thing I could say was that I still do crave

the Eucharist, and I still do believe in a real presence.

I don't

exegete my view of the Eucharist in some sort of

transubstantiation way, but I do...

And I'm assuming you no longer worship the Eucharist.

Yeah, okay.

I don't feel inclined to worship the Eucharist.

I'm not sure what that entails, but when you say that...

Well, I think it is.

I mean, that's what they do.

But, yeah, so that's...

Now, as far as the softer view of Rome's errors than

I would have, I would believe that on many issues they are very seriously heretical,

and even damningly so.

A lot of that is because Rome, long before I was born,

condemned certain essential elements of my faith today.

I was raised Roman Catholic, by the way, and I became a Bible -believing Christian

in a Reformed Baptist church by God's grace in the mid -1980s, and have been a

Reformed Baptist ever since, other than a month or so of being an Arminian

Protestant without even knowing what an Arminian was, or even knowing what a Calvinist was for that matter.

But the Council of Trent makes it clear that there are certain

things that historic Reformational Protestants, those that are heirs of the

Reformation, there are certain things that we believe that have been anathematized by Rome,

which is not a slight slap on the wrist.

This was, you know, back in the day of Trent, there were people, obviously, as

you know, who were tortured and executed for being on the anathema

list if they were too open and forceful with disagreement with Rome.

And since those dogmas of Trent and those anathemas have never been

revoked, they have never been rescinded, taken back, even

by the most liberal pope in history that they have now,

Pope Francis.

He has not even rescinded the anathemas of Trent.

How is it that you don't see the differences that Rome have as being heretical

or as dangerous as I do, if they do, at least in an

official sense, not in the softened version that has become popular

since Vatican II, and increasingly more so popular.

But if you go back to the dogma, which is the main issue here of what does the Church of

Rome really stand for, not the opinion of a pope, because one thing that I have

learned by having gained the friendship of very

serious -minded Catholics throughout the years doing these debates, in

fact, you might find it interesting that I have more friends now who are

serious -minded Catholics, I have more friends now as a

Protestant than I ever did as a Catholic growing up.

The Catholic friends that I had were nominal Catholics.

But those very seriously -minded Catholics will say that,

well, the pope isn't infallible unless he is declaring something as dogma, it's ex

cathedra, so the opinions of St. Francis that we would find repulsive,

even as Catholics, are not binding upon anyone.

But the dogmas of Rome are, and Trent was a dogmatic

council, so if you could respond to that.

How is it that you don't see it as seriously as it seems Rome has seen it, other than

the liberalized version of it, if you will?

Yeah, so real quick on the Eucharist.

If you mean that they worship the Eucharist insofar as the accidental, it

wouldn't be the case.

But if you mean,

yeah, I don't think that

one's going to go to hell if there isn't something in there worshipping

Jesus there.

I agree with you, it would be bad if your

properties are both the accidental properties and the essence there.

But I think ultimately God's a loving God, and God's going to judge us in

a just way, and in a loving way.

And so I don't think that if I thought that Christ was,

in some way, recognizing him as something, as

such, following through with

the appropriate honoring him, as such, I don't think

that, even if I was wrong, that that's going to lead me necessarily to hell.

It might be sort of, in our views

of God, I don't know, maybe that might have something to do

with it.

Trent, like apologists usually do,

they say that anathemoths are for those who are in communion with Rome, that anathemoths have no authority over those who are not in communion with Rome.

And so the addresses, the condemnations, the anathemoths and so forth, are for those who

hold to a false view, who are in communion with

the Bishop of Rome.

And in fact, could you pick right up where you left off there?

We have to go to a station break right now.

If anybody would like to join us with a question for Tyler Dalton McNabb, whether you agree with him, whether you vehemently

disagree with him, whether you're Roman Catholic, whether you're Protestant, whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Sweden, Borgianist,

whatever you happen to be, we will welcome your questions at ChrisArnzen at gmail .com.

ChrisArnzen at gmail .com.

Don't go away.

We will be right back after these messages.

And that was the wrong button.

We'll be right back after these messages, so don't go away.

I'm Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, and here's one of my favorite guests, Todd Friel, to

tell you about a conference he and I are going to.

Hello, this is Todd Friel, host of Wretched Radio and Wretched TV and

occasional guest on Chris's show, Iron Criticizing

Iron.

I think that's what it's called.

Hoping that you can join Chris and me at the G3 Conference in Atlanta, my new

hometown.

It is going to be a bang -up conference called the G3 Conference,

celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation with Paul Washer,

Steve Lawson, D .A. Carson, Votie Baucom, Conrad and Bayway, Phil Johnson, James White, and a bunch of other people.

We hope to see you there.

Learn more at g3conference .com, g3conference .com.

Thanks, Todd, I think.

See you at the Iron Sharpens Iron Exhibitor's booth.

I'm James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

The New American Standard Bible is perfect for daily reading or in -depth study.

Used by pastors, scholars, and everyday readers, the NASB is widely embraced and trusted as a literal and readable Bible

translation.

The NASB offers clarity and readability while maintaining high accuracy to the original languages, which the NASB is known

for.

The NASB is available in many editions, like a topical reference Bible.

Researched and prepared by biblical scholars devoted to accuracy, the new topical reference Bible includes contemporary

topics relevant to today's issues.

From compact to giant print Bibles, find an NASB that fits your needs very affordably at nasbible

.com.

Trust, discover, and enjoy the NASB for yourself today.

Go to nasbible .com.

That's nasbible .com.

Tired of box store Christianity, of doing church in a warehouse with all the trappings of a rock concert?

Do you long for a more traditional and reverent style of worship?

And how about the preaching?

Perhaps you've begun to think that in -depth biblical exposition has vanished from Long Island.

Well, there's good news.

Wedding River Baptist Church exists to provide believers with a meaningful and reverent worship experience

featuring the systematic exposition of God's Word.

And this loving congregation looks forward to meeting you.

Call them at 631 -929 -3512 for service times.

631 -929 -3512.

Or check out their website at wrbc .us.

That's wrbc .us.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,.

Give yourself unto reading.

The man who never reads will never be read.

He who never quotes will never be quoted.

He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own.

You need to read.

Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the Prince of Preachers to heart.

The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and

future, and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.

Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered, Christ -exalting

books for all ages.

We invite you to go treasure hunting at solid -ground -books .com.

That's solid -ground -books .com.

And see what priceless literary gems from the past or present you can unearth from Solid Ground.

Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

Hi, I'm Chris Arnsen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, here to tell you about an exciting offer from World

Magazine, my trusted source for news from a Christian perspective.

Try World at no charge for 90 days and get a free copy of R .C. Sproul's book,

Relationship Between Church and State.

I rely on World because I trust the reporting, I gain insight from the analysis, and World provides

clarity to the news stories that really matter.

I believe you'll also find World to be an invaluable resource to better understand critical topics with a depth that's

simply not found in other media outlets.

Armed with this coverage, World can help you to be a voice of wisdom in your family and your community.

This trial includes biweekly issues of World Magazine, on -scene reporting from World Radio,

and the fully shareable content of World Digital.

Simply visit wmg .org forward slash iron sharpens

to get your World trial and Dr. Sproul's book all free.

No obligation with no credit card required.

Visit World News Group at wmg .org forward

slash iron sharpens today.

Welcome back.

This is Chris Arns, and if you just tuned us in, our guest today for the full two hours is

Dr. Tyler Dalton McNabb, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Houston Baptist

University, specializing in epistemology and philosophy of religion.

We're discussing the lore of Rome, why a man once caught on the lore swam back through the Tiber

and returned to Protestantism.

And for the second hour, I should say, we're going to be discussing something that is somewhat of a

specialty of our guest, reformed epistemology, and why should it matter to the

average Christian in the pew.

If you'd like to join us on the air today, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail dot com.

Before we went to the break, we were talking about the anathemas against

Protestants in the Council of Trent's

dogmas.

And I'm not saying no Protestant that knows about the

Council of Trent or is familiar with it would say that there is nothing in that council

or from that council that they would agree with.

There are things in there that Protestants even agree with.

But this was a council that took place to counter the Reformation.

I'm sure you would agree with that.

And it was more specifically to highlight those things that Protestants

believed.

And you were talking about your understanding of the anathemas not apparently being

quite as harsh as the meaning behind them as I would view

them and as those who I know who are scholars and historians

have viewed them.

If you could address that issue, if you could pick up where you left off.

Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, so one of the other major things I think that's important, a

lot of the disagreement regarding

Trent on the word faith.

So typically Catholics define faith as sort of more something like mental assent.

And they use faith, hope, and charity as a sort of phrase to capture what

Protestants usually mean by faith.

And so when it says, you know, faith alone, I do think they have in mind sort of mental assent alone.

You have recently made a

statement in the Declaration on the Review of Justification where I think it highlights that a bit more.

I think if you pick up, there's five views.

You know, one of those four views, five views, six views, one of those sorts of views.

I think it's five views on judgment in our works, final judgment in our works.

The Catholic, the Catholic author in that text, I think does a really good job at sort of

exegeting the Catechism, the current Catholic Catechism, that justification has multiple

aspects.

Sort of this initial justification, which is just about being in union with Christ.

Pure grace, it's not a work of man but of

God.

You have other aspects of Catechism, yes, there's going to be a final justification based on

works, but those works are really not our

own, it's

supernatural works.

It's a gift by the Holy Spirit, in virtue of being in union with Christ, these works are being produced.

It's a view, I think, very similar to N .T. Wright's view.

So even if you think that's really something like that, I think

it's not as bad as some

make it out to be.

I can fellowship with N .T. Wright on justification, and being that I don't see anything

significantly not analogous to that, of Rome's doctrine of justification, I don't see any reason why I can't

be in fellowship with Rome, at least on that topic.

Especially given the sort of joint statement they made with the Lutherans and how they see

justification.

Things like this, I guess, have led me to believe that

it's so much a defeating factor.

Well, the Council of Trent, and perhaps I can find the exact wording for you

at some point, either during the program or after, but there is a

specific anathema that even anathematizes those who think that

works are only a necessary fruit or evidence

of the one truly justified.

So, in other words, the works must be viewed as, in some sense, meritorious.

That's right.

And so, therefore, that is a belief that I personally believe is damning.

I believe that's a heresy.

And it's clear to me that the Council of Trent believe that to oppose their view, that view, is a

heretical concept.

So, one of these days, perhaps we could even organize a debate on ecumenism, if you'd like to

participate in that, because I just see this as so

historically different than you are seeing it.

Well, I guess this is the thing.

One, I agree that it's meritorious, for sure.

I'm just saying that the origin, the author, primary author,

if you'd say,

is in virtue of you being in union with Christ.

So, it's not this sort of Pelagian or semi -Pelagian.

Right, right.

Yeah, I understand that even the Church of Rome condemned Pelagius.

I understand that.

But even if I'm wrong, let's say the Catholic Church has indeed shifted its opinion, or it's

gone away from this sort of Trentian view, and it's come a lot closer to this Protestant

view.

It's been great.

Maybe that's a good argument for orthodox

Catholicism, for thinking that we

should...

And by the way, I do not, and nor does anyone that I highly respect and love and

value and work with, in regard to debates and other things

on the Protestant side, we do not believe that all Catholics are

damned.

But there is an issue about, as the old game show

that Johnny Carson used to host in the 1950s or early 60s, Who Do You Trust?

That's the main issue, who do you trust?

And there are Catholics that, either through naivete or

ignorance of what their own church teaches, really believe in the biblical

gospel.

There are others who believe in a Protestant or Reformational understanding of the gospel and choose

to remain in Rome because they think they're going to make a difference somehow.

But I think that there are...

And that is an issue, by the way, who do you trust?

That really not only is exclusively a question that I think dogmatically Rome

fails on their answer, because it's not Christ alone in his finished

work, obviously multitudes of professing Protestants are in that

same group, and perhaps even many

multitudes of Baptists or those who claim to be Baptists.

So this is not just something that I'm beating up on Roman Catholics for.

My mother, if you were to ask her on her last breath if she was

Catholic, she probably would have said yes.

But she, after a lifetime of venerating Mary and the saints,

really revealed on her deathbed for six weeks.

It wasn't just like a momentary confession that was open to interpretation.

For six weeks while she was lingering on that deathbed, she was making a clear

affirmation of her trust in Christ and his finished work on the cross alone as the

reason why she was going to enter heaven.

She ceased praying to Mary and the saints.

She was praying to Christ alone.

But I do not believe that she would have said that she's not

a Catholic.

She just came to the true gospel as I believe I see it,

and those who are my colleagues and brethren in historic Protestantism see it.

But having said that, what was it that finally jolted you

to say, you know, these guys aren't, I know that you don't think they are as wrong as

I think they are, but you came to an opinion that they are wrong, and I'm not

sticking around here as an official member of this club at least, and you returned to Protestantism.

What was it that providentially came into your life that made you make that

decision?

Just to add on, I guess what I'm also saying is just, you know, the particular groups that

you've mentioned that you think perhaps, you know, that they could be

true believers as well, I'm saying, I'm just sort of proposing another group to consider,

namely those Catholics who are convinced that their interpretation, though they may be wrong, you know, perhaps you're right,

perhaps James White's right, you know, perhaps these other sort of figures are right.

But nonetheless, they are under the false, they have a false belief,

namely that there's sort of this evangelical way to understand doctrinal justification that's consistent with Roman

Catholicism.

Maybe these guys should, we should reconsider our sort of boxes about who's in or

who's not.

So I guess that's mainly what I was trying to propose.

In regard to the question about what sort of turned me, you a

little bit alluded to...

Well, I had a feeling.

So I'm a libertarian when it comes to

economics and the role of government.

I actually lean heavily that way.

I have interviewed a number of people who are Christian libertarians, and I have a

longtime friend in William Norman Grigg who is a libertarian.

But anyway, I interrupted you there.

No, it's all right.

Yeah.

So when I was a

little taken back, you know, what's

the magisterium have to do with?

And we found out that actually there's been a

long -standing tradition, Pope speaking about economics in

the 1800s, and

the authoritative view from the Pope then

to forcing a view that the government has a right to

redistribute wealth, that the government, if possible, speaking of an encyclical, so an encyclical on the Catholic view is

not infallible, but nonetheless still binding on matters of faith and morals.

And so the government is obligated to try to make sure that health care is free or, you

know, low -cost.

It speaks really well about unions and the

rights.

It's just things that generally... I think even vacation employers have to

give their employees something of another...

intervene if it's not possible, if it's not done so by the free market to ensure a livable wage for everyone.

Some things that I took with

my current view of overreach and

violation of, and so forth,

caught me off guard and started making me sort of really sin.

Not too long after that, I found out that the

Church taught us infallible dogma of divine

simplicity, that is to say that God is completely without parts, any metaphysical parts, anything like that.

God's omniscience is identical to God's omnipotence, which is identical to God's omni -nevolence, and so forth.

So there's this sort of doctrine that God is literally metaphysically simple.

He's not made up of anything.

He doesn't possess properties.

He's identical to His existence.

And that God is strongly immutable, meaning that not only does God not change His character, right?

Hopefully everyone affirms that, that God's always going to be faithful to us,

and He is the very grounding of the good.

He is the good.

But that God literally is immutable in more of a static way.

He is the unmoved mover.

He is, from eternity past, sort of doing this one action, which

encompanies all what we perceive as multiple actions from our point of view.

And so it's this very sort of philosophical Thomistic doctrine that are accepted by some Protestants.

There's a raging debate amongst Reformed Baptists over the

impassibility of God.

Well, I've been wondering about what is going through the minds of many of the

prominent Catholic apologists, especially those who came out of Protestantism,

over Pope Francis, because most of them are very silent about it.

I'm talking about the more conservative Catholic apologists.

And they're strangely silent about it, with the exception of Robert

St. Genes, who is participating in this debate that I have organized.

Robert St. Genes is very outspoken against Pope

Francis in areas that he disagrees with, and he makes it clear that as a

Catholic he must do so in certain parameters of

respect and reverence, but he still is very upset and

very much in vehement opposition to much of the

ideology of Pope Francis.

And in fact, Robert St. Genes was fired from EWTN

because he had a television program on EWTN and was being very vocal in his

opposition to some of the things that Pope John Paul II was doing and saying,

not to mention even kissing the Koran and having ecumenical prayer gatherings

with those involved in pagan religions and so on.

Gerry Matitix, of course, is somebody who was more well -known in the past, who

was very vocal in his opposition to these things, but he is more of a

schismatic in regard to his views, because he has become a sativacantist and

does not even believe there has been a valid pope since Vatican II, although he believes

that the office is biblical.

He just thinks it's not occupied.

But it is interesting that although Catholics are

supposed to have the freedom and liberty to criticize the Pope when they

disagree with him on matters that have not been defined as dogma, they

typically are not doing that.

That's why Robert St. Genes is kind of a lone voice amongst those who are considered

to be in communion with Rome.

He has not been disfellowshipped, excommunicated, or anything like that over his views.

His bishop has not disciplined him over his being outspoken against

where he believes Pope Francis is in error.

But it just seems like...

Really, when I see someone to the extent of liberalism that Pope Francis embraces, it

makes you wonder what papal infallibility

really means and how useful it is, because popes have hardly ever in history

declared things ex cathedra.

So how are these men faithful shepherds if they can say nearly

anything when they are just voicing their own opinion?

Things that even make faithful Catholics cringe, and of course speak

against in the privacy of their own coffee clutches and

wine cellars or whatever.

They're not saying this typically in Catholic radio and television.

So when you returned to Protestantism, you obviously,

from what we've already discussed, you did not return to what you have called

A .W. Pink -style Calvinism.

You've become somewhat of a moderate Molinist.

How would you describe yourself today as a Protestant?

Yeah, is that something you said?

Oh yeah, sure.

Respond to anything that I said.

Yeah, so I have a libertarian named Tom Woods, who has this view that

libertarianism and that being

cyclical is overreach, and that we could ignore the respect...

And I just have a free market.

I think that those arguments aren't very good.

I think that indeed we need to affirm

that the rule has a right to do these things that

we're discussing, because we are talking about morality, and when we're talking about these things, and morality is

within the scope of the papacy.

But there is one thing that's like, you shouldn't overreach in one sense, as I think

that they've done in regard to making these sorts of secondary views on government role,

and economics, and business.

You have to have a certain philosophical view of God that Thomas Aquinas did,

or you can't be in fellowship with us at all.

And yet, underreach,

actually speaking from the seat, the chair of Peter,

that is a bit troubling.

And the overall idea that the Church is making a really big deal about

these secondary issues, that I can't call...

They believe God is passable.

God has emotions, or these

sorts of things.

I mean, I can't call that person a brother in Christ.

Or at one moment, I can call them a brother in Christ.

Really what, overall, what's

very within things that I sort of see as the secondary,

I want to focus on the Gospel, on the death barrels, on the Apostles' Creed, something like that,

that I see in faith.

That's kind of interesting how you would view modern Rome as being so hard and exclusive when

their own catechism says that Muslims adore the same one true God that we do.

Yeah.

I mean...

They're really exclusive when it comes to secondary Christian doctrines, but they do seem to be

very inclusive when it comes to non -Christian.

I find that...

And by the way, Christopher Farrar, I don't know if you're familiar with him, he is a Roman Catholic attorney and apologist.

He was involved in the last Long Island, New York debate that I organized between James

White and Catholic apologists.

He is vehemently anti -libertarian and wrote a book condemning libertarianism

as one of the most dangerous political ideologies known to man.

That's right.

So you're familiar with his book?

I'm familiar with him, but I'm not familiar.

I've heard of his name, but that's the same sort of thing.

I'm familiar with that sort of thinking.

Great.

Well, we are going to a station break right now, our second station break.

If anybody would like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnson

at gmail .com, chrisarnson at gmail .com.

Please include your first name, city and state, and your country of residence.

Hi, I'm Pastor Bill Shishko, inviting you to tune into A Visit to the Pastor's Study every Saturday

from 12 noon to 1 p .m. Eastern Time on WLIE Radio,

www .wlie540am .com.

We bring biblically faithful pastoral ministry to you, and we invite you to visit the Pastor's Study by calling in

with your questions.

Our time will be lively, useful, and I assure you, never dull.

Join us this Saturday at 12 noon Eastern Time for a visit to the Pastor's Study, because everyone needs

a pastor.

Chris Arnzen here, and I can't wait to head down to Atlanta, Georgia, and here's my friend Dr. James White to tell you why.

Hi, I'm James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

I hope you join me at the G3 Conference, hosted by Pastor Josh Bice and Praise Mill Baptist Church, at

the Georgia International Convention Center in Atlanta, January 19th through the 21st, in

celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

I'll be joined by Paul Washer, Steve Lawson, D .A. Carson, Voti Baucom, Conrad Mbewe,

Phil Johnson, Rosaria Butterfield, Todd Friel, and a host of other speakers who are dedicated to the

pillars of what G3 stands for, gospel, grace, and glory.

For more details, go to g3conference .com.

That's g3conference .com.

Thanks, James.

Make sure you greet me at the Iron Sharpens Iron exhibit booth while you're there.

Thriving Financial is not your typical financial services provider.

As a membership organization, we help Christians be wise with money and live generously every day.

And for the fourth year in a row, we were named one of the world's most ethical companies by the Ethisphere Institute,

a leading international think tank dedicated to the creation, advancement, and sharing of best practices

in business ethics.

Contact me, Mike Gallagher, financial consultant,

at 717 -254 -6433.

Again, 717 -254 -6433 to learn more about the Thrivent Difference.

We want so much more than.

A new faith, finances, and generosity.

That's the Thrivent story.

Just survive and make it thrive.

Iron Sharpens Iron welcomes Solid Rock Remodeling to our family of sponsors.

Serving South Central Pennsylvania, Solid Rock Remodeling is focused on discovering,

understanding, and exceeding your expectations.

They deliver personalized project solutions with exceptional results.

Solid Rock Remodeling offers a full range of home renovations, including kitchen and bath

remodeling, decks, porches, windows and doors, roof and siding, and

more.

For a clear, detailed professional estimate, call this trustworthy team of problem solvers

who provide superior results that stand the test of time.

Call Solid Rock Remodeling at 717 -697 -1981.

717 -697 -1981.

Or visit SolidRockRemodeling .com.

That's SolidRockRemodeling .com Solid Rock Remodeling, bringing new life to

your home.

Lindbrook Baptist Church on 225 Earl Avenue in Lindbrook, Long Island is teaching God's timeless truths in

the 21st century.

Our church is far more than a Sunday worship service.

It's a place of learning where the scriptures are studied and the preaching of the gospel is clear and relevant.

It's like a gym where one can exercise their faith through community involvement.

It's like a hospital for wounded souls where one can find compassionate people and healing.

We're a diverse family of all ages.

Enthusiastically serving our Lord Jesus Christ.

In fellowship, play, and together.

Hi, I'm Pastor Bob Walderman and I invite you to come and join us here at Lindbrook Baptist Church and see all that a church can

be.

Call Lindbrook Baptist at 516 -599 -9402.

That's 516 -599 -9402.

Or visit LindbrookBaptist .org.

That's LindbrookBaptist .org.

Welcome back, this is Chris Arnzen, if you just tuned us in.

Our guest today for the full two hours with one hour to go is Tyler Dalton McNabb, Professor of

Philosophy and Humanities at Houston Baptist University

specializing in epistemology and philosophy of religion.

And we are now discussing Reformed Epistemology 101 and why should it matter to the average Christian

in the pew.

If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnzen at gmail .com.

Chrisarnzen at gmail .com.

And if you could, first of all, let's start with a very logical place to start

because we're getting into some very heady stuff here.

What is Reformed Epistemology?

Clarification from the last hour.

I consider myself a conservative evangelical.

I've actually gotten a lot of heat in the

philosophy community, the Christian philosophy community specifically, for defending the right

to criticize homosexual lifestyles at academic conferences.

By no means do I want to come across as a moderate here.

Right, I can understand why some people have that

affinity with Rome, who at least officially is

in the political and social arena opposing these things with homosexuality,

same -sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia.

We're opposing these things with the same fervency as evangelicals and

conservatives of all religious stripes.

But yeah, I can understand that.

Yeah, so I consider myself a broadly Reformed or broadly Calvinistic

evangelical.

So that was the question, I just wanted to make a clarification on that.

What is Reformed Epistemology?

That's a good question.

Epistemology, because John Calvin, speaking of Reformed, right?

Speaking of Calvinistic.

John Calvin talked about the sense of the divine, sensus divinitatis, to make it sound

all nice and Latin -ish.

And it was the idea that

is responsible for

producing belief in God, for making one aware of God's existence.

And so the Reformed, and the phrase Reformed

Epistemology, is called Reformed because it finds its origins

in John Calvin primarily.

And then epistemology, the other word there, the study of knowledge,

of rationality, is within

philosophy that's interested in asking, how can we know something?

Is someone rational if they believe something?

Are they justified in affirming that particular proposition, and so forth?

So in this particular field, right?

This field of what's called epistemology, and then we're going to put Reformed in front of it, and so

far as John Calvin goes.

So it's this idea about, what's this sort of Reformed view?

It's a view about how we can know that God exists, which finds its origins in

Calvin.

And there are many Reformed Christians

who are apologists, who are presuppositionalists.

I've interviewed some of them.

I've also interviewed those who would adhere to the evidentialist philosophy of

apologetics, including R .C. Sproul.

So there is a divide amongst brethren who not only share much of the same doctrine,

but even perhaps the same pew on Sundays, who disagree.

We just most recently had Cy Ten Brugengate, who is a very well -known, at

least amongst presuppositionalists who are Reformed and so on.

He's fairly well -known in that community as being a leading advocate of presuppositionalism.

I've got another author who, God willing, will be on in the near future to

discuss that as well.

But how would Reformed epistemology be different from

both presuppositionalism and evidentialism?

Yeah, so the Reformed epistemology, most sort of

glossed and contemporary terms, finds its origins mostly, though not

all of it, in a philosopher named Alvin Plantago.

Alvin Plantago is a Christian philosopher, still alive, still producing some great

stuff on occasion, who was really responsible, at least

significantly responsible, for the Renaissance and secular philosophy of

theists and Christians doing philosophy in the academy.

And he had this sort of idea, his idea is something like this.

If God exists, created in us, a

faculty aimed at producing beliefs in him or his activities, then if that faculty is

functioned properly, and God's activities

are warranted, then we can be justified, I'm sure, that God is doing something in our lives.

Even if we were without argumentation, even if we were without this

idea that belief in God is what philosophers call properly basic, that doesn't

depend on other arguments.

It's basic, and it's

because it's formed from properly functioning cognitive faculties.

So it's a conditional statement.

Most Reformed epistemologists, at least in the sort of Plantago style,

that if God exists, then we

can know that he exists.

This is essentially Reformed epistemology.

It differs from evidentialism, because evidentialism doesn't make this sort of conditional claim

that it's warranted or that we can know that God exists.

Evidentialism aims to show that

in deeper questions, they're not

incompatible.

I think some form of evidentialism is compatible with this idea of Reformed epistemology.

Well, you said that, unless I'm misunderstanding you, that evidentialists...

I'm not an evidentialist, by the way, but you said that they do not believe that belief in God is

warranted.

Well, obviously, R .C. Sproul and the late John Gerstner and many other evidentialists believe that you

must believe in God or you will be damned.

I mean, I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I'm not sure when I said that.

Oh, I thought you just said it a few seconds ago.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Yeah, yeah, no, I wouldn't make that claim.

No, the idea is that Reformed epistemologists are interested in the claim that if God exists,

then belief in God is warranted.

Evidentialists are interested in the claim that God does exist.

Okay.

So they're sort of answering two different questions.

I say they're compatible.

One can be an evidentialist.

One can be interested in, you know, talking about the Kalam cosmological argument or the moral

argument or the argument for the resurrection of Jesus as well as be a Reformed epistemologist.

These aren't mutually exclusive views.

So, in the ecumenical sense, there's yet another

olive branch.

But the main idea is that we don't have to have an argument for belief in order for our belief to be

rational, in order for our belief to constitute knowledge.

Presuppositionalism, like the climates origins in Calvin and so forth and through scripture,

obviously as well, it makes a little bit of a difference.

The idea behind presuppositionalism, as I understand it, is something like we all

have this knowledge of God, we all know that God exists, and we can

show without doubt we all believe that God exists.

And as we do this, we formulate a sort of transcendental argument, an argument that's aimed at

showing that in terms of all of our human

experiences, therefore we can show that

God is a precondition to logic, a necessary condition

for morality and induction.

The main sort of, at least one of the main goals,

that he's being foolish, articulating a

transcendental,

to formulate for God's

existence.

So how do you know that God exists?

Well, because the Bible tells me so.

Well, how do you know that the Bible is, you know, true?

Well, because, you know, God says so.

Something like that.

In which the Reformed epistemology view doesn't share that epistemology

view.

The Reformed epistemology model is constructed in a conditional model, like

if and then would be warranted.

It's not assuming, it's not giving, it's not assuming the conclusion in

a premise or anything like that.

So the main difference is between each of those three views.

Now, I'm assuming that even though at the heart of Reformed epistemology

is regarding the question if God exists, I'm assuming you are

not claiming to be an agnostic.

That's right.

That you firmly believe God does exist.

You're just talking about philosophical reasoning and argumentation, I'm assuming.

Correct?

Yeah, yeah, that's right.

Again, I'm a conservative evangelical.

Right.

So, yeah, I think it's a very interesting one, and it can be very productive.

Turn out

to be bad ones, right?

Which I don't believe.

I think there are lots of good arguments.

But for argument's sake, let's go ahead and assume they're all bad.

Well, at the end of the day, does it mean we're not ravished

and gave us this fact, and we believe in God because of that, then

indeed we would still be ravished.

An individual who is unsure, say, on any given day,

maybe he just, every Wednesday, for whatever reason, he just questions.

He's still rational on Wednesday, just as he

is on

the cosmological argument, or an abjective version of the moral argument, right?

You can tell this nice little story about this faculty that God's given them.

So, yeah, I think it's still, like, really important, and it contributes a lot

to individuals.

When I did my PhD at the University of Glasgow, and I

think it was, I think it had a

profound effect.

Show them that if God existed, then they could know that God exists,

and told their, right?

Even if we had no good arguments, the building was indeed right in front of them.

That argument with going back to,

and I think there's a real victory there, and then you can sort of turn it around against the atheists and say, but if atheism

is true, you couldn't even know.

And you can go a little bit of a, sort of, up one on the atheists there, and in doing so,

make knowledge a fundamental argument of your own, talking about how

knowledge, mission to knowledge, and how on atheism, you

can't account for knowledge, you can't make knowledge intelligible.

So, there's a bit of a positive, apologetic to it as well.

Now, how does Reformed epistemology

reflect on the tension that exists between,

we are taught in Romans 1, that basically all of

humanity knows the truth instinctively, but they suppress the

truth.

That is a lot of what presuppositionalism seems to be driven by.

And also, on the other side of the coin, that the heart of man is

exceedingly wicked, who can know it?

So that would seem to me that there also is

warrant for people not to necessarily always

trust their instincts, because of that.

If you could reflect on that for a minute.

Yeah.

So, in regard to the first one, Reformed epistemologists would agree.

They're usually on a

couple of smaller issues, I think, overall, and so they look at it differently.

But, yeah, the Reformed epistemologists would agree that, and we use Romans 1 as justification

for thinking that,

saying, remind me again, not trusting our instincts.

The heart of man is exceedingly wicked, who can know it.

That's right.

Yeah, and God's created in us faculties.

Yeah, they've been a faculty that's aimed at producing

belief in God.

And, in fact, it's been damaged by sin, which is

why we need the Spirit's repairment and testimony of the Gospel.

So I sort of gave you an incomplete story a few minutes ago.

This sort of general view of God can be justified and warranted, but I also think that this sort of Christian view,

exclusively Christian view of God, can be warranted.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that directly.

Oh, that's okay.

Oh, I was just going to say, how is this flushed out in

regard to general revelation, which is nature and so on, things that

are discussed by Paul in Romans 1, but also, in contrast, specific

revelation, where the only way that we can know the Gospel,

the truths of Christ and the truths of his finished work on Calvary and

so on, is from special revelation.

How is that flushed out with Reformed epistemology?

Yeah.

The idea is,

now, it might be that in a lot of people, it's still working, probably to produce knowledge.

Thank God the way it was designed to.

Perhaps we were first created to produce the belief that God's near us are present or exist in the

same way as we produce the belief that other minds are around

us.

So it has a sort of very maximal degree of warrant or of justification.

This idea, though, again, sort of this condition, what's repairing our

sense of divinity and sort of instinctive

testimony of the Gospel, which we can come into contact with by way of reading Holy Scripture

or by way of hearing a preacher, or our parents talk to us about him, our neighbor, our friend,

an evangelist, and we accept that testimony.

Because of this repairment and instigation by the Spirit and so forth,

testimony that Jesus wrote from the dead can be justified in somewhat, slightly different, but

somewhat of an analogous case as our belief that Christopher Columbus sailed the

ocean blue in 1492 is justified, right?

A teacher tells us when we're in school, at least mine did,

yeah, I believe that.

I'm finding myself believing that that's true.

Or, you know, crazy enough, I have college students that I teach who, you know, don't remember 9

-11.

But nonetheless, they believe it, even if they never saw footage of it, right?

You know, their parents tell them one day, hey, you know, these evil radical jihadists hijacked,

they believe it by way of what they can know

that 9 -11 happened, even apart from argumentation.

So really, the idea of Reformed epistemology,

rationality from the hands of the Enlightenment, which demands arguments, you know, hard arguments,

and evidence for everything, and it's saying, no, guys, we can be rational

from arguments.

One last thing in regard to the heart, specifically, that verse.

Yeah, from Jeremiah 17.

Yeah, so I think that's probably primarily, I'd have to look at it again, but just off the top of my head, I think that's probably

primarily talking about needing to

question, being there probably to make us question certain moral

beliefs.

In our natural state, which I think, for Christians, we have a little bit of an advantage,

because the Spirit of God is making all of that right.

And at the same time, because I think we're made in the image of God, I think even non -Christians can know a

lot of moral truths.

So I sort of take the Jeremiah cry.

Freudian slip there.

The Jeremiah passage, I think, needs to be right in line with being made in God's image, and

I think once we do that, I think it's non

-regenerate individuals relying completely on themselves.

Something like that, I think.

Now, obviously, Alvin Plantinga was

in some way influenced by Calvin, by his admission, but did he also

adopt Calvin's understanding, which obviously I would believe is a biblical understanding, of the total depravity of

man?

Yeah.

So, Plantinga is a Calvinist, and

you would call the Romantrans a Calvinist,

those in whom the Synod of Dort was responding to.

I don't know.

Lots of people mean different things.

Some mean total inability, some mean every faculty is at least painted with some sin.

I've heard lots of different versions of it.

So there's lots of versions he'd believe.

But if you mean something like, once God's grace erases the effects of original sin,

be it His provenient grace, one's

present with the Gospel, does Plantinga think that that person can then rightly respond to the Gospel?

From my understanding, from other Plantinga's view, Plantinga would

be more sort of in the category of an Arminian or Molinist.

So he actually believes in the concept of provenient grace, which Roman Catholics and

Wesleyans seem to be in agreement on, on that area.

Yeah, I'm not an expert in this.

I'm an expert in epistemology, but not on esoteriology.

But so far, more in the sort of analytic theology field, yeah, that's what they tell me.

Okay, we're going to a break right now, our final break, and we do have a couple of questions waiting for

Tyler when we come back.

Our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com, chrisarnson at gmail .com,

if you would like to join them on the air with a question of your own.

And we look forward to hearing from you right after we return from our messages

during this final station break.

So don't go away.

We will be right back with Dr. Tyler Dalton McNabb after these messages.

Paul wrote to the church at Galatia, for am I now seeking the approval of man or of God?

Or am I trying to please man?

If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Hi, I'm Mark Lukens, pastor of Providence Baptist Church.

We are a Reformed Baptist Church, and we hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

We are in Norfolk, Massachusetts.

We strive to reflect Paul's mindset to be much more concerned with how God views what we say and what we do

than how men view these things.

That's not the best recipe for popularity, but since that wasn't the apostles' priority, it must not be ours either.

We believe by God's grace that we are called to demonstrate love and compassion to our fellow man and to be

vessels of Christ's mercy to a lost and hurting community around us and to build up the body of Christ in truth and

love.

If you live near Norfolk, Massachusetts or plan to visit our area, please come and join us for worship and fellowship.

You can call us at 508 -528 -5750.

That's 508 -528 -5750.

Or go to our website to email us, listen to past sermons, worship songs, or watch our TV program entitled,

Resting in Grace.

You can find us at ProvidenceBaptistChurchMA .org.

That's ProvidenceBaptistChurchMA .org.

Or even on sermonaudio .com.

Providence Baptist Church is delighted to sponsor Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio is sponsored by Harvey Cedars, a year -round Bible conference and retreat

center nestled on the Jersey Shore.

Harvey Cedars offers a wide range of accommodations to suit groups up to 400.

For generations, Christians have enjoyed gathering and growing at Harvey Cedars.

Each year, thousands of high school and college students come and learn more about God's Word.

An additional 9 ,000 come annually to Harvey Cedars as families, couples,

singles, men, women, pastors, seniors, and missionaries.

Ninety miles from New York City, 70 miles from Philly, and 95 miles from Wilmington,

and easily accessible, scores of notable Christian groups frequently plan conferences at

Harvey Cedars, like The Navigators, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus

Crusade, and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Find Harvey Cedars on Facebook or at hcbible .org.

hcbible .org.

Call 609 -494 -5689.

609 -494 -5689.

Harvey Cedars, where Christ finds people and changes lives.

Hi, I'm Pastor Bill Shishko, inviting you to tune in to A Visit to the Pastor's Study every Saturday

from 12 noon to 1 pm Eastern Time on WLIE Radio,

www .wlie540am .com.

We bring biblically faithful pastoral ministry to you, and we invite you to visit the Pastor's Study by calling in

with your questions.

Our time will be lively, useful, and I assure you, never dull.

Join us this Saturday at 12 noon Eastern Time for A Visit to the Pastor's Study, because everyone needs

a pastor.

I'm Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, and here's one of my favorite guests, Todd Friel, to

tell you about a conference he and I are going to.

Hello, this is Todd Friel, host of Wretched Radio and Wretched TV, and

occasional guest on Chris' show, Iron, Criticizing

Iron.

I think that's what it's called.

Hoping that you can join Chris and me at the G3 Conference in Atlanta, my new

hometown.

It is going to be a bang -up conference called the G3 Conference,

celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, with Paul Washer,

Steve Lawson, D .A. Carson, Votie Baucom, Conrad and Bayway, Phil Johnson, James White, and a bunch of other people.

We hope to see you there.

Learn more at G3conference .com.

G3conference .com.

Thanks, Todd, I think.

See you at the Iron Sharpens Iron Exhibitor's Booth.

Charles Hedgens Pershing once said,.

Give yourself unto reading.

The man who never reads will never be read.

He who never quotes will never be quoted.

He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own.

You need to read.

Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the Prince of Preachers to heart.

The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and

future, and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.

Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered, Christ -exalting

books for all ages.

We invite you to go treasure hunting at Solid -Ground -Books .com.

That's Solid -Ground -Books .com, and see what priceless literary gems from the past to

present you can unearth from Solid Ground.

Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

Welcome back.

This is Chris Arnzen.

If you just tuned us in, our guest today for the full two hours, with about 25

minutes left, is Dr. Tyler Dalton McNabb.

We are currently discussing Reformed Epistemology.

If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is ChrisArnzen at gmail .com, C -H -R -I -S

-A -R -N -Z -E -N at gmail .com.

Please give us your first name, city, state, and country of residence if you live outside of the USA.

We invite questions from anyone, whether they are Christian or not, or no matter what

denomination, or what religion, or what faith they claim to

represent, if any.

Agnostics and atheists are also welcome to ask questions at ChrisArnzen at gmail

.com.

Before I go to one of our listeners, who is in

Greensboro, North Carolina, Pastor Sterling Vanderwerker, I just wanted to, Tyler, since I

was able to fish out the Council of Trent, Canon 24,

if anyone shall say that the justice received is not preserved and also

increased in the sight of God through good works, but that said works are merely the

fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause

of the increase thereof, let him be anathema.

That's what I was referring to earlier.

So, some people might think on its surface

that Rome would be in agreement with those Reformed Christians who are in the Lordship

Salvation Camp, who condemn easy believism and cheap grace, those who unbiblically

and heretically believe that a born -again Christian can live any way he or she chooses

for their entire lives and go to heaven when they die.

They may think that Rome and those who are in the Lordship Salvation Camp of

Calvinism are on the same side, but obviously they're not, because Dr.

MacArthur and all those in the Christian Camp of Lordship Salvation would say

that good works are a fruit, an evidence of our justification, but they are

never a cause of it.

But anyway, we can—.

Yeah, yeah, that's why I agree with that for sure.

I was quite the primary author who was primarily responsible for those

that find their origin or primary responsibility in the spirits by way of us being in Christ, or

they sort of just are man -effort work that they're talking about.

And so, if you tend to think that N .T. Wright is right about justification,

then you might—.

Well, actually, I have a lot of serious disagreements with N .T. Wright, but—.

Indeed, I'm just saying if one did, then I think that what they're saying is

compatible with that, but not compatible with the traditional Reformed, or at least what's understood today as the

traditional Reformed view of justification.

Okay.

And we have Pastor Sterling Vanderwerker in Greensboro, North Carolina, who asks,

What are the top three issues with epistemology for the Christian to deal with?

The problem of induction surely is one, but what are the next two or three aspects

of epistemology?

Hmm.

That's that a lot of people, Christian or

not, are under the assumption— wrongly under the assumption—

that knowledge entails certainty.

That knowledge entails certainty.

That in order to know something, you have to be certain.

I think I know that I'm talking with you right now about Reformed epistemology

could be a greatly designed Japanese robot

that's fooling me this whole entire time.

Well, if it's a robot, it certainly would be Japanese, wouldn't it?

Indeed.

Indeed.

I'm in my house, but perhaps someone built a probable.

Someone built it like mine and moved mine slightly or something like that.

These things, nonetheless, because we

can know something and yet not be certain of it, not have this sort of 100 certainty thing.

So I think that's actually really important when we're discussing arguments for God's existence, when we're talking about epistemology to

nonbelievers,

guarantees that God exists with 100 certainty.

That's not a requirement.

Almost no philosopher living, almost no epistemologist living

would affirm that.

So I think that's something, politically speaking, that Christians, when we engage

the lost know.

And also for our own thinking, am I justified, am I rational, my belief

that God exists?

Because I'm not 100 % certain, nor am I.

And I went back and forth with this for about a year.

So I think that's pretty important.

It will be like the past, assuming it's what the author has, or the

pastor has in mind.

The problem of induction is solved in this way.

Similar with talking about how belief in God can be warranted.

Inductive belief in the uniformity of nature, belief that is uniform and so forth, can be

warranted.

We can be justified in affirming that the future will be like the past.

If we have a faculty that's aimed at uniformity of nature, then

we naturally produce this belief from our faculty, as long as our faculty is functioning properly and aimed at truth.

Then, hey, we can have a justified inductive belief here.

And so on Pliny's view, we don't get there by argumentation, because if we try

to demonstrate by induction, that would indeed be

circular.

So I guess those are probably my two comments that, right off the bat, I would probably

mention to him.

And Pastor Vanderwerker has a follow -up question.

I had the distinct honor of preaching a dear sister in Christ's

family member last Friday.

I guess he meant preaching to a dear sister in Christ's family member last Friday.

I proposed a problem to the hearers.

The Bible says, It is appointed once for man to die than the judgment.

And then proposed the following three steps for the hearers to be able to know the truth of the Scriptures.

Truth can only be known for certain under these three conditions.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God exists, and that He

has the power to, number two, reveal truth to us in

such a manner, in which, number three, we can know it and be certain, objectively

certain.

Is this the proper presentation for the epistemic certainty?

Brother Seitan Bruggencate taught that three -part presentation based on Bonson's understanding

of Cornelius Van Til.

Do I need to repeat any of that?

Because that's kind of a lengthy follow -up.

Can you just repeat the syllogism?

Let's see.

We are able to know the truth of the Scriptures under

these parameters here.

Truth can only be known for certain under these conditions.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God

exists, and that He has the power to reveal truth to us.

In such a manner, we can know it and be certain, objectively certain.

Yeah, I guess I don't see why.

What he means is that it's impossible

for us to be wrong about a particular belief.

I don't see why that follows necessarily from God being omnibenevolent,

omniscient, omnipotent, and so forth.

It seems like a non sequitur.

I'm not sure why that follows.

I think

that some of your listeners, but I probably

already do, given last week.

I actually think that we can't have.

I don't think that there can be much we can't be

wrong about.

Nonetheless, it's not a big deal for me, because I can say I know God exists,

and yet say it's not impossible for me to be deceived by that belief or similar.

I could say, I am in my car right now, but it's possible that actually when I went to my

house and then I came back, someone replaced my car with another car's.

I don't think knowledge entails certainty, so that's not a big deal for me.

So I don't actually try to establish with the unbeliever that we can have this objective certainty

that Sai's talking about, at least what I believe he's talking about, if I understand him rightly.

I think that's a bit of a red herring, and it's unnecessary, and I think it can actually be hurtful for our own faith, and for

others coming to faith.

Instead, I try to establish that

even when that comes to believing in God, I think that that's

probably the primary concern that I have.

I get into why on atheism you can't do this, and why

pressing the truth and unrighteousness, for another reason, and prison of the gospel, you know, the death penalty.

Now, having said what you said, why is it that when the Apostle

Paul is trying to comfort the church in Thessalonica,

he seems to be appealing to things that they can be certain of?

That, you know, the fact that for since we believe

that Jesus died and rose again, and even so through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have

fallen asleep.

We're not supposed to be paralyzed with depression and anxiety,

that we are ignorant of where those that we formerly

labored with the gospel, in our midst, our

brothers and sisters, when they die, we're not supposed to have some kind of lingering doubts

about where they are.

It seems that Paul is just instilling confidence in them that they are indeed with Christ,

and that they're going to be raised with him, and that they're going to return with him.

That's right.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I don't think that what you're talking about, though, is entailed by Paul's statement

there.

I mean, just because it's possible that right now you're talking to a Japanese

robot, a highly sophisticated Japanese robot,

doesn't mean that you should then be uncertain, and

as far as confidence level, right?

It doesn't mean that you shouldn't have great confidence that you're not speaking to a real

person.

It doesn't mean that you have no justification, or you have no psychological certainty, at least,

as a real person.

You shouldn't be in fear.

You shouldn't be

agnostic about that,

and have a certainty that's

biased.

Well, for instance, I believe that the Scriptures do

teach the miraculous qualities

that are inherent in the Word of God and the Gospel in regard to how they

transform someone.

For instance, how would someone with your philosophy approach

1 John 5, 20?

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so

we may know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son

Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and eternal life.

There doesn't seem to be any room for a question mark there.

Perhaps I'm just stupid.

No, no, no, not at all.

You know, you can know that you're talking to someone on the phone.

You can rest assured that you're not doing a radio show, Japanese

robot.

You'd have this sort of, I

think, because it's held up to belief, sort of like a radical

sort of paradigm.

I'm not saying you can't know.

I'm not saying you can't have lots of confidence.

I think we can be psychologically, I'm psychologically certain that God exists.

That's to say, you know, if you want to do some sort of psychological analysis on

me, it would be, like,

via my feelings.

It's not such that I

think that if

it's the most

infidecimal situation here we're talking about, right, maybe it's,

like, 0 .001 chance that I'm wrong here.

You know, nonetheless, that can still be the case, and yet I can know.

It's about knowing Jesus is risen from the dead, or being confident that I am saved, or knowing that I am saved.

All that still fits on my model, which, again, I stress, nearly all epistemologists, including all Christian

epistemologists, almost all Christian epistemologists agree that we can have knowledge about something and

yet not be certain of it.

And because we can have knowledge, I think knowledge does

entail some sort of confidence and a particular belief.

I can still, on my model, I can still account for all those verses, I think.

We have C .J. in Lindenhurst, Long Island, New York, who says, Mr.

Arnzen, years ago, I can recall, on the old Iron Sharpens Iron program,

you interviewed a gentleman who had been through phases of

involvement in various religions, including evangelical Roman Catholicism,

Eastern Orthodoxy, and perhaps a couple of cults here and there, and then, when returning

to Protestantism, wrote a book about his experiences.

You then challenged him on how we, his hearers,

could know that he is not just being blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

I remember you later announced, a year or two after that interview, that that man had

sadly returned to Eastern Orthodoxy, just as you feared he might

when you were interviewing him.

What does your guest have to say about his confidence that where he is now will not be something

that he strays from in the future?

I'm going to sound like a heretic to your viewers.

For my mere Christian, I think

Eastern Orthodox, if

he has an

evangelical, if he understands Eastern Orthodoxy with evangelical lenses,

Catholicism, I don't necessarily think that he's,

it would be, to me, an analogous to someone

being a Baptist and then turning Presbyterian, something like that.

I think doctrine can be confusing.

These secondary issues, people like to think that they have this sort of epistemic

certainty on these issues, they just can't be wrong about.

I think we need to have some epistemic humility when it comes, especially when it comes to

these sort of secondary issues that people struggle with.

Well, obviously, you and I would disagree on what are secondary and tertiary.

That's right, sure.

In fact, I'm serious if you ever think that you would be interested in having a

debate with someone on the issue of ecumenism and so on.

Sure, yeah.

I would love to see if we could perhaps at some point do that, because

obviously there were many things during our interview today that I disagree with you on.

And also, I must repeat myself, I don't believe that every person who claims to be

Eastern Orthodox is going to hell either.

But I think it goes back again to who do you trust and even what do you trust.

And I believe that many of the religions of the world, if

not all of them, officially teach that

man is some way earning his favor with God to enter into

eternal life with Him.

When I say all of them, I mean outside of biblical Christianity.

And I don't think that the issue of whether or not

works are meritorious or not, the works of humans, I don't think that's a secondary or tertiary

issue.

I think it's a very, very serious one.

But I do appreciate you putting up with me disagreeing with you on the program today.

And I would love for you to at some point be willing to participate in a debate, not with

me, I would never debate anyone.

I don't think I am qualified to do that.

But with someone, some scholar or apologist that I could

perhaps get interest in involvement.

But anyway, I know that your email, I'm sorry, not your email, your website

where people can contact you, I'm looking for it right now, here it is.

It is TylerDaltonMcNabb .com, and that's T -Y -L -E -R

-D -A -L -T -O -N -M, as in Michael, C -N as in Nancy, A

-B -B as in boy .com.

And any final words that you care to share with our audience before we go off the air today?

Yeah, well first, thanks for having me.

Very, very kind of you.

Secondly, I'd be more than happy,

ecumenicalism or

that sort of, roughly that field, that topic.

And thirdly, I'd be more than happy to entertain any questions.

If you want to email me or leave a comment on my

website, my email, you can email me at my personal email, I'll give you my personal email,

TylerDaltonMcNabb at gmail .com, so welcome any sort of further dialogue from this.

Well, I thank you very much for being on the program today, and I want to thank everybody who listened and those who took the

time to write in emails with questions, and I apologize to those that we could not get to because we're running out of

time now.

But I hope you all always remember for the rest of your lives that Jesus Christ is a far greater Savior than

you are a sinner, and we look forward to receiving your questions for our guests the remainder of the

week on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

God bless you and take care.