Court wants to know, sometimes I think theological labels do more harm than good, like reformed,

evangelical or anything like that. What do you think? Well, court, I am in, I think, full agreement.

Let me say most agreement. There might be a place for theological labels, okay? But I agree. Some of these labels,

I guess here's the problem.

What somebody means by the label that they are using for themselves might be understood

differently from the person hearing that label. The two examples he gave, reformed and

evangelical are classic examples of this.

If I were to say I'm reformed, I might mean something specific by that. I mean, in the times when I have

kind of in passing described myself as reformed, I mean, in a sense, that could mean, I'm a product of the Reformation. I believe

in the Five Solas. I believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority. I am a product of

the Reformation, like every Protestant is on some level. Or I might mean something like I believe that divine agency has a

priority in salvation. And I do believe that. In fact, my second academic book, Paul and Judy

isn't revisited, which nobody has read, argues that point, that Paul's understanding of salvation

prioritized divine agency in a way that was stronger and more pervasive than all the different

forms of Jewish expressions of divine agency and salvation are in and around the first century. So in a sense,

that that would be a point that quote unquote reform people typically emphasize. But if I were

to say I'm reform, somebody might interpret that to mean, oh, so you embrace all that comes with

like reform Christianity's subculture. I'm like, well, no,

I don't embrace that. Or, oh, so you believe in double predestination where God ordains

some people to the new creation and ordains everybody else to hell. Like, divine agency

operates the same way in salvation and damnation. I'm like,

well, no, I don't believe that. Oh, so you believe God ordains everything, including human evil in the

...