And I'm I fly over the mountain.

over the mountain to save my soul away.

Sieve my son away. This next question comes to us from Singapore says Dr Craig often says that certain issues are in-house

debates within the church for example biblical inerancy.

What are the criteria used to judge whether or not a debate is considered in-house?

Dr Craig has mentioned that he rejects the classical theistic view of God,

likening that view of God to more pantheistic eastern religions.

Given how radically different the two views of God are, why and how should this issue be

considered an in-house debate?

Now before I address Scooter's question, let me say that what I reject is not so much the classical theistic view of God,

which I adhere to. What I reject is the doctrine of divine simplicity as Thomas Aquinas enunciates and explains

that I do not think that a tomistic doctrine of divine simplicity is correct, but that is hardly incumbent

upon theists. In fact that leads to the answer to Scooter's question. There are lots of Christian Theists who don't hold to a

Tomistic doctrine of divine simplicity and the line between salvation and

damnation does not fall along that same line. So what makes it an

in-house issue is that it isn't decisive for a person's salvation. To be heretical, a view will have to be below the cutoff

line of what is necessary to affirm in order to be a

regenerate Christian, to be saved.

And so I think that for most issues,

they tend to be in-house questions among people who are sincere,

regenerate Christians and that

Romans chapter 14 addresses that policies that

...