Glenn Beck

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three -three -four -one and now with today's topic.

Here is James wife under the topic of Salvation number one unconditional or general salvation that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law consists in the mere fact of being

Resurrected in this sense salvation is synonymous with immortality It is the inseparable connection of body and spirit so that the resurrected personage lives forever

This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind except only accepting only the sons of perdition

But this is not the salvation of righteousness the salvation which the Saints seek Those who gain only this general or unconditional salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or Celestial kingdom they will therefore be damned their eternal progression will be cut short

They will not fill the full measure of their creation, but in eternity will be ministering servants to more worthy persons number two conditional or individual salvation

That which comes by grace coupled with gospel obedience Consists in receiving an inheritance in the celestial kingdom of God this kind of salvation follows faith repentance baptism receive the

Holy Ghost and Continued righteousness to the end of one's mortal probation

Full pain by virtue of knowledge truth righteousness and all true principles Many conditions must exist in order to make such salvation available to men without the

Atonement the gospel the priesthood and the sealing power There would be no salvation without continuous revelation the ministering of angels the working of miracles the prevalence of gifts of the

Spirit There would be no salvation if it had not been for Joseph Smith and the Restoration there would be no salvation

There is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints These are some of the sections on the doctrine of salvation from Elder Bruce R.

McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine 1979 edition Bruce R. McConkie was one of the twelve apostles of the

LDS Church and When I first started ministering to Mormons His viewpoints were reflective of the vast majority of Mormons with whom we spoke

But times they be a -changin right after discussion of salvation

You then have in his book Mormon Doctrine the topic salvation by grace listen to what this says

Salvation by grace since all good things come by the grace of God that is by his love mercy and condescension

It follows that salvation itself and all its forms and degrees is bestowed because of this infinite goodness.

However one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is The concept that man can gain salvation meaning the kingdom of God by grace alone and without obedience

This soul -destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all the laws and ordinances the gospel

Such conformity being essential if the sought for reward is in reality to be gained

Salvation in the celestial kingdom of God. However is not salvation by grace alone rather it is salvation by grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel

Mormon Doctrine Bruce R McConkie now in the years since Well, even toward the end of McConkie's life.

This was happening. You need to understand what's happened in Mormonism Mormonism has made a specific attempt a a push to mainstream itself and to In essence do more of its proselytization internally from within a a instead of standing outside saying we're the only true church and proselytizing door -to -door

They made the decision at some point in time to begin attempting to Look more like we're all

Christians Part of that process Involved sending their brightest and their best out to study at places other than Brigham Young University and To get their doctorates and their graduate studies in in Pauline studies and things like that Well the

I think unforeseen result of this Has been that you have had scholars coming back to Brigham Young University infected with The viewpoints of the

Apostle Paul If anything is to be said about Joseph Smith, he was grossly ignorant of the

Bible grossly ignorant of the Bible If you want an example of someone who interpreted the

Bible Thoroughly and completely in an anachronistic fashion

Well It interpreted completely within an in early 19th century

American context is Joseph Smith That's where the Book of Mormon comes from.

That's where all the anachronisms the Book of Mormon come from etc, etc. And so Smith's knowledge of The Bible as a whole

And of the themes and concepts of the Bible is Absolutely positively abysmal this leads to many of the most amazing statements that he makes and so for anybody to to learn more about the backgrounds of the

Bible and especially Pauline thought and grace Trying to to meld that with the grossly anti -christian theology of Joseph Smith is

Well, it's painful to watch a number of years ago a book came out published by book craft, which is one of the

LDS publishers out of Salt Lake City 1991 is the date Called our

Mormons Christians by Steven E. Robinson It's a very small little book It barely let's see here.

It's what 120 pages approximately 133 pages Very small little book but a lot of standard material attempting to find ways of Finding early church writers that sounded

Mormon and so on and so forth but the whole argument was to try to say that Mormonism is

Christian and and what Robinson really began putting into The Mormon mainstream was a concept of grace because Joseph Smith did not understand grace

When Joseph Smith came up with his alleged inspired version of the Bible many of the changes he made demonstrated very clearly.

He had no concept of what grace meant He changed the description of God as the one who justifies the ungodly to God who does not justify the ungodly

He stuck the word not in there He just did not have a clue what grace was

Now the problem is You can't just slightly change Mormonism you can't

It's just not possible to do because you're talking about a system that is so fundamentally anti -christian

You have the wrong God the wrong Savior the wrong scriptures. You've got it wrong from the start it's just not possible to do and the attempts to try to do it are

Are a mess Robinson eventually came out with another book called believing Christ the parable the bicycle and other good news and The most that you can say this is the next year 1992 the most you can say about these particular things is

That they have attempted to create Just as there are some Mormons attempting to create a an economic

Trinitarianism without completely abandoning abandoning their polytheism and and so on so forth It is is that they've produced an amazing synergism

It's it's never grace alone. It can't be because they don't have a God who can be truly gracious When you have a

God who was himself dependent upon a process to become a God Well at that point you just have completely left any meaningful

Biblical categories behind when it comes to the LDS concept of salvation now keeping in mind what

McConkie said about universal salvation, which is the same thing as resurrection and Then individual salvation which is exaltation exaltation to Godhood The very goal of salvation and Mormonism is completely different because again you have a completely different God It's a completely different religious system

There there are few religions that are more Completely contradictory to separate from biblical

Christianity and Mormonism and so with all that in mind

Today on the program at least for the first half the program may be a little bit longer We'll see we will see if we get to calls all depends

I've had a lot of people contacting me and Saying did you did you hear what

Glenn Beck said? I? mean Glenn Beck's a Mormon, but I think Glenn Beck's an evangelical and Evangelical Mormon, I guess

Or other people are saying how can he be saying this stuff is has he been deceived by Mormonism?

Does he does not know what Mormonism teaches? I? Don't know

I know next to nothing about Glenn Beck my understanding is he's a Catholic who became a Mormon I Don't watch him.

I You know you can't avoid seeing him He's all over the place these days and and I Frequently O 'Reilly's on when

I'm having dinner, and so I'll catch him You know saying things and you know he says things

I agree with I'm clearly a conservative But sometimes I catch some of the stuff.

He's saying. I'm just like whoa where on earth did he get that? And we played a section that demonstrated when it comes to like the

Council of Nicaea and Constantine That he's really confused about the

Dead Sea Scrolls and history the Bible, and you know all sorts of stuff like that, so I Don't have any clue what

Glenn Beck does or does not know anything along those lines, but I can tell when someone is confused about Mormonism and Whether Glenn Beck is being deceptive or whether he really just doesn't know his own faith very well or he's sort of a

Stephen Robinson type Mormon, I don't know I have no earthly idea

But we need to listen to what he had to say and I've got ten minutes worth of his stuff

Interacting with it. I'm not sure how much commentary I'm gonna make so we'll see whether we take calls at the end of the program not we'll see well

We'll just see I'm obviously not gonna break up the Glenn Beck stuff to do that, but we'll see if Johnny wants to hold on That's great

All right Let's just listen what he had to say he's talking about Black liberation theology and There is absolutely no question in my mind at least what he's saying about this.

He's exactly right on because Black liberation theology has nothing to do with Christianity It's not

Christianity, it's it's not related to Christianity. It's a it is it is a reprehensible perversion of Christianity We went over cone stuff on the dividing line a number of about two years ago now and It is it is such a gross perversion of anything that even come close to Christianity.

It is it is radical Communist political ideology With a splash of religion on it.

It's it's revolting and disgusting and should be condemned. I Personally don't see any difference honestly between black liberation theology and the

KKK. They're just they're just mirror images of each other That's all they are it is as racist Dripping with racist drivel as anything.

It's out there. It's just disgusting and so I agree with him He brought somebody on who did a good job what little

I saw of him in this section You know talking about these very issues, but that's where He made all these comments that made a lot of people go what on earth is

Glenn Beck talking about as a Mormon. Well, let's let's find out what Glenn Beck was talking about as a

Mormon because a perversion of God is Extraordinarily dangerous

Now I started right there because Mormonism has a gross perversion of God Does does

Glenn Beck understand that I mean he's gonna say later He called Stephen land of the Southern Baptist Convention and sort of gave the idea that what he was we saying is what all

Christians believe But again, you can't talk about the Atonement and you can't talk about soteriology.

You can't talk about salvation You can't talk about grace alone or anything else if you're talking about a God who was once a man lived on another planet and that there are billions of gods beyond him and he had a

God he worshipped and he the God of this world lives on a planet that circles a star named

Kolob and That Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer and someday

We'll get to get to have wives and have kids so he can become fully exalted and get his own planet and all the rest of this stuff

You want to talk about a perversion of God there there you go, that's that's the best you can come up with any group that has

Institutional power now this evidently is cone Remember I read from his book, but it's even worse listening to him say it directly

They are valid therefore the main line denominations in this

Country have been violent against black people the crucifixion of Jesus Was the first century lynching?

America has a tradition of lynching And which America lynched more than 5 ,000 black people in this land

The Christian Church said very little about it It was very violent lynching so if we understand the cross correctly

We will see it as Jesus being a victim of lynching a victim of violence so at the heart of the

Christian faith is God taken upon God's self

The suffering of the victim when you see a lynch black body

That's who God is Now I just I stop right there

Beck's gonna comment on as well, but when you see a lynched black body how about a lynched white body I? mean

I Racism is disgusting to me but the only thing more disgusting me and racism are racists who don't realize the racists or Racists who are racist, but say they can't be racist because their race

That's what absolutely drives me insane, and I've heard people defend that I can't be a racist because I don't have the power to be racist

The abject foolishness of such thought is is is really difficult to comment on There's a lot there.

This is kind of complex Because Jesus did identify with the victims, but Jesus was not a victim

He was a conqueror The death of Jesus Christ is a moment of victory as is the resurrection

See this is the main difference here victims as opposed to Messiah's conquerors victims or conquerors

Jesus Conquered death he wasn't victimized. He chose to give his life.

He did have a choice if he was a victim and this theology was true, then

Then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did

That's an abomination This is straight now from Cone quote black theology refuses to accept a

God who is not identified Totally with the goals of the black community if God is not for us and against white people

Then he is a murderer and we had better kill him the task of black Theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community

Okay, it gets worse from here. So how does a white person get salvation in that system according to Cone?

If the powerful in our society the white people If they want to become

Christians they have to give up that power and And become identified with the powerless if you're going to be a

Christian You can't be identified with the powerful and also Christian at same time the only way in which your repentance your forgiveness can be

Can be authentic your reception of it can be authentic your repentance can be a thing is that you give back what you took and White people took a lot from black people

Okay follow this The only way you can be saved according to this theology if you're an oppressor is

You give back what you took I've never taken anything. I've I've earned what

I have You have to give it back through reparations. You step down from that job.

You took from someone else. I Think I've worked hard for this job. I didn't take it from someone else

You have to give back that money you took from someone else. I've earned this money

Do you notice anything that is missing here? Here? We go. There's a couple of things one

Merit the idea of your character and merit you earn certain things, but when it comes to salvation

What's missing grace? grace You're saved by grace

At this point in the video, there's big screen says saved by grace

Right here on on the Fox Fox. It's network. I'm sort of wondering what what?

Becks Critics I do it with this particular program. They must have been going.

Whoa, what is going on here? But is big saved by grace on on the screen

You cannot earn your way into heaven. You can't There is no deed no random act of kindness

No amount of money to spread around to others that earns you a trip to heaven. It can't happen

But is there obedience to gospel rules and principles that absolutely must be rendered so that grace can be made?

effective or efficient That is the question that I would have for Glenn Beck In fact,

I would I would direct Glenn Beck to well the scriptures that he himself is carrying along To look up certain things in his own scriptures and specifically in the subject of the topic of grace and What grace is?

now again, I realize that Mormonism has a pretty, you know wide variety of perspectives these days, but in his own

Bible Dictionary Page 697 of the quadruple combination that I have in my hand here

We find an entry for the word grace and I would think that for a

Mormon this would be sort of important I would like to if Glenn Beck has found out that this stuff is not true

That'd be great. But I think he needs to tell other folks that because he's gonna say a little later on I am a Mormon. He's not gonna say anything about you know,

I've found their problems here under the term grace It is through the grace of Lord Jesus made possible by his atoning sacrifice that mankind will be raised in immortality.

I remember him That's everybody So Christ's death makes simple resurrection possible in Mormon theology

Every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life it is likewise through the grace of the

Lord that individuals through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins receive strength and assistance

To do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left their own means this grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and Exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts

Now when you think about what the Book of Mormon itself says on this subject

It's it's even it's even worse 2nd Nephi chapter 25

Says the following for we labor diligently to write to persuade our children and also our brethren to believe in Christ and be reconciled to God For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do

It is by grace we are saved after all we can do So you do your best?

You give forth a hundred percent effort and then grace meet you Now of course no one has ever given forth a 100 % effort and No one ever will and no one ever can

That's one of the problems Is that really what the message of the Book of Mormon is?

Well, it seems so Because in Moroni chapter 10 verse 32, we read the following words in the

Book of Mormon yea, come unto Christ and be perfected in him and Deny yourselves of all ungodliness and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love

God with all your might mind and strength Then is his grace sufficient for you? That by his grace, he may be perfect in Christ and if by the grace of God you're perfect in Christ He can in no wise deny the power of God.

So if you will deny yourselves of all ungodliness and Love God with all your might mind and strength then is his grace sufficient for you

Now the question I've asked Many Mormons down through the years is if you can rid yourself of all ungodliness

And if you can love God perfectly apart from the grace of God, then why do you need the grace of God?

This this is again, I'm just I'm reading straight out of the LDS scriptures here and wondering

Where Glenn Beck stands in regards to such things? It's earned by God's grace alone

By believing that Jesus died on the cross for you. This is what Christians believe So Rather than repentance and faith and Believing who

Jesus is There you have a definition of well, you need to believe that Jesus died on the cross for you

I think Glenn's been around too many fuzzy evangelicals

Not doing a whole lot of biblical study, but fuzzy evangelicals That don't quite have the message right as an individual

You make the choice You know what? I think the biggest Sin is the biggest problem.

We're all gonna have when we get up to the pearly gates even Christians who say yeah I accept the atonement. Did you really did you really accept that gift?

Did you really unload all the stuff that you had done in your life and give it to him?

That's how it works Now that doesn't I don't believe that that means that now, you know

Like Constantine who died was baptized like I got a lot of thing. I had to be a king I got to kill a lot of people baptize me when

I'm dying. I think that's kind of you're trying to work the system there You yeah,

I don't know what Beck's problem with Constance It sounds like he's

Way over influenced by the Da Vinci Code or something like that. No, you really have to have a change of heart

That's where the deeds come in. It's the change of heart. May I quote the book of James 2 20?

But wilt thou know O vain man that faith without works is dead

Now, I don't know how many times I've had Mormons quote that text to me very rarely in context often they thought it was

Paul saying it but I it's it's I We commented, you know decades ago that Mormon children learned

James 2 20 At the same time the Christian children late learn John 3 16

That's just how fundamental and basic it is but Mormons do not give this interpretation of James 2 20.

What does that mean? Our work is a demonstration of our faith

That's pretty much what most evangelicals would say That by doing these things we are giving demonstration of the existence of our faith

That's not what Bruce R. McConkie would say. That's not what the vast majority of Mormon missionaries.

I've ever talked to would say So where is that coming from?

I don't know don't ask me Could I come up with an

Orthodox spin Orthodox from the Mormon position position spin on that maybe maybe but I He's not using the standard language

That one would expect now. He's a new convert to I'm relatively speaking. He's only been a few years What was it two three years ago something like that?

I don't know But that might explain it

I Don't know clearly being in the political spectrum.

He is in he would be around a lot of Conservative evangelicals, so maybe what you've got here is a guy raised

Catholic converts to Mormonism for Who knows what reasons

I? Mean I've told a story before of many people that I met that had become Mormons and they became

Mormons out of ignorance they met some nice missionaries some nice people's their next -door neighbors, whatever and For a long time now

The Mormon Church has had no qualms getting you into baptistry on the minimum amount of knowledge

Hoping that when you you know start doing your own study, whatever That you would sort of pick it up and absorb it over time and embrace it

Has that process been short -circuited to where you've got a guy who's maybe a nominal

Catholic Becomes a Mormon without really understanding what Mormonism is all about now.

He's around evangelical Christians all the time He's borrowing their language. Just trying to cobble something together Seems like a possibility

Seems like a possibility, but who knows? It's really hard to say from this we want to concentrate on liberation theology and Trish traditional

Christianity because one is a perversion and If you get into the churches and you start teaching some perversion of it

It's going to be a radically bad outcome Now Cone himself has argued that the

Bible is insufficient to know what social justice is. Do you know why? Because social justice isn't in the

Bible He says you need Marxism to understand what

Christianity means Now I have to tell you I don't think and I think most

Christians will agree with me that Karl Marx speaks for God I don't think so.

What do you see? We 86 marks here. Thanks, but no, thanks But I also am wise enough to know that people will say yeah, but Glenn Beck is a

Mormon He's not even a real Christian Glenn Beck is a

Mormon. He's not even Yeah, I didn't know we talked like this You can believe what you want

I Will tell you that I am a man who needed the atonement more than most people do

I appreciate the atonement What is the atonement Glenn I mean honestly from from the

LDS perspective What is the atonement? It sounds to me like he's reinterpreting

Mormonism in an in a completely different context

Than what Joseph Smith intended Mormonism to actually be What does the atonement accomplish

Glenn? What was it? Where did it start Glenn? According to Mormonism start in the

Garden of Gethsemane it was only completed on the cross and What is the result of it?

What's the effect of it? These are things that I don't hear him

Recognizing the fundamental difference between Christianity and Mormonism on these issues.

I accept Jesus as my Savior I know that I am alive today Because I did give all of it to him because I couldn't carry it anymore

But I know the game that people play so don't take this from me

Not only did we call Anthony Bradley on black liberation theology. I also called Richard land

He is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious Liberty Commission I wanted to make sure that me, but I would be saying the same thing that mainline

Christianity would say same exact definition of Individual salvation as opposed to the perversion of collective salvation we talked

I said Richard Salvation is an individual relationship between the individual and God Through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, right?

Jesus said John 14 6 I am the way the truth and the life I Cannot be saved for you

I cannot save you I Can't even save myself if you're a

Christian you believe that Jesus can save you if you just tuned in boy

This has got to be the weirdest damn episode. You've ever heard of the Glenn Beck program. There is a point to this and It is a crucial point that you understand

When Jesus died he died for everyone that ever lived if you're a Christian you believe that Well Okay, I just got banished from the kingdom

Obviously those folks around Glenn Beck are not reformed Folks they are definitely our minion folks

But we were just just kicked out of the kingdom right there if you actually happen to believe

Actually interesting enough if you actually happen to believe what Glenn Beck just said In other words, he just said

Christians believe that Jesus Christ can save That's exactly right But why can he save well, what does

Hebrews chapter 7 say? Why is he able to save the uttermost because he ever lives to make intercession for them

Is he making intercession for every single individual if he is then all people will be saved clearly

These are issues that have not yet Entered into the radar screen but it's still interesting to listen to a

Mormon making these statements because again remember what we read earlier From the Moran perspective the

Atonement of Christ makes it possible for everyone to be saved because everyone's going to be resurrected So is he using saved in the

Mormon way? That everybody's saved ie resurrected I Don't hear any language here at all that makes the classical distinctions between universal

Resurrection and individual salvation exaltation. I'm just not hearing it Does he know about these things?

I don't know. I wish I could answer that question for you, but I don't know It was a collective act

It was an act that covered the collective everybody who had lived and everybody who will live the entire collection of people

But it must be accepted Personally individually got it want to show you the difference here here is traditional

Christianity Jesus died to now again. This was a video. So he's now pointing to his infamous chalkboard

Yes Written he's got a nice little tomb and you know all this stuff on a on a chalkboard two thieves over here

He took on the sins of the world by choice The empty tomb represents that he conquered death.

He was not a victim because he did it by choice He's not a victim. He's a victor.

He was a conqueror. He conquered death got it to receive his salvation

You accept his forgiveness of sins and live your life according to his will that's what

Every Christianity Christian Church in the country in the world believes

This is biblical again amazing to to listen to that given the many different takes on that and and of course the

Very unique aspects of that that are part and parcel of the faith.

He says that he follows Because that's only a part all the stuff about exaltation to Godhood all the stuff about the priesthood and All of that which makes

Mormonism unique Where does that fit in it in his mind? Does it fit in some place?

I don't know. I Don't know but the the language certainly isn't pointing to it

Now the perversion of the concept of collective salvation

You accept his forgiveness you Accept his forgiveness and then you live your life according to his will meaning do unto others as you would have them do unto you

That's what it means This is where It becomes the typical

Political show or the news of the day show Let me bring this now to Barack Obama Okay, just I only have here like one minute or more left

In in this particular segment and then then we that's that's all of Beck that I have

But it's interesting the application he makes her I will play some audio here lots of audio of Barack Obama talking about individual salvation his individual salvation

Depends on collective salvation Well, what does that mean? What does that mean?

Well according to liberation theology, it means that salvation and redemption bought by Jesus comes in the form of political and social liberation for minorities from white oppression

Salvation is realized with minorities achieving economic and political parity via redistribution of wealth with whites

Minorities are saved in the sense that white people constantly confess and repent of being racist and meet the economic demands of minorities via the redistribution of wealth as a consequence of in some form or another reparations

Now if that's the case and this was the only video I had maybe

I know they went to a break and you know, he had a discussion with someone from King's College and There was more that went after that.

I didn't see it That is in and of itself frightening that anyone could believe that and if that's what

Barack Obama means and understands then that's definitely scary stuff, but Not our purpose to examine that our purpose really is to consider is

Glenn Beck an Orthodox Mormon Well the language that he is utilizing is is most definitely not

Orthodox language as Far as Mormonism is concerned could a person make, you know sort of sort of stretch things just a little bit and You know

Our there are people going around today doing seminars giving talks that are trying to make

Mormonism as Christian as possible and They will use this, you know particular kind of language

That sounds real good and is specifically intended to you know communicate the idea that there's not that much of a difference between us and You know,

I I understand that But is that what he's trying to do?

I don't know. I Don't know maybe somebody else out there does maybe somebody knows if he's gotten hold of the standing together guys, you know

Is that what's going on? I don't know but What you do have today in Mormonism is a royal mess

I mean there was a day when you could define what Mormonism believed on certain certain issues It's far more difficult to do that today.

And maybe that maybe Glenn Beck is just a very notable example of that. I don't know But it was interesting to listen to that eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is

The phone number maybe if you are a Glenn Beck expert and you know, everybody he knows

You can let us know. I don't know but be that as it may eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

We're going to go to the man with the big questions Who has been wanting to ask about this particular subject for a couple of weeks now,

I I had prepared Before we started doing the syngenous slick stuff

I had taken the time to prepare to answer his question and they didn't call it Well, actually tried to call him, but he didn't call in fast enough and couldn't get in that day because there are so many callers

So let's let's talk after having embarrassed him now. Let's talk with Johnny How you doing

Johnny? Alright, well, I just can give you a really quick context.

I met this guy. He's a Christian brother he's got a he's got a YouTube channel, I called himself reformed apologist and he he had met me from a mutual friend and He had asked me for some input because he wanted to give a defense for the last ball versus of mark

And you know, maybe he was disappointed that I didn't believe it was a mark So I emailed him back some references to your book

King James only controversy and we kind of interacted a little bit and he started saying that he is his information is basically based on Dean John Bergen and I had

I had heard of John Bergen before From the talks that you had had especially like with Gail Ripplinger and I think you even mentioned him on the

Bible answer man But I can't remember and I know you quoted him in your book So I went ahead and ordered three books from John Bergen and so far as my friend

David is concerned his book stands unrefuted and what I wanted to ask you about was number one one of the things that John Bergen talks about is that the the claim that the last 12 verses of mark are

Actually with what I think it's called the asterix obelli or glosses or something that which indicate that the oldest or best

Manuscripts do not contain these last 12 verses that he that Dean Bergen had actually looked them up and that he found out that That actually was the opposite that they indicated that they were in the oldest manuscripts he cites about 19 church fathers from the 2nd through the 7th century that quote from the last 12 verses of mark and You know, well,

I mean if you can get started there Well, it's real simple Bergen's no longer relevant He's so far outside of the time frame of modern textual studies that to rely upon someone who was writing

In the 19th century is to just completely ignore everything that has happened since that time.

It is amazing that the That there are people still publishing this stuff.

It's sort of like going back and it's funny It's it's a double standard the the the

King James only folks and I'm not saying this guy's King James only but the people who utilize Bergen stuff tend to be

King James only even though Bergen was not Bergen recognized there was a necessity for the revision of the

Texas Receptus especially in places like the Kami Ohanian, but they don't tend to point those things out when it comes to Bergen's writings, but The the point is that the people on that side are constantly saying well

You're just you're just repeating everything at Westcott and Hort said who were contemporary Contemporary with Bergen the fact

Bergen's writing specifically to refute Westcott and Hort Modern textual critical theory is is not

Westcott and Hort It's it's gone a long ways away from Westcott and Hort and has recognized imbalances in Westcott and Hort and all the rest that stuff

And so on the one hand, they'll say you people are just repeating Westcott and Hort but then they'll go back to the same contemporary writers and Time period and and drag

Bergen out Bergen existed before the papyri now as far as the long ending of mark is concerned the papyri didn't didn't shed much light on that But on the vast majority of what he's he's talking about his textual theories and things like that If you're writing before the 1930s and you're writing before the pyre we've come along There's just only limited value to that kind of material so When you when you say well look them all up and and say that they don't contain asterix or a belly or whatever else

It might be You know, I suppose if you buy into some kind of a conspiracy theory that everybody today that makes reference these things has just been duped and There's just as great

Alexandrian Controversy going out there isn't like that. I suppose I can see where it's coming from but significantly more

Meaningful are are the discussions by That take into consideration not the number of early church fathers who are familiar with the longer ending of mark

But also the fact because it's very primitive. There's no question longer ending of mark is primitive The question is why is there a long entering mark a shorter ending of mark an intermediate ending of mark and a combination thereof?

That's the that's the question. It's not how many church fathers you can cite or how many manuscripts you can cite? The question is why are there multiple?

endings to the book of mark if The long ending was there to begin with if it was the original

Ending of the gospel of mark despite the weirdness in verses 9 through 20 leaving all that stuff aside leaving all the

Handling of snakes and drinking poison and all that stuff leaving all that aside the question that for me

Makes this an important issue is why is

There a multiplicity of endings to the gospel of mark if that was the original because you don't have any place else

Well James one of the things that he said was that and I think I just like I'm talking last week

I got posted. I got revision revised by Dean Bergen. I got the last 12 verses of mark and Causes corruption so I'm just trying to read through some of his arguments and some of the things that I mean

I'm not a scholar like you are so I'm just kind of like a layperson kind of reading these things and I'm noticing that Bergen Argues against because one of the things

I've noticed about these Byzantine and by the way, my friends not King James only One of the things that I'm noticing is that as they attack the

Alexandrian text type it's immediately to to vilify Westcott and Hort and to vilify that the

Alexandrian text type was corrupted by heresy, you know the

Facilities in the Alexandrian because he was in he was in Alexandria and so on and so forth and so So the the point behind that is is that they're constantly attacking a specific text type

Whereas what I explained to David is that I think that he did a three -part after I had a discussion with him

He had actually made a three -part video series on his channel on YouTube where he presents this case and he talks about the

Obelli and There was something else that he mentioned that I just can't remember at the top of my head at the moment But this wasn't part of the issue that he it's an opposition to the

Alexandrian text type That they have and and trying to defend to the

Byzantine Tradition because that's the one that the church is used kind of like you talked about in the King James only controversy with the

Latin Vulgate and so forth well, yeah, there's no question that There there is a lot of Rhetoric That resulted in an imbalance on both sides.

That's that's part of the scholarly process But there was a lot of rhetoric and hard feelings and and competition and all the rest that stuff

And so yeah, it unfortunately comes out in in both sides of that particular controversy

But that's one of the advantages of of not being stuck back in the 1880s

In the sources that you use. I think it would be a whole lot better And I I know

I bought this book I must have lent out somebody because I cannot find it I have scanned my library twice now trying to find this but sometime over the past year and a half

I purchased a new book that Came out around that time.

I know Dan Wallace writes one of the four views But it's four views in the long writing a mark. You know, I just received the package today

It's called perspectives on the ending of my four views, right? I just received it I just pulled it out of the box just a few minutes ago.

Yeah. Yeah, I cannot find my copy anywhere. I I may have I Specifically remember taking it with me.

Is it black? It is actually a paperback book. It's got like an orangey or like a brownish top and it's got a

Well, anyway Yeah, I I've I have about pulled my eyes out of my head

Scanning my rather large library trying to find this thing because I Remember once sticking it in bag to take on a trip

So I'm sort of concerned that it's who knows where in the lost and found some some Hotel or airport someplace and I need to order it again, but I would

I would much more Direct somebody to a resource like that.

I see people on the textual critical email list all the time who are

Arguing this issue and supporting the longer ending of markets like that and look if you want to if you want to argue that fine

If you can come up with a meaningful Answer as to why there are multiple endings

I'm willing to listen to it But the fact the matter is the vast majority of folks who've even tried to do so Have been doing so on the basis of a double standard

They've been doing so as King James only folks if you want to defend it for whatever reasons Just be consistent, you know explain

Codex Washingtonius explain You know how this gets lost.

Why are the why the variations, you know, explain it don't just make it Unfortunately as as Bergen did much more of a test of orthodoxy than than anything else.

That's that's what's important to me. So You know, I I made my case

I've not heard any compelling reasons to Change my viewpoint on that but at the same time

I I don't you know, shoot somebody for wanting to defend it It's not like the

Kami Ohanian. I think there's a it is funny to me anyone check out the arguments of anybody who defends the long ending of mark and Any standard argumentation they will use to defend long any of mark will of necessity preclude the

Kami Ohanian But I find that most people who are defying long ending mark are also defying the Kami Ohanian That's the problem.

You got to be consistent on both ends of the of the of the spectrum. You just have to do it It's just it's just necessary. So So I just don't see

Bergen is not the direction to go if you're gonna defend it look at the look at the the writers in that book that are defending it in a modern context and Hopefully without quite as much spite toward Westcott and Ford who are dead

You know and no longer overly relevant along those lines and I think you'll have a much much more You know a better approach to that particular subject

How would I Collected the several books on textual criticism over the years

I'm obviously not as many of you but I mean, I've got books like Kurt Kurt Alon Bruce Metzger's textual commentary

I got Philip Comfort's book You know, I've got William Hendrickson has a lengthy commentary on on that particular chapter

But when I hear I mean you could have 20 scholars be wrong and one be right.

That's actually theoretically possible. But when I have one particular scholar who was as well respected in his day like John Bergen and he makes the point that The the gloss that was written by this scribe

At this particular century doesn't mean that it wasn't there It means the opposite and the other 20 scholars

How would I as a lay Christian find out who's telling the truth or who's correct on this?

Well, I Don't know I don't know how to answer that.

I mean You're talking about interpretation of the marks in the margin of a manuscript and all that tells me is that there has been an interruption in the transmission of the text this point and The scribe was aware of that.

Can we determine that the scribe and is it relevant that the scribe? What the scribe believed as to whether it should be a rid whether it was original or not.

I don't know if that's relevant The point is that there is marking indicating

That the scribe knew that there was a question concerning this text what his conclusion was on it.

I don't know if that's relevant I don't know what that's that can that's even Ascertainable You're talking about people who died a long time ago what they believed

I mean unless they wrote some extended textual note, which would be extremely rare. I mean, how is

Bergen supposed to know that? How's anybody supposed to know that the modern textual? Scholar who notes the

Obella or something like that in a manuscript is not saying that means this person Came to the conclusion that this was not original.

That's not what it's saying It's just simply saying there's marks here, which means that the scribe was aware of it of a textual variation

That's all I'm saying. He was specifically addressing that there were different symbols There was a cross symbol which meant this and I like I guess

I don't understand that stuff I mean if you've read John Bergen's book on that section, I don't know how you interacted or if you remember but at any rate

Thank you so much. Okay. Thanks calling Johnny. All right I let's real quickly fit

Dabney in here right for the end of the program. Hi Dabney Good to talk to you again.

Yes, sir. I just wanted to make a quick comment and a quick question quick comment is Thank you for all your work that you do and Mormonism I've got a lot of the debates that you've done and the radio calls and things like that and I ran into two more

Missionaries and was able to give a good defense. And so I'm thankful for that. Thank you for your ministry for that and Question is if I want to learn more about Mormonism, what are the books that I need to get to really understand better?

What they believe so to be able to have the first first -hand sources well

That that's changed that as well, I mean if you want to know historic Mormon theology

Then the doctrines of salvation Are very important By Joseph Fielding Smith Mormon doctrine,

I mean if they put out leather back leather leather version it must have some relevance to it But there are a lot of modern

Mormons that think McConkie was too fundamentalist But Mormon doctrine is an extremely useful thing marvelous work in a wonder by LeGrand Richards was given to missionaries for decades as an introduction to their beliefs and Then of course, there's still great respect for James Talmadge and hence his books articles of faith in Jesus the

Christ are Considered absolutely necessary on a historical level the documentary history of the church and the journals of journal discourses very very important the easiest way to get these resources is to purchase them electronically because if you try to buy all these things in a

In hardbound or paperback version you're talking about a lot of investment of money So there are the

Mormons were pretty quick pretty early on in creating electronic versions of their materials and so Deseret bookstore probably is gonna be one of your best bets.

I haven't done a lot of shopping. I'm sorry Deseret des er et deseret bookstores.

I'd googled deseret and See what they have book craft is one of their major publishers as well.

I'm I'm looking up here. Yeah An old program I have up on the shelf gospel link 2001, but it is old now

It was from deseret book, but that was a fairly large library of LDS sources as well

So that's probably the cheapest way I mean I know a lot of people don't like reading on on a screen or something like that But probably the cheapest way is to get those collections from places like deseret book or book craft or something like that I've actually thought about looking in to see what they now have available for Mac because it's

There's got to have been some advances over the past number of years But that that may cheap is yeah

That'd be the cheapest way to to get especially the journal journal discourses documentaries to the church Teachings the

Prophet Joseph Smith an absolute necessity necessity if you really want to know Mormonism get teachings the

Prophet Joseph Smith read it straight through and It will convince you like no other book possibly can that Joseph Smith had no earthly idea

What the Bible is talking about what the Christian gospel is or who the Christian God is there's no question about it

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as I get done reading the Book of Mormon, and then you know praying to the Holy Spirit That I don't even don't even go there

Don't even go there All righty, thank you, Dabney. Thank you so much.

Thanks for calling. Bye. Bye All righty well. Thank you for listening to the dividing line today.

It has been an interesting mishmash of topics I wish

I could give you more firm conclusions on Glenn Beck But I can just I can all

I can do is give you the sources and then go I don't know That's the best we can do with one like that.

We'll continue with the Matt slick Robertson genus encounter Lord willing on Thursday of this week, thanks for listening to the vying line.

We'll see you then God bless We need a new

Reformation The Dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at six oh two nine

Seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o. Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine

You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o

RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks Join us again this