A Mega “I’m Back!” Dividing Line

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:35

Well, greetings, welcome, hope we're here. Bill Gates and Windows had some issues for us and when you have to restart

00:46

Windows, go get a cup of coffee, man, because it's going to be a while, you know? And that's just life.

00:53

You had the coffee, yeah. I was listening to that hard drive just crunching away in there. Oh, I'm trying.

00:59

It's like, oh, man. Anyways, we're here and we'll just take that off at the end of the program or something.

01:06

We'll hopefully make it through. Anyhow, I've got Kurt Eichenwald throwing all sorts of verbal bombs at me in Twitter right now.

01:13

That guy, he's a loon. He's just, woo -hoo. He's just out there.

01:20

We'll talk a little bit about his utter incapacity to be corrected.

01:26

I listened to a man who would not be able to know which way to hold a Hebrew text, telling a Hebrew scholar he didn't know what he was talking about when it comes to Hebrew.

01:34

The man has just got an arrogance problem that is just, wow. But he just projects that on everybody else.

01:41

But we'll get to that later on. And I'm just going to let him continue, you know, and we'll go back and what?

01:48

Oh, I know, I know. He's, woo -hoo. He's, it's going to make for some interesting reading unless he deletes all that stuff before I can get to it.

01:57

It will definitely go along with what we play from his program with Michael Brown.

02:03

But first and foremost, especially for all the whiners and complainers.

02:09

My goodness, I was getting stuff. I'm in Norway and people are tweeting and on Facebook, where's the dividing line?

02:15

Where's the dividing line? Well, you know, when you listen to the dividing line, we tell you when we're like not going to be doing the dividing line because I'm not going to be able to do the dividing line because I'm not in the country.

02:27

And I'm nine hours or seven hours or however many hours it was the other direction. And so we just can't do it.

02:37

And I don't do pre -recorded stuff and things like that. So here we are.

02:43

But boy, there's some folks that could use a little injection of patience. People really complain, really weird.

02:51

Anyway, I did go to Norway and I promised Jorn that I would give this report in Norwegian.

02:59

And I learned my Norwegian from watching the Swedish guy on The Muppet Show. Every time

03:07

I would do that, Jorn would sit in the back and say, that's bad, really bad. That was all I could come up with. It's really bad.

03:13

But if you listen to Norwegian being spoken, there is that it goes like this and it goes up and down and it's right in the middle of the sentence.

03:26

That's what it is. And I'm telling Jorn, it's right there. You don't hear it. And I don't think they do.

03:33

But there is that that lilting thing. And that's why the

03:38

Muppets did it so well. So, you know, and everybody seemed to laugh. Of course, I'll probably never ever be invited back, but compared to being so culturally insensitive.

03:49

But I had a great time in Norway. It's Southern Norway. So it's one of the warmer areas.

03:55

It's right off the ocean. And first five days, just windy, windy, windy, windy, windy.

04:02

And then the wind stopped and the lake froze over. And it was out of the window of my room.

04:09

I took pictures of, you know, all snow, no snow, no snow, but now frozen.

04:15

I mean, it was just if you don't like the weather, you know, wait five minutes, it'll change. And it was it was very, very interesting.

04:23

But I had a great time with the folks there. The conference that we spoke at was, yeah,

04:29

I did a bunch of running in the cold air while I was there. So I've got my cough back, but and my cough button is irrelevant because it only turns off one of my two microphones.

04:39

So I'll just have to cough at you. There's nothing you can do about that. So. Anyway, I had folks from all over Norway and Denmark and the stuff come to the conference.

04:52

I did my New Testament stuff and spoke on all sorts of other subjects, also spoke at the Reform Baptist Church there in in the area.

05:01

And what was really cool is almost everybody there was young. I mean, Bjorn was the oldest guy and he's nowhere near as old as I am.

05:08

He's got young kids. So it was really neat to see young folks involved in the church and have lots of questions and stuff like that.

05:19

The last night we kept blowing the circuit breaker. I was trying to do a presentation, trying to do it by candlelight.

05:25

So anyways. And but then after Norway, I had to try to get to Georgia.

05:35

And that travel day is number two in my record books now for total mess ups.

05:41

And the flight from Stavanger to Heathrow was delayed.

05:47

So I missed my flight to Atlanta. And so I had to get on a flight to Chicago and that one left on time, got in on time.

05:57

And then I had to get to a flight from Chicago to Atlanta.

06:04

It was supposed to be at 9 p .m. and it left at about. Oh, what was that?

06:11

Getting close to 11, I think. Yeah, I forget when it was. All I know is

06:16

I was supposed to get into Atlanta at like 630 at night. I got in at 130, 145, something like that, maybe closer to two.

06:25

Now I think about it. And I got to my daughter's house at 315 a .m. So that made for a long day.

06:33

But anyway, I had some time with the family there and then went to the

06:39

G3 conference. Now, I'd never been to G3 before. And, you know, the church there,

06:48

Praise Mill Baptist Church, is is not the largest church on the planet. This is not a mega church.

06:55

And yet they really take on a huge task with this conference.

07:03

I mean, if they didn't have really major volunteer participation from the folks in their church, it would never happen.

07:13

But they do, obviously, and they do a really good job. Down in the, you know, there's a place where the speakers go.

07:22

And, you know, I spent, I spent, I did spend a lot of time out with folks in the lobby and talking with people and doing things like that.

07:30

But if you do that constantly, you can actually become a distraction to the speakers.

07:36

And so you need to have a place for the speakers to be able to go where only the speakers go there and can talk to each other and things like that.

07:43

And there's food and refreshments and stuff. And that's normal. But there were two restrooms.

07:49

I guess the restrooms were new. There were two restrooms there. And I saw something

07:54

I've never seen. And I don't know why I'd never thought of something like this before. But you go in the restroom and on the sink, there's a little flask, a little glass flask, a little top, a little glass top thing you pull out, you know, and it's got green liquid in it and it's breath freshener.

08:15

And you know what you use for it? Communion cups. Why not?

08:20

That's about the right size. So little communion cups, two stacks of communion cups right next to the breath freshener on the sink for the speakers.

08:29

And I thought, man, who thought of that? I never would have thought of that. That's brilliant. You know, so the food was great and it was a great opportunity to meet folks.

08:41

Obviously, I had extensive opportunities to chat with Votie Balcombe, especially about what's going on with his move to the

08:56

African continent and to Zambia to be the dean of the college there in Zambia.

09:04

And I obviously, since I've been going to South Africa, one of the things we need to try to work into that is

09:12

Zambia borders South Africa. So they're right next to each other. And so we need to find some way of popping up to Zambia and teaching for Votie for a few days in the middle of all that.

09:25

And that's okay. Yeah, I know. I know. You don't mind.

09:32

Your office is over there. Mine's over there. What difference does it make? I mean, seriously. It's not that much different.

09:40

Anyway, so and then Challies was there. And my daughter was real excited.

09:47

She really wanted to meet Tim Challies and Votie Balcombe primarily. And so she got to just sit around and chat with them forever until...

09:55

And then she even met Challies' parents and got to learn more about Challies in the process, which was interesting.

10:01

But they had a blast. And Paul Washer and I had some good quality time to talk while we were there.

10:07

And great folks. My presentations weren't really sermonic.

10:14

They weren't the woohoo, praise the Lord type stuff. They were...

10:21

Well, the first one, Jesus' view of scripture. Okay. But especially the second one is the first one up in the morning on Friday.

10:29

And it was on harmonization, on harmonizing historical context and translational and textual and intertextual and all sorts of stuff like this.

10:41

And it was much more of a seminary type lecture. And the folks were very patient and very kind, despite the fact that I'm sure a lot of them were going, well,

10:51

I'm glad I didn't use decaffeinated this morning, that type of thing. They were very kind anyways.

10:57

And so I happened to look up the screen at one point and it said

11:03

G3 2015, the Trinity. And so I was talking to the pastor and I said, man,

11:10

I wonder where you could be able to find anybody who's written a book on the Trinity. I don't know.

11:16

So who knows? Maybe we'll be back next year. We're certainly hoping that that will be a possibility.

11:23

It's the week after I'm teaching apologetics for RTS in Charlotte. And so I need to get together with Michael Brown, folks in Charlotte, arrange some dialogues, discussions, maybe especially over that weekend after I teach and then do the fly to Atlanta thing again and be there for G3.

11:44

Maybe that's how it will work out. I don't know. We'll see. But after G3, I spoke at Grace Fellowship of South Forsyth, which is where my daughter and son -in -law and granddaughter go to church.

12:01

And so I did, this is weird.

12:08

I had half an hour to do my new test and reliability thing. That's not possible. I would have about 12 seconds per screen if I did the entire presentation.

12:20

It's not possible. So what I did is I shrunk it down and I just focused on the multifocality issue and the tenacity issue.

12:32

That's hard to do if you haven't already laid all the foundation, but I took a shot at it and it seemed to go pretty well.

12:39

But as I'm walking in, as I'm walking in,

12:46

I sit down at the front and immediately someone comes up to me and says,

12:51

James, I just want you to know, four more missionaries just walked in. Oh, so I had a bunch of folks come up to me, even

13:00

Todd Friel comes up, James, I want you to know. And when Todd Friel gets down low enough to talk to you in a chair,

13:07

I mean, that's a lot of work. I mean, he probably got a buzz from all the extra oxygen being that much lower to the ground than where he normally is.

13:16

Just that big. And so I go, yeah,

13:21

Todd, I know, there are four more missionaries here. I know. So I do the presentation.

13:28

We do about 15 minutes of Q &A, good, good Q &A questions. Sometimes Q &A worries me, but these are good

13:35

Q &A questions. And I'm sitting here thinking the whole time, man, these missionaries could not have ever expected to get this kind of a presentation.

13:49

I mean, they got to realize this is not what's normally being presented on Sunday morning at most churches, but perfect for them to be there.

13:58

And so as soon as it was over, I made a beeline for these guys.

14:05

And so did a few other people. And we ended up talking for quite some time. I was going to go to Todd Friel's class and just sit right down front.

14:14

And I was going to get out some type of a gadget or something called a heresy detector. And so they're going, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, right down front, just see if I can completely drive him right, you know, completely bonkers.

14:23

Which is what he tries to do to you when he's interviewing you, is drive you completely bonkers. So it seemed fair.

14:31

And oh, by the way, did y 'all see my shirt? Did you see my shirt? It says, I'm a cycling grandpa, just like a normal grandpa, except much cooler.

14:41

And I saw this. You want evidence that Facebook advertising works?

14:46

I'm wearing this. Because I saw it as a Facebook ad. I liked it. And I think

14:52

I posted it to my timeline. And John Dalby immediately responded by saying, what size do you want?

14:57

And so he bought me this cycling grandpa shirt. And so I had to wear it because it's a cool shirt.

15:04

And it's just speaking the truth. So what can I say? Anyway, what was

15:11

I saying? I don't know what I was saying. Oh, so we go back and we talk. And the one fellow

15:18

I'm talking with, there's one redheaded fellow who I could tell doesn't really want to talk to me.

15:24

He wants to talk to the former Mormon he's already talking to. And at one point,

15:30

I hear him out of my ear saying something about offenders for a word. And if you just heard the moaning, even through the dual pane glass that was rich in the other room.

15:41

I stopped my conversation with the elder I was talking to, leaned over and just said, you know, we've had a long standing challenge,

15:48

Daniel C. Peterson and Steven Ricks to debate those issues. And there's a full reputation in that book on our website,

15:54

AOMN .org. I just hope you'll take a look at that because it's a really bad book. And he just sort of smiled and I went back to my conversation.

16:03

Well, every time I looked down at this guy, he'd have his finger in his left ear because he just can't listen to what

16:09

I'm saying and concentrate on the guy he's talking to, which I understand. He's trying to concentrate on the guy he's talking to. So I'm talking to one and eventually

16:15

I'm talking to three. There's two on this side and then the young returned missionary behind.

16:22

And then the one guy is talking to somebody else. So I was really talking with three. And we had a good conversation and we're going to follow up as best we can.

16:31

People might say, well, why did they come? Because that's something more missionaries do. More missionaries visit churches.

16:39

If they don't have an assignment at a local ward chapel to be doing something like that, that's part of their proselytizing work is to visit churches and see if they can get maybe that'll follow up to other conversations, et cetera, et cetera.

16:53

And so it's not that they knew that I was going to be there and believe me, they're probably surprised at what they heard.

17:01

But I think it was great that they had the opportunity of hearing about the reliability of New Testament. So that was great.

17:08

So two full weeks out. My next trip will be 31st.

17:18

I leave it on the first. Speaking on the second right before the Shepherds Conference at the

17:24

TMAI Symposium on Inerrancy at Grace Community Church.

17:30

And then we're putting together the Florida trip. Don't have all the details yet, but we do, we should, we need to get the debate stuff up anyways, because all the debates are scheduled.

17:47

I'm just not a hundred percent certain what the topic with the, on the

17:53

Muslim thing is, but I think that's on a, well, we'll get banner ads up and stuff like that.

18:01

There will be a debate on paedo -baptism with Dr. Greg Strawbridge.

18:06

Dr. Strawbridge and I have debated that before. I'll be honest with you. I'm a little surprised that this is going to be held at RTS in Orlando, because my understanding is at least in 2007, and I'd be happy to be corrected on this, but last

18:22

I knew Dr. Strawbridge holds to particular federal visionist tendencies. And so I, but then again, the internal workings of the various Presbyterian denominations are beyond my personal knowledge or interaction with.

18:41

So, but anyway, we'll be debating paedo -baptism. There will be at least one

18:46

Islam debate, speaking to a number of churches there in Pensacola and Orlando.

18:51

So there's two places, and I realize they're not next door to each other, in Florida, and that'll be at the end of March.

19:00

And we're still working on Texas and so on and so forth.

19:06

So still have, you know, Zurich, Book of Hebrews in September, and we'll need to start talking about South Africa and Zambia in probably

19:17

October now, because if I'm going to be in Zurich for a whole week, and I'd like to try to schedule some time in London, maybe even

19:26

Glasgow before or after the Zurich thing. So lots of stuff to do, lots of stuff to do.

19:36

Now, I've been gone for weeks. I see Kurt Eichenwald is still da -da -da -da -da -da -da going around.

19:43

Oh, playground debate is not discussion. This is a man who has never even listened to the hours of rebuttal.

19:52

Never even listened. The man embraces ignorance.

19:58

It's just like, I love being ignorant, and I love acting on my ignorance. This is amazing. And this is the very essence of modern day liberalism.

20:08

Much has happened since we were gone. I've got a lot that I want to get to today.

20:15

A lot, a lot, a lot, including the Eichenwald stuff. But my goodness, one,

20:23

I did post an article. I'm not sure if I put it on the blog. I know I put it on Facebook. I might've put it on the blog too, or maybe just Facebook.

20:30

I don't remember. But I know

20:35

I was trying to write it with Clementine around, and they know when you're not paying attention to them and when you're paying attention to something else.

20:45

So I did put something up at some point last week about invidious discrimination.

20:53

And this morning, Dr. Moeller commented on the same article that I had commented on earlier last week.

21:03

California judges will no longer be allowed to participate in nonprofit youth groups, such as the Boy Scouts of America, that discriminate against LGBT people.

21:11

At the same time that justice has lifted a ban on judges belonging to a military organization, now that gays and lesbians can serve openly in the

21:18

US armed services. So here you have just the absolute establishment of erotic freedom, having the same level of moral standing before the law as race or gender.

21:38

What does gender mean anymore? I mean, we can't even know what gender is, right? I mean, that's just a fluid feeling.

21:46

There's no objective reality to gender any longer anyways. But anyway, in an announcement issued late this afternoon,

21:55

Friday, January 23rd, the Supreme Court of California said it had unanimously voted to eliminate an exception in Canon 2C of the

22:02

California Code of Judicial Ethics that permitted judges to belong to nonprofit youth organizations that, quote, practice invidious discrimination, end quote.

22:14

I said, there's the term. There's terms can be used, invidious discrimination. Now, I know we live in a land where people don't care about what words mean anymore.

22:24

I realize that. But discrimination means to make a decision to decide between two or more things.

22:32

That's all it means. The word itself has no negative or positive connotation outside of the context.

22:39

But in our land, it has become the great sin to discriminate.

22:46

Everybody every day discriminates. If you are wearing blue today and not green, you discriminated when you put clothes on this unless you don't own any green clothes.

22:57

Suppose it's a possibility. If you had any choices in the eating of food, you discriminated if you had eggs but did not have bacon.

23:10

You are an anti -pork discriminator, at least for today. If you're driving down the road and you turn into Burger King instead of McDonald's across the street, you discriminated for Burger King and against McDonald's because you made a decision.

23:30

That's what discrimination is. Now, obviously, that has been changed in its meaning from its historical meaning to, well, immorally choosing against someone for something that is not under their control.

23:54

So racial discrimination would be to choose someone or choose against someone or actually choose for someone based upon their race.

24:09

And that happens a lot. That happens a lot. Then you've got gender discrimination where if you've got two equally qualified people applying for the same job, you choose one over the other, whether you choose the male or the female.

24:25

It's both discrimination. And now we have invidious discrimination where you have an organization that because of its moral beliefs does not include a particular group within its orbit, within its membership in this case.

24:47

Then that's invidious discrimination. Now, there's only one exception left, by the way, as Dr.

24:54

Moeller pointed out, and it is the religious exception. You can be a member of a church. How long before that changes?

25:02

If the California Supreme Court can do this, then the California Supreme Court can tell the judges of the state of California that they cannot be members of churches that do not have

25:16

LGBT membership. That's the next step. And it will happen.

25:22

There just isn't any question about it. It will happen. These folks do not have any stopping point.

25:30

It's totalitarianism. It's you bow the knee to us in toto. You celebrate our lifestyle.

25:37

You celebrate our morals. There's a package being delivered, Mr. Pierce. You celebrate our morals.

25:43

You celebrate our lifestyle. You say we are good. You say we are moral. And you deny what you've believed.

25:51

And that is all that they will settle for. So I don't know how fast this is going to come, but it's coming a whole lot faster than we thought.

26:10

There is no reasoning here. Well, you know, there is, you know, let me, let me take that back.

26:18

If you want to see the reasoning, see Ben Wiseman's article in the

26:23

New York Times for January 10th. My understanding is

26:30

Wiseman is a homosexual. And if you want to see what the reasoning is, it's all based upon the absolute acceptance that homosexuality is a, not just a morally neutral thing, it is a morally positive thing.

26:50

That it is absolutely determined by nature. So you are a homosexual simply because you are a homosexual and there's nothing you can do about it.

27:02

It is, it is based upon a view of man as determined completely and solely by your genetic makeup.

27:08

That's just, that's all there is to it. If you, if you have any other view, you are already dismissed from, from the public discussion.

27:16

That's why in the law courts now, when these issues are being addressed, there's not even, there's not even the beginning of a discussion of the morality of the issue because the new secular morality is that this is good, this is great, this is positive.

27:37

That's how it is. Since it is absolutely genetically there, then everything that flows from that means that we, the term equality gets redefined.

27:57

So now we have marriage equality, which, which of course is an absurd phrase. There's, there's no logical basis for using the term marriage equality.

28:05

Is there any such thing as NBA equality? Why not?

28:12

Could I play in the NBA? Why not? I'm five, nine and three quarters.

28:19

I'm 52 years old. Aerobically, I could. I think I could. Aerobically, I think

28:25

I could. But, um, you know, I used to have a decent jump shot, but I really would not want me on, on your team.

28:36

Um, but no one calls for NBA equality because everybody knows and something like that.

28:42

You play if you have the ability to do so, which normally requires a minimum, minimum of six, one, six, two, even for the point guards these days.

28:58

And for other positions, six, six, six, seven, up to seven, seven and a half, whatever.

29:04

Um, how about NFL equality? Um, how about airline pilot equality?

29:13

Um, you know, I, I, I have, uh, progressive lenses now. Um, but I still, you know,

29:23

I, I, I'm starting to understand why some older people just don't want to drive at night.

29:30

And, um, sometimes I wish other people wouldn't drive at night, even if they're not that old. Um, how about airline pilot equality?

29:39

You want me landing your, um, A320 in a rainstorm at night?

29:47

No, no, you don't. So this marriage equality thing is one of the biggest, the phrase demonstrates such an utter capitulation on the part of the person using it to all rationality that I don't even know how to reason with folks on that level.

30:06

Because if they really believe that, then there would be no age of consent.

30:13

There would be no limitations to numbers of partners in a marriage. There would be no speciesism.

30:20

There would be no laws against incest. If you really believe the marriage quality, none of these people do.

30:27

Okay, some do. Um, but they're, they're, they're still out on the fringes, but they're creeping closer.

30:37

The vast majority of the people, including Ben Wiseman, using this term marriage quality, doesn't believe in marriage quality.

30:43

And on no meaningful level can you substantiate the idea of completely redefining marriage as between two men based on the idea of equality.

30:56

It's, it's absurd, but it has now been accepted as a given. Now, what, what process had to happen for something for a society to be so completely morally, ethically, and logically eviscerated in the gray matter of the brain to adopt that position that fast would make for some fascinating books by people who have the time to write them, which

31:24

I do not and don't have the expertise anyways, but it happened, it happened.

31:32

So if you want to see the frightening, your God and my dignity, um, um, you know, this, this basically

31:43

Ben Wiseman is basically calling for the state to control who gets to be members of churches.

31:50

Uh, we cannot, we cannot discriminate in employment in churches. So churches should be forced to, you know, you should have to hire atheists or homosexuals or pedophiles, or, you know, he didn't say pedophiles, but we all know that's the next thing because we already know that the scientific psychological literature says that it is an inborn condition too.

32:10

There is no logical reason for anybody to be continuing to heap opprobrium upon pedophiles or upon people commit incest, given the embracing of this moral anarchy that is the basis of the redefining of marriage and the exaltation of homosexuality to the sumum bonum of our society.

32:37

It's the greatest thing ever. These people have more rights than anyone. Their feelings are the most important thing on the planet.

32:46

Everybody else bowed down and that's what we're being told. That's what's happening in the law courts.

32:53

It's amazing. It is, it is a level, it's a level of self -delusion that only has one explanation and that is the judgment of God.

33:03

But here he's saying, you know, all these anti -discrimination laws allow churches to hire and fire clergy as they wish that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

33:16

So, and I support, it ends with this, and I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish in their pews, homes, and hearts.

33:27

Keep your religion out of my secular society. You know, I know Ben Wiseman doesn't realize the bigotry oozing from those words.

33:36

I realize that. Most secularists don't think very clearly. How could you?

33:42

If you're the center of all things, you know. But what he's saying is, you keep your religion private, our religion, our secularism gets to be the public religion.

33:55

That's the battle. That's the battle. There you go.

34:00

So if you want to see it, you know, when, when, and Ben Wiseman says in here, yeah, for starters, it perpetuates confusion, some of which is cynically engineered about the consequences of marriage equality laws.

34:19

They do not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple, or mosque. No clergy member will be compelled to preside over gay nuptials.

34:27

Civil weddings are covered. That's it. Baloney. Redefine marriage. And we all know what's next.

34:34

We all know what's next. Ask the former head of Mozilla. Ask the former fire chief of Atlanta and any number of other people who've already been canned for daring to disagree with the new totalitarian secular state.

34:53

Yeah. I'm sorry. These words are empty, empty, empty, any longer empty indeed.

35:02

So gone for two weeks and what happens? Numerous articles demonstrating just how open absolutely open the secular left is now in its unmitigated detestation of Christianity and its promotion of homosexuality as the greatest moral good that must be celebrated or you will be punished.

35:34

You will be punished. We will punish you. That's what's going on. That's what's going on.

35:41

And then I saw Rachel held Evans, Matthew Vines retweeted a tweet by Rachel held

35:47

Evans celebrating yet another quote -unquote evangelical church collapsing on this issue and including

35:56

LGBT people in its church membership. It just tells you, you know, you expect that from Vines and I guess you should expect that from Rachel held

36:06

Evans too. Celebrating the, you know, Evans doesn't understand the totality of God's law or God's creative decrees and stuff like that.

36:16

I guess I get it there too, but I guess I, you know,

36:21

Matthew Vines should know better. He's certainly been told, but his background wouldn't naturally do that.

36:27

As I understand Rachel held Evans, she should know better, but is just in rebellion against them. Josh Ellison just said, you're making us depressed.

36:40

How about a picture of Clementine? Yeah, that does certainly make my day brighter too.

36:48

I managed to sneak a few pictures of Clementine into my new test and reliability presentation in Norway just for the fun of it. I called it the granddaughter virus and it's, oh,

36:56

I don't know how that got in there. You know, it's fun. It's fun. All right.

37:02

Need to mention this just simply because it is news and not could dwell on it, but on what's the, uh,

37:13

January 20th, January 20th news came out. The Dr. Erickson Cantor steps down as Bruton Parker president.

37:21

And, uh, in his, um, in his discussion, um, let's see.

37:32

Um, yeah, he says,

37:38

I'm admitting to you that I am broken. I can't get over Braxton's death. I'm not sure. Uh, and I am not sure

37:44

I want to, uh, he says he's broken. He's talked about, uh, hospitalization,

37:49

November heart catheterization, et cetera, et cetera. So he's had physical issues as well.

37:59

Um, when this all happened, I, I told,

38:05

I didn't spend time on the air talking about too much, but I told people with whom

38:11

I was speaking personally, unless there are some people in this man's life who are willing to get out of the yes, sir mode and speak honestly with him, he is on a downward spiral that will end in his destruction.

38:32

That's all there is to it. Um, the reality is that what

38:39

I saw a week after that death and two weeks after that death, it's completely unnatural, completely unnatural.

38:47

Say, who are you to say, well, my second most popular books on grieving.

38:53

And I worked as a hospital chaplain and I took all sorts of classes on grieving and loss support and so on and so forth.

39:02

And I just kept telling folks, I didn't, didn't say anything about it publicly, but I kept telling folks that would bring it up to me.

39:09

This is unnatural. This is unhealthy and it's destructive. And, um, it has been, but the reality is there's, there's a whole lot more here that has to be worked through.

39:20

And if there isn't somebody who will step out of the yes, sir, whatever you say, sir, thing, and be straightforward and honest, you need to do this, this, this, and this.

39:33

And that includes speaking the truth to all of your life. It's downward spiral, downward spiral.

39:43

Um, and it's not something that any of us wish on anyone, but, um, what's going to happen in the future again, all depends on whether there's someone who will step in and do the right thing.

39:58

Really. It really is. So yeah, news came out.

40:03

I'm well aware of it. And, uh, what a mess, what a

40:11

Royal Royal mess. That's the only thing can be said about that. Uh, if you want another

40:17

Royal mess that, uh, isn't quite as, uh, depressing, evidently

40:24

Bob Enyart's board, uh, you all may recall that, uh, last

40:31

June was a June or July, July, July, July, last July, uh, when

40:37

I went up to my normal pilgrimage to the high altitudes, um, pilgrimage to the high altitudes.

40:46

That's a good description. Um, I worked into my training up there, a debate with Bob Enyart on open theism.

40:56

And, uh, afterwards he went into severe damage control on his program.

41:05

And you'll recall, we did two or three programs. I think one of them was a jumbo, maybe a mega, I forget, but we would play his comments from the radio program and rebut them.

41:15

And I still got the files here on the, on the computer. And then right toward the end of that time, he started coming up with this, you know, it's almost as silly as the absurdity that, uh, uh,

41:26

George Bryson came up with. Um, in a web chat somewhere,

41:32

R .C. Sproul Jr. recognizing what these guys are doing and see Enyart, I'm not,

41:40

I'm probably not gonna spend any more time on this because his little cult group is so small. It has so little influence.

41:46

That's just, it's just not worth wasting time on, but, and no, no serious person takes their accusations seriously.

41:52

I mean, if they've read The Forgotten Tranny, they've listened to my debates, they, they know, you know, uh, that this is just sheer lunacy.

42:00

Um, but R .C. Sproul Jr. saw that what they're up to is,

42:10

Enyart, remember, remember Enyart's argument is that in the incarnation, there is a fundamental change in the nature of God.

42:17

Well, what would that require? Well, that would require denial of the hypostatic union, because if there is a fundamental change in the nature of God, the hypostatic union would become

42:26

Eutychianism. There would be a mixture. There would be a, a, a joining in the sense that results in a change, the divine nature and a change in human natures.

42:33

You no longer have a true human nature or true divine nature. You have alteration and change. And Enyart's whole thing is in the incarnation,

42:40

God changed. Therefore, God can change. There is no immutability. Therefore, God can be ignorant of the future, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

42:46

And the cost of that's hypostatic union. And so Sproul rightfully pointed out that in that context of trying to say that the sun was changed, that the sun did not take on a human nature in the sense of absorbing, in some way violating the hypostatic union.

43:06

And I agreed with that. I said, well, yeah, you know, in that context, that's one of the problems here is that they're, they're denying the hypostatic union.

43:13

Well, of course, uh, context doesn't matter a lot to Enyart and his people.

43:21

And so you're denying historic Christianity. I even, there was even somebody that sent an email to Todd Friel and you know,

43:29

James White and R .C. Sproul Jr. deny a central doctrine of the Christian faith. What foolishness. I mean, what, you know, these folks would never have the guts to call in here and tell me that because you know that you could never defend your assertion.

43:45

You know, that, how do you look at yourself in the mirror when you'll tell, you'll, you'll, you'll tell somebody else, you'll, you'll slander me to somebody else.

43:55

You'll never do it to me because you know, I will decapitate you verbally, not in a mean way.

44:02

I'll just demonstrate. You don't know what you're talking about. So anyway, someone sends a, an email to Todd Friel.

44:09

He's denied a central Christian doctrine. So Todd talked to me about it. I don't know if anybody had heard Retro Radio. I think it was Friday.

44:15

Um, we did. He told me we want, he says, let's, let's do some, a couple hours radio.

44:22

Okay. So I show up, you know, and uh, you know, I'm not dressed everything. Oh, we're also going to record it.

44:28

Video for the TV show. Great. Thanks. Appreciate that. Nothing like not getting the memo, uh, because it wasn't sent, but anyway.

44:36

So he asked me about right at the beginning of the program and you know, we, we discussed it and refuted it, but evidently, evidently

44:45

Enyart's just bored or something. Maybe his ratings are slipping. I don't know. But, uh, I guess he jumped onto our

44:50

Facebook page and just, you know, and there's just no reasoning with these folks. They're, they're, they're, there's no, there's no standard you can hold them to.

45:00

Uh, they're just that far out there in, uh, in Coltville. So, um, I'm sure he'll find some new thing to jump onto, um, and do his thing.

45:10

Um, I don't know, but what? You're looking at me oddly. It's an old tactic we rarely see in Mormonism, but sometimes we see it where you are asked a question, you give an answer, and then the person comes back like you never actually did answer.

45:28

We'll just start over and ask the question again. And he seems to be just doing this over and over. I finally, uh, blocked him from posting.

45:35

And unfortunately, Facebook, when you block someone on our kind of page, it hides every single thing they've ever posted on the entire page.

45:45

And so I was immediately accused over on Enyart's blog or somebody got his open, uh, blog, uh, of, uh, censoring

45:54

Bob Enyart. That's fine. I explained that I didn't actually do that, but anyway.

45:59

Well, if you blocked him, that's censoring. That's fine. I mean, but you can't reason you're censored. You know, it's, it's sort of like the same thing.

46:05

The same reason we have a hangup button on the phones. Yeah. We've had to use it a few times. But what amazed me is how many others then came using the same identical tactic.

46:16

Personal point here. I was really puzzled by Bob's behavior in your debate because I thought is it, it seems as if he is playing dumb on purpose.

46:29

No, he can't be doing that really. I am convinced the man knows exactly what we believe, but plays dumb in order to play for his audience.

46:39

It's just that simple. I don't know. I don't know. Why does someone care? What am

46:44

I drinking? It's a bottle of, it used to be Fiji water with that, um, grape mixture, grape thing, put it just to give it some flavor.

46:55

There you go. Clunicleena now knows exactly what I'm drinking. Um, anyway, so if you see

47:03

Bob, if, if you see someone running around saying, I deny the incarnation, would you tell him to, you know, um, grow up or something and, uh, go read a book, do something worthwhile because it's just, it's just so inane.

47:19

It's, it's, it's, it's hard to even know hard to even know what, what to say in response to that. All right, let's move on from there.

47:27

Uh, I was in, okay. It was the day.

47:33

No, it was Wednesday. So I was in, I was in Georgia this past Wednesday when

47:39

Kurt Eichenwald, who, as I said at the beginning of the show, was firing all sorts of loony tweets at me.

47:47

Um, if you just read his feed, you'll see all this stuff. And his new thing is that I'm just so angry that they didn't choose me to respond to him.

48:00

Never crossed my mind. I mean, when Michael Brown told me that he found the email address to the editor and wrote to him,

48:09

I'm like, I didn't even think of that. Um, didn't, this guy is such a projector, passive aggressive projector.

48:22

He'll say things in his article and it'll be really aggressive. And then question about, well, you know, I just sort of meant that this way and he gets all fluffy and stuff like that.

48:31

And in this situation, from the beginning, he's accused me weird. It's just, it's just all about you. Isn't it?

48:36

It's just all ego. And I'm just, I'm going, what are you talking about? I'm challenging you to answer for the lies that you put in print.

48:45

That's all I'm doing. It's not about me. Just answer the question. Um, when did

48:51

Constantinople say that Jesus was father, son, Holy spirit? It never did. Everybody knows it, but the man is so blessedly dishonest that he won't admit it.

49:02

And everybody knows that the King James version of the Bible was not translated in Latin Vulgate, but he keeps repeating the same lies over and over again and refuses correction.

49:15

So he goes on Michael's show and Michael texted me and said, Hey, if you want to call in now, it's time to call in.

49:23

I'm like, dude, I can't, I'm sorry. I'm in the middle of something here. I can't, I can't do it. So yesterday, uh,

49:30

I got a chance to listen to the program and it was just outrageously frustrating.

49:39

Uh, but before I play some of that, I was chatting with Michael. Um, do you have, okay, wait, don't, don't put it up yet.

49:49

Uh, when you, when you put it up, put up full screen, not that small screen. Um, I was chatting with Michael a little bit on the flight back.

50:02

Um, I picked up wifi on the flight back so I could do some work and, um,

50:10

I had tens of millions of emails to try to get to. And so Mike and I started talking and sort of back and forth and email.

50:19

And he sent me a picture. Now when we had him on, no, was it when

50:25

I was on with him or when, I don't remember. Um, I think it was when

50:31

I was on with him. Yeah, I was on his program. Um, I mentioned that he has undergone a tremendous transformation.

50:41

He's about, I think he's, I think he's 10 years older than I am. I recall correctly. I think he's in his early sixties, maybe eight years older than I am.

50:50

And he's a big boy, much taller than I am. And, um, some of you, if you remember his debate with Bart Ehrman, Ehrman even took a shot at him.

51:03

Uh, Ehrman at one point said, and, uh, and in regards to feeding the hungry or something, obviously you're not skipping any meals.

51:12

Uh, I remember that from years ago. I remember some reason what the hotel room looked like wherever I was traveling when

51:18

I listened to that. Anyway, um, we had had some conversation in Spain about a year ago and, you know,

51:27

I was encouraging him to keep working out and, and he was saying, man, you've really, you've really transformed yourself and, and, um, and stuff.

51:36

Well, he sends me a picture. He is down since we, since we did the programs in Spain last year, he has lost 75 pounds in five months.

51:51

And there he is. Check that out. That's the picture he sent me. There's a before and after on the left is what

51:58

I'm used to seeing. And on the right is the, the new Svelte, uh,

52:04

Michael Brown. And, uh, let me, let me, uh, I, I sent him two pictures.

52:11

He, he put them into a side -by -side for me and sent them back to me while I was on the plane. Uh, let me pull that down and I'll, uh, let me see if I can move over to it.

52:23

Uh, let me see here. Mmm. Preview. You got it.

52:37

So these, these are the ones I sent to him and there I am in Italy. That's the, uh, uh,

52:43

Milvian bridge behind me. So I've just stepped into Rome. I've just, just, just crossed the

52:49

Tiber there. And that's 2004, uh, 254 pounds.

52:55

And on the right is at the top of Mount Evans last July, uh, 14 ,106 feet up there.

53:03

And, uh, what I'm probably about 172 there. Maybe that's what 80, yeah, 82 pounds difference.

53:12

Yeah. Somewhere around there. So we've both done the same thing, but he's a decade older.

53:17

It's harder to do. The older you get, the harder it is to do it. It really is. So, uh, my sincere congratulations, uh, to, uh,

53:28

Michael Brown, that is a, an incredible transformation. And if I know

53:33

Michael, um, I have a feeling he's like me and people will say, yeah, well, it's one thing to lose.

53:40

There's nothing to keep it off. Well, that's true. Um, but I, I am going to take a wild guess and say he's, he's gonna, uh, he's gonna, so, um, anyways, so, um,

53:54

I only share that because, well, first of all, I, you know, it really is an amazing transformation, obviously far more healthy, uh, easier on your, your joints and all sorts of things like that.

54:06

But, um, I've had a lot of people, I have people with G3 come up to me and say, you know,

54:12

I've lost 20 pounds because you will post your workouts or you post at the end of the year, you give a summary of what you did that year and stuff like that.

54:19

And it's, it's been encouraging. I'm not trying to become a diet guru cause I'm not a diet guru. Um, but I can tell you, when

54:26

I'm in, when I'm in shape, um, there's a connection between, between the mind and the body.

54:35

And when the body's working, uh, the mind can function without distraction. And, um, so as long as, as long as Lord blesses you with health, um, use it, use it.

54:45

Um, cause I know I could end that could end tomorrow. Uh, there's, there's no, no question about it.

54:51

All right. Now there's so much in the interview with Eichenwald that I, I can focus on, but I'm just going to focus on two, a couple of sections.

55:03

Um, the man will not accept correction. Doesn't matter who gives it.

55:10

I mean, Michael's a much nicer guy than I am. So he's obviously, you know, well, what

55:15

Eichenwald does, he does the, Oh, you're so mean. That guy over there is nice. He did it for a while with Michael Kruger.

55:21

He wouldn't respond to me. He goes, Oh, Michael Kruger. Well, I didn't like a Michael Kruger either. So, so now it's, it's Mike Brown. And if, and if Michael, you know, just came straight down on him and said, dude, you're wrong about this, this, and this.

55:32

He'll find somebody else. It's, it's a, it's a maneuver to get around having to deal with the reality that his position is indefensible, absolutely indefensible.

55:42

Um, but just, just listen, uh, to what he said. And we'll, we'll, we'll comment on it.

55:48

We ready to go with the, uh, all right. The, the idea of translations of translations, we do not need 1 .6

55:56

speed. Uh, in fact, I'm going to go straight normal speed today. Sorry about that. I was obviously listening to it fast to try to find stuff.

56:04

The, the idea of translations of translation of translations is a mass representation of the very reliable, expanded manuscript evidence that we have that we can find.

56:17

Okay. By the way, this is a caller. I should have told you this. This isn't Kurt Eichenwald. This is a caller telling

56:22

Kurt Eichenwald why he needs to repent for the falsehoods he put in his article.

56:28

Do you know, do you know, do you know what the King James version of the

56:35

Bible was translated from? What language? Yes, I do. Okay. What language was the

56:43

King James version of the Bible translated from? Uh, the base text of the old

56:49

Testament is called the 1525 Bomberg Hebrew text. And for the new

56:54

Testament, the various translation committees had access to the five editions of Erasmus, uh, the 1550

57:04

Stephanos and the 1598 Beza with primary emphasis on the 1598

57:14

Beza. Um, so did the translators know

57:22

Latin every single one of them? Everybody did at that age in that time period. Did they look at the

57:28

Latin Vulgate in analyzing translational issues? Of course they did.

57:34

But what were they translating the Hebrew and the Greek? Where is this documented? Well, in everything relevant to the subject of the translation of the

57:44

King James version of the Bible, um, including the letter to the readers, which is published at the beginning of at least good

57:52

King James Bibles, not so much anymore. The Greek language. No, it was translated from Latin.

58:00

And in fact, now at that point, if I were Michael, I would have immediately stepped in and said, um,

58:07

Kurt, you're just wrong. Um, you keep saying this. I don't know why you keep saying this, but you keep saying it anyways.

58:19

And when you keep repeating a falsehood, when you've been corrected over and over again, what do you do?

58:26

What, what do you call someone who repeats a falsehood over and over and over again? A very small portion of it.

58:33

No, no, no, no. The King James version of the

58:38

Bible translated from Latin. And when they found portions of it that were in conflict with the original

58:46

Greek, and again, they didn't have the original Greek. They had copies of copies of copies.

58:52

And that's, you know, that's not a surprise. They didn't have methods of preserving paper for hundreds and hundreds of years.

59:01

Okay. I'm sorry, but this man has no idea what he is babbling about.

59:10

They did not translate from the Latin. How could they know if it differed from the Greek? If they weren't translating from the

59:17

Greek, they did not use manuscripts. They used printed editions of the

59:22

Greek new Testament, the five Erasmus, Stephanos and basic. I mean, this is basic stuff.

59:28

This man claims to be a journalist. A journalist should be able to discover these things. And then he repeats the silliness that we refuted even on Twitter a few weeks ago.

59:46

Well, they didn't know how to preserve paper back then. So we don't have any of those old manuscripts, you know, he doesn't know

59:54

P52 exists. He doesn't know about P104. He doesn't know about P66 or P75 or P72 or any of that stuff, evidently.

01:00:06

And so all they have are copies of copies of copies. Um, I do not respect someone who pretends to tell other people about a specific area of scholarship who is clueless.

01:00:28

And then when specifically faced with the documentation of his cluelessness, refuses correction.

01:00:39

That's what we have here. That's what we have here. Absolutely amazing. Uh, and so when they were working off that and they found conflict between the

01:00:52

Latin and the Greek, they assumed that the Greek was incorrect, that it was a copying error.

01:00:58

And so they went with the last, this is true. Now, whether you want to believe that or not, that is a fact.

01:01:07

Now, did you catch that? This is absolute self -delusion. This is a fact.

01:01:14

No, it's a lie. It's a lie. I mean, the only scintilla of possible truth anywhere hiding in here, and it's obvious the man has read stuff and did not understand it.

01:01:27

He does not have the background to understand it is that there are places where the

01:01:35

Texas receptus goes. Thanks to the influence of Erasmus with a

01:01:41

Western reading based upon the Vulgate, but that's not even the

01:01:48

King James translators. That's the underlying Greek texts. And there are only a small number of places like that.

01:01:57

And he probably read something like that. And it just became twisted in his ignorance into this.

01:02:05

That is a fact. That is a fact. No, it is not. And since he won't give us documentation, he won't give us footnotes.

01:02:16

He won't give us recognized historical sources. Then we have to go, so what are your credentials?

01:02:24

What books have you written? Where have you taught? Can you read Greek? No. Can you read Hebrew? No. Can you do textual criticism?

01:02:31

No. Ever taught church history? No. Then why should we believe you?

01:02:37

Just believe me. I've been preparing to write this article for 30 years.

01:02:43

That's great. We continue. Now, I think you have what most people will, you know, some people will read the

01:02:52

King James Bible. And at that, I'll say, okay, you're pretty much done.

01:02:59

When you go further and you get to some of these newer

01:03:05

Bibles, they take one very, very important verse.

01:03:13

Now, here, I do not, unless I'm forgetting something and I didn't bother to look, but I don't recall that this appeared in the article.

01:03:32

So this was the first time that I heard Eichenwald raise this particular issue.

01:03:38

Now, what's ironic is that, oh,

01:03:45

I don't want to check for updates. Go away. Go away. I don't want any software updates. Not while I'm using the program.

01:03:55

Actually, it's a non -Mac program that wants to download new stuff. And it didn't crash the machine.

01:04:05

And if it did, it would have rebooted in less than 10 minutes. Hebrews 11 .11.

01:04:11

Now, I can prove, you know, he wants to talk about how we ignore these things and we don't know about these things.

01:04:24

And in the modern evangelical church, people are ignorant of these things.

01:04:30

Go to Sermon Audio. Find the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church page.

01:04:36

Find the Hebrews sermon series. 80 sermons.

01:04:42

Find the one Hebrews 11 .11. Guess what? I will discuss this issue.

01:04:50

Duh. Especially in light of the translational issues that are present in Hebrews 11 .11

01:05:06

and what is referring to what in regards to antecedents and so on and so forth.

01:05:20

Let's listen to what he has to say and see if even he understands it.

01:05:28

And you'll see where I, just the hubris here blew me away.

01:05:33

But check it out. In terms of, for many reasons, this will be a little graphic, but it's right out of the

01:05:40

Bible. It's Hebrews 11 .11. Back in the time of, back in biblical times, it was believed, including by people like Hippocrates, it was believed that women produced semen just like men.

01:05:58

And in the original Greek, in Hebrews 11 .11,

01:06:05

it talks about how Sarah gained the strength to produce, to conceive of seeds.

01:06:15

And it goes on, and that stays in the Bible. It stays in the earliest translations.

01:06:23

It was in the Geneva Bible of 1560, and it wasn't until the 1960s when it became very clear, you know, when it was known forever, or not forever, when it was known for hundreds of years, that this belief from biblical times was scientifically wrong, that in the 1960s to the 1980s, that these words were just dropped.

01:06:51

And so you end up with a scenario. Are people who are reading the

01:06:57

Bible, when they get to Hebrews 11 .11, unless they're reading the

01:07:03

King James Version, they are not reading what the Bible said from Greek to Latin to English.

01:07:12

They're reading a new variation where people who were confronted with a difficulty, and it is a difficulty because it's scientifically wrong, when they were confronted with a difficulty, they dropped it.

01:07:26

They have no footnotes, they have no indications that they dropped it. Um, all right, so tell you what, let me, let me read.

01:07:35

Okay, again, this man believes this.

01:07:42

And unfortunately, a lot of Christians are sitting there going, uh, I, I, I don't know what to say to that.

01:07:51

Folks, no one can just drop something out of the

01:07:57

Bible. First of all, the man's self -deceived, he's deluded. It's not from Greek to Latin to English.

01:08:06

Um, the Greek that the King James translators translated, Hebrews 11 .11.

01:08:13

Um, you know, let me, I'm going to, this thing never, uh, let me see.

01:08:22

The only way I can do this is to go to that, and then go back to window, and then it looks for windows and now it's found accordance and therefore it'll have accordance.

01:08:34

I want to double check something here. Um, and this is a live program.

01:08:41

So textus receptus. All right.

01:08:47

Um, what they had is on my screen now, anyways, right here.

01:08:55

Pisticae altei sera dunamin. That's what's in the textus receptus.

01:09:04

Okay. Um, there is a textual variant at this particular text.

01:09:13

Um, uh, eis katabalein spermatos.

01:09:18

And then if we go back to, um, say the

01:09:26

NA 27 or the, let's see where the NA, uh, you know,

01:09:31

I need to order these so I don't have to look through as many. All right.

01:09:41

You'll notice that there is a textual critical mark right here.

01:09:48

There is, uh, a word order change.

01:09:54

There's translational issues in regards to, uh, what does it mean?

01:10:00

She received the ability to, uh, notice it says styra, which here you have the state of not being able to conceive and bear children, uh, ability.

01:10:14

And then where's, uh, I need the NA 27 here. There it is.

01:10:22

Well, that's not bringing it up either. I wonder why. Hmm. How about Greek?

01:10:28

Where is this? The Greek New Testament NT tag. How's it? There we go. That'll, that'll do it better. Okay. So here we have, uh, conceive and then here's spermatos.

01:10:43

That's what he's talking about. Now, as to who this is referring to, whether it's

01:10:49

Altay and so on and so forth, it's a, it's a very complex syntactical issue that Kurt Eichenwald has no idea about, but listen to what happens when

01:11:02

Michael offers, uh, a rebuttal. Remember Kurt Eichenwald himself will say, um,

01:11:11

I don't know Greek. I don't know Hebrew.

01:11:16

I can't translate either one of them. All right. That's fine.

01:11:22

Then don't sit there and tell a Hebrew scholar it is wrong. Um, I tell you what, let me, let me resolve that difficulty very simply.

01:11:32

The first thing, the Hebrew word Zara, just like the Greek word sperma can simply refer to offspring in general.

01:11:40

So, so for example, Genesis three 15, it talks about the Zara of the woman.

01:11:45

It doesn't mean that she has a seed because it's never said that a seed sperm proceeds from the woman.

01:11:52

That's always male and only male in the scripture. What, what it is, is it the word?

01:11:58

Okay. Tell you what, we'll catch that. Let, let, let me, let me try it one more time.

01:12:04

This is a man who could not identify the term Zara on a page.

01:12:11

Okay. Couldn't spell it. Couldn't find it. He's talking to a guy with a

01:12:17

PhD in Semitic languages in the scripture. What, what it is, is it the word?

01:12:25

Okay. Tell you what, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, that is not correct in Hebrew. What kind of hubris does this man have?

01:12:36

I am just left going, how do you, how do you reason with someone like that?

01:12:43

I mean, invincible ignorance, but proud of and claiming knowledge.

01:12:49

It's wow. Wow. We'll pick that up. But I mean, I've got all my, my Hebrew and Greek right in front of me, but the fact is a woman does not have a

01:12:57

Zara in terms of a biological seed. She has a Zara meaning offspring.

01:13:02

That's the generic word for offspring or sperm. But the other thing is, as I'm just holding in my hand, textual commentary on the

01:13:09

Greek New Testament by Brutus Metzger, there's just a manuscript difference. That's ancient in terms of the word sperma in Romans 11, 11.

01:13:18

So the question is, is it talking about Abraham? Is it talking about Sarah? And that's the debate.

01:13:25

And then it's based on a couple of different words, but it's, it's a textual question that we have in front of us. There was absolutely no biological error with that.

01:13:33

Our friends, we are out of time for this hour. Dennis, thank you for calling in. Kurt, thanks for your answer. We've got another.

01:13:40

Okay. So there, there was that one. And there's, there's just one other section. When Michael had told me he was going to be on,

01:13:55

I asked him, I said, please, whatever else you do, whatever y 'all you talk, talk about, please demand that he answer for the, the error that he made about the council of Constantinople that is literally on the level of saying that Bill Clinton was the first president of the

01:14:23

United States. And it's that silly. It's that absurd. It is that far out from the truth.

01:14:33

When he said that at the council of Constantinople, Jesus was no longer two, but he was declared to be three, the father, the son, and the

01:14:44

Holy spirit. That is just, it is indefensible.

01:14:53

And I said, please, whatever you do now, Michael wasn't going to address that. But since I asked him to, he did and he set it up in a, in a, in a pretty cool way.

01:15:07

He, he gave him the opportunity of having a way out. And that's why

01:15:12

Michael is nicer than I am. Um, he set it up by saying, you know,

01:15:21

I, I have typos, you know, there are even typos in my article in response to you. Was this a typo in yours?

01:15:28

This must be a typo because the council of Constantinople didn't say this. So did, is this typo?

01:15:37

Now that was, that was a pretty cool way of doing it.

01:15:42

He, like I said, Michael's just a nicer guy than I am. Um, it didn't matter.

01:15:48

It didn't matter that he gave him an out. Didn't matter. You know, he, he made it as easy as possible for him to go.

01:15:57

Yeah. Yeah. Well, uh, yeah, uh, you're, you're right.

01:16:02

I, I, I've looked into that and now I've challenged him multiple times on Twitter to back up what he said about Constantinople.

01:16:12

He has ignored every single challenge completely, not even made reference to it.

01:16:18

Not even made reference to it because he knows that he's completely wrong, but he won't admit it.

01:16:25

He will not admit it. So here's the discussion. I will kick this one up to 1 .2

01:16:34

to get through it a little bit faster. Cause we'll have time after this to get into a topic

01:16:40

I didn't think we'd get into. Um, but I want to start responding to David Allen and his liberty presentation.

01:16:47

We've talked a little bit about before, but I think we need to start getting into it, especially on a biblical level. So here's, um, here's the, here's the conversation, but I'll give you the opportunity to fix it here.

01:17:00

You write in the article about 50 years after, and I see it 50 years later in the Romans held another meeting this time in Constantinople.

01:17:06

There, a new agreement was reached. Jesus wasn't two. He was now three father, son, and Holy ghost.

01:17:14

Constantinople never said that spoke of God as triune God, the father, God, the son, God, the Holy spirit, but never ever said that Jesus was now three.

01:17:23

Jesus quote being two would be human and divine nature, but to say was now three father, son, and Holy ghost.

01:17:29

I mean, it's, it's a long typo, but it looks like it's just a typo. I, I'm kind of baffled by that statement.

01:17:36

Well, what you had in terms of the Trinity, I mean, I think, I think, well, I don't know if we can agree on this, but I think we can agree that, uh, the

01:17:44

Trinity is, is, is not expressly, uh, uh, within the

01:17:50

Bible. I mean, there you can go in and you can find interpretations and, and so on. It's the kind of thing that you would think that, uh, something of that importance that Jesus or, or his disciples would talk about, but, uh, it, it is not there.

01:18:04

So you don't take baptizing them, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and the Holy spirit, the words of Jesus being pretty strong?

01:18:10

Well, no, I mean, neither do other Trinitarians, because I mean, for example, many do, many do, but I don't mean,

01:18:16

I don't mean any other Trinitarians. Uh, what I mean is that there are Trinitarians who say, yeah,

01:18:22

I mean, you're talking about Matthew, and there are Trinitarians who take that very phrase, and I wish

01:18:30

I could remember the name. It's something I just read last night, actually, um, uh, who was saying this could not, this cannot, the word was possibly, this cannot possibly be interpreted as meaning the

01:18:46

Holy spirit as a third being. Now, that is somebody who believes in the Trinity. That's fine. Okay. Let's just, let's just say this.

01:18:52

Let's say that the doctrine of the Trinity is deduced from scripture as opposed to an explicit statement that says

01:18:59

God eternally exists in three divine persons, father, son, and Holy spirit. If we say it like that, we agree.

01:19:04

My point is that no one who believes in the Trinity and none in the church history and these councils said that Jesus was the father, the son, the

01:19:12

Holy ghost. They would say that Jesus is the son in human flesh. So when you say that Constantinople said

01:19:18

Jesus was in two, he was now three father, son, and Holy ghost. It's, that's just not, that's, that's wrong on every score.

01:19:24

It has nothing to do with what the Bible even says about the Trinity. It's just, no one believes that Constantinople didn't teach that. It just looked like a mental typo, a mental lapse or something.

01:19:32

Look on radio yesterday. I said that H2O, that's, that's the ingredients of oxygen. Someone called it later.

01:19:37

It's actually water. I thought, oh, I said oxygen, but it's kind of something that egregious that you just put in there.

01:19:43

And I was just struck. I wanted to give you the opportunity to say that's, that's not correct. Well, I think,

01:19:50

I guess we're getting to some very, very specific points. I think that we can agree, for instance, that the

01:19:57

Council of Nicaea in 325 did not adopt the concept of the

01:20:04

Trinity. And it was certainly a poppy that was out that did not.

01:20:10

That they did not adopt it? That they did not. That they, that they dealt more in the concept of binatarianism.

01:20:17

No, no, no. Ah, okay. I see what you're getting wrong here. No, no, no, no. They're, uh, okay. The, the question was the person of Jesus.

01:20:25

Let me, let me, I mean, the Council of Nicaea said very little about the Holy Spirit. Now, now, now, now, okay.

01:20:35

Um, I think he was trying to say binatarianism. Um, and clearly there is an expansion of the discussion of the role of the

01:20:46

Spirit in the later Cappadocian fathers and so on and so forth. Again, this is what happens when you have someone who reads tertiary literature, secondary, second, second, third, fourth hand, but does not have the foundation upon which to interpret this material.

01:21:05

And they just end up plugging it in places where it just, it's not supposed to be in the first place. And then when they clearly, um, have a really big ego, uh, then they just run with it and don't worry that it causes problems.

01:21:22

Anyway. Um, so what he's, what now he's talking about, why not just respond to the question where, when, what's your source?

01:21:36

The Council of Constantinople declaring Jesus to be Father, Son, Holy Spirit. He has no source because he doesn't understand the doctrine of the

01:21:44

Trinity. Doesn't think anybody else does either. So he's not going to invest much more time on it. And so what it obviously shows is he doesn't understand the doctrine of the

01:21:55

Trinity. That's what's been exposed here, but he doesn't want to admit that exposure. No, but the

01:22:01

Trinitarian formula is laid out with, with absolute clarity at Nicaea. I mean, are you sure you want to go down that road and deny that and say that they, the debate, the specific debate was whether Jesus was fully divine.

01:22:15

The son of God was fully divine, whether he was eternal or whether he was a created being as Arius said, and affirming his eternal being, there was a clear affirmation of a father, son, and spirit in God's triune nature.

01:22:26

That's why the Nicene Creed became used in a standard way through the centuries. And then other issues would be taken up.

01:22:32

And then there were, there were, there were later debates and in other centuries that if Jesus is right now, essentially fully man and fully

01:22:39

God, then that, that puts another being in God. So those, those were the nuances, but, but again,

01:22:44

I don't want to make this into a point. We're really going down a very, I mean, we're really going down a very, very detailed theological area.

01:22:54

Then why did you do it in your article? You made the assertion.

01:23:00

And the reason it's very, very detailed to you is because you don't know what the details are. You don't understand the subject and you will not admit it.

01:23:10

That's what's bugging me here. I don't have, look, what percentage of people in my own church would be able to give you a meaningful definition of what the council of Constantinople was all about?

01:23:22

Not many, not many, a few, not many. There's nothing wrong with that.

01:23:29

But then when faced with the facts being abjectly unwilling to go, okay, okay.

01:23:44

All right. Yeah. All right. I'm, I'm sorry. I, I was, I was way off on that.

01:23:51

He won't do it. He misdirects. He mumbles.

01:23:57

He talks about other things, but the fact of the matter is the council of Constantinople never said it.

01:24:02

It's a fact. Do you want facts, Mr. Eichenwald? There's your fact. But you won't do it. But simply stated,

01:24:09

I see it definitely a front. The doctrine did not reach its current form until around the time of 385 under the leadership of Basil of Bithyria.

01:24:24

And what you, what you have here is, Basil of what? Of, well, what is it we're talking about when we talk about Trinity?

01:24:33

And, you know, you can deal with concepts of the Trinity, and how they were, and how they were viewed, and what it means, and so on and so forth, going all the way back to the nations of India.

01:24:45

But that doesn't mean that it is what we are talking about as, you know, as the

01:24:50

Trinity is understood in our current day. And that did not occur until the end of the fourth century.

01:24:57

Okay, what you could say, and the relevance of this to the question is, is that there is further articulation given to the person of the

01:25:08

Holy Spirit at Constantinople. And that we'd agree with in terms of the articulation in the

01:25:13

Creed. In Confession of Nicaea, just in front of me, we believe in one God, Father Almighty, and one

01:25:20

Lord Jesus Christ. And that's what's now expanded on, because that's what the debate was. And then it closed, and in the Holy Ghost.

01:25:25

So, it confesses one God, the Father Almighty, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost. That's what was discussed that is clearly

01:25:32

Trinitarian. And when you say, though, that Constantinople said that Jesus was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

01:25:40

No, Constantinople never said that, never believed it. It just really more clearly defined

01:25:45

God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it never said Jesus was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

01:25:51

So, somehow, something got in your thinking here. It's a very, it's a very, it's a very awkwardly written sentence.

01:25:57

I think, I think... It's a very awkwardly written sentence. You mean yours?

01:26:06

I think that, um, we can, you know, the concept in there, and I don't even know what I originally wrote, so I don't want to have to go back and say...

01:26:13

It's definitely a typo. It's either a typo or just a bad error, you know, just anyway. No, but when we're dealing,

01:26:19

I mean, what we're clearly talking about is, or at least what I am talking about, is the adoption of the concept of the

01:26:26

Trinity in its current form. I, an honest man would go,

01:26:37

I made a mistake. I clearly was utterly wrong in what

01:26:44

I said. No source substantiates that assertion. I withdraw and apologize.

01:26:52

Not Kurt Eichenwald. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Not gonna happen. Not in this life, anyways.

01:26:57

Not in this life. Save that one.

01:27:03

Keep that one around in case we ever have to drag that one back out. Wow. All right.

01:27:09

Still have about 20 minutes to go on a mega edition of The Dividing Line today.

01:27:16

It's a long one, but we've gotten to a lot of interesting stuff if you have been able to survive up to this point.

01:27:24

And so we have one more topic that I want to at least start on, because I think this is a very important topic and it will actually get us into something, you know, dealing with folks that are just,

01:27:42

I have no idea what they're talking about is one thing. It's nice to talk about some theology today and some important theology.

01:27:52

When we talk about the cross, we need to talk with clarity of theology and Bible.

01:28:07

We need to think clearly about what we're talking about. I've said many times that most

01:28:12

Christians have a primarily sentimental view of the cross.

01:28:22

You know, when I hear the word cross, I hear George Beverly Shea from the 1950s singing the old rugged cross.

01:28:32

And there are all sorts of traditional and sometimes even emotional things that come into our minds when we think about the cross.

01:28:43

As a result, the vast majority of Christians have a confusion and a division between the cross and the doctrine of atonement that they might hold.

01:29:05

When in reality, there should not be any differentiation. You're saying the cross and the atonement should be the same thing.

01:29:14

And when we think of the cross today, when we are talking with our

01:29:22

Arminian friends, the issue of the extent of the atonement is first and foremost in the field of debate because of the difference between believing in a general atonement that makes salvation possible and a particular atonement that actually saves.

01:29:52

As is so often the case when we are engaged in controversy, sometimes the terms of the controversy introduce a level of imbalance.

01:30:07

If we're always debating a subject, it's hard for us to stop debating the subject. That's certainly the case for me.

01:30:14

Maybe all the rest of you have the ability to just filter those out, but I don't. As a result, when we start looking at the atonement with the concept of extent and application as our first considerations,

01:30:37

I believe we will miss the most important biblical evidence in regards to the subject of the atonement itself.

01:30:46

Obviously, I would argue that the most important first foundational issue to address in discussing the atonement is the intention that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had in bringing the atonement about.

01:31:04

Because it's quite obvious that, especially from Paul's perspective, that's the very center point of history.

01:31:19

Everything before the cross leads up to it, everything after the cross points back to it and is to be lived in the light of it.

01:31:31

So, it's the center point of history. It cannot be viewed as a backup plan

01:31:43

It was the intention of the

01:31:49

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to bring that event about. And the incarnation, the necessity of the incarnation, the necessity of hypostatic union, the necessity of the deity of Christ is all tied up with what takes place there upon the cross and that voluntary self -giving.

01:32:10

So, with that in mind, then we cannot really begin to honestly address the atonement at any other point other than the intention that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had in the atonement itself.

01:32:32

And I submit to you that when we start elsewhere, when we start looking at the extent before even discussing the intention, or if we define the extent, if we define the intent in light of conclusions we've come to on the extent, we're going to be missing the most important elements of the biblical revelation concerning the subject of the atonement.

01:33:06

I forget what the date of this was, I actually think this was 2013. Dr. David Allen of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary spoke at Liberty University on the extent of the atonement.

01:33:25

Some of you know that starting back in 2008 at the

01:33:31

John 316 conference, Dr. Allen has taken it upon himself to address issues related to the subject of particular redemption or limited atonement.

01:33:46

It was at that conference, of course, that he falsely identified me as a hyper -Calvinist and things like that.

01:33:52

But he says he's got a book coming out. Now that I think about it, is it out?

01:34:08

Do an Amazon search for David Allen for me, because I may have actually seen a cover and a pre -order thing.

01:34:18

I'm not sure. Ian. So anyway, in this presentation,

01:34:34

I think we have a valuable foundation upon which to contrast the reformed and non -reformed views of the atonement.

01:34:44

Not that he brought that difference out with clarity, but we can use what he did and did not do as a means of bringing that with clarity.

01:34:55

And what you see, and at one point, power of I am,

01:35:05

I doubt it. What's the date on it? What does it say?

01:35:12

Does it say it's about the atonement? Oh, okay. Anyway, what he...

01:35:24

I'm having to clutter through here. There's an organizational guy named David Allen, so his stuff's lumped in there.

01:35:31

Well, if you just put David Allen atonement, that probably would be the way to limit that issue, unless someone has found a way to use the term atonement in organizational stuff, which

01:35:42

I would not put beyond anyone. Anyway, what he says and what he doesn't say, and how he says what he does say, and how that leads to a very skewed view of the biblical data, that's really,

01:35:58

I think, the value here. So let's listen to his description.

01:36:06

1 .8. No, I don't think so. We'll listen at 1 .2, and let's listen to his description of the idea there are only two positions on this particular subject.

01:36:23

Was accomplished. All right. Now, the next phrase that I want to define is this phrase, the extent of the atonement.

01:36:30

The extent of the atonement. What we mean by that is for whose sins did

01:36:36

Christ die? That is the question of the extent of the atonement.

01:36:42

For whose sins did Christ die? There are only two possible answers to that question. All right.

01:36:48

Number one, Jesus died for the sins of the elect only.

01:36:54

Now, stop right there. The term elect there is a term that is used in Reformed theology or a term used by Calvinists.

01:37:00

It is a Bible term. It is a term that is used to describe those people who were chosen in their theology.

01:37:07

Now, I'm being purely descriptive because I don't agree with everything in Reformed theology, but we want to be fair to our Reformed brothers and sisters.

01:37:13

And that is that God in eternity past has chosen those who will be saved.

01:37:18

And He has either reprimanded the others or He has passed over the others. Either way, He has not chosen them to be saved.

01:37:25

That election is unconditionally accomplished in eternity past, has nothing to do with you or me, nothing to do with anything about us.

01:37:32

There was nothing about us involved in God's choice. It was all behind the veil of His sovereignty. It was His sovereign will,

01:37:38

His sovereign choice. And therefore, many Calvinists, and you may be surprised I'm not saying all. We're going to get to that in a minute.

01:37:43

But many Calvinists believe and teach therefore that those whom God elected, that Jesus came and died on the cross only and solely for the sins of the elect, that He did not die for the sins of others.

01:37:56

That's the first answer to the question, possible answer to the question. Now, let me just stop right there.

01:38:04

He's going to give the general atonement view in a moment, but already the topic is extent of the atonement.

01:38:15

And when this first came out, one of the criticisms that I mentioned briefly was

01:38:21

I think the entire presentation is skewed because it starts in the wrong place. How can you discuss extent without first establishing intent?

01:38:34

I guess on some theoretical level you could say, well, you can discuss that and not worry about it. So what

01:38:39

God intended the atonement to accomplish is not relevant to the extent of the atonement itself.

01:38:49

This really does go back, in my opinion, to having a man -centered versus God -centered theology.

01:38:56

Obviously, I believe Reformed theology is God -centered and non -Reformed theology tends to be man -centered.

01:39:03

And the extent issue, therefore, focuses upon who gets to participate in the benefits of atonement, whereas intention focuses upon what did

01:39:18

God intend to accomplish. Now, let me let him finish the definition and then make a point on that.

01:39:32

For whose sins did Jesus die? The other position and the other answer, the one that I'll be suggesting is actually the biblical position, is that Jesus suffered on the cross and died for the sins of all people, of all humanity, not the elect only, not just people who happen to believe and who do believe, but for all people.

01:39:50

Now, those are the two positions and that's what we mean by the question, extent of the atonement.

01:39:55

Now, when he defined the Reformed position, notice it was in extent language.

01:40:05

What he never brings up and what must be the first element of our presentation of particular redemption is the reality that the redeeming work of Christ is in perfect harmony with the intention of the

01:40:24

Father, the Son, and the Spirit in regards to the salvation of the elect.

01:40:31

In other words, there is no disharmony, there is no disjunction between what

01:40:36

God intends to do in the salvation of his elect people and the offering of Christ.

01:40:45

Now, one of the things that he will bring up and he spends a lot of time on is that many

01:40:50

Reformed people will seek to introduce the idea that the atonement has non -salvific benefits, that there are benefits that accrue outside of the specific redemption of the elect.

01:41:13

But when we talk about the intention of the atonement, we have to identify what the central intention is.

01:41:22

And then if there are secondary benefits, they need to be interpreted in light of that primary intention of what the cross is to accomplish.

01:41:37

And I really believe that here is where the difference is. Let me see if I marked it here.

01:41:50

Well, I didn't mark it, but let's see if it's close. Let's see. Number three, third problem.

01:41:56

No, that's not it. What does the

01:42:02

Bible say? What is the condition for someone getting saved? Isn't the Bible clear?

01:42:08

What is the condition? It's repentance and faith. Is anybody saved apart from repentance and faith alone? Is anybody saved solely because there was an atonement made for their sins on the cross apart from the atonement being applied to people who repent and believe?

01:42:21

Is anyone saved in that context? I'm talking about adults, I'm talking about infants, that's a difference. The unbelieving elect, these who are now believers, which by definition, they would be saved, thus they would be among the elect, however we define election, you with me?

01:42:34

But before they were saved, even though there was an atonement made for them, before they were saved, Paul says, you were still under the wrath of God.

01:42:40

That's phraseology that says if you die in that state apart from repentance and faith, you wind up going to hell, you're under God's wrath.

01:42:47

Even the unbelieving elect are under the wrath of God. The atonement does not save the elect at the cross.

01:42:53

That is a theological error that's often made by people. Got one more check.

01:43:01

When Jesus died on the cross, did his death on the cross at that point save anybody?

01:43:09

Now, before you write letters, both to my president and yours, call me a heretic or whatever, let me be clear, let me explain, hear what

01:43:15

I'm going to say, and then hear my explanation. Nobody is saved by what Jesus did on the cross until what he did on the cross is applied to them when they repented their sin and believed the gospel.

01:43:30

All right. I know that in this area... Ours the healing, his the wounds. There are more than 7 billion people on planet

01:43:36

Earth right now. Somewhere in this section, I'll find it. We'll get to it. I've got it marked.

01:43:42

Sorry, I thought I had it marked, but he uses the proper terminology that we need to understand.

01:43:51

And that is, he says, that the death of Christ made all men savable, made all men savable.

01:44:01

So because the legal barriers to dealing with men graciously have been removed by the cross, now

01:44:11

God can deal with men on a gospel basis. That if they will repent and believe, then it will be saved.

01:44:17

Because all the legal barriers have been removed because all men are now savable.

01:44:24

So what you have in this situation is the difference between the atonement making salvation theoretically possible and the atonement actually saving through union of a particular people with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.

01:44:48

Now, I would really have a hard time seeing how this perspective does not eventually lead to a fundamental diminishment of emphasis upon substitutionary atonement.

01:45:06

Because when you think of what substitutionary atonement actually means and how personal it is, the idea that the non -elect, including, and I would like to be able to ask this question, because in the definition that was given,

01:45:24

Dr. Allen did not differentiate between the people who are alive in Jesus' day and thereafter and the people before.

01:45:36

So, did Jesus die, this is my favorite example, but it makes the contrast clear, did

01:45:42

Jesus die for the Amorite high priest who had been dead for centuries before the atoning work of Christ?

01:45:52

Why? Why would the father cause the son to suffer for the sins of an individual who can no longer repent and believe?

01:46:04

It almost opens up the door for post -mortem evangelization if you want to go that direction.

01:46:11

But I can guarantee you, Dr. Allen does not believe in post -mortem evangelization.

01:46:19

Well, I think he does. I guess I can't guarantee you. So anyway, I'd like to ask that question because if it's all the human family or even someone alive that day where God knows the gospel is never going to come to that person, why would the father cause the son to suffer for the sins of those individuals who will never repent and believe?

01:46:45

But of course, Dr. Allen's not an open theist. And so, as a result, that's a question that can be asked of anyone because Dr.

01:47:00

Allen, I think, would believe that God knows everyone who's never going to believe in Jesus, even those in the future.

01:47:08

Why cause Jesus to suffer for the sins of people who will never believe?

01:47:16

Or did God the father not have a choice as to whose sins he placed upon Jesus?

01:47:25

In the old covenant, the sacrifices had a specific audience. When on the day of Yom Kippurim, when the sacrifices were offered on the altar in the tabernacle or later in the temple, they weren't for the

01:47:43

Egyptians, they weren't for the Babylonians, they weren't for the Midianites. There was a limitation, a specific known and embraced limitation.

01:47:56

So those are questions I would like to ask that unfortunately don't get answered.

01:48:03

And they would have to be answered if we started at the right place. An extent is not the place to start.

01:48:13

Instead, intention is the place to start. What did God the

01:48:19

Father, Son, and Spirit intend to accomplish at the cross?

01:48:26

Specifically, do we have biblical data on that?

01:48:32

And the fact is we do. And when we start there, the result is that that sheds the light necessary to understand how we are to prioritize extent passages.

01:48:48

Now, one of the reasons I mentioned this here at the end of the program is I'm coming to Texas and I really, really, really think that there would be great value in having

01:49:07

Dr. Allen and I debate this issue in front of a live audience. But what

01:49:14

I would like to challenge Dr. Allen to do is to debate the following thesis.

01:49:22

The book of Hebrews teaches that the atonement saves or makes savable.

01:49:36

Now, I think that is a perfectly fair statement, thesis statement, for a debate.

01:49:46

And for Dr. Allen especially, I would think this would be one he would want to jump at. You know why?

01:49:52

Because as most people know, as you probably saw looking at Amazon, Dr. Allen has written an entire commentary or I think it's the

01:50:02

New American Bible commentary series on the book of Hebrews. So, that's right down Dr.

01:50:10

Allen's, I mean, he's writing a book on atonement, he's written a book on Hebrews. I'm saying

01:50:19

I'll come there and let's debate specifically, does the book of Hebrews teach the atonement saves or makes savable?

01:50:31

That's the question. That's the question. And I think most everyone would have to agree that there would be great potential benefit in a scholarly, biblically based debate on that subject there in the

01:50:50

Dallas area. And I am more than happy to do it. So, we'll see. Folks, we went for a mega edition of the

01:50:59

Dividing Line. Two solid hours, my voice is pretty much gone. We've covered, you're not even going to be able to describe this thing for the iTunes feed.

01:51:10

It's worthless. It's not... It'll be James White is back. Traveled a lot.

01:51:17

A lot of stuff. A lot of stuff. That's about as much space as you've got to go. A whole lot of stuff.

01:51:22

And actually, we didn't go mega. Well, you actually have to go another 10 minutes for that.

01:51:28

No, no. We started at eight after. Oh, okay. But you got to go and I got to go too.

01:51:35

So, I think... It is what it is. It is what it is. It is. I don't want to just play stuff for the sake of it.

01:51:42

Well, welcome back. We're glad to have you back in Phoenix. And I'll be leaving very soon. Yes. And if this keeps up,

01:51:48

I'm going to have to actually consider you, you know, maybe making a trip to Phoenix for some events here in Phoenix.

01:51:57

I'll pass Fry up, see... We actually have some events coming up in Phoenix.

01:52:02

Maybe have an appearance at... Not us. Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. You remember that place, right? I am putting in an appearance at the

01:52:09

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church on Sunday where I will be preaching. And I'm not sure what

01:52:15

I'm going to be preaching on yet because what I need to do is just going to be so tough to do.

01:52:22

I just don't know how I'm going to handle it yet. So, we'll see. We'll see. But anyways, folks, thank you very much for...

01:52:29

Oh, you found me a stereo cough button, you think? Yeah.

01:52:36

This one is pretty cool if you click on that link. I just happened to trip over it this morning. I've been looking and looking and looking to hear you are coughing and coughing and coughing.

01:52:44

And this one, if it'll work with phantom power because those are phantom powered mics, we might actually have something there, a single button that controls both mics, including also having the ability to turn it on and off.

01:52:59

You'd be able to... I'd have you up and you just turn your mics on. Boom. Oh, I see. Well, that'd be nice.

01:53:06

That'd be nice. We could put that and the other thing I sent to you on the ministry resource list. Hey, that's a good idea.

01:53:11

I like that. I remember that. Put them on the ministry resource list. We'll let folks know that they're there and if y 'all can help out with that.

01:53:18

By the way, I just want to mention one more time, I know you did at the beginning, but for those who say that there have been dividing lines since January 8th, that is a false rumor.

01:53:27

That's false. That is incorrect. That's about as reliable as Kurt Eichenwald's biblical scholarship.

01:53:32

Yes. So, this is your first one since you've been traveling and it's in the

01:53:38

I wanted to do something to G3. It just did not work out. It just did not work out.

01:53:44

I would need to have a separate camera thing. I need to have microphones.

01:53:49

I need to be carrying all this stuff. People think I travel with an entourage or something. No, it's just me.

01:53:57

So, if you saw me at 2 a .m. in the Atlanta airport dragging two check bags and my two carry -on bags for two weeks worth of stuff with winter clothes in them and stuff at 2 a .m.

01:54:14

in the morning, utterly exhausted trying to find the rental place. Yeah, that's me.

01:54:20

So, I don't have assistants that run with me and stuff like that. So, as it is, my wife tried to pick up my carry -on bag and said, what do you have in here?

01:54:31

And going through TSA, they're always pulling my connectors and stuff out going,

01:54:38

I travel. I have to connect to all sorts of different kinds of video stuff and sound systems and you need different connectors.

01:54:45

It's a pain. So, if we had to start throwing in microphones and mixing boards and stuff like that, it just would not work.

01:54:53

Mike Brown has a pretty cool thing that uses the internet. Yeah, but that's got to be something else to haul around too.

01:55:02

No, it's pretty small. Really? Yeah, it's actually possible, but I don't know how exactly it works.

01:55:09

It's not ISDN, but it's some kind of high -end internet thing that he uses and that's how he does his program when he's traveling.

01:55:17

Probably something from the CIA or something like that. Probably. I'm sure NSA has something to do with it. But anyways, maybe that's what we have to do, but we'll throw some stuff on the ministry's resource list and we'll go from there.

01:55:28

Thanks for listening to Vinyl Line today, folks. Lord willing, we will be back on Thursday sometime.