James White is Teaching Heresy!

Anyway, welcome to the program today. It's a Friday. If we were trying to always have the largest audience, people watching live and trying to do stuff like that, this would be a bad time to be doing this.

On a Friday afternoon, people are getting ready for a long weekend. Some people have a really, really long weekend because of the July 4th stuff. My cats will have a really, really long weekend because of fireworks, that's for sure.

But other than that, this wouldn't be the time to be doing it, but we only got the one program in earlier in the week. It was two hours long, but we only got the one program in. And by the way, let me thank everybody who called in.

Great questions. Those programs are really, they're tough to do. You know, I mean, I'll tell you the inside scoop here. I'd forgot how many times I was on the Bible Answer Man broadcast, but it was many times.

And he wasn't sitting there alone, okay? There were other people in the studio, and there are people looking things up and sliding resources over and doing stuff like that. I'm here all alone. Once in a while, I'll just be straight up, hey, could someone look up such and such and tell me when that happened or something like that.

But those call-in shows, you may see up on the screen what the question is. That doesn't mean that once you punch it up, there's gonna be a whole lot of connection between what was on the screen and what you end up dealing with in that situation.

So anyways, enjoyed that program. We'll be doing more of those as we can. I just wanted to start off because I need to deal, I've got to get, I've said over and over again, for what, a month now, we're gonna try to respond to the James White is Teaching Heresy article.

And we just never get around to it. We put other things in front of it, and then those things expand and so we don't get to it. So I need to get to that. And I think it should be helpful. It will involve some in-depth discussion of various elements of Christological inquiry and belief and so on and so forth.

But it'll also illustrate, to be honest with you, one of the key issues in the, I don't even know what, no one's really come up with a good name. I mean, I've thrown a few good, a few zingers out there.

The rise of Reformed Thomism, the new Reformed Baptist Scholastics, there's a lot of ways of describing it, but none of them really, I think, do it real justice. But there's certain fundamental foundational issues that are at stake here.

And I think a lot of folks, they're out in the weeds because they're talking about something about simplicity or something about inseparable operations. And the real thing is, when you hear Reformed Baptist pastors, professors, writers saying, how I interpreted the Bible up until five years ago was completely wrong.

Or it makes mincemeat out of the confession. And you start hearing, as I've had multiple, I've had three different people now who have listened to or attended the conference took place a few weekends ago.

Well, okay, a month ago now, in Gilbert, with most of, not all, but a large number of the leaders of this movement. And they all said the same thing. There was next to no scripture, exegesis, preaching.

There was reading of scripture before talks, but nothing really more than that. And every speaker mentioned the great tradition. Not one mentioned solo scriptura. And the great concern that I have expressed and others are seeing and are expressing is the trajectory where these things historically have ended up going.

Because this is not the first time there's been a re-ignition of a fascination with scholastic theology or with Thomas Aquinas or anything else. That's the first time it's happened. But it all comes back to foundational issues of where we derive our beliefs and how we pass them on the next generation.

And that should be, did you notice on the calls? We're all thinking about the next generations in light of what we're seeing in our society right now. I think most of us sit back and we go, man, we had it easy.

And that may be why we let things go crazy or didn't see things coming or became so comfortable with our place in the world is that we had our stuff and we believe in the myth of neutrality. And we didn't really believe what scripture said about the enmity of the world.

And so we didn't give a lot of thought to how to transmit the essence of the faith of the next generations in the face of tremendous opposition because we weren't really facing tremendous opposition. We really weren't.

Almost any inconvenience we considered to be great opposition, but it really wasn't. And so I forgot to, forgive me, forgive me, forgive me. I'm gonna have to drag this over here. I forgot to turn the cameras on outside and I really don't want to turn this on and discover that my vehicle is no longer outside.

Hey, Phoenix is only two hours from the Mexican border. So, you know, unfortunately we've become LA East. We really have. So the idea of, ooh, got to clean that camera. There's just one, there's only two of them that can actually see where my vehicle is parked.

So I need to get the right one there. All right, there, go full. All right, now I can see it. Well, someone could steal my front bumper, but I wouldn't see that. Anyway, passing on divine truth to the next generations, next generations, not just your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren.

You have to have something that is not temporary. It's not a fad. It has eternal foundations to it. That's definitely something I've been thinking about. And I am so thankful as a Christian that I can trust God's written word, that he has the oracles of God that have been entrusted to his people.

They were entrusted to the Jews. Now they're entrusted to the true circumcision. They've been given to his people. And he has preserved them, not by tradition, but by supernatural means down through history.

We'll talk a little bit more about that later. Maybe, don't know if we have time to get into it. And I just want to remind you, we normally go to 2 Timothy 3 to talk about scripture as being theanoustos and what it's profitable for and its ability to equip the man of God.

But remember that right before that, Paul has been talking to Timothy about, he knows he's going to be facing deceivers who are growing worse and worse and imposters. Wow, people who claim to be something they're not.

And in contrast to that, he says to Timothy, you, however, continue in the things which you have learned and become convinced of. You know the truthfulness of these things, knowing from whom you learned them and that from scriptures, you have known Tahierah Gramata, the holy writings, the sacred writings.

And then which are able, the holy sacred writings are able to make you wise into salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Writings that have an ability, writings that have a capacity. These debates are taking place amongst reformed men.

And if you're a reformed man of any stripe whatsoever, you recognize and believe that man is fallen in his sin and suppresses the knowledge of God. And so you know how many times in the New Testament, mankind is said to be incapable of doing this, unable to do that.

Exact same root is used here. The holy scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation. That doesn't turn the holy scriptures into a fourth or fifth person of the Godhead or anything like that. But what it does tell you is that if they are the Tahierah Gramata, if they are the Grafe Theanustos, then their nature as God breathed gives them capacity in the purpose of God.

And I'm simply going to tell you that down through the years, as I have watched first people my age go off to seminary back when I was younger and lose their faith or replace their faith with something very, very different.

I've told you many times, I remember this one fellow, he was probably 15, 20 years older than me. Started at Fuller at the same time that I did, similar church background, hence similar set of beliefs, evangelical.

And by the time he graduated, he had what I've called a master's degree in confusion. You need to, in seminary, be exposed to all sorts of different perspectives. But what that does is it reveals whether you have a good solid foundation or whether you don't.

And it'll either help you to build that foundation or if you've already got a bad foundation, it'll just break it up, it'll shatter it. And I saw that happen many times, unfortunately. And then as I've gotten older, I see younger men go off and I give them advice.

I say, do not become enamored by the educational process, do not become enamored by the men with great amounts of knowledge. Stay rooted, stay grounded, stay firm in the word, in your church. And has everyone that I've said that to done that?

No.

Have I seen shipwreck as a result? Yep, I have, I have. And so down through those years, one thing I can say to everybody, if you want to ground people, if you want to give them that which will edify their souls 20, 30, 40 years from now, 20 years down the road, then what you must do is you must show them divine truth in the pages of the sacred writings.

Because that's where they find the voice of the shepherd. And it's only the voice of the shepherd that will satisfy the sheep. It's only from the shepherd that they will learn truth. Everything else is just noise that gets in the way.

And that's why my focus has always been not to try to convince people to listen to a particular school or individual or whatever else, but it's scripture. Be grounded in what you find in the Theanostos revelation of God, because that will last.

The spirit of God can reignite even the most apathetic and cold heart that has at least once been touched. But the things of men and man's isms and movements and things like this, they won't last. They won't last.

So when Paul says to him that you have known the sacred writings, which are able, much of modern theological education does not believe that the scriptures are able to do anything. They're just simply the words of men that contradict each other and that were never intended to have some kind of harmonious meaning.

The vast majority of people attending college and seminary level teaching in the Western world, that's what they're taught. That Paul contradicted Paul and Paul contradicted Peter and you just have to do your best to try to make something fit, put something together.

You know, you've got to come up with a sermon for Sunday. So you need to find those resources with all the funny, warm stories and everything else, because we really don't believe anymore that that scripture is God speaking.

That's what's in vast majority of it. And there really is a lack of confidence in the scripture's ability to accomplish these things. There's no question about it. And only the spirit of God can, I think, birth that confidence and then maintain that confidence.

And that really, that's one of the greatest things that you can pray for for any person involved in ministry, is that the hurts that they will experience and the disappointments they'll experience, the betrayals that they will experience, the tendency is for those types of things to cause people to start looking outside of what God has given the church for their sufficiency, looking to the isms.

And that's how people end up going off into the weird stuff is because they end up losing that conviction. And so if you want to pray for something for your pastor, pray that Lord would keep him rooted and grounded in the word and satisfied, satisfied in the word.

And that becomes the means by which we pass the truth on. But it will have its greatest effect when it is passed on, not on the basis of the authority of a particular teacher or denomination or a creed or confession.

But when you demonstrate that the creed or confession the person's holding to is consistent with scripture, that's where the voice of Christ will be found. Anything else, the voice of Christ will be secondary.

It will be a reflection. It'll be an echo. We should never allow ourselves to get to the point. And there are people who are already well past this point, who believe that the confession or the creed is a clearer expression of the voice of Christ than what is in scripture itself.

We want our confessions and creeds to accurately represent and to summarize and to be a concise and clear summary statement, yes. But it can never become the anustos. It can never become the hieragramata, the holy writings.

All this has to be seen for what it is secondarily beyond that. So with your permission, I would like to maybe briefly respond. I can guarantee you one thing. If this had happened only 15 years ago, it would have been the first thing we covered on the very next program.

It would have been. But I'm old enough now that I recognize that you have to prioritize things. And in this particular situation, being accused of teaching heresy, once you dig into it, you see exactly what it is.

And I'm hoping that I can make it useful to other folks to see how this works out, but we'll do our best. Pray that I can do so. The issue is primarily brought up by Matthew 24, 36. And Matthew 24, 36 is a text that I would say I have had to deal with more often in the context, in the context of debate, yes, but very often.

You see, in a debate, you're either dealing with a text when you have some time to develop it, or the really hard thing to do that most of, hey, most people have never done this. And to be honest with you, most people shouldn't try to do this.

You have to sort of be wired. It's very challenging to do. Ask anyone who's done it and struggled with it. But very often what will happen is you'll get hit with something. When you have, you do not have time to lay the foundation and to give a full answer.

I was talking with a friend past couple of days about the issue of the canon. And he commented that some guy had asked a question of me from the audience, and you seem to struggle. Yeah, anyone who wants to give an honest answer on a subject as deeply theological and yet intertwined with history as the subject of the canon and you're literally looking at having between 60 and at most 120 seconds to do it.

Yeah, you're going to struggle. And simplistic answers there, they're easy, but they're not necessarily truthful. And texts like Matthew 24, 36 are going to come up in Trinitarian debates or come up in debates with Unitarians or come up obviously with the Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, all sorts of folks.

And you can, if you want, do the canned answer routine where you sort of have a pre-memorized, this gets me around it in the amount of time I have type response. I struggle with those because of what my goal is.

My goal is not to look good. My goal is not to get around it. I'm primarily focused on the person who really is going to experience the grace of God. They may even embrace Christ as a result of this. And I'm giving them some of their first examples of what it means to accurately handle the word of God.

And to be honest with you, apologists, if we're honest, if we're open, apologists sometimes don't handle the word of God with accuracy because their goal is not to give an example of that, but to win a point or avoid an alleged pitfall, do something that your method demands you do, whatever.

I think that's one of the things that does make me different as an apologist is I'm involved in the church. I can't put on the one hat and go out and handle the word of God in a debate one way, and then stand in the pulpit and do something else, and then stand in another context of teaching and do something else and be different people.

And I think for those people who do know me, they recognize, no, you are the same wherever you are. If you're in the classroom, if you're in the debate, if you're in the church and the sermon, you are who you are.

And I think that's important to be consistent in those ways. And so a text like Matthew 24, 36, I want to be able to handle it aright. And so I've heard a number of different types of responses to Matthew 24, 36.

If I'm in a debate, I'm already telling the other person that could be a Muslim, it could be a Unitarian of a non-Muslim variety, person who claims to be a Christian, but rejects the Trinity. There's a lot of different contexts in which something like this could come up.

I'm already challenging them to be consistent in their handling the word of God and to not bring in outside authorities.

I've got to do the same thing.

I've got to do the same thing. My first stop, my first guidepost is going to be to try to deal with Matthew 24, 36 in the context in which it was given. And that's where one of the problems is coming up today is we're being told, no, you can't do that.

You need to, we can't access the minds of the original writers. So we can't know why Matthew said what Matthew said. Now, of course, it was Jesus speaking and the vast majority of theological education, it would not be a given that Jesus said these words.

For most Christians, that's a given, but in the large portion of higher education today, that would be one of those things that you would hear a lot of professors going, what year is it? As a way of basically saying, man, are you behind the times?

If you actually thought that this is an accurate rendering of what Jesus actually said. The text, of course, sorry, I've mentioned it half a dozen times, didn't quote it. But of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven nor the son, but the father alone, the father only, manas.

So it's, udais oiden, no one knows. Udehoi angeloi, ton udenon, neither the angels of heaven, uda ha huyas, nor the son, ameha pater manas, except the father only. Now, there are sexual variants. There's a variant in regards to the inclusion of the phrase, nor the son.

And there are a number of manuscripts that do not include it. I'm not gonna get into this right now, but it's painfully obvious why a scribe would wish to not include uda ha huyas. And the majority text does not contain it.

So it just simply says, neither the angels in heaven. Well, why would it say neither? It should be uda uda, that wouldn't make sense. It's sort of obvious that it's been deleted. But anyway, when there is a clear reason why a phrase would have caused a scribe to stumble, and yet you have earlier manuscripts.

So the original of Sinaiticus, it's interesting. It's been put in, taken out, and put in, and taken out in Sinaiticus. So a bunch of erasures and stuff like that. But it's in Vaticanus in D, Theta family 13, Lectionary 2211.

Manuscripts of the Vulgate, the Old Italic, the Latin version of Irenaeus. Certain manuscripts of Drom that contain it. Whereas mainly what we would call the Byzantine manuscript tradition does not contain this reading.

Vast majority of scholars believe it's original. If you don't, then you can tune out to later on. But we'll go with the reading of the Nessiolan 28th edition. Neither the angels of heaven nor the sun except the Father only.

And so over the years as I have explained this text, either on the program or in debates, I have pointed out, and that's where this whole conversation came from, I've pointed out that Jesus is speaking as, speaking in the incarnate state.

And he's talking about the coming of the Son of Man, very next words, for the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah, for it's in those days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying, giving marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark.

They didn't understand until the flood came, took them all away. Um, so Jesus is speaking in a context of a future event, and he is making it clear that that, the timing of that event is determined by the Father.

Now, in eternity past, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, well, I believe that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, out of the reality that there is only one being of God, and that it is God's intention to bring glory to himself through his creation, that Father, Son, and Spirit covenanted together to accomplish the one divine will, one divine decree.

There are not three decrees. There is one decree. You could not, I would argue, you could not even have creation if you did not have the decree. You'd have, if you had three decrees, you'd have three different creations.

They'd be in conflict with one another. The, whatever the nature of the relationship of the divine persons might be, and we have very, very little biblical, biblical revelation on this subject, for obvious reasons.

We're talking about, I mean, how, how could God even describe his eternal existence to us time-bound creatures? So, we have those precious few texts where Father, Son, Spirit, they interact with one another, but there are very few, very, very few.

Gospel of John gives us a number of them. In fact, I, as far as specifically speaking of Father, Son, Spirit together, that almost all was, all there in John 14 and John 16, as far as the roles that each one is going to be taking in the economic trinity, that is the outworking of that decree and bringing about of redemption.

But the point being that each of the divine persons working in perfect harmony with one another without any division of the being or essence of God, you can't have a third of Yahweh doing one thing and a third of Yahweh doing something else.

There's no, there's no way to divide up the being of God in that fashion. And yet, we are forced by the very weight of Scripture to define our categories in such a way as that the Father, the Son, and Spirit have meaningful interaction with one another.

You can read some people and it almost, it's almost like they're saying, well, there's sort of a father part of the mind of God that knows about the son part of the mind of God. And someone goes so far as to say, and when the father part contemplates the son part and the son part contemplates the father part, the result of the contemplation is the Spirit.

And I'm just like, um, okay. That sounds, doesn't sound anything like what you'd get from reading Scripture. But there are people that have gone to that point. Um, I, in fact, I really wonder if there aren't a lot of people out there that don't actually believe that we can, um, root and ground key elements of our theology in the page of Scripture itself.

That we've sort of filled in those gaps with theological silly putty, and we better not go there because if we ever try to build anything with that stuff, it doesn't really, doesn't really last for a long time.

Anyway, um, I believe that when you look at Matthew chapter 24, verse 36, you should start with what the text was intended to communicate by the author at the time that he wrote the epistle. If you have come to the conclusion that you cannot understand this and that no one could have understood it until, make up your, make up your mind where?

Until Nicaea? Until Constantinople? Until Chalcedon? Until Thomas? Where are you going to put the, where are you going to put the place? If you say that it was basically unknowable until some kind of traditional authority was able to develop to fill in the gaps, um, you and I are going to have a real problem.

We're going to have a real problem because these words are theanoustos, traditions created hundreds of years later are not. But to say that you cannot understand what is theanoustos until you have that tradition from hundreds or a thousand years later renders that divine revelation mute until certain other things happen.

So I function with this concept in mind. I try to, can't do it consistently, but I try as best I can, knowing that no person could ever have the time in this life to do the kind of study that's required to do this consistently.

Um, I try not to be dogmatic on that, which I know I could not possibly defend against an equally prepared proponent in a debate. So that's why, you know, I was non-eschatological for a long, long time.

Um, and that's why I, I don't have to, uh, put a number of people on a bus straight for the gates of Hades because I know that the areas where we disagree are areas where there can be meaningful disagreement.

Now the, the fundamentalist mindset is that everything is equally clear and everything is equally important. And the leftist progressive, what we used to call liberal mindset, really wasn't liberal, but anyway, is that everything is up for grabs because you can't really know anything.

Neither one gives you a balanced biblical perspective or a balanced biblical means of practicing the Christian faith long-term. All that to say, what I start with in Matthew chapter 24 is I have to go, all right, as I answer this question, I have to answer it using the same standards that I have used to require of the person on the other side to give answers to my questions.

And so if I go, well, in this particular instance, my doctrine of the Trinity requires me to make certain distinctions so that it's not really the son speaking, but that I can now somehow crawl through the page of scripture and go, well, this is the human aspect of Jesus speaking to the exclusion of the divine aspect of Jesus.

So somehow I'm now dividing up the person of Jesus, not in saying one person with two natures, but in really getting to the point where are we even talking about one person at all? Now, I don't think it was Matthew's intention that we even be thinking along those lines, at least for the initial understanding of the text, to make further application, to answer questions down the road, to speculate about things.

Well, we have to affirm in any other place, just think with me for a moment, man, we're never gonna get this done today. I had a bunch of other stuff to get to too.

I should have known.

In any other situation where we would have, as in John, ha-pater, the father, ha-huyas, the son, how many places in John do you have those two terms used together? And we had already gotten this in Matthew, back in Matthew chapter 11.

Remember the gospel of John and Matthew? Matthew chapter 11, that very Yohannine language that's used there? In any other text, when the word son would appear,.

Here,.

Together with the father, this would be naturally seen as being father and son, sender and sent, honor the son, even as you honor the father, John chapter 5, right? That's what we would get. And in some texts of scripture, we are given a context that allows us to argue that the original author intended us to take the reference in a particular fashion.

So, John 14, when Jesus says, the father is greater than I am, there's a context there. The context is, I'm going back into the presence of the father. If you'd loved me, you would have rejoiced for the father is greater than I am.

So, there's a, since the context is something I'm going to be doing in the future, in light of a present reality, then there you have something right there in the context, right there in the context that says, we're talking incarnation here, and we're talking post-resurrection.

And so, we can validly and must validly bring in these other aspects of what the author has revealed to us about Jesus. And so, it's perfectly proper in John 14 to say, when Jesus says the father is greater than I am, he's speaking as the incarnate one.

And that is meant to be a elucidation for them of the fact that he is going to be exalted when he returns back into the presence of the father. And if that they loved him, they'd rejoice that he was going to go back to that exalted status that he had, which then really sort of gets fleshed out a little bit more in John chapter 17.

Just really the same larger context there in the epistle, in the gospel. But here, you don't necessarily have that. I mean, there's, you know, you could argue, I mean, we're in Matthew 24, okay? There's, can you think of too many passages of scripture that have spawned more interpretations in Matthew chapter 24?

But you really don't have, you know, you have Jesus' assertion that, you know, he's giving prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. If you don't believe that, well, whatever. Um, he talks about this generation, verse 34.

I think it was that generation. I know all the, Hey, I was, I was on the other side. Once I know what the answers are. Um, and then heaven and earth will pass away. My words will not pass away. Some people would want to say, Oh, see, that's a, that's about preservation of scripture and things like that.

Well, in the context with the apostles have thought of it that way. Um, this is, that is a way of saying, truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away.

My words will not pass away. So he's specifically talking about what he has just told them and saying, what I have told you is true. It's going to take place. And once he says that, he then says, but of that day and hour, no one knows not even the angels of heaven nor the son, but the father alone.

Now it's a real strong temptation to go. Well, what's probably being said here is, you know, the emphasis is on the father's sovereignty to set the time parameters. Well, yeah, I mean, John six says it's the father.

You know, the father gives a certain people to the son. And so the father has that right and that, that power. And, and so in this situation, it could be again, it's, it's the father as the source of the decree and all things that has fixed this time.

So I have heard people go that direction, but again, I have to be able to defend whatever it is I'm saying in the context of my having criticized someone else in their position and their interpretation, I've got to be consistent.

And so what I have said in the past is that for the purposes of Jesus fulfilling his role as the anointed one, the incarnate one, the suffering servant, all the different roles he takes as prophet, priest, and king in the incarnate state, that this knowledge of that day or that hour, not the fixing of the day or the hour, that might be a possibility.

I just, I couldn't defend it. I couldn't, I could not defend Oida, Oiden in verse 36 as being anything other than to possess knowledge of the specifics of. You might be able to make an argument, but I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be able to defend it.

So that's again, my standard, whatever that ends up meaning. In Matthew 24, 36, Jesus is speaking and he refers to himself as the son. And he said, he includes the son in the Oida group, not the angels of heaven, nor the son.

And that appears before I may, except the father only. Now, if we want to go, well, this was the human aspect of Jesus speaking. Okay, prove it. I mean, it becomes somewhat arbitrary, doesn't it, to go, well, if that doesn't fit my paradigm, then that just means it was the human aspect of Jesus speaking rather than the divine aspect.

If we can even utilize those terms, we can't, we can't avoid the fact that scripture uses language like they crucified the Lord of glory. Crucifixion, that's something you do to physical body. You can't crucify the Lord of glory, but the Bible says they did.

So, there is a proper way of understanding that the Lord of glory was crucified. And so, we cannot avoid dealing with the God man, Jesus. And therefore, there's going to be absolutely unique situations.

And I think one of our problems is instead of saying that's an absolutely unique situation, and therefore, let's follow the wisdom of the scripture writers. Scripture writers did not insert themselves, for example, into Jesus's life except once prior to his public ministry, right?

Jesus's presentation in the temple. And the Gnostics didn't like that, and so they made up all sorts of stupid stories that ended up creating all sorts of havoc and ended up in the Quran, too. But that's the problem.

That's what happens. There are aspects about the incarnation that we will not understand until eternity, and we may not fully understand then. And if that's a problem, then I would simply go there are aspects of God being eternal that we will not understand to eternity and probably not fully understand then.

And that's a basic element of God's revelation of who he is. So, I need to be consistent in the answers that I give and the methodologies that I use. And if you can find a way of somehow discerning in the phrase, Udah ha-Huyas, that Jesus, that only part of Jesus is speaking, rather than Jesus said these words, this is how it would have been understood by the writer and his original audience.

And when we then ask the question, well, how can that be? How can that be in the broader sense of our understanding of who Jesus was? Then we take this as a data point, but we don't try to bury this under some construct that we come up with, as if we're literally making some passages more important than other passages, more inspired than other passages, more useful than other passages.

And so, what I had suggested for a number of years is, I see it in the context of that veiling, not that getting rid of, not kenosis, but that laying aside voluntarily of the exercise of certain prerogatives.

And to go beyond that is to enter into speculation that Matthew had no intention of ever of ever addressing. And to pry into things that the Word of God does not reveal is to deny, well, the statement of Scripture, the secret things belong to the Lord.

And there is a proper distance that we can go in the light of Scripture, and when the light of Scripture ends, we make an end of speaking, and should make an end of speculation, too. And so, I likened it to the fact that Jesus in His pre-incarnate glory is indeed glorious, but outside of that brief period of time in the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus' glory is veiled for the purpose of the accomplishment of His mission to be the Messiah and to bring about redemption.

So, with all that having been said, in this article, Andrew Warwick, and Rich, I've got my phone here, are we trundling along? Are we good? We're going to survive so far? All right. Tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.

I love this. I wonder how much time we now spend in our lives looking at those three little dots going, which, when did that start? Because that, I don't know how long ago it was, but that little that says, they're typing, they're typing.

How much time have you sat there going, oh man, they're typing a lot. This is, they're typing a book. And sometimes I'll even go, hey bro, hit the return key, you know, something. Oh man. Oh, ow. Oh, I just forgot what I was talking about because I just took a shot to the heart.