Dreams of Jesus

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Opening Remarks, Travel Fatigue, and Debate Plans

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon working on a article for credo magazine on The subject of purgatory almost done. I've only got actually I've only got about 700 words.

Space left and I'm not sure it may go a little bit long. But anyway need to get that finished. It's taken longer than I expected it to I've noticed that I'm I'm a little fuzzy brain still from the trip it's only been a week and I think it was the working on the book working working working working working and then jump on a plane and go over there and debate debate debate and Maybe when I was 30 That doesn't work.

So well when you're pushing 50, it takes a little while to Feel like you're human again to be perfectly honest with you. And then and then I've got distractions during the program look at squirrel DL tries to distract doc by juggling chainsaws and channel I mean That is that is truly distracting when someone up there in the where it's snowing It's snowing or it was snowing anyways up there in Montana and places like that where I'm gonna be going in.

What is that that may is it may have next year? I think I'm going may have next year. Someone was suggesting I should debate Chris Rose Bob. And I said, wouldn't it be better if Chris and I like debated somebody else?

I just think that would be better and they're gonna try to work something like that out, but I'll be perfectly honest with you Yes, it's in May I'll be perfectly honest with you the chances that the folks up there are going to Reformation Montana are gonna be able to actually find Anybody who Would actually debate me and debate us on that subject very very small very very small it is not easy to find meaningful debate opponents really isn't and So I Good good Providence to you good Providence to you I the chances are in my experience, especially liberal clergymen who are very brave behind a keyboard posting stuff for You know newspapers and the like Generally don't want to actually defend themselves in in meaningful public debate.

So I really sort of doubt that that's going to happen. And yes pirate Christian radio man is mysterious. That's why we couldn't someone suggest we should debate baptism and I've debated infant baptism against Presbyterians because I Understand what Presbyterians believe about baptism, but we do good.

I'm next year, but Lutheran's mean I don't know what they what they believe about infant baptism in the Lutheran's. And you know whenever you debate a Lutheran eventually there's gonna look at you and go but it's a mystery and you just That's Probably better for the two of us to debate somebody else.

So that'll be May of next year You can start making your travel plans now To visit the sunny beautiful I'm sure where it is in Montana. Montana is a big place and it could be. It doesn't really matter where it is because you're gonna have to get there.

It's just so few people Up there. Anyway, it's the wide open the wide open spaces big-time. So we will Squirrel says that Obama will be looking for a gig by May. So maybe we can have a debate with With him.

That's a possibility. I guess. Anyways, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number. Like I said, I was I'm working on an article on purgatory. It is Interesting. It's it's a sad commentary.

I guess every generation has this Helena, Montana the capital. Yes the capital. Which probably has fewer people than one of the suburbs around here has in it, but it's oh Yeah, yeah, no tweets, but anyway, I think every generation has this type of thing happen, but one of the books that I chose to use is sort of a I don't know a launching off point for this article that I'm writing on purgatory is Jerry Walls new book on purgatory and It's interesting that Jerry Walls is one of the co-authors of why I'm not a Calvinist and I do see a direct relationship between the kind of Arminian Wesleyan evangelicalism that Walls would represent who is an anti-calvinist and this idea of a non satisfactory Satisfactory Purgatory when I say non satisfactory he rejects the idea that that purgatory that the sufferings of purgatory would need to be Satisfactory in the sense of forgiveness of sins.

They'd have to be only in reference to sanctification. Which of course is means you have to reject what Rome is actually dogmatically defined in purgatory. But you know there are people who are always looking for this type of thing and it makes sense from a from a Wesleyan Arminian perspective, it doesn't make any sense if you have a Particular atonement at the atonement is that is the is the purpose of God in Jesus Christ, etc, etc.

There's a there's a purpose of God in the election of a particular people. There's just no place for purgatory at that point. You don't find any sound reform men going. You know I think we need a doctrine of purgatory.

You know what? Maybe not have had in the past, but it's a good thing to think about and it doesn't doesn't work that way and It comes from from other sources, and I think that is something that is useful to us.

The 2012 Presidential Debate as Political Theater

I'm not gonna make any comments on what took place last night other than to say again As Al Mohler has put it that's not Debate that's political theater it is I don't know I I'm I Recognize the benefit.

For example of what took place last night. And if you're listening on the podcast at a later point last night was the first of the 2012 presidential debates this was between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Hussein Obama and There there's there was benefit because you know one thing I've said many many times I Have often said debates are one of the few places where you can finally hear both sides face to face Addressing the same issue well at least you're supposed to.

I mean if you want to just totally derail a debate then you just go off and do your own thing and no one can really control you and That has happened in some debates that I've had it just sort of demonstrates.

What's really going on with people, but anyway. So it was useful on that level it was useful on that level, but it wasn't a formal debate I mean You know you don't have the even time you don't have. In fact I I think I saw something that said that the president got like five or six minutes more Than Mitt Romney did and and you've got you know the moderators are Almost card-carrying communists, but anyway, and then you've got the spin and all the rest of stuff that goes with it, so It's not like it's a formal debate on that level, but it certainly was political theater.

No no two ways about that and on on that level it's certainly For people who care and there are many people look there are many people on both sides don't care. What the outcome of these things are they?

There are certain people that will not vote for Barack Obama for for nothing and there are certain people who will not vote for Mitt Romney for nothing and The idea that they're gonna be rationally compelled by the arguments of the other side is just just silly it's just as silly as thinking that there are people you know that I can walk into a debate and Get those young guys at Twin Holm Baptist Church in London sitting down front yelling a lot of Akbar.

To listen to what I'm saying about the transmission of the New Testament text. I can't. I Can show them respect by knowing what they believe. I can challenge them. I can say you need to think about what you're doing and how you're reacting and so I can do all that stuff but They're not gonna listen.

I have to say and I know it so I'm there for a very different group and in the same way I think these political theater debates. Likewise will you know have a certain audience and the better you know that audience the more effective you're gonna be and so What's that?

Can I move that to the political line? I don't know anyways what I want to do in the program today is Having already gone through 10 minutes is Well, I'll start taking phone calls in in a little while I see that there are already some calling in and we'll take others if you if you wish but Gregory down there and saying kids might want might want to call back because I'm not gonna go to To calls immediately and I imagine he's probably paying through the nose for that call.

So he might want to give us a call back because I won't be taking calls right away, but we will and But first I wanted to get back actually to something I had been doing before I headed to London. I wanted to finish before I got to London and I did not and that was reviewing Paul Williams comments on the debate that he had with if I recall the gentleman's name was Chris Green and We're getting toward the end of his opening presentation, and I've been Going through his comments.

Not pretending that Paul Williams could care less what I have to say. But it is interesting. I will I will say one thing I never thought of Paul Williams the whole time I was in England. I just it in fact even even in at the debates.

I didn't even think to look. But I have no absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that he I didn't expect him. I would have been very surprised had I seen him there obviously, he's had somewhat of a change of heart as to the benefits of public debate on these issues and clearly Does not have any interest in accurately representing Christianity or at least the Christianity He allegedly was a part of but we all know was not a part of.

In in any true sense, but anyways, so I never really thought of Paul Williams while I was while I was there and Did not have the pleasure of encountering him in any of the debates that that we did. But I did want to continue to respond.

We have provided I think a rather full response. We've been looking at the texts as he has been raising them. We've been looking at his mishandling of the text the shallow nature of it and just the bad arguments I mean when you when you again at least on this trip, of course, there weren't any debates.

It would have brought this up at least on this trip. I didn't have to hear a Muslim saying Yeah, well just can't be guy cuz he didn't know who touched him when he was going to heal Jairus his daughter.

He had to turn around say who touched me. I was ignorant and that means he wasn't God at least I'm thankful to say we didn't have to hear that one. And I'm my hope remains that That maybe will finally communicate it to our Muslim friends with with MDI and an era and any of the other Islamic apologetics dawah organizations That that's not a good argument you're not reading the text real well You need to you need to do a little more in-depth study because that's a really bad argument and it It's just one of the most simplistic errors.

I think I've ever heard and every time you use it. You just you're just shooting your Your credibility in the in the in the foot or the leg. Well, actually the head actually I'm thinking so. Anyways, I want to get back to Paul Williams for a while and then we'll start taking phone calls.

You might want to get on on board about Half past something like that. We'll we'll see how it goes. But let's Let's get back to Paul Williams and should be getting close to the end of his opening statement here.

He's worth noting that even he clearly stated that God alone Possesses immortality and quote him God who is a blessed and only sovereign the King of Kings the Lord of Lords. It is here alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable lights.

If no one has ever seen or can see well, and of course, we we do believe that If that is meant to mean well and that excludes Jesus and again ignores the reality of the Incarnation and and of course the possible antecedents to the discussion, but again Muslims just are so stuck on Unitarianism that they can't really interact with Trinitarians.

Very well, because if you will but think about what we're saying, it's it's like saying when G is said There's a there's only one true God. Well, of course, that's what we believe. We are monotheists and So when God becomes man, does he become an atheist does he start talking about other gods again that just the assumption of Unitarianism really vitiates the Argumentation that so many of these gentlemen present but I can understand that with an odd non Rashid.

He's never been a Christian he doesn't understand Christian theology and. But Paul Williams You know I think this is what bothers some people to hear someone who claims to have once been a Christian now We know the man was never regenerate.

We know that it was a it was not a it was not a true faith, but Still here is a man who attended Christian Church. You should at least have the knowledge To recognize that the argumentation you're presenting is is is not actually directed at the best that Christianity has to offer and Who would ever want to?

Specifically direct your argumentation to the worst that the other side has to offer. I mean sometimes you have to deal with that, but that's not the situation here. This is a debate against Chris Green.

This is against someone who is Well Interestingly enough no more of a scholar than I am from his perspective remember of course Paul Williams You know took some shots along those were but Why why shoot for the lowest common denominator don't I'll never understand that to him the honor and eternal dominion.

Amen. 1 Timothy 6 15 Immortal means God does not die Therefore anyone who believes that Jesus died cannot believe that Jesus is God now.

This is just I think I think pretty much everybody in the audience Can fully understand how that is? Absolutely fallacious argumentation. We do not believe that the first of all you have to define what death means and Then you have to define who we're talking about.

Are we saying that Jesus as God ceased to exist. No We are saying that Jesus as the God man if he's going to be man Then he must be able to die. You see so it ignores the reality of the incarnation clearly either Paul Williams never understood the incarnation.

Which is most probable? Which is most probable doesn't mean? Let's let's at least give him the benefit of the doubt here that the man's ignorant and not just dishonest I mean it dishonesty is a possibility but let's let's try to go for the the less aggressive thing and and he like sadly many evangelicals Do not and did not understand the incarnation.

That's why hey, you know, it's that season of the year coming up again it is my favorite season the year because I am absolutely convinced of the intimate connection that exists between the incarnation and The offering of atonement The incarnation and it no, I'm not becoming an Eastern Orthodox person, but they do have a an appropriate Emphasis, they're very strongly Trinitarian.

I have appropriate emphasis upon the glory of the incarnation and And Every year I am once again, you have the opportunity to reflect upon the incarnation of Jesus Christ and To think I Hope and pray that I I just don't think it's possible that I could ever Spend so much time considering this and so much study and preach so many Sermons on the subject because I try to come up with something new each each year and in reflecting upon this I I just don't believe that I could ever Cease to be just amazed as a child at the idea of the creator of this vast universe Entering into his own creation.

It is just Amazing and to recognize that he does so out of love That he does so out of seeking glory of the triune God and yet That allows him to express his love for his creation it's just It's just absolutely amazing.

But sadly it is something that for a lot of People who call themselves Christians the incarnation is a little more than You know a Christmas play. It's uh, oh, wow Jesus was sort of special the I the idea of incarnation and the real meaning of The concept is lost on many clearly clearly was lost on on Paul Williams because that kind of argumentation he just gave is just it's just not even again.

It's not even close It's it's either based upon ignorance or he's just simply doing what he knows will convince the base Get the base to like his argumentation, but Not actually have any meaningful impact upon anyone else Outside of that that narrow base of his supporters such a belief would contradict what Paul says here.

Furthermore to say that God died is a blasphemy against God who would run the world if God died. I Guess he wasn't a Trinitarian either.

Again false assumption of what death means means non-existence, which is not even the Muslim view let alone the Christian view and he knows that. Secondly, he knows the father didn't die. He knows the spirit didn't die.

And so why even raise these kinds of things? Why why in bear this is embarrassing? I mean I'm I know that our Muslim friends listen. We I know that some of you who listen some of you Muslims who listen like it does Ahmed.

You don't you're not listening for truth's sake. You're a dishonest, man. You're you you're only listening to try to find something to put into a video. That you can twist and turn because you know, you cannot actually engage in what I'm saying.

So you're a dishonest there. They're dishonest people. But then there are honest people and I know you're listening and I just have to ask you the question Why why this kind of embarrassing Dawa? This is embarrassing Dawa here's here's a guy who many of you look to as you know, just Right up there at the top.

This is embarrassing. I Mean, you know where else I heard this very same question. I didn't cue this up because it's been a while so I listened to it, but that's the exact same question that a child asked about a Did he say how old he was somewhere between 10 and 12 that a child asked at the debate with Adnan Rashid and Jay Smith at Trinity College in Dublin and you could tell his child's voice, you know, and and Basically asked well, you know who was Ryan universe when Jesus died now, I can understand why a child would ask that question.

They don't understand. This is Paul Williams. This is a man who claims to have been studying theology as a Christian and The young people at my church could answer this if they've been listening during catechism class.

Well, it's not the father who died. It's not this it's not the spirit who died and it wasn't the son in his deity who died and death doesn't mean non-existence anyways, so what's the argument and yet.

Here's another here's very practical thing here folks. Very practical thing. Just because it's really bad Dawa Doesn't mean that you're not gonna hear it very often and when you hear it You still have to be prepared to give a patient response because you may not know the person you're talking to you Don't know what their background is.

They may have been in dialogue with really ignorant Christians that have confused them with their answers. You don't know. That's not the case of Paul Williams. I mean we can hold him to the highest standards.

This is the guy who is Part of the very founding of MDI. This is a guy who's standing out there saying I represent Islam and respond to I was a former Christian. I know these things. Well when he doesn't then you you hold him accountable for it.

So Paul believed that God does not die.

Paul. So Paul also said in the passage that God dwells in unapproachable light that no one has seen God or can see him. Paul knew that many people had seen Jesus. Yet Paul can say that no one has seen God because Paul was sure that Jesus is not God.

Now this is absolutely amazing. Paul was sure that Jesus is not God now if you're gonna make that kind of a statement first of all notice where he's quoting from. He's going for one of the pastoral epistles.

Now if I were to quote from any of the pastoral epistles What would the? Likely response be from someone like Paul Williams. Well, yeah, in fact, I was noticing something. On MDI is posting of the Sammy Zatati debate From we could go two weeks ago last night.

I've been two weeks. Wow, it's amazing two weeks ago last night We debated Surah 4157 and again, I thank Sammy for doing that. I think it'll be a very useful debate and I'm glad it's out there and looking forward to doing more but The comments on the Now I you know, we don't do comments because you end up with atheists Spewing out their profanities and all the rest is garbage and I I just don't want that stuff on stuff I just don't want to provide a platform for that kind of foolishness but they have comments open and active and I noticed that Sammy was Commenting as well and I don't have it in front of me.

So I'm going off top my head but One of the things he said was that all scholars all Scholars recognize that John the disciple did not write John. Oh Now I'd like to recommend to my Muslim friends that you stop using Terms like that because there it's too easy to refute I Mean, there are just too many commentaries by excellent scholars that defend Yohannin authorship.

It's even start to name them and so the idea of saying all means you're just dismissing everybody who disagrees with you is not being a scholar and then you Mean then you just simply ask him and how is your Greek Sammy?

You know, it just doesn't doesn't really do you any good to make that kind? That'd be like saying all scholars recognize that the Quran was not written by Muhammad. Well, this is dumb that's just that's just a ridiculous statement to make and so It's it is fascinating though that here you've got Paul Williams who loves that same kind of liberal Scholarship, they love Bart Ehrman does Bart Ehrman think does Bart Ehrman think that Paul wrote first or second Timothy?

No, he does not. But now he's quoting from the pastoral epistles to prove that Paul did not believe in the deity of Christ. This is the same Paul Who in the pastoral epistles uses a gravel sharpest structure to identify Jesus as God in Titus 2 13.

This is the same Paul Who wrote first Corinthians chapter 8 and he takes the words of the Shema and applies them to the father and to the son? This is the same Paul who wrote the Carmen Christi that speaks of the pre-existence of Christ and his equality with the Father and.

And so I don't I can't even begin to conceive of how you can take a text and Say well, this is very very clear that that Paul did not believe that Jesus was God and You just go no, wait a minute. So I I charge in the presence of God who gives life to all things and of Christ Jesus.

So you're making the charge In the presence of God and a mere prophet who was sent only to one people. Even though this is being written to Timothy who is ministering amongst the non-jews. Remember from the Islamic perspective Jesus is only the Jewish Messiah.

He's not sent to the whole world. Paul shouldn't even be writing to these folks see. But anyways Who gives life to all things and of Christ Jesus who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate?

That you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of Our Lord Jesus Christ the appearing of our courteous The to court of you. Hey moon. Yes, who could astute our Lord? Not our Mere Messiah not our mere prophet.

This is the immediate context. That's what you've always got to do with these guys is read the immediate context immediate context will almost always demonstrate that they are not handling the text properly, but Keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ Which he will bring about at the proper time which he will bring about who?

Now there are differences of opinion here however, however. If you look at the text in the Greek I'm looking at the UBS for here at least in accordance and I'm gonna look at I'm gonna look at a paper text here real quick.

Oh, man, that print small. Hey, it's pretty biggers than this wasn't it. Let's see did they put this. They did. Okay, the nasty Alan they do the same thing beginning at verse 15 of 1st in the chapter 6 they go into Poetic form and that's the same thing in my accordance here Which he will bring about the the verbs most natural A Antecedent is Jesus Which he will bring about at the proper time he who is the blessed and only sovereign the king of kings and the Lord of Lords now he's just called Jesus Lord.

So he's talking about a different Lord Who alone possesses immortality and dwells in an unapproachable light whom no man has seen or can see to him be the honor and internal dominion. There is a very strong contextual case that can be made that this is about Jesus and Yet you just heard an apostate Christian who was never a Christian, of course Quote this as evidence that Paul did not believe in the deity of Christ.

That's what you that's what you just heard. It's uh It is amazing, but it is an illustration of just how surface level so surface level the kind of argumentation these guys present really is it's just Very very surface level very shallow in its presentation.

It's only meant again to impress the Already believing it's not meant to reach Those who don't believe and that's I think one of the biggest differences that I see between the vast majority of Islamic Dawah and the Christian apologetics I seek to To model and to engage in is Yes, I do want to encourage believers I I do want to do that there's no question about that but I want to reach Muslims with the gospel and I want to be used of the Holy Spirit.

I want my message my words to be used the Holy Spirit to cause them to hear the truth and So I will not engage in this kind of I mean there are texts that if you want to just rip them out of their Context and just quote them half-heartedly out of the Quran you could.

But we have a let's be honest with you a different standard. We have a different standard and We need to we need to stick with that standard. I know I didn't get very far there, but we Have at least two folks online, and I know Gregory's probably give us a call back.

So we've got three callers there, and how far did I get there? Let's see 4503 I got so one minute and three seconds. That's no woman in five seconds. Wow that was that was good I'll have to work harder to get a little bit farther down the road.

But anyway, we will we will start taking our phone calls after we take a brief break, and we'll be right back.

Sponsor Breaks and Advertisements

Public crimes. The criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious is a Jesus entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town.

Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org.

Breaking news from the White House and the issue gay marriage for a lot of people. You know the word marriage was something that invokes very powerful traditions religious beliefs. I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

The NAACP has passed a resolution Endorsing gay marriage as a civil right. This comes two weeks after the president announced his support for same-sex marriage.

Under the guise of tolerance our culture today grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Anyone opposing or questioning this today is quickly shot it down called a bigot a homophobe a hate monger Threatened and accused of discrimination.

It's become commonplace to see people who take a biblical stand against homosexuality Ostracized to the point of losing their job. How soon will it be before we will also see people losing their freedom.

Now more than ever Christians need to be equipped to be An approved workman of God correctly dividing the word of truth as we are told in 2nd Timothy 2 15. Dr James White and pastor Jeffrey Neal have partnered to bring you their book the same-sex controversy if you are Christian.

This book is just one of the tools you'll need to be prepared to give a proper defense of the faith in the face of Righteous onslaught we face today. The author's right for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on this subject Explaining and defending the foundational biblical passages that deal with homosexuality Including Genesis Leviticus and Romans in a straightforward and loving manner.

They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and return to God's plan for his people. The same-sex controversy Defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy today from the bookstore at a omen Org and don't forget to search for other resources like debates and past dividing lines dealing with this very provocative issue and remember theology matters.

Further Clarification on 1 Timothy 6:15-16 and the Deity of Christ

Let me just make one further comment on that text before we go to our phone calls I need to I Hadn't finished really the commentary that I need to need to make their Scholars take different views on this.

There are some who see The the appearance of the term God in verse 13 as the antecedent for Dykes I in Verse 15 and hence it is God who brings about at the proper time the coming Lord Jesus Christ. And hence it is God who is the blessed only sovereign King of Kings Lord loans who Lord's who alone possesses immortality and dwells in Unapproachable light.

You'll find that in commentaries as well. However That still would not be an argument in any way shape or form. Again because of the assumption that you have here the very same type of thing you have in John 17 3 or we saw in the preceding text we were looking at and that is this idea that well, you know if there's a if the father is ever spoken of in distinction from the son and if he's ever spoken of in a as Being the only God or anything like that Then that means the Sun cannot possibly God it is a Category error.

It isn't a simple error of thought on the part of those who are seeking to deny the biblical testimony and certainly to Quote the Apostle Paul who so plainly presents the most exalted view of Jesus and So plainly presents him in in language that could never fit in the Islamic context on On the basis of this text a lady didn't even believe Without even addressing Titus 2 13 or a text like that is again It's just simply it's it's either based upon abject ignorance or it's dishonest.

It is simply dishonest. You know, it almost feels like I've responded that tweet before someone just tweeted something and I am Almost certain I respond to this. But I'll do it real quick and then we'll take our phone calls.

How would you respond to those who said homosexuals can reproduce through adoption should have the same rights? That's absurd is how I'd respond to it. That's not reproduction. That is taking other people's children, that's not reproduction that's absurd.

That's what I would say that all right I'm not sure we're gonna get into tongues today to be perfectly honest with you. Well, all right, let's talk with Roy hi Roy.

Callers on Universal Redemption and Resurrection

Hi James. How are you doing? Good? Hi, this is my second call and you know, I failed to I'm sorry.

We don't have any prizes for second callers. In fact, you have to do much better on the second time than you did the first time. I was hoping for a Bible with a picture of you praying on it. I know that.

Okay that that'll actually get you cut off is what we get.

Okay. Okay. No, I want to thank you very much for your work fighting universal redemption and Unlimited atonement and I'm really grateful that I've gotten pulled out of that it to me. It's nothing less than another gospel.

Well, I'll be careful. I be careful. Be careful. I mean, I I Understand what you're saying, I appreciate zeal for the truth, but don't make the leap that someone who doesn't understand the ramifications of their confession is Therefore believing in a false gospel that is the road to hyper Calvinism and you don't want to go down that road.

Right. There's plenty of verses that definitely give the impression of it. If you don't see the context it takes Patience and and reading the context carefully, so I do agree with you on that, but I do want to thank you for that.

My question today is still there. Yes, okay. This is amazing thing Chuck Smith Denies the doctrine of the future resurrection of the dead the physical Resurrection of the believer and I'm I'm astonished at that.

He believes I don't know if you're aware of it that the first resurrection is the process that began at the resurrection of Christ and That every believer when he dies That is his point of resurrection.

And so he gets a new body So he's redefined resurrection he says he believes in in resurrection and Even more scary is he says that Jesus got a new body With see this is what he said with similar similarities and dissimilarities to the present body.

So my question today is do you can you tell me I think I want to focus on the his denial of his doctrine of the resurrection and denying that Is there historical in history? Is there some historical root to the denial of the resurrection?

Well physicality of the resurrection.