Mark Driscoll on Cessationists

All right, we're, it looks like we're live now. Well, we are actually live.

I know what some of you are thinking that I should introduce myself, by the way, Andrew Rappaport, the host of this podcast,

Apologetics Live. And some of you are thinking, Andrew's been away for three weeks in the Philippines and doesn't know how to start the show.

Actually, no, that's, that's not what it is. Let me bring my co -host,

Drew, in here and we can talk about what, why we started two minutes late. StreamYard, which is a tool we use as I'm hitting, go live is going, hey, we are having high traffic.

Give it 30 to 60 seconds and try again. And I kept hitting it and hitting it. So Drew was like,

I'll put a message in really quickly to let folks know we're, we're trying to go live. Well, so it wasn't just that, you know, it's been three weeks for me and, and I just didn't know what

I was doing. Although that's probably a good guess anyway. But welcome,

Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your most challenging questions you have about God and the Bible. Any question you have is not too hard for us to answer.

In fact, I will say this, as I say every week, I can answer any question that you have about God and the Bible. And when you, you doubt that, just feel free to go to ApologeticsLive .com.

Go scroll down to where you see the little duck icon, that's StreamYard. Click on that. That's how you join us.

Ask me your most difficult question. And I go, I don't know. Because I don't know is actually a really good answer.

A perfectly fine one. So let me put some things up that I see here in the notes.

Now tonight we're going to talk about Mark Driscoll and some comments he made about cessationists. But I do see

Fatima Lasse, if I mispronounced it, forgive me.

Says, hey, Andrew, I don't know Mark's view on cessationism. I guess we'll find out. I do have a nagging question.

How does 1 Thessalonians 5, 19 -22 fit in with a cessationist worldview?

Now, before I get to that, let me put up what he said after. He or she,

I should say. I was at the Baha 'u'llah conference. Really helped me much. But one of my friends brought up this problem of talks quenching the spirit.

So I'm asking here. So God bless you. So this is, we're referring to the

Baha 'u'llah conference. And I'll put his other question or her other question. Don't know, guy or girl.

Sorry about that. Up here so that we can take a look at it. But the

Baha 'u'llah conference refers to the Philippines where I just was. That we did a conference in two different places in Manila and then in Baha 'u'llah.

And so this person attended the Baha 'u'llah conference. And so I am immensely grateful that A, that the conference was helpful to you.

And B, that you took up my challenge, which I made was, if anyone has questions for them, it's

Friday morning. I was just on a podcast at 7 a .m. my time for a 7 p .m.

Thursday night podcast that's in the Philippines. So there's a time difference there.

But it's nice and easy for me. It's just 12, 12 hours. So it's only a .m. and p .m.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I just changed a .m. and p .m. It was when I was there, it was nice. So I could tell my wife, you know, she's like, what time is it?

Same time is just change a .m. and p .m. Let me back up in reading this. The question is with First Thessalonians 5, 19 to 22.

Rule number one, when it comes to any kind of question, when you have a verse of the Bible, we back up and read some verses before it get the context.

So I'm going to back up to verse 12. And just so we read, it's pretty short, but let's see what it says.

But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you and have charge over you in the

Lord to give you instruction and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.

Live in peace with one another. We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seeks after that which is good for one another and for all people.

Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks, for this is

God's will for you in Christ Jesus. Now verse 19, do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophetic utterances, and examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good, abstain from that which is evil.

And so there we have the context. So the context gives us that he's speaking about basically how to conduct oneself within the church, that we should be supporting financially those that minister to us, our pastors.

That just the conduct and character we should have. So the first thing that comes up is the do not quench the spirit.

Now in the charismatic movement, we hear this very often, that this is if you criticize the charismatics that you're quenching the spirit.

The word for quench means to put out, to exhaust. It's not used very often, but it's used to, in Mark, it says referring to hell where the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched.

We see that in Mark three times. It's the idea of quenched. So it's the idea of putting something out.

So we shouldn't be dampening the spirit. Well, does that speak to just the charismatic gifts?

Now we're going to get to verse 20, which says do not despise prophetic utterances, but we have to recognize that some view that utterances can be gifts, all right?

And so the thing here we want to recognize is, first off, what does it mean to quench the spirit?

Well, it means to basically not listen to the prompting of the spirit, and that has nothing to do with tongues or the charismatic movement.

It has to do as a general thing, just like giving thanks is a general thing. You don't give thanks only in charismatic gifts.

So quenching the spirit does not have to do directly with charismatic gifts.

Now the way many interpret it is they tie this to verse 20, which it is the very next thing. Do not quench the spirit.

Do not despise prophetic utterances, or as some would say, prophetic gifts.

Now we could agree with that, but prophecy is a word that has...

There's two different meanings for the idea of prophecy. There's foretelling and foretelling.

So one is looking back at what's already been written and examining the scriptures and exegeting, expounding what we call preaching, that which has already been declared.

And then there's that which is foretelling, giving new revelation. And so we have to examine which is this.

And when we look at the time period, well, obviously new revelation is continuing, right, because we have

Paul writing the book of Thessalonians, and we know that John is going to write some, you know, he's going to write

Revelation after this. So we know that there's still new revelation.

And whether you want to say that this is new revelation, or whether this is dealing with already known revelation, whichever one, both could fit perfectly fine for Paul saying this to them in that day and age when there was continuing revelation.

The question is, if this is the gift of prophecy, the way they claim, which is

God speaking directly to people today, that is new revelation. Right. And if that's the case, we should be writing it down.

And they want to say that this is new revelation, but it's separate from what we see in the

Bible of prophecy. And right there, this becomes a little way of knowing.

Anybody who says that the gifts continue, but they are different than that which is in the

Bible, then guess what? You know that the gifts didn't continue. Right. Because if they changed, it's not the same gift.

So if the gift of prophecy is different than what's being done today, is different than what's done in the

Bible, it's not the same thing being discussed here. So Paul is saying that we shouldn't despise people when they have prophetic utterances.

What specifically is he referring to? Could it be scripture? Could it be someone preaching the

Bible? It could be either one. And I have no problem with either one. The question here is, is that applied to what people do today and call it prophetic utterances?

No, because they're not having prophetic utterances. They're having a feeling that they want to credit it to God.

Yeah. So when I look at this text, first, it's good you backed up to 12, right?

Because 19 through 22, you have not changed context from verse 12.

It still falls into that same context. And so when we get to verse 19, he's basically making a statement or a declaration.

Do not quench the spirit. But if you pay attention to the punctuation, what follows is then a list, right?

Do not despise prophetic utterances. Now, I would say these prophetic utterances are things that have been written that we would look at in scripture, because what follows that is examine everything carefully.

What do we examine things by? Well, we examine them by scripture. Hold fast to that which is good and abstain from evil.

And as a Christian, how do we know what is good and evil? Well, we have an objective standard that we refer back to that clearly lays out for us what

God delights in, what he calls good, and what he abhors, that which is evil.

Yeah. And so I don't know that this is something that a charismatic can use to justify us not criticizing the charismatic movement today.

They try really hard. They do. But, you know, look, if the prophetic utterances here is referring to preaching the

Bible, I can say that I support that.

But that's clearly not how they're using it, right? Right. When the charismatics are using it, they're specifically referring to God giving direct revelation to an individual.

Right. And so the question is, in the time that Paul's writing this, was that continuing to happen?

Yes. Is that continuing to happen today? No. And that's the difference right there.

Yeah, because you are right. At the time that this is written, prophetic utterances were still happening in the form of foretelling.

And so it could be. But then what is that foretelling going to be based in, right?

It's going to be based in the truth of God. Yes. So it's not going to be based in some kind of nonsensical gibberish that promotes self rather than corrects someone in their wrongdoing.

And let me just give this as a good practical thing to remember when we interpret the scriptures. And maybe some of you picked up what

I did, but I'm looking at the passage and I'm trying to be as fair as I can with it. And I'm even saying, even if we don't do the work to say, okay, which is this?

Is this the foretelling or foretelling? I'm saying it could be either, okay?

Giving the broadest thing. But notice what I'm doing. I'm taking into the historical context.

When was this written? Even if this is, as the charismatic say, the direct revelation,

I can accept that. Sure. And I can accept Paul saying that. The question is, is that direct revelation occurring today?

We would say no. And therefore, if that's what this was referring to, this does not apply today.

Now, this is why I would tend toward leaning just in the context. I think it's probably had to do with preaching.

Okay. The foretelling what's already been told. And so that's where I'm going to lean on it.

But if the charismatic wants to say, well, this is the foretelling of the future, I can say okay to that still.

This passage still does not defend what they're trying to say, that I can't criticize them and I can't, you know, that that's quenching the spirit.

And, you know, I have to be not despising their prophetic utterances.

I'm not despising the prophetic utterances because they're not having prophetic utterances the way they're saying.

Right. And, you know, the proof of it is the fact of how many of these people who have prophetic utterances and get things wrong.

Are you saying God got it wrong? They go, oh, no, it was just our interpretation. So they believe

God could speak. And though in scripture, Peter can say that they recognized immediately what

Paul wrote was scripture. That's one of the things that's required when we look at the books of what became known as the canon was that at the time these writings were immediately recognized as scripture.

So it was known to be God's word. And this again is a difference between the prophecy of the

Old and New Testament and the prophecy they claim today in the Bible. That prophecy was clear.

It was known to be from God, where what you have in people today is they say that they get this revelation, but then it goes through the human interpretation.

And if it's wrong, it's because the human interpreted it wrong. Like find a prophet in scripture that did that.

So, OK, they try. They have God speaking to Samuel and Samuel doesn't know it's

God. Right. OK. And then once he's told that's God, go talk to him.

Is there any more confusion? Nope. He knows exactly who's speaking. So that's, you know, the reality is when

God gave his message, it was really clear that it was God. He wanted to do sons with this young boy to get

Samuel to know who it was. Right.

That was speaking. But then there's Jeremiah. And I forget the passage where they try to say that Jeremiah misinterpreted.

So I won't be able to speak to it until I go and look at it. And they also try to say Agabus in the

New Testament as well. Yeah. Yeah. And the issue there is Agabus is one that Agabus is stating something.

You do not know that he's giving a prophecy. He's stating something.

So in Acts, Acts is a historical narrative. How do we interpret that? Well, we see that that's accurately recording what did happen, not necessarily what should happen.

Okay. And so that's something to be aware of. So I hope we sufficiently answered that.

And I should let folks know, I know many people are used to seeing the show on,

I should mention this at the beginning, in different Facebook groups. StreamYard's made some sort of change where they removed all the groups and we can't put them into the groups.

So I will try to post this afterwards in those groups. But if you're listening to the podcast and you're used to seeing it live, or are you seeing it in certain

Facebook groups, the best thing to do is go to ApologeticsLive .com to watch this.

If you want to watch it live, the YouTube is up on there. We put it on that site.

So you can always click over to the YouTube or you can watch it from ApologeticsLive .com. So yeah, our numbers are down a bit because of that, because that's where the majority of folks were watching.

Watching, yeah. Yeah, it was really odd because before you left, right, the first show that we set up, all the groups were there.

And then when I came back the next week to set up for the show, it's like half of them were gone. And I was like,

I know there were more in there. Yeah. And I was like, oh, because you were setting that up, right?

And I was like, oh, did I set it up wrong? And I went, no, actually, I can't do it either. And even when I set this one up, same thing. Yeah, because you text me and you were like, what's with all the missing groups?

Why are they not in there? Yeah. And then I tried to do it. I'm like, oh, yeah, they're missing because I guess it's StreamYard.

So it's something I'll have to look into for next week and try to see if we can get that. So let's see.

Jesse Heller is saying, examine everything carefully. Suggest that prophecy is not necessarily

Scripture itself, but something that is uttered, that is measured with Scripture, isn't it?

Yeah. And so, Jesse, this is why I say that I think this is preaching. I think it's what we do on Sunday.

And therefore, he's saying, don't despise someone that's doing preaching. And Jesse's exactly right.

What do we compare it to? We compare it to Scripture. Yeah. So. Oh, Melissa is saying, last time you said you were going to talk about the mental illness comments about John MacArthur said, which when

I heard the whole thing was taken out of context, are you still going to cover that? I don't know.

You guys, I'm trying to remember. Did you cover that? We mentioned it. We talked about some things a little bit. Yeah. We didn't go fully in depth, but we did talk about some things.

And I think you even came on on one of the the one where you were showing us where you were and stuff like that.

I think you even mentioned it, that John MacArthur, all he did, he's not saying those things don't exist.

He's just giving the biblical name to them. Correct. Yeah. And that is something folks who watch our

YouTube channel, you might have seen Monday night. I started, I'm working with Passing the

Torch. It's a group where getting us. I hate that the thought of this, Drew, but the older apologetic apologists train up the younger guys.

And so it is a court, a class, a week class I'm doing on apologetics and debate.

And so I use that in the opening. It was I said it was to trigger people. I get it. But it was because of the emotion that people had with that.

And so, yeah, the issue I saw with what John actually said was he didn't he says

PSTD doesn't exist. Then he goes right on to say to talk about guilt. So he recognizes that there is guilt that occur and other other emotional things.

Yeah. So the experience is all of it. Yeah. All of those things are based off of right.

Guilt will say guilt, the things you have to do when you're in military situations like that, but then also things that you've seen right.

Think about being some of those some of those soldiers in Iraq who saw some of the worst, most evil, despicable things that they weren't a part of, but they saw it and things with children, things with women.

Right. And it affects them when they come back home. Yeah. Now, someone is saying.

That Katie is saying John actually talked about it on Sunday after that before his preaching, so I haven't heard that, so.

OK, let's see. Fatima is saying, Thanks, Andrew. I was hoping for a simple answer made me think it made me think it would really help to have a talk on discernment and how to test the spirits alongside the usual strange fire program.

Cheers. Yeah. Sermon is is a good thing to be to have discussion on.

And I'm going to put this up since we talked about the MacArthur thing, and this is the the

A .W. Pink Panther. I know he and I have been discussing privately in a lot of detail.

We have differing views about the MacArthur thing. He said, I've got the sermon MacArthur gave after the panel discussion, and he literally says there, quote,

There is no psychological aspect to ADHD, unquote. He literally denies the reality of the of the deficient electrical wiring.

And I don't know. I don't know what he's listening to, so I'm not I can't speak directly to that.

I just know the one clip I listened to. He didn't deny the actual experiences. He's denying the labels.

However, the the issue and this is I brought up with A .W. Pink Panther privately. There is a study that we do in genetic called epigenetics.

OK, what epigenetics shows? Let me give an example outside of this. You have someone who is who's drinking or taking drugs or something like that.

Then they go do studies and they go, oh, look, we see or let's do a different one.

Actually, one that the studies have done. There's studies that were showed that certain people that practice homosexuality do have a certain trait in their genes.

OK, what epigenetics shows, however, is that this is a cart before the horse.

It shows that behavior that people do will affect their their genes.

It can actually have a change. And so what is it that is it that you you practice homosexuality because you have this gene or do you have this gene because you practice homosexuality?

OK, that's a pretty new study that they're they're seeing. And it's very interesting.

But what that goes to show is that all of these studies that they say, well, look, we have this gene, we have this thing.

We can't trust those things. In fact, they just recently came out and said all the drugs they give for depression had absolutely no effect, actually a harming effect, all these mood altering drugs, because it was all based on someone's claim that that didn't have the scientific backing.

But because it was accepted science, no one wanted to question that. And it took someone giving, you know, evidence where they're that they suddenly said,

OK, we got to rethink this. But they're still they're still giving the drugs. You know,

I mean, if you just think about in terms of depression and people who get on antidepressants, how many of those people still committed suicide?

Yeah. Right. So so I mean, and then what comes out later that, you know, they were on these antidepressant drugs.

Well, then those antidepressant drugs don't help. Yeah. One of the things I do find interesting, they always talk about the gun violence and they always want to say it's a gun that did it.

And one thing that is almost always involved is someone that has done this was on mood altering drugs for many years and either just got themselves off it or tried to wean themselves off it or they're still on them.

But that is a constant with almost all of them. I say almost because one of some of them were, you know, when there was a

Muslim that shot up a gay bar that was, of course, blamed on Christians. Right.

Not not the Muslim. We can't blame the Muslim. But that that was that's one case where I don't think there was any any of that.

So and I know that this is an issue there. There's a lot of discussion in the chat, and we're going to we're going to leave that there so we can get to our main thing.

And and there's a couple more things I saw that folks are, you know, have questions. I'm going to get we'll get those toward the end.

I will go to Jesse's comment just to finish this up because it's it's in line.

He says Deuteronomy 13 states that even if someone comes true from a prophet, they were not to listen to him if held if led if he is led to them by false gods.

So with the prophets, there's two things. So what he's pointing out is that if someone comes from a false god, you shouldn't be listening to him.

But it's also if if the prophet if someone says they have a prophecy, the Bible gives us a way of knowing if it's a prophecy.

It's 100 percent accurate, right? The prophecies done today. I mean, all these prophets, they all said

Trump would win his reelection last time, every one of them. So right there, that is proof that they are false prophets.

Now, what people will say, oh, no, no, no, no. They just interpreted the prophecy wrong. I don't know how you interpret misinterpret.

And the Lord appeared to me and he said, and I heard it as clear as day.

Trump is going to win or four more years or whatever it was that they were saying.

They were explicitly saying, thus says the Lord. Yeah. And and so.

You know, the the thing is, they're saying they got direct revelation from God.

Right. And so that direct revelation was wrong. I mean, there's no other way around that.

They want to say, oh, well, we interpret it wrong. Then you're a false prophet. Because you interpreted the prophecy wrong.

You gave that prophecy, said this is what God said. And we're wrong. That's the prophecy.

Yeah. Here's Katie just said, OK, guys, it was May 5th title.

Christ is sufficient for all your crisis. John MacArthur. So I'll give everyone a minute to write that down.

Christ is sufficient for all your crisis. Sermon he gave on May 5th.

There you go. So that'd be good for folks to go and check that out. Let us engage with someone that you really you you you really love your favorite.

Oh, am I wrong? Folks, if you haven't gone, go back and listen. I think it was last episode.

And and I, unfortunately, couldn't be on there. Two before that. Last episode was Harmonutix.

Two before that, you titled it Mark Driscoll being Mark Driscoll, which I thought was very funny.

And I think you guys did an excellent job. I should I should thank you and Chris Hough from being in a hospital bed.

Being in a hospital bed. Doing this show with you. What's funny is because because Chris and I, we talk about Harmonutix a lot.

You know, if you if you listen to Matter of Theology, we're always dissecting scripture. And so it's something we have a passion about.

It's something, you know, my degree is in biblical exposition. So in that I'm constantly doing engaging in Harmonutix.

And so when I was talking to Chris about doing a show on Harmonutix, he then ended up in the hospital and I was like, great,

I'm gonna do this one by myself. But he was a trooper. He was like, I'm not missing this one.

Yeah. So let's see. Let me let me just let me put this backstage for a moment.

And because we see someone that came in here. So let me bring Isaac Miller into stage here.

Isaac, how are you, sir? Not bad. How about yourself? Good. Good. You got a question for us tonight?

Well, so we could discuss what you believe a little bit. I'm an atheist. I don't really believe in a

God. Okay. Which God do you believe in?

Well, there's only one. Lot of religions say that.

Which one do you view as the only true one though? The same one that you do.

The God of the Bible. I don't recognize the God of the Bible. I talked to a lot of different religious people.

Muslims tell me all the time that there's only one God. But they're referring to Allah, not the

Christian God. Yeah. Well, no, I believe in the same God that you suppress.

I mean, we both know God exists. I do not know that God exists.

I don't see a reason to believe in him. And yet you do believe you have an ability to reason, right?

Yes, but that doesn't come from a God. Really? Yeah. So you believe that everything's just material, right?

Yes. Okay. So where do you get an immaterial ability to reason? Did we lose him?

Did he freeze? I think something's wrong with this connection. Okay. All your reasoning faculties, everything is up here.

I seem to have glitched up pretty bad there. Is my audio still good? Yep. Yeah, we got your back.

So you say it's all product of the mind? Yes. How about the laws of logic?

There's nothing that makes me believe that those are anything outside of what's in your brain. Okay. So let's do a little experiment,

Isaac. You and I both agree that there was a period before human brains, correct? I mean,

I'm going to say there was six days or five days before humans were on earth.

You might say there was longer than that, but we both agree there was a time before human brains existed, right? You're breaking up pretty bad.

I don't know if we'll be able to continue this or not. I closed out the background tab, so hopefully that helps.

Okay. So can we agree that we both believe there was a time before human brains existed, whether six days or millions of years?

You're breaking up pretty bad here. I might try to exit the studio and log back in. All right.

We'll hope that he can come back in. So let me just ask folks,

I mean, Drew, you and I, it's been pretty clear. I'm thinking it might be on his end.

I'm thinking it is too, because he's glitching. So Isaac, maybe what you could do is shut your camera off and maybe that would help.

I'm seeing if that helps the audio. Okay. So I'll ask the question again.

Can we both agree that there was a time where there were no human minds?

Can we agree to that? Okay. He's spinning, so I don't know if he turned the camera off or he's out.

All right. Before we go to the Mark Driscoll, we'll give him a couple minutes.

Hopefully he'll come back in and we can answer the question.

But what I'm trying to do for folks to understand, right, I want to teach you guys how to do Apologetics as well.

That's what we do here. The reason I'm asking that question is, and I see that Andrew is saying it's breaking up pretty badly where he is down under.

So I do know that when we started the show, that StreamYard did say that they are having some server issues.

So maybe... Did you read all of Andrew's question? Let's put it up. It's breaking up pretty bad here.

Is that code for, oh, I gotta run? Yeah. Yeah. Well, we'll see if Isaac doesn't come back in.

Okay. Yeah, you're right. He's not saying that it's breaking up bad there down under. He's saying, the guy's saying, oh,

I got into a conversation that... Yeah. We will see if he comes back in. But the reason I'm asking the question of the human brain with laws of logic, what we're going to see is it puts people who want to deny the immaterial things like laws of logic and ability to reason.

They are going to say, well, that's a product of human mind, as Isaac said. Well, now what

I want to do is I want to go before there was a human mind. We all are going to agree there was a time period before human beings were on Earth.

I'm going to say it's five days. He may say millions of years. Whatever that is, fine.

We agree that there was a time before a human mind. So what I want to do is now see if he's going to stay consistent.

If the laws of logic are just a product of the human mind, they shouldn't exist outside of a human mind.

But if they do exist from a mind and there is in a human mind, it would have to be a

God, right? And so if there's any immaterial things in the universe, they require an immaterial source.

And so that's what I would want to get to with them. And the question that I then do is to say, okay, before there was a human mind,

I like to go. This is just how I like to do it. I will go to the second law of logic, which is the law of non -contradiction.

The law of non -contradiction. I'll give you the technical and then I'll explain it. The technical is you can't have

A and not A in the same way at the same time. What does that mean? Let me give the example.

I can't have $20 and not have $20 in my wallet being the same thing. In other words,

I could have a monopoly money, $20, and you're talking about US dollars.

Well, those aren't the same thing. So that's not in the same way or the same time. I could say that I have $20 in my wallet, but I don't anymore because I took it out and spent it, right?

So at the same time. So could the universe, the example I then would give to him is, could the universe have existed and not existed in the same time, in the same way?

In other words, before a human mind, could you have the universe both existing and not existing at the same time?

And existence meaning the same thing. And that puts people into a dilemma because all of a sudden, if they say no to that, which is the logically right answer to say, um, they have to say no, if they're going to stay logical.

Um, then they've just admitted to the fact that there is an immaterial source for an immaterial things in the universe.

It's not a product of the human mind. And therefore, God is required.

Now, what you'll sometimes get is people that recognize that they got, that they're in trouble with that. And, um, now in his case, maybe

Andrew is right. He said, Oh, you're breaking up pretty bad. I gotta go. Maybe that was his answer because he hasn't come back in.

But, um, the, the thing is, is that the, the other option I've heard people do is say, yes, you can actually have contradictions.

And they will try to appeal to a study of physics known as quantum physics, quantum physics.

And I want to explain this in case you guys use this. I want you to be prepared in how to answer these things.

So if someone does bring this up in quantum physics, you, you have this principle that says you can basically what it looks like when you, when you dig deeper into the cell, into an atom, you have these subatomic particles, you have these courts and different things.

And it appears, and that's, I'm being really careful in words. It appears that the subatomic particle disappears in one spot and then suddenly appears in another spot.

And the principle they have is to say that you can actually, they use this, say that the contradictions can exist within quantum physics.

I would say that those that it's the appearance of something moving from one spot and another and being in two different places at the same time.

It's the appearance. And I would say we don't have the technology yet to be able to know what's actually happening.

Just like we didn't know that there were subatomic particles until we got microscopes that could discover that.

So, so they're, some are going to say that now here's how you can respond. And I've done this before.

Let me give it is a fun little story, but I was in California. I was witnessing to these six, like high school, college age students.

And this guy kept walking by and doing like, and Drew, I don't know if you've ever had this where someone does drive by heckling, you know, they don't stop.

They just, they throw something out and keep going. And the guy kept walking back and forth. We were in like the outside mall and the guy like six times.

So finally I just stopped him and said, Hey, how about you stop like doing the drive by heckling and actually just make your argument.

And so he, he did, he made an argument similar to what Isaac there was saying. And I, I just said, well, you know, so do you believe that, you know, before their human brains, the universe could have existed and not exist in the same way at the same time.

And he said, yes. And I said, so you accept contradictions? And he said, yes.

I said, you're wrong. He said, no, I'm right. I said, no, no, you're wrong. He said, no, I'm right. I said, no, you're wrong.

And you can't disagree with me on it. He's like, why can't I disagree with you on it? I said, because you accept contradictions.

But if you think that you can have contradictions and you must be right, and I must be wrong, then you deny the contradictions exist.

And all of a sudden he just looked at me, just went completely white. Looked at these other kids and just walked away.

And that's what you end up with is that they're then stuck with that is if they want to say that the laws of logic, ability to reason, morality, truth, knowledge, all of these things are immaterial things.

Once you accept those as real, you have to give them an immaterial source. And that source is God. Yeah. So TikTok is an interesting place because people will do lives, right?

They'll do TikTok lives. And you can just kind of scroll through the lives and you'll have, you will have people on there who read scripture.

You'll have people on there talking about Jesus, but you also have a lot of atheists or people who are in that mode of deconstruction that they call.

Well, one of the ones that I was watching was this woman who was deconstructing.

And so I just typed in and basically what she's doing is she's talking about her journey through deconstruction.

And so I typed in and I said, I said, how did you arrive at the place that you arrived at?

And she said, well, it was because I took all of the evidence that was presented to me and I was convinced that God was not real.

And so I responded and I said, well, thank you for answering my question, but can someone be convinced that something is not true and still be wrong?

That thing still be true? And she never came back to answer that question because people think or they are convinced that gravity is not real.

Just because you're convinced that it's not real, does that make gravity therefore false? No, it doesn't.

So you can still be convinced of something and be wrong. Yeah, they don't walk off tall buildings.

Right. And so at that point, we're not discussing evidences or experience.

The bottom line is truth. What is true versus what is not true? Yeah, and I'm going to get to what

Jesse said here with it. But let me just note for folks. Did you notice what I did, by the way, when

Isaac came in and said he doesn't believe in God? Which God do you believe in?

What was my answer? The same God he believes in, right? Right. Yeah.

Maybe he had connection problems because he realized, oops, this guy knows I believe in God, right? It's the same

God he's suppressing. Mm hmm. He would like to. Now, could I have taken the bait and talked about the

God of Islam? Drew, do I know do I know a thing or two about Islam? I think you've written about it in one of your books.

Yeah, I think I wrote a book about it. You know, I seem to believe you have written about it and then taken it to an imam and an imam said, yes, this is accurate.

Actually, I gave two two different imams had reviewed the chapter and said that is accurate, along with many other

Muslims. But so, yeah, it's it's a thing where I could have taken that bait.

Can I can I speak intelligently about Islam? I believe that I can.

I studied the Koran for many years before writing my book and systematizing what the

Koran teaches. But. Did I take that? No, I didn't take the bait.

Why? Because that's not the issue. He would much rather if he really is a professing atheist, he'd much rather sit and poke holes at Christianity by trying to uphold what

Islam is saying and say, look, there's no difference. They say this. That's right. But that's not his problem.

Right. The problem is he's suppressing the as Drew said, Roman chapter one, he's suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.

He knows God exists. He just suppresses that. So I just get right to the heart of the issue. Right. The heart of the issue is he is suppressing that God.

And the evidence would be that, you know, he's going to say he believes Santa Claus doesn't exist, but he doesn't go to the mall and, you know, yell

Santa Claus doesn't exist. But he'll come on this show to say God doesn't exist. Right. He's probably not reading books saying that Santa Claus doesn't exist yet.

He's probably reading books saying that God doesn't exist. Right. Now, one of the things you also did in responding the way you did is you established from the beginning your foundation.

You established it and you said, I believe the God of the Bible, which by the way, is also the same

God that you believe in. Right. And so what did you not do? You did not immediately run to an evidence to say, well, let me prove to you

God exists. You established the God that you believed from the outset so that now everything else has to come back to this

God of the Bible. Yeah, not the God that I believe, the God that is. Right. Because that's what he was trying to say.

He was trying to say, well, you believe in this and Muslims believe in that. And I'm saying, no, we all believe in the same. We all know

God exists. The true God, we all know that. Yep. Someone suppressed that.

OK. And that suppression comes out many different ways. Atheism, Islam, Mormonism, many different ways to suppress the

God that we know exists. And so we never, we always want to be careful not to take the bait that someone gives and to be careful to make sure that we're not going to deny the

God that actually exists. Right. We want to get, you know, establish that this is the truth.

And because what do they want us to do? They want us to give up the truth and argue from their worldview.

Well, once we give up the Bible and argue from their worldview, we've just lost because we gave up the truth.

Yeah. Yeah. Now that, in responding the way you did, through the questions that he asked, not taking the bait, right?

Because he asked you about the God you believed in. What is the true

God? And then where did he run? He ran to Islam. Well, if you take that bait, what does that do?

That distracts from answering the actual question. Because what he wants to do is distract you from answering about the

God you believe in to talk about Islam and why Islam is false. Well, what he doesn't realize is that you will reveal why

Islam is false in talking about the God you believe in. I could do that. That is correct.

But the thing is, does he believe in Islam? No. So why bother talking about it?

Exactly. This is the thing, you know, folks, when you have people, exactly, it's a distraction.

When people do this, don't fall for the bait. There's a reason they do that. And Melissa is saying,

Drew, exactly, exclamation point. Oh, Melissa says, that's why he ran away.

You just went straight for the jugular. Well, that's what it is, ultimately, is they're trying to come in and they're trying to establish a worldview, a foundation for their worldview.

The problem is all you did was you removed the foundation from him. So now he has nothing to hold on to.

Once you say, okay, laws of logic, right? And of course, always go back to the

Greg Bonce and Gordon Stein debate, right? Where they had the famous back and forth about laws of logic.

They're immaterial and they're universal. So whether laws of logic exist only in your mind as a function of the mind, you take the mind away, laws of logic still apply because contradictions still exist because the law of identity still exists.

The law of, what's the first law? Excluded middle. Identity is the first.

Identity, contradiction, excluded middle. Those laws still exist whether you remove the mind or not.

Yeah. All right, so let me do this. Where was I? I got to go back up. Here's what

Jesse says. So Jesse Heller said, I think he suggested the laws of logic were subjective experience, but I'm willing to bet that he will sound like a

Christian when someone else contradicts himself. And that's what I was going to try to get to with him, Jesse, but we never got there.

All right, let me do this. Now would be a good time. Let me stop sharing the screen that I had.

I want to share a different screen here because I want to show you something.

Check this out. You see that? Is that showing up on the -

The buy one, get one free? As low as $25? $25, $24, wow. Yeah, so they are having

MyPillow, and he's got the MyCoffee, but we're going to give you better coffee.

But he's doing some extravaganza right now. Everything is $25 with a promo code, and the promo code you could use to get all this stuff from MyPillow is

SFE. It stands for Striving Fraternity. They sponsor this show. You can get their 2 .0

pillow. The difference with the 2 .0, so they have their premium original pillow, just $25 with the promo code

SFE. You can get their 2 .01, buy one, get one free. The 2 .0, I don't know what it is, but it has something where I'm the type of person who when

I sleep, I am constantly sweating. That's not my bride.

So I end up always just having that.

They did something with this where they control the temperature, and that has reduced that, cut it out for the most part, but still sometimes

I have that. But their slippers, and I love their slippers, $25. Their bedsheets, $25.

Everything they have right now, they're doing for $25. If you've ever been thinking of, hey, now would be the time to get anything you want to get from MyPillow with promo code

SFE. Here they're showing the different people who are sponsoring it. But they've been canceled from the retail stores.

If you've got pets, they even have dog beds and things like that. So I want to show this because you see everything they have.

They have blankets. I actually have a couple of their throw blankets. I paid more than $25.

For mine, just saying. I didn't get it at this rate, but they have clothing. So if you want to get some great discounts,

I've never seen them having prices like this where everything they have is on sale like this.

I'm just saying now would be a time to go to MyPillow .com, use promo code SFE so that they know that you heard about them from us here, and that would be a way of them continuing to sponsor us, which helps us continue to do this.

Now, I mentioned a better place to get coffee. I have to put this up. Actually, my wife had the hot flashes, and I was still the one sweating.

She says it's just because I'm constantly moving. And so I'm probably running in my sleep is what it is.

So a better place to get coffee. I mean, if you want to get the my coffee from MyPillow, go for it. But a better place would be to go to Squirrelly Joe's Coffee.

If you go to strivingfraternity .org slash coffee, that will get you to Squirrelly Joe's Coffee. And remember, if you use the purchase code or the coupon code with them,

SFE, again, it stands for striving fraternity. The first order gets you 20 % off.

Now, I'm going to encourage you when you reorder, go to strivingfraternity .org slash coffee to get your next cup of coffee just so that they know you got there from us so that they will continue sponsoring us.

We're really grateful for them. So go get coffee. And I suggest, folks, hey, get coffee for your church because this is coming from a

Christian brother. So we know that with this, we're supporting a fellow brother in Christ.

And so not only are you going to get a great cup of coffee and they got, I will admit, I love

I'm going to pull my sheet out because I actually made a sheet of their coffee because I think the names are hilarious.

And I don't remember what I'm drinking now because I put the beans into the, you know, I open it up and poured into a thing.

I think that I'm having a cup of wisdom. I think that's what I'm currently drinking, which

I need it. I need a cup of wisdom. You know, so maybe, you know, Drew, you want to get your wife something for her birthday or anniversary.

Maybe you get her a bag of wisdom coffee so that every morning you can say, hey, honey, let me make you a cup of wisdom.

You need this. Maybe that's not the best thing to do. She would look at me like.

Maybe in that case, you should get her, you know, get her a bag of kindness or respect and you can say, dear,

I respect you so much. Here's a cup of respect for you or a cup of integrity.

All I see giving this to my wife is it coming, being thrown back on me.

Well, it's it's all depends on the presentation. Drew, if you go to your your lovely wife in the morning and you're bringing her a freshly brewed cup of coffee, first off, she's thankful that you did that.

But second, when you say, dear, I'm giving you a cup of respect because I respect you so much or you're so kind that here's a cup of kindness or you have such integrity.

Here's a cup of integrity. Now, maybe, you know, you don't really like coffee.

And so you want to give her a cup of honesty. That's the decaf stuff. I don't drink that. So I've never had.

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Let's talk about a lie real quick.

You're going to call decaf a bag of honesty while decaf is pretending to be coffee.

I have said this to to Squirrelly Joe himself. I was like, you do realize that you named the fake coffee honesty.

I don't know that he thought about it when he named it that and the half and half. He's got one that's half decaf, half regular.

And that's called responsibility. I probably should have called that one lukewarm. It wants to be coffee, but doesn't have the same time.

But for those who for those who want to have a cup of decaf, get yourself a good cup of honesty.

I don't know what it tastes like because I want real coffee. But, hey, I mean, the names are great and they're funny, but they each have different flavors.

And so there's different beans from different areas. So he's got all that.

So that becomes something that you want to check out. So go to Striving Fraternity dot org slash coffee. Get yourself a bag of Squirrelly Joe's coffee.

Get the five pound bag for church so you can get the discounts there. Or you could do we have we have one of our supporters.

Let me know that. I guess he really drinks a lot of coffee because he ordered some five pound bags.

So for home for home, he ordered five pound bags. I was like, OK, you drink lots of coffee.

Either that or he's got a lot of company that comes over. I don't know which. So, yeah, get a good cup.

Get your bags of coffee. It's Squirrelly Joe's coffee, 20 % off your first purchase using the code

SFE. Go to Striving Fraternity dot org slash coffee to get your coffee from Squirrelly Joe's.

All right. So with that, let's finally get to this 11 minute clip.

Now, I fear that with, you know, we may not get this completely done. You know, being that it's only 11 minutes and we have a tendency to.

Yeah, and I want to try all 11 minutes, but we'll see. And I did speed this up.

So it's going to be just for those of you listening on the podcast where you listen quickly, you know, quicker.

Sorry, you're going to have to be even even quicker. You see what

Andrew put up? Let's put up Andrew's comment there, if you don't mind. Whoops.

Here we go. I want a real coffee. Yeah, honestly,

I like that. Oh, so. All right.

Let's play this clip. And I know we're going to be stopping in the first three seconds here, but this was something he put out as a clip about cessationists.

So he is speaking about people that hold to the position that I would hold to that. I just got back from the

Philippines doing the Strange Fire Philippines conference where we talked about my two talks were giving a biblical view of cessationism.

And then my second one was on whether we should expect miracles today. And so let's listen to how he defines us.

And let's see if this is fair. Now, I posted this on Twitter. And if you if you want to follow me on Twitter, that'd be wonderful.

I'm not on it as I try. I'm trying to get on it often, but I am Andrew or at Andrew underscore

SFE. So Andrew at underscore SFE, if you want to follow me there. And so what

I did was put this out here. And I mentioned we'd be talking about it tonight. And the interesting thing with it is

I had someone that contacted me and said that he thinks Mark was really fair with this.

So let's give a listen. Does the Holy Spirit still work today? Now, it's interesting.

In some searches, they wouldn't answer quite like that. OK, let's stop it right there. Drew, do you believe that the

Holy Spirit continues working today? Yes, he's he's already started with a false premise.

He's poisoning the well right now. So this is also

I mean, there's several different fallacies that this could be because it's also a straw man. Yeah, straw man.

And this is a very common argument that continuationists make that somehow we cessationists believe that the

Holy Spirit does not work today. And that's the question that you could see if I if I move this out of the way, he's he's

I'll move this banner out of the way quickly so you could see it. It says, does the Holy Spirit continue his work today?

Yes, he does. Well, I'm saying that as a cessationist, as someone who believes the gift ceased now, here's here's the fallacy with this, folks.

Here's when we when we do. And if you take my class and my class on politics and debate is going to be available for those who watch

Driving Fraternity's YouTube channel so you can see them there Monday nights. But we're going to teach people how to how to look for these things.

Look at the premise of the argument. So the premise of his argument is that the only work that the

Holy Spirit is doing are these gifts that we say ceased. Right.

Is the Holy Spirit, let me just ask you, Drew, I'm going to ask you because you're here.

Series of questions quickly, just rapid fire. But are you a cessationist? Yes. Do you believe that the gifts that certain gifts have ceased?

Yes. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit still works today? Yes. Do you believe the Spirit gives the gift of administration?

Yes. Do you today? Yes. The gift of administration in terms of the ability to lead and manage over large, large portions of people and activities, we'll say, we'll just say within a church.

Yeah. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives the gift of giving today? Yes. Do you have that gift?

Sometimes. Sometimes I do. Yes. Let's talk. We could use a donation now. That's a gift no one wants to admit they have right now.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives the gift of teaching today? Yes. Do you believe that the

Holy Spirit illuminates His Word to the believers today? Yes.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives application of His Word to believers today? Yes. Are all of these things ministries of the

Holy Spirit? Yes. And are they still present today? Yes. Okay.

So right there, I would agree 100 % with everything that you said as a cessationist.

So as we see here, the argument he starts off with, not only poisoning the well, it's a straw man because that's not the proper definition of cessationism.

We do not believe that the Holy Spirit stopped. We believe that He is not continuing to give certain gifts.

Why? Because He's not continuing to give revelation that those gifts pointed to.

That's the point. If there's no new revelation, there's no need for the gifts. That's what

I believe He's saying in 1 Corinthians 13. Yeah. We don't have a need to continue with these gifts.

You know, you've already said it. When they talk about the work of the

Holy Spirit, they only limit it to signs and miracles and wonders.

They never branch out and talk about all the other gifts. And you know what they also never mention?

The primary function and role of the Holy Spirit is to point us to Christ.

They never mention that. Okay. And so this is very common. Okay. And you guys may have heard me talk about this when

I talk about women pastors. I've brought this up from Genesis and we're going to look at this again.

But when women are told they can't be a pastor, they're like, oh, so women can't do anything in the church. No, we're not saying that.

He's saying, oh, so you're saying, so these couple of gifts didn't continue. So there's no gifts.

So Holy Spirit's not doing anything. Where does that thinking come from? Let's go back to Genesis chapter two.

Genesis chapter two, starting in verse 16. The Lord God commanded the man saying from any tree in the garden, you may eat freely, but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat.

From the day that you eat of it, you will surely die. Okay. It's really clear.

Let's look in Genesis chapter three, verse one, and what the serpent says to Eve.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the beasts of the field, which the Lord had made. And he said to the woman, indeed has

God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden.

What did he do? He basically did the same thing that Mark Driscoll is doing here that the women do when they say, oh, if you can't, you're saying a woman can't do anything.

They're doing the same thing Satan does saying, if God says you can't do one thing, it means you can't do anything.

And Eve corrected the serpent. She said, the woman said to serpent from the fruit of the trees of the garden, we may eat, but the fruit of the tree, which is in the middle of the garden,

God said, you shall not eat of it or touch it, or you will die. Now everyone criticizes Eve because she said, or touch it.

Because she's, they say, see, she added to scripture. We do not know that.

We know that that's an addition to what God said, but did it, was it Eve or Adam who said that?

I mean, Adam might've been the one to say, don't even touch it. I mean, we do that with our kids, right? You sit with Lawson and you don't just say, don't touch something that's hot.

You say, stay away from it, right? You don't say it'll burn you, just if you touch it, you're like, just stay away from it.

Well, maybe Adam did the same thing. So let's be honest with what scripture says. But this is where this comes from.

This is straight out of the same tactic Satan uses. I'm not, now look,

I'm not saying that Mark Driscoll is Satan. He's not, you know, I'm not saying that women who play be pastors are

Satan. I'm just saying, this is where we first see this behavior.

So we have to recognize that behavior as wrong. Okay. Eve corrected the serpent.

So I'm going to correct Mark Driscoll. Okay. The fact that the

Holy Spirit does not continue giving certain gifts does not mean he stops giving all gifts or stops working altogether.

Right, right. You know, when, and, you know, you mentioned Lawson. And Lawson, by the way, for folks to realize, that's your little boy.

That's my little boy. He's my, he's my four -year -old. So a lot of people in the chat who are friends with me on Facebook, you know, they see me post pictures of him and stuff.

And sometimes we even as, as in a week or two ago, we got to see him when he was still awake during the show.

Yeah, that's right. He has made an appearance or two on the show. Rhett has also, he's my youngest, but but as Lawson gets older, right, do

I stop giving him gifts? No, I give him different gifts, right?

So just because I don't give him, he's big into cars, right?

He loves cars and trucks and stuff. So just because I may stop giving him cars, does that mean

I stop giving him gifts altogether? No, I just, he has no need for that gift because now he's older.

Now he doesn't play with those things. Now it's time for him to mature, right?

So, so that, that thinking is, is not just an evil thinking because it comes from Satan.

It's also just childish thinking. It's immature thinking. Yeah, which is exactly what, and you know,

Jesse says this. So before we go on with Driscoll's talk here, it'd be good to lay the foundation for this.

Jesse Heller is saying, and this is referring to 1 Corinthians 13, verse 10, where it says, when the completeness comes, and I appreciate,

I don't know, Jesse, what translation you're referring to, because he has in quotes, when the completeness comes, unquote.

The other translations have this word, when the perfect comes. Whatever translation he's using is more accurate.

So Jesse, let me know. I'm curious what translation that is. That is a more accurate translation.

I'm going to explain why. But he says, when the, when the completeness comes is referring to when we see Jesus face to face, not the completion of the canon.

What am I missing in the context? Huh? LSB. It's the

LSB. I was wondering that. Yeah, that figures. So, so Jesse, what you are missing is the context because the context is not verse, well, the context is verse nine.

It's part of the same sentence. It says, for we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

So this completeness is tied to the partial. What's the partial? The partial is, is said here to be the, the prophecy and the knowledge.

What is that? Well, verse eight is, uh, says love never fails, but where there are gifts prophecy, they will be done away with tongues.

They will cease. There's if there's knowledge will be done away with. So prophecy tongues knowledge.

Those are three gifts. And he says the knowledge and the prophecy are partial.

So whatever they are, the completion is tied to these two gifts.

The, the partial, those are the partial. These are the complete. So the, these gifts are revelatory gifts.

So the closing of the Canon completes that revelation. So 11 and 12 are three illustrations.

You do not interpret the main thing by the illustration. The illustration illustrates the main thing.

It's not the main thing. So as with the example you gave with Lawson, he's Paul says, when

I was a child, I spoke as a child. I acted like a child, reasoned like a child. I put away the childish things when

I became a man. What is that? This word teleos, which perfect or completeness is the idea of maturity or complete.

So when you become an adult, you put away childish things. When the word of God is complete, you put away the prophecy and the knowledge.

It's not needed because you've matured. It's completed. He talks about looking in polished metal dimly.

I hate that it says mirror because the mirrors people think of are not the mirrors they had.

It even says the word dimly, but it's looking in polished metal dimly versus looking clearly face to face.

That is an illustration. He is not saying that this is when we see Jesus face to face, because this is an illustration of the word teleos, making the point that when, when you look at something face to face very clearly, then you don't need what is dim.

Now, some will make the case to say, well, face to face always refers to a personal encounter.

Well, though people make that claim, Proverbs 27 verse 19 uses the same language when it says as in water face reflects face.

So a man, so the heart of man reflects man. Now the word reflects is not there in the Hebrew.

It's the same you have here in the Greek as in water face face. And so in Proverbs 27 19, it is not saying we have a personal encounter with water.

It is an exactly talking about the same context that Paul's making here. It's reflection.

That's why we look in a mirror to get a reflection. But the mirrors back then were, were not clear.

They were dim. And so it was a polished metal. So it's the, it's the comparison of seeing not clear, seeing dimly versus seeing clearly same to the same illustration, the imperfect to the perfect, the partial to the complete.

The third illustration is knowing a part versus fully known. You have three illustrations pointing to it.

So, so for, for Jesse or any others, and I don't know if Jesse had responded.

Um, because I was, I was, I had my scripture up that I was looking at, but, uh,

I hope that helps. So you understand that what we're talking about here is the fact that the direct context, it's the same part of the sentence.

Verse nine is what defines what the perfect or teleos is. It is tied.

It is the completion of the prophecy and the knowledge. And so once that becomes, once that prophecy is done, then that goes away.

Okay. That's the context. All right. Let's continue on. I hope that was helpful.

That'll be necessary. Um, and I know there's a lot of questions coming in. Let's see. We're, we're only 10 seconds in 11 minutes and we got 45 minutes left in the show, but let's see.

This is actually a big debate within Christianity. And there are various views of the work of the Holy Spirit in the miraculous ways, or what is called the sign gifts, speaking in tongues, miracles, healings.

Things like that. One group are the cessationists and they would say simply, uh, the

Holy Spirit won't act. Okay. Will we say that? No, no, we've, we've actually already proven that we, we,

I mean, I don't know a single cessationist that would say that the, the, in fact,

I'll say that the, the Holy Spirit has told us when he would act. Okay.

Um, in Hebrews. Okay. So in Hebrews, we, we end up having very clear, this is

Hebrews chapter two, the first four verses for this reason. And this is what it says for this reason, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard so that we do not drift away from it.

So what are we paying attention to? What we heard, what are they hearing? They're hearing direct revelation from God prophecy, right?

Because they're, they're, this is when the scripture is still being written, but look, we're going to have more evidence for that.

Verse two, for if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable and every transgression and disobedience received is, has a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us, those who heard

God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the

Holy spirit, according to his own will. So what is he saying is the purpose of these gifts to testify to the prophecy, to the revelation that they heard from God.

So if there is no more new revelation, there is no more need for these gifts.

You know, I love this verse and the thing that caused me to actually really love this verse was listening to Jim teach it and explain it.

Jim, Jim Osmond. Yeah. And you say for folks, if you haven't heard

Jim's teaching on Hebrews, you can go to Kootenai community church, the acute

Kootenai. You could actually just go to Christian podcast, community .org. If you don't know how to spell

Kootenai, their morning worships are there and you can go back and listen to their whole series on Hebrews.

And, and here's, here's my suggestion, my encouragement to everyone. When you do listen to that series, it's a great series.

Please contact Jim Osmond of Kootenai community church and ask him, would you please put this teaching into a commentary, please?

Yes. I've been begging him. I, when we were in the Philippines, I actually,

I did ask if everyone, you know, a thousand people, could you all, I said, when you take a photo with, with Jim Osmond, could you all just ask him to put his, his, his series of Hebrews into a commentary?

He, you know, he, he really needs to, because not only does he explain this verse very well, right?

But when he gets into what he discusses as the problem passages or the warning passages, it clarifies so much.

Yes. It's so helpful. So, but, but in regards to this verse, I love how he breaks it down because he reveals who the them is in verse four.

God also testifying with them by signs and wonders. Who's the them?

The apostles and Jesus. And then he does this wonderful thing where he gives this just daisy chain of verses that you can go back and you can, and I've, I've marked them in my

Bible. Every Bible I have, I marked them in it. So you see, this is why Jesus did these miracles.

And then it goes to the next verse. Jesus did this because of this reason. And the same with the apostles. The apostles were doing this for this reason.

And you only see them doing those things. Now he does say that there are people that aren't apostles that are doing gifts, signs and wonders, but there are people who are directly tied closely to the apostles that are working with them.

So, and everyone has to go into it. Paul in the sermon of Hebrews. Oh, oh, did I give that away?

Yeah. I think this is, I think this is a sermon by Paul and, uh, but. Which Jim disagrees and he gives evidence for that.

Yeah, we do. We do have to have that debate where he thinks that, uh, uh, with Matthias was a 12th disciple and not

Paul, but, or apostle. But, um, so, so, but, you know, let me just finish, wrap that up though, as well with going to first Corinthians one seven, because many know my, my good friend,

Matt Slick, we disagree on these things. I was glad when people were calling me when there were memes from the conference going out and people were calling me a false teacher, a heretic, uh,

Matt Slick came in, defended me and I greatly appreciated that. Uh, and so folks who, who, uh, know

Matt, you could, you know, you could, you know, see that he's, he's a genuine person.

Uh, and he said, I know Andrew personally, um, I'm paraphrasing, but he said, I know Andrew personally, we disagree on these things.

We've debated these things, but he's not a false teacher, you know? Um, and so, uh, but Matt believes that his, his thing that really convinces them that these gifts continue is first Corinthians one seven, which says so that you are not lacking any gift in that word gift is charisma, that you're not lacking any gift awaiting eagerly the revelation of the

Lord Jesus Christ. So he says that these charismatic gifts must continue until the Lord Jesus Christ. The problem I have with it is the, the, the word gift or charisma is not limited to just the gifts that we say ceased.

Okay. The yes, the charismatic movement got its name from this word charisma for gift.

There's two different words for gift, but the word gift is not limited to these miraculous gifts.

It's just that the, the movement took that on as a name. So just because the movement takes it on, doesn't mean

Paul is saying that a movement that started in the 1900s was going to continue until the time of Christ.

The key with this is when we're not doing it, looking at this hermeneutically is the word lacking so that you are not lacking any gift lack requires a need.

And so with what we have said in first Corinthians 13 and Hebrews two, if there is no new revelation of scripture, there is no need.

Therefore, the church is not lacking any gift because it doesn't need the gift because it has the completed

Canon. And by the way, if you want go to striving for training .org slash miracles, and you could see and hear my, the, my message on the same message

I delivered at the Philippines conference, the strange fire Philippines conference. Because there

I go through and show all the miracles done by human beings. And there, there's only three periods of time where we see lots of miracles that are somewhat where it seems almost normative, 80 miracles done over 44 ,000 years of biblical history are all at the time when new writing of scripture is being done.

And so if you, outside of those three periods, Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, and the disciples outside of those three time periods, you only have eight miracles being done by human beings in 4 ,000 years.

So miracles were extremely rare, extremely rare done by human beings in that time.

And so the proof, the burden of proof is on a guy like Mark Driscoll to defend the fact that he claims that they should be happening regularly because the scriptures don't support it.

History doesn't support it. Yeah. So with that, I am going to have to quote Jim Osmond, who said, if miracles are common, then by definition, they're not miracles.

Correct. Yeah. And that's something that I pointed out that I didn't say it as eloquently as Jim, but no one says anything as eloquently.

It's true. That is true. I was glad that I preached before Jim, by the way. So I ended my message and I asked how many people have heard

Pastor Jim Osmond preach. And he was not very well known there in the Philippines.

And so people knew of him from the roundtable discussion with Michael Brown and Justin and Sam Storms, but they hadn't heard him preach.

And I was like, you're in for a treat because I think that Jim is one of the best, if not the best exegete of scripture alive today.

Yeah. And I think one of the things that is helpful, just I know in the conversations that I've had with Jim, you know, the interactions and then just watching him is the way his mind works in the questions that he asks because he asks questions that demand an answer.

Yeah. And he asks it in such a way where you just kind of have to stop and think, right? You can't just spitball one out.

You have to stop and think and go, okay, let me get back to you on that. Right.

It's talking to Jim is very humbling. I'll say that. So, so I think we have a good enough foundation.

I want to, I want to, you know, because I really want to address that this isn't fair, but let's continue seeing what he's, what he's going to say.

He doesn't do today what he did yesterday. In the past, he was very active, but today he is not.

Okay. So we're not saying he wasn't, he was active then, he's not now. We're saying he was giving certain gifts then that he's not giving now.

And Mark Driscoll agrees whether he got submitted or not, because he doesn't, he will not say that the prophecy of the

Bible, which has to be 100 % accurate. He's not saying that's the same thing as today.

Okay. He's not holding that to the same standard. He will say that people could be wrong about their prophecy.

Well, if he's saying that, then it's not the same prophecy. Therefore the prophecy of the biblical times ceased, and we have something new.

Let's, let's look at it this way. Okay. So what he says on there, he says the Holy, cessationists believe the

Holy Spirit won't act. Okay. Now let's move from what they would view as the

Holy Spirit acting as miracles, signs, and wonders. Okay. Now let's, let, let's prove that Mark Driscoll is a functioning cessationist.

Okay. If we look at Ananias and Sapphira in scripture, they were killed because they lied to the

Holy Spirit, and then the Holy Spirit acted and killed them. So now does

Mark Driscoll believe that the Holy Spirit still kills people today for false worship? I'm going to say he probably doesn't think that God does that today.

He probably doesn't think God does that today. So he is a, he would be a functioning cessationist.

In that area, but he might say, but he may say, hey, but God may do it. He just doesn't do it. And that's a great way to weasel out of it.

But that would be the same point that people could say, well, God, you know, this is, that's the, the, you know,

John Piper argument. God could give these gifts today. He just doesn't. He chooses not to, right?

Yeah. That's, that's a really good point, Drew. All right, let's continue. In addition, there is then what

I would call functional cessationism. Cessation means ceased. And their premise would be the

Holy Spirit can act, but he doesn't. Oh, wait, that's what we were talking about.

Oh, sorry. No, it's, we actually did see this video. So we knew it was coming. This is actually the first time

I've seen this. Oh, okay. I'm reacting to this in real time. Like he can do whatever he wants, but he doesn't really do anything anymore.

Like he can if he wants, but they're very suspicious that God would show up in power. Then there is the continuationist view.

Okay. Now, I think that there are people that would have that, right?

So that would, I mean, I mentioned John Piper. So now let's look at what he's going to say is the continuationist view.

Let's see if he's going to be as fair as he, I don't think he's fair with the cessationist, but let's see what his view is with the continuationist.

She does act. It's also called charismatic. You don't know I'm charismatic.

Okay. So let's look at what he just said there. If you believe that God works today, you're charismatic.

Is that a proper definition of charismatic Drew? No, it's not.

And that's the thing. He's giving a false definitions here. These are called straw man.

So you give a straw man argument is an argument where you give something that's easy to knock over a wrong definition.

So you can knock it over and defending and which he'll defend very easily. And so what ends up happening is he can say,

Oh, see, they're saying the Holy spirit doesn't do anything. We say the Holy spirit. So if you believe the spirit exists, does is working today.

You're charismatic. No, there's a big difference between saying that the gifts, certain gifts that were necessary for, for vindicating the writing of scripture don't exist.

That's all. We're not saying all the gifts don't exist. We don't say Holy spirit's not active, but I'm not charismatic because, or as he's saying, continuationist, that's not a proper definition.

Okay. And, and that's the thing that I ended up seeing with this. You know, he read out of the gate when someone has to give wrong definitions.

You know, that that's that, that right there, they're telling you that they don't have a good argument because their argument is illogical.

It's flawed. All right. So now I'm just going to, I mean, that's really, it was only the first minute

I needed to take a cover, but now we're just going to trigger drew and play more of it since he didn't watch it.

But here, so here we go. And then Drew was just going to say, stop when he has enough. I love

Jesus. I love the father. I love the Holy spirit, whatever God wants for me. I want, I believe

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And I'll tell you, no, he doesn't because we just proved, would he believe that God would kill someone like he did

Ananias and Sapphira in the same way? No, he, he, he doesn't believe that God is still the same yesterday, today, and forever.

But then he's also continuing to build this straw man by saying, I believe God, I believe

Jesus. I believe the Holy spirit. I want whatever God wants me as though the cessationist doesn't believe those things as well.

So this is a logical fallacy as well. I have a paper on striving for attorney .org

about this. If you go to striving for attorney .org to search for the Hebrews, I think it's Hebrews 13, eight.

There is a difference between Jesus being the same yesterday, today, and forever. That is talking about the nature of Christ.

There's a difference between the nature of Christ and the way that Christ behaves. So here's a question for Mark Driscoll, Mark Driscoll.

If I'm going to, I'm going to step into his world and make his argument. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Therefore, the way he deals with his people cannot change. So Mark Driscoll, do you worship on Saturday and do you keep kosher?

Answer? No, I'm, I'm pausing for effect folks.

That's the reality. I just made his argument. He doesn't live by his own argument because God has changed the way he has dealt with us where we no longer have to keep kosher.

All right. And, and yet God hasn't changed. In fact, we only see in the book of Acts where we see people having the gift of languages.

We don't see it in the old Testament. It's prophesied. It'll happen as a judgment on the nation of Israel, but we don't see it in the old

Testament. Therefore, it shouldn't have happened in the new Testament because Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

You see how bad the argument is? It doesn't make sense.

That, that ship is taking on water pretty quick from the whole shot in it. Yes.

Okay. You can continue. For a little bit. We'll see how long. Holy Spirit is killed because Satan is not a cessationist.

Satan is not a cessationist. I don't know what that has to do with it. He's going to do everything he can to kill, steal, and destroy.

And so we're asking the Holy Spirit to do whatever he wants to stop that evil. The only thing I could think he's saying there is that he's saying that if you deny the gifts, you're, you're acting like Satan trying to stop the work of the

Spirit. That's what I think he's saying. I think he might be heading in a direction of saying, if you believe, because not even

Satan is a cessationist. So if you're a cessationist, you might be worse than Satan. I can see him going in that direction, whether he does or not.

I don't know. But I mean, just what I didn't understand the point of not even

Satan is a cessationist. That doesn't have anything to do with anything. So what?

Yeah. I mean, I think that, look, I made an argument with this when I said that it is

Satan where we first see this argument of, that, you know, if you say

I can't have these gifts, I can't do it. The Holy Spirit's not doing anything. But I was really careful not to do what he just did in bucketing him and saying he's

Satanic or saying that what he's teaching is Satanic. He is sort of applying that we are.

And I'm just looking, we got 25 minutes left. Let's do this. Because I got to the main thing

I wanted to cover with this. Why don't we get to some of the questions that we have?

Because I want to engage with our audience. And then if there's time, let's get back to this. Is that okay? Yeah, it's fine.

And I think some of our audience would probably be glad because I remember seeing a comment from, I think Melissa or someone that, you know, said like they'd rather have their fingernails pulled out or something rather than listen to Mark Driscoll.

Mark Driscoll is one of the hardest people for me to listen to. Because you're his follower.

Oh, absolutely. You know, I actually hadn't even heard the name Mark Driscoll until after all the

Marsh Hill stuff was already done and over. I was late to that party.

But I have heard his past stuff.

And then I was for a short time a part of the AXE 29 network. Um, about four or five years ago.

And seeing the seeing how he affected that movement that he was the president of.

And then seeing the following leadership that came after him that acted in the same way.

Yeah. Andrew's making a good point here. He says Mark is giving

Satan more power than Satan has. Yeah. And that's what charismatics actually do.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they don't recognize it. They give their own personal experience.

And so let's put up some of the questions that we've gotten. And I just grabbed the question.

So I some of these I haven't read. I just didn't read them. I just grabbed them. And they're like all from from John, a lot of them, right?

It's all the same question. Is it? Okay. All right. So then

I'll have to look. Let me know. So he says question. Cessationists believe God will never ever will never ever one single time speak a single word dream prophecy ever again.

Only the only the Bible and God is silent. That's not silent in the

Bible. Okay. So let's see. So you're right. So here he says, again, I understand that cessationists believe God could give a dream word of knowledge, however, would never, you know, wouldn't do it again.

Um, so, so is it, is it? So all of his questions are the same, you're saying? Yeah, they're, yeah, they're, they're essentially the same.

They're just in a different form. Okay. So regarding cessations, is it true that you believe that God would never not one single time for the rest of human history ever give a vision, word of knowledge, dream of prophecy?

And the last one is the same question. Two, it looks like.

Yeah. Yeah. But they're, they're essentially the same idea. Yeah. Cause here's another one. So he really wants this answered.

Yeah. And then, and then he changed his name from brother John to Nathan.

This is Facebook. Oh, that's Facebook. Oh, okay. So, so he, he really wants an answer.

So, um, so I guess to answer your question that you really want answered, um, are we saying that God cannot do that?

No, I'm asking the question. Why would God do that? Yeah. Why does he need to, and I've said it,

I've said it on here multiple times. What revelation, what prophecy, what word of knowledge, what, what any of those does

God need to give me outside of his word of God that he hasn't already given me through his word.

Yeah. And that's, that's the thing is once we understand the purpose of these miraculous gifts, then we understand why they don't continue today.

Okay. And so could God, could God give these gifts? Sure. I would,

I would expect to see them tied to revelation. But like I said, we do see eight times in history outside of the new writing of scripture where human beings do something miraculous.

Samson, for example. Okay. And so he has that ability to do something that was not normal.

And so that was a gifting he had. By the way, I'll point out that he had that ability as long as his hair was long to do it whenever he wanted.

Unlike what they, people say with the gifts today, where it's the person has no control over it.

It's really God doing it. It's just like, Oh, okay. Well, you know, the person may get it wrong.

They could, that's why they say someone could have the gift of healing, but they don't have to go into a hospital and empty the place because it's not them doing it.

It's God doing it through them. Well then, then that's not the gift. That's a miracle because the thing is that people think that as cessationists, we believe miracles don't continue.

And we believe very clearly miracles continue by humans. It's the gift of miracles that don't continue.

So let me see what else we have starred here. So Melissa, Melissa says Mark Driscoll has a lot in common with women.

He shouldn't be at the pulpit either. Good point. All right. Andrew Graham says the

Holy Spirit is eternal. So how the Holy Spirit, how does the Holy Spirit cease to work or does the

Spirit cease to exist? I don't think the Spirit ceases to work or cease to exist. I think what it is, is that he gave gifts for the purpose of vindicating the new writing of scripture, and we don't have the new writing of scripture.

So those gifts aren't being given. Yeah, they're not necessary. They're not necessary.

So because when we look at, we'll just say prophecy and tongues, those are revelatory gifts.

We've talked about that numerous times. What new revelation do I need?

I don't need any. Right? What healing, what temporal healing do

I need in this moment? You know, does God heal people? Yeah, yeah, he absolutely does.

But that's different than someone like Andrew possessing the gift and sees me lame and says, get up and walk.

Right? That's something that doesn't exist. So when

I see someone that, and I've heard this time and time again, people touting

Todd White, and they go, that man has the gift of healing. Well, no, he has the gift of sleight of hand and parlor tricks.

That's what he has. But even if you look at what he's doing, he's praying for God to heal someone.

Okay, then who's doing it? Now I've heard them attribute the gift of healing to him, but even he has to pray to God to heal.

But what he's doing is not actually healing. He's just doing a parlor trick, but he doesn't possess the gift of healing because that gift has ceased.

You won't find now, let me rephrase. You will find people who fake it, who think they have the gift of healing and they pretend to heal people.

You won't find a true healer, someone who actually possesses that gift.

Yeah, and if they did, they would be able to do as the Disciples did and heal who they wanted to heal until God removed that.

So, all right, we got one more that you had starred here.

Sorry. Sorry about my voice. It's still recovering from the Philippines.

KT, Jesus says one person seems to think that cessationists are going by their experience.

What kind of twist on it? How would you respond? So, a person saying that the cessationists are going by their experience.

I guess I could see where they would say. We would say that the charismatics are going by experience because a lot of what they say is, and you'll see this, you'll see in my debate with Matt, when he got stuck on the whole thing of the word not lacking requires a need, he ended up appealing to his personal experience.

I've had that countless times. Actually, every time I've talked to a charismatic, they always, when they get pressured to a point, they always fall back on the, well,

I had this experience. And so that's where I always say, well, their experience is what is their ultimate authority.

But I can say, look, they could be making the claim. You came from a charismatic background.

I came from a charismatic background. We walked away from it. So they could be saying, we disagree with it because we had a bad experience, because our experience was we were faking it when we spoke in tongues.

And so we didn't have the real thing. That was our experience. And so I could see that because I want to be fair.

Look, folks, when you do apologetics, you want to be fair with the other side. And the only way you can be fair with the other side is to actually engage with what their point is.

Never, when you do apologetics, never assume someone's position and then just run right into it.

That's what Mark Driscoll's doing here. And it's easy to tear it apart. So do I respect Mark Driscoll's argument?

No. Is he going to convince me? No. Why? Because he's going with a false definitions and is running right into with it.

We don't want to be guilty of that. You must take the time to understand someone's position, what they're actually arguing and engage with that.

Because the purpose of apologetics is not to win a debate or get a bunch of pats on the back.

It is to convince someone of the truth. And so you want to be able to use good logical arguments.

So I'm trying to engage with what they'd actually say and say that, okay, that could be a fair argument.

I think it could be. Because people are, there are people who say, yes, I was in the charismatic movement.

I thought I spoke in tongues. I faked it. Yeah. Okay. And so is that, does that mean that it's, you know, that, that because of my experience, that's what is making it wrong?

No. In fact, this whole time tonight, have you at any point heard me? Whether in this show or any other show that we've dealt with this issue, we've dealt with it a number of times, whether we dealt that my talk at the cessationist conference, the strange fire

Philippines conference, you know, if you have us in your church to do our cessationist seminar, you're never going to hear me talk about my experience other than at the beginning where I just say, yes,

I was in this movement, but what do I give? I give the scripture. And as I did with first Corinthians 13, eight and following, uh, first Corinthians one, seven, um,

Hebrews two, I'm dealing with the texts of scripture. And especially with first Corinthians 13, you saw me tying it to the context and working through the passage.

Okay. I didn't give you my experience and said, well, this must be true because this happened to me. It doesn't matter what happened to me.

It matters what the scriptures say. Everyone has an experience. So you can't go by experience alone.

It's it's fine to talk about your experience, but my experience doesn't lead me to my theological positions.

Scripture does. So just because I had an experience or in my case, a lack of experience, it drove me to the scriptures to find out, is there something wrong with me?

No. What I found out was there was a problem with what I was being taught and then how

I was interpreting scripture. There's, there's problems with you. Don't worry. Yeah. Oh, there, there's plenty. Yeah.

I have a lot of problems, but in terms of, of charismaticism, it's not that.

So brother John had said, thank you for answering my question. I am still learning what cessationists believe.

So what we believe we've laid out, I hope it's helpful, but we believe that God gave these gifts to validate the new revelation of scripture.

And without new revelation of scripture, we do not need these gifts anymore. The childish things should be put away.

I, what I see is that we, people are continuing just like they did in Corinth. And that's why

Paul had to correct them. They were still continuing with the childish things of these gifts that were starting to fade even in that time.

And so, you know, that's what we end up seeing. And, and I think people focus on the gifts more than the giver of gifts.

So all right. So let's see what else you start here. Uh, okay. So John says, question, cessationists believe

God heals people today. However, never would ever give someone a dream or vision or a single word of prophecy ever again.

Okay. So I started this for a reason, because when we're looking at healing versus dreams, visions, or prophecy, we're talking about two different categories.

We're talking about healing someone that God can do, which is different than the gift of healing that someone would possess versus a revelatory gift.

So we, I would say, yes, we have no need for dreams, visions, or word of prophecy because we have scripture.

And then I, I default back to what does God need to show me or say to me outside of scripture that he has not already spoken?

And even in the question now in my talk on, on should we expect miracles today?

I think I stole it from, um, Norman Geisler is he talked about the gift of miracles and the fact of miracles.

Cause we need some way to differentiate this. And John's question leads this cessationists believe

God, God, God heals people today. Who's doing the healing,

John, in your question, you, you lay it out. God, that's the fact of healing.

That's not the gift of healing. The gift of healing is God gives a gift to someone and they can heal people.

That's not God doing it. It's God giving the gift and people doing it. That's the difference.

So do we believe that people heal today? No, God heals today.

God doesn't give the gift of healing today. So the fact and the gift are two different things.

And so when we talk about the miraculous, that's why we, I talked about the gift of the miraculous and the fact of the miraculous and they're different.

Okay. I hope that that may be helpful to you. Let's see one last one that you have here.

Cessationists have a very careful outlined biblical reasoning. I agree with that.

You started that, I guess, cause you just wanted to agree. I thought it was a great way to end. Oh, very good.

We have a very carefully outlined biblical reason because like we've already talked about.

When we look, when the continuationists, ones that you've dealt with, ones that I have dealt with, when they come to scripture, do they take the entirety of a passage in its context?

No. They typically isolate one verse or a passage and they remove it from its context.

And they try to apply it to something that the author's not even applying it to. And then they read in their experiences into the text.

What we do is we try to deal with these texts very carefully, hermeneutically.

And so we look at what was going on at the time, who's writing, who are they writing to?

When was this even written? Right? We talked about that at the beginning. Whether Paul was talking about a fourth telling or a foretelling, it could be both depending on the time that it was written.

Right? So we analyze these things very, very carefully, but we don't just take one passage of scripture and then another passage that may have a word or something that we like that we think we can tie to it.

We take the entirety of scripture and we analyze it. And then we come to our conclusion.

That's how we carefully examine and come to our position on cessationism.

Yeah. And they put up, Jason Cave says, Scripture proves scripture in context.

Hashtag hermeneutics matters. Yeah. So. That old Georgia boy right there.

Jason, he's a good old Georgia boy. Yeah. And that's really what you guys discussed in last week's episode.

So with that, I mean, I knew we weren't going to get through all of Mark's thing.

We got through the main thing, because after that, he's just going to explain his views. But I think that what we end up seeing is,

I think we've laid out that the arguments here that he's making are not very good.

They're not valid. You know, if you want to see the full clip, just go on my Twitter and you can find it there.

But I'm hoping, you know, and John is saying, interesting show. God bless you all from Canada.

I hope that, you know, guys who disagree with us would feel comfortable coming in, being able to discuss it or asking questions here.

I try to be fair. I try to be, I don't do what I'm criticizing

Driscoll of doing, right? I'm criticizing him for giving false definitions.

And I'm trying not to do that. I try to be fair with the other side and make sure I'm getting what they're saying in the proper context.

And then laying out why I think scripture speaks differently, even with, who is it?

Was it Jesse? Was his name? Yeah. Jesse. So I think he probably agrees with us in the cessationism, but disagrees with us on what the teleos is in 1

Corinthians 13. Now, maybe he's changed his position on that. I actually did. I was invited on to a podcast called

Doxological Podcast. They heard my talk on miracles.

And so they wanted to talk about it. The difference between the gift of miracles, fact of miracles. And it was really funny because as I went through 1

Corinthians 13, the guys there actually changed their position while I went through it.

It was really kind of funny. The pastor goes, he's like, I think I just changed my position, you know, and that's what

I'm hoping to do is to have where we can lay out a good enough argument that you go, yeah, this is consistent with scripture.

This is what the scripture is teaching. And so, yeah. And so Jason Cave, who is a member on YouTube, supports us through YouTube, says, good show.

Good to have you back, Andrew. Which Andrew? We're both Andrew. But no, I appreciate. I'm not the one that left.

You did. Yeah. Well, you left last week. You weren't feeling well. And I should apologize to folks.

So Drew put a comment in the Apologetics Live Facebook group to let you know that I was traveling.

I was on a flight coming home. Wouldn't be able to do the show. He wasn't feeling good. But none of you saw it because I didn't approve it because, yeah,

I was in the air. So I did make Drew a moderator of that group.

Okay. Okay. I've accepted it now. Yeah. There you go. So you can now put those in because I realized bad on my part that my co -host can't post to let folks know.

But that's where we're going to let folks know. And I know that, you know, like Melissa will always message me.

Hey, was there a show tonight? If there's a show, we're going to update the

Apologetics Live page. So that's how you'll definitely know that there's going to be a show because we always update it with what the show will be about.

And so if that hasn't been updated, then, you know, we're not planning to do a show. But we usually try to post it in the

Apologetics Live Facebook group. So if you're not in that group, that might be a good place to go right now and join that.

And so that way, you know, when we do have to cancel last minute, that's where we post it. And sorry that we had to do that.

We really try not to do that. I had a really good show planned, too. The idea was...

Well, do you want to hold that and do it next week? We can. We don't have anything planned for next week,

I don't believe. Yeah, that's fine. We can. I don't know what it is, folks. I know he... I, like you, listened to the last episode and was like, ooh, this is intriguing.

What is the show going to be about? So I will let Drew decide whether he wants to share it with all of us now, share it just with me privately.

I'll share it with you privately. All of it. Okay. That's kind of him so that I don't get blindsided.

All right. So Jason says this. Appreciate you, brothers. Thanks for the good show.

Not convinced of cessationism, but totally agree that most of what is practiced today is in the flesh.

And you know, the guys at Remnant Radio who still have not contacted me that they're willing to debate me, just saying, the thing is that they made a really good argument to say, you know, the folks who are the

Benny Hinns and all that, they make the worst argument for continuationism.

And so I think that when we engage with that, we should make arguments from people who are not the

Benny Hinn types. Let's deal with the people who are making more, trying to make more biblical arguments.

So with that, let me just mention a couple of conferences that we got coming up.

I will be June, let's see, this is

June 19th or June 20th. I'm going to be out the

Utah Research Center. So I will be out there. If you're in Utah, know about Mormonism Research Ministry, mrm .org.

I'll be at their research center speaking a number of topics that I have that will be dealing with apologetics, you know, defending the, you know, trustworthiness of scripture, basically looking at the uniqueness of Christianity, things like that.

We also have in August, this is really important, if you are in the

Arizona area, if not, maybe you want to travel for this. I think this would be one worth traveling for.

Vail Valley Baptist Church is going to be hosting a conference. It's called

The Christian Responsibility in an Un -Christian World. And that is a conference that's in Vail, Arizona.

So if you're in Vail, Arizona, the dates for that conference are

August 8th to the 12th.

A lot of great speakers, and speakers you may not know, but a lot of great speakers. But a lot of great topics dealing with how to live in an un -Christian world as Christians.

Kevin Hay, John Sampson, Dan Craft, myself, Dominic Imaldi, Aaron Brewster, you guys here know

Aaron and his wisdom. So it's going to be some great speakers. I really encourage you to check that out.

You can go to strivingfortory .org. We have a banner page for that conference. You could just go to Eventbrite and search for Christian Responsibility in an

Un -Christian World and be able to get it there as well. And so that's another place you'd be able to get that.

So that's some conferences. And with that, we're just going to remind you guys next week, we're going to have some really amazing, amazing show.

I don't know what it is, but Drew promises us it's going to be amazing. And so we look forward to it.

It's amazing. I said interesting. Interesting. Okay. So we'll look forward to seeing what he's got for us for next week.