Too Many Topics Today To Remember!


Went for an hour and forty minutes or so and covered a lot of topics, I must confess! Mainly focused on finishing up our response to Jason Breda on John 6 and his confusion about Greek verbs, participles, tenses, you name it. Did that, and then played a clip from Frank Turek claiming Calvinism is contradictory, and then a clip where he is commenting on inerrancy as well.


Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. It's a Tuesday and it is not quite yet the week of Thanksgiving.
Did a sermon Sunday night at Apology of Church on the subject Thanksgiving, a little more theological than most.
Most Thanksgiving sermons are not drawn from apocalyptic material showing worship in heaven from the book of Revelation.
But you look up the Greek term Eucharistia and it is used a great deal in the heavenly worship, which caught my attention.
So hence, Apologia has ruined me, as many of you have said. It was still an hour long and I thought
I was going shorter. Short for me is like an hour and one minute instead of an hour and four minutes or something like that.
It's terrible. I used to do 45 minutes, but now we do an hour. So anyways, that's available online if you'd be interested to maybe make it a part of your preparation.
By the way, this is advertising for another ministry, really stupid of me, but Truth for Life, Alistair Begg's ministry, is making available a book right now at a ridiculously low price.
That's why I'm passing them out like candy at church. And that's why
Rich got one today. And I shouldn't have just said that it was a ridiculously low price, because he would have thought it was very expensive, because it's in a nice slipcover and it's really neat.
It's a Advent season guide. It's got studies and it's really neat.
And you've got to go to Truth for Life and look up, look, store, storefronts, right? In fact, it's a free book you get when you order anything.
You get one with it. So just as I mentioned it, I happen to have family radio on in the truck.
And I happened to tune in when Alistair Begg was on and heard that.
I went, you know, that would be something really neat to get for people. And so I did, and it turned out to be nicer than it had been described.
So free advertising for somebody else. There you go. That's sort of how it works.
Now to offend everybody, on Friday of this week, a video is going to drop from Apologia Studios.
That's going to, yeah, there's a lot of reasons why we thought about not doing this, but there wasn't any way to do it.
The trailer, I've already tweeted. Did you watch the trailer? Okay. The trailer's on Twitter, X, whatever you call it, and probably
Facebook and YouTube and all that kind of stuff. And it's a trailer for an interview between Jeff Durbin and Brian Gunter.
Brian is pastor of the church in Louisiana. I was speaking at their church on the way home after G3, for example.
And we're going to be doing a conference there in early April. No, no, no, no, no.
You know, I'm going to have to look at that. Because now I'm sitting here thinking about what dates he gave me.
And I'm now realizing that that may be backwards as to...
Anyways, we're going to be going back there to do some stuff on Roman Catholicism. Because I'm going to be in, we're going to be up in Salt Lake on the 27th of April.
And I think, actually, he said they want to go earlier than that. Oh, okay. All right.
Instead of going into May. I'm not going to be around much next year.
Sorry, Annie. Anyways, Brian was the lead man, really, in getting a bill of abolition into committee in Louisiana.
And we had the votes. We had the votes to pass it.
And this was before Roe was overturned. And it didn't pass because the
ERLC and 50 different pro -life organizations, all led by the new
Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, killed it. And they did it for political reasons. They would say that they agree with the eventual goal, but this isn't how to do it.
And it all comes back to, all that boils back down to, and you'll see this, because an entire documentary is going to be coming out.
This interview between Jeff and Brian is this coming Friday. The next Friday, as I understand it, so Black Friday, is when the entire documentary, expose, is going to come out.
And again, it's going to focus everyone's attention on what the real issues are. And the real issues,
I have to admit, if I had had a thoroughly, robust, truly reformed understanding of things, when
I was about 35 years ago, I should have been able to see what this issue is.
I was a part of the pro -life movement back then. I appeared on local radio stations, debated abortionists, and took no prisoners in those debates.
Why would you show mercy to a child killer? And yet,
I couldn't stay in those positions because of the issue of Roman Catholicism, and the gospel.
And looking back, I should have gone, that means we're not really approaching this from a primarily gospel perspective.
We're doing this politically, rather than from a gospel perspective. And that's what has come out over the past number of years, and I think more and more people are starting to see it.
If you listened to Josh Bice's response to a question during the Q &A at G3, he gave an abolitionist response, and it said all the things that needed to be said.
Honestly, if you had asked Jeff Durbin the same question, he would have answered in almost the exact same words as Josh did.
And looking back, this is why there was dissonance. There was incongruity.
We weren't addressing it as a primarily gospel issue. The big thing is, all women who get abortions are victims, according to the pro -life industry.
And so you cannot offer to a woman the forgiveness of the gospel when there's no sin involved.
If she's not culpable for the murder of her own child, or the act that led to it, then it's not a gospel issue.
It's just all politics. And of course, there's never going to be a meaningful political conclusion to this topic.
Anyway, the interview drops Friday. The entire documentary is scheduled to drop a week later.
And it's really going to get a lot of people talking. And I've heard
Jeff talking about this. No one wants to destroy Mike Johnson. We are very appreciative of a lot of things that he's trying to do.
But there is a fatal flaw at the foundation. And it's going to keep abortion legal in the
United States for a long time. It's part and parcel of why Ohio happened.
You can't have a compromised position against the utterly uncompromised position of the other side.
The other side is full on for abortion up to the point of birth.
I mean, that is what they are all about. They're child murderers in their hearts.
And they have made sexual fornication their god. And you cannot do anything that will keep you from having the greatest good in all of human life, which is repeated orgasms whenever you want them.
That's the world. That's the society we live in. And they are uncompromised.
The pro -life industry is compromised. Because there is a glaring inconsistency in the position that they take.
And we have to recognize that that's the reality. And we're never going to get anywhere until you have an uncompromised position taking on an uncompromised position.
And of course, the further down the depravity hole this society flings itself in its desire for self -destruction, in its love of the culture of death, the more stark these contrasts are going to be.
There's no two ways about it. So be watching for the trailers on my
Twitter feed. You go to Apologia Studios, it's there. And then the actual interview comes out on Friday.
So be praying about that. We're not going to be making a whole lot of friends, to be honest with you, doing this type of thing.
But it's necessary. Okay. Lots and lots of things.
One other thing I want to talk about. The only reason this isn't Radio Free Geneva is there are a couple of things I want to talk about before we get started.
Just one, because this will blow by and it'll be forgotten. But I wanted to note it.
There is a female Canadian powerlifter named April Hutchinson.
I saw this when it first broke. I didn't know what CPU meant. Well, I know what CPU means, but that's not what it means here.
It's the Canadian Powerlifting Union. And April Hutchinson is facing a two -year ban by the
CPU. Why? Because she has written to the
CPU complaining about biological males competing in the female division.
And so what's their reaction? Ban the female powerlifter.
They would dare to complain that there are males competing in the female powerlifting.
This is the only way this stops. Every single female powerlifter.
I don't know about you, but hey, if that's your thing, great. Every single female powerlifter must stop competing for the
CPU. Put them out of business. Make them irrelevant. Make them disappear overnight. If no one is competing in their competitions, they have no authority.
It is by your participation that you're giving them the power to do the things that they're doing.
Get together. I can guarantee you, you can find some attorneys who will help you.
Get together. Form a new union. And make it for women only.
And make it stick. If you went through puberty with testosterone flowing through your muscles and bones, you don't get to compete against us.
That's not fair. If you have certain biological anatomy, that ain't fair.
You aren't competing with us. That's the whole point. And we all know.
Look, we all know. Every one of these transgender powerlifters is some dude that could not even begin to compete in the male ranks.
And has now become Jeanette or something like that. And grown hair out and taken some testosterone suppressing drugs.
And like, oh, I'm a female now. No, you're not. And you never will be. That's all there is to it. That's reality.
That's truth. That's sanity. It's time for the insanity to stop.
Everybody knows it. You know it. If you're triggered right now, it's because you know it's true.
That's all there is to it. So, of course, April Hutchinson facing two -year ban by CPU for daring to complain about having to compete against men.
This is the insane world in which we live. Yes, sir. Mr. Parrish, have you ever competed in the
CPU? No, that's not going to be something I'm going to do.
But did you see the video this morning of the woman championship pool player?
Yes. Now, that was amazing. Now, did you realize what they were doing? I did not know what was going on.
So, basically, they hit the ball and whichever comes closest to the next rail goes first.
Okay. So, she won that. It's now her turn to start the game.
And she walks over to the judge and says, I will not compete against a man. And goes, packs up her stuff and leaves.
And the place goes crazy. Yes. So, it was because it was her turn. Okay. I didn't know what they were doing.
I don't understand how that works. But thank you for that background information. But, yes, I did. I saw the video.
And I saw her go over to the judge. And I saw her put her cue stick into its container. And the crowd's like, yeah.
Yeah, but that was the championship. That's what you got to do. That's what you got to do. That's what you got to do.
And that empties it completely for this guy, again, who's trying to cheat and steal stuff from women.
Because he's going to get his trophy and get the prize. But there probably isn't going to be anybody even there to cheer.
They've all left. And that's the only way. I'm sorry, ladies. It'll disrupt things for a long time.
But if you all get together and start doing it consistently, you will take your sports back.
That's the only way to do it. Kill these organizations, these woke organizations that are destroying your sports, that are making you compete against men.
They have no authority if no one's showing up to compete. Or if it's just guys.
You know, no one's going to show up. No one's going to be advertising. Yeah, guys in drag, no one's going to come to watch.
No one's going to support it. No one's going to buy advertising. And they'll die a deserving death.
Go start your own. Make it real. Make it stick. Only way to do it. Only way to do it. No way around it.
So, there you go. Okay. Alright. Now. So, I do need to announce something.
I'm going to go back to the Jason Breda material. We need to finish this up. We've been doing it as Radio Free Geneva.
We've done two Radio Free Geneva's on it in John 6. I didn't expect this to work out this way.
But, I'm going to be debating Jason in February at the
Calvinism Conference in Tullahoma, Tennessee. We were going to be debating someone else, but we really couldn't get a topic.
And I really didn't want to engage this individual again, to be honest with you. And Jason's willing to do a focused topic.
Because the other gentleman only wanted to do, should Baptists be Calvinists?
That's so wide that it's worthless as far as the debate topic is concerned.
And so, Jason has agreed to debate particular redemption.
And of course, I have agreed to do that. Because I not only believe in it, but I'm not ashamed to believe in it.
And I can make a very strong biblical case for the doctrine. It's a beautiful doctrine.
It's a true doctrine. It is based upon the harmony of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the accomplishment of salvation.
It exalts the Trinity. It exalts the finished work of Christ. It's wonderful. So, if you haven't gotten your tickets yet, check out
Jeffrey Rice on Facebook. I'm sure there will be a link there that will take you to the thing.
Obviously, we need to be putting something up on our website as soon as possible as well. And so,
I think that's pretty cool. And so, we will be finishing up our look at Jason.
We've got some other folks to look at. We'll see how long we go.
And we'll see if we get it all done or if I'll put some of this into another program later this week. And on Thursday, in the big studio, with the big guy himself,
John Cooper. He was on TBN, I think. I've seen a number of interviews he's been doing.
His book dropped officially today, I believe. And he's going to be sending me a hard copy when the hard copy is available.
It's a big book. Proud of John, like I keep saying, he used to say...
When I'd challenge him on stuff, he'd say, Yeah, I'm just a rocker, man. And that was how it was when we first got to know each other.
And then he wrote his first book. And I'm like, No, you're not. And now he's written a book that's this big, huge thing.
And it's like, Hey, skip the you're a rocker part. You're an author. What are you talking about? Like I said,
I think he should be wearing a cardigan sweater. Maybe make the beard a little less crazy.
Maybe a driver's cap. Something along those lines. Look a little bit more authorial.
Something along those... Yeah, he said, I might do the
Mr. Rogers thing. But he says, I'm not doing a Coogee. And I said, we'll start with small steps. We'll start with small steps.
So we will have Brother John with us. I believe it's one o 'clock our time.
I need to double check that. Because we scheduled this a couple of months ago.
But one o 'clock our time, which would be what? Three o 'clock Eastern, I think, right now.
It astonishes me how many people live elsewhere and they don't know whether it's daylight or standard time where they are.
I mean, multiple times this past summer, I was saying, so is it, are you sure about that? You're daylight savings time right now, right?
And they're like, I don't know. I don't know. Well, daylight time and standard time are not the same thing.
Really? We're the only people who know anything about this live in Arizona, because we have to know.
We have to do all the translation stuff. That's not fair. You're the people who are confused, not us.
We know that the sun's going to come up at the same time tomorrow. You know, it's just...
Anyway. All right, leave that... Leave that off to the side.
All right. Let's get back to Jason here. We were looking at... Yeah, I've got it about as big as it's going to get.
We were looking at the primary section of his response on John 6 and we're looking at how his argument is primarily based upon a misunderstanding of tense mode in voice in the
Greek verb, how these things relate to the participle, and differences between substantival participles and non -substantival participles, participles that emphasize verbal aspect versus substantive aspect, and the fact that in a participle any emphasis upon especially action aspects of tense is with a finite verb it is in relationship to the speaker, to the writer.
In a participle, it's in relationship to the primary verb. Then there are questions about you can have some authors, for example, really like to have participial phrases and subphrases and which verb is it being related to.
It can get quite complicated. If it wasn't complicated, then your commentaries would be much shorter and there'd probably be fewer commentaries too.
But it can get somewhat complicated as to how those things function and everything else.
Those are things that you cannot know by using online resources.
One of the things I've been trying in this particular study is to warn us all we all got them.
We've got the iPads and the tablets and we've got our phones and our computers and there's online stuff and of course
I'm an Accordance guy. Accordance is great. It's awesome. It's fantastic. Logos is awesome and fantastic as well.
I just like Accordance better. Especially for Bible study type stuff. All of a sudden, everyone's an expert because I can find out what a present tense verb is in Greek.
It's one of the reasons when people said what do you think of this interlinear or that interlinear?
I've always said, look, interlinears are the greatest waste of paper ever invented by man.
Because if you don't know Greek they're useless to you.
And if you do know Greek they're useless to you. Because if you don't know it then you can be misled by it.
And believe me, every Jehovah's Witness running around the kingdom in a linear translation is awesome testimony to what
I'm saying right now. And if you know enough Greek to be able to parse verbs and understand cases and how nouns are related to infinitives and all the rest of that kind of stuff then you don't need an interlinear net anyways.
So they're a complete waste of space. There are lots of them out there, but they're a complete waste of space.
These are some of the things we've been talking about. One of the things I wanted to warn people about and give illustration of is there's a lot of people online that will pontificate about all sorts of stuff.
And they just haven't done the work to be able to know whether what they're saying is true or not. I'm not specifically referring to Jason here.
I'm really, especially in regards to Hebrew. Oh my goodness.
I finally muted him, but I was getting all these Hebrew ads of why
God created Adam and why the English word does not explain to you what the
Bible is really saying. There are so many people out there that will sell you a bill of goods.
Send your $49 .99 and you'll get to learn what the Old Testament was really saying all along.
Forget it. Anyways, we go back to where we stopped before and continue on.
There's only about five minutes left in this section, then a couple of minutes after that. So we should be able to get this done today and move on to some other ones.
So let's dive back in. That's what Jesus is telling these people. So all of that context helps us understand this, but then even without the context, even without that context, the way that this is written and the way that this is said in the
Greek proves 100 % that this is not advocating for Calvinism.
What's amazing is that all that the Father gives is not because God has granted faith and repentance and regeneration to them.
It doesn't say that. It actually says that the responsibility, the action is being performed by the person.
Now did you catch that? This is very important for us to see. You just had a big graphic from someone who says they were
Calvinist for 10 years that says 100 % Calvinism is not true.
And what's he basing it on? His own misunderstanding of the present tense in Greek. He doesn't understand the difference between the present tense participle and the present tense finite verb.
And a number of minutes before this, back in the presentation, he put on the screen that if it's in the present tense then the person is responsible.
Has nothing to do with it. At all. He's just completely wrong.
It's not there. You can find so many uses
I mean in Koine Greek the most basic way of expressing an action is the aorist.
Now the aorist is normally in the past but it's more an emphasis upon kind of action. It's just the plain unadorned action.
The present can especially when it's being put into use in a particular context.
Remember that there are many present tense verbs in the Gospels that are used narratively.
They are narrating something that's going on. And if I recall correctly was it the 77
NASB that tried to, in some way indicate when they were translating a present as a historical present and hence as a past tense verb and it just became so wooden and messy.
Might have been. Anyway people have tried. But if you actually read the language then you know when you translate presents in that way.
It's not how we speak English. And that the writer is using the present in a historical sense to narrate an event that was actually taking place in the past.
There's all sorts of different kinds of presents. Once you get into second year Greek and you start looking at gnomic presents and like I said the historical narratival type presents and things like that.
Now are there instances where in the context an emphasis is being placed upon continuous action?
Well yeah. Yeah there are. But you have to derive that from the context. It's not derived from looking at a parsing sheet and going that must be what it means.
That's not exegesis. That's eisegesis. Big time. And so here you have
Calvinism 100 % untrue. All based upon the fact that I don't actually read
Greek. And this is not the first time
I've heard this. And I'm not trying to pick on Jason. But Jason if you believe this, you left for all the wrong reasons.
You've gone the direction you've gone for all the wrong reasons because that's just simply not true.
You've misunderstood things. You've read stuff into a tense that doesn't take into consideration all sorts of other issues.
Context and the meaning of the verb that's being used is always central and relevant.
And there are certain verbs that by the very nature of the action either emphasize continuous action or preclude it.
You just can't just go, ah, present tense, that means the individual who's doing it.
And if I recall correctly what he's specifically referring to here, the one who comes to me, that's participle.
The one coming to me. It's a substantival participle. You've got to deal with that in that context.
So just a reminder most of the best commentaries that I have that deal with the theology of the text and not just atomize it like a lot of progressivists do are written by reformed folks.
We know the biblical languages. You read Calvin's commentaries and he knows the languages really, really well.
So this idea that, wow, I've discovered it's a present tense verb and all the
Calvinists missed this. We didn't miss it. In fact, in my little book
Drawn by the Father, I point out that in John, mentioned this before, that present tense, especially when it's believing, especially when
Pisteuo is in view because when the aorist is used, and I think once a pluperfect is used, they're used in context of unbelief.
They pick up stones to stone Jesus, Jesus doesn't entrust himself to them, John chapter 2. So in this particular context, there is a significance to the one coming, the one believing, the one seeing, the one gazing upon.
I think there is a reason why these are present tense substantival participles. Saving faith is a continuous thing.
It doesn't stop and start, stop and start. It doesn't just have an existence for a period and then cease. I think you can drive those things.
But this idea that, well, because it's a present tense that means you have the responsibility, that means you have the capacity, that is such, especially when it's in the context of John 6, where Jesus says,
No man is able. John 6 .65. No man can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the
Father. And then the description of what the drawing is in John 6 .45,
which, again, Jason inverts and makes the lens through which you look backwards at the text, but this being taught by the
Father, receiving this drawing comes from the Father in the revelation of who the
Son is. And isn't it beautiful because elsewhere Jesus says, Jesus is described as the one who reveals the
Father to anyone whom he chooses. There is a reciprocal, trinitarian aspect in the revelation to the recipient of grace of who
God is. And it's beautiful to see. It really, really is. But I just, you can't miss 100%.
And Jason, you were 100 % wrong. And I just have to ask you, you know, what are you going to do with that?
What are you going to do with it? Putting out a video, Calvinism is 100 % wrong. And you're the one that's 100 % wrong.
You don't know what you're talking about. Just because there's a present tense verb does not mean that mankind has the capacity of doing
X, Y, and Z. That's not how you do exegesis. You're violating your own principles here.
Have you thought about possibly that maybe being a convert from something might mean that you have some blind spots?
Maybe you didn't understand what you believed before? And that was my first criticism when
I first just even mentioned it on Radio Free Geneva while we were traveling. I'm sure it was
Radio Free Geneva. Why do former Calvinists say the things they say?
And that was the situation then. Anyway. God is just giving true worshippers over to the
Son. Now again, that's very important. See, there you go. God the
Father gives true worshippers to the Son. God the Father does not choose.
There is no sovereignty in this. And so you are responsible for being a true worshipper of the
Father and if you are that choice meat, if you're that person with the capacity and ability to do good spiritual things and worship
God the Father truthfully, then He will give you to the Son. It's up to you.
It's your choice. And there are certain people that are better than other people. How else can it be?
How else can it be? That's what you're saying. You're saying there are certain people that are more spiritually sensitive, more spiritually insightful, they're more humble, they're better than other people.
So the better people are given by the Father to the Son. That's what you're saying. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's what you're saying.
That's where it goes. Continually giving true worshippers over to the
Son. Do you see this? This is amazing. Now, notice he did the continually giving thing.
We talked about that last time. And again, misunderstanding what the issue is about and how in that context all the
Father gives me will come to me. And the one coming to me I'll never cast out. Again, it introduces a level of confusion.
Because now the idea is, this is not their coming is the result of being given by the
Father, but there was something that determined the giving of the Father, and so there's this continuous giving idea now being introduced into the text.
None of which explains the unbelief. You have to break
John 6 apart. That's why I said, hey, try walking straight through it. And that's not what happened. But try walking straight through it.
Jesus is explaining these men watched the miracles. They stood or sat for hours listening to Jesus' teaching.
When they see Jesus is gone, they get into boats and they row across the lake. They're seeking
Jesus. It specifically calls them seekers. And Jesus looks at them and says, you don't believe.
You don't believe. You saw the signs. Your bellies were filled. You don't believe.
And he's explaining that. He's explaining who has the capacity to come to him.
Nobody. Unless the Father does what? Reveals the Son. Teaches.
But synergists have to go, actually everybody has the capacity to be a worshipper of God the
Father. And they then will be given to the Son and the Father will then reveal the
Son to them. But it's up to them to first come to the Father. Now, I don't know if they actually believe that remains the case now.
Maybe that was just the case then? I mean, there's so many permutations to how people try to get around John 6.
There really are. It's astonishing how many ways people do it.
Then all that the Father gives me shall come.
Will come. This is a future active indicative tense.
So, the shall come or the will come. This means that those that are true worshippers are the
Fathers. And the Father is giving to the Son. See how he's reading in?
He's reading into the text the way to get around the text. The text is talking specific as John 6 .37
is right after 36. The text is explaining why these men who are seeking
Jesus don't believe in Jesus. And so, the idea is, well, they're true worshippers.
The true... It's all the true worshippers that the
Father gives me will come to me. And the one who comes to me I'll be by no means cast out.
So, you have to... Some people do it the old -fashioned way. Well, you know,
Jesus draws everybody in John 6 .44. They jump over to John 12 .32
and ignore the context there and just throw it in there. There's other ways of doing it. But this is a way of sticking the requirement, the human requirement, at the very start.
So, it's all the true worshippers who have proven themselves to be better than everyone else are given by the
Father and they will come to me. Why?
I don't know. I mean, you would say, well, they will because if they're truly worshipping the
Father then they will likewise worship the Son. But don't they have the choice? Don't they have the free will?
It was their free will to choose to worship the Father in the first place. So, don't they have the free will to just worship the
Father? Well, no. They don't actually. And how do you know they will all come to me?
Well, if you're true worshippers of the Father, you will come to the Son. There's a reason for that, but it's the spiritual reason.
And once you insert the idea that well, but it's totally up to them whether they are going to be true worshippers of the
Father first then you don't really have any basis to say and then
God will force everybody who worships Him to come to Jesus. How does that work?
I don't know. But again, the subtle little things you're getting inserted here that have nothing to do with the context.
They have nothing to do. Why is it that by the end at the beginning of John chapter 6 you have over 5 ,000 people excited with Jesus' teaching.
By the end of John chapter 6 you've got 12 confused disciples and one of them's a devil. What happened?
Well, they were the only ones who were the true worshippers of the Father. Really? Yeah, that's a theme that's just constantly repeated in John chapter 6.
Well, actually it's not. And they will come to the Son because they are true worshippers of the one true
God. Now notice, he almost said because they've been given by the Father to the Son.
But oh no no no we've got to go. It was right there.
Had it right and then had to run from it. This is what's just amazing with this.
Now, I can't emphasize this point enough. The Greek word for gives is in the present tense.
So, the Father is giving me. All that the Father is giving the Son will come to the
Son. If the word gives would have been in the perfect tense.
Okay, now here's where you start having some serious problems. Because when someone goes, well who already has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the present, if you don't get the present, the perfect's really going to throw you for a loop.
It really is. Let alone going into a blue perfect. You don't do exegesis by saying well, if the author had wanted to say what my opponents think he was saying then he would have said it this way.
That requires you to know the original language intimately.
I would say be able to actually speak it. Which most of us cannot do. In the sense of just making stuff up as you're going along.
And you would have to know the theology of the person speaking. And the terminology and phraseology.
So for example, John's phraseology is not Paul's. Paul loves
Hinnah clauses. Purpose result clauses. They're everywhere. And not used in the same way at all by Luke and Acts or Hebrews.
Much more classical in those contexts. You'd have to know all those things to be able to say, well, this author would have said it this way if he had wanted to say this.
This is not meaningful argumentation. You need to deal with the text as it stands and not speculate as to what would have been had these conditions prevailed.
It's a complete waste of time to even speculate about such things.
Especially when you don't actually read the language. It would indicate the father did give to the son from eternity past.
All that the father had already ordained from eternity past will come to the son because he's already pre -selected and he's elected those people to salvation.
And then, if that was in the perfect tense, then yes.
Calvinism would have a leg to stand on. What we had here is all that the father has given me.
If we find perfect tense verbs in regards to election anywhere, are you going to say that means
Calvinism is true? You really want to go there? You really want to do that kind of thing?
It's extremely speculative. Extremely speculative. As it stands, all that the father gives me will come to me.
It is not a discussion of when this takes place. The context is what?
You don't believe. They're going to walk away. Jesus knows they're going to walk away.
When he starts emphasizing the centrality of himself as the food, the bread of life, all these things, he knows they're going to walk away.
And in answer to the question why, it's because they weren't given by the father to the son.
That's why they walk away. Now, from our perspective, they look like perfect candidates. They've been willing to row across the lake to continue to hear
Jesus speak, but Jesus knows what their real motivations are. It's a simple statement.
All the father gives me will come to me. It doesn't say when.
We can assume in this life, obviously. But it's a simple statement that you're now trying to say, well, if it's going to carry such and such a meaning, then it has to be this specific.
Why? Why? We've already discovered, you don't understand the wide number of uses of the present tense in the original language.
So, asking the question why isn't really fair because there's no way you can really answer it.
Because if you don't read Greek, then you've never read through passages where you had presents and perfects and you had to figure out the relationship between these things and it helps you to not make statements like this, which are untrue.
Okay. But it's not in the perfect tense. Now, if the word was in the aorist tense, it would indicate that the all would be given at some point in time and there's the potential for it, for the
Calvinist to have a valid argument. It wouldn't be explicit, but if it was in the aorist tense, it would give the idea that all have come from a point in time that were just undetermined.
So, it wouldn't be clear, but I think they would have a stronger case to make that it could be taken either way.
Okay, that's again assuming that there's something in the context that specifically tells us that the aorist is being used rather than just simply a statement of the action is a statement of the action in the past.
All the Father gave me. And there again, there are places where the aorist is used in that way.
I think when for example, when Paul talks about Jesus' death and uses the aorist, somebody would say it's just a statement of the action, but especially when he says died for me and loved me and puts loved in the aorist.
Well, that would seemingly be connected to the sacrificial act itself.
That this was the demonstration of that love. That's a possibility. But to say, well
I know what the author would have meant if he used this form or that form, that's where you've completely speculated.
You deal with the text as it stands. You don't play with the text as well, for this position to be true, you'd have to have this.
That's when you get into danger. But guess what, guys? It's not in the aorist tense. It's not in the perfect tense.
It's in the present tense. Okay? So, this means right now.
It's in the present tense. It's right now. All that the Father is giving will come to the
Son. Okay, that's not what it means. You are, again, reading into the present, something out of your blue letter
Bible, that it just it is a simple statement that all that the
Father gives me will come to me. Prove to me, in the context that there is an emphasis upon the continuous action in this present tense verb right now.
In the light of the fact that you're going to have, you're explaining the unbelief of the people.
That's what you've got to be able to do. And we don't get that. Just to jump ahead really quick.
How does one belong to the Father in order to be given to the Son? The Father draws.
Okay, that's what the text says. Jesus goes to the prophets. Everyone who has heard and learned from the
Father will come to Jesus. Those who hear and learn is also in the active present tense.
Okay? It is the active, not passive. Those who have heard and learned, if it was passive, then it would indicate that God is the one granting them the ability to believe.
This is actually very useful. This will help us. This is part of the...
I'm glad we're getting into this. This is useful and will help people to understand what's going on here.
I've made this before. John 6 .45 obviously comes after 6 .44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.
It stands written in the prophets and they shall...
I'll avoid doing it, but it would be so easy to go... Notice it's future tense and that means...
No! Here is Jesus' explanation of what the drawing involves.
Notice it says Pontus didactoi theiou
They shall all... Didactoi is a...
They shall be taught ones Didaskalos is a teacher Didactic comes to us from the
Greek. Here's where your Willetter Bible doesn't explain these things to you.
Now this is a genitive.
What does it mean? They shall all be taught... Where is the word of or by God?
Well, there isn't a specific word. It is derived from the genitive.
Now again, I mentioned last time you get through first year Greek, you're really happy you can recognize genitives and maybe ablatives if you're taught the 8K system.
And then you get into second year Greek and discover there's 20 different kinds of genitives and about 6 different kinds of ablatives and you're ready to pull your hair out.
But the point is they shall all be taught by God. God is the one doing the teaching.
They will be taught ones. And they are taught ones by God.
This isn't a possessive owned by God or something like that. God is the one doing the teaching.
God is the one doing the revealing. That's the context.
So, when you have pontes here paspasapon and then you have pas here now, this is just in the plural form but so everyone ha akousas ha akousas again, very common for John but especially here in John 6 here we have another substantival participle.
So here's your article The One Hearing Now ask yourself a simple question, my friends.
If you're in the context of being taught by God right now as you sit wherever you are, maybe you're one of our long haul truckers and you're out there and I'm helping keep you awake or I'm putting you to sleep one of the two,
I'm not sure which but you are being taught by me
I am imparting knowledge to you you are not you are the term to be taught by is passive by its meaning you're the recipient of knowledge and so everyone who hears paratu patras hears from the
Father is that what's the action there are you creating sound are you creating what is being communicated to you by speech by words no the one hearing from the
Father you're receiving something from the Father the biblical citation is taught by God God's active we receive the one hearing from the
Father God is speaking we passively receive the speech or the individual who is being drawn passively receive the speech
Kai Mathon now that also is a participle and so it is borrowing if you're wondering it's article from the preceding one so it's two different things the one hearing and the one learning both from the
Father you are learning from me right now who is active? well
I'm actively learning yes you're actively taking in information but where's that information coming from?
from the Father well from me right now but in this context from the Father so here's where again your blue letter bible
I am a slave of the parsing guide causes a problem because it's the meaning of the words it's the meaning of the words
Montano Akuo they by the very nature of their lexical meanings are and again don't get confused we're talking nouns here we're talking about we're talking about participle we're talking about what does the noun mean what does the what is being communicated what is hearing mean what is learning mean we're using gerunds in English to do that but what's the root meaning and the root meaning is to take something in so the point of John 6 45 is not that these are the choice meats and they're the worshippers of the
Father and they've done this on their own and here is the idea they shall all be taught of God because they've already worshipped
God and everyone who's willing to open their ears to hear and willing to sit down to be taught is coming to me that's where they're trying to go but that violates the very meanings of the words so if we put that back up passive would indicate
God is granting them the ability to hear learn and believe the very meaning of the words communicate that you just shot your position in the head and didn't realize it because you're looking for passive rather than active as if that's where the meaning is found.
You're completely ignoring the fact that again when you go into participles participles are a blend and they have verbal and substantival aspects and so once you make it substantival then you're talking about the hearing one but what is hearing?
It's taking something in from outside what is learning? It's taking something in from outside what is the determinative factor of this?
The quotation from the Greek Septuagint and the form of God they shall be taught by God what does that mean?
Does that mean you're teaching God? No God is the one who is teaching you so the meaning is passive we're not parsing verbs because that's not the issue the meaning the lexical meaning, the core of the terms when you put them together and you allow the
Greek Septuagint that is cited to say what it says they shall all be taught by God God does the teaching
God is the one actively doing what? revealing revealing and so if you allow all of John 6 to stand together no one can come to me unless the
Father who sent me draws him what's involved in the drawing? learning being taught by hearing from God and everyone who experiences that comes to me all the
Father gives me will come to me, why? because they're drawn what's the drawing? Revelation of who
Jesus Christ is very consistent and then by the end the thing that ends up driving everybody away in verse 65 is what?
He kept saying to them no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the
Father so I would submit that without intentionality our brother has concluded the argument for us by saying well if it was passive that's the concept of the words that are used in the text and if you weren't just looking at parsing sheets you'd see it
I think that's I think it means a lot but it's not in the passive, it's in the active meaning that those who have listened to the gospel basically and have seen the
Son and believe in the Father now come to the Son as a result because they are true worshippers of God so the text is actually emphasizing, is actually saying to us we'll get to me here in a second there we go
Rich got a little max headroom thing, got a little distracted something else, too many buttons yeah, what's actually being said we're coming to the opposite conclusion of it he's actually saying these are the people who have chosen to be worshippers of God the
Father and because they have done that then they take advantage of I guess of learning and as a result they come to Jesus so instead of it's the
Father and it's the Father's sovereignty and it's the Father's will and it's the
Father who is teaching and it's the Father who is communicating and they are passively then receiving this and hearing and learning, instead of all that no, they're the ones that are allowing the
Father by their own actions so you can say, well, you see what
God's actually been doing is he has been trying to teach everybody and these are the good students, they actually listen and the good students get to go to heaven and the bad students do not but it's all up to us as to whether we're good students or bad students it's really what it ends up being and you look at the history of Israel and it's like really?
I mean wow, outside of grace yikes that's why this leads whether people want to admit it or not, it ends up leading to plagianism, it really does let's just be honest it's always where it ends up going
I hope you don't go there, but you're only not going there inconsistently that's the problem hear and learn, active not passive Calvinist teachers will say that they are the given and the ability of faith and the ability to repent have been granted by God, and if this would be in the passive it would suggest that repentance and faith would be given by God to them however, it is in the active tense, which means they are the ones responsible they are the ones that are taking the action okay saying that they're the ones taking the action does not have anything to do with an understanding of whether they are capable all no one is capable of coming to me nobody this kind of idea says no,
Jesus didn't mean no one he meant the non -choice meats but the choice meats are capable of coming to me in and of themselves that's literally what this ends up meaning and again all this based on well, because it's present tense, present tense means this, and it doesn't mean that I did two programs, two
Radio Free Geneva's ago, I specifically stopped it when he said that stopped it on screen,
I remember going, see this? this is going to be really really important that's reading in something that is not there, but it becomes the central aspect of the argument the central aspect of the argument so, there's more that I could do with this there was some stuff let me just see what this is real quick, because we've gone over an hour already, but oops,
I've got to click something else here to get that to work, oh, wow, this is another three minutes
I think we've made our point on this one well, let me just hear what it is real quick so, to go from contrasting 37 through 39 and 40 wouldn't be a stretch it's not like we're contrasting
John 637 with some other book from the Old Testament that's not specifically drawn out by the author itself, ok so,
I think it's something that we can consider now listen to this all that the
Father gives me will come to me so if part A of verse 37 says that, if we go to verse 39, it says that all that He has given me,
I shall lose nothing but should raise it up on the last day, ok yeah,
I knew what this was he goes into this big long thing that maybe it's not all as in people, it's all things, which of course completely destroys the context, and this is again, when he takes
Greek someday, he will discover that one of the wonderful interesting aspects of Greek genders, which
I wonder if they're going to force Greek to get rid of it's genders, I'm sure there will be some UN movement to do that but the neuter which again
I bring this out in Potter's Freedom drawn by the Father it is neuter because the neuter is used to wrap up an entire group so, but of all that He has given me,
I should lose nothing but raise it up at the last day, means He's going to raise the entire group up at the last day but Jesus raises
His people up at the last day, not stuff not all power or any of the rest of this kind of stuff, so He goes to this long thing about, well maybe the all has nothing to do with anything, completely disrupts the context and He wouldn't have even gone there if He understood the use of the neuter in Greek, which again, when you read it you run into this stuff, you gotta go oh it's a neuter, oh that's right and then you just move on from there that's where the problems come in so we will dump out of that and again thank
Jason for his comments, but oh that's what
I did, sorry about that there we go this does fit fairly well though with a tweet how's that for doing stuff here this just today, a guy named
Chris Jalapeno said Jesus said, the words
I speak to you are spirit and they are life John 6, 63 the gospel is spirit indwelled and is sufficient for belief in Christ the gospel is spirit indwelled that's an interesting phraseology it is the power of God and the salvation of everyone who believes, well that's true but Calvinism claims that the dead cannot hear and respond positively to the gospel until they are regenerated and made alive by God now what's fascinating is yes,
Calvinism says that man is dead in sin and that the spirit of God must grant hearing must grant life that the response to the gospel at least he was nice enough to say respond positively to the gospel because we believe that dead sinners respond negatively to the gospel, every which way including by fake belief but I'm just sitting here going where did he start,
John 6, 63 the words I speak to you are spirit and they are life what does
Jesus say in John 6, 65 for this reason
I have been telling you, he's repeating them no one can come to me unless it's been granted to them by the
Father this is one verse later Jesus specifically says there it's using the imperfect tense elegant so this is something, this probably is the iterative use of the imperfect, it's repetitive in the past, he is telling them over and over again no one can come to me unless that coming to me has been granted to them by the
Father again, further explanation of why they're all going to walk away these are the same people that were listening to Jesus for hours the day before but he knows they're not true believers and so you can attack
Calvinism and one verse later the text says the very thing that you're attacking
Calvinism for saying and I'm just I'm like okay,
I'm confused but alright, there it goes uh let me oh, that did that pull this over here and once again good old brother
Frank Turek is out there doing his thing and nice man only met him once at SES long, long, long ago but it's
Q &A and a number of people sent it to me let's let's make a few comments on I'm not going to respond to everything but let's make a few comments about it
Holy Spirit meaning that like only good things can come from God how is it possible that we play any role in our salvation well if we don't have free will to accept
God then it would seem that God is immoral for judging us when we don't have the capacity to choose him now again
Dr. Turek is not reformed and we have responded to his anti -reform statements many, many times before this is the same objection that you would have for example to original sin to being included in Adam and receiving from Adam all that Adam can give to you which is death and judgment it would be an objection to being in Christ and receiving from Christ what you do not deserve but that which is imputed to you by your union with Christ and it in essence is the objection of Romans 9 it is how then does he still find fault for who resists his will it is the
Romans 9 objection which is why people have to grab the note I don't care what
Paul's application is it's only had to do with nations it has nothing to do whatsoever even though he makes the application of vessels of honor and vessels of wrath we can't believe in that kind of a thing and so we don't want
Adam to be our representative it's not fair if God holds us accountable for that so much for Romans 5
I don't know how Dr. Turek would exegete Romans chapter 5 but if you want to see what this all means down the road look at the video that I put together a number of years ago there's a comparison because Dr.
Turek and I debated the same guy David Silverman and we debated the same guy and he asked the exact same question in cross examination of both of us and it's fascinating to listen to the real difference between the two of us as we answer the question from the same guy it ends up having a pretty major impact on your apologetic and I think it's quite obvious Silverman had no idea how to respond to my answer he was used to a what we would call
Arminian or in this case Molinistic answer but he had no idea how to respond to and just moved on look it up on YouTube if you put in James White, David Silverman, Frank Turek I bet you anything it'll pop up that would be what we would call in theology a volunteeristic
God, meaning God does something and because he does it, it's good, whereas Christianity, at least
Orthodox Christianity, believes that God is good. It's not what he does that makes it good, he is good and that's how he gives us certain precepts to follow that come from his nature he doesn't invent right and wrong, he is the standard of rightness so if God is going to tell us that we ought to accept his free gift of salvation and yet he doesn't give us the ability to do that and why would we not have the ability to do that?
why would Paul say that those who are according to the flesh cannot submit themselves to the law of God, isn't that the law of God says repent repent and Paul says we don't have the ability to do that we cannot do what's pleasing to God why does he say that?
well, because Paul has a biblical anthropology, he has explained that biblical anthropology but that biblical anthropology then results in an acceptance of the idea that salvation has to be completely of the
Lord, not just in making it available but in the actual accomplishment of it and so Lazarus needs
Jesus to come to his tomb there's no latch on the inside and when the voice of the son of God rings out,
Lazarus come forth there is no argumentation there is no doubt
Lazarus is going to come forth because the son of God has capacity to do that that doesn't have anything to do with voluntarism or anything even slightly related to that that was a excursus off into philosophical conversations, has nothing to do with what we should be talking about does the bible say that we have the capacity to do these things in the fallen state as enemies of God or does the bible say that as enemies of God something fundamentally has to change before we can become followers of God that's where the question should be would that be good?
I guess I'm just really confused I'm so sorry you're right, because Calvinism in my view is confusing, because if God wants everybody to be saved but he only selects those he wants to be saved and nobody else has the capacity to be saved then why would he say he wants all to be saved when only certain people are saved well
I've certainly invited Dr. Turek to read this book
I think it would be helpful to him at least it would sharpen his anti Calvinistic rhetoric there is a chapter that begins in the current edition on page 135 called
CBF's Big 3 Verses Matthew 23 verse 7 I can almost guarantee you that if someone had challenged
Dr. Turek where do you get the idea that God wants every single person to be saved because this is why
I feel sorry for the young lady um all you have to do is look at the
Bible and that's obviously not true think of the number of nations that existed around Israel that God never sent a prophet to are you going to tell me that God expressed the same desire for the salvation of the members of Pharaoh's army as they rode into the
Red Sea chasing after the Israelites he had the same desire salvific desire to save those individuals as the believing
Jews and of course he saved a whole lot of unbelieving Jews only to destroy them later on as an illustration of his justice and his judgment and his sovereignty but are you going to say that they're the same there's just way too much
Old Testament evidence which is why to be honest with you so many of these folks Arminianism as a system has led to a fundamental degradation of a view of the
Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevi 'im, the Ketuvim, what we call the Old Testament the Hebrew Scriptures as a historical document they don't want to believe that God did the things that he did in the
Old Testament, they just don't want to believe it and so there's just it's so obvious why does
Paul say that he endures all things for the sake of the elect because he believes that there is an elect people, he doesn't know who they are and so we promiscuously present the gospel to everyone because we don't know who the elect are either and we can say to everyone anybody who turns to Jesus Christ, repentance and faith will find him to be a perfect savior because we know the only ones who are going to turn in repentance and faith are those who receive repentance and faith from the
Spirit of God and so whenever you read the
Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church and it goes off into some erroneous area in the area of salvation over and over again, it is assuming a universal salvific will there are
Protestants who talk about a universal salvific will in the sense of the idea that there is some way in which you can say that God wants everyone to be saved but they have to make a distinction between some type of general statement,
God commands men everywhere to repent so that expresses a desire for repentance on the part of all men in the sense that the law says, be holy as I am holy, something along those lines but there is clearly a salvific will of God that creates the specific elect people of God that are described for us so clearly in Ephesians chapter 1 so there is a specific salvific will a specific salvific love on the part of God the
Father so how do you get around that? well, you're talking about different kinds of wills in God, yes you have to how do you interpret
Isaiah 10? if you don't if you don't have a recognition that there is the prescriptive will of God that commands all men everywhere to repent and then you have the decretive will of God whereby his spirit he raises men to spiritual life gives them the gifts of faith and repentance and they do those things you've got to allow all of scripture to speak and the human tendency is always to emphasize the abilities of man that's just that's just the way it works all the time if he does all the choosing why doesn't he choose everybody to be saved?
that's the argument of the universalist that's the argument that's where universalism goes
I'm really convinced that most of my Arminian or in this case Molinist friends have never debated universalists they've never dealt with universalistic argumentation or they would realize that very often they borrow the universalist arguments why didn't he choose everyone to be saved?
who are you old man who answers back to God? the thing molded will not say the one who molded it why do you make me like this, will it?
that's the whole point and we're in John chapter 6 why doesn't
God draw all men to Christ? because he doesn't choose to do so that brings you back to eventually why would
God create a world where there's going to be evil? demonstration of all his attributes to the praise of his glorious grace those are going to be the big answers once you finally get there if you are willing to allow scripture to give those answers
I don't understand that myself either I don't understand that either the reason you don't understand it is because it's contradictory, it's false
I think God is so sovereign that he can get his will done through our free will okay that sounds so wonderful there is no biblical passage on our free will you can go through all sorts of passages about being dead in sin incapable of coming to Christ incapable of submitting our will to the law of God can't, can't, can't, can't, can't but they don't want to talk about those they just want to assume this category of free will now, are we talking about autonomous will?
are we talking about free will in the sense that Jonathan Edwards talked about free will and that is that we do what we choose that's not what he's talking about he's not talking about Jonathan Edwards' use of the concept of free will he's talking about autonomy and the idea that God is so sovereign he can get what he wants through our free will this is
Molinism he's a Molinist he doesn't necessarily use the terminology overly openly but this is where Molinism comes in and this is where everybody starts getting a headache and starts reaching for the
Advil so just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean he's causing us to do it see, there's your
Molinism God has his special middle knowledge and and I think one of the reasons because I've said over and over again on this program
Dr. Turek, let's debate this let's let's debate
Calvinism and apologetic methodology let's do it he never even acknowledges that I exist okay and the reason
I think is I don't think he really feels comfortable defending his
Molinism and I'll be honest with you I'm sick and tired of talking about Molinism we did a lot of that about a year and a half ago it's it is soul drying that's the only way to put it it dries your soul out it's just no fun at all and so I don't even know that I'd want to, but I'd be willing in this instance to go back and do it again even though we've done debates on it and we had a discussion with William Lane Craig on the subject but it really does impact how you end up responding apologetically how you end up phrasing the gospel it really does this whole idea what he doesn't want to have to do is explain how
God has this knowledge because there's no way of there isn't any we're back to the car dealer again there's no way to avoid him he's there go listen to the unbelievable broadcast where this all came up and it was discussed for about as long as anybody wanted to be discussed except for Molinus who can do this for hours and hours on end that's like I said, it's really weird so,
Dr. Turek go ahead Dr. Turek, we'd be happy I think a lot of people would love to see us have a debate and have
RV, we'll travel let's try to make it happen sometime I think it would be very very helpful one last thing there was an interesting let me see if I can pull this up I didn't save the file so I don't know but let me see if I can pull this back here here's another really interesting response from Dr.
Turek that I think sort of goes back to some of these things but this is only two minutes long let's just listen to it we have a systematic theology that we're trying to meld this stuff together between James, for example,
James' emphasis on works and other apostles Paul, who says basically it's grace only so you try to reconcile that are there guidelines or principles now that we're having to defend a kind of a different definition of inerrancy what are your guidelines?
that's an excellent question in the late 70's there was a group of scholars that came together one of them was my co -author,
Dr. Norman Geiser they came together and they had a conference in Chicago on inerrancy and they came up with a whole bunch of different beliefs regarding inerrancy you can go online and find
Chicago's statement on inerrancy by the way, I would never phrase it that way came up with a bunch of different beliefs on inerrancy?
maybe that was just a misstatement but what they did is produce a a classic statement that is reflective of the early church, by the way, there's a bunch of scholars running around saying baloney the very way now look, the more
Alexandrian in the sense of, you know, people like Origen and stuff like that, doing all their weird allegorical stuff but people who are taking scripture seriously are recognizing it's
God speaking and I would say if there had not been a fundamental acceptance of the inerrancy of scripture, there never would have been a reformation just look at what happens to every progressivist denomination that denies inerrancy they cannot have meaningful theological debate any longer because scripture has simply become what you feel it to be and the
Chicago statement really is just classical in its balance in its recognition of the objections that are to be raised against inerrancy, but let me tell you something
I taught in a Southern Baptist couple Southern Baptist seminaries but one specific
Southern Baptist seminary for years on end and I knew very, very plainly and clearly that many of the
Southern Baptists who signed their put their John Hancock on the
Baptist faith and message yeah, I believe in inerrancy so redefined it that it was utterly meaningless the redefinition made the signature irrelevant really, really did and I've said on this program many times if you believe in inerrancy, you are in a small minority in world
Christianity today, not so much in the pew but in the seminary and the academy
I mean N .T. Wright has described inerrancy as that silly American doctor really has that has implications that has, that impacts everything have all different qualifications as to what inerrancy really means it's kind of a moving target people will say, well
I think it should be this and I think it should be that and so they'll argue over that kind of thing, sometimes they're arguing who's inerrant about defining inerrancy but we get the general idea, some say inerrancy is as X, others say it's
Y in fact some of the scholars today say the Bible is inerrant in whatever it teaches ok, not necessarily in every single historical detail but it teaches theologically they'll say well, obviously that's very, very popular amongst
Roman Catholicism very popular amongst some mainstream denominations things like that but that's not a belief in inerrancy itself which really is speaking to the very nature of scripture as being
God breathed and that really is where I think the soft underbelly, when people say what are the great dangers to the church
I think it's always the fact that it is so offensive to the secular world to believe that God has actually spoken and if you really believe
God has spoken it's hard to avoid believing in the doctrine of inerrancy they go together, they go hand in hand and I think the soft underbelly is how many people are out there that pretend they believe something about that but they don't really actually believe that.
Of course Jesus said can't trust me about earthly things why are you going to trust me about heavenly things so there is a debate right now over in ok yes
Jesus said that and if scripture is Jesus' word then yeah that's very relevant and yes there are constantly debates in the academy it's interesting
I don't find it to be a constant debate in the congregation it shouldn't be
I think one of the clearest dividers between believing congregations and unbelieving congregations is right here, how you view scripture if you don't have the highest view of scripture there is no reason for us to be debating issues like trinity or eschatology or anything like that because you don't have a sure word to be debating about it anyways inerrancy but it's again, my point is that's an intermural debate among Christians inerrancy shouldn't come off your lips talking to an atheist inerrancy should not come off your lips talking to an atheist this is where your anthropology stands up and screams what are you trying to get the atheist to do
I mean, aside from maybe not being honest with him about his rebellion before God, what are you trying to get him to do well, he explains it or a skeptic, what you're trying to do is get them to trust that Jesus is the
Savior and if he's the Savior, then the dominoes start falling after that okay, who's
Jesus what does Savior mean Savior from what where are you going to go to get these things man's opinions,
I guess, because you don't have a sure word that's not how the apostles did it that's not how the apostles did it this is a fundamental difference in apologetic approach, to be certain um let's see, there's 20 seconds left, let's see what's there because whatever
Jesus teaches is true and so you just gotta figure out what Jesus teaches okay, whatever
Jesus teaches is true there's a bunch of stuff behind that, that all came from the inerrant scriptures but you're supposed to keep that quiet or something
I don't know there you go alright, anyways, long program today, hope it was helpful to you hope we kept our long distance truckers awake today
I'm going to be heading out on the road next week, and so I oh, that's right that's right hold on hold on, hold on Rich did mention this to me, okay one of those truckers called you today, huh?
here we are um, so I can at least give you um
I guess I gotta open the right trip here I can at least tell you this much, okay we need to get, we do need to get all this stuff up onto the website
I will be in St. Charles at Covenant Grace Church where I've been,
I think this is year 23 going to Covenant Grace Church in St.
Charles, Missouri speaking the weekend um no, don't install an update okay, speaking the weekend of December 1st 2nd and 3rd okay
December 1st, 2nd and 3rd um in St. Charles again, been doing that for years so what
I decided this time is I wanted to try to do something on the way out and on the way back so I will be speaking in Amarillo on Sunday the 26th in the
Sunday morning service Sunday the 26th and I am scrolling here and that is at I've got the 6810
Hillside Road in Amarillo 10am service I will be preaching there in Amarillo on the 26th then
I'm in St. Charles on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd same schedule as what we've done in the past and then on the way back
I will be stopping in Sedalia Missouri Sedalia, Missouri is pretty much smack dab in the middle of the of the city state, yes
Sedalia, Missouri and I can't get to zoom in any farther than there for some reason, that's weird but I will be there on Wednesday and Thursday evenings
I can't scroll fast enough right now to find the emails to give you the names, I'm sorry then two churches in Kansas City will be hosting me on Friday and Saturday Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I'm sorry
Friday, Saturday and Sunday I know there's a psalm sing one night I'll be speaking on the reliability of scripture and I don't know why this is refusing to zoom in any farther because if it would then
I would be able to I remember where the specific location was but it's not allowing me to do that right now, it has never done that before but that's because we're live but that will be the weekend then of there in Kansas City I start speaking on the 8th 9th and 10th of December so yeah, that'll give you some idea of what's going on there and we'll get those,
I'll try to get those specific specifics to Rich so we can get them up on the website so there you go alright, that'll do it we've gone long today but again, hopefully helpful to everybody we will be back on Thursday with John Cooper of Skillet, his new book in the big studio we'll see you then,