Big Brother Tweets, FB Discussion, Junias, and Sola Scriptura

Well greetings welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday, I really do hope Next week

I'm let's try to do an on -the -road thing from from an RV. I think it'd be sort of fun

I really do I think I just got to find a place to park near near a good tower where I've got full 4g

The KOADL yeah, that's Why not? Why not?

This probably be the last chance I'm ever even allowed out of my house given that President Biden just tweeted

The rule is now simple get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do

The choice is yours. I Just read it directly now when

I when I said last year that if we followed the logic if we if we ignored all the published studies about mask ineffectiveness the the military studies that showed that the people that they forced to do that actually got sicker than than other people and When when

I talked about all of that stuff there were a bunch of you out there that just you just thought

I was nuts and you you've lost your mind and where is you tinfoil a hat and that kind of thing's never gonna happen and and and now that it's all happened

I Don't find my inbox filled with apologies or anything because I didn't expect it

Anyone would ever of course apologize for what they were saying But there you go, the rule is now simple get vaccinated wear a mask until you do the choice is yours so I could certainly see a situation where you because there are play there are countries

Where you have literally it has been demanded that you wear a mask to take the garbage out to the garbage can

Seriously now now there's absolutely nothing rational about that. There's there but These people are not rational and they're not doing it because there's any danger about anything.

This is What Totalitarianism looks like as it takes over and it and it as it takes over not through the invasion of a foreign army but through the subjugation of People by panic and fear

Irration and panic and fear is irrational. You can't debate someone who has panicked You can't point out that they're being consistent because they don't care

Panic is a fight -or -flight situation and Panic is specifically intended to shut down the portions of the brain that would slow you down okay, if you've got a bear chasing you you need to be very focused and if You don't you don't have time to be investing energy in thinking about the log you just jumped over and going

I Wonder how that got there and how it's still sitting at that angle after all these years because that stuff you think about when you're

Walking through the forest and your whole brain is functioning but in panic, it's it's all focused on getting away from the thing back there that wants to eat you and So you shut that stuff down.

Well, that's where we are in our culture The the brain part has been shut down and now it's just yell scream

Because we're in constant panic mode now, I I would suggest that people that are stuck in constant panic mode

That's a that's a really lousy life It's a really lousy life it's not going to produce much in the way of music and literature and art and And everything else because you don't do those things while panicked either

So, yeah, there it is President Biden The rule is now simple get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do the choice is yours

Wow Wow There you go Huh?

well, a lot of us have a different idea, but You're gonna have to pay for that different idea. There's there's absolutely no

No way around it All the stuff about medical stuff. That's all irrelevant now

That was only thrown in there to keep people from immediately rebelling when it first started but There you go

Secondly Doug Wilson put out a blog and may blog on the 12th.

So yesterday That I thought you know, it's only it's his blogs are normally fairly short this is only just under 10 minutes long audio wise

Called the duties of Christian cops certainly something I've been thinking of a lot when you see the lesser magistrates

Enforcing Injustice unrighteousness when you see them instead of trying to find

Cop killers or murderers or kidnappers or bank robbers

They're they're arresting people for not wearing a mask or something like that and You just I've often thought what will

I say to the offers officers who come to get me? And I have gone through that in my mind numerous times

You probably have as well I would imagine But this is a little bit more focused because it's the duties of Christian cops and One of the things that he says is every morning when you get up you have to be ready to destroy your career

You have to be ready to recognize that you may be asked to do Because he makes a very good distinction between that which is lawful and that which is legal

That which is legal in light of what? Normally not even elected

Individuals or elected inappropriately individuals Get together and sinfully come up with and lawful being what is in accordance with God's law and Once again, it was that law of God that created

The most advanced civilization that the world's ever known And then it was the abandonment of that which will empty and destroy that same civilization

By the way, it's really interesting I did hear today a very interesting statement we

We tend to focus upon the problems that are most directly relevant to us and where we live

China is in deep trouble China is aging Now we know this about Japan We know that Japan is dying

Because the Japanese have no children as you've heard.

I'm sure the United States dropped below replacement level in 2020 and We've really been below replacement level for a while only

The fact that immigrants have a lot of kids has kept us anywhere near Replacement level and if you don't know replacement level is that's where your your population begins to decrease over time

Where you're not replacing? the people who are alive and it takes about 2 .1

children for every woman so every

Woman needs to have about 2 .1 children to keep the population at an even level

Well, I think I think we dropped down. Well, what was it one point? 1 .5

something During the pandemic something like that Japan's been down the 1 .3

1 .2 range for a long long time. There just won't be any Japanese In the in the fairly near future like 40 50 years

They just they're wiping themselves off the planet Which just means they leave everything that they've built to somebody else

But the Chinese forced that on their people for many many years

The Chinese said one child and one child only and they forced abortions and they forced sterilization

Remember, these are Chinese communists communism is Communism is Satan's favorite governmental system, okay

Because it creates the culture of death and that's what Satan loves. He loves death. So there you go and All of a sudden somebody woke up in Beijing and went

That's we're gonna disappear and so now you can have two kids now you can have two kids

But most Chinese aren't doing it because once you break

The mindset that family is good and children is good. It's hard to get it's hard to all of a sudden just go.

Uh change all that Start having kids They don't want to and so China is

I guess the terminology is graying and getting older and older and As in Japan, one of the reasons the

Japanese have been Emphasizing robotics is so you can have robots take care of the old people

Because there's not enough young people to do it and it's an economic drain anyways So One of the things

I think we have to be doing in Applying a Christian worldview is

Telling people what brings life telling people what brings death and Then when it happens going

See, we told you so until someone goes. Hey those folks who they're pretty consistent.

Hmm Maybe there's something to this, you know but yeah, China's got

China's got got a problem and That's really interesting, okay, uh, let me jump to two other things really quickly here

I on Sunday when

I preached On Mother's Day and I preached on Homosexuality Such a warm We're literally giving flowers to all the mothers as they're leaving and and I preached that sermon.

That was really good thinking but anyway Some people listened to the sermon and they're like, oh, okay and The issue had to do with the

ESV translation of first Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 many of you are probably aware of the fact that New American Standard and other older translations say well, the

King James says abusers of mankind with themselves or something along those lines something very Difficult to understand not clear at all

But it has to do with whether arson equates means homosexual the 1946 movie we talked about all this last week

But one of the things that I mentioned was in the ESV the ESV translation committee and others Knowing what arson equates means and what

Malakoi means the soft ones Malakos meaning soft and that that can mean effeminate

A true plague today. I mean there is When you have people talking about toxic masculinity

What you should be looking around for is the effeminacy because that is always a part of a society that is collapsing

Is a destruction of Appropriate God -ordained gender roles, so I mean transgenderism is just simply the the final final step of the insanity is transgenderism, but it it's obviously got to start before that point and the rejection of God -ordained gender roles men and women male female is

Part and parcel of a decaying society and it happened in Rome as well very very much So it happened in Rome.

It just took longer for adult collapse because things didn't move as fast back then but anyway So I pointed out why the

ESV Rendered arson equate I and Malakoi As simply homosexuals because they are taking this as a fuller description of the main of the aggressive and passive Elements of a homosexual encounter and In that day, this is without question and you can check this out and gag non's material and stuff like that in that day

There were People who wrote on morals and ethics that would excuse the dominant

Powerful man who used a submissive man for his sexual pleasure

They would excuse the dominant man because he's just being a man and he's just pleasuring himself

But they would condemn The Malakoi the the soft effeminate ones that would submit to this type of and in fact in military history

This was another element of being Subjugated by the stronger side, okay, and that came into morals and ethics and so in light of that It has been argued that What Paul was referring to there by putting them right next to each other in that way

Was saying no, there's there's no element of this behavior, whichever side you end up taking that is

Going to bring you into the kingdom of God there. This is all this is all covered by Leviticus 20

Okay, you shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman. It is abomination

It's all covered by that doesn't matter whether you're the aggressor or the passive receiver

And of course there are those would say no, I think that's all covered under arson equates and Malakoi is

Specifically referring to effeminacy as a completely separate thing and not connected with that. Well, okay, if you want to make that argument

Fine, but the point is that that's the reasoning behind the ESV. So on Facebook David Hewitt Posted my sermon and A conversation

Began With Tim Bailey, B -A -Y -L -Y

And Evidently there's a book that I guess he co -authored called the grace of shame

And He says the meaning of Malakoi was always clear until the world began to be filled with soft men and hard women

Then the word was deleted Now I'm used to hearing the utilization of that type of language from King James only us

When When a modern translation does not translate something the way that the

King James did well, they deleted this now It may have may be a textual issue They deleted this verse.

They deleted that verse. It could be a textual thing, but very often The Greek is the same it's being understood differently and Frequently the reason it's being understood differently is because we have more lexical material available to us.

There's been a huge increase huge increase since past hundred years approximately of Literature from that time period that we did not have before that means we have many more examples of How words were used and so you can come up with a

Better translation, but then someone refers the old translations. Well, you deleted something. No, you didn't delete anything

You're translating it differently and you have to give a reason for that Just as the original translators had to give a reason for why they rendered it the way that they did initially as well

So he says the updated NESB 20 deletes it too The ESV does a number of such things including the deletion of old wives fables in 1st

Timothy 4 7 they simply removed it Didn't matter what

I said, they refused to put it back in so it's gone Bible translations today including the

ESV are products and brands which men hold on to with intense loyalty But track their changes in text and the embracing of political correctness is clear

So I I especially I looked at I looked at 1st Timothy 4 7 and The ESV Has have nothing to do with irreverent silly myths rather train yourself for godliness

The NESB but have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women

That's the 95 NASB. On the other hand discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness and So I'm like Okay actually

Nothing's been deleted The question is whether you translate gra odice muthus gra odice muthus and gra odice

Has in its background

When when you when you look at it It means foolish and silly

But it developed that meaning out of Its use in reference to old women who would believe odd things

So That was its background But that probably that was sort of like that that sort of be like saying television

Yeah, you know, I'm not don't worry about the Accordances, right? I'm not gonna blow it up That would be like saying television means far -seeing because tele far vision seeing

But it it has a specific meaning at a later point in time the same thing with this It's just simply it may have in its background some place had something to do with old women but by the time it's being used here, it doesn't and So the

King James translation is not the best translation by any stretched imagination We're not talking about a specific set of myths that old women were repeating in Timothy's day

Um, he's specifically talking about irreverent silly empty myths and There's a lot of that stuff.

The internet has not has has helped to create more of that all right, but its meaning is is clear and so when the

ESV renders it as Irreverent silly myths and has not deleted anything.

It's that's just simply not truth -speaking It is confusing and We need to stop it

That that's that's not true if The ESV simply said have nothing to do with irreverent things rather train yourself a guidance

Then you could say okay, they deleted it because they're not trans providing any translation for for graudice muthus but they are silly myths and that's a better rendering than old wives tales

But you there is no truthful way to say they deleted it.

They removed it. No, they didn't that's just not truth That's that's that's that's you have to stop talking like that because it's just not true

Christians can't talk like that It's it's falsehood. They simply removed it. No, they didn't they came up with a better translation of it

That's that's all there is to it. So I I responded and I I pointed this out and said, um

So to say the ESV has simply removed it is to put simply a falsehood why make statements like this I just don't understand that.

I don't I don't get it when people can can look at the Greek and understand what it says.

I Just don't understand this inaccurate use of language that misleads people who may not be able to Translate the

Greek and they may actually believe that they're removing stuff from the Bible I've heard that for many decades now in dealing with King James only ism and so a fellow by name of Joseph Spurgeon chimed in and Said I love dr.

White but can't agree here if they didn't want to remove effeminacy They wouldn't have removed it and I so I'm like, okay.

I know that this is a I know these are good guys So Why are they reasoning so badly?

What's what's what's gone wrong here? So I wrote back

I said the ability of folks to mind read translators has always fascinated me in a dark sort of way What evidence do you have that anyone wanted to remove effeminacy?

This is required to demonstrate that Molokoi and Arsenic oitae cannot be used together to refer to the active and passive partners in homosexual activity.

Can you demonstrate this? Because that's why they rendered it the way they did so I'm looking for reasoning here.

Here's Here's the response. I got they removed effeminacy from their translation.

So evidently They wanted to remove it Maybe they think they have warrant to do so, but it's not disputable that they removed it

I'm not so concerned with with their motives for doing so but rather with it being a bad decision and one that is not

Helpful or warranted by the text of scripture It would actually only require that Molokoi means more than just a passive recipient of sodomy.

Now, let me just stop right there This is where We can have a teaching moment Because this is not how you do translation, okay, this is not how the

King James translators did translation The King James translators wouldn't agree with this This is this is not what someone who actually

Translates the language regularly is going to say because this shows a fundamentalist understanding of what's called semantic domain

Semantic domain is the range of meanings for a word

That does not mean That every use of a word

Expresses the entirety of the possible range of meanings for the word

We've often used the example of logos the Greek term logos word thing concept it's it's very wide

In its in its application, but obviously when John uses it in John 1 1 he has something very specific in mind

So so there is a portion of semantic domain that he is utilizing not the entirety of it

And so the argument that's being made is in conjunction with arson a coitus

There is a Specific element of the semantic domain of malakas that is being focused upon here

So to say it would actually only require the malakoi means more than just the past recipient autonomy.

No, that's not true We know it means more than that But what does it mean in this text?

This is not how you do translation. This is not how you do scholarship That is demonstrable from its use elsewhere in scripture and in Greek writing where is it used elsewhere together with arson a coitus

Because that's the issue here Furthermore the verse itself has a specific structure using the word nor to separate out sins

Nowhere else the DSV combined these sins into one Well, that's a that's actually a meaningful argument if you want to lay it all on the basis of structure

But that actually isn't much of a argument against the issue here Because the point being that it's there was a context you can establish a context in first century

Corinth of People saying that the one activity in a homosexual Union could be excused while the other was condemned

So that's not really relevant to this issue. Yeah, that's not determinative one way or the other

So I so then Tim got in here Started saying

I was mind reading when you purported to explain the Apostle Paul's reasons for using the word molecule.

No, I was not Because what I was referring to was the statement that the ESV wanted to remove effeminacy

There was an assertion of some kind of overarching desire

To change the scriptures and so far no one has provided any evidence of that from the translation committee of the

ESV or How anybody is using it today or any of the and I guess

I must have the same motivation too, right? Because I'm making the same arguments, right? No, and that's that has nothing to do with mind reading

So so Let me see here, so of course when we see the ESV men deleting words and phrases from Scripture They're not doing any of that.

That's just a falsehood. That's not true This is this is not the language of someone who actually reads

Greek or Hebrew Now maybe you do but you're not speaking as one who does so with consistency

So so when we see the ESV men deleting words and phrases scripture We know the men and we know the publishers and their acquisitions editors and the rich men who fund the marketing campaign for the

ESV and The man on the board of the publisher of the ESV not to mention having worked with some of the main translators Wayne and Verne Okay, so now you are mind reading now you are making assertions about motivations and you're doing so untruthfully by talking about deleting words and phrases of Scripture and you've provided none

At all Not a single one. So when you hear folks using this language, it's normally because they're setting something else up and This is not how to do this.

This is this is This is

Inaccurately handling the issue of the text So It says add this having spent almost all my life living and shepherding in major University communities and learning the ways the sort of academics who form these men intellectually we would be irresponsible not to speak of what is the motive for their crimes their crimes

Well, I'm not going to accuse Tim of crimes

But it is simply false to make the statements that you've made there was nothing been removed in Scripture prove your assertion

You have not done so far Coming up with a different translations not removing anything that does that that simply violates all meaningful methods of Interpretation and exegesis and translation and everything else so you have to come up with something else

So I would challenge you you need to come up with something else now Because there's nothing been deleted

The statements false and it bothers me to see this we shouldn't be wasting our time with this kind of stuff But but there it is what?

Just listening to their argument. It seems to me that in order to follow

Through on what they're saying they think happened the fact that they left homosexuality in there betrays that argument

In my opinion, I mean, they're simply saying you look you took one half of it out

But isn't the fact that they left the other half in their thinking in Betray the argument they're making it depends on There are some people that say that no one any longer is specifically identifying effeminacy as sinful and therefore

That's the one thing that's been removed and they'll get to I don't know if they'll get to homosexuality later on or what? I don't know.

I don't know but anyway All right. So I spent a whole lot longer on that than I expected to I Apologize, but there are some fascinating interest

Fascinating and interesting things there. Okay. Um, I At the last program

Rich messed me up. Okay Does that a lot? It's just been you know, it's one of the things it's made me the person that I am today

You know having to having to roll the punches and and I'm sitting here

Just doing easy discussion on First Timothy 2. I mean, that's just such a easy passage.

There's no no real argumentation about it or anything going on right now And all sudden rich reaches over for the the the microphone and You you didn't you you brought up Accordance there instead of yourself

Yeah, so you everybody missed that that thing you just did there. So I I saw it

But I kept going and and you didn't anyway So I'm in the middle,

I'm I'm in the middle I'm in the middle of wrapping up first Timothy chapter 2 and what does rich do?

Rich Pulls up the microphone and decides decides to oh, yeah

So he just does it for me. He just decides to throw out Well, what about Romans chapter 16?

Okay. I mean, we're at the end of the show. All right, you know, there's So anyway,

I Buggin me and and You know rich can get this real sad look on his face and things like that you know that makes you sort of the hang dog type thing and and you know

The older I get the heart, you know the softer you get you know that the more molecule

You know, it's more tender and compassionate not really actually the older you get it's more like get off the lawn

He starts sitting out front instead of saying nice things that people walking by you sit there with your shotgun on your lap

Get off the lawn Cuz I do have a rock lawn and do the people do this to you too all the delivery people just run across my rocks and I have a little hill and so it knocks all the rocks off and you got it you got to shovel them all back up onto the hill there's this thing called gravity and So yeah,

I do feel like sitting out there with a shot Get off the lawn messes of my rocks

Anyway, what were you talking about? Oh Romans chapter 16, so So I was thinking about and I'm like, all right.

Okay, let's we mentioned it and I'm honestly not trying to get in the middle of all this stuff but there are only a certain number of texts that are actually directly relevant and And Summer told me that she got a message through sheologians

Saying you've got to ask your dad to address this stuff in in first Timothy chapter 2 and this this stuff about these these the about Authority and and stuff like that and summer is like you mean like on yesterday's dividing line and oh, that's great

That's fantastic. It's wonderful. So it's like, okay cool. So somebody found it useful. Um Yeah, too busy listening to sheologians to listen to the dividing line

That's what you get. So anyway, you got listen to both of them. That's that's it. That's the important part

So I was like, all right, let's it let's just at least explain to everybody Because if you hear someone say yeah, but what about Romans 16 you start reading

Romans 16 and going There's there's really nothing here about Men and women in Authority positions and this is a bunch of personal greetings and stuff.

What what is going on here? Well, all right, let's Let's introduce you to the argument and you can make up your mind

We're talking about Romans 16 7 greet andronicus and Junius is what the numeric standard has

My kinsmen and my fellow prisoners who are outstanding among the Apostles who also were in Christ before me

That's it. Now immediately you might sit back and go. Wait a minute.

So the egalitarians Who are pushing

Well an egalitarian view that there need to be women pastors and women elders and women bishops and that eventually leads to the liberal

Lutherans having Transgender bishops and so on and so forth They're actually using names in greeting lists as primary source texts

So remember when we looked at First Timothy 2 and we were looking at that word to exercise authority that they say well, that's to domineer

That's not that's not just regular exercising with it. It's domineering authority.

Well, that's a hapax agamena It's the only place that's used and you're not supposed to use a hapax

To establish something like that. Well, guess what? It's the same thing here So now we so we have a hapax over there and now we've got a singular use of a name over here

And it does make you sit back and go You know if they really had much of a case they wouldn't be having to use stuff like this, but it's all they got

It's all they got. So the the issue is Junius Junius Aspacete andronicon cain union

Now here are just some of the things that you need to be aware of First of all, this is a textual variant that doesn't ever help anybody

There it was it is interesting to me that as I was reading a few articles on this that Theologians in general tend to dismiss textual evidence

Without wading into it quite as deeply as they they should Because you have union.

Oh, and I was gonna I was gonna pull up Sinaiticus I might still I might still do that I might

I might pull that up if I can So that you can see

What we're looking at here, I'm not sure if that's gonna work out real well

Well, it's yeah, that's that's good enough that's that's good enough I'll pull it up here in a second I'll Let you let you bring it up The There are manuscripts beginning with p46 not yet.

Not yet. Not yet there are manuscripts beginning with p46 and then there's one two, three four, and then what's interesting is

Boheric Armenian there are some manuscripts of the Vulgate. In other words, there are foreign language translations

That likewise do not have Unius they have Julian Which is the

Greek version of our our Julie? So You have a textual variant the earliest papyri manuscript of Paul that we have has that reading

Rather than the vast majority of the others and other translations that have union now problem is

That the difference between the masculine and feminine for union is only distinguished by the accenting and and There is no accenting in the earliest manuscripts of the

New Testament That is developed much later. And so for example,

I brought up Codex Sinaiticus here. This is not the This is not a photocopy of Sinaiticus I have that in here

I'm not sure why it doesn't pull up but You can see What Union?

Would look like here Union with a line over top of it there right over on the side here

There would not be yeah right right here There would be no way of knowing for the first eight nine hundred years of The transmission of the text whether that was specifically meant to be a masculine or feminine form

Just simply by looking at it there's there's no there's no way of differentiating them and then obviously eight or nine hundred years later once that's put in the minuscule text where you have large letters and small letters and spaces between words and Accenting now, it's editorial.

It's it's how the person and whoever's copying it interprets that to be if they even know honestly the rules of Accenting which be honest with you most people today don't either and I certainly didn't enjoy learning them.

So We don't know whether this is a masculine or a feminine form

It's a hotbox it's not used elsewhere in the new testament then when you start diving into the use of what could be behind this name because there's a whole area of discussion of Terms of endearment when you like my name is

James So as a little kid my mom would use Jimmy. Well, that's that's not technically the same name, right?

It wouldn't be spelled the same way if someone who didn't know English very well

Ran across Like comments in my My third grade teachers comment in my grade report

Where she said Jimmy tends to rush to try to be done first and sometimes the quality of his work suffers as a result

Which I hid from my mom for over 20 years Successfully by the way

They might look at that and go well that this can't be James White because this is someone named Jimmy Well, we know no, that's same person and There were rules for What kind of shortening of words and in some languages you would shorten the name some some that would actually lengthen the name and Greek and Latin were opposite of one another and so you are talking about people who live in Rome the

Latin is obviously there in Rome as is Greek and So there's a whole bunch of discussion about is this unionis?

Union is What are the what are the possibilities and of course you have

Those who would say well, it looks like andronicus and unionis are a couple husband and wife

There are a number of places that have that form in the New Testament as well

Priscilla and Aquila And So is that a possibility the fact is we just don't know

Where this is a masculine or feminine? We don't know the relationship between andronicus and unionis could be a married couple

They could be Messengers sent out because it's the apostles at that time you had

The Apostles and then you had all sorts of other apostles who were basically missionaries sent out

Paul had those that he sent out to the various churches and brought reports back to him And so there are those that would say that andronicus and unionis were people who worked for Paul two men

Who were sent out by Paul who brought Paul? Information from the churches and as a result had become his fellow prisoners.

They too had been Arrested for their bold proclamation of truth while they're out there while they're out there doing that and that's what it means

It's who are standing among the Apostles who also were in Christ before me That's possible to the whole argument and you can take

The whole argument from the egalitarian side

Requires you to take to become quite dogmatic about a number of issues

That you cannot be dogmatic about in any meaningful fashion at all So you'll find certain articles saying nobody in the early church ever thought there was anything other than male

That's not true, but it's repeated so often that people think that it's true And All of it designed to create this interpretation greet andronicus and unionis feminine form my kinsmen and that by the way is soon ganice

From which you get soon Janice kinsmen Could be cousins but obviously isn't here and my fellow prisoners so they have

Run afoul of the Roman Empire as Christians seem to do regularly

Hmm. This is only three chapters after Romans 13 wonder how that happened Anyway, another subject won't get into right now and my fellow prisoners who are outstanding among the

Apostles there's two ways of understanding that you could say outstanding amongst the

Apostles and And The the phrase and twice apostolos

The end there can be they are a part of the number of Apostles and They are considered to be outstanding in that number or it can be

Out there. They're considered to be outstanding by the Apostles So they are well known amongst the

Apostles and I'd be using Apostles in the specific term that Paul defends his own

Apostle ship as an Apostle of Christ Apostle to the Gentiles, etc, etc, and so you you'd be talking

Peter James John Apostles and those Apostles Considered the and andronicus and junius to be outstanding

They have a reputation amongst those Apostles Um Some would argue no these these have to be

Being numbered as Apostles themselves But it doesn't have to be taken that way, but that's the whole point.

So that the the egalitarians are saying it's definitely feminine this is

Apostles as in authoritative not just simply sent out to gather information as missionary type individuals, but authoritative

Apostles holding position of teaching authority in the church and that means

Junius was a female Apostle like Paul was an Apostle and therefore egalitarianism is established

Okay, so did you know? What's that? Did you know you knew all that before we started this right?

He says yes, so I just Yeah, he understood all of that. He knew every bit of it

It's first time what? Oh, I Don't remember having done it before but anyway

So there's the whole thing and You cannot refute the assertion that it is possible to read

Romans 16 7 with Junius being a female and With Junius being included amongst

Apostles the issue is What kind of Apostles are being referred to here?

We're not talking about the twelve But that raises the whole issue of the expansion of the concept of Apostleship which a lot of these folks want to get into But the other side if they're honest will say well, but we this is just one possibility

We don't know that Junius is Feminine Could be masculine you've got a

You've got a hotbox there. There are all sorts of possible possibilities The root of that name is very popular and there are all sorts of forms that were made of it and things like that It's possible that this is a married couple

Which would raise all sorts of issues if you now want to define Apostles as Paul is an apostle and therefore having the authority to Speak with the authority of one of the twelve

But that's That's the whole situation. That's the whole the whole issue as as it is presented and Given the number of completely possible other scenarios

It's possible. This is a married couple. It's possible. These are two men it is possible that Junius isn't even the right word

Julius is Julian is and that would emphasize the male female couple marriage situation

It's possible that these were outstanding as in as Seen by the

Apostles not being numbered amongst the Apostles all of those things Are possible and you might say well,

I just don't like when scripture isn't real specific. It's a greeting It's a greeting at the end of a letter.

That's the problem If this stuff was meant to be clear you wouldn't have to be

Grabbing stuff like this. This is sort of like when you're dealing with Roman Catholicism and Mary and They find her everywhere

Once you've got that overriding Desire to find that kind of stuff. Well, you're gonna you're gonna find that kind of stuff.

Yeah The other side of this is however you categories the two of them

Whether they're male female, etc there's also the issue of the structure of the the sentence he personally addresses refers to them as my kinsmen

My fellow prisoners and then shifts gears who are Outstanding among the

Apostles and I look at that and go, you know No matter how you want to refer to them in that regard

He separates out his language as he goes to their reputation among the

Apostles That's the way I'm looking at this because I don't see him making a case for either of them being an

Apostle here well, the whole issue is um see

Epistemoi What this translated outstanding Can carry with it the idea of well -known

Antois Apostolos and if you if you take that understanding of Epistemoi, I'm sorry

Epistemoi Um Then it changes everything and so the hope the whole point is here there are lots of possibilities and So What does it say about a movement?

That has to take one amongst many possibilities That you cannot prove one way or the other

Because the text was never intended to Paul did not intend this greeting to answer the question

But when he did address it clearly they find ways around that too. They find ways around that too so There you go there's

There's the problem. There's the issue. There's the problem. There's the issue. All right real quickly

Don't want to go too long today Um, but I did want to get back and and touch on The issue of Jimmy Akin's introduction to his arguments against solo scripture and what and you might say and if I'm hearing to use old -fashioned terminology if I'm hearing a bunch of radios clicking off You know, that's the old old way tuning to another station,

I'm not sure if you've heard about it but There is a rebellion going on within the

Roman Catholic Church today and you might say yes Luther's been at that for quite some time.

Well, it is coming from Germany ironically enough German bishops and German priests are

Rebelling against the That there was a statement from the

Vatican. What was that about two months ago? somewhere around there The bishops said no, we cannot bless same -sex unions and and and relationships now

I Would love to have seen the conversations in the Vatican about this because Francis has said certain things and the fact the matter is that Francis has filled the

College of Cardinals with his acolytes and with people that are to the left of him and his successor should he die or resign will be chosen by those people and This is the problem with the

Roman system Yes, it is unquestionable what Rome has taught in the past about this and so people would say but that can't be changed

I think it can be over time and once you've made the church the

Final interpreter of what it's said in the past sola ecclesia

Things can change but but the church said no you can't do these things.

So guess what's happening in Rome. I'm sorry in Germany They decided to have a special day

Where they did exactly what the Pope said they couldn't do to bless these relationships

Not to perform marriages Specifically, I'm sure it's happening secretly, but it's not something that is publicly

Acknowledged by the church so you have Obviously Germany very secular nation therefore the

German Episcopacy, whatever you want to call it in in that land way way way to the left

It is ironic the last Pope was German and Was not a part of that particular aspect of things, but this is what's going on Now It's easy for us to go.

Ah But look what's going on amongst churches that profess to hold the solo scriptura

You have similar things happening CRT and all the rest this kind of stuff Obviously that results in an abandonment of solo scriptura

Just as I would probably argue that for the German bishops to do what the

German bishops are doing. They Have to abandon any meaningful Commitment to historic

Roman Catholic teaching and the continuity of the church, right? Would seem necessary So, why is this important well because it it does take us back to The foundations of why any of these things we study are relevant to us

If solo scriptura is not true, then we need to be looking for something else Because I saw it said on Twitter this morning,

I didn't see who said it. Sorry about that, but someone I think rightly said that solo scriptura

Means don't add anything to Scripture and tota scriptura means don't take anything away from Scripture and there's there's a strong element of truth to that and So I'm a little concerned that I'm You know the big thing now and SunBap's conventions coming up just a matter of weeks we're gonna our feeds are gonna be flooded with discussions of the sufficiency of Scripture and the teaching of Scripture and and Whether CRT is something that you know is a useful tool in light of Scripture and how this impacts the sufficiency of Scripture and everything else and yet It just strikes me that some and I I know many of those who are leading the battle and yes they fully understand what solo scriptura is and they believe it and they understand why it's derived from the nature of Scripture as being

Theanostos and They understand all those things because they would understand where they came from in the battle with Rome and the need to define those terms

But a lot of people don't and That concerns me

I would like to I would like to hope that whatever comes out of this battle whatever splits take place and whatever realignments take place and clarifications take place

Then one of the things that comes with that is a much deeper and knowledgeable Commitment to solo scriptura and what it really means not as a not as a slogan

But why it's absolutely central to any meaningful Christian theology That's that's what

I hope comes out of all of this. So we're looking at the

Bible as a Catholic book by Jimmy Akin and Remember what we've finished with last time and I'm not gonna do too much here.

But just it's a good transitionary point According to the Catholic Church, we should use the same model

The first Christians did we need to rely on Scripture and tradition as the sources of publicly binding revelation? And we need to rely on the magisterium the bishops teaching in union with the

Pope to ensure we have understood them correctly now That is as I said last time wildly anachronistic

That's that's not descriptive of the first centuries There is no idea of a of a magisterium headed by the

Pope except maybe in Rome Maybe maybe by the time you get to Stephen Victor You know when

Victor threatened to excommunicate the Eastern churches over the court of Deciman controversy But he backed down once Irenaeus told him what are you thinking?

so There were bishops of Rome who were a little on the uppity side But this idea that this was what the early church believes is purely anachronistic

It's being read into the historical text not read out of the historical text

But here is the idea Scripture and tradition capital S capital T So that was the last paragraph we looked at however in recent centuries in recent centuries

Members of the Protestant community have proposed a different model. So you notice how this is phrased now you might say well

That's just how a Roman Catholic would naturally phrase it But it is prejudicial and it is a expression that we would we would reject we would say that there has been a slow development over time of the concept of tradition and magisterium and the papacy and That we are going back to the earlier

Understanding that is much more traceable to the Apostles than any of this later development ever possibly could be

But it's Roman Catholic. So you expect them to write as a Roman Catholic They say we should obtain doctrine sola scriptura

Latin by scripture alone and refuse to give capital T tradition and the capital

M magisterium and authoritative role well On the surface on the surface that is an accurate statement it is holy and completely insufficient to even

Begin to express The actual doctrine of sola scriptura and you might say well, yeah, he's

Catholic. You don't expect him to do it. Well, yes, I do Yes, I do. I am I wrote a book a long time ago

Called the Roman Catholic controversy and when I defined

Roman Catholic teachings I normally quoted from You know Vatican II or the

Catholic Catechism as Jimmy Akin did There's no quotation here from Westminster Confession or from Calvin or Luther or anything like that and and in my experience most

Roman Catholic apologists really don't have a meaningful grasp of what motivates us to believe this and Could not really explicate it very clearly at all for any length of time

I Believe I could do that. I believe that I could talk about the sources behind the definitions of the immaculate conception the bodily assumption and and The development over time from from Newman to ease

Cungar and the end of the growing Concepts of tradition and and things that have developed within Roman Catholicism But I just don't think the vast majority of Roman Catholic apologists can do that Akin should be able to he was a

Presbyterian Not that doesn't mean that every Presbyterian Has read all of Calvin or understood what

Calvin was saying or Seen the explications from Francis Turretin or anybody else after that But he would have had the resources and so this is

This is a two -sentence Statement and only one sentence actually

Defines soul scripture and it is so shallow that it's then very easy to strawman it to misrepresent it

So yes, we do say That for a doctrine to be binding

Then it does have to be found in that which is they are new stars God breathe 2nd

Timothy 3 16 we believe it has to be found in those words that Rome agrees with us are

Fundamentally different in their nature now, okay. I say Rome agrees with us

Roman documents make statements that are consistent with that It is not my experience that modern

Roman Catholics Can enter into the kind of deep spiritual and yet Epistemological Reverence For the scriptures as the scriptures and that's because they've been taught that those scriptures are insufficient without these other things in fact

Can be dangerous without these other things and so while Rome in some ways will affirm high views of the inspiration of Scripture and of course will also allow the affirmation of Significantly degraded views of Holy Scripture in Catholic institutions of higher learning and things like that just as we have our liberals, which we don't own them as different religion, but There are quote -unquote

Protestant liberals The reality is that I think they struggle to understand

Why we say that there is an ontological difference between the nature of Scripture and the nature of any other human writing and of course

Sadly I have to say that amongst so -called Christian seminaries schools of theology and things like that people who actually believe that There is a

Purposeful Divine Continuity a purposeful divine consistency

From Bara Barashit in the beginning

God created To the last

Amen of Revelation 22 there is Not a surface -level simplistic

Harmonization, but there is the and I've often used illustration of Of The multicolored threads woven into a fabric

There is a consistency Found in that which is the Anustos that exists no place else and that it is that Inspiration it is that God breathedness that lays the foundation

For a full -orbed Christian worldview

Christian theology Christian message to the world and without that you end up with human tradition you end up with Something it changes from generation to generation basically, and so Sola Scriptura is

First and foremost a recognition That there is a limited amount of this stuff

There is a limited amount of the Anustos revelation Now on its surface

Rome agrees that there is but when you then say it can be the

Anustos and yet insufficient To equip the man of God for every good work, for example in 2nd

Timothy 3 Without these other things you have now subjected that which is the

Anustos to something that is above it That changes its ultimate authority this is why you don't have presuppositional apologetics within Roman Catholicism and you can't because it is the nature of Scripture as Scripture that allows it to function epistemologically as A final authority without that becoming a vicious circle

Well, the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true The only way that cannot be just a tight little

Circle is if there is something about the Bible That makes it different than simply a collection of human literature when you recognize when

God speaks That whole concept of the Logos the speech of God the

Memra the Devar in the Old Testament When you Understand that God cannot swear about anyone higher than himself and that it is his intention

That the word function as an authoritative revelation that changes everything that philosophically

Changes everything Roman Catholicism doesn't do that. There have been so many times

I have put in my notes Hey play this Like I remember about four or five years ago.

I just happened to turn on Catholic radio when I was driving and an unbeliever called in and there was a 10 -15 minute exchange with the

Catholic anthropologist. I don't remember which one it was and it was just It was pitiful

Because they were on they had the exact same authoritative foundation

The the responses were completely different than what I would have given Or that what most synergists would give to be honest with you

Because of this ultimate authority issue and I wish

I had done that it wouldn't be relevant to Roman Catholicism, but The parallel would be the video we put up of the comparison and contrast between my answers in The debate

With the atheist from American atheists Silverman and Frank Turk's response the exact same questions in a debate with the same guy

That's still I think a lot of the more meaningful video contrast that you can you can present and Similar similar situation when you're talking about how

Rome views these things so what is said here When it says they say we should obtain doctrine sola scriptura

That's just a few words and doesn't say why It doesn't talk about what the nature of Scripture is and refuse to give tradition the magisterium an authoritative role

Okay, so that's focusing only upon the negative result of the positive assertion about Scripture and And I can't comment about what

Jimmy Akin knows we did correspond some back long long long ago, but it was many many years ago now and I might

I even have those letters in a file someplace Because they were like printed out on paper and sent through the mail with stamps and things like that Um But you're not gonna get that kind of positive clear accurate

Meaningful definition of solo scriptura from the other side. It's just not been my experience and I honestly think that when when you look at my discussion of solo scriptura in here and my definition of what

Rome's saying I think it's much more accurate to what they are saying Than when they talk about what we're we're saying and why is that well

We'll see a little bit more of that as we move along All right, so I'm serious

Once again, President Biden. The rule is now simple get vaccinated or a mask until you do the choice is yours

I feel like doing a certain salute, but I won't that would be turned into a meme Yeah I'm seeing some interesting memes.

I haven't seen here but I'm serious about Trying to do something if I can get a good strong signal and I have my iPad with me, which

I will I can I Can get zoom put on that and I think we can

I think we can do something So, I don't know if it'll be outside the RV or inside the

RV It's just just how we'll how we'll work all that out But we'll we will try or maybe

I'll just do it. I'll be staying With Pastor Melton in Pryor. I think

Pryor has has I think Pryor has internet now Sorry Derek He doesn't mind he doesn't mind

Anyway, but so, you know next Friday Saturday and Sunday We never put that up did we ah

Well definitely need to now Well He has we have

I have retweeted numerous times so it's just a matter of Grabbing it here

There it is. Yeah, let's just replace the Let's just replace the

Coogee picture that he's using from 2011 I think it was

Grace Life Church of Pryor, Oklahoma Friday May 21st 630

Saturday May 22nd 630 and Sunday May 23rd 1015 a .m the glory of God in the doctrines of grace

So we will be back there at Pryor and so come join us and look forward to seeing y 'all

There at that time. All right Maybe before then we'll even get a dividing line in especially if wild things happen between now and then which which they might back