F4F | Remnant Radio Rebuttal

The Purpose of This Rebuttal and the Chapter Outline

Welcome to another installment of Fighting for the Faith. My name is Chris Roseborough. I am your servant in Jesus Christ. This is the channel that compares what people are saying in the name of God to the word of God.

So several weeks ago, I was on Justin Peter's YouTube channel and we were discussing Jeremiah 31 verse eight. And I pointed out that, yeah, if you know Hebrew, then there's no way you can come up with this idea that Jeremiah 32 verse eight teaches us that Jeremiah was uncertain that he had received a prophecy of the Lord until Hadamah El had showed up.

That was an interpretation put forward by Michael Roundtree of the Remnant Radio Guys. And I will make no bones about it. I think these guys are legitimately dangerous. They are teaching false doctrine and they're completely lawless.

And what they were doing was reading in, isogeting their bad theology about fallible prophets into this text to try to turn it into a proof text to make it look like it teaches their wackadoodle theology.

And yep, I'm doubling, tripling down on that statement. So we put that out and then Remnant Radio was really quick. I mean, they should have slowed down, but they didn't. They were really quick to come up with a response video to the video that I did with Justin Peters.

And as a result of it, I've decided I was gonna take my time and just work out a long rebuttal. And this is the fruit of that labor. So what you're about to see is the longest episode of fighting for the faith that we have ever done.

It is upwards of three hours long and it needs to be. And the whole point of this is to show that not only was their scholarship originally what they said completely wackadoodle and not tenable, we've gone and we've gotten some expert opinions on some things as well.

And we're gonna clear up some of the false rhetoric that the Remnant Radio guys have put out there. And then there's even a bonus at the end. In fact, let me do this. I'm gonna whirl up my desktop. And in whirling up my desktop, I need to walk you through the chapters that is this episode of fighting for the faith.

So here's how this is gonna break down. Chapter number one, I'm gonna be interviewing Phil Johnson, right-hand man of Dr. John MacArthur. You'll note that Phil Johnson and I, we get along really well, even though I ain't a Calvinist and I'm not a Baptist, I'm a confessional Lutheran.

And yet we have deep respect for each other and our positions and the work that we're doing in the body of Christ. So since he came up in one of the cessationist response videos that they put up, I decided to invite him on and talk about some things.

And you're gonna note then in chapter two, I talk with Dr. Reed Lessing, who is an eminent Hebrew scholar, who is author of five different commentaries on Old Testament books himself, by himself. He, the guy has forgotten more Hebrew than I've ever learned and I have a degree in biblical languages.

And so we're gonna be talking about Jeremiah 32, eight. I'm also going to then in chapter two, read it as a statement given to me by Dr. Andrew Steinman, who is also a Hebrew scholar regarding Jeremiah 32, eight.

And I'm going to read out my emails to Dr. Lessing and Dr. Steinman. Then in chapter three, I'm going to play for you my interview with Justin Peters. That one runs long. And here's what you're gonna note, is that in that interview with Justin Peters, some of the material that I covered with Phil Johnson is also going to be covered.

That is intentional. And here's the reason why, is because when you're doing a rebuttal, it's important to have corroborating testimony, corroborating evidence. And so, although I have a slightly different focus with Phil Johnson than I do with Justin Peters, there's going to be some overlap in the questions that I ask and the topics that I bring up and the biblical texts that I bring up.

And that is intentional. It's not that I'm just into the department of redundancy department. No, what we're trying to do is drive something home.

Really hard here.

Chapter four, we're going to answer the question, is Chris Roseborough hypocritical for being in the AALC? And I will remind you of the context of this and the misinformation that the Remnant Radio guys are putting forward.

And to help us out with that, I've got an official statement that I received from Dr. Kerry Larson, who is the present presiding pastor of the American Association of Lutheran Churches. And he was, I actually emailed him the question.

I talked with him on the phone and kind of filled him in as to what it is the Remnant Radio guys were saying about the AALC and my hypocrisy. And he was all too willing to help out to give me an official statement that I can read here at Fighting for the Faith to clear up the misinformation and the misrepresentation of the AALC that the Remnant Radio guys have been engaging in.

This is not the first video that they've done that. This is the second. And then at the end of all of that, you have to stay for the end. There is a bonus chapter, and this bonus chapter is specifically for the Remnant Radio guys because of their love of Homestar Runner and Joshua Lewis's ability to do a decent, a decent interpretation of Strong Bad.

That's all I'm going to say about it, but you have to wait until the end to watch it. So that's the order of business for this episode of Fighting for the Faith. If you can't watch it in one setting, totally understandable.

So what we're going to do is we're going to have down below, you know how they do that thing on YouTube where you can set the sections? And so we've put this in chapters. So if you want to watch this episode over the course of a few days, you can remember, oh, I finished chapter two and then come back and watch chapter three and so on and so forth.

You get the idea because, you know, I'm not trying to make it long for the sake of being long, but I wanted to be thorough. So with that, here is chapter number one, my interview with Phil Johnson. So with me today, I have Phil Johnson, right-hand man of John MacArthur.

You appeared in the cessationist documentary, Phil, and I invited you on Fighting for the Faith for this particular chapter in my rebuttal to the Remnant Radio guys because I figured if there was anybody who knew what Calvin taught or believed, it would be you, plus you and I have some unfinished business to deal with these Remnant Radio guys in offering a rebuttal regarding their claims to the supernatural and prophecy and things of this nature.

So I want to play something for you and then I'll explain what they did in their video. And then we'll take a look at what Calvin said and then we'll jump into the other bits. But this was a short that was put out by Remnant Radio and they claim that in Jeremiah chapter 32, verses six through eight, specifically one of the sentences in verse eight shows that Jeremiah wasn't really sure that he had received a prophecy from God.

And let me play the original offending soundbite and then we'll interact with it.

I'm sure you would agree, sometimes it would come in a vision, sometimes it would come in a dream, sometimes it might come in sentence structure, you know? So like when they say the word of the Lord came to me, it probably did come in some kind of, we don't really know, it actually doesn't tell us how it came.

Does that mean that they saw sentences? Does that mean that like God audibly spoke it and then they conveyed it? We don't know. But to your point, even when such a firm statement as the word of the Lord came to me is used, in Jeremiah 32, Jeremiah doesn't know that he knows that he knows that it's the word of the Lord until Hananel offers to buy that field, which is how the story plays out.

I don't know how they get around that.

Yeah.

The very clear statement, then I knew it was the Lord.

All right.

So that's their original statement. Now I went on Justin Peter's YouTube channel and I just looked at it in the Hebrew and said, this doesn't work in the Hebrew. And by the way, in this particular episode of Fighting for the Faith, one of the chapters, I'm going to be having a very small discussion with a very notable Hebrew scholar.

And I have a written statement from another Hebrew scholar, but I won't discuss that here because I don't know how the chapters are gonna work out. But let's just say it may not work out so well for them regarding their claims regarding the Hebrew.

My will actually be vindicated. But all that being said, when they said, because Justin said that this was a novel interpretation of Jeremiah 32, an interpretation that says that Jeremiah wasn't 100 sure that he had received a prophecy from God.

And the first commentary they went to was Calvin, John Calvin, the reformer. And so they claimed that John Calvin agrees with them and that John Calvin absolutely agrees that Jeremiah was uncertain about whether or not he had received a prophecy until Hananiel had shown up.

Phil Johnson, is that really the case?

Did they actually read Calvin?

They read part of it. They did read part of it. There are a couple of things about that.

Before I get to Calvin, there are a couple of things about what he said that I want to respond to. Notice when he said, I don't know how they get around that. And then he put all the stress on the word then.

Then he knew. Well, that's a common expression in the Hebrew Old Testament where the Lord says, I'm gonna lead you out of Egypt and then you shall know that I am the Lord, your God. He's not saying for the first time now, you're going to know that I'm God.

He's saying this will confirm your faith. And that's what that expression means. Then you will know, or then I knew. What Jeremiah is saying is that his faith was confirmed by that fact. So let's see what Calvin says about it.

You want me to read?

I have happened to have Calvin here from his commentary from Jeremiah 32 so that people can follow along. And we'll put a link down below to this in the show description so that you can see this for yourself.

But please share with us the important highlights here.

All right, go to the top line of what you're showing there. I'll read this. No, you moved it now.

Oh, okay.

Where do you want it?

Right here?

No, down, down, down.

Down, down, down, down, down.

Right, all right.

It's now, it's the third line of that first full paragraph. Towards the end, I'm gonna start with the word if, if he before doubted. Well, in fact, let's start with that sentence, line two of that paragraph.

It may seem strange that the prophet says that he now knew that the word came from God for if he before doubted, where would be the certainty of the prophetic spirit? He had already received a vision.

He ought to have embraced what he knew had been foretold to him from above. So Calvin tacitly says there, he knew that this had been foretold to him from above even without any hesitation, but it appears that he was in suspense and perplexity.

Then seems an evidence of unbelief that he did not put a full and all entire trust in God's testimony. The question isn't, did God say this? The question is, does he really believe this is going to come to pass?

That's what Calvin is saying. And, you know, it's a parallel to that guy in I think Mark nine who says, Lord, I believe help my unbelief. That's where we all stand in faith before God. We have faith, but it's not that our faith is never besieged by doubts or questions.

And that's what was happening to Jeremiah in this case. And he goes on to say, let's see, it then seems an evidence of unbelief that he did not put a full and entire trust in God's testimony was not fully persuaded as to the heavenly Oracle, meaning as to the truth of it, until he saw the whole thing really accomplished.

But it is right to distinguish between the knowledge received from the revelation of the spirit and experimental knowledge, which experimentally means by experience, as they say, and then I'll listen to the next sentence.

The prophet therefore did not then learn for the first time that God had spoken, but as he was confirmed in the certainty of his faith and in the thing itself, there is no inconsistency. So Calvin expressly says that when this prophecy came to pass, Jeremiah did not then for the first time learn that God had spoken.

He was confident God had spoken. Otherwise he wouldn't be a prophet. And otherwise Jeremiah knowing the requirements of an Old Testament prophet would not have spoken the word if he wasn't absolutely certain it came from God.

So what they're making there is a foolish and careless argument that's designed primarily to bolster the contemporary charismatic abuse of prophecy and their accommodation. So many false prophecies, this argument that they're making would be abominable to Jeremiah himself.

And it's contrary to everything scripture says about prophets and those who claim to speak for God.

Continue reading though, continue reading this quote. It's just absolutely fantastic. When you actually see what Calvin really said in context.

Okay, so I'll go back to the beginning of that last sentence that I read. The prophet therefore did not then for the first time learn that God had spoken, but as he was confirmed in the certainty of his faith and in the thing itself, there is no inconsistency for nothing is taken away from the credit and authority of God's word when the reality and experience confirm us.

And thus God often has a regard to the weakness of his people. Good stuff. And Calvin's right on. He's saying, you know, working with Bible software here. So I have access to several commentaries. Calvin is saying in extended language what James and Fawcett Brown say in a really pithy way.

Here's James and Fawcett Brown on that statement. They say, not that Jeremiah previously doubted the reality of the divine communication, but the effect of following it and the prophets experimentally knowing it confirmed his faith and was the seal to the vision.

So they're all saying the same thing that it wasn't that Jeremiah doubted that this came from God. It's that the weakness of his human faith wasn't absolutely certain he would see it come to pass until it actually did.

Right on. And I like what you said about the fact that the reason why they're making this argument is in order to make room for their abuse of prophecy, which brings us to a little bit of our history together.

A couple of years ago, you and I did an episode of Fighting for the Faith where we took on the prophetic standards statement that Michael Brown had worked on. And this was the section where you and I spent a lot of time discussing the problems with this particular document.

And this is the original version of it. And this sentence says, we reject the notion that a contemporary prophetic word is on the same level of inspiration or authority as scripture or that God always speaks inerrantly through prophets today since the Bible says we only know in part and prophesy in part.

So you and I, two years ago, it was May of 21 when we responded to this, we noted that this language was poorly written because it makes it appear as if God is the one speaking errantly. And that would actually be, that would create, that makes this is a different God because the God of the Bible doesn't speak errantly.

The God of the Bible always, when he speaks, it comes true. And so we spent a lot of time talking about that. But I would note that quietly, they made a change, an update to this document back in August of 22.

It is noted at the bottom of the document. And here's what the sentence now reads. The notion that a contemporary prophetic word is on the same level of inspiration or authority as scripture or that God's inerrant speech is always communicated perfectly by prophets today.

Since the Bible says we only know in part and prophesy in part, it is the written word alone that can lay claim to being the word of God. Prophecies are at best a word from the Lord to be tested by the word of God.

Finally, while we believe in holding prophets accountable for their words in accordance with scriptures, we do not believe that a sincere prophet who delivers an inaccurate message is therefore a false prophet.

Instead, as Jesus explained, and as the Old Testament emphasized, false prophets are wolves in sheep's clothing in contrast to true believers who might speak inaccurately. Thus, a false prophet is someone who operates under a false spirit masquerading as the Holy Spirit.

We therefore recognize distinctions between a believer who gives an inaccurate prophecy, in which case they should acknowledge their error, a believer who consistently prophesies inaccurately, in which case we recognize that this person is not a prophet and we urge them to stop prophesying, and a false prophet whom we recognize as a false believer, a lost soul, calling them to repent and to be saved.

Because God's gifts and calling are irrevocable, we understand that a person who has been prophetically gifted might be able to function in that gifting even though they are no longer in right relationship with God.

That is why it is imperative that we judge a prophet by the fruit of their life and ministry rather than by their gift, also recognizing that there are some who started right but will be rejected in the end.

And I would note here that when Michael Brown was part of that group that did the investigation on Todd Bentley, Michael Brown went out of his way to make it very clear that although Todd Bentley was disqualified from ministry moving forward, but he made a big point about the fact that that does not mean that he did not have a legitimate supernatural gift.

Let me ask you a question, Phil. Do you believe that Todd Bentley ever had a healing gift?

No, I don't. In fact, I don't know how you would recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing if you can't look at Todd Bentley, the fruit of his ministry, the fruit of his lips, the testimony he himself gives.

If you can't evaluate that and conclude that this man has never been converted, then I don't know how you'd ever recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing. But one of the ways scripture tells us is how to recognize a false prophet is he prophesies falsely.

So what they're trying to accommodate here, the language is interesting. They're claiming that the problem with modern prophecy is that the people who are doing the prophesying are communicating imperfectly.

And so they've taken the language out that seemed to say that the error began with God, that God communicated the wrong thing. But nevertheless, this is what the prophets claim. It's not that they've stated some, they were trying to say something and they said it in a confusing or an ambiguous way.

What is actually happening is that the prophets are saying, God told me this, and it turns out to be untrue. Now, someone can consistently claim that God said things that he never said. I don't know how you can avoid the conclusion that this man is a false prophet.

And we're gonna take a look at the biblical case for that here, and we're gonna look at the inconsistency of the remnant radio guys. So what I wanted to do was show you they've been doing a series against the cessationist documentary, and you came up.

And I wanted to show you what was said about you and how they argued against the point that you were making. And let's see if we can roll this back a little bit and see if you're guilty of the ad hominem attack that they claim that you're guilty of, or if you are legitimately sticking to the biblical standard.

So here, this is from the cessationist documentary part seven with guest Dr. Michael Brown. And let's just tune in as they're going to bring you into focus.

Yes, sir, let's do it, clip number two.

The problem with the charismatic movement today is that they don't have a single prophet who has been 100 accurate. The honest charismatics will admit that, that they are wrong far more often than they are right.

If you used a magic eight ball to make all of your choices, you'd be right at least half the time. And charismatic prophets are wrong more often than that.

That's a quick clip. But how do we engage with the

I don't know why that makes me laugh so hard.

It does make me laugh too, just the way that the eight ball shakes a little bit. It's kind of comical. It is a cartoon. So how do we engage with that, guys? I mean, and here's the thing. I just want to maybe appeal to the audience for a second.

This is what we call an ad hominem argument, okay? This has nothing to do with the text of scripture. This has nothing to do with what the Bible says about the gift of prophecy. It's only saying, well, you know, there are bad stuff that's happening out there.

So we shouldn't believe anything that's associated with that bad stuff. I just remind you that there are tons of cessationist leaders. We've talked about them in the show throughout history who have fallen into horrible sexual sins.

Does that mean that we shouldn't believe reformed theology or that we shouldn't believe in typical cessationist doctrines because there are some bad apples in the bunch? No, because that's an argument against someone's character, not against what the Bible actually says.

This argument

All right, so that's his claim that

Wow, he totally misunderstands the argument because I didn't make any argument about character or it wasn't ad hominem at all. It's a statistical argument. They are wrong more often than they are right.

No, they don't even dispute that claim. And in fact, as I said

But doesn't the Bible say something about that, Phil?

Yeah, yeah.

Doesn't the Bible say something about that?

It definitely does. The only place that scripture gives us a standard by which to evaluate whether a person is a false prophet or not is Deuteronomy chapter 18. It's very explicit there, saying that to falsely prophesy, that's a capital crime.

And how do you know if a man is a false prophet? Because he prophesies falsely.

Right, so they claim that this doesn't apply today, by the way. So let me kind of back up a little bit here because over and again, when I bring this up to Charismatics and Pentecostals and people in the NAR, they will sit there and say, this doesn't apply today.

And I would note that the guys at Remnant Radio, they have been known to go after some of the big high-level national prophecies that show up every year on social media and YouTube and other places. And they do so, and when they do so, they claim that they're following the biblical standard.

And this is kind of how I want to build my case here. Listen to what Michael Roundtree said in the 2023 prophetic words published by Charisma when they said they were testing him. Listen to how he says why they're gonna do what they're going to do.

And Miller, you did touch on this a little bit earlier, but the scripture commands us in 1 Thessalonians 5 to test prophecy. So that is what we're doing. And we're testing the prophecies that are the most relevant to anyone that believes in prophecy and even those that don't, because these are national level prophecies.

These are prophecies that are being heard by thousands, if not millions of people that we're reviewing. So we're reviewing them because the scripture commands us to, and we're reviewing specifically these because certainly collectively, these prophecies are affecting millions of believers.

All right, now I would note, I got to give them credit because they're partly correct in what they're saying, that we must test prophecies. But here's where they avoid what the fuller body of scripture teaches.

So the text that he was quoting was 1 Thessalonians 5, 20 and 21. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything, hold fast to what is good. Okay, so we are commanded by God to test everything. The passage that they avoid like the plague is 1 John 4, 1, which explains what we're supposed to be testing for.

1 John 4, 1 says, beloved, do not believe every spirit. In fact, the do not believe, this pastuata here, that's the imperative. God is commanding us through the apostle John to not believe every spirit, but we are to test the spirits.

And what are we to test for? To see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. So we have to determine whether or not a prophecy is from God or whether it is not from God.

The test requires us to determine the source. And these guys never do that. They say they're testing prophecies, but they never test the source, which is why Deuteronomy 18 becomes a passage that still applies to this day, because the test then here is telling us how we may know a word that God hasn't spoken.

That's the point. So let me put this back in its context. So in this context, Deuteronomy 18, God says that he's gonna raise up a prophet like Moses. And so this is a prophecy regarding Christ. And there's implications of this that are huge regarding eternity.

Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers. It is to him you shall listen, just as you desired of Yahweh your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God or see this great fire anymore lest I die.

And Yahweh said to me, they're right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself are required of him. So God is saying you are required to listen to this prophet that God's gonna raise up. But then he says this, the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.

So this is, so the moral law is broken. The commandment that says you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. That's the command that's being broken here. And the civil penalty for breaking that moral law is death.

And if you say in your heart, how may we know the word that Yahweh has not spoken? So this is a test to see whether or not Yahweh has spoken or not. When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that Yahweh has not spoken, the prophet has spoken presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

In other words, kill him, okay? So the test, the New Testament test requires us to determine where the source of the prophecy is and if the source is not God, then it's a false prophet who is speaking.

The Deuteronomy 18 explicitly teaches us that a way of determining a word that God hasn't spoken is when somebody says something's gonna happen and it doesn't come to pass. That means that they have spoken presumptuously, Yahweh hasn't spoken that.

Let me ask you this question, Phil, how does that not continue to apply today? Did God say to Jeremiah Johnson back in 2020 that Trump was going to win the election?

Obviously not.

No.

So according to the New Testament standard, to see whether they are from God, if God didn't tell Jeremiah Johnson that Trump was going to win the election, that means that he's a false prophet because he's speaking words from God that God hasn't given him to speak.

Right, Chris. And by the way, in the Old Testament, this was so strictly enforced that if a prophet spoke one time falsely, he was, you weren't to listen to him ever again. This wasn't expected to be a pattern or, and nobody said, well, he messed up the prophecy, he got it mistaken.

No, he prophesied falsely, meaning he put words in God's mouth that God didn't speak, and that's a capital crime. There is no, there's no way back from that into the prophetic office.

Yep, and I would note this is a clear breaking of one of the 10 commandments. In Exodus 20, verse seven, it says, you shall not take, or you can actually translate the Nasa here as you shall not carry the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

And here's where just a little bit of Hebrew also helps, because the Hebrew word sha, that's the one that gets translated vain, listen to its potential translations. It's talking about emptiness, nothingness, or vanity.

The second one is emptiness of speech or false or empty prophecy. So you'll note then that nobody can say, thus saith the Lord, and then have it not come to pass without breaking this commandment. And what I find fascinating is that these guys never address this fact.

They just gloss over it. Well, it's all different in the New Testament. No, it's not. In fact, I would note that Christ gives a very stern warning in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew seven, when he says, not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

On that day, many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and cast out demons in your name and do many mighty works in your name? I would note, this doesn't sound like anything going on at your guys' church or at Kongsvinger.

This sounds exactly like the kind of stuff that's going on in the charismatic movements today. And then Christ will say to them, I will declare them, I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

And so I would note that anybody who is claiming that you can give prophecies in the name of Yahweh, in the name of the Lord, and have them not come to pass as no big deal, all that matters is that they're sincere and they may have erred here and there, but you can't do that without breaking the commandment.

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. So what these guys are legitimately doing is teaching a form of lawlessness by teaching people that they're not guilty of breaking that commandment even when they get prophecies wrong.

Have I overstated my case?

No, no, I think that's the sum of the argument they're trying to construct here is that it's okay to claim a gift of prophecy or to claim that you have actually heard privately from God and then impute to him words that he never said.

And you can do that somehow without having sinned. And the way scripture portrays that, it's such a gross sin, a sin that's worthy of death. It makes me tremble to think the account these guys are gonna have to give when they stand before God.

Right, now I'm gonna note here, I wanna show you a part of their critique of Chuck Pierce's 2023 prophecy, which I describe as a complete word salad of non-lucidity. I mean, there's nothing in here that makes a lick of sense.

And I want you to see their reaction to this because rather than going with the biblical standard that is laid out for us in 1 John 4 and saying, this is not a word that God spoke, they do something very different.

And so we'll hear part of Chuck Pierce's prophecy just for context.

And actually Gamal was a camel that was coming. And therefore this year is about opening up new supply lines. So we're in this war over the supply for our future. But you wanna understand God's already giving you authority to multiply either what you have or to find new sources to multiply.

And so this year, the warfare comes, how will we fill the house with a supply that will sustain us in years to come? So I wanna encourage all of you, think multiplication, think creativity. Don't let the world produce fear in you because that creates an unsound mind.

You've got to keep thinking creatively so you keep expanding your thought processes and keep walking through the tumultuous times we're in.

All right.

So can I just say, his shirt is a perfect metaphor for his prophecy.

You're not wrong. You're not wrong. I think that's a good way to put it. Okay, so first up is Michael Roundtree.

And let's see, fellas, your thoughts.

Let me just read off the notes I jotted down. Okay, so this whole decade that we're in is a decade of hearing the voice, but not just the voice of God. This part was confusing to me. The political voices, just voices that we need to listen to to get a strategy.

So if I'm getting a strategy from some kind of voice, I hope it's a voice of God.

What is hilarious is watching him try to make sense of the double talk of Chuck Pierce. So he's taking a yeoman's effort here. He's really giving it a good college try, but what he's not doing is what the scripture commands.

And that is we have to test to see whether this is from God. And my claim is that if that was God speaking through Chuck Pierce, the universe is doomed because God is suffering from a mental illness. So it's funny kind of watching how they're doing this, but I wanna get to Joshua Lewis's, his response, because it's super telling.

So let's keep going here.

I don't know. It's the same stuff, man.

It is the same stuff, man.

That's why it's like, hey, there's Joshua Lewis.

Josh, go find some prophecy review videos. It's like, I could play three years ago's prophecy reviews and they'd be the exact same thing as this year's prophecy reviews. It's hard to even want to go find prophetic words given for the year.

If you haven't been paying attention, there's this whole literature now. There's this whole ecosystem of prophecies. He's talking about the mouth. He's talking about the house. All of this stuff has to do with the numerology found in the Jewish calendar system or the Gregorian calendar system.