Webster 1828

Welcome to No Compromise Radio Ministries. My name is Mike Abendroth, here on a Tuesday, another lovely

Tuesday, in Worcester, Mass, with Steve Cooley. It is the most, well, we're close to Worcester.

It's the most beautiful Tuesday I've seen in a couple of weeks. Steve, I'm bugged.

I missed my intro button, and so we had a little glitch in the system. Glitch in the matrix?

Yeah. Did it just kind of...

We wanted to record three shows today, and we're like, what are we gonna do? So we had a great idea.

I think this is gonna turn into one of our better shows. Okay. In front of me, I have a doorstop, and so that's basically the show.

Doorstop. There's DoorDash. What if we came up with DoorDash? Doorman. Uh -huh.

Doorman. Doorbell. Do you have a ring doorbell? No, but I want to get one. I do want to get one.

Funniest thing, I randomly checked the ring doorbell video when

I was in California, and I wanted to see, because I can change the camera angle a little bit,

I want to see if the garbage cans were put away. I was gonna ask the neighbor to put them away for me because I had to put them out before I left to go to California.

This was weeks ago. So I looked, and Elizabeth from the church was leaving the house because she was watering the plants and looking at, you know, taking care of the house.

So I quickly pushed the button for the audio, and I said, Elizabeth, thanks a lot.

I appreciate you coming. It was so...

How high did she jump? It was so classic. Well, it's not a doorstop today. It is a book entitled

American Dictionary of the English Language written by Noah Webster, and the year is 1828.

Okay, so what's 2023 minus 1828? 95. So 195, you know, or is that 295?

295 years? No, because if it was 200, it would be 2028. So okay, 195 years.

Yeah, that's a long time ago. What's happened to the English language since then? It's gotten downhill quite a bit, you know, talking about the downgrade controversy.

Hmm. So what we're gonna do in the show today is we're gonna look up some words that kind of are attacked by the culture or words that seem to have lost their meaning, and we want to find out what they say, what

Webster said about them in 1828. All right. So at the top of the show today, marriage.

Marriage. Uh -huh. What do you think people say about marriage today? Let's do what they say today generally, and then I'll read some of Webster.

Well, I'll tell you what it's going to be very shortly because they're already, you know, tipping their hand on this.

Two or more people or things or objects or animals. Yeah, it's whatever. Whatever goes.

As long as they want to call it a marriage, it's a marriage, right? I mean, it's ultimately that word is gonna have zero meaning.

It'll have some legal import in terms of who gets what when people die and, you know, divorces and stuff.

I mean, you know, what benefits for, you know, what happens spouses? What happens if like eight people are married and three of them want to divorce the other five?

Well, what if some want to divorce and some others don't? It is so crazy.

So this is 1828. Marriage. The act of uniting a man and woman for life.

Wedlock. They're locked in there. But I mean, it's just,

I mean, the word has a meaning. It's fixed. It seems like a pretty much a done deal.

Of course now, if you don't let anybody call anything that they want to call a marriage, you're a bigot and a horrible human being.

Interested in the meaning of the word marriage from French? I don't know how to pronounce

French. From Mari, M -A -R -I, a husband. So you have to have a, even the word marriage is from husband.

So what if you have two women getting married and there's no husband? What does that mean? He goes on to say the legal union of a man and a woman for life.

Marriage is a contract both civil and religious by which the parties engaged to live together in mutual affection and fidelity till death shall separate them.

Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

It reminds me of that, you know, song, I think it was from the early 70s, maybe the late 60s.

Those were the days, my friend. Oh, I thought they'd never end. Yes. It goes on and it gives a

Bible verse, Hebrews 13, marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled.

I'm not laughing at the verse. I'm just laughing that such a verse would be in the dictionary. Well, because you know, this is attacked as like a vestige of the patriarchy and I listen to, now this was completely secular, but this comedian said the other day, he goes, he was talking about the idea that men invented this to suppress or oppress women.

And he goes, just think about that. A group of men were sitting around going, you know what, we've got it. We've got it good with this whole, we can just bed whomever we want, right?

And he goes, what if we could really just find a way to oppress women by limiting ourselves to one woman for life?

And he goes, no man came up with that and I'm like, you know what? You're joking about it, but that's a very valid point.

Right? Interesting. It goes on, number two, a feast made on the occasion of marriage.

It gives Matthew 22, a kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who made a marriage for his son.

And then lastly, number three, you're going to like this one, Steve, in a scriptural sense, marriage, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace,

Revelation 19. Well, I do like it. You know, I look forward to the marriage feast of the lamb.

Absolutely. All right. So, that was fun. Marriage. Let's see, what's the next one that we wanted?

Do we wanted pronouns? Yeah, I really like pronouns. Yes. I could tell. All right, we're going to find pronouns and we have here in Noah Webster, 1828 pro nouns.

All right, here we go. In grammar, oh, actually it's

Latin, pro is for and nomine is name. For the name.

Okay. Okay. So, a substitute for a name. Oh, in grammar, a word used instead of a noun or a name to prevent the repetition of it.

It just, this kills me, you know, this idea that everybody can have their own pronouns because if everybody can invent their pronouns, then the purpose of pronouns is eradicated.

If you have your own pronouns and I have my own pronouns and Mike has his own pronouns and Billy has his own pronouns and Sherry has her own pronouns and we all sit in a room and we start talking.

And then I mentioned this off the air. If there are five people in a room and I let them talk, you know, we talk for,

I don't know, 10 minutes, let's say. And then one of us goes to recap what happened, write it all down, like a police report.

I used to do this. And if I had to remember everybody's, well, that's a good example for a police report.

If I had to remember everybody's pronouns and then like provide a, I'd have to provide some kind of ledger at the end so that, you know.

To decode it. Yes, to decode it. Exactly. And so here's the point. The point is pronouns are to make language use easier, not to make it harder and to make it less repetitious.

Right? So if everybody has their own pronouns, I've made it harder and I've made it impossible to unpack, you know, and confusing unless somebody takes the time to decode it, which is antithetical to the whole point of pronouns.

What's that going to do to my Duolingo pronouns section? It's going to blow it up. In modern Hebrew. I mean, what

I want to ask is Duolingo, well, those are the pronouns according to whom, you know. Can't say whom according to Z.

In grammar, a word used instead of a noun or name to prevent the repetition of it. The personal pronouns in English, Webster said, are

I, thou or you, he, she, we, ye, and they.

The last is used for the name of things as well as that of persons. I'm going to say something controversial and I don't care.

Personal, you know, pronouns, having your own pronouns is demonic. It's an attempt.

It's an assault against manhood and womanhood.

It's an assault on the culture. It's an assault on the language and it's an assault on common sense.

It is an attempt, not the attempt, but it is an undermining of order.

So, I hate it. Peter I agree. No Compromise Radio today with Pastor Steve Cooley, the

Tuesday Guy. We're looking at the Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary and asking the questions, or just making the statement, the times are changing.

Pete Oh, thanks, Bob. We've got Bob Dylan here today in studio. We could have him do the

Saved intro, right? Didn't he have an album called Saved? Yes, he did. My favorite one on there, or, well, this was on the other so -called

Christian album he did, Slow Train Coming. Just talking about the judgment, you know, that's coming.

This is slow, slow train coming. And it's coming, but what happened to Bob? Did he revert? I think that guy's just a big mess.

You know, I don't know, you know, I mean, I only know of him kind of... Grew up as a

Jew, right? Yeah, but I mean... Zimmerman. But I mean, my exposure to him is just related to, you know,

Tom Petty and the traveling Wilburys and George Harrison and all that stuff. So... And the man behind all that was the

ELO. Jeff Lenz. Uh -huh. A lot of Jeff Lenz stuff. All right. So, today we're coming up to the next word, woman.

What is a woman? Uh -huh. Today, what would a woman be, kind of thing? Are we allowed to say women?

A woman is any person, I presume, and it still has to be a human being, but maybe a dog could declare themselves a woman.

I don't know. Or maybe a human being could just declare something else a woman, a tree, a shrub.

I don't know. Because basically, the word woman, according to somebody who's now in the

Supreme Court, which I guess makes it like the law of the land almost, a woman is undefinable because you have to be a biologist to do that.

So, I shouldn't even probably read Webster because I think he was good with words. He was a words... Well, you can read it, but you'll probably get sued.

I wonder what Charles Manson would say. All right.

Woman, 1828. Plural for women, a compound of womb and man.

It is the same word as femina, the Latin writing. The plural as written seems to be womb men, but we pronounce it as women and so it ought to be written.

One, the female of the human race grown to adult years. Then it gives Genesis 2, and the rib which the

Lord God had taken from the man, he made a woman. Hate speech.

So controversial and you should change the spelling to a Y -W -O -M -Y -N because how dare you associate women with men.

All this is so... Well, it's ungodly.

It's demonic. It's awful. What do you think?

I've just scrolled down here a little bit. Womanize, to womanize is these days to be some kind of cat or something, right?

But here it says to womanize, to make it feminine. You womanize someone. You take a man and you womanize them and they look like Harry Styles, I guess, with this new outfit.

Well, and now parents are womanizing or feminizing their own kids, their own boys, turning them into, well,

I'm just letting him explore or letting her or they explore themselves.

I'm like, no, no, you're not. You're destroying your kid. Do women have to have wombs if they're a woman?

They have a womb? A woman has a womb? You know, every day there are new revelations.

We talk about the canon being closed, but there are new revelations, like there are schools now where they want to make sure that both boys and girls' bathrooms have, let's see, how do you put that?

Feminine napkins in them because even boys can have periods. Oh, okay.

That's... I mean, this... Welcome to the new world. Yeah, where human beings are thrown into a blender and you never know what's going to happen.

It says womb here, because some men could have a womb, I guess. It says, the uterus or matrix of a female, that part where the young of an animal is conceived and nourished till birth, the place where anything is produced, the womb of the earth, any large or deep cavity, the womb of morning in scripture, the clouds which distill the dew, psalm.

You recently read that quote, what would happen if Satan took over a town and barn house, right?

Right. And I'm like, I don't know that I agree with that anymore. I used to think, yeah, that's right.

But I see what Satan would like to do. And I think he would like to just put everybody in, basically, in social isolation and have chaos rule, right?

Because if, excuse me, if words have no meaning, if woman, man, boy, girl, you know, and all the physical parts of our body really have no particular meaning and no particular purpose and anything goes,

I think that's the world Satan would like. We're just completely androgynous. We're on the scale of this, that, the other thing.

And, you know, there is no such thing as being a man or being a woman. Right. We've been taught that Satan attacks

God's institutions, and so he attacks marriage slash family. He attacks the church and he attacks government.

Well, let's put it this way, though. What would be more fundamental to a Satanic worldview than attacking the idea that all men and women are created in the image of God?

So, let's destroy that image or let's, you know, redefine it so that it's utterly meaningless.

So true. It's similar to, well, why do people hate

Israel? Because, well, God chose Israel. Why do we hate being a man if they're transgender, this, that, and the other dysphoria?

Well, God made me that, and so it's ultimately a rebellion against God. I just pulled up here,

Steve, propitiation in our dictionary from 195 years ago. I like it.

The act of appeasing wrath and conciliation of the favor of an offended person.

In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to the sinners.

Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men, Romans 3, 1 John 2. Now, where is that in our dictionaries today?

Yeah, well, you couldn't have any Bible verses today. That'd be awful. And of course, even in liberals theology, they don't want to say propitiation.

They say instead expiation because, you know, to have sins go away, kind of like the scapegoat, that's nice.

But to actually have wrath and holiness and blood and guts and all that stuff, they don't like that.

No, because they think it makes God look cruel and spiteful. That's right.

Cat got your tongue? No, he took over my throat. What happens if you have to remove a hairball out of a cat?

How do you do that? I've heard people have to do that. That's why I don't have cats.

Now, remember, of course, there's always people outside working when we're trying to do the show.

So just a low hum of nuclear radiation outside of us. Yeah, I was going to say, it sounds like they're firing up some kind of electromagnetic weapon.

Seriously. All right. We just power through whatever. If you're done with the show, we'll see you next time.

It just keeps going and going. That's septic people. Septic people are evacuating fecal sludge is what they're probably doing.

To be precise. TMI, TMI. Well, that's what they're actually doing. Okay. If I say prophesy, but that's loud, isn't it?

Or do we keep going? I don't know. I don't know either. Let's just try a little bit. There's no way

I can get rid of this. All right. Maybe we stop and we're going to just come back a little bit later.

We finish the show another day. How can this happen on live radio?

I don't know. All right. We're going to pause it right here and see what happens. Finally, that thing stopped.

I don't doubt that some of you couldn't take it. I couldn't take it anymore. We've had a first on No Compromise Radio today.

There was a sound outside that was so loud, it forced us to stop recording. And then

Steve had an appointment. So he left and now I'm going to finish the show. So it was Tuesday, guy.

And now it's just Mike Ebenroth. We were talking about propitiation and actually in the

Webster 1828, the word propitiation with this said to repeat, offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners.

And of course, as you know, at No Compromise Radio, every other religion, men, women, humankind, they try to make the gods propitious.

They try to offer up a sacrifice or they deny themselves something or they'll promise something or whatever.

Please be nice to me. I offer this to you. And of course, I always think about restaurants where I go in and there's some fruit that's offered to a little cat

God or something looking for propitiation. Here's one, prophecy.

The next word for the show today is prophecy, 1828. What do you think it would say?

And this is kind of interesting because it's kind of a theological issue as well. Number one, a foretelling, prediction, a declaration of something to come.

As God only knows future events with certainty, no being but God or some person informed by him can utter a real prophecy.

The prophecies recorded in scripture when fulfilled afford most convincing evidence of the divine original of the scriptures as those who uttered the prophecies could not have foreknown the events predicted without supernatural instruction, 2

Peter 1. That's wonderful. And lots of times we'll tell people that to prophesy is to foretell or to what?

Foretell, to tell forth, to proclaim. William Perkins' little banner of truth book,

Puritan paperback, the art of prophesying. He's not talking about the art of telling the future, the art of predicting what's going to come, the art of with certainty knowing future events.

No, he's talking about foretelling. No, foretelling.

Therefore here in the dictionary, it talks about preaching, public interpretation of scripture, exhortation or instruction,

Proverbs 31. And I like it here, even in Noah Webster's dictionary, you've got prophecy as foretelling, i .e.

the future, or forth telling, proclaiming the truth.

All right, let's go to another entry here. 4. Homiletical. Oh, this is interesting.

Homiletical. Well, underneath that it's got homily, to converse in company, a discourse or sermon read or pronounced to an audience, or a plain familiar discourse on some subject of religion, such as an instructor would deliver to his pupils or a father to his children.

That's a homily, a discourse or sermon read. Maybe that's what we should call manuscripts now, homilies.

But I was looking under homiletical, pertaining to familiar intercourse, social, conversable, companionable.

Okay. I want theology though, so it's got number two, homiletic theology, a branch of practical theology, which teaches the manner in which ministers of the gospel should adapt their discourses to the capacities of their hearers and pursue the best methods of instructing them by their doctrines and examples.

It is also called pastoral theology. Now, how insightful is that?

Homiletics, if hermeneutics is the science and art of biblical interpretation, homiletics is the science and art of biblical proclamation.

There's a science to it. There's a rationale behind it, and there's an art, right?

There's a way to try to deliver. And here's what I like. Who does this? Ministers of the gospel.

And Webster had enough insight to know that these are not ministers of moralism, ministers of pietism, ministers of mysticism, ministers of whatever else, ministers of the gospel, good news.

The father sends the son, the son does the work that the father sent him to do because the father loves sinners and so does the son and the

Holy Spirit, of course. He was there affirming that great pre -temporal covenant of redemption agreement and pact, pactum salutis, and then he applies the work of the son who was sent by the father to those who would believe.

That's good news. That's truth. Ministers of the gospel. When I officiate a wedding, I can sign it minister, reverend.

I can sign it clergy. I can sign it pastor, but I sign it Mike Abendroth, minister of the gospel because I am a servant of the gospel.

And then this is also interesting because the definition says, should adapt their discourses to the capacities of their hearers.

And I think most all of us realize that if you walk into a rest home, assisted living home, and people can't hear as well, and people are in essentially their last days, maybe not assisted living so much, but rest homes, and they can't hear, they can't really lift their heads up to see, and they're wheeled in, that you ought to talk louder, and that you ought to walk back and forth, and that you ought to use smaller words, and you ought to not be as technical, and you ought to adapt your discourse to the capacity of the hearer.

If you walk into a Sunday school class and they're third graders, you've got to not dumb down the material, but you've got to explain it to them at a third grade level.

And I think many of us as pastors, we learn all these great things at seminary and in these college level classes, yay, doctoral level classes, and we want to try to tell our congregation we should say the truth, yes, and not be afraid of technical references, inferences, proclamations, and then say, in other words, that is to say, put it simply, or clearly, or plainly.

No wonder J .C. Ryle said we should preach with simple, clear statements.

And this it says in this dictionary definition, and pursue the best methods of instructing them by their doctrines and examples.

Even here, they realize, Webster does, that we need to preach doctrine. Homiletics, you preach doctrine.

You're a minister of the gospel, you think about the people you're preaching to, because they're the ones that need this truth, and you want to make sure you can deliver it in such a way that they understand, of course, without compromising the truth.

And you're having doctrines and examples. These days, just examples. These days, just illustrations.

These days, it's illustration driven, right? In homiletics class, they teach you for every point, you have an

EIA, a little outline, a little acronym, EIA, and that is explain it, illustrate it, and show how it's applicable.

Right? Bible's applicable. We just don't apply it, but we show them why it's applicable.

I think too much is spent on the eye, right? Once in a while, have an illustration for people to take a break, and they can understand something.

Of course, the Lord, or Jesus himself, used things to illustrate truths. There's nothing wrong with illustrations, but there's everything wrong with illustrations that take over and dominate everything.

By instructing them of their doctrines and examples. And that is what homiletics is today.

So today on No Compromise Radio, we had a little bit of everything, including a septic tank removal in the middle of it all.

Maybe that's a metaphor and a picture of No Compromise Radio. Just maybe there's a tie in there.

And of course, to the people that don't like the radio show, they have a perfect opportunity now to critique me and what's going on here.

Well, all that to say, Mike Abendroth, No Compromise Radio ministry. You can write me info at nocompromiseradio .com.

We've got the two new books out, Gospel Assurance, a 31 -day guide. That's the 200 -page version for $14 .99.

And we've got the 31 -day devotion. That's the 80 -page one that's got some notes there, shorter, one page per day for more of a devotional slant on the thing.

I'm working on the S. Lewis Johnson, Colossians commentary. If I can live long enough and get it done here in the next few months, that's my goal.

I'm going to try to spend an hour a day or so on that. Anyway, Mike Abendroth, No Compromise Radio.

Oh, I also wanted to say, Gospel Assurance is now on Audible. And David Martin did the

Audible for me, and you can either get that book on Kindle, Audible, or buy the book.