Reviewing Recent Interactions on Line, then Back to Erasmus and the Text

Well, so I forgot to put a list together of everything I wanted to cover today, so I am sure I will forget something.

I got so much stuff on the screen here that I'll just, I'll never remember it all, but we'll give it a shot.

I was going to pull up one of the graphics and I forgot to, but just in passing, very, very briefly, please note the historic events of this past week.

I think the Prophet of the Mormon Church and the Twelve Apostles, I think the entire

First Presidency as well, so that'd be 15 really old dudes, I think it's the, what

I read was it's the first time that the entire hierarchy of the

LDS Church has been outside the United States at the same moment. And where are they?

They're in Rome. What are they doing? I think they're dedicating a temple in Rome and they met with the

Pope. In fact, I saw one picture where they had presented him with a

Christus. Now if you don't know what the Christus is, they're redoing the Mesa Arizona Temple, which makes me feel really old, because I remember when it was dedicated, at least

I think, maybe this is the second time they redid it, now that I think about it. I think they did something in the past, too.

Anyway, I've been kicked out of that visitor's center for asking why the

Bible identifies Jehovah as Elohim, because in LDS theology, Jehovah and Elohim are separate and distinct gods.

In fact, Elohim is the father of Jehovah. But anyway, they had a Christus there, there's a

Christus up in Salt Lake City, and basically a Christus is a big, white

Jesus, which we could really have an interesting conversation on.

Doesn't look very Jewish. A Jesus never looks Jewish in Mormon stuff. But anyway, they presented—it was just a little, looked like it was about yay big, little

Christus to Pope Francis. And if you've been hearing some rumbling coming from my perspective, pretty much directly north about a state away, that's the sound of Bruce R.

McConkie spinning in his tomb. Because I cannot possibly imagine

Bruce R. McConkie or Brigham Young or David McKay or Joseph Fielding Smith or any of these people envisioning the entire leadership of the

LDS Church meeting any pope, let alone a pope as liberal as Francis.

But let's just be honest. What is happening with the Mormon leadership? I mean, the stuff that's going on legislatively in Utah, the swing to the left in the expression of the religiosity and practice and morals and ethics of the

LDS Church. We've said for a long time that there's no meaning—because of the subjective nature of the

LDS testimony and things like that—there's no meaningful foundation to this religion. It's not connected to the historic

Christian understanding of who God is or what salvation is or revelation or anything. It couldn't be because of the way it started.

There's no way around it. So now we're seeing, because of societal pressures, we're seeing it's sort of like it's just been disconnected from its past.

It's just sort of wandering around, sort of floating around, whichever direction the winds of social change are going to blow it.

And where is it going to go? I don't know. I don't know. But it was fascinating to see pictures of Pope Francis and the leadership of the

LDS Church meeting. It's just, yeah, okay, yeah, well, there you go.

The world has gotten really, really, really strange. The Chinese have started a new stem cell line with the remains of nine aborted babies who had to be aborted in a particular fashion to create these, so as to be able to start a particular vaccine line.

And you just need to understand, even if in the

West we still have some cultural, ethical momentum of Christianity left, that's not going to have any impact on other people in the rest of the world, especially amongst the

Chinese, with its communist government. And this kind of ghoulish utilization of the creation to, quote -unquote, enhance the life of the living at the cost of the less powerful will continue to proliferate in our world at the cost of aborted children, the young, the old.

It's just amazing how many of the dystopian movies end up being fairly on target.

I mean, I've got a shirt, I keep forgetting to wear it, but I've got a shirt. It's that Venn diagram, you said

Venn diagram shirt, where it's got 1984, Brave New World, and where the two circles intersect, you are here.

I went ahead and bought it because I just thought that's brilliant. It's exactly right. It's exactly right. And remember

Ryan's run? Logan's run. I'm just thinking of somebody else who also is hiding in a bunker someplace, right?

Right up that direction. Logan's run. Yes, Ryan's run.

That's good. Sorry about that, Ryan, but you do scare me. Anyway, yes,

Logan's run. That's true. He did leave left behind in the office.

So there is that. Anyway, we could have a lot of fun with that.

If anyone remembers Logan's run, basically, wasn't it like you went up in this thing and got zapped, evidently went to heaven, but when you were like 25,

I think, because you pretty much passed your, yeah, you're too old. You could no longer contribute to society.

So they decided that 25 was when, and you would float up in this thing, and allegedly you were going to a better place, but actually they were just turning you into, what was it?

Soylent. Then there was Soylent Green. Then you had Soylent Green. They sort of went together. Anyways, you got all these dystopian movies and they nail it.

It's like people have seen this coming. If you follow these trends, this is how we're going to view ourselves and how we're going to live in the not too distant future.

And it's happening. It's happening all around us. And so you've got almost genetic engineering of this baby and then to abort it in a particular way just to fiendishly cut it apart and save its organs to, oh, it's just, oh.

It is Nazi death camp stuff that's being published in science journals and people going, well, this is wonderful.

And it's defended by people saying, but there are people who have terrible diseases and we can help them.

And all of it goes back, all of it goes back to worldview and to whether you believe that God has created us and that he has written in his book, the number of our days.

If you believe that, and if you believe that there will be a day of judgment, it changes everything folks, absolutely everything.

The social justice stuff, the social justice stuff, same thing.

You go, whoa, how do you connect those two? Listen, the current social justice movement can only have traction amongst people who do not live the daily reality of recognizing that the day of judgment is coming and God's going to make all things right.

Not in this life. Now see, I'm taking that from a Christian perspective.

You know what non -Christians saw the exact same thing? I was going to, oh,

I didn't pull it up. Well, I was going to show Thomas Sowell. Thomas Sowell wrote a book on cosmic justice.

And long time ago, he saw that the social justice movement does not recognize the difference between cosmic, the social justice movement wants to try to bring the cosmic justice that happens at the end time where God makes everything right.

The day of judgment, the great white throne judgment wants to bring that into where we are right now. And so,

I was thinking about God's law and the fact that God's law, for example, leaves, obviously leaves loopholes through which the guilty can escape punishment in this life.

God's law is concerned about protecting the innocent more than it is catching the guilty.

Everybody's been saying, we can't follow God's law when it comes to sexual abuse stuff because that's just not possible.

What's the mindset there? The mindset is we have to have cosmic justice now.

We have to have it now. The final form of justice. We are to do what

God's law says. We are to seek justice in the land as far as we can, but not at the price of God's standards

God's law and the protection of the innocent. And so, you're supposed to have witnesses.

You have, if someone testifies falsely so as to get somebody else in trouble and is found that they testified falsely, then whatever they want to have happen to that other person has to happen to them.

And the point is that if there was no coming day of judgment, then it wouldn't make any sense.

But the whole mindset of God's law is no one's getting away with anything.

No one is getting away with anything. God knows the heart. There will be no injustice in the final analysis.

God is going to make everything new, and he's going to accomplish his purposes, and that's going to include the utter establishment of justice and righteousness and the punishment of all evil.

If you really believe that, if you really do believe that justice is going to be done, that changes everything.

But if you don't believe that, if you think this is it, and when

I'm dead and gone, I'm and there's nothing beyond that, you've got to try to get everything done right now.

Because if somebody gets away with it in this life, then they get away. Justice will never be done. There's never going to be any final analysis, final making of all things right, so on and so forth.

So it all comes together. It's all related and very much a part of what we have in the issue of social justice and all that kind of stuff.

I've got a bunch of screenshots here, but unfortunately that closed one of them that I didn't want to close.

Oh, great. Well, so you didn't test that beforehand, huh?

I hope so. Yeah, yeah, okay.

Here's one of them. I have way too many open, that's the problem. That's the issue.

Yeah, here's just, just let me try to pull up at least two of them.

Yeah, there we go. There we go. Okay, let's go with this one first and, well, that's easier said than done.

Okay. You know,

I've really tried, honestly tried to be respectful toward Dr.

Anthony Bradley, but this past week I've lost a lot of that respect.

The things he's saying now just show such a massive racialism on his part.

You know, the term racism has lost all meaning because it's been so completely redefined it no longer has any meaning.

I am glad to see that there are some folks who are emphasizing, look, if Christians are to talk about racism, then it needs to be defined biblically and that means it is not something that is only done by one color of people.

It is an attitude of the heart. It is showing preference for others.

It is being, it's violating what God's law says as far as justice toward others.

And by the way, before I forget, one of the memes that has become very popular, what we're dealing with in the

United States, remember Shepard's Conference last week and all the rest of that stuff? What we're dealing with in the United States is a very

Americanized version of these things. And we treat it as if we are the only people on the planet, as if all issues of social justice are defined by what happens in this one particular corner of the world.

And the fact of the matter is, it's pretty much how Americans think. I would hate to,

I wonder what percentage of American citizens, if you stopped them on the street, if you did a major survey, what percentage of American citizens could name, what, five heads of government outside the

United States? I mean, we happen to know that even if you ask people in the United States who the vice president is or the secretary of state is, they're like, so when it comes to outside the

United States, not a clue, not a clue. And I would hate to see someone show up on the street with a globe that doesn't have names attached to the political divisions and just watch as people score 1 % out of 100 on any type of question about what nation is this or anything like that.

Americans are not well educated about the rest of the world. That's a fact. And so I think one of the reasons that this social justice stuff can be so Americanized, so completely

Americanized, which is why people outside the United States are like, what are you people arguing about? What's going on? Is because we don't know much about our own history, let alone the rest of the world.

And so you get this meme all the time that says, look, you want white privilege,

I'll show you white privilege. Every POC, person of color, African American, Votie threatens to tear my arms off if I use that phrase.

So I try not to, because he could. Oh, yeah, just they just pop right off and that would be

I'd be called Bob after that. So but every black man has to have the conversation with his son about what to do if you're pulled over, et cetera, et cetera.

And this is supposed to to prove that my life is easy and I'm the oppressor and they're the oppressed and blah, blah, blah, blah.

Are there especially places down south but elsewhere where those conversations are necessary?

Well, Latinos have to do the same thing, Mexican Americans have to do the same thing.

And there are places in the United States where everybody should be doing that. Doesn't matter what color you are, everybody, everybody needs to have those conversations.

All you gotta do is watch YouTube. But the fact is, if you're a white father in almost any

African nation or almost any Muslim nation or in almost any

Asian nation, you have to have the exact same conversation in that context. It's called the difference between being in the majority and in the minority.

And so you leave the United States, you leave that particular context and everything changes.

And so people will actually say, if you have to have that conversation, that means you just don't understand. Well, but I would not only in places in the

United States, but especially if I'm in a completely different context someplace else, it's called there are advantages to being in the majority.

It's a given of human society, always has been. And it's not necessarily wrong unless it results in injustice.

That's the issue. And injustice is not economic equality.

It's not socialism. It's not everybody getting the same amount of stuff. It's having the same opportunities.

That's pretty much given. And I mean, we will have a socialist as president within a decade, one way or the other.

So I don't think he'll comb his hair with a balloon, but it'll be somebody else. Anyway, so I just want to deal with that.

I'm so tired of hearing people just buying these shallow tropes and not thinking through what they actually mean and would they be true in another context or whatever else.

But going back to Anthony Bradley, Dr. Bradley is a graduate of Westminster Seminary and he has always demonstrated a rather condescending attitude toward Baptists as a whole.

I don't get the feeling, I do not get the feeling he has ever read a single work on covenant theology from a

Baptist perspective. I don't get that feeling at all. I get the feeling he does not make those distinctions and is not interested in investing the time to figure out why he should make those distinctions.

But he, over the past week, has been on a massive anti -Reform

Baptist role. And I do mean nasty. Here's one where he says, for some strange reason, 1689

Twitter, whatever that is, James White and other, and he always use scare quotes because he's one of those guys that doesn't think that the

Reformation is defined, that being Reformed is defined first and foremost by your view of God. It's all this external stuff.

And so there are a lot of people like that. I can name some big names that are exactly that way. If you don't agree with us on that, then you're not really

Reformed, even though lots of people on our side no longer believe in the sovereignty of God and stuff like that, but hey, they're still

Reformed because they do this external stuff. I think it's an internal thing, but not getting into that right now. And other

Reformed Baptists, like Tom Askell, have a neurotic, this is his new thing, his new thing is to identify

Reformed Baptists with neuroses. Can you imagine if we responded in kind?

What would happen on Twitter? Have a neurotic fixation with me,

Jamar Tisby, Thabiti Anyabwili, and other blacks. Oh, so now it's a racial thing.

Below is a bizarre attempt to prove something based on nothing I've recently written. This, missing a verb, we will go to Greek here, this is how tribalism works.

And then a quote from Tom Askell, talking about black liberation theology originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism, which ultimately leads to more oppression, and his point was that Dr.

Bradley used to say things that he's really not saying anymore. And it's funny, it's real obvious to see how various of these men have changed over the past 10 years, but they're absolutely adamant, oh no, no, no, no, it's like, but you weren't talking about all this stuff back then, why now?

Oh, I haven't changed a bit. But neurotic fixation over 1689s.

Here's another one. This one sort of goes along the same way, let me see, window, why did it do that?

Window, there you go, nope. Of course,

Kyle J. Howard responded, it is revealing something deep in the hearts of these men.

They don't obsess over white Christian men and put so much energy in discrediting them as they do us.

No one is asking why they are so threatened by informed black men, though. Black men who even rock with reform theology.

Yeah, yeah, I, I, the only people I respond to, like Steven Andrews, okay, not him, well, the

Pope, well, no, okay, not, I read Mormon person, well, it's not very bad. It's just so absurd, it's hard to know what to say.

It's just like, what, what color is the sky in your world is, is a fitting thing here.

But then Bradley responds, I think it's worse than their hearts. It's actually a form of neurosis based on their own anxieties about a world they can't control.

Their tribal heresy hunting reveals a self -expansive form of group narcissism.

Pretty textbook. Wow. And as is always his, his trademark, a link to Amazon to buy a book about it.

He does it all the time. I've you're just like.

So, here's, here's the last one. Once a tribe of neurotic, scared, insecure men is formed, they function like abused dogs in a corner, snapping at everything because everything non -tribal is a threat.

Their heresy hunting reveals a deep, ongoing paranoia. Black and white thinking makes the paranoia go away.

This is why 1689ers can't handle mystery or nuance or contradictory data.

You can't reason with fear -driving paranoia justified by pride, self -righteousness with no accountability.

Other insecure men are drawn to them for validation. The cycle continues. This is 1689 neurosis.

Wow. I mean, how do you even respond to that kind of thing?

It's just like, okay, I think we'll try to get away quietly before something explodes here.

I mean, wow. I, I, I, I have some 1689 guys who go after me, but this is just, wow.

How do you, how do you justify this kind? I mean, I'm sorry. I've not seen any evidence that this man has a clue what he's talking about, has a clue what he's talking about.

I think you could name big names down through history that have written on covenant theology and stuff like that from a reformed

Baptist, but he hasn't read them, doesn't care. There is an arrogance in this man that is stunning.

It really is. It's just wow. And folks, Kings College, just, just so you know, if you're, if you're looking, this is what they're going to run into and phew.

Amazing stuff. Just, just absolutely amazing stuff. Wow. Anyway.

So I, I, I point that I point you to that. I'm trying to find one of my things here.

I close, I hope I didn't close it cause I'll never find it again. And the problem is all these things say screenshot this and screenshot that and, and so on and so forth.

Okay. What do we want to get to here? Because there's a bunch of stuff that, see,

I'm looking for my graphic of Olive and,

I am concerned that it may have gotten accidentally closed and trying to find it again is very, very difficult, especially because, okay, how about you?

Ah, I reopened it. Yay. Those little, those little icons are getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

I need to find a way to expand them so I can actually see them. Let's let's just move that.

Let's just move over here. That way I can't lose it. It's still on the screen somewhere.

That way it doesn't disappear. Let me, let me, let me go with, with, yes,

Kofi. It is funny that he didn't mention Voti, though someone did quote something that he said that was very disrespectful toward Voti too.

I don't think he'd do that in Voti's presence. Because from the pictures, he doesn't look like a very, very big man.

I think Voti would sort of tower over him and he'd probably be a little bit different in person than he would be otherwise.

Let's take a look at it. Let's shift, shift gears here. Big time.

Let me ask you to direct your attention to the book of Revelation, chapter 14.

And if you have, if you have a

Bible, you will notice a difference between the King James and the

New King James and your ESV, CSB, NASB, NIV at this point, specifically the

NASB says that I looked and behold, the lamb was standing on Mount Zion and with him 144 ,000, having his name and the name of his father written on their foreheads.

Now, if you have the King James, it simply says having the name of his father written on their foreheads.

Let me add the parallel in here, double check, with him and 140 and 4 ,000 having his father's name written on their foreheads is the

King James at that point. And the King James is following the

Textus Receptus, which in its standardized form today does not have the phrase, kai ta,

I'm sorry, ta anima autu, instead it simply says having ta anima to patras autu, his father's name written upon his forehead.

Now, this is an important text, and if you were doing a study of the relationship of the father and the son, the name of the father, the name of the son, the relationship of he who sits upon the throne of the lamb, because this is the lamb was standing on Mount Zion, this would be an important text.

And it would include the assertion having his name and the name of his father written on their foreheads.

So, that would indicate not only the exaltation and power of the lamb, but the unity of the one who sits upon the throne and the lamb in the redemption of the 144 ,000, and everything's going to come after this in chapter 14, and so it is relevant that there is a major textual variant between the

Textus Receptus and the modern Greek text as to whether, and this is unusual, in that in the majority of instances, not all, but in the majority of instances, when you're looking at textual variants between the modern text and the

TR, the TR is going to be longer, not shorter, but this is something that's missing in the

TR that is present in modern text, and so your TR advocates and your

King James only advocates would call it an addition, not something that's missing because they take as their standard the

TR or the King James. Now, what I wanted to show you graphically, got to take that down for me to do that, there we go.

Here, for example, is, oops, here is

Codex Sinaiticus, and you can see

C right here, you've got

Ta -Anima, I'm sorry, Ta -Anima -Au -Tu,

Kai -Ta -Anima -Tu, and then

Patras is a Nomena Sacra, so there's the line of the Nomena Sacra, and then

Au -Tu, his father, and here it's a tri -letter Nomena right here, and so this is the reading from the early to mid -4th century, and it's also, interestingly enough, the reading of P47.

We have very few papyri manuscripts of Revelation, but here is

P47, and so here you have Ta -Anima -Au -Tu,

Kai -Ta -Anima -Tu, Patras, again, three -letter

Nomena Sacra, Au -Tu. So, his name and the name of his father, and there's

Ge -Gramanon having been written in the midst of the forehead. So, early papyri,

Revelation, Sinaiticus, Revelation, and here is a minuscule 757 from the 13th century, and I put this up because, you know,

I've shown you a lot of uncial texts, maguscule texts, but we don't see a lot of, we don't show as many minuscules, and so this is from the 13th century, and here you have

Ta -Anima -Au -Tu, and then you have, interestingly enough,

Ta -Anima -Au -Tu, Patras is in an interesting, that's how the pie is written in this particular manuscript, but it's also written as a

Nomena Sacra, Au -Tu, and so this is nearly a millennium later in what would be considered,

I think, a primarily Byzantine manuscript, and it contains the reading as well.

Now, why do I show you these things other than the fact that there's, we've got some weird people in the audience who like seeing stuff like that?

Well, I show it to you because the fact that there really is no question in the mind of 99 .5

percent of New Testament scholarship, and the other 0 .5

percent are TR advocates, I would say, if there are that many, as to the original reading, because there is exactly one manuscript,

I think it's 1773, from the 14th century, that does not have this.

Every other manuscript, Byzantine, Alexandrian, doesn't matter what you call them, even if you don't want to use those terms, the vast majority reading, there's one manuscript that doesn't, just one, 1773.

All the manuscripts have his name and the name of his father.

So, there really isn't any question here because it's easy to see why when you repeat the word anima, that one of those animas could get lost because you're repeating a word.

It is a common error of sight in human beings when words are repeated to have a problem in transcribing them.

And by the way, if you think that's some modernistic, naturalistic, textual critical thing that I shouldn't believe because I'm a

Christian, Erasmus said it constantly in his annotations, constantly.

It is well known by anyone who reads Erasmus in the annotations that he fully understood concepts such as the most difficult reading, considering what could have given rise in the corruption of the scribes.

He talks about the corruption of the text and believes that both the

Latin and the Greek manuscripts experienced corruption. This is what Erasmus said, the originator of your text utilized all these things.

You cannot, on the one hand, accept his work and say, this is it. And on the other hand, you can't talk about that stuff.

If you use the term corruption, you're a bad naturalist. Well, then Erasmus was a bad naturalist. And I can imagine there are some guys who would say, yep, he was, but what he produced was still done by God.

Okay. I'll read you somebody that says exactly that. Jibril Juri. I'll read you something because that's basically what he's saying.

I don't care about all that. I don't care what Erasmus said or what he did or how

I got my text. I just want to have my text. I don't want to have any questions about it. That's how it works. So the point is, there's no indication in the critical text today of any type of variant there until you get the

CNTTS. And there's the one manuscript where you have this.

And the minuscule from which

Erasmus copied Revelation, 2814, this is in all probability a simple scribal error on Erasmus' part, or he did ask for some help with producing

Revelation from that one man. He only had one manuscript. That's all he had. And it was, it had a commentary involved in it.

So you had to pull stuff out. And there were numerous times, we'll look at one in just a moment. There were numerous times where Erasmus actually translated from Latin into Greek, not just the last six verses.

There are other places in Revelation where he filled in by translating from Latin into Greek and created readings that are still in the

TR today that have never been found in Greek manuscript anywhere in the world. So if you are a TR only guy, you believe that God re -inspired the

Bible in 1516. You can't get around it. You can't get around it.

If you insist this is the form, then you have to sit there and say, and that means that when they were debating the deity of Christ, the council, when

I see it, they did not have the right text. Council, nope, didn't have the right.

Nobody, Augustine writing all of his stuff, that deep, didn't have the right text.

That right text would not come back around again until 1516 when

Erasmus rushing to produce a text in a book that he really viewed as being deuterocanonical.

He just didn't view it as being all that important. So much so that, you know, for the 2nd edition, hey, fix that stuff at the end of the book with this other one over here, which was actually based on his own.

So it never got fixed and nobody really knew about it for 300 years. And he didn't go back and look.

Neither did the rest of the people working on it. See, everybody's got this idea that there were these people and they're comparing manuscripts and they're doing all that.

No! Between 1516 and the translation of the King James Version, a period of war and violence in Europe.

And you might be able to pop up Accordance or Lagos and look at manuscripts, go over to CSNTM and look at manuscripts.

They could not. They couldn't do that. There weren't people doing that. It just wasn't happening at that point in time and wouldn't for quite some time.

So this idea of the cleansing of the purifying of the baloney didn't happen. You're assuming something you can't prove.

It didn't happen. So what happens here, so the reason that the

Texas Receptus does not have this is not, I don't, I could not prove, I can't absolutely disprove, but I don't believe that there is any connection whatsoever between the

Mount Athos 1773 manuscript and Erasmus' work at all. I don't have any evidence that he was even aware of it.

So it seems that twice in the transmission history of the text, which is not unusual, an error was made because of Ta 'anuma, being referred, being mentioned twice,

Erasmus makes that error and doesn't fix it. And that's why it's in the TR. Every manuscript the

Christians had been reading other than 1773. So for the first 13, well, okay, let's say it was written around 1200 years, all

Christians had read the same thing. Are you telling me that they were misled at Revelation 14 .1,

that the connection between the father and the son, his name, the name of his father, that that truth was not known until Erasmus?

Really? Think about what this means, guys. Think about what it means, the whole concept of the inspiration of scripture.

When you take the stance that I'm going to be reading from some of these people, when you take that stance, what are you doing to the inspiration of scripture, to the very nature of it?

Are you thinking this through? This is not defensible in debate. It's not defensible in debate.

So I've shown you the readings, the antiquity of the phraseology, the unanimous antiquity.

The early church fathers didn't quote it any other way. There is no question here.

If you hold the TR reading, you are saying that the entire manuscript history of the first 1200, 1300 years of the church was wrong until Erasmus mistranscribed 2814.

There you go. That's what you're doing. And there are some of you sitting there going, yep, yep, but I've got certainty. Yep, yep, but I'm not like you.

I'm not one of them. They're liberals. That's what you're doing. That's what you're doing.

It's interesting. Like I said, there was Erasmus specifically utilized harder readings.

And one of the things, that's not the one that I wanted to, is this where it is?

Yeah. Check this out. When Erasmus was responding, just to give you some insight into his thinking, the sources themselves indeed show that the most important aspect is the editorial responsibility felt by Erasmus.

But in the case of the final verses, Revelation 22, 16, 21, there is more as becomes clear from what he writes in his answer to these criticisms.

There was no doubt that some things were missing. I read this last time, but I want to make further application of it. And it was not much.

Therefore, we completed the Greek from our Latin text, so there might not be a gap. We did not want to hide this from the reader, however, and acknowledge in the annotations what we had done, and or that if our words differed in some respect from those that the author of this work had provided, the reader who obtained a manuscript could restore them.

He's saying, hey, get your own manuscripts. Go ahead and make a change. There are so many places where Erasmus says in his annotations,

I think the best reading is this over here, but he doesn't change the Greek. He doesn't change the

Greek. There are annotations that grew and grew and grew between 1516 and 1535, and he actually ended up changing his view as to he didn't touch the

Greek because he wasn't trying to produce a final document. That was not his intention, so he didn't change it.

That's why he didn't go back. He wasn't obsessing about that. And so, when you treat his work, which becomes foundational to Stephanus and Beza, as if it is some kind of purification process going on,

Erasmus would have gone, are you serious? I mean, I can say without a doubt, if Erasmus listened to the modern people who are defending the

TR as a final, he would laugh and then begin mocking as only Erasmus could mock.

He would mock you to an inch of your life. He really would. There's no question about this.

It's sort of like the guys who are part of the Dean Burgon Society and set up the rules so Dean Burgon could never have been a member of the society.

That's what you're doing with Erasmus. Don't pretend that you are honoring

Erasmus. You don't believe like Erasmus did. No way. That's a fact.

It's a fact. Just live with it. You can come up with your excuses. Well, yes, you know, Erasmus had his problems, but God still used it to do this.

There's always a way around it. I mean, it's not coherent. It's the exact same argumentation that Muslims use to defend the

Quran when you point out problems there or that Mormons use when you put out problems in the

Book of Mormon. It's the same. I've got my standard. I'm not going to be concerned about how I got there. It's that mindset and that's why it shouldn't exist amongst us because we see it.

That's why I say it's apologetically absolutely destructive. But he says, from these remarks, several elements deserve attention.

The editorial responsibility leaves no gap in the Greek text. The reader's responsibility or latitude to amend

Erasmus' text when that is possible on the basis of other Greek manuscripts. That's what he's telling you to do.

That's what he's telling you to do. Now, there's a whole list in Beyond What Is Written of places because people think, well, the last six verses, so he translated from Latin.

All right, that's not the only place he did it. That's not the only place he did it.

There were a lot of problems with 2814, the commentary that he was utilizing.

There's a whole list of places where Erasmus compares what he's from 2814 and there's stuff in the

Vulgate and it's like, oh, it's missing. Okay, I'll back translate and in the process create readings that no

Christian has ever seen in a Greek manuscript and they're still in the TR to this day. You literally have to turn

Erasmus into a re -inspiration device whereby when he translates from the

Latin into Greek, it doesn't matter what Christian scribes and preachers and theologians have been reading for a millennium before that.

It doesn't matter. Now we have Erasmus and now we have a new reading that no one's ever seen before but it's inspired and it's inerrant and if you don't believe it, you're a bad man and you're trying to destroy our confidence in the

Bible. That's what we're dealing with. You want an example? Well, I didn't think you'd ever ask.

Revelation 2 .2. Revelation chapter 2, I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance and that you cannot tolerate evil men and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles and they are not and you found them to be false.

Now, if you will, let's see here,

I wish there was a way to change the way that these are laid out. There it is.

If you will notice and right here, kai epirasos, tus legontos, healtus apostolos.

Here in the text of Septus, kai epiraso, so instead of epirasos, it's epiraso, tus phosgontos, instead of legontos, and then aenai, to be apostolos.

So, the original, what is found in the Greek manuscripts is you tested the ones claiming themselves to be apostles, but Erasmus back translated due to the defects of 2814, he back translated from the

Vulgate. So, it's sort of like trying to guess. It's sort of like what the Roman Catholics do when they tell us what the

Aramaic original of Matthew was when you don't have an Aramaic original. You're guessing.

You don't know. There are different ways that you could express the same thoughts. And so, it's not that it doesn't doesn't communicate a similar thought.

It's just with different words. And so, you've got phosgontos, aenai, to be apostolos, but actually it's tus legontos.

Now, legontos is the same term that is used over in 1 Corinthians 8, so -called gods.

So, there's actually a connection there. So -called, they're identifying themselves and it uses the reflexive pronoun, haotus, apostolos, prophets.

Now, is there a huge difference in meaning? No, but the point is the words that were written by John are not in the

TR. We know why they were not. There was no conspiracy theory.

We now have more information so why on God's green earth would anyone go, we need to stick with the

TR? This is, in fact, there are some of you out there that think it's more important to stick with the back -translated, made -up

Greek of Desiderius Erasmus than it is to fight Neo -Marxism coming into the seminaries in the

United States today. And you said as much yesterday on Facebook, didn't you?

Yeah, you did. You did. I cannot get you to see the incoherence of this, but I can keep warning others because there's plenty of people who do it.

Who do see it. This is indefensible. I've got a whole list of them, guys.

A whole list of them. We haven't even gotten to Bayesia yet. We're still dealing with Erasmus. There's plenty of stuff here.

But again, this illustrates one of the major issues. And the major issue is,

I want to know what the apostles wrote. I want to know what the apostles wrote. Some of you want to know what you think

God used 1 ,500 years later. That's the new standard. Okay.

Good luck defending that. You can assert it if you want, but there you go. So, what do you do with these texts?

Every time I bring up these texts, Luke 2 .22 or here in Revelation, we can go over to Ephesians. There's all sorts of texts.

There are errors in the TR. They are demonstrable. They are documentable. You can put the facts right out there in a line.

What are you going to do with it? Every time I go there, it's like, well, you know, you're undercutting confidence in the

Bible by talking about these things. Hey, our enemies are going to talk about them in the context of unbelief.

Sticking our head in the sands, which is what traditionalism is, is not the appropriate response.

It's not the appropriate response. Now, I look in channel and here's the

Ockmaster going, NAS, Judy, Judy, Judy. Thanks guys.

I really appreciate how close you all are following the argumentation. It's great. That's one of the reasons I almost always minimize the chat channel, because it's the insane asylum takes over and it's just weird.

Um, now here's what happened.

Um, just checking. Here's what, here's what happened yesterday.

Um, or was it day four yesterday? I think it was day four yesterday. Robert Truelove seems like a really nice guy and in all probability.

Now he's a little weird because what is that creature that you have living in your house?

It looks like some kind of a big lizard thing, which, you know, we've got lots of lizards here in the desert.

Well, not so much around my house. Have you noticed something back?

I think the world may be ending. You know why? Here that is my cats.

I'm not sure which, but back when I was, you know, we moved here in August of 74.

Okay. And you know, what was everywhere in August of 74?

There were two, there were two things that were everywhere out of bell road and 57th Avenue. You had lizards everywhere.

They were on your stucco walls. They would get into your house. You saw lizards constantly.

And then the other thing during the monsoons, the toads.

Horny toads. Yes. Everywhere. I used to pick, collect them when I was a kid. And in fact, the roads used to be covered with roadkill of the toads after the monsoon storms.

I have not seen a toad in years. And honestly,

I think last summer, I don't think I ever saw a lizard around my yard in all of last summer.

Isn't that weird? Yeah. I remember I used to have a gecko living behind my mailbox. Remember that? Yes. Yes, you did.

Yeah. Yeah. It's strange. I, maybe, maybe the world is ending and we're just, they're just keeping it from us.

It could be the black helicopters. I don't know. Climate change. It could be climate change. For sure.

It could be climate change. Anyway, Robert Truelove has some type of a huge, massive

Gila monster -looking thing. He posted a picture of it today. Okay, I'm not into that.

But we'd probably have a grand old time if we went out shooting together. And look, we're both

Reformed Baptists. I'm not sure if he actually accepts me as one or not, but especially not to go to apologia. There's a lot of Reformed Baptists who wouldn't, but I don't care.

But theologically on, you know, I'm sure that listening to Leighton Flowers gives him the same hives that it gives me, you know, on theological issues and a lot of cultural issues.

And so he posted something and I was thankful for it.

I think I said I was thankful for it. Where he said, you know, this is

James White at his best. You know, he's not dealing with the textual issue. And he posted a link to my G3 sermon. Now, my

G3 sermon came after everybody else spoke. And so I think when you actually watch it without having seen what everybody else said, it's not quite complete because I'm assuming everybody in the room has already listened to the other guys.

And so I don't have to pick up all those threads. But anyway, so he says something nice.

You know, here's a place where we agree. This woke church stuff is dangerous.

And he says his church is extremely racially, ethnically diverse in Atlanta.

And I love what he said. He said, and we've never, I don't, I can't even begin to understand how any eldership can sit around and go, okay, let's get out a piece of paper here.

Okay. How many blacks do we have? How many whites do we have? How many Chinese do we have? And just start doing this number. Okay. Let's run the numbers.

All right. We need to start doing outreach to the Asian community to try to balance things out. I just.

So it seems that he believes like I believe that the, the way that God adds people to the church is through the proclamation and preaching of the gospel.

And the Holy spirit brings the people that he wants to be there and, and draws their hearts out to what you're doing.

And you know, the stuff we used to believe five, you know, five years ago, it's all changed so quickly.

So, so anyway, um, so I'm like, cool.

You know, I that that's, that's fine. And I don't know, maybe

I don't remember whether that was in the morning and then I read it later in the day or that was at night. I don't remember, but it came back up on my

Facebook feed, you know, cause as you know, you've been mentioned or tagged or whatever. And I started looking at some of the comments and it's, it's like, uh, well,

James White supports the Vatican. I'm sorry.

I just don't take, I can't take you seriously when you say that. I mean,

I've done more public debates against Roman Catholic apologists than anybody else.

I know name somebody else who's who's debated as many Roman Catholic apologists as I have stood for solo scriptura for 30 years.

A lot of these people aren't even 30 years old. So I was fighting this battle before you took your first breath and you're going to sit there behind your keyboard and say,

I support the Vatican because of a textual issue. You who follow

Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest. I just can't hold this stuff together. It's, it's, it's insulting.

It's arrogant. It's ridiculous. And these people go, I actually think that the textual issue is more important than, uh, than the woke church.

And, uh, you know, James White is destroying people's confidence in the Bible. And so I think you're completely wrong about that.

We shouldn't be listening to anything they have to say about anything because Texas receptus. And so I've warned about this.

I've warned that this is where it leads. I don't see where the stopping points. I'm glad I even said, when

I reposted, I said, I am thankful. Not everybody does this. I am thankful. Robert true love tried to do something that might drop the temperature some it didn't.

These people are zealots and honestly believe that what text you use.

Now, could someone, could someone tell me, could some, please, please just okay.

Modern critical text, Texas receptus. What's the difference in regards to Neo -Marxism and intersectionality?

Huh? Do you have any idea? No, you don't. There isn't any.

Apply the same rules or hermeneutics to either one and both are going to say, ah, that's not wise.

It's not good to question God's sovereignty by dividing us all intersectionally, which comes from a worldview other than a

Christian worldview. And doesn't really believe that God makes men to different and he's accomplishing his purposes and all the rest of that stuff.

These posts say the same thing. There is not a single textual variant difference between these two.

That's going to impact any of that. So don't you see that if you, you call yourself reformed and you can take the position that you took that I think this is actually more important than I do.

We shouldn't listen to the thing that man has to say. You don't have a leg to stand on. You are acting emotionally out of dedication to a, yes, sorry, tradition.

It's not from the Bible. You think you've derived it from reading the reformers. You didn't.

Don't tell me that Calvin had this in mind. He didn't. The King James translators didn't have it in mind.

Beza didn't have it in mind. The principles that they utilized do not lead to your traditionalism.

That's what we're documenting. And we're going to keep documenting it until you finally just go, I'm just not going to listen anymore or go, okay, we get it.

We'll realize that we're arguing in circles. So just a couple of the comments.

And, oh, wow. All right, real quick here, because I still wanted to get,

I knew I wouldn't get very, get very far. But you have to admit, you have to admit there's energy in the show.

We're not, we're not, we're not falling asleep. I mentioned Jabrail Jury.

I don't know who he is. Ryan says it's like I had some caffeine today.

No. If I had caffeine today, my heart rate would be in bad shape and I'd probably be laying down there on the floor.

Here's what he wrote to me. Dr. White, please, you keep saying that tradition is the reason why advocates defend the

TR. Yep. And that would be true if we were its advocates, because the church teaches it, as if,

I guess that means that only the church can produce tradition or some group of local churches in church history.

Okay. Which I would admit none ever did. And even though I can't speak for every

TR advocate, the truth is that we're not saying that. We're saying that the Texte Recepti, I guess that's the multiple forms of the general category of Texas Receptus, is the preserved word of God.

Ready folks? Because God says it, and it's in all caps. Now, was that nice,

Rich? Do you want me to put this up? I mean, I'm not sure if I can.

Okay. Yeah. Cause I don't, I don't want, I don't want anybody to think I'm making this up. There. There it is.

Is the preserved word of God because God says it. Right there. And the acceptance of the church at the time of the

Reformation and the fruit produced by it is one of the means by which he says it. And we also claim that our belief is scripturally based, which is the only epistemologically consistent way to do this.

When you want to engage, you'll need to refute that, not this straw man and name calling that you seem to love so much.

Now, so the acceptance of the church at the time of the

Reformation, when did the church at the time of the Reformation define the text type of the

Textus Receptus over against any other? It didn't. Because it didn't know it existed over against any other.

Right? So here's your challenge. If you're going to make this stick, then the church knew of the more primitive text and rejected that knowing what it was in accepting, distinguished from that, the specific

Textus Receptus stream of the Byzantine manuscripts.

But then you got to throw all the Erasmian conjectures and stuff in there and back translating from the Vulgate and things like that.

Not sure how that works, but that's what you got to do. And so when did the church do this?

Which council was it? When did Calvin do this? When did Beza do this? Did Stephano speak for the church?

When the King James translators were working, they only worked from printed texts. So what other printed texts did they have access to other than Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, which are all the same printed text, pretty much, in comparison to what we would have in the far larger number of manuscripts we have available to us today and far earlier?

Prove it. Prove it. You're basing your belief upon these presuppositions.

I say prove it. You can't because it's historically absurd.

But that's what you're doing. Acceptance of the church, time of Reformation, and the fruit produced by it.

Oh, so the fruit produced by the

Textus Receptus, not by the preaching of the textual type.

So the idea being promoted here is because they had this, there was fruit.

If they had had this, it wouldn't have happened. Is that what you are really ready to argue? I'll debate that against anybody, and you will not be able to get through that debate without being laughed off the stage because the differences between these two aren't that big.

But that's what you say. This fruit, no fruit, bad.

You've really thought this through, huh? No, you haven't. No, you haven't. And this is one of the means by which he says it.

God speaks based upon your interpretation of what the church did about texts without a bit of historical evidence and some vague tenuous thing about fruit and you're

Reformed? God speaks this way? What?

Did you think this through? Doesn't sound like it. We also claim that our belief is scripturally based.

You cannot scripturally base a preference for the Textus Receptus that came about 1500 years after the birth of Christ.

You can try to say, well, we believe that there are certain principles that we're being faithful to, which is the only epistemologically consistent way to do this.

This is why we deal with this, because epistemology is important. I don't know of any of the people promoting

Tiaranism that have ever tried to take this into debate against a meaningfully educated, agnostic,

Muslim, Mormon, anyone like that at all.

I don't know of one. I may have missed it. If you'd like to, I would dearly love to watch someone.

Try to defend this stuff against someone who has a meaningful knowledge of what's at the base of all this.

I'd love to see it. I really would. I'm serious. I mean, I think it would end up being really ugly, be a black eye at the church, but I'd love to see how someone would even try.

It seems to me that this stuff flourishes in a very, very narrow area that does not go out into these other areas to debate.

In fact, many of the debates, you know, the Bible says, don't debate, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But when you're talking about epistemology, please do not tell people that it is a consistent

Christian epistemology to reason in these kinds of irrational circles.

Don't do the transcendental argument actually supports me making

Erasmus an organ of revelation, especially when he just screws up.

Don't go there. That's offensive. That is really offensive.

Don't go there. Bad stuff. One more, one more from this morning, and this is big, so I don't even,

I don't think the text would be big enough to display, to be perfectly honest with you, unless I, yes, that's too small.

No one can see it. Colin Pearson, who I've addressed a number of times before, but not recently.

This was, if I recall correctly, he was really involved in the stuff that took place back in 2017 before I went over and did that Apology Radio episode where we talked about a lot of stuff for like two hours or something like that.

And this is not Colin Smith, by the way, who I'm very glad to see is back in channel.

It's really made channel more fun because we didn't have any Brits to be making fun of for quite some time.

So it's nice to have, well, or someone who just is so easily lost because Colin could not find his way home without a

GPS. I mean, it's just, it's a sad, sad thing. He's a wonderful, wonderful guy, but don't let him pick you up at the airport.

You'll end up in another state. You really will. You'll end up driving at that point. Yeah, I see it.

I see it. Anyway, so different Colin here. This is Colin Pearson. And he says, my tradition is the same as yours, critical text.

All the versions I read and heard from sermons were from versions based on the critical text. I learned from the

DL, your debates, Wayback Machine, your book, et cetera, and actively opposed IFB, KGVO folks in my hometown.

So when you say I need to set my traditions aside, you're talking right past me and right past the confessional text position.

I dispute that such exists. I think it's an abuse of the Westminster and the 1689 to transfer those documents into an area they never, ever intended to address.

I think it's abusive of those texts. Our tradition is not to hold the textus receptus, but rather to oppose it.

What he's saying is I once held that position. Now I hold no position. Doesn't matter. It's still become a tradition, a tradition that becomes the mechanism by which you interpret data.

And in this situation, I'm the one providing the data. You ain't providing the data.

What data has been presented by anyone on your side? What counter documentation has been provided?

It's all, if you don't believe this, this, I think, will be the result.

Now I would challenge this could be the result. There are literally people who think that by preaching out of this, you're going to be led to liberalism.

That's baloney. It's baloney. Unproven, may be asserted all the time, totally unproven.

Totally unproven. It's just I set aside my tradition and submitted myself to the teachings of scripture as upheld by the reformed confessions, which is what

I do, and the writings of many faithful godly men throughout history.

Okay, throughout history. So, Augustine, would Augustine lead you to this position?

Anyone at the council and I see it. Chalcedon? Ephesus? Couldn't, but the tiara didn't exist.

I mean, do you want to go with Augustine in his arguments with Jerome on the supremacy of the

Greek Septuagint? You don't want to go there. No, that's not gonna work for you either. You got nobody in history until Erasmus.

Nobody. This is a danger when reformed men truncate church history to the

Reformation to now. The reformers didn't do that. The reformers did not do that and saw the danger of doing that.

It was then that I gave up my tradition and changed my view from yours to that of the reformers. No, you didn't.

This is not Calvin's view. This is not Luther's view. And to say that it is is to twist history.

It's to make them address subjects that they had no knowledge of. Stop it.

That is not how reformed men should be. We can allow the early church fathers or the reformers to be the early church fathers and reformers.

We don't have to turn them into something they were not. And if you do have to turn them into something they were not, then your position is clearly thereby demonstrated to be fallacious.

Reformed Orthodox, Reformed Scholastic, Puritans, etc. None of whom had access to the wealth of textual data that we have today, which is just simply dismissed as, ah, just dug stuff up out of the ground.

No, they would have loved to have had those things if it had been available.

Erasmus certainly would have. Again, it's complete misuse of these sources.

So if you're going to speak of setting aside our tradition, be honest with yourself and your fans about what exactly that means for us, because what it means for you is clearly very different.

I am speaking of the vast difference between having an identifiable textual critical methodology and saying that having such a critical methodology is wrong.

That's what I'm hearing from you guys. Because when we push, and we pushed just a few weeks ago, someone who disagrees with me on almost everything, he goes out of his way.

He uses my face to attract readers to his stuff. Even he had to see that what you're saying is to even have a methodology, to even engage in a textual variant, is to violate our fundamental principles.

That was not what the Reformers did. That was not what Erasmus did. That's not what Bayes did. That's not what

Erasmus did. Don't call that Reformed. You're lying. You are twisting history. Stop it. Just stop it.

That's what people do who are defending a tradition. I'm not doing that. That's what the difference between us is.

You presume that we have a tradition that we hold dear regardless of what scripture or evidence shows us. But the exact opposite is true.

Okay, I'm looking forward, Colin, to your explanation of both Revelation 2 .2 and Revelation 14 .1.

Show us a consistent textual critical methodology that will prove that you do not have a tradition.

If you simply default back here, point taken, debate done.

We gave up our tradition to believe what scripture teaches and what is honest with all the evidence rather than at most 60 manuscripts from Upper Egypt and mainly just two important ones.

Now that is clear demonstration to me. Whenever I hear anybody say that just two important ones,

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, they've been reading too much stuff in the 1800s because they are completely ignoring and all that stuff that was written back then was written prior to the papyri.

We've got over 130 of them now which take the text way back.

If you want to criticize Vaticanus in the Gospels, you know what you should be?

I'm not even going to tell you. You tell me which papyri you should be focusing upon there, that you should have mentioned there.

You tell me. I don't think you know. So much for the traditions.

Now, I was going to get back into Anderson, but I've got a video to show you instead.

This is only six minutes long. Speaking of interesting events, two brothers, and I didn't realize this at the time because you can see people's faces, and I've met these brothers when

I've been in Dallas. They go to Emilio Ramos' church in Dallas. I've preached there.

I went with Emilio's church to Israel last year. I've woken up at two o 'clock in the morning to pig sacrifices at Emilio's house.

I didn't put that together because you don't see them very long here.

If I saw them at Emilio's church, that would be one thing, but when you see them in a park in Tempe, the context goes bye -bye.

So evidently, one of them had been out running and had run into Steven Anderson and had started talking and had gone back and said, hey,

I ran into Steven Anderson. So I guess this was the second conversation, I think. I don't know. We talked briefly yesterday.

They came to Apologia, and we talked briefly after the service yesterday. So I said, hey,

I want to get to this and listen to this. So I want to do that to sneak it in here toward the end of the program.

I am not, by now playing Steven Anderson, saying that all the traditional text guys are

Steven Anderson. I'm sure somebody will say that anyways. I didn't edit this or anything.

Anderson's on the phone, and they're walking up to him. The first 15 seconds, I'll cut that out to see what happens here.

Hang on. Earlier, there's four million people in the city. I said that I'm not interested.

No, no. Fair enough. I don't actually remember hearing you say that part, but I understand. I just wanted to make sure that if you did know something that I didn't know, you could share it with me.

I actually, in one sense, agree with you that if I don't speak it, then I don't need to expel myself. That's just pride.

That's just pride. Like, oh, the Greek word here, and you don't even speak Greek. Do you know Greek? Yeah, I do know Greek. I've read the

New Testament cover to cover in Greek multiple times. Okay, so that claim that he makes in the videos to me,

I've read it multiple times. So when we catch him making mistakes, this is not just something he puts into videos.

He says this when talking to people on the street. He's really claiming a high level of expertise in the language.

So we've already pointed out numerous problems, even in the refutation of the first. We're in the third chapter, and there's going to be more coming up.

My name is Chris, by the way. It's not even pronounced Metanoia. Okay, my name is Chris. That's fair. How would you pronounce it?

It's Metaneal. Okay. So it is Metanoia. That's the verbal form.

I think he's trying to do, I'm sorry, the noun form. I think he's trying to do a verbal form. But he uses modern

Greek pronunciation as if that's somehow all that in a bag of chips or something.

Anyone who picks on pronunciation, unless it's just simply not even possible in either one of those two systems, is probably just trying to show off.

And I have a feeling if I just walked up to the Greek New Testament, popped it open someplace and said, let's go.

That what he's thinking is he can read it as in pronounce it. That's totally different than read it and live translate into English in a sermon.

Okay, that's a different thing. And it means repent, right? Or what does it mean?

Yeah, it means repent. So why don't we just speak English and just say repent? Repent. So Jesus said to repent, right?

Yeah, but you don't have to repent of your sins to be saved. Nowhere does the Bible say to repent of your sins to be saved.

That's a works -based salvation. Okay, so I love how they put these references in here.

And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations beginning from Jerusalem. You didn't get to do that during the conversation, but it's good to put that up there.

But once again, for people who are always tuning in that might be new Christians and stuff like that, there is a teaching.

It is a grossly anti -biblical teaching. It is a teaching that has wrought tremendous destruction, that faith alone means faith without repentance.

One of the things this conversation illustrates, and when we get into, it's either chapter four or five of the responses, because I've listened through,

I think, six now. And I'm getting them edited, queued up so we can listen to them here on the program.

He doesn't really deal a lot with the book at those points. Instead, he really focuses on false gospel stuff from his perspective, and that is repentance and living a holy life.

The text in John 3, he who does not believe, but he who obeys, and John uses two different words.

It's really illustrative of what happens when you do not have a balanced, reformed understanding of the gospel.

Because from their perspective, they're trying to take a reformed concept, faith alone, and they're trying to fit it into a man -centered system, where you are the one who has faith.

Rather than seeing faith as a gift of God, it's part of the work of the Spirit of God. God raises you to spiritual life.

The gifts of faith and repentance are given by God. They are a part of the work of the

Spirit in life. And so, we can maintain a meaningful doctrine of sola fide without divorcing the fide from the work of the

Spirit in our lives, and everything else the Bible says about holiness. Since they have a man -centered system, they can't do that.

And so, you end up with this massively imbalanced position, where you just tip your hat toward God, boom, you get your ticket stamped, and hey, it's a good thing if you repent, and it's a good thing if you...

Given how legalistic a lot of these guys are about dress and everything else, it's really ironic.

But it's good to be a super Christian. It's good to be a disciple. But you don't have to. As long as you believe, got your cheek punched.

And the writing of the Hebrews says, without holiness, no one's going to see God. But that's worth salvation.

No, it's not. That's a recognition that when God saves someone, He has a purpose in saving them, and He's going to accomplish certain things.

But you can't, with a man -centered salvation system, you can't balance this stuff. You end up having to throw stuff in the

Bible out. And that's what you see with Steven Anderson, is he just throws so much of the

Bible out to make his system work. 24? I'm just asking you, does it say that? No, it doesn't. So it doesn't say, repent of sins for forgiveness of sins?

It does not say that, no. That's not what it says. What does it say in Luke 24? It just says that repentance and the forgiveness of sins should be preached.

It doesn't say repent of your sins. So here's the thing, repent means to turn or to change your mind or to go in another direction.

Well, guess what? The thing that causes people to be unsaved is that they don't believe in Christ. Do they have to change their mind to believe in Christ?

Yeah. So that's repentance. But not repent of your sins. They don't have to repent of their sins, they have to repent of believing in the wrong thing.

So what could I say, turn from your sins? No, that's a lie. Because if you have to turn from your sins, that's works.

Is it? Oh yeah, it's just so easy to turn from all your sins, right? Let me ask you. It's work, you gotta work on it every day.

Let me ask you a different way. Is it work if God changes my mind and I turn from my sins?

Look, all you're doing is just, you're just repackaging work salvation. There's two kinds of salvation.

Okay. Faith, works. I believe salvation is by faith, you believe salvation is by works.

The NIFB mindset is so black and white, and yet so errant as a result.

They don't care to know what the historical arguments were. It's just, we're the only ones that believe in salvation by faith and you believe in works.

How can you prove that I believe it's by works? Let me prove it to you. Jonah chapter 3 verse 10 says, and God saw their works that they turned from their evil way.

And God repented of the evil that he said he would do unto them and he did it not. What does that have to do with the price of butter in Russia?

I don't know. All it means, see he's, this is just an astonishingly childish hermeneutic.

God saw what they did, and so he didn't destroy them. What does that have to, oh, but it's the word works.

And so I can transfer that lock, stock and barrel into the New Testament in any context I want to put it in and create any theology

I want out of that. This is why you have to do serious hermeneutics, serious exegesis, and you got to be consistent or you end up with this kind of mess.

Category area. Cause every time you see the word work, you think it's a bad thing. I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said, it's not part of salvation.

Yeah, we don't, our repentance doesn't save us. He said it did. He said to be saved.

God grants that. The change of mind because you must, you just.

That's the IFB look when you start talking about how God is the one who grants gifts and accomplishes his things like, huh?

What? What are you talking about? No way. Never even considered it.

You must change your mind to turn to Christ. Right? So as a result of that repentance, you trust in Christ, not in your work.

So what does that have to do with stopping sinning? What does that have to do with turning from your sins? Perfect example. Jesus never ever sinned, sin less, right?

He never had to repent, correct? He never had to change his mind. God repented 41 times in the

Bible. I'm asking, did Jesus ever have to change his mind? They just really struggle with categories, don't they?

I mean, he's clearly talking about Jesus was sinless and never had to repent of sin.

Well, God repented 41 times in the Bible. And Nacham, the Hebrew term that's translated there, does not mean, oh no,

I was doing evil. I will turn from that. And again, it's the idea, well, if it repents here.

And remember what happened? You know, repent here means repent over there. Remember what happened in the discussion we had?

I keep pointing over there because it was right over there, in my office. And the whole thing came to an end.

Why? Because he was doing this, and he does this in the responses to my book, by the way, too.

He does this, well, the King James says hell, and I recognize it's a different word, but as long as the

King James says it, then you can just simply take whatever it means here and plug it in every place else.

And it's just so absurd. It's so acontextual. If anybody did that with his own words, he'd be angry, but that's what they do.

That's the only way you can cobble their theology together. He didn't have to change his mind, but he did change his action.

Sure. Like, for example, when he's walking on the water, he would have passed by, but then they called out to him and then he turned and went to them. That's repentance.

So my point is, he doesn't have to turn from sin to be pleasing to God.

I have to turn from sin to be pleasing to God. Does it please God to sin and not to be saved? You don't have to turn from sin to be me.

See, and again, the IFB folks do not understand that the term saved, it's only used a certain number of times in the

New Testament. And what they do is they take it as an overarching term instead of recognizing there's a difference between regeneration, justification, forgiveness, adoption, sanctification.

All these are specific aspects of the overarching act of salvation, some of which is instantaneous and some of which is ongoing.

That's why one of the things he goes after in response to the book is that I point this out. We'll be pointing out his errors in that one too, because he made a number of them.

But again, there's no in -depth hermeneutical process whatsoever.

And they are taught, well, he's one of the main people teaching it, to be afraid of anyone who suggests that you think these things through from another perspective, to recognize the differing categories and things like that, and to do serious exegesis.

If when God makes me a child of his, I look more like Christ and Jesus never sinned.

That's my point. Am I wrong? I'm not interested in this conversation. You're not listening. I thought I was. Your teaching works. That's what

I'm asking. I thought I was. If you don't get off that, you're not saved.

But we don't have to fully trust what Christ did. Not this thing of, oh, well, you know, God's going to change me and then

I'm going to start doing all the right things. And that's why I'm saved, because I turned from my sin. That's a false doctrine. May I ask you another question, if you're willing?

I have other things to do. There are 4 million people in this city. Pick someone else to talk to, because I'm not interested.

This is not the gospel. This is a false gospel. That's what I'm trying to ask you. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

That's the gospel. Your gospel is turn from sin and you'll be saved. It's not true. Look, this is the second time we're having this conversation.

I'm not interested. You're here just filming me, because you want to use my. Oh, really? That's why you have two cameras on me right now, because you're not here to film me.

You're a liar. You have two cameras on me. You're filming me. Are you filming me with that? You're not filming me?

Yes, sir. Okay, you're here to film me, because you want to use my YouTube channel to promote yourself.

Okay, you are wrong. Steven, I don't have a YouTube channel. Don't call me Steven. I don't know.

I'm not your friend. I know you. You're probably not. Go away. I love you, though. Look, the Bible says, the

Bible says a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject. I have told you repeatedly that what you're teaching is a false doctrine, and I reject you.

I'm trying to learn from you. No, you're not. You're trying to teach a false doctrine and make a video. I want you to leave me alone.

I'm on the phone. You've interrupted me four times. I'm doing my job. Have a good day. Interrupted me four times.

I want to be left alone. There are four million people in this city. Go talk to someone else, okay?

Hey, you are a damnable heretic preaching lies. Go preach your lies to someone else.

Preach your lies to someone else. I don't love heresy. I don't love false teaching.

I don't love work salvation. Leave me alone. Why don't you leave me alone? I'm not here to quarrel with you.

I want to be left alone. Leave me alone. Do not talk to me again. You have come here three times, and I want to be left alone.

All right. Yeah, okay.

I don't know, what do you say? I mean, yeah, it's useful to point out the absurdities of the faith without repentance stuff, and the man -centeredness of it all, and how it ends up in a complete meltdown.

But then you've got, like I said, the Steven Anderson, that's the

Steven Anderson we see in the pulpit. That's Steven Anderson we see firing people from his church staff and stuff like that.

And that's not who shows up, at least in the videos so far. There's a few times he gets condescendingly childish.

But in general, he's obviously trying to be different in the videos in response to the

King James Only controversy. Yeah, so what I was going to do was that I was going to go into finishing up Chapter 3, his response to Chapter 3, because I've already got half of Chapter 4 edited.

But we'll get to it. We covered a lot, and we're already 10 minutes past where I was going to go anyways.

So there you go. Little something strange to end up the program with.

It's interesting. All righty, folks. Let's see. Today is Tuesday, and I don't think there's anything in the way for Thursday this week.