Special Guest Tom Buck/1 Corinthians 1 and a Debate

Well, greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White along with me today in our new studio, our first special guest or sacrificial lamb or guinea pig, whatever you want to call

Tom Buck. He's called, he's been called all those things and worse. But Tom Buck is joining us from Lindale, the metropolitan, the center of Texas.

It really, I think he said that to me once. It was late at night, so I don't know. But the center of Texas, Lindale, Texas, which

I guess is nice and warm now after last week. Yeah, I'm actually called the center of Texas.

But yeah, last week, yesterday, last week, it was minus seven and yesterday it was 77.

Well there you go. That's Texas for you. Well actually, that minus seven thing, that was pretty freaky.

Those were all records, weren't they? They absolutely were. It's a global warming.

That's right. That's right. I didn't grab my little Grogu. He's not in the background anymore because it sort of looks like Mandalorian is pretty much done anyways, thanks to Disney.

But anyways, Tom Buck is the pastor of First Baptist Church in Lindale. He is Dr. Dr. Tom Buck.

I mean, a graduate of, and notice I'll say this correctly, the Southern Baptist Seminary.

You have to say, the has to have at least three times the emphasis of Southern for it to really be appropriate, especially when you're on campus because you'll get in a lot of trouble if you just simply say the

Southern Baptist Seminary because there are some others, but the folks in Southern really don't want to recognize that they actually exist.

But anyways, Tom is now infamous, even more infamous than I am.

I mean, over the past month or so, Tom has been tweeted about by some pretty big names.

And how many articles were written about how terrible and horrible you are just over the past month or so?

At least 20. At least 20. I'm sort of feeling a little down personally that I can be out here saying pretty much the same things for so long.

And I don't get the kind of attention that you did. I'm not sure how you pulled that off, but CNN was talking about you and I'm going to tell you, you really managed to jump face first into the middle of it.

Congratulations. Well, yeah, Washington Post. And what I have to really give thanks to for my fame is

J .D. Greer and Danny Akin for loving me enough to throw me out of the bus. So, you know, what would

I do without the SBC that we give over $250 ,000 a year or two in our church, if not for to take their faithful pastors and smear them publicly?

Well, everybody, I think, well, I can't say everybody, but I think most people know, since we certainly, you got it.

You got to admit, Tom, not everybody stood by you, but some of us did.

And from from the very start, I was just stunned at the responses.

At first, it was just on Twitter. You had made what seemed,

I mean, can you imagine anyone even, I think the tweet that you posted in 2010 probably would have gotten like 10 likes and that would have been it.

You would have sat there going, man, I wasted a lot of finger space on that one because nobody would have said a word about it.

Of course, it wouldn't have been a context in the election of Kamala Harris, but you saw people talking about Kamala Harris as a woman in power.

And you saw that as separated from issues of character, morality, worldview.

I think over the next couple of months, you will be somewhat rehabilitated in the minds of some people when they see and they really start getting an understanding of what the

Equality Act is all about, all the rest of that kind of stuff. I think they're going to start seeing, wow, this is really, really bad.

I mean, just today, watching, I'm not sure if this happened today or if it happened yesterday, but did you see the

Rand Paul thing from the Dr. Levine, the guy, and he is a guy who could not answer a direct question if his life depended upon it, obviously, but Rand Paul saying what needed to be said concerning the issue of 13 year olds having horrible mutilating surgery and the whole world going, this is wonderful.

This is great. That's the worldview of Kamala Harris. That's the worldview of this regime.

And that's the worldview that's going to be enforced upon all of us with the passage of the

Equality Act. It may not make it through the Senate, but I'll be perfectly honest with you.

There are enough leftist rhinos in the Senate that I'm concerned about it. And of course,

Biden's going to do everything he can to just use executive orders to do most of it. If he can't get it through the Senate. So the point is this is a worldview issue.

And you just simply said, I can't imagine any godly Israelites pointing to Jezebel as an example of a woman in power and saying,

I want my daughter to be, to be like her, even though she was a woman in power, the whole thing had to do with character worldview.

But I do have to ask you one question because a bunch of the later articles seem to assume this.

But I'm going to, I didn't tell you, I was going to ask you this. So this is sort of a little bit like, you know, doctoral level question here.

And we'll see if you can pass the test. But do you have specific knowledge of the understanding of Vietnamese subculture in regards to Jezebel?

I do not. Chinese culture about Jezebel? I don't.

Brazilian? No, not last time. No, I don't have nothing.

Well, then I, because everyone assumed that there was something more to the reference to Jezebel, because evidently there is some kind of black cultural something somewhere about Jezebel, even though you didn't say anything that would connect it with that.

I really wonder how many of your critics who just assumed you knew all that would know whether there was any kind of special societal understanding in any of those

Brazil or Australia. Hey, I bet you the Australians have something that they could cook up about Jezebel too.

It was just amazing to watch the initial response. And of course, we chimed in on that.

And then, of course, the Baptist presses, I guess. I didn't know there were so many

Baptist news sources. But I commented to you, they just copied each other.

They didn't do any. How many of these? Never received a call. Never received a call from one news outlet.

Still to this day. So you're talking Washington Post, CNN, all the

Baptist press sources. And what is... RNS. Is your phone the

Darth Vader mask back there? Maybe it's not working? Anything like... No, no. Trust me, my phone's working because I have received many phone calls just from people who are angry about what they wrote and lied about me on.

So my phone works. All right. All right. Just checking. Just want to make sure. In fact, let me tell you real quick what happened in the situation.

So I remember it very clearly because I was in Houston at a conference. I was sitting in my hotel room, getting ready to go to the conference.

I woke up that morning and I saw not just on Twitter, but in a variety of news outlets.

This was two days after the inauguration. And there were a variety of Christians who were praising

Kamala Harris and saying that she is an example for our daughters of a woman who is able to go all the way to the top of the ranks, if you will, in power in America.

So the funny thing about this is that everybody's made this about me saying something bad about Kamala.

And I wasn't talking to Kamala. I was talking to the Christians who are absolutely out of line in regards to their worldview.

So I never one time had in my mind, hey, I think Kamala is Jezebel. I sat there and simply said, well, what's a biblical example that I could give to your average

Christian who would say, I'm really not doing a good job here making this comparison. And I simply typed out very carefully a tweet that said,

I can't imagine a godly Old Testament Israelite pointing their daughters to Jezebel as an inspirational role model just because she was a woman in power.

Right. That's all that I said. Of course, I believe that Kamala Harris's policies in the way that she's governed wickedly have correlation to the biblical

Jezebel in the wicked policies and the wicked evil deeds that she did.

But what the evangelicals aren't getting is I was talking to them and how unbiblical they are.

I wasn't really talking to Kamala. Right. But immediately that was run through the filter of race and racism.

People immediately started going, well, you know what that means in the black community.

And I have had no earthly idea. Well, it wasn't immediately.

Actually, what happened is the first thing that was posted negatively,

Dwight McKissick asked if I was talking about Kamala. And then Sarah Pullen Bailey, I believe is her full name, with the

Washington Post retweeted it and said just a couple of days after she's inaugurated, this pastor calls her

Jezebel. I respond back to her and say that I wasn't doing that immediately. I interact with this reporter from the

Washington Post. Then three or four tweets in, maybe 30 minutes to an hour later, she says, well, did you know that this has racial connotations?

Dwight McKissick never said it had racial connotations. And this was a day later, actually,

I should say that Sarah Pullen Bailey said this. Dwight said something the first day, never said anything about racial connotations at all.

Then Sarah Pullen Bailey says, oh, I just found this on the Internet that there's some kind of connection here.

Nobody knew that. Then Dwight jumped on the bandwagon. He didn't know that there was any racial connotations because a few years earlier, he called a black woman

Jezebel. Well, but that was a few years ago. Come on.

You need to understand that in woke culture, the only thing that matters is what serves the narrative today.

So you just, and he can do that in the past. You can't do that because as I'm looking at you, you're from Tennessee, so you just don't get to do things like that.

That's the problem. And, you know, I was just noticing, Tom, I hate to mention this, but I don't think you had quite as much gray hair the first time we met.

I'm just noticing that right now. I do have some. No, you do.

But I just thought you had a little darker hair the last time that we met.

Maybe all this Twitter stuff is prematurely aging you or something. I'm not sure. You got to be careful about that.

But I'm sure some people wish it's really aging me quickly and I'll pass on. So anyway, obviously you've had the opportunity of hopefully correcting many people, but you've also gotten an insight into the inside, the not so pretty inside of the

Southern Bapst Convention. And of course there's a lot of maneuvering going on right now that I'll be honest with you,

I don't know a whole lot about. I'm seeing a lot of names and discussions and have they even decided whether they're actually having the convention in person yet?

Well, I mean, they're claiming that they're going to, it's going to be in Nashville. I don't see how they're going to gather 15 ,000 plus people because that's what

I hope will show up because we need that many to show up to overturn what the

SVC has been doing with the smaller numbers of the woke crowd that's been showing up.

But I don't know how they're going to be able to pull that off, but we'll see. So they're supposed to be in Nashville, but right now

Nashville isn't allowing that kind of gathering, basically, is that what you're saying? Well, what

I'm saying is, is that, I mean, Tennessee is a little more liberal in its allowances regarding COVID, but I'm just, you know,

I'll be surprised if they don't want, you know, masks and social distancing and the things of that nature.

It'd be hard to do the social distancing with 15 ,000 plus. Just a little bit. Yeah. So we're hoping to go to Tennessee to rescue this thing.

I think in some ways it's kind of like the Alamo. It's the last fight. I hope it doesn't end up like that, but a

Tennessean left to go down to Texas to fight. Now the Texans are going to go up to Tennessee to fight.

So we'll see what happens. Right, right. So clearly not having the annual convention last year and allowing the people who were already in charge to stay in charge for another year has been pretty devastating, especially in light of resolution number nine and the division that that has caused and everything that has developed.

It's almost like putting it off that year has, was an incredibly damaging thing to do.

Yeah, there's no doubt of that. Another year, J .D. Greer didn't help us. Right. And, you know,

I mean, I love J .D. Greer as a person, but his leadership is just horrendous in the

SBC. You know, and it's all over the map from his views,

I think, that are less than helpful regarding women preaching to his views in saying that you can vote for a pro -abortion candidate with good conscience and that we have to allow room for that.

Although he is not, he is staunchly pro -life and votes pro -life. He voted for Donald Trump, he told me.

I guess maybe I shouldn't have said that, but too late. And so he has, he's been staunchly pro -life, but he says that if we're going to make room in our churches for racial reconciliation, we've got to allow for people to vote pro -abortion.

There's just all kinds of problems. And that's certainly an issue that I really struggle with is this constant utilization of the phrase racial reconciliation.

It's been accepted by most of the leadership without any ability to push back and say, wait a minute, let's talk about what race allegedly is.

Let's talk about what ethnos means in the Greek New Testament. Let's talk about what reconciliation means and all the rest of this stuff.

It's just been accepted as a given. Yes, this must take place. And once you accept it in that way, it's placed outside the parameters of the gospel.

No one's picked it up. I'm the only one that uses it, but I'm sticking with it. I think when

I responded to the PCA situation and the comments that were being made by leadership in the

PCA, I spoke of the Scythian test. I think it's just because it's hard to say.

Scythian is not an easy word to say. Let's just be honest with ourselves. But the Scythian test in Colossians chapter three, to me, just shines the brightest possible light on this issue of racial reconciliation.

If you want to bring anything into the modern day church that would have destroyed the apostolic church, that's probably not a good idea.

That's probably going directly against biblical norms. And yet I don't see anyone even giving a second thought to these issues.

It just seems to me that by having three years of pretty much the same leadership, there's wisdom in having the limitation of terms because it serves as a pressure release valve.

You know what I mean? And so it seems to me like there has been a tremendous buildup of pressure to where now you're looking at a situation that even if the convention can actually meet, let's just be honest, that's going to be a very different atmosphere than there has been in many years in the

SBC. I mean, let's just be honest. There are people that are leaving on both sides.

There are people going out the left. There are people going out the right. And if there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure to somewhat compromise and try to come up with some middle of the road that keeps everybody happy.

And the problem is once you have people that are becoming woke, critical race theory has no, there is no place for compromise.

That's the problem. That's the whole point. Critical theory, whatever you put between the C and the T is going to be destroyed.

There is no place for, it destroys every connection, every unifying element in a situation.

And that's, that's, I don't know how that's going to work in large organizations like the

SBC. And I'm already hearing people using terminology other than Southern Baptist, which makes me wonder if they're not thinking about the future and what their offshoot group is going to be named or identified with or things like that.

So it could be, it could be some really, really treacherous waters to navigate because it sounds to me like there are some, some really conservative groups that have now popped up.

Am I correct about that? That are saying sort of, we need to redo the conservative resurgence or am

I wrong about that? Well, I think what we're dealing with is we're, yes, there's groups that are popping up who are saying that what we have abandoned is the sufficiency of scripture and nothing illustrates that better than resolution nine.

And that, you know, the word of God is not sufficient enough and the gospel is not sufficient enough. So I know of one particular,

I'm told of one particular pastor who, when he was asked, is the gospel not enough?

He said, well, it wasn't enough for you and I to be able to drink at the same fountains in the sixties and the fifties.

Um, I mean, I don't even know how to address that. I certainly, you know,

I'm thankful for the things that happened in the civil rights movement, but the church, the church has always been about the gospel of Jesus Christ being the very thing that changes hearts and transforms lives.

Um, but there is going to be a split in the convention. Uh, there's no doubt in my mind of that because, uh, we are not going to go forward with the resolution nine, uh, in, in, for my thinking,

I'm not going to stay in a convention that does that. And there are others that say that if we do away with critical race theory, they're leaving.

So there's no doubt it's happening. And I'll say one other thing about, about the situation with J .D.

Greer. It's just a hypocrisy that drives me crazy because two days ago, J .D. lectures everybody, uh, and, and basically calls us

Pharisees that are, are raising these issues. And he talks about how we need racial unity or, excuse me, racial reconciliation and diversity,

I should say racial diversity. Yet when he, uh, he could have easily stepped down instead of taking an unprecedented third term, he could have easily stepped down and allowed the first vice president to become president, who is an

African American. But he didn't do that. I don't, I mean, put your money where your mouth is, pal.

That's what I say. I was unaware of that in, in, uh, well, I mean, I, I saw you tweet that a few days ago.

Um, but I didn't hear anybody talking about that, uh, a year ago. Why wasn't that on the front burner?

That would have seemed to have been a, uh, real clear, loud, uh, loud signal. Why wouldn't that be a possibility?

Did anybody even talk about it then? Me. Well, but you're you.

I went, I went directly to J .D. and asked him why he didn't. Uh, now understand this, that Mike Stone, who's also running for president this year, he, um, he was the chairman of the executive committee and he stepped down so that an

African American could take his place, but J .D. stayed in his position. So I just think it's,

I think it's just hypocritical and it's disingenuous to talk about how we need to have diversity and that you have a great opportunity that you could, with your own action in one step, immediately make things more diverse and have an

African American move into the president of the SBC for this year of COVID, uh, and he didn't do it.

And I said something very publicly about it and nobody else cared. So, uh, right now, uh, cause you have done, you have been our, uh, secret inside.

No one had, I mean, we blurred your face and changed your voice and everything else.

No, we didn't. Um, but you've reported from the SBC for us a few times before.

Um, what is the presidential situation looking like right now to your knowledge?

Well, I know three of the candidates, there's a fourth that I don't know really well, but of course,

Dr. Moeller is running and Dr. Moeller has been, as you know, a staunch conservative, uh, a staunchly conservative on all the issues that, that, uh, have, have been concerning even recently, particularly the issue of women preachers in the

SBC. Then you have, uh, Mike Stone, who's with the conservative Baptist network, which is a subset, like a, a, a caucus, maybe if you will, within that Southern Baptist convention.

Um, and he is running. And then you have Ed Littleton, which is, uh, the woke's candidate.

Uh, Ed Littleton is he, where's, where's he from? I don't know much about him.

I just know that he, uh, all the woke crowd has endorsed him. So he's the guy, if you want critical race theory and wokeism to continue to progress and march forward in the

SBC, that's who you vote for. Okay. All right. Well, uh, and this is supposed to be what mid late

June, somewhere, uh, coming up June, June 14th, 15th, 16th that week, that week.

Okay. All right. Now we're going to be proceeding that on June 11th and 12th in Dallas with a

Wokeness and Gospel Conference on June 11th. It's going to be at Tommy Nelson's church at Denton Bible.

Owen Strayen's going to be speaking at that, uh, Daryl Harrison, myself, and some other Southern Baptists, uh, the weekend prior to the convention.

So we hope to get some traction there, June 11th and 12th at Denton Bible Church. I've seen,

I've seen the, uh, advertisements for that. So that'll be, uh, that'll be really interesting. Well, um, right now, obviously, you know, people ask, well, what are you gonna be doing later this year?

Things like that. It's next to impossible to plan almost anything. Uh, the way things are going in the world.

I mean, uh, if we end up with a COVID 21 coming out, could you imagine if all of a sudden they announced tomorrow, uh, that they have discovered a new strain that is unaffected, uh, by the current, uh, vaccines?

Um, we're back to square one and now there has to be a second vaccine and then a third vaccine and, and, uh, everything where people have to get together or do anything like that could be put off again for another year or more, uh, into the future.

And I think a lot of people are, uh, are, are at their wits end as far as all that's concerned, but I don't know what can be done about it.

So, uh, we will obviously be keeping an eye on these things and, uh, seeing what develops within, uh, within the

SBC. Uh, but just briefly back to, um, back to your becoming famous, um, so much of what was written, uh, by the

Baptist Press, not only did they not, Baptist News, just to clarify that Baptist Press is the

SBC. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I was using that in the broad sense of, I saw a number of different, uh, outlets that were somehow

Baptist, had Baptist somewhere in their name, in their name, and they were just quoting from each other.

They're just, they're not, they're not even doing research, not even looking into it. And what really concerned me was they were quoting from Christians who should be able, if there is an element of honesty to read what you said and go, well, it's pretty obvious what he was talking about.

And we can't really argue that point because you, you obviously have, we're talking about something that's important and biblical and things like that.

There were just so many people who went to church the following Sunday and sang out of the same hymnal and said many of the same words.

And yet they just did not have any concern whatsoever about being truthful and accurate and honest, uh, in, in what they said.

And that's, that to me was really indicative of the overriding importance of some type of narrative and the promotion of that narrative, even at the expense of throwing, uh, throwing a brother under the bus in essence, uh, is, is what was taking place.

And that to me was extremely concerning. And it also means that once, let's say there is a convention meeting, how accurate can we assume the coverage is going to be, the information coming out?

Um, there was a, there was a, there was a day when we honored something called journalism, because we all recognized without a free press, without accuracy of information, you cannot make meaningful decisions.

And wow, are we facing difficulties today along those lines? There were just so many Christians who knew that what they were saying was not accurate and was not truthful.

And yet they did it anyways. That was, that was what really, um, bothered me as I saw the whole thing developing.

I expect unbelievers to do what unbelievers did. I expect them to think the absolute worst of Christians and, and to not check on facts.

And that that's, that's been happening in the press for a very, very long time. But when alleged

Christians are the ones doing it, uh, that's when you really know something's, something's going on.

And we're just, I was going to say we have to get used to it. Uh, that doesn't sound right.

Um, we should be aware of the fact that for many, many people now to say anything in regards to transgenderism, homosexuality, um, the profaning of marriage, uh, anything where, where scripture directly addresses the rampant rebellion of our society, we are going to be called haters.

And once you're called a hater, then you can be treated any way, uh, that the people want to treat you.

Uh, and it, and it, you, your rights have, have disappeared. And that's, that's coming for all of us.

Um, it really is coming for all of us. And, um, uh, that's why

I said, I wrote a little article, I don't know, uh, about two and a half, three months ago, uh, where I said, you really need to dig down and realize the only person you need to be concerned about pleasing is, is your

God. Um, you have to be so convinced that he can see your motivations.

He can see the foundation you're standing on, why you're doing what you're doing. Because if pleasing men is in any way, shape, or form a part of what makes you who you are and determines what you're going to do, um, the future is going to be ugly for all of us.

And, uh, we really, really need to nail that down and get it, uh, get it deep because, um, uh, we see this happening around us at a tremendously swift pace.

Well, anyway, so there's, there's all of that was actually just part of the introduction to, to who

Tom Buck is. Um, man, that takes, that takes longer than my introduction does. That's pretty impressive. Um, but, um, now if we can switch off of that for a little while, um, one of the things we wanted to do is, um, uh,

I remember, do you remember what year, uh, I first came?

Cause the first time I came down there, uh, was when I did the presentation on, uh,

Ergon Kanner. And then I did some other speaking. I'm not sure if I preached or not.

I But I remember us stopping somewhere between, uh,

DFW and Lindale and, uh, at a shockingly, it was a, uh, some type of a sirloin, not sirloin stockade.

It was a, it was a beef place in Texas. I can't believe they have beef places in Texas. And, um, uh, we were sitting there eating and you were telling me about, um, your doctoral work and what you were working on and stuff like that.

Uh, so I don't remember how long ago that was, but I, I know that you, uh, transferred, um, and completed that work.

Uh, when did you, uh, was it, was it last year or the year before that you, uh, that you finished up? Two years ago.

It'd be two years ago this May. So you actually got to, uh, do it without hiding behind masks and things like that.

That's, uh, I feel, I feel sorry for everyone from junior high school on up that has graduated since, since COVID hit.

It's just, it is, I really do feel for them. So you got to do the whole thing and, and, and do the enjoyable graduation and things like that.

That's good. Uh, that's good. Uh, maybe the last time that happens for, for many years, but, but anyways, so, um, you graduated in Southern, uh, what, uh, how would you characterize, uh, what work you were doing?

Well, Southern offers a doctoral program in expositional preaching.

So that's one of the main reasons that I even did doctoral work at all, because I wanted to do something that, uh,

I have a passion for, you know, that I do expositor preaching workshops and things of that nature.

And so I wanted to push myself and think through, uh, the topic of the topic of expositional preaching.

And one of the things that intrigued me is how many people would say that there's just not any examples of, of expositional preaching in the

Bible. And therefore, you know, you cannot argue that it's the way that you were to preach the scriptures.

And so, uh, things were just said, you know, in a blanket type way that, you know, the sermons in the book of Acts and throughout the rest of the

New Testament are not expositional. Um, as I began to think more deeply about it and begin to study and read, um,

I became challenged to look at the book of Hebrews, because I believe that Hebrews is essentially, uh, either a sermon or sermons and that it's sermonic in nature.

I had several things that began to persuade me in that way. And so I wanted to go and look at how the, uh, writer of Hebrews handled the

Old Testament texts and whether it handled them in what I would consider to be an expositional manner.

So, uh, what I mean by that is when I talk about biblical exposition,

I would say that it is, uh, understanding, coming to understand the original point of the text or the point of the original text, uh, as both the author and the audience would have understood it, and then making that point the central point of your sermon.

And so I went to examine. So I had to go back and look at the Old Testament texts that the Hebrews writer used to see, was he faithful, uh, to what the original purpose and the original central proposition, if you will, of the original text of the

Old Testament, to how he was using it, uh, in the book of Hebrews. And so that was pretty much the essence of what

I was doing. Now, you didn't do, uh, all of Hebrews, as I recall. You did a particular portion, right?

Yes, because, uh, there was, I mean, it would be, it would be a monumental task. Oh, yeah.

I might go back. I might go back, and I'm even tempted to do another doctoral level to, to be able to do that.

But I became completely convinced just by the small amount of work that I did. And I was able to build on the backs of others.

I'm not the only one. I found that Jonathan Griffiths a few years ago wrote his doctoral dissertation on not, he didn't examine the

Old Testament text, but he, I have the book here. It's called, uh, Hebrews and Divine Speech.

It's his doctoral work on that. Uh, I highly commend it. And he lays out the arguments for it being a sermon and even the structure of Hebrews to understand, uh, how it flows together as a sermon.

Well, let's talk for a second, uh, because this is what a lot of people on Twitter have, um, asked that we discuss.

Well, well, first you mentioned the, uh, expositional, uh, workshops and stuff you're doing.

You have one coming up though that you might want to let people know about? Yeah, it's, uh, two weeks from this coming

Tuesday. Um, we were supposed to be joined by Votie Bauckham, but obviously, uh, he is having surgery today, actually.

Yes. And haven't heard a word of, upon that, but, uh, be in prayer for him. But he won't be joining us for it, but we're going to be studying the book of Titus.

And it's just a great workshop where men get together, pastors get together. And, uh, we work both in lectures and in small groups working through a book of the

New Testament or Old Testament to learn how to better preach it and handle it. And is that all filled up or, uh, do you, or?

There's a few spots left. They can go to, uh, the G3, uh, website, G3 Ministries, uh, website, and they can register there.

Okay. We've actually got some folks flying in from, one guy flying in from Maryland to be a part of it.

So there's still room. Okay, good. All right. Uh, so I know you're doing a lot of that, uh, through G3 and that, uh, uh,

Vodi was, uh, involved with that. And we hope we'll be able to be involved with that again in, in the future, obviously.

Um, it's amazing stuff they can do with the heart these days. It really, really, really is. Uh, so we, we hope that they will be able to, to, uh, be successful in what they're planning on, on trying to do.

But what a lot of people asked us, uh, to talk about, uh, was brought up a little bit by what you just said.

Um, and that was, how do you know this is a sermon? And so you have to be approaching

Hebrews with an understanding of its nature and hence have to deal somewhat with the concept of, of authorship.

And of course, Hebrews, any section on authorship is going to be very long and pretty much very theoretical, uh, because Hebrews doesn't present a specific, uh, author.

And so one of the theories, uh, that I am sure at some point in my studies down through the years,

I heard somebody present this theory and it stuck with me. But I simply in, in reading the book and in considering the book, uh, came to the conclusion, uh, from my own, my own studies that this strikes me as a sermon, uh, delivered by the apostle

Paul, but written down and rendered in its current form, not by the apostle

Paul. Um, I'm certainly not the first person to recognize that, um, anyone who is very familiar with Pauline syntax and style and vocabulary and, and terminology, um, that, that that's not, that's not

Hebrews. Um, if you want to make sure, uh, to completely frustrate a, a beginning

Greek student, um, throw them into Hebrews, uh, because it is some of the hardest, uh, language in the

New Testament. And of course, everyone has always pointed out that it is very, very similar to Luke and Acts in its, uh, in its, uh, syntax and style and, and, and everything else.

And so, um, my, my theory is that, uh, either, uh,

Paul preached this sermon maybe more than once and then asked

Luke to make it available for, uh, non Hebrew speaking, uh,

Christians, uh, maybe Jewish Christians, obviously, but in the diaspora, many of those

Jewish believers lost the ability to actually read Hebrew. They became depend upon the

Greek septuagint. Um, and so, uh, either Paul would request

Luke to do this, or maybe it was Luke that went to Paul and said, I, I know all sorts of folks who would really, really be blessed by this.

Um, can I write this down and, and, uh, send it out? So on and so forth. We don't know the, obviously know the details, but that it is

Pauline in its essence source. It's certainly it's theology, but that it's

Lukan in its expression, uh, in, in the Greek language. And there were people that in the early church that, that had

Luke in there. And obviously if Luke's closely related to Paul, then that's, you know, that's how it's going to work and things like that.

Um, so my understanding is, uh, that you pretty much came to a similar conclusion. We, I assume that you've decided it's not

Priscilla. Um, right. So, so we'll put that one over on the shelf.

Yeah, I actually did. In fact, in 1991, I pulled up on my computer, uh, the paper that I wrote on this when

I was at DTS, Dallas Theological Seminary, and we had to write a paper on the authorship of Hebrews.

And, um, I, I wrote down these words. I can look at it. It has the flavor of Paul, but the style of Luke.

And, um, I, and therefore I came to the same, same conclusion that, that this is a sermon that Paul preached and, uh,

Luke traveling with Paul heard it. Um, you know, it's, it's a mesmerizing, wonderful piece of rhetoric.

Um, and, and, and biblically theologically rich. The, you know, if you want to understand how to handle the

Old Testament and bring it into the modern day with the original point, with, uh, application and a

Christological focus, I can't think of a better place to go than Hebrews. We're holding our hands, the most ancient sermon.

I just find that astounding to me. Yeah, you know, uh, at least in having enough of it to be able to really analyze it.

Um, that's most definitely the case, but it also strikes me, however, that you chose a book that for most evangelicals is pretty much a closed book.

Um, I mean, it's, it's, um, I see the connection you're making, but let's just be honest.

Hebrews is, is not the most preached book by any stretch of the imagination.

Um, I think, I think most people skip it because it requires such an intimate knowledge of the least popular portions of the

Old Testament. Yeah. I mean, how many evangelicals in most of our churches have any idea who

Melchizedek was? Um, right. Have ever spent nearly the amount of time, the amount of time that this author does in Leviticus of all places, uh, talking about sacrifices and, and where the, uh, uh, certain pieces of furniture are in the tabernacle, not even the temple, the tabernacle is, is what it focuses upon.

I mean, it is very in depth. And I really think that especially once you have origin come along in church history, you get the idea of the early, uh, churches embracing of an allegorical interpretation.

And hence the, the diminishment of the literal meaning of the words, uh, and looking for only a spiritual meaning and things like that.

Ever since that up through the Reformation, Hebrews just languished, uh, in the background.

And even since the Reformation, um, when I think of my seminary classes, sure.

I took an, I took an entire classes on Romans and stuff like that. And I know there are classes.

I'm not saying there aren't classes on Hebrews, but it just is not the type of book that gets preached very often, which is why

I preached through it, uh, in the 2000s somewhere. Um, I think

I did 85 sermons or something like that through, uh, through Hebrews. And that kicked it up to one of my very, very favorite books, but it is tough.

Uh, it is, there are some of the uses of the old

Testament by the, the writer are very challenging, very, very challenging.

And, uh, I just think a lot of pastors steer clear of it because of the landmines that they think may well be there.

And the fact that they know that the amount of background information that you have to communicate, uh, to make it really understandable is really challenging.

Um, especially if you're in a context where the sermon is pretty much limited to about 35 minutes at most, and sometimes even less.

Would you agree? I totally, I wholeheartedly agree. Um, you,

I, whenever I preached or taught through it, I'm almost always hear folks say they've never heard, um, anything preached maybe than, than preaching

Hebrews 4 .12, uh, regarding, you know, certain passage portions of it or Hebrews 10, um, and talking about, you know, not forsaking the assembly, but understanding the book as a whole.

Most people, most Christians just have no idea whatsoever, but I think it's, I think Hebrews is one of the richest books, uh, and the most

Christ exalting, uh, books in the New Testament, um, in showing his superiority over everything.

Uh, and, you know, there are several people that's got, that got me hooked on Hebrews while back, and you were one, uh, a long time ago.

I wrote you before we were even really friends, and you sent me, um, a couple of things you did on the

Better Covenant. Right. Um, I've still got that on my computer. Interestingly enough, David Allen, now there's two names together you don't hear very often, right?

James White and David Allen, but David Allen loves the book of Hebrews, and I remember Warren Wearsby talking about, and this was how

I first got started. He said, there's three books in the New Testament. He said, you know, in the Old Testament, the just shall live by faith.

He said, if you want to understand the just, you need to know the book of Romans. If you understand how shall, how the just shall live, you got to understand the book of Galatians.

If you understand how the just shall live by faith, you got to understand the book of Hebrews. And, uh, it struck me, and those became the three books that I put a lot of time and energy into.

Yeah, I remember I was traveling somewhere. Uh, I don't remember where it was. Maybe it was a question that I was asked.

I don't, I don't honestly remember, but I got on a, I had a fairly long flight, and, uh, this had to have been a long time ago because I remember the little, uh,

New Testament that I had with me. I think it was a little NIV. I know I could not possibly read it today.

The font was so small, so this had to have been, um, in my early 40s before the eyesight, uh, went, uh, went south.

But I, I remember going, you know what? Um, I'm just gonna,

I'm just gonna set everything else aside. I'm just gonna read this book, and I'm gonna ask the question, what is this communicating?

What, what is the purpose of this book? And so I just, I put everything else aside, and on that flight,

I, most, most people think these books take forever to read. They don't. It's just a matter of minutes, literally.

Uh, you can get through the entirety of, of even the longest, uh, books. And I get done with it, and it is so clear that what the author is doing is saying there's nothing to go back to.

Uh, clearly you have Jewish Christians who are being pressured to go back to the old ways, and this is an apologetic.

It is an argument saying there's nothing to go back to. Christ is the superior fulfillment of all of these things.

And that's what every single chapter is about. And it's a warning. It, of course, it, there's all sorts of the warning passages, but it's a, it's clearly meant to be communicated to the community of faith, to the gathered body.

And there's, there, there's nothing to go back to. And so once I got that idea down, then

I really started asking, well, why isn't this book? Which to me, you have the longest, fullest discussions of the intention and purpose of the father, the son, the spirit in the death of Christ in the entire

New Testament. I mean, Romans eight, uh, you get a couple of passages in Romans, a couple of verses in Galatians, uh, scattered references elsewhere, but let's be honest, uh,

Hebrews seven, eight, nine into 10 entire chapters unpacking this idea of the once for all sacrifice of Christ.

And I've said, I think the fact that most evangelicals have a primarily sentimental view of the cross rather than a theological view of the cross is because Hebrews is not preached and known, uh, the way that it should be.

Um, I've said most people's theology, the cross is more determined by their hymnology than by inspired revelation in scripture.

And, and I stand by that. That's at least that's been my experience in the past.

Um, and certainly I, I've tried to do what I can and the churches that I'm involved with to make sure that's not the case for our people.

But I, I really think that that's the case for a lot of people is that they have a very emotionally oriented understanding of the cross.

And that's why it's one of the reasons we have the attack on PSA, Penal Substitutionary Atonement there.

I mean, there are entire books being published now, uh, saying that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is this terrible, horrible backwards tradition.

It's unbiblical, et cetera. And, uh, I think a lot of that also goes back to the fact that, that Hebrews, um, and that entire sacrificial system in the background and what it meant and the shedding of blood.

And, and, uh, I remember the first time I saw a video of a lamb, uh, having its throat slit literally.

Um, and then the people making it were, were saying, this is, this was happening almost continuously in the temple, these sounds, these sites.

And we just have such a wildly cleaned up version of all of that.

Um, that the idea of wrath and sacrifice has just been completely turned into that's something over there.

I don't want, I don't want anything to do with that. Um, and so when you, you go to Hebrews and you take the time to look at the

Old Testament and learn the background and that takes time, it takes effort. Um, uh,

I, I think it's one of the best things that you can do for the people of God is to direct them that, that way.

Um, and I'm just very thankful that, uh, despite some of the early canonical setbacks, uh, in the sense that, uh, there were people in the early church that had questions concerning the book of Hebrews because of the issue of authorship.

Want to make sure that it was apostolic. Um, I'm glad there were people in the early church that had those standards.

Uh, but despite all that, this book has been, uh, preserved for us. And it's interesting,

I'm not sure if you noted this, uh, but as I look at it, I've never done a, uh, in -depth study, but I think

I'm correct, uh, that the manuscripts we have of Hebrews are probably, uh, the cleanest.

Uh, they, they have, uh, the least variance whatsoever. Uh, and I've, have we lost a

Tom still got him there. Are you still there, Tom? Nope.

Oh, it's coming back. There I am. There he is. Rich, Rich sat down.

I think he breathed on something. Uh, and, uh, yeah, he, we, we are, one thing we are learning is there's a new laptop in our future.

Uh, at least, um, um, is that what's going on in the conversations in our chat channel right now is, uh, yeah, yeah.

I was going to say, yeah, uh, I think Rich is going to be finding a place on the way home, uh, for a more powerful laptop in the future because I'm seeing smoke coming out of the back vents and stuff like that.

And that's probably not a, not a good thing. But, um, uh, anyway, uh, uh, that sort of, sort of got me off the, uh, off the beaten track there.

And I guess we sort of lost you somewhere, probably in the middle of what I was saying. So, um, maybe it would, if you don't mind, it might be helpful for your audience if we just, if we could go over just a little bit of why we would say, what is our argumentation for this being a sermon?

Would that be okay? Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, I had several things. So, and feel free to stop me anytime you want to discuss them or add to them.

But first, um, the writer of Hebrews characterizes his own writing as quote in chapter 13, verse 22, a word of exhortation.

Right. And the only other use of that phrase in the New Testament is in Acts 13, 15, where Paul's invited to give a word of exhortation in the synagogue.

And then he stands up and delivers a biblical sermon in verses 16 to 41 in chapter 13.

So that's just one. Now, any of these alone, I don't think is enough, but I think that's interesting.

Second, if you look at the language that's adopted, it identifies really a speaker with his audience.

So you have the first, you have the issue, the use of the first person plural, we, us, our, addressing the congregation as brothers.

Both of those are techniques, you know, that are identifying with his hearers while at the same time asserting authority.

The third thing I would say is that, um, throughout the book, the writer chooses language to, um, of speaking and hearing, like in chapter two and verse five of which we are speaking.

Uh, verse 11 of chapter five of you become debt bowl of hearing chapter six and verse nine that we speak in this way, uh, chapter 11, verse 32.

And what more shall I say? All of this is the language of a sermon. It sounds like, uh, then there's the alternation between exposition of scripture and exhortation all throughout the book, uh, is striking.

And then I'd say, um, then there are rhetorical devices throughout the book. You have alliteration.

So you have, um, uh, the writer chooses five Greek words that all have the share of the

P sound and the opening verse. Uh, you have repetition, um, the word better, which you have pointed out in some of your writing as well, appears over and over again in chapter one, chapter six, chapter seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, uh, 12, all those chapters.

Uh, you have inclusions, um, uh, throughout that we could go through that if we wanted to, but there's rhetorical questions that are in there in chapter one and verse 14.

It's a rhetorical question. As you read it, it sounds like whatever this is, it was written for the ear, uh, as much as anything else.

Then finally, I would say the illustrative imagery throughout the book, you have, it's like a memorable sermon, a ship missing a

Harbor in chapter two and verse one, a double edged sword piercing one's innermost being in chapter four and verse 12 fields that produce either crops or weeds in chapter six, and then an anchor holding to the bottom of the sea.

So all of those things put together, uh, helps me think this really is sermonic in nature.

Yeah. And it starts off. Maybe that's why you don't have, uh, the standard introduction that you would have in, in any type of epistle that you'd be writing at that time period.

But it starts off, uh, God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers and the prophets in many portions and in many ways, not nearly as many peas in the

English, uh, but you're, you're correct there that it is in the, in the Greek in these last days has spoken to us in his son.

So it's, it's immediately not only associating the, uh, the, the writer slash speaker, uh, with the audience, but yeah, this is, this is what you'd expect, uh, from a, from a sermon, from a person, uh, that comes before the people there's been worship.

Now there's going to be worship in the presentation of God's truth. And we're right into it immediately.

Uh, the assumption is that these people would know who the fathers and the prophets were and how they had been spoken in many portions in many ways.

There's no, there, there's certainly nothing here that, that would tell us that this is a book that is meant to just be out by itself, uh, without a context.

Cause how could any, you cannot understand the book of Hebrews without having the Greek septuagint. Um, now

I don't want to get too deeply into the weeds. Um, and I, I think this was outside the, uh, period, the, the chapters that you dealt with, but one of the issues that, um, that if we're going to handle

Hebrews properly, um, we're going to have to struggle with, and it is a struggle.

It's a, it's a, it's a tough thing, uh, is the fact that the writer is, or, or the preacher is preaching to people who are using the

Greek translation of the old Testament. All right. And he's using that Greek translation and twice, and maybe it's more, but just off top my head twice, he utilizes the

Greek septuagint translation where it differs from the underlying

Hebrew and actually does so to his benefit.

In other words, it, it fits what he's saying. So for example, the section in Hebrews 10 about a body you have prepared is different from the

Masoretic text, which talks about drilling through the ear. And in, uh, the quotation, interestingly enough, from Jeremiah 31 about the new covenant in Hebrews chapter eight, the

Masoretic text has, uh, but all though I was a husband to them and the septuagint translates gut all though I did not care for them.

Now it's only one letter difference in the Hebrew, but it makes a huge difference, um, as far as meaning goes.

And yet the application made by the author to Hebrews, um, fits with the

Greek septuagint rendering in both of those places. Now that raises all sorts of questions, which

I'm now going to give you two hours to answer. No, I'm going to, I'm going to sit back and, and, uh, and learn.

Uh, no, it raises all sorts of really challenging questions, uh, in regards to, uh, the locus of inspiration, the methodologies of inspiration, all sorts of things like that.

But one thing it does do that we can, I think, uh, expand upon here is here is a preacher who is utilizing the text that his hearers would have access to, not to something they don't have access to.

So, you know, what does that mean to us as we are looking at our congregations and especially today, see, in that day, they did not have multiple translations.

There may have been a few people in the congregation that could read both Greek and Hebrew. That'd be extremely rare, especially once you get outside of Israel.

Um, you might have, you know, a rabbi that would travel or something like that who might be able to read both. But, uh, the fact is for most churches that Paul's writing to, for example, um, they, all they have is for scriptures is the, is the

Greek Septuagint. And so today when we open up our doors, when we do open up our doors, um, we have people walking in with, uh, with these little digital devices.

And I don't know, you're, you're, you are old enough to remember this. Remember the, I had an eight translation

New Testament. Um, I mean, it was a beast. I mean, you could, it was, it was huge, uh, because you literally had eight different translations on the page of four on one side, four on the other.

Um, the living Bible is always the shortest and, um, and always the weirdest of all of them.

That was for sure. Um, but you had eight of them right there. And that was, that was really weird. That had not really ever happened in the history of the church at all.

So we face something new. And so I don't know how we can follow the example of the writer of the

Hebrews who uses what people are going to have in their, in their laps without having to do mental gymnastics in figuring out what the guy's talking about.

How do we do that now? I mean, the writer of the Hebrews, he used the Greek Septuagint. It's very clear that that was what he was focused on.

I'm not sure how you even make application now, given the, the wide variety of translations that are available.

Um, this of course is a King James only argument. Just use the King James. I don't think that's

King James only argument. I think it there, it is worthwhile. I think to have the elders in a church, have a discussion about if we have a pew

Bible, are we going to stick with it? Um, or do I just get, or do

I just simply have the freedom to just go with whatever translation I feel is best for this week?

Um, or do we even try to say to our people, let's utilize, uh, a, a particular translation.

Let's, let's utilize the ESB or the new legacy study Bible or, or whatever else it might be.

I'm sure there could be people, some people doing that. Um, do we do that? Is there an advantage, um, to having that kind of consistency in light of the fact that some of the arguments in Hebrews do turn on a particular phrase?

They, they turn on a word, uh, which may not be in somebody else's translation.

What do you think about that? Well, I mean, you're raising an interesting point because, um, this will probably get me in trouble with some of my elders because most of them use

ESB and I've started preaching out the new American standard again because I just prefer it. So they'll probably, if they're watching, they'll probably want to have this discussion to, to make a decision.

But I think, I think there is something to that in regards to, I'll have people in my congregation that if they're not using the same translation, they do feel at times, you know, uh, find it hard to, to follow me, especially if I'm focusing on a particular word that's in my translation and not theirs.

Um, I would want to make one point, and that is, um, I, I think we would both agree that Paul, if he is preaching this, which

I believe he is, is not grabbing the Septuagint because it, the way it words it fits his argument.

Right. Um, and, and, and that is happening today. So I heard, I heard a preacher the other day, he used three different translations in his sermon, um, all of them to prop up whatever he was trying to say, including in 1

Corinthians six, when he didn't want to talk about harsh, about homosexuality, he used the

NLT, which says male prostitutes. And so he, he was doing that in order to, uh, stay away from things he didn't want to say, if you will, and to make, uh, make his

LGBTQ audience, cause that's the words he was using, uh, feel more comfortable. So, um,

I think we do have to avoid the danger, uh, of doing that. And one of the things I think that does help us avoid that danger is by sticking to a particular, uh, translation that is faithful to the text, uh, that is faith, you know, is a faithful to a good solid translation of the original and not being tempted to deviate, uh, to a different translation that we feel will better, better serve the point we want to make, which by the way, is the exact opposite of what exposition is.

Uh, we don't want exposition to be, here's what I would like to say. Let me find the best translation to push my point.

All right. I got to tell this story now. You're, you're, you're forcing me to do it. Um, um,

I, I was a member of a, of a mega church, a mega Southern Baptist church.

Um, 20 ,000 members, even today would be a mega Southern Baptist church. And this was in the 1980s.

And so it was, it was one of the big ones and, um, huge facilities and hence huge debt.

And so the, uh, tithing emphasis each year was big. You know, every time you sit down back there,

Rich, I don't know what, what it is, but, uh, he disappears when you sit down. So I, I'm just observing.

Am I here? You're there. You're there. But, uh, but Rich got up and then he sat down and the screen went blank and that's the third time in a row.

So there's something, I don't know if it's grounding something or I'm just letting you know that I'm making the observations so we can figure it out from there.

It's on now. He's just happy we're still here.

Anyway, uh, this preacher always preached from the new American standard. Um, my introduction to NASB, uh, came from this preacher, uh, many, many years ago.

And so during the giving emphasis one year, one of my last years there, because I dared to point this out, uh, one night, uh, he starts and he says,

I'm going to be reading from the King James version of the Bible. And this off the top of my head, but somewhere in the seventies, like Psalm 72,

I think it's Psalm 72, maybe Psalm 76, some somewhere in the King James version of the

Bible. It says they limited the God of Israel.

They limited the God of Israel. And I was running camera.

I was, uh, I was in the television ministry. So I was running camera that night. In fact, I was on what's called camera four, which is a camera that you carried around on your shoulder.

And then he went down front and put on a stand and you ran that during the, uh, during the sermon.

And, uh, so I couldn't look it up, but I, I, I could still hear the sermon.

And I was like, that doesn't sound right. Something is, why does he, why is he in the

King James? So as soon as the service is over, I, I go home and, um,

I was in seminary, you know, seminary students are frightening. And, um, I, uh,

I looked it up and the new American standards said they tempted the

God of Israel. And the whole sermon had been about, if you don't give, um, you know, uh, gratefully and joyfully and in a risky fashion, uh, then you're limiting what

God can do. That was what the whole sermon was about. Well, that's not what the Psalter was saying by any stretch of the imagination.

And it was a situation where the Hebrew term has the root could be understood in multiple ways.

And in the years since the translation of the King James, more uses had come to light that demonstrated it was talking about tempting, not limiting.

And so it's just a bad translation of the King James. And yet he abandoned, and I could never understand this because almost everybody in the congregation had an

NASB because he did. So they're still sitting there reading their NASB.

And so I just, I just couldn't help but wonder how many people were sitting there in the audience going, what is he talking about?

I, I, it's not, it's not, that's not because that became the central point of his entire sermon.

And now the other thing to remember is I heard that man preach some of the most expositionally rock solid, incredible sermons of anyone

I've ever heard. And it was, it was, the problem was you, when you showed up Sunday morning, you didn't know which one you were going to get.

You know, you, you, sometimes you'd get the just, wow. And then you'd get those clinkers.

And that was, that was one of the, one of the main problems, main issues I had. But there's, there's an illustration.

You are more than free to look that one up and utilize in future warnings on, on not how, how not to do expositional preaching in the future.

But I'm sure you've probably already got a whole list of bad examples to warn your students about already. Well, it's always nice to have one more, but that, but the real question is, did tithes go up?

Well, I could tell, ask me about that when we're not on the air and I'll tell you how they got around that one.

It's a, it's a, it's a sad story. Make a long story short, the taxpayers ended up paying off their debt, but that was another issue.

But, but I just, let me just say this real quick. I, I am just so deeply committed to our need.

And I know that I'm not perfect on this. There's no past preacher that is. But we must be, if we believe the word of God is the inerrant, sufficient, powerful word of God, we have got to be committed to preaching in a way that handles the text the way it was originally intended and its original meaning.

And if we don't do that, all we're doing is giving lip service to what we believe about the

Bible. And what I appreciate about the preacher of Hebrews, as I studied particularly how he used

Psalm 95, seven through 11 in, uh, in the section of Hebrews chapter three and four,

I was, I, I was just absolutely so encouraged of how he faithfully took

Psalm 95 and what, how he applied it to his people in his day was exactly how the

Psalmist in Psalm 95 was applying the text in his day. Uh, different circumstances, um, different generations, thousands of years apart, hundreds of years apart.

But at the same time, they were exactly the same main point.

And that's how we should be faithfully handling God's word. Well, I, I wrote in a book, uh, that no one ever read.

Um, well, a few people read it back then, but during the crimes, uh, no, um, it was, um, the book on Harold camping, dangerous airwaves, although I, I'm sure

I did repeat it, uh, in some essence in pulpit crimes. Um, but I, I emphasized when responding to Harold camping in, in, in his heyday, when he was telling people to leave the church and his, of course, his abuse of scripture and all the rest of that stuff.

I pointed out that when you do not, uh, show respect to the word of God by doing serious exegesis, you are fundamentally gagging

God. You are, you are silencing his voice. You cannot say to a people, thus saith the

Lord, if you have not done your absolute level best to, uh, make sure that what you're telling the people, the word is saying is in fact, uh, what the author intended, what the original audience was hearing.

Uh, and that takes a lot of work. Uh, it takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of preparation. And, uh, a lot of people think that's unspiritual, but in fact, it's the most spiritual thing that we could be doing for, for our people if we really want to deliver them the word of God.

And so it's extremely important to be doing those things. Well, yeah, you're, you're teaching them how to study and interpret the

Bible themselves. Right. And if you're mishandling it, they're going to go home and mishandle the word. I think there's a lot to be answered for myself included when we stand before God, because there are people that have followed our pattern of how we've handled the word and, and we've done it in a destructive way.

And they're doing it in a destructive way. I don't think we realize how sobering it is to walk behind the sacred desk, open up the word of God and say, today,

I have a word from the Lord to you. It should cause us to shake in our boots.

Oh, very much so. I, we are the, the, the most, the best teacher on how to handle the word of God is the preacher behind the pulpit.

It's the one that you're going to be seeing. It's the, that example is extremely important. And we have to be consistent in how, in how we're doing those things.

There's, there's no question about it. So we, we definitely agree on that. Well, Tom, I've kept you for quite some time.

I thank you so much for the time it has taken because we had to hook up earlier and test things and, and, uh, uh, obviously

Rich is sitting in the back going, okay, we need to improve this. We need to improve that. Um, uh,

I need to have, he needs to live in a static bubble while he's back there. I know there's various and sundry other things that we're going to have to be doing, but thank you so much for being our, uh, our first, uh,

I'm not sure what we call our electronic guests. Um, but, uh, I know this shot here, you look a little mass killer -ish, um, on the, on the screen, you know what

I mean? Um, well, the light, well, this shot right, this shot right here, you are so sort of washed out and the lights coming down from above that if, if you were in a, like a movie saying, get ready to launch nuclear weapons, people would, would, would understand.

They would, they would, they'd get, well, maybe I should have adjusted the light a little more. I see.

Yeah. Now he's, now he's, now he's, now he's showing you now, now Rich is playing around. Uh, okay. Because there you go.

Because he can, he can remotely move our cameras and zoom and do stuff like that. Uh, very quickly going back out, but, uh, uh, that's what he was showing you there.

But anyways, thank you so much for being our first guest. Hopefully not the last time. And, uh, thank you for your insights.

And I hope people have enjoyed, uh, what we've been talking about and we'll look forward to, to doing it again.

Hey, I appreciate it. I hope I didn't, I hope I didn't destroy, uh, you know, the future for you here.

I mean, nobody really wants to, I guess it can only go be, get better from this point out. No, I very much appreciate it.

And hopefully folks found the conversation, uh, and, and yours as well, sir. Thank you very, very much.

Thank you. God bless Tom. And, um, Hey, thank you very much, uh, rich, uh, for having that shot set up.

Um, I'm actually, uh, if you, if you can say somehow say hello, goodbye or whatever to, uh, to Tom there, um,

I'm actually do have, uh, something else I want to do here before we, uh, uh, close off the program today.

I wanted to make some comments, uh, about, um, a debate that I listened to, uh, over the, uh, on a ride

I did yesterday and, uh, let people know that I intend to do some more, um, discussion in the future on this particular issue, because I think it is a very, very, uh, important, uh, for everybody really to have a solid understanding in church history.

There was a, I'm watching rich going crazy in the back, uh, trying to figure out how to get something up on the screen.

So it's a little, little confusing, uh, especially cause he, he thinks he's got it, but he, he doesn't have it yet, but he'll, he'll get to it.

Eventually he's trying to get the logo up on the screen and it just doesn't, doesn't want to do it.

So we'll, we'll just live with it the way that it is anyway. Um, in church history, um, the controversy over the nature of the human will and the fallenness of man took place right as the world was going into what we would call the medieval period.

And sometimes even called the dark ages. And, um, as a result, it was argued fairly thoroughly, but then generations after that argumentation really did not take it up in any, in any great sense.

It, it, it again became important during the time of the reformation. But by that point, a historical orthodoxy had developed at least to a certain point that kept the original argumentation from being revisited.

What do I refer to? I'm referring to the plaguing controversy. And today there are many people in conservative circles that are doing everything in their power to rehabilitate

Pelagius and to rehabilitate Pelagianism. One of the ways of doing so is by disputing that what they're saying is in fact

Pelagianism and removing those doctrines and dogmas and traditions and things like that and saying, no, we've never really understood

Pelagius. We've never understood what he was really saying and teaching and doing. And in fact, he was engaging in, uh, in meaningful argumentation that was never really dealt with and, and so on and so forth.

And there's no question about the fact that, uh, however else you look at it, uh, the, the final ecclesiastical determinations regarding Pelagius, remember just last week we talked about Zosimus, Innocent, Augustine, uh, the

Palestinian churches and North African churches. We went into depth. I read an hour's worth of church history material to you from Warfield and from others, um, on this particular subject.

Uh, but the final outcome came from Ravenna becoming involved.

That is, uh, secular powers becoming involved. Uh, Zosimus doing a 180.

And, uh, that's from our perspective, not how biblical truth is to be determined.

It's not determined by who has, uh, the, the political powers, uh, behind them.

And so in looking at, uh, modern day advocates who deny federal headship, they deny original sin.

They affirm that man is made innocent. Um, and then falls by example, primarily that man retains the capacity to properly evaluate spiritual things and to make a free will, uh, non grace as in external supernatural supernatural enablement decision, uh, for the claims of Christ and for the gospel.

Obviously these would be individuals who are not only not Protestant, um, they would, these are individuals who literally would not only not be on Luther's side in his debate with Erasmus, they wouldn't be on Erasmus's side.

They are beyond Erasmus in the assertions that they are making because even

Rome is closer to a biblical understanding on these issues than this full on denial of original sin, the fallen nature of man, any type of biblical anthropology.

It is a bib, it is a anthropology that claims to be biblical that is affirming the idea that, uh, there are men who are not regenerate, but they are not fleshly.

That to be, uh, to use the terminology, uh, that is used in first Corinthians chapter two, they are, they are not carnal, they're not

Sukakos. Um, and so you, you have, uh, some really challenging categories that are presented, uh, that I think people today need to be prepared to respond to.

So I listened to a debate. I, I gather it took place late last year, uh, maybe in December, uh, maybe it was before that.

I, I don't know. Uh, I, I should have had the, should have gotten the specific date, but I think it was late last year, um, between Warren McGrew and Matt Slick.

And, uh, the last debate that I had heard that was on this same program was

Matt Slick and Sam Chamoun. And we commented on, on that one. And the fact that I had turned it off about two thirds of the way through, because it was just people yelling at each other and talking over each other and saying the same things over and over again, that really didn't happen this time.

It was, uh, somewhat less hostile along those, those lines.

Um, I think it is necessary that I should say, uh, obviously

I am biased in my review of a debate like this because Matt Slick is, is representing a reform position.

Warren McGrew is, um, I have a feeling that if we were to push, and I haven't had the time to go look at it, um, probably has some theological issues in regards to the knowledge of God and maybe open theism that, that need to be explored.

But in this particular debate was, uh, presenting, uh, his argumentation against the, the doctrine of total depravity.

And there were a number of times I felt like he really was, uh, misunderstanding numerous foundational issues.

Uh, but I, I do feel like I need to say that, um, of the two, uh,

Warren McGrew behaved better. And I'm sorry, Matt, that I have to say that, but, uh,

I think you need to, need to hear this. Um, when the debate started, well, actually before the timers began, the, uh, moderator announced the topic of the debate is total depravity true?

Actually, I think he first said it's total depravity biblical. And then Warren said, no, what we agreed on is, is, is total depravity true.

And the very fact that he would have a problem between those two is somewhat indicative of some other things that came out later on.

Um, and, uh, Matt interrupted him and said, wait,

I thought this was on original sin. Okay. That's a different topic. They're related, but that's a different topic.

A very different topic. I guess I don't need this in my ear anymore. Um, and it's getting my way. Um, it's getting in the way of my flowing hair.

Um, the only flowing hair I have is right there. Uh, at that point, when, when the moderator says it's a different topic than you thought it was, um, at that point you say, well,

I'm very sorry, uh, we've had a miscommunication. Then we need to reschedule this because those are not the same topics.

And to say, well, whatever, I'll, I'll just go with the flow. I think is, is disrespectful to the audience and disrespectful to your opponent, who obviously was prepared with written and timed material to fit into the timeframes to address the actual topic.

And what you're saying is whatever, uh, it's close enough. Uh, we can, I've got, um, as you pointed out, uh, twice during the debate, uh, just under a hundred pages of notes on the subject of Calvinism.

Well, I, I am sure there are people on YouTube that have nearly a thousand pages against Calvinism.

I've got books in the other room that have over a thousand pages against Calvinism. I don't, I don't, I don't see that the number of pages of notes that you have is relevant to anything at all.

Um, there were, um, a number of times when, when Matt, you, you went, you went ad hominem, you went argument from authority, uh, rather than responding to what he was saying, because when you aren't prepared for that particular topic, that's what ends up happening.

And when someone presents an argument, uh, that is not the standard form of argumentation, and this, he is not presenting a standard orthodox form of argumentation.

This is not, uh, what was happening at the second council of orange or, or since the time of the reformation.

Uh, this is a outside the bounds of orthodoxy set of arguments. Uh, if you're not prepared for those things, then, uh, that's the only kind of argumentation you can end up presenting.

So I was, uh, uh, troubled, uh, a number of times by, um, it, it didn't help that there was a constant, well, that's just plain heresy.

And you just don't understand this. And I'll, I'll do a Bible study for you on this. So you can understand that, that kind of thing.

I, I, I get the temptation. I've experienced the temptation myself. It's, it's a temptation, but it is a temptation that needs to be resisted.

Um, what concerned me, uh, in listening to this debate was

I recognize that a lot of folks, just like the first time you run into open theism, a lot of orthodox, even, even seminary trained individuals would, um, struggle upon encountering a doctrine like open theism.

If you've not thought through it before and not thought through the foundations and things like that.

In the same way, the, to argue that the doctrine of total depravity actually denies the incarnation.

That's not the normal realm of debate discussion that is taking place.

And so the argument was made that Christ was made like us in all ways. If our flesh has fallen, then he had to have been fallen.

But since he wasn't fallen, that means our flesh really isn't fallen. And, and that we are made perfect. Um, and, uh, that total depravity fundamentally denies the mechanism of the atonement.

Uh, that was based upon a, uh, uh, interpretation of Hebrews chapter two that we will, we will be dealing with.

That was one of the key arguments. But then the other key argument was found out of first Corinthians chapter two, that the natural man does not receive the things of the spirit of God.

And there was an incredibly large amount of time wasted arguing about what total depravity even means, what the, what the doctrine even, even means.

And eventually it was sort of brought out that what we're talking about when we talk about total depravity, we saying that the natural man, the unregenerate man cannot receive the things of the spirit of God.

We're not saying that the atheist cannot understand, for example, the doctrine of the

Trinity. Um, I have debated atheists who looked at the

Bible and said, yeah, it teaches one God, teaches three persons, distinguishes the three persons. Yeah. It teaches the doctrine of the

Trinity and they're atheists. Um, that did not, that does not require a spiritual nature to be able to come to that conclusion.

Just simply needs, you need to be able to read the page of scripture. And the same way

I did a debate years ago on the Tom Lykos show with a atheist, um, who, uh, while completely rejecting the authority of the word of God, said the

Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of election. It teaches that God chooses a particular people. Um, and he does so on the basis of grace, not anything they have done.

Uh, and he is an atheist. He doesn't believe any of that is true, but the words on the page are understandable.

And so, uh, when we talk about man's inability to understand spiritual things, we're not talking about, uh, the fact that they can't understand what the doctrines are.

Uh, we're not saying because they're dead in sin means they have no action. They're not taking any actions whatsoever.

Obviously what we're talking about is understanding in the epinosis concept, not just gnosis concept, that is taking in and acting upon knowledge, taking in and acting upon understanding, having faith in what you are reading and having that faith change the way that you live.

So in our day, anyone who picks up the Bible can read Matthew chapter 19 verses three through seven and realize that Jesus taught the gender binary, said it was

God's creative intention. Um, and that he blessed a male, female, one man, one woman relationship.

And that's what he defined as marriage. You don't have to have the Holy Spirit to read those words and go, yeah, that's what the words mean.

You don't have to read Greek. Uh, you can just read the plain old words in English and come to the conclusion.

That's what that means. But apart from a change to nature, apart from being a person who is now indwelt by the

Holy Spirit and who desires to do what is pleasing to God, I'm not going to live my life and lose my personal fortune or house or cars or whatever else it might be out of an, out of a commitment to the truthfulness of who

Jesus was. And he has the authority to define these things. When the Biden regime comes along and says, you're going to lose all of it unless you bow down and say that these two men over here are married in the same way as you've been married to your wife for nearly 40 years.

So there's a difference in spiritually appraising and understanding and acting upon divine truths that I thought most of the debate was wasted, honestly, just trying to get around to, uh, that particular aspect of, of understanding what we're even talking about.

When we talk about the inability that arises from our fallen nature, we're not saying that man does not respond to God.

He does in rebellion, all sorts of different kinds of rebellion. But the one thing he cannot do is respond in submissiveness.

That's what Paul says that, because that's, that's doing good in the sight of God who knows the motivation of the heart.

So to do that kind of good, not able to do so according to Romans chapter eight. And so, um, that was, that's something that I think will come out.

But one of the things that really frustrated me was first Corinthians was just, uh, run all over the place for quite some time without recognizing what came before it.

And if we recognize what came in the sentences before the discussion of the natural man, it would have shed a tremendous amount of light on the applications that were being made because the limitation, um, that was, that was being presented in essence, in the, in the, uh, discussion by Mr.

McGrew was that all that's being said in first Corinthians chapter two is that there were certain, um, individuals in Corinth that were so sinful that they had turned their minds over to the pursuit of fleshly pleasure and things like that.

And they are the carnal ones. They are the natural man that the, the, it's literally the soulish man.

Um, and that not all of the

Corinthians were like that, that they're unregenerate, but non soulish men.

So there was some discussion of that, about that, but unfortunately the sentences that came right before it got ignored.

So could we look at them briefly? Um, I don't want to spend too much time. The program has been going, uh, for quite some time already.

Um, and, and Rich is holding everything together with, uh, with bailing wire and, and, and, uh, toothpicks now anyways.

Um, so try to try to go through it here quickly, but here's where we, where it should have gone.

Here's where the discussion should have gone. Uh, Colossians chapter one, four, let's go ahead and do the, uh, thing here.

The message, the logos of the cross, the message of the cross.

So we would call it the gospel message, whatever you want to, but, but it is a logos. It is a message that is defined by the star

Ross, the, the cross, the message of the cross. And then you have two.

And then you, those of you know, Greek no men day men day is to the one.

And then on the other hand, so you have two different groups and they're going to be being contrasted with one another.

So to those who are perishing to the perishing ones, that message is

Maria, Maria. And what is Maria? It is.

Stop that. Don't want to do that. Maria is foolishness.

That's where we get more on more on us foolishness. So the message doesn't change.

The message that is being communicated is always the logos to star root, the message of the cross.

And indeed to the perishing ones, it is

Maria, but here's your day to the being saved ones, us, there's textual variant there.

We'll go into that right now to us who are being saved. It is the power, the dunamis, they use the power of God, the power of God.

So it's the same message. One message was delivered to the

Corinthians and there are two groups that heard it, not three groups.

The theory that was being presented is that Paul comes to Corinth and you have differing groups of Corinthians.

And the idea is that some people had given themselves over to sin so much that to them, they can't ascertain these things, but that then there were other non regenerate, not yet saved individuals who are still good enough in and of themselves that they can respond and follow

Jesus. That's what was being presented. Now follow us through. So we have two groups here in verse 18, and then we have the quotation for it stands written.

Paul's going to demonstrate this in scripture. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise ones and the understanding of the understanding ones.

I will set aside where then is the Safas, uh, the wise one, where is the scribe, the person of letters, where is the disputer could be debater, uh, of this age.

Has not God made foolish a

Moranen, the wisdom of the world, worldly wisdom.

God has made it foolishness. And the answer is yes, God has made the wisdom of this world foolishness.

Um, oh, I wish I had the other program, uh, up. Let's hope that this still here. Yeah, no, it isn't.

Okay. I should have used, uh, I need to need to change my settings here in olive tree. It can scroll the other way, but, um, has not

God made foolish for sense in the wisdom and see the Greek, the English is a little bit bigger than the

Greek. So it's not fitting here for a sense in the wisdom of God. I didn't want to do that.

Uh, yes, there you go. Since in the wisdom of God, the world did not through its wisdom, come to know

God. Then God was well pleased to the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Okay. So some might say, see right there, that's actually making the point because you, you, you have,

God was pleased to save those who believed. And actually, sorry about that.

I'm not having fun with the Greek over here for some reason. There we go. Uh, so save the believing ones.

See, there it is. It was, it was totally up to them. They have their free will and it was their action that determined it.

Is that what's that? What's being said? Well, we'll see here in a moment for, he says that the

Jews seek signs and the Greeks are seeking after Sophia wisdom, but we proclaim

Christ having been crucified, a crucified Messiah to the

Jews, a scandal on to the Gentiles foolishness, but what our toys day toys clay toys, but to the called ones, whether notice the take high, whether Jew or Greek Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God to the called ones, to those who are called that message of the cross becomes what to those who are perishing, whether Jew or Greek, it's either going to be a scandal on or foolishness, but what makes the difference called called whether Jew or Greek Christ becomes one thing, the power and the wisdom of God.

So whether Jew or Greek, in other words, your ethnic background has nothing to do with anything.

No identity politics here. Christ is the one thing to everyone. So the foolishness of God is wiser than man and the weakness of God is stronger than man.

And so then Paul can say to the Corinthians, consider your calling brethren.

There were not many wise, according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, but God has chosen.

God has chosen the foolish things, the world, the shame, the wise, and God has chosen the weak things, the world, the shame, the things that are strong and the base things, the world, the despised

God has chosen to nullify the things that are that what no man may boast before God, but it is by his doing, his doing that you are in Christ Jesus.

X out two, X out two that you are in Christ Jesus. Not your doing. It is by his, not just making it possible.

Remember this whole section started one message to those perishing foolishness, those being saved, the very power of God.

And what determines which group you're in? Well, man -centered religion says you do.

Biblical religion says God. It is by his doing you're in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness, sanctification, redemption, that just as it is written, let him who boasts, boast in his own ability to have properly recognized and done the right thing.

No, that's not what it says. Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord. This illustrates once again the reality that you will not be able to have a, hi, over here, you will not be able to have a biblical doctrine of man if you do not first have a biblical doctrine of God and his relationship to his own creation.

If you start with man, if you start with man, you will always end up with a man -sized

God. You will always end up with a man -sized God. That's just all there is to it.

You will never get to the truth of the divine trinity by starting with man and trying to work up from there.

Every form of Pelagianism, man -centeredness, Mr. McGrew's theology, starts with man.

It will never ever rise up to a truly biblical doctrine of God because it starts with man.

It starts with man. So I want to look at some of these key texts, hopefully to provide some important understanding of what they're referring to and looking at them in this way.

Went a little bit longer than I had intended to, but once again, my sincere thanks to Tom Buck for joining us in the first hour of the program.

Stephen Boyce, Dr. Stephen Boyce, is supposed to be with us next Tuesday. The next,

Rich just said the next sacrifice. No, you're going to have a whole new computer back there and everything, ready to go by next

Tuesday. Oh, just get it on the way home, man. That's all there is to it. You used to be able to go buy fries, can't do that anymore.

No, no, they don't exist anymore. Oh, okay, yes, that's, yes. We will have a computer that will not have to go, just to keep up with everything we're asking it to do.

And I'm not talking about myself, my little thingamabob here. But Dr. Stephen Boyce is doing work right now on First Clement, the

Epistle of Clement to the Church at Rome, Church at Corinth from the Church at Rome. And I have that in accordance.

We're going to put it up on the screen. We're going to be talking about some of the key texts from Clement that are really interesting and fascinating and stuff like that.

Again, pushing the tech and figuring out, okay, that didn't work well, let's try this over here and doing our testing.

And then on Thursday, did I tell you? Oh, Rich is looking a little bit nervous back there.

But on Thursday, we're going to be rejoined by someone who will cause the stream to explode at the number of people listening.

John Cooper of Skillet is going to rejoin us again next Thursday on the program.

We've got some more stuff to be talking about. He has a book out and there's some other things we're going to be discussing.

So we're going to keep working on getting everything put together and working the it needs to work.

And that's just, we told you this is how it was going to be. And that's how it's working out.

Eventually, I'm going to have a nice podium here that I will be able to hide behind and then walk out from behind and do things like that.

This is going to be the AV table if I need to have books or a computer or something over there and that kind of thing.

And this is going to be a different color and stuff like that. So working hard, getting stuff done, and hopefully it will be useful to everybody who follows the program.

Thanks for watching today. And Lord willing, YouTube allows us to continue.