F4F | Remnant Radio Rebuttal

Public Rebuttal to Remnant Radio and the Prophetic Standards Statement

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

So a week ago the Remnant Radio guys, they decided that they were going to take issue with what I was saying regarding the prophetic standards statement, especially as it relates to the idea that they reject the notion that God speaks inerrantly through prophets today and the implications that that has regarding orthodoxy and the testing of real prophecies, as well as the God that they're actually believing in.

And so they put out a response video, and today will be a rebuttal to their response. Now, the guys at Remnant Radio, they are welcome to have a rebuttal to my rebuttal if they want to. They've expressed that they will not go this route, but they're free to if they'd like to down the road.

One of the hosts of Remnant Radio, Joshua Lewis, he has put out his email address and said that he'd be willing to talk with me privately, and I may reach out to him sometime shortly after this video premieres for the purpose of engaging in a conversation privately with them about the errors and the very dangerous practices that they're endorsing and promoting.

That's the best way that I can put it. So let's talk about what we're gonna do here. And before we get to that, I wanted to, I've got extensive notes, because this is one of the more complicated episodes of Fighting for the Faith that we've put out.

There was some buzz when the Remnant Radio guys put out their video, and people were saying, did you reach out to Chris Roseborough privately? And no, they didn't, nor did they need to. I want to make something clear.

When somebody teaches something publicly, me or anyone else, taking issue with it, offering a critique or a tweak or a criticism in the public is fair game. That's how, you know, that's how things are done.

So if I had sinned against those guys privately, like, you know, I went to a friend of mine and I said, you know, that Michael Roundtree guy, he's a gunky head. You know, that's a terrible thing to do.

So, and it got word back to Michael Roundtree that I had done that? Well, Michael Roundtree, according to Matthew 18, is to approach me privately regarding that and say, you know, you've sinned against me by doing that, and it's my job to repent if he did.

So when it comes to public teaching, what people preach and teach in the public is fair game for a public criticism. So these guys didn't do anything wrong at all. In fact, I applaud them for their tenacity, for their rigor, for reaching out and getting, trying to seek clarification on what it is that the AALC, which is, you know, the association that is my ordaining body.

I'm a pastor, an ordained minister within the American Association of Lutheran Churches. So everything they did was spot on. They erred in no way in regard to how they handled these things and the way they sought answers to questions.

I will say that they erred in their conclusions, but that's for our rebuttal today. So let's whirl up the desktop. And what we're going to do here is I had to create a roadmap because this is one of the more complicated episodes.

All of that being said, let me pull up my keynote application. And here's our roadmap for today. We're going to answer the question right off the bat, because the main charge is that I am that I'm somehow judging with unjust weights.

That I've got a standard for the AALC that I'm okay with, but not with the charismatic movement. So we're going to answer this question. Does the AALC believe that God speaks errantly or that prophets can give false prophecies and not be false prophets?

That's really the nubbins of the issue that's at, you know, at large here. So, and then we're going to note that I am far from the only person claiming that the prophetic standard statement as it is written, that it is heretical.

We'll point that out. And so in order to kind of make the point, then I'm going to fix what is wrong with the prophetic standards document using the AALC's own statement regarding the Holy Spirit. And when you see how I do that, then you're going to see where the real error is in the prophetic standard statement.

I'm also going to spend a little bit of time going, I'm going to identify the core error of remnant radio as it relates to fallible transmission. Of prophecies. We're going to look at Grudem's definition that they gave.

I'm going to also point out that their comparisons are spurious as it relates to the Bible and modern prophecy. I'll explain that when we get there. I'll also discuss their failure to address the sin of blasphemy properly.

And on this particular one, maybe I wasn't clear. So I'll be clearer so that we recognize how Exodus 20 verse 7 comes into play. And then we'll discuss their false narrative regarding Deuteronomy 18. And as an aside, I'll prove that Walter Martin taught the Deuteronomy 18 applies to today's alleged prophets.

That's kind of a bonus since the folks at remnant radio are doing a book read of the kingdom of the cults. We'll take a look at something that Walter Martin wrote in the kingdom of the cults and a little bit of a note.

I had one conversation with Walter Martin decades ago. And having when I came out of the latter rain movement, you know, let's just say that my theology was really, really in tatters. And it was shortly after that that I began doing ministry work, reaching out to and doing countercult work, you know, reaching out to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons.

And Walter Martin's ministry had a profound impact on my theological formation. I cut my teeth in the trenches doing countercult work as a result of Walter Martin. In fact, it was Walter Martin who suggested to me personally that I study apologetics under Dr. Rod Rosenblatt at Christ College Irvine.

And Dr. Rod Rosenblatt, who is one of my main mentors, he was very, very close friends with Walter Martin and worked with him on many different apologetic projects. And then another set of my theological and apologetic mentors, Bob and Gretchen Pasantino, who I was very close friends with.

They played a profound role in my theological and apologetic formation as well. And they were very, very close friends and worked very tightly with Walter Martin. So I know a lot about what Walter Martin's position, especially regarding Deuteronomy 18, was.

And we'll talk about that. But also we'll make a quick word about snark and humor and the warping of faces of those who warp and twist God's word and blaspheme. As well as at the end of this, there will be a long discussion with Justin Peters about the prophetic standards document.

He was willing to do an interview with me to discuss it. So that's where we're going to go today. So long episode. You might want to take this in chunks. That's the best way I can put it. Long episode.

But let's talk about our first thing on our roadmap today. Does the AALC believe that God speaks errantly or that prophets can give false prophecies and not be false prophets? The answer is no. And what the Remnant Radio guys did, they engaged in something called conflation.

Conflation. So let's take a look at what the AALC says regarding the gifts of the spirit. Now, it's important to note something here. They quoted Dr. Jordan Cooper about the fact that Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, are not strict cessationists.

And Dr. Cooper's straight up right. Absolutely. Lutherans are not strict cessationists. So what we mean by that is that, yeah, we believe that, you know, the gifts, certain gifts have ceased, the apostolic sign gifts for sure.

There are no prophets today. That doesn't mean that God cannot speak to people. He absolutely can. But the thing is, is that when God, when there's an alleged prophecy or a word from God, it has to be tested.

And because scripture says that it has to be tested, this gets into a theological category that we talk about what's called the norming norm versus norma normata, the normed norm. So when we talk about authority, the idea then is, is that everything has to be judged according to scripture and cannot contradict it and must fall in line with the standards and the tests given in scripture.

And any any time God speaks today, it's going to fit within a particular parameter. And because it has to be normed by the word of God, you do not a priori assume that it is the word of God or that the person speaking it is accurate.

So it has to be tested. That's kind of the point. So when we Lutherans talk about our confessions, so the Lutherans, if you want to know what Lutherans believe, it's not a tiny little pamphlet of a bullet point of, you know, we believe in the Trinity.

We believe in salvation by grace through faith. No, when you want to talk about what Lutherans believe, teach and confess, there's an entire book and it's called the Book of Concord. And we recognize that the Book of Concord has authority, not because it's infallible or the word of God, but because it says the same thing as God's word.

In other words, if you were to Google a certain, you know, like go to the Ligonier website, the reformed guys understand this as well. Look at the Ligonier website. On the Ligonier website, do a search for Norma Normans, Norma Normata.

And you'll see a wonderful article written by R .C. Sproul talking about these distinctions. The idea then is, is that the only rule that rules is scripture. It is the norming norm, Norma Normata, no, sorry, Norma Normans and anything else that comes along, including confessions of faith or statements or even prophetic words, they have to be judged and normed by scripture.

So now, when it comes to prophecy, this doesn't exactly fit neatly in this category, but this is the gist of what's going on in the statement by the AALC. So you'll note, here's what the AALC says. We affirm that the scriptures are the only inerrant and infallible word of God and the only rule and norm, there's Norma Normans, by which teachers and teachings are judged.

And it's in this context, then, of that overarching statement, you know, for paragraph two, that there is a mention then of prophecy. So watch what it says then, all scripture is breathed out, is breathed by God.

It references 2 Timothy 3 .16. So it therefore stands as judge of all contemporary movements and theologies, God's word judges experience and not vice versa, because the Bible encourages us to understand spiritual gifts, and it does, and to desire them, and it does.

We reject any kind of dispensationalism, which says that the gifts of the spirit are not for today. In fact, I absolutely believe that God gives the gift of teaching, of discernment, of administration, of helps, of generosity.

And here's the thing, because we're not strict cessationists, we recognize that there may be times when God has spoken, even though there are no prophets in the church today. So two particular ones that are always come up as far as like stuff in the past, one, you can find in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 27, is a vision, a dream that Antony had, which led to him abandoning his belief that he was somehow saved by his rigorous life.

That's one that's mentioned, and it's not censored as like, oh, this can't be from God. Another one that often comes up in Lutheran circles is one of the statements that John Huss gave. Now, the context in which he gave this is disputed.

In fact, I think the Ligonier website also does a good treatment of the topic. But before his death, Huss basically said, today you burn a goose. He was burned at the stake. And you'll know Huss was one of these guys who taught salvation by grace through faith apart from works.

His issue was, well, it was 100 years before the printing press. And so Rome put him to death. And so he says, today you burn a goose, but in 100 years, a swan will arise, which will prove unable to boil or roast.

And many Lutherans believe that this is a prophecy regarding Martin Luther. And so, you know, here's the thing. It doesn't contradict the Word of God. It doesn't add to the Word of God. And always and again, the test regarding whether a prophecy is true or false is whether or not it's from God or from another source.

And we'll get into that. So we put it out there as a potential thing. Now, Dr. Cooper also noted the fact that in the Selk churches in Germany, there's been a phenomenon of, well, Muslims showing up at Selk churches claiming that they had a vision of Jesus sending them to a particular church to hear the message.

And after hearing the message, they've been brought to penitent faith in Christ, baptized, taught the Christian faith, and are healthy Christians now in these churches. And so, I will note this, that we covered this phenomenon on Fighting for the Faith, the podcast, back on July 24, 2012.

And I interviewed one of my family's close friends, Uwe Simonetto, who was an AP reporter, who covered the Muslim conversions and dreams story and covered it. So I put it out there. I can't disprove it based on any biblical standard.

So it stands as something that could potentially be real. So, and we'll put a link to this particular episode of Fighting for the Faith down below in the description.

Okay.

Coming back then, coming back then to the American Association of Lutheran Churches' statement.

Okay.

So we reject any kind of dispensationalism that says the gifts of the Spirit are not for today. And I would also note one more thing. The Remnant Radio guys know for a fact that I believe that God heals, because I have seen two now instances of miraculous healings of people whom I have prayed for.

And one of them of a very serious and fatal disease, and there's no trace of it now. And this can be medically verified. I know the name of the person, have access to the records medically if I would like to, you know, document it for other people.

So I'm one of these people who absolutely believe that God, you know, that God can heal. Any gift, anything that God has done in the past, He's capable of doing. The question is, when we're dealing with direct revelation from God, how do we deal with it?

And that's the gist of this statement. So while we have seen abuse of the gifts, we would correct it not with the rejection, but the proper reception and stewardship. And note the words, proper reception and stewardship.

And that's going to require a biblical standard. We heed the balanced admonition of St. Paul, do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophetic utterances, examine everything, hold fast to that which is good.

Right, exactly. Prophecies have to be examined and they have to be tested. And the Bible gives us a clear, extremely clear standard by which all prophecies, alleged prophecies are to be judged. So then it goes on, the only prophecy that can claim inerrancy, again, coming back to the fact that only Scripture is norma normans, that they claim that inerrancy is the...

The only prophecy that can claim inerrancy is the prophecy of Scripture itself. The gift of prophecy as rightly received, note the note, as rightly received today, neither supersedes nor contradicts the Word of God.

It uplifts it. And so with that, I would remind the Remnant Radio guys that Scripture is very clear what the standard is for testing prophecy. So we did this with Troy Black earlier in the week, and I'll walk through the argument again.

When it comes to understanding Scripture, context, context, context, that's always my go-to first rule. Second, and one of the ones that comes up often, is Scripture interprets Scripture and clear passages always govern unclear.

So in 1 Corinthians 14, let two or three prophets speak, let others weigh what is said. The weighing here is clearly a testing that is going on, but it doesn't give us the standard by which we're going to test.

And people will say, well, it's got to be against the Bible. I would agree, absolutely needs to be against the Bible. But we have more, we have more. We just read in the AALC's document, do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophecies, test everything, hold fast to what is good, abstain from every evil.

That's the completion of this thought, by the way. Abstain from every evil is invoking the fact that we are to not have anything to do with, well, sin, sin as it relates to prophecies. Test everything, hold fast to what is good.

But still, it doesn't tell us what the test is. Thankfully, we have a New Testament text that gives us what the test is. And so, here's the test. John 4, 1, Beloved, do not believe every spirit. Test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The biblical New Testament standard for whether or not a prophecy is a true prophecy or a false prophecy, and whether the messenger is a true prophet or a false prophet, because you're going to note, you failed this test, you are in the category of a false prophet, because that's what you're testing for.

That's a clear text, is whether or not the prophecy is from God. That's the issue. So, we have to ascertain and weigh and test whether or not the alleged prophecy is from God. And there are biblical standards given for that.

So, with that, what I'm going to do is I'm going to, this is the original statement that I take issue with, and you'll see pretty shortly here, others are taking issue with and claiming that this is heretical language, the way this language is put in here.

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

I would note that is an egregious misappropriation of 1 Corinthians 13, 9. You know, because the narrative in the charismatic movement is that, you know, you get these impressions and you give your prophecy and other prophets are supposed to weigh it and go, you know, that part sounds right to me.

And this part over here, you know, you might want to listen clear, you know, listen a little harder, see if you're hearing properly. And that's not what's going on. Again, the test in scripture is to test whether or not it is from God.

If it is not from God, then it is to be rejected. And the person giving the prophecy is rejected as a false prophet, 1 John 4, 1. So, here's what we've done. I've taken the AALC's statement and I've used it and kind of woven it together.

And I'm going to fix this broken statement here, because, you know, confessional Lutherans are not strict cessationists and believe that things have to be tested. So, let's go with this language and let's get to the gist of it and you'll see how then the proper way to fix this is.

Now, we affirm that the scriptures are the only inerrant and infallible word of God and the only rule and norm, norma normans, by which all teachers, teachings, and alleged prophets and their alleged prophecies are to be judged.

Norma normata, they have to be normed by scripture. So, all scripture is God breathed. It therefore stands as judge of all contemporary movements, theologies, and alleged prophecies. God's word judges experience and any purported prophetic dream, vision, or word and not vice versa.

So, because the Bible encourages us to understand spiritual gifts and to desire them, we reject any kind of dispensationalism, which says that the gifts of the spirit are not for today. While we have seen abuse of the gifts, we would correct it not with rejection, but by proper reception and stewardship, proper reception.

So, we heed the balanced admonition of St. Paul who wrote, do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophecies, but test everything, hold fast to what is good, abstain from every evil. So, continuing on then, this is my fix of the broken prophetic standard statement.

The only prophecy that can claim inerrancy is the prophecy of scripture itself. Norma normans, it is the norming norm. The gift of prophecy is rightly received today, neither supersedes nor contradicts the word of God, it uplifts it.

Therefore, since the New Testament test, which is given to the church through the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle John for determining whether a prophet is a true prophet or a false prophet, see 1 John 4, 1, requires Christians to test whether the prophecy is from God or another spirit, and I put the quote there here.

Therefore, one, all alleged prophecies which contradict or add to the word of God are to be rejected because they are, quote, not from God. And the prophet who delivered them is to be rejected as a false prophet, see 1 John 4, 1, and a blasphemer who has taken God's name in vain, and we'll talk about that more in a minute, and that person needs to be called to repent of their sins of blasphemy and cry out to Christ to be forgiven or to forgive them, and then bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God, 2 John 1, verse 9. Actually, there's only one chapter in 2 John, right? So, here's the second part of it then.

Therefore, since God cannot and does not lie, Numbers 23, 19, Titus 1, 2, every word of God proves true, Proverbs 30, verse 5, God's word does not return to him void. I'm going to make a quick edit here.

Might as well edit the grammar while I'm at it, right? God's word does not return to him void, but always accomplishes and succeeds in the thing for which God sent it, Isaiah 55, 11, and God has clearly stated that, quote, if you say in your heart, how may we know the word that Yahweh has not spoken?

When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that Yahweh has not spoken. Therefore, when an alleged prophet claims to have received a prophecy or revelation from God that predicts future events or details that do not come to pass, the alleged prophecy is to be rejected because it is not from God.

And the alleged prophet who delivered the prophecy is to be rejected as a false prophet and a blasphemer who has taken God's name in vain. And they need to be called to repent of their sins of blasphemy and to cry out to Christ to forgive them and then bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

You see, it's really that simple. All you have to do is apply the biblical New Testament test to today's prophets. And that requires us to determine the origin of the prophecy. And we know that when somebody says, thus saith the Lord, and it doesn't come to pass, that is a word that the Lord hasn't saith.

Right?

You get the idea here. So, let's put this into real world current false prophecy status. Number one, I would invoke every one of the alleged prophets, Jeremiah Johnson, Hank Kunneman, Sean Bowles, Chris Vallotton, all of them, the whole lot, every single one of them who said Trump was going to win the election in November of 2020.

We can then apply this rule from 1 John 4, 1 to determine the source of the prophecy. Was it God who told them that? Or was it a different spirit? We can rule out now God. God did not tell them Trump was going to win.

And this isn't a matter of them misinterpreting or mishearing God. This is about the fact that God did not say these things. And Deuteronomy 18 clearly gives us a test. How do we know a word that the Lord has not spoken?

Well, when it doesn't come to pass. So, we can say every single one of the people who prophesied that Trump would win the election, false prophet, according to the standard of 1 John 4, 1, because we now know the source.

The source isn't God. And then when it comes to, you know, Troy Black, who we took to task earlier in the week, same thing, he prophesied that there was going to be a major storm to hit Anchorage that would wipe out the transportation system.

And it never happened. It never showed up. Did God tell him those words?

No.

No, he did not. God is not the source of that prophecy. Therefore, Troy Black is a false prophet. Now, real quick, I'm going to come back here. And I want you to hear part of the roundtable discussion that recently occurred.

Let me find it real quick. It's probably right there. Here we go. Roundtable discussion between Justin Peters, Phil Johnson, and Jim Osman, the guy who wrote the book, God Doesn't Whisper. And I want you to listen to their conversation as it relates to the current way the prophetic standard statement is written.

And you're going to hear them say that as it currently is written, it's heretical. I'm not the only person who thinks this is heretical. And the issue is they are inferring that God can speak errantly.

And that's the issue. And now that I've cleaned up the prophetic standard statement and brought it in line with the actual biblical standards, you can see that I affirm that God doesn't lie. And when inaccurate prophecies are given, we know from the biblical test that God hasn't spoken those words.

Therefore, we can reject the false prophets. And that's the nubbins here. But listen to this portion of their conversation.

Right.

And I want to bring up, too, in this number 21, that I have number 21, we reject the notion that a contemporary prophetic work. So that part says, let me just read it. We reject the notion that a contemporary prophetic word is on the same level or inspiration or authority as Scripture.

We dealt with that. Now, look at how this next phrase is phrased, or that God always speaks inherently through prophets today, since the Bible says we only know in part and prophesy in part.

Now, that's an abuse of that passage.

That is a gross abuse of that passage. I guess we.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a gross abuse of First Corinthians 13.

You can talk about what that passage means. But I was watching you and Chris Roseborough, and y 'all dealt with this. The way that that is stated is actually heretical. Yeah, it is. In essence, they're saying, if you take all the intervening words out and just put the phrase, the operative phrase, these are their exact words.

We reject the notion that God always speaks inerrantly.

Right.

Yep. That's.

And it boils down to that. That is actually what they're saying when they say, I have a word from the Lord, but it may be wrong. You know, what you're saying is then God doesn't always speak inerrantly.

And in effect, that's what they're saying. I think when you reduce it to that level of clarity, they're going to deny that that's what they're saying.

Yeah, and that's what the remnant radio guys are doing.

But that in practice is how they act, how they teach, what they do. You know, it's that is what they believe. They don't think that God always speaks inerrantly.

Right.

And so, you know, the statement, let every man, let God be true and every man a liar.

Right.

In the charismatic movement, every prophet is true, but God is the liar.

Yep.

He's the one who speaks falsely. But every no, no, no prophet is ever false. It's God himself who's false.

Right.

Prophets always get it right. They're always true. They're never going to be questioned in this movement.

Yeah.

But God himself is the one who cannot speak inerrantly.

Exactly.

Because the subject here is God. The verb is speaks.

Yeah.

We read.

Yeah.

And the adverb.

The way Phil phrased it, there is absolutely right. We reject the notion that God speaks, always speaks inerrantly.

And you could say, you know, you might would say, well, that was just poorly worded. If this was a first draft or something, but by their own admission, this went through many revisions, it crossed many eyes and physical eyes, you know, a lot of different charismatic leaders read this and it was massaged and edited and all that.

And this is what they came up with. That's troubling.

Well, that that is actually their theology, though. They have to they have to state that it's stated so patently clearly there that it's hard for us to miss it. It's obvious on the surface. But that is what they have to believe to hold to the idea that they can have a prophet who speaks from the Lord and says, this is the word of the Lord.

But they get it wrong and they say things that are wrong. They they have to say that God does not always speak inerrantly. Sometimes he speaks to through a prophet, but it somehow comes out the other end wrong, which means that either that it can only mean that God either intentionally is not speaking.

Inerrantly.

So he's intentionally lying. That's one option or that God cannot guarantee the successful and inerrant delivery of his message through the prophet. So you either have a God who is not omniscient or sorry, not omnipotent or a God who is not always intentionally truthful.

Yep.

And that's the problem with the statement. The prophetic standard statement puts the air on God. And that's the problem. Even though it says through their prophets, the issue is the emphasis is on the wrong.

Syllable.

And when I cleaned it up, you know, I absolutely affirmed that God only speaks the truth and that one of the and that the standard is to test whether or not the prophecy is from God or not. So let's go back to our, let's go back to our roadmap here and let's see where we're at in our roadmap.

So does the ALC believe that God speaks inherently?

No.

What the guys at Remnant Radio did is they took the prophetic standards document and the ALC's statement on the Holy Spirit paragraph two and conflated the two together. And the idea is, is that their issue is, is that, well, this, what the ALC said is what the prophetic standard statement was really implying that that's what they really meant.

The issue is that that's not what the document says. That's not what it says. As it stands, what the prophetic standards document says is heretical. I'm not the only person pointing this out.

Okay.

So we've got that worked out. And then I fixed it.

All right.

So we're going to identify the core error then of Remnant Radio as it relates to what they are calling fallible transmission. Along the way, we'll get Grudem's definition of prophecy, which I reject because I don't see any biblical basis for his definition at all.

And, and they're spurious comparisons of, you know, up to the, of the Bible to modern prophecy. So I have to put my notes here so that I can see them and watch accordingly. But we're going to start with Michael Miller on, in his conversation, his statements regarding the issue is fallible prophets.

And we're going to show that this is absolutely untenable.

But I think the problem is, is from the very get go, he's misrepresenting every person who signed the document.

Right.

If you were to ask every single person who signed that document, guys, do you think God lies? They don't go, no, there's no way that God lies. They would agree that God doesn't lie. And so I think, yeah, yeah.

So the problem here is, is not so much, well, I think the problem is that he's misrepresenting what the authors of this document intended to say. They're not trying to say that God lies, that God is errant.

What they're trying to say is prophets are errant in their transmission of what they heard God inerrantly say.

Okay.

So if that's what they intended to say, why didn't they just say that? Because the document as it stands is heretical, saying that God doesn't speak inerrantly. That's the problem. Now you're putting the issue with the transmission, right?

But here's the thing. This is a completely untenable position on this basis. If they were hearing from God, the Holy Spirit, remember the biblical test is to determine if it is from God. That's what the Holy Spirit commands us through 1 John 4, 1.

So we have to believe that the Holy Spirit is up in heaven, communicating to today's prophets going, hi, this is the Holy Spirit. And, and, you know, I want to let you know who's going to win the election in November.

And the person who's going to win is, is Joe Biden.

Okay.

Because God doesn't lie. And then regarding Troy Black, that the Holy Spirit in fact said this, hi, this is the Holy Spirit. And I know you're playing video games, Troy, but I want to let you know that you need to let everybody in Anchorage, Alaska know that there's not going to be a storm in May of 2021, that everything's going to be great.