Survey of General Epistles

Apostasy, Assurance, and the Difficulty of Hebrews

Alright guys, well tonight we are in Lecture 7. Tonight we are going to be taking a survey of the general epistles. But prior to this you should have read the pre-lesson reading from the Believer's Bible Commentary.

You had three articles to read. One was on the doctrine of apostasy. One was on the doctrine of divine healing. One was on the doctrine of the scripture in 1 John, the sin leading to death. Do you have any questions about that?

Based on the reading? Did you write it down? It's okay. Yeah, that's fine. I assign these readings every week and we don't often have time to talk about them. But this week, since I assigned you three on three very different topics, I wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion.

So, go ahead brother, you look like you want to say something.

Yeah, well on the, what was the three articles again? Apostasy and...

It was on apostasy, divine healing, and the sin leading to death.

Yeah, so on apostasy and the sin leading to death. Yes. Okay, I was, well I guess I'm curious to hear like, what is your take on it? From my reading it sort of kind of seemed like an election, you don't know who's saved.

So how would I just assume someone was going to profess Christ and then falling back into sin? And their life's proving that they never accepted Christ. But I don't know if I would say that that person is not, can never be saved.

You see what I'm saying? So from the articles I read, it's like okay, if you confess Christ, walk with him for a season, and then turn back, that's apostasy. And the sin leading to death, he sort of kind of tied that into that.

If I understand that the sin leading to death is just rejecting salvation. So I didn't know, because I know you say you don't always agree with the Bible commentary.

No I don't, and I will say I didn't read it this week just because of time. So it's been a little while since I've read exactly what's in the commentary. But in regard to the doctrine of apostasy within reformed Christianity, is that we do not believe someone can be saved, genuinely regenerate, and then lose that regeneration.

And so in that sense we would hold to a version of once saved, always saved. Even though we don't typically, I don't like that language, I think it makes it too simple. And often times too simplistic.

The question then becomes what is. Exactly, if it is once saved, always saved, then we would say that what's the definition of being saved? It means to be regenerate, it means to be given a new heart, to be justified.

But the question then is, well what about the person who goes back to the world? And how do we know whether they are an apostate or whether they are simply in a state of failure? Because you know as well as I do brother that someone as a believer can fail.

I've failed and been in seasons of doubt, I've been in seasons of depression, I've been in seasons of sin. Where I've had to fight and battle my way out of it. I think we would all agree with that, I hope we would.

And so the issue becomes how do you know that's what it is, where a person is. I think that is where church discipline sort of plays a part. Because if you have a person who is in sin, who is in obvious sin.

Pardon me, was it? Okay, excuse me. If you have a person who is in sin and you go to them and they don't repent. And then you take the two or three witnesses and then they don't repent. And then you go with the church, you bring them before the church and they still repent.

The church's attitude toward that person is that they are an apostate. That's why they are doing what they are doing. But we still don't know for certain because of 1 Corinthians 5. Turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

That his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. So there's this idea that even if you kick someone out of the church, they may still be saved, but they are in a season of sin. So I think it's hard to say for certain that a person is an apostate who is simply in a state of sin.

Where I think apostasy really is clear is when somebody rejects Jesus Christ. The best example I know of apostasy in that regard is... Oh brother, what's his name? The head of the American Atheist group.

He debated Dr. White a couple times. Bart Ehrman? Who? Bart Ehrman? No, not Bart. But Bart's another one. Bart would be a good example. Bart grew up as a Christian, made a profession of faith. Then when he went to college, learned things about the Bible that turned him away from the faith.

And now he would say he is not a Christian. Dan Barker is who I was thinking about. Dan Barker was a preacher. Dan Barker is a good example. He was an evangelist preacher. He was with Katharine Kuhlman.

Now he would say there is no God, there is no Holy Spirit, there is no Jesus. I reject all of that. Even though at one time he would have been a professing preacher of it. And so my definition of apostasy is to say apostasy, specifically, is someone who has rejected belief in Jesus Christ, having once professed it.

Does that make sense? No, no, no.

I think... My only question was, obviously we... Yes. But I guess what I was saying, in the article he, the individual who wrote the article, stated that once someone is apostatized...

Well, I think... Again, I'm having to do this from memory, so forgive me. But if we look at Hebrews 6, and we're going to be in Hebrews in just a moment, so this is good for us. If we look at Hebrews 6, it does say it is impossible for a person who has been enlightened, and who has tasted of the heavenly gift, and who has been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, if he should fall away, to be restored again under repentance.

And so, I think that may be where that's coming from, that there is some sense in which there is a bridge too far. That there is some sense in which a person can go to the point where there's no return.

But we may not... I don't think we can know that. I don't think we know... I would say Dan Barker has probably gone the bridge too far. But I would be elated if tomorrow Dan Barker said, I believe in Christ, and I was wrong, and I reject and repent of...

I reject my apostasy, I reject my atheism, and I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. So, I don't know that we can know that for certain.

Does that make sense? Am I making sense? No, no, no. That was mine. That was my initial question.

Yeah, is there a bridge too far? I think there is. I think based on Hebrews 6, based on 1 John 5, I think there is a sense in which that can be a way to understand that. But I don't know that we know that, and therefore, I would never say a person is unreachable.

Even though you know in your heart, and I know in my heart, there are people that I felt that way about.

And I guess my biggest question was, because I would agree with you about the guys who were saying apostates. Yes. I wouldn't say...

No, but I don't know... And again, I don't remember exactly how it's worded in the commentary, but I would be hesitant of anyone who would say, I know for sure this person is unsavable. You know, because I don't think that we are privy to that knowledge.

But God would know, and perhaps that's the point, right? And technically, you know, if we want to really get down to the brass tacks of it, no one is savable outside of the work of the Holy Spirit. Everyone is a bridge too far, because we all reject the gospel by nature, and by the desire for sin.

So, it takes an act of the Spirit for anyone to come. So, I don't mean to get way off track, but that was what you guys read this week. And I wanted you to read those articles simply because these are the difficult passages.

These are the ones that are not necessarily as easy as other ones. Ross, you had a question? Or did you? I thought you had one. I mean, I do.

Say it, and we'll see if we have time. So, with apostasy, that's what it was about. It's ultimately God who draws us to Him. It's like saying, I feel like I had some part in that, which I don't.

I know what you're asking, and that's an important question. When we talk about the work of the Holy Spirit, we have the common grace of God, which is given to all men, and we have what we would call the irresistible grace, which is given to the elect.

But the Bible says the common grace of God should be enough. It says the kindness of God should lead us to repentance. And yet it doesn't, because of our sin nature. And I think that is an example of the difference, right?

The common grace of God should be enough to save anyone, but it's not. And the parable, parables are important. I don't talk about them a ton, but I do think that there are oftentimes truths and parables that we miss.

The parable of the wedding feast. If you remember the wedding feast, the king had a son, and he invited all to come and share in his son's feast, but no one came. Everyone made excuses. I have to go to do this, or I have to take care of business, or I have to handle this thing.

And the king said, well, my son's feast will be filled, and therefore he sent his ministers to the hedges and to the highways to compel people to come so that his feast would be full. So if you compare that with common grace, you should all come.

No one will come. But irresistible grace, compel them to come, that my son's work will not be in vain. The work of Christ will have its just reward. All the Father gives me will come to me, Jesus said, so that his work will not be in vain.

Is it possible that Christ could have died for nothing? According to the Arminian Gospel, yes. Because according to Arminianism, everyone could have rejected Jesus, because everyone does everything based on their own free will.

And therefore Christ's work could have been in vain. But God ensured that Christ's work would not be in vain. And Jesus said, all the Father gives me will come. And so, do people reject the Holy Spirit?

Yes, Stephen in Acts 7 said, you are always rejecting the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit is always pointing people to God through the common grace that we have all around us. And the heart of man rejects that.

So in that regard, I would say that's how it answers. Does that make sense? All right, let's move on now. Let's talk about the general epistles. The general epistles are made up of Hebrews through the book of Jude.

And they are also known as what? Anybody know the other name for the general epistles? Catholic epistles. They're called the Catholic epistles. What does Catholic mean? Universal. The word Catholic means universal.

So whereas Galatians was written to the churches of Galatia, Romans was written to the church of Rome, Ephesians was written to the church of Ephesus, Paul's letters always had a distinct recipient, whether it was the church or the individual.

Titus, Timothy, Philemon. But when we get to Hebrews, it is not written to a specific audience, but rather the universal church. It is written to the church as the audience. And that is to be said for Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 John.

Well, I guess you could argue that 2 John, isn't it 2 John that's written to the elect lady? Yeah, so that one you could argue possibly is an individual, but the elect lady could be the church. So in that regard, still the church, right?

And then, of course, Jude. All of them typically reference the dysphoria, which is what? That's the church dispersed throughout the world. So again, referencing not just one church in one area. Dysphoria means dispersed, or the church as it's been.

Because when the church began, it was in Jerusalem. But as it began to be persecuted, it began to spread out. And if you think about a stick that hits water and the water splashes up onto the shore or out of the bucket or whatever, that's the picture.

As the persecution was slammed onto the church, the church spread. And so that's what we see. That's the church dispersed, the church of the dysphoria. And so when we look at Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 John, and Jude, we're looking at letters that are really for everybody, specific to not one church.

And depending on your source, you may have the general epistles numbered at 8, or you may have them numbered at 7. Because some people claim that Hebrews was written by Paul. In that sense, it would be a Paul-line epistle.

I do not believe Paul wrote Hebrews. I mentioned that a few weeks ago. And I want to give you tonight my reasoning why. I don't believe Paul wrote Hebrews because of Hebrews 2, verse 3. Open your Bibles.

And I'll show you. Hebrews 2, verse 3. This is what it says in the ESV. How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard.

If there's one thing I know about Paul, it's Paul never describes his revelation as having come from an individual or from a group. He always describes his revelation as being directly from Jesus. I'll give you a cross-reference on that.

Galatians 1, 11. For I would have you know that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel, for I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through revelation of Jesus Christ.

I think if you compare Galatians 1, 11, and 12 with Hebrews 2 and 3, you find that you're talking about a different author. Does that make sense? So that's been my argument for a long time, that I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews because the writer says that we receive this information second-hand.

That's something Paul would not say. Now having said that, even though I believe that eliminates Paul as the writer, I do think that Hebrews is Pauline in its content. I think that Hebrews is Paul's theology.

So you say, well, how do you get that? Well, I think Paul preached Hebrews. I think Hebrews is a sermon that was preached by the Apostle Paul, and I believe it was written down by someone else. Now, not word for word because, again, you have chapter 2, verse 3, which I say I don't think Paul would have said that.

But the writer, I think, is taking Pauline theology and writing it in his own words. Therefore, who would the author be? My particular perspective is that I think it's possibly Luke. Luke already had written Scripture.

He had written the Gospel of Luke, which would have come before this. He had written Acts, which would have come before this. And so Luke is already a writer. And Luke, he is an intelligent man. His Greek grammar that is used in his Gospel and in Acts demonstrate an education that is a little different than John.

John's Gospel is really a different level of Greek, much simpler, shorter sentences, very small vocabulary. There's a certain amount of words in John that repeat over and over and over. Believe, the word, these things that repeat over and over, logos, pistos, these words are very repetitious in John.

But Hebrews uses a much larger vocabulary and uses what I would say is a higher form of Greek. David Allen wrote a book called Luke and Authorship of Hebrews. He makes the argument, my recommendation to you is if you choose Hebrews as your book for your research project, that you would look up David Allen's work.

You might not have to get his book, but you can probably find some of his arguments online and be able to at least cite them if you want to make the argument either for or against Luke and Authorship.

But the title is L-U-K-A-N, Luke and Authorship of Hebrews by David Allen would be one place to go. Others have been suggested. Barnabas was of course an associate of the Apostle Paul. Silas was an associate of Paul.

And Paul had many associates. So if you want to hold to the argument that I'm making, it's Pauline theology, but someone else wrote it, then it's likely one of Paul's associates and therefore you get away from things like it probably wasn't Peter, it probably wasn't John.

It was most likely one of Paul's associates. There is one interesting historical factoid about the Authorship of Hebrews that's important to know. The very first... Oh yeah, I'll ask it as a quiz question.

What was the very first group of books that was combined together and spread throughout the church from the New Testament? What was the first group of books that was combined together as one set and sent out?

Paul's books. What we call the Pauline Corpus. And that happened very early. And we know that by the time of the writing of Peter, he referenced Paul's writings as scripture. So this is an early thing that Paul's writings are combined, collected, and sent out as scripture.

And Hebrews is among them. So what does that tell us? Does that prove Paul wrote Hebrews? No. But it does tell us that the person who combined them thinks he did. Because he combined Paul's works and this is one of the oldest.

So I would say, I'm not denying my own position, but I am saying there is at least one piece of external evidence that people believe Paul wrote it because it was included in the listing of Paul's books, the first set of books to ever be combined and sent out within the church.

And I hope that doesn't make you think I'm denying what I just said. I'm just simply saying it's certainly Pauline, even though it's not written by Paul. And I think that's why it ended up in the Pauline Corpus because it read so much like what Paul had written.

And it also answers the question pretty clearly of does it have the authority that is inherent in the other books. Why do we trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? All of them are apostles or they are associated with an apostle.

All of the books of Paul are associated with Apostle Paul. 1st and 2nd Peter, Peter. 1st and 2nd John, John. Jude is the brother of Jesus, brother of James. James is the brother of Jesus, brother of Jude.

Easy how it works. But who's Hebrews? Who's the writer? Right? So it would have been beneficial to include it with Paul's works as if to say it has Pauline authority. So that makes sense as to why it would have been included among the other.

All right. Moving on now, that was just about the authorship of Hebrews. And that's probably the most debated thing outside of the apostasy question. Even though that wasn't really, brother, a part of the lesson, I'm glad you asked because it goes right along.

The most difficult passages in Hebrews that most people have difficulty with is the apostasy passages. Because Hebrews very clearly makes the point that someone can be a part of the visible body of Christ and fall away.

And that is an important reality because if you have a typical Baptist view of once saved, always saved. I call it OSAS. You know, O-S-A-S. If you have the typical Baptist view of once saved, always saved, then what happens is you really don't have a place for a lot of what is said in Hebrews.

You don't have a place in your theology for it because the typical Baptist view is as long as you sign the card, I'm not talking about Baptists like us, brother. I'm talking about, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Don't come at me. I watched a video the other day of a guy who puts on football shoulder pads and runs down bad people. Like he finds these bad people and he runs them down. And I thought you were about to put the shoulder pads on, but when I talk about Baptists, I know you're Baptists.

No, no, no, what I mean though, you know what I'm talking about. There are churches where as long as you sign the card, as long as you raise your hand, as long as you've prayed the sinner's prayer, as long as you've come forward and been baptized, they'll say you're saved.

Don't ever question it. Don't ever second guess it. And they'll even make you write the date in your Bible. They'll call it your spiritual birthday. And if you ever have a question about whether or not you're saved, go back and look at your spiritual birthday.

You've all heard this. I heard a pastor one time, and he's right near here. So this isn't some guy from Jerkwater, USA. This is a guy from Jacksonville. He was on the radio, and he said, I wish everybody in this room would just get up out of your seats and come forward and receive Jesus.

Because even if you don't like Him, you've still got Him. Now, I'm not exaggerating. I almost stopped the car. I know where I was. I was on Merrill Road at Townsend Boulevard. You know, the corner of Merrill and Townsend.

There's a gas station there. There's a McDonald's there. I was driving. I was in my Green Dodge pickup. It's funny how my mind works. I just remember right where I was. And that guy said that. I stopped.

I wanted to pull over and gag.

Go ahead, Janice. I'm sorry. I think that was one of the biggest issues. So many guys. And I'm not saying, you know, I don't know if they were truly converted. I have no idea. But it was all about numbers.

And, like, they would constantly bring up something. People have, you know, surrendered their lives to the Lord, to the Christ.

And it was just, like, I felt like being in that church, I wasn't actually in church. And I was surrounded by such worldly, you know what I mean? Like, it wasn't, like, genuine. It just didn't feel genuinely like worship.

Like, I don't know.

No, that's the issue, right? And I'm not saying that we have to, that somebody has to meet certain qualifications for us to say that they're saved, you know, as far as, like, you know, they have to, before we'll baptize somebody, they've got to make sure they give 10 of their income or make sure they come to church a matter of 120 days or something.

You know what I mean? It's not like we're saying that. But the idea that salvation is just repeating a prayer or getting baptized is it really diminishes the worth of the life change that's supposed to happen.

You know, I have people in the church bring little kids. Will you baptize little Johnny? Probably not. If little Johnny can't articulate why he needs to be baptized, that's the first problem. Now, I'm not saying I won't baptize a child.

I will. But if a child doesn't understand sin, he does not understand his need for Christ. If he can't articulate that, then we're going to wait a little while. And the same thing for an adult. That's the thing is knowing that a person is simply repeating what they're being told.

That's very Islamic. A lot of people don't realize that. But for you to become a Muslim, you have to repeat the Shahada. I believe in Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. But you have to say it in Arabic.

You have to repeat those words in Arabic. And that's how you are officially welcomed as a Muslim. And we've sort of done that with Christianity. Just repeat after me. I believe, I believe, that Jesus forgave my sins or whatever.

I don't even know the Lord's Prayer. I don't even know how to do it. I've never done the Lord's Prayer like in that thing. Does anybody know it? It's different, right? I guess there's not one specific Lord's Prayer.

Yeah, hold your hand. Close your eyes. Repeat after me. And I think it does diminish what it means to have a life change. A genuine conversion. I didn't cut you off. Did I, James? No.

No, please. We ain't getting everything tonight. I know it. So go ahead. Even the whole altar aspect?

Yeah. Well, I don't believe that we should use the word altar. And I've said that to Mark. The word altar, the way it's used in modern churches, is actually taken from the Methodist church. Charles Finney saw that within the Methodist church they had something called the mourner's bench.

It was where when people would have emotional experiences, they would come down front and they would bow down and cry. And it was just a bench that people would cry on and people would come and pray over them and they would have these emotional experiences.

That became very popular with Finney because he saw that as a way to show people that you've had the experience because you've come forward and you've been prayed over or you've prayed and you've had this emotional experience.

And it became known as the altar. But it's not an altar because an altar is a place of sacrifice. And there is no sacrifice being made, not in the sense of biblical perspective. I remember years ago, there was a lady in our church here who used to sew very nice cloths for our communion table.

We still have some. And one day in a meeting, she said to me, well, we were talking about the cloths. She goes, it's up there on the altar. I said, what are you talking about? She said, it's up there on the altar.

And I promise I wasn't being ugly. I just was like, when did we get an altar? What are you talking about? We've never had an altar. And she said, that right there. I said, that communion table? She said, that is an altar.

I said, no ma 'am. Now in Roman Catholicism, they would call it an altar because they believe they are representing the sacrifice of Christ, but we are not. And therefore, that is not an altar. It's a communion table.

In fact, one of the things, Shane talked about this, the Puritans took out the communion table as it was in the Roman Catholic tradition, and they replaced it with a dinner table, a table that looked like a dinner table because it was a place for the communion meal, not a place of sacrifice.

And I kind of like that. At their church, they have a table that a guy built, and it looks like a small dinner table. And that's how they have their communion. So yeah, no, altar, but yeah, but you talk about people coming to the altar.

I remember my wife, and I'm telling a lot of stories, and I'm sorry for talking and wasting time, but my wife took me, she won a contest. She was top 100 salesperson in the whole U .S., two years in a row for AT &T.

Top 100 salespeople in the whole U .S. for AT &T. And she was part of the Pinnacle Club. You remember the Pinnacle Club? Bobby, you worked at AT &T. It was a big deal, right? And two years in a row, she won this contest.

And they took us out to Tucson, Arizona, where we got to do a dude ranch. You ever seen the movie City Slickers? I was like Ira Sholowitz. I was this big fat guy out there. And we got to do rope the cows and got to do all that stuff.

Well, at night, they would have these big drinking parties. They'd bring out champagne, and it was really, they had a John Wayne impersonator. Well, I don't drink. I didn't drink at the time, but, so I'm not going to drink, especially publicly.

I wouldn't drink out there while everybody's getting hammered. So I would just, you know, drink water or Diet Coke or whatever. But my wife wanted me to meet the president of her division. So she brought me to meet the president of her division.

And we walked over, and she goes, Mr. So-and-so, this is my husband. And he turned around, and he is three sheets to the wind. I mean, he is just, oh, just, he, you know, holding this drink, and just, you know, just eyes crossed.

He is lit. And she goes, this is my husband I told you about. He's the preacher. And he went.

And I will never forget. He did right foot forward, right hand, boom. And he grabbed my hand, and he started shaking my hand. I was like, any minute, we're going to get milk. He just kept pumping my arm.

And he was pulling me in, and he pulled me real close. I could feel this alky breath in my face. And he goes, I want you to know, I went to the altar last week. And it kept everything in my heart from saying it didn't take.

So, yeah, when people say, go to the altar, that's the story that comes up in my mind, is my wife's alcoholic boss who went to the altar last week, but it didn't take. It is. It really is. Finishing up Hebrews real quick.

I know we haven't really talked a lot about it, but the issue of apostasy is very important, but that's not the most important part. Hebrews is about this. If you wanted to put it in simple terms, Hebrews is about the superiority of the new covenant.

The superiority of the new covenant. From the very first verse, the writer of Hebrews tells us about the fact that we are in a better relationship with God through Christ than anyone who's come before because of the work of Christ.

Our covenant is better than what has ever been. What does it say at the beginning? God in various times and in various ways spoke to our fathers through the prophets, but has now spoken to us through His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things.

He goes through that long litany of saying Christ is better, Christ is better, Christ is better. And really, that's it. The new covenant is better because Christ is better. And if anybody turns, again, this is why apostasy is such a big deal in Hebrews.

If anybody turns back from Christ, to where would you go? Why would you go to anyone else? Why would you trample underfoot the blood of the covenant? Why would you go back to Judaism when you have Christ?

That's the question of Hebrews. Why would you return? And I think Hebrews 8 .13 is one of the most important verses in the book because Hebrews 8 .13 says, in speaking of a new covenant, He makes the old covenant obsolete.

And that which is obsolete, it's growing old and is ready to vanish away. See, right now, people say, well, the Jews have their own covenant. Not anymore. It has vanished away. That old covenant is gone.

If you are not in Christ, Jew or Gentile, if you are not in Christ, you are not in covenant with God. There is but one active covenant right now and it is through the Lord Jesus Christ. So that's Hebrews.

It's not just better. It's the only one. And so it's superior. And in fact, I had a conversation recently. I was just trying to help someone understand the distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant and the obsolete nature of the old covenant.

And I read them Hebrews 8 .13 and they said they've never thought of it that way. And I said, well, it's right here in the text. And they said, oh, I've got to read Hebrews again. I said, yeah, I actually think you should.

James, Faith and Works, and the Wisdom of the New Testament

Hebrews answers a lot of questions about the distinction that is to be made between the old covenant and the new covenant. Let's look at James. Let's move on to James. The hard part about the universal epistles, by the way, the Catholic epistles, is that they don't really connect to one another.

So it's going to be hard to, it's not like the Paul's epistles, you can sort of follow a flow. These sort of, each one is dealing with something different. James is often called the Proverbs of the Old Testament, or rather Proverbs of the New Testament.

It contains similar wisdom statements as does the Proverbs of the Old Testament. And it has a loose structure. It moves rapidly from one topic to another. And it changes its topic several times through the book.

You can't just say James is about this, because it's not. It's about a bunch of stuff, in the same way that Proverbs is about a bunch of stuff. It's not just about one thing. Very quickly on authorship.

James and Jude are brothers. Jude tells us this. Jude, the brother of James. And we believe that this James is the brother of Jesus, and we base that upon Galatians 1 .18. Galatians 1 .18 says this, Paul speaking, he said, After three years I went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.

I remained with him fifteen days, but I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. So that's the James we believe is the writer of the book of James. And later when Jude says, I'm James' brother, then that would indicate to us that Jude would also be the brother of Christ.

Now when we talk about brother of Christ, we're saying half-brother. And you know why. Because Jesus did not have an earthly father. However, we could make the argument, though, that this blows the Catholic position of the perpetual virginity of Mary out of the water, because Jesus has brothers and sisters from Mary, and one of them is James, and one of them is Jude.

Some people say, Well, no, Joseph had, huh? Some people say, No, Joseph had another wife. And that's typically the Roman Catholic argument. No, Jesus had brothers and sisters through Joseph, but they were not his real brothers and sisters, because Joseph had another wife.

And all that is, all that is is begging the question. All that is is assuming that their answer is correct. Circular reasoning. Why did Joseph have another wife? Because Mary was a perpetual virgin. How do you know Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Because she didn't have any kids. Well, how do you know she didn't have any kids when it says Jesus had brothers and sisters? Well, Joseph had another wife. Well, now you're back in this vicious circle where one thing is proving the next and none of them make any sense when you just say after Mary had Jesus, she and Joseph had a normal marriage and were able to procreate and have several children.

And the only reason to deny that is the false Marian dogmas of Rome. Nothing historical, nothing biblical. You taught this last year. You taught this to us last year. What did I teach? About James. On 7 -8.