A Steve Hays Face-Plant, Closer Look at Texts like 1 John 3:1, A Tad of Steven Anderson, Calls

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:32

Greetings and welcome to the Dividing Line. It is a Thursday. I don't have anything up on the screen, but I'm assuming that we are on the air now, and I've got a few things to get to, and then we're going to try to open up the phone lines today as well, maybe, if I'm trying to respond to Steven Anderson.

00:50

I'm not sure how well that's going to work, but we'll give it a shot. Real quickly, last week an article was posted on Triablog by Steve Hayes.

01:03

Now, I don't follow Steve Hayes. I don't follow Triablog. Jason Engler posts real good stuff there, and I normally see it because somebody else links it.

01:13

I just don't read it. I don't read Triablog as a whole, primarily because, well, it seems like about every six months to a year,

01:21

Steve Hayes comes out, spits at me, and then disappears again. And that's what he did here.

01:28

He quotes one of my tweets, and it was the beginning of a thread. And, of course, the rest of the thread completely changed everything about what he said, if you'd bother to read it, but it was the tweet that I made last week.

01:41

I said, let me put this simply. Intersectionality is utterly incompatible with the belief in the sovereign kingship of God and His divine decree.

01:47

It is God who makes men to differ, God who makes the lame and the blind and the rich and the poor. Now, obviously, I did not stop there.

01:53

The rest of what I said, reformed men believe we are called to seek His glory through the application of His truth within the context of His sovereign decree, which will result in the praise of His glorious grace.

02:07

We do not overthrow His decree by seeking to obey His commands. So who is the reformed man?

02:14

How can one promote paradigms based upon sociological and political norms that fundamentally undercut and deny the sovereignty of God in the affairs of God's creation while continuing to pretend fidelity to the core of reformed theology?

02:29

I said, I will gladly stand firm in my commitment to the core, the definitional, the heart of what makes someone reformed, and allow the formless to mock me while they promote man -centered systems infected with the disease of intersectionality.

02:40

God knows. Now, obviously, there was a context to this. I expanded it out.

02:46

I did an entire sermon on this subject at the pre -conference of G3.

02:51

We spent hours here on the program, but it does seem that in the modern world of social media, that there are a lot of people who figure,

03:02

I'm not going to worry about what else a person has said. I don't care if they've preached entire sermons. I don't care if they've been as clear as a bell.

03:09

If I can find some way of taking a shot at somebody without—I saw the shot.

03:18

There was no danger, so I took it. That doesn't do anything for millennials, but for us older folks, yeah, okay.

03:26

We weren't below the hard deck for—anyways, you know what I'm talking about. That would make you goose. Sorry, you're doomed.

03:32

Yeah, he just died in the other room. Just duck under that canopy next time, man.

03:39

When you hit the ejection seat, just—there you go. Anyways, what's that?

03:49

We're buffering? Oh, great. Lovely. Bad again, huh?

03:56

Yep, video froze. Great, wonderful. I'll drop the channel so I don't see all that, because it'll get recorded and it'll get posted eventually.

04:07

Anyways, so here's what Steve Hayes says. He says, there are some really good arguments against intersectionality.

04:13

This isn't one of them. As stated, that's classic K -Sarah -Sarah fatalism. Don't try to change anything because everything is foreordained.

04:22

Attempting to change the status quo is spiritually mutinous. Now, that's the opposite of what I said. I mean, if you just read the next few tweets, it's the opposite of what

04:30

I said. So the only reason I mention this is because other people write for Tribelog that are reliable, there are people who stumble into Steve Hayes' stuff.

04:41

I'm sorry, the man's not reliable. This was one of the most egregious misrepresentations of me by a reformed individual that I've seen in a long time.

04:50

It's happening a lot, but especially someone who's been around as long as Steve Hayes. Read what

04:55

I said, read what he said, and go, okay, somebody was either having a really bad day or someone just didn't have anything else to post on their blog that day and so they went for the low, low, low road.

05:05

But it was interesting because I don't follow up on what people say.

05:16

For some reason it doesn't come across in TweetBot. It's sort of like, have you ever had someone respond to something you said on Twitter 347 days ago?

05:25

And you're just like, what are you doing? Basically, if you don't respond fairly quickly, you know?

05:33

And basically, I guess with TweetBot, if it's been like 24 hours, it just doesn't think it's relevant anymore.

05:41

And so there's this guy named Carl Runcer had responded, and the award for white privilege tweet of the day.

05:48

Who knew that the Christian theology of God's sovereignty was white privilege?

05:54

But I guess for some people today, clearly you don't know what intersectionality is. That's the new one.

06:01

Once people start realizing how this concept of intersectionality is being used in academia to promote all this insanity, just change the definition.

06:11

Just make it really confusing so no one really knows what intersectionality is anyways, but keep using it the way you were using it.

06:18

That's cool. But you know, yeah, that's just standard.

06:25

Jessica Lower said, I feel like you don't understand the definition of intersectionality nor the definition of God's sovereignty.

06:31

Well, there you go, Jessica. I'd be happy to learn from you. If you could point me to the books you've written on the subject, we'll compare notes.

06:41

Just all sorts of stuff like that, that I didn't even, I'm glad I don't see. If I took the time to see all the insanity that comes back my direction,

06:50

I would give up. But the biggest insanity was Stephen Hayes because he knows better. There's no excuse.

06:56

Just no excuse, Steve. You need to come up with something better than that. You really do. That was pathetic.

07:02

That's the only way to put it. So with that, someone just sent me something. I didn't have a chance to really go through it, but just another situation where within the public educational system, you've just got to understand

07:19

Christianity is not allowed. Within a society that makes abortion the central religious celebration of the society and hence must be protected at all costs, a society like that is not going to allow for any pushback within Caesar's household, which is the educational system.

07:47

And so it's a story about a young lady. There were gay pride stuff being posted all over the school, which

07:53

I guess happens all over the place now. And she dared put up some Bible verses. And of course she gets in school suspension and everything else.

08:03

That's Caesar's backyard, man. That's what you're going to get. There's no liberty. There's no freedom there.

08:09

There's no give and take. It's an anti -Christian totalitarian system, and it's run by anti -Christian totalitarians.

08:18

It's the way it is. We pray for those young folks, but that's what we're facing there.

08:25

It's a bad situation. I keep telling people that I am going to get back around, and this will be the third program in a row, so I need to do it, to at least finishing up.

08:37

Because I've already started editing Chapter 4, but at least finishing up the responses to Chapter 3 by Steven Anderson.

08:44

And again, people say, oh, you mean that crazy guy that was yelling at the guys in the park?

08:50

Yeah, the same crazy guy. But again, he was trying not to be a crazy guy in the responses, and that leads us to the opportunity to address particular biblical texts that otherwise

09:04

I wouldn't think about addressing. Or it does provide a context that is highly educational.

09:12

If you can get rid of the weirdness of the Steven Anderson part, it's really useful.

09:20

And so I want to get through this. But right as I—because I'll forget it. Right as I—yeah, sorry, guys.

09:33

We're going? Well, Chief Michael Perry says they're behind.

09:39

I'm behind. Oh, okay. But I'm going to put that down, too, because it's just—well, I can't put that down, I just realized, because that's where this tweet is.

09:47

Right before I got here, Matthew Eklund sent me two images, and I said

09:53

I was going to address them, and if I don't do this, I will forget. And at least Twitter is working.

10:01

He had a brief exchange with Robert Truelove—and again, this is on the issue of textual traditionalism—and the last program we did, we talked about, and we have talked about a number of times now, the fact that the textus receptus, as it exists today, was derived through the application of textual critical principles.

10:34

Including a large portion of the textual critical principles that we utilize today. There's no CBGM in the TR, for obvious reasons, because it's based on computers, but Erasmus frequently spoke of the kinds of scribal errors that are prevalent in antiquity.

10:52

He talked about the corruption of the text. He used that terminology.

10:59

He used that terminology. So when people say that I should not be trusted in theology because I use the same terminology and define it as textual variation, and everybody has down through the years—I mean,

11:14

Jerome and Origen and Augustine, and they all talk about the same things—we were all just unreliable because of this one group of Calvinists.

11:24

Anyway, Erasmus did the same thing. Obviously, if you're promoting a text that was derived by the application of textual critical principles—and any

11:33

Greek text has to be derived, unless you're just going to take one manuscript and not compare it to anything else and say, this is it, this is the one manuscript we're going to use—then you're going to have to use textual critical principles.

11:46

The TR is a text derived from textual critical principles, and if the modern critical text is to be rejected because of the utilization of textual critical principles, then so is the

11:57

TR, on the exact same basis, if you listen to Erasmus, if you read

12:03

Erasmus, if you read Beza, if you read Stephanos, or at least look at those who've looked at Stephanos. This is just simple logic.

12:14

It's simple logic. So, we've been looking at that, and last time, last program, we looked at Revelation 14 .1,

12:19

we saw the error in the TR there, we looked at Revelation 2 .2, we saw the error in the TR there based upon back -translating from the

12:26

Latin into Greek on the part of Erasmus. And, of course, there's always a way around everything.

12:33

There's this TR guy. I finally muted him because it's sad to watch a cultist. Because this guy's cultic.

12:40

I think he's from down in Australia or someplace down there. Texas Receptus. This guy's cultic. Is it

12:46

New Zealand? Wherever it is, I don't care. It doesn't matter what the facts are. So, you can show where top -end scholars that this is what they do document that Erasmus utilized 28 .14,

13:08

did not have a high view of Revelation, did not invest much time in it, and made errors, and it's like, oh, well, but he had access to other manuscripts.

13:17

We may not know what they were, but he had access to other manuscripts, and that's where it actually came from. You can make up an excuse for anything.

13:23

I have seen Mormon missionaries do the exact same thing. It's the exact same mindset.

13:28

The exact same mindset. That's my ultimate authority, and you cannot show me enough facts to ever, ever, ever disprove my ultimate authority.

13:38

That's it. I will always come, and I'll make things up. I'll do whatever I have to do.

13:43

It's my ultimate authority. And it's sad to watch. It's a cultic mindset. That guy.

13:49

I'm not talking about Robert Truelove right now. I hope people can pick that up. I'm talking about one particular guy who says, this is absolutely it, and no matter what.

13:59

Revelation chapter 16, or Revelation 14, doesn't matter. There's always some way around it.

14:06

Now, each one will involve different argumentation. So you've got one set of arguments for this verse, one set of arguments for this verse.

14:13

It's totally incoherent, and hence completely self -contradictory, and that's why almost nobody but this one guy believes what he says, but that's how it works.

14:23

It's a scary thing. So anyway, here was what was sent to me, and this was what?

14:31

Within the last hour? That says one hour, so that's sort of like one hour to two hours in Twitter time.

14:40

So Robert Truelove posted the following, but here is the question for any Reformed critical text advocate, which is the vast majority, the vast majority, of all textual critical scholars in the

14:53

Reformed community. Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and all of its campuses, everybody at masters, everybody.

15:03

I do not know of a single person who holds Robert Truelove's position, who teaches in a

15:08

Reformed seminary. There may be one, I don't know who they are. Okay, the vast majority.

15:16

So this is a question for all Reformed textual critical scholarship, basically.

15:23

Since we confess the scriptures that we are to appeal unto them for all matters of faith and practice, and by the way, the difference in how to spell, for example,

15:34

Erasmus didn't understand the difference between the aorist and present tense stems for Balo, and so he always misspelled them.

15:43

That's not a matter of faith and practice. Okay? Right?

15:50

Erasmus' ignorance of the difference between the present and aorist tense stems of Balo is not a matter of faith and practice.

15:59

That's not what the Westminster divines or the Reformed Baptist writers of the 1689 were talking about.

16:09

Okay, Trinity, how the church functions, good. Textual critical issues, not so good.

16:18

It goes without saying that the very text of the Word of God is inherently a foundational question of both faith and practice.

16:25

So here's where the categories start breaking down, again, ahistorically. Calvin didn't do this.

16:32

Nobody up until this time period did this. The early church didn't do this. Some people started moving this direction in trying to fight against Rome, but hey, you know,

16:42

I've seen people make a lot of mistakes in trying to fight against Rome. You know, the standard explanation of Matthew 16, rock and pebble, doesn't work.

16:53

It doesn't work. You still hear it all the time, but it doesn't work. It doesn't mean because it's been used in the past that that means that Catholics are right because a bad argument is used against them.

17:04

Don't follow that way. So once again, what you've got here is the attempt to transfer the legitimate recognition of the supremacy of Scripture in matters of faith, practice, morals, backwards into the determination of the text itself.

17:24

It becomes a vicious circle, not the proper epistemological circle of ultimate authorities by any stretch of the imagination.

17:33

This is how you examine manuscripts, how you deal with the fact that God has historically used one method of transmitting the text over time, and it wasn't by angelic messengers dropping down newly edited text every few hundred years.

17:48

The Joseph Smith methodology does not work. We reject it. It needs to be rejected by everybody.

17:55

That's not how you do it. And Erasmus didn't believe in it. And Beza didn't believe in it.

18:01

So anybody who takes their work and then imbues it with that perspective is doing so out of context with history.

18:11

So, therefore, upon what biblical grounds do you advocate the historical critical praxis of reasoned eclecticism?

18:19

If one cannot present a coherent biblical argument that is the very substance of not having an apologetic, without an actual biblical argument, their very best arguments against the received text are irrelevant.

18:31

Now, I want everybody to think this through. I want you to understand why that is an absolutely bogus argument.

18:40

It is a violation of logic, history, reformed epistemology, all the way down the road.

18:47

There is no value to that argument at all. With all due respect, if that's the best you've got, it means you've got nothing.

18:55

And that's why you can't get these guys to engage the text. You can't get them to do it. We're sitting over here going, okay, how about this text?

19:03

Oh, no, no, no, no. You see, you've got to deal with these presuppositional issues over here, you see. Well, how about where the text of Septuagint came from?

19:11

This quote -unquote received text, which you capitalized, where did it come from? It came from the application of textual critical…

19:17

No, no, no, no, no, no, not going to deal with that. We're just going to simply say that if scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, therefore, you need to be able to find the specific apostolic example of what?

19:32

Reasoned eclecticism. Now, I'm not sure what Robert Truelove thinks reasoned eclecticism is specifically, but if it includes questions of scribes substituting terms because of parallel passages, scribes mistaking words that sounded like other words or looked like other words, issues such as ditography, repetition, homoiteleuton, the deletion of material due to similar endings in the line or lines of a

20:10

Greek text, if you are referring to all that which is part and parcel of reasoned eclecticism,

20:20

Erasmus did it all. And your text is based upon the same application, just based upon a really small number of manuscripts, which results in a different text, but same principles.

20:35

So logically, if the text you're holding to was derived through the use of the things you're now saying we need to abandon, you are reasoning in a circle and cutting off your own foundation, aren't you?

20:46

There is nothing rational about that. It's indefensible. And hence, that's why

20:52

I say reformed men should not hold to utterly indefensible positions. That's why this cannot go out of the little square box out in the world because you try this with a

21:05

Bart Ehrman and you're going to get torn to shreds, and rightfully so, because you're being inconsistent.

21:12

So, if you're asking for a – and do you see how this was done?

21:20

First, you take what the authors of the Confessions would have considered to be faith and practice.

21:28

You illegitimately transfer that to – well, that means the transcription error of Revelation 14 .1,

21:42

or as we're going to see here in a little while, the Homo Etelyatan error at 1

21:48

John 3 .1. These are matters of faith and practice, then you can't answer the question yourself.

21:56

That's the first thing. You cannot derive a text if you do not accept the necessity of the examination of manuscripts, the examination of scribal habits, i .e.,

22:09

critical examination, textual criticism. If you say that you have to have that laid out in the

22:17

Bible, where the Apostle Paul sent an epistle to Timothy that laid out difficult endings and difficult readings and shorter readings and all the canons of textual critical study, if you say you need to have that so as to engage in textual criticism of the

22:37

Bible, a. it does not exist, b. it did not exist for Erasmus, c. therefore, your text is to be rejected by your own principles.

22:45

In fact, there is no text of the Bible any longer at all, because no one is using a text based on one manuscript.

22:55

Because you would have to identify some manuscript. And there is no manuscript in the world that reads identical to TR.

23:01

Not a one, never has been, never will be. You have an eclectic text, whether you want to recognize that or not.

23:08

But it's like the Byzantine. It's not the same thing. And there is no question in the world that Erasmus would have read this and gone, you've got to be kidding me.

23:20

No, you can't do that. Erasmus would never have accepted this type of argumentation at all.

23:28

And so, there was a response from Matthew Eklund, wouldn't critical text advocates be able to say that among all the different viable and meaningful variants, far less than 1 % of all textual variants, choosing one over another in any location does nothing to change any

23:47

Christian doctrine or practice? Does having an absolutely fixed text really change this? I was watching some videos of Dr.

23:53

Dan Wallace earlier, where he affirmed this, Bruce Metzger affirmed this, and even Bart Ehrman affirmed this in the appendix of his Misquoting Jesus book.

23:59

When I heard that quote, I actually thought to post that observation here to get everyone's response to that claim. Are they not correct?

24:05

Robert Trulove's response is, not a biblical argument. Okay, so Robert Trulove, we need the biblical argument from you that substantiates the mechanism whereby the

24:14

Textus Receptus was derived. So, you need to give us specific references to the Latin Vulgate, to the supremacy of the

24:20

Latin over the Greek, the places where the Latin takes precedence over the Greek in the production of the Textus Receptus and in the readings that ended up in the final

24:27

Textus Receptus. You've got to have the exact references in biblical texts for Erasmus' recognition of Homo Eteleuton, dittography.

24:38

If you're demanding it of us, you've got to do it yourself. So, you show us in the Bible the textual critical principles that gave rise to the

24:45

TR, and then you've got an argument. You can't. You know it. That's why that debate didn't take place.

24:51

So, there's that. Now, onward and upward to—and here's another illustration.

24:59

Let's switch over to Stephen Anderson and pick up with his response to chapter 3 and listen to what he has to say here.

25:09

Here we go. Okay, he said this is not a meaningful difference. Now, by the way, he's talking about 1 John 3 .1, and I do believe it's a meaningful difference.

25:17

But it doesn't change a doctrine so much—no, it doesn't change a doctrine, because our being adopted as sons and daughters of God is plainly laid out in passages of Scripture where there's no textual variation.

25:30

But, anyway. Okay, 1 John 3 .1. You're going to, over the next couple of chapters, you're going to get sick and tired of hearing that utterly subjective, irrelevant, sounds lame.

26:04

Doesn't sound right. I mean, honestly, the argumentation for the next couple chapters is so shallow.

26:11

I was stunned. I mean, it really gives you an idea of just how utterly without merit the

26:17

King James Only position is as enunciated by Anderson. Because, that just sounds dumb. Oh, that's nice.

26:25

There's all sorts of passages in the King James you can say sound dumb. That doesn't mean anything at all.

26:31

And I also discovered pretty clearly that Anderson knows when he doesn't have an argument, and that's when he starts getting abusive.

26:38

When he starts using terms like stupid, dumb, ridiculous, that's when he knows what he's saying is easily challengeable and could never be defended.

26:46

And so what he's doing is he, you know, it's the old argument week here, you know, yell louder or type louder or put in all caps or do something.

26:58

It is illustrated over and over and over again over the next couple chapters in this material.

27:06

We are. So the King James says that we should be called the sons of God, the ESV says that we should be called the children of God, and so we are.

27:14

Okay. Now, obviously the ESV is the one that's wrong here.

27:20

You say, why is that? Well, because the King James is the standard. So the circularity, we've already seen it, and he embraces it, and he claims it's given by the

27:29

Holy Spirit. So this is the Book of Mormon argumentation for the King James Version only position.

27:35

Because every Mormon missionary, well, the Holy Spirit told me the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, so it is. And so the

27:40

King James is the standard, so it is. So let's not worry. So why are we even talking about this?

27:46

Why do we care about the manuscripts? Why do we care about the—because some of us recognize that the

27:52

Bible has a significantly greater foundation in history and reality than the

27:59

Holy Spirit told me so argument. And we recognize that Stephen Anderson's argumentation and the

28:07

Mormon missionaries' argumentation cannot survive cross -examination. They cannot be a foundation for apologetics.

28:14

And that's one of the main reasons. Well, it says in verse 2,

28:20

Beloved, now are we the sons of God. So you already get that from verse 2 anyway, that we're not just called the sons of God, but we are the sons of God, you get from verse 2.

28:29

So what does that have to do with verse 1? It doesn't have anything to do with verse 1, if your goal is to know what

28:38

John wrote. If you, you know, because I can point to, you know, there's dozens of—all over the place.

28:47

When Anderson says, they took this out because they didn't like this, and they took that out, what's in the next verse? That doesn't matter.

28:53

You don't want to mess with the Word of God. So the inconsistency, Anderson, you know, King James -only -ism is a study in utter inconsistency.

29:01

It just, just is stunning. But he's saying, you know, that this addition in the ESV is not a meaningful addition.

29:10

And I would say that, you know, it doesn't change any doctrine. This particular example doesn't change any doctrine or affect anything, but it's still adding something to the text that shouldn't be there, and the

29:19

Bible says, Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what that text was about, or with the examination of 1

29:31

John 3 wanting to ask the question, what did John originally write? I want to know what the Apostle wrote, not what scribes did or thought a thousand years later.

29:41

Meaningful, according to him. I would say it is meaningful because it does change the meaning because it added a phrase. It doesn't affect doctrine, but I would call that a meaningful change because he added a sentence that isn't in the original, so it does change the meaning.

29:52

Now, catch that. That isn't in the original. How do you know that? Well, because I take the

29:57

King James as the standard. So you forget about history. Forget about everything that came before the

30:02

King James. It's an irrational position. It is indefensible for anyone who is interested in truth.

30:09

But let's use this as an opportunity to illustrate something.

30:16

And those of you who have seen my New Testament presentation know that I utilize this particular text.

30:28

And here is that particular page where I was talking about what's called homoeteluton, which is similar endings.

30:43

And 1 John 3 is an example where something was accidentally deleted and removed from the text by homoeteluton.

30:54

And so here you have the unsealed text, or at least I think we're going to have the unsealed text.

30:59

I'm waiting for Rich to stop texting somebody and put it up on the screen. There we go.

31:09

No one's listening to me anyways, and neither is he. So there you go.

31:15

See, you all don't know what goes on, what I have to put up with here. So here is the

31:21

Greek text as it would have appeared in the early days of the New Testament.

31:27

And so, to us, Ha Pater, the Father, in order that,

31:32

Tecna Theou, which is the nomena sacra, Cleithomen, we might be called, Chi Esmen, and we are,

31:39

Dia Tuta, for this reason, Ha, and then it goes on, Cosmos, the world does not know us. So here is, let me illustrate it through the use of color.

31:51

So you see there that the verb Cleithomen, that we might be called, ends with Mu Epsilon Nu.

32:04

And so does Esmen, and we are. And so both end with the same grammatical termination,

32:12

Mu Epsilon Nu. And so you write down Cleithomen, and then your eye goes back to what you're copying, and you see

32:23

Mu Epsilon Nu, and so you pick up there and write Dia Tuta. And now inadvertently, not purposely, not because you were trying to change teachings or don't like the concept of adoption, the family of God, or whatever else, but simply because, and this is easier to explain in English, it's like having

32:45

I -N -G, T -I -O -N, E -S, the standard grammatical terminations of words.

32:52

And when you've been copying for a few hours, you've already written these terminations for words over and over and over again.

33:01

And so you write Cleithomen, you put Mu Epsilon Nu, you look back, you see the

33:08

Mu Epsilon Nu at the end of Esmen. Now this is on the, it might have been on the same line. It might have been on a different line.

33:15

Sometimes the deletions are longer because you wrote Mu Epsilon Nu, and there's a Mu Epsilon Nu right below it in the next line.

33:22

You pick up on that line instead. This isn't as easy a thing to explain today, because most copying you're doing from sources you're doing electronically now.

33:34

Cut and paste. I remember the first time I learned cut and paste, I was like, whoa. But back in the olden days, you didn't have cut and paste.

33:43

You had to do it manually, and you ended up making common errors.

33:48

And that's what happens at 1 John 3 .1. When you have a variant that clearly falls into the category of homoeoteluton, then you do have to ask the question, is there any reason why it might have been added at a time in the past?

34:05

Or you go with, you know, Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is probably the best explanation.

34:11

And when we recognize common scribal errors, and by the way, this was

34:16

Erasmus's argument over and over again as well. When you have the clear opportunity of a recognized, often committed scribal error, such as homoeoteluton, right there in the text, then that's what you go with.

34:36

And that's why the modern Greek text has Kai Asimov. The Greek texts from which, especially the primary

34:45

Greek text of 1 John, from which Erasmus worked, was from a minority stream,

34:52

I think, if I recall correctly, in the Byzantine family. It doesn't have it.

35:00

Or at least one. It may not have been the minority stream, but it did not have this particular phrase in it.

35:07

But we can see where this error came from. And homoeoteluton,

35:12

I'll go ahead and pull that down. Homoeoteluton is a, you'll run into it over and over and over again in the discussions that Erasmus has, and that anyone has to have if they are going to originate a

35:29

Greek text. And again, let me just point out, if you reject the concept of textual critical study, you have no

35:43

New Testament. Do not run around and call this the ecclesiastical text, when what you're saying is everyone who worked on this was violating scripture to produce it.

35:57

Because this came about through the practice of textual criticism.

36:04

So, if you're going to reject the modern text, you're going to reject this too. That's all there is to it.

36:10

I mean, if you're going to be consistent. 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

36:19

I'm not sure if we're up and down. Up and down, huh? So, right now we're up.

36:26

Well, people may have given up on us. So, let me put it this way. 877 -753 -3341.

36:32

If we get calls, we'll take them. Otherwise, I'll just continue on with Steven Anderson. And then we'll post this, and we'll do calls at the time when the internet is working.

36:42

Which I don't understand, because we got a new modem and all the rest of that stuff, and so it's not supposed to be doing this stuff. But, that's just how it works.

36:51

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. I will put this over here, and I'll just sort of watch and see if anyone's actually listening.

37:01

And we'll go from there. And don't get mad at us if you wanted to call in, but didn't know we were taking calls just because, you know, we live in an area where there's obviously internet issues.

37:13

And that's just how it works. Okay, let's continue on with Mr. Anderson's comments.

37:21

Then he quotes this great scholar who's so intimate with the Greek. His 1 ,454 -page book proves it.

37:27

Now, by the way, when he does his voices, that's also an indication of when he realizes he's way out of his league.

37:36

You can't see it from here, but normally, when you look right over there, in the far corner of my bookshelf, he's talking about A .T.

37:48

Robertson. And he earlier had mocked A .T. Robertson. I didn't bother to play this section because it just wasn't relevant.

37:55

But this is where he's mocking A .T. Robertson. And it is a 1 ,454 -page book on the grammar of the

38:03

Greek New Testament. Now, obviously, we saw in the last program that Steven Anderson claims to read the

38:08

Greek New Testament, like, cover to cover, and all the rest of this stuff. I don't believe it for a moment. But I can guarantee you one thing, in comparison to the 1 ,454 pages that A .T.

38:19

Robertson produced, as far as serious scholarship of the Greek New Testament, Steven Anderson could produce a sentence in comparison to the 1 ,454 pages here.

38:27

He knows the same thing. And that's why he does the voices and stuff like that when he's addressing this stuff, because it's a defense mechanism.

38:36

He knows he's weighing over his head. He knows he can never defend himself. But that's why he uses this type of voice right now.

38:43

This guy claims, oh, no, the real concern is only a thousandth part of the text. Well, that's not 3%.

38:50

That would be 0 .1%. So this guy's claiming that only one thousandth of the text is really important.

38:56

Okay, so what he was trying to do here was he was arguing, he's trying to argue that the percentage of variants, that we're giving different percentages of variants, they all fall within the same simple range.

39:09

The point that Robertson is making, and Robertson is writing, you know, the papyri are just starting to be discovered primarily during that period of time, but doesn't really have access to all the materials we have today.

39:21

But still, his focus is upon grammar, not so much this particular subject.

39:27

But the point that he and everybody else that I quoted in that particular chapter is, is that the

39:33

New Testament has been transmitted in an amazingly accurate fashion.

39:39

It really has. And that remains completely, completely true. Okay, so I guess some people are out there.

39:47

So I'm going to make another mark here. Let's see, how am I going to mark this for, to make sure that we,

39:58

I wish there was just a way I could just put like an arrow next to the side and say, start here.

40:03

That would be the easiest way. There it is. So I can do sort of like that.

40:11

Start here. I don't know if that's gonna, if that's gonna work the next time I open this up. But we'll see.

40:19

Because sometimes the screen changes and stuff like that. So we'll just, we'll just start there. All right, with that, let me bring the call screening software down here.

40:31

And let's start with Eric in St. Louis.

40:36

Hi, Eric. Hello, Dr. Weitz. How are you? I'm fine. I have a question.

40:42

You probably answered it a million times about theodicy. Like, I was involved in a pretty horrific pancake car accident some months ago, but survived unscathed.

40:53

And there are people that I know, even in my local church, that have suffered crippling injuries.

40:59

And so, like, by the grace of God, you know, like, I've survived fine, but like, what do

41:05

I say, or like, how do I relate to other people that I know where, you know, better people than me that suffered very bad injuries?

41:15

It's a difficult topic, I think. Well, theodicy really has much broader parameters than why one person would survive a car accident and another person is severely injured or another person is killed.

41:34

Because the term itself refers to the justification of God in the light of the existence of evil.

41:42

As it has been well said, there is only one innocent person who has ever suffered and died, and he did it voluntarily.

41:48

So, we recognize some of the basic foundational issues in regards to the fallenness of the world and things like that.

41:57

But still, it goes to a larger issue, and that is, if God had knowledge of all future events, and that's the difference between Orthodox Christianity and open theism and things like that, then what is the function of evil within that economy?

42:17

And various answers have been given. Open theism is one attempt to get out of using any of those answers, and interestingly enough, one of the chief open theists, one of his openly primary motivations for doing that was the death of his brother in a motorcycle accident.

42:36

That was very much a part of what developed his thinking on this subject. But the reality is that it seems to me that the clearest biblical texts that address these particular issues are all based upon the idea that God is accomplishing a purpose, and that purpose, we are asked to believe, is worth whatever takes place in time.

43:03

We may not see in our lifetimes the impact that our lives have had, that the injuries that Joni Eareckson Tada has lived with, that the death of someone either produces in someone else, or that their continued life would have had negative impacts.

43:37

The point is, we cannot second -guess

43:44

God in the sense that we do not have sufficient knowledge, even of the past and the present, to be able to know what

43:54

God knows about what the relationships of everyone to everyone else is, let alone do we have knowledge of what

44:01

God's sovereign decree is. We are told that in the end, it will result in the praise of his glorious grace, however that works out.

44:11

But in our present life, we are given the assurance that God is working everything according to the counsel of his will and for our good.

44:22

My good may be completely different than somebody else's good, and I've thankfully known people down through the years who suffered greatly, who had great physical infirmities, and yet were tremendous testimonies to the grace of God because they did not complain against God.

44:41

They saw the goodness of God and the grace of God in what he gives to them, even in their diminished physical capacity or whatever else it might be, and that's a completely different worldview than what is developed from secular thought and what is becoming very, very common even within the

45:03

Church today, where you have my good and my happiness and my joy should be

45:09

God's highest priority, rather than pleasing God being my highest priority and whatever he has for me being something that I'm willing to—the burden that I'm willing to bear, knowing that he has a proper purpose in all of these things.

45:29

And so, when dealing with theodicy amongst believers, it's a very edifying topic because you can go into so many examples in scripture where Joseph learns this,

45:43

Job learns this, the apostles learn this, Paul learns this, Jesus teaches this, you can find all sorts of stuff like that.

45:52

Theodicy is something that we're dealing with with enemies of the faith who are using it as a reason to reject the existence of God, and you sort of have to—it's not you're taking a different approach, it's just that the examples you're going to be using—you can't assume a common spiritual experience with the atheist, the agnostic, that you can with the

46:12

Christian. And so, when you ask the question, you know, why did

46:19

I survive an accident and someone else didn't? Fundamentally, it's the same question as why am

46:27

I alive in this century and not a previous century? Why do I have all the blessings I have in this life and I wasn't alive in 1347 in Florence when the plague swept through and didn't die a horrible death in 12 hours from the mnemonic form of the plague?

46:44

It was God's purpose that the plague strike where and when and how it did at that time.

46:51

And if you don't have that perspective, then it's all just a random world. It's just that there's no answers to any of these things.

47:00

When Christians basically try to come up with a different answer, it always ends up being a sub -biblical answer.

47:10

Thank you, Dr. White. Okay, all right, hopefully that was helpful for you, Eric. One more question, though.

47:16

I was doing a Ezekiel study, and I came across a passage, I believe it was in Ezekiel 9, but it was when

47:24

God was describing to Ezekiel the punishment that he was going to bear out upon Israel for its idolatry.

47:31

And it says in Scripture that, and know that I, the Lord, caused this evil to fall upon them or something to that effect.

47:39

And I remember John Calvin writing that God is not the author of evil, and then I read that in Scripture, and I'm like, how do

47:46

I square that and deal with that? Without a reference,

47:52

I can't respond to it. Ezekiel 14 was the

47:57

God, I think you've dealt with that one, I remember you dealing with that in the past, God causing false prophets.

48:04

And then it mentioned earlier in there that, I was trying to look it up, I didn't have time before you got my call, but it was in one of the first chapters of Ezekiel, where it says,

48:15

I, the Lord, caused this evil among them. It was an ESV translation, I believe. Well, you know,

48:24

I see the iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is very great, Laura's forsaken the land,

48:31

I will bring their conduct upon their heads. So without the specific reference, I don't know what you're referring to, so, sorry.

48:37

Well, maybe the next call -in program will find the exact reference. All right, thank you. All right, thank you. Okay, thanks, bye -bye. All right, let's talk to Zach.

48:47

Hey, Dr. White, how's the weather down there? I heard you guys got dumped on by a lot of snow. Well, not here in the

48:54

Valley, but up north we got a little snow, and hopefully that will make for a nice, you know, well actually they're doing dam releases, so that must mean the reservoirs are pretty full right now, so that's pretty cool.

49:12

So anyways, what's your question? It's probably not quite as cold as your trip to Russia. No. So I had a question about limited atonement.

49:18

I would be a dispensational, a four -point Calvinist Baptist, so maybe kind of understand where I would be coming from regarding maybe the one that I would disagree with on the point of Calvinism.

49:30

And I have a question. I also feel like that limited atonement is something that I'm not fully understand where everybody comes from on that.

49:37

I know you've debated, guys, like Dr. Brown, regarding limited or unlimited atonement.

49:42

My question is, what are some misconceptions that you have come across on debates regarding limited atonement, and how could you clarify what exactly you would believe on that, and how also would that square with 1

49:59

Timothy 2, where he is described, God is described as the one who's the Savior of all, especially those who believe?

50:07

That's not 1 Timothy 2, I think that's 1 Timothy 4, 4, 11, or 12, or something along those lines.

50:15

And there's a section on that in the Potter's Freedom. I can't get any clearer than I was with Michael Brown, and if you heard that, then

50:26

I've already explained that as clearly as I can, to be perfectly honest with you.

50:32

I laid out the relationship between the Father, the

50:38

Son, and the Spirit. The Father decrees the salvation of God's elect. The Son secures it in His salvific work.

50:44

The Spirit comes and applies it. The Spirit's not trying to save someone the Son hasn't died for.

50:49

The Father doesn't decree the salvation of someone the Son doesn't die for. The Son doesn't die for someone that the Father has not decreed the salvation of.

50:56

The Spirit will not fully accomplish the redemption thereof. I struggle with quote -unquote four -point

51:05

Calvinism, because in my experience, almost every single person who described themselves as a four -point

51:13

Calvinist, when you pushed, was not a four -point Calvinist. Because their objection to particular redemption was actually an objection to unconditional election.

51:26

Because if you believe in unconditional election, if you believe that there is an elect people that are not determined by their actions, they're not determined by a foreseen faith, that they are deserving of condemnation as the rest, and yet solely by God's grace.

51:51

They are set aside unto mercy and provision is made for them in the salvation, salvific work of Jesus Christ.

52:01

Then the idea of a universal atonement, when you have unconditional election, doesn't make any sense.

52:10

Why would Christ atone for sins that the

52:16

Father has not determined to forgive in election? And that would also result in the

52:24

Son, because since, as the high priest, he has to intercede for those for whom he's offered the sacrifice.

52:29

So now you have the Son interceding for the Father to save people the Father has not decreed to save. That's why

52:35

I say it introduces a inconsistency in the Godhead itself. I guess the idea is more, the way

52:44

I would try to understand it, would be that it is offered, the extent of the atonement could potentially be that which would be applied to them if they would believe.

52:55

But then again, it wouldn't happen unless they were elect. So it's just something I'm trying to... Yeah, well, the

53:00

Father, even if you just grant simple foreknowledge, the Father knows who is and who is not going to do that.

53:06

But let's think again. What that means, though, is if the

53:11

Son consistently acts as high priest, he is going to intercede before the

53:16

Father for every person for whom he died. So you have the Son fruitlessly, in an empty act, interceding before the

53:25

Father for individuals that the Father has not elected, and therefore whom the

53:32

Spirit will not raise to spiritual life and will not grant gifts of faith and repentance.

53:39

So you have one member of the Godhead operating against the other two. You have inconsistency in the Godhead if the

53:45

Son follows through and acts as high priest. And besides that, the offering of the sacrifice in the

53:56

Old Testament was not something the people could accept or reject. The offering was made to God.

54:02

It wasn't made to the people. The people had no choice in this. And it was made for a specific people.

54:09

It wasn't made for the Egyptians. It wasn't made for the Assyrians. It was made for a specific people to God. And the offering of Jesus Christ is to the

54:16

Father. It's not an offering to us. We tend to accept that idea that it's offered to us.

54:24

That's a different meaning of the term offering. And it removes, I think, the foundation of what propitiation is.

54:31

Propitiation, the sacrifice that actually takes away not only the sin but the wrath against that sin. If you have a universal atonement, it can't be truly propitiatory or you end up with universalism.

54:44

You end up with everybody being sinned. I don't think anybody I know of as well would argue that it's a universal atonement.

54:51

The only idea is that it would be something, again, that was extended to, even to the world, that they might believe.

54:58

But again, it is only applied to those that are elect. That language of application and things like that takes you right back to who determines the application.

55:12

If you believe in unconditional election, God the Father did. And see, the only way to use application that way is to introduce the concept of autonomous free will.

55:24

And if you accept that saving faith is the work of the Spirit of God in the regenerated heart, this is why

55:32

Reformed theology is consistent and everything else just ends up flopping around and contradicting itself right, left, and center.

55:40

Well, thank you for the challenge. And you gave me some good things to think through on the topic. So I appreciate that.

55:46

All right. Thanks, Zach. All right. God bless. Have a good day. All right. All right. We'll get those last two calls in however long it takes.

55:52

Well, I'm not going to say that. We'll try to get these two calls in. And actually, this is the longer one.

56:01

Okay. Let's talk to Nicholas. Hi, Nicholas. Hi, Jake. Hi, Dr. West. I'll skip the normal pleasantries because I know you're on a time crunch and all that.

56:13

Okay. Normally people comment about Calvinism, and they talk about God's love.

56:20

They feel that God should love everyone the same way. And you have a normal response to that, something along the lines of,

56:28

I love my wife differently than I would my daughter. Or by virtue of the nature of the relationship, you love people differently.

56:36

Okay. And so I was wondering, what about God and his relationship with people?

56:44

Is it not the same as creator to each individual person? Maybe there's an easy answer to that.

56:51

Do you understand what I'm saying there? Well, when I'm talking about God's ability to exercise love in different ways, that God's love for a parakeet is not the same thing as God's love for a human being,

57:07

I'm recognizing that God has a higher capacity to exercise pure love than human beings do.

57:15

And when people argue that God's love has to be identical for all human beings, they're basically saying that God cannot differentiate purely and justly and righteously in the kinds of love that he has toward his creation.

57:32

And I don't know how anyone reads Genesis through Malachi and comes to the conclusion that the message of those books is that God has an undifferentiated love for every single human being on the planet.

57:51

Because those books make it very, very clear that it was the children of Israel who were chosen undeservedly, as the text illustrates over and over again, but were chosen undeservedly, not based on anything they did, by God, and they walked through the sea on dry ground, and then other people who were created in the image of God were drowned by God purposefully in that same sea.

58:26

Now, are you going to tell me that the redemptive love that was being shown toward the children of Israel, and he's then going to destroy a bunch of them in the wilderness, by the way, that's the further illustration that is then used, but that the redemptive love that God showed toward the people of Israel is the same he showed toward the people of Egypt?

58:44

I don't know how anyone can read those texts, which is why modern liberal theology ends up turning the

58:55

Tanakh into a mishmash of self -contradictory stories that have to be turned into metaphors and allegories and everything else, because they just have to get away from the fact that there is no redemptive love demonstrated toward the

59:13

Amorite high priest, the Assyrian warlord, it's just not there.

59:22

There is a freedom on God's part because redemptive love is defined by grace, and grace can never be demanded.

59:33

And so, once grace can be demanded, once you can say that God has to act graciously toward all people, there's no turning back from there, from universalism.

59:45

That is the end of that particular path as well, if you're consistent. Point is, most people are not consistent about this particular issue.

59:55

But, you know, you can say that, well, since we're all human beings, then there has to be the same type of love, but that doesn't follow through for us, and I don't see how it follows through for God.

01:00:07

All right. I definitely appreciate that, because it seems like no one ever goes in response to that answer you normally give for God loving people in different ways, and so I've been trying to get on that for a while.

01:00:22

Well, that's because we have really ishy -squishy definitions of love. We don't generally think about what the difference between love, mercy, patience, long -suffering...

01:00:35

These are all terms that are used in Scripture, and sometimes they are used synonymously, but sometimes they're used to paint sort of a different color.

01:00:42

We're told that God is very patient with the wicked, because he's holding back his wrath from breaking forth upon them, which could justly break forth upon them.

01:00:54

What holds it back is his goodness and the fact that he's accomplishing a purpose in this world. They are there to serve a proper purpose, and he's in fact restraining their evil so that he can accomplish his purpose.

01:01:06

If you don't have that purposing, it's sort of like what I was saying to the last caller, if you don't have that decree, then you're going to have to go very, very different directions, and I don't see how you can hold all of Scripture together, to be honest with you.

01:01:18

It just doesn't seem to make any sense. It's sort of like when we get into some more of the Stephen Anderson stuff, his whole argumentation about faith and works is based upon rejecting the idea that faith is the work of the

01:01:34

Spirit of God and requires the grace of God to enable us to do these things, and therefore, repentance becomes works salvation.

01:01:42

That's what happens when you don't have a God -centered perspective. You end up turning the Bible into a mockery of what it actually is.

01:01:51

But the fact is, in the vast majority of churches, we're more than happy for people just simply to accept whatever tradition it is they've accepted, and we rarely will make them uncomfortable enough to have to think through those things.

01:02:06

I think that's what's happened with a lot of European Christianity, to be honest with you, which is why it's disappearing over there, but that's another issue.

01:02:13

Hopefully that's helpful, Nicholas. Yes, thank you, sir. I do appreciate it.

01:02:19

I hope you have a good day. All right, thank you. God bless. Bye -bye. All right, and last caller for today...oh,

01:02:26

I didn't see that. Catherine, hello. Hi. Dr. James White, thank you for taking my call.

01:02:32

I really appreciate it. All righty. I have a question about the Pope. Do Roman Catholics believe that the

01:02:42

Pope can come up with new revelations, similar to how Mormons and their prophets?

01:02:47

No. I mean... No? No. Let's be very, very clear about this.

01:02:55

Now, the current Pope...nobody has a clue where he is, okay?

01:03:00

I mean, the current Pope is not an Orthodox Pope. The current Pope believes all sorts of things that previous

01:03:07

Popes didn't believe, and so right now we're in a very weird situation where, especially with the previous

01:03:15

Pope, or even the Pope before that, it would have been easy to answer this question accurately from a

01:03:22

Roman Catholic perspective. I don't need to misrepresent them. The official Roman Catholic perspective is that the canon is closed with the last of the

01:03:32

New Testament. They claim they have the right to define that canon, but there is not going to be any revelatory things given after that.

01:03:41

Now, the squishy part is that, especially over the past couple of hundred years,

01:03:49

Rome has defined as dogma certain beliefs that very plainly the

01:03:56

Apostles never taught, specifically the bodily assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and papal infallibility in 1870.

01:04:04

So, what they do do is give to the

01:04:11

Magisterium, the Church as a whole, and to the Pope personally, an infallible charism of teaching authority and the interpretation of tradition, which ends up pretty much allowing for the idea that the

01:04:29

Living Church has spoken and now you have to believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, even if it's plain as the nose of anybody's face that there was nobody in the first 500 years of the

01:04:43

Christian Church that ever had a ghost of such a thinking in the first place, let alone thinking it was dogma. So, on the one hand, they'll say, no, there is no official revelation after the

01:04:53

New Testament. But on the other, by elevating their own teaching authority and by diminishing the

01:05:01

New Testament's teaching authority, you end up opening a door that sort of allows you to have a new revelation, but you're not calling it that.

01:05:09

You're saying this is the tradition that was delivered, and we're just the Living Church interpreting it, etc.,

01:05:15

etc., etc. It ends up walking a real tight line there, and if they ever define the fifth

01:05:21

Marian dogma, the idea of Mary as co -mediatrix with Christ, that would be an even clearer example that that line has pretty much been crossed and messed up.

01:05:31

But, officially, no, the Pope cannot receive new revelations from God or anything else, and that's totally separate from Pope Frankie, who's just out there doing his thing, which not even the

01:05:43

Roman Catholics can figure out where he's going. So, it's a weird time. Are they ever able to challenge the

01:05:50

Pope when he's not sticking to doctrine? Yeah, yeah, you can.

01:05:56

And there are people who are. I feel sorry for them. I think they should just realize just how grossly unbiblical the office is.

01:06:04

But there are Roman Catholics—I'm going to be listening to a couple of them, actually, somewhere

01:06:10

I'm doing this weekend, I was just making that sound file up today— where they're talking about a particular bishop in the

01:06:19

Church that is challenging Francis, and specifically on what Francis said when he signed that document with Al -Tayyib,

01:06:29

Muhammad Al -Tayyib, the grand imam from Al -Azhar. One of the things that was said in that document was that religious pluralism, the existence of multiple religions, is the will of God.

01:06:41

And that doesn't fit well with what the papacy has taught in the past, and so I'm going to be listening to some guys, some really sharp guys, basically talking about why they think the

01:06:51

Pope is wrong about that. So, yes, you can, but it's a weird situation because, on the one hand, you can say, well, you know, there is this established dogma of the

01:07:03

Church, but on the other hand, who's the only infallible interpreter of that? Fundamentally, the Pope. So it's a vicious circle that they've become caught in, and Francis's papacy illustrates that like almost none other has— certainly none other in our lifetimes has, but certainly none other in the past,

01:07:24

I don't know, since the pornocracy, probably 1 ,100 years ago.

01:07:30

So it is a very, very interesting time when you're talking about Roman Catholicism right now.

01:07:37

I feel bad for them. They must be so confused when your bishop might be saying one thing and then the

01:07:43

Pope is saying something completely different. Well, yeah, that's—well, when your ultimate trust is that I can't really trust the

01:07:51

Bible, I need to trust the interpreters of it and the interpreters of tradition, and you can't get a straight answer out of them, yeah,

01:07:58

I'd feel sorry for someone there, too. I just hope the Spirit of God will open their eyes to see that they made a mistake way back down the line in investing these folks with some type of infallible authority that the

01:08:09

Bible never does. Yeah. Okay? Yeah, that makes complete sense. Thank you very much.

01:08:14

Thank you very much. God bless. Bye. All right, bye -bye. All righty! Good calls from everybody today.

01:08:21

I'm glad that the stream lasted long enough to allow— We're still going to have to upload it. We're still going to have to upload it, so it's going to be a little delayed getting posted.

01:08:30

Sorry about that. But anyway, we covered lots and lots of topics once again, and next week,

01:08:38

I don't know exactly how next week's going to work yet. I'm going up to Vegas to see

01:08:46

Eric and Summer and Cadence and Waylon and Clementine and January, and did you see when

01:08:55

Summer posted that picture where she was cuddling this little baby that had been born at like, what was it, 30 weeks or something like that, and yet is doing so well and stuff like that?

01:09:06

I'm sorry? Well, you're not going to get into this? You're hands off?

01:09:16

Get out! Get out! Yeah, because I just said, oh, honey, you do that so well, and I'm sure that Cadence and Waylon and Clementine and January will be wonderful brothers and sisters in helping to raise a new little

01:09:33

Jaegerite, and the immediate response of Summer is a really good gif, whatever you call those things, of some star.

01:09:44

What star was that? I've seen them before, just going, get out! But, hey,

01:09:52

I can keep trying, keep encouraging him to fill and subdue the earth, and there you go.

01:10:01

I don't want to pull any rank here, but, you know. Anyhow, so I'm going up there, and it looks like I'll probably be gone

01:10:10

Tuesday and Thursday, so what we may end up having to do, are you going to be here Monday? You're not going to be here

01:10:16

Monday? You're going up north? Oh. Okay.

01:10:22

Well, I was going to say, well, yeah, what we'll probably end up, in light of that doing, is

01:10:32

I want to try to do the program from up there and interview Summer. She sort of rather said, yeah, you know, we've had you on my program a bunch of times, but it's about time, you know.

01:10:43

So probably on Wednesday, then, we will try to do a program from up in Vegas, where I get to interview

01:10:51

Summer and talk about the stuff that she and Joy are doing on Sheologians, and why she and I are so stupid about intersectionality, and stuff like that.

01:11:02

And who knows, we can get Cadence and Waylon, because we're not going to be able to keep them out of the room. So they're going to probably be—Waylon will probably be doing handstands across in the background, and stuff like that.

01:11:15

And then maybe Friday, because I think I'll come back on Thursday, do a program.

01:11:22

So that's probably how we'll do things next week. And then I start traveling, and there's information on the website, because I'm going to be at the—the

01:11:32

South Texas Bible Conference is already sold out, you said. And I never did get in touch with that pastor, because I never heard back from Sky Mountain.

01:11:43

I'm sorry? Oh, okay. All right, well. So anyway, and then the next weekend, up near San Jose, the information's on the website, so looking forward to meeting folks up there.

01:11:59

At least it looks like when I go up to San Jose, we're going to be doing some decent bike riding while we're up there before.

01:12:07

That's—that makes for an energetic speaker. Well, at least until about 10 o 'clock at night. Then it makes for an unconscious speaker.

01:12:14

That's just, beep, done at that point. But I—it's nice to get to travel where I come back feeling like I'm in better shape than when

01:12:22

I left, rather than the other way around, where you're just constantly in the battle of trying to get back to where you were. Then you travel again. So anyways, and even though we're still on, you sent me something about—you said something to me about a church in Colorado, and I don't have that information or I can't find it.

01:12:41

Because I want to contact those folks and say, yeah, I just need to get them together with Bruce, who sort of is my—

01:12:49

It's in WhatsApp. It's in WhatsApp? Okay. All right. So anyway, so next week, probably

01:12:54

Wednesday, Friday, if everything works out. And hopefully Wednesday with special guest stars,

01:13:01

Summer, Cadence, Waylon, Clementine, and yes, January as well. We'll try to get them all on the program in the kitchen.

01:13:11

If we can get the internet to work well enough for us. So we will see you then. God bless.