Responding to Trent Horn on Theopneustos, Part I

Well greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We've got a lot to get to today. We're going to be responding to Trent Horne.

When I... When I initially started to respond on the last trip,

I was still on the road. The conversation was taking place in Twitter, and that's what

I'm always going to call it, and then things went silent, and I should have thought, but you know when you're traveling, you've got other things to do, and you're getting home, you've got other stuff to do.

I should have thought to look at his YouTube something like... videos or something.

He stopped responding to me because he did this video, evidently, and so we're going to respond to that today.

Before we get into that, very quickly, I did want to show you, I told you I would, the

Bright Tangelo ink came in on Friday, and so you've seen this

Bible. This is one I keep in the studio here. It's a Jeff Rice Rebinds. It says Solos Scriptura.

It has the Solos on the spine. It's got the Cairo on the front that I really like, and it has orange sewing around it, threading in it, and orange, three orange ribbons in it, so I'm like, there's only one color to go with.

It needs to be orange, and so I got it, and you can, you can, you know, it's...

You can see the gilding, but when you, you can see that there's definitely some orange tint to it, but you know, the gilding's there, but then when you open her up, there's, there's what you've got, and you've got that beautiful orange with the orange.

It's just orange -orange. If it had an orange cover, it would be probably too much.

Worked out wonderfully well, and I also have a Jeffrey Rice Creed's and Confessions ESV, which is orange.

The ribbons aren't, but the cover is that rust orange, and so I went with the same thing there, and it really turned out really, really well.

Jeffrey, I'm doing a good job. I get a little bleed in some of the corners.

I'm not a hundred percent certain why. Could be I'm just not holding it down tightly enough, but certainly nothing that's a traction or anything like that, but I'm getting pretty good at getting an even coverage there, and I, I tweeted out the

URL to Jeffrey's video, and then the URL to the ink pads and reinkers, because Jeffrey told me the ink pads do not come with enough ink in them to guarantee you'll be able to actually get your

Bible done. So you need the little bottle of reinker stuff.

It's, I think, together it's like 14 bucks or something like that. And there's lots of colors.

I, I lost, there's at least 20 different colors on the Ranger ink of Ark, Ark, is it

Archival? Is that what it's called? Anyways, I, I tweeted all that out. And so those, because a few of you did contact me and ask some specific questions, because you're like, yeah,

I might be crafty enough to pull that off. And it is a really neat thing to be able to have there.

Okay, there's the, there's that thing. Next. Very quickly,

I'm, because like I said, this were, this is a long, a lot of material to do here.

But I just have to say, I am pretty stunned at the speed at which the

United States is descending into Venezuelan level

Banana Republic absurdity. In hindsight, it's really obvious.

When the educational system was taken over by the left, that included the law schools and hence, all the people going into that area, which means the judiciary, there is no place in human civilization where a recognition of the objective goodness of God's law needs to be seen more clearly than in the judiciary.

Certainly the legislature, you know, the king needs to bow to the law and the legislature needs to act in accordance, but the judiciary has to judge by a standard.

By what standard? And this nation was founded by primarily

Christian people and primarily by people who had a Christian worldview. They may not have been fully consistent.

There may have been nominalism, but the point is the British common law derived clearly from Moses.

I need to apologize. I made a shirt and they didn't give me one. But and I've even asked for one and I've not gotten one after all this time.

But anyway, it says Moses not Marx. Moses not

Marx because that that really is the choice where we are right now. And people, oh, it's not that stark.

Folks, are you are you seeing what the Marx part's doing right now? Okay. I mean, you're gonna be in a gulag pretty soon and you're gonna wonder how it happened so fast.

And the reason is that's how Marxism works. And so what happened last evening and what's been happening over the past couple of weeks with these indictments of President Trump.

Now, I tweeted something last night and boy, you know, you tweet anything on that subject you're gonna get shot from both sides, which means pretty much you're in the middle.

And fundamentally what I said is I am NOT a Donald Trump fan. I'm not a Donald Trump supporter. I was definitely in opposition to him in 2016.

I voted for him in 2020 because Joe Biden, well, we all knew what that was gonna be and it's turned out to be worse than we imagined it could be, but you know,

I wasn't voting for the regime, that's for sure. And I said in the in the tweet,

I I wish that the man loved the nation more than he loves himself.

But because if he if he put if he put his support behind a unifying candidate that has a meaningful worldview that would continue to press the right direction,

I think they'd be unstoppable. But he won't do that.

And so at the same time recognizing all of his failures, his failures with COVID, his failures with Fauci, all that stuff, the obvious reality, and I think more and more people are seeing this.

I think a lot of people are really recognizing this. And it's turning him into a martyr.

They don't, I don't think they realize this. Leftists are not smart. They're not overly reflective people.

They, because they'll follow whatever they're told to do to promote the narrative. They'll lie and not even give it a second thought.

Anyway, they don't seem to see what they're doing, and turning this man into fundamentally a martyr.

But looking at the elements of the indictment from last night, you're just left with your mouth hanging open.

That there is anyone in a serious position of leadership that would present these things.

And did you see the video of the, I don't know how this happens as quickly, but of the foreman of the grand jury?

IQ of a wet shoelace. I mean, wow. But that's, that's not even the issue.

The, the issue is the, these things will be, well, okay, these things would have been, ten years ago, thrown out in a second.

What I'm saying is corruption of worldview spreads like gangrene, and the judiciary is corrupt.

And so you can get a judge to do anything anymore. That's the problem. It's no longer a rule of law.

It's the rule of men, and that's the end of any republic, of any representation, of any liberty, of any anything.

This has all happened before. You can find parallels to all of this, all across Europe, with with the

Soviet Union, and with China. The communists all do the same thing.

So, I'm very concerned. I'm very concerned because I have grandchildren.

I'm very concerned because if these radical, uncontrollable individuals, mainly

Soros -funded, anti -American rebels, if they will do this to a former president of the

United States and the current leading opposition candidate for the presidency, they will not think, they will not hesitate for a second to do it to all the rest of us.

And that's the end of a civil government. That's the end of the positive and negative influences that the

United States has been in this world. But look, there's been a lot of things this nation has been doing that I'm not proud of at all.

But, on the world scene, this nation has suppressed a tremendous amount of regional conflict, war.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am seeing more and more that the people who are behind the, you know,

Eisenhower is right, the military -industrial complex, they've got to have a crisis, they've got to have a war, and unfortunately, this nation has been involved in far more wars than it needed to be involved with over the past 50, 60, 70 years.

There's no two ways about it. But, on the whole, I think the influence the

United States has been to raise the standard of living across the world for many, many people, to increase food production around the world, literacy.

We did a lot of good things. I don't think we're really doing them anymore, to be honest with you. But, but we did.

But we're descending into a banana republic. Now, I've got a friend of mine. In fact, I was just looking over here at a text that he had sent me.

And I got a friend of mine who started a PAC, what was it, about three years ago now, because of all the wacko craziness going on in the school district in his area, back in the

St. Louis area, St. Charles specifically, and has successfully taken over the school board in two elections.

They now have the majority. They're making national headlines by what they're doing. He's doing seminars to teach other people how to do the same thing.

That's called localism. That's called doing things in the local area. And it's hard for the big bureaucrats at the top to keep track of all the people at the local level.

They certainly want to try to do it. And they'll probably use AI to do it in the future. Did you see that?

I retweeted the brief Twitter article where someone basically said, 15 -minute cities are nothing but self -sustaining concentration camps, with AI as the guards.

Exactly right. Exactly right. And it just shocks me that there are so many people who go, yeah, but to save the earth, this is what we must do.

That's what public indoctrination does for you. It's not education anymore, folks.

I don't even call it that. It's not. It's indoctrination, and that's what we're facing. So, anyway, that just happened last night, that indictment.

And as we started reading this stuff, you're just going, that someone actually did this.

Yes. I am sure they have a promise. This woman has a promise that even if she were to be voted out of office, be removed from office for obvious malfeasance, she's set.

She's set for life. She doesn't have to worry about it. So she can do whatever she wants. Over the other constitution, you bet.

They're all a bunch of traitors. They hate the constitution, hate what this nation stands for. Our enemies are not in the gate.

They are in control of everything going on in the nation. All right, so, sorry about that, but needed to comment on that.

All right. So like I said at the top of the program, a few months ago,

Trenthorne had a debate with Gavin Ortlin on Sola Scriptura, and I commented on it once I saw it.

I don't remember how many weeks after it took place that was. And one of the things that caught all of us who are interested in these things was the radically different approach that Trenthorne took to the subject of the debate.

I've debated this subject many times with well, the first debate

I did, August 1990. It's funny. I saw someone on Twitter going, and stop going back over the arguments of the 1990s.

I'm sitting here going, okay, so you're the ancient church. You're the church

Christ founded 2000 years ago. And things have changed so much since the 1990s that all your arguments are different now than they were 30 years ago.

Really? But then you do have to stop and go, there's an element of truth there called

Francis. Called Francis. And that says everything needs to be said.

That says it all right there. Yep. There is such a different world when you had

John Paul II and now you have Francis. That, yeah, you do have to have different arguments because you don't sit there and tell me that the very embodiment of apostolic succession, which is the

Bishop of Rome from your perspective, don't tell me that who that is and what they believe and how radically different this

Pope believes than those came before him. Don't tell me that's not relevant. You better believe it is. But as far as the claims of at least historic orthodox

Roman Catholicism is concerned, are you literally saying that Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating and Mark Brumley, and yeah, you gotta own him,

Jerry Matitix, Mitch Pacwa, well,

Bob St. Genes, you gotta own him too, that all these folks who never used

Trent Horne's approach, never even suggested it, nobody in any of the debates that I did had the bravery that Trent Horne has to go ahead and fundamentally deny the ontological uniqueness of Scripture.

So when you hear someone doing that, you're like, wow, this is new.

And as soon as he threw out Poirier, I'm looking this up going, what is this?

Oh, 2022. Oh, nothing like going with something that hasn't even been vetted yet.

All right, cool. That's fun. And then as I dug into it, and I go, well, wait a minute, this guy isn't even a

Catholic. And he's making this a semantic domain argumentation. When you use

TLG, CD -ROM, you've got to look at the canons, you've got to look at the dates, you've got to look at, there's a lot of stuff to take into consideration.

But the biggest thing, which amazingly, I have mentioned this in every critique and so far in this review that we're looking at,

Trent knows this is essential to my argument. He won't even acknowledge in this video the fundamental centrality of the fact that the individual he is citing, and he talks about, oh, and I forgot to grab it.

Doggone it. I knew I was going to forget something. I was going to grab the canon debate from,

I know right where it is, on the shelf around the corner. Oh, well. He wants to say, well,

I was using other scholars other than Poirier, not in regards to the vivification argument, you were not.

The only person pushing that is Poirier. And Poirier does not believe that the

Apostle Paul wrote the term Theanostas. It's a forgery. Now, the standard terminology in modern

New Testament studies, when you have a reduced Pauline canon, which is what we're dealing with here, is the nicest way is to talk about the

Pauline community. The Pauline community. But Bart Ehrman has just put it straightforwardly, it's forged.

It claims to be written by the Apostle Paul, but it wasn't. So whoever wrote it, it's a liar.

Well, you know, it was common to do back then. Fact of the matter is, it's not apostolic.

It doesn't come from an apostle. And that changes everything. Because if you're going to define biblical words, you define them, first and foremost, on the basis of divine revelation as a whole, the author as an individual, the letter specifically, or the apocalyptic book, for example,

Revelation or something like that. That is fundamental to any kind of meaningful lexicography, any kind of believing lexicography.

It is not, when you leave that realm, central at all.

So you can define words much more broadly when you don't have to worry anymore about being consistent, you know, well, this is

Paul's term. Well, it's a hypoxlegomena. Yes, it's a hypoxlegomena, but it's used in a context.

And that context is going to give you the range of the area in the semantic domain of that term that the author is seeking to utilize.

But if you don't know who the author is, if you have a later author pretending to be somebody else, you don't have that anymore.

And so you better believe it fundamentally impacts these things. And I'm really wondering, you know,

Trent talks about all the study he put into this, and my whole point, the whole point of my response was, I'm sorry,

Trent, I don't think that you are in a position to critically evaluate the specific claims of Poirier in his book.

And simply being able to pronounce Koine Greek words, knowing a few categories of grammar is not enough.

It's not enough. We'll look at some, all this stuff we'll be looking at here.

I guess I should just dive into it. Sorry. So I'm using a program here that will allow me to play specific clips of the video, and we will respond to them.

Let's go ahead and dive into it, because everything I've already covered, I'm going to have to cover again anyway. So probably not best to do it that way.

Let's hope that we've got everything set up here. And dive in by hitting play, if I can find it.

I cannot hear anything. Or a book that just never showed up. Disappointing, right? Well, that's how

I felt listening to James White's recent response to my episode that focused on Sola Scriptura and the issue of the

Greek word Theopneustos, often translated as God breathed. Okay.

So the first thing to point out. He's going to say in a moment that he's doing this episode to help you to recognize bluster and bad argumentation and stuff like that.

Yeah, that's why I'm doing the same thing. Because what this is, is I was challenging

Trent on Twitter and I said, okay, where have you taught Greek? When did you teach it?

On what level did you teach it? How many years have you studied Greek on the graduate level or undergraduate level?

What are your, what's your skill set here? Because we're talking, we're not talking about just general arguments about Sola Scriptura.

We're talking about specific claims being made in a book that was published last year that Trent Horn is saying is the death knell of Sola Scriptura.

To my knowledge, the Magisterium of Rome has not reviewed this book, has not given it the imprimatur as if anyone cared about that anymore.

Has not, you know, the Magisterium has not said, ah, here it is. Because how could they?

How could they? How could the Magisterium actually come out and say, hey, you know what?

This Protestant has discovered something that this would have been really helpful ever since the

Reformation. But we couldn't figure it out, we, the infallible church.

And so we're really glad that someone else has finally figured it out. And so we're going to go ahead and embrace it and put our stamp of approval on it.

Well, that would pretty much be the destruction of the position, wouldn't it? Because I don't know if they ever could come out and make a statement like that.

But they haven't. So this is a one -off, brand new, as far removed from the great tradition or anything else as you can go.

This is a one -off perspective that's now been thrown into the mix.

And I'm simply going, do you have the capacity, the skills to be able to read it and analyze it?

Do you have a TLG subscription? I can show you mine.

Rich can pull up the bill for it, because that's the stuff he does. And it's there on the credit card, dude.

Someday I'll find my TLG CD -ROM. It's in that room somewhere. No idea where.

There's a lot of stuff in that room. It's buried alive. I talked to you about the books.

We talked about Moises Silva. We talked about the study of semantic domains. Honestly, Trent, when did you start your study of semantic domains?

These are the questions I was asking. And this video was the result. And so this is an attempt to spin, to do damage control.

Because I'm asking very specific questions on a specific element of his argumentation.

And I'm not getting answers. I didn't get answers in this either. I think if you read between the lines, because he does later on try to say, well, this is how much

Greek I know. But he never, ever said, can you? Well, here's my first leather -bound

Greek New Testament. First one that I had done, 1980s.

I just did the little page edging thing on it here. And so when you open up to John chapter 6 here, if we were to debate

John chapter 6, when

I'm talking to you, I'm not saying, can you go? I'm not asking if you can properly pronounce some

Greek words. Or something along those lines. I'm asking you, without any English, there's no

English in this page. Well, no, there's no English in this page. If I handed this to you, would you be able to just use this?

Would you be able to go, how is this one able to give to us his flesh to eat?

Can you just look at that? And translate it? And if you looked at yourselves, would you be able to parse that?

That's what I'm asking about. So that when you read a

Greek commentary, or you read Bourier, and he gives you the phrase, can you critically analyze it and hold his feet to the fire to be consistent in translation and issues like that?

That's the question that I was asking. That's the question I was asking. Because you, Trent, say that we, and you specifically included me, you included

Jeff Durbin, you say Protestant apologists simply assume. And you're wrong.

You're wrong. It's a falsehood. They just assume this meaning. That's why

I pointed out to you, assume it. I read Warfield a long time ago, so I didn't assume anything.

I've dealt with the syntactical issues in 2 Timothy 3 .16.

Is it all scripture or every scripture? Have you read Wallace's discussion of that in his syntax?

I have. I've chatted with him about it in person.

So that's what I was focused upon, was here's someone, nobody before him has thrown this argument.

Well, that's because it wasn't published until 2021 in England and 2022 here in the United States. Who cares?

He's still the first one. He's still the first one that I know of. And he claims to have done word studies that he then indicates

I didn't do. I'm just simply asking you, are you actually able to do those word studies on a scholarly level?

And you have not given me a clear answer to that at all. At all.

That's what this is all about. So that's, again, I'm actually, unfortunately, covering all the material that I already have notes for without playing the thing.

I apologize for that, but we press on. So in my previous episode,

I showed that Protestant apologists over -rely on the Greek word theopneustos in making the case for sola scriptura in 2

Timothy 3 .16. They assume it just means God breathed. When other scholars have argued, it can mean

God breathing. They also assume if something is called theopneustos in the apostolic period, that proves it is a divinely established, infallible rule of faith.

Now, how many times did he use the term assume? They assume this. They haven't done the work.

You've done the work, but we haven't done the work. We're not assuming anything.

I'm going to wait just a little bit here before we dive into some of the text. We need to do some looking at the text today.

But here's the language right there. They assume this. They assume that. Well, maybe somebody does.

In all my debates with Roman Catholics, I have found most of them to assume a lot of things.

Peter Stravinskis assumed a bunch of stuff until that night in 2001 when he assumed it no longer after that.

But it has nothing to do with me. I'm not assuming anything.

As I'll demonstrate, the meaning is consistent with the usage in the text.

And it is the usage in the text that is the primary definer of the meaning of the word if you believe in divine revelation.

And that's why I've said from the beginning, I know where this road goes.

I know when you start going, whether Paul wrote or not, doesn't really matter.

I know where that goes. I know the end result, the end conclusion.

It's happened too many times. And you all should too. I mean,

Roman Catholics wonder, man, how can Jesuits come up with the stuff that Jesuits come up with?

Well, it didn't happen overnight. There was a process. And the same process has happened in Rome that's happened within Protestantism.

It really has. When I look at apologists starting to head down this road,

I'm like, you're going to eventually reach not a

Y but a T in which direction you're going to go. And the direction you're going really doesn't provide you a foundation for being a consistent apologist.

It really doesn't. So we're not assuming anything at all, Trent. It doesn't hold up when we see that the word was used in the early church to refer to any spiritually beneficial writing.

Okay, now, this is one of the arguments. He's not going with Poirier specifically here, but MacDonald.

And again, when you say used in the early church, this is a very, very common phrase that a lot of people just, because most people don't do history, don't teach history, it sort of shuts down conversations.

Because you don't want to say, well, no, the early church didn't believe that because then you're going to have to try to back that up, even though the other side isn't necessarily backing that up.

And you're not exactly sure what would be involved in proving something about what the early church believed.

But here's the problem. We only have a fraction of what the early church wrote, even depending on how you define the early church.

Are we talking about only the apostolic fathers? We have a tiny fraction of that.

And let's, let's, let's, apostolic fathers go up to about 140. Okay.

So those who lived in the timeframe of the apostles, 140, 150, when you get in 150, you're in the apologist, just a martyr, stuff like that.

Can you define what that church believed on all sorts of topics?

No, you can't. Even though we have a certain number of documents, you know, we've got the shepherd of Hermas and we've got the

Didache and we've got Ignatius and we've got some fragments. A lot of times all we have are fragments that Eusebius collects a couple hundred years later, that we can't always necessarily put a whole lot of weight on.

But we have, we have some books, but in comparison to how much we know was being written, we have a very small portion.

And even when we do have, as with Ignatius, seven epistles, they're written as he's going to his death.

They're going to be focused upon particular areas, his particular concerns, unity of the church, following the bishop, things like that, resisting the

Gnostics, proto -Gnostics. They're not going to give us a systematic theology.

They're not going to give us a broad, there's going to be all sorts of topics where you go, I don't know what

Ignatius believed about X, Y, or Z, because it's just not there. Now, it is interesting that, for example, with Ignatius, you have the pseudo -Ignatian epistles.

So you've got forgeries that appeared over the next couple of hundred years that were attached to his name.

And sadly, many people in the medieval period, not recognizing the existence of forgery, utilized those sources as if they had antiquity behind them when they didn't.

That's a major problem, especially the pseudo -Isidorean decretals and the centrality of things like the donation of Constantine to the rise of the papacy.

We now know today, and even Roman Catholic scholars agree, that so many of the documents that were key to the establishment of papal authority were actually frauds or forgeries.

I've often said the sands of critical scholarship, the waves of critical scholarship have wiped away the foundation of the papacy historically, but it's still standing there, floating in midair.

And so anyway, when someone says the early church did this or the early church did that, who are you talking about?

There is such a huge difference between, for example, the epistle to Diognetus and the epistle of Barnabas or the shepherd of Hermas.

Barnabas and Hermas are, well, there's some antisemitism in there, and I guess there's some in Diognetus too, depending on how you define that.

I'm not saying antisemitism as in recognizing that the Druze crucified

Jesus, but other forms of it. But the level of theology in one,

Diognetus, is so much higher than what you have in others.

They're both in the apostolic fathers. There is no unanimity.

So when people say, well, the early church believed this, the early church believed that, I'm normally like, you know that.

With a tiny percentage of what they wrote coming down to us today, and that being either contradictory, so that you have contradictions between the,

I mean, the doctrine of justification in Clement and in Diognetus is

Pauline, whereas Barnabas and Hermas is not. So what did the apostolic fathers believe?

And if you just simply use them in some generic fashion and say, they believe this, you're not dealing with church history.

You are promoting something. You've already been told what you need to find in church history.

That's one of the primary differences, and I've said this many times.

In fact, I was thinking about the transcripts function on our website, and I was thinking about the fact that I bet more of my enemies are using it than my friends.

More of my enemies are using it than my friends. Because if you find out what I've said, the only nice thing about that is in the vast majority of instances,

I'm sure I've contradicted myself at some point in time, but in the vast majority of instances, people have to admit, yeah, you've been fairly consistent.

That is what you said 20 years ago. Okay, whatever. But I know my enemies are using it.

Oh, you bet. They're looking hard, and it's quite a valuable thing. But what that did, unfortunately, is completely blew me off of where we were in what

I was responding to here. Sorry about that. Probably best.

Probably best anyways. I think what

I was rewinding a little bit. That would be nice to be able to do.

Could I listen to what I was saying 40 seconds ago? Because I got skipped with all this stuff on my screen as to where I was going.

So sorry about that. We'll probably remember halfway through the next thing. Okay, I've already talked about that, and I do need to emphasize this.

There were two points that I was making in my response to him.

First, as far as the definition of the term is concerned, he is relying on Poirier. And second,

Poirier does not believe that Paul even wrote the words. So those were the key things, but they were not the key things in his response at all.

They were not the key things in his response. Oh, there it goes.

See, I'm sure it's a computer term for when something gets stuck in the memory.

It's having to read from RAM, and my RAM's getting old. Some of you are not old enough to have ever upgraded

RAM on an old motherboard. Back in the 386, 486 early

Pentium days. Oh, I remember putting memory in there, and that was exciting stuff to do.

You went down to... What was that place that closed down? It looked like a

Mayan temple up there on Thunderbird. Fry's. Fry's. Man, that place was fun.

It's sad that stuff like that doesn't exist anymore. Huh? Why? They couldn't get supplies from China.

Oh, the tariffs. Oh, I thought it was Amazon, but anyway.

So my RAM's a little slow in catching up with stuff, but what I've tried to say, and I have said, and you can prove

I have said for years and years and years, you have to allow the early church writers to be the early church writers.

So I can sit here and go, man, Diognetus, Clement, and I were spot on on justification.

We're spot on on imputed righteousness. But that doesn't mean

I have to agree with everything that either one of them said, because I have no vested interest in trying to prove that they're

Reformed Baptists, because I don't think they were. Too much has happened since then that defines our terminology to...

No. But you see, Rome says we represent the constant faith of the church, and so they already have a...

Here are the walls, and they can't go outside that. And so they have to fit everybody inside that.

Well, that means you have to ignore stuff they wrote, or reinterpret stuff they wrote, or whatever. They can't let the early church fathers be the early church fathers.

They have to make them Roman Catholics, and they weren't. They simply weren't.

And I've said this, and you know, I'm surprised after decades of saying this, that there haven't been 10 articles published in answer to this.

And it just simply proves there is no answer. Not a one of you Roman Catholic apologists can point me to a single bishop at the

Council of Nicaea that believed dogmatically everything that you believe dogmatically today.

You can't do it. You can't do it. And if you want to go, well, sure, there have been definitions since then, but they just weren't controversial back then.

Baloney. Baloney. If it was apostolic tradition, and if it was passed on, it's pretty interesting that the way

Trent puts things later on in this, and I know we're not going to get through all this today, but the way he puts things later on in this is very, very similar to the argument that Jerry Matatix used in our second debate in soul scripture, the one on Long Island.

Second Thessalonians 2 .15. If it's, you know, sacred tradition, and then you have the written tradition, and the oral tradition.

So that means if you're going to use that, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us, oral and written, if you're going to do that, then the reality is you're making a historical claim that what you believe about these things has been known, at least orally, in the church from the time of the apostles.

And the fact of the matter is you teach as dogma things that you know in your heart of hearts were not believed by anybody in the early church.

You know it. You know it. In those quiet times as you're falling asleep, when honesty seeps in, you know it.

That's the reality. I don't have to make the early church fathers Reformed Baptists or anything of the kind.

I can let every one of them be exactly who they were. Because here's my ultimate authority.

It's the only thing that we know the apostles taught. Like Mitch Paco admitted, honest, good man that he is.

Is there a single word that Jesus to the apostles said that has been dogmatically defined by the

Roman Catholic Church that's not found in these pages? Answer, no. Not a word.

Not a word. So, anyway. All right. Let's go to this spot right here.

And hopefully this is not where we just were. To put it simply, Protestants overstate their case in taking the fact that scripture is called

Theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3 .16 to reach the conclusion that scripture is unique in its ability to be an infallible rule of faith and for anything else to be an infallible rule of faith it must also be

Theopneustos. That was the argument I made. So I was very interested to see James White's response to it.

And I was underwhelmed. In fact, the - Okay. So, what's going on here is

I was focused on one specific aspect of this unique, novel, modern, totally disconnected from history argument that Trent Horn is now championing.

Because no one else has ever made this argument. Who in the history of the church has made the argument that 2

Timothy 3 .16 should be - Because Rome doesn't translate it this way. Sixtus with his infallible

Vulgate didn't translate it this way. So, where in history has anyone representing the

Roman Catholic Church? And of course, I would say that takes us only back to the 13th century or so.

Fourth Lateran Council or so. But from their perspective, even further back then. Who has presented the idea that what is being said in 2

Timothy 3 .16 is that Timothy, tough days are coming.

Hard days are coming. False teachers are going to be all over you.

Like ducks on a June bug. And so, Timothy, you've known the

Holy Scriptures which are able to give you wisdom for salvation which is found in Christ Jesus.

And so, Timothy, as the man of God, if you want to be thoroughly equipped, complete to do the ministry of the man of God in the church.

Because this is one of the ways that Trent tries to get around this. He tries to say, oh, no, no, no, to be able to do every good work.

If you rid yourself of ungodliness, he will say in 2 Timothy 2 .21,

then you'll be prepared for every good work. So, obviously, that makes that sufficient. No, no, no, no, no.

Talk about twisting the Scriptures. 2 Timothy 3 .16, Paul is talking to Timothy about how he is to pursue the ministry of the elder in the church.

And how he is to do what? To teach and to correct and to rebuke.

These are specific doctrinal teaching responsibilities of the bishop, the elder, the presbyter.

They're all the same thing. They are all the same thing.

That was an evolutionary change later on where presbytery becomes priest.

Well, it's not priest. There's a specifically good, there's a perfectly good word for priest in the New Testament.

And it's not presbyteros. These are the things that the elder in the church are to do.

In the face of false teaching. In the face of opposition. You, Timothy, you remain convinced of what you've already come to know.

And from whom you learned it. That you've known the Holy Scriptures from infancy. And so,

Timothy, always look to that which is the anustos, so you can rebuke.

Now, anybody can sit back and go, well, you know, I've had to be involved in church discipline issues.

They're never fun. They're never enjoyable. It's always some of the hardest stuff you have to do.

No two ways about it. And when you have to rebuke, you need a source that is unchanging.

You need a source that's divine. That will bind the conscience of a self -professed believer.

And that is why, when he says to Timothy, all Scripture is

God -breathed. That's why it is profitable for the things that he is then saying to Timothy, you're going to have to do.

And you know what? We have, it seems obvious in 1 Timothy. That Timothy is not, he's, he may be shy.

He may be a little timid. And that's why Paul is encouraging. We have not received a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline of the sound mind.

And so, the tough stuff to do is the rebuking and the reproving.

That's the tough stuff to do. And so, you need to have a meaningful source from which to draw that teaching in doctrine.

In correction in the church. And so, someone could make the argument.

Well, when you, when you rebuke someone, that's a, that's a way of God bringing life to them.

So, that could be vivification. Because see, there's a, there's an element of truth. If it comes from God, he's the source of life.

Therefore, you can call it life -giving. Okay. But that ain't near enough.

That's a, that's a tiny little thread. But that's not what the word means in 2

Timothy 3 .16. You can go, well, yeah, you know, out of the very far reaches of the semantic domain, you might be able to find a little sliver out there.

And you can say that when you're doing all these things, you're giving life. But that's not the focus. The focus is the ultimate authority.

He has just said the Holy Scriptures are able. He had just presented a capacity and ability to the

Holy Scriptures. That they are able to make you wise. Well, they are also able to perfect the man of God in his ministry in the church.

That's the, that's the argumentation. That's the argumentation. So, let me go ahead and bring that in.

Let me show you the consistency here. All right.

Trent mentioned a couple of texts that I had mentioned in passing that will undoubtedly be a part of the debate in February when we do this subject.

And I had mentioned Matthew 22. And I had mentioned 2

Peter 1 .21. So, we've looked at 2 Timothy and I, I didn't put it up, but we've pointed out that the context, now again, everything

I said assumed that 2 Timothy is not a lie, right?

Because we're talking about an apostle. We're talking about one who did see the risen

Lord. We're talking about one who has been given special authority. This letter is written in the context of his soon death.

So, if it's not Paul, it is a fraud. It's a forgery. And all of the heart -tugging reality of thinking about the age of the apostle.

So concerned about the next generation of the church. Is just a bunch of fiction to those who present this perspective.

Now, I think Trent Horne has said, oh no, I believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy. Great. That's good.

So, why are you promoting the conclusion? Someone saying it wasn't him. Because it impacts the reading of the usage of the term.

When we look at what theanostos means in 2 Timothy 3 .16, that is against the background.

It's not against the background of Paul's usage of it anyplace else. It is a hapoxlegomena. But a hapoxlegomena used within the canon of a particular writer has a specific boundary level.

And guess what? Paul does talk about elders in the church.

He talks about the function of the church. He talks about discipline in the church. He talks about the scriptures.

This is the same man who in a very similar situation, Acts chapter 20.

As he's saying goodbye to the Ephesian elders. The very same man who after warning them, there's going to be those who are going to rise from within your own ranks.

Are going to draw disciples away after them. They don't care if they destroy them. False teaching is coming.

So what, Timothy, should you do? Just follow Peter's successor in Rome.

No. Wait till 1830 when Joseph Smith arrives. Or later for the

Watchtower of Babylon. What does Paul say to the

Ephesian elders? In light of the imminent coming of apostasy and false teaching.

What does he say to them? I commit you to God and to the word of his grace.

The message of his grace. What he has done in Christ Jesus. That's not enough, is it?

You may not believe it. A lot of people don't. Paul did. Paul did.

That's what he did to the Ephesian elders. This is what he does to Timothy. And so defining that term in light of Paul's own teaching on Scripture.

His use of Scripture. What does he cite as Scripture? What does he cite as Scripture?

Does he cite anything outside of Scripture as God said? God has revealed?

You see, that's why believing scholarship is different than unbelieving scholarship.

Because believing scholarship will have the boundaries that are set by God. Set by the canon of Scripture itself.

By the canon of Paul's writings. I mean, the reasons why so many

New Testament scholars. And Trent's going to do this. He says, well, there are New Testament scholars to say this. And there are

New Testament scholars to say that. And I'm sitting there going, is this a Roman Catholic saying that? There isn't a single

Roman Catholic dogma. Specific Roman Catholic dogma that I can't tell you scholars who dispute it. So what?

You don't buy that. But all of a sudden, here you do. Real inconsistent, aren't you?

Here it's like, oh, hey, yeah, there's, we really don't have any idea what this thing means.

Despite the fact that throughout history, the people that I would claim were my successor, my predecessors in the

Roman Catholic Church, consistently translated it this way. He does get into that later on. That's going to be fascinating when we get to that.

We will not get to that today at the speed I'm going. But, and then you have the canon of scripture itself.

And a second Timothy. Oh, by the way, the reason that scholars, sorry, the reason that scholars have minimized

Pauline canons depends on what scholar you're talking about. But generally, the

Ephesians, Colossians are questionable. First, second, Timothy, Titus. Why?

And here is where providence comes in. That is,

I didn't know why I, I did not know why my wife became pregnant with our son when she did.

But we discovered that while I was visiting Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, thinking about going there.

And we couldn't, we did not have the money, especially with a kid coming.

It'd be different if we didn't have a child, but it wasn't possible. And so I ended up at Fuller because Fuller had a

Phoenix extension. And yeah, I had some good conservative professors. We had a lot of the professors

I had had at Grand Canyon. I had it at Fuller and so that was good. But I had professors way off to my left for a lot of topics.

And that's why, you know, I was introduced by them to skepticism as to the authorship of the pastoral epistles and some of the other

Pauline letters. And I had never went into that as part of my life. And so I had to deal with it.

And it wasn't being presented. It wasn't like this is an apologetic issue you need to go study. These were my professors presenting this.

And when I dug into it, I'm like, okay, so the pastoral epistles present a view of the church that you don't feel developed as early as Paul's time on the basis of what exactly?

And when you dug into it, it was like, but there's no substance to this. There's clearly differences between even the churches that Paul founded.

You look at the church at Ephesus. You look at church of Corinth. They're different and they're facing different issues.

And even the seven letters to the churches in Revelation, same thing. And so, well, we don't think that the elders, preservers, bishops, that's probably second century.

It was all based on some kind of evolutionary theory. It's the same type of stuff that led

German scholarship to reject the gospel of John and place it in the second century. Well, in 170s, 180s, this evolutionary hypothesis, a bunch of Hegel getting thrown in there.

And then the other thing was, well, it's vocabulary. The vocabulary that is used in the pastorals is different than what's used in Romans or Galatians.

Well, the fact of the matter is, if you use that kind of word appearance thing, you can divide every

Pauline epistle from every other Pauline epistle, depending on which ones you make the defining set.

And not only that, when I first heard that, I just remember sitting there going, well, you know, when you're writing to an individual, especially when it's close to you, you're going to use a different set of vocabulary than you would write to like an entire church.

It's going to be for public dissemination. So that doesn't make a lick of sense.

And it's true. It doesn't. And what happens is you go to seminary, you respect those men.

They're clearly very brilliant. They've got lots of knowledge. They've done a lot more reading than you have.

And you just go, okay, well, if they think that's true, then that's great. And when you try to push back, everybody looks at you like, what is wrong with you, dude?

That was what my entire, almost my entire seminary career was like. Like I said,

I had some professors that I had had at Bible college, you know, seven years of Greek and four of those were in seminary with the same professor that I had three years in Bible college.

So there wasn't any distinction at that point. Anyway, so providentially,

I had to deal with this allegation a long time ago. And there are numerous commentaries that have provided more than sufficient defenses of Pauline authorship.

But it's in Roman Catholicism, it's the days of Francis.

And we'll have some more to say about that. We're doing some digging through. And I say we, because for once in preparing for February, five debates in three and a half weeks, basically,

I've put out the call and some really sharp folks are standing ready and already working, helping me put materials together, because there's just only so much time in the day.

And, you know, I'm just looking, I'm looking at just this next trip coming up September 5th. I've only got one debate, but it's a really important debate.

And it's a really challenging debate. And I'm preaching on the 27th.

I preached the week before last. There's counseling and stuff to be done at church.

And we keep doing this thing called the dividing line, which doesn't, if you can see my screen over here with all the time indexes and stuff like that, it doesn't just happen.

It takes a lot of time to do. So I'm like, and we have already put together a bunch of interesting stuff, especially from the papal biblical commission.

And we will be saying more about that as time goes to, but seeing the clock, knowing that I've already gone past the hour mark, as if that's some magical something,

I don't know. Did you know this morning when

I looked at my weather forecast, I have a weather station in my backyard. It's changed now it's gone up to 90, but for a while it was saying the high over the weekend, it's going to be 86 in Phoenix.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for me to not fire up Mannheim steamroller?

Let me tell you something. Once it gets to 86, I start removing the moth balls from the coogies.

Okay. Getting them, getting them aired out. What, what, what Rich? That's look, which, what, what would you rather have a

Coogee or 115 for six days in a row? Like we did twice during July.

Hmm. Huh? Uh, uh -huh. Rich says that's very hard to decide.

I personally don't think that's hard to decide at all. I think that was an easy one. All right.

We got to get to these, uh, and then, cause I've already got this done. And by the way, let me just mention this.

Um, one of the reasons we can't go too, too long is tomorrow afternoon.

Um, Jeff Durbin and I are going to record. Um, apology radio and respond to Trent Horn on a completely different video.

Uh, Jeff contacted me and said, did you see this? We need to respond to it.

And so it was about the most unhistorical Protestant doctrine. And so if you like this church history stuff, if you like, uh, thinking about the claims that Rome makes that Rome can't make and be consistent, uh, you're going to get a lot over the next couple of days, uh, because we'll continue this.

And then apology radio, I think will probably drop. Interestingly enough, that, that episode will probably drop while we're doing the next dividing line.

So those of you who are truckers and stuff like that, and believe me, I understand this more and more now you need to get your fix.

Um, you're going to be very, very happy this week because we're doing a lot of church history stuff.

But before then, uh, let's go ahead and pop this up.

Um, let's look at the two texts that, um,

Trent will make reference to this at some point. We'll just skip over it now since we've done it.

Um, saying, well, you know, I'll, we'll deal with this later. If he said, if white and I do this debate, well, the contract's been signed.

And so it's going to happen. Um, well contract says it's going to happen.

Let it be said, let it be done. Right. Um, if I am still alive in February and if Trent Horn is still alive in February, and if we can, we haven't been locked in our homes.

Um, and if for many other reasons, well, let's put it this way. If Trent and I end up in the same prison, then maybe we can do the debate there too.

Uh, because Evan, uh, McClanahan, the Lutheran pastor there in Houston, um, who's arranging these things.

Great guy. Um, we'll probably be in the same prison with the rest of us. And so he can moderate and we can, we can do it in prison.

So, uh, but everything else, you know, if there's still diesel fuel, jet fuel, um, money, food, then the, uh, the plan is a

February. Um, and so the, the, the dates, by the way, for those of you who are interested, uh, could you drop that a second?

Uh, sorry about that. Um, the dates for those of you who immediately get, start getting excited about such things, um, will be, there's going to be two weekends in, um,

Houston. All right. So here's how it's going to work. Uh, Trent and I, 16th and 17th of February in Houston.

Um, Thomas Ross and I, um, I think that's the 23rd, that's the next weekend,

Tullahoma, Tennessee at a much larger venue than we were at this year.

Um, so there'd be more room for folks at that one. Um, and then

I teach in Conway the 29th, the 1st and 2nd.

So 29th, February, oh, it's a leap year. Um, uh, and then 1st, 2nd of March. And then, uh, the next weekend, that's a long trip.

Um, I'm, I think, and I should double check this before I say it, but let me just say, this is provisional, but Evan was sending me stuff right before the program started.

Uh, okay. Yes. I don't have it here.

I think the Tuggy debate in Houston will be

March 9th. And so I'm hoping that March 8th there in Houston will be a debate on John 6 and Layton wants to focus it on John 6, 44.

But I'm like, well, as long as we're not divorcing it from context of John 6, um, then that's fine.

Cause I can, I connect it to 36 and following and 45 and following as well.

Uh, that would be Friday, the 8th of March. So that's five debates in, well, really that's only one, that's only three weeks.

So five debates, three weeks with Trenthorn and Trenthorn is a very sharp man.

I don't want anyone to ever think, you know, I have some serious, um, disagreements with Trenthorn, but Trenthorn seems to be very gracious and very sharp.

I take him very seriously. So Trent, I don't, I think it's important. I don't want you to,

I'm challenging you, but you know that I have to, okay.

Um, I do not want you to think that I have animus toward you or, um, that I want anything but your best, obviously your best would be to have peace with God through Jesus Christ, which you can't have through the gospel that you have.

Um, we can't just go buddy, buddy, because we believe very different things, but I respect you.

And my, my challenging your, uh, great capacity is not meant to be a put down of you.

It's a sick, you are presenting an argument that no one's ever presented before. And I'm just not sure you are really aware of how inconsistent that is, especially with your own principles.

But I want you to know that I, I care about you and I respect you.

Um, and I, I think it would be good if possible.

I'm not sure how, yeah, Conway is not very far from Houston. Um, as far as travel goes,

I'd like to see if there'd be a possibility to have dinner on the 7th, uh, if that's the night before with, uh, with Layton flowers.

I think it would be good for us to sit around and eat cheeseburgers or something like that.

Um, and have a chat and things like that too. Uh, so anyway, uh, it could be a lot going on, uh, during that time period.

So if, if you're praying for that, that far down the road, I only,

I not only need clarity of thought, I need health. I need to be healthy, uh, for all of that.

All right. So I'm just going to, I hope this doesn't mess everything up. Um, all right.

I still need to get to this and, uh, I'm going to do it and I can, I can do it.

We can get this done. Trent said we can talk about this when we do the, oh, great.

Thanks. When we do the debate in, uh, in Houston. Well, yes and no.

Um, what we need to do is what I'm arguing right now is that there is a new

Testament teaching concerning the scriptures being God speaking and that they, it's not, you know, he, he keeps saying, well, there's some scholars say it's

God breathing in his head. That would not work in second

Timothy or any place else or any place else. The only people, the only people saying that are wild eyed, progressivist, liberal nutcases.

All right. So let me give you an example. Matthew chapter 22. You know the story.

We've gone over this before, but we have new listeners all the time. Matthew chapter 22,

Jesus is in dialogue with the Sadducees. They've seen the Pharisees get whacked upside the head.

And so they've come along with their best argument, the lever at law, the woman with the seven husbands, so on and so forth.

And Jesus's response. I love Jesus's response, uh, beginning in verse 29, because he just simply says,

You're wrong. You do not know. You do not understand.

It's literally to know, but you do not understand the scriptures nor the power of God.

So he doesn't have to say, now let's have a discussion about what the canon of scripture is, stuff like that.

He's talking to Sadducees and many Sadducees had a very limited canon only to the

Pentateuch, though there's some questions as to exactly how you define all that for them.

But he says them, you don't understand scriptures and you're in error. For in the resurrection, neither married nor given to marriage were like angels in heaven.

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, here we go. Luke, uh, neg note.

Ta pray. Then who mean who part two? Say you leg and toss.

I go. I'm me. Ha. They ask. Abraham. Kai. Ha. They ask. He's sock. Kai. Ha. They ask.

Yeah. Cove. Luke. Aston. Ha. They ask. Necron. Allah zone tone.

So we, we skip past first 31, just go right on by it because of the form of the argument.

I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, God of Jacob. Not I was, he's not the

God of the dead, but of the living. And so it, and it's perfectly right to point out that clearly

Jesus's view of the transmission of scripture over time is such that he could base his argument on the tense of a verb.

Echo. I me. I am not. I was so that's where my attention had always been focused for many years of my

Christian life until a number of years ago when

I stopped long enough to think about verse 31, but concern the resurrection of the dead. Have you not read?

Read. Ta. Ray. Then what was said to you, to you, who part to the, you by God saying, notice the two, have you not read what was spoken to you by God saying, and then we have a quotation.

Notice right there with access three, six, these guys ain't 1400 years old.

They're not 1400 years, but Jesus says, have you not read?

And then he quotes from what there's no dispute. This is the Pentateuch. This is Moses.

So we don't even have to play with all the side games. And from Jesus's perspective, when you read what

Moses wrote, God is speaking to you, to you.

That's what it says. Who mean? Have you not read what

God spoke to you saying? I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and James.

So Jesus's understanding of the nature of scripture is revealed for us here.

We don't, we can go to Mark. Mark, we can, we can go to a couple of places really, but the

Corban rule, Jesus subordinates what the

Jews claimed was actually divine tradition to the scriptures.

These Jews knew what books were in the temple. They knew what books made your hands dirty.

The books that had been laid up hundreds of years before. And Jesus taught us to subordinate any man claimed tradition to that, which is found in the scriptures.

When you read, God holds you accountable for having spoken to you.

Isn't that what 2 Timothy 3 is saying? It is not Jesus giving us an example here.

He is rebuking. He's doing one of the functions. Now it's not in the context of the church.

Well, it's in the context of covenant people, but they're covenant people that Jesus is going to say rather clearly in the next chapter are in apostasy, but it is rebuking.

It's correcting. And for those listening, it's training in righteousness, isn't it?

It pretty much is. And where did Jesus go? That which God spoke, not to tradition, but to that which they knew was a part of the scriptures.

Now, is that relevant to a text in 2

Timothy about scripture? It depends on whether you believe Matthew and 2 Timothy are both inspired by the

Holy Spirit. And Trent, you've got no choice there. Your own dogmatic decrees say it.

The Iverbum says it. Vast majority of your magisterium. Hey, I don't know how you handle that.

I don't know how you handle that. I just, to be honest with you, you're flirting with some progressive ideas in making this argument.

And I just don't see how apologists do that. I can at least have a lot of respect for Roman Catholic apologists who will, you know, they'll put their cards on the table and fundamentally say, yeah, my final authority is

Rome. Okay, I can respect that. I, very dangerous to the soul, but I can,

I can respect that. All right. One more. And then we got to wrap up five minutes.

I think we can do that. Yeah. So I like this one because here's

Peter. Now, again, it would not be difficult. I am sure to find all sorts of highly placed.

And I have, this is one thing I haven't looked at. And I, we will look at it, um, to find highly placed, um, people on the papal biblical commission who would tell you

Peter didn't write this well. And I don't simply mean Peter dictated this because I would agree with that.

Um, but that this is not the historical Peter large.

I would say a large majority of New Testament scholarship would, again, uh, question the

Petrine authorship of either of them, but especially second Peter. So there you've got, you know, that disconnects everything.

That's, that's how you can just take the scriptures apart. And you can no longer meaningfully talk about how anything's connected with anything else.

But know this, first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes by one's own interpretation.

This is the prophet's own interpretation, by the way. Uh, that's, that's what, uh,

Edeos Epelousaos would mean for no prophecy.

No prophecy was ever produced, made by the will of man ever.

But, and now notice the, by the

Holy Spirit carrying along spoke from God men.

Now, word order is not nearly as important in Greek as it is in English.

Now, of course, there are certain clauses where it becomes important, but I'm talking about in general, but it is fascinating.

There, there is some evidence that the earlier in the clause that something is mentioned, the more emphasis there is upon it less later on.

And men is the last bit of the clause by the

Holy Spirit is the first bit of the clause. And of all the texts of scripture that address this subject, this one seems to be the, gets the closest to the suggestion of some kind of mechanism.

All right. The first thing we're told is a negative. No prophecy of scripture ever came about by the will of man.

So you can take it to the bank that what he's saying is Isaiah doesn't wake up one morning and go, wow, it's been a while since I wrote any scripture.

I think today would be a good day to write scripture. And he looks out his window and he, he sees some sheep going by and he goes,

I'm going to write me a poem today and becomes Isaiah 53. Right.

A lot of people have that viewpoint. A lot of people have that viewpoint. That's not how it works.

Doesn't come about by the will of man, but by the

Holy Spirit, pheromone being carried along, being born along like a boat would carry men who are in it, or like a shepherd would carry a sheep.

But by the Holy Spirit being born along, spoke from God, men.

So men spoke. There is no question that scripture comes to us in history.

It comes to us in a language. It comes to us in letters that are written down for us, but because they are born along by the

Holy Spirit, do I have to again, point to the obvious connection here? They are noustos, who pa noumitos hagiou, e lale son a pa theiou.

You have theiou, you have noumitos. You're talking about scripture. You're talking about the origin of scripture.

Sort of hard to avoid the connections that are clearly here. But by the

Holy Spirit being born along, spoke from God, men. That's where scripture comes from.

That's Paul, that's Peter's description. And it is absolutely perfectly in harmony with what

Paul says in 2 Timothy 3, 16. And when you suggest some wacko other way of doing it, you're destroying the harmony of the apostles themselves in their teaching.

And you're doing it for the traditions of men so that people are submitted to an authority that contradicts scripture, teaches them to believe things and do things the apostles never dreamed of.

But when you say, oh, you don't, why should we believe that theiou noustos is the way you understand it?

Well, if by that you mean something other than, well, it's always been understand as being inspired by God.

Romans said inspired by God. We're going to get to your, we'll get to, he tries to preempt this objection.

And it's a fascinating attempt. And from my perspective, when you refute a fascinating attempt, you educate far better than if you just simply lecture directly.

So that's why I think it's really useful to do this kind of thing. In looking at what the word means, if it is

Paul, if it is consistent with Pauline theology, and if it's consistent with the apostolic testimony and flows from Jesus's teaching, wow, they seem to be all consistent with one another.

And why would you want to change that? Well, that's obviously been the issue all along and will continue to be the issue.

Rome changes that because Rome teaches things that the apostles did not teach.

That's the fundamental issue. So, you know what? I see an outliner up here and, oh yes, look at that.

I had never used that before. That's cool. Cool program. It's called Note Studio for anybody who wants to look it up.

And I was just able to mark the section that I need to pick up with on Thursday.

And so as long as I save that, and I'm saving this in the cloud, by the way. So I made these notes at home and then hoped, because there is a video file associated with it.

I hoped that the video note would work here at the office and it did. It did great. So anyways, got into a lot of stuff there.

Got into a lot of stuff there. And that's good. That's what we want to do. Hopefully it's useful for you.

Went way past our time. But again, pray for our response tomorrow,

Jeff Durbin and I. It's much more focused on gospel and early church history stuff.

So hopefully you'll find that to be really useful. And so on Thursday, we will press on with this topic.

And so much stuff, so much more stuff going on. We've got stuff going on on Saturday. I'm teaching in Germany on Friday.

Man, it's going to be, things are going to be so busy between now and when I head out on the road.

I'm not even going to know what's going to happen. You know one other thing? I'm wondering what the background's looking like.

I'm hoping it doesn't. I'm hoping that it is.

I'm hoping that it is. It's going to be fine. We're all fine here now.

I think it's going to be good. I did a much better job. I used other stuff and I think it's going to be okay.

I may have to tighten up a few spots, but I think it's going to be all right. So during today's show, we had two outages.

Great. Just at the very beginning, our internet actually went completely down. I wondered because I lost signal.

So it recovered and our streaming service went and grabbed it and picked up right where we were.

And then about 10 minutes later, the PC choked and just kind of decided it wasn't going to work anymore.

And so that put a stop to that. And I reset it and came back up and sent the stream back out.

We picked up right where we are. But since a long time ago, I realized that these things can't be risked anymore.

All the high def 4k recording is completely outside of that system and didn't hiccup.

It's all happy as a clam. So what you're saying is that people watching live right now, it's going to be a few hours before the high def is uploaded.

You're going to get it all in 4k. We're all fine here now.

So yeah, all right. And you know, another reason I've got to go is Deanie probably needs some moist food or something right now.

They are very demanding, especially at that age. Yes, the world revolves around them at that time.

So anyways, if you're not following me on Twitter, don't worry about that. Okay, we will see you on Thursday.