What Justin Martyr Actually Said, Transmission of the Text, Open Phones

We started about half an hour early from what we'd announced, mainly because I could get in earlier and since I've got a trip coming up and a lot of packing to do and a lot of details this one because I'm doing a bunch of different things.

Don't forget that next, starting on Sunday, I will be speaking at, well that had the red light on it initially,

I will be speaking at Christ Presbyterian Church in Magna, Utah, outside of Salt Lake City, where it's going to be cold, relatively speaking, for me anyways, get a little bit of winter.

I'll actually be able to bring my sweaters and get to wear them and actually use them for a little while.

It will be below freezing a couple times while I'm up there. We haven't had, I think it got down to 39 one night here.

I think we actually got down to 39 here once, just once. It's going to be a long summer.

Anyway, we're going to be up in Salt Lake City. I'll be at Christ Presbyterian on Sunday and Monday, primarily on the

Doctrine of the Trinity and appropriate in light of some

Lulu's on the web recently. And then Tuesday is the televised live three -hour debate with Sean McCraney on his television program.

I'm looking at this as an opportunity. Look, I'm walking in there going,

Sean, you're confused. And let me explain to you why Christians believe what they believe and do my best to keep it focused.

And how that goes is totally up to the Lord. I appreciate your prayers for it, but I just want to try to explain to people why modalism is utterly untenable and why you cannot consistently hold to Scripture.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're going to start getting phone calls. I mentioned that word. Anyway, and that's just what we're going to do.

And we'll see how that goes. And then I've got some more traveling to do, lots of family stuff, but I'll be driving across Utah and the

Nevada, and hopefully a great weekend after that. And then just a brief time with the grandkids on the way back home.

But my plan right now, now this could actually change with weather, but my plan right now is to get back in time on that following Tuesday to just sort of come straight here and do a program.

So we'll see if we can make that work out. So those of you up in the Salt Lake area, and I imagine at some point we'll probably post the link to the live

YouTube thing. So you can watch the thing Tuesday night on Sean McCraney's program. He should have the largest viewing audience he's ever had.

If we promote it, he will. So if you want to watch,

I know that Jeff Durbin will be watching. That much I know.

He was all excited about this. I guess he knows something about that situation and actually wanted to go up there.

I'm like, dude, it's going to... No, don't worry about it. Anyway, so that's what we've got coming up.

And so I've got plenty of stuff to do between now and then. And so if we can get done a little bit earlier, great.

I need the time. We will be opening the phones, 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341.

I still have the phone number that has been sitting there taped to one of the microphones.

You know, I don't know how old that piece of paper is. I'm really surprised that the packing tape still holds it where it is.

It used to be up there and it got moved so we could put a light thing up there. But yeah, you would think that it would just be natural just to just go 877 -753 -3341.

Every time I look at it, though, I see there are three sevens and then there are three threes.

And I start doing the addition thing with the numbers, and it throws me off.

It's a little bit weird. Because see, the five, 877, there's three sevens, then 333, there's three threes, three sevens.

And then the five, you have a 4 -1, 4 plus 1 is 5. So that's just, just stop.

Stop it. Just stop it. Yes. That's that's how. Yeah. Um, no,

I've got a couple things to cover. But I figured people would want to. He doesn't want

Rich doesn't want to talk to you right now. Okay. Rich is

Rich is sort of antisocial. Sort of like I am actually.

So he doesn't want to talk to you right now. So I'm sorry. I guess I was early. But see,

I won't remember to announce it while I'm doing the teaching part. I ignore you while I'm teaching.

So like I'm ignoring you right now. So anyway, there are two things I wanted to get to.

And one was the first was prompted by the well, three things.

Let me let me just go ahead and say something about what's going on Twitter right now.

Since we're live and and since it's there. Um, could we grow up on Twitter?

Could we could we try to get above, you know, the sixth grade playground stuff?

Um, the stuff that I see being posted by Christians, uh, just if, if, if we didn't have so much evidence of helping people through social media, if it wasn't for the fact that there's there's, there's some of you that send me really good links via Twitter that have produced really good segments in the program and very helpful to me in finding information.

Um, I would just shut it all down because it is so depressing every day to go online and see the way

Christians behave in social media. It's just it. And I could spend the rest of the hour just going through the various kinds of things.

You know, some guy was coming after me a couple of days ago, uh, and he's going, well, hey,

Leighton Flowers said this about you. It must be true. Doesn't seem to know anything about the background and everything else that went behind that.

But hey, you know, you're in sin because Leighton Flowers said you're in sin, you know, this kind of stuff you run to that. But right now

I'm just talking about the level of childishness. Um, one thing was in reference to a brother.

I did not know that this brother is a trophy of grace.

And what I mean by that is, you know, we have this thing called a Bible. And in that Bible, we have this really important passage of Scripture, 1

Corinthians 6, which we've looked at many times before, or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor feminine, nor homosexuals, or as the

ESV says, homosexuals, I think it's the male and female, acting male and active and passive partners in homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and the spirit of our God. We have a tremendous message. And as this came out in the debate with Adnan Rashid, you know,

Adnan quoted verses 9 and 10, who can be saved? And the very next verse says, and such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and the spirit of our God. That's the very power of the gospel, that people who were engaged in these sins, including homosexuality, have been saved.

And I saw a situation, it was just pointed out to me this morning, it happened yesterday, of a quote -unquote minister who, knowing that someone else that he disagrees with, and of course, this man disagrees with almost anybody, openly in his own testimony confesses to have once been involved with homosexuality, but he has been saved.

He has been washed, he has been sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the spirit of our God. Despite that, this minister took a childish shot at his former life because he disagrees with this minister.

And I just sit there going, first of all, how can you pretend to be proclaiming the gospel when you mock its power to change anybody?

But secondly, how can you just be so childish? How can you live on the playground?

Why do you think that because there's a glowing screen and a keyboard, you can let fly the most base elements of your childish immaturity?

Do you not know you will be held accountable for everything you type as well as everything you say?

It is stunning to me. And right now, online, we have people who on the one hand will say, this charismatic stuff, it's central, it's vital.

And so we'll address it with pure mockery. We'll address it with a graphic that has just been posted on Twitter again that is nothing but childish mockery, but it's very serious.

Well, then it's very serious. Stop using mockery. Try using serious argumentation.

You're contradicting yourself. It's just, we wonder why people sit back and watch this stuff and go, it's sort of hard to take y 'all seriously.

Yeah, I can see why. Grow up, people. Grow up. I am so tired.

I don't know which ends up. I really don't. Just grow up. In the hope of helping people to grow up, can we address some serious things?

We had a caller on the last program. And I ended up spending a whole lot more time with the caller than I expected to, but that's okay.

I could tell immediately upon talking to this individual that I'm talking to a person who is doing everything they can to swim across the

Tiber River to the western shore. If you know the geography of where the

Tiber is in Rome, that's all a story about, it's all an analogy, a metaphor for conversion to Rome.

And he made reference to Justin Martyr. And I pointed out that Justin is an interesting fellow and he says a lot of great things, but he doesn't even have a completed can of scripture and there are inaccuracies.

And if you didn't have Romans and Hebrews and things like that, you know, to be as orthodox as he was, was quite an accomplishment, actually.

But I did not, because that's one of the things, live call -in stuff, you need to realize a lot of the people that do live call -in stuff have people sitting around them grabbing resources and putting stuff on screens.

And I don't have that. Sorry, Rich just sits there and tries to ignore me and chats on the phone and does stuff in YouTube chat.

He's not sending me stuff like that. Yes. Like what?

Oh, INC guys. Yes. I do not have a, an entire platform full of people who are grabbing books and handing them to me and things like that.

So that's one of the things that, that's one of the out of control things that, you know, in regards to open phones, that's a little disconcerting as I get older is, you know, like I said, we're going to do more open phones because people really seem to like it.

But when you call in with a subject that is not in my wheelhouse,

I'm going to tell you. And the problem is people invest in whatever

I say about anything, the same level of authority as when I'm speaking on places where I am an authority.

And you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't do that with anybody. I don't care if you call yourself a

Bible Answer Man or a Tradition Answer Man or any type of Answer Man. All of us have areas where we are, we do much more reading.

There aren't any Renaissance men anymore. And so it concerns me because people call up and they'll ask about something and I'm just going to be, it's gonna become like a broken record.

I'm gonna say, well, not my area. I can give you a somewhat informed, you know, given what

I've studied over the years, I can give you a somewhat informed opinion, but it's not like that's what

I'm studying right now or have ever really studied. And I'll just make sure that people understand that.

Not that it's gonna change anything. It won't. People will still hold you to a standard that is really not all that reliable.

Anyway, so when the caller calls in,

I'm hearing him swimming the river. He's going over toward Rome.

And so I want to get to the key issue and that is, if you really do understand what you've professed to believe, that your entire hope is found in the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ on your behalf, that his righteousness is all that's going to avail before a holy

God, how can you trade that in for the constant treadmill of penances and imperfection of the

Roman system? Which did not allow me to then have the time to go through what

Justin actually said. I told him, because I've read it in the past, I've dealt with this stuff in the past, but it was probably 15, 20 years ago.

And so the wife texts right then, you see it like, oh yeah,

I forgot to do that. Yes, I do have that information. I'll try to remember that, blah, blah, blah. So you don't have the opportunity to bring it up and to read it.

And so I'd like to do that right now. Specifically, I want to look, you know, what

I had said was, look, what Justin was talking about was in Malachi's prophecy about this offering around the world.

Rome says, see, that's the mass. Now, at the same time, they will inconsistently say, well, yeah, our current understanding of the concept of the

Eucharistic sacrifice evolved over time. And it didn't exist in Justin's day. But we'll still look back to that and say this somehow fits together.

It doesn't. I tried to sort of bring some of that stuff up, but it comes out just by reading Justin. And so in chapter 117, this comes out with the most clarity.

There's three places in Justin's dialogue with Trifo this comes out, but it's very, very clear here.

His argument is this. Trifo is a Jew. So he is arguing with Trifo, the

Jew, and he's saying, your religion cannot give a fulfillment of what is in Malachi 1, verse 11, where you have this prophecy.

And it's not quoted here. So, for from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to my name, and a grain offering that is pure, for my name will be great among the nations, says

Yahweh of hosts. But you are profaning it, verse 12, in that you say the table of the Lord is defiled, and as for its fruit, its food is to be despised.

So Justin's argument is that this has never been and cannot be fulfilled amongst the

Jewish people. It never has been, and it cannot now be fulfilled amongst

Jewish people. So what is this making great of his name, or this incense, or this grain offering?

What is this all about? Justin's argument is that is fulfilled in the thanksgiving, he kept saying

Eucharist, and what he's doing is he's taking a later development, reading it back into the thanksgiving prayers of the

Christian people around the world. It has nothing to do with the whole concept of transubstantiation,

Eucharist as a perpetuatory sacrifice, the necessity of a priesthood, and all the rest of that stuff.

None of that is present in what Justin is saying, and this comes out in his own words.

Section 117, Dialogue with Trifo, Justin, Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which

Jesus Christ enjoined on us to offer, that is in the Eucharist, that is the thanksgiving of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places, which are presented throughout the world, bears witness that they are well -pleasing to him.

But he utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands, for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the

Gentiles, he says, but you profane it. That is verses 10 through 12, so that's the same section.

Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem and were called

Israelites, but says that he is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation when dispersed and calls their prayers sacrifice.

So in other words, Trifo is arguing that there is fulfillment in the dispersion of the

Jews in their prayers. Now, Justin then says that prayers and giving of thanks when offered by worthy men are the only perfect and well -pleasing sacrifice to God, I also admit.

So Trifo has argued, well, the fulfillment is found in the dispersed

Jews and their prayers. And Justin says, well, you know what? The prayers of just men? Yeah, that's what

I'm talking about. Not a Eucharistic sacrifice, not transubstantiation, nothing like you have in the modern

Roman mass, but in the Thanksgiving prayers of the Christian people for such alone

Christians, such alone have Christians undertaken to offer and in the remembrance, anamnesis, remembrance, not repetition, not representation, anamnesis.

Remember, we have an anamnesis of a sin bearer, whereas under the repetitive sacrifices, you have reminder of sin, which is what you have in the mass.

For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer and in the remembrance affected by their solid and liquid food, the bread and the cup, whereby the suffering of the

Son of God, which he endured is what? Brought to mind, not represented, no transubstantiation, not there, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.

There's Justin's own explanation of his own understanding of Malachi and it has no place in the modern

Roman system. So I had said to, I think it was Joe was the caller, he actually tweeted me this morning,

I said to Joe, I said that he was talking about Thanksgiving. He wasn't talking about some type of Eucharistic sacrifices involving transubstantiation, propitiatory sacrifices that do not perfect those for whom it is made, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

There's the words of Justin himself. Why did you see it? There's straight out of the Antonicene Fathers, Volume 1,

Section 117, Dialogue with Trifo. You got to go to the documentation.

You got to go to the documentation. Speaking of which, I didn't start this up and unfortunately now it's going to be fun to try to do this.

I didn't tell him I was going to do this, but you know what?

I'm just going to give you, I'm going to ask you to, I'm going to send the full screen and I just want the manuscripts, the pieces of papyri here.

If that makes sense to you, you can zoom in on that and crop that in, I hope. What I want to show you, it's already six minutes till, it's not coming through.

I'm sending you the Dell with the full screen. Okay, I'm selecting the screen region now.

You can't show this. I hate this program.

How about now? I'm sending a single thing and you're not getting anything.

Well, I guess we should have tested this before we started because evidently our thing won't work.

That has thrown me a major curve. The only other thing

I tried doing is putting it on the other screen and hoping that maybe that will do it.

How about now? I'm sending you my whole other screen. I've no,

Oh, well, all right. Okay. Not gonna be able to cover that today. Scratch that one.

I'll, we'll just have to open the phones. Cause that was the next thing I was gonna do. And I have to at least explain the problem is that we are in between technologies and I've got you plugging and unplugging things that we haven't thoroughly tested.

And that's on me. Sorry about that. 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number.

You can rescue me now because, and I'm sorry. Now, now what works?

Okay. Now what? Well, do you have something now? Okay. All right.

Well, okay. So what happened, what the background here is that, well, sort of, there's actually two of them.

Yeah, I guess I'm saying the full screen. So they, they look a lot alike.

They're different. That's good enough. Okay. We'll go to that in a second. So I get this message from my son yesterday and I, I assume he's talking with somebody.

He's been writing in some black Hebrew Israelites and stuff. And, and so he says, so what's the, what's the textual background and how thoroughly documented and firm is the documentation for Mark chapter seven and that section where Jesus is talking about foods and he proclaims all foods clean and it's not what goes into a person, but what comes out and the heart and the middle section of Mark chapter seven.

No, those are not the normal things that my son and I are talking about in WhatsApp, but that's what he asked yesterday.

And so what I did is I sent him these two pictures, these two pages, which you just saw briefly up on, on the screen.

And he sort of guessed that's probably from P45, huh? And I said, yeah, it's from P45. It just so happens that our earliest and fullest manuscript of the

Gospel of Mark is the papyrus manuscript that I'm working on a

PhD in textual criticism at Northwest University in Patrasum, South Africa.

And so, yeah, it was sort of easy for me to grab some high quality scans of P45.

But here's what's interesting, and this is the point I want to get to. If we look at the manuscripts, that is if I can get

Rich's attention long enough to get us to look at the manuscripts, because now he's doing stuff with the phones.

If we look at these two manuscripts, if we look at these two manuscripts, hey, there we go, you will notice that they look very similar, but for example, you can see the damage down here is similar to this side, but if you look carefully, they're not the same page.

They've experienced similar damage, but they're not the same page.

This is the sixth folio. This is the seventh if I recall correctly. What we do have is you can see up here, this is the top margin.

There's nothing written above here. You can see very clearly the top margin on this side, but the text goes all the way out here, all the way.

That might be the margin. No, no, it goes beyond that. You've got some writing over here.

So the margins on both the right and left -hand sides, and then you've got writing all the way down to here, writing all the way down to here.

The bottom of the page is missing. The bottom of the page is missing. And so the problem is that that specific text in Mark 7 that has the statement declaring all foods clean would be somewhere down here, okay?

Because this section here is after that. This starts in Mark 7 -3 and this starts at Mark 7 -25, and that's in between that, but it's not here.

It would be down below here. And you can see, obviously, we only have a portion.

This is going to be extremely hard to read in here. I make some out over here. You can sort of figure out what's there just by counting letters and stuff like that.

But the issue though is this.

Some of you may recall, I don't know, about a year or so ago, we responded to the assertion of Ijaz Ahmed that P -66 is not supportive of the reading

God at John 20 -28. And what we did as we pointed out was, well, actually, it's fragmentary at that point.

And you don't, just because a manuscript is fragmentary at a point, assume that it has a reading other than the standard reading of the manuscript tradition.

And so I think I'll just put this sort of up on the same section here, and we can sort of just wing it here.

Oh, back of my thing came off. My little tablet thingy sort of fell apart.

So here's the idea. We have the first manuscript, we have the first page here, and then the second page here, and the section that's missing is down here.

All right. Now, can we, with some level of honesty, say, well, there's no question about what the original reading was.

I think we can't, because here we have a papyrus, and it's, let's say, here's 100, here's 200, here's 300, here's 400, okay?

P -45 is right around this period of time. It's right in this time period between 200 and 220, could be as early as 180, but let's just go 200 to 220.

Now, we have around 325, so about here, we have codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

And in P -45, in Mark 7, you have the same text in, let's say, verses 3 through 17 and 25 and you have, in that section, you have a straight line of transmission.

And so, when you come to a lacuna, what's called a hole, in here that is not here, this contains all of that.

Here, you have this line here, it matches, the transmission line is the same between the two.

When you have a lacuna, then you can properly and safely assume that what is missing in the early papyri, but is found here, was initially in the papyri.

Because if there was something else up here, there would be a different line of transmission that would go this direction, and we'd have manuscripts over here that have completely different readings, but we don't.

Not only that, but if we go back to this here, we know from other pages of P -45, the average number of lines per page, and we know how wide they were.

So, we know the average number of letters that would be written across. So, you can't assume that in this one little section down here, there was some whole new story about something completely different.

Because we know there's only a certain amount of information between here and up here, and it just happens to match exactly what we have in later manuscripts.

So, the idea that, well, this stuff was missing or was added at some other time is simply impossible.

This is the very next page. There are only a certain number of letters and lines that can be fit down here, and we have that information in Sinaiticus, in Vaticanus, in Washingtonianus, etc.,

etc. And so, sometimes when people say, well, basically my answer to my son was, while P -45 doesn't contain that specific verse, there is no question that it originally did.

And people say, well, but it's not there. It doesn't matter. It's fragmentary. There is not a single manuscript anywhere that gives testimony to any kind of other transmissional history of Mark chapter 7.

And so, it is pure conjecture on someone's part that there was something else there than what is found in the manuscript tradition.

And so, the fragmentary nature of the papyri can be frustrating at times, because when there is a variant, sometimes it'd be like, oh, it'd be so wonderful.

Wouldn't it be great to have a papyrus that would cast some light on this particular reading or that particular reading?

Mark 1 -1, that'd be great. And maybe we'll someday find something like that.

And we keep finding new stuff. But until then, you cannot simply assume that because it's fragmentary, as long as there is a consistency in the transmission of that text in the manuscript tradition as a whole, it is absolutely appropriate to say, yeah, it was in P -45.

And there's no question about its originality, etc., etc. So, just wanted to bring that to your attention, show that to you.

And I'm glad we were able to make that work. Okay. With that in mind,

I guess I'm going to have to grab this little thing, or I'm not going to be able to hear what people are saying.

Let's get to the calls. And let's, well, they look like they all have the exact same.

Oh, well, I guess since we talked about it, we'll just jump down there real quick. And we won't spend 25 minutes because we don't have 25 minutes to do it.

Let's go ahead and talk with Joe and Charlotte. Joe, did you hear what

Justin Martyr actually said? Yeah, I heard the last end of your discussion of it. I read it the night you first talked, too.

Including section chapter 117? I believe so, yeah. He mentioned it three times.

And the third time, it's very, very plain, that has nothing to do with the idea of Eucharistic sacrifices, perpetuatory sacrifices, the transubstantiation.

It is the faithful prayers of thanksgiving of people around the world that he has in mind there, which, you know, whatever you do with Malachi 111, that's what he was arguing with Trifo about.

So hopefully you had an opportunity to catch that. Yeah, the sacrifice of praise and the perpetuatory sacrifice distinction,

I think, is a pretty good one. The question I have now is that, you know, given that he's speaking of it as a sacrifice of praise and not a perpetuatory one, as Catholics tend to try to argue, why then does he seem to still think that the true presence is a thing?

So I've been asking Catholics this recently, like, why is it that early Christians tended to believe in the real presence?

And then they tend to argue that, well, they first had this idea of a perpetuatory sacrifice being a part of the

Eucharist, and so that necessitates the victim being Christ himself, and then that's where the true presence kind of developed.

Backwards. Where I'm kind of wondering how the true presence developed if they only viewed it as a sacrifice of praise.

Yeah, no, that's backwards. Keep something in mind. When we look at, and you can look this up in the

Catholic Encyclopedia if you want, in the early church practice, and I'm hopefully going to be reading

Michael Kruger's new book on 2nd century Christianity while I'm traveling over the next couple of weeks, so I might be able,

I'm not sure if he addresses this, I haven't asked him about it or not, but one of the things to keep in mind is real presence and transubstantiation are two different things.

The church, the early church most definitely believed that Christ was present with them in their worship and especially in the elements of the supper.

They did believe that. But what they clearly did not believe was that that resulted in what was eventually defined as transubstantiation.

You know how we know that? Because when you would have the elements that had been blessed in the service, there would be certain people who would not be able to attend because of sickness or illness and things like that.

And so they would take the elements to the sick and distribute them to them.

And that certainly shows that the early church had a higher view than most evangelical churches do, which would never think of doing anything like that.

And by the way, reformed folks, and I don't want to even get into the Calvinism stuff, but reformed folks have a very high view of the supper, which you may not be familiar with.

If you've not read the chapter in the London Baptist Confession of Faith on the

Lord's Supper, I'd encourage you to do so. You will probably faint when you do because it's an extremely high view of the

Lord's Supper. But here's the key. Once they distributed the elements to those who were sick, what did they do with them?

If they believed, what does Rome do with consecrated elements today?

I believe they consume what's left over or the expense of it in some respectful way, I'm not entirely sure.

Well, but the point is, if you walk into Roman Catholic Church, why do you genuflect?

Oh, because they have some left over in the tabernacle. The tabernacle, the monstrance, the zborium, the picks, they carry them in procession, etc.,

etc. The early church never did that. Once the elements were distributed, they did not have any kind of special treatment.

Once the actual corporate act of worship and thanksgiving was completed, the elements were just food.

That was it. And the elevation of the elements after the words of consecration didn't happen until like the 600s or so,

I think. Exactly, exactly. So there's the issue. The reason that modern

Roman Catholic theology and apologetics has had to adopt the mechanism of John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Are you familiar with Newman? Yeah, I'm working on this book right now. I just got through the first chapter. Okay, well,

Newman's not easy to read, but if you're reading Newman, then I absolutely demand that you read

George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church, because Salmon responded to Newman and documents how

Newman has basically abandoned the historical field of battle. Because once you adopt the idea of the acorn and the tree, then anything can happen.

I mean, look, I don't know if you've heard my debate with Peter D. Williams. No, I haven't.

On Mary. But if you want to see what happens when Newman goes to seed, then that's the one to watch.

Because fundamentally, Peter D. Williams was willing to debate the

Marian dogmas, which most Roman Catholic apologists are not willing to do, so I give him credit for that.

He and Bob St. Genes have been willing to step out there. But once they step out there, what you discover is a vicious circularity that demonstrates that what you have as dogma today in regards to bodily assumption of Mary, utterly, absolutely unknown to the early

Church. Unknown! But they simply have to assume it. Well, because Rome has said so. Because Rome has said so.

And so, vitally important. I understand the difficulties with the Catholic Church and the development of doctrine, but my question is more, because I do believe that Justin believed in a true presence, or a real presence, which wasn't necessarily a transubstantiation.

No, it was spiritual. If you look at his words, he does seem to think that Jesus becomes present after the bread is blessed.

So that makes me think that there's definitely some sort of consecration that's happening, But not by a priest.

That's still future, too. It is the Church. It is the gathered body, because it is

His body. That is what makes the worship of the Church so special, and that's why the early

Christians were willing to risk their lives to go to Church.

But what I'm just saying is, when I read this chapter 66 of Justin Martyr, I do not—I mean, if you can find a

Calvinist Reformed person who writes just like this, that'd be amazing to me, because he's wording it right here, that it's, he says, after it's been prayed for, you know, it's now—it says it is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was made flesh.

And to me, that's such strong language there. You haven't— And it seems like he thinks that after the words of consecration, it actually becomes

Christ, in some respect, maybe not necessarily transubstantiation, you know, whatever he thinks of it as.

But my question is, why in the world are you thinking this? Because it makes sense to me, oh, if you believe in some sort of propitiatory— well,

I can't say the word, whatever—the propitiatory element of the sacrifice of the Mass, and it kind of makes sense why the

True Presence would develop along with it, but I don't understand how in the world it's developed if you just have the

Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise. And that's kind of why— Well, you're assuming that the only thing that guides the development of tradition over time is something that is apostolic, and that's the problem.

The Marian dogmas, the papacy, the priesthood all demonstrate that tradition developed away from apostolic norms, not toward apostolic norms.

You already had the clarity of apostolic teaching, so if you're going to have development, it's not going to go deeper into that, it's going to go away from that, especially in light of the corruption of the hierarchy of the

Church through politics. And it happened in both Eastern Orthodoxy and in the

West. It took different forms because of the differences in history.

But let me just read something for you, and then I've got to go to other callers, but let me just read something for you. Let's see here.

Yeah, okay. The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that in the supper the substance of bread and wine is changed in the substance of Christ's body and blood through consecration by a priest or in any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason.

Furthermore, it overthrows the nature of the ordinance and has been and is the cause of all kinds of superstitions and gross idolatries.

Those who, as worthy participants, outwardly eat and drink the visible bread and wine in this ordinance, at the same time receive and feed upon Christ crucified and receive all the benefits accruing from his death.

This they do really and indeed, not as if feeding upon the actual flesh and blood of a person's body, but inwardly and by faith.

In the supper, the body and blood of Christ are present to the faith of believers, not in any actual physical way, but in a way of spiritual apprehension, just as the bread and wine themselves are present in their outward physical senses.

All right, so who said that? That's the London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapters 30. Oh, okay. I was like waiting for you to have something, or like, this will say

Pope, and I was like... No, chapter 30, section 7. If you want to look it up, you'll find it online, and I think you'll be surprised by taking a look at it.

So there are really good Reformed works, not just Reformed Baptists, but Presbyterians on the subject of the

Supper. Richard Braselis has written on the subject of the Supper from the Reformed Baptist perspective.

There are good works out there, and I would take the time to track them down because I think if all you've had has been a...

Look, again, I'll be straightforward here, and not trying to get into Calvinism stuff, but Reformed theology has always had a much higher view of the

Church and the ordinances, even using the term sacraments, than, say, a major portion of Southern Baptists.

Look, you can find the Founders Movement, you can find in Boyce a higher view because there's been that Reformed strata even amongst the

Southern Baptists, but it sounds like what you've been exposed to is the much more disconnected -from -history version.

Take the time to even read Calvin and the Institutes on the Supper. Yeah, I need to get around to that.

Yeah, you do! Yes, you do! But I do want to clarify, you just... So what you're telling me through all this is that you don't really know why the

True Presence idea developed so strongly so early on. We just don't really know. No, I didn't say that!

No, no, no, no, no, no, I did not say that! No, no, Joe, the spiritual presence of Christ with believers who were under horrific persecution between approximately

A .D. 64 and the Peace of the Church in A .D. 313.

His spiritual presence with his people in the gathered body was more real to them than any concept of transubstantiation could ever make it.

The idea of spiritual presence... I hear your view on this, but I don't buy it,

I'm sorry, because when I read Justin Martyr, his wording is too strong for me. I don't see this possibility.

So when Justin Martyr himself interprets that as prayers of thanksgiving and remembrance, you don't buy that?

No, because I understand this acts like a praise element. I don't... What about remembrance?

Yeah, remembrance is fine, but my point is this, the real, the true presence, the way he words it in chapter 66 of this

First Apology, it's so strong to me, I just would never hear even a Reformed, you know, very high view of the sacraments

Reformed person. I wouldn't expect them to write that. You wouldn't expect them to write that.

Okay. Hey, you know, Joe, I can't stop you. Trust me, my concern is,

I've talked with so many people down through the years, and once you want to do it, you're going to do it.

The problem is, I then talk to those folks 5 -10 years later, and they go, man, did I waste that entire portion of my time.

I'm trying to help you with that, but I can't stop you. Yeah, obviously it's up to me. Once you get the desires and the smells and bells,

I can't stop you. Calvinist God, ultimately, what I choose. I'm kidding. Well, that may be, but the problem is, you get held responsible for acting upon the desires of your heart, so you can't dodge that one.

That's not what causes me to do it. Oh, no, no, that's not—you seem to misunderstand the difference between primary causation, secondary causation, and God judges based upon you acting upon the desires of your heart.

You cannot use His sovereignty to excuse rebellion against His truth, Joe. Don't even go there, don't even say it again, don't even play with it, don't even joke about it.

You know that. You know that. What? Compatible with free will, even if there are secondary causes, the secondary causes ultimately have necessary causes prior to them.

If you want to argue with the early

Church in Acts 4, if you want to argue with the Prophet Isaiah and Isaiah 10, you go ahead and do that. I mean, you can't argue with every single

Jew, ever. I mean, every single Jew in the Jewish faith. Yeah, you mean the ones that rejected the Messiah. Okay, okay, got you,

Joe, appreciate it, thanks, we'll talk to Nathaniel.

Hi, Nathaniel. Hey, doctor, why are you doing? Well, okay. I heard.

I got another monogamist question, this time this one comes from Teboos1117.

I was just wondering if that would be a verse sufficient to discuss the unique relationship between the

Father and the Son being more than just, like, a begotten thing?

Does it call Isaac, you know, Abraham's only son? Yeah, and Rich, as far as calls go, we need to just keep with what we've got now, because we're going to be going over as it is.

So let's just keep with what we've got. Um, the use of tan managaneh in Hebrews 1117 is fascinating, because...

I'm sorry? Oh, sorry, turning down the radio. Oh, that's probably...

Yeah, they always say, turn down the radio, and yeah, except it's not a radio, it's the internet. But we tune into things, too, and we don't actually tune anything anymore.

Anyway, in the Book of Hebrews, especially the use of managanehs in that context would emphasize the uniqueness of Isaac as the recipient of the promises.

And so, yeah, it isn't, the emphasis there is definitely not upon the genes portion, but upon the manas portion.

There's a lot of argument going on right now in light of the eternal functional subordination debate that took place about a year and a half ago.

Well, still ongoing, I guess, in many ways. And the concept of eternal generation, there are people trying to say that, well, actually, the best way to understand managanehs is not to emphasize the difference between genes and genao, but to not even emphasize the uniqueness element of it.

I'm not sold on that yet, just simply by its usage in the New Testament. At the same time, this use can only be used in such a way as, well, here's a

New Testament writer using it in a particular fashion, but it's not being descriptive of Jesus here anyway. So you can only say this sort of gives you a general idea of what's called the semantic domain of that particular term.

So I think it is significant, but I really think probably the key texts are going to be in the

Gospel of John where the relationship of Father and Son are so clearly laid out.

That's really where that unique relationship, I think, is emphasized. And it also, you know,

I'm going to be really interested in seeing what the ECM volumes on John come out, with John 118, the textual variant there.

We talked about that a couple programs ago. Mm -hmm. Yeah. One more thing, real quick question.

Is it just me, or does the reading in Hebrews remind you of the reading of the

Septuagint? Because, like, I'm doing Greek 1 right now, and that's definitely killer, but I've noticed that it kind of reads similar to the

Septuagint. Well, remember, the Septuagint is much more classical than Koine, and then

Luke and Hebrews, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are likewise much more classical than Koine as far as their tendencies, not only in vocabulary, but also in syntax.

So yes, you're right. It does hearken back to an earlier form, a less smooth

Koine form that you would have in Paul or especially in Mark or John.

Yeah, definitely very, very different. It's much more difficult to read those, and they are much more similar to one another.

So yeah, I would agree. Okay. All right. Thanks, Nathaniel. Thank you for your call. All right, let's go to a similar topic.

Matthew. Hi, Matthew. Hey, Dr. White, how are you? Doing pretty good. All right, so this is probably going to be—you're going to be reiterating exactly what you just spoke with Nathaniel, because it was about the eternal subordination of the

Son. Just want to briefly mention, I was Mormon for 20 years through your ministries and through Jason Wallace's, and through God's grace,

I've come to Christ. Wow, that's fantastic. I'm going to be preaching for Jason this Sunday.

Yep, so I've talked to Jason, he's a great guy, so I really appreciate your ministry. Good. And I pray for you and Rich and for everything you do.

Thank you. So, it's been a crash course the past year and a half in Christian theology, starting from zero.

So, what I've found is that in my field in science, I find that everything depends on your definitions and your word usage.

Yeah. So I want to understand if I get this correctly. I'm reading from Sam Waldron, he wrote

A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Confession. He spoke of three general types of subordination, the essential or ontological, which is akin to Arianism, which we would find as heretical.

Also, the second type, which would be the economic subordination related to the subordination of Christ to the

Father in the economy of redemption. Also, and then he speaks of the third, which you spoke of a little bit earlier, it talks about the hypostatic subordination.

It's a reference of the relationship of derivation among the persons or hypostases of the

Trinity itself. And that's where the argument is. That's where the argument is. Right, okay.

So I was wondering if that's what the eternal subordination of the Son was related to the subsistences or the personhood of the

Son and the Spirit from the Father, like the eternal procession of the Spirit and the eternal generation of the

Son. And I was wondering, is that the exact same thing as the eternal subordination of the Son? Because I was a little bit curious about the terminology there.

Well, the terminology as it's being used now has come up in regards to egalitarianism and the idea that there is not an ontological subordination, but a natural subordination within the

Godhead implied by terms Father, Son, and Spirit, so that those who are fighting against egalitarianism see in, for example, the

Carmen Christi and Philippians 2, a natural subordination of the

Son to the Father that is not based upon an inferiority as to His participation in the divine nature, but in the relationship.

And this is where this gets very, very complicated, and I'm trying to do this fairly quickly. Part of the issue is when you talk about the person of the

Son, when we talk about what's called eternal generation, there have been attempts primarily in post -Nicene

Orthodoxy to be able to identify what are called the opera ad intra, the internal activities in the

Godhead in such a way that you can distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit. And so the description has been that the

Father begets, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit is spirated. Now, as you know, between the

East and the West, there's argumentation as to whether the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the

Son or the Father only. That's one of the divisions between the East and the West. But this is a primarily post -Nicene area of development.

And when we talk about the Son being begotten by the Father eternally, this obviously is a real issue in dealing with Muslims and the historical understanding of that relationship, the needed emphasis being that this is not an act that took place in time.

It is a relationship that allows us to distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit, but it is not something where the

Son comes into existence or originates in this fashion. I think it's very important to keep that in mind.

A book was just published last week, which I haven't even gotten yet, on this subject of recovering the eternal generation of the

Son. Obviously, I'm generally going to need to wait until it's available in audio format or I can get hold of an electronic version, the only way

I have a chance to read those types of things. The other side that, the other area that needs to be looked at and kept in balance goes back to the time of the

Reformation, and that was John Calvin, for example, was concerned as he saw imbalances in post -Nicene orthodoxy, and he wanted to emphasize that the

Son is auta theos, God in and of himself, not theos secondarily by participation or extension from the

Father. And there, I think, is a good reason to be concerned if you do not confess that the

Son is auta theos, but is theos only secondarily.

I don't see how you can avoid eventually falling into some form of subordinationism and Arianism in that type of a context.

Those who believe in the eternal generation of the

Son say this is the way to avoid that, and that is to emphasize the fact that this, that it is the natural very existence of God, that the

Father and the Son bear this relationship to one another. It never happened in time, therefore the

Son can never be subordinated, because it's an eternal act that is absolutely definitional of who the

Father is as the Father, and the Son as the Son, and then the Spirit in relating to the first two.

They see that as an actual protection against an ontological subordination.

So those are a bunch of the issues that come up. My concern with the eternal subordination stuff from 18 months ago was, and I think everybody would agree with this, you can't start with human relationships and then project them back upon God, which

I'm concerned may have been happening for some people who were very concerned about the egalitarian, compatibilist debate.

Whatever you do about the relationships of male and female amongst mankind, you cannot use that as the foundation for reasoning backwards to God.

You have to start with divine revelation and move forward from there. The problem is that divine revelation can only take us so far in this context.

I mean, we really, at some point, have to go exactly how far does God want us to go in the asking of questions, and isn't there something that's going to be still in the future for us to come to know about Him and things like that?

Aren't there some secret things yet that will be known only in the eternal state?

And I think that there are. So I obviously, as one who does a lot of debates—we'll be doing a debate, as you know, with Shonda Crainey next week—want to emphasize that we need to stand firmly upon what has been revealed.

But in our context today, a lot of people want to think that that means that we can go way beyond that, to ask all sorts of questions that—basically, in the history of the

Church, when we ask certain questions, the answers are almost always negative, in the sense that what we're saying is, positively, we believe this, and then negatively, we don't believe all these other things, because they would fundamentally deny the positive affirmation we made at the beginning.

And so a lot of later theological analysis of what is found in Scripture is protecting the primary statements of Scripture from degradation through application of foreign categories and things like that.

So in other words, we don't so much say a bunch of positive things later on down the road as we're saying,

Nope, we weren't saying that. Nope, we're not saying that. We're sticking with this core that we actually find in inspired

Scripture. And so, yeah, big, big area, but I suppose it's important in this sense, and that is,

I've seen a lot of people who are now thinking about these issues that would never have even given it a second thought before.

Coming from your perspective and your background, you see the necessity of it, but a lot of people who have just sort of had the truth handed to them don't necessarily see why it might be good to be investing time in considering these things.

So there you go. Absolutely. Thank you for that detailed description, and I really appreciate it.

I will be praying for your trip to Utah. I really hope that God will open up the hearts of the people there and allow His truth to soften their hearts and bring

His people to Him. All right. Thank you, Matthew. I appreciate it. For safety, and thank you. All right. God bless. Bye -bye. We're gonna try to get through these calls.

I know we're going later, but we're gonna try to get to both John and David. Let's talk with John.

Hi, John. How you doing? Good. How about yourself? Well, I'm gonna have to be quick one way or the other. Okay. Yeah, definitely.

I'll try and be quick as well. Thank you for your time. I'm trying to take your advice and read and learn and be able to explain things, especially since we live in California, to my kids so that they're prepared as they're going through high school and college and things like that.

So I'm in the middle of reading The Forgotten Trinity, and I had a question about when we're talking about Jesus and His statement of the

Father is greater than I, and how in the book you talk about what

He means by that is positionally greater, and because of being in human form, and I'm just—I've read it a couple of times, but I just don't understand how we get that jump to that's what

He means. Okay. Yeah, I was thrown off because Rich put the wrong book in the description.

He put The Potter's Freedom, and I'm sitting here going, Potter's Freedom. Potter's Freedom. I'm confused. What's that?

Yeah. TPF. The Potter's Freedom. Oh, am

I getting a really dirty look now? I love it.

Where's my camera? I want to take a picture. This is clearly Give Rich Grief Day.

Yes, why not? I get grief for it all the time. They never see what comes back in that direction. John 14 .27,

"'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do

I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.'" So Jesus is talking about His going back to the

Father, and this is the context of the coming of the Holy Spirit, but He is leaving them.

And so John 14 .28 says, "'You have heard that I said to you, I am going away, and I will come to you.

If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the

Father, because the Father is greater than I am.'" So the context is that they are thinking about themselves rather than thinking about Jesus.

He has told them that He is going to the Father. So He is distinguishing Himself from the

Father. And He says, "'You should have rejoiced, because I said I am going to the Father, for the

Father is greater than I am.'" So it's interesting that when people cite this text, when

Jehovah's Witnesses or Unitarians or whatever cite this text, they just cite it and say, see, the

Father is greater than Jesus, and therefore Jesus can't truly be God. They never deal with the fact that this is a

Hathi clause that is saying for, that the reason for something else is the Father is greater than I am.

Well, what is that reason for? The vast majority of them have never even thought about it. In fact, most of them have never even read the verse in its context.

The answer, the whole point of the Father is greater than I am is the explanation of why the disciples should have rejoiced when the

Son said that He's going to the Father. They should have rejoiced because, well, obviously it can't be some ontological statement.

So why would, what would be the reason for rejoicing in the Son going to the

Father? Well, it seems rather obvious. The Son, at this point in time, is here upon earth.

He is the object of the constant testing and attacks of the

Jews. By John 14, we have what? John 5, the Jews try to kill

Him. John 8, they pick up stones to stone Him. John 10, they pick up stones to stone Him. John 11, they get together and say, we've got to kill this guy because he's raising people from the dead.

And so you have numerous places up to this point where you have the fulfillment of John 1,

He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. So Jesus has been in the state of humiliation,

He is dealing with His enemies, the constant attacks, etc., etc., and He is getting ready to return back into the presence of the

Father, which John has already told us, He had eternally been there in John 1, 1.

We are going to eventually, in the end of this section, have this fully explained to us in the

High Priestly Prayer about Jesus's intercessory work and His relationship with the

Father, etc., etc. And so the point is that the, use the term midzone, greater, is clearly referring to that transition from where Jesus is now to where He is going to be in the presence of the

Father, which will be glorious. As Jesus is going to say in John 17, glorify me, Father, with the glory which

I had in your presence before the world itself was. He's going back to that place of glorious exaltation, which

He had left, as Paul will explain so beautifully in the Carmen Christi, in great condescension and love so as He can provide for our salvation.

So the whole point is that if the disciples, if you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I'm going to the

Father. Why? Because the Father is in glory, and therefore I'm going to be in the Father's presence.

I'm not any longer going to be the object of the attacks of my own people, etc., etc.,

etc. I'm going to be glorified. And so the midzone is clearly a position that is in light of Jesus's incarnation.

It's not an ontological statement that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, or just a great prophet, or whatever else it might be.

It has to do with the position that Jesus is in now, which is going to change in His resurrection and entrance into the presence of the

Father. And then, so then, would it be correct to say that, once He returns to that place of glory, that the position of the

Father being greater than Him would not be? Well, not in this context. There's still going to be the difference, that the

Father and the Son are distinguished from one another in their roles. Jesus is always, we, you know, the elect are always united to God through the

Son, not through the Father. The Father, that's the Father's will, but it was the

Father's will that we be united to Him through the Son. So there's always going to, again, this sort of goes back to what we were just talking about, there is the distinction in the relationships between the divine persons, represented by Father, by Son, by Spirit.

And then, economically, there is the distinction that comes from the fact that we are united with the

Son, and hence have our fellowship with the Father as we are in the

Son. And so there's clearly those distinctions. And even when we see the scene in Heaven, we have

Him who sits on the throne, and the Lamb, both of which are the objects of the worship of the entire creation.

And so, even in those glimpses we're given in the future, the distinction isn't destroyed, but the worship is still of the one true

God, because of the participation of the divine nature of Father, Son, and Spirit. Okay.

Great, well thank you very much. Okay, thanks, John. God bless you out there in the communist land of California.

Yeah. Yeah. I tell you, there is an intellectual black hole in Sacramento.

Anyway, I won't even go there. Talk to you later. Bye -bye. All right, thank you. All right, real quick.

Here, I thought we were going to get done early today. So this is the problem with open phones, is you never get done on time.

I can get done on time when it's just me, but all right, David, real quick, nothing like an easy topic.

Well, I've got to say thank you for your patience and persistence. I don't know how you do it, but you're certainly an example to us all on how to not give up on somebody.

Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. Someone I've been having an ongoing dialogue with is a baptismal regenerationist, and he uses

Acts 238, obviously, as proof that we must be baptized to receive forgiveness of sins. Okay, really quickly, is this a person, a

Church of Christ individual? Yes, sir. Okay, so I want to distinguish for everybody listening, baptismal regeneration positions will differ in their biblical argumentation and what they think actually is accomplished, depending on what their denominational background is.

A sounds -like -old -style -probably -no -hymns -Church -of -Christ -type guy who's just simply going to camp on Acts 238 and repeat it ad nauseum for four days, which is what most of those guys do, that approach is very different than what you're going to get from a

Roman Catholic who does believe in baptismal regeneration, but in a sacramental sense that the

Church of Christ guy, no way, or certain Lutherans who you would think, with justification by faith, would not believe in baptismal regeneration, but Luther was

Luther, and had the concept of infantile faith and the whole nine yards. So there's a bunch of different perspectives, and that's why

I need to find out which one was which, so we know what we're dealing with. Yep, I'll ask, yeah.

So from the Acts 238 passage, he then takes that passage and literally reads in literal water baptism into every passage that uses the word baptism or washing, never mind he dismisses the true definition of the word baptism as immersed into not just water, but person and work, et cetera.

But his spin on it is that it's an act of obedience, but that it's mainly a work of God, not a work of man, and he references

Colossians 2 .12. That's an interesting way of doing it. Yeah, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you are also raised up with them through the faith and the working of God who raises them from the dead.

But my response to this is, in Acts 238, it says that what must we do, not what must

God do. And if baptism were something that is a work of God, solely a work of God, then why doesn't it passively happen to us like faith?

But I've tried to find, my question, I've tried to find some good books on baptismal regeneration, like Believer's Baptism by Schreiner and Wright, but I find that most deal with, like you were saying, paedo -baptism or Believer's Baptism, like paedo versus Believer's Baptism or the

Catholic paedo -baptism regeneration versus Believer's Baptism. But there's always a spin and argumentation against Presbyterianism or Catholicism or Lutheranism, but do you know of any that are straight up against adult baptism, baptismal regeneration that handles all of the passages that reference baptism by chance?

You know, off the top of my head, no, and one of the reasons for that is that when

I wrote something on this years and years ago, my primary approach on it was to sort of undercut the entire argument by starting with anthropology and the deadness of man and sin.

I mean, that may not work with this fellow, but I think as far as... He also doesn't necessarily believe in the fall, per se.

In the fall? Yeah, well, I mean, dude, it's out there stuff.

Wow, okay, yeah, I mean, that sounds like pretty much full -on Pelagianism at that point.

Yeah, I think you touched on him several years ago, Ethelgard Smith. Oh, really?

Yeah, he's a Church of Christer, I don't know if you knew that. Yes, I did know that. I didn't know that he was sort of the really old -style stick -in -the -mud type, but okay, well, that's interesting.

Yeah, to be honest with you, from my perspective, I have yet to see progress made in an argument on baptismal regeneration that did not start with a necessary anthropology in regards to the deadness of man and sin.

As long as you don't have that, in other words, if you're importing into your reading of the text an unbiblical view of the capacities of man, you're going to be spinning your wheels forever.

I just don't see how you're going to get anywhere. There are certain subjects that require preceding elements of divine truth for you to be able to make any sense, any headway, and I think this is one of them.

I really do, because baptism represents something, and if you don't have a clear view of what it's representing, then you can read almost anything you want into it.

And so, yeah, at that point, if I were to have a discussion with Efflegard Smith, that's what

I would be focused upon. Okay, perfect. What was the book you wrote years ago? Oh no, it wasn't a book

I wrote. Actually, if you look up baptismal regeneration in the... um... what did we call those old files?

Legacy? Vintage. Yeah, it's in the vintage... it should actually come up in a

Google search, the Google thingy at the bottom of the AOMN web page. Okay, a brief rebuttal of baptismal regeneration.

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Gotcha. Okay, I gotcha. Yep, that's neat how that works up until the EMP hits and then it's all going to be gone.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right, thanks for your patience and holding on. No problem. All right, God bless.

Bye -bye. Yeah, what was that book that Efflegard Smith wrote? It was about the New Age stuff.

He sort of does New Age stuff, and he was sort of making inroads into evangelical circles. But I knew he was

Church of Christ, and I didn't know he was that Church of Christ type. Anyway, so are we going to even try to even hook up for something next week?

Hey, you know me. If we can do it, I'm all for it. Yeah, but if you're going to be tearing stuff apart, or you're not going to be tearing stuff apart as far as connections...

If I have stuff apart in there, the things in here like Skype still work, so just because I'm rewiring things in there doesn't stop us from doing remotes.

The only day, though, that I might be able to do something, as long as my travel goes well on Wednesday, is on Thursday from Nevada, and I just don't know what my internet stuff is going to be, but we'll try.

We can be flexible. We can make it happen. We can try. We'll try to do something at least once next week, and if not, well, then like I said,

I'm going to try to get back from Las Vegas on Tuesday early enough in the afternoon, just come straight here and do the program.

It's a bit of a drive, but we'll try to make it work out. So great phone calls, great questions, and certainly does make the program go by much more quickly.

There's no choice about that. So try to find the proper mix. Sometimes I just feel like I need to have the whole time to address something, and then other times we can see what there is out there and go from there.