Litton Becomes Biden, Todd’s Category Error, Hank Fictionalizes History

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We are back with you on a Tuesday, two days in a row.

Don't worry, we're not going to be here tomorrow, but good to be with you again today. I'm going to forget this, so I just opened this package a little while ago.

La Trinidad Olvidada, which I think means the Forgotten Trinity in Spanish.

We only have two copies so far, but we're going to definitely look into getting more of them.

So really excited to see that available. We've had a lot of people requesting that over the years.

It only took, let's see, that would have been 98, so 23 years, something like that, to get it into Spanish.

But there it is, the Forgotten Trinity. Yeah, that looks like the

Forgotten Trinity. I can't read much Spanish, but there's enough Latin in there that I recognize it.

It is available from EBI if you're looking for it, but we'll get some as well and find out how you can get hold of it as well.

I wanted to make sure to get that because I'll forget it. It's just the way I am anymore. Okay, starting off with two items that only came into my attention.

And boy, we're going to have to make sure that we turn that fan back on. They came to my attention this morning, actually, and the first is from the troublemaker in Texas.

There is only one troublemaker in Texas, and he is a major troublemaker in Texas. I think one of the reasons that he makes so much trouble is because he's also a

Dallas Cowboys fan, and that means he has something else to be doing to make trouble than have to be worrying about celebrating anything.

So anyway, the troublemaker from Texas sent me a link, and evidently today,

Ed Litton, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, spoke at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Now, I try to put myself in the shoes of a student sitting in this chapel, and if you're a student at Southwestern, and we have a lot of listeners, they have to listen quietly.

They have to listen with headsets on. They have to listen in closed, darkened rooms and things like that, but we know you're there.

But you're a student at Southwestern, and if you've listened to even one, just one of the videos on one of the sermons, and there are bunches of them, then you know that if, in your homiletics class, you did what

Ed Litton did, that you would be drummed out of the seminary, or at least you should be according to the rules, because you would know that you have engaged in rank plagiarism of someone else's work, someone else's sermon.

You would know because anyone who honestly listens to those videos knows the outline was taken from J .D.

Greer. If J .D. Greer was the origination, who knows if there was another source that they were both using, but J .D.

Greer preached it first. The outline, the terminology, the language, entire sentences, word for word, and the most telling thing, the allegedly personal examples, where J .D.

Greer originally said, I remember when I was in high school such and such happened, or my driver's ed teacher did this, or things like that.

And then Ed Litton, over a year later or more, says it was his driver's ed teacher, in his high school, he uses the exact same illustration that was a first -person illustration.

So if you have the same outline, the same language, you quote entire sentences that are word for word, and you use all the same illustrations, transferring first -person illustrations from someone else to yourself, that's not plagiarism?

Obviously it is. And any student at Southwestern knows that it would be. And I would hope that any honest

Christian student anywhere would be expecting to fail and to be kicked out of a seminary, if that's what you did.

If that's how you were getting your papers done. Let alone actually preaching in a church, in a megachurch.

So recognizing, and we've played, this was right back at the beginning of the first road trip, is when all this stuff started breaking.

We played a number of examples of exactly what

Ed Litton did. And who knows how many others, they were very busily purging the internet and so on and so forth.

And it wasn't just J .D. Greer, there's evidence that they wholesale borrowed from others as well.

Now, what you're about to watch is Ed Litton saying that wasn't plagiarism.

And the only explanation I can have is either this is a man who knows he has the

Southern Baptist deep state in his pocket. And so he can say and do whatever he wants, or he's the

Joe Biden of the Southern Baptist Convention. In other words, a figurehead who is being told by others what to say and to do, and just leaves it all up to them to deal with whatever comes as a result.

And so here at what used to be the premier Southern Baptist seminary, back when

I was at a very, very large Southern Baptist seminary, church, not seminary,

Southwestern was, that was the be all end all, that was the goal, that was the gold standard at that time.

And so here, I believe with the president of that institution, this kind of excuse is given.

Let's listen and think about it just briefly. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on this because it's just so obvious, it's so plain, but here we go.

There are, in a couple of particular cases, times where I made statements that others have been able to line up with statements from the same text, the same passage that J .D.

used. So to answer your question, I don't consider that plagiarism. Let me tell you where my sin was.

My sin was I did not credit him to my church. And I've been asked why, and I'm a little mystified by that too.

Because I'm very transparent with my people. And the goal of using material, whether it's written by R .K.

Hughes or International Critical Commentary or any other commentary you use, is to expound on the text and to make sure people understand the verse -by -verse meaning of that text.

So that was my goal. It wasn't to become famous because, quite frankly, if that was my goal, I would not have picked

J .D. Greer as someone to quote. The problem was I did not credit him. And I have repented of that to my church.

I have repented of that to our leadership. And, quite frankly, we're in a process of changing some things.

I'm fasting from listening to preaching right now. Because it turns out I have a capacity to remember statements that are made in an audible sermon that I hear that's a little too good.

And sometimes it gets mixed up. There are... Okay. It's not plagiarism.

I just didn't credit him. And I am fasting from listening to sermons.

Because it turns out I have a capacity to remember things a little too well.

Does that capacity to remember things, Dr. Lytton, include changing the experiences of others into your own experience?

So, when you listen to someone... When you listen to a documentary of a famous football player talking about when he scored the winning touchdown in the

Super Bowl, do all of a sudden you have memories of you scoring the winning touchdown in the

Super Bowl? If that's so, Dr. Lytton, you need help.

But you and I both know that's not what happened. You don't have some special ability.

Now, I do. I do. And I can prove it. I've talked about this for years.

Everybody knows how I do debate preparation. I listen to my opponent while riding a bike.

And as a result, as I listen to Shabir Ali, as I listen to Bart Ehrman, John Dominick Crossan, now the late

John Shelby Spong, I can still to this day remember where I was on a certain turn, climbing

South Mountain. I remember I was descending

South Mountain when I heard

Bart Ehrman in an interview specifically make the statement that if God was going to inspire the text, he would make sure that there were no variants in the text whatsoever.

I remember where I was on South Mountain. I remember where I was on Happy Valley Road in the dark.

That would be westbound before sunrise when

I was listening to a particular hadith that became relevant in a particular debate. I actually have that capacity.

I don't think you do. Because never has that capacity resulted in my thinking that I was the one interviewing

Bart Ehrman or that I was Bart Ehrman. You have been caught plagiarizing someone else's sermon and presenting it as if it were your own experience and your own words.

And you are excusing it. And you're excusing it in such a way where you're saying, well, my sin was not crediting.

No, your sin is right now. Your sin is making up absurdities like, well,

I'm not listening to sermons now because it turns out I remember things too well.

You're standing, you're sitting in front of the chapel at Southwestern and telling all these students this load of hooey?

Astonishing. This is far worse than the original plagiarism. Amazing.

Absolutely amazing. And if the Southern Baptist Convention can sit back and watch this stuff and go, fine with us, well,

Ichabod, the glory has departed. That is truly, truly astonishing.

All right. Let me, there we go. Hey, that one got nice and big, nice and easy.

Good. This also came to my attention this morning.

And good old brother, Todd, you'll remember that a few weeks ago, we commented on this program about Todd's rather,

I would say, extreme interpretation of Romans chapter 13.

Wherein he said that if the government tells you to put pinwheels on your head when you go shopping at Kroger's or wherever it was,

I think it was Kroger's, then Romans 13 is telling you to put pinwheels on your head. At the time, we pointed out that there were numerous problems with this in the text itself.

In regards to, for example, the basis of defining good and evil in Romans chapter 13, clearly for Paul, is to be found in God's law.

And therefore, what the function of government is to be. And we also pointed out that there are spheres of authority.

And the government has a prescribed sphere of authority.

And it is not to overstep those boundaries. Now, that's not to say that governments don't overstep those boundaries.

But when they do, then Christians, and here's part of my response to what we're about to hear, and then we'll expand upon it.

And I say this as someone who loves Todd Freel. Todd's a great guy, but we have a real difference here.

And it's hermeneutical, it is theological, it's eschatological, and extremely relevant today.

Because in Todd's world, it is either submission or rebellion.

That's all there is to it. There is no concept in Todd's world, or I would at least like to suggest to Todd that he make room for, a number of other positions.

Like, well, you may recall in his original assertion, he was talking about the early church.

He was saying, the church always had these, and I challenge that. Because I think he's wrong about that.

But the fact is, the Roman empire through the year 313, said you cannot be a

Christian. And Christians did not obey that. Now, that did not mean that Christians were constantly trying to poison the emperor.

That did not mean that there were armed rebellions in Rome, every other Thursday, by Christians.

But it does mean that Christians were telling Caesar, even as they died, that he had overstepped his bounds.

And that God's judgment would come upon him, and upon his nation, for what they were doing to God's people.

So, between rebellion, and submission.

And of course, hopefully Todd, you would admit, that all those early

Christians, submission would have required them to do what? Offer the pinch of incense, say

Kaiser Kurios. They would not do that. They could not do that. And so, there was no submission.

But like I said, there was not the bi -weekly armed rebellion either. So, what's in between?

You didn't leave any realm for that. Any room. In between is the church, using her authority, as the prophetic voice, to warn

Caesar of Caesar's certain doom. Of the judgment that will come upon Caesar himself, and all those who do

Caesar's bidding, in the opposition of Christ, who is

King. Christ, who is King. King over all realms.

King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. There is no kingdom, of which he is not the

King. There is no secular realm, where the world is

King. Or where Caesar is King. Jesus, Jesus' resurrection changed everything.

We didn't just go back to the same old, same old. We now live in the light of the empty tomb.

And the one who came out of the tomb said, all authority in heaven, and on earth, has been given to me.

Therefore, go. That's the foundation of the Great Commission. And so, you didn't leave room for, well,

I've been reading this, and people have found it just extremely challenging.

I've read it here on the program before, but I've been reading a portion from Cyprian's epistle to the

Christians in the mines. Which is just so shattering in its beauty.

But when Cyprian wrote to those Christians in the mines, why were they in the mines? Because they would not submit.

That does not mean they were in rebellion, even though Rome may have put it that way. They didn't try to kill

Caesar. But they did warn Caesar, by their lives, by their words, by their testimonies, and even by their deaths.

Of who the true Lord would be. And Caesar will be held accountable for every one of their lives.

And punished, appropriately and properly, for every one of those followers of Christ.

That were persecuted and killed. It would be better if the millstone. If you think of Judas, think of all the rest.

So they lived, not in submission. Not in violent rebellion.

But in clear testimony to the Lordship of Christ. Against the unrighteousness of the actions of the governing authorities.

So there are differing spheres of authority. There are differing covenants that exist.

The covenant that exists between a man and a wife. And this is another place where I think Todd really misses it in this one.

Because he is responding to me. Go ahead and name names Todd, it's okay. Everybody knows, it's alright. We're doing this as brothers.

But he misses that there is a covenant of marriage. That's very different than the authority relationship between the state and the individual believer in the church.

That's not the same category. It's not the same category, parents and children.

And he's going to try to make an argument. And I really think the argument fails badly. Badly Todd.

You missed it, sorry. You need to go, oh whoops. Alright, we'll take that one back.

Can we call that one a mulligan, whatever. Because you missed it on this one. So let's listen to what

Todd had to say. And give a response. If you recall, the book of 1

Peter is really, really constant. It's dealing with the subject of persecution.

Something we should all be quite interested in learning more about these days. And Peter does some things that are a little bit,

I would imagine, frustrating to the audience that received this. These are people who are being persecuted.

And I mean really persecuted. Not a little, but a lottle.

And we see Peter over and over again repeating a theme here. To the pilgrims of the dispersion.

People lost their homes, living in a foreign land all over the place. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the

Father in sanctification of the spirit for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. Grace to you and peace.

Blessed be the God and Father. Get to the persecution already. How are we supposed to respond to a government that is evil?

You can almost hear the reader going, just bring it, bring it. Blessed be the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope.

Peter sets the persecution table by reminding them, you're a child of God. Though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I wonder, myself included, how many of us have forgotten what this hokey pokey called life is all about as a

Christian? I've been paid for, I've been purchased, I've been redeemed.

I have a seat set for me at a table that he is preparing to serve me a banquet at.

This is what has been given to me. This is what I'm about. Now you're going through trials. Remember that. Just remember that because the trials are bringing about a good.

They're assuring you of your salvation. It gets hard. The government does a squeeze, and what comes out is,

I still love the Lord. I submit to God. I submit to the government. I'm a model citizen because I'm demonstrating the veracity of my confession.

That's one thing that we get out of persecution. But then this is where we see our theme that Titus picks up on repeats.

Of this salvation, the prophets have inquired. So he talks more about the gospel. Then he talks about living before God our

Father. Be holy, for I am holy. Talks about the enduring word of God.

Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, and be all evil speaking as newborn babies desire the pure milk.

If indeed, you're saved. Now, Peter starts talking about our relationships.

Starting with the world. I beg you as sojourners and pilgrimers.

Abstain from fleshly lusts. Having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles. Not being factious, which

Titus warns us. A factious man, two strikes, you're out. Don't be that guy. Have your conduct honorable among the

Gentiles. That when they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they observe, glorify

God on the day of visitation. Why are we good citizens? Because the world watches. And when they see us obeying, they get saved.

That's what is at stake. That is what... I just want to pause for just a moment.

I'm letting him give the whole thing. So I can't be accused of picking on just something.

So there's lots of background and things like that. And he was trying to go through the text. What does it mean to be a model citizen?

Well, that would be defined by what? If the state were today to define a model citizen, a model citizen would be a person who celebrates homosexuality, gay mirage, and transgenderism.

That's what the state today says is a model citizen. That's what the Equality Act will try to make a part of law.

So obviously when he says model citizen, we have to say, well, by what standard?

And the standard that has to be used is provided by God.

So we're talking about a model citizen as a person who is honest and upright and is not stealing from his neighbor and is seeking to be peaceful with those around him.

But there's all sorts of things. The state,

Peter, who wrote these words, was freed from prison by supernatural action of an angel and became a fugitive.

He didn't go back. He didn't walk back into the prison after the angel freed him saying, no,

I heard Paul preach and he preached that we have to be in submission.

No, he did what the angel said and left. So by what standard do we seek to be a model citizen?

A model citizen as a Christian may be a martyr of the state, but that's on the state, not on the

Christian. Because the Christian uses the standard of God's unchanging word, whereas the state claims its own right to define these things.

And that's where the problem is. And I used to be there. I grew up in years where there was no major clash with the state.

The state pretty much stayed out of the way. And so I wasn't accustomed to the biblical emphasis upon the church having a prophetic voice.

Those days are gone. Those days are gone. We have to think very clearly.

But Peter is after, and he continues. He gets into submission to government.

Therefore, submit yourself to the government. Honor all people, love the brethren. Why? He keeps telling us, so that they will ask about your amazing response and ask you about the hope that lies within you, because God uses persecution to save people.

Submission to masters. Servants, be submissive to your masters. Okay, now that was put in the context of 1

Peter 3 .15, and that's not what the context was. The context, yes, is do not fear them.

But when they ask us a reason for the hope that's within us, it's not because we have submitted to a non -biblical standard in subjugation to the government.

Nobody came up to one of those Christians who capitulated and offered incense on the altar and asked them about their faith.

It was the Christians who were willing to go to the arena and die that they asked about their faith.

But in 1 Peter 3 .15, the specific thing, and Todd, I preached this at your conference in Ohio.

It was at a wretched conference that I first, in my preparation for speaking on 1

Peter 3 .15, recognized where most apologists had missed 1 Peter 3 .15

all along in not going back into its Old Testament context. And the fact that 1 Peter 3 .15

is a reference to the deity of Christ, you go back to where he's quoting from Isaiah, and that's Yahweh being spoken of.

It's Yahweh who is treated as holy. And so the reason they ask us for a hope that's within us is because we're acting in accordance with the reality that we are treating the

Messiah, Jesus, as Yahweh in our hearts. That's what brings the total reorientation of our responses.

Not some idea about submitting to the government. So I think it's important to point that out.

Esther, with all fear, not only to the good and to the Gentile, but also to the harsh. Hmm. Okay.

It's interesting. Okay, here... You are told even if the person... Here comes the argument. ...an authority over you is harsh, even if it's painful sometimes.

Obey. Why? For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, he who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.

He was reviled. He didn't revile in return. He did not threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously, who bore our sins in his body.

Why? Because God was doing something in Christ, reconciling a people for him.

The goal was not to build a kingdom of this earth. He rejected that. My kingdom's not of this world. He marched to the cross for the redemption of souls that you and I then might live in joyful obedience and show the world that our faith is true when things get hard.

Submission to husbands. Same thing. Wives, submit to your husbands. A word to husbands.

Make sure you're loving. I might be inclined to say if I were going to read either 1

Peter 2 or Romans 13, that we're to submit to the government unless the government doesn't behave based on the job description that is given in Romans 13, that you are a terror to evil and a rewarder of good, therefore

I don't have to submit. If that hermeneutic applies to that text, wouldn't it apply to wives not submitting to husbands?

Slaves not submitting to masters? Children not submitting to parents?

Okay, so there's the argument. And this is in direct response to me, because, well,

I'm sure I wasn't the only person. I heard other people. I heard Toby Sumter on a program specifically making reference to some of these issues in regards to Todd's statements and things like that.

But there's the argument. So is it right that to go to Romans 13 and to see the consistency of, well, what would the apostle

Paul have defined as good and evil? Agathos, Kakos, in that text, what standard would

Paul have said defines those things? Did Paul actually have the theology that says the good and evil for the church is defined by God's law, but the state gets to be its own definer of good and evil.

I've never heard anyone try to make that argument. I've heard people living that way. I've heard entire doctrines and theologies based upon that, but I've never heard anyone try to go to Romans 13 and say, yeah, that's what

Paul was saying, because clearly, plainly, obviously isn't. So the hermeneutic that says that this is the government's role and that the standard is to be

God's law. And here's where Todd doesn't have sufficient categories.

And I didn't have sufficient categories for a long time either. So I'm just trying to be helpful.

But the simplistic categories are, well, either you do what the government says or you rebel, and there is no way for the church to say, wait, this isn't your realm.

You're overstepping your boundaries. You're overstepping that which

God designed you to be the avenger of. You're inserting yourself in things that are none of your business.

Where is that? Between these two extremes, where is that?

Because I'm not hearing it from Todd. But we have to demand that space.

Because if we don't demand that space, the only space that we're left for the church is a spiritual space between your ears.

And for some people, that's pretty much, yeah, that is about it. But that leaves so much of the gospel promises.

That leaves so much of the prophecies of the nature of the kingdom in the Old Testament, utterly empty and vacuous.

And again, if you have certain eschatological expectations, you look at those Old Testament prophecies and you just chuck them off into the future someplace and go, well, someday.

The problem is, on the one hand, we're willing to look at those prophecies and say, isn't it amazing that God was able to bring these things about and all these prophecies fulfilled in Christ and bringing

Rome into existence. And you've got the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel and Jeremiah and all the branch that, oh, it's just amazing how

God does all that. But then, that's because we're looking back at fulfillment. But then when you have prophecies about what the nature of Christ's kingdom is going to be, that's when we get all shaky.

Not really sure if God could pull that off. He could pull the whole incarnation thing off. Not so sure about the kingdom thing. Huh? But that's where a lot of people are.

That's where a lot of eschatologies are. And today, now, all of a sudden, we've got to think about this.

We didn't have to talk about this 20 years ago. Some people saw it coming.

Francis Schaeffer saw it coming. He tried to warn us. There were others who saw it coming and did warn us, but most of us just went glibly about our lives.

And now we're running smack dab into the concrete wall, as we normally do.

But where is the, there's got to be a place in between here because the covenant of marriage, husbands and wives, is not the relationship between the church and the state.

And I wish Todd had been a little braver. Paul was talking about slavery there.

Let's be straight up front, can we? Can anyone even do that today? He was talking about slavery. He was talking to Christian masters, who owned slaves, and Christian slaves, who may have been owned by Christian masters or non -Christian masters.

And nobody, for a long, long period of time, gave that a second thought because that had been the universal experience of human beings for a long, long time.

So that's a different situation than the relationship between church and state.

Very different situation. So you have to recognize spheres of authority.

You have to recognize covenants and covenantalism.

And in this instance, none of this changes the exegesis of Romans 13. None of this changes, you've got to answer the question.

If Paul describes the government to which we are to be in submission as doing what is good, rewarding good and punishing evil, then what do you say to Christians in North Korea today?

What do you say to Christians in Afghanistan today? In Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia?

What do you say to them? If there is a

North Korean believing family that somehow, magically, ends up in a situation where they see a break in the fence and they can get away.

They can make it to South Korea. It may be risky, but they may have to swim a river, but they might make it.

Are you going to tell them? The government has told them, thou shalt not cross that line.

Are you saying, submit to the government? Stay there? Or do they have the right to flee? To save their lives?

Is it not clear the North Korean government is not envisioned by Romans 13? Where do you draw the line?

And by what standard? By what standard? Is the question.

Very, very, very important, I think. So I ended up playing more of that.

By the way, Todd, I hope you noticed even your stuff for people to donate to you scrolled across the screen there.

So your free advertising for you there. I hope you appreciate that. And there you go.

Support Retro Radio. But if you're going to be a G3, we're going to have some interesting conversations,

I have a feeling. Because I've been much closer to where you are now in the past.

And some people say, well, you always talk about being consistent. Yes, foundational consistency is vitally important.

But if you can't see that over the past two years, the church as a whole has been challenged to recognize the changing situation and to finally think about these things in a way we've never thought about before.

Then I'm not sure if you've been awake. So anyway, thanks,

Todd, for the thing there. I'll hold off on...

I posted and it's still up, thankfully. It's posted on a blog, so it probably should stay there.

But I posted on Twitter. Let me just... I'll make this very brief. But we'll try to expand on it on Thursday.

I was going to read it, but I've got a video queued up and not a whole lot of time left. There was an excellent article by Geert van den

Bosch called The Last Post. And yeah,

I can't read it right now. It would take up the rest of the time. Look it up on Twitter.

The Last Post, it's geertvandenbosch .org.

It's on the blog, The Last Post. It is one of the most soberly written, clear, understandable, from a globally recognized vaccine, virus, epidemiologist type person, but who isn't, well, let's just be honest, on the take, because there are a lot that are on the take.

It is soberly written, well -documented, and I'll want to, on Thursday, take time to read a couple paragraphs because basically the final conclusion of it is we are setting ourselves up for a tremendous problem, a tremendous amount of mortality.

We are specifically making it so that COVID will kill far more people than it ever, ever, ever, ever had to, and I think we probably have already done that.

Vax -onlyism is novel, new, and foolish in the extreme.

The utilization of narrow vaccine, genetic vaccines, is producing the very variants that will now make those vaccines irrelevant.

If we try to continue vaccine -onlyism, we will always be two steps behind. We will always be pushing the epidemic wave ahead of us, and we'll never get out of it.

The way out is clear. The way out has been known from the start, but the way out would not have made hundreds of billions of dollars for big pharma and big tech.

The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil. So we'll look at that, but I want to get to one, got 15 minutes left, and I want to get to a little bit more of Hank Hanegraaff before we all forget the conversation that is going on, specifically in reference to the concept of the

Eucharist, the early church, issues related thereto. So I want to press on with that.

We're picking up right where we left off last time, so let's dive right in. Scripture, and you can kind of get this just by common sense.

You think, for example, if I'm a Latin living in Rome speaking a different language from secular

Koine Greek, the street language of the day, it's going to be harder for me to understand what the apostles had in mind than if you are geographically close speaking the same language.

Well, you think about the early church. You had Jesus Christ. He took 12 men that they should be with him, and he communicated truth to them, and then they, in turn, to other people.

You had the apostolic fathers. You had the holy fathers, and then you had the churches that disseminated throughout the world.

Well, the apostolic fathers were not removed from the apostles. They were contemporaries of the apostles.

You think of Polycarp. You know, Polycarp famously said, 80 and six years I have served him.

Will I now deny the Lord has saved me? And he went down in flames. He was martyred. Ignatius of Antioch.

They were contemporaries of Peter and John. Okay, let me just offer a slight correction.

Obviously, the connection of the early writers to the apostles is important.

Ignatius dies 107 -108. Peter probably dies in the early 60s.

There's 50 years between them, so to call them specifically contemporaries is a little bit misleading, and I think subject to...

See, I always try to express things in such a way that it'll survive in a debate.

Don't always do that, but my wife's probably pretty tired by doing that. Anyway, let's not talk about that.

Anyway, so yes, there's a close connection, but at the same time, if you only had exposure to a certain element of Christian truth, even early on, it's extremely important to have the entire apostolic witness, and where do we have that apostolic witness today?

Only in one place, Scripture. Now, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism claim this connection to some mystical tradition.

In Orthodoxy, it comes down through the liturgy, and I would argue that historically, that liturgy is much more connected to the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries than it is the 1st or 2nd centuries, but it's significantly less codifiable and distinct than what

Rome claims, even though, again, once you push on Rome's claims, they turn into vapors as well.

The only thing that we have is God's word. The only thing we have that is

God -breathed is what's found in Scripture. Everything else, remember, never forget this, and I've never had anyone even try to refute this, the earliest appearance, we've talked about this a number of times in the program, we've gone through the text, we've read from Irenaeus and stuff like that, but the earliest appearance of someone claiming a belief based upon apostolic tradition.

The apostles taught this, that's why we do it, or that's why we believe it.

The first person to do that, Ignatius doesn't do that, the writer to Diognetus doesn't do that, the

Didache doesn't do that, Clement of Rome doesn't do that, but the first person to do it is

Irenaeus. Irenaeus is writing in Gaul, 170 -180, that time period.

So you're talking 100 years after the death of most of the apostles, and if John lives quite late, still 70 -80 years after his death as well.

So you're no longer talking about contemporaries in that sense. And remember that that first appearance in Irenaeus is his claim that he was taught by those who knew the apostles with apostolic tradition that Jesus was more than 50 years of age when he died.

Now, what's important about that claim is that Irenaeus had a theology, he believed in what's called the recapitulation theory, which almost nobody else believes today, but if it's apostolic and early, then it must be right, right?

Well, no. He had a theory that Jesus had to live through the various ages of man, recapitulate the ages of man to redeem man.

And so his claim was that the apostles taught that Jesus was an elderly man when he died.

I don't know of any scholarship today that substantiates that, certainly not a biblical perspective by any stretch of the imagination.

But he claimed that the apostles taught that. And so if the very first example that we have is corrupt, no one really believes it, and we can see why

Irenaeus believed it. By the way, Irenaeus was a wonderful... This is the problem.

Sometimes when you point out that someone believed something in error, the... what should be unnatural reaction is that you then question everything else that person had to say.

Shouldn't be that way. Irenaeus, we don't know how he died, he probably was a martyr.

His work on Gnosticism, vitally important to the church forever, up to the current day.

There are many things that Irenaeus said that were good and godly and right, and we can rejoice and we can appreciate it in the whole nine yards.

But he was wrong about that. And we can understand why he would have believed what he did believe because of his tradition and his beliefs.

And that shows the impact those things can have on the accuracy of what people report over time.

So it's important to keep these categories in mind because so much of the appeal that the

Orthodox and Roman Catholics make to people outside of their communions, not when they are going at each other, that's a whole different dynamic.

But when we, Evangelical Protestants, are the object of their attentions at that point in time, they can generally assume that they're talking with people who've never read more than a quote from an early church father, never sat down and read any full book, don't know when

Irenaeus lived, don't know the difference between Ignatius of Antioch and Ignatius Loyola. It's a big difference.

And so they can count on that. And they do count on that and they utilize that and hence can present some rather shallow argumentation from church history that we need to be aware of.

You look at their dissemination of the truths of the church to a next generation, the

Holy Fathers, and on it goes and the church continues to communicate truth until we have a testament that we can read, not only a testament, but two testaments.

Okay, so here's the idea. Until we have a testament we can read.

So up until, and we saw before, he had falsely claimed that Athanasius was the one who had somehow had some self -proclaimed authority that Athanasius didn't proclaim to have to codify the text of the

New Testament. But up until that point, you couldn't have solo scriptura. Instead you have church tradition and that's why this tradition not only remains necessary to today, but it becomes the interpretive lens through which the scriptures are to be read.

So this is an orthodox person using that argument. The Roman Catholics use pretty much the exact same type of argumentation.

That's what you're hearing here being presented by the former Bible Answer Man.

Covenant and the New Covenant, which aren't qualitatively different because the only reason that the

New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant is because the New Covenant is the blood of Jesus Christ which fulfills all the types and shadows that came before.

And therefore it's better than the blood of bulls and goats. That's just not true for the obvious reason that Hebrews says better promises, better mediator.

Yes, the blood definitely, fulfillment, all that stuff. But there are better promises, better mediator, misses all of the significance of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8.

Wow, sad. So I'm laying the groundwork here, Metropolitan Johannan and Francis.

I'm laying the groundwork because it is the church that is the ground and pillar of truth.

And so we have to look at what did the church do? Just got to remind you, just in passing, we already talked about this at the beginning, 1

Timothy 3 .15, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth was in reference to the local church in which

Timothy was worshiping and teaching. It's not some nebulous big thing out there.

It's the local church where the word is preached and the ordinances are properly exercised.

There's church discipline, fellowship, prayer, singing of the Psalms. Believe it or not, look at it.

That's what Paul said. Well, the early church made not a pulpit, but they made the altar, the center of worshiping

God. The early church uniformly believed that when you partook of the

Eucharist, you were partaking of the real presence of Christ. Okay, now please hear the terminology that's used here.

The early church uniformly believed is a claim to knowledge that no one has.

Hank Hanegraaff has no way of knowing how

Clement of Rome would have responded to Hank's statements on this subject.

Ignatius, the writer of the Didache. Remember when we've been responding to Trent Horn, we've gone back into those texts and we've read from those texts and we've looked at texts that are used to try to substantiate later developments in Roman Catholic theology, which would differ somewhat when you get into issues of transubstantiation, priesthood authority and things like that from orthodoxy.

But be very wary of anyone who pretends that there is one singular position of the early church because the fact of the matter is the sources we have for the early church are fragmentary.

So you can say something like the extant body of literature from Ignatius seems to indicate this.

So for example, the repetitive references to the necessity of unity of the bishop.

Okay, you can very much tell that Ignatius' viewpoint is a monarchical episcopate.

Okay, that one's probably not really arguable. But the fact that he writes to the church at Rome and doesn't mention a bishop would make it a lie to say that the uniform understanding of the church was a monarchical episcopate.

That is one bishop over a church with the distinction of the bishop and presbyters already having taken place even though it's not a

New Testament distinction. It would be wrong to take that one snapshot of one individual in Antioch and say that's the whole church because it wasn't in Rome.

Rome didn't have one bishop yet. So that kind of careful scholarly handling of church history is not what you get in a lot of polemics.

You can understand why. Go back and look at the debate Rob Zins and I did with Scott Butler and Robert St.

Genes at Boston College if you want a real good example of the scattergun anything you can dig out of church history even if it actually didn't happen like the

Arabic canons of the Council of Nicaea all sorts of fraudulent stuff like that. There's a good example of a massive difference in how you approach the use of church history and things like that.

So when you hear someone using the uniform view of the church and then saying that it was this doctrinal understanding now you've left the realm of even anything close to meaningfulness and you're entering into the realm of complete fiction.

It's religious fiction. We believe this and it's important for us to have a connection back to the early church here so we are going to literally fictionalize history and that's what

Hank Hanegraaff does here. He's going to fictionalize things for us and we will continue to document that fictionalization as time is available to us to do so.

So thanks for watching The Dividing Line today. We covered a lot of stuff as we try to provide a little something for everybody as we move along.

Lord willing, we'll be back on Thursday and we'll continue on.