Yes, Lillibell, We Did Another Radio Free Geneva, and It Was Two Hours Long!

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:16

You constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this. God's offering, God's offering,

00:22

God's offering, God's offering, God's offering, God's offering. They just keep repeating it and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth.

00:36

Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus, he says, Lazarus, come out and Lazarus said, I can't,

00:41

I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

00:48

And then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin.

00:59

It shows in this kind of sequential format. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?

01:18

No. Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars, just as they drink beer and wine.

01:31

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief.

01:44

You quote a verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it?

01:56

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It wouldn't make any sense to him. A self -righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk.

02:10

And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to.

02:19

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

02:31

You're not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat.

02:40

There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. And now from our cafeteria at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

02:55

Safe from all those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and reread

03:00

George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva. Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory.

03:10

And welcome to Radio Free Geneva. We have a lot to get to today, and I'm going to have to be very disciplined if we're going to get through all of it.

03:19

As I look at it, the chances of that are about as high as Joe Biden putting together two consecutive coherent sentences.

03:29

So that's not a good thing. So I wanted to start off with something a little bit different. Since the last program, or right before the last program,

03:40

I was made aware of a response by Ted Alexander, Evangelist Alexander.

03:50

I had made reference to material that he had presented in a seminar in a church.

04:01

I think Bad Preacher Clips had posted something about it, if I recall correctly.

04:08

He had mentioned me, and I'd be interested to Brother Alexander, is that the first time you ever mentioned me?

04:15

I really, really doubt that it is. So I responded to it, because it's standard

04:23

King James only mythology. It's not connected to scholarship history. Anything can be documented, anything can be defended in any meaningful fashion.

04:34

One of the things I said was, I see you're in Florida. I'm planning a trip to Florida in January.

04:43

Good time to go to Florida, in my personal opinion. Hey, if you're still around, let's see if we can arrange a debate.

04:52

The reason for this is I think debate is an excellent way of exposing incoherence, inconsistency, falsehood.

04:59

Going back and forth is one thing, but having to answer direct questions under cross -examination in controlled circumstances with equal amounts of time has been very useful over the 30 years

05:10

I've been doing it in demonstrating when people's positions are not defensible. He responded, and you might say, well, this isn't

05:19

Radio Free Geneva, but it is. As you will see. What you see in this, and one of the reasons

05:28

I responded to him is, he's not a Rachmanite. From what I've seen, a lot of people say he's a real nice guy.

05:38

At one point, he recognized in his presentation the incoherence of the re -inspiration of the

05:45

King James Version argumentation that basically is, let's just be honest, that's what most

05:52

King James Onlyists present, and in essence, that's what the TR Only guys are saying, is that there was a re -inspiration of at least the

06:01

New Testament between 1516 and 1644, maybe somewhere around there.

06:10

During that time period, some sort of process of purification, something along those lines. They don't know, but that's sort of what they have to say.

06:18

I'm sort of thinking, well, maybe, we can't find a lot of these guys. Roger Stouffer ran and hid when

06:26

I came to his town, and he wouldn't defend the stuff that he's saying, and most of these guys, they just won't.

06:34

They're very bold, as long as they don't think there's any chance I'm going to walk in the back door.

06:41

So they will say things, but then they won't back up what they say when they're given the opportunity.

06:49

So anyways, he responded, and what you're going to hear is a rabidly anti -reformed, very odd, twisted presentation where somehow

07:03

I become a Roman Catholic plant. I am a plant in the church.

07:09

I'm here to get people to, because evidently, the only thing relevant to Roman Catholicism is the

07:18

King James Version of the Bible. And this just verifies what I said in the King James -only controversy many, many years ago, and that is, once you understand that in the mindset of the

07:30

King James -only -ist, the Word of God alone equals the King James Bible alone, once that equation is put in place, then it can become the lens through which literally all of history is seen.

07:43

And so you can take a man who has done more debates against Roman Catholic apologists than anyone else

07:49

I am familiar with over the past 30 years. I don't know of anybody else that has done more debates with more

07:56

Roman Catholic apologists than I have, who has debated the papacy and justification by faith and the mass and the

08:03

Marian dogmas and purgatory and priesthood and all these types of things.

08:10

I've written books against Roman Catholicism. I have stood and listened to testimony after testimony after testimony of people who have been delivered from Roman Catholicism through those debates and through those books and through the various things we've done over the years in defending

08:30

Sola Scriptura and demonstrating the historical errors of the papacy and debating papal infallibility against Robert St.

08:38

Genes and Tim Staples and all this.

08:44

Someone who has done that much, this man will say,

08:50

I'm a Roman Catholic. And will somehow even say that Reformed Covenantal Theology, so the theology of the

09:04

Westminster, theology of the framers of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, that that actually is the backbone of Roman Catholic belief.

09:17

Now, the laughter that you hear is both the Reformed and the

09:22

Catholics who are laughing at him, they're not laughing at each other, because it's just, how do you explain this?

09:32

You explain this by recognition of the overriding power of that filter, that lens through which he's looking, which is created by that cultic form of King James Onlyism.

09:43

And so he can be the nicest guy on the planet, but he can't even recognize another Baptist unless you embrace his

09:51

King James Onlyism. And so it's an amazing thing. We're going to run through it. I'm going to try to be, I'm going to try, try to be brief.

10:00

I may fail, because there are lots of opportunities of failing. But here we, oops, that's not good.

10:07

Here we go. I was called out. This is kind of humorous to me. Almost like a fourth grader on a playground called me out, you know, to put up my dukes.

10:18

It's almost reminiscent of the Dominicans, you know, God's dogs, the Pope's hounds.

10:25

The Pope told them to go out and search out every hair, tick, and on a flat earth to the very ends of the earth and kill every last one of them.

10:32

Yeah, so I see a clip where he is attacking me.

10:42

And if I respond and challenge him, then I'm the one acting like a fourth grader.

10:48

Okay. One of the things I've said many, many times is King James Onlyism functions on double standards.

10:56

You have one standard for the King James, you have no standard for everything else. And since you functionally do that, then you end up doing it for everything, including this.

11:07

Now he does later say, well, you know, I did mention his book, so I guess. Well, yeah, exactly.

11:14

And like I said, I can pretty much guarantee you, that ain't the first time you mentioned my book.

11:19

You've probably been doing it for years and never, ever figured that I would find out about it, which, you know, you know, there you go.

11:26

That says something right there. And James White, the avowed King James hater and formal equivalence hater, and received text, ecclesiastical text hater, has called me out.

11:43

And I guess he thinks he has to seek and search out every King James guy and try to get us off of formal equivalence

11:50

King James Bible onto a paraphrased so -called

11:57

Bible out of a corrupt text. Now, let's just run through a couple of these things. KJV hater, that's a lie.

12:04

I'm just gonna start calling them what they are, they're lies. Brother Alexander, you lied all the way through this.

12:10

You need to repent of your lies. If you can't document things, then you need to repent of them, okay?

12:16

I don't hate the King James version of the Bible, but in their mind, and this is very important to understand, in their mind, unless you're

12:24

King James version only, then you hate the King James version of the Bible. If you see the King James as one of the great

12:30

English translations, as you see it as it stood in history, as you see it dependent upon Tyndale, indebted greatly to the

12:40

Geneva Bible, even the Bishop's Bible, as you see it as a historical document in those ways, that's not enough.

12:48

If you stand against King James only -ism, then you hate the King James version of the Bible. Once you find someone who cannot differentiate that, now, an honest person who is not in the cult of King James only -ism can go, yes, you wrote your book against King James only -ism, not against the

13:04

King James version of the Bible. That person you can have a rational conversation with. But it's really difficult to have a rational conversation with people who have this kind of a mindset.

13:15

Notice he says that I'm a formal equivalency hater. He says this over and over and over again, through this, that I'm trying to get people to use dynamic translations and stuff like that.

13:27

It's just so bogus and funny, and anybody who knows me knows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

13:34

When I use an English, now, when I do, when I preach,

13:39

I've mentioned many times, where I try as best I can, if time allows, context allows,

13:45

I try to preach from the original languages, just from the original language text. But if I use an

13:51

English translation, what do I use? Normally, the 1977 NASB, not the

13:58

NIV. I preach from the New American Standard Bible, and the old version that has the these and nows in the poetic sections, actually.

14:07

And so, this whole, anybody who's heard me talk about principles of biblical translation knows that I've said that I think that the interpretive part of translation, and there always is an interpretive part of translation.

14:24

The King James translators were interpreting, just like everybody else does. You have to, to be able to translate. The interpretive part of translation should probably take place in the pulpit, rather than in the translation committee.

14:38

And so, I think formal equivalency with the interpretation being done in the body of Christ from the pulpit would be the best thing.

14:50

But that doesn't mean that someone who has an NIV is going to hell, or is going to be misled.

14:59

But what have I always said? If you can't read the original languages, compare multiple English translations, both dynamic and formal equivalency, and there is no such thing as we will see as a purely formal equivalency translation.

15:12

That's just a fact, and we will document that. TR hater.

15:18

Again, if you dare point out the errors in the Textus Receptus, then you're hating it.

15:24

This is, the mindset is you are either exactly like me, think like me on this issue, or you are the exact opposite.

15:36

There's no spectrum, there's no ability to look at history and to go, well, you have these people and they were influenced by these people, they're also influenced by those people, so they were different.

15:46

No, gradations, differences, no, no, no, no, no. This mindset doesn't allow for any of that.

15:53

It is all black and white. It is the worst of the IFB mindset.

16:00

It truly, truly is, because it does not recognize, I'm not sure how these people function in the real world, they must have their secular life and then their religious life, because you wouldn't be able to get through a stop sign, you wouldn't be able to get through a four -way stop sign with this kind of mindset.

16:19

And I have no idea why this is any of his business. I guess I called his book out, and therefore, I guess he has a right to respond publicly to it.

16:25

Yep, exactly, exactly. You made comments about me that were simply untrue.

16:33

And so that makes it my business. And I just wonder how many other comments you've made about my book or about me personally over the years.

16:42

I'm sorry, sir, I had never heard of you until Bad Preacher Clips put your material on Twitter.

16:50

You can blame them for it. I had never heard of you. I don't run around listening to you guys.

16:58

What I hear, I hear because social media allows us to do that.

17:03

So once we all end up in a gulag, then we won't have to worry about it because I won't be hearing any of that anymore.

17:10

So, you know, there you go. That's probably coming from all of us. We'll have some interesting conversations once we get in there.

17:17

The reason is because, Mr. White, you're a part of that attack. Your book,

17:23

Let's Not Try to Play Games, it was written and you gave your summation of it in this little video you put out.

17:30

The summation from my perspective is that this book was put out for the purpose of getting people to throw out their

17:36

King James and get an NIV. Okay, lie number, what lie number are we on?

17:43

That's four or five? Let's call it four just to be nice. Lie number four, that simply is not the case.

17:49

I wrote the book and I know why I wrote it and you can misrepresent it all you want, but it's still a lie. Nowhere did

17:56

I suggest anyone throw out the King James version of the Bible. Nowhere did I make the NIV the issue.

18:03

If I was writing it today, the ESV would be where the NIV is in most places, but this was before the

18:09

ESV. And just simply as another popular translation that was very popular at the time when

18:17

I wrote the book in 1994. In fact, I think I did sneak a couple

18:23

ESV variants in in the second edition if I recall correctly, but not many, it wasn't supposed to be an entire revision.

18:32

Anyways, so the point again being the person who has debated against people like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg and these people who attack the text of scripture, he actually is a part of that attack because he's not on our side on this issue.

18:55

So all the rest of that stuff just disappears. That's how these people think.

19:01

And people struggle with how to get through these folks. I don't know how to get through these folks. See, we have seen many people, many, many, many people leave this movement, thankfully, and get involved with healthy, solid churches that teach the whole counsel of God rather than just little parts and pieces of it.

19:25

But there's no trick to this. Now, personally, I think many people in the

19:30

IFB King James Only movement are, they are well aware of how shallow it is. They've seen the backstabbing.

19:36

They've seen the shallowness of it. They've seen how it's all bluster and it has no depth to it.

19:44

And yet they're afraid. They don't know what to do, where to go. And that's why over the past number of years,

19:51

Rachel will mention starting at G3, again, it happened this year, lots of folks come up to you.

20:02

And this one guy came up to me and said, I grew up being taught by my pastor to hate you.

20:11

You were the devil incarnate. You were trying to destroy the

20:17

King James Bible, God's inerrant word to mankind. And finally one day

20:23

I was like, man, we talk so much about this guy. I got to see what he's like. And I started watching debates and you're defending the deity of Christ and the

20:32

Trinity and the gospel of grace. And you don't hate the King James version of the

20:38

Bible. And you start asking questions and finally I came to realize the reason that we are attacking this man is because we don't have any answers to what he's saying.

20:47

And that then led him out of that and into an understanding of the freedom of God's grace.

20:54

And it's been a wonderful benefit in his life. And I'm very, very thankful for all of that. You can't stop any of that, sir, because you don't have the answers to do so.

21:04

All you can do is just keep repeating these straw men misrepresentations. It's all you've got.

21:10

It's just all you've got. And I feel for you. I hope that providing these responses, we can debate, if we can get together, my hope is that you will see that you have been given a partial story and that there is a real story.

21:28

It's a much greater story. It's a much deeper story than the version you have been putting out.

21:38

So, yeah. We continue on here. I believe you're a plant in the churches and I believe that I should not debate you.

21:51

Most likely I will not. So I'm a plant in the churches. And so all that, all those decades of sermons where I'm dealing with nothing that has anything to do with the

22:08

King James only issue, but from their mind, everything has to do with the King James only issue. So I can be preaching on sola scriptura and justification by faith and the resurrection of Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ and all sorts of stuff that no

22:23

Roman Catholic would ever preach on. But it's all a plant because the big issue, bigger than the gospel, bigger than all of that stuff, bigger than the

22:32

Trinity or anything else, the big issue is the King James version of the Bible. 17th century

22:38

Anglican translation. That's definitive of it all. You see how dangerous this is?

22:45

You see how warping it is of the mindset? It's amazing. But I'm considering it under the correct parameters.

22:53

Now let me tell you what my biggest problem here is. I don't debate Catholics and you are a staunch predestinarian.

23:02

Okay, now catch that. I don't debate Catholics. I'm glad, sir, because they would destroy you.

23:13

They would eat your lunch. There are some good, solid

23:18

Catholic debaters out there that they would tie you in knots.

23:23

I've seen it happen. So I would like to recommend to you do not debate

23:29

Catholics. It would be very embarrassing. When Ron Nemec and Brother Jackson debated

23:38

Keating and Madrid in Denver in 93. Yeah, while we were there.

23:44

Yeah, I was debating Gerry Manitakes that night. That was embarrassing. They were not prepared for that.

23:51

They did not have the grounding to be able to do that. So let me first of all say, I applaud you.

23:57

Don't debate Catholics. You're not ready for it. They will absolutely run over you.

24:03

So don't do that. But secondly, do not use the lame excuse that I'm a

24:10

Catholic because everybody in the world knows that's all it is, is a lame excuse.

24:17

If you can redefine what it means to be a Roman Catholic so that I'm a

24:23

Catholic, then you can redefine anything. Words have no meaning to you. History has no meaning to you. Reality, logic, it's all just Plato to be used as you see fit in your

24:32

King James onlyism. And then to say, I am a staunch predestinarian. If you mean

24:37

I accept Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, John chapter 6,

24:43

John chapter 10, John chapter 17. If I, like Paul, endure all things the sake of the elect, then yes,

24:52

I am most definitely a staunch predestinarian. And I have met a very small handful, there are very few of them left, of Augustinian Roman Catholics who would be in some sense predestinarian.

25:08

But to be Orthodox Roman Catholic and to be truly predestinarian in the sense of God has an elect people that he has freely chosen solely on the basis of his goodwill,

25:19

Ephesians 1, 5 through 7, that really violates the

25:27

Council of Trent. And so you are taking two things that are actually contradictory to one another and you are connecting them together in your fevered thinking.

25:37

The fevered thinking being produced by the oddity of King James onlyism in your mind.

25:45

But I just point out to you that the King James translators were likewise predestinarians, just like me.

25:54

Have you read the 39 Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church? Do you know what Puritans believed? Oh, you do, because you detest the

25:59

Puritans. I'm not sure how you do that and then recognize that Puritans were involved in the translation of the

26:05

King James Version of the Bible. Don't know how that works, but evidently, in some way in your thinking,

26:14

God used men who had really, really bad ideas and in that situation, you'll go ahead and separate that out.

26:21

But oh, everybody else is accountable for everything in your thinking, as we will see as you will go after the

26:31

King James translators. I'm sorry, go after Calvin and the Puritans and everybody else.

26:38

And you just connect it all together in your mind because, well, it helps you with your position.

26:45

You love John Calvin? Calvin is a murderous villain. He consented to the death of Michael Cervantes and also historically took responsibility for his death.

26:55

Now, not going to spend time today going back over what we've gone over again and again and again.

27:02

But yes, Calvin was involved as pretty much chief prosecutor, as the head of the ministers in the prosecution of Miguel Cervantes over his denial of the doctrines of Trinity.

27:17

As history shows, Cervantes had been condemned by the Inquisition. The night before his burning, he had escaped while using the toilet over the wall of his prison and had made a beeline to Geneva, whereupon his arrest, once people knew who he was because he was very well known.

27:39

And let's not forget the fact, which you seem to have forgotten or maybe don't know, that Calvin risked his life to seek to witness to and to redeem

27:50

Cervantes in France. Did you forget that part? And that he had known that Michael Villanueva was

27:58

Cervantes for a long period of time but had not exposed him until his friends encouraged him to do so.

28:06

I forgot all that stuff, right? And the other Swiss cantons that agreed that Cervantes had to die because if they didn't, then the

28:13

Catholics would go, see, these Protestants don't even believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. This man denies the doctrine of Trinity, they're going to let him live.

28:19

This was a sacral system that everyone had at this time. And unlike you,

28:25

I am clear and straightforward in my church history lectures when we go places to tell people, you know what?

28:34

These folks would not have accepted me. They would not have extended their right hand of fellowship to me.

28:40

I tell the whole story. But here's where you and I differ massively, massively.

28:49

I can recognize that Calvin would have had me minimally banished.

28:54

That's pretty much what you do with Anabaptists. Would have had me banished and still thank God for the depth of his insight in the

29:01

Institutes. You cannot do that. You lack the historical maturity to be able to recognize that you can look back at what

29:12

God has done in history. And see, I don't even know how you do this because there is no one like you in history.

29:20

No one. King James Onlyism is a brand spanking new, started the seventh day of Venice in the 1930s movement.

29:31

There was no dispensationalism back then. There was no King James Onlyism back then.

29:39

How do you do your church history tours without just despising everybody that you're talking about?

29:49

Because they did not look like you. They did not believe like you. They had a lot of differences from you.

29:57

So unlike you, I can look at Luther and I can be thankful and criticize him and then make application myself.

30:07

I can be thankful for Augustine. I can be thankful for Tertullian. I can be thankful for all sorts of people because that's what historical maturity allows you to do.

30:24

But this kind of rhetoric that you're producing, for someone who does history stuff, is just, it's reprehensible.

30:37

And I can't even begin to understand it. It makes no sense whatsoever. You're also, from what

30:43

I can tell in your doctrinal statement, all millennial, which means you're an allegoricalist. You employ a double hermeneutic.

30:50

You are basically going back to the doctrines, the false doctrine that came out of the school of Alexandria of Egypt, the catechetical school.

31:00

And then was, of course, honed by origin and then went into the hands of Augustine and Augustine, using that principle that you use as an allegoricalist to do away with the millennial kingdom.

31:12

And that's the reason why allegoricalism was introduced and covenant theology was introduced was to do away with the millennial kingdom.

31:22

And you're a covenant theology guy. Now, I can hear the screams in the audience because we have a lot of folks in the audience that know a lot about church history and they're going, what did he just say?

31:40

Did he say that the allegorical elements of origins theology, which of course

31:50

I've exposed and taught against for decades, that was developed against the concept of the millennium?

32:00

Did he just say that? Yeah, yeah, he just said that.

32:06

Origin, origin is sitting down there wherever he is going, what, what are you talking?

32:13

I mean, this is, there is not a church history professor on God's green earth that can reason his way out of a paper bag that isn't just laughing.

32:21

This is just absurd on the face of it. To think that that was an overriding consideration in origin.

32:30

It's just amazing. But by the way, you don't know the half of it.

32:39

I was a non -millennialist. I am not anymore. I am a post -millennialist. That's even worse.

32:45

Well, no, because actually, as I've explained before, pre -millennialists,

32:53

I'm not even putting dispensationalism there. Dispensational pre -millennialism has no historical pedigree until the 1800s.

33:01

So let's just leave that outside. Pre -millennialists, historical pre -millennialists, and post -millennialists both have a millennium.

33:11

A real millennium. Not necessarily 1 ,000 year specific, but they both have a millennium.

33:18

The amillennialists do not have a millennium, but the amillennialists and the post -millennialists, amillennialism is a subcategory of post -millennialism.

33:30

That agrees on the relationship of the coming of Christ to the millennium, but disagrees with the nature of the millennium.

33:37

It's lots of fun. But yeah, it's even worse than that. But again, it is so easy to document that that's lie number five, six,

33:49

I think. I would invite anyone to, let's take a book on a subject that allegedly we wouldn't have that much of a difference on.

34:00

The God Who Justifies. And I would challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate and to prove that in that work,

34:14

I use Origen's allegorical methodology. I don't use the historical grammatical interpretational methodology in that work.

34:24

I've been preaching. I'm not sure how many sermons I have on Sermon Audio. But to say that you just face planted big time, once again, truly amazing.

34:39

Truly amazing that people would make this kind of thing. And you know, I would, you want to talk about literal interpretation?

34:52

What do you want to bet that if you and I debated John 6, you're the one that would leave the text and I would walk straight through it without ever having to allegorize anything?

35:03

What do you bet? Because I don't believe that you can walk through John 6. John 6, 35 and following, the discussion in the

35:12

Synagogue Capernaum. I don't believe you can do it because it teaches predestination. It teaches

35:18

God's sovereignty and salvation. You just walk, just walk straight through the verses and you will have to jump out to other passages and you'll have to leave the context.

35:28

You will not be able to do it. You want to, let's make that one of the subjects.

35:34

Shall we? I'll be happy to do that. So yeah, there you go.

35:41

And I'm assuming you're a 70 AD guy, a preterist, which the authorship of Revelation defies that completely by all scholarship available today.

35:53

So if you're wondering what that's about, so yes, well everyone is a preterist of some kind.

36:01

Everyone's a preterist of some kind. If you believe that any messianic prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ in the past that do not have to be fulfilled in the future, then you are at least a partial preterist on some level.

36:12

But if you're asking, do I mean the vast majority of Matthew 24 and Revelation and so on and so forth, it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

36:23

Yes, most definitely. And I get the feeling, when you say all meaningful scholarship means all scholarship that agrees with my particular viewpoint on this subject.

36:36

There is a tremendous amount of scholarship, I think that demonstrates that. Now, to all my

36:42

Reformed friends in the audience, make sure you're not driving at this point in time. And basically you love the

36:49

Puritans and I heard you dealing with, in one of your debates there against Stephen Anderson, who

36:57

I... That was not a debate, of course. That was a discussion. I have not debated

37:02

Stephen Anderson. But anyway... And I'm not a

37:09

Rachmanite. So he says he's not a friend of Stephen Anderson and he's not a Rachmanite.

37:15

Yay. Good. Glad to hear it. Just don't keep acting like you are.

37:22

I don't follow John Calvin, I follow Christ. But nonetheless, when dealing with Stephen Anderson, you talked about how you love the

37:31

Puritans and the Puritan style of worship and you ought to come see what Puritanism really looks like and all this kind of business.

37:37

If you're a Puritan, you are in the lineage of those who murdered my forefathers.

37:44

Okay. So I want you to hear this. Did all

37:52

Puritans murder Baptists? No. Did some

37:58

Puritans persecute Baptists? Yes. Were some

38:04

Puritans persecuted by the state church in England? Yes. So the mindset that we're seeing here is you take an entire group, no matter how diverse it was, no matter how long it existed, and therefore how wide the expression of belief amongst that people is, and if something bad happened by someone associated with that, then you...

38:38

And as somebody 200 years later goes, I see so much great and good theology amongst

38:43

Puritans. You murdered my forefathers. And of course, you get to connect to your forefathers were.

38:50

That's sort of nice, convenient way of doing things too. It's instant victimology.

38:56

It's instant credibility. And oh, it creates the emotions.

39:01

Oh, it works real well along those lines. And of course, it forces you to hate

39:12

Christians of a preceding generation. Unless, of course, you could say, oh, well, they just obviously weren't

39:20

Christians. They were Pato Baptists. They weren't Christians. This view of church history means that Christ started with 12 disciples and he's pretty much been stuck with that ever since.

39:38

This is the trail of blood mythology. This is the hidden church in caves someplace.

39:47

Christ has not been building his kingdom. He's not been building his church. He's not been conquering his enemies.

39:52

He's not been doing anything. He's just been sitting up in heaven while a few persecuted people just get the snot beat out of him down on earth.

39:59

And that's what it's all about, evidently, or something. But you end up with this incredible narrow -mindedness, which means you cannot rejoice in anything unless it comes from somebody that looks like you, talks like you, dresses like you, and uses all the proper words.

40:22

And most of the time, vast majority of the time, you have to create those people out of whole cloth.

40:27

They don't really exist. I feel for anybody because it just produces this stiflingly narrow view of history that's just, oh,

40:46

I don't know. There's so much more I can say, but I want to get through this.

40:53

Trying to be useful without getting too in -depth. You're a replacement theologian, and you're espousing

41:01

Catholic, Reformed Catholic doctrine. Let's just call it what it is. You are a Reformed Catholic, okay?

41:07

You believe in Catholic Reformed theology. It's not just Reformed theology. What is that?

41:15

What is that? I believe in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

41:23

Show me a Roman Catholic that believes that. You can't. That's definitional. It's not definitional in your mind because your mind is twisted by its commitment to a human tradition called

41:34

King James only. But for the rest of the human family and for the rest of the church, we recognize, no, he's not a

41:44

Roman Catholic in any way, and you are putting absolutely contradictory beliefs together as if they are saying the same thing.

41:53

And people want to know why. This is why I refer to a cultic King James only -ism because it twists the mind.

42:04

It allows you to engage in irrational conversation.

42:14

I mean, you're coming up with words that mean nothing. They have no meaning.

42:20

I can answer the question who the blessed man is of Romans 4 .8. The Roman Catholic cannot.

42:27

To all rational folks who recognize I reject the pope and not just Pope Frankie now, and not just the freaky

42:36

Frankie, but I've rejected the popes all along, but I reject the pope as the infallible vicar of Christ or even literally as the bishop of the city of Rome for that matter.

42:46

I reject the sacramental system. I defend sola scriptura and reject sola ecclesia and I preach a gospel that calls people to come out of the

42:57

Roman Catholic system. And so if you can look at that and then define that as Roman Catholicism, you need to understand, sir, you really need to understand that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way you're thinking.

43:14

You've embraced something down the line. You've created a system that allows you to twist reality itself.

43:22

And that is really, really, really dangerous. And I would recommend you get some assistance for that.

43:31

And we're trying, we really are. Ultimately by bringing in the kingdom and the golden age and all of that,

43:36

I know that's post -millennialism, amillennialism, by bringing in the kingdom, I get them confused because neither of them are

43:43

Bibles, so there's not really a source where you can definitively go and study these things out.

43:49

So post -millennialism, amillennialism, whatever, you know, that whole thing about Jesus must reign until his enemies have put him to his feet, oh, it's just, oh, wait a minute.

44:02

You spiritualized that. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, this is sort of funny.

44:11

So many counterexamples could be provided that it's humorous at times. But nonetheless, it's state churchism.

44:20

And Roman Catholicism is state churchism. And you're a Catholic, and I hope you understand that.

44:27

No, sir. Not only do I not understand that, but there is no one watching this program that understands that either.

44:34

And I think everybody is sitting there going, we are seeing,

44:41

I think one of the reasons I want to do this is for so many people, they've heard me say there is a form of King James -onlyism that disrupts normal, logical, and rational thought.

44:53

They're watching it. They're watching it. And from a guy who, honestly, it's sort of like, well, he seems real honest.

45:01

Yeah, he does. He's not foaming at the mouth like Steven Anderson.

45:08

He's not standing on his pulpit or spitting or throwing things or kicking people out or anything like that.

45:14

Yep, that's right. He's not Sam Gipp. He hasn't sent me any crayons recently, you know?

45:20

And that's why I had responded at first. I was like, well, here's someone who seems his facts are wrong.

45:27

And he's believed a completely false narrative, but he seems like a nice guy.

45:34

And yet, that doesn't change the fact that here we have this twistedness.

45:43

It's strange. Very, very strange. Your covenant theology is unscriptural.

45:51

Oh, my. None of those covenants are in the Bible. You know the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, covenant of grace. None of that's in the

45:57

Bible. Yeah, there you go. Now, do I think he has carefully read any discussion of covenant theology and has any appreciation of the depth of the beauty of the recognition of Father, Son, and Spirit, the unifying power of covenant theology to recognize

46:24

God's purposes from beginning to end? Well, the man doesn't even believe what the Bible says in the King James Version about God's predestined election.

46:32

So, yeah. So what happens when you buy an entire system that allows you to dismiss portions of scripture?

46:42

This is what you get. Well, that's nowhere in the Bible, as if your particular form of dispensationalism is.

46:50

Now, let me get to the video, if I may. First of all, I don't debate Catholics, and you are a Catholic through and through.

46:56

There's no doubt about that. And therefore, why is that relevant? Well, Baptists shouldn't be listening to you at all.

47:03

And Baptist brethren, stay away from James White. I would not give ear to a Catholic. You cannot trust them, not at all.

47:14

Now, this, I'm gonna, let me tell you something. This doesn't work.

47:21

I've already told you one story. I could give you dozens of them. Of people who have come up to me, we've shaken hands, we've started talking, and this is what they heard from their pulpits.

47:34

Don't listen to that man. He's bad for you.

47:41

He's gonna lead you astray. And then finally, somebody goes, well, if what

47:47

I know is the truth, then I should be able to recognize error when

47:52

I hear it, right? And so, that may be in the back of their mind.

48:00

And then they're watching one thing, and over on the side on YouTube, oh, there's a

48:07

James White debate. And look at that, he's debating a Muslim. In a mosque.

48:15

Huh. Well, that's odd. I thought he was dangerous. Why would he be debating

48:21

Muslims in a mosque? And then they click on it. And let's say it's the 2013 debate with Shabir Ali at the

48:29

Abu Bakr Asidic Mosque in Erasmus, South Africa. Standing right in front of the

48:34

Qibla, where the imam leads the prayers. And I'm going through the great exchange.

48:44

God made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

48:50

And I'm telling those Muslims that are sitting on the ground, right there in front of me, that I'm nobody special.

48:57

That I have no right to stand before a holy God. That I need to be clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

49:04

And they've never heard anything like this. And so, here's an

49:10

IFB, KJV only Baptist. He's watching this and he's going, this guy's preaching the gospel.

49:21

He's going places that none of our guys go. And he's telling it to them straight.

49:29

It has nothing to do with the King James. He's talking about the gospel itself. And that's where it starts.

49:36

And eventually, they get over to watch the debate that I did in 2011 with Brother Mormon in London.

49:47

And I start dealing with the King James issue. And by then, they started to realize,

49:53

I have to use the same standards. If I'm going to be truthful, I have to use the same standards in defense of my faith that I use in denying anybody else's.

50:03

And when I do that, my whole system falls apart. And that's why they're leaving.

50:10

And that's why you folks do this. Don't listen to him because we don't have any meaningful answers to what he's saying.

50:20

And that's why we attack him when we think he's not listening. And then get upset when he finds out about what we said and he calls us out.

50:31

And then we do what was just down in Florida and the same thing you've been talking about doing.

50:36

Well, I need to pray to get peace about this. And I don't debate

50:42

Catholics. Do you really think that anybody who's already starting to wonder about these things is going to buy that?

50:52

Is going to buy, oh, I won't debate him because he's a Catholic. No, you won't debate me because you don't have the answers.

51:00

And you don't want to do cross -examination. You don't want to go through that.

51:06

I understand that. I get it. Okay, so as to the video, he says in one place, okay, so he brings up a clip of my speaking.

51:22

He says, you're 100 years behind. The situation has changed since Bergan, which

51:28

I disagree with in one sense. In another sense, I get that. Right now, the situation has changed.

51:36

Sinaiticus now has a huge question mark over it. This is a great book right here. And this book, although I don't agree 100 % with Sorensen on it, he does a great job showing that some of the recent research, and I've looked at Pinto's videos, and I've heard the

51:52

Pinto debate with White. But nonetheless, I think that book really, in a very proper way, puts at least, at the very least, a huge question mark as to the antiquity of Sinaiticus.

52:05

Okay, now, when I say, well, first of all, go listen to the debate.

52:13

You really have to be already completely sold out to one side to believe the convicted forger story and to think that this man could have produced

52:31

Sinaiticus and that he could have predicted. And this is what these guys don't understand.

52:36

This is why, maybe I can help them out here. This is why I said things have changed.

52:42

Maybe you just didn't understand it. Because he's so sold out to the idea that it's two manuscripts versus all the rest.

52:51

That's just a lie. No one who does textual criticism today, no one who is actually examining variants, writing in the field, anybody writing in the field would listen to him going, what is, what's he talking about?

53:04

What? I don't get it. Because what has changed is the manuscript evidence.

53:10

We now have the papyri. And Burgon, being the scholar that he was, would have recognized the significance of the fact that many of the key readings that set the earlier manuscripts apart, both

53:31

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are found in the papyri, which are 200 years earlier.

53:39

We didn't have them until the 1930s. Burgon didn't have those things. So when you appeal to Burgon, that's why

53:47

I mean when I say you're 100 years out of date and your entire presentation, I listened to all of it, does not even start to recognize or to understand the importance of the fact that these papyri have readings in them that map directly into those earlier unsealed texts.

54:17

And so that's why the Simonides thing is just absurd because the papyri were not known yet, so he could not have inserted readings he had no way of knowing into a forged text.

54:32

That's why it's just tinfoil hat conspiracy lunacy.

54:37

That's the best level that you can give it. You can write all the books you want about it. You're going to sell them to your fellow

54:43

King James only us and the rest of the world goes, wow. Well, the sad thing is the rest of the world goes, wow.

54:51

And those are Christians. That's the hard part. So that's what you don't seem to understand and you're not willing to hear.

55:03

That's what I was referring to. If you want to stay 100 years behind and keep arguing stuff that no one's even presenting anymore,

55:12

I can't stop you and your audiences may go, oh, he sounds really smart. But anybody who knows the field realizes you're tilting at windmills.

55:20

You're not being honest. You're not dealing with what's going on right now. I would be,

55:27

I'd be willing to bet that you haven't even looked into CBGM.

55:33

Probably don't even know what it is. And that just puts you 110 years behind now or something along those lines.

55:43

Anyway, okay. We are making progress. So things have changed. Everyone just bought that before and now they know there was a debate that existed, which has been hidden by history, by bad people in history.

55:57

He's talking there about the Simonides thing and stuff like that. It was not hidden from history. No one hid it from history.

56:05

The books, when I did the Pinto debate, just a matter of going online and find the books and they're still in print.

56:14

They're still out there. It's not hidden. Just nobody believed it anymore. It did not have any meaningful foundation to it and people just dug it back up.

56:28

That doesn't mean anybody had hidden it at all. ...reference to manuscript evidence. In addition, because of high tech, and I'm not a tech guy, but because of all the technology we have today,

56:39

Vaticanus can be viewed. And Vaticanus is a purely Catholic manuscript and it's sole possession of the

56:46

Roman Catholic Commerce Institution. Okay, what is a Roman Catholic manuscript?

56:52

Does that mean that Vaticanus bows and the Pope goes by? Does that mean Vaticanus goes to Mass?

56:59

What is a purely Roman Catholic manuscript? That is pure absurdity. There are all sorts of documents in the possession of the

57:09

Roman Catholic Church. So what? They've been collecting stuff for a long time.

57:18

Does that make Sinaiticus a thoroughly British manuscript? I mean, it's just...

57:23

No one could take this seriously. There's not a scintilla of serious thought or scholarship behind any of this stuff.

57:30

It's just comical. It's sad. It's just unworthy of you, sir.

57:35

You just need to... So, a

57:42

Roman Catholic manuscript. Vaticanus can be viewed digitally. Yes, it can. It's online. The Roman Catholic Church...

57:50

Let me give you an example. In 1993, in the same time period of the debate that I did with Gerry Matitick, seven hours on the papacy.

57:58

Man, what a plant I am that we... That while the Pope's visiting Denver, we're demonstrating that the papacy is false.

58:08

I saw a manuscript, piece 72. It's part of the papal treasures exhibit. So, does that make it a

58:15

Roman Catholic manuscript? I suppose so, from the standard you're using. Here's one of the biggest...

58:21

This is one of the biggest problems I have with all these guys, including people like Dave Hunt. You guys give away the store.

58:31

You turn the primitive church into the Roman Catholic Church. And that is not only historically absurd, but it is...

58:40

You want to talk about plants? What would you say about people that are in Baptist churches, that are teaching

58:49

Baptists that the primitive church was actually Rome? That's Rome's claim. Remember when John Paul II died?

58:58

For days on Fox News, there was a parade of Roman Catholic apologists, many of whom I debated, who got to do their stuff for John Paul II.

59:08

And you know what all of them were saying? The church of 2 ,000 years. That is central to Rome's claims of authority.

59:18

And you grant it to them. And you're wrong. Nobody back then would have any idea what a

59:24

Roman Catholic Church was. That's an oxymoron. It's a contradictory phrase.

59:30

That wasn't the Roman Church. There was a Roman Church, but it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church, by any stretch of the imagination.

59:38

And so when P72 was written around 175 to 200, there was no Roman Catholic Church.

59:44

So how could it be a Roman Catholic document? There was no Roman Catholic Church when Vaticanus was written. How can it be a

59:49

Roman Catholic manuscript? This is simple absurdity.

59:56

It's childish. And yet you grant it to people. Stop it.

01:00:04

Stand back and listen to yourself and realize, oh man, I didn't even think.

01:00:10

How come you're not the plant? How come you're not the one that is making

01:00:16

Baptist, Protestant beliefs look so silly? I've met many a former

01:00:25

IFB who's not a Roman Catholic. How come you're not the plant? Because see,

01:00:31

I just demonstrated that your argument is so bogus that it makes your entire position look absurd and grants credibility to the

01:00:42

Roman Catholic claim of authority. Why aren't you the plant? In fact, isn't this interesting?

01:00:51

You won't debate Catholics. Wonder why. Could it be because you are one?

01:01:00

See how easy this is? Pretty simple, isn't it? What about Erasmus? Well, I know he was a

01:01:07

Roman Catholic. Yeah, it should be.

01:01:13

It should be. The TR is Roman Catholic. Rich is right. We've got you. You've been exposed. We didn't see this coming, but we have found clear evidence that Ted Alexander is a plant, a

01:01:25

Roman Catholic plant. Now, I hope you all recognize we're being facetious here, but only slightly facetious because we're just using the same form of argumentation that he has wedded himself to, and it ends up turning him into a

01:01:46

Roman Catholic. You're a Catholic reform guy. You can't get away from it. Own it. And Calvinism is the intrinsic backbone of the

01:01:53

Catholic covenant theology, the five points. But yeah, they...

01:02:05

At this point, what more can you simply say? The absurdities never end. That's about lie number 15 somewhere in there by now.

01:02:14

Calvinism is the backbone of Catholic covenant theology.

01:02:21

What? Okay. The only person who can say it like this doesn't know anything about Calvinism, doesn't know anything about Roman Catholicism, and shouldn't be pretending like they do because this is just astonishing.

01:02:35

It really, really is. It's... Oh, okay. We're actually getting there.

01:02:42

We're going to get there, believe it or not. We will get there.

01:02:50

You doubted my story, and I have no idea why, concerning Burgon's writings.

01:02:57

They were a prized possession of mine from 96 on, if I remember correctly.

01:03:04

Okay, real quickly, I just want to run through this quickly, especially because it took up a little part.

01:03:12

This was about... He claimed that at what's now Maranatha Baptist University, that he walked in one day and he found all of Burgon's books for sale because they were getting rid of them and replacing it with my book, and it's because they were trying to move away from the

01:03:28

King James Bible. And I said, this sounds like a fanciful story to me.

01:03:34

He's like, no, no, no. I've still got them to this day, and I have witnesses and stuff like that. So you know what I did? I called

01:03:41

Maranatha Baptist University, and I went on the website, and I said, library.

01:03:48

Hello, this is Mary. Nice little young lady named Mary. I said, Mary, could you look up whether you have something on your shelves there in your library?

01:03:57

Sure. Do you have anything by John William Burgon, Dean Burgon? Because he was dean, so that's why he was called dean, dean of the school, but John William Burgon.

01:04:09

Oh, yeah, we have five volumes by John William Burgon. And that's about how many you'd have if you had representation of his most popular works.

01:04:20

And I also verified they had my book in the library, too, which you'd expect any meaningful

01:04:26

Bible college is going to have both. And so they didn't get rid of Burgon, but I'm not questioning that he bought

01:04:33

Burgon there, but there's a much simpler explanation than the devilish they're getting away from the

01:04:39

King James Version. You know what a really obvious suggestion would be?

01:04:46

Maybe somebody had donated newer editions, and so they replaced the old ones and sold them.

01:04:55

Like, that's never happened at a library before. Maybe the

01:05:02

Burgon Society had sent them duplicates. I mean, there's a lot of reasons, but the conspiracy theory, oh, no, that gets you a little bit of better love offering at the end of the presentation,

01:05:17

I guess. But they do have a

01:05:22

Burgon in their library, as they should, as they should.

01:05:28

But I bet he would say they should not have my book in the library. Is that what he'd say?

01:05:34

That's my guess. And trying to push it in the classrooms. And I know you want to remove yourself, it seems, away from the

01:05:41

NIV because you know that it's a bad paraphrase out of a bad text. I want to remove my...

01:05:48

Well, if you didn't think that I was somehow a paid representative of the NIV, well, you did something on the

01:05:55

Ankerberg show with a representative. Yeah, but I also did a representative of the new King James and a representative of the

01:06:01

NASB and with Dan Wallace, who was not a representative. Well, actually, I think the... Was the

01:06:06

NET out then? I don't remember. But we actually represented a number of different perspectives, and we were brought together by the fact that we all oppose

01:06:17

King James only -isms. So if you just weren't suffering from this delusion, if you'd recognize that I don't preach from the

01:06:30

NIV, but I also do not demonize the NIV, and I realize the

01:06:37

NIV has some great renderings at certain places and some really bad renderings at other places. Remember the section in my book, which

01:06:42

I don't think you actually read all the way through, but the section of my book where I really took strong exception to the NIV's rendering of flesh, sinful nature.

01:06:51

Remember that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's just... That's factual stuff, and that sort of messes things up.

01:07:00

But anyway... So he goes to the beginning, and I'm laying out what the issues are because most...

01:07:20

Look, when I... Christian bookstores knew what

01:07:25

King James only -ism was in 1994, but a lot of Christians even to this day do not know what

01:07:33

King James only -ism is. And so I had to let people...

01:07:38

I had to explain to people that there actually are people, there actually are churches you would go into that if you were carrying an

01:07:45

NIV, you would be condemned and probably told you're going to hell. Alberto Rivera told me to my face because I had a

01:07:53

New American Standard Bible that I was going to hell because it didn't have the communion. And so I'm simply letting people know, here's what the situation is.

01:08:04

And so instead of engaging the actual argumentation, all the places where I discuss formal and dynamic equivalency, and I mainly focus on the textual issues, not so much the translational issues.

01:08:17

But by focusing upon these things, there is the issue for him.

01:08:25

He ignores all the rest of the book. You're just pushing the NIV. You want everybody to get rid of their King James version.

01:08:31

If you want to tell people that, I'm telling you right now, sir, you are lying through your teeth. You're a dishonest man.

01:08:36

Stop it. You've been told. If you continue doing that, you prove that you have no interest in honesty.

01:08:43

How's that? That's just pretty much straightforward. He's going to say something else in a second.

01:08:50

I want to get to it. For some reason, he mentioned the letter to Aristeas.

01:08:57

I'm not going to... I don't even know what he was... It had something to do with the Greek Septuagint.

01:09:02

Evidently, he doesn't think that the Septuagint existed in the days of Jesus, that the apostles didn't quote from it.

01:09:08

This, again, there's no scholarship here. It's pure head -in -the -sand type of reasoning.

01:09:18

I never put the letter out there as if it somehow proved something. The reality is that the

01:09:25

New Testament writers were quoting from a Greek translation that contains variants from the Hebrew Masoretic text, and that matches very well with the manuscripts of the

01:09:34

Greek Septuagint that we have to this day. Are there many variants in the Septuagint? There most certainly are. Is it a complex area of study?

01:09:41

It most certainly is. But the Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the early church. There isn't any question about that either.

01:09:48

But here is... I want you to hear what he says here, and then let's hold him to his own standards.

01:09:55

Shall we? I think that would be helpful. You want to argue transmission versus translation, let's just make it real simple.

01:10:02

When people take a text and they put it in the English language, that is a translation, okay?

01:10:08

And if you do that, any other way than a formal equivalence, that's wrong.

01:10:15

And you can't prove it with the Septuagint because I've been to school on that. I have no idea what he thinks

01:10:21

Septuagint has to do with any of that. I really don't. It has nothing to do with formal or dynamic equivalency at all.

01:10:28

I think there is a deep level of ignorance on this man's part in understanding.

01:10:35

He says he's gone to school on the LXS. I don't get the feeling this man knows any other languages.

01:10:40

I just don't. And what he just said proves it. Because he said, if you do a translation, the only way to do it is formal equivalency.

01:10:51

That would be word for word, literal translation, okay? No one who speaks in our language would say that.

01:11:03

The example I use in the book goes back to my youth, actually. But one of the first times this was pressed upon me, the first language that I learned outside of English was

01:11:17

German. And I took three years in high school and two years in college.

01:11:25

And then I've had the wonderful opportunity, had the wonderful opportunity, anyways, of traveling to Germany a number of times.

01:11:32

And my German would start getting understandable after a couple weeks in Germany.

01:11:39

A little immersion would do wonders. But meine

01:11:44

Wortschatz is ein bisschen klein. Ich habe keine Leute mitzusprachen am

01:11:50

Hause. I don't have anyone to talk with in German. So my vocabulary is a little small.

01:11:57

You can't maintain it that way. Anyway, so early on, my professor, my teacher,

01:12:08

Mr. Michaels at Independence High School, Mr. Michaels used the illustration of how we can't translate between German and English in a completely word -for -word fashion.

01:12:25

And I've always kept this in mind, especially when I've traveled, and this has been very important in preaching overseas.

01:12:33

When I first preached in Brazil overseas, the first overseas country

01:12:38

I preached in, well, I'm not including Canada. I was, one of the things that made it difficult to preach there was

01:12:49

I was trying to help my translator, excellent translator, just, oh, he was so good. But I was trying to avoid idiosyncratic phrases, things that have meaning in English, but don't really have meaning in another language.

01:13:05

And we have a lot of them. We use them all the time. And trying to run that filter really made it difficult, because we were doing stop -start translation, live translation.

01:13:18

And that's hard. It's very hard to preach that way. Anyway, the example that Mr. Michaels used was we have the saying in English, the early bird catches the worm.

01:13:28

The early bird catches the worm. Well, if you're going to translate that into German, and you just do it woodenly, formally, your whole audience is going to sit there staring at you.

01:13:43

It has no meaning to them, because it has a particular idiosyncratic meaning.

01:13:50

And so the Germans have a phrase that, if translated literally in English, also doesn't have any meaning.

01:14:00

But it's the corresponding phrase. Morgenstunde hat gold in Munden. Morning hours have gold in their mouths.

01:14:08

Morning hours have gold in their mouths. Ah! The early bird catches the worm. It's the same thing.

01:14:15

And so if you want to translate the meaning between English and German, you're not going to do it formally.

01:14:22

If you just do it word for word, you are not going to be translating the meaning. The meaning will be lost.

01:14:28

The words may still be there, but the meaning is lost. Now, evidently, Brother Alexander thinks that the

01:14:35

King James is a perfect, formal translation of the Bible. It is not.

01:14:43

It is not. Every translation of the Bible is a mixture of formal and dynamic, every single one.

01:14:56

A perfectly formal translation would not make sense in English. Because I'd argue if you're going to push it that far, then you have to have the same word order too, right?

01:15:09

Which is going to create havoc. Let me give you an example of why what

01:15:15

Brother Anderson just said was wrong. And this is an example that's in the book.

01:15:20

I don't know how he missed it unless he hasn't actually read it, which I sort of doubt that he actually has. Amos 4 .4.

01:15:28

Amos 4 .4. Now, the New American Standard, 1977, says, enter Bethel and transgress in Gilgal multiply transgression.

01:15:37

Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days. Okay? King James, come to Bethel and transgress at Gilgal multiply transgression and bring your sacrifices every morning and your tithes after three years.

01:15:57

New American Standard, your tithes every three days. King James, your tithes after three years. Greek Subjunct, three days.

01:16:07

Hebrew, yamim, days. Not years, days.

01:16:16

The King James translators knew Old Testament law and knew that one of the tithes was to be brought every three years.

01:16:27

And so they gave a dynamic paraphrase to match what they thought the meaning of the text should be.

01:16:38

The New American Standard gives the literal. Formal equivalency, the

01:16:43

KJV, dynamic. And the NIV says days. The NIV gives a more formal translation than the

01:16:52

King James version of the Bible. There you go.

01:16:59

I mean, facts are facts. Facts are tough to deal with. And that's why it is tough to do debates because you actually have to use facts.

01:17:10

And I think that's why he says some of the things he says here. I've seen how you debate.

01:17:16

You quote all these supposed facts that exist concerning manuscripts that no one can on the spot verify neither affirm nor deny in a viable fashion.

01:17:28

Okay, so I forgot to bring it in.

01:17:35

I apologize. I should have some in here. I have extras. But it sounds like what you're saying.

01:17:45

So let's say we did a debate on John 6. Well, actually, there's just not really any textual variation in John 6 that would be relevant.

01:17:53

Is there? No, I guess not. All right, let's say we did a debate on John 1 .18.

01:18:00

And I'm defending the statement that we should translate the text so as to have as our first goal knowing what

01:18:15

John the Apostle wrote. That is the most important thing.

01:18:21

I want to know what John wrote. And I believe John wrote, monogenes theos, the unique God.

01:18:31

Now, I would think that if we're going to have a debate on John 1 .18, that before we go into the debate, you would take the time to actually study the background of the passage.

01:18:41

We both have access to all the textual data. Do we not?

01:18:49

Well, maybe not. In my estimation,

01:18:54

I would say 99 % of King James Only advocates are incapable of utilizing a manual edition of the

01:19:02

Greek New Testament, a critical edition. I do not believe for a second that Roger Stauffer could open up the

01:19:09

Nessie Island 28th edition and read the textual data for John 1 .18

01:19:15

and know what he's reading. I think that's why he said he had a lot of electrical outlets to be wiring.

01:19:22

And that's why he couldn't do a debate even though I was coming to town. And he had been attacking me on Facebook for months.

01:19:30

In my experience, you guys do not have the facility and languages to be able to actually do that, even though you'd have time beforehand.

01:19:41

And there's all sorts of online data now. It's accessible to all of us. There have been many times in debates when

01:19:49

I've had Muslims bring stuff up. I just whipped open the text and took a look at it. I remember very clearly the night

01:20:00

I was on KTKK radio in Salt Lake City, Utah on the

01:20:05

Martin Tanner Show. And right toward the end of a four -hour marathon of dealing with Mormonism in Salt Lake City with a

01:20:13

Mormon attorney as the host, one of the professors from Brigham Young University called up and threw out a textual variant in the

01:20:22

Hebrew Masoretic tradition. I had my

01:20:28

DHS with me. I looked it up and disputed it on the air immediately.

01:20:34

So it sounds like you're complaining that your side doesn't know enough about the background of the text to engage the issue.

01:20:45

That you can't prepare? Or are you saying that all of my argumentation...

01:20:51

I want anybody to go watch, because we've done very few

01:20:57

King James Only debates because we can't get King James Only -ists to debate. You guys are brave by yourselves, but we can't get you guys to really do anything meaningful.

01:21:11

Well, right. But go watch the Jack Mormon debate from London. And is that what

01:21:20

I was doing? Was I throwing stuff at Jack Mormon that he couldn't answer because he didn't have a critical edition of the

01:21:27

Greek New Testament available to him? No, it's not. He had a fully written -out prepared statement.

01:21:37

I didn't have notes. And that was very clear, especially as we began to interact and answer questions.

01:21:51

So what he's going to claim is that I somehow rigged the debates by how it's framed.

01:22:04

Both sides get to have input as to what the thesis statement is going to be.

01:22:10

And there have been many times I was the one that said, don't like the thesis statement, but the other guy's not going to do it if we don't go for it, so we'll go for it.

01:22:20

But this idea that I'm creating a thesis statement and that's the only way to win the debate is pure bunk.

01:22:29

Bogus, falsehood number, we're past 20 by now. It's not true.

01:22:36

And I would, of course, challenge you to actually back that up with some examples. How you frame the debates where you always come out.

01:22:43

It's Johnny can't lose with you. Johnny can't lose with you. You want to give us some examples?

01:22:55

Show me an example. You didn't give any, and I don't think you'll be able to come up with any.

01:23:01

And if you do, then we can actually go and grab the video and examine it, huh?

01:23:08

That's why we're not going to hear anything about that. Of course, debate in Isaiah 58 .4

01:23:13

seems to be spoken of in a negative light inscription. I'm really struggling with that. And then Romans 129, debating a man who claims to know it all and plays

01:23:24

Johnny can't lose in his debate style. And you're a very good debater. But you know,

01:23:31

Church of Christ people are historically the greatest of debaters. Yeah, I know.

01:23:41

Church of Christ people like to do three night debates on a single verse. That does not make them great debaters by any stretch of the imagination.

01:23:47

But this is what Stauffer did as well. I'll pray about it.

01:23:55

But debate is negative in the Bible. Here is really where King James -only -ism is such a problem.

01:24:10

Do you really think that the Bible is talking about scholarly debate on textual issues?

01:24:18

Let's... I know, I'm going long. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to, but let's look at that.

01:24:34

Let me see here. What was... Isaiah 58, 4.

01:24:43

Isaiah 58, 4. The New American Standard says, Behold, you fast for contention and strife, and to strike with a wicked fist.

01:24:53

You do not fast like you do today to make your voices heard on high. It is a fast like this which

01:25:00

I choose a day for a man to humble himself. So it's talking about fasting and it is condemning the people.

01:25:09

Let me just back up here. Yet they seek me day by day and delight to know my ways as a nation that has done righteousness and has not forsaken the ordinance of their

01:25:17

God. They ask me for just decisions. They delight in the nearness of God. Why have we fasted and thou dost not see?

01:25:23

Why have we humbled ourselves and thou dost not notice? Behold, on the day of your fast, you find your desire and drive hard all your workers.

01:25:31

Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist. You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high.

01:25:39

So he's... So what's the prophet talking about? He's talking about their fasting, but they're fasting in an unrighteous fashion.

01:25:47

Okay? King James, Behold, ye fast for strife and debate and to smite with the fist of wickedness.

01:25:57

You shall not fast as you do this day to make your voice to be heard on high. So the

01:26:03

King James translators use the term debate. It's in reference to contention.

01:26:10

It's in reference to angry argumentation amongst the people.

01:26:18

It has nothing to do with scholarly debate. It has nothing to do with a timed, moderated debate with a thesis.

01:26:24

You see, what's well known, by the end of that same century, by the 1680s,

01:26:34

I should have grabbed this volume out of my library. It would have taken me too long to find it, but there's a volume that talks about what was required of a third -year student in England in their graduate studies.

01:26:47

By third year, you had to be able to debate in Greek.

01:26:56

Debate in Greek. Every one of those King James translators had done debate as part of their education.

01:27:04

And so rational people recognize that their use of debate in Isaiah 58 is not in the category of a scholarly debate, which they themselves were trained to do and which was a part of meaningful argumentation up until just the past few decades.

01:27:23

And there are still debate teams out there, but you know. And then, did you hear what he said about Romans 129?

01:27:31

And again, exact same situation that you had there.

01:27:37

Romans 129. New American Standard 1977, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice.

01:27:49

They are gossip, slanderers, haters of God, so on and so forth. It's the lengthy description of sinful man.

01:27:57

But the King James version, again, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, and whispers.

01:28:16

Now, a meaningful interpretation of the text of the stanzas in the

01:28:25

King James would tell you that that is in reference to strife.

01:28:32

It's in reference to strife. The term is erudos, which has nothing to do with scholarly debate.

01:28:44

It has nothing to do with a thesis, a timed interaction in letting both sides of a dispute be heard.

01:28:54

It has nothing to do with it at all. Stauffer pulled the same stunt. These guys may actually believe that this is how you do biblical exegesis.

01:29:07

If it is, it explains a lot. Because one thing that is absolutely certain, there is not a single one of the

01:29:16

King James translators that would have done anything but stare at either one of these guys with non -comprehension.

01:29:22

What are you talking about? That's a different use of the word, a completely different category. What do you mean?

01:29:31

And so once I see King James only guys going, well, yeah, so you want to debate this stuff, but you know, the

01:29:38

Bible has negative things to say about debate. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't.

01:29:46

Not even the King James. If you are willing to actually allow words to have meanings in a certain context.

01:29:57

Amazing stuff, isn't it? Yeah. I will pray about it, but the

01:30:05

Bible says all this bad stuff about debate. You should understand this. It won't be me on defense. It will be you on defense of your

01:30:11

Catholicism. You on defense of your staunch electionism and predestinarianism.

01:30:18

Okay. Well, if you want to publicly make a fool of yourself by accusing me of Catholicism, it would really not take me long to dismantle that quite easily, and we can move on from there.

01:30:40

If you want to debate John 6, let's do it. Ephesians 1,

01:30:46

Romans 8 and 9. We'll do it. I'd be more than happy.

01:30:52

I've done it many times, done it more times. I've debated that more often than I have the King James issue. And it's your beliefs that are not biblical, and it is not difficult,

01:31:03

I believe, to demonstrate that. And you did say right toward the end here.

01:31:11

And I can prove that historically, and I would love to do that, actually, and I would love to debate who you are because you are a plant in the churches.

01:31:20

You've caused a lot of trouble. You wrote a book to get good God -fearing people who will never know

01:31:26

Greek and Hebrew in their entire life, who sit in church pews to now doubt the

01:31:31

Bible they once believed was God. Now, two things. I can prove that historically.

01:31:38

Let's do it. Let's do it. I've taught church history. I'm a professor of church history, have for three decades.

01:31:45

Let's do it. You know how to get ahold of me? Let's do it. Come to Florida. Let's do it.

01:31:53

I'm calling you out because you said, I'd love to do it. All right. Looking forward to it.

01:32:00

But one last thing, and then we are done with this particular presentation.

01:32:08

Anyone who actually read the King James Only controversy knows, as a matter of fact, that central to its presentation was a defense of the inerrancy of Scripture and the accuracy of the transmission of the text of Scripture down through time.

01:32:29

What you don't understand, sir, is that you can't defend the

01:32:35

Bible in a meaningful fashion against the attacks that are being made against it by people like Bart Ehrman today. You can't.

01:32:41

You're defenseless. I can. All of us can. And I've taught many

01:32:47

Christians to recognize that while the King James is not the be -all and end -all of all things, it didn't have to be.

01:32:55

Its translators didn't think it was. It is one wonderful translation of many.

01:33:01

God has preserved His Word. He just didn't do it the way that you think

01:33:06

He should have done it. Thankfully, sir, many, many thousands of people have come to understand that, and I am very thankful for that.

01:33:16

So there you go. All right. Done with that one. Now let's see.

01:33:25

Too bad we don't have a musical interlude.

01:33:34

Doo -doo -doo. You know? What about a good copyright tag? Eh, well, that's a copyright tag, yeah.

01:33:43

Oof. It's warm. I'm going to take a drink here. Good stuff.

01:33:55

Good stuff. All right. Oh, my goodness. I've only got 27 minutes before we are past the mega -length, mega -RFG length.

01:34:05

I can't go past that. Oh, people start complaining and whining. And, of course, I saw complaints and whining.

01:34:12

I got the one guy that I only saw it because you responded to him, you know. Anything about, for example, completely dismantling

01:34:21

Leighton Flowers on the textual critical issue? No. Anything about what Calvin actually said about the

01:34:27

Lord's... No. It's like that stuff just wasn't even there. But all you did was pick on him because he can't say

01:34:35

Melanchthon. Yeah, that's all I picked on him about. And I didn't make any application of that at all.

01:34:41

I didn't point out that it just seems like Leighton Flowers has slept through church history class.

01:34:47

No, no, we skipped all that. We skipped all that. It was sad.

01:34:53

Anyway. Where did

01:34:58

I leave off? There it is. What is a scribal translation? There it is. All right.

01:35:06

So I think this is working. Looks like it is. All right, let's...

01:35:12

Now, I'm going to be very brief on this section. I'm going to be very brief on this section because we already dealt with all this stuff in Matthew 23 -37.

01:35:22

We demonstrated that Leighton Flowers doesn't understand or just does not want to accurately represent the issue of the two wills, something

01:35:33

I've used over and over again in responding to his material, the prescriptive will of God, the creedal will of God, and all of this because, well, you don't want to affirm the idea that there is conflict in the desires of God rather than in the prescriptive will of God and the decree of God.

01:35:57

So you think there is actual consistency there and others think that there is conflict there.

01:36:04

So just one thing, and I looked this up.

01:36:10

I think I've tracked it down. One little comment at this point in the presentation. If there is a universality of God's love and provision, then we should take it at face value that he actually loves and desires the salvation of every person.

01:36:22

And so that's what I confronted before with the Matthew 23 -37 issue that even the president of Mid -America

01:36:30

Reformed Seminary took issue with James White's approach, which

01:36:36

David Allen quotes in his book, and we went over. Of course, James White doesn't respond to any kind of rebuke or correction when it comes to those kinds of things.

01:36:42

He just moves on. So I'm trying to keep track of lies from two different presentations.

01:36:52

I'm not sure which lie we're on with Leighton. So does anyone really believe that I never respond to stuff like that?

01:37:00

Does anyone really believe that? The only person who can believe that is a person who just simply will not even listen to this program or just lacks fundamental honesty.

01:37:14

I had never heard of Cornelius Venema's comments here. Evidently, somebody,

01:37:20

I bet it was Tony Byrne, dug this up, gave it to David Allen, and now it's quoted by Leighton Flowers.

01:37:30

I had never heard of it. I had never seen anything about it.

01:37:36

And so I actually asked some folks in our

01:37:43

A &O chat, which isn't a chat channel. Don't bother about how to get to it.

01:37:48

It's not a public thing. We've already been through that. And thankfully, someone in there was able to find it for me.

01:37:56

It was a footnote, an article years ago on Matthew 23, and there's just one problem.

01:38:07

No counter -exegesis was offered. It was just, he felt it was too, was it exuberant?

01:38:15

I think exuberant was the term. But there was no counter -exegesis offered. Nothing about the context of judgment, the fact that if this is going to be judgment on the

01:38:28

Jewish leaders, it is due to what they've done in standing in the way of God's messengers and prophets, the ones that they've killed, so on and so forth.

01:38:40

No counter -exegesis was offered. So hard to respond to a footnote that doesn't say you've erred in your exegesis here.

01:38:48

Nothing was offered. So after all this time, do we have anything from Leighton Flowers to counter the exegesis they offered in Matthew 23 -37?

01:39:00

Not a word. Not a word, but we're pretty much accustomed to that.

01:39:06

Now, let's remember, if you, now if you didn't see the last one, this is going to be tough, but as we finish up this presentation, and there's still half an hour, but I moved through it fairly quickly, what you're going to see over and over and over again, you've got to keep your eye on the ball.

01:39:25

You've got to keep your eye on the ball for this to be really useful to you. What you're hearing is the difference between those who believe in effectual grace and those who believe that grace is non -effectual.

01:39:43

Does, is God's grace powerful or is it passive?

01:39:53

Is it powerful or is it passive? In the

01:39:58

Roman Catholic system, grace is available through a sacramental system designed by the church, and under the control of the church.

01:40:11

And so that's how you control the people, is that you don't have access to the sacraments unless you're submissive to the church, you see.

01:40:20

So, remember the massive conflict between state and church at the 11th and 1200s, well, 11th, 12th, 13th centuries where papacy and the state are going back and forth and back and forth, and you had the use of the interdict where the pope would tell priests and monks, you can't do burials.

01:40:53

Well, you see, God's grace is channeled through their sacraments, and so you're controlling the people because you control that grace, but the grace itself is passive.

01:41:03

It's like the gas hose.

01:41:13

It's in there, but you've got to put your credit card in, and you've got to choose the grade, and you've got to get that thing to latch on there, and I've been doing that a lot recently.

01:41:25

I wonder, I bet you I've pumped more gas in that truck than I had for my

01:41:31

Subaru for the entire year beforehand, but it's passive.

01:41:37

It's inside a tube, and it can be directed someplace. That's what provisionism is teaching.

01:41:47

It's not a sacramental system. It's merely a provision that you, by your free will, activate by your actions, but it cannot do that.

01:41:59

It has no power in and of itself. It is not efficacious, and it is not coming with a purpose or intention over against what the

01:42:14

Bible teaches, and that is that grace actually saves.

01:42:20

It doesn't make salvation merely possible. It actually saves. It is a powerful, it's active.

01:42:27

That's why I think he absolutely blows a fuse when

01:42:32

I point out that the saving grace of Titus 2 is also the sanctifying grace that teaches us to deny ungodliness and to live soberly, because it is a power that God sends to accomplish

01:42:49

His will and His decree, and it's that decree that He just detests, loathes it.

01:42:58

So you have one side saying, no, grace is passive.

01:43:03

The other side is saying, grace is powerful, and that's the difference between the two.

01:43:10

Grace is sufficient to save. Grace is necessary, but not sufficient to save. Rome and provisionism, that's not what makes provisionism wrong.

01:43:20

They're both wrong because they both misunderstand grace, and they both misunderstand the nature of man, but the original assertion he's responding to is this is what

01:43:32

Luther and Erasmus were debating. He just doesn't want to admit he's on the other side.

01:43:38

He should just be straight up front. He should come out with a video tomorrow that says, nope, you know what? Erasmus was right.

01:43:46

Luther was wrong. Just come out and say it. It's what you're saying in this video, Leighton.

01:43:52

Be honest. Come straight out and say, I stand with Rome. Rome was right.

01:44:00

Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were wrong. They were in error on a key issue.

01:44:09

Just come out and say it. If you want to follow it up with videos,

01:44:16

I wouldn't suggest you do this, about why you think Rome is wrong, about other things, fine, but on this issue, the rest of your presentation proved

01:44:26

I was right in my initial comments, and you don't even see it. That's what the amazing thing is. You don't even see it.

01:44:34

All right. Let's, where'd you go? Oh, there you are. You see how small that little arrow is down there?

01:44:44

I mean, I've been shooting at a BB down there. At least this is a little bit farther over on the screen.

01:44:50

I can see the time index on that last one because he did it with his phone like this. Like, by the way,

01:44:56

Brother Anderson, turn your phone sideways. Okay, so it's just. Did I say Anderson? Oh, okay,

01:45:01

Alexander, whatever, whoever. Like I said, I'd never heard of him before. Here we go. Because the way he says, this is only an issue for those who, and this is such odd language and terminology, assume effectuality onto God's provision.

01:45:25

How about actually. Okay, so what am I saying when I say this is only a problem for those who assume effectuality upon God's grace or his provision?

01:45:36

What are Calvinists doing typically when they talk about God granting them repentance or God granting them faith or God granting them grace or whatever it is, giving them grace?

01:45:47

What is the assumption of Calvinists? Well, it has to be effectual. In order for God to get all the glory for the gifts he gives, the provisions he provides, he has to give it effectually in order for him to get all the credit.

01:46:01

Otherwise, if it's freely offered and anyone can accept it or reject it, then he was not going to get all the glory for it because then it's ultimately up to whether they accept or reject it or not.

01:46:10

At least that's what the Calvinist assumes. Now, the first thing I want to point out is I think that every time

01:46:19

Leighton produces another video, which is pretty much daily, he provides more and more evidence of the fact he was never reformed.

01:46:29

That's why I think buying Facebook ads and calling himself a former

01:46:34

Calvinist professor is very much misleading. That is not why

01:46:40

Calvinists think what they think. Certainly we want soli deo gloria.

01:46:46

We want God alone to the glory, but that's not what this is about. Why do we believe that God's grace is efficacious?

01:46:54

Because it's the very mechanism by which he saves his people.

01:47:01

It's not just, oh, if he doesn't do it this way, then he may not get all the glory.

01:47:07

That's not the point. The point is he is accomplishing his glory in the way he has chosen to accomplish his glory in and through Jesus Christ only, and there is a specific people that he saves perfectly and he extends grace, which is his free divine power, not only unmerited, but demerited to accomplish the salvation of those elect people unto his glory.

01:47:46

So the point is, once again, the difference between powerless provision and powerful grace and intentional grace, just as the saving grace of Titus 2 teaches us the grace that saves is intended to be consistent with the other work that the spirit of God does in the elect person's life.

01:48:22

Regeneration, adoption, forgiveness, conformance to the image of Christ.

01:48:29

These are all the intentions of God and that grace is intended to work in our lives to place us into that body of Christ as he has chosen to place us, to even gift us, to do the things he's called us in the body.

01:48:49

Now, later on what he's going to do is to say, well, if that's the case and we should all be sinlessly perfect and since we aren't all sanctified to the same level, that means

01:48:56

God's grace is failing and he can't see the difference, refuses to see the difference, which again shows he was never reformed, never reformed, doesn't see the difference between God's intention to accomplish, for example, justification, which is a forensic declaration on his part by faith and the outworking of the conformance of a person to the image of Christ over time.

01:49:31

What this results in is, well, if we've experienced sin, then that means

01:49:42

God's grace has failed. No, God even, and this is where this becomes so pastoral,

01:49:49

I don't even know how this mess works pastorally, but I can't tell you how many times over my pastoral career,

01:50:00

I have seen where someone's failure, someone's sin, someone's difficulties in life where they have not been sanctified immediately.

01:50:15

It was the process they went through that made them so able to minister to other people going through the same thing.

01:50:25

We give God's comfort because we ourselves have been comforted with that comfort.

01:50:33

So we have to go through those difficulties and sometimes those difficulties we bring on ourselves. And so there is no place in this man -centered theology for the beauty that I've seen in the church over and over again, when

01:50:49

I've seen redeemed sinners that God has dragged out of the hell hole being used to edify and build up others who are getting dragged out of the same hell hole.

01:51:02

There's no room for that because there's no decree, there's no sovereign God. You've just got peanut butter grace, it's just, you know, if you're going to eat it, great, if you're not, but there's no intention, there's no purpose, there's no power, it's just passive.

01:51:16

There can't be the beautiful interaction of the body. And yes, even the failures in the body, can't have any of that.

01:51:28

And I've seen it happen so many times. I've seen people in the body step forward, new members, what they went through, they went through in another nation and yet they come in.

01:51:45

Oh, you can't give God the glory for that in that system because God had nothing to do with it because he didn't have a decree. It just so happened to happen that way.

01:51:52

You can't give God glory for that. It's fortuitous, as is most things. Shreds the very fabric.

01:52:05

Shreds the very fabric of why we give thanks to God.

01:52:13

By the way, I want you to, I want you to, all of you who are just, you're just so mean, you're just so angry, he's such a nice man.

01:52:24

I just want you to remember some of the stuff that we listened to. And anyone who has grace provided them must be saved.

01:52:32

So now you have this idea of grace that either tries and fails or grace that's just given with no particular purpose.

01:52:44

It's just thrown out there like... Okay, so there's the straw manning again. Grace that tries and fails.

01:52:50

So when God makes his appeal through us, be reconciled to God, and it makes that appeal, begs you, beseeches you, be reconciled to God, and you refuse, then on James White's view,

01:53:02

God is trying and failing. Right? And of course, that's just asinine because we don't believe he's trying to effectually cause you to believe and failing because we don't believe in that kind of effectuality.

01:53:15

We believe that God is making a provision and allowing you as a free will responsible creature to either accept or reject his provisions of grace, just like Michael Jackson has the ability to use his gifts that God's given him for good or for evil.

01:53:30

Okay? So two things. First of all, that's just asinine. I was addressing salvific grace.

01:53:41

He goes to 2 Corinthians 5, which is addressed to the church and assumes that that is a just general gospel message and changes the categories.

01:53:53

But that aside, here again, he is confirming and affirming over and over again what

01:54:01

I said originally. He has no efficacious grace.

01:54:08

He has no expression of divine power consistent with the decree of God that accomplishes

01:54:15

God's will. It's not there. These are just gracious provisions, not a power.

01:54:24

They do not intend to have a particular result amongst the elect because there is no elect.

01:54:37

It's just provision that if you will use these things, then you can have this, which is exactly what, who says again?

01:54:49

Rome in the sacramental system. Case closed. Position proven over and over and over again.

01:55:00

Whether Leighton chooses to hear it or not, I can't make him hear it, but facts are facts.

01:55:08

Finally, Titus chapter 2. The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.

01:55:20

Leighton is understanding to be, well, that means since all men will not be saved individually, then the grace of God is not all that is needed for salvation.

01:55:34

He's trying to make the case that the grace of God is not all that's needed for salvation if faith is a prerequisite for salvation.

01:55:41

But even on Calvinism, faith is a prerequisite for salvation. It's not a prerequisite for election, but it is a prerequisite for salvation, even on Calvinism.

01:55:49

So that argument, he just shoots himself in the foot by making that argument. Faith is a necessary requirement.

01:55:57

Unless, of course, duh, faith is part of the work of the Spirit of God in the regeneration just as repentance is.

01:56:06

Or a condition for one being saved. God just effectuates faith in the elect on Calvinism, whereas he permits man to either choose to follow or not to follow on provisionism.

01:56:18

In other words, God makes the appeal, but it's your responsibility as to what you do with the provision of his gift.

01:56:24

So, efficacious grace versus powerless, intentionalist provision of something if you will do something.

01:56:36

Keeps proving the point over and over again. He can't help it because we were right in our initial observation.

01:56:43

If you choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, you will remain in your bondage and grow more and more calloused and hardened until eventually you could be cut off in that rebellion.

01:56:52

Or you can accept the truth so as to be set free because guess what? Truth will set you free. If you accept that truth, it will set you free.

01:56:59

And that's where freedom comes from. It comes from God and his provision of truth and light.

01:57:05

If you reject and suppress that truth, that light, whose fault is that? On Calvinism, whether they admit it or not, it's

01:57:11

God's fault because God didn't really elect you. God didn't really want you. God didn't... Okay, so back again.

01:57:18

Now we... What's behind all this? There can be no such thing as free grace.

01:57:25

Grace has to be demanded. It cannot be powerful. It cannot be intentional. Provisionism should be called anti -gracism because the grace that it presents is so grossly sub -biblical that I don't know why anybody...

01:57:41

Well, I do understand why someone would want it because when you really understand that you're saved by grace, it completely destroys any place for man's will to supplement what

01:57:57

God is doing. So there's your issue. But this whole idea, well,

01:58:04

God's at fault because God didn't give you what you needed. And so over and over again, we've heard it from Leighton Flowers 10 ,000 times.

01:58:13

And I know for the person whose... The persons whose will has not been crushed by recognition of their own sin, the holiness of God, I see why this is extremely attractive.

01:58:28

I get it. Because mankind wants to think that God is under some obligation.

01:58:34

Mankind wants to think that God is under some obligation to not view me in Adam.

01:58:44

That Romans 5 thing, who really knows what that's saying?

01:58:51

Romans 5 is extremely important. You are in Adam. He doesn't believe you're in Adam.

01:58:57

No, you're not in Adam. This is where his fundamental Pelagianism does come out.

01:59:03

You're not in Adam. That's going to come out a little bit later. These folks have a real problem with federal headship.

01:59:11

They think God is absolutely unfair to treat us in Adam. And every time historically that a denomination has failed at that point, they eventually abandon the imputed righteousness of Christ because they don't see that we need to be in Christ to have his righteousness in his life.

01:59:32

That's where the attacks on penal substitutionary atonement come from. So it's dangerous.

01:59:40

Very, very dangerous. Okay, all right.

01:59:52

Got to find out which one it is here. Yeah, all right. That's what happens when you read just the first quarter of a sentence.

02:00:07

Because this isn't some peanut butter grace that provides a general salvation based upon man's freedom.

02:00:20

What kind of grace is it? It's saving grace. Why? Because look at verse 12.

02:00:32

Verse 12 begins with a participle.

02:00:40

And the participle has as its referent the grace of God.

02:00:49

And what does that grace of God do? It's a teaching grace.

02:01:01

It actually does accomplish what God intends it to accomplish. It teaches us. Well, what does it teach us?

02:01:08

It teaches us to deny ungodliness. Now, how could that possibly be?

02:01:18

How could grace teach you to deny ungodliness? Well, because people tend to have very sub -biblical views of grace.

02:01:31

The grace that saves and redeems is the same grace that sanctifies and makes holy.

02:01:38

Okay, so notice the grace that saves and redeems is the same grace that makes one sanctified.

02:01:45

Okay, so then therefore if God never fails in the way that you describe Him never failing, trying and failing, then why are some people sanctified differently than other people?

02:01:58

Okay, I just realized we've gone all the way to four o 'clock our time and I have another program to do and I've got to get dinner or I'll pass out during the next program.

02:02:12

And I've got to move this computer into another studio and get it all hooked up. So let me just comment on this. I preemptively refuted this a few minutes ago.

02:02:20

But notice again, Leighton Flowers gives evidence he was never reformed because he does not understand the categories in which reformed theology exists.

02:02:28

We are talking about the difference between saving grace that actually brings about regeneration and then the experience in time of sanctification which is as Jesus' illustration pointed out there's going to be people 30, 60, 90, 360, 100 fold returns.

02:02:48

God chooses to sanctify His people in the way and time that is

02:02:55

His. He has that right. And so it is not, well, you're saying

02:03:02

God's grace never fails. Yeah, fails to bring about the regeneration of His people at the time that He chooses to do so.

02:03:10

That's right, it's powerful. That's a different category than the in time sanctification conformance of them to the image of Christ.

02:03:18

Those are biblical categories. Those are categories of reformed thought. And the fact that He doesn't even think of them means

02:03:25

He was never reformed. And once again, clear illustration, powerful, purposeful, efficacious grace versus powerless, non -intentional provisionism.

02:03:40

Massive difference between the two. We're going to have to do the rest of this in another time, but what you need to recognize that's not a counter -exegesis.

02:03:53

Layton Flowers did not even try, not once, to give a counter -exegesis.

02:04:00

I don't know what he believes about Titus 2. I know he quoted it, but I don't know what he means, what he thinks the text means because he didn't bother to say.

02:04:11

He honestly thinks that that kind of retort is the same thing as exegesis. It's not.

02:04:19

I'd be interested in hearing real exegesis on his part of what Titus 2 is actually saying that somehow demonstrates that God's saving grace does not teach us to deny ungodliness.

02:04:34

I don't think we're going to run into that, but anyways, got a lot in there.

02:04:41

There's only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

02:04:46

There's only 10 more quotes, so we'll get there eventually. Thanks for watching the program today.