Pulpit & Pen, Sam Shamoun, TR Onlyism, Oh My!

Greetings and welcome to the dividing line. Might as well get this out of the way first. Yes, I look like a mess today and not overly unusual but very briefly, that's what happens when you attempt to occupy the same physical space as a bee while going between 30 and 32 miles per hour down a hill on your bike out in the desert.

I think it was what about two, three years ago. I got a real bad sting my whole face. And when you're going that fast, as soon as it hits and you can feel it stinging you, you still have to stop first.

And so even with good disc brakes, it's a long time before you get stopped because you're just feeling that thing digging in there.

And even as it was, I stopped at a fire station about ten minutes later and a kind fireman was looking and it seems they had a

Benadryl. I found some. I actually had some in my pack. But he's looking, he goes, hold on a second, and reaches up there and pulls a stinger out.

It was still there and sort of hard to do for yourself. So anyways, it looks worse than it feels, but I'm gonna look sort of messed up for a while.

But that's neither here nor there. I hope it doesn't distract you too much. If it does, just minimize the window and listen.

I don't think I'm gonna be playing anything today anyway, so it doesn't really matter much one way or the other. Gonna have to address a lot of stuff that I don't want to necessarily have to address to be able to explain some other things.

Lots of talk going on right now. So, let's start. I had a fellow on Twitter yesterday saying you need to respond to this.

And this was the, I don't know if that was the polemics report or just what it was, from, let's see, today's

Thursday. So what, Tuesday? Yeah, record the same day as we as we did the Paul Edwards show in Detroit.

So, thankfully, when I clicked on the link, there is a button that allows you to listen at 1 .5x,

so you could get through a whole lot faster. So I listened, and you know, there is all sorts of stuff that, you know, if we wanted to start a full -scale war, it would be very easy to take that kind of material, break it down, give you all the

I described it to someone on Twitter as an 11 -year -old with ADD who's gotten angry about something, because there are simply times where that's exactly what it was, where, you know, you're using all sorts of imitations and voices, and about stuff you shouldn't be doing that about.

I mean, we have fun on the program, too, but this is while you are attacking all sorts of people for all sorts of things.

Make a long story short, one of the clear problems, and I brought this up on the

Paul Edwards show, so let me expand upon it just a little bit here. One of the clear problems, one of the examples that was brought up, and it's just one of those many things that would be very enjoyable if I had an entire staff of researchers and things like that to engage, but I don't know, it was about, what, a month ago, a month and a half ago?

All of us who are connected to the fight against cultural

Marxism, intersectionality, whatever you want to call the current movement as it's coming into the church and in society as a whole,

I mean, wow. I was just listening to I was grabbing a real light bite, and I had

Fox News on, and they were, was it

Fox News? Or was it somebody else? Maybe it wasn't that. Anyways, they were talking about Justin Trudeau, and this guy can't get through two sentences without using one of the big buzzwords you're supposed to use to prove your wokeness.

I mean, he is just the wokest woke that's ever woked. And, you know, this kind of stuff is just, as in Canada, debilitating to government, society, everything else.

It's everywhere. It is pure poison. But one of the issues that has to be understood is you can be influenced by both truth and error, and that level of influence can be lesser or greater.

Fundamentalists of whatever stripe, there are religious fundamentalists, there are societal fundamentalists.

What I'm referring to here is not the historic meaning of fundamentalism. That's pretty much not even relevant anymore.

Nobody knows what the modernist background, nobody cares about that. The fundamentalist mindset that attempts to enforce an absolute black -and -white world on the rest of us, and on reality, that fundamentalist mindset cannot accept the idea that someone can be in a greater way or a lesser way influenced by good or bad.

It's either snow -driven purity, or you're going to hell, and you're actually

Satan acting like somebody who isn't. So, when we talk about social justice issues, when we talk about critical theory, like I said, a month and a half or so ago, these class notes from Jarvis Williams' class, one of Jarvis Williams' class at Southern Seminary, were sent around to all of us.

We all probably got the exact same day, I got the exact same stuff that J .D. Hall got at the same time that J .D.

Hall got it. I think it might have actually been when

I was in South Africa, now that I think about it. Sounds about right. Anyway, I looked at it, and I'm like, wow, this would be something that would be an enjoyable deep dive.

This would be fascinating to delve into. Never did get around to it, but there is no question in my mind that Jarvis Williams has been influenced by critical theory, critical race theory, and the worldview associated with it.

No question about that. What was interesting is, I was much more concerned by the fact that I detected an influence of a new perspective on Paul idea in much of what was being said.

Nobody cares about that anymore. That's irrelevant now. We've got to fight social justice.

Well, I think it's quite relevant, but anyway. Do I believe that Jarvis Williams has been influenced by critical theory?

Yes. Does that turn him into a cultural Marxist? And here's where the fundamentalism comes in.

Let's say Jarvis Williams really does desire, which

I cannot prove, but let's say he really does desire to inculcate in a nefarious way critical theory in the thinking of his students, to basically crank them out as fellow cultural

Marxists. The fundamentalist idea is, and therefore anyone associated with him is also a cultural

Marxist. There can't be the idea that here you have a scholar who has been influenced by this to a certain degree and has been influenced by opposing concepts to a certain degree so that there is a level of we might say inconsistency.

There can't be, there's no room for gray areas, there's no room for inconsistency, there's no room for anything like that in the fundamentalist mindset.

Either you attack Jarvis Williams and anyone who would dare eat at the same table with Jarvis Williams or you're a lying cultural

Marxist. That's the fundamentalist mindset. That's the way of thinking that's not going to get us anywhere in the long run.

It can only create division and it only shuts down any meaningful communication across lines because it doesn't want communication across lines.

It's already come to its own conclusion. This is bad. You are influenced by it.

I don't care how much, therefore you are bad and you need to be fired or you know, we need to put your picture on the internet or you know, whatever.

This is what I was trying to say to Paul Edwards is that kind of thinking is what's behind the cannibalization of anyone who is fully cognizant of the fact that critical theory is an anti -christian concept.

It truly is. Okay, what do you do with someone who says my faith is in Jesus Christ and they have been influenced by it.

Maybe influenced second - or third -hand, maybe influenced by people that meant a lot to them in their lives.

Maybe they read certain books at a point in their life that had a huge impact upon them and that is what opened the door to certain influences.

What do you do with the person who has a 30 % negative influence, 70 % positive influence in that area?

So you've got critical theory doing 30%, but then you've got biblical truth pushing back 70%. What do you do there?

There is no room for that. There is no room for that complexity in the fundamentalist mindset and so as a result you have in Mr.

Hall's comments, you know, not only did you never did find the kind things he said about you, never did, that's that's shame, but you're a lackey and and you just do you know, just totally dismissed as having any understanding of anything.

I don't know if a lackey is better than a toady. I'm not sure. I've not looked up Miriam's Unabridged or the

Oxford on how those rate. I'm not sure which is, but you can look that up though. But anyways, what were we talking about?

Moses was in the bulrushes and anyway, and of course then there was the one crack about people who would disagree with him or be naive.

See, the fundamentalist says that I'm being naive because I don't realize that cultural

Marxists could be deceptive. Actually, I do. But what

I don't believe is that I have the ability to read men's hearts.

And I don't believe I've been called to do that. And I do believe I can trust that to God.

And so I look to his revealed will as to how I am to interact with those who make a credible profession of faith, an orthodox profession of faith.

That's not relevant to to the fundamentalist mindset, which it doesn't matter what they say.

They're all liars. And so if they've eaten in the same restaurant with that guy, they're clearly don't care.

How can you not see this? That's the fundamentalist mindset. And so people like me were described as having the brains of a fruit fly.

The brains of a fruit fly. Now, I particularly appreciated that because as I've said in this program many times my senior year in a college,

I raised between 25 and 35 ,000, I think it was 35 ,000

Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies. I can still see their little beady eyes today.

They're not beady. I mean flies have those multifaceted eyes, but the different eye colors white and red and it was it was fascinating.

Anyways, so I had to I had to count them under a microscope.

So they are very small, which means they have very very limited mental capacity. So certain people think that, you know, if you don't agree with them, you have have the brains of a of a fruit fly.

What? But Satan, yes, but Satan. Yes, I know.

I know. I know. I know. It's it's hard to it's hard to reason with this this particular perspective, but to then have that being used to say and that means this person is a cultural

Marxist, even though they speak against it all the time, this person is a cultural Marxist and they are a bold -faced liar.

Well, there you go. All based upon this idea that as long as I'm as long as I'm around I can judge everyone's hearts and I can do it from a long ways away.

That was that was yesterday and I just did

I just did not not have any reason to play any of that that material. But what's fascinating is the confluence of various people because think about this

J .D. Hall sat right there at one point and we did did a program back at the theonomy debate time a number a couple years ago.

And I'm not sure who detests me more him or his opponents in that debate.

I think about it. Yeah, that's interesting and then

I don't know how many times we've had Sam Shamoon on the program and what's weird is they're all connected together now.

The internet creates such a weird world. It really really does.

Steven Anderson's probably in there someplace. Oh, he is. He is. He is in there because the the article that was posted on Pulpit and Pen by Dane Johansson they're the guys that we were talking about with with Steven Anderson and Sam Shamoon has positively quoted and posted the stuff with Steven Anderson.

And so now I bring people together.

Thank you, Rich. You're always looking for the sunny side of things. It's true.

I just they all come together in their hatred of me. I help people out.

It's great. Anyway, so you've got all these different you've got critical theory topics and you've got

King James issue topics and anti -reform topics.

It's really strange that these are all coming together all the same time in a jumbled mess really because this morning

I start getting messages about an article posted on Pulpit and Pen Five Good Reasons Reform and Confessional Christians Should Use the

KJV from Dane Johansson. Now it's interesting because the

Yeah Here this this has been tacked on at the end. Oh, yeah,

Josh Josh Nieme says yesterday. I challenged Sam's straw man of Leviticus 16 national atonement today.

I am blocked Brother, not only do I appreciate your book on that subject

But get used to it Get used to it. I actually unblocked

Sam Because he was griping and complaining about I was like, okay fine rail away

I said the only reason I blocked you is because I had tried and tried and tried to reconcile with you to be supportive of you and You just wanted you won't you won't have it.

And so I just got tired of seeing the attacks the unfair attacks on me. So I Blocked you so I've unblocked him but who knows

I He can't really block me right now because that's the main way that we will be able to set up the debates for March April that that time frame next year,

I'll tell you all about that in a in a moment, but I Should have brought your book in and and show to the folks again.

Anyways at the end of the article on pulpit and pen Now know what's funny is when

I mentioned The other article from the Agos Church guys Sam Shamoon Referenced that except Sam's become rabidly anti -reformed, but I don't know where Sam is anymore

I don't know. I've some people have said he seems to be moving toward a Syrian orthodoxy

He's been for a couple years He's been posting stuff about prayers to the

Saints and Mary and and I every time everyone contact me I'd I'd say

Sam just likes to stir the pot. He likes to get people talking that that's all it is and now

I realize it wasn't all of this and So I Don't know where he is and I I would like to find out

I don't think it would be appropriate To do a debate without a very clearly stated position from both sides

Because a lot of stuff that I'm seeing Sam saying Sounds like either universalism or some kind of sacramental system

I don't know because I'm not the one has changed. He is so he needs to define Where he's gone?

How he got there, whatever everybody knows where I am and Got plenty of books that we'll be able to document where where I'm standing and and stuff like that But anyways back to the article

This article does not necessarily reflect the view of pulpit and pen Which typically uses the

ESV in our citations? It is an issue of growing concern among reformed

Christians However, and many are taking a second look at the argument presented for using the Texas Receptus Opposing scholarly viewpoints are encouraged and may be sent to PNP to be considered for publication at talkback at pulpit and pen org

I'm tempted, but I don't have time to That would be interesting so We don't necessarily agree with this because because we use the

ESV so but but you know it, you know, this is this Sorry, they just Stirring the waters doing the same thing that you know,

Sam allegedly was Or or what? I don't know

So it just struck me as amazing that you would have This article right now appearing at pulpit and pen at the same time that Sam Shamoon's going after me again, and I've said you want you want to debate?

Let me just go ahead and before I do that. Let me just go ahead and say what happened You Can you can go to Shamoon's Facebook page and there's all sorts of stuff there

And it's But Basically he was promoting

David Allen's stuff and saying I Allen's just blown all this ice of Jesus Just just read through the past two weeks worth of stuff and and mark how many

Shots just straight shots. I mean Unnecessary Stir up the waters chummed to the to the people who want to you know

Follow you and get all angry and stuff like that Just just nasty stuff that unfortunately

Sam knows better. I know that he knows better. He has said that he knows better, but he can't stop it

He just he just can't stop it and so I Said, you know, he was he was saying he'll never debate me.

He would never die. I would destroy him. So I'm like Since I was specific about Romans 8.

All right, let's debate Romans 8 31 to 34 see what he's doing. He's so deceptive

He's so dishonest. He's so predictable I'd ever say anything about that.

We're supposed to debate limited atonement Okay, so we can broaden the subject out.

We can do limited atonement Well, that means we're gonna have to look at my passages as it's like no

Well, we'll do limited atonement if you want to bring up Colossians 1 bring up Colossians 1. I'm gonna bring up Romans 8

It's one of the clearest statements on the on the text and We'll we'll we'll debate that and how about let's it's also debate your your textual critical position that you

I Don't I don't know that Sam really understands that position, but here's the problem

He can't hold the position that he's quoting because he's now become rabidly anti -reformed and it's a reformed position you've if you're sitting on a tree limb you just cut the limb off because the guys that you are using to support this perspective are all reformed and They're being reformed is central to their reasoning

So if you say that for example the reformed understanding of Romans 9 is pure Eisegesis and I'm I'm I'm foolish and you'll just destroy me

Sam loves to destroy everybody You'll just destroy me

That's the argument of the people you've been promoting. So are you gonna come up with some? some other argument

I Don't know. We're gonna need to have some very firm ground rules and positions laid out to be able to to make this work

But I think it's an important topic and I'm willing to endure what I'm going to have to endure and I know what

I'm gonna Have to endure To to make this happen But one of the reasons

I wanted to do this is on September 13th, so six days ago

Sam posted this I'm looking at his his Facebook page right now. And here's here's the real issue.

It's one thing for him to Just attack me for You know on everything.

I don't I don't know why I thought that was dealt with Guess I was wrong

But It's it's this kind of stuff that I think needs needs to be called out and It needs to be dealt with By everybody by everybody.

And so on September 13th, Sam posted an article. I'm just gonna read you

What it says here it's a link to his blog where he's written an article And The article starts off because it's you can see part of it in the link

This series initially was intended to to be a reply to another Muslim neophyte in Order to expose his blatant inconsistencies and selective use of sources

That's how it starts. But here's this description Finally after all these years,

I have published the first part in a series of Refutation to an article posted on the site of Mohammedan polemicist and a member of the sewage of Islam Basam Zawadi Who tried to argue that Luke did not hold the vicarious sacrificial death of the

Lord Jesus, then he gives the link Lord willing once my series is done

He will have wished that he never posted his sham piece But rather have spent that time smothering the black stone as his pagan prophet

PRO FIT Used to do so here.

This is how you introduce an Article you've written Specifically to defend quote the vicarious sacrificial death of the

Lord Jesus unquote the danger of Apologetics especially when it is disconnected from ministry in the church and for the vast majority of apologists it is and as far as I know with Sam it always has been he

I Do not believe he has any type of Consistent in -depth

Teaching ministry within a sound local church and I've asked about that many times and I've always gotten

Very vague responses But there is no balance there and The great danger

To anyone apologetics is that this kind of attitude? Can be fostered and not challenged and not corrected.

Let's say that Sam does a wonderful job in Marshaling arguments and facts and resources to refute the

Psalms awadi on the subject of Luke the gospel of Luke and the issue of atonement basically let's say that it's masterfully argued and That it's in -depth and that it responds to every argument that the psalm put forward when you introduce your

Defense of the gospel By throwing battery acid in the face of the person to whom you are offering it

What does that say about your actual motivations? What does that say?

So a Mohammedan Polemicist and a member of the sewage of Islam.

So we ask ourselves an honest question Why has this article been written

What's the motivation that has been revealed by the words that reveal the heart and Then that second paragraph

Lord will Lord willing Lord willing Lord willing

I Wouldn't want to be responsible for that one Once my series is done

He will have wished that he never posted his sham piece But rather have spent that time smothering the black stone as pagan prophet used to do

Lord willing It is

Transparent it is unquestionable That the motivations

Revealed by the words the words reveal the heart the words reveal the heart now

The subject that Basam Zawadi has brought up is an important subject and I am thankful That By God's grace

Not because of any good in me That there's more than one

Muslim who would be willing to dialogue with me on this subject

Because there's a major difference they understand that I actually seek to be consistent in my profession of faith and care for them it's sort of a necessary thing you if you destroy

The essence of what you're trying to say to someone if you reveal that you have no concern for them

You have nothing but disrespect for them. You detest them as individuals. You don't care if they ever repent

You're just gonna blast away and and and Wit and he's gonna wish that he never posted his sham piece

But rather spent that time smothering the black stone of his pagan prophet. Yeah, that's so that's that's how to really you know

Add to the impact of your your presentation No, what it does is it it tells?

Basam and every other Muslim Here believe in Jesus He loves you

I don't but he does there you go

Just shouldn't be it just shouldn't be and Making the excuse that well, it's just his background or whatever else it is

Doesn't work shouldn't have ever done it but there it is

Now if you'd like to see how that kind of debate can take place

Basam and I did a debate number of years ago in London and Have talked to one another about the possibility of doing it again.

And that would be a excellent subject atonement in Islam and Christianity and How many

Muslims do you think? Might be tempted to listen to that While Not tempted at all to read what

Sam says here all because of a simple matter of restraint consistency

Controlling of one's anger Yeah There you go

There was like I said, there was a lot more as I scrolled up but Just Just as an example a

Fellow by the name of Christopher Ottowell Responded to Sam posting stuff from David Allen and Here's what

Christopher said Personally, I am persuaded by the doctrine of limited definite atonement However, I respect and value both you your ministry and also that of James White I have learned a tremendous amount from you and and doing so my faith has been strengthened greatly

I would love to see a debate come to fruition. God bless you That's that's that's that's good that's nice Then someone asked him a question and Christopher responded

Whole world does not mean every single person but people from every tribe tongue and nation for indeed

He is the Savior of the whole world Jews and Gentiles alike the elect our persons from every tribe tongue and nation

That is the consistent way of understanding New Testament usage We can demonstrate this from passage after passage, but it was presented succinctly kindly

Sam responded. So here's here's how Sam responds to a Kind fair Non -emotional just statement of What the reform believe you obviously don't read

Whole world in first John refers to the world in opposition to God under the influence of Satan who are distinguished from believers

So stop twisting the text to make it fit with your tradition Moreover using your eyes of Jesus whole world does mean every single individual hence the use of the word whole

Whole by necessity includes everything that makes up the world This is why your man -made tradition of limited atonement is pathetic

Since it always it is always explaining away the Bible ie not only does world not mean everyone

But even the use of whole before the term world doesn't mean that either you guys are truly pathetic.

I Didn't write it. I Didn't write it. You just turn to turn a light on it and go

Wow Now you might be saying you're saying well if you're gonna debate him, aren't you expecting to get exactly that?

Yeah Yeah, I mean things could change tree now and then that'd be nice But the fact is that kind of rhetoric

Doesn't do well in debates at least not with the people that I'm interested in influencing and that's people who are who want to be serious

About their theology and about their beliefs because When you say whole world and you are talking about Again the term cosmos is at least for people have identified between 10 and 17 different uses of cosmos in John alone and In first John as we've talked about any times there are numerous uses of the term cosmos

Especially as it would you know love not the things the world Well, if cosmos means every single person that don't love anybody.

Well, obviously that's not what it's talking about every word in serious Christian scholarship and serious scholarship of any from anyone's perspective

Any word is defined By its contextual use its semantic domain in the context in which it is used and so saying whole world

Does not change If you're if you're if you're saying that what's being discussed here are kinds rather than individuals

Jews and Gentiles saying whole world does not change that it just emphasizes that may be emphasizing that outside just the realm of the limited experience within the

Roman Empire to the whole world people everywhere Doesn't change the reality that you're talking about Jews and Gentiles so Just throwing the term isogenesis out there without being able to demonstrate

What the isogenesis is doesn't accomplish anything again you can

You can get folks all excited about that kind of thing If the type of followers you want to have are those kind of followers you can get people excited just by throwing stuff out there but if you want to actually be consistent use the exact same method of interpretation in Defending the

Trinity and the resurrection that you do and everything else. That's that's where the problems problem is definitely come in.

So we are looking to You know, I mentioned Paul ever has talked about coming up to Detroit.

We're looking at going to Detroit I'm gonna get hold of Paul and say Got a weekend somewhere in March April, you know, we'll get ourselves there and maybe we can we can do something and and then we're gonna need to find a

You know proper venue and proper recording facilities And Those videotapes will have to be

Those video recordings will have to be provided in Toto that night I think just just for safety's sake

But two debates on the issue of the atonement and on the textual critical issues

Of course I need to know What the other side is because right now

I honestly don't know Honestly don't know it. It can't be the TR only position of the people

He's been quoting because he's become answer and rapidly anti -reformed. So what the Westminster Confession of Faith says is irrelevant

So it can't be that so what is it? What's what's the position? What is the what is the supremacy of the

Byzantine manuscripts? It's got it's got to take a position Is it the

TR is it you know, you know, what is it and I'll I'll defend the

ECM which is what's underlies the Nassau on 28th and Who knows by then it might be 29th

UBS 5 text platforms and We'll see how that goes Okay so I Didn't mean to drop that down there the article that was published in pulp and pen

Five good reasons reform a confessional Christians use cage of you Let's just try to get through this as quick as I can have dressed all these things many many times before but I Think it's good to do so since it was provided and I've got one other thing to look at after that Theological reason my first reason for holding to the confessional text position, which is a new

It's that's what they're they're using Now which which Sam could not hold to Because the confessions that are being referred to here are reformed so rich before you run

Since I'm reading over here, it'd be better to fix things before you he was he was leaving.

Anyways, he's he's bored My first reason for holding the confessional text position

Which I would just another in other words promoting the concept of the Texas Receptus Going back let's let's go back to the 16th century

Everything that's happened since then all the advancements all the manuscripts Throw it out.

Let's go back to the 16th century My first reason for holding the confessional text position position is because it is founded on theological grounds

Rather than starting with man and his ability to correctly interpret the manuscript evidence Which is what every single editor that produced the

TR was doing by their own words The confessional text position begins with faith in God's promise to preserve and deliver his word to his people and not simply to inspire it and Leave it to man to assemble the surviving pieces together

Lord Jesus Christ gave his promise in Matthew 5 18 for verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass

One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law to all be fulfilled

That actually is only by extension to be applied to any concept of preservation

This is actually the abiding validity of the law Math 2435 heaven and earth shall pass away.

My words shall not pass away. That's because of who he is It's not really about a particular text platform for the

Apostle Paul tells Timothy and then we have a citation of a Miss citation because it says first Timothy at 2nd

Timothy 3 16 17 All scripture given by inspiration of God, which is actually not the best translation of that term at all

But if you're just going to use the King James, you're sort of stuck with it the confessional text position begins with faith as its starting point

Believing that because G is promised that none of his words shall pass away Therefore God will certainly keep his promise and give his word unto his church not in part but in full

The Puritan John Owen a chief framer of the Savoy Declaration of Faith and attendant the Westminster Assembly states

The scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which were immediately and entirely given out by God himself are by his good and merciful providential dispensation

Preserved unto us entire in the original languages by the way all Believing people believe that today

This is not a confessional text position. They have to limit that to what was only known at that particular point in time

Neither John Owen nor anyone else back then knew anything about the papyri the great unseals

Might have known about Vaticanus So again, one of the primary problems with this entire position is how

Horrifically anachronistic it is It it reads things

Into and out of history Because it's not a textual critical position Again, let me emphasize this

This position TR only ism the traditional text Call it. Whatever you want is not a textual critical position it is a theological assertion

But it's not a textual critical position because you could not use this methodology to derive the Texas Receptus you start with the

TR and Then you do with the facts what you need to do to keep the TR. That's not textual criticism

I'm not sure what it is circular argumentation is what it is. But but that's what it is Michael J.

Kruger makes a fantastic argument from faith for the canon of Scripture which books long Bible when he says by the way

Michael Kruger does not accept or Promote the application of his canon argument to this area just so y 'all know he doesn't

They keep using it He doesn't So there's a misuse here.

We've pointed this out. They won't stop. They just keep doing it The books received by the church inform our understanding of which books are canonical not because the church is infallible or because it created or constituted the canon

But because the church's reception of these books is a natural and inevitable outworking of the self -authenticating nature of Scripture And I see here's the problem.

I Agree with Michael Kruger So Much so that Michael Kruger and I have a video out where we talk about these things and there were known none of these guys

Talking about these things at that at that that meeting the g3 two years ago

So the book of Romans Can be dealt with as the book of Romans as The self -authenticating nature of Scripture in light of the church's acceptance of the book of Romans That does not answer the question of whether we need to have an

Omega or an Omicron between the high in echo in Gonna lose everybody there whether it reads the subjunctive or indicative in Romans 5 1 those are two different issues

Those are two different issues and The church, however, you want to find that has never spoken as the church

To whether you need to have an Omicron or an Omega there Hasn't done it say could have pulled that up on the screen or something but taking too much time anyways, so There is a fundamental difference

Between utilization of Kruger's argument and this is one of the primary errors of this movement

Jeff Riddle from on down all the almost all the references that were given were to Jeff Riddle stuff But it is an inappropriate and they're doing this conference in October in Atlanta I remember

I I said, hey become I'd be glad to come debate. No, not interested some other time somewhere else

But they're gonna be doing this thing and what you're gonna hear over and over again is Kruger's argument misapplied to something a

Kruger never applies it to and They're missing the distinction between the proper area of textual critical analysis, which every single person that put together the

TR would have agreed with and practiced and The issue of the book as a whole being accepted by the church as a whole as Canon scripture over against something else.

Those are two different areas. Are they related? well in the sense that we're talking about aspects of scripture, of course, but the determination of that Omicron or that Omega has not been determined by the quote -unquote

Church and Especially that one by the way, I pulled that one out of the air, but I can show you

Byzantine manuscripts the the manuscript tradition is split there. In fact, the manuscript tradition has the external evidence is is in favor of the subjunctive

So I'm looking forward to what CBGM is gonna do with that. I really really am It can't be too many more years till that's that's gonna come out

But anyways Kruger argues for a theological method for determining the canon of scripture

This means that we are to argue theologically for which books belong in the Bible rather than from evidence alone

But the confessional text position takes this theological method a step further than he does applying and and of course knowing

That he does not do this and therefore does not see it as a valid application of his system Applying this faith -based starting point not just the titles the books but also their contents

Well, it's not just titles of books the books as a whole as a pastor I know what a coveted joy it is to own the full 22 volumes of Calvin's commentaries on the

Bible But if when I took down the volume off my shelf only to find the covers and title pages present

I would not truly be able to say that I possess Calvin's commentaries I would simply own the covers so to the

Bible is inspired preserved and given to God's people in the entirety of its content every jot and tittle not simply the

Covers or title pages the church not only received the canon of scripture, but also its content Um Necessary attempted confusion of two different categories because this system the system again, it can't produce its own text and It cannot defend its own text without engaging in this confusion of categories.

It's just it's just part of the system itself of course The content is included

That does not address the issue of transcriptional error That still needs to be dealt with and as long as this system

Cannot produce its own text by saying These are the textual critical principles that we are to use in looking at the manuscripts that will produce our text.

They can't do that Can't do it. They won't do it never will because The TR as we have proved

I've sat here with books We've looked at text after text after and they're very weak on dealing with text.

They don't want to deal with text You don't want to get to that level They even say in their materials don't get bogged down in dealing with details.

That's because they can't they can't produce details they already have a text and Their system is meant to defend that text.

The problem is that text came about by processes that are utterly and completely Contradictory to what they say we should be doing.

It's an incoherent system It is a historical and incoherent so they cannot produce a textual critical methodology when if it's applied to the manuscripts in the

New Testament would produce the textus receptus Especially in Revelation, but other places as well

This is exactly what the Irish Puritan James Usher said when he asked what reason he had for knowing

The scriptures are divinely authored the marvelous preservation the scriptures demonstrates this though though none in time be so ancient nor none so much opuned

Yet God has still by his providence preserved them in every part of them body of divinity page eight

Well, I can say that too problem is I can then demonstrate it and I can do so consistently in this verse this verse this verse this verse this verse

Rather than just simply saying here it is because see you could apply it would be a misappropriation

To apply these words to the Latin Vulgate as Rome did But it's exactly wrong to apply

Kruger's words to their position as they do But you could make this type of argument for the

Latin Vulgate and Rome did at the time of the Reformation It's exactly what Rome did So so when it comes to examining manuscript evidence historical evidence or versional evidence

We must start and remain with a theological method for determining both canon and text. So take

Kruger's methodology Don't follow him follow us But what that means is let's not do textual criticism the

Puritan Thomas Watson argued for the divine origin scriptures with this argument because the scriptures have been perfectly preserved.

They are therefore divinely authored he writes We may know the scripture to be the

Word of God by its miraculous preservation all ages nor has the Church of God and all The rest in all ages. Does that include the fourth century?

How about the third century? It's funny how you you want to quote these things, but then let's let's

As I said to Doug Wilson in our debate book, why why doesn't the why isn't the early church relevant here?

Because you assume, you know what text they had but the document or evidence is different and We can tell from Athanasius's defense of the

Council of Nicaea, for example What manuscripts he had And they're not what underlie the

TR. So what was that? It was that an exception that it did it did it today?

Nor has the Church of God in all revolutions and changes kept the scripture that should be lost only but that it should not be

Depraved the letter of scripture has been preserved without any corruption in the original tongue. Well Depends on how you define corruption

There's a text of Aaron Romans 5 1 and the technical term for for corruption is any interruption in the transmission of the text and so Every handwritten document of antiquity is corrupted

But a lot of people use term corrupted as in lost Well, no, it hasn't been lost because we have the entire manuscript tradition

But again have to use these terms in an appropriate fashion for Watson the scriptures have come down to us entirely pure even to their very letter

Okay, which TR did he use? We can always go back there Because there are variants between even the various textus recepti

There's differences between this 1550 and the 1598 Beza and as soon as you point that out, well, you know, they're nothing major Well, then why are you doing this very letter thing?

There are letter differences aren't there got to be consistent Which is in keeping with Jesus words above this is the theological argument one, which we should take seriously

We know the scriptures are of divine origin because they are perfectly preserved and they're perfectly preserved because they're of divine origin and again perfectly preserved if you mean by that that all the original readings are within the manuscript tradition

I Agree, that's why we have to do textual criticism. That's not what these guys are saying That's not what's being said

That's not what's being said people need to understand that number two historical reason the second reason why

I switch from a critical text position which teaches that we can and still need to Reconstruct the Bible from the extant manuscripts.

That is we need to continue the process of examination in light of new findings reasoning

CBGM it's good to use everything God has given to us to Solidify our our understanding because we know so much more now than they knew in the 16th century so much more

That every single person Erasmus basic would have loved to have had we have now you better believe they would have

Not a one of them would have been in your in your camp. Not a one of them. That's just that's just a fact Is a historical reason this is intimately connected with the theological reason but also distinct as a confessionally reformed

Baptist so In opposition to Sam Truman, I subscribe fully to the 1689

London Bapst Confession of Faith This doesn't mean that I hold to be equal to scripture But rather I hold to be an entirely accurate summation of what the scriptures teach concerning doctrine and practice

Since I take my confessional subscription seriously I must therefore hold to what the confession teaches concerning the scriptures

It is commonly said in response this assertion the framers the confession did not say anything about the text criticism or additions of the

Bible Which is what I have said and he's probably referring to me here and he's right This is an understandable conclusion based on most people's theological starting point concerning the

Bible namely that the Bible is inspired by God in inerrant only in the original Manuscripts which no longer exist and therefore we must seek to reconstruct the original readings like we would any other human book from antiquity

Actually, it's just simply dealing with the manuscripts that we possess the church has always had to deal with the fact that we have the scriptures in handwritten form and No, two manuscripts are identical.

This is the reality This is reality and any defense the

Christian faith as a historical faith needs to deal with the reality of history

Interestingly the current critical Greek texts are being put together by people who have abandoned the search for the original and are seeking merely for A likely early form of the text some are some aren't

Some are some aren't Erasmus more than once mentioned textual variants and said leave it up to you

That's your guy. That's your text Be consistent. You can't and you know, you can't

I don't know. I don't know how many times I we've pointed this out I've quoted you Erasmus and it's just like Not gonna listen

D D D D D D The framers of the confessions were fully aware of the textual variants discussed today.

Really? They couldn't be They certainly knew textual variants existed

But the range of them there's there's no way they could have known that they had no critical additions

Even the 1550 Even if they had 15 even if every one of them had read both

Erasmus and Beza They would not have had access to everything

Do we have that's just not true. That's just not true. So maybe maybe you're just simply saying

When you say fully aware of the textual variants discussed today that there is that there are textual variants

I'll try to stretch it that far They simply handled them from a theological framework over and above the methods employed today.

Really? That Okay, so the framers did something different than Beza and Stephanos and Erasmus.

Are you admitting that? So your text comes about From the way you say it shouldn't have come about but somehow it's the right one anyways

This is this is what you want to defend. I'm just Just reading the words the

Stop doing that the London Bapst Confession of Faith states in chapter 1 8 the Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament in Greek being

Immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence that kept pure in all ages are therefore authentic to understand how this statement

Which reads the same both Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration of Faith relates text criticism We must understand the framers of confession in the

Puritan and post -reformation era meant by the authentic text James Usher states that all final authority and doctrinal disputes rests upon the original languages since they and not

Translations specifically the Latin Vulgate which the papers tell to be authoritative are the only sources to be held authentic Exactly.

In other words Greek and Hebrew not a specific Greek and Hebrew text There were already so which one of the

TRS were they referring to? Well the 1680 which one was at 1550 Stephanos was a 1598

Beza. Which one is it? They're not the same ones you're saying it's letter to letter You are you are playing fast and loose with the facts

It's what you're doing According the framers of our confession the authentic text is the

Hebrew and Greek text over against any Translations such as the Latin Vulgate. This was specifically aimed at Rome Yep Which is stated that because the

Hebrew and Greek texts had been had been corrupted the preserved Bible was only the Latin Vulgate So when the confession speaks of the original language text is being authentic and kept pure They are referring not to a hypothetical original loss to history.

It must be reconstructed but to the printed Hebrew and Greek texts in their possession which ones and Why do you say printed?

You automatically think that that once the printing press came into existence that those manuscripts became less important for the framers the confessions the authentic pure and perfectly preserved text of the printed editions the

Hebrew and Old Greek New Testament then in Their possession the church in the 1617 centuries in God's providence Collated and edited the

Hebrew and Greek text which the people of God possessed ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding How come

I can quote Erasmus and Beza that says that you are playing fast and loose the facts. How come we can do that?

When did you make Erasmus the church? He was a Roman Catholic priest.

He he was buried in sanctified ground When did he become the church?

When does Stephanos become the church? When did Beza become the church? They're not the church

You guys keep talking about how the church did this and the church did that and I keep saying show me and you can't do

It you won't do it Because it didn't happen well, it's general usage, okay, so Because the

Elsevier brothers print an edition and it becomes popular Like Erasmus's first edition, which didn't contain the

Communion, but anyway, it becomes popular That's the church speaking it's because of the popularity of book sales

Really This is dangerous stuff folks. This is some of you say why do you spend so much time because it's dangerous

Not only does it take reform people out of meaningful apologetics to the rest of the world

But this is dangerous when you start playing with church history this way You start making myths up.

This is mythology It's mythology amongst the Calvinists It's Calvinist mythology

It's what it is The church in the 16th and 17th centuries in God's providence collated and edited the

Hebrew and Greek texts really When did they do this? Where? Where they do the collation at?

Where is the catalog? Where is the listing? Where is the documentation? It didn't happen You know, it didn't happen.

The books, Cron's, read Cron's Read it yourself right here. Here's Collected Works of Erasmus volume 41 read it for yourself didn't happen

Every single one of these guys wished they had access to more manuscripts But it wasn't possible to do those kinds of collations back then

Because you couldn't do facsimiles. You could not do communication You did not have collections and especially after the

Reformation. You've got so much war going on in Europe You couldn't travel Don't don't tell me the church did this individual scholars

Worked on something over here. They had access to this they'd access that did wonderful jobs for what they had access to But don't don't change church history

To substantiate a human tradition, which is what this is textual traditionalism

The men behind our confessions recognize these printed editions of the original language texts as the authentic and pure text inspired preserved and given by God during the

Reformation and It is my opinion that we who hold these confessions should as well. Well, once again, it is a massive overreach massive overreach in the reading of the

London's Baptist Confession to turn that into a statement of textus receptus only ism and I think it is deeply disrespectful to the framers.

I really do deeply disrespectful And I will call it out and continue to call it out needs to be

Evidential reason the third reason why I switched from the critical text position to the confessional text position is based on the evidence

Although evidence is not the foundation or the starting point of the confessional text position then

Are you really using evidence if you already have your conclusion? Since your conclusion is already fixed.

How can you use evidence? All you're gonna do is point to the evidence that supports your conclusion, but not to any countervailing evidence of which there is a mountain

But rather a theological foundation which states that God has preserved and the church has received recognized the text which he inspired

The evidence is an overwhelming support of the traditional text I will not be going into detail extensively here see references for in -depth handling, but one example should suffice

And what is the long but what's one example? Longer ending of Mark was often called the longer ending of Mark found in Mark 16 9 to 20 is in most modern translations either relegated to a footnote or Placed in double brackets with a disclaimer in the

ESV This passage is placed in double brackets with a heading placed in all caps It reads some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16 9 to 20

It is fairly agreed upon a modern biblical scholarship This passage was not part of the original text of Mark and is not to be considered scripture

Even though is contained the Reformation era Greek text and has been utilized by millions of Christians via translations of those texts for 500 plus years

The claim is that the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain it and therefore we should not consider it as scripture This sounds fairly convincing and makes it seem somewhat silly that people would still argue

That the Reformation era texts were correct in viewing the longer ending as scripture That is until you look at the evidence when we examine the evidence starting with theological method during scripture.

We must first turn to Paul To see how he defined a gospel First Corinthians 15 1 through 6

Paul says the gospel contains these five criteria G is death for our sins as burials resurrections being seen as ascension. So going back to the gospel of Mark we know

That for it to be a valid gospel account. It must possess all five criteria I know

I've lost pretty much everybody by now. Sorry. I Didn't expect to read this whole thing

But Tune back in for a second because I want you to be able to recognize

Argumentation that is fundamentally flawed Because we as Christians shouldn't be using fundamentally flawed argumentation we talk about The gospel of Mark what we have here is someone saying well

How to define a Gospel from Paul Paul's talking about the gospel not a literary document called a gospel

Massive Category error and you know why it's so massive and obvious to me. This is the same mistake the

Muslims make I've had to explain to Muslims and see that's that's one of the things that let me just point this out this traditional text only ism stuff only exists inside a small community

It has not been birthed by people who are debating Muslims and mosques around the world

That's not where it's come from. It's come from a Very small community.

It only makes sense which in those confines So what's your what you're hearing is?

Well, you've got to have all these things for the gospel and And if you take the longer ending of Mark away then

Mark is not a gospel Massive category error

Massive category now, I would argue that you have it in Mark in the sense of Jesus talking about his you know,

Mark chapter 14 son of man all the rest that kind of stuff It's all there even whether you have 9 through 20 or not

But and I've I've argued I think this is actually evidence for the early date of Mark is that it may have ended where it ended because the assumption was it would then be

Concluded by the eyewitnesses themselves in the early church Giving their own testimonies of seeing the risen

Jesus wherever else it might be but Mark does not exist unto itself. It's not It was not we all agree.

It was not God's intention that Mark be the only thing we had in the New Testament but you see the category distinction a gospel versus the gospel one is the

Message of salvation. The other is what we would call a historical Biography Intended to communicate something that Mark does that Luke does that Matthew does

John does so on so forth so if we follow the modern contextual critical scholars and assume

Gospel mark ends of verse 8 then the gospel ends with the women at the tomb not seeing Jesus being terrified seeing

Nothing saying nothing to anyone Along with no mention of Jesus's appearance or ascension if this is the case then according to Paul The gospel of Mark is not a gospel and the entire book should be rejected as inspired scripture.

So bogus argument 1 ,000 % Guys, where'd you get this?

This is bad. It's Okay, I Gotta pick this up because there's

I may have to hold off. I told somebody on Twitter That I was going to respond to the accusations on Luke 23 34

From Chris Thomas, I'm just gonna keep this here Because I'm going really long here

But this was an this was an article that was posted in Twitter accusing me of misrepresentation and Let me see here it was

Joshua Winslet By the way, I've enjoyed his teaching on many other subjects of profit

However, I've never enjoyed his typical tone to believers or his misrepresentations And then he quoted quoted this so I was going to demonstrate the misrepresentation came for Chris Thomas I'm going to be very useful again to go through math 23 34

The dissection, you know, Jesus said father forgive them. They know not what to do And correct, you know,

I've had to block Chris Thomas because There are certain people who just cannot honestly even represent what someone has said to them and I've documented this on Facebook For years until it's just like oh forget it.

You're not even you're you're not listening but he posted something at confessional bibliology and I'll go through it and you know

Just point out where the misrepresentations of my argument were where the errors in fact are, you know, and so I'll just Bookmark bookmark this page make sure this one

I don't put the bookmarks Put it in there. Hopefully we'll be able to find that remind me of that if I could

So much stuff goes on and it's really easy to it's really easy to lose stuff like that I don't know where in the world that page came.

It's But I will finish this up number four personal reason My fourth reason we're going to confessional text position is personal

I started learning Greek in 2010 have since then read from the Greek New Testament my daily devotions for many years It's a critical text advocate.

I use the standard modern critical text and SCL and UBS I was made aware of variants learn how to read the textual apparatus about on the page

Which shows you the variants along with the information about them I began to wonder how I could affirm the inspiration and errancy of the

Bible if we didn't have it The common saying we can reconstruct the original with 99 % accuracy began not to cut it anymore for me

If God inspired his word, why didn't he preserve it? If he did preserve it then where is it? Why didn't

God give the word he inspired and preserved unto his church? I just remind you that that was

Bart Ehrman's argument That was Bart Ehrman's argument If God inspired it, there would be no variants so that A historical anachronistic could never have functioned at any time the church up until the printing press

Perspective, which is just a modernist sticking his head in the sand and ignoring history Leads two different directions

It will either lead to the Bart Ehrman. God didn't inspire it. I stopped believing or To radical

King James only ism or to hear TR only ism Since there are variants,

I don't want variants. I don't like variants and So I'm going to just grab ahold of a text and close my eyes of the variants because I've pointed out before That the

TR the people are running around with now, which is actually again, it's a fake text It's a

Greek text based upon English text based upon multiple Greek texts Has no notes

There's there's no there's no variants noted in here And so it's they're like, ah, there it is

But all that means is I'm just completely ignoring everything that everybody who put this together ever said about it

I'm ignoring Erasmus and I'm ignoring Stephanus and I'm ignoring I'm ignoring the Side notes in this very text right here in this 1550 text right there, and I'm ignoring

Bayes And I'm ignoring the annotations by Erasmus and I'm just closing my eyes because it makes me feel good Yeah Yay, I thought we were reformed men.

We don't do that kind of thing. Okay This sent me down the road of questioning everything

I believed about the Bible and because I've been so often told the confessional text position Is traditionalist at best and anti intellectual at worst.

I didn't believe I could hold it as a tenable position The only place I found solace was in the theology of Karl Barth Who taught the

Bible was merely a human witness to God's Word It was an artifact the revelation event and only becomes the Word of God when God makes it so Of his own sovereign grace to the reader after struggling this position for a year

I re -examined the confessional text position finally began to understand the three reasons for holding it which

I have mentioned above which we have all demonstrated are utterly incoherent and Found rest and solace knowing that God has given his word to his church

I really hope that no one's true faith in Scripture is based upon bad argumentation that's not a good thing and Bart I'm not gonna go there

Now my personal life. I no longer question God's Word I no longer stand in judgment over it with my textual apparatus, but it stands in judgment over me as a saved sinner

That sounds so spiritual, but it is so hokey and it's so empty Absolutely empty.

I'm sorry. I've got to say you're just being mean folks. This is destructive

This is destructive to the very Truth that God has given to us that we can use

To build up people's faith in the scripture and to defend the scriptures against the attacks are coming against us

This is retreat. It's capitulation It's close our eyes close our ears run back to a tradition and sit there holding it rocking back and forth

It's safe spacism in textual criticism. I Will folks

The defense of the New Testament in our day has no safe spaces No safe spaces at all to have

John chapter 17 in the Nessie all in Greek text have that information down at the bottom page does not deny inerrancy and It does not put me in the position of judging

God's Word It gives me everything that we know About the transmission of that text over time and to sit there and say oh well, you know

I was sitting in judgment over God's Word, but now God's Word sits in judgment over me is a wonderfully pious pile of hooey

You can let God's Word Judge you whether you hold either view

Don't give me that type of pious Piety I'm gonna I'm gonna

I'm gonna ignore all the facts and Hope that the piety that you hear coming from me will be enough to make my argument work baloney

Baloney Has nothing to do with standing in judgment over God's Word It has to do with using everything he's given to us to make sure that we have it and the funny thing is you're really

Betraying the Reformation here. Did you know that that's the funny thing? The funny thing is To be able to defend the

Reformation over against Rome see none of you guys have ever debated a Roman Catholic Have you

I've lost track 35 Some are some around 35 debates against leading

Roman Catholic apologists You've never done that Have you you've never had to defend reform doctrine

Against those very the descendants of those very people you're betraying what they did

Because you're you're you're grabbing a text. You're turning it into something. It was never intended to be and The process what

God has given us to be able to defend the veracity of that text. You don't do it anymore You have abandoned textual criticism.

It's a betrayal of Reformation not a defense of it. Take that Final the fifth and last reason and this is all in pulpit and pen to The fifth and last reason

I hold the confessional text position is a pastoral reason in my sermon preparation preparation I no longer have to spend hours trying to reconstruct the original with textual commentaries and apparati

Did you really do that? Did you really do that? Come on You you're honestly telling me you invested hours in Reconstructing the original

Mormons can say the exact same thing. I've got the Joseph Smith's translation. I don't need any of that stuff.

Yay Just go back to the Vulgate Kate Pope Sixtus Provided you with an infallible

Vulgate exact same motivation Exact same motivation again.

It's an abandonment of the of the Reformation So what about all these all the the post

Reformation reformed writers? What? What about Calvin? when he talks about the variance

He shouldn't have been doing that should just had the TR there was no TR You could

I can confidently work from the text God has given and preserved I can ignore

Everything Erasmus said about everything. I I can just read a verse and even though other people know that historically

There were some really interesting things that gave me the verse in the form that it's in and it's actually not representative of the text the church had for for 1 ,500 years

But I'm confident in it. Anyways, so I don't have to doing that stuff. I don't have to read all those books anymore.

I Who needs that who needs that right? hmm

And assured the rhyme giving my people comes from the very Word of God itself My church also benefits in my preaching their confidence in the

Word of God is no longer cut down as their pastor explains textual variants During the sermon they can be confident that the

Bible I am preaching from that They have in their laps is a translation of the preserved Word of God. This sounds exactly like the

King James only us They're just moving it one step forward. That's all they're doing That's all they're doing.

And So what do you do? When preaching Hebrews 10 where there's a textual variant in the

New Testament citation of the old because you haven't prepared your people by dealing with Romans 5 1 or John 1 18

Or 1st Timothy 3 16 What are you gonna do when the text of variant exists between the

Testaments? What you gonna do then? Washington DC has called me twice so far.

Well, that's a That's just a I don't know No Yeah, I know

I know Folks this stuff doesn't work and it is sad to see it expanding amongst reformed men inconsistently inconsistently inconsistently

So There you go, I Haven't been looking at Twitter But that's not a subject that normally gets people talking much on Twitter, I'm sorry

I realize for some folks. It's like it's too detailed. It doesn't have anything to do with me.

I Try to stick to stuff that I really think has Lasting impact upon the church

As I look at what's going on today a lot of people would say you just need to put everything else aside Social justice

This stuff you're doing CBGM papyri Come on, come on We need you in the arena now

There is no question that there are great movements afoot that will have lasting impact upon the church

My My Understanding is that the the greatest thing

I can leave is something that's gonna be relevant Let's say let's say this social justice movement results in the literal

Reshaping of Western culture and a collapse of that culture. It's gonna be something else come out from it and I want to leave a faithful witness to whatever comes

That God has preserved his word Not in traditionalism. I'm not gonna just close my eyes and go

I'm gonna take this text No, we can take the defense of the

New Testament To the atheists and the Muslims and everybody else we can take it out there

Because God actually has preserved. I suggest to you that when you run back to the 16th century

You don't believe God's actually preserved it If you have to grab hold of a text and go

I'm not gonna I'm not gonna hold this to the same Standards anything else I did. This is it. Here's my confidence That's not confidence

That's not confidence That's capitulation. That's capitulation. Yeah, so You know, it said down here at the bottom

It said opposing scholarly viewpoints are encouraged So maybe pulpit and pen will will link to today's dividing line

Probably not the first part of the dividing line, but at least the part about this Thank You Ryan, I didn't mean to read the whole whole thing

I wasn't gonna do that what Well, I guess so I guess so one last thing

People will say you're so much nicer to Muslims than the Christians You know why

I? Hold fellow believers to a higher standard The Muslim I want to introduce them to Jesus I Want to I Know that they have not seen the the

Lord of Glory and so I want to get out of the way Love them and speak the truth in love.

I take that seriously speaking the truth in love When I'm talking to fellow

Christians, especially reformed Christians Who should know better I'll look you in the eye and say brother get with the program wake up.

What are you doing? I'll be straightforward with them Because they should know better and You should be able to do that in the family

You're nicer to Michael Brown ask Michael how straightforward I was with him when he and I sat down in Spain After he was on the

Benny Hinn show He's talked about we've talked about on the air.

I was straightforward and I'm being straightforward with you guys. You're going down the wrong path

It's a dead end And It'd be nice to have you out here where the real battles are going on Because that's not where the that's not where the battlefront is.

That's not where the battlefront is You're you're you're following Calvin to Strasburg He needs to stay in Geneva There a reason that's uh,

I would just you know We've seen it happen far too many times over the years in ministry whether we're dealing with a

Mormon whether we're dealing with a Roman Catholic the undermining of the scriptures always leads to the stray path and We have to be dragging them back.

How many times have we encountered? the Mormon using atheistic arguments

Against the scriptures attacking the scriptures and what these folks need to recognize is what we hear and what we see from professing believers

Who say I'm a Bible -believing Christian, but I'm gonna Romans 12 doesn't apply to me. I can talk like a sailor

I Can talk like however, I want I can call you names if you disagree not talking about the guys who are just talking about here

No, I'm just talking it or Colossians 3 Where is your mind?

The the application of these scriptures to your own self you divorce them from yourself when you start

Finding ways where you don't really have to adhere to the scriptures Where you don't really have to Wrestle with any of these issues on a personal level

Well, there's two things. I think need to be distinguished no one's saying that these guys or any any

I've not had anybody in the traditionalist camp I've had

I've had people in traditionalist camp be pretty nasty toward me, but not Utilization of Inappropriate language.

I need to make sure that that's not that's not an accusation. Well, I'm kind of commenting on the whole show Oh, well, so if you if your comments are about the first part of the show, yes

Yes that that makes fair enough, but I do see a problem here in The personal application of these issues when you say well, you know,

I kind of got into the weeds and stuff like that I'm listening to this going know every bit of this matters on a personal level as a believer in Christ and when you have people who want to play games as They handle the scriptures.

They want to have an easy path when you know what it was just too hard having to prepare for my

Sermons on Sunday morning when I had to do things this way and this is just so much easier

No that that argument, I think I I Don't know how seriously that was meant.

I mean it was It's in there. Yeah. No, yeah. Yeah, I Know that that one left me going really seriously.

Come on Anyway, anyway, all right. So next time

I Should I should oh I have a little note program

Little note program There now as long as that doesn't just get deleted eventually

I'm gonna go what was that that's from 2019 that's

You know, it's my both eyes gonna be swollen shut from the bee sting and I can't see it

We will try to get to that other thing that I said, I would I would mention I would do so anyways So something tells me between now and next

Tuesday Something's We'll have something more to be talking about on the dividing line we will by the way

I'm On the cruise don't put it off forever because I I think we're gonna fill up and maybe sooner than later, so Bucket list man bucket list.

It's that's the only way I can describe it is It's it's the type of thing where you go. I remember when we did that So keep it keep in mind keep in mind.