Great Open Zoom Calls!

Well, greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. We're doing a Zoom call program today, but before we get to those calls, there's something I want to do really quickly. I will try to be brief, but I think it fits with our last program and it's directly relevant to the topics we've been addressing recently.

Yesterday I addressed Dustin Ashe and stuff that he had, the five verses, that type of thing. This is a former Presbyterian mother of God apologetics, whatever that is. Someone had basically pointed out to him, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

You seem to think this is exegesis, but it's not exegesis and they're right about that. It's quoted from Hebrews 10, verse 14. I'm going to try to be brief here as much as possible, but just a reminder, because this is central.

Everybody dealing with Roman Catholicism, any really kind of, really almost any synergistic system, this is a place where your doctrine of atonement directly impacts your understanding of what the atonement actually does and how it fits into the gospel.

And non-Reformed Protestants really struggle here to be consistent. One of the beauties of Reformed theology is there is a consistency. In developed Reformed theology, there is a consistency in how we understand the atonement in relationship to the gospel.

So, just a reminder, Hebrews 10, 10. By this will, thelamity, we have been sanctified. Notice, we have been sanctified, because once you get to verse 14, they're going to try to turn this, because they take it out of context.

We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, ephahpox, once for all. And once for all is a temporal adverb. It's not, in English, once for all can be once for all people. Not in Greek.

It is a temporal adverb. It's not repeated. So, this is the context. This is the running context of what is being discussed. It goes all the way back to the beginning. We read the beginning of Hebrews chapter 10.

And then you have further discussion, the citation of Psalm 110, set down the right hand of God, enemy's footstool, so on and so forth. And then verse 14, which is what Dustin Ash refers to, for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

So, who are those being sanctified? Verse 10. They have been sanctified by that one will. So, that's vitally important to keep in mind. Context is always vital. When you don't, when you see people not following context in their comments online, wherever it might be, then you know that they're not really trying to drive the theology from the text.

They're forcing the theology on the text. And so, you will see that when I address this topic, when we address the topic in debates we've done, published materials, whatever, you will see that following of the argument.

That's, you know, John 6, Romans 9. It's allowing the text to speak for itself that is the issue. So, Dustin Ash says, good, let's actually do this. Everything in that verse is Catholic doctrine. One offering affirmed.

There is only one. Calvary. No second offering exists or could exist. Stop. This man is not a priest, as far as I know. I think he would say if he was. He's a convert. So, he could just be ignorant. Or he could be like a lot of converts that bring a lot of what they used to believe with them and redefine their new faith in light of their old faith.

But let me remind you of a quotation that I've given many times before. But you need to hear it. And if you don't mind, well, you know what, let's just see if the old man glasses will... Yeah, let's do it this way.

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from his throne, and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times.

The priest speaks, and lo, Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. Now, I just stopped to note the utter, absurd, disgusting blasphemy, but of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and vice-gerant of Christ on earth.

He continues the essential ministry of He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.

No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of Alter Christus, for the priest is and should be another Christ. This is not some one-off book.

That's O 'Brien in the Faith of Millions. Well-known book for decades. So, you can try to use biblical language, but when you realize that in Roman Catholicism, the priest is offering an unbloody sacrifice, that's the language.

Unbloody sacrifice. And it's being offered on an altar. Okay? That's not my language. That's a Roman Catholic priest speaking. This guy isn't a Roman Catholic priest. He's a former Presbyterian. He wouldn't be the first Presbyterian to join Roman Catholicism to sort of redefine Roman Catholicism, bend the language toward where he once was.

But, again, first book ever published. What's the thesis here? First book came out in 1990. Okay? So, what? 36 years ago. What's the thesis here? The sacrifice of Christ in the Roman Catholic Mass by its own dogmatic teachings does not perfect anyone.

Now, a lot of Protestants agree. Provisionists agree. It only provides for the opportunity. It does not actually perfect. Okay? That's why first book ever wrote. Hebrews chapter 10, Hebrews chapter 7, Hebrews chapter 9, Hebrews chapter 8, 10.

Did the whole thing a long, long time ago. Because we haven't changed what we've been saying about this. We haven't changed. So, one offering, except that's one offering, is represented on an altar in an unbloody fashion 100 ,000 times a day.

That's not the same point as Hebrews. That wasn't happening in Hebrews. Okay? That's something that develops long later. One offering affirmed. There's only one. Calvary, no second offering exists or could exist.

Okay? He has perfected, affirmed, completed action. Who? You. Dustin Ashe. Did you go to Mass this week? Are you perfected? Well, no, but neither are you. And there we've got the issue. For us, there is positionally, in Christ, perfection because we have His righteousness imputed to us.

In Him. Seated in the heavenly places. The doctrine of election is sort of important here. A lot of Protestants don't have a doctrine of election. There's the problem. What about you? Were you perfected?

No, you weren't. And, in fact, your own theology, at least the theology that used to be taught, you know, if you want to say, yeah, we're not so sure about that anymore. Okay, just be honest about it.

The theology that used to be taught is that you could commit a mortal sin before you go to bed tonight and die the enemy of God. You are no longer perfected. Right? So, what does perfected mean? In Hebrews 10, 10, the specific terminology was, as we read it, by one, by this will, we have been sanctified.

We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ at Phapox. One time. Once for all. So, there's what perfection is. Okay? Roman Catholicism says you can't, you can't claim that.

You can be unperfected by your own actions. Right? I mean, this is not something that would be argued much with most Orthodox Roman Catholics. But converts can be converts. For all time. Affirmed. That phrase doesn't mean in the past only.

It means perpetually, ongoing, continually. KJV forever. The offerings effect doesn't sit in the past. It endures now. There may be where he's trying to wiggle here. For all time. Now, again, that, he says, well, well, what that, that means is perpetually, ongoing, continually.

Now, is the offering being made perpetually, ongoing, continually? Or is the perfection something that lasts because of the one-time sacrifice? That's a completely different thing. See, I can see a Roman Catholic, oh, you see, yeah, Aistot, Dianakes, Dianakes means perpetually being applied, imperfectly.

It doesn't actually perfect anyone. I mean, I can see that's the direction they would go. Is that the author's argument in Hebrews 10? No, it's the exact opposite of the author's argument in Hebrews chapter 10.

When you start verse 1, by the time you get down to verse 14, that's no longer an option. But that's the problem with these guys. And that's the problem here. Once you've accepted Rome's authority, then you can't examine Rome's doctrine on the basis of this text.

You have to make this text fit Rome's doctrine. See, that's the big difference. Now, look at what else your verse says. Those who are being, our being is capitalized, sanctified. Present tense, ongoing, the one finished offering is being applied to people right now.

See there, I told you that's where he'd go. He doesn't see 10, 10, and 10, 14 together. You know, you suck the Old Testament fulfillment from Psalm 110 in between them, and he loses the context. But when you read 10, 10, and 10, 14 together, the emphasis is not on this.

The present tense participle, the articular participle, the substantive participle, is describing a particular people, not an action that is necessary for them to be experiencing to fulfill the perfection, the sacrifice.

See how that works? That's vitally important. The verse holds both at once, one completed offering, perpetual sanctification still happening. Well, we believe in ongoing sanctification, but that's not what is being discussed in Hebrews 10.

That comes in Hebrews 12 with discipline and being a child. That's not Hebrews 10. And Rome, since Rome confuses and confutes justification and sanctification, this is, again, we're going back to Reformation 101, which maybe he didn't have when he was a Presbyterian, but you're going back to it.

Um, justification is not sanctification. He's making the two the same thing. And once you conflate them, you know, you can no longer have the imputed righteousness of Christ, peace with God, etc, etc.

Um, okay, that, I mean, that, that, that takes the whole thing apart. Uh, and we've got callers, but, um, there you go. I wanted to make sure that was understood and respond to that. Sorry for everybody who's waiting.

The Once-for-All Offering in Hebrews 10

So, let's, uh, go ahead and start with, uh, Marco, who didn't get in last time. So, we do want to let those folks in. Go ahead, Marco. Go ahead, Marco.

Can you hear me? Yes, I can now. All right, great. Um, so, is it okay to have icons or paintings of Christ merely as art in your home? Not like in any worshipful sense or veneration or genuflecting, stuff like that.

Um, and I ask because just thinking about how, even though God is invisible, he did become visible to some degree in the incarnation. Um, as Paul says in Philippians 2, that the Son took on the form of a servant and was found in the likeness of man.

The word for form, homoioma, is the same thing that Moses uses in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 4, saying that you saw no form on Mount Horeb. And then also 1 John 1 .1 describes Jesus as what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands.

And I know some Reformed folks who are strictly anti-depiction of Christ and others who are fine with it, as long as it's not being worshipped. So, basically, if the Orthodox are wrong to venerate or worship icons, would a Protestant be wrong to have icons of Jesus or even paintings.

Of Gospel scenes? Well, there's the issue. The issue about icons has always been, what does veneration mean? And that will be central to the debate in October. Um, the development of the distinction of Latria and Dulia, the embracing of the idea that the honor paid to the image transfers through to the original, which was a, as I've documented just over the past few weeks, a complete misunderstanding of a citation.

Wasn't that Basil? I don't have it in front of me right now. But that's always been the issue. Images of Jesus, yeah, there are very strict people who say it's a violation of the Second Commandment. They'll, like, warn if there's, if they're going to repost something that has an image of Jesus, they'll, warning, 2CV, upcoming, or something like that, Second Commandment violation.

Yeah, I am, my primary problem with images of Jesus is simply we don't know what he looked like. And so, when we have all these white European Jesuses in pictures with blonde hair and stuff like that, that's problematic to me.

I've seen so much abuse of images of Christ that that's where my problem lies is more in a practical thing. I don't think that an image of Jesus is a Second Commandment violation, because Jesus became flesh.

And as I've said many times before, and I've asked, I've asked some of the firebrand Calvinists about this who were just, you know, jumping up and down about the subject, and I've said, so, if there was a kid sitting there during the sermon, the feeding of the 5 ,000, and he draws a picture of Jesus in the dirt, is he committing a Second Commandment violation?

No! Jesus became flesh. And so, but he became flesh at a point in time where there are no actual images of him. There are no pictures. There were no cell phones. And so, anything that we create today is not really representative of the reality.

So, for example, I think it's fine. I have it actually in the RV. You can see it down there to my left when we're in the RV. I have that painting of the road to Emmaus. And so, Jesus is in the painting.

Now, it's so small, you wouldn't be able to recognize anyone or anything like that. But there is a person representing Jesus, because that's a biblical scene. I mean, if there had been a cell phone in that day, that's pretty much what you would have seen.

You would have seen three men walking on the road to Emmaus. And so, no, I don't have any problem with that. And I can't just absolutely say, you know, there shouldn't be any, because we don't know what he looked like.

Well, okay, I can see how someone might create a image based on, you know, our computers can do amazing things with, you know, we found all sorts of skeletons of Jewish people who lived in that time frame, and you could throw 10 ,000 of them into a computer and come up with a basic-looking man from the first century, and it would probably be somewhat similar.

But there does seem to be, you know, there is something else to think about. And as Augustine said, which is interesting for our Roman Catholic friends, as Augustine said at one point, the physical presence of Jesus has been removed from the Church.

He has ascended on high, which is interesting in regards to what real presence means, and how far you take that, and is it physical, and, you know, because Jesus is saying we don't have Jesus's physical presence in the Church any longer.

So should we be picturing something that is in heaven? I mean, those are, I think those are some decent questions to be asked. I don't think it's a Second Commandment violation, because he did become flesh.

But I do think that there are reasons to be concerned about other excesses that tend to sort of happen naturally. There is a, mankind has a tendency toward idolatry, and so, you know, do we want to really come up with a picture in our mind?

You know, when we think of the Lamb standing as if slain in Revelation chapter 5, you can't help but picture that in your mind. That's not idolatry. But do we need to necessarily turn that into a beautiful AI painting or something?

You know, those are good questions, and, you know, most churches have images of Jesus in the sense of a lamb, things like that, which are given to us in Scripture. So, but the most important thing, from what you said very clearly, and when you put this into the context of Eastern Orthodoxy and icons, that's not an issue of making images, because all the icons of the at least ancient people, apostles or martyrs or whatever, they're all fiction.

We don't know what they look like. Even if you have an older rendering, that doesn't mean that someone actually knew what that person looked like. And iconography has sort of, interestingly enough, created standardized images for a lot of those people.

But that's just because there's an old, old, old icon that looks like that. Okay, that doesn't mean anything. And so, the real issue with Orthodoxy is, what is veneration? Is there really a distinction between Latria and Dulia?

Because John Damascus said there was. Well, John Damascus was wrong. His arguments don't hold. And the Second Nicene Council never really engaged the topic. Once you read the the acts of what happened in 787, they brought everybody up that was an iconoclast, and had been at Hieria in 754, and had condemned icons, and required them to repent publicly before even being seated in the council.

So they made the opposition party repent and admit they were wrong before they then had the argument about the subject. It's like, okay, no one can honestly say that this was a situation where, okay, you know, this is an unbiased examination of the facts.

Baloney. They read the acts of Hieria and condemned them. Their answers were bogus and filled with false citations. Yeah, it was a mess. It was a royal mess, as we will see in October. But anyway, that's the issue with Eastern Orthodoxy and iconography, is the veneration of those icons, and the idea that the honor given to the icon passes through to the again, wasn't what was being said.

And there you have a statement from a fallible man taken out of context and made infallible dogma. There's where church history warns you about what can really happen. Okay? Awesome. That's helpful. Yeah.

Just wanted to say thank you,.

Because 11 years ago, when I was a brand new Christian and didn't have a church for the first year and a half, this ministry really helped me understand how to read the Bible. Well,.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thanks for listening. Hopefully that was helpful. I'm sorry? Okay. The host would like you to unmute. Why do you want me to unmute? Well, that's what it said. Oh, well, okay.

Rich is hitting wrong buttons. So Rich has, Rich now has so many buttons to hit in front of him that it's, I mean, it's his own fault. He had a simpler board. Now he has this big board. And it reminds me a little bit, did y 'all know, before we go to Peter, did y 'all know that Alderaan was destroyed by a soundboard?

You didn't know this. By the way, the original 77 Star Wars, which I saw 11 times at the Seneca Theater in 1977, the original 77 Star Wars is coming out later this year. They're going to, they're going to have it in theaters.

And it has the original Death Star Explosion, because they've changed it a lot over the years. They've CGI'd stuff and things like that. Did you know that the original Death Star Explosion, do you know where it happened?

You know where it happened? Man, you're not much of a Star Wars guy, are you? The original Death Star Explosion took place in Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix. They hung that sucker up there in the middle of that darkened room and blew it up.

And that's what they used in the movie, was the explosion of, and it was in, it was in the Coliseum, which is now only used pretty much for weird stuff. It used to be, didn't the Suns play there for a while?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yeah, that was their home there for a long time. Anyways, but the point is, the point is that when they destroy Alderaan, remember? And you see this guy and he pulls this thing down, you know, there's all these lights flashing and boo, and the thing fires and Alderaan gets exploded?

That is a very well-known, it's actually not a soundboard, it is a video board that was very popular in that day. Grass Valley. Grass Valley video board. And it was probably being used in the movie itself.

And someone said, you know what? This looks pretty cool. And so he dragged the cameras in and put a helmet on the guy, and he's, that's actually how you fade from one camera to another, and it blew Alderaan up.

These, these are things you would not learn anywhere else. And the only reason I thought of this is Rich has a new toy out there, and it's got lots of buttons on it. And that's why he asked me to unmute.

And, but it's because you have too many buttons to push now. Oh. Oh, sure, fine, whatever, whatever. You should, you know, we have the Pope-Splainers online, and we have Rich-Splaining. So, oh, I cannot hear Peter, no.

So, all right, all right, Peter, please rescue us from.

The argument we're having here. An unexpected pleasure, we are honored by your presence. Yes, sir. Okay, I'm kind of passing along a question I read on X, and I'd like to see how you like my answers. And this is someone saying that when Jesus was asked why he used parables, he quoted Isaiah and said, well, if I didn't use parables, they would turn and believe and be forgiven.

And so he was saying this means that they could believe without regeneration. And on one hand, I was saying that because of their upbringing as a covenant people, they already had a kind of theological education that would give them a little bit of what we get from regeneration.

And on the other hand, it's kind of like having a combined class of kindergartners and eighth graders and then teaching one thing and then taking the eighth graders and giving them extra to where what was taught to the kindergartners can still be applicable for them at a lower level.

And well, well, you thankfully you gave the text, so I didn't have to search very long to get it. The text that you're referring to is, therefore, I speak them in parables, Matthew 13, 13, because while seeing, they do not see.

And while hearing, they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them, the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, you will keep on hearing, but you will not understand. You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive.

For the heart of this people has become dull, and with their ears, they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, lest they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and in return, I would heal them.

So here's the problem. Jesus is saying that this is judgment. In fact, what, did you put that up there while I was reading that? I didn't see that. Well, I didn't have it maximized. Here's the problem.

They are taking the citation from Isaiah 6 and turning it into a hypothetical. That's not what's going on in Isaiah 6, and it's not what's going on in Matthew 13. The immediate fulfillment in Matthew chapter 13 is, why are you using parables?

And his answer is, it's part of judgment. And that judgment is going to be seen very, very plainly in about 40 years, when Jerusalem was a smoldering ruin. But the point is, in the Gospels, the parables are judgment, and the kingdom message is reserved for the followers of the Messiah.

The citation from Isaiah 6 is to demonstrate that this is his own fulfillment language, that this has been the state of Israel for a very long time. They hear, they understand, they see, they do not perceive, the heart of this people has become dull.

I mean, this is a real example of the depravity of man. But then they go, ah, but lest they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heart and return, I would heal them. Oh, see, they have the ability to do this in and of themselves.

Well, that's not what's being addressed. That's not what's being addressed in Isaiah 6, because when Isaiah is sent as a prophet, this is part of, this is his message. This is why Isaiah says, in his commissioning as a prophet, how long, O Lord?

Because he can tell he's being sent with a message of judgment. So, none of the text is sitting there, is even entertaining this topic. This topic is addressed in other passages, in Romans 3 or in Romans 1.

It's addressed in Romans 8. No one is able to do these things. That's where the specific topic would be addressed. This is a hypothetical. Well, lest they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, I would heal them.

That must mean that they have this capacity. That's not what's being addressed. What's being addressed is that what is happening to Israel, even with the law being read in the temple, with the presence of the sacrifices, and with the covenant scriptures being possessed by these people, they have turned against these things.

And if you go back and read Deuteronomy 28 and 29, it's perfectly consistent that this is what's going to happen to a people who turn from their God. And so, the judgment that came upon Israel in the Old Testament was just, and was a part of God's plan to bring the Messiah about.

But it's not a hypothetical that says, oh, well, they possess this capacity innately. Any person, even though they are under God's judgment, can throw off God's judgment and have spiritual understanding and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

That's not even what's being addressed there. So, it's, this is one of those many topics where it's, people don't like to hear this, because they want an apologist like me to always give them the bullets for their gun to shoot their opponent dead, okay?

That's what they want. They don't want to hear that, to be perfectly honest with you, especially when it comes to subjects like God's judgment and holiness, what happened in the Old Testament, the destruction of the Amorites, the justice of the flood, every man, woman, and child.

The only people you can have meaningful conversations about those things with are people who are submitted to what God has revealed in Scripture. And people who are not, people who hold higher authorities, people who have already said, I'm not going to believe in a God like that.

You can point them to the Scriptures, but you're not going to convince them, and you're not going to change their minds. And nothing I say or anybody else can say can change their minds. And as a young apologist, that frustrated me.

But that is a necessary thing to come to understand, or you're going to live a very frustrated life, and I would too. So, you know, this morning, I hopped into X, I was looking for something, and I just, the thought crossed my mind, I'm being hit with error after error after error after error, and every error that I saw coming from Mormons and Roman Catholics, I had addressed in published works and refuted decades ago.

Now, I can either sit there and go, well, that was worthless, I've accomplished nothing, or I can go, well, we've been right over the target all along. And it's up to the Lord at that point. So, is that helpful at all?

Yeah, I just found it a little ironic that in order to try to rebuke regeneration, he was pointing to a verse that clearly showed sovereign decree, but he was calling it temporary judicial hardening.

Yes, well, I know who calls it that. That's a provisionist saying, that's Leighton Flowers,.

That's his big thing. Yeah, it's a Soteriology 101 fan.

Yes, yes. Yep. Okay, Peter, appreciate the question.

Thank you.

All right, God bless. All right, do you have... Oh, well, you had said that you had stuff going there. Did Russ ever respond to you? No? Russ, I ain't doing weird stuff out of Revelation today, so if you want to explain what you're talking about to Rich there, then he can pass that on to me, but I ain't doing weird Revelation stuff.

All right, let's go with Wesley then.

Hey, Dr. Wyatt. What's up? How are you doing today?

Getting older.

Okay, so recently I've been doing a lot of stuff on textual criticism and biblical accuracy, and I've been having this discussion in some comment sections about textual transmission, and this guy was questioning me on...

He had this really interesting point. He said that by relying on textual criticism to decide what belongs in the Bible, aren't we making modern historical science the final arbitrature of God's word? And if we go down that route, why should we favor the oldest surviving fragments over the historical consistence of the early church, like the Council of Rome or Jerome's Vulgate, which accepted these passages as canonical centuries?

In context, I was talking about John 8 and how it might not be in the Bible.

Because it's on earliest manuscripts. Right. Yeah, well, that's funny. It's interesting how people can be so certain about what ancient writers had access to. I mean, Jerome certainly had more access to manuscripts than many others did, but those who addressed textual critical issues to any depth, such as, well, Jerome and Origen are the only two early writers who were truly proficient in both Greek and Hebrew.

And that's sort of a freaky fact of church history when you think about it. It sort of makes... It's sort of sad how early and complete the division between synagogue and church became. I've often theorized, and I make this presentation all the time and I mention this, we only have like half a dozen New Testament scrolls where Christians copied their scriptures into the scroll form.

The scroll form was the common form of that day, and Christians didn't use them. The Christians almost always used a codex, the type of book that we have today. We can tell this, I mean, P66, P45, P75, they're all codex form.

And I've often wondered if they didn't do that because they were really specifically trying to differentiate themselves from the synagogue and from the Jewish transmission of scriptures. That would be interesting.

I can't prove that. There's lots of theories as to why Christians much prefer the codex over the scroll, but that's often crossed my mind. Anyway, there was that almost a complete loss, honestly. In fact, up until the Reformation, there was a period of time during the medieval ages where Hebrew was pretty much lost to the Christian church.

And there's a lot of folks today who think that would be a great idea. They sort of wish it would remain that way. Some real weirdos out there. But it really was lost. And so, Origen and Jerome, we learn a lot from what they say about what manuscripts they had access to.

But even they recognize they do not have access to everything. And they recognize that what was available to them is just what is available in their particular area. And we have to recognize that even if you were, like in Alexandria with that massive library, or in Caesarea with access to maybe a lot of Jewish materials, you're still looking at a very limited amount of manuscript data in comparison to what we have today.

And in fact, most Christians just don't get hold of the fact that the information we have today, when I grab, um, I don't know, oh, there it is. When I grab this Nesiallon Greek text here, the incredible, incredibly small print, which I can't read anymore, the incredible textual data in here, the amount of information that this one volume contains, um, was absolutely unknown, um, through the vast majority of church history.

Um, this amount of information in one place, and now of course that's all available, plus much more, on a cell phone. That, that amount of information, if Erasmus has had that, uh, would have changed everything.

He would have loved to have had access to all that, but he didn't. Um, and nobody in church history did. So, what they say, you know, uh, Francis Turretin, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant theologian, dogmatician, you know, you can read, uh, I've, I've read Turretin on, uh, Molinism and Middle Knowledge, and I, you know, I have to read it three or four times just to even begin to think that I actually grasp what in the world he was saying.

I mean, he can really give you a headache, and yet he makes comments in his writings about textual critical stuff that we know today he was completely wrong about. He just had very little information available to him.

So, when people talk about, well, the ancient church, uh, said this, the ancient church recognized the existence of textual variation, but the ancient church also recognized, um, that no one writer in that ancient church had access to even a small portion of the number of manuscripts that had been written even in that day.

And so, when people say, well, the ancient church said this, uh, the Council of Rome in 382, baloney! We, almost all we know of the Council of Rome, some people don't even think there was a Council of Rome, but, but everything that we know about it from later on is second, third hand.

We don't know what manuscripts they possessed. Um, we don't know what manuscripts Jerome possessed. We can actually guess at a few because he describes them, but, um, for all of them, they had but a fraction of what any of us have here now.

Um, so, the other, those are some of the things that people really struggle with in the modern church. We, we're so used to having a Bible in a leather cover, all 66 books, um, in a certain order. That's just what we are accustomed to, and we don't realize that's pretty much a modern innovation.

Very few Christians ever possessed the entirety of the Bible. They would have had to have been quite wealthy to have afforded it in the first place, just simply for the copying cost. Um, let alone literacy.

Um, I mean, the ancient Israelites were more literate than most ancient cultures because of the written text of scripture, uh, memorization of scripture, and things like that. But still, down through church history, the vast majority of believers couldn't read.

Um, and that's one of the reasons that, um, stained glass windows came into vogue. You could tell stories in pictures, and everybody would get to see the picture. Um, so, we live in a different age today, but we assume, we, we engage in anachronism.

We assume that the people before us had the same, had access to the same information that we have today, when they didn't. Um, so, when, when someone says, well, you're making modern textual critical theory, uh, determinative of what's in the Bible, no.

What's in the Bible was determined by the act of inspiration. What we want to do is be responsible with what God has given to us in answering one simple question. What did John write? If you're talking about John 7, 53, 3, 8, 11, what did John write?