The Fullness of Time, America's Hate Preachers Reviewed

I guess because a bunch of stars died or something, but that happens every year.

That happens every single year. I heard Zsa Zsa, was it Zsa Zsa Gabor that died? 90 some odd years of age, and that unfortunately does take place.

We are going to, so now Erwin is saying no sound. Is that the same thing as before?

How long have you been doing this again? They did a software upgrade, and I downloaded it last week.

Actually, they've upgraded it a couple of times in the last month, and suddenly this thing where it's not following the screen changes, it's dropping the sound, and I don't know why.

So everything that I said at the start just goes... We can start over if you want. Yeah, yeah, okay. So Zsa Zsa died.

Yeah, everybody, yeah. Well, most people don't figure I say anything important at the beginning anyway, so it might as well be silent.

So I guess that's how it's going to work. We'll get used to it eventually. They're playing with everything, and I just,

I'm like... When he says everything, he means everything. Yep, yep, and I'm one of those if it ain't broke, don't fix it type folks, so who knows?

Who knows what's going to happen down the road? But anyway, I want to take a look at the

BBC documentary that came out recently on America's hate preachers.

Wasn't it fascinating that the two people they decided to focus upon were

Ruben Israel and Steven Anderson? Since, hmm, who's had interaction with both of them?

Who's had these people attack him and make signs about him or do movies?

Oh, that would be me. Yeah, yeah, they didn't contact me for some strange reason, but that's because it was just as biased on the left as the loons they were interviewing on the right.

But anyway, we'll take a look at a few little sections from that.

But I wanted to start out, given the time of year, basically

I'm trying to trigger a fellow in our chat channel that goes by the name of Book.

So I'm trying to trigger him, whatever trigger means. I used to know what a trigger was.

We all knew what a trigger was. It was on a gun. And you pulled a trigger and a trigger pull could be measured in pounds.

This was back in the days when words still had meaning. Have you noticed how many times gay appears in Christmas songs and it didn't have anything to do with what it means now?

Back in the old days when a he was a he and a her was a her and you didn't have to worry about zee, zim, zur, ear, anything like that.

Those were good days. They really were good days. Anyway, so yeah, we've got this fellow in channel.

This morning he posted something on Twitter about being a little confused on the gender issue, but then he decided to modify that lest he'd be misunderstood.

We'll just leave that there. But he started doing the

Bah Humbug Scrooge thing right now. And so I need to come up with something that might be edifying for everybody but would also trigger him at the same time just to see what will happen.

Whatever, like I said, triggering actually means. So it's working so far too.

He's going to find a safe space. Actually, he's implying to take over the chat channel for a long time. This just may move his plans up just a little bit at that particular point in time.

Anyway, hopefully make this edifying. I did get a complaint on Twitter from some guy.

It just takes me too long to get to things. I need to go faster. We need to be more time efficient on the dividing line.

Yes, I'm sure he does. Yes, but I did not respond by saying some long lines of, well, please feel free to start your own program or anything like that.

I didn't do that. What can I say? Anyway, I was thinking –

I actually am preaching Sunday morning. Yes, we are having church on Sunday. And I may be doing the

Sunday school if I get time. I just don't know. I may be just continuing the church history series where we are.

Or I could sneak a church history lesson in on Mithraism and stuff like that if I have time.

I just don't know. We'll see. But I know what

I'm going to be doing for the Sunday morning service. It's a very similar, a little bit longer version of what I did in St.

Charles if you've seen that one. No, that is not a left -behind book behind me.

And what are they talking about? Oh, who put this here? Who put this here?

You're laughing. You're laughing. So I know. Ryan? Ryan did this.

So I looked up at the screen. I noticed, oh, there's something on top of my Von Soden Greek text. And a plain introduction to the

Criticism of the New Testament by Scrivener and a few things like that. And what is it but left behind?

A novel of the earth's last days. I will confess, I've never read this or any of the other 47 sequels to this.

But incredible. More intriguing than Clancy and Grisham.

Really? Okay. Alrighty.

Someone spent $13 .99, even though the sale says $10 .97 on the front. Well, thanks,

Ryan. Appreciate that. I'm now regretting having let you in just a few minutes ago. But anyway.

Kofie just said, burn it with fire. Well, I do have my flamethrower here for the straw man.

But that would probably be somewhat dangerous. And Kofie can get away with suggesting that because he probably can't get in trouble being as he's in Milwaukee.

So anyway. Well, thank you. Anything else I need to look for in here? Any other embarrassing things?

Is it? No? No? Okay. Alright. At least you're not going to tell me if there is.

There's a note inside the cover? Yeah.

Okay. Merry Christmas. Yeah. Yeah. Well, not only does this thing look like it's about 20 years old.

It's all beat up, dog -eared. The paper's, you know, aged. But I just,

I put my stamps. I have two stamps now that says, heretical garbage for research purposes only.

I put them in the other office, so I can't stamp them right now.

But I forgot, also forgot to bring myself anything to drink, which was probably not wise.

But, alright. Okay. Interesting stuff on,

I just love how everybody expects you to cover. If you're going to do apologetics, you have to cover everything.

We're getting a Twitter bomb from the phone call you obviously got just a few moments ago.

Look at Twitter. I bet you it's the same person. Anyway, now can we get to it?

Now that all the heretical stuff has been removed from plain view? Well, some people would question that for other reasons, but we won't go into that.

As I was thinking about what texts to address, was that what the phone call was about?

Yep, there you go. Yeah, I, yeah. That was quick. Yeah, well.

I've addressed, I've actually addressed some of those things. I spoke on it here at the church.

That was one of the subjects that I addressed on the church, here at the church. But it's not something that's a major area.

I'm going to go ahead and address this. I had a fellow come and channel today. And he asked a question about Luther and his views on baptismal regeneration and sola fide and how you put all that together.

Now, I had just gotten done with the ride. I had to get showered up, grab lunch on the way in, get set up for the program.

And I'm like, that's a really big subject to address.

Well, come on. I've asked this question before. Why won't anybody answer my question? And now we've got a guy,

JDPR, on Twitter and has questions about annihilationism.

And we're just supposed to, whatever else we're doing. And I just, there's something about people today.

It would never cross my mind, never cross my mind to contact an

R .C. Sproul or a John MacArthur or somebody else and say, you know, I don't know what else you're doing, but you need to stop everything you're doing right now.

And my question needs to be the most important thing to you. And you need to put everything else off.

You know, when I was a kid and I had questions, there was this thing called a library. Not Google.

It's a thing called a library. In fact, some of you young folks need to go into the historical archives, which is

Google. Go to Google Images and type in card catalog. And find out how your ancestors looked things up.

And for example, we used to use something called interlibrary loan.

Interlibrary loan. I -L -L. Because very frequently the library you'd go to wouldn't have the book you needed.

But another library would. And as long as you had time, which meant that things took time back then, it wasn't just microwave right now.

You could actually get the book. Now you'd have to then read the book and you'd have to take care of the book. You'd have to return the book.

You'd have to go to the library multiple times to go put the initial one in and go pick it up. Then go take it back.

Yeah, things were done a little bit more slowly back in those days. But it's amazing how much you learned. By having to research things and read stuff that you didn't really necessarily want to read at the time.

But you know, that's how we did it back in the olden days. And it just amazes me.

How many people think that there is some kind of...

I am a terrible, horrible, nasty person. If I say, you know what, that's not really a subject I have time to talk about right now.

Partly because such subjects as sacramentalism and Luther and justification are huge.

And they're not to be done in a chat channel anyways. They are massive. They're big. They can't be done well without extensive preparation.

But secondly, when did I become the online Bible Antimon? I've never advertised myself that way.

I've never said, hey, you know what, if you just want a bibliography of everything... Well, of course, you're not actually going to read the whole thing.

But just sort of pre -digested answers to everything. Just give me a ring. I've never said...

I don't even want people to think that. And it's just scary because what you're going to find when you do the shallow...

I want answers right now. Answers are generally not good answers. And they'll generally mislead you.

They'll generally mislead you. So, you know what, on the subject of annihilationism, there's been bunches of stuff published.

Bunches of stuff published. Yes, well, I wasn't really listening. I just heard something.

You know, just saying, you know, that's not subject we're addressing today. Lots of stuff out there.

Look it up. Do some work. Be patient. Just a real pet peeve of mine.

In my day, you had to work. Had to do something. Now it's, hey. Entitlement mentality.

You drop everything. Whatever is most important to me. Okay, alright.

That's generally not going to bode well for the answers that you're going to end up... Patience.

Patience. Good thing. Good thing. Do work. Alright, as I was saying.

Finally, 15 minutes in. Yay. Getting to the text. I was thinking about the subject of the incarnation.

And we've addressed it from so many different perspectives. For example, over the years, I've just loved working through Isaiah 9.

And I will touch on Isaiah 9 in the sermon on Sunday. But only touch on it as a part of the series of texts from Isaiah 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

It's so obvious that part of the central proof texting that Jesus taught the disciples.

Remember? What's the essence of what's going on after the resurrection? And the training of the disciples is opening their minds to understand the scriptures.

And what's he talking with the disciples in the road to Emmaus about? But the testimony of the

Old Testament scriptures to himself. And it's just fantastic when you look at a child being born.

And the root that's used there. This was a true child. This was true birth. And yet a son given.

And the differentiation of the words. And how in light of fulfillment, we can see things that would not have been seeable in the original context.

Which become all the more significant when we see how each of these passages dovetail with one another.

It's just incredible. It really is. Always enjoy doing that. It's beautiful.

But I decided to go someplace completely different. And this is not where you would normally expect someone to go to share a few thoughts regarding the

Incarnation. But it is a vitally important text. If you go to almost, well, if you go to any university, state sponsored college.

And the majority of Bible colleges and seminaries in the

United States today. Majority, I didn't say all. You'll be told that, and you'll hear this from Muslims a lot.

And you'll hear it from what I would call the Paul haters. There is so much hatred of the

Apostle Paul, it's incredible. That's why I've so often recommended some of the excellent books like Paul, Apostle, The Heart Set Free.

F .F. Bruce's Study of Life and Letters to the Apostle Paul. And other things like that.

Because there's so much anti -Paulism out there. For the obvious reason that, well, you consider how much of the

New Testament was written by him. How many of the doctrines and concepts are enunciated by him.

It's understandable why people would attack him. But you will be told that the

Apostle Paul had no concept whatsoever. None whatsoever of the virgin birth of Christ.

Knows nothing about the birth of Christ. Doesn't think it's important.

Never makes reference to it, etc., etc., etc. And yet, in Galatians chapter 4.

Now, it wasn't. This is one of those places where you get a tremendous amount of fascinating information.

Based upon how a statement made in passing.

Proves that for the Apostle, this was a given that he shared with his audience.

We've talked about this in a number of other texts. The first time I've addressed this one that I remember anyways. But in Galatians chapter 4.

It is not Paul's intention to provide an in -depth discussion of incarnational issues or things like that.

But the language that he uses clearly presupposes certain beliefs and concepts.

That very often it is said the Apostle did not possess. Or did not consider important.

What do I refer to? Galatians chapter 4, verse 4. But when, oh,

I'm sorry. I suppose I should do this. If it's even going to work, I don't know if it will.

Because I brought this up later. Oh, there it is.

One of a dozen things there. A lot of the liberals who argue against the

Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians. Will accept the

Pauline authorship of Galatians. But not recognize the interesting connection of the use of Pleroma between the two.

Here is the fullness of time. When the fullness of time came, you have to have an understanding.

That God is sovereign over what takes place in time for there to be a fullness of time.

I mean, these words make perfect sense when you're steeped in the worldview and the perspectives of the prophets.

But once you accept the idea that, well, the prophets just all each had their own particular viewpoint.

And we really can't take all that very seriously. And you no longer have a deep biblical theology of the doctrine of God from the

Old Testament. What does this mean? The fullness of time came.

Did that just happen? Was that happenstance? Was that chance?

No. This is the outworking of the decree of God. And God, in His sovereignty, chose a particular point of time.

When He, in the person of His Son, not the

Father, not the Spirit, but in the person of the Son, would enter into His own creation.

This wasn't something that was left to chance. This wasn't something that, well, it might have been earlier, it might have been later.

It just all depended on what man does. No. The fullness of time. When the fullness of time came.

So I suppose we could, if we wanted to, we could rename, if we want to get rid of objectionable terms, we could rename the season

The Fullness of Time Celebration. And isn't it right to celebrate that there is a fullness of time?

I hope each one of you is really thinking about just how different from the way of the thoughts of the world, the thinking of the scripture writers is, and why it's important to be able to recognize that there is something called the fullness of time, and that's based upon the sovereignty of God.

And if you detest the sovereignty of God, if you don't like that because that's one of them

Calvinist doctrines, well, do you see what it impacts? How do you understand this?

What does it mean to the synergist who does not believe in a sovereign decree of God?

That God's just sort of reacting to us in time and so on. What is the fullness of time? How does the fullness of time come?

Because Paul can just simply, he doesn't have to explain this. He doesn't have to say, now let's, you know, I've not talked to you about this before, but there's this idea of God's sovereignty over time and nothing like that at all.

Nothing like that at all. When the fullness of time came, then notice the next.

This is an interesting term. In fact, I'm going to, let me see here.

Search for, that's not going to give you what I want. That's good.

Well, there are a few. There are actually a number of them. To send forth.

It's a strengthened form of apostello, but God sent forth his son.

Now, Simon Gathercole has written a book where he examines the language of the synoptic gospels that Jesus uses of himself and has argued that there is a clear understanding on the part of Jesus that he has come from God.

Not just in the, that there is a underlying sense of pre -existence and relationship with God.

Not just, you know, while a prophet is sent by God or something like that. No, this is a

God sent forth his son at the fullness of time.

At the exact time that this was to take place. And all the machinations of man, all the craziness of Herod, all the political intrigues.

Think with me just for a moment. How many quote -unquote free will choices had taken place between the prophecy of Isaiah and the fullness of time?

See, this is why you listen to the dialogue that I had with John Sanders on Unbelievable last year.

Well, earlier this year. Actually, it was May of this year. He was much more aggressive than he had been before.

And what was he aggressive on? This idea of prophecy. The open theist has to be death on prophecy.

It cannot be specific. Because if there is specific prophecy and fulfillment, then this idea of the free will choices of man being unknown to God, how many free will choices led

Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem at that time, in that place, in the fullness of time?

God sent forth his son. I mean, over and over again, I've said this is such a scandal to the world.

We need to realize how amazingly scandalous it is.

How ridiculous in the world's sight. What we're celebrating actually is.

That God sent forth his son. To send him forth into the world.

Into his own creation. And what did that involve? Did that involve just some sort of a celestial flyby?

You know, where he sort of flies across the sky announcing something, and everyone looks and is amazed, and ooh, he can light up the night.

No. God sent forth his son. And we.

It's interesting that this is Ginnomai. Ginnominon.

Ech gunaikos. Which we translate, born of a woman. But that's not a technical term for.

I mean, in a particular context, it could mean that. Obviously, it does here. But that's not one of the technical terms for giving birth.

And I think it's possible.

That the reason is that it's paralleled, obviously, with the Ginnominon right here. Born under the law.

But the point is. When you're told Paul knew nothing about the birth of Christ.

Didn't care about the birth of Christ. The ease and the brevity.

With which the apostle can make these statements. Demonstrates that this was already given truth.

That the churches in Galatia. He could expect them to understand. He does not even have to stop and explain them.

This is a part of the gospel tradition that has already been delivered to these churches.

This is why Paul was preaching to the early hours of the morning. And people fall asleep and fall out of windows. Because it takes time to communicate this stuff.

And he had. And so, he knows that Christ is born of woman.

And there is no reason. Other than the modern, hyper -skeptical, this is just how we have to do it, mindset.

To rip Galatians 4 .4 out of the same canon. That gives us

Luke 1 and 2. That gives us Matthew 1, 2, and 3. That gives us the explanation of what this means.

So that it becomes a vacuous statement. Instead, we need to let it say what it says.

Born of woman. He came into this world. He had a true birth.

But there was something special about it. But it was a real incarnation, just as John says.

Because he was made under the law. He enters into this world in a particular situation.

A particular context. And why is it important that there is a fullness of time?

Why is it important that God sent forth his son? Why is it important that he is born of woman? Why is it important that he is born under the law? Do you see something here?

This is what I emphasized. There were so many texts that I could have gone to. When Andy Stanley said, you know, someone predicts their own resurrection.

And all that kind of stuff. I really don't care how they come into the world.

Remember? I played it. And when I responded to that, I could have gone to a dozen different places.

I really could have. And this would have been a good one. Because do you see any distinction in the thinking of the apostle here?

Between the birth of Christ. Christ being sent from the

Father. The fullness of time. And redemption? No.

They are part and parcel of the same thing. Remember I told the story. I think

I told the story. See, I've spoken on this in a couple different places now. I'm starting to lose track of which one. But I told the story of Ruby at North Phoenix, right?

Really? I thought I told that story in response to Andy Stanley. Well, you see,

I've been on other programs, and I've spoken, and I apologize. Sometimes it's hard to remember.

But notice verse 5. In order that there is a

Hinnah Clause. Thanks be to God. There is a Hinnah Clause right there.

In order that those under the law redeem.

In order that the sonship or adoption of sons they might receive.

So it's a Hinnah Clause. A Hinnah Clause is giving you. Here's the purpose. Here's the result of what

God has done. Notice there wasn't anything up there about what man has done. But what God has done.

There was a reason why Christ had to be born a woman. There was a reason why he had to be born into law.

There was a reason why he had to be sent forth by the Father. There was a reason why it had to be the fullness of time. And it's all connected to his work as Savior.

That he might redeem those under the law. In order that they might receive the adoption of sons.

No divine Savior. No gospel. No true human birth.

No gospel. No fullness of time. No gospel. It's all tied together. It's all tied together.

And at some point somewhere along the way. I told a story recently somewhere.

Of my time at a very large Southern Baptist Church. Where we would have these

Christmas cantatas, Christmas pageants, whatever. They got pretty big.

I think there was a period of time when we were competing with the big assemblies of God Church up the road. And you know, live animals and stuff like that.

I think once we did. I think once we did. Yeah. I really. No, I know once we did.

I think there was a procession. It may have been an Easter thing. The entry into Jerusalem.

But I remember that a donkey was led down one of the aisles.

So I do remember that. So that did happen. Yeah, yeah. Anyway. And I worked in the sound area.

That was a hard job. 250 voice choir, full orchestra. That was a lot of work.

I mean, talking hours and hours and hours of really hard work. Anyway, one year, there was a special solo number.

By a black soloist, black female soloist in the choir.

By the name of Ruby. Ruby Brown, I think it was. And that woman could sing.

Man, she had a voice. Absolutely amazing. I was going to look it up.

I realized. Because there's something in the back of my mind that tells me that I actually found a recording online once.

Of Ruby singing this song. I wish I had found it. But anyway. She had this incredible solo in a

Christmas pageant. That wasn't pageant. It was called the shadow of the cross.

And it was one of those times where in a Christmas program, you had some really decent theology in one of the songs.

And the place is darkened. The place seats 4 ,500 people. We always said it was over 5 ,000, but whatever.

Lights are down. And there's this manger.

And so what we did is we took one of the lights. Man, I never went up there. I'm afraid of heights of anything I can fall off of.

A plane is fine. If I can fall off of it, no thank you. One thing I never did was went up into the light base.

Because, no, that's not my thing. Anyway. Somebody went up there. Not me.

And put a red filter cutout. Yeah, looks like somebody found one.

Well, here she is seeing at the RNC. Yeah, that's her. Assuming there's not more than one

Ruby Brown from North Phoenix Baptist Church. Yeah, that would be Ruby. Anyway, we put a cutout in red.

Red filter. On the light.

That then was cast across the manger.

And focused it so that you could see. It wasn't the shadow of the cross.

It was actually the light of the cross, I guess. But it was dark, so we didn't have any complaints. Though I'm sure today we would.

Everybody got the idea. The focus of the assertion was that from the beginning, from that manger, the cross cast its shadow over the entirety of that life.

Because that was the purpose. That was the reason. That's what this text is saying. That's what this text is saying.

It's exactly what it's saying. And the fact that Paul can make this statement as he's pursuing another argument.

He's not having to expand upon it. It's just, this is a given.

We all agree on this. And here's the point of it. Shows that this is primitive, fundamental, apostolic teaching.

Absolutely foundational. And so, the coming of the fullness of time, the sending forth the

Son of God, being born of a woman, being born under the law. In order that he might redeem those who are under the law.

And that we might receive the adoption as sons.

It's all connected together. Most people would never think of Galatians 4 through 5 as an incarnation text.

But really, it is. And what it does is it connects in that balanced way.

And I have mentioned that in the East, you have an overemphasis upon the incarnation.

And the reason it becomes an overemphasis is because there's not a corresponding emphasis upon the forensic, salvific elements of the cross.

And in the West, you almost end up with a discetic Jesus. You know, all these pictures of Jesus with the halos and he's glowing.

And all the little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes. Oh, babies have to cry.

It's how their lungs develop. Hello, earth to whoever wrote the Gnostic Christmas carol.

So you have in the West the corresponding de -emphasis upon the biblical truth of the incarnation.

Which needs a balance, and where do you find the balance? You find the balance in the

Word of God. And it's beautiful. So if you're looking for a place maybe to open the scriptures and think about the amazing work of God in Christ, and think about the incarnation, this is a good place.

Good place. You can tie it into so many other things. But this is a good place, and I would suggest it to folks.

I hope that that's useful to folks. I do realize,

I hope everyone does realize, that I was being fairly facetious in my seeking to trigger one of my more, how shall we say,

Puritan -leaning Presbyterian brothers. But I realize that there are some in this audience that have theological objections to, well, there's different kinds.

You can have a theological objection to the celebration of something, or you can have a theological objection, not so much that if you want to do that privately you can do so, but forcing other people to do so if they don't want to do so.

If they have reasons that they feel that that would be inappropriate for them to do, then should they be forced to do these types of things?

That's another issue that comes up. I know once I went to Reformed Baptist Church, it's handled with significantly more sensitivity,

I think, than other places that I've been to where it's just simply shoving your face.

This is what we do. So I understand that there are some people that sort of feel a little bit left out this time of year.

I'm not trying to do that. I think that it's appropriate. I certainly enjoy this time of year.

I think it's a great thing to think about the Incarnation, but most of you know

I talk about the Incarnation all year long. It's not just this time of year. But when there's an opportunity where people might be more open to hearing these things, there you go.

So hopefully that text is useful to you. I need to change what

I am sending across the way now back down to...

Oh, that's the other thing I don't like about this is I actually have to have the window open now for it to even see it.

There we go. Let's see if it finds it now. Oh, so many programs.

Nope, going to have to go back. I don't know what happened to this thing, but it is about a tenth as useful as it once was.

It really is. There's Chrome now. There you go. All right.

Sorry about that. It's a program that sends what's on my computer to the live stream so we can show it to you.

For some reason, once we put a higher -end Mac in here, it now shows me a list of programs about yay long.

I'm sitting there trying to find what program I'm trying to show you. A couple of days ago,

Josh down in Australia linked to a

BBC documentary, America's Hate Preachers. I wasn't at all shocked that the hate preachers they focused upon were

Steven Anderson over in Tempe and Ruben Israel.

I have had probably more interaction with these two than probably anybody else

I know, and that hasn't been a whole lot. They've got their little cliques, but we have pictures of Ruben Israel and others standing outside the temple in Salt Lake City carrying signs about me.

I have a video somewhere on YouTube of one of Ruben Israel's compatriots. What was that guy's name?

Lonnie. Lonnie Purcell. Whacking me in the head with his sign as he goes by.

It was done very purposefully. Lonnie even showed up outside our church, outside PRBC once.

We just had everybody else go out the back door instead of the front, so he didn't think there was anybody there. That was funny.

We call them the street screechers because they're just out there to promote themselves.

They believe that making people angry at them somehow makes them...

They're being persecuted for righteousness sake and all the rest of that kind of stuff, and it's not.

They're just being jerks. We literally watch them as there's a line of Mormons going by to go into the meeting hall yelling at the

Mormons, It shouldn't be Mormon. This was Ruben Israel. It shouldn't be Mormon. It should be moron.

They consider that preaching. When people get upset when they hang temple garments from their signs and stuff like that, this somehow is indicative of their godliness or something.

All it means is they're a bunch of jerks who are not adorning the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are defaming it.

Then, of course, they default back to the, Oh, we're just doing what the prophets did and that kind of thing.

You've got the street screechers, and then you've got

Steven Anderson. I'd say once a week I get a note on Twitter from someone who says,

I just watched the two -hour... They always say debate, folks, please. That was not a debate.

That was an interview. I still remember the look on Rich's face when he says to me, sort of in passing,

He says, Hey, Steven Anderson contacted me and wants to interview you for a movie.

I said, Okay, let's schedule it. His dentures fell out.

He was shocked. No, he didn't have dentures. If he had, they would have fallen out.

However, that's a fair. He just couldn't believe that I said,

Sure, let's go ahead and do it. And so they came over and they were recording from the time they came to the door.

One of the guys carrying a camera recording everything. And I don't know, it was about two hours and 20 minutes.

And most everybody has admitted that the interview was significantly more interesting than the movie was by a long shot.

They only used like 90 seconds in the movie and it was irrelevant. It was just irrelevant.

I did not know when he came over just how much of a complete heretic he was. You know, Jesus going to hell and anti -lordship stuff.

I found that out later. Holocaust denier, all the rest of this. I didn't even find that out at that time.

That came out later on. But he's not a stupid man. He's worked professionally as a

German translator. He speaks fluent German far better than I speak German. And he is not, do not underestimate

Steven Anderson. In fact, the thing that really bugged me, the thing that bugs me about listening to Steven Anderson.

He was on with, what's the guy who's been on channel 12 forever with the mustache?

Mark Curtis. I don't watch much local news anymore, but he was on with Mark Curtis on channel 12 here locally.

And what just bugged me was the man will often say truthful things.

He will say truthful things. You can't say biblically there's something wrong with the statement that he makes.

But instead of, and that term to adorn the doctrine of God that Paul uses, that term is cosmeo.

Sound familiar? Cosmetic. To adorn, to make beautiful. We are commanded to make beautiful the doctrine of God, our savior.

These men make it as ugly and repulsive as possible. Now, it's going to be ugly and repulsive to the unregenerate man.

But that has to come from its nature and the claims it makes. Not from the fact that it's being delivered by a person who is doing everything in their power to be a royal jerk.

And that's the problem with Stephen Anderson and Reuben Israel. Is that they confuse putting themselves out there as jerks with the natural offense that the gospel is going to have.

So in this interview, again, there are times when both of them say truthful things.

But then when you join it with what they say elsewhere, it just becomes repulsive.

And this is what they are going to answer for. This is what they're going to be judged on. Is the unnecessary addition of repulsive offensiveness to the gospel message itself.

Now, of course, like I said, Anderson doesn't even believe in repentance. And I don't know where Reuben Israel is on that.

But let's take a look. Here's an example. I think

I queued it up fairly close. I'm playing it straight off the web. So queuing up is a little bit of a challenge.

But here we go. Oh, OK. Yep. Sound is in. And what?

That will mess everything up. No, because I'm sending you a window.

So have you zoomed into it? OK. Watch what happens when I go full screen.

All right. Here we go. Here we go. June is LGBT month.

Now, to me, LGBT stands for let God burn them. But to them, it means, you know, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.

But you say, well, it's LGBTQ. Well, then you could say, let God burn them quickly. Let God burn them queers or whatever.

There is a difference between these people and the rest of the population. OK, so there's part of a sermon.

And it becomes extremely clear. Let me go to right about here.

All right. Now, listen to this portion. That's reality. Even if you don't think it's reality because you've seen it on TV portrayed different or you've known people in your personal life that pulled the wool over your eyes about what their lifestyle is like.

What do you think homosexuals should do? Kill themselves as far as I'm concerned, because they, you know, they're horrible, wicked people.

They're just going to keep molesting and, you know, destroying people. So I don't have any advice for homosexuals except to put a bullet in your own head so that you don't molest my kids or anyone else's kids.

So there's. Think of what just happened there.

A BBC interviewer asks him, what should homosexuals do?

And his response is kill themselves, put a bullet in their head. What opportunity to speak the gospel was presented there and no gospels given, instead only hate is expressed.

You see, it's very clear that Anderson believes that if you're homosexual, there's no hope for you anyways. You've been given over.

He doesn't believe what 1 Corinthians 6 says. 1 Corinthians 6 specifically says,

And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were justified.

Very plainly, there were redeemed, forgiven, regenerated, adopted, changed, former homosexuals in the church in Corinth, but not according to Anderson.

And so here's an opportunity, massive opportunity. The whole world is watching.

Well, okay, BBC, maybe not the whole world, but a massively unchurched portion of that world is watching.

And what does Anderson do? Does he go to the gospel? Does he talk about repentance?

Does he talk about faith? Does he talk about anything Christian? He has nothing, absolutely nothing to give.

And I have a feeling that that section of that video is going to play over and over and over again in his mind in eternity because they interviewed him in his car.

They interviewed him in his home. This wasn't somebody just catching somebody on the street.

He knew what this was all about. And in that context, in that context, when the opportunity, and how many times have you seen people on Larry King or something,

Joel Osteen, whoever else it is, and the perfect opportunity for the gospel is presented right to them, and they flub it up, and we jump all over them.

Here, you have the perfect opportunity presented, and you've got someone who doesn't know the gospel.

Oh, he can talk about, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved till the cows come home, but he does not understand the gospel.

He doesn't preach it. It was just shocking to watch this.

Now, of course, look, no question that the poor, benighted, liberal interviewer wouldn't have even known what questions to ask, was just so much of a leftist.

There was no attempt for balance. No, I realize all that, but you don't need to in this situation.

When you've got someone this far out there, when you've got someone willingly fulfilling the role of being

America's hate preacher, Anderson thrives on this. This is his bread and butter.

This is why he gets up in the morning, and it will destroy him eventually. There's no question about it, but no one's going to say this was a fair representation.

Nothing like that. No question about it, but she's probably not a

Christian, and I hold her to a different standard. This man claims to be, and yet it's just like when

I, I don't know, about two years ago, when he came out and said something. I forget what it was he said, and I was like, let's get him on the program.

And then all of a sudden I realized, wait a minute, I would be having to try to talk to him as a fellow believer and pastor and remonstrate with him on that basis, and he's not.

So there really isn't anything to remonstrate with him about, because I can't view this man as a pastor, as a proclaimer and possessor of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But of course, this is the type of thing that is thrown at us as being representative of what we are actually all about.

We need to be very quick with a response, with an answer, when this type of thing is thrown out there.

Because, okay, he's gone now, but Fred Phelps, 2001, debating good old

Barry in Barry Lynn on homosexuality, what was thrown at me?

Fred Phelps, who's going to be throwing at people today? Steven Anderson. Got to be ready.

I would suggest saying to someone, we are to adorn the doctrine of our

God and his gospel. We are not to detract from it. We are not to make it repulsive by our behavior, and that's where Steven Anderson is, and please do not hold the rest of us accountable for what

Steven Anderson does. That might be at least the beginning of a response that you might want to offer.

So my hope for everyone in the audience is that whether you observe the day or not, that you will have a wonderful Lord's Day on Sunday.

I intend to. And if you do celebrate the Incarnation, that you will be once again fully amazed at what it is that God has done in invading his own creation.

When you consider the great price that has been paid for your redemption, I hope that you will truly rejoice and be in awe of what has taken place.

We will be back, I think, on a fairly regular schedule. The week after that, we've got stuff coming at us so fast it's not even funny, with G3 and everything else.

So we're heading into 2017 full steam ahead. We'll see you next week. Thanks for watching.