The Pope and the Lord's Prayer, Slander & Keyboard, SJC, Zachariades & God's Justice

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is, uh, yes, it's actually working. It's actually working. Someone, I'll get this done early on, someone sent me something, and Rich didn't realize what it was.

He didn't read the box well enough. He just thought it was an Enterprise. You saw Geek and moved on. It is an Enterprise. It's, uh, you know, that's the original NCC -1701. Um, but this is actually an Enterprise pizza cutter.

You can, yeah, you see it. I, I think it would be absolutely blasphemous to get tomato sauce and cheese all over the saucer section of the Enterprise. I, it just, it just doesn't, it just, that just doesn't, I don't know if I could do that, but it is a, yeah, you could, you could, you could even do a deep dish with that one.

It's, uh, the, the Enterprise pizza cutter, but you know, it's a pretty, it's a pretty narrow saucer section, you know, it really.

Is. Uh, but, um, it's pretty sharp too, right? Huh? It's really sharp, right? Yeah. Yeah. You gotta be careful. That would, gotta keep it next to the swords. But, uh, yes, it is.

The, uh, the original Enterprise pizza cutter, which, uh, Rich didn't realize it was a pizza cutter. So, uh, but I realized it was a pizza cutter as soon as I, well it says on the box USS Enterprise pizza cutter.

So I'm not really sure where to, where to put the pizza cutter. It sort of has to, sort of looks like it's crashing. Uh, I suppose I could lean it up against the, no, that ain't gonna work. We're just gonna leave it there for the moment.

We'll figure out a way to deal with that later on. But, uh, there you go. The, uh, the Enterprise pizza cutter. Thank you very much for that. I came in really early today, had a great, uh, opportunity via Skype to spend some time with my doctoral advisor down in South Africa and, starting off your morning, uh, with in-depth discussions of CBGM and, uh, criticisms thereof and application to, uh, papyri and stuff like that.

Pretty much leaves you pretty much brain dead the rest of the day. Used it all up in one shot. That was all, that was all there was, but, uh, exciting stuff going on there, but I'm no, not getting into that today.

I don't care what anybody asks me on Twitter. We're not doing the, uh, the, uh, that, that thing there. No. And you might say, well, you look so, you're wearing a, uh, you're wearing a, uh, flannel shirt.

Must be cold outside. I think it got down to 49, uh, but the high today is supposed to be 79, which would be, uh, another, blowing another record away by three or four days.

Yeah, it got up to 79 in my place yesterday. 79?

Yeah, up in Peoria. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's just ridiculous. Uh, it's just, it's wrong. Uh, we need some cold here in the desert. That's just all there is to it because if it keeps going like this, it's just going to stay like this and then just right back up to broiling.

Well, I think we had the one or two days of winter. Isn't that gone?

No, we had, we had what? 69? That's no, I'm sorry. That does not count. Yeah. Uh, does not count. That wasn't even, that wasn't even normal. Uh, so no, uh, normal right now is 66 degrees and, uh, we're going to be 13 degrees above it and it's just, it's wrong.

It is just, I know I'm complaining, I'm sorry, but that's just, that's just the way it is. Um, uh, yeah. Anyway. Um, oh, and, uh, happy birthday to a friend of mine up in Evergreen, Colorado. Uh, 49, I'm sure.

Uh, the folks that put up with me sometimes for weeks on end in Evergreen, Colorado, and it is putting up with me, uh, believe me, uh, you know, getting up at who knows when the morning in the dark and riding off into the mountains and doing strange things like that.

But, uh, it's what I live for during the year, uh, is to, is to get there. Anyways, got lots of stuff to get to. Let's go ahead and get through the, uh, head shake. Well, actually everything's head shaking today, except the last thing.

Um, no, the Pope cannot change the Bible. Uh, the Pope, the Pope can't change the Bible. And, uh, what actually happened here is, um, uh, French bishops had adopted a French version of the Lord's Prayer that is not, that is not faithful to the original.

It's, it is a interpretive dynamic translation. It's not even a translation. It's an interpretation, uh, that basically says, uh, let us not fall into temptation. For those of you who have been hiding under a rock someplace, social media and everything blew up with, um, uh, Pope Francis wants to change, uh, the wording of, uh, the Lord's Prayer.

And instead of lead us not in temptation, it should be, do not let us fall into temptation. And, you know, once I heard that, um, you just, you have to remember something. This Pope is a leftist. He's not only a leftist politically, he is a leftist theologically, even within, you know, he's a Jesuit within, within Roman Catholicism.

He is way off to the left. And leftists like certain forms of, uh, well, the idea of a fixed scriptural text is anathema to them. It's, it, it, it gives them hives. And so, uh, paraphrasing things and, and it just fits perfectly with who Francis is, okay?

It's just the liberal way of doing things. And so Francis does not have the concept of objective revelation and certainly not the sovereignty of God or the idea of a divine decree or anything like that at all.

Ah, that's right. I, uh, I forgot. Uh, what do I call that? Uh, I don't know if I'll be able to, uh, I'll just put thing for now. I just put, add some of the topic list. If I, I forgot to bring it up, so I'm not even sure I can get to it.

But anyway, um, it just popped into my mind there. Uh, like I said, it was an early morning. Um, so he, he reports said, and this is, you know, people like to just jump on everything the Pope says. And the problem is unlike past Popes, this Pope is a little bit like Trump.

Uh, it's almost like there's a, a, a papal Twitter account. Well, there is a papal Twitter account, but, um, he's much more likely to give interviews. And the problem is he speaks a number of languages.

And so you, you get the issue of translation and he's better in certain languages than he is in other languages. And so it's real easy for people to say, did you hear what the Pope said? The Pope said, well, this Pope does say some wild things.

When, when you're talking about homosexuality and say, who am I to judge? Yeah, the Pope says some wild things. And he's, he's as liberal as day is long. It is obviously, um, just ridiculously clear that he does not believe, does not believe the same things as his predecessor who's still alive.

This is a great time for illustration of the, the fact that, uh, the Roman Catholic concept of the papacy as this means of getting past the problems with all you Protestants, all you've got is the Bible.

And so you get all these disagreements as a result. Yeah, we do have disagreements, but it's not because of that. You got disagreements amongst your currently living Popes for crying out loud. That's just how it works.

Uh, you know, I mean, seriously. And so when you, when you listen to this guy, you, you gotta, you gotta be really careful and go, okay, is this someone's interpretation translated from one language to another language?

Are they going from Italian to Latin, from Latin to Italian? Who knows what they're doing? You've just got to be careful. There's no reason to jump on things instantly. And a lot of people like to do that.

Remember, uh, amazingly, Jordan Hall still thinks he was right about this, but a couple of years ago, this same Pope, uh, in a, in a talk said that the cross was a failure. Oh, look, the Pope is fine.

The mask has slipped off. The Pope is finally done. And it was just like, uh, no, in, in context, he was talking about from the world's perspective. And, and a number of us, you know, had to take the time to write an article, go into what he actually said.

He's look, the problem with Roman Catholicism on the atonement is the issue of the mass and the fact that the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice that perfects no one. That's the issue. And it's almost like today it's like, you know, well, that's not a really exciting objection.

I'd rather have something more exciting. I mean, if I put that on my Facebook feed, I'm only going to get a few likes. I mean, who cares? I mean, people have been saying that for years. I got it. I want something new and exciting and ruckus.

And it's like, well, whatever. Okay. Um, so there it's easy to jump onto, uh, the Pope and to, to jump on things, take the time to find out if a serious translation has been provided. If there was a context that was actually there, what the background is.

There's plenty of things to criticize about this Pope, but so many things have been taken apart because they were premature. Um, they, they were not, um, uh, really properly researched that a lot of folks are just sort of backing away and going, the Pope said it, maybe he did, maybe he didn't don't really care.

I've been burned too many times and just, you just move on from there. So it's a bit of a problem. Um, there isn't any question about what Matthew 16, 6 .13 reads and the parallel passage in Luke 11 .4.

Or is it, was it 11 .4? Uh, let me, let me check here. Uh, Luke 11 .4. Yeah. Um, both use the same term, uh, uh, ice Pharaoh means to lead into or to bring someone into the condition of the text is simply an expression of the petitioner's prayer, um, that we be delivered from be put in the position.

If you don't, that God does test his saints, not tempting them with evil himself being the source of that, but he always puts his people in a situation. He doesn't, he doesn't carry us about on beds of ease.

He puts us in difficult situations, situations that test and try the character, et cetera, et cetera. Uh, but obviously it should be our desire that God would in this day, lead us in such a way that we are not in constant strife and battle.

If we're going to be, he's going to be there with us, but we're simply expressing our desire there. And so the whole point is the Pope doesn't have that concept. He doesn't have the concept of, of God's, um, uh, sovereignty, providence.

Uh, I mean, the guy's pretty much universalist, you know? I mean, liberalism just doesn't, just doesn't have any place for this. And that's where it's really coming from. Instead, people are getting the idea, the Pope thinks he can change the Bible.

He wasn't, he wasn't saying I, as the Bishop of Rome, determined that, uh, uh, that, uh, the, the terminology that was utilized, that ice Pharaoh is not the proper, uh, Greek term. Now, I suppose, given what Rome has done, uh, I guess it would be possible that you could do this because remember the, for years, the official version of the Bible for Rome was not the Greek New Testament.

It was the Latin Vulgate. And that was the language of the church. And that was, that was the infallible revelation. But even then, once they abandoned that, there is still the argumentation that, well, you know, in Matthew chapter 16, the original Aramaic would indicate, well, we don't have an original Aramaic and there is no evidence, there's no solid, compelling evidence that the book of Matthew was written in Aramaic.

Uh, the Matthew we possess today was originally written in Greek. And the vast majority of scholarship recognized that. It's only fringe stuff that says anything other than that. And so you can speculate all you want on what the original Aramaic would be.

If you want to sell books, that's what you do. You speculate on the original Aramaic. But you don't have any evidence for it. And so I suppose that the Pope could claim that, that ice Pharaoh to lead, um, to lead into a condition is somehow misrepresentative of the original Aramaic, but they need to have to actually come up with a, um, an original Aramaic, which ain't going to do.

It's not, he's not going to say, and the Aramaic was that. I don't know why he wouldn't have that capacity, but that's not going to happen in the, in the modern day. It's almost like a revelational type thing, I suppose.

So that's, what's really going on with this whole thing. It's sort of been blown out of, out of proportion, uh, to be honest with you. But at the same time, what it demonstrates is just how far to the left, uh, Francis is.

And when you can go from the former head of the congregation for the faith, which is IE the inquisition, uh, and that's what Ratzinger was, uh, to Francis in one shift, that that's a pendulum swing, like you wouldn't believe.

And, uh, you know, from, from the world's perspective, that's not overly surprising. It's all politics anyways, but to the believing Roman Catholic that believes that these are the, these men are the vicar of Christ.

And, uh, they're the ones that deliver us from the, from the, uh, confusion of solo scriptura and all the rest of that stuff. Sorry, doesn't work, doesn't happen. Um, and so that's, that's, what's going on there.

Keep that in mind as you hear the discussions going on, so on and so forth. All right. Um, let's, uh, change to do, to do, to do, to do, where did it go? What am I looking at? Uh, Oh, I brought this up afterwards.

So I have to do. Sorry. Uh, that looks about right. Is, uh, is that the full meme, uh, James White's mere Christianity at the bottom? Okay. Um, over, uh, some, at some point over the past couple of days, I, uh, I mean, uh, I wrote a little article on Facebook.

I think it was to see one, two, three, four, five, yeah, six paragraphs, which, uh, was likened to a book by Jordan Hall. Um, I won't make any further comments from there, even though the joke did suggest itself to me.

Um, I wrote a little article and it was on the subject of Michael Brown. Now, Mike is, uh, has expressed willingness to join, uh, with me the week after Christmas. So we will, uh, do probably another Skype interview and we'll, uh, uh, address some of the issues that have been raised in these recent articles.

But what I, what I wrote about is I, I mentioned a friend of mine who I didn't mention by name who believes, who sincerely believes that Michael Brown is, needs to get saved. He's just said that straight out, needs to get saved.

Now that has always been in the context of Michael Brown doing something that in this brother's opinion indicates such a horrific lack of discernment that he can't possibly be saved. And what I want to address is basically what I want to say is check your fundamentalism at the door, check your fundamentalism at the door.

Now let me define the term fundamentalism. I did a seminar years and years and years ago, man, it must have been early nineties, on fundamentalism and why I'm a fundamentalist. It's on the Sermon Audio page.

And what it was on was on the historic set of books called The Fundamentals, out of which came the terminology of fundamentalism. It was a reaction against the rapid rise of liberalism in many denominations and the abandonment of basically Christian supernaturalism.

And it was focused upon particular fundamentals without which you don't have the Christian faith, you know, supernaturalism, divine revelation, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ.

It may have been attached to a particular theory of the second coming of Christ, but the fundamentals, the foundational issues. And obviously this is just descriptive of historic Christianity. This is just whatever generation you want to look at.

And so on one level, you can say there have been fundamentalist Christians. The problem is that term has changed meaning. In our society today, fundamentalism has a overwhelmingly negative meaning, and it has come to mean and to represent a narrow-mindedness, a fear of exposure to other perspectives.

Now, the original fundamentalists were not afraid of exposure to other perspectives. They just simply rejected the other perspectives, having examined them, having engaged them, and saying, no, this is not Christianity.

But there wasn't any fear of even acknowledging other perspectives out there. Fundamentalism today would be identified with a mindset that is so narrow that it is a fearful mindset. It is fearful of exposure to other perspectives than its own.

I mean, if I identify any one particular thing with modern fundeism, it would be the idea that if you're a true Christian, you look like me, you act like me, you talk like me, you dress like me. And so if you want to see a fundamentalist, look at Sam Gipp.

Now, he's a King James-only fundamentalist, but the mindset and what we recognize about these people is their willingness to be grossly ungracious. And in fact, the idea of being gracious is considered to be compromising, and hence a rejection of anyone that has any viewpoints other than their own.

These are the types of people that will write into their statements of faith. Now, their statements of faith generally on things like Christology, Trinity, and stuff like that are abysmally lacking. They're extremely shallow.

That's not even the kind of stuff they worry about. They wouldn't even bother with the debate last summer about eternal functional subordination. No, no, no, no. They will come to blows, literally, over pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib.

I mean, they will write it into their confessions. You have to be this, or you are going to hell. You're a Christ-denying enemy of God. And so, you know, sometimes you sit back and you watch these folks taking each other on, and they're just firing up the flamethrowers right and left, and it's on stuff that you just sit back and go, how can you do that?

But that's what happens. And the fear factor is the idea of exposure to any other perspectives. There's a real lack of confidence in the truthfulness of what they actually believe because they don't believe that anyone should ever take the time to read a perspective other than their own.

It's my way or the highway. And it's not, like I said, it's imbalanced because it's not on the key issues. It's not on the doctrine of imputation. It's not on the nature of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit or something like that.

No, no, no. It's on everything other than those things. It's, again, the issue of what are definitional issues, what's the next important ring, the next important ring, then you've got the odd offer around the outside.

They just draw a big old circle around all of it and say, either you agree with me or you're out of here. And so this is the fundamentalist mindset. And it's fairly common for reformed folks to make fun of fundamentalism.

And there are good fundamentalists and there are fundamentalists that have somehow managed to break out of the mindset, but they're few and far between. And reformed folks tend to make fun of fundamentalism.

A lot of reformed folks are former fundamentalists. And so there can be a pendulum swing the other direction, you know, and so I'm going to make fun of these folks and all their strange, goofy ways and their white shirts and dark ties and look like more missionaries, missionary tags.

And some of it can be fun. I mean, to be honest with you, there are so many memes and jokes that can be made out of certain movies that those of us who were actually raised in that genre can remember very well.

I mean, all I have to say is lawnmower left running on lawn. That's all I needed to say, huh? Yep. That's all I needed to say. And you immediately start strumming your guitar and you've been left behind.

And you start immediately thinking of the midnight lock-ins on New Year's Eve and the terror that you first felt about being left behind at the rapture. And you know, see, I've been there, done that.

I was going to say I got the t-shirt, but it'd be more like I got the white shirt, squeaky black shoes, pants, and dark tie. Anyway, so this mindset, when you join it with Calvinism, it can get really weird.

It can get really strange. But there are folks that try to do it. And all of that is standing behind the article that I wrote, where again, I said, I've got this friend. And because Michael Brown does not have the discernment that this individual has, well, he needs to get saved.

Needs to get saved. And so I put together a little checklist and I went down it. I was going to bring them in here. I actually described where they are to you, Mike. But Michael Brown's five-volume set answers to Jewish objections to Jesus.

If you have not seen this set, you need to get it. It's almost encyclopedic. And of course, it gives you information about early Jewish sources that would be next to impossible for most of us to find anyways, because Michael would have access to those things.

But it's the fruit of many, many years of his study. And so the first thing I put on is, is Michael Brown a Trinitarian? I said, check. More so than 99 of all believers I know see his answers to Jewish objections to Jesus, five-volume set.

And I linked at the bottom of this to the YouTube video, a YouTube video, of the debate that Michael and I did against two Unitarians a number of years ago, as illustration of this fact that we were able to defend the deity of Christ, we were able to almost finish each other's sentences in doing that debate against those Unitarians.

So is Michael Brown a Trinitarian? Yes. Now, this article that we're going to be talking about later on by anonymous folks who don't identify themselves, very clearly fundamentalists as well, question this.

We will be addressing that. But all aspects of Christology, that would mean virgin birth, equality to the Son, the Father, incarnation, etc., check. Virgin birth, check. Death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, check.

Biblical inspiration, check. Scriptural sufficiency, check. We'll talk about the charismatic thing later on. Biblical inerrancy, bonus check. And I say bonus check because it's interesting. A lot of, I mean, I wouldn't say the William Lane Craig, Michael Icona group gets that check.

I don't really believe they honestly believe in biblical inerrancy. But they'll be accepted very easily by a lot of these folks, but that's sort of, you know. Second coming, check. Final judgment, check.

Absolute necessity of God's grace and salvation, check. Substitutionary atonement, check. Even defended against Brian Zahn at IHOP. Now, the very fact he went to IHOP to debate the issue would be enough for some people.

If you walk through that door, might as well turn in your Christian card right there. You know, you're going to hell in a handbasket. That's just how I feel about things. Well, okay, how you feel about things, but how things really are different things.

Justification by faith alone, check. And so I just went down this to say, okay, I start with what we have in common, the ground that we share in common, which is not the mere Christianity stuff that we've been talking about for years, where all you have is the Trinity and the crucifixion.

And you can't even talk about what that means. You can just simply confess it, but you can't talk about what the crucifixion means. You can't talk about substitutionary atonement. You just have to have those basic things.

That's the mere Christianity movement. And so this meme, this post, I'm sorry, that was put up by Slander and Keyboard last evening has the title, James White's Mere Christianity Checklist and Shady Litmus Test for Brotherhood.

Mere Christianity Checklist. Well, if that's referring to my use of mere Christianity, it's a lie. Again, nothing unusual from Slander and Keyboard. Because mere Christianity, even as the term was used by C .S. Lewis, specifically did not include the gospel issues that I included in the list.

So we're left wondering, A, if White is consistent in his mere Christianity checklist, if he can't denounce the brotherhood of certain men like Hanegraaff who cannot check off the list. Now, I'm wondering, what are they talking about?

Given that one of the first people to be talking about, responsibly, talking about the Hank Hanegraaff story was myself, I think it's because when I talk about Eastern Orthodoxy, I don't just simply go, ah, it's just a different form of Roman Catholicism, because I know better.

I've actually done enough reading. See, fundamentalist mindset detests the effort necessary to make proper category distinctions. And so, even though I was attacked vociferously by people, I had people threatening me because of what I said about Orthodoxy.

If you come to Ukraine, I'm going to, you know, and all the rest is stuff. Okay, so we got those hotheads on the other side. Hotheads on the other side are, well, since you make a distinction and you recognize the differences that exist, and that Eastern Orthodoxy has just a very different character than Roman Catholicism does in regards to its very essence and nature and its sources of authority and so on and so forth, and you still disagree with it, but you have to do so differently, well, then you're a compromiser too.

You're ecumenical. In fact, wasn't that, yeah, the narrow way is significantly broader in James White's growing ecumenical world. See, this is a fundamentalist mindset that will not invest the necessary effort to be truthful, honest, have integrity, intellectually speaking.

You want, you don't want shades of difference in the fundamentalist world. It's all black and white. You're either for us or you're against us. That's all there is to it. And all them there East Orthodoxy guys, you know, them there's, they wear funny clothes, so they be against us.

That's the fundamentalist mindset. And doesn't matter whether you call yourself a Calvinist or not, it's the fundamentalist mindset. And so, I don't recall even addressing the issue of Hank Hanegraaff in the sense of, I guess what they want you to do is if you, I guess what they want you to say is that it is absolutely impossible for a true Christian to ever join the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Evidently, they have some biblical methodology of understanding that that is so wrong and so out there, that everybody in the Eastern Orthodox Church all believes the same thing. And therefore, since it's wrong, you'd have to deny Christ.

You have to deny who Jesus Christ is to become Eastern Orthodox. And therefore, Hank Hanegraaff committed the ultimate act of apostasy. And I'm supposed to judge that somehow. I think that's what's going on here.

I think. So you can say, this is such a sad thing to see. Hank Hanegraaff is being inconsistent. I guess they didn't like the fact that I pointed out that Hank has sort of developed his own ishy-squishy Western version.

You know, you say, I've not changed at all. I'm believing the same thing. Well, no, no, actually you're not because there are certain things here that Eastern Orthodoxy is saying that you are saying as well that would say that you're not saying the same things you did before, but you're being very confusing.

There can't be room for confusing. You have to make, look, you've just got to draw the line right here, right now. You've got to judge people's hearts and you can't allow for any other possibilities. That's, again, that's fundiism all the way down the line.

So if I want to say, look, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, here's where they are. Here's the range of beliefs in each one. And this is what's dangerous here. And this is what's dangerous there. And that's just right out.

This leads to that. That leads to that. You have to then make the next step. And this is where fundiism and I separate. And anyone who associates with that knows all of this, agrees with all of this, and is going to follow lockstep and all these things.

And therefore I can judge their heart. I can't do that. Sorry. Go ahead. You obviously are willing to judge mine. So I can't stop you. You all are good at doing that. You will have to answer before God for that someday.

And I don't want to be in your shoes when you do. I'm not sure if you wear shoes in heaven, but or if it's even in heaven, I don't know. Not going to judge. But what the fundamentalist cannot stand is saying, here is false teaching.

Rome, false gospel. Are there Roman Catholics that don't believe the false gospel part of Roman Catholicism? Sure hope so. Sure hope so. I've said that for a long time. Eastern Orthodoxy, much more nebulous on the issues of dogma.

Is this teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy in the escalation and elevation of tradition to the position of denying solo scriptura? Is this a horrendously dangerous thing? It is. Is it wrong? It is. Therefore, anyone who would associate with that is going to hell.

There's where you've got your problem. Where do you have the idea? Where do you get the idea that every single Christian will always have your understanding of everything? They can't have confusion. Look, I've been doing this long enough that I have met people who were raised in the truth, frequently because of things that happened in the church, abusive pastors, non-caring pastors, things that happened in churches, went off into error.

And you know what happened over time? God actually even used this ministry to bring them back to the truth. Now, you can sit here and go, that means they were never saved in the first place. That means they only got saved at the end.

Well, if you want to, I'm not going to make that decision. I've seen times in people's lives, God had a purpose in allowing them to go through things that then allowed them at a later time in their life to be able to warn others, use them as an instrument.

I think my job is actually to speak the truth and to speak it in love. And where I left fundamentalism behind and now find it extremely distasteful is the demand that I extend my understanding on issues beyond what the New Testament actually defines as definitional to the point where I get to judge other people's hearts.

I guess it makes you feel better. I don't know if you can just sort of wrap your fundamentalist robes around you as you condemn people to hell and feel better about it. I don't know. Maybe it just makes, I guess there's some power in that.

I'm not interested in it, but if that's what you want to do. So do I know Hank Hanegraaff's heart? No. Do I think that what he's done is extremely dangerous and misleading and I would call him to abandon it?

And of course, I've done all of that. But do I know his heart? Am I in a position of extending from saying, this is where East Orthodoxy is wrong. Now, it's in those very areas he tries to bend stuff and try to say, I haven't changed.

Okay, I think he's trying to hold stuff together. He shouldn't try to hold together. Could he be lost? Yeah, could be. Could people in solid Bible-believing churches be lost who never even give a hint of wavering one way or the other?

They could be too. You see, I don't see into people's hearts. I don't have that ability. The only ability I'm given, I'm given God's revelation. Speak it truthfully. I can actually hear you fairly well.

We were speaking before the show and I look at all this and as I told you then, my big fear has to do with when I see the anger and the rage and the malice and the judgment of.

Men, of other men. We haven't gotten the anger, rage and malice yet. I know. We're at the nice.

Part. My fear, and I think it should be the fear of every believer, everyone who confesses Christ, your first thought should be, but for the grace of God, there go I, what keeps me from falling into that pit?

When you point your bony finger at others who are straying and you start drawing judgment upon them,. I don't want to be that guy.

Well, and it's not a situation of necessarily straying. I mean, we would agree. Hank Hanegraaff is straying. That's not the issue. These are people that are pointing the finger at people who are just not standing on one foot to stay inside the super tight circle that they.

Themselves define. No, when I say stray, I'm talking about these guys. I'm talking about a man who feels so self-righteous that he can judge those others. That's the man that is straying,.

Much bigger than those he's criticizing. Every person who does it thinks that they are doing God's service by so doing. That's the dangerous part. That's why we need each other. That's why we need balance.

That's why we need to have friends who do not just look like us and talk like us and dress like us. That's why my friendship with Mike Brown is such an affront to these people, is because they're scared of that.

They know in their heart of hearts that that's exactly where they are, that they are uncomfortable around anyone who doesn't look like them, dress like them, talk like them. That's fundamentalism. That's the fundamentalist mindset.

Are you talking about the fellow in channel is asking, I'm assuming you're talking about Jason? Well, again, I can't judge hearts, but when someone has the level of light that he had. That's a different situation because I was involved in actually talking to him.

There's someone I can say, I looked him right in the eye and I said, this is a heart issue. This is a gospel issue. These topics you're raising are not the reason you're doing this. There's something else.

You're specifically abandoning the finishedness of the work of Christ. Again, even in that situation, it is not my position to judge. In fact, I was going to point this out. What is the, for Christians, and we're not talking about, I'm concerned about people who try to make normative Christian experience Elijah on Mount Carmel.

Elijah on Mount Carmel is not normative Christian experience and you are not the prophet Elijah. You're not Jesus with a whip in the temple. You are not sinless. We are given specific explicit instructions as to the attitude that we are supposed to have toward other people.

Okay? Number one, when we do look at Scripture as to the, some of the strong, what are we allowed to say about someone who goes into apostasy? Well, you look at 1 Corinthians 5. You're talking about someone in the Christian congregation that engages in incest.

Okay? Now, this isn't a doctrinal issue. This is a behavioral issue. But someone in the congregation, what does Paul say? For I, on my part, though absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.

In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now, it's fascinating. Even though this is an apostle, there is something supernatural going on here. So it's, even then, we can't pretend that we are Paul. We can't pretend that we are apostles. You still don't have final judgment being proclaimed by Paul.

You don't just say, put him out. He's on his way to hell. It says, I've decided to deliver such one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

There's still, even in that situation, a redemptive hope that is expressed by the apostle. You don't have this, that person's going to hell, that person's going to hell. You just don't have it. So if you're wondering, where does this desire to condemn come from?

It really, I think, is a part of the fundamentalist mindset that says, if this is true, then, and I cannot allow for any gradations. I cannot allow for any circles. I can't have, here's the core. These are really important.