PCUSA Abandons the Faith; Mormons Lack Leadership; Mark Sandlin Deceives; Good Calls

Well folks, uh, there it is the The sad lava less lava lamp.

It's it's not lobbying and I I don't even know if I can get started Hey, my shirt matches the new color of the the bug thing.

That's that's nice That's that's that's cool. But I may just have to sit here and do nothing until it starts lobbying

It's just it the whole feng shui to the whole whole programs completely off I Can't even sell a straight face actually welcome to the dividing line those of you in Florida look out here we come

Man I I think this is gonna be a really fast -moving nine or ten days given the schedule and Traveling mercies will be appreciated.

I think there's gonna be a bunch of driving involved in this This whole thing too.

So Head in your direction first things up will be on Saturday and the dialogues on on Islam and the

Quran and the Bible Really looking forward to that and then

Sunday I've got stuff and I should have brought this stuff up and then

Monday the Baptism debate and then heading for Pensacola and which everybody says it's not actually,

Florida It's southern Alabama or something like that. I don't know But anyway and your direction so I think isn't there a schedule up someplace

It's on the calendar. Okay, so if you hover over the dates on the calendar, it will tell you What What's going on on the various dates and where you're gonna be and who to contact him?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I know I saw something from Chris that had, you know, just the normal, you know

Stuff where you don't hover on calendars and things like that. I guess we didn't put that on the blog Actually, if I recall a while back,

I did put something like that up that but I think you did too I just don't remember what it was. Yeah, see so that's the problem is trying to find logs

Date -driven and you know, yep. Yep. That's true. That's true. Got a lot of stuff to get to I'll tell you what though If you can convince him

That your call is cool enough and important enough and With it enough to get a really good description on the call screen.

What is this Stuart Smalley today? I'm No, no, this is this these need to be hip calls these need to be these need to be not quite skinny jean calls but but something along those lines

Okay, I think we're just gonna go ahead and close out the show right now skinny jeans You know what? Yeah, you know a skinny jean calls.

Oh, okay If you can if you can convince him to put up there then then

I might get you in somehow and Shorten some of the other stuff that I've got queued up.

How's that? How's that sound? let's see if we can see if we can work that out and So if you've just been dying over the past because this is gonna be it for a while I don't know if any plans have been made

Over the course of the next week or so No, no, actually we haven't made plans and I I'm trying to get caught up on all the things that I've been doing

So I've kind of been you know, taking advantage of that, but I see yeah, okay

So this could be it. This is your shot eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

You got to convince him that it's a it's really cool call and then he's got to convince me by the description.

No Huh? What that was my call screening technique. No the dividing line.

No. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. All right It's good good luck, that's all

I can say I don't really believe in luck but there you go eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is

The phone number and I am so thankful that the folks at teleport fix teleport. I wish they'd fix

Kindle That's not the same people. So they're not responsible for that. Anyway as The world has gone absolutely positively insane

Okay I Don't even know where to start here.

I have a series of of articles and We all know now that a couple days ago

The PC USA which everybody says is the the largest Presbyterian Church United States.

Well, it might be but It's been it's been collapsing membership wise for a very very long time and The PC USA finalized their abandonment of the

Christian faith Believe in the Bible Gospel things like that by changing the definition of marriage from that of a man and a woman

Which of course is the only Marriage that will ever exist To that of two people now, it's funny

I I just immediately want to go and your reason and reasoning for saying two Why not three because the reality is they've abandoned any foundation for even arguing that point.

They might as well just say When you think about okay, marriage is no longer a lifelong covenantal commitment between a man and woman

Foundation of society production of children the next generation You know giving every child the example of a father and a mother

I was looking at these precious little pictures that summer posted this morning of Clementine and That last night.

She she tucked him into bed and Did all the stuff she's doing mommy stuff, you know, she's only two years old, but she knows to do mommy stuff

Well, you know how she knows do mommy stuff because she has a mommy and a daddy and she gets both examples

Right there. It's the way it's supposed to be anyway You you have

No longer that but you have you know mother father that there is a reason that there was two by the way male female

But once you start redefining things to where it's two people Then it becomes just People and then you question why it has to be people and eventually what's the result?

You can't say marriage is anything You can't define marriage.

There is no definition left for Marriage And So, what's the ultimate goal the destruction of marriage we've that's what we've said all along There are a few homosexual advocates that are honest enough to say

Yeah, that's what that's we want and that's what we're accomplishing but anyway, so the

PC USA Has abandoned the biblical definition of marriage, of course, but oh, well, there was all sorts of polygamy

It was always always always always always always always Heterosexual You can't argue that there is absolutely no exception to this.

That's why the number is two It's the gender binary Which is why people are having to try to come up with new genders now because you know, we don't want you we don't want that and No one is overly surprised by this

I'm not Because I've told the story before but I remember in the mid 1980s

In the mid 1980s friend of mine

I Worked I volunteered as a TV cameraman large

Baptist Church I was at and One of the guys who also did that did some

Work at the PC USA General Synod Convention thingy that they had here in Phoenix And he ran a camera right in front of a group of homosexuals that were there to promote

You know the acceptance of homosexuality Wasn't anything about gay marriage in 1980s.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no And if you if you had said well, this is eventually gonna lead to a complete redefinition of marriage.

Oh, no After that, that's ridiculous. What are you talking about? This is crazy crazy stuff you're talking about you people and your slippery slope arguments and yeah, and I Remember thinking 30 years ago 30 years ago any

Denomination that allows these people to just keep bringing this up and bring this up and bring this up and bring this up Is not a denomination that will not long last

You make a statement and that's it you take a stand and that's it and you move forward from there

PC USA 30 years ago not coming. Well here it is today it was a

PC USA Church where I debated Barry Lynn and That was one of the reasons that they wanted to have it there is that they were one of the conservative churches

Well, look guys You know, I appreciate the fact that there have been

I had PC USA professors and seminary There were some good men, but you've got to have seen the handwriting on the wall long before now

I mean if you're still a part of that denomination after this amount of time

Sorry, I don't don't mean to be you know lack sympathy for you, but Hi, you didn't see this coming

I did 30 years ago and Certainly you had far more evidence than that.

I did being right there in the middle of it all so There's really nothing overly shocking about this

I mean you're talking about the liberal Presbyterians have decided to do what liberals do and once the denomination takes a

Stand -on anything other than the highest view of Scripture There is there is no middle ground

It's just simply how long does it take for that particular body to fall from where it was to where it hits rock bottom?

it's just it's just it's just Theological gravity the theological gravitational constant is the only issue at that point because it will fall and it will eventually hit and that will be the end of that So I wasn't so so what makes it weird.

Did you turn the fan on for me? I I I didn't want to keep the lava from lava ink, but it's not lava inks

So you might as well just pick that on and things will be nicer Yeah, the low is fine.

I mean hi would have my hair blowing like like Fabio or something. Yeah, right

Fabio who's he? Not really butter or something. I don't know whatever this stuff was

That's an old that's an old commercial to what is that? 1990s, maybe I don't know. I'm just showing my age anyway, um

So it PCSA doesn't surprise me. But what is leaving me? Just going and are the

Mormons You see this I asked you in channel. You didn't see my question channel

D Todd Christofferson LDS elder I imagine I'm assuming This is

LDS elder they're actually talking about an apostle says Mormons are free to back gay marriage on social media an

LDS apostle we affirmed recently that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships

Even though the Utah based faith opposes the practice in an interview Friday with KU TV in Salt Lake City elder

D Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million member

Church of Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints would be in trouble only for quote supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the churches and quote backing marriage equality

I folks No such thing no such thing it is it is when when one side has to use language

To mean something other than what the words mean, you know That they are trying to pull a fast one.

You know that they're true. They It's it no Backing marriage equality that is the profaning of marriage on social media sites including on Facebook or Twitter Quote is not an organized effort to attack our effort

Not an organized effort to attack our effort or our functioning as a church and quote

Christofferson said in the interview The KU TV interviewer asked further if he allowed a saint could hold those beliefs even though they are different from what you teach the pulpit

Yes, the Apostle answered our approach and all of this as Mormon founder Joseph Smith said is persuasion

You can't use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate you can't compel you can't coerce It has to be persuasion gentleness and love unfeigned as the words as the words in the scripture.

Yeah exactly how Asked the three witnesses about that one

So I this whole this whole That is not the church leadership of the 1980s

Can you imagine Bruce R. McConkie saying that? I can imagine

Bruce He's reaction. Yeah, I can't it would not be gentle No, no, there would have been physical violence in the meeting of the 12

If so, and and be honest with you, I have more respect for a Bruce R. McConkie than I do this ishy -squishy new

Mormon leadership that has no earthly idea what it's doing or where it's going and and we're all just You know in the same direction and blah blah blah blah blah blah so I That the

Mormons have me completely lost but I think the reality is they're the ones that are completely lost. I mean the the direction of the current leadership and I Telling you

I know where it came from We all know where it came from Came straight out of BYU BYU Decided that they wanted to look good in the eyes of The Academy they sent their people out to get degrees in other places so they could get that credibility they brought all those ideas primarily liberal

Protestant ideas back with them and The reality is

Mormonism did not By its very

Constitution have the ability to resist the corrosive effort of that kind of truth decay not they had any truth to begin with but Especially when you talk about post -modernism and things related to it.

So I have been left stuttering Eight seven seven seven five three three, three, four one.

We've only had one phone call But couldn't stick around to go on the air. So eight seven seven seven five three

Three three four one phone number if you want to convince rich that you're you're your call and your topic is

Important more intimidating than I thought what apparently I'm more intimidating than I thought it was.

Nobody's calling Just one guy. He's like I gotta go. I gotta go back to work. It's an interesting time of day

It's not our normal time of day. So maybe that has something to do with it, but some people on Twitter Gene I thought it was the new normal time of day.

Well the new normal. Yeah. Well, what do you want? so in the midst of all that a

Article appears Yesterday called ten anti gay things you can't do while following Jesus and of course, it was first published on patios, which pretty much means it's worthless, but Written by a

PC USA fellow by name Mark Sandlin and So if you want to know

Why the PC USA? Has moved so far from well, the

Westminster Standards or anyone That wrote anything for the Westminster Standards or anything like that Just listen to Mark Sandlin and you'll get a good idea as to why why that is

But Let's take a look at it here All I say in all of my ten things you can't do while following Jesus articles

This is by no means meant to be a complete list, but it's a decent place to start Also, this is not to say that people are unable to do these things

When they are following Jesus as much as saying if you are doing these things you are doing something counter to the teachings of Jesus So here's here's teachings of Jesus number one condone violence toward people who are

LGBT Well, that's that's obvious violence is never to be condoned, but But We are now hearing a lot of people

Saying that for example Writing a book Holding to We need we need we need to come up with some really workable terms here

Because I don't like talking about traditional marriage. I don't like talking about traditional family

You could talk about natural family natural marriage. There's no question that one man one woman is natural marriage

But When you're talking about the natural meaning of the biblical text when when it's taken at face value in its historical context

You know, what are we going to call that is the question? But we are hearing people in the

LGBTQ RST UVW XYZ community Saying that if you don't for example use if you do not abuse the pronouns of the

English language if you believe it is suicide ethical and moral suicide to grant to the human being

Such a denial of his created state That the human being gets to define their own gender based on how they're feeling that day and everybody else has to agree and utilize whatever preferred

Gender or non -gender or whatever bender lender. I don't know They want to come up with That's now being called an act of violence to simply believe

What Christians have believed to believe what every single? President the United States up until the current one and even him at the beginning

But not really because he we all know about that flip -flop anyway That's considered to be an act of violence and How many times recently have we seen

Homosexual advocates arrested for false reporting of violence to try to create a

Persona Let's keep all those things in mind no one's talking about Physical violence number two if you're a follower of Jesus you cannot be against same -sex marriage now notice if We say you can't be a follower of Jesus and before same -sex marriage.

You're bigoted You are you are hateful. You're discriminating But now you've got the other side saying if you want to follow

Jesus you can't be against it now it is a given

Without possible argumentation That Jesus never ever ever said a positive word

About same -sex marriage never ever said a positive word about homosexuality If he was

God human flesh, he knew there were people like that in his society, right?

never said a positive word never ever said a positive word, so What kind of Massive leap

Do you have to develop to tell people that you can't be against what

Jesus never taught as a Follower of Jesus.

Here's here's what he says biblical marriage is one of the biggest Christian misrepresentations out there No marriage equality is the biggest

Misrepresentation of it. Yes in the Bible marriage between one man one woman. Yes, that's exactly right man and woman

Man and woman there's the two gender binary Mr. Sandlin, it's right there in front of you.

It is also between one man one woman and their God -appointed surrogate mother Huh? You talking about lever in marriage?

What are you talking about? Not only that God frequently blessed polygamists like Gideon and Solomon. Well bless them in spite of their polygamy not because of it, sir

Jesus himself believed that if a woman's husband dies and she doesn't have a son She must marry his brother and have intercourse with him until she has a son you mean the one

Question asked by the Sadducees about lever in marriage becomes a positive teaching of Jesus. You're an elder

You presume to hold the Bible in your hands and pretend to teach it and preach it I guess

I'm a bit of a prude biblical marriage. You can have it two loving adults wanting to have a committed relationship. Yes, please

Well, those are the words of someone who has asked either Has no clue what the

Bible is about or no care about what the Bible is about one or two one or two and I'll let you

I'll let you decide as to which one it is Let me see here, where did

I find? His relationship PC USA I think

I looked it up elsewhere. Anyways, number three. One thing you cannot do is discriminate against LGBT folk Now remember, this is the big term discriminate

Discriminate it's something every one of us does every single day unless you are a socialist liberal and then you never do it

No matter how often you do it. No matter how bigoted you are. I'll close -minded you are You never do it

Discrimination is good discrimination is positive You must discriminate every time you pull up to a stop sign you must discriminate

Every time you pull onto the street you must discriminate Because you have to choose which side we're gonna drive on you have to choose when you go start when you're gonna stop

Discrimination is a good thing You do it every single day I'm gonna discriminate against the vast majority of restaurants in the

Phoenix area By picking up food from only one this evening based upon what

I want that is discrimination and So we all do it. We all do it

That's all there is to it Unfortunately, it is one of those words that just gets thrown out there.

It's an automatically bad thing I don't want to do it So I run from it rather than facing it and pointing out that the person who is wielding as a club is

Actually a person who engages in discrimination every single day Discrimination based upon bigotry and prejudice without moral and ethical reflection is what we should be talking about But then that would not work for those people that are going that direction so Turden fan says

He's talking about Hagar and Rachel and Leah's slaves. I Have no idea what he was talking about.

I didn't bother to say Discriminate against LGBT folk recently a group of Christians asked President Obama for a special permission to discriminate against a particular segment of the population

In other words, they asked for freedom of religion Worse yet. They want to do it while receiving government funds.

Did you follow that? They want to take money that the government made through taxing everyone and then be allowed to exclude some of the very people from which the money came

This is the most twisted leftist commie Perspective you can have okay.

I mean, he's got to understand where where this is coming from Oh, did I mention this particular group is already a marginalized group

United States? Yep Christians wanted to make money from an already marginalized group and use it to further

Marginalize them in an oh so cliche way ask yourself Who would you discriminate against as the thing about the answer keep in mind of all the

Pharisees encouraged discrimination against women? Tax collectors the poor and even Samaritans One of his way to radically include them all now go you and go and do likewise this is such a perversion of The Bible that it's it would be laughable.

It wasn't so evil. It would be laughable if it wasn't so evil What these folks are talking about is exercising

Christian values Christian morals and Not being shut down by the government in so doing you twist and pervert that into something completely different All the while you should be admitting that You are marginalizing people who engage in bestiality and say they're made that way

Polyamorous people who say they're made that way incestuous people who say they're made that way Pedophiles who say they're made that way you big bigot you mr.

Sandlin. No, you're still hypocrite You're just a glowing wide -eyed hypocrite is what you are and you know it

That's the worst part because this is purposeful twisting You're not stupid. You're purposefully twisting these things.

That's what makes you evil amazing amazing Oh, and by the way

Jesus Didn't radically include any who were unrepentant.

Did he? No, his message was always repent turn back

Such were some of you But I really doubt you believe that Paul ever wrote that. Anyways, do you mr.

Sarah if you're honest? You don't care What the tense the verb in first Corinthians 611 is you don't care does that matter?

It's not an issue for you. Is it? No, first no uh

Well, you got a lot of calls all of a sudden so they all these people convinced you huh? What did they offer you how much?

Nothing There's good calls, huh? Oh, all right. Well, I I'm gonna have to and you have to believe you you have to believe you

Oh, okay Why'd you give him a call? Okay. All right. So John Samson has has as What it what happened to the

Queen by the way, did you did you I Haven't seen the Queen in quite some time.

He may have taken her with him Do something with it,

I Really? It's around there somewhere. No, I I Honestly, I I think

I didn't get rid of it So let's see He probably took it with him last time he was here Nate and might might have it you never know what you might need that I know

I Can't imagine when I would actually but That's not under the temple stuff here

All right, well anyway, so 5 p .m. Eastern Daylight Time both days next week

Both days Tuesday Thursday. Yep All right, so we will have dividing line next week.

All right, okay Good excellent. All right. Well, let me just run through quickly

The rest of these things you won't do I will try to be brief and then we'll go to our phone calls I had queued up and if we get to the phone calls really fast

I doubt we will but I was ready to jump into some Tim Staples today but I Guess I need to turn this off because there's not enough room available.

Okay, fine, whatever I'll deal with you later. Um, I did have some

Tim Staples and some Mary another Redeemer and Mary stuff queued up, but we'll we'll get there every time

I'm driving home and I hear Tim Staples yammering on on EWTN I just shudder and go no got a deal with that Can't get through on the phone line.

I keep getting a weird automated message. Is it me or are there technical difficulties?

Oh We've got full lines, I guess. Okay. Well that I don't know what a weird automated message would be then

All our phone lines are in use. I don't know Can't tell all right real quickly here number four say that the

Bible or God hates gay people Um The modern -day concept of homosexual is exactly that modern -day our kind our understanding of two people

Sex and committed relationship was not something the biblical text ever addressed because it wasn't a concept They understood or thought about so there you go.

The Bible is just an antiquated book Holy Spirit didn't know anything about it. Jesus didn't know anything about they're all just ignorant that's

Not a Presbyterian That's not a Christian That's a person who doesn't believe that the

Bible is, you know, why don't you guys just get honest and say, you know what? We're out of here.

We're gonna we're gonna start our own religion and we might still do something with Jesus But this Bible thing this

Bible thing. Yeah Don't don't really want to go there Number five withhold ordination.

There you go doesn't matter again Ordination requirements in the

Bible They didn't know anything about that. Jesus didn't know him a spirit We are so much smarter than God the

Spirit Church everything Believe being gay is a choice.

Oh, yeah, no one's ever chose that it's never an act of rebellion Believe it's okay to be gay if you're a salvage catch this now even those

Who admit their same -sex? Orientation now if they choose to be celibate they are under attack to these people

These people are the biggest bigots on the planet. I mean they are bigoted to a level that is beyond Conception.

It's just amazing That they can sit around and talk about how inclusive they are when the reality is you don't agree with them

You're even just a little bit Wow, they will come after their totalitarians their habs they will brook no difference

No, no, no, no, no, no Support gay conversion therapy, which another way of saying is you you better accept our dogmatic teaching

That man is made up of his genes. That's it He has no choice

Ignore all those people who have been helped. No, no, no, not a one Can't believe anyone has ever and think that the gay agenda is anything other than wanting to be who they are and love who they

Who they love Just that the naivete and dishonesty the last one there is

Especially in light of the article we read just on the last program Where the the gay advocate admitted this what

I'm I'm after your kids and I'm open about it. There you go and this person

Mark Sandlin name shame on you. Mr. Sandlin shame on you Thankfully most of us know that you are absolutely trying to pull a fast one on all of us.

We know better but the reality is sadly Many people in our society do not know and that kind of Dishonesty spin perversion of the text of Scripture Horrific absolutely horrific.

You will sir you will as a man who has claimed the name of Christ be held accountable before his judgment seat for that perversion of his word and I would never want to stand before him in your in your shoes.

My goodness I I warn you repent and turn sir. Repent and turn. That's the only thing anyone could ever say to you

Uh, is there any particular order here? I did just the way they Well, the first one's the second one according to this.

Oh All right, I said no to the first call you said no to the first call you're you're just mean

I am I have no idea what the tweet

I just read was I'm not even going to try All right. Let's jump into him here.

These are all Under the direct responsibility of Rich Pierce. Okay, all these calls whatever the topic is

Okay, that's why I did it this way is You know, here we go. Let's talk to Jerry. Hi, Jerry.

Hey, how you doing? Good This is a week old question. And first of all, I say that you have really been a help to me in a lot of different Ways, yeah, you know what?

I really appreciate you. You know what Jerry it smells like a week old question. Yeah. Okay. All right

Just curious about something you said last week concerning theonomy Especially coming from somebody who believes in the sufficiency of scripture

When you said you needed to read a stack of books to comment up to your standard on the subject of theonomy

Other than acts 15 well a couple things a Lot of people misunderstood what

I said I'm not really sure why I went back and listened to it and and I'm not sure what the problem was I said

I would not review a debate that took place between Joel McDermott and JD Hall because to do so would require my checking out all of the conflicted and Confuded references especially that came out after the debate which would require looking at a couple thousand minimally pages of documentation to determine the context of the disputed citations and all sorts of things like that and I don't have time to do that.

I don't even have a lot of interest in doing that to be perfectly honest with you There's plenty of folks that can do that kind of stuff and and I'll let

JD and Joel Hammer out if they feel that somebody else misrepresented a certain citation or whatever else it might be

I don't know why anybody heard me saying Anything other than what

I said and that that is I leave tomorrow on Saturday I have two dialogues with any mom.

I Speak twice on Sunday. I have a debate Monday on baptism I speak the entire rest of the week have only a week home go to Spain to debate a

Jesuit on the Reformation of the church in May I have

The trip to Texas. I've got at least one debate. I don't know how many sermons to do there I'm teaching in Kiev and Zurich.

I've got I've got books I'm writing and I just don't feel that it's appropriate for me to abandon

All the things that I've committed to do to all of a sudden shift over to a completely different topic on a subject

That is not overly central to anything that we're doing and so I agree with all it

I mean, I'm in support of you and all that. I was just that just one statement speak my curiosity a little bit

Yeah This question was settled, you know 2 ,000 years ago and I Know Well, no, no,

I I don't and I don't agree with that either Acts 15 is the reason

I raised the issue of acts 15 is not because The theonomist that I know are trying to introduce the

Galatian heresy Um, there are certain statements that they have made that some have made that some leaders have made that are

Troubling, but they've also all made statements affirming

Sola Fide and denying that they are in any way attempting to introduce

Galatian ism or Judaizing of anything that's obviously They're not they're not that that's what they're trying to do, but I can't hardly

I can't make a distinction myself you may I can I know theonomist who will clearly make the distinction

The issue really is consistency and There always needs to be a tremendous concern given the centrality of the condemnation of legalism in the

New Testament And the tendency of people to move that direction So that that always has to be absolutely central to anything that's being said, but I know theonomists

Who are self -professing theonomists who are far clearer in their their affirmation of?

grace Than in anything that could even come close to a form of legalism

So I'm I when I brought up Acts chapter 15 That's not what I was saying when

I brought up Acts chapter 15 and again a lot of people Just jumped on this and missed what

I was actually saying when I brought up Acts 15 I was talking about the fact that Acts 15 allows the

Christian gospel to transcend any political national

Cultural boundary because it does not bring with it any kind of commitment to a specifically

Jewish Lifestyle or culture that is required before one can become a

Christian and I was raising that in the context of the fact that Islam never had an

Acts 15 and therefore Sharia is part and parcel of What Islam has to bring when it does dawah

I had all sorts of people some utter hotheads that are not even worth taking the time to listen to but Others that I think just had knee -jerk reactions thing.

Oh, you're saying theonomist or Muslims I did not say that anyone who will listen to what

I'm saying will understand that I'm talking about keeping the gospel free and powerful to Transcend any man -made human barrier to it by making sure that we're focused upon the gospel and not upon anything

That we are adding to the gospel no matter how Appropriate our concern about honoring

God's law may be and these are yeah I completely understood all that.

I really appreciate that point too because I never had thought about it that way. Yeah I didn't misunderstand you at all and in that respect.

I was just I'd always thought that acts 15 together the Galatians and Hebrews completely refuted theonomy

Jerry you're making an equal mark between theonomy and Jude and Judaizing and That's what that's what

I need you explain to me because I haven't been able to make that distinction Well, especially enough to know that, you know, well a if you can explain it to me,

I think I could probably okay Briefly a theonomist is Not going to say that you are justified by your keeping of the law

It's not going to say you're gonna have to get circumcised before you can be justified as Judaizers were a theonomist is is

Insisting that God's law remains a valid Remains the only valid divinely revealed source of morality and ethics amongst man now

I disagree with the leading theonomist in regards to the nature of civil laws and punishments on the subject of what was given to a theocracy and What remains valid in light of that and what could then be taken from that and applied to other nations now

There are some theonomist will say I don't know that we really disagree on some of these things But then there are others that do there's all sorts of there's there's a huge gradation amongst theonomist and I think theonomist don't do themselves a whole lot of of Favors by not pointing out what those gradations are

But a theonomist a good a good theonomist a biblical theonomist is

Going to emphasize the gospel before any emphasis upon Proclamation of law and they don't do themselves any favors when they get that backwards

So I'm gonna bring up a name here Yeah, and tell me which camp he falls in is he a

Judaizer or just a run -of -the -mill theonomist Dave Schlissel He's a federal visionist

That's a whole new issue. That's a that's a that's a whole other area In the camp of theonomist.

Well, I don't know where he puts himself all I know the last last time I heard Steve Schlissel speak was probably a

Year after and I didn't hear it personally. I mean listen to something Was probably a year after the

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Conference that started the federal visionist movement so that was quite some time ago and So I I don't even think of Steve Schlissel in theonomic terms.

I think of him in federal visionist terms, which is troubling enough So when

I'm thinking of theonomist the big names are people like Rush Dooney and Bonson those are the two big names and there's differences between those two and then the people that have come after them like like Gary North and Gary DeMar and and Joel McDermott and so on so forth

But the two big names are Rush Dooney and Bonson and I take

Bonson most Seriously, because he didn't have all of the Armenian not Armenian Armenian baggage that Rush Dooney had which

Makes his work rather problematic as being representative of anything outside of an

Armenian background so no, I If you listen to the sermons that I'm doing on the

Holiness Code You'll you'll see that obviously I I believe that God's law is the standard the issue is

I believe that there are were laws that were specifically given to the people of Israel Penologies that is penalties that would only be relevant in a theocracy would not be relevant in a outside of a nation covenanted to God to be his people

There's issues along those lines, but yeah, I've been teaching through the first five books of Moses myself

That's reason this subject was a special interest to me right now Even though the week old

I wanted to talk to you about it. All right, I really appreciate what you're doing Well, thank you. Jerry. I'm gonna see you while I see you in May What's what's in my

I'm coming to oh, yeah, I'm sorry. I said go to Dallas. Never mind. You're in the wrong

But if I'm ever in Phoenix, I won't come run with you son. Oh Okay Well, then you're probably a lot better than I am.

So maybe we'll get you to let you answer the question He wouldn't let me ask on there. Oh, man.

Okay, I'll ask it work. He's he's currently making fists and pummeling the air So I'm not really sure that that's a good sign, but I'm looking forward to finding out about that.

So, all right Thanks, man. I appreciate you a lot. All right. Thanks Now I'm now

I don't know about you, but I'm interested So you'll have to you'll have to type something up for me there and see what's

Yeah, that's all about. Let's get to Brian. Hi Brian Hi, dr.

White, how are you doing good? I was wondering if you can answer a question. This is The gentleman before me had a question about a week old.

This may be a question. It's about three years old Uh -oh, I'm not I'm not sure that you have addressed it.

I think you may have one But I was wondering if you if you might say a few words to the

Incident that happened. Like I said a few years ago having to do with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and Mike Lacona's book on the resurrection and I asked a question that is that old because From what

I see it's it's still a live issue. Even if dr. Lacona's name is it often mentioned anymore?

You still have this divide among evangelicals who say that they are inerrant tests But you have different interpretations of of that term inerrancy

And I was just curious do you think based on what you've seen that that what Michael Kona did was a clear denial of biblical?

inerrancy I was also curious. Maybe if you had read or interacted at all with the work of Kevin Van Hooser on this matter

We didn't we didn't review that we reviewed a Reviewed some portions of a a book that was written in defense of Lacona against guys.

Oh, yeah, Nick Peters. Nick Peters. Yeah, right, right. I remember that Mmm, I did write an article if you look up like Kona on the blog

You will see the article that I wrote probably within a week or two of it blowing up So there is something there where I address the issue

I'm in the uncomfortable position of primarily Agreeing with Norm Geisler.

I'm uncomfortable that because he really does not like me at all But at the same time recognizing that some of the distinctions

Asked for in some of the books that have come out are are necessary and they need to be recognized.

But the reality is I'm saying that you believe in inerrancy even in What That there are certain camps you have to say that to survive but they're very small camps now and outside of those very small camps to say you believe in inerrancy ends any possibility of Academic advancement.

I mean, that's just how it is right now. That's that's that's the reality in the West is if you want to advance within certain academic categories

To say you believe in as NT Wright put it that silly American doctrine Ends your credibility ends your advancement.

That's the outstand of that. There are there are people there's a whole group of Apologists People involved the apologetic movement.

Let's put it that way who will sign Documents to teach at schools that say they believe inerrancy, but clearly do not

William Lane Craig, I do not believe believes in inerrancy in any meaningful fashion He makes

Lycona look Very calm and for example, he he goes after Matthew as well.

I don't know if you saw recently It was on Facebook But and it's an older it's an older program, but he is asked about the guard the tomb in Matthew and he says oh

Vast majority of scholars would recognize that that That's not historical that that didn't happen

Wow, there's just there's just no way that so we you know, that that should never be

Included in a defense of the resurrection so on and so forth. So It's it's fairly obvious to me that there are many many people

Who may in one context rather say I believe in inerrancy but what they believe in is more like how

Rome has and And You know basically defaulted to on this now and that is well the

Bible infallibly communicates the message of salvation to us but it does so through all sorts of fallible ways and and and you know self -contradiction and so on so forth, so the more liberal a person tends to be the less likely they're actually going to hold this and In amongst

Southern Baptists, you have to sign a statement to teach in the Southern Baptist school that you believe in inerrancy well, I'm gonna tell you

I've taught in Southern Baptist schools and There were a bunch of people who were teaching who clearly obviously did not believe in the doctrine of inerrancy

All they did was just redefine it and so You know, we we talked about how the battle was won in the

Southern Baptist Convention Against the the the Liberals and But the reality is

I don't know that it was won at all I think there are a lot of people

That will say they believe in inerrancy But once you start pushing and you you start asking serious questions

They will not affirm what's in the Chicago Statement, for example, and their teaching demonstrates

They really don't believe that the the scriptures are in are inerrant and and once you get that point and asking what they mean by inspired becomes rather problematic as well, so You know,

I just spoke on inerrancy and the global church for some reason

Maybe someone can tell me why they posted the audio Stuff yesterday from the TMAI symposium and the only one missing is mine

Yeah, and I'm wondering if it's because I was the only one that gave a presentation and had audio and video in it and they

Just haven't had the opportunity to convert it or they're not going to convert it. I don't know But I spoke on the importance of the highest view of scripture in dealing with Islam I've certainly defended that.

In fact, I've been talking with someone recently About doing debates on inerrancy and I wrote a long email to the fellow just yesterday

Saying well, the problem is the the the thesis statements that you're suggesting, you know

Just go into a debate with with a Bart Ehrman Who by the way really as this fellow described has a burr under his saddle about me

He won't he won't even Allow the possibility of debating me because of that previous debate which makes me go.

Yeah. I wonder why Bart anyone who watches that knows I was perfectly respectful and and obeyed the rules

I Bart, I think you know, you lost that debate and you don't you don't like that.

But anyway, anyway What I was explaining to him was you don't just Arrange a debate on inerrancy with some liberal critic

I mean you're setting the Christian up at that point because it's got to be specific You've got you've got to look at specific text.

You've got to ask the question is inerrancy even a Possibility what would be the evidences of inerrancy is are the

There are the synoptic issues enough to overthrow in it. You've got to focus it because if you just leave it wide open

It takes it takes 10 seconds To state an attack that takes 10 minutes to explain and respond to so in a debate.

It's just it's impossible To meaningfully address stuff like that well,

I found it interesting and I think that you're absolutely right about that that inerrancy is just such a such a broad topic and There's so many

I would say biblical assumptions that go into the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in terms of God's trust that that certain

Revisionists would want to question out, you know right out of the right out of the thing

But but I was curious about what you said that with regard to the people who say that they affirm inerrancy, right?

But they redefine and things like that, you know I'm actually pursuing a dissertation right now at a Southern Baptist school and and that's what is bringing up some of these questions

You run you run the same thing yes, yes, yes and and people who say that they affirm it and and Do they really or are they just redefining it or is this an example of the difference between What the

Bible says are being true and how to interpret what the Bible says because you know Kevin Van Hooser is really beating that drum these days that we have conflated inerrancy with hermeneutics

And so we're now enforcing our interpretations on Others in the name of biblical inerrancy

And so that's that that was actually prompting my question to you And so I I just find it to be kind of a fascinating subject right now and well it is

I don't know look what I brought it to a head. I think yeah. Well, yeah, there are lots of things that did that I'm not sure why that particular thing.

I mean if geyser had wanted to do this years earlier there are all sorts of things that William Lane Craig said he could have done it with but I think he just chose a

Smaller target to shoot at for maybe other reasons. Who knows. I don't know why but the point is this

It's it seems to me that This a person's view will become very clear once they get out of Just talking within the

Academy using all of our technical language and are forced to deal with the people I have to deal with all the time

Go to South Africa and deal with the Muslims Talk to Bart Ehrman talk to John Dominic cross and you know take these folks on and you'll find out really quickly whether a person really believes in inerrancy or Whether they're going to immediately start saying well, we really can't go there or no

I won't defend that or well, there you know, there's differences of opinion about this that the other thing you'll see pretty quickly

And it's certainly Craig has been clear about that. I mean you'll you'll hear him I gave

I gave one example recently. What was it that he defaulted the Eastern Oh original sin You know defaulted the

Eastern Orthodox on that one and It it's just I think apologetics helps with that but hey, hey

Brian, I've got to get to Ben before we close out Thank you very much, and I appreciate your phone call. Thanks.

Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye All right, let's get to Ben real quick. Hi, Ben Dr. White um question for you.

I've been listening to many of your Catholic debates I'm new to the dividing line and it's been

I made this discovery recently about Matthew 16 18 Petrel being in the masculine

Petrus being in the feminine and also Matthew 18 18 about the Perfect passive participles and I never loved the debate so far that I've listened to I haven't heard you mention this

What is your opinion on? That as far as Jesus could not be talking about Peter because he switches first from the masculine to the feminine

Well, if you if you will listen to the best Roman Catholic apologists their argumentation will be that This was spoken in a language

Was not spoken in Greek. It was spoken in Aramaic and Hence, it would be Kefau in both.

That's the standard argumentation now There is actually an argument against that Chris Karagounis in a book a number of years ago about decades ago now

Pointed out that You know, we don't have an Aramaic original of Matthew. First of all, so it's all

Speculation and secondly, it would be more likely to use Memra rather than Kefau as the second

But the reason I don't go for that is I don't think that's the strongest argument.

The the strongest argument is that Chi epitaute a

Petra is a shift of address you are Peter and Upon this not upon you, but upon this rock.

I will build my church so there is a shift of address between What is the words to Peter and then this

Petra that comes afterwards? I don't think that the gender is is the issue

I think the use of tout a is the issue there be no reason to Say you are

Peter and upon this Peter I will build my rock this Changes this is this obviously shows us that we're talking about something else in the context rather than Peter and that That is tied together with the fact that in when you ask the question

Based on Matthew 16 19 and I will give to you now They do point out that soy is singular though.

So soy toss cloud house taste by Celia stone or unknown I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven

They'll say see that's only given to Peter and I immediately say and by the way If you want to hear all this fleshed out, we've debated this numerous times in the in the debates where I fleshed that part of it out, but the point is that When I asked the question, well, when does

Peter receive these keys? they either have to say it's not recorded in Scripture or Peter receives them together with the other

Apostles in Matthew chapter 18 and Therefore receives them equally not in superiority to the other disciples of Christ so that to me

I think is is the is the Appropriate direction. I don't think that the masculine feminine

This change can bear the weight that a lot of Protestants have put upon it And especially if you're going to make that argument, then you need to be prepared to deal with the

Aramaic underlying text argument which Obviously from my perspective.

We don't know what the Aramaic text would have been a and B even from Roman Catholic perspective

It is the canonical gospel of Matthew written in Greek that was that is the authoritative text not a supposed

Aramaic text so right there's all sorts of things that they bring up to attempt to to Keep the

Petrine promise the very foundation of the papacy None of which actually survives, but we need to know what those those particular arguments are

Well sound good. Excellent answer. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. Yep. Thanks gone.

All right. God bless All right. So next week we will have Two dividing lines at 5 p .m.

Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday and Thursday John Sampson will be in he will probably bring his

Queen bobblehead doll thing back in and Who knows what he'll be talking about?

But last time he did the five points or something. Oh, no, he did biblical interpretation biblical interpretation

And he also talked about his time as a word faith Guy as well, so I'm sure he's got all sorts of things to cover appreciate him coming in.