Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Thing here as we always do and It covers it The gamut and there's no two ways about it. We did throw out all the eschatological questions and I Guess we can just sort of I'll there are at least 20 questions here.
So I'm sorry 20 questions. There you go. So I obviously one of the dangers of doing questions and answers is that in the brevity of providing a question someone can either misunderstand you or Not so much as someone can but if someone wants to.
And then we'll isolate what you say. That's that's something that's happened to me a lot not in question answer sessions but frequently at the end of things. I had a fellow come up to me once in Salt Lake City after I had done a debate with a Roman Catholic on justification and Start hammering me on the use of the early church fathers and the Byzantine Text-type with reference to King James only ism had nothing with me even relevant to that and I gave him a brief answer in essence I said well.
Well the problems and using your church fathers is there. The we really haven't done a critical edition of the early church fathers. In other words, we haven't really examined their text as yet and therefore to assume that we know exactly what was written early on by any particular church father is difficult and that ended up turning into an article by some.
The guy was a pastor in Salt Lake City and You know this big long thing. I found that kind of a thing rather Grossly unfair, of course when we then contact that fellow to see if he'd do a debate he wouldn't so anyways.
What is your opinion about ecumenical movements such as promise keepers the National Day of Prayer with regard to? Their desires to present a united Christian front obviously from my perspective the only ecumenism that is a godly ecumenism is an ecumenism based upon truth and the Roman Catholic Epistemology that is the knowledge.
The theory of the knowledge of truth involves the claim that the Roman Church is infallible in matters of faith and dogma faith and moral dogmas on faith and morals and therefore She is not under the corrective influence of the scriptures as the to be able to be corrected in the errors that she has promulgated in the past as a result.
While there may be many Roman Catholics today who do not hold to Rome's official teachings concerning such issues as Purgatory indulgences the nature of the mass or whatever else it might be. And who would not exactly believe that believing in the bodily assumption of Mary is something that's necessary to get to heaven.
Rome has defined all of those things and they are inconsistent Roman Catholics, so they don't believe those things. To try to join together to create a front requires a common source of authority and a common message and as Tim Staples admitted in 1996 on the Bible Answer Man broadcast when he and I were on together and this issue came up.
I said Tim, would you not say that if you and I were standing outside an abortion clinic together? And someone walked up to us and said what must I do to be saved that we would give Fundamentally different and in fact contradictory answers and he said yes, we would.
In my personal Experience I have decided that I cannot become involved with anything. That would put me in a position of not being able to preach the gospel to someone. I was once involved with an organization and I became De-involved with the organization simply because it became clear to me that I was expected in certain contexts not in every context but in certain contexts to Close my mouth and to not preach the gospel of grace to someone who would need to hear the gospel of grace.
So as to further a political cause I could not be involved with that. That's been my experience. You can take that for For what it's worth. Many of you debate opponents quote from early church fathers in support of purgatory and veneration of the Saints, etc.
My sense this evidence is sporadic or taken out of context. What is your opinion? Is there unity among the fathers for any questionable doctrine? No, there's not. There is no unity that is one of the greatest myths of Roman Catholic apologetics is that the church is always believed.
I can honestly tell you that as far as I can tell the only Theological statement that you would find a unanimous consensus on amongst the early church fathers is there is one God. That's it. I think on every single other issue.
You could find variations and differences of opinion because remember when you read the early church fathers and this is a an issue I try to communicate often when you read the early church fathers. It's like going down to your local Christian bookstore today.
Could you find a united theology from all the books at your local Christian bookstore today? Let's just name some names. TD Jake's Benny Hinn. If we have untaught and unstable men today using 2nd Peter's words there were untaught and unstable men in the early church and I've never understood why the writings of everybody get enshrined in the same way without a recognition that there were some people who Thought well were good thinkers and handled the Bible.
Well, there are others who could not. Early church writings present you a wide variety of beliefs and opinions and To try to create a unanimous consensus out of that is simple mockery of history. I have often said to Roman Catholics who argue with the the issue with me.
Look, I can let the early church fathers be the early church fathers. I Can take from an Augustan Great insights and reject those areas where he was wrong. I do that with any human writer. These men were not inspired nor do they claim to be.
Therefore I can let them be who they were. I don't have to shove them into a particular mold and And make them something that they really were not. Let's be honest with with history. Do you hold the infralapsarian view or the superlapsarian view of the predestination of the wicked.
Or the elect I would say to it's really not sure. It's just predestination wicked. At least. And I'm very thankful that whoever wrote this came close to spelling superlapsarian correctly correctly. I did write a book recently about a a well-known scholar who spelled it superlapsarianism in his own published book.
But anyway, we won't mention who that was. If any of you have Robert Raymond's do you have a system axiology out there you have in your library to have it out there. He has I think a really good discussion of that particular subject.
And he has a modified form of the superlapsarian position. That he outlines in there. That's you'd have to read it to see what he's talking about. But I think that was one of the most helpful discussions of it that I have read and I would tend to agree with him.
On the position he comes down to on that. What is the value of learning Greek and Hebrew for the Christian today? Well If you go down to any secular university and you want to get a master's degree. Since I've read some of him in German, I'll use him as the example that I normally do in Goethe if you go down to a secular university and you want to get a master's degree with a specialization in the writings of the German author Goethe.
What are you gonna have to do in the process of getting that master's degree? You're gonna have to learn German. They're not going to give you a master's degree in Goethe. If you cannot read Goethe the way the Goethe wrote.
Sadly in some seminaries in our land today There is a tremendous de-emphasis of the biblical languages. When we were in Northampton yesterday the librarian who was giving us a tour mentioned the academic rigor required of ministers in the days of Edwards which included not only basic knowledge of Greek Hebrew and Latin.
But as I recall reading I remember this little obscure footnote in the Soli Deo Gloria book once about Christopher Love. That by your junior year You had to be able to debate in Greek. Considerably more rigorous than anything that we have today to be certain.
Now the question was for the Christian today and not the Christian minister. We live in a time when there has never been more information available to us about the text of the Bible the history of the Bible the background of the Bible and hence a Foundation upon which to build the most accurate exegesis of any time in history.
We have much more available to us today than any preceding generation has and When I think of the pursuits that many of us invest our time in in comparison to The benefit that I have seen in the ministries and the teaching of my friends that are closest to me.
Through the history of my own ministry to whom I have taught Greek and Hebrew. Those individuals have gone on to write to teach. They utilize it throughout. They've never stopped using it. They continue using it.
They've become very important in my ministry. We we only have two people who work for the ministry myself and Rich Pierce, but we have a number of volunteers we Rich and I could never answer all the emails.
I I can't answer but to about 2 of what's sent to me personally. But we have volunteers who help us with things like that and they utilize these things all the time. People have asked me what were the two classes you took in college?
They're most important to you when you're doing the Bible answer man broadcast when you're debating a Muslim when you're debating a Catholic. Whatever it might be when you're on Janet partials America, whatever and it's real easy.
Church history and Greek. Church history and Greek. Those and I don't know why but many apologists eschew studying both those areas and they shouldn't. What value is it? Well, we have many fine English translations we have many not so fine English translations, too.
But the simple fact matter is it's thrilling to. It was thrilling for me in 1993 at an exhibit in Denver to see a page of manuscript p72. It is the earliest handwritten. Well, it's the earliest manuscript period of 1st 2nd Peter and Jude and It was thrilling to stand there.
The security guards thought I was a little bit weird, but it was thrilling to stand there and read that. Writing of some ancient brother of mine from long long ago who just wanted to have God's Word and He hand-copied that out.
He had lousy handwriting, by the way. He was not a professional scribe, but he wanted to have these epistles for himself 1 ,800 years had passed and to read that and to realize It says the same thing that my Greek text says today was exciting testimony to God's providence preservation of his word and it was also exciting to for example read Galatians and Then read Ephesians and see the very different A State in which the author was in.
Paul was angry when he wrote Galatians and you can tell by the language in reading the English, but there's nothing like reading the Greek. Because he skips verbs and he's in inverting clauses and he's you can just tell this is someone who's getting to a point.
And he is communicating something with passion and that's cool. And I think there's a lot of things that we do in life that are far less have far less eternal value Than taking the time to do this. I teach both Greek and Hebrews.
Maybe I'm biased. But I have often encouraged people if you have the opportunity to do so. If it's being taught in a church near you or a college near you. Why not learn it? Why not Take that opportunity.
I'll tell you one thing. You'll the Jehovah's Witnesses will X your house off real fast from their list when you when it once you've learned that. Those two are really broad. Might as well bring this one up.
I was told who wrote this. Someone asks the question. Do you think Patti Bonds is saved? How do you explain her RC fondness and association now some of you're going? What? Patti Patrick Bonds is my sister.
She's my only sister and Last year she joined the Roman Catholic Church. She didn't talk to me about it. We don't have a close relationship. And I knew at the time that there are gonna be people who were going to try to Turn her into something that she never was and they're doing that but it's you know, God's truth is God's truth.
I don't know my sister's heart. We have not spoken face to face for more than five minutes for Probably seven eight nine years. She separated herself from our family a long time ago, but She's certainly right now being used to promote a false gospel.
She was just on Catholic answers live the day before my debate with Patty with Patrick Madrid and That grieves me and I have certainly sought to share with her since she told our family of what she was doing.
She has now blocked every ass every way that I have of writing to her except sending her just plain mail in the in the mail. Because she has no answers to anything that I would say to her. So pray for her and her family it's a sad situation, but It's has apologetically no value whatsoever because all she's doing is repeating what she's been taught and when challenged has no responses, so How do I explain it?
Well be honest with you. It has nothing to do with Rome. Her her choice. It could have been Mormonism could have been Jehovah's Witnesses as long as it Met some other need that I'm not going to go into in public.
But I think time will undoubtedly show that it has always been official. Is it always beneficial to debate with false teachers to expose their errors or should we just proclaim the truth and let God? Transform hearts and minds.
Well both. I Don't think that's a debate is is The be-all and end-all of all things. I think we have biblical basis for engaging in it. I think when you look at the Apostles they they publicly Dispute of the Jews demonstrated in the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ and Apollos came.
He greatly benefited those who have believed by grace because of his ability to dispute and to to teach and so on so forth. God's truth can stand the most most most rigorous examination and Very frequently the total inability of falsehood to provide a meaningful response can be demonstrated through cross-examination.
So on so forth and so We have certainly found The debates to be very useful. Let me I will point something out though I am fully aware of the fact that by engaging in these debates people will become members of the religions I debate against think about that for a second fully aware of it.
You see unregenerate men fall for idolatry. Unsaved people will find Idolatrous and false worship as a means of suppressing the knowledge of God. And so I know that people will go from one lost state to another lost state.
Because of a discussion of teaching and those people may have been unsaved people within our own churches. I Know that's going to happen. There's I'm sure that probably happened in the in the experience of the of the Apostles.
I mean the Apostles themselves had people who once stood on their side and then opposed them later. They experienced that themselves and said we would too shouldn't surprise us. But I know of people who have come to Faith in Christ as a result of those I know many more people Who have been kept out of falsehood and error because of the debates that we've done.
We've done 41 so far. My first was in August of 1990 in Long Beach, California. And the most recent July 11th here on Long Island that was the 41st debate that we've moderated. Debate. I'm not including Bible answer man stuff and things like that.
Those are not debates. It's funny my opponents frequently try to make it sound like they're debates. They're not a debate. You have equal amount of time in one subject. Radio programs generally do not Result in that kind of a situation believe me I left a KJV only.
Well, I'll just read it the way it is. I left a KJV only cultic Parentheses. Christian question mark parentheses. Closed church. There seem to be several in the area. How can some of these independent church pastors be held accountable by the body for the spiritual abuse they afflict on God's flock?
Well There's all sorts of levels and forms of King James only ism. I know I am the person that's the radical King James only folks love to hate the most. Peter Ruckman wrote a book. I never did see it.
He never bothered to send it to me and I never bothered to write it because I'd Buy it because I had seen his Articles on it. So I knew what it was about anyways, but I wrote the King James only controversy.
He wrote the scholarship only controversy. An answer to a professional liar I think is what it was or something along those lines. It's always so they're always so kind and loving and if you want to see I would direct you to our website.
First of all on the King James issue. Listen, listen to the Ankerberg series. You can get that from John Ankerberg. We can't make that available. Listen to the Bible answer man series that I did on King James only ism.
Listen to the debate. I did with da wait in 1994. Listen to the half to half hour programs with Gail Ripplinger. There's a reason why these people will not debate. We have challenged them they've Ruckman wait and Ripplinger were invited to be on Ankerberg.
They would not come on. Every one of them Ripplinger knows that if she called me up today, we would you bet let's do it. They will not. Da wait was on Southwest radio Bible Church Two summers ago now along with a guy named Theodore Liedis.
They weren't on at the same time, but Four days just ripping and shredding on me. Invited both of them to come on our program and discuss those issues. They won't. They have to have a monologue. They cannot have a dialogue because in a dialogue They have consistently lost and lost badly because the facts aren't on their side.
They have to use circular argumentation. Once you point out the circular argumentation the irrationality of their position becomes patent as to Answering this question. I don't know. I Don't know how to answer that question.
I think there are Many situations I can my files are filled with stories of people who were involved in church splits. Were involved in missions work that was destroyed over issues like Gail Ripplinger People I I know a man right now who Cannot marry the woman that he wants to marry because her father is King James only and opposed to his theology and will not Dialogue will not and this this is one thing that I have found consistently once someone will actually start to Fairly talk about the issues and Examine the facts and apply the same standard To both sides that person will not remain King James only just won't it you.
But that's not normally what happens. Normally what happens is in a conversation somebody will I'll start talking with somebody somebody will come into our chat room, whatever it might be and When I'll say something along the lines of well, which which King James Bible are you saying we need to use?
Are you are you talking about the 1611? Are you talking about the 1769 Blaney reversion? You're talking about the Oxford version of that the Cambridge version of that. Normally, and I kid you not the response is you're a God hater.
What. You're trying to destroy my faith in the Bible. No, I'm asking you a factual question. You're telling me that I need to use the King James version of the Bible or I'm using a perversion. Which one are you suggesting?
It seems to me a simple fact you hate God. That's as far as it goes I mean, uh, it doesn't matter. I can then show them I can show them direct mistranslations. I can show them. We're in acts. I think it's 537 This Jesus whom you slew and hung upon a tree.
Did they kill Jesus before they hung him on the tree? No, they didn't. It's who you slew by hanging upon a tree. It's just a simple mistranslation of a participle. The New King James doesn't have it. There's nothing no difference in the text.
Nothing like that. It's just a bad translation. Then you don't have a Bible. What until in 1610 nobody had any problem with this? I. You know and the response is always you you you ad hominem attack upon you rather than let's deal with the issue here.
Let's let's look at some more examples. I've got plenty more to look at. Oh, no, no, no, and then and then they're gone. So It's difficult if not impossible quite honestly to deal with some folks like that because from their perspective you're attacking the Bible.
You know, they don't they don't hear when you're saying I'm not attacking the Bible. For them the King James Version is the Bible there is nothing else. So if you say anything about that, then you don't believe in the Bible basically, and it's that's a shame.
It's very difficult to try to rationally whoa realize. That's so long. I may have to hold off on it in Your experience in your studies. Do you find the traditional classical apologetics the teleological cosmological anthropological arguments? Etc helpful against post-modernism, or is it a better approach to preach the gospel straight to them?
Well Post modernists are frequently not atheists. Postmodernists are much more likely to be somewhat wimply agnostic in their perspective or even have some sort of a irrational faith structure. I Personally as far as dealing with atheists Do believe that the transcendental argumentation of Greg Bonson, I think it's the best way to start.
I think you have to recognize presuppositions. I I think that the classical theistic arguments basically only makes sense within a Christian worldview and Therefore outside of a Christian worldview. They don't have the compelling force that they might otherwise have so I think you have to start from there, so I think there's More to be said about that.
I certainly teach a class on the subject, but Fundamentally, I think you need to start with the fact that so this is an individual who's suppressing God's truth. And you can give all the truth you want to somebody who's already suppressing God's truth.
There is to suppress more of it when you give them more of it. That's how that works. Could you please give me your definition and opinion coinciding with scripture on relationship based evangelism. Where is its place as opposed to preach the gospel in Jerusalem Judea, etc?
Scripture seems to give a balance of sharing in the tax collectors home and preaching truth to the masses or just the unknown. Yeah, I I'm not sure what we've Relationship based evangelism is if you're talking about, you know friend shipping people in the church and stuff.
I Think we proclaim the gospel no matter where God has put us and that means there will be times and we do so with People that have a close relationship to us and sometimes when we don't I don't think we're all meant to be cookie cutter Copies of each other.
I mean, I don't share the gospel same way other people do other people are simply more outgoing than I am. The way I look most the time on an airplane. Nobody wants to talk to me. Anyways, I mean, you know little old grandmas run and scream if I were to sit next to him things like that, so It all depends on you know, some people are just Are cut out to proclaim in different contexts.
So I don't think the only the only problem I would have is if someone says either one of those is just completely wrong obviously you you evangelize your neighbors or the people who are close to you or things like that and.
But that is I mean, that's the only way that you do so and that's where the imbalance comes in. Please defend the Reformed faith in light of two passages often highlighted by its opponents. First Timothy 2 for God desires all men to be saved.
Second Peter 3 9 not willing than a should perish. Well, there's a book sitting out there called the Potter's freedom and. There's a chapter called the big three and in the big three I exegete first Timothy 2 for second Peter 3 9 and Matthew 23 37.
And the reason I did so as I was responding to Norman Geisler's book chosen but free and I went through and counted how many times those three verses were cited and it came out to like What was it once every ten pages or something like that throughout the entirety of the book?
They were the constant refrain, but no exegesis of them was ever offered. So I would direct you to the book for the full exegesis since I've still got a lot of questions here, but fundamentally First Timothy 2 for is right in the middle of a discussion of various kinds of men rulers and those in authority.
Peter all Paul also talks about slaves those who are lords over slaves. He talks about the Single people older people younger people. He talks a lot about kinds of people in the chapter before in the chapter of first Timothy chapter 2.
So to take the word all in the Western every single individual context simply is Not in any way shape or form defensible there especially in light of the fact that it then identifies Jesus Christ as the mediator between God and men and I Love asking this question.
It frequently gets into a good opportunity to talk about the perfection of the work of Christ. But for whom does Christ mediate is Christ mediating is Christ? Functioning as high priest today in the presence of God the Father for all of those souls who are in hell.
What's he offering in their place? And if he's offering his perfect sacrifice in their place, why doesn't the father accept that? Why isn't that enough that gets you into a discussion of what the Atonement is all about.
In fact, there's an excellent debate. I'm not sure if we've posted it yet. I've been traveling. It's hard to keep up with stuff, but Dr. Joseph Piper of Greenville Seminary debated Dave Hunt on this. Well, let's put this way.
Dr Piper debated one subject which was what the debate was supposed to be on which was on the Atonement. Dave Hunt covered everything in the world and that's how Dave is. I've told Dave to his face Dave I've never heard you start a topic start a talk and finish it on the same subject because he never has.
I mean if Dave starts talking about Islam, he'll end up finishing talking about Roman Catholicism. He starts on Mary. He'll end up on the New Age. I mean, that's just that's Dave and that's what is endearing about him to a lot of people hear him talk.
Is it you know? Oh, and then there's this and off you go over there and by the time you get done. You have no idea where you started and that's what happened in the debate. So we're gonna post that debate and I think dr Piper did an excellent job in discussing these issues these passages and And really just did an excellent job surviving not knowing where in the world the debate was going at that particular point in time.
Oh Well, this fits with that some unknown person Says could you comment on Dave Hunt's new book? What love is this? Who would ask a question like that? I can't imagine I Knew it was coming out. If anyone has the book I would very very strongly recommend that you go to our website, which is a omin org.
By the way, I keep mentioning it by sort of assume most of you are aware that a omin org. Listened to the August 2000. I think was August 2008 in July of 2000 Discussion that I had with Dave Hunt on the air.
I was filling in for a fellow by name of Marty Minto On a radio program and I used to do radio. So I do radio, you know host talk shows and stuff like that and I Had Dave on because David started writing anti-calvinist Articles in his marine call newsletter and I had done a few dividing lines pointing out man.
This this is basic level stuff. That's all straw man. And here's where the problems are. We were on for two hours. It's actually about 80 some odd minutes when you take all the commercials out, which we've done for you.
Thankfully. Listen to that Dialogue and then realize that the first manuscript of this book began circulating less than four months later. Listen when he says right at the beginning. I've never read any of the Reformers.
I've never read any of their writings. I don't know anything about them and within four months this book began circulating amongst people. Then go to what love is this calm. What love is this calm is not run by Dave Hunt.
I assure you What love is this calm is run by discerning reader? And in fact discerning reader comm if you have a copy of Dave's book and you tear the front cover off and send it to Them they'll send you the Potter's freedom.
Which I think is sort of I think it's just sort of really funny and so. But do not use that as an excuse not to buy those that the church has here in the front lobby. How's that? Covered myself all there I I Knew from some of the reformed people who had Reviewed it that it was going to be bad.
I didn't think it was this could be as bad as it is. Dave offered to send me the manuscript once I wrote him a letter. He has agreed to debate me twice once in person, but I don't think it's ever gonna happen to be perfectly honest with you.
He Sent me a letter about it Said would you like to look at the manuscript when I wrote back? I said, yes, Dave. I would love to however and Then I said what I felt before God I had to say to him and I won't.
I'm gonna make that letter available. Anyone who's read my open letter to him knows pretty much what I said, but fundamentally what I said was Dave. I believe it's irresponsible of you to write this book.
In light of what you said in our radio program in light of what I have heard in Light of your responses to me where you are not listening to what anyone says to you I think it's irresponsible of you to write this book.
You are not capable of addressing these issues. Dave proudly says he knows no Greek or Hebrew and yet he will make constant comments about both. So much so that in his in this new book He tries to get around acts 1348 where it says as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
By saying the best translation is as many as were disposed to eternal life believed. Now, how can he tell us? What the best translation is? There is no English. I started looking at all my English translations.
I Did eventually find one an English translation that in the actual translation says what Dave Hunt says, you know. Which one it is the new world translation of Jehovah's Witnesses it's the only one and when I have responded to Dave and Demonstrated that what he's saying is false.
From any the man would fail my beginning Greek class and he would fail anyone else's beginning Greek class. From the comments that he makes the response is you're an elitist. You're saying that we have to know Greek to know the gospel.
No Dave, but it does help to be a Bible translator. Which is what you're acting like. The book is The the book is is is horrific. I'm so almost thankful. I am its main living target if you look at it I I think I just Ned.
I think I just nudged RC scroll out from the most negative comments and citations but It's historical stuff is laughable. From any scholarly perspective. I don't care what side you're from the historical material is laughable.
I caught him misrepresenting Spurgeon. His response was Spurgeon contradicts himself. I mean Dave will not accept correction on anything. It doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter how much documentation you provide.
I'm now co-authoring a book with Dave on this subject. It's not really co-authoring we're debating. I'm writing on seven subjects. He's writing on seven subjects then we're going to exchange our articles and then respond to them and then exchange those back and Do one last response and two closing sections.
It's not gonna be a huge book. Unfortunately, it's not gonna be as big as I'd like it to be but it will there will be give-and-take. And it's going to be very difficult. I'm presenting an exegesis of John chapter 6.
I've read everything that Dave tries to do in John chapter 6. He cannot deal with the text and This issue is an exegetical issue. It's an issue of what the text says and he simply will not engage that and That is or when he does he does so out of a complete ignorance of what the text is actually talking about.
It's it's a shame. So Do I suggest buying it? No, not really. I mean, it's not gonna if you're actually wanting to if you want to read a Rebuttal of Reformed theology that's not going to provide it to you.
I mean, it's good provide you with a harangue in the classical sense that term but it's not a it's it's it's let's put this way chosen but free is considerably better and I didn't think that was a very good book so We can go from there.
I tried to read the Book of Mormon one time. You know what Mark Twain called the Book of Mormon, right? Anybody know what Mark Twain called the Book of Mormon chloroform and print. Chloroform and print.
Mark Twain had a way of you know. Just sort of I tried to read the Book of Mormon one time. But it was so offensive to me that I couldn't do it. How do you manage to read so much offensive material without choking?
I Didn't find the Book of Mormon. I found the Book of Mormon offensive to my to my mind. The Book of Mormon does not contain the vast majority of Mormon doctrine. So I didn't find it overly offensive as far as You know, it doesn't have the stuff about Plurality of gods and all the rest of that stuff.
It does contain a false gospel, but It's getting harder the older I get. I'll have to admit when I was 24 It was a lot easier to read heresy than it is now because I'm getting sick of it I I. It takes more and more energy more and more concentration.
And I have less and less desire to read heretical stuff now than I did before and I think the only reason I do it now is because You know I have to plow through a bunch of stuff on open theism between now and November because I'm debating John Sanders one leading open theists at reformed theological seminary in Orlando, Florida in front of the whole student body, so You have to do what you have to do.
You have to be prepared. So. But if if I wasn't doing that kind of stuff I probably would finally get to read all the neat stuff by Edwards that I haven't had a chance to read yet so it is hard to do but you know, it's I don't mean to be flippant, but it's a it's a dirty job that somebody's got to do it and So I think it's about to explode, isn't it?
I'm sitting here watching that that little thing over there. See little puffs of stuff come out of it. That's why the Mormons think coffee is evil. I think one morning the Prophet had a coffee pot explode and he got the word of wisdom as a result.
You know no more of that stuff. When debating a Roman Catholic scholar Do you as a matter of course challenge their ability to interpret the text based on the fact? That they use the Latin Vulgate as their source actually.
That's an example where I actually I challenge them because I don't believe that a consistent Roman Catholic can do exegesis in the first place and what I mean by that is a consistent Roman Catholic believes the church is the ultimate interpreter of the text of Scripture itself and Since the Roman Catholic Church is only defined at maximum the absolute meaning of seven passages of Scripture I don't believe that the Roman Catholic can engage the text on a meaningful exegetical basis and Come to conclusions that are contrary to teachings the Roman Catholic Church.
That's not to say Roman Catholics. Don't do it. I just think they're inconsistent to do it but the Latin Vulgate while it's still the official text of the church and While the documents of the church continue to be read or to written be written in Latin actually the Pontifical Biblical Institute Utilizes the very same Greek and Hebrew texts that Protestants use the Latin Vulgate at least and you got to realize there's a difference between Roman Catholic scholarship and Roman Catholic theology and Roman Catholic scholarship doesn't utilize the Latin Vulgate as the final Court of Appeal.
That's a change. That was the intention of the church time of the Reformation. That's why a six just came up with an infallible Vulgate. Which was actually very fallible. But that has changed and Roman Catholic scholarship does not make reference to the Vulgate as the be-all and end-all of all things.
Does everyone just Here by asking these questions just wants us all to get along. Does not want to raise any controversial issues and I've appreciated that very much so far. This handwriting looks somewhat familiar though.
Does Romans 9 teach individual election or national election? You know what the question is about, of course, and that is when Paul's strong words in Romans 9 concerning God's sovereignty. It is not to the man who wills or to the man who runs but God who shows mercy the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.
Jacob I loved Esau I hated about the only way that people deal with this passage and again Potter's freedom a Number of chapters on Romans 9 one a positive exegesis of Romans 9 the other a response to Norman Geisler's claims on Romans 9 so this will be brief, but If you Utilize the same hermeneutic the same means of interpretation in walking through Romans 8 that you use in walking through Romans 9 You will never come to the idea that Romans 9 is talking about nothing but nation.
What I mean by that is many people Will get Romans 8, right? At least up to verse 29 anyways. Because it doesn't cause a problem with their theology. There's the blessing of adoption and things like that.
Which did you know that Dave hunt does not believe that all Christians are adopted as sons of God. You're not a special privilege and only a few get. He's gotten really weird on that one, too. But anyways, um, not sure why I decided to point that out to you.
But now that you're blessed with that anyways. If you use the same method of interpreting scripture Really from Romans 1 through Romans 8 Romans 9 will only yield one interpretation. You have to change The way you interpret scripture to try to read into Romans 9 the idea.
This is just nations now I know believe me. I know what the arguments are. Well Jacob. I loved he saw I hate it was actually in the minor prophets. And that was about nations. How does Paul use it? What is Paul's application?
And when you start back at Romans 9 1 and allow Paul to present his own argument. And you see one of the things that bothers me is that I'm very accustomed to people like Robert St. Genes and Jerry Matta ticks and James Aiken Catholic apologists tearing apart Romans 3 4 5 and Inverting sections and and going to a later section trying to read into a previous section to try to get around Paul's argument there.
The problem is Paul is presenting an argument and when I present an argument If I say point one is this point two is this point three is this sub point a and sub point B point four is this? You're obviously going to be misrepresenting me.
If you skip to point two and then over to point four then back to point one you deal with an argument in the way it's presented because you're building a foundation and When Roman Catholic apologists have to turn Paul on his head and actually make him argue against himself.
Which they do for example in Romans 4 I don't know if you've heard this but Roman Catholic apologists are now arguing that Abraham was justified three different times in his life. He was justified in Genesis 12 when he by faith left or the Calde's even though he had no promises at that point.
But anyways, we left her the Calde's then Genesis 15 6. Which is what Paul focuses upon and then he's rejustified in Genesis chapter 22 when he offers Isaac on the altar. Therefore justification is an ongoing process just as is in in Roman Catholicism and They say this is what Paul was actually teaching.
The problem is think about for just for a moment what Paul does in Romans chapter 4 after he establishes The imputation of righteousness apart from works. He says now how was this blessing given to Abraham?
When he was circumcised or uncircumcised Paul places it at a particular point in Abraham's life and His whole argument is based on the fact that in Genesis 15 6 Abraham was not circumcised. That came afterwards therefore the promise preceded that and the rest of chapter 4 is based upon that thesis.
The Roman Catholic interpretation that is being put forward now remember this is not official. It's always so wonderful when you know Roman Catholic apologists will use this. But then they can always fall back and say well the church never did define that.
But the whole Roman Catholic argument is he was justified in 12 justified in 15 and justified in 22. Well, what if Paul what if that was true, then Paul's entire argument is is false his opponents would shred him and When you interpret Paul as to make Paul contradictory to Paul, you probably missed the point someplace along the line.
Well, it's the same thing going on Romans 9 and what bothers me though is this isn't being done by Roman Catholic apologists. But interestingly enough it is being done for the same reason. That is to protect human autonomy.
Because if you follow Romans 9 from the start. What does Paul say in those cryptic words in verses 5 6 and 7 he starts talking, you know? It's not all Israel. That is Israel and he Particularizes what he's talking about.
He talks about it's not those who are just of the seed of Abraham. It's those of the member Romans for those who are of the faith of Abraham. There's a difference here and he follows that through the rest of the way through chapter 9.
I've never figured out how those who try to turn us into nations and hence avoid predestination election. When does it change? When does it switch over. I've never give been given a absolute final. Well, this is where he's talking about nations when he talks about Esau and Jacob.
But once he gets down to Pharaoh, is he talking about individuals or is that still Egypt? So why does he use the singular it's not the man who wills or the man who runs but God who has mercy. What's that about?
I've never seen where the switch is allegedly supposed to take place. It better take place someplace, but we're not told where consistent exegesis of the passage forces us to see that fundamentally what Paul is saying is When God does say it is not of The God who the man who wills the man who runs but of God who has mercy it is God Who mercies whom he mercies and he hardens whom he hardens that that is not just nations as If you could somehow take people out of nations anyways.
But anyways, there's just some thoughts there's much more on that in the book on that subject. Okay, just a few more here. Is it appropriate to say indiscriminately to a sinner you who you are seeking to evangelize.
God loves you and Christ died for you. Ooh. What do you think? Well If we read the apostolic preaching and we follow the apostolic example. The apostolic example is that Christ died for those who believe.
God loves those who believe and I know it's very much against the tradition of men. But there is these Psalms in the Bible. It talks about God Hating sinners. It's sad. I bet you anything if. If we took a poll, I don't know how we could do it, but I'm sure mr Barnett could do it.
He can seemingly take a poll on anything at any time but if we were to take a poll outside of most evangelical churches tomorrow and we were to say identify which of these two is the scriptural phrase and we put God hates the sin, but loves the sinner as a and B.
God hates those who do evil. What which one you think would win probably a a Is not biblical and B is from psalm 5 5 and psalm 11 as well as I recall. These traditions become repeated so often that they become unchallengeable in the minds of many.
The command of the gospel is to repent and believe the promise of God's Redeeming love and Union with Christ is only for those who believe. There is no one and this is this is this is something that's fascinating to me.
Norman Geisler Dave Hunt Robertson Janice and James Aiken would all agree against me on the next statement. There is no one who will spend eternity in hell. Who will be able to quote Galatians 2 20 of themselves for I have been crucified with Christ.
He is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me in the life, which I live in the flesh. I live by the faith son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. No one in hell will be quoting Galatians 2 20 but Norm Geisler Dave Hunt James Aiken Robertson Janice would all disagree with it.
It would all say that there will be in those in hell who will be able to quote that exact those exact words of themselves in the flames of perdition. I Don't believe so I don't really have an answer for this.
It's not a big. I don't know. What is your interpretation of Paul's thorn in the flesh? What have you heard others in your circle say I? Don't know a some sort of physical malady some sort of Person that was a difficulty to him.
I honestly I will confess That's not a subject that I've spent a whole lot of time looking at as to what he's referring to there. I've never preached on it either. This one's huge. And I haven't read it yet, which is scary.
All right, let's go with it. How do you avoid private interpretations? KJV only folks have something that they can defend while everyone else is left with commentaries opinions, etc. The Exodus six hundred thousand men or six hundred clans does everything turn into a vote majority rules?
I'm not sure what you mean by private interpretations. You're probably referring to the passage in Peter. We're actually he's he's what his assertion is. There is that no prophecy of Scripture comes from any prophets own Private interpretation if you look at it very closely, it's not it's very common for people to say Well, you're just not supposed to somehow privately interpret things.
No, the KJV only folk doesn't have anything to defend. They're just simply saying well I'm gonna make this one. My standard is no more rational than me taking the TN IV and say well I'm gonna make this one my standard that doesn't make you certain.
You still have to deal with the text. All you've done is made Erasmus or or the 1525 Blomberg Hebrew text. Inspired by fiat rather than by any type of factual evidence. I Don't think that the the dealing we're wrestling with with difficult issues in the text of Scripture is a anything that's new Church history shows that's always been going on.
We can't stick our head in the sand and and just wish it would go away. And it's it's not a matter of a majority vote or a majority rules. I don't understand that part of it. And no while everyone else is not left with commentaries opinions, etc.
There's there's a text of Scripture and that's not a commentary opinion or etc. That's there. How come there are so many different apologists and yet all seemingly spirit led godly men Ruckman GIP, etc.
I'm sorry. But Peter Ruckman is not a spirit-led man. He's a racist with a foul mouth. I'll say it say it right out front that man sent me a book Called black is beautiful filled with racism. Mocking pictures of black people and he personally wrote in the front of it.
Here's some more stuff to prove. I'm a heretic Jimmy. And I have his personal letters using foul profane language and writing back to me while scratching scripture verses out of my out of my Bible the man's whacked.
That's all there is to it. Mr. Gip seems like a nice guy. We had a nice conversation on an airplane once but that's all I know about him. These men are not apologists either by any stretch the imagination or does everyone have a role and each ministry has a role and may be necessary for certain believers.
Well. Uh. No, I don't. I do believe that there's room for different ways of doing apologetics. Ruckman and GIP don't fall into those categories. I Wouldn't do I wouldn't like to do the Bible answer man as a regular thing.
Because people call up ask questions about stuff. I don't know anything about. And don't want to try to act like I do. There you know, there are issues that you know, someone asked about thorn-in-the-flesh.
I don't there. I have no investment in myself. To feel like I have to answer every single question there is because no one can I? Think one of the errors some apologists fall into is they think that they have to or somehow that means you're wrong about the things You've actually studied.
There's no way anyone could study everything there is to know anymore. It's just not possible the day of the Renaissance man is over. It'd be like, you know read everything on the Internet, okay. All right.
You know, it just doesn't work so if it's a subject that I can address, you know, I can talk to you about Pete Ruckman. You know, I can talk to you about my files are filled with the lives. He's run over like a steam shovel quite easily.
But there are other things that I can't so there are other people who do a better job. I think Greg Koukl has been a great job helping people to Form their pro-life position and to to deal with that issue in our culture and and Gerald and Sandra Tanner in Salt Lake City best apologists to the history of Mormonism.
You know, they don't deal with a lot of the issues that I deal with. Yeah, God uses all sorts of different people, but if you're talking about Ruckman and Gibb. That's the same Sam Gibb who in the first portion of the Ankerberg debate John Ankerberg looked at him and said if I lived in Russia.
And I wanted to have the Word of God the inspired and errant Word of God in my language. Would I have to learn English and Sam Gibb looked right at him and said yes you would. The Russians can't have inspired Bible in their language.
They have to learn English so they can read the King James Version of the Bible and Look historically logically and rationally. That's simply not tenable. How do you defend that? Well English is the universal language of air traffic control.
No good. Go look at it. I beat people sometimes. Hey, you're me go watch these things and then they come back going. They said exactly what you said. They said I know I couldn't believe it when I listened to it either but that you know I was just telling somebody beforehand about Gail Ripplinger and how I've got a clip and if If I needed to I could bring my laptop tomorrow I could.
I can unplug that microphone plug my laptop into it and play this clip for I didn't bring it with me. I would have because you would have enjoyed this. But I have the clip of Gail Ripplinger on Southwest radio Bible churches January of 1999 and She explained I had about six minute clip.
She explained the relationship of the NIV to the sinking of the Titanic. I'm serious well, you see it was a part of the white star line and we know that the white star is satanic and the person at the wheel was named Murdoch and Who owns the conglomerate that now owns Zondervan but Rupert Murdoch you laugh, but we're not done and science has showed us that there were 16 tiny slits in the side of the Titanic that sank her and There are 66 thousand words missing from the New International version 66 ,000 plus the six of the 16 is 666.
I'll play it for you. We'll go. I'll play it for you. I've got got my laptops juiced up. I'll play it for you on page 99 I'm assuming this is of the God who justifies. I don't know I'm going to assume so.
You quote Hodge to make the contention that it is seemingly not accurate to say that a penalty can be paid before it is remitted. Couldn't one say that because God is timeless all Something From God's vantage point that sins all sin from God's advantage point has been committed and therefore fully paid for each true believer in Jesus Christ.
Well, certainly. The scripture uses past tenses to refer to the fact that we were said to have already been glorified. We've been seed with him in heavenly places. So the certainty of those actions is expressed by those past tenses.
But we experienced them in time and I think all Hodge was saying was he's dealing with the fact I think a lot of people struggle with and that is if our redemption is perfect in Christ. We still have this experience of sin and the confession of sin and the need to feel the forgiveness of sin.
Even though the certainty of the forgiveness is something that's accomplished in Christ. That's what I was trying to deal with with Hodge. What we do need to avoid are those who went too far and develop the concept of eternal justification.
The idea that the elect have always been justified. No. Justification is a forensic declaration on the part of God the Father that is not given until Saving faith is exercised in Jesus Christ and that takes place in time.
Those folks tend to emphasize only the eternal and do not see the outworking of that in in time. Last one good timing worked out perfectly. Same strange handwriting though. I'm not sure what this is all about.
What is the best way to evangelize Roman Catholics. Well, let me close with this because I think it's it's it's a very good question first of all. Seems to assume something that's not assumable for most folks today.
And that is there's a need to. Sadly many in evangelicalism today I think show tremendous disrespect to Roman Catholics. That doesn't you're not going to hear most people approach at this direction. So make sure you're hearing what I'm saying.
I think it is it is one of the most disrespectful hateful things for people to ignore the fundamental foundational differences that we have with Rome. And I'm not talking about differences of opinion, I mean black and white contradictory statements on what it means to be a Christian.
When you ignore those things for the sake of some surface level religiosity I think you are showing tremendous disrespect for those people from a godly perspective the people who love the Roman Catholic people the most are the people willing to sacrifice and To take a stand that's unpopular in our culture and say you need to understand what the issues of the Bible are all about.
And I doubt your priest has told you about what justification really is in Scripture because he probably doesn't know and so first and foremost the the reason to evangelize Roman Catholics is that I am convinced on The authority of Scripture that the gospel according to Rome would fall under the condemnation of the anathemas of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1 6 through 9.
I Am rarely accused by my Roman Catholic opponents of not understanding their position. They know that I know what they believe. That I'm accurate painfully so in representing what they believe. And I've studied Rome's theology.
I know what Rome says the gospel is. And that gospel goes far beyond anything that the Judaizers ever dreamed of introducing to the gospel in Galatia. Therefore if the book of Galatians is inspired scripture, and there are many today who would like to say that it isn't but if the book of Galatians is inspired scripture and if the addition of one thing to faith in Christ puts you under the anathema of God and And makes that gospel a false gospel it cannot save.
Then I would submit to you that the addition of a never-ending mass that cannot perfect anyone. Sacramental forgiveness the concept of purgatory the concept of indulgences. Goes so far beyond. That to say that Paul was right to anathema ties the Judaizers and Yet we should hold hands with that gospel and say it's Christian is to speak an unthinkable contradiction so in light of that.
Then to answer the question. What is the best way to approach this I? Don't know if you have the Roman Catholic controversy out there or not. I don't remember if it's out there. The thesis of that particular book.
Was that you focus upon the very thing? That the conviction of the Holy Spirit makes a person yearn for but Rome cannot provide and that is peace peace with God. The conviction of the Holy Spirit makes us what yearns for the end of this conflict the end of this conviction.
That our sin brings to us, but Rome cannot answer that question. Think about it. Those of you who are former Roman Catholics, or maybe you still are a Roman Catholic you go to mass. You may go tomorrow.
Are you perfected? How many times have you gone in your life? How many more times will you get to go? Are you perfected in fact if you know Roman Catholic theology you may go to mass tomorrow? Which Rome says is the very sacrifice of Christ and yet?
You may commit a mortal sin that afternoon and die that evening go to hell. The cross in Roman Catholicism. Cannot perfect. Anyone it only makes salvation a theoretical possibility. That grace won by Christ on the cross is meted out through the sacraments of the church and that grace Requires the cooperation of the human will.
That's not substitutionary atonement and so when we talk about true peace I asked and You know I've debated a lot of Roman Catholic apologists and my favorite in the sense of the man who's always the fairest he's always the.
He always sticks to the subject. He never gets into personal attacks. It's fell by name of Father Mitchell Packwood. He's a Jesuit priest a very conserved about the most conservative Jesuit on the planet.
Real nice guy. He's taken over for Mother Angelica on EWTN. I don't know if you're aware of that. We even chat an AOL instant messenger once a while just sort of you know, how you doing, you know and He and I did a debate on justification and then the mass in San Diego in 1991 the George and Eileen were we're at that one and I Asked him a question.
I Said father Pacwa in Romans 5 1 Paul says therefore haven't been justified by faith. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ now. Mitch is a Old Testament scholar. He speaks Hebrew. He speaks Ugaritic Akkadian and I said, you know what Word lies behind the Greek word there in Romans 5 1 for peace.
It's Iranian Greek, but you know that for Paul that would be the term Shalom and Shalom is a rich word. In the Hebrew language, it doesn't just refer to a ceasefire. You would never find a Jewish person using the term Shalom of the situation in Israel today.
Just because there doesn't happen to be a suicide bomber never if everyone's running around with guns and every place you go into as guards and Everyone's in fear. That's not Shalom because Shalom is not just an absence of conflict.
It is a wellness. It's a positive thing. And he agreed. It's exactly what it means. I Said if that's the case Then how can you say that you have peace with God you have Shalom with God? When in your own theology you have to confess that you can commit a mortal sin.
This night before you go to bed and die the enemy of God from your perspective. The war could re-erupt at any second. How is that Shalom? How is that peace? He did give a response. It didn't really address my question so in my Opportunity to redirect it I refocused it if you listen to the tapes.
When it goes back to him you hear I don't know and We went on first time in any debate ever been in. I had an opponent said I Don't know that is the issue. So to answer the question, how do you evangelize Roman Catholics?
I focus on peace. The Perfection of the work of Christ the perfection of God's grace the necessity of substitutionary atonement. I focus on taking everything out of That person's hand by which they could violate Romans 319 and try to cling to some level of self-righteousness.
And focus upon what the gospel can give them that Rome cannot and that is true and abiding peace. That's how I do that, thank you very much gentlemen for being here this morning for your attention. I hope that something that I've said has sparked your thinking that you will Take some time to consider some of these things.
I hope that you'll be able to use some of this information in your own witnessing sharing with others. Thank you very much for being interested in the Word of God and If you're not able to be here tomorrow because you're involved in your own churches.
That's where you need to be and I pray you'll have a blessed Lord's Day and those of you here at Bethlehem, I'm looking forward to Being back with you tomorrow. That is if the pastor doesn't kill me this afternoon.
So let's.