Gene Robinson

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 and now with today's topic. Here is James white.

Back From Houston and the Week’s Teaching Sessions

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon it is. It's it's good to be back in in Phoenix. But unlike a lot of times when I get to get back I get back all tired and tuckered out and beat up and and that's that's not how I came back this time I would like to very much.

Thank the Elders and the people of the grace reform Baptist Church There in Houston. I think it's King would actually is the specific term right next to humble I've always when we we drove it. I think Papa Cito's is in humble, which is very very nice.

I ate of Papa Cito's three times while I was there and I tell you these folks treated me, right and It was a very enjoyable time and I think that is reflected in the videos that we've posted there's an ease of speaking with the people because I feel very much at home amongst them and Just kindred spirits.

I really appreciate All that they did for me. Especially the two large bags of Papa Cito chips with a two two pints of Salsa that were in my room. I was good not so good for me it was but that was that was that was good stuff and So very very enjoyable time there with the folks and looking forward to getting a chance to go back there In the not-too-distant future they were everybody there was surprised that we have humidity in in Phoenix, so I was all dry out there now come out here during the monsoons and we'll We'll compete with you on the humidity, but obviously They have it pretty pretty consistently Whereas we don't necessarily have it quite as consistently as as they do so but a beautiful area great people and so and for the first time Within a matter of hours literally of the of the sessions themselves anybody who wanted to watch What had taken place could do so because as I mentioned?

Last week I now have a the ability on YouTube to post videos longer than 10 minutes and 15 seconds and so Thanks to the Casio excellent S10e I believe is the little camera that I have I was able to set that little thing up and record the sessions and then upload them and and voila.

Everyone can sort of participate we did Four sessions actually I did Sunday school. I tried to record that too, but I had it set on HD level Quality so it only got about 38 minutes and filled the SD card.

It was boy you should have seen the quality of that video though. It was like having a having a Studio quality camera. It was incredible what it can do, but the file was a little bit of big side. Quite get the whole thing, but we did ancient and modern challenges to scripture to the Trinity.

It's a justification by faith and then last evening I reviewed a sermon by Greg Mott of Houston's First Baptist Church on the subject of Calvinism and Interacted with it and what was amazing to me is when you watch it.

You can see him on the screen you can understand what he's saying then listen to my response. It's a give-and-take sadly that's about as close to you get to debates with a lot of folks these days. So that's that's what we did, and I didn't even get that finished to be honest with you I I went too long but That's because I started preaching and that happens anyway on the program today.

Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. Phone number if you'd like to become involved. Number of things while I was sitting at the Gate this morning I plugged the the BlackBerry in and used it as a modem and Blogged briefly about the new Frank Beckwith book which will not be out till November.

Actually, and I have it on pre-order. I mentioned that last week return to Rome confessions of an evangelical Catholic and Once again, I think there's going to be the blurring of the lines. There's just An amazing amount of not really taking into consideration all that has been said and done before.

Philosophers have the tendency to think that they can break new ground along those lines. I've noticed, but I blogged about some comments that he made over on between two worlds that blog in the comments section.

And I posted some of his comments On on the blog this morning if you haven't seen that yet. It gives you some insight. I think as to what we're gonna see in this book. It seems to be a fairly small book 144 pages but He he wrote quote.

Hi guys what Carlo and Phillip are discussing? I cover in some detail in my book without giving away too much. Without giving away too much. We're sitting here talking about the gospel. We're sitting here talking.

And remember I'm looking at the cover and the cover does exactly What I said the cover would do it says why the president of the Evangelical Theological Society left his post and returned to the Catholic Church.

Well, actually he had returned to Catholic Church before he left his post you may recall. We were the first ones to really publicly announce this Situation and I was as I recall the first one to ask for To call for him to resign as the president of Evangelical Theological Society because you can't be an evangelical as A Roman Catholic, that's the whole point and so obviously the book is is playing on that and utilizing that and so I'm sorry, but but without giving away too much.

What and then when you discover what it is without giving away too much the conceptual key to understanding the faith works issue for me Was to not think of either forensically if one uses an imputation model.

Then works turn out to be acts in exchange for some good. The sense of works is clearly unbiblical as Trent rightfully points out that sense of works is clear in biblicals Trent rightly Rightfully points out but if one thinks of grace as infused Then works are not against grace or faith, but the work of grace itself and helping us to conform the image of Christ.

So it's the old imputation versus infusion what a new thing that is. That's only a oh, I don't know 500 year old debate. Maybe possibly. And we don't want to give anything away on a 500 year old debate.

There you go I didn't have time. Maybe I will Add this in or maybe I'll just add it as an X. I'll do it tomorrow I'll see if I can find time to do so I'm still on central time, which is two hours off in this and I want to try to stay there as much as possible because The fact the matter is with the writing that I want to be doing between now and when I get up to Alaska I got to be getting up early early early early in the morning.

And so I might as well just keep this schedule. So I got to get to bed. I Mean what time is it? It's it's six o 'clock. You know, I should be heading home right after the program there and Going to bed while it's still light outside would serve tough.

But anyway, I Didn't have a chance to throw up on to the to throw off. That didn't really work, right? I was sitting at the gate and and I've got you know, you've got the the BlackBerry over to one side.

It's tethered and more and more people are showing up for the for the flight and I was trying to rush to to go get the text to the who is the Blessed Man part from the God who justifies and post it underneath the Stravinsky's thing and I just didn't have time to do it.

So maybe I'll be able to do it tomorrow to get that up there. Because I think it's very very useful. That is the question that I would ask of Frank Beckwith is who is the Blessed Man of Romans chapter 4 and If he says he is the Blessed Man, then let's start talking about why it is that Paul talks about Righteousness in the context of the non imputation of sin.

Let's see. Just how Orthodox Frank Beckwith is as a Roman Catholic because remember the last time we talked about Frank Beckwith was was when he was on Catholic answers and remember the lady called up and said had he prayed to Mary he had not prayed to Mary and You could just hear the Catholics in the audience just cringing at that have you learned to love Mary yet, I think was the exact question that was asked of him and Let's just find out how how Orthodox Beckwith's Roman Catholicism is that would be part of the of the question anyway.

So that's interesting and I am also interested to see that the lines just lit up right to be in the program. We've got a bunch of folks. But before we go to the phone calls, I have a bunch of stuff here, but I did want to get to one thing I Would like to play for you the very voice of heresy.

You know, we think about I was lecturing on church history a little bit this past weekend. We were talking about people like Arius and history records Arius as an arch heretic as an individual who By his teaching and by his promotion of his teaching Sought to Destroy the faith once for all delivered to the Saints and No, I am I I have a Todd Bentley clip cued up, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Todd Bentley is not Todd Bentley is a charlatan. He's not a serious heretic, he's not I mean and I really hope that the vast majority of Believers can see through this guy. I mean I was watching the nightline thing.

That's what I have queued up as a nightline report and it's just so repulsive to me to watch that stuff. That's not who I'm talking about. That's not who I'm talking about. It's rare when we not well not rare and I'm not even talking about a Benny can I'm not talking about it.

I'm talking about someone who is a heretic who maintains that he's not a heretic because the vast majority of the hair of heretics Obviously, that's the that's the position they adopt. I am the one who's speaking the truth.

You are the one who's been misled You need to follow after me, etc. Etc. Etc. And so let's Let's listen to the voice of a living heretic a man who is clearly Outside the realm of the Christian faith, but especially these days you're not allowed to say that.

We say it but we are we are who we are, but you're not allowed to say that and it's again Gonna you're gonna have to count the cost in the not-too-distant future to say this. This is an interview. That I pulled down off of the web just recently and I want you to listen to the voice of a living heretic and Listen to how he expresses.

Himself, I really have one goal at the Lambeth conference. And of course, I'll be around the fringes of the conference and not a participant. I want the light of Christ to shine forth from me. I you know I've come to know this God of love in my life who I know beyond any shadow of a doubt loves me loves me as a.

You know, I think Miracles happen when people who are divided by something sit and talk with each other. Get to know one another as human beings and as brothers and sisters in Christ. And that's why I'm going to offer myself in that way.

So it's not going to be a big sort of protest outside. Absolutely. Yes. No, I I I mean to be there to support the Archbishop of Canterbury and all the other bishops who were there. I think I think a mistake was made and not including me in those conversations.

I was the only openly gay voice that might have been at the table, but I will do what I can from the fringe. So in I was going to say playing devil's advocate, but that's probably not the right phrase.

Gene Robinson and the Denial of Biblical Authority

Now let me stop right here to tell you what's going on here. That of course is Gene Robinson. I hesitate to call him Bishop. Because that is an affront to the word to its biblical use and to the history of that and the men who have borne that title down through the years who have honored it by following God's Word, but this is Gene Robinson the Episcopalian Bishop of Vermont or New Hampshire.

It's a little state up there that we could fit a number of them into Arizona. He's up there anyway, and this is an interview on British television and Isn't it fascinating? That after you listen to this man, who is an unabashed homosexual Unrepentant of that.

Sitting next to him is Ian McKellen the openly gay actor that you know is Gandalf and Magneto and He of course is the one that I think we've mentioned the program before rips out Leviticus from any of the Bibles.

That he finds in the drawers of hotels he might be staying in and here you have Robinson sitting next to an atheist and what binds them together is their sin and there he sits and He's now turning to to the actor the atheist actor why in the world they would have him there other than the fact they're both homosexuals is difficult to Say but this is British television.

But you know there are a lot of people in the church who say that the Word of God has been laid down and is absolutely Clear on sexual matters and have a legitimate point of view. Isn't it right that Rowan Williams as the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to get a negotiated deal of some kind?

He's trying to hold the church together.

Well as an atheist I It would be tempting to say let the church get on with its internal arguments, but it spreads beyond that and and when the when the Christian registrar in Islington this week having refused to Witness the civil partnership between two gay men and and was sacked and then reinstated by the tribunal we see that There are ramifications.

I Just looking there from the outside the church thinks it's got a particular problem with some articles perhaps not of faith, but of written in the Bible that they refer to and I Can remember the armed forces not that long ago saying they had a particular problem.

It was to all to do with discipline. Well, it's just been discovered There's no discipline problems when you let gay people into the village and schools to what we've got a particular problem. The particular problem they've all got that share is homophobia and and having it they root around in the Bible to discover the very few Passages that seem to be relevant, but people like the bishop like the Quakers Like many people I marched with them gay pride last week.

Gay Christians gay Jews gay Muslims Are at ease with their faith and their position in society and so the argument is one we have to.

I mean take seriously. Yes, there are prohibitions on homosexuality in the Bible. You've said that the Bible isn't necessarily big enough to accommodate the Christian faith. What do you mean by that? Well, I mean that God didn't stop revealing God's self when the canon of Scripture was closed.

At the end of the first century, you know, Jesus says it was appropriate then. But there's lots of developments in society and human life since then which you think should be not only developments in human life.

But development development in God's life with us. Jesus says this amazing thing on at the Last Supper He says to his disciples. There is more that I would teach you, but you cannot bear it right now.

So I will send the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth. I think we've seen the Holy Spirit leading us in terms of the full inclusion of people of color and Women and of people who are physically challenged and now God is leading us to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian bisexual and transgendered people so as I said.

There you have the very voice of heresy a living heretic spewing his heresy denying the sufficiency of Scripture denying the law of God denying a God's ability to reveal himself with clarity and subjugating God's Word to in essence new revelation to humanistic thought.

Here is an unrepentant homosexual. He is a man who should have been put out of the church long ago but when certain churches enter into gross levels of apostasy such as the Episcopalian Church, they are elevated the position of bishop and So they're allowed to sit there Claim to represent Christ use his name and in so doing deny everything that he stood for taught and preached and.

They are the ones given the television time. They're the ones that people turn to today in a society that is desperate for any reason to Disbelieve. And that's exactly what you have going on there. There's more that could play but we have a number of people online.

But I want to get to that today just as a reminder that This is what's taking place around us and sometimes Being exposed to it. So often we almost become accustomed to it. It almost becomes something that we we expect.

It should not come to that in any way shape or form. Hearing that should always bother us no matter how many times we hear people Denying the Word of God twisting the Word of God perverting the Word of God.

And You know the society You just have to wonder they will they will look and they will. They will see a Todd Bentley. For example, the very beginning of the nightline.

Presentation sound like this. The believers are descending on Lakeland by the thousands.

Take it back to Mississippi.

What began in early April as a few days of preaching in a local church by an obscure pastor from Canada? Has become an evangelical sensation.

I rebuke the spirit of cancer.

Every symptom of fibromyalgia is leaving your body from across the country and around the world people. Pilgrims five to ten thousand of them a night are flocking to this little city in Central, Florida.

To hear a man named Todd Bentley preach the Word of God. Yeah preach the Word of God.

I'm sorry, the man would not have preached the Word of God if his life depended upon it. The world looks at that and they call It evangelicalism. They call that preaching. They call these people believers.

And then they turn to the next channel and here's Gene Robinson with his collar on Claiming to be a bishop and an open homosexual saying the Bible isn't big enough for Christianity. There you go. We are up against a tremendous challenge and the only way that so we can meet that challenge is by faithfully Proclaiming God's truth in our everyday lives.

Each one of us is called to be ready to give an answer for the hope that's within him and We're not going to get the the big platforms Very rarely the vast majority of the time. This is the media doesn't want us there.

They want the people they can manipulate and they can make to say the things they want to say. But that doesn't change the fact that we are called to be faithful even in These these contexts. Yeah somebody.

Whoa. We just lost are we still on. Wow wonder what that was. That was a big power spike wasn't it? What's that I?

May have been a big power spike, but our backup batteries and it's still spiking on us. Yeah, we're having a bunch of problems.

Yeah, batteries are holding. So we're still right. We'll probably disappear here before long. I've lost I lost the phone though.

Oh, well, I've still got the phones. If you need me to bring the phones up. Let me know.

All right, yeah, I can't. I've lost the internet connection here on my end probably because My internet router went down in the other room so This this thing's all can confuse it and lost so I can't even see the the names.

You're gonna have to text me the the phone calls if we're gonna. And you're sure that your software there is telling you that we're still going. Okay. All right, because I can't see the channel anymore that all went bye-bye and Disconnected the whole nine yards, so we'll see.

So I believe the.

The Comma Johanneum and the Greek Manuscript Tradition

First caller you let me turn your laptop down because you keep popping.

Well, it should stop doing that so that's fine you can do that, but. Let's first callers Robert, okay, let's go ahead and and try to get hold of Robert. Hi Robert. Oh.

Dr. White god bless you. How are you doing? Thanks for taking my call. Yes, sir. I have a question for you. Concerning the comma Joe had name What would you consider to be the best argument against it?

Well, I think that's put that thing is putting it backwards given the fact that The Greek manuscript tradition does not contain it that it is only found in very in in a very few exceptionally late Manuscripts that are almost all post printing press.

The the question is what is a good argument for it? And I think that the the fatal argument the the argument that Absolutely determines without any question that you you have to reject the commie Ohanian is that if the the text an important text like that could simply disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition then we would have to include if we were consistent all sorts of other readings that likewise are only found in one or two manuscripts one or two late manuscripts a Manuscript over here a manuscript over there.

We would have to include those in the New Testament. We in essence would have to reinvent the New Testament and The the fact the matter is no one nobody who promotes that Tries to do that. No one who promotes that Says that we should add all these other things and so there's a there's a gross Inconsistency in the position of those who promote the commie Ohanian at that point Quite simply if that kind of text could be original Then the New Testament should have a very different look than it does today.

It would require massive editing to insert back into the text all of those Texts that we that should be there that likewise have this minuscule extremely late Type of.

Manuscript support. Okay, some people tell me that it's in the Byzantine. No, it's not.

No, it is not. It is not in any Textual family it is not found the majority text. It is it is not a Byzantine reading. None of that is is the case at all in reality. It is found only in a in a just a small number of late manuscripts around the 16th century.

It comes in from the Latin primarily. It is a Latin reading that Has found the Vulgate. It is probably a commentary. Or an interpretation of the verse that follows it in Revelation. I'm sorry first John 5 8.

That was written in the margin of a manuscript and became included in the Latin versions. Erasmus did not have it in the first two editions of his New Testament, which he produced but under pressure included it in the third edition and hence it became the foundation of the King James translation as well, which was based on the five editions of Erasmus those of Stephanos and that of Beza Up through 1598.

So no it is not the Byzantine textual tradition region. It's just not a part of the Greek manuscript tradition period. It is that that lightly testified in the Greek manuscript tradition. It's not the majority text or anything like it.

Okay, our church fathers who might have attested to it. Well, you see at that point.

Whenever you start looking to early church fathers, first of all, the the overarching statement of talking about the three being one would be very very Common during the Nicene period though interestingly enough In defending the Trinity and the deity of Christ after the Council of Nicaea you don't you don't find people utilizing that text and you would think it'd be the first one anybody would be citing but As soon as you start asking about early church fathers, you have to start asking How do we know what the early church fathers wrote?

In other words, do we have a critical edition of even their own writings and How much impact did those particular? I've got the got the phones back now how much Impact did trend the transmission over time have upon their text as well.

In other words, they had to be hand-copied during all those centuries just like everything else did and I think it's it's very problematic to go to Non-critical editions that are generally very very late of the writings the early church fathers.

Because they generally reflect a lot of scribal emendation to match the current ecclesiastical text of the day. And therefore that somewhat mitigates the value that those early church writers Writings would have as a testimony to a particular text now if you can demonstrate that the earliest manuscripts a particular writer contains specifically a statement that it says in first John these words, that would be one thing but normally in looking at the early church fathers what you're looking at are allusions or verbal parallels and things like that and That wouldn't be nearly as helpful in this context.

So again Here's here's the point. Let's say you want to assert that an early church father made a reference to the concept of Three being one or something like that. Even if you can't demonstrate that it existed in his manuscripts or anything like that.

If that was original we have not the slightest idea what the New Testament originally looked like. We don't know we might as well throw up our hands and say it's completely we might as well just join the Muslims and say really corrupt because if entire Segments of the text important theological segments of the text can simply dis appear.

Here we go. Again. We're getting we're getting hit with the with power spikes all over the place. I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm not sure that one nailed us. It doesn't look like it did but It nailed us.

We're still going. Yeah, okay We're getting we're getting hit right and left here. So I don't know There's no lightning storm outside. So what the heat it's not it's been been hotter than this today this this year anyway.

There's a friend a friend of mine said that Jerome made a statement like ungodly men have taken this passers. He's wrong.

Tell him tell him a document that. Right, he's wrong. I mean, there's all sorts of myths out there. There's it's it's amazing what people will produce and throw out there but Jerome is not a a testament for the Kami Ohanian and People sadly will will make things up to present their their present.

Now does the NASB use any minority?

Readings and it's and it's and it's in translation.

Well all modern translations unless they're a translation of the majority text. Would use the earlier manuscripts rather than just a majority text perspective. So all modern translations, so they would have minority readings in them.

Well, what what do you think a minority reading is?

One that has very few no.

A a minority. Well, okay if you want to use it that way, but There are readings that come from the papyri that were written within 250 years of the time of Christ. That's appear in all modern translations.

There's no question about that but That's totally different than looking at manuscripts that were 1600 years after the time of Christ and so yes, there are minority readings in the sense that many of the the places where the modern translations differ from the translation found the King James Version is.

Exactly because of that we have far more manuscripts now they go much closer back to the the time of the Apostles than we did in the days of the translation of the King James and. So the vast majority of scholars believe that the earlier manuscripts are to be given more weight than a manuscript from a thousand years after Christ and the only exceptions would be when that later manuscript demonstrates an independence from the Standard text of its day.

Then that might mean that it is a a copy of a very early manuscript itself but in general a Manuscript that has undergone fewer generations between itself and the original over against one that has undergone many generations is going to be more reflective of the original than the the other manuscript is and therefore There are many quote-unquote minority readings, but they are based upon the earliest manuscripts.

Well, what makes the earlier manuscripts more authoritative. I just explained that if you have a manuscript that is only one or two generations From the original over against one that's 15 generations from the original obviously each generation introduces the possibility of copyist error or Amending that text to the standard text of the day to what's most popular to what the scribe might be more familiar with or something like that and so obviously a manuscript written in The 3rd century or the 4th century the 5th century is closer to the original than one in the 14th or the 15th century.

Because that is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Versus the earlier manuscripts which are have fewer generations between them and the original and hence have significantly more authority as being Significantly more accurate in.

Reflecting the original text. And if a text has about 10 ,000 errors, and it wouldn't you consider that kind of sloppy? To what do you refer?

To the Alexandria. Again, you're reading some really bad stuff because so far The stuff you're presenting sounds like it's just a bunch of King James only ism, and it doesn't reflect meaningful scholarship at all.

Britain there, I'm sorry went that out so it. Burgeon well Bergen and and both lived before the papyri. Were discovered and it is just simply an error to make that kind of assertion about either Codex.

Alexandrinus or Codex Sinaiticus, but you guys in the I'm sorry would you put these guys in the King James only camp?

The problem you have here is Every time someone goes to 19th century scholarship and ignores the Discovery of the papyri and everything that's happened since then You're you sort of have to ask the question.

Why why is somebody doing that Bergen for example? was all for. For example Bergen did not believe in the Kami Ohanian look it up he recognized that that was not to be a part of the Greek text of the New Testament and If his own Standards were to be applied in the modern context Given the discovery of the papyri his position would have to change greatly from what it was in the late 1800s when he lived before that discovery and Those who use his name today and simply quote him I think by so doing or demonstrating that they can't really deal with The modern situation as it exists and the manuscript tradition as it exists as well.

And so when someone says well is there's 10 ,000 errors in in Whatever manuscript you're referring to whether you're seeing Codex Alexandrinus or the Alexandrian manuscripts or whatever you're referring to.

By what standard? What's what's the standard that's being used here that the Byzantine textual tradition? Why can't I use the Alexandrian make the Byzantines? There's 10 ,000 errors in the Byzantine?

Well Tischendorf was on record of saying that there were four different editors to the.

Manuscript that he found the cyanatic is no question about it. When you have a book that is being used for 1 ,500 years there's going to be a few hands that are dealt with that deal with it.

You better believe it we can recognize each one. So what that what they're doing is they're crossing out words. They're putting words in they're doing all kinds of crazy things to the text. That's not crazy things.

They are attempting to make an ancient text look like the modern text of their day and We can examine those things and that's extremely valuable information to us to see the process of them trying to change this ancient text Into a text that represents the Byzantine textual platform.

But since we can read the originals then that really actually becomes even more valuable because it illustrates for us the process of time and again, it illustrates that the the Non-byzantine readings were the earlier readings and so that's that only increases its value.

It doesn't decrease its value at all. It's not quote-unquote crazy things. That's again the kind of rhetoric that you find in King James only material, but it's not serious Christian scholarship.

Alright, would you confess our hills to be a?

King James only yeah, you haven't read the King James only controversy. Have you. I have your signed copy. Then you know that I dealt with Edward F Hills, right? Well was a while since I've read it, okay.

Well if you read the chapter on the range of King James only Individuals you will see it. There's an entire section on Edward F. Hills and his theological presentation of the supremacy of the the King James reading and the theological foundation that it's that's placed upon.

Yeah, all righty. Hey, thanks for your phone call today Robert. Let's. Yes, you have a great day you too, thank you very much. Let's go to Jeff well, we still have electrical power and Talk with Jeff.

Hi Jeff. How you doing? Hi, Dr. White. How you doing doing? All right doing good good. Oh before I.

Get to the questions. I called about I should probably mention that especially after that phone call That you really need to read one chapter out of the limits of Orthodox theology That deals with the the transmission of the Torah it deals with men among of these is 13 principles and It basically says that among of these basically lied in that principle.

That the the Torah text never changed and he knew better but because they're under pressure from Muslims They basically he basically said that in order for you know for the masses basically. So I thought you'd you'd probably find that chapter pretty valuable.

I.

Not certain what the relevance of that to the last caller was. Maybe you could help me out. What's that? Maybe you could help me out how that's relevant to the last caller.

Well because it deals with like textual variations. Okay. All right and textual criticism. All righty so. So, yeah get the book trust me in regard to I had some questions about justification and new perspectivism and It's kind of a hard topic because once they start redefining word you get very confused or at least I get very confused and They seem I don't know some of their stuff I've read Is not very clear and I know you've studied and I listened to the week That were available online.

And I had a question about how they interpret or define justify. Because I know from what I've been reading that NT right defines it as more declaring that you're in the covenant community then being declared righteous per se.