Will Kinney on the Dividing Line (With Continued Discussion of Theology)

I'll give you some background information, and then we will dive right into it.

On page 66 of the original edition, there's a new edition of the King James Only Controversy, but since this was the one that was used in a video that was posted recently, page 66 of the

King James Only Controversy, I am discussing how the Texas Receptus was put together, and specifically

Erasmus, and the Greek texts of Stephanos and Beza, and so on and so forth.

And under the topic, a closer look at the Texas Receptus, one brief paragraph on page 66 reads as follows, two more interesting problems in the

TR in Revelation should be briefly noted. The first is the addition of the phrase, him that liveth forever and ever,

Revelation 5 .14. This edition is found in only three suspect Greek manuscripts, but is absent from Reikland's manuscript.

In Revelation 15 .3, King of Saints, which should be either King of the Ages, NIV, or King of the

Nations, NASB, the TR's reading again fails to have Greek manuscript support.

Now, at this point, I have a footnote, footnote number 47, or in this case, end note, because in the original edition, the notes are at the end of the chapters.

And end note number 47 says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the TR reading.

Now, why would I say that the TR reading, that that is the Texas Receptus, fails to have

Greek manuscript support, and then provide a footnote that says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the

TR reading? Well, if you were following the end notes, as you were reading the book, you can go back and you will see that in footnote number 41,

I said the following, as we will note, Haskir 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus' printed text, and is hence nearly worthless as a textual source.

The same is true of Haskir 57. And so, I provided a footnote where I noted that Herman Haskir, in his 30 -year compilation of the sources of the

Book of Revelation, had listed two manuscripts, two manuscripts in support of the reading

King of Saints at Revelation 15 .3. The problem being that both of those manuscripts come after the printed edition of Erasmus, and hence are handwritten copies of a printed book, and hence are, of course, irrelevant because all they're doing is repeating what's already in the work of Erasmus.

Now, why do I start off with something as obscure as something like this? Well, it is interesting to note that, for example,

Herman Haskir spent 30 years of his life collating all of these manuscripts of the Book of Revelation, and he has an extensive work

I have at my library, and the numbers he used are not identical to the numbers we use today.

He used a different numbering system, and you have to go to his books, and there's a chart that translates them, and things like that.

And so, if you're using modern Bible software, you will see a different set of numbers, but there are ways of figuring out which ones are which, and so on and so forth.

And that's all very interesting, but the reason I raise this is that a few people began making a reference, sending me emails.

I think Sam Shamoon was the first one to send me an email with a link to some videos that were being posted on YouTube by Mr.

Will Kinney, and so I started listening to them. I downloaded the first one, converted it to MP3, listened to it while I was driving up to Riding Mingus Mountain on Saturday, and then

I, in looking for information about who had been the host of the program and stuff, because it was, there was some, well, let's just say it's like a lot of King James Only material, rather nasty, you know,

I'm a deceiver and a liar, and I engage in Bible blunders, and I'm a used car salesman, and all the rest of this stuff.

You know, the standard King James Only, in -your -face type stuff, and so I want to know, you know, if I'm going to talk about this stuff,

I want to have the background, I want to know who's who, and so on and so forth. And so I went on YouTube, and I found that there were a couple other videos that I hadn't seen, and so I started listening to one.

It was initially about Colossians 2 .9, and I'll get around to that eventually, but there were two things, it was about half an hour long, and on both these videos,

Mr. Kenyon is just simply reading articles he's posted on the internet, and then there's some interchange with the host of the program.

And Monday morning, as I wrote, I listened to this second video, and as I was listening,

I was intrigued by what I heard, at least until I got back and then read what

I just read from my book. I don't carry my books on the bike with me, that would be an unnecessary aerodynamic drag, to be certain.

So I want to play for you what was said specifically about this text, and let you judge for yourself, and then

Mr. Kenyon actually has called in, so we will see what he has to say as well. Let's listen to what

Mr. Kenyon had to say about Revelation 15 .3 and my comments in the

King James Only Controversy. This one I thought was hilarious. This one is a good one. In Revelation 15 .3,

it says, Thou King of Saints. One of the silliest comments

James makes is his criticism of the King James Bible reading found in Revelation 15 .3.

Here we read. Now please note, this is, what I've said is silly, that's the assertion that's being made.

And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy words,

Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou King of Saints.

King of Saints. James says on page 66 that King of Saints should be either

King of Ages, NIV, or King of the Nations, NASB.

The TR's reading, again, failed to have Greek manuscript support. So what

James is saying here, you know, on page 66, he says that the King of Saints is wrong when he says it does not have

Greek manuscript support. That's one of his statements. And it should be either King of the

Ages, NIV, or King of the Nations. Again, there's two different readings out of two of his different Bibles.

He recommends, by the way, those three reliable translations in his book, the

NIV, which reads one way, the New American Standard, which reads another way, and the

New King James, which still reads King of Saints, which he's now criticizing. Now let me just mention here,

Mr. Kinney always brings this up. I simply said in my book that given the differences in translational methodology, and I had an extensive discussion of the difference between formal equivalency, functional equivalency, et cetera, et cetera, recognizing that there are differences in the approaches of each of these, that they are reliable, consistent translations of the underlying

Greek text. I had an entire discussion of the fact that New King James is based upon a completely different Greek text.

Mr. Kinney always ignores that. He criticizes me, whoa, this is New King James, King James, you disagree.

Duh, I know that. Anyone who reads my book knows that I know that. All I said was the

New King James is a reliable and excellent translation of its underlying Greek text, nothing more than that.

But it becomes a constant criticism by Mr. Kinney. We'll be asking him why he cannot see the distinction that I myself made since he says he's read my book four or five times.

You see what a phony he is? These are reliable versions, and then he criticizes the reading found in one of them.

See, and you say, why would you, because he calls me a phony, and a hypocrite, and a liar, all based on his not understanding the distinctions

I myself make in the book, and anyone who's read the book knows that I made those distinctions.

So when you ignore the distinctions I myself make, when I spend paragraphs doing that, and then say

I'm a phony, well, I think you need to be able to answer for those things. One of them, and the two other reliable versions both have different readings in them.

So I say, James is such a joker, isn't he? Oh, he's terrible. In his book, he recommends three different versions as being reliable and trustworthy,

New American Standard, NIV, and the New King James, yet all three of these, quote, reliable versions differ from each other, and every erroneous reading of the

King James book and the book of Revelation that he discusses in his book is also found in the

New King James, which he recommends. Of course. Why? Because the New King James is a translation of what?

The very same Greek text. I know that. Everyone who read my book knows that.

There is absolutely no foundation for criticism at this point, if you would just allow what

I said to stand. Then he now gives us two different versions with two different readings and then lies when he says the

King James Bible reading fails to have Greek manuscript support. Now, did you catch that?

According to Jack Moore... Now, did you catch that? I lied when

I said there's no Greek manuscript support. Now, listen, you've not heard Mr. Kinney note the footnote.

It's right there, page 66, footnote number 47. Now, if you're going to say someone's lying and yet they've got a footnote at the very end of what you quoted that specifically addresses the textual issue, that's one of the main questions we're going to have from Mr.

Kinney today. ...Mormon's book, that's Mormon, M -O -O -R -M -A -N, Jack Mormon, he recently debated

James White in England. When the King James version departs from the majority text on page 110, he gives the evidence for the reading found in the

King James Bible, as well as that of, it's also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, Bishop's Geneva Bible, Living Oracle's, Young's, Webster's, Luther's Bible...

Now, I'm going to stop in the midst of this. This is something Mr. Kinney does all the time. He will spend minutes of these giving these long lists, and what are they?

They're all translations of the TR. What does that prove? From a textual perspective, from a scholarly perspective, absolutely, positively, nothing.

They're based upon a Byzantine textual platform. Congratulations. What does that mean? It means there's a difference between the modern critical text and the

Byzantine text, but listing all of these translations as if it's relevant, total waste of time to anyone who's familiar with the field, but it's something that you will hear over and over again.

The Russian Synodal Bible, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, Reina Valera, 1995, it's found in the

New King James, it's in the French Osterwald, 1996, Portuguese de

Almeida and Biblia Sagrada, and it's also in the

Modern Greek, Modern Greek Bible that's out there. It's the same reading that's found in King James Bible.

Anyway, the Greek manuscripts of 296, 2049, and 2066 contain this reading.

Now, let's stop right there. He's reading from Jack Mormon, and he is now given three manuscripts that have this reading, 269 and 2049.

Now, 269 and 2049 are Gregory numbers. If you will check the charts published by Hoskier himself, those are the very two manuscripts noted in footnote number 47 on page 66 of the

King James Only Controversy, and both of them are handwritten copies of the TR, and hence are utterly irrelevant.

I did not mention 2066. Why? Look up 2066. Here is

Kurt Ahlen's Liste der Greik, Handschriften des Neues Testament.

This is actually an older one. It's, well, and it's still useful, but it's older.

They keep updating it. 2066. Let me see here.

And what is the date? This is on page 165 of my edition. The date of this manuscript?

We know the exact year, because it's dated. 1574. When did

Erasmus first put out the first edition of what becomes the TR? 1516. All five editions of Erasmus are before this, and the 1550

Stephanus text as well, all before this. That means that Jack Mormon's list gives us three manuscripts that were all handwritten after the publication of Erasmus' work.

Now, I took the time, and in fact I have on the screen in front of me Erasmus' 1522 edition.

And it has King of Saints. So, the question for Mr. Kinney will be a simple one.

Show us a single Greek manuscript that predates the

TR, that predates Erasmus' work, that reads that way, and then you'll have a basis for calling me a liar.

Otherwise, you have no basis for the comments that have been made here at all.

And it is also the reading found in the Greek text of Stephanus, Biza, Elzevir, and the

Trinity Bible Society's Scrivener text. Now, why even mention that? Of course it is.

They're all based on Erasmus. And Scrivener, what is Scrivener's Bible Society text? It is a fake

Greek text. He went back to the King James translators. He compared the five editions of Erasmus with Stephanus, with Biza, found out which readings the

King James translators chose, and created a Greek text based upon what they chose.

It is textually irrelevant, because it's based upon an English translation. And there is not a single

Greek manuscript on the planet that reads like the

Trinitarian Bible Society TR. Not a one. Nowhere. Doesn't exist. So, why raise these questions?

This is not even disputable stuff, but it's also not, in the slightest bit, relevant to anything that I said in my book, or proving that I am a liar, or silly, or anything else.

So to say that, you know, this reading fails to have Greek manuscript support, if it's an outright lie, he should have done his homework, you know, before writing this ridiculous book that he has with all this misinformation in it.

So, I've written a ridiculous book with all this misinformation in it, and remember, it's Mr. Kinney, who didn't read the footnote.

It's Mr. Kinney that didn't look at what was in the footnote. It was Mr. Kinney who didn't do the translation from the

Hoskia numbers to the Gregory numbers. I did! I did! And so, he concluded with these words.

None of the revisions agree with the previous versions. And yet, Mr. White has the temerity to recommend three different Bible versions, none of which agrees with the others.

And then he lies to us about the King James Bible reading not having any Greek support. And I ask, would you trust this man to sell you a used car?

Amen. So, you know, there are a few more examples, but just, you know, to see, you know, once you begin to examine where he's coming from and how he's set up his own mind as his final authority, and he gives lots of just total misinformation in his book, and, you know, the man has no inspired, inerrant

Bible at all to give to anybody. And like I said, you know, he just gives you reliable versions that differ from one another by thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings.

And that's what he has to give you. No wonder everybody's confused, you know, in that people would actually think this man knows what he's talking about.

Well, that's the, um, that's his gift. That's his gift.

There, there you go. Now you have the background on this issue of Revelation chapter 15, verse 3.

And so I am very thankful to say that Mr. Kinney has called the dividing line today.

Hello, Mr. Kinney, how are you? I'm doing super, thank you. Good. Well, we've got some questions for you.

I think you just heard all of that. Wait a minute, sir, if I could, please. Sure. You know,

I would be happy to address every single point you brought up there and why I specifically called you a liar.

I'd love to do that. First question, though, you never answer this.

Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Of course I do. What are you referring to when you say that?

Uh, what God gave us when he inspired the Bible. So in other words, the originals only? Um, that's what's inspired, yes,

God's writings, yes. I used a present tense verb, the Bible is. Yeah, I believe

God has preserved his word for us, yes. Do we have the original, sir? No, we do not, of course not. So then what are you referring to when you say the

Bible is the inerrant word of God? Well, for a man who says he's read my book four or five times, it's shocking to me that you wouldn't know what

I mean. I explained it. You're dancing around the issue, you're not answering the question. Mr. Kinney, Mr. Kinney, everyone on the audience right now knows that I have refuted your allegations and that you have acted in a very boorish manner.

And so if you'd like to have a conversation, we can do that, but most of the people in the audience likewise knows that I have repeatedly, in the course of my ministry, explained the mechanism by which

God has preserved his word, that he has not done so in an English language that did not exist when the

Bible was written, and that he has done so by transmitting those manuscripts all across the known world so that no editing and no changing of doctrine or belief could possibly take place.

And if those same people are also aware of the fact that I have contrasted that methodology with the methodology that the

Muslims would like to have used and that you would like God to use, and that is the concept of a edited, controlled transmission of a singular text.

Okay, so this is why I was reluctant to call in, because you control the program and you just go on. I know what you believe.

What I asked you was, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God? You said yes.

Yes, I do. Then I ask you, where is this Bible? And I've already explained to you... You did not answer the question.

No, sir, you just won't accept the answer to the question. You just simply will not allow for factual information, sir.

Words have meaning. Yes, sir, they do. They do have meaning. And that's why I'd like to ask you the question now, since everyone knows

I have answered your question. Why did you ignore, sir, why did you ignore footnote number 47 on page 66?

I'd be glad to get to that. Please answer the question. I want to point out the fact that you are not answering the question.

And I will point out the fact that you seem incapable of accepting the answer to your question, and that almost everybody in my audience knows what the answer to that question is, and they know

I have explained it in detail for audiences all around the world.

Your unwillingness to accept those facts has nothing to do with the validity of those facts,

Mr. Kinney. Okay, will you stop a minute, please? Let me explain something. You use the present tense verb, the

Bible is the inerrant word of God. When I ask you, where can I find this Bible that is the inerrant word of God, you have nothing to give me.

I most certainly do, sir, just because you cannot understand how God's truth...

Sir, Mr. Kinney, just because you demand an English translation, which one of the

King James's, sir, is your inspired inerrant translation? I'm asking you... No, no, no, you answer me now, sir.

You're the one who's called me a liar falsely. Answer the question. Which one, Mr. Kinney, which one is the inspired inerrant word of God?

Is it the Cambridge edition? You said the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Is it the Cambridge edition or is it the

Oxford edition? Is it the 1611? Is it the 1769 Blaney revision?

Which one is it, sir? Can you tell us? I've answered your question, sir, you just simply won't accept it.

Now you answer my question, which one? You say you've got one? Mr. Kinney, Mr. Kinney, answer the question.

Answer the question, sir. You can't do it and you know you can't do it. Which one is it? You're not answering my question.

Why go on? You're just... Answer the question, sir. Okay, how about answering any question?

Can you answer any of the questions I've asked you? Go ahead. Why did

I call you a liar, okay? Okay, let's hear it. Let's take a look at that. What does your footnote say? It says the

PR reading is lacking. Let me get it exactly there. No, that's not what the footnote says, sir.

What? Wait a minute. I'm going by your book. Yeah, it says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only...

Wait a minute, hold it, will you? I'm reading the book for you. I'm reading the book. You ask me, all right? Let me finish.

On page 66, you say the TR's reading, again, fails to have Greek manuscript support.

Right. Is that a true statement? Yes, it is. It fails to have Greek manuscript support.

Yes, sir. Then why, on your footnote, do you say, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the

TR reading? You just contradicted yourself. Every person in this audience who is rational has already heard me explain that in footnote...

Because I don't buy your... Sir, listen to me, sir, listen to me, listen to me. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't read Greek. You've never read Haskir. You couldn't use Haskir if your life depended on it, sir.

You just got done telling me... Listen to what it says. As we will note... Listen, listen.

As we will note, Haskir 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus' printed text.

Sir, I heard that whole thing. I know what you said. Okay, then, sir, can you explain to me...

Here's a simple way to prove I'm a liar. Name a single Greek manuscript before Erasmus' 1516 edition that reads

King of Saints. I'm not concerned about that. No, of course you're not concerned about that because that's the only way you can be truthful.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me talk. I'm looking at your book. This statement that you made in your book, alright, that's what

I'm looking at. Yep. Fails to have Greek manuscript support. That's right. Is that a true statement?

It is. Then why do you contradict yourself and say these other two ones support the

TR reading? Sir, I am sorry that you are incapable of rational thought, but everyone who can engage in rational thought knows that a handwritten copy of a printed book is not manuscript support, sir.

What part of these were handwritten manuscripts that were copies of Erasmus' printed work that came afterwards can you not understand, sir?

When Erasmus wrote the book, sir, was there a single Greek manuscript that read the way the

King James Version reads? Name one, sir. If you can't, then admit that you were wrong.

James, I'm going by what is written. No, sir. You are going by your abject incapacity to understand simple human reasoning.

If I took... Mr. Kinney, listen to me. Mr. Kinney, if I hand wrote a copy of one of your internet articles and changed something in it, does that mean anything?

Of course not. And so we're talking about handwritten copies of a printed text.

Everybody who reads what I said knows that the only Greek manuscript support that would be relevant to a printed text is that which exists at the time of the making of the printed text, not something that comes later.

Are you telling me that you could write... All you would have to have done is write a Greek manuscript of Revelation 15 today and that would prove me a liar because you wrote it after I wrote the book and after the

Greek text was printed? Seriously, sir? Calm down. I'm looking at what you wrote in your book.

And you don't seem to understand it. I understand your convoluted explanation.

Oh, convoluted explanation. So a handwritten manuscript of a printed edition.

Just let me get the point across. Your point is irrational, Mr. Kinney, and everyone can see that. I'm looking at what you wrote in your book.

In your book. Was that a true statement? Yes, sir. That's the third time that I've said that it's a true statement.

You can't predict yourself in your book before you say that... Folks, here you go. This is the kind of thinking that produces

King James only -ism. This is the kind of thinking, folks. Here is a man who cannot listen to rational thought.

So let's lay that one aside because that one has been proven beyond all question.

Here's a man who's going to say, you can't predict yourself because you mentioned manuscripts that were written after the

T .R. and there you go. And you don't understand it. So let me ask you another question.

You said in your video that in Colossians 2 .9 you said that there were two other places where the term

Godhead appears in the King James Version of the Bible and both those places are translations of a word that is theos, right?

Well, it has that base root, but... No, it doesn't, sir. It is theos. Do you understand the difference between epsilon...

Mr. Kinney. Mr. Kinney. Mr. Kinney. Hello, Mr. Kinney. Mr. Kinney. Do you understand the difference between an epsilon and an epsilon iota?

Yes, I do. And so if a word is theos and another word is theos, do you think they're the same word?

No. Okay, so the root of the other two forms that the King James translates

Godhead is theos, theotae specifically in theos. They're not theos. Were you right or were you wrong in your statement in the video?

They are related words. You said they were based on theos. Are you saying that theos and theos are the same words?

In fact, if you look up in the lexicons... I do, sir, and they are... I did, sir, and they are completely different words.

No, sir, they are not. You are just simply wrong. Say they are, you say they're not. Name one. Name one.

Name one. Name one. Sayer. Sayer does not say they are synonyms, sir.

I got the reference, I believe. Okay. Alright, Mr. Kinney, I really appreciate you calling in because I do not believe anyone has ever demonstrated for us the fact that King James -only advocates when faced with just factual evidence that is...

Factual evidence? Yes, factual evidence that they cannot possibly begin to conceive of accurately handling it.

I will say, Mr. Kinney, the form of King James -onlyism you represent is thoroughly cultic.

There is no question about it. In fact, let me mention one other thing.

Do you think that Godhead means Trinity? Yes, I do.

That's how the dictionaries define it. So the dictionaries define... The dictionaries define

Theotitos, Theot, and Theos. No, English dictionaries. Why would the

English dictionaries be relevant to the meaning of the... Oh, okay, so it's been re -inspired.

There you go. Alright, thank you, Mr. Kinney! Hey -ho! Alright, there we go, folks.

I'm sorry, but the level of irrationality on that one just pegged the meters.

Just pegged the meters. Here you've got someone who doesn't even understand the doctrines of Trinity. This is where it really gets to me.

It's one thing for them to lie about me, and I don't think we've ever had a better example of someone who...

You can have the facts right there. Oh, no! You're a liar! Oh, no! This is amazing. Um...

I don't... You know, I'm talking about having a debate with this guy. I don't think it's possible. A debate requires a rational person.

What... Does this guy drive down the right side of the road or the left side of the road? I mean, it's just amazing. I now understand.

You know, I now... I wasn't saying, is he British. Come on, I like my British friends. That's not...

What was it? Sir Brass said, no, he drives down God's side of the road. That's...

He's quite convinced of that. What an amazing experience that just was. Wow. Um... So, there is

Greek manuscripts for... It just came about after the TR. That's all. So, you could invalidate any one of my statements.

Just simply, given his reasoning, all you'd have to do is rewrite a new manuscript today, and I'm a liar!

There you go. I'm sorry, folks. I either have to laugh or cry.

But when you have... But do you see why this kind of thinking is cultic? I mean,

I don't know of Mormons that are that twisted in their thinking. I really don't. It's incredible.

Pierre is a major step up. Oh, big time! I like talking to Pierre. You know, he still doesn't get it, but I like talking to Pierre.

But at least he can reason. And there is just no reasoning going on there at all. That is absolutely amazing.

That gives you a good sense, folks, of the kind of responses that the King James Only controversy has gotten.

And, uh... Stay far, far, far away, folks. Stay far, far, far away.

Because that is absolutely amazing. Um... Wow. Wow. Just...

You know, I wanted to ask him if he was familiar with the problems that Erasmus had in producing the text of TR, but it doesn't matter to him.

You see, that historical stuff doesn't matter. Because we've got the inspired Word of God in English. That's our final standard. So all that historical stuff, it doesn't matter if there's not a single

Greek manuscript in the world that reads like the King James Version. It doesn't matter. Because the King James is it. That's the far -right

Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger cultic type of King James Onlyism.

And there you go, folks. Will Kinney. Wow. I was going to mention if there had been some rationality there.

He actually said, he pointed out the word Godhead appears three times in the Bible and that's relevant because of the Trinity.

So you've got numbers of words, how many times the words appear, that becomes relevant. And if Godhead means the

Trinity, then you look at Acts Chapter 17 and that's the Trinity that Paul's talking about. Really? Honestly?

And we know the Trinity by looking at creation? Really? Honestly? Now he's just wrong about he said in his video that the other words are based on theos.

It's not! If you can't tell the difference between an epsilon and an epsilon iota diphthong, sorry!

And when you look them up, you'll have to look up different words. They're not found under the same entry in the lexicons.

There's a reason. Because they're different words. And they have different meanings. Well, anyway, there you go.

What an experience that was. I was about to give the phone number. Instead, we need to get back to our discussions here on other subjects.

And I'm going to actually enjoy listening to significantly more rational people than what we just had.

All right, let's get back to since I've spent five minutes extra here, let's get back into the

Fernandez -Comas debate. Something of a little more value, shall we say.

And we are about 41 minutes in. I may let some stuff pass here,

Mr. and Dr. Fernandez because I want to get into the interaction because that's where the photo -visionism started coming in.

And that's really where more of, I think, the real debate took place. So let's, oh, you know what?

I played that last one on a different computer and I can start playing this all I want and it won't make any difference.

But it will now. So let's listen to right where we left off with Dr.

Fernandez. We just had

Hebrews 10, 26, 29 just fly by there. I'm not sure what its assertion was and how it's relevant to this particular point, but I'm at Hebrews 10, did

I finish? We'll be starting 15 the next time we're in Hebrews, which should be at the end of this month.

So we'll be getting to 26 to 29 probably October, November, somewhere around there.

So for a rather full discussion of I just read something in Channel and that wasn't nice.

Scott, I'm going to kick you when I get done with this. For a rather full discussion of those particular texts, hang on.

And again, the list goes on. In fact, Jesus told the inhabitants of Jerusalem that he wanted to gather them to himself, but they were not willing.

Remember that? I mentioned to you that twice in the opening statement that Brother Fernandez would misquote

Matthew 23, 37 and there he just did. Because that's not what it says. It does not say that Jesus spoke to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but they would not.

He was addressing the Jewish leaders. This was a statement of judgment on the

Jewish leaders. We've gone through Matthew 23, 37 over and over again. I just did Matthew 23, 37 on I think it was last

Sunday in Sunday school. And so you can go to Sermon Audio if you want a fuller discussion of that. Matthew 23, 37

Stephen scolded those who were stoning him by saying, you always resist the Holy Spirit. Acts 7 verse 51.

And what does that mean? Does that mean that they were resisting the Holy Spirit's attempt, because they were elect, the

Holy Spirit comes to give them spiritual life, to take out their heart of stone, give them a heart of flesh and that that's what the

Holy Spirit was trying to do with them? Because again, if any of these texts are going to be relevant to quote -unquote irresistible grace, which is what we're talking about here,

Matthew 23, 37 wasn't about that, Acts chapter 7 wasn't about that. So far we haven't had anything that is at all relevant to the actual

Reformed position in regards to the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about the sovereign regeneration of a sinful heart.

It makes no sense for God to plead with us to accept His grace if it is irresistible to the elect.

Where does God ever plead with us to accept His grace?

I'd like to see that text. Because I know that God commands men everywhere to repent and I know that God does plead with mankind but why does

Dr. Fernandez feel that that is in any way, shape, or form contradictory to a Reformed understanding of the use of means?

Now notice, he's talking about irresistible grace, but he seems to think that any expression of grace that is resisted means that all grace can be resisted.

Can't there be a sovereign grace of God whereby He brings about the regeneration of His elect people that is not the same as the grace of God?

Right now, I'm praying that the grace of God would restrain the madness of evil men in London. I've got a lot of friends in London.

You know, I don't want my dear brothers, Roger Brazier and his family,

Priscilla and Justin, and Doug McMasters and his family, and his wonderful dog, and all the wonderful folks at Trinity Bow Chapel, I don't want any of those folks harmed.

So I am praying that God, by His grace, would restrain the evil of men. Does that mean that in my thinking, the only way to do that is by regenerating every single one of them?

Of course not. If God restrains men's evil, is that not an act of grace?

Of course it is. Is that the same thing as bringing about regeneration? No, it's not the same thing.

So just simply coming up with something, it just, it's straw man argumentation.

Impossible to accept for the non -elect. The Bible everywhere implies that man does not, that man does, there's a

Freudian slip, the Bible everywhere implies that man does have the ability to accept God's saving grace.

No, the Bible does not everywhere imply that God has the ability, in light of the fact that you have the direct statement of Jesus that man,

Udunatai, does not have the ability to come to Him, unless the Father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him up on the last day.

And we've already noted, if you say God draws everybody, you're now a universalist because the drawing results in being raised up on the last day.

So, direct statement. How many times did Jesus say, Udunatai? You do not have the capacity.

You do not have the capacity to hear. You do not have the capacity to come. Unless God does something first. So we've got implication over against direct statement.

That's what you have here. Isaiah 45, 22, John 3, 16, John 3, 16.

Is that for everybody? Or for those who believe? I mean, the particularity is right there in the text.

It doesn't address who can and who cannot believe, but right there you have a particularity that in the next two verses, and those who are not a part of that particular group that believe, the wrath of God abides upon them.

So, again, these are traditional interpretations that just don't pass the exegesis test.

728, and again the list goes on. In fact, when Paul was asked what a person must do to be saved, he did not give the

Philippian jailer a Calvinistic answer. Oh, yes, he did. That just proves to me,

Brother Fernandez, you do not know what we believe. Because if anybody walks up to me and says, what must

I do to be saved? I'm going to answer exactly as Paul did. Why do you think that's inconsistent for me?

Where in Reformed theology do we have some different message? And why do you assume that if I say, believe in the

Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, that I am somehow making that person sovereign over God?

I'm letting them know what that person needs to do. That person needs to believe, to repent, and believe.

That's what I tell everyone. I know that that person will not do so from the heart unless God, by His Spirit, enables them to do so.

I'm well aware of that fact. But, Brother Fernandez, I don't know who the elect are. That information is not given to me.

So, I get to preach the Gospel to everybody and leave it to God's Spirit to make it come alive in people's hearts.

Isn't that neat? But that is, sir, a Calvinistic answer. Instead, he proclaimed, believe on the

Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Acts 16, 31. Now, I agree with my opponent that all true believers will, by the grace of God, persevere in the faith.

Now, at this point, I just want to sit down with Brother Fernandez.

I would love to get together with him at my favorite little Mexican restaurant. And, you know,

I tell people when they have me come in to speak and stuff, you know, where do you like to go to eat?

Well, I love Olive Garden. And I love good Mexican food. But when

I travel, I pretty much put up with almost any Mexican food. Because we're sort of spoiled here in Phoenix.

We've got a lot of good Mexican stuff. I love chips and salsa. The folks down in Houston, at the church

I was just down there a few months ago, the first time they came in, they did it again this time. I never lose weight when

I go to Houston. Because they put me in this suite that has like a little kitchenette type thing in it. And they put these awesome chips and salsa in my room.

We're talking a bag this tall. Of course, no one can see this, but the rookie can see it. And, I mean,

I can sit there and eat all day long if I wanted to. I love chips and salsa. I would love to sit down with Brother Fernandez and talk to him about this.

Because there is no consistent possible way on God's green earth that you can believe everything he's just said at this point and then believe in eternal security of the perseverance of the saints.

You just can't. It doesn't work. Perseverance of the saints is a Calvinistic doctrine.

It is all based upon the fact that Jesus Christ saves perfectly. If it is your free will to get into it, are you telling me once you get saved you lose your free will so you can't get back out of it?

It's just fascinating to me. I love my inconsistent evangelical brothers.

Because, you see, at this point, they see that I'm right. They see that I'm right.

They do not want to have a savior who cannot actually save. But they just don't want to take everything that that means.

The reason, you know, Jesus said, the one who comes to me,

I will never cast out. And that is fundamental foundation of the perseverance of the saints.

But that's half a sentence. And you see, the first half of the sentence is, all that the Father gives me will come to me.

And the one coming to me, I will never cast out. You see, the reason he'll never cast out is because it's the Father's will that he saved all of the elect.

There is no reason to believe in the perseverance of the saints if you do not believe in the electing grace of God.

The specific electing grace of God and his capacity to save his elect perfectly. It just ain't that.

Hence I accept the fifth point of Calvinism. Not because of unconditional election. I reject that.

But because of God's promises and God's grace. God's promises and God's grace.

So what? You still have free will. You've told us we have free will. You've told us that God wanted to save the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

But they would not. He tried to save them and he failed. How on earth then can you say, well once you're in then you won't fail?

Do you lose your free will once you become a Christian? I've just, I honestly, I've just,

I would love to talk to somebody once. Maybe we do the next time we have open phones. I'd love to talk to somebody who holds this position and I'd love to find out what, how, why do you believe this?

Why, why do you believe this? Let me just, Rich, are you getting complaint calls or something? No? Oh, okay.

What's, what? I can't hear you. I've never learned. Just a little tech support.

That's all. A little tech support. Helping the gentleman with his feed. Okay. Alright. That's good. Just wondered because the phone had been ringing and I just wondered if you know.

Alright. Now remember, whenever we're doing these mega DLs and I'm doing debate stuff, if Brother Fernandez calls in, he gets, he gets, he gets, you just let me know.

And if if Roger Perkins calls in, you bet. Just let me know.

That's, that's the one exception to the rule. That'll come up on my screen here and you let me know. And we'll, we'll go from there.

Alright. Let's get back here. The Bible teaches that true believers are sealed for the day of redemption, born again of imperishable seed.

Why is it imperishable? Why is it imperishable? There are all sorts of examples of apostasy in the

New Testament. But you see, when you have apostasy mentioned, what does

John say? They went out from us. So it might be demonstrating they're not truly of us.

If they had been of us, what does it say? They would have remained with us. Why? See, there's the, there's the ground of eternal security.

If they had been of us, in other words, if their nature had been changed by the sovereign work of the

Spirit of God in taking out that heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh, they would have remained with us, but to demonstrate that they were not truly of us, they went out.

There is no such thing as perseverance of the saints without the sovereign elect and grace of God.

Can't be. The truly redeemed will never perish and cannot be snatched from their Savior's hand.

Why not? Why not? Why can't? Why can't they? If, if, if God was trying to save them beforehand, prevenient grace, prevenient grace.

What's the difference, Brother Fernandez, between prevenient grace and sustaining grace?

Why can one try and fail and the other will never fail? Why? I'd like to know.

I honestly, that's one of the things I hope I remember. I hope Brother Fernandez will come on after we finally get done reviewing all this stuff, and I want to know, what's the difference between the grace that sustains you now and the grace that's trying to save the man next door and failing?

If all grace is just grace, if you can't have, and we just saw this about irresistible grace.

Brother Fernandez quoted text that were not about God's grace that's trying to save somebody, but he made all grace the same, so if you can resist that grace the way that he just argued against the irresistible grace point, then why can't you resist this grace?

Just wondering. I think it's something a lot of people wonder about. Those who are justified will eventually be glorified.

Do you hear that? Oh, oh, oh, Brother Fernandez, at least I know Phil and I can sit down.

I would not experience what I experienced the first half of this program. I love

Phil. He's a great guy. He does sound like someone you'd meet at Cheers or something, but in the

Bronx or New York or something like that, you know, I mean, just, you know, hey, let's go have a beer together or something like that type thing, you know.

It's funny, but we could have such a great discussion about this, because what did he just say?

Did you catch what he just said? What was the reference that he just used? This was,

I remember right where I was on the road, right when I heard this one the first time, and I just about drove off the road and I heard it.

He says, all those who are justified will eventually be glorified. What is that?

That's the golden chain of redemption. What's the golden chain of redemption? It's Romans chapter 8.

And what does it say? For those whom he foreknew, not about whom he had foreknowledge, foreknew is an active verb, it's an active thing that God does, and it's not taking in knowledge of future human actions.

It's a choice on God's part. For those whom he foreknew, he also be predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, or he might be the firstborn among many brothers, and those whom he predestined, he also called, and those whom he called, he also justified, and those whom he justified, he also glorified.

If what he's saying now is the link between justified and glorified is unbreakable, which is the only sensible use of this text, then follow the logic.

If the link between justified and glorified is unbreakable, then the link between justified and called is unbreakable, and that means the calling here is a specific calling, and that means it's not given to everybody, and that's election.

And the link between called and predestined is unbreakable, and predestined and foreknown is unbreakable, and those are all divine actions, and that's

Calvinism! It's right there! And so, I agree. I agree,

Brother Fernandez. Everyone who is justified will be glorified. That is one of the points

I make with Roman Catholics, because they believe that you can be justified, and then not glorified. But you see, the only consistent way to argue that is to recognize all the rest of that truth.

That beautiful, beautiful truth that is found there in that text. And so, the

Golden Chain of Redemption, boy, you don't want to go there when you're arguing against Calvinism, because that is

Calvinism par excellence. And nothing can separate believers from God's love.

The Apostle John indicates that those who apostatized from the faith were never really true believers.

Now, I want to share with you my own view of divine salvation. Okay, they were never true believers.

Well, then what's the distinction between a true believer and a false believer? It's the nature of their faith!

Now, faith is something you work up within yourself, and everybody has the capacity by prevenient grace for doing so. How do you distinguish between the two?

Why does one person's faith persevere, brought in by prevenient grace, and another person's doesn't?

Brought in by the same prevenient grace. That's why I don't believe in that kind of prevenient grace. And we've not heard any defense of that kind of prevenient grace either.

Anywhere along the line. ...and human responsibility. I reject the logical order of God's decrees as spelled out by the different types of Calvinism.

From my understanding of the Bible, I would propose the... Now, let's talk about the order of the decrees here for a moment.

We're talking about the order of solutions. We're talking about, sometimes you hear people talking about infralapsarianism and superlapsarianism and modified superlapsarianism and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

And I'm glad that he used the term logical order of the decrees, not chronological order of the decrees because we're talking about God and His infinite mind.

For me, the fundamental focus of any God -centered reading of Scripture that tries to answer the question of this issue of the orders, or the ordos salutis, or the order in God's mind of His purposes.

You will very quickly discover the difference between a God -centered and a man -centered reading is where God's purpose of self -glorification comes in.

Is there a purpose of God's self -glorification or not? And with that, listen to Dr.

Fernandez's presentation. Following logical order of God's decrees. Number one, the decree to create.

Number two, the decree to permit a fall. Number three, the decree to provide salvation for all.

Number four, the decree to draw all people to Himself through prevenient grace. Number five, the decree to save those who freely believe.

Number six, the decree to complete the work He starts in all believers. And number seven, the decree to eternally condemn those who do not believe in Christ for salvation.

What's missing? There's nothing about God's glory.

There's nothing about what God does to glorify Himself. You might say, well, it's all to His glory. Well, why would some of those things be to His glory?

What glorifies God about using prevenient grace but failing? Trying to save individuals

He has not decreed to save. What's God glorifying about that? That's why in the

Reformed discussion of the decrees, that focus has to be upon God's free, the triune

God's free choice to glorify Himself, the demonstration of all of His attributes to all of creation.

That has to be at the start and that's what orders everything else. It's a great discussion of that in Robert Raymond if you want to take a look at it.

I believe that God in His sovereignty chose to save those who under divine persuasion and drawing freely accept

Jesus as their Savior. Under divine persuasion and drawing does everyone receive the same level of drawing and persuasion?

If they do, then the only thing that makes us to differ is that we were better. Because if God tried equally hard with everybody, and I'm sorry, there is just no way you can argue that.

Again, Amorite high priest, let's just bring him in here, ask him the question. What did God do for you? What prophets were sent to you?

In comparison to a person sitting in a solid evangelical church, the Bible in their hands, today?

Sorry, don't tell me those are equal. But if God tries equally, then what makes us to differ has to be inside ourselves.

So we will have a reason to look at those who are not saved and say, you had the same choice I did, but I made the right decision, ha ha.

I don't think that's going to be the case in any way, shape, or form. But if God doesn't try equally, well, now why then do you have this whole prevenient grace thing?

You've got different kinds of prevenient grace. Which doesn't really then rescue you, because that means

God has chosen to give more grace to certain people, and now you've got to explain why that is. I believe that it is a greater sovereignty for God to exercise control over truly free beings than it would be if he only controlled whatever comes to pass, because he controls each person's will.

Now, as a Molinist, however, and he's eventually going to give really

Molinistic answers, and I need to write to him again, because I didn't hear back from him after the second time. I wanted to ask, is there, and I've asked him, is there anything in William Clay Craig's presentation of Molinism that you would disagree with?

Because I'd like to know that. But he does give a Molinistic answer later on. And if that's the case,

I'm sorry, but it's a greater sovereignty for God to rule over truly free creatures.

In other words, it can't be a compatibilist freedom. The Molinist says that? Where God has to run all these possible worlds, and he just can do the best he can?

That's a greater sovereignty to go, well, this is the best world I can come up with. This has the best mixture of lost and saved.

But it's not the result of his will. It's not the result of his decree. The only freedom God has in Molinism is to choose whether he's going to create or not.

That's it! Because everything else is determined for him by this middle knowledge that does not drive from his being.