Great Sermon! To add to my earlier comment, the buzzing occurs in several early sermons, but seems to have been dealt with in later sermons. I'm thrilled to hear a pre-mil reformed take on revelation. While I lean towards historicism or ammillinealism, it's important to hear all views and this series puts Christ first and treats the Word with careful reverence.
Great Sermon! I couldn't disagree more with Jane, and when she uses the word dishonest, I feel she has gone too far in her accusations. Brother White has debated many people on many subjects, but this episode is not about debating. It is a response to a lengthy critique/attack by Anderson. White has never denied that the TR or the AV is the word of God, and there is no reason for him to debate defenders of either that are not KJO. He repeatedly asserts that it is God's word, just not inspired, or necessarily the best translation. He can't debate on a topic he agrees on. I have a hard time believing Jane actually listened to everything Dr White said. He has never "put everyone in the same bucket" and by asserting so, Jane risks putting her own accusations of dishonesty on her own head.
Poor word definition The word folly is defined as sexual sin because the kjv uses it that way in 2 Samuel, but it is a different Hebrew word used in Genesis. Also, the men in Sodom wanting to lie with the angels who appeared to be human is a very poor argument as the men most likely would have had no clue they were angels.
Great Sermon! I love listening to Dr White, but unfortunately this lesson falls short as a refutation, relying primarily on the "it's not there" argument and the "all infant baptisms were emergency baptisms". I also see a lack of understanding of the other sides argument, or maybe just a reluctance to actually address it. This is, after all a church history lesson. Overall, I have to grade this lesson very low, and wish it had stuck to just history rather than an extremely biased discussion on baptism, which, incidentally, he accuses the other side of in the lesson just before doing it himself. Still, I did learn about Tertulian and that was good.
Great series, but this one falls short Greatly appreciate this series, but the refutation of covenant theology doesn't hold up well. The premise is that it was invented to support paedobaptism and bias blinded Sola scriptura, but the delivery of the refutation gives every impression of bias and appears to be as blinded as those it accuses. Logically and biblically it could be torn apart by any competent theologian on any side of the argument and I cannot recommend it to my CT friends as a tool to convince them of anything other than that they are correct.