You constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this. They just keep repeating it. And they repeat it so much, you start to think it's a biblical truth. Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus. He says, Lazarus, come out! And Lazarus said, I can't, I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. You mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ? And then you take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin. It shows in this kind of sequential format and... Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? Um, no. Some new Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine. Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief. You quote a verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it? He wouldn't make any sense to him. A self-righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk. And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism. Now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to... I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Then don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it. You're not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. And now, from our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate Calvinist Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for His own eternal glory. And welcome to Radio Free Geneva. We have a lot to get to today, and I'm going to have to be very disciplined before we get through all of it. As I look at it, the chances of that are about as high as Joe Biden putting together two consecutive coherent sentences. So that's not a good thing. So I wanted to start off with something a little bit different. Since the last program, or right before the last program, I was made aware of a response by Ted Alexander, Evangelist Alexander. I had made reference to material that he had presented in a seminar in a church. I think Bad Preacher Clips had posted something about it, if I recall correctly. And he had mentioned me, and I'd be interested to Brother Alexander, is that the first time you ever mentioned me? I really, really doubt that it is. But, so I responded to it and because it's standard King James only mythology, it's not connected to scholarship history, anything can be documented, anything can be defended in any meaningful fashion. And so he, and one of the things I said was, I see you're in Florida. I'm planning a trip to Florida in January, good time to go to Florida in my personal opinion. And so, hey, if you're still around, let's see if we can arrange a debate. The reason for this is I think debate is an excellent way of exposing incoherence, inconsistency, falsehood. Going back and forth is one thing, but having to answer direct questions under cross-examination in controlled circumstances with equal amounts of time has been very useful over the 30 years I've been doing it in demonstrating when people's positions are not defensible. And so he responded, and you might say, well, this isn't Radio Free Geneva, but it is, as you will see. What you see in this now, and one of the reasons I responded to him is he's not a Rachmanite. And from what I've seen, a lot of people say he's a real nice guy. And at one point he recognized in his presentation the incoherence of the re-inspiration of the King James Version argumentation that basically is, let's just be honest, that's what most King James Onlyists present. And in essence, that's what the TR Only guys are saying, is that there was a re-inspiration of at least the New Testament between 1516 and 1644, maybe somewhere around there during that time period, some sort of process of purification, something along those lines. They don't know, but that's sort of what they have to say. And so I'm sort of thinking, well, maybe, you know. We can't find a lot of these guys. Roger Stauffer ran and hid when I came to his town, and he wouldn't defend the stuff that he's saying. And most of these guys, they just won't. They're very bold as long as they don't think there's any chance I'm going to walk in the back door. So they will say things, but then they won't back up what they say. when they're given the opportunity. So anyways, he responded, and what you're gonna hear is a rabidly anti-reformed, very odd, twisted presentation where somehow I become a Roman Catholic plant. I am a plant in the church. I'm here to get people to, because the only, evidently the only thing relevant to Roman Catholicism is the King James Version of the Bible. And this just verifies what I said in the King James Only controversy many, many years ago. And that is, once you understand that in the mindset of the King James Only-ist, the Word of God alone equals the King James Bible alone. Once that equation is put in place, then it can become the lens through which literally all of history is seen. And so you can take a man who has done more debates against Roman Catholic apologists than anyone else I am familiar with over the past 30 years. I don't know of anybody else that has done more debates with more Roman Catholic apologists than I have. who has debated the papacy and justification by faith and the mass and the Marian dogmas and purgatory and priesthood and all these types of things. I've written books against Roman Catholicism. I have stood and listened to testimony after testimony after testimony of people who have been delivered from Roman Catholicism. through those debates and through those books and through the various things we've done over the years in defending Sola Scriptura and demonstrating the historical errors of the papacy and debating papal infallibility against Robert St. Genesis and Tim Staples and all this, someone who has done that much, this man will say, I'm a Roman Catholic. and will somehow even say that Reformed covenantal theology, so the theology of the Westminster, the theology of the framers of the London Bapst Confession of Faith, that that actually is the backbone of Roman Catholic belief. Now, the laughter that you hear is both the Reformed and the Catholics. who are laughing at him, they're not laughing at each other, because it's just, how do you explain this? You explain this by recognition of the overriding power of that filter, that lens through which he's looking, which is created by that cultic form of King James-only-ism. And so he can be the nicest guy on the planet, but he can't even recognize another Baptist unless you embrace his King James-only-ism. And so it's an amazing thing. We're gonna run through it. I'm gonna try to be, I'm gonna try, try to be brief. I may fail because there are lots of opportunities of failing, but here we, oops, that's not good. Here we go. I was called out, this is kind of humorous to me, almost like a fourth grader on a playground called me out, you know, to put up my dukes. Um, it's almost reminiscent of the Dominicans. Um, you know, God's dogs, the Pope's hounds. Um, the Pope told him to go out and search out every hair tick and on a flat earth to the very ends of the earth and kill every last one of them. Yeah. So, uh, so I see a clip where he is attacking me. And if I respond and challenge him, then I'm the one acting like a fourth grader. Okay. One of the things I've said many, many times is King James-only-ism functions on double standards. You have one standard for the King James, you have no standard for everything else. And since you functionally do that, then you end up doing it for everything, including this. Now he does later say, well, you know, I did mention his book, so I guess, well, yeah, exactly. And like I said, I can pretty much guarantee you, that ain't the first time you mentioned my book. You've probably been doing it for years and never ever figured that I would find out about it, which, you know, there you go. That says something right there. And James White, the avowed King James hater and a former equivalents hater, and received text, ecclesiastical text, hater, has called me out. And I guess he thinks he has to seek and search out every King James guy and try to get us off of formal equivalence, King James Bible, onto a paraphrased so-called Bible out of a corrupt text. Now, let's just run through a couple of these things. KJV hater. It's a lie. I'm just gonna start calling them what they are. They're lies. Brother Alexander, you lied all the way through this. You need to repent of your lies. If you can't document things, then you need to repent of them, okay? I don't hate the King James Version of the Bible, but in their mind, and this is very important to understand, in their mind, unless you're King James Version only, then you hate the King James Version of the Bible. If you see the King James as one of the great English translations, as you see it as it stood in history, as you see it dependent upon Tyndale, indebted greatly to the Geneva Bible, even the Bishop's Bible, as you see it as a historical document in those ways, that's not enough. If you stand against King James-only-ism, then you hate the King James Version of the Bible. And once you find someone who cannot differentiate that, now an honest person who is not in the cult of King James-only-ism can go, yes, you wrote your book against King James-only-ism, not against the King James Version of the Bible. That person you can have a rational conversation with. but it's really difficult to have a rational conversation with people who have this kind of a mindset. Notice he says that I'm a formal equivalency hater. Now I don't, he says this over and over and over again through this, that I'm trying to get people to use dynamic translations and stuff like that. It's just so bogus and funny and anybody who knows me knows that he doesn't know what he's talking about. When I use an English, now when I do, When I preach, I've mentioned many times before, I try, as best I can, if time allows, context allows, I try to preach from the original languages, just from the original language text. But if I use an English translation, what do I use? Normally the 1977 NASB, not the NIV. I preach from the New American Standard Bible. And the old version that has the these and those in the poetic sections, actually, And so this whole, and anybody who's heard me talk about principles of biblical translation knows that I've said that I think that the interpretive part of translation, and there always is an interpretive part of translation. The King James translators were interpreting just like everybody else does. You have to, to be able to translate. The interpretive part of translation should probably take place in the pulpit rather than in the translation committee. And so I think formal equivalency with the interpretation being done in the body of Christ from the pulpit would be the the best thing. But that doesn't mean that someone who has an NIV is going to hell or is going to be misled. But what have I always said? If you can't read the original language, just compare multiple English translations, both dynamic and formal equivalency, and there is no such thing as we will see. as a purely formal equivalency translation. That's just a fact. And we will document that. TR hater. Again, if you dare point out the errors in the text of the receptus, then you're hating it. The mindset is you are either exactly like me, think like me on this issue or you are the exact opposite. There's no spectrum, there's no ability to look at history and to go, well, you have these people and they were influenced by these people, they're also influenced by those people, so they were different. No, gradations, differences, no, no, no, no, no, no. This mindset doesn't allow for any of that. It is all black and white. It is the worst of the IFB mindset. It truly, truly is because it does not recognize... I'm not sure how these people function in the real world. They must have their secular life and then their religious life because you wouldn't be able to... You wouldn't be able to get through a stop sign. You wouldn't be able to get through a four-way stop sign with this kind of mindset. And I have no idea why this is any of his business. I guess I called his book out, and therefore, I guess he has a right to respond publicly to it. Yep, exactly. Exactly. You made comments about me that were simply untrue. And so that's makes it my business. And I just wonder how many other comments you've made about my book or about me personally over the years. I, I'm sorry, sir. I had never heard of you until bad preacher clips, put your material on Twitter. You can blame them for it. I had never heard of you. I don't run around listening to you guys. What I hear, I hear because social media allows us to do that. So once we all end up in gulag, then you won't have to worry about it because I won't be hearing any of that anymore. So, you know, there you go. That's probably coming from all of us. We'll have some interesting conversations once we get in there. Because Mr. White, you are, you're a part of that attack. Your book, let's not, tried to play games. It was written and you gave your summation of it in this little video you put out. The summation from my perspective is that this book was put out for the purpose of getting people to throw out their King James and get an NIV. Okay, lie number, what lie number are we on? That's four or five. Let's call it four just to be nice. Lie number four. That simply is not the case. I wrote the book and I know why I wrote it. And you can misrepresent it all you want, but it's still a lie. Nowhere did I suggest anyone throw out the King James version of the Bible. Nowhere did I make the NIV the issue. If I was writing it today, the ESV would be where the NIV is in most places, but this was before the ESV. And, just simply as another popular translation that was very popular at the time when I wrote the book in 1994. In fact, I think I did sneak a couple ESV variants in, in the second edition, if I recall correctly. But not many, it wasn't supposed to be an entire revision. Anyways, so the point again being, The person who has debated against people like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg and these people who attack the text of Scripture, he actually is a part of that attack because he's not on our side on this issue, so all the rest of that stuff just disappears. That's how these people think. And people struggle with how to get through these folks. I don't know how to get through these folks. We have seen many people, many, many, many people leave this movement, thankfully, and get involved with healthy, solid churches that teach the whole counsel of God rather than just little parts and pieces of it. But there's no trick to this. Now, personally, I think many people in the IFB King James only movement are, they are well aware of how shallow it is. They've seen the backstabbing. They've seen the shallowness of it. They've seen how it's all bluster and it has no depth to it. And yet they're afraid. They don't know what to do, where to go. And that's why over the past number of years, Rachel, we'll say, we'll mention starting at G3, again, it happened this year, lots of folks come up to you. And, you know, I, this one guy came up to me and said, you know, I, I was, I grew up being taught by my pastor to hate you. You were, you were the devil incarnate. You were, you were trying to destroy the King James Bible, God's inerrant word to mankind. And finally one day I was like, man, we talked so much about this guy. I got to see what he's like. And I started watching debates and you're defending the deity of Christ and the Trinity and the gospel of grace. And you don't hate the King James Version of the Bible. And you start asking questions and finally came to realize the reason that we are attacking this man is because we don't have any answers to what he's saying. And that then led him out of that and into an understanding of the freedom of God's grace. And it's been a wonderful benefit in his life. And I'm very, very thankful for all of that. You can't stop any of that, sir, because you don't have the answers to do so. All you can do is just keep repeating these straw men misrepresentations. It's all you've got. It's just all you've got. And I feel for you. I hope that providing these responses, if we can debate, if we can get together, my hope is that you will see that you have been given a partial story and that there is a real story. It's a much greater story. It's a much deeper story than the version you have been putting out. So yeah, we continue on here. I believe you're a plant in the churches. And I believe that I should not debate you. Most likely I will not. So I'm a plant in the churches. And so all that, All those decades of sermons where I'm dealing with nothing has anything to do with the King James only issue, but from their mind, everything has to do with the King James only issue. So I can be preaching on sola scriptura and justification by faith and the resurrection of Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ and all sorts of stuff that no Roman Catholic would ever preach on, but it's all a plant because the big issue, bigger than the gospel, bigger than all of that stuff, bigger than the Trinity or anything else, the big issue is the King James Version of the Bible, 17th century Anglican translation. That's definitive of it all. You see how dangerous this is? You see how warping it is of the mindset? It's amazing. But I'm considering it under the correct parameters. Now let me tell you what my biggest problem here is. I don't debate Catholics and you are a staunch predestinarian. Okay, now catch that. I don't debate Catholics. I'm glad, sir, because they would destroy you. They would eat your lunch. There are some good solid Catholic debaters out there that they would tie you in knots. I've seen it happen. So I would like to recommend to you do not debate Catholics. It would be very embarrassing. When Ron Nemec and Brother Jackson debated Keating and Madrid in Denver in Yeah, well, we were there. Yeah, I was debating gerrymantics that night. That was embarrassing. They were not prepared for that. They did not have the grounding to be able to do that. So let me first of all say, I applaud you. Don't debate Catholics. You're not ready for it. They will absolutely run over you. So don't do that. But secondly, do not use the lame excuse that I'm a Catholic, because everybody in the world knows that's all it is, is a lame excuse. If you can redefine what it means to be a Roman Catholic, so that I'm a Catholic, then you can redefine anything. Words have no meaning to you, history has no meaning to you, reality, logic, it's all just Plato to be used as you see fit in your King James only-ism. And then to say, I am a staunch predestinarian. If you mean I accept Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, John 6, John 10, John 17. If I, like Paul, endure all things the sake of the elect, then yes, I am most definitely a staunch predestinarian. And I have met a very small handful. There are very few of them left. of Augustinian Roman Catholics who would be in some sense predestinarian, but to be Orthodox Roman Catholic and to be truly predestinarian in the sense of God has an elect people that he has freely chosen solely on the basis of his goodwill, Ephesians 1, 5 through 7, that really violates the Council of Trent. And so you are taking two things that are actually contradictory to one another and you are connecting them together in your fevered thinking. The fevered thinking being produced by the oddity of King James-only-ism in your mind. But I just point out to you, that the King James translators were likewise predestinarians, just like me. Have you read the 39 Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church? Do you know what Puritans believed? Oh, you do, because you detest the Puritans. I'm not sure how you do that and then recognize that Puritans were involved in the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. Don't know how that works, but evidently in some way in your thinking, God used men who had really, really bad ideas, and in that situation, you'll go ahead and separate that out. But oh, everybody else is accountable for everything in your thinking. As we will see, as you will go after the King James translators. I'm sorry, go after Calvin and the Puritans and everybody else. And you just connect it all together in your mind because it, well, it helps you with your position. You love John Calvin? Calvin is a murderous villain. He consented to the death of Michael Cervantes and also historically took responsibility for his death. Now, not going to spend time today going back over what we've gone over again and again and again. But yes, Calvin was involved as pretty much chief prosecutor as the head of the ministers in the prosecution of Miguel Cervantes over his denial of the Doctrines of Trinity. As history shows, Cervantes had been condemned by the Inquisition the night before his burning. He had escaped while using the toilet. over the wall of his prison and had made a beeline to Geneva, whereupon his arrest, once people knew who he was, because he was very well known, and let's not forget the fact, which you seem to have forgotten, or maybe don't know, that Calvin risked his life to seek to witness to and to redeem Servetus in France. Did you forget that part? And that he had known that Michael Villanueva was Cervetus for a long period of time but had not exposed him until his friends encouraged him to do so. I forgot all that stuff, right? And the other Swiss cantons that agreed that Cervetus had to die because if they didn't then the Catholics would go, see? These Protestants don't even believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. This man denies the doctrine of the Trinity, they're gonna let him live. This was a sacral system that everyone had at this time. And unlike you, I am clear and straightforward in my church history lectures when we go places to tell people, you know what? These folks would not have accepted me. They would not have extended their right hand of fellowship to me. I tell the whole story. But here's where you and I differ massively, massively. I can recognize that Calvin would have had me minimally banished, that's pretty much what he did with Anabaptist, would have had me banished, and still thank God for the depth of his insight in the Institutes. You cannot do that. You lack the historical maturity to be able to recognize that you can look back at what God has done in history And see, I don't even know how you do this because there is no one like you in history. No one. King James Onlyism is a brand spanking new start of the Seventh Day Adventist in the 1930s movement. There was no Dispensationalism back then. There was no King James Onlyism back then. How do you do your church history tours? without just despising everybody that you're talking about. Because they did not look like you. They did not believe like you. They had a lot of differences from you. So unlike you, I can look at Luther and I can be thankful and criticize him and then make application myself. I can be thankful for Augustine. I can be thankful for Tertullian. I can be thankful for all sorts of people because that's what historical maturity allows you to do. But this kind of rhetoric that you're producing for someone who does history stuff is just, it's reprehensible. And I can't even begin to understand it. It makes no sense whatsoever. You're also, from what I can tell in your doctrinal statement, all millennial, which means you're an allegoricalist. You employ a double hermeneutic. You are, uh, basically going back to the doctrines, the false doctrine that came out of the school of Alexandria of Egypt, the catechetical school. And, uh, then was of course, uh, honed by origin and then went into the hands of Augustine and Augustine using that principle that you use. as an allegoricalist to do away with the Millennial Kingdom, and that's the reason why allegoricalism was introduced, and covenant theology was introduced, was to do away with the Millennial Kingdom, and you're a covenant theology guy. Now, I can hear the screams in the audience because we have a lot of folks in the audience that know a lot about church history, and they're going, what did he just say? Did he say that the allegorical elements of origins theology, which of course I've exposed and taught against for decades, that was developed against the concept of the millennium? Did he just say that? Yeah, yeah, he just said that. Origen, Origen is sitting down there wherever he is going, what, what are you talking? I mean, this is, there is not a church history professor on God's green earth that can reason his way out of a paper bag that isn't just laughing. This is just absurd on the face of it. To think that that was an overriding consideration in origin, it's just amazing. But, by the way, you don't know the half of it. I was a non-millennialist. I am not anymore. I am a post-millennialist. That's even worse, huh? Well, no, because actually, as I've explained before, Premillennialists, I'm not even putting dispensationalism there. Dispensational premillennialism has no historical pedigree until the 1800s, so let's just leave that outside. Premillennialists, historical premillennialists, and postmillennialists both have a millennium. real millennium, not necessarily 1,000 year specific, but they both have millennium. The amillennialists do not have a millennium, but the amillennialists and the postmillennialists, amillennialism is a subcategory of postmillennialism. The degrees on the relationship of the coming of Christ to the millennium but disagrees with the nature of the millennium. It's lots of fun. But yeah, it's even worse than that. But again, it is so easy to document that that's lie number six, I think. I would invite anyone to, let's take a book on a subject that allegedly we wouldn't have that much of a difference on, The God Who Justifies. And I would challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate and to prove that in that work, I use origins allegorical methodology. I don't use the historical grammatical interpretational methodology in that work. I've been preaching. I'm not sure how many sermons I have on sermon audio. But to say that you just face-planted, big time, once again, truly amazing. Truly amazing that people would make this kind of thing. And you know, I would, you want to talk about literal interpretation? What do you want to bet that if you and I debated John 6, you're the one that would leave the text and I would walk straight through it? without ever having to allegorize anything. What do you bet? Because I don't believe that you can walk through John 6. John 6, 35 and following, the discussion in the synagogue in Capernaum. I don't believe you can do it because it teaches predestination. It teaches God's sovereignty and salvation. You just walk straight through the verses and you will have to jump out to other passages and you'll have to leave the context. You will not be able to do it. Let's make that one of the subjects, shall we? I'll be happy to do that. So yeah, there you go. So if you're wondering what that's about, so yes, well everyone is a preterist of some kind. Everyone's a preterist of some kind. If you believe that any messianic prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ in the past that do not have to be fulfilled in the future, then you are at least a partial preterist on some level. But If you're asking, do I mean the vast majority of Matthew 24 and Revelation and so on and so forth, it has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Yes, most definitely. I get the feeling, you know, when you say all meaningful scholarship means all scholarship that agrees with my particular viewpoint on this subject. There is a tremendous amount of scholarship, I think, that demonstrates that. Now, to all my Reformed friends in the audience, make sure you're not driving at this point in time. And basically you love the Puritans and I heard you dealing with in one of your debates there against Steven Anderson, who I... That was not a debate, of course. That was a discussion. I have not debated Steven Anderson. But anyway... ...not a friend of, and I'm not a Ruckmanite, and... So he says he's not a friend of Steven Anderson, and he's not a Ruckmanite. Yay! Good! Glad to hear it. Just don't keep acting like you are. Don't follow John Calvin. I follow Christ. But nonetheless, um, when dealing with Steven Anderson, you talked about how you love the Puritans and the Puritan style of worship, and you ought to come see what Puritanism really looks like and all this kind of business. Um, if you're a Puritan, you are in the lineage of those who murdered my forefathers. Okay. So I want you to hear this. Did all Puritans murder Baptists? No. Did some Puritans persecute Baptists? Yes. Were some Puritans persecuted by the state church in England? Yes. So the mindset that we're seeing here is you take an entire group of no matter how diverse it was, no matter how long it existed, and therefore how wide the expression of belief amongst that people is. And if something bad happened by someone associated with that, then you, and as somebody 200 years later goes, I see so much great and good theology amongst Puritans. You murdered my forefathers. And of course you get to connect who your forefathers were. That's sort of nice, convenient way of doing things too. It's instant victim, victimology. It's instant credibility. Uh, and oh, it, it creates the emotions. Oh, it, it works real well along those lines. Um, and of course it forces you to hate Christians of a preceding generation. Um, Unless, of course, you could say, oh, well, they just obviously weren't Christians. They were Pato Baptists, they weren't Christians. This view of church history means that Christ started with 12 disciples and he's pretty much been stuck with that ever since. This is the trail of blood mythology. This is the hidden church in caves someplace. Christ has not been building his kingdom. He's not been building his church. He's not been conquering his enemies. He's not been doing anything. He's just been sitting up in heaven while a few persecuted people just get the snot beat out of him down on earth. And that's what it's all about, evidently, or something. But you end up with this incredible narrow-mindedness, which means you cannot rejoice in anything unless it comes from somebody that looks like you, talks like you, dresses like you, and uses all the proper words. And most of the time, vast majority of the time, you have to create those people out of whole cloth. They don't really exist. I feel for anybody because it just produces this stiflingly narrow view of history that's just, oh, I don't know. There's so much more I can say, but I want to get through this. Trying to be useful without getting too in-depth. your replacement theologian and your spouse in Catholic, Reformed Catholic doctrine. Let's just call it what it is. You are a Reformed Catholic, okay? You believe in Catholic Reformed Theology. It's not just Reformed Theology. What is that? What is that? I believe in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Show me a Roman Catholic that believes that. You can't. That's definitional. It's not definitional in your mind because your mind is twisted by its commitment to a human tradition called King James only. But for the rest of the human family and for the rest of the church, we recognize, no, he's not a Roman Catholic in any way. And you are putting absolutely contradictory beliefs together as if they are saying the same thing. And people wanna know why. This is why I refer to a cultic King James only ism because it twists the mind. It allows you to engage in irrational conversation. It's, I mean, you're coming up with words that mean nothing. They have no meaning. I can answer the question who the blessed man is of Romans 4.8. The Roman Catholic cannot. To all rational folks who recognize I reject the Pope, and not just Pope Frankie now, and not just the freaky Frankie, but I've rejected the Popes all along, but I reject the Pope as the infallible vicar of Christ, or even literally as the bishop of the city of Rome, for that matter. I reject the sacramental system. I defend sola scriptura and reject sola ecclesia. And I preach a gospel that calls people to come out of the Roman Catholic system. And so if you can look at that and then define that as Roman Catholicism, you need to understand, sir, you really need to understand that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way you're thinking. You've embraced something down the line, you've created a system that allows you to twist reality itself. And that is really, really, really dangerous. And I, I would recommend you get some assistance for that. And we're trying, we really are. Ultimately by bringing in the kingdom and the golden age and all of that, I know that's post-millennialism, amillennialism, by bringing in the kingdom, I get them confused because neither of them are Bibles. So there's not really a source where you can definitively go and study these things out. So post-millennialism, amillennialism, whatever, you know, that whole thing about Jesus must reign until his name is put on his feet, oh, it's just, oh, wait a minute, you spiritualize that, oh, that's interesting. Yeah, this is sort of funny, I didn't, so many counter examples could be provided that it's humorous at times. Things out, but nonetheless, It's state churchism. And Roman Catholicism is state churchism. And you're a Catholic. And I hope you understand that. No, sir. Not only do I not understand that, but there is no one watching this program that understands that either. And I think everybody is sitting there going, wow. We are seeing, I think one of the reasons I want to do this is For so many people, they've heard me say there is a form of King James-onlyism that disrupts normal, logical, and rational thought. They're watching it. They're watching it. And from a guy who, honestly, it's sort of like, well, he seems real honest. Yeah, he does. He's not. He's not foaming at the mouth like Steven Anderson. He's not standing on his pulpit or spitting or throwing things or kicking people out or anything like that. Yep, that's right. He's not Sam Gipp. He hasn't sent me any crayons recently. You know, and so it's, and that's, that's why I had responded at first. I was like, well, you know, here's someone who seems his facts are wrong. And he's, he's, he's, he's believed a, you know, a completely false narrative, but he seems like a nice guy. And yet that doesn't change the fact that here we have this twistedness. It's, it's, it's strange. Very, very strange. Your covenant theology is unscriptural. Oh my, none of those covenants are in the Bible. You know the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, covenant of grace, none of that's in the Bible. Yeah, there you go. Now do I think he has carefully read any discussion of covenant theology? has any appreciation of the depth of the beauty of the recognition of Father, Son, and Spirit, the unifying power of covenant theology to recognize God's purposes from beginning to end. The man doesn't even believe what the Bible says in the King James Version about God's predestined election. So, yeah. So what happens when you buy an entire system that allows you to dismiss portions of scripture? This is what you get. Well, that's nowhere in the Bible, as if your particular form of dispensationalism is. Now, let me get to the video, if I may. First of all, I don't debate Catholics, and you are a Catholic through and through. There's no doubt about that. And therefore, why is that relevant? Baptists shouldn't be listening to you at all. And Baptist brethren, stay away from James White. I would not give ear to a Catholic. You cannot trust them, not at all. Now, this, I'm gonna, let me tell you something. This doesn't work. I've already told you one story. I could give you dozens of others, of people who have come up to me. We've shaken hands. We started talking. And this is what they heard from their pulpits. Don't listen to that man. He's bad for you. He's gonna lead you astray. And then finally somebody goes, well, if what I know is the truth, then I should be able to recognize error when I hear it, right? And so, That may be the back of their mind. And then they're watching one thing and over, over on the side on YouTube. Oh, there's a, there's a James White debate. And look at that. He's, he's debating a Muslim in a mosque. Huh? Well, that's odd. I thought he was dangerous. What, why, why would he be debating Muslims in a mosque? And then they click on it. And let's say it's the 2013 debate with Shabir Ali at the Abu Bakr Asidic Mosque in Erasmus, South Africa, standing right in front of the Qibla where the Imam leads the prayers. And I'm going through the great exchange. God made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And I'm telling those Muslims that are sitting on the ground right there in front of me, that I'm nobody special, that I have no right to stand before a holy God, that I need to be clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And they've never heard anything like this. And so here's a IFB, KJV only Baptist. He's watching this and he's going, this guy's preaching the gospel. He's going places that none of our guys go. And he's telling it to him straight. It has nothing to do with the King James. He's just, he's talking about the gospel itself. And that's where it starts. And eventually they get over to watch the debate that I did in 2011 with, with a brother Mormon in, in London. And I start dealing with the King James issue. And by then they started to realize I, I, I have to use the same standards. If I'm going to be truthful, I have to use the same standards in defense of my faith that I use in denying anybody else's. And when I do that, my whole system falls apart. And that's why they're leaving. And that's why you folks do this. So I don't listen to him because we don't have any meaningful answers to what he's saying. And that's why we attack him when we think he's not listening. and then get upset when he finds out about what we said and he calls us out. And then we do what was just down in Florida and the same thing you've been talking about doing. Well, I need to pray to get peace about this. And I don't debate Catholics. Do you really think that anybody who's already starting to wonder about these things is gonna buy that? is going to buy, oh, I won't debate him because he's a Catholic. No, you won't debate me because you don't have the answers and you don't want to do cross-examination. You don't want to go through that. I understand that. I get it. Okay, so as to the video, he says in one place okay so he brings up a clip of my speaking he says you're a hundred years behind the situation has changed since Bergan which I disagree with in one sense another sense I get that right now the situation has changed Sinaiticus now has a huge question mark over it this is a great look here And this book, although I don't agree 100% with Sorensen on it, he does a great job showing that some of the recent research, and I've looked at Pinto's videos, and I've heard the Pinto debate with White. But nonetheless, I think that book really, in a very proper way, puts at least, at the very least, a huge question mark as to the antiquity of Sinaiticus. Okay, now, when I say, well, first of all, Go listen to the debate. You really have to be already completely sold out to one side to believe the convicted forger story and to think that this man could have produced Sinaiticus and that he could have predicted. And this is what these guys don't understand. Maybe I can help him out here. This is why I said things have changed. Maybe he just didn't understand it because he's so sold out to the idea that it's two manuscripts versus all the rest. That's just a lie. No one who does textual criticism today, no one who is actually examining variants, writing in the field, anybody writing in the field would listen to him going, what is, what, what, what's he talking about? What? I don't get it. because what has changed is the manuscript evidence. We now have the papyri. And Bergan, being the scholar that he was, would have recognized the significance of the fact that many of the key readings that set the earlier manuscripts apart, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are found in the papyri, which are 200 years earlier. We didn't have them until the 1930s. Burgon didn't have those things. So when you appeal to Burgon, that's why I mean when I say you're 100 years out of date, and your entire presentation, I listened to all of it, does not even start to recognize or to understand the importance of the fact that these papyri have readings in them that map directly into those earlier unsealed texts. And so that's why the Simonides thing is just absurd. because the papyri were not known yet, so he could not have inserted readings he had no way of knowing into a forged text. That's why it's just tinfoil hat conspiracy lunacy. That's the best level that you can give it. You can write all the books you want about it. You're going to sell them to your fellow King James only us and the rest of the world goes, Well, the sad thing is the rest of the world goes, wow, and those are Christians. That's the hard part. So that's what you don't seem to understand and you're not willing to hear. That's what I was referring to. If you want to stay a hundred years behind and keep arguing stuff that no one's even presenting anymore, I can't stop you and your audiences may go, ooh, he sounds really smart. But anybody who knows the field realizes you're tilting at windmills. You're not being honest. You're not dealing with what's going on right now. I'd be willing to bet that you haven't even looked into CBGM, probably don't even know what it is. And that just puts you 110 years behind now or something along those lines. Anyway, okay, we are making progress. So things have changed. Everyone just bought that before and now they know there was a debate that existed which has been hidden by history, by bad people in history. He's talking there about the Simonides thing and stuff like that. It was not hidden from history. No one hid it from history. The books When I did the Pinto debate, just a matter of going online and find the books and they're still in print. They're still out there. It's not hidden. Just nobody believed it anymore. It did not have any meaningful foundation to it. And people just dug it back up. That doesn't mean anybody had hidden it. uh... at all first manuscript evidence uh... in addition because of high-tech uh... and i'm not a tech guy but because of all the technology we have today that a canister can be viewed and uh... that can assist purely catholic manuscript uh... it's all possession of the roman catholic commerce institution Okay, what is a Roman Catholic manuscript? Does that mean that Vaticanus bows and the Pope goes by? Does that mean Vaticanus goes to Mass? What is a purely Roman Catholic manuscript? That is pure absurdity. There are all sorts of documents in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church. So what? They've been collecting stuff for a long time. Does that make Sinaiticus a thoroughly British manuscript? I mean, it's just, no one could take this seriously. There's not a scintilla of serious thought or scholarship behind any of this stuff. It's just, it's comical, it's sad. It's just unworthy of you, sir. You just need to... So a Roman Catholic manuscript, Vaticanus can be viewed digitally. Yes, it can, it's online. The Roman Catholic Church, I mean, let me give you an example. In 1993, in the same time period of debate that I do with Jerry Matta, it took seven hours on the papacy. Man, what a plant I am that we, that while the Pope's visiting Denver, we're demonstrating that the papacy is false. I saw a manuscript, P72, It's part of the Papal Treasures Exhibit. So does that make it a Roman Catholic manuscript? I suppose so, from the standard you're using. Here's one of the biggest, this is one of the biggest problems I have with all these guys, including people like Dave Hunt. You guys give away the store. You turn the primitive church in the Roman Catholic Church, and that is not only historically absurd, but it is, you wanna talk about plants? What would you say about people that are in Baptist churches that are teaching Baptists that the primitive church was actually Rome? That's Rome's claim. Remember when John Paul II died? For days on Fox News, there was a parade of Roman Catholic apologists, many of whom I debated, who got to do their, Stuff for John Paul II, and you know what all of them were saying? The church of 2,000 years. That is central to Rome's claims of authority, and you grant it to them, and you're wrong. Nobody back then would have any idea what a Roman Catholic church was. That's an oxymoron. It's a contradictory phrase. That wasn't the Roman church. There was a Roman church, but it wasn't the Roman Catholic church by any stretch of the imagination. And so when P72 was written around 175 to 200, there was no Roman Catholic church. So how could it be a Roman Catholic document? There was no Roman Catholic church when Vaticanus was written. How can it be a Roman Catholic manuscript? This is simple absurdity. It's childish. And yet you grant it to people. Stop it. stand back and listen to yourself and realize, oh man I didn't even think. How come you're not the plant? How come you're not the one that is making Baptist, Protestant beliefs look so silly? I've met many a former IFB who's not a Roman Catholic. How come you're not the plant? Because see, I just demonstrated that your argument is so bogus that it makes your entire position look absurd and grants credibility to the Roman Catholic claim of authority. Why aren't you the plant? In fact, isn't this interesting? You won't debate Catholics. Wonder why? Could it be because you are one? See how easy this is? Pretty simple, isn't it? What about harassments? Well, I know he was a Roman Catholic. Yeah, it should be. It should be. The TR is Roman Catholic. Rich is right. We've got you. You've been exposed. We didn't see this coming, but we have found clear evidence that Ted Alexander is a plant, a Roman Catholic plant. Now, I hope you all recognize we're being facetious here, but only slightly facetious, because we're just using the same form of argumentation that he has wedded himself to. and it ends up turning him into a Roman Catholic. At this point, what more can you simply say? The absurdities never end. That's about lie number 15 somewhere in there by now. Calvinism is the backbone of Catholic covenant theology. What? Okay, the only person who can say something like this doesn't know anything about Calvinism, doesn't know anything about Roman Catholicism, and shouldn't be pretending like they do, because this is just astonishing. It really, really is. It's... Oh, okay, now here's... We're actually getting there. We're gonna get there, believe it or not. We will get there. You doubted my story, and I have no idea why, concerning Burgon's writings. They were a prized possession of mine from 96 on, if I remember correctly. Okay, real quickly, I just want to run through this quickly. especially because it took up a little part. This was about, he claimed that at what's now Maranatha Baptist University, that he walked in one day and he found all of Bergen's books for sale because they were getting rid of them and replacing them with my book. And it's because they were trying to move away from the King James Bible. And I said, this sounds like a fanciful story to me. He's like, no, no, no, I've still got him to this day. And I have witnesses and stuff like that. So you know what I did? I called Maranatha Baptist University, and I went on the website, and I said, library, hello, this is Mary. Nice little young lady named Mary. I said, Mary, could you look up whether you have something on your shelves there in your library? Sure. Do you have anything by John William Burgon, Dean Burgon? Because he was Dean. So that's why it's called Dean, Dean of the School, but John William Burgon. And oh yeah, we have five volumes by John William Burgon. So, and that's about how many you'd have if you had representation of his most popular works. And I also verified they had my book in the library too, which you'd expect at any meaningful Bible college is going to have both. And so they didn't get rid of Bergen, but I'm not questioning that he bought Bergen there, but there's a much simpler explanation than the devilish. They're getting away from the King James version. You know what a really obvious suggestion would be. Maybe somebody had donated newer additions. And so they replaced the old ones and sold them. Like that's never happened at a library before. Maybe the Burgon Society had sent them duplicates. I mean, there's a lot of reasons, but the conspiracy theory, oh no, that gets you a little bit of better love offering at the end of the presentation, I guess. But they do have a Burgon in their library. And as they should, as they should. But I bet he would say they should not have my book in the library. Is that what he'd say? That's my guess. And trying to push it in the classrooms. And I know you want to remove yourself, it seems, away from the NIV because you know that it's a bad paraphrase out of a bad text. I want to remove myself. Well, if you didn't think that I was somehow a paid representative of the NIV, well, you did something on the Ankerberg show with a representative. Yeah, but I also did a representative of the New King James and a representative of the NASB and with Dan Wallace, who was not a representative. Well, actually, I think the NET, was the NET out then? I don't remember. But we actually represented a number of different perspectives and we were brought together by the fact that we all oppose. So if you just weren't suffering from this delusion, If you'd recognize that I don't preach from the NIV, but I also do not demonize the NIV, and I realize the NIV has some great renderings at certain places and some really bad renderings at other places. Remember the section in my book, which I don't think you actually read all the way through, but the section of my book where I really took strong exception to the NIV's rendering of flesh, sinful nature, remember that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's just, That's factual stuff and that sort of messes things up. But anyway. He's a King James follower and it's not going to offend you. Let me see if I can follow this. Oh, you should never have to wonder if you're going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV. That was the purpose of the book. So he goes to the beginning and I'm laying out what the issues are because most, look, Christian bookstores knew what King James Onlyism was in 1994. But a lot of Christians even to this day do not know what King James Onlyism is. And so I had to let people, I had to explain to people that there actually are people, there actually are churches you would go into that if you were carrying an NIV you would be condemned and probably told you're going to hell. Alberto Rivera told me to my face because I had a New American Standard Bible that I was going to hell, because it didn't have the Communion. And so I'm simply letting people know, here's what the situation is. And so instead of engaging the actual argumentation, all the places where I discuss formal and dynamic equivalency, and I mainly focus on the textual issues, not so much the translational issues. But by focusing upon these things, There is the issue for him. He ignores all the rest of the book. You're just pushing the NIV. You want everybody to get rid of their King James version. If you want to tell people that, I'm telling you right now, sir, you are lying through your teeth. You're a dishonest man. Stop it. You've been told. If you continue doing that, you prove that you have no interest in honesty. How's that? That's just pretty much straightforward. He's going to say something else in a second. I want to get to it. For some reason he mentioned the letter to Aristeas. I'm not going to, I don't even know what he was, it had something to do with the Greek Septuagint. Evidently he doesn't think that the Septuagint existed in the days of Jesus, that the apostles didn't quote from it. This again, there's no scholarship here. It's pure head in the sand type of thing. reasoning, I never put the letter out there as if it somehow proved something. The reality is that the New Testament writers were quoting from a Greek translation that contains variants from the Hebrew Masoretic text and that matches very well with the manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint that we have to this day. Are there many variants in the Septuagint? There most certainly are. Is it a complex area of study? It most certainly is. But the Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the early church. There isn't any question about that either. But here is, I want you to hear what he says here, and then let's hold him to his own standards, shall we? I think that would be helpful. You want to argue transmission versus translation. Let's just make it real simple. When people take a text and they put it in the English language, that is a translation, okay? And if you do that any other way than a formal equivalence, that's wrong. And you can't prove it with the Septuagint because I've been to school on that. I have no idea what he thinks Septuagint has to do with any of that. I really don't. It has nothing to do with formal or dynamic equivalency at all. I think there is a deep level of ignorance on this man's part in understanding. I don't, he says he's gone to school on the LXS. I don't get the feeling this man knows any other languages. I just don't. And what he just said proves it. Because he said, if you do a translation, the only way to do it is formal equivalency. That would be word for word, literal translation. Okay. No one who speaks in our language would say that. The example I use in the book goes back to my youth actually. But one of the first times this was pressed upon me, the first language that I learned outside of English was German. And I took three years in high school and two years in college. And then I've had the wonderful opportunity, had the wonderful opportunity anyways, of traveling to Germany a number of times. And my German would start getting understandable after a couple of weeks in Germany. A little immersion would do wonders. Meine Wortschätze sind ein bisschen klein. Ich habe keine Leute mitzusprachen am Hause. I don't have anyone to talk with in German, so my vocabulary is a little small. You can't maintain it that way. So early on, my professor, my teacher, Mr. Michaels at Independence High School, Mr. Michaels used the illustration of how we can't translate between German and English in a completely word for word fashion. And I've always kept this in mind, especially when I've traveled, and this has been very important in preaching overseas. When I first preached in Brazil overseas, the first overseas country I preached in, well, I'm not including Canada. One of the things that made it difficult to preach there was I was trying to help my translator, excellent translator, just, oh, he was so good. But I was trying to avoid idiosyncratic phrases, things that have meaning in English, but don't really have meaning in another language. And we have a lot of them. We use them all the time. And trying to run that filter really made it difficult, because we were doing stop-start translation, live translation. And that's hard. It's very hard to preach that way. Anyway, the example that Mr. Michaels used, was we have the saying in English, the early bird catches the worm. The early bird catches the worm. Well, if you're going to translate that into German and you just do it woodenly formally, your whole audience is going to sit there staring at you. It has no meaning to them because it has a particular idiosyncratic meaning. And so the Germans have a phrase that if translated literally in English also doesn't have any meaning, but it's the corresponding phrase. Morgenstunden hat gold in Munden. Morning hours have gold in their mouths. Morning hours have gold in their mouths. The early bird catches the worm. It's the same thing. And so if you want to translate the meaning between English and German, you're not going to do it formally. If you just do it word for word, you are not gonna be translating the meaning. The meaning will be lost. The words may still be there, but the meaning is lost. Now evidently, brother Alexander thinks that the King James is a perfect formal translation of the Bible. It is not. It is not. Every translation of the Bible is a mixture of formal and dynamic. Every single one. A perfectly formal translation would not make sense in English. Because I'd argue if you're going to push it that far, then you have to have the same word order too, right? Which is going to create havoc. Let me give an example of why what Brother Anson just said was wrong. And this is an example that's in the book. I don't know how he missed it unless he hasn't actually read it, which I sort of doubt that he actually has. Amos 4.4. Amos 4.4. Now the New American Standard 1977 says, enter Bethel and transgress in Gilgal multiply transgression. Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days. Okay. King James, come to Bethel and transgress, a Gilgal multiply transgression and bring your sacrifices every morning and your tithes after three years. American Standard, your tithes every three days. King James, your tithes after three years. Greek Subjunct, three days. Hebrew, yamim, days. Not years. days. The King James translators knew Old Testament law and knew that one of the ties was to be brought every three years. And so they gave a dynamic paraphrase to match what they thought the meaning of the text should be. The new American standard gives the literal, formal equivalency, the KJV dynamic. And the NIV says days. The NIV gives a more formal translation than the King James version of the Bible. There you go. I mean, facts are facts. Facts are tough to deal with. And that's why it is tough to do debates because you actually have to You actually have to use facts. And I think that's why he says some of the things he says here. I've seen how you debate. You quote all these supposed facts that exist concerning manuscripts that no one can on the spot verify, neither affirm nor deny in a viable fashion. So I forgot to bring it in, I apologize. I should have some in here, I have extras. But it sounds like what you're saying, so let's say we did a debate on John 6. Well, actually, there's just not really any textual variation in John 6 that would be relevant. Is there? No, I guess not. All right, let's say we did a debate on John 1.18. And I'm defending the statement that we should translate the text so as to have as our first goal, knowing what John the Apostle wrote. That is the most important thing. I want to know what John wrote. And I believe John wrote, monogenes theos, the unique God. Now, I would think that if we're going to have a debate on John 118, that before we go into the debate, you would take the time to actually study the background of the passage. We both have access to all the textual data. Do we not? Well, maybe not. In my estimation, I would say 99% of King James only advocates are incapable of utilizing a manual edition of the Greek New Testament, a critical edition. I do not believe for a second that Roger Stouffer could open up the Nessie Island 28th edition and read the textual data for John 118 and nobody's reading. I think that's why he said he had a lot of electrical outlets to be wiring. And that's why he couldn't do a debate, even though I was coming to town. And he had been attacking me on Facebook for months. In my experience, you guys do not have the facility and languages to be able to actually do that, even though you'd have time beforehand. And there's all sorts of online data now. It's accessible to all of us. There have been many times in debates when I've had Muslims bring stuff up. I just whipped open the text and took a look at it. I was, I remember very clearly, uh, the, uh, the night I was on KTKK radio in Salt Lake city, Utah on the Martin Tanner show and right toward the end of a four hour marathon of dealing with Mormonism in Salt Lake city with a Mormon attorney as the host. one of the professors from Brigham Young University called up and threw out a textual variant in the Hebrew Masoretic tradition. I had my BHS with me. I looked it up and disputed it on the air immediately. So it sounds like you're complaining that your side doesn't know enough about the background of the text to engage the issue. that you can't prepare? Or are you saying that all of my argumentation, I want anybody to go watch, because we've done very few King James only debates, because we can't get King James only us to debate. You guys are brave by yourselves, but we can't get you guys to really do anything meaningful. Well, right. But go watch the Jack Mormon debate from London. And is that what I was doing? Was I throwing stuff at Jack Mormon that he couldn't answer because he didn't have a critical edition of the Greek New Testament available to him? No, it's not. He had a fully written out prepared statement. I didn't have notes. And that was very clear. especially as we began to interact and answer questions. So what he's going to claim is that I somehow rigged the debates by how it's framed. Both sides get to have input as to what the thesis statement is going to be. And there have been many times I was the one that said, Don't like the thesis statement, but the other guy's not gonna do it if we don't go for it, so we'll go for it. But this idea that I'm creating a thesis statement and that's the only way to win the debate is pure bunk. Bogus, falsehood number, we're past 20 by now. It's not true. And I would, of course, challenge you to actually back that up with some examples. Oh, you frame the debates where you always come out. It's Johnny can't lose with you. Johnny can't lose with you. You want to give us some examples? Show me an example. You didn't give any, and I don't think you'll be able to come up with any, but, and if you do, then we can actually go and grab the video and examine it, huh? That's why we're not gonna hear anything about that. Of course, debate in Isaiah 54 seems to be spoken of in a negative light inscription. I'm really struggling with that. And then Romans 1 29, debating a man who claims to know it all and, you know, plays Johnny can't lose in his debate style. And you are, you're a very good debater. Um, but you know, Church of Christ people are historically the greatest of debaters. Sorry. Um, yeah, I know, uh, Church Christ people like to do three night debates on a single verse that does not make them great debaters by any stretch of the imagination. But this is what Stouffer did as well. You know, I'll, I'll pray about it, but. Debate is negative in the Bible. Here is really where King James Only-ism is such a problem. Do you really think that the Bible is talking about scholarly debate on textual issues? Let's, I know I'm going long, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to, but let's Let's look at that. Let me see here. What was... Isaiah 58.4. Isaiah 58.4. The new American standard says, behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist. You do not fast like you do today to make your voices heard on high. It is a fast like this, which I choose a day for a man to humble himself. So it's talking about fasting and it is condemning the people. Let me just back up here. Behold, on the day of your fast, you find your desire and drive hard all your workers. Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist. You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high. So he's, so what's the prophet talking about? He's talking about their fasting, but they're fasting in an unrighteous fashion. Okay. King James, behold, ye fast for strife and debate. And to smite with the fist of wickedness, you shall not fast as you do this day to make your voice to be heard on high. So the King James translators use the term debate. It's in reference to contention. It's in reference to angry argumentation amongst the people. It has nothing to do with scholarly debate. It has nothing to do with a timed, moderated debate with a thesis. You see, what's well known, by the end of that same century, by the 1680s, I should have grabbed this volume out of my library. It would have taken me too long to find it, but there's a volume that talks about what was required of a third year student in England in their graduate studies. By third year, you had to be able to debate in Greek. debate in Greek. Every one of those King James translators had done debate as part of their education. And so rational people recognize that their use of debate in Isaiah 58 is not in the category of a scholarly debate, which they themselves were trained to do, and which was a part of meaningful argumentation up until just the past few decades. And there are still debate teams out there, but you know. And then, did you hear what he said about Romans 129? And again, exact same situation that you had there. Romans 129. New American Standard, 1977, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, so on and so forth. It's the lengthy description of sinful man. But the King James Version, again, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, and whispers. Now, a meaningful interpretation of the text of the stands in the King James would tell you that that is in reference to strife. It's in reference to strife. The term is erudos, which has nothing to do with scholarly debate. It has nothing to do with a thesis, a timed interaction in letting both sides of a dispute be heard. It has nothing to do with it at all. Stauffer pulled the same stunt. These guys may actually believe that this is how you do biblical exegesis. If it is, it explains a lot. Because one thing that is absolutely certain, there's not a single one of the King James translators that would have done anything but stare at either one of these guys with non-comprehension. What are you talking about? It's a different use of the word. It's a completely different category. What do you mean? And so once I see King James only guys going, well, um, yeah, so you want to debate this stuff, but, uh, you know, the Bible has negative things to say about debate. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. Not even the King James. If you are willing to actually allow words to have meanings in a certain context. Amazing stuff, isn't it? Um, yeah. I will pray about it, but the Bible says all this bad stuff about debate. You should understand this, it won't be me on defense, it will be you on defense of your Catholicism. You on defense of your staunch electionism and predestinarianism. Okay. Well, if you want to publicly make a fool of yourself by accusing me of Catholicism, Um, it would really not take me long to dismantle that quite easily. Uh, and we can move on from there. Um, if you want to debate John six, let's do it. Ephesians one, Romans eight and nine. We'll do it. Um, I'd be more than have done it many times, done it more time. I've debated that more often than I have the King James issue. And it's your beliefs that are not biblical. And it is not difficult, I believe, to demonstrate that. And you did say right toward the end here. And I can prove that historically. And I would love to do that, actually. And I would love to debate who you are, because you are a plant in the churches. You've caused a lot of trouble. You wrote a book. to get good God-fearing people who will never know Greek and Hebrew in their entire life, who sit in church pews, to now doubt the Bible they once believed was God. Now, two things. I can prove that historically. Let's do it. Let's do it. I've taught church history. I'm a professor of church history. Have for three decades. Let's do it. You know how to get hold of me. Let's do it. Come to Florida. Let's do it. I'm calling you out because you said, I'd love to do it. All right. Looking forward to it. But one last thing, and then we are done with this particular presentation. Anyone who actually read the King James only controversy knows as a matter of fact, That central to its presentation was a defense of the inerrancy of scripture and the accuracy of the transmission of the text of scripture down through time. What you don't understand, sir, is that you can't defend the Bible in a meaningful fashion against the attacks that are being made against it by people like Bart Ehrman today. You can't, you're defenseless. I can, all of us can. And I've taught many Christians to recognize that while the King James is not the be-all and end-all of all things, it didn't have to be. Its translators didn't think it was. It is one wonderful translation of many. God has preserved his word. He just didn't do it the way that you think he should have done it. Thankfully, sir, many, many thousands of people have come to understand that. And I am very thankful for that. And so there you go. All right, done with that one. Now, let's see. Oh, too bad we don't have a a musical interlude. Doo doo doo. You know, Eh, well, that's a copyright tag, yeah. It's warm, I'm gonna take a drink here. Good stuff, good stuff. Alright, oh my goodness, I've only got 27 minutes? Before we are past the mega length, mega, mega RFG length. I can't go past that. Oh, people start complaining and whining. And of course I saw complaints and whining. I got the one guy that I don't, I only saw it because you responded to him, you know. Anything about, for example, completely dismantling Layton Flowers on the textual critical issue? No. Anything about what Calvin actually said about the Lord's Up? No. That's like that stuff just wasn't even there. But all you did was pick on him because he can't say Melancthon. Yeah, that's all I picked on him about. And I didn't make any application of that at all. I didn't point out that it just seems like Leighton Flowers has slept through church history class. No, no, we skipped all that. We skipped all that. It was sad. Anyway. Where did I leave off? There it is. What is a scribal translation? There it is. All right. So I think this is working. It looks like it is. All right. Let's now I'm just, I'm going to be very brief on this section. I'd be very brief on this section because we already dealt with all this stuff in Matthew 23 37. We demonstrated the latent flowers. Um, doesn't, uh, understand or just does not want to accurately represent the issue of the two wills, something I've used over and over again in responding to his material, the prescriptive will of God, the decretal will of God, and all of this because, well, you don't want to affirm the idea that there is conflict in the desires of God rather than in the prescriptive will of God and the decree of God. So you think there is actual consistency there, and others think that there is conflict there. So just one thing, and I looked this up, I think I've tracked it down. One little comment at this point in the presentation. then we should take it at face value that he actually loves and desires the salvation of every person. And so that's what I confronted before with the Matthew 23, 37 issue that even the president of Mid-America Reformed Seminary took issue with James White's approach, which David Allen quotes in his book. And we went over, of course, James White doesn't respond to any kind of rebuke or correction when it comes to those kinds of things. He just moves on. So I'm trying to keep track of lies from two different presentations. I'm not sure which lie we're on with Leighton. So does anyone really believe that I never respond to stuff like that? Does anyone really believe that? The only person who can believe that is a person who just simply will not even listen to this program or just lacks fundamental honesty. I had never heard of Cornelius Venema's comments here. Evidently somebody, I bet it was Tony Byrne, dug this up, gave it to David Allen, and now it's quoted by Leighton Flowers. I had never heard of it. I had never seen anything about it. And so I actually asked some folks in our A&O chat which isn't a chat channel don't bother about how to get to it it's not a public thing we already been through that and thankfully someone there was able to find it for me it was a footnote an article years ago on Matthew 23 and there's just one problem no counter exegesis was offered it was just He felt it was too, was it exuberant? I think exuberant was the term. But there was no counter-exegesis offered. Nothing about the context of judgment, the fact that if this is going to be judgment on the Jewish leaders, it is due to what they've done in standing in the way of God's messengers and prophets, the ones that they've killed, so on and so forth. No counter-exegesis was offered. So hard to respond to a footnote that doesn't say, you've erred in your exegesis here. Nothing was offered. After all this time, do we have anything from Leighton Flowers to counter the exegesis I offered in Matthew 23-37? Not a word. Not a word. But we're pretty much accustomed to that. Now let's remember, if you didn't see the last one, this is going to be tough, but As we finish up this presentation, and there's still half an hour, but I moved through it fairly quickly. What you're gonna see over and over and over again, you gotta keep your eye on the ball. You gotta keep your eye on the ball for this to be really useful to you. What you're hearing is the difference between those who believe in effectual grace those who believe that grace is non-effectual. Is God's grace powerful or is it passive? Is it powerful or is it passive? In the Roman Catholic system, grace is available through a sacramental system designed by the church. and under the control of the church. And so that's how you control the people is that you don't have access to the sacraments unless you're submissive to the church, you see. So remember that the massive conflict between state and church in 11th and 1200s, well 11th, 12th, 13th centuries where papacy and the state are going back and forth and back and forth and you had the use of the interdict where the Pope would tell priests and monks you can't do burials. Well you see God's grace is channeled through their sacraments and so you're controlling the people because you control that grace but the grace itself is passive. It's like a It's like the gas hose. It's in there, but you've got to put your credit card in, and you've got to choose the grade, and you've got to get that thing to latch on there. And I've been doing that a lot recently. I wonder, I bet you I've pumped more gas in that truck than I had for my Subaru for the entire year beforehand. And so, but it's passive. It's inside a tube and it can be directed someplace. That's what provisionism is teaching. It's not a sacramental system. It's merely a provision that you, by your free will, activate by your actions. But it cannot do that. It has no power in and of itself. It is not efficacious. And it is not coming with a purpose or intention over against what the Bible teaches, and that is that grace actually saves. It doesn't make salvation really possible. It actually saves. That it is a powerful, it's active. That's why I think he absolutely blows a fuse When I point out that the saving grace of Titus 2 is also the sanctifying grace that teaches us to deny ungodliness and to live soberly. Because it is a power that God sends to accomplish His will and His decree, and it's that decree that He just detests, loathes it. So you have one side saying, no, Grace is passive. The other side is saying grace is powerful. And that's the difference between the two. Grace is sufficient to save. Grace is necessary but not sufficient to save. Rome and provisionism. That's not what makes provisionism wrong. They're both wrong because they both misunderstand grace and they both misunderstand the nature of man. But the original assertion he's responding to is This is what Luther and Erasmus were debating. He just doesn't want to admit he's on the other side. He should just be straight up front. He should come out with a video tomorrow that says, nope, you know what? Erasmus was right. Luther was wrong. Just come out and say it. It's what you're saying in this video, Leighton. Be honest. Come straight out and say, I stand with Rome. Rome was right. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were wrong. They were in error on a key issue. Just come out and say it. Now if you want to follow it up with videos, I wouldn't suggest you do this, about why you think Rome is wrong, about other things, fine. But on this issue, The rest of your presentation proved I was right in my initial comments and you don't even see it. That's what the amazing thing is. You don't even see it. All right, where'd you go? Oh, there you are. You see how small that little arrow is down there? I mean, I've been shooting at a BB down there. At least this is a little bit farther over on the screen. I can see the time index on that last one because he did it with his phone like this. Like, by the way, brother Anderson, turn your phone sideways. Okay, so it's just. Did I say Anderson? Oh, okay, Alexander, whatever, whoever. Like I said, I'd never heard of him before. Here we go. Because the way it says, this is only an issue for those who, and this is such, odd language and terminology. Assume effectuality onto God's provision. How about actually... Okay, so what am I saying when I say this is only a problem for those who assume effectuality upon God's grace or His provision? What are Calvinists doing typically when they talk about God granting them repentance, or God granting them faith, or God granting them grace, or whatever it is, giving them grace? What is the assumption of Calvinists? Well, it has to be effectual. In order for God to get all the glory, for the gifts he gives, the provisions he provides, he has to give it effectually in order for him to get all the credit. Otherwise, if it's freely offered and anyone can accept it or reject it, then he was not going to get all the glory for it because then it's ultimately up to whether they accept or reject it or not. At least that's what the Calvinist assumes. Now, first thing I want to point out is I think that every time Leighton produces another video, which is pretty much daily. He provides more and more evidence of the fact he was never reformed. That's why I think buying Facebook ads and calling himself a former Calvinist professor is very much misleading. That is not why Calvinists think what they think. Certainly we want soli deo gloria. We want God alone to the glory, but that's not what this is about. Why do we believe that God's grace is efficacious? Because it's the very mechanism by which he saves his people. It's not just, oh, if he doesn't do it this way, then he may not get all the glory. That's not the point. The point is, He is accomplishing His glory in the way He has chosen to accomplish His glory, in and through Jesus Christ only, and there is a specific people that He saves perfectly and he extends grace, which is his free divine power, not only unmerited but demerited to accomplish the salvation of those elect people unto his glory. So the point is, once again, the difference between powerless provision powerful grace, an intentional grace, just as the saving grace of Titus 2 teaches us the grace that saves is intended to to be consistent with the other work that the Spirit of God does in the elect person's life. Regeneration, adoption, forgiveness, conformance to the image of Christ. These are all the intentions of God and that grace is intended to work in our lives to place us into that body of Christ as he has chosen to place us, to even gift us to do the things he's called us in the body. Now, later on, what he's going to do is to say, well, if that's the case, then we should all be sinlessly perfect. And since we aren't all sanctified to the same level, that means God's grace is failing. And he can't see the difference, refuses to see the difference, which again, shows he was never reformed, never reformed, doesn't see the difference. between God's intention to accomplish, for example, justification, which is a forensic declaration on his part, by faith, and the outworking of the conformance of a person to the image of Christ over time. What this results in is, well, if we've experienced sin, then that means God's grace has failed. No. God even, and this is where this becomes so pastoral. I don't even know how this mess works pastorally. But I can't tell you how many times over my pastoral career, I have seen where someone's failure, someone's sin, someone's difficulties in life where they have not been sanctified immediately. It was the process they went through that made them so able to minister to other people going through the same thing. We give God's comfort because we ourselves have been comforted with that comfort. So we have to go through those difficulties and sometimes those difficulties we bring on ourselves. And so there is no place in this man-centered theology for the beauty that I've seen in the church over and over again when I've seen redeemed sinners that God has dragged out of the hell hole being used to edify and build up others who are getting dragged out of the same hell hole. There's no room for that because there's no decree. There's no sovereign God. You've just got peanut butter grace. It's just, you know, if you're gonna eat it, great, if you're not, but there's no intention, there's no purpose, there's no power, it's just passive. There can't be the beautiful interaction of the body, and yes, even the failures in the body. You can't have any of that. And I've seen it happen so many times. I've seen people in the body step forward, new members, What they went through, they went through in another nation, and yet they come in. Oh, you can't give God the glory for that in that system, because God had nothing to do with it, because He didn't have a decree. It just so happened to happen that way. You can't give God glory for that. It's fortuitous, as is most things. Shreds the very fabric. Shreds the very fabric of why we give Thanks to God. By the way, I want you to, all of you who are just, you're just so mean. You're just so angry. He's such a nice man. I just want you to remember some of the stuff that we listened to. And anyone who has grace provided them must be saved. So now you have this idea of grace that either tries and fails, or grace that's just given with no particular purpose. It's just thrown out there like- Okay, so there's the straw manning again. Grace that tries and fails. So when God makes his appeal through us, be reconciled to God, and it makes that appeal, begs you, beseeches you, be reconciled to God, and you refuse, then on James White's view, God is trying and failing, right? And of course, that's just asinine because we don't believe he's trying to effectually cause you to believe in failing because we don't believe in that kind of effectuality. We believe that God is making a provision and allowing you as a free will responsible creature to either accept or reject his provisions of grace, just like Michael Jackson has the ability to use his gifts that God's given him for good or for evil. OK, so two things. First of all, That's just asinine. I was addressing salvific grace. He goes 2 Corinthians 5 which is addressed to the church and assumes that that is a just general gospel message and changes the categories. But that aside, here again he is confirming and affirming over and over again what I said originally. He has no efficacious grace. He has no expression of divine power consistent with the decree of God that accomplishes God's will. It's not there. These are just gracious provisions, not a power. They do not intend to have a particular result amongst the elect, because there is no elect. It's just provision that if you will use these things, then you can have this. Which is exactly what who says again? Rome in the sacramental system. Case closed. Position proven. Over and over and over again. Whether Leighton chooses to hear it or not, I can't make him hear it, but facts are facts. Finally, Titus chapter two. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. Leighton is understanding to be, well, that means since all men will not be saved individually, then the grace of God is not all that is needed for salvation. OK, so he's trying to make the case that the grace of God is not all that's needed for salvation if faith is a prerequisite for salvation. But even on Calvinism, faith is a prerequisite for salvation. It's not a prerequisite for election, but it is a prerequisite for salvation, even on Calvinism. So that argument, he just shoots himself in the foot by making that argument. Faith is a necessary requirement. Unless, of course, duh, faith is part of the work of the spirit of God in the regeneration, just as repentance is. Or condition for one being saved. God just effectuates faith in the elect on Calvinism, whereas he permits man to either choose to follow or not to follow on provisionism. In other words, God makes the appeal, but it's your responsibility as to what you do with the provision of his gift. So efficacious grace versus a powerless, intentionalist provision of something if you will do something. Keep throwing the point over and over again. He can't help it because we were right in our initial observation. If you choose to suppress the truth and unrighteousness, you will remain in your bondage and grow more and more calloused and hardened until eventually you could be cut off in that rebellion. Or you can accept the truth so as to be set free, because guess what? Truth will set you free. If you accept that truth, it will set you free. And that's where freedom comes from. It comes from God and his provision of truth and light. If you reject and suppress that truth, that light, whose fault is that? On Calvinism, whether they admit it or not, it's God's fault, because God didn't really elect you. God didn't really want you. God didn't... Okay, so back again. What's behind all this? There can be no such thing as free grace. Grace has to be demanded. It cannot be powerful. It cannot be intentional. Provisionism should be called anti-gracism because the grace that it presents is so grossly sub-biblical that I don't know why anybody, well, I do understand why somebody would want it. Because when you really understand that you're saved by grace, It completely destroys any place for man's will to supplement what God is doing. So there's your issue. But this whole idea, well, God's at fault because God didn't give you what you needed. And so over and over again, we've heard it from Layton Flowers 10,000 times. And I know for the person who's The persons whose will has not been crushed by recognition of their own sin, the holiness of God, I see why this is extremely attractive. I get it. Because mankind wants to think that God is under some obligation. Mankind wants to think that God is under some obligation to not view me in Adam. That Romans 5 thing, Who really knows what that's saying? Romans 5 is extremely important. You are an Adam. He doesn't believe you're an Adam. No, you're not an Adam. This is where his fundamental Pelagianism does come out. You're not an Adam. That's gonna come out a little bit later. These folks have a real problem with federal headship. They think God is absolutely unfair to treat us in Adam. And every time historically that a denomination has failed at that point, they eventually abandon the imputed righteousness of Christ because they don't see that we need to be in Christ to have his righteousness in his life. That's where the attacks on penal substitutionary atonement come from. So it's dangerous, very, very dangerous. Hmm. Do, do, do, do. OK, all right. Got to find out which one it is here. Yeah, all right. That's what happens when you read just the first quarter of a sentence. Because this isn't some peanut butter grace that provides a general salvation based upon man's fruit. What kind of grace is it? It's saving grace. Why? Because look at verse 12. Verse 12 begins with a participle. And the participle has as its referent the grace of God. And what does that grace of God do? It's pi-ju-u-sa-he-mas. It's a teaching. It actually does accomplish what God intends it to accomplish. It teaches us. Well, what does it teach us? It teaches us to deny ungodliness. Now, how could that possibly be? How could grace, teach you to deny ungodliness? Well, because people tend to have very sub-biblical views of grace. The grace that saves and redeems is the same grace that sanctifies and makes holy. Okay, so notice the grace that saves and redeems is the same grace that makes one sanctified. Okay, so then therefore, if God never fails in the way that you describe Him never failing, trying and failing, then why are some people sanctified differently than other people? Okay, I just realized we've gone all the way to four o'clock our time, and I have another program to do, and I've got to get dinner or I'll pass out during the next program. And I've got to move this computer into another studio and get it all hooked up. So let me just comment on this. I preemptively refuted this a few minutes ago. But notice again, Leighton Flowers gives evidence he was never Reformed because he does not understand the categories in which Reformed theology exists. We are talking about the difference between saving grace that actually brings about regeneration, and then the experience in time of sanctification, which is, as Jesus's illustration point out, there's going to be people 30, 60, 90, 360, 100 fold returns. God chooses to sanctify his people in the way and time that is his. He has that right. And so it is not, well, you're saying God's grace ever fails. Yeah, fails to bring about the regeneration of his people at the time that he chooses to do so. That's right. It's powerful. That's a different category than the end time sanctification conformance of them to the image of Christ. Those are biblical categories. Those are categories of reformed thought. And the fact that he doesn't even think of them means he was never reformed. And once again, clear illustration, powerful, purposeful, efficacious grace versus powerless, non-intentional provisionism. Massive difference between the two. We're gonna have to do the rest of this another time, but what you need to recognize, that's not a counter-exegesis. Layton Flowers did not even try, not once, to give a counter-exegesis. I don't know what he believes about Titus 2. I know he quoted it, but I don't know what he means, what he thinks the text means, because he didn't bother to say. He honestly thinks that that kind of retort, the same thing as exegesis. It's not. I'd be interested in hearing real exegesis on his part of what Titus 2 is actually saying. That somehow demonstrates that God's saving grace does not teach us to deny ungodliness. I don't think we're gonna run into that but anyways got a lot Got a lot in there. There's only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. There's only 10 more quotes. So we'll get there eventually. Thanks for watching the program today. Lord willing, we'll be back. We'll see you then. God bless.