as well as anything else. I'm sure they can answer anything. Just about anything by the help of the Holy Spirit. Let's pray and ask God to bless our time. Jamie, can you ask God to bless us? Father, again, we thank you for an opportunity that we can gather in your name and share freedom and liberty. Lord, I ask that you would just continue your grace this time as we have a question and answer period. Father, I just pray that you would enlighten us more with your presence, knowledge and wisdom. And we ask this in your son's name. Amen. Just raise your hand if you have a question. I'll put the microphone to you so we can get it on tape. And who would like to go first? I'm up for this one. Okay, here we go. Okay, hi, my name is Mike Whipple. I'm from Houston, Texas. I have a question for both gentlemen. In relation to what you talked about last night, one being the King James only version, Dr. White, and for you, Pastor Jones, being people of truth in a world of spin, can each of you share two things? one. What your thoughts are about the new translation of the N.I.V. in terms of the whole gender neutral. Controversy may be changing. This is the first Timothy. Two twelve and James on twenty three and secondly are. Is the controversy overblown like are we focusing on too much individual changes and if we look at each book that we're looking at in the Bible. Can we still get out of it. I was supposed to without focusing on every word change. Thanks. I'm going to defer to Dr. White on that. That's not my field of expertise. And I've heard of some of the changes that were proposed by the publishers of the NIV. Now, are you talking about the gender neutral? Okay. Yeah, I do find that to be a problem because that's obviously doctoring with the intent of the original of the original manuscripts and and God is not depicted as gender neutral. So yeah, I think that would make a huge difference and it would be problematic, but that's as far as I can address that. I haven't taken the time to look at the new NIV. in all that much depth. The reality is that the Greek language uses masculine pronouns to refer to persons in general. and while there have been translations particularly liberal translations that have specifically want to go to father mother God and Jesus as child instead of son and all this. There's that kind of radical stuff to my knowledge the N.I.V. has not attempted to do anything like that. The issue has to do with when it is appropriate and every translation does this. Maybe the King James doesn't but almost every translation does in some way shape or form use some form of gender neutrality at points. Even the S.V. does where when when the New Testament says such things are not to be brethren. Is that only for the brothers? Is that only for masculine? I personally have resisted the current trend in English toward gender neutrality as well. When I wrote The God Who Justifies, my publisher sent me the first manuscript and they had randomly inserted feminine pronouns into the text just I guess that's what you're supposed to do now, is instead of using the generic he, you're supposed to throw in she's once in a while. Well, I'm sorry, I'm an old stick in the mud, and I'm sitting here, and I hit the first she, and I'm going, what woman was I talking about? And I'm just completely lost. And I just circled every single one of them, just all the way through, and they said, okay, we've got an old guy, let's humor him. And they took them all back out again. I don't see the need for that. But at the same time when you have a situation where the text is specifically addressing all believers. I don't see any reason to artificially limit that to just men. So I think the best way to handle it again it's sort of like when you the argument over using a dynamic equivalency translation or what's called a functional equivalency translation like the NIV or using a more literal translation like the NASB. I think that the best place for that extra step of interpretation is right there. The pulpit of the church not in the translation itself. So stick with what's there and let the minister make application of the entirety of the congregation. But as far as translations go it's a it's a. It's an important issue. There are people who are doing things wrong with it. But at the same time I think on the other side there's been a bit of overblowing on it because of the fact that. Well you can and there are legitimate questions to be asked about some places. where the masculine just isn't communicating anything, but that's an interpretational issue, and I think it goes back to the pulpit. So I haven't done an in-depth study of the new NIV and the changes that they decided to make in that one. My name is Jeremy. I live here in Laurel, and my question would be for the layperson that's not called to the ministry. Would you recommend the familiarity with Greek and Hebrew? If so, to what extent? As one who has taught both, of course, I want to continue having a job, but no. When people ask me what two classes have you taken in Bible college or seminary that have been absolutely the most useful to you in apologetics and in the ministry as a whole without hesitating. I say church history in Greek. Church history in Greek. You could not go. Well you shouldn't be able to go. to a master's level course and receive a master's degree, say, in the study of Goethe, who wrote the Faust. He's a German author. What would be the one thing you would have to do to get a master's degree in Goethe? You'd have to learn German. They'd never let you out without reading the original, its original language. There is no commentary on the New Testament greater than the New Testament in Greek. There just isn't. That's not a Gnostic thing. I have people come up to me all the time and they go, so you read Greek, huh? Yeah. What is this passage saying, Greek? I look at them and go, the same thing it says in English, you know, and they're really bummed out about that. There are times, however, when the light that it casts is very bright and very, very useful. Normally, in exposing the traditions we've imported into our reading of the English text more than anything else. But given the fact that we invest an incredible amount of time into learning, I mean, just think of the amount of time people spend learning computer programs today, to use all the gadgetry that we have. And if we were to just take some of the time we spend watching television invested into at least learning there are Bible programs available today that are just. Incredible if we just even learned how to use them and some basic vocabulary elements of what an heiress is or imperfect or You know some things like that in regards to Greek. It could really really be of assistance to us, so you know Obviously people can get along without without knowing the Greek language, but there's no better commentary in the New Testament my opinion then Then the Greek New Testament itself One thing I've met on my campus. Quite often is it a reverence and a almost a disrespect for the the power of scripture and the importance of studying it in the Christian life. I really for both of you would like a good response to that. I think could send the conviction necessary when I hear that on campus. Did you say you encountered irreverence or reverence? Irreverence for the study of scripture. I think it's almost a cultural thing. As we were talking about last night, as it reaches the level of the church, part of it is the worldliness of the church, how we approach the text. This afternoon, we spoke about the priority of interpretation over application. And one of the many reasons I think that is important is because this is the creator of the universe who's communicating to his people rather than just another rule book, another guideline. And I think the mindset that people have towards the scriptures, we know it's God's word, sort of, but I think by focusing By by approaching it from an anthropocentric rather than a crystal centric perspective, it does take some of the reverence off of it. The authority of it is kind of undermined in a number of ways. So I think that is a problem just in terms of how we approach the scriptures. We are we've been geared towards our personal experience rather than just the absolute. authority of what's been established in the scriptures. And I've heard it even on Christian television. You give me a man with an argument and a man with an experience, and I'll take the experience every time. And I think we approach that, you know, our experience somehow is greater than what God has revealed in the scriptures. And it's a cultural, it's the influence, I think, of our fallen nature and the fallen world in which we live, that we have somehow undermined the authority of the word. When Jesus met with the disciples after his resurrection in Luke twenty four he said that he said to them these are my words I spoke to you while I was still with you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures and he said to them thus it is written that the Christ should suffer in a third day rise from the dead. The first thing that Jesus ministers to his disciples after his resurrection is an understanding of the prophetic fulfillment that has been found in his actions. And I remember the words of Augustine. He said that foreseeing that there would be a time when they would not have his body before them, that he would no longer be present with them. Jesus provided to the disciples that which would abide with them. And that is the belief in the Scriptures. I'm firmly convinced that a part of regeneration involves the installation of a respect for and a love for the Word of God. And I have become more and more convinced of that the older I get and the less and less I see of it amongst quote unquote Christian scholarship. I think I could substantiate that from Jesus' own words, that his sheep hear his voice. And I'm not just making the connection that Jesus' voice is found in scripture, but it is. And I'm really, really concerned at the degradation In two directions of evangelical view of scripture, either amongst the large portion of universities and seminaries today, there is no belief in the full inspiration of scripture and the fact that it is God breathed on his house. On the other hand, there is the just as devastating, if not more so in some ways, perspective of many evangelicals that while confessing that the Bible is the word of God, there is such a shallow knowledge of it and such a such a shallow depth to knowledge of it that it shows the world people who claim it's the Word of God but they don't treat it like it's the Word of God. And you have both extremes that I think are extremely damaging. But anyway, that's enough for now. Thank you. My name is Joe Graham. I flew in from Oak Harbor, Washington. I hope I earned the farthest trip maybe to come out here. That's cheating you from Phoenix. Anyway, so my question has to do a little bit about the layman learning Greek and some things like that. But essentially, what are your opinions and maybe Things you can determine are valuable within the church with regard to its current efforts in various ministries and various seminaries. The efforts that they're doing to train up the local body without removing the men from the congregation and the thing that that's doing to build accountability and mentorship and familiarity with people that are already in the body and helping it to grow on a local basis. And so, just some of the ways that you think maybe the church is doing a good job in that, some ways that maybe they can improve a little bit, and then maybe some of the ministries that you notice that you appreciate the way that they're trying to address that issue. Well, I think the primary discipleship that takes place in the local church, it begins, as it does in the Book of Acts, with the Apostles' Doctrine. a healthy diet of faithful exposition of God's Word. Law and gospel distinctives, I think, are creed, are confessions, are catechisms. Those are the basic formula for breaking down the doctrine of the apostles doctrine, faith that was once delivered. And application comes once we have interpreted all of scripture through Christ. The creeds and the confessions break it down into categories. It's, you know, it's the layperson's systematic theology in a sense. It gives you at least the parameters of what we believe and apologetics fills in the gap of why we believe it and how to defend it. And I think we parcel it out in the context of the local church according to the various needs. I'd be hesitant to say that it's necessary to have whatever small group for mentoring, for discipling, because there may be a local setting where it used to be a thing where in the Puritan church especially, or even in a lot of Reformed churches, what would take place is preaching in the worship service and then family devotions and catechisms. So you're having the truth of what's being expounded publicly reinforced at the level of the home. There may be informal fellowships that develop that a lot of the secondary teaching and reinforcing of truth, I think one's ecclesiology plays into that, the discipling that takes place as a church body. So how it will play out And the reason I guess. I'd be a little hesitant to put one stamp on all, because I think that's what we've seen in the last hundred years. That if there's a program that's being used over here, assuming that the basics are being done, and there's a format that's being exercised by this church, then every other church is going to have to do it, because it becomes the expectation and the assumption that this is what we do. Everybody has women's fellowship. Everyone has men's fellowship. That part of it, I think, let the local church or denomination deal with how it's parceled out. But I think that the primary thing, if we can get back to the fundamentals of faithful exposition, law, gospel, distinctives, creeds, confessions, catechisms, that puts us in the right direction of being able to faithfully feed our people and living out their faith. I'm very concerned about the fact that. We have. Adopted a worldly model of education. In general. And as a result. You know. How do we. What's the standard way of doing it now. You take the best and brightest you rip them out of the local church you ship them off someplace else. You put them under the tutelage of people who may or may not be a part of a local church where they are. You indebt them to their eyeballs and then you throw them into ministry and expect them somehow to survive on almost nothing while paying back their student loans. I mean, in most seminaries today, it's about $40,000 for a master's, $80,000 for a doctorate, and that's just simply the tuitions and costs, not all the rest of the stuff that goes with it. The only text I can think of in the New Testament that addresses this issue is first Timothy two two where Timothy is told to pass on the things that he heard from Paul to godly men and to do so in public. It sounds like that's the function of the church. And so I think the future is going to move more and more toward some of the things we are seeing. And that is seminary education based within churches utilizing the power of the Internet so that professors who do have expertise in particular areas can reach a lot much larger number of people. I think the centralized seminary is disappearing and it has to it has to break itself up into smaller centers and regional centers and things like that. My concern also is that we have bought into, there's something called the Association of Theological Schools, which is the accrediting agency. And the problem is, ATS is made up of librarians. And if you want to get ATS accreditation for a school, you have to have a paper library of an X amount of size, and you have to employ someone with a master's in library science. Look, the world has changed. I have more on this of meaningful research material than exists in the entire paper library of the college that I went to. And I'm not even talking about its accessibility to Google Books and everything else. I'm talking about log-offs and so on and so forth. I have a huge library electronically now. And the dinosaurs are dying slowly along those lines. There's gonna be a revolution in how education is done. I think it's a good thing as long as it's focused on the church and centralized in that way. But it's gonna be a little time in coming. The government might help us out along those lines, I'll be perfectly honest with you. In the sense that I just look at Europe And I go, you know, as long as we're faithful to preach the entire message of God concerning certain subjects, I can see our tax-exempt status disappearing in the not-too-distant future. And that's going to force a radical change in how we do Christian education. No doomsday prophecies there, but I just thought I'd let you know. It might not be a bad thing. No, you're right. Where did everybody go? I must have scared everybody off. I am Austin from William Care University. What is the role and scope of extra biblical sources in interpreting scripture and involving history and science? And how does that play into God's provision of scripture throughout history and its efficiency? It would help if you could give some examples of specifically what external extra-biblical sources you're talking about. Are you talking about the fact that Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts, a huge book with supplements, is utilized in most scholarship to cast light upon certain allusions in the Pentateuch to the gods of other nations, or archaeological digs, or our knowledge of the religion of Corinth. That kind of external material, or are you talking about external material that has religious authority, traditions, or something like that? That's why I kept it surveyed, because I'm illiterate. Normally, I have had it objected many times when I have made reference to external sources. that do shed light upon biblical text and I'm somehow violating. I do not believe for a second that I am. I think that shows a person does not understand. There's so many misrepresentations of the Roman Catholics especially love misrepresents. I don't think I've ever heard anyone on that side consciously anyways accurately represented. It is not the idea that the Bible is the sole source of religious truth. Even the Bible denies that. It says the heavens declare the glory of God. So that's not the case. It is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church which means we have we have fallible rules of faith. You know my church uses 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith or Reformed Baptist. And so we have a rule of faith. We're not violating the sole scriptural when we utilize that because we don't consider it an infallible rule of faith. It is subordinate to the scriptures. And so you're not in any way saying the scriptures are insufficient when you take into consideration the background and language of the people who wrote it. And so you know when people make that objection I just simply try to help them to understand what Sola Scriptura is. At the same time there is I think a concern about people who become so focused upon Other things that the actual flow and message of the text itself gets lost. Some commentaries sadly to publish a scholarly commentary that you have to deal with such so much garbage. Concerning what someone has someone has interpreted this text it's almost become like the mission I was in the days of Jesus came into existence. Traditions of the of the rabbi's this rabbi said this and that rabbi said that you go to you go to a Christian bookstore today and pick up a commentary on. Romans or Hebrews. I'm preaching to Hebrews right now, for example. And the vast majority of them are going to be, well, you know, Bultmann said this and Schleiermacher said that. And it's like you have to deal with that to be considered to be scholarly or anything like that at all. And the result is most people get almost nothing out of reading those kinds of sources. I I reject that I I I don't think that I have any. Compulsion to worry about what people who did not believe the Bible is consistent with the self had to say. So I do wish a lot of our our scholars would was start breaking away from that kind of a of an attitude and when they when they publish a commentary man go back to the way they used to do it. fill it with deep insights and wonderful background information, but don't bore me with what Bultmann or Barth or Schleiermacher had to say, because I really just don't care. Yeah, I think there's a place for extra biblical material that fleshes out some of the historical occurrences, because the history that's recorded in the Bible didn't occur in a vacuum. And so when you run across the writings of Josephus, it can be very helpful in terms of understanding the transition into the New Testament, New Testament Judaism. If you read some of the apocryphal books of the scriptures that are part of the Dewey Bible, that can be helpful in understanding the context in the setting. Alfred Edersheim is a great writer that fleshes out some of the life, the Jewish religion at the time of Jesus and even the expectations. So there's a place for them. And again, it depends on what you're talking about by extra biblical material. There are books that are referenced in the Bible that the writers assume a knowledge of, but they don't quote them in as authoritative a sense as they would the writings that are canonized. But it's an acknowledgment that there is a body of religious doctrine or history that's recorded elsewhere that's already understood by the majority of the people. So in the same way that we would use our confessions. As Dr. White pointed out, if we subscribe to a confession or a creed, it's not to say that it is to be touted above the scriptures, but it's to say that because this is what we believe about the scriptures, then these statements are consistent with what we believe the scriptures to teach. So there's a place for it. Greg Baldwin from Meridian had a lady and her daughter come to my door and I strongly suspect they were Jehovah's Witnesses. When you get visitors like that a book bag. I don't know that the daughter was probably thirteen fourteen years old and the question she asked is whether or not I had a spiritual questions. There are two of those witnesses. What is what is the best advice you can give someone to to be ready for those days when that you when you have callers to the door. I mean, obviously, there's probably no one approach, but what would you suggest to be maybe a methodical method to understand their mindset, what they believe in and how to combat that and how to take them to the gospel effectively. One thing not to do is to do what I did a number of years ago. I had my office in a friend's home in the front room, and so when you open the door, The first set of shelves of books you can see was all the Watchtower literature. That's not a good thing when the Jehovah's Witnesses show up at the door. I remember watching this guy, he's talking to me, his eyes sort of go over and start like... Because now he realizes, I know his material. I have this material. I must be a former witness. And man, they're gone so fast. I need to realize Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to have a lot to speak to a former Jehovah's Witness. So if you've been disfellowshipped or something, they will not even talk to you. And I've had some Jehovah's Witnesses try to spread the rumor that I was a disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness just to keep other Jehovah's Witnesses from talking to me. There are there are certain issues you want to try to communicate to the witnesses but you got to realize they're spending five hours a week. to prepare to talk to you. You're not trying not spending five hours a week preparing to talk to them and therefore they have a distinct advantage in this situation. And I've often said that the difference between Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses is that in Mormonism you have a wide variety of subjects that you only need to know this deep. With Jehovah's Witnesses it's a narrow range of subjects you need to know this deep. So it's sort of like Mormonism on its side. And they will be very well prepared, the vast majority. Not all of them, obviously. There's some new ones that are just starting out. But the vast majority of them will be very, very well prepared to go in depth. And the only way, what you've got to try to do is get them thinking for themselves. Right now they're just thinking, one, with the organization. And they're walking lockstep with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Trying to get them to look at the Watchtower Bible and track society from the outside and examine it is vitally important. The areas of course of issue are who is Jesus Christ. Is he Michael the Archangel the first and greatest of all of creation which is what they believe. Who is one of the anointed class one of the hundred and forty four thousand. Or is he Jehovah God in human flesh. They probably would be surprised if you use the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh. So I would use it. It gets their attention. And the issues are who is Jesus and what is the gospel what is salvation because ninety nine point nine nine nine nine seven percent of Jehovah's Witnesses appearing at your door unless you live in Brooklyn New York. Do not believe they are the anointed class of the great crowd there are going to live in a paradise earth. They are not fully in the new covenant. They are. They only have the benefits of the covenant as a fellowship with the anointed class of one hundred and forty four thousand individuals of which there's about seven thousand left on the earth all of which are in Brooklyn New York. So those are the two areas you want to go for. You're probably not going to be if you can get them to come in and sit down and have a long conversation. OK that's one thing. If it's just going to be at the door you have to somehow plant a seed. They're not going to take literature from you. Ninety nine point nine percent of them will not. So what you need to do is the one thing they will take away from your door is their Bible. So if you can show them something in their Bible, they will take that. And my suggestion is to demonstrate to them that Jesus is identified as Jehovah in the New Testament, that just so they'll argue with you until the cows come home about Jesus being a God. They can they can do John one one in a comatose state. Don't even go there. It's just not even worth it. What you need to do is you need to get them thinking from another perspective. And so what I do is I use I go some one or two twenty five to twenty seven. I have them read it from the New World Translation which is their translation of the Bible. It's a perversion of the Bible but you can use it. And then I asked him some questions. It's about Jehovah's Unchanging Nature. I say, is there anyone else other than Jehovah who does not change in comparison to the creation, et cetera, et cetera? They'll still agree. No, only Jehovah's Unchanging. Then I go to Psalm 1. I show them that he was one that he was chapter one versus ten to twelve direct quotations on one or two twenty five to twenty seven. But it's being said Jesus and you have to be careful this kind of information. But if you need to you can even point out that the cross reference in their own end of the study Bible shows them that some one or two twenty five to twenty seven because they brought somebody else's cross references and didn't check all of them and. Then this is the important part. Once you have shown them this. Don't stand back and go. Watch the Jehovah's Witness twist in the wind. Don't sit back and hold up your now bloodied theological sword and go. I have one. There's going to be an awkward silence because they've never seen this before. And it is at that point in time you can win this encounter and make it worthwhile by doing this by saying now you know if you've never seen that before. I can't ask you to give me an answer for that. But would you come back and share with me what you find as you look that up. And could I show you one more like it. I've never had a Jehovah's Witness say no. I've never had them say no you can't show me another verse of the Bible. How dare you. And so I've opened first of all I've let them off the hook because they'll come up with an answer. If you force them to come with an answer it may be the dumbest thing they've ever said in their lives but they'll go to their graves defending if you push it at that point. But if you let the pressure off now they still need to answer the question but you've been gracious enough to them to let them the pressure off so they can actually go look at it. And now you have the opportunity of showing them another verse just like it. And there I show them John twelve forty one in comparison to Isaiah chapter six and Isaiah twelve forty one. John quotes from Isaiah six and he says these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke about him. Now if you ask Isaiah whose glory did you see in Isaiah six. I saw the Lord. I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne. If you ask John who did Isaiah say he saw Jesus. And so I show them two very strong verses from the New Testament identifying Jesus as Jehovah. And I explained to them that's why I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The fathers identify as Jehovah. The sons identify as Jehovah. The spirits, the spirit of Jehovah. That's why Christians believe in the Trinity. That's what Jehovah's Witnesses need to hear. If that's all you get communicated at that point in time, that's a lot. Can you give us the line of argument a Catholic give you in defending their view of denying Sola Scriptura. What would be. How would they respond to you. Why is this wrong. Well. As. My good friend Patrick would say. who I guess you have met. Yes. We've debated twice. And we debated on Sola Scriptura in 1993 in El Cajon, California. And as Patrick would say, well, obviously, Sola Scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy. It has resulted in 33,000 Christian denominations. You all can't get together and agree on what color to make the carpet on anything else. It results in people not being able to know what the scripture says because you undercut God's gift to the church in the magisterium of the church. There are all sorts of positive uses the term tradition in the New Testament. Not all of them are negative. Yes there are negative human traditions are spoken against. But Paul specifically makes positive reference to tradition even even the gospel itself is identified as having a traditional existence in First Corinthians fifteen because I delivered to you that which was also passed on to me refers to an oral tradition and in point of fact I would have to ask you Pastor Marshall. Why you don't obey the scriptures. Because Paul said in when you go to the Thessalonians he said hold fast the traditions delivered to you whether by word of mouth or by letter and you're doing a good job holding on to the letter once but you seem to ignore the word of mouth once I'm holding on to both as a Roman Catholic. And then, of course, you have added into that some element of discussion concerning. Thank you. Some element of discussion concerning the necessity for an infallible interpreter, because there are so many Protestant ministers losing their faith in Scripture because they don't have an infallible interpreter. There's all these different differences about how to interpret things. and so on and so forth. And then, of course, you have the argument that it's never found in scripture. So since the phrase solo scripture and the concept solo scripture is never found in scripture, you're having to go outside of scripture to come up with solo scripture, which means you're undercutting your very position from the very outset. And if I wanted to then drop down a few notches to more popular forms of argumentation that you hear on EWTN and things like that, then I would point out that the Gospel of John says there are many things that Jesus said and did which were not recorded in scripture. And therefore, you know, you'd have to find them someplace else, etc., etc. So that would be a brief rundown of the standard argumentation that is utilized. If you want to hear how that flushes out, like I said, I've debated Jerry Matitix on that subject a couple of times, Patrick Madrid on that subject as well. And they did take slightly different tacts, the two of them did. But that's, in essence, the kind of argumentation that's going to be used. Now everything I just said was a bold-faced lie. I could show you why. It's also partly the way in which you say it. Well, I haven't debated them, but we did with Cure. We had a debate with Patrick Madrid and a couple of other scientists. Robert Sougenis and Robert Martian, I was there. Yeah, that's right. But interestingly enough, you're talking about what they didn't have at the University of Wittenberg. We didn't, my college didn't have a football team either, so I debated. But I think there is a fallacy that's implied with the Catholic argument against sola scriptura. They imply that we don't have any place or respect for tradition, number one. And they imply that we deny, we hypocritically deny sola scriptura by appealing to our confessions and creeds. And it's as if we don't leave any room for tradition in any way, or that we raise our non-biblical sources to biblical proportion. And that's a fallacious argument because In Protestantism, it's not to say that there is no place for tradition. There is a place for tradition. The difference with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is that they raise the tradition of the church, the magisterium, above the authority of the scriptures and say that the church is, or the authority of the scripture is derived from the church, and we say vice versa. And by the way, they're not thirty three thousand Christian nations. It's very common to hear them say that, but it's not true. In fact, the same source they quote on that says there's over seven hundred and fifty Roman Catholic denominations and they won't accept that for a second. But that thirty three thousand number includes Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Gnostics, and all these other groups, none of which, all of which blatantly deny Sola Scriptura. So to blame Sola Scriptura for the Mormons is like, you know, duh. But they do it anyways. Yeah, I think a harder argument would be sola scriptura in Pentecostal circles. Yeah. I think Meade's Handbook of Denominations, I think, says it's about eighteen hundred denominations. That's probably more like it. But so on. OK. Who's next? Richard. Richard. My name is Richard Hickman, I'm from Fairhope, Alabama. Pastor Jones, I have two questions for both of you. Pastor Jones, in your session earlier on rightly dividing the word, you briefly mentioned the concept of an over-realized eschatology. Annie just mentioned Pentecostals with regard to Sola Scriptura. I'm a former Roman Catholic, and after becoming converted I for a time was Pentecostal, so my question has to do with the over-realized eschatology that you mentioned. How can we strike a balance with not falling into that trap of thinking that Christians today should be doing the same things that Jesus did, and they quote John 14, 12. You know, if you believe in me, you shall do what I did in greater things also, because I gave a father. And I have friends who say that every Christian should be walking in the miracles of Jesus and so on. That's my first question. The second question for Dr. White. Can you recommend any good resources on church history? Because I also have friends who believe that, you know, the Roman Catholic Church is the historical church for the past 2000 years. And they really want to jump on Constantine, you know, and say that Constantine was the beginner of the Roman Catholic Church when he first started putting holy men in the pulpit and all that kind of stuff. Well, on the question of over-realized eschatology, specifically I'll address the passage that you mentioned from John 14. The problem with People's misuse of that passage is they forget that part of that is actually been realized. Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and thousands came to faith in Jesus Christ, which is greater than anything that he had experienced at any one point in his earthly ministry. So there is there's a context for that. In talking in terms of understanding what he means by you will do greater things. That's that's number one. The other part of it as far as the over realize eschatology. I think again this is where our categories and our confessions are helpful. If we understand what has been what is promised in the Messiah. Both in the the Old Testament, the coming of the Savior, the new earth and new bodies and everlasting life and set free and so forth. All of those things are will be realized in the consummation of the kingdom. What Jesus does is he comes and takes him. He takes he takes care of the part that can't be seen right away. That's the party takes care of first. Your sins are forgiven. OK, and then the rest of it is what will be realized in the consummation of the kingdom. Our confessions, a good confession or good systematic theology have give us the categories by which we are to understand those categories or excuse me, those promises and the language that's used there. It's hard to have that discussion with an evangelical who doesn't have any categories by which they are to understand the promises of the Messiah. That's why there's a difficulty, there's a breakdown when they will take the language of promises in the Old Testament or in Isaiah about diseases being healed, and then they look at the reality of it in Jesus' first advent. And they assume that therefore everyone is to be healed when it's never said in the scriptures that Jesus heals everyone. He doesn't even promise full deliverance from the hands of the enemy in terms of imprisonment in the New Testament. James is beheaded in the letter to the churches, seven churches of Asia Minor, the church at Philadelphia. They're told that this is what's going to happen. Some of you are going to be thrown in jail for my sake. But the promise is an all-encompassing promise. That's why we said in the previous session that the way to understand the miracles of Jesus is affirming his fulfillment of the messianic office and as movie trailers of coming events. Because what will happen in the eschaton in the end of the age, which Paul says the end of the age is already upon us, which is why we have the tension between the already and the not yet. But what will happen in the consummation in the fullness of the age is there will be no sickness. There will be no, no, no, no, no sorrows. There will be no death. There will be no set in an absolute sense. So I think it's hard to get not just Pentecostals, but. Protestants who are not familiar with the full scope of Scripture. They have a tendency to look at it in an atomistic sort of way. It says this over here, and so I'm going to see it realized in my life, rather than seeing it fulfilled in and through Christ, and then it will be, and as it relates to either his first advent or second advent. That's a big problem, and that is the problem with over-realized eschatology. As far as resources go there just still is no resource on the other church any better than shops history of the church it's eight volumes it's frequently available ridiculously low cost on C.B.D. and places like that is available fully online at C.C.L. dot org C.C.E.L. dot org. There are obviously other books on Chad works work on the on the other church and things like that but. There are all sorts of in-depth works on the Council of Nicaea and things like that too, but Schaaf just remains by far the best, even though it's dated, it's from the 1870s, around in there. Still, especially for early church material, it's still the best that you're going to be able to get hold of by Philip Schaaf. We have time for one more question. OK. David Hose from Madison, Alabama. I was curious as to whether the Mormons had an answer to to this. If God achieved his current state by obedience to law, do they say where that law came from? Eternal. It doesn't. There's a fundamental ontological issue with Mormonism and its view of these things. There are things that are eternal but God isn't. So the the origin of these things cannot really be explained in the sense of a one that there is no creator in this system. That's why I said Mormonism is so far removed from biblical Christianity because the law by which exaltation takes place as eternally existed. It does not have an origin. So there are things that that have no origin in in Mormon theology. But God isn't one of them. It's an amazing thing. It really seems to be pretty far removed from simple logic. Well, obviously, you know, one of the big questions that we ask is if if God wants a man, if there's an increasing number of gods today, Then if you go backwards in time don't you eventually get back to the first man. And the way they have around this is they've posited an unlimited number of universes and unlimited number of deities. And so if you have infinity what's what's infinity minus one is still infinity. And so they find a way of getting around the idea of going back to that first that first man. What was he before he was a man. Well, he couldn't have been a god, and if you go to the first god, what was he before he was a god? He was a man. It doesn't work, but I don't think Joseph Smith had really thought it through quite that far. You have to realize that level of his theology developed after 1838, and if he had not been murdered in a Carthage jail in June of 1844, if he had been given only a matter of months more, let alone a few years, there would be no Mormonism today. because his theology was changing so rapidly that it would not have taken long to there. Nobody could have made heads or tails of it. So the fact that he was murdered in the Carthage jail actually is what has given rise to Mormonism. And if you've been given more time, eventually he just would have been a footnote in history of a wild, crazy frontier religious guy. But nothing more would have come of it. What happens when you make somebody a murder? Last question. My question is, I don't really know what happens when you die, specifically, because I know Catholics, I think it's Catholics, believe in limbo and purgatory, but do you go straight to heaven or hell? I just don't know that. Are you talking about Roman Catholicism? Yes. Limbo is not a dogma of Rome. It never was, actually. It was a common belief, but the Pope, just a few years ago, just reiterated that it's not a dogma. It's it's a common belief but it's not really taught by the church when you die. If you die in a state of grace which means you again this is old time Roman Catholicism. I think a lot of Roman Catholics they're just universalist and I say everybody goes to heaven. Don't worry about it. But the old time Roman Catholic belief as dogmatized by the church is if you die in a state of grace. Then the question is do you have temporal punishments of sin yet to be propitiated. If you do then you go to purgatory where those are purged over time. If you don't then you're a saint and you go directly in the presence of God. If you die outside the state of grace you go to hell. Do not pass code, do not collect $200. So those are the three possible places that you can go. The Roman Catholic Church made a lot of money selling indulgences because many people believed that while they had been baptized, they died in the state of grace, they were going to be suffering in purgatory for an extended period of time. So by selling indulgences, you can release your loved ones from purgatory. That's what paid to build St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It's a very fancy building, but built with the money of of deception. Past appreciate the questions as well. And that concludes our time. This was the word of prayer. OK, or thank you for all that we learned today through the preaching, teaching through this Q&A session. You've been with us. You've given us your strength. And now, Lord, see part ways or bring us back. We men tonight, young men. Boys, for again, a profitable evening at 630. Thank you again for your love for us, for the clarity of the gospel. We especially have heard about today. I pray, Lord, you give us a burden for the lost around us and give us great joy in living for you. Responding to grace with glad obedience in Jesus name. Amen.