Howdy, everyone. We are live. Is my camera set here? And I see Julia falling, and no one else is here. Okay. The throng of my audience just continues to go on there. Okay. Let's see. I do have a number of things here. I was asked to address a question about God's sovereignty as far as God being the primary cause of all things in terms of his decree. And this person, let me see if I can find that here, had asked about the fact that God moved David to number Israel. It says, next time could you explain James 1.13, which is the passage about God does not tempt anyone, says the New American Standard. Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone. And then this fellow's question, in light of the doctrine of God as the primary cause of sin, including the sin of believers, and there he quotes 2 Samuel 24 1, which is, as I recall, the narrative where David numbers Israel because of his pride. He wanted to see how many people he had control over and so on and so forth 2nd Samuel 24 one says now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and It incited David against them to say go number Israel and Judah and I believe the parallel passive says that Satan Is the one let me see here second Chronicles. He's got excited here second Chronicles 21 1 yeah, then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. So that's probably a The first Chronicles one God in his decree allowed Satan to do this in the same way He allowed Satan to go against Job and everything else, but David ultimately did what he desired to do God is not the one who numbered Israel. God did not number Israel. And so God is not culpable for that sin although God decreed that David would commit that sin just as God decreed the crucifixion of his son the fall of Adam and and everything else that comes to pass. Always remember the decree of God, the singular plan of God, which encompasses all that comes to pass in time and space, has as its ultimate goal, the glorification of God in the fullness of all of his attributes. And God is not chargeable with sin because God doesn't do anything that's evil or sinful or wrong. God does not violate his own character in any of that. When sin is committed, it is done by secondary causes, by human beings acting in full accord with their own desires and their own wills. But yes, God is the one who puts those desires into the heart of man in order to do things that are wrong and sinful. But God is not the one that does things that are wrong or sinful. Those people had sinful natures. They act in accordance with those sinful natures in everything that they do. and so it's important to recognize God decrees all that comes to pass but God doesn't himself do things that are sinful. People who are already fallen in Adam freely act out of their fallen nature but they always do according to what God has decreed that they would do even if it is very inexplicable to us and we don't understand the purpose behind Hopefully that answers the question there. I don't see any other questions yet. I didn't really get any other questions, but as some of you might know, if you listened to one of the other podcasts that I put out, I started answering questions from a Roman Catholic guy who has blown up my channel with comments. And I mean, I mean, I'm talking long comments. He posted 72 questions, and I did a program and answered the first seven. And I don't know if I'm going to answer all of them, but I'm going to answer some of them. So, Melo Troniac. I don't know who that is, but howdy. Okay, so I'm going to go look at, pick up with some more of these questions here from my Roman Catholic interlocutor. And there's David Lugo, how's it going? All right, fire away. Ask your question about Catholicism. Go ahead. I'll wait a second. Actually, well, I'll start working on these and then when you post it, I'll try to answer your question. Okay, number eight from John Martin, I think is the guy's name. But he's left a zillion comments. I've stopped reading them because I want to get through them one at a time. But in the channel, in the chat thing there, go ahead and post your question. I'll try to get to about here if I can and answer it if I'm able to. Okay, the guys' next question, question number eight, is St. Paul says the gospel is the power of God, and yet the faith alone theory requires one to believe in the extrinsic righteousness of the believer, which is without reference to the power of God acting within the believer. How is St. Paul's gospel of divine power reconciled with the reformer's gospel of the extrinsic justification, which is without power intrinsic to the lyric? John Martin, you are a master of equivocation. You really need to know what that logical fallacy is. It is using a word with a completely different meaning in a similar sentence, in close proximity to it. Let's try to see if we can even make sense out of this question. Saint Paul says the gospel is the power of God, which he does in Romans 1 16. And yet the faith alone theory requires one to believe in the extrinsic righteousness of the believer. What are you talking about? The extrinsic righteousness of the believer. We believe that the righteousness by which we are justified is extrinsic to us because it was achieved and accomplished by Jesus Christ. Okay, so the extrinsic righteousness of the believer, which is without reference to the power of God acting within the believer. Category error. The power of God working within the believer is sanctification and regeneration. Justification does not change us subjectively at all. Justification is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us by faith, which is what Genesis 15-6 means. Abraham believed in Yahweh and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Righteousness is imputed to us. It is how a st. Paul's gospel of divine power Reconciled with the Reformers gospel of the extrinsic of the extrinsic of justification, which is without power intrinsic to the believer Okay Everything God does in redemption is by his power Okay, trying to I don't sure I'm not even sure I can even understand what the what the point of that question is. So I'm just going to kind of, we're going to skip that one. Okay. So this, uh, um, this other person has asked the question. Okay. I had a Catholic tribe and convinced me about how ecumenical councils were binding and how Protestants are obligated to submit to them that they didn't look, uh, look the word. They didn't look the word, just their own authority. we don't believe that the ecumenical councils can bind our consciences in the same way that scripture does. And the thing is, the church fathers and the men at those councils, at Nicaea, the first Nicaean council in 325, and then the one after that is the Council of Constantinople in 381, and then there's, I believe, the Council of Ephesus, and then there's Chalcedon, and there's a couple other ones. Usually Protestants will go along pretty well with the first six, that will go along with the first six councils, but the seventh ecumenical council in 786, 786-787, the seventh ecumenical council is the second Nicene council, almost five centuries after the first Nicene council. John Calvin and the Institutes of the Christian Religion in book one goes through what was wrong with that council. That council said that it was okay to give proscuneo, the Greek verb worship, to icons and statues and things like that. And Calvin blows that out of the water in book one and points out, let me just get a little bit technical here, but The term, the Hebrew word avad in the second commandment, when it says you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. The Hebrew term for serve, when it says you shall not make for yourself a graven image, a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the waters under the earth, you shall not bow down to them nor serve them for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. That term serve them, the Hebrew term avad, is very important because it's translated that term as it occurs throughout the rest of the Old Testament is translated into the Greek Septuagint with both words Latruo and Duluo. Now, the Roman Catholic Church tries to make a distinction between Latria, which is true and proper worship given only to God, and Dulia, which is the Latin term that comes from the Greek word Duluo, but Dulia is a lesser form of veneration. It's not true and proper worship, And therefore, that's what they're giving to statues, to Mary, to angels, and then their various acts of devotion with the lighting of candles and kneeling down in front of statues. They say, we're not violating the second commandment because ecumenical council number seven in the late eighth century, after the iconoclastic controversy happens, they said, it's okay to give worship in this lesser sense to statues and things like that. And so we would go along with the First Nicene Council and we'd go along with the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon and then there's a, I can't recall what the next one is after that, but if you read through the material at those at the early ecumenical councils before the church started to go off the tracks there with the definition of icon worship as being okay in the seventh ecumenical council. We go along with those early ecumenical councils for one reason. They're biblical. We don't go along with them. Melotronaic, if I'm saying that right, we go along with them because they are faithful to the word of God. And the men at those councils did not think that they were speaking with inherent or intrinsic authority or that they could bind people's consciences. They didn't think that. There's only one thing in the life of a believer that can bind their conscience to implicit obedience, and that is the word of God. Now, the Roman Catholic person is trying to say that the pronouncements of ecumenical councils are on the same part, same level with the Bible, which I think in classic Roman Catholic theology, that that would be the case, that the form in which an ecumenical council is ratified by a Pope, that that's on the same level as scripture. Well, I can certainly understand that. But we accept those early councils because they're consistent with the word of God. And that's what they were trying to do. And that was not the case at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In fact, it's been pointed out. James White asked Pat Madrid when they debated the issue of the veneration of icons and statues. He asked the question, was there anybody at the Seventh Ecumenical Council that could even read the Hebrew language? Was there anybody there that could read the New Testament Greek with any level of proficiency? I don't think that there was. So why should we accept what they said when it's so flagrant in its denial of what the Bible says? When the Bible makes the statement, when God tells us in the second commandment, you shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth, immediately people say, well, God commanded them to make the bronze serpent and that's an image of something. Yes, but they didn't bow down to it or worship it. And in fact, I believe it's Second Kings 18, they eventually did bow down and worship the bronze serpent. In fact, let me see if that references, if that references right. Second Kings 18, is this right? Yeah, Second Kings 18, listen. Hezekiah, Hezekiah was a very good king. Listen, Second Kings 18 verse 4. He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image, and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made. For until those days, the children of Israel burned incense to it and called it Nahushtin. They started worshiping it as a god. Okay, so it's not like it's a wrong thing to have a picture of your wife. You know, I have pictures of my wife and my kids all over the wall in my office. That's not what the commandment is prohibiting. What it's prohibiting is the bowing down to those things and worshipping of them. Okay? Now, the thing is, there is no meaningful biblical distinction between latruo and duyuo. They are the same thing. They are the same thing. In the Hebrew mindset, to serve something in a religious context is to worship it. That's why when people try to say, when the Roman Catholics try to tell us, well, we're not worshipping Mary when we invoke her intercession. We're not worshipping her. We're venerating her and we're giving her this lesser form of worship. I want to read to you. If you ever have Roman Catholic individuals say, I want to find this prayer. There's a prayer by Alphonsus Liguri. Alphonsus Liguri is a sainted doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. His book, The Glories of Mary, went through 800 editions. So when Roman Catholics tell you today, we are not worshiping Mary. We're just asking her to pray for us. Just like, I mean, hey, don't you ask people to pray for you? Don't you ask people to pray for you? And when someone dies, St. Paul says that all are alive in Christ. So we should be able to ask the, our departed brothers and sisters to keep praying for us. Right? So we're not worshiping Mary. Oh, no, no. We're, we're just, we're venerating her. Um, we're venerating her and we're asking her to pray for us. Just like you ask other people in your church to pray for you. Okay. Let me, let me kind of explore that here and say, let me find this. So I got to find this prayer by Yeah, there it is. Haha. All right. This is a Roman Catholic website to Sacred Heart of Jesus Okay, listen to this. This is From see even from Yeah, okay. Wow Unbelievable. Okay, this is a novena Which is a special prayer to our Lady of perpetual help. Okay, so I In fact, let me put a link to this in the chat channel here. You can use this for future use here. Listen to this prayer. O mother of perpetual help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners. And for this end, he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants. Take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For if thou protect me, I fear nothing, not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them, nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together, nor even from Jesus. my judge, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may, through negligence, fail to have recourse to thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O mother of perpetual help. Yeah, we just ask Mary to pray for us, just like I would ask one of my fellow elders to pray for me if I'm sick or one of my kids gets hurt. Are you serious? What I just read for you there, that novena prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Health, that is blasphemy of the highest order! That is worshipping Mary as if she's your savior! Okay, you don't want to have, it says, in thy hands I place my eternal salvation. No, you don't place your salvation in the hands of Mary. You place your salvation in the hands of Jesus alone. You see why the reformers have that slogan? Solus Christus. See my special mug? Someone at church got me this. I'm very, very thankful for it. See it? It says, in Christ alone. Right? Because you don't want to pray things like that to Mary. David King is here. Hey, David. Good to see you, my man. Thank you for coming on in here. And there's Jordan Foster. Howdy. Okay. Let's see. Good question about the ecumenical. I hope that answered your question about ecumenical councils. You know, John Calvin. Yeah, yeah. Go right ahead. Go right ahead. No, no, no. Derail away. I tell people at church, you got to email me questions or text me stuff. Let's see if I have any text. No text. Or I'll just talk because I'm, you know, I'm a pastor and a preacher. I can talk all day long if you want. I'll just sit here and talk and talk and talk. And I just come up with all kinds of things to talk about. Things I've been reading lately. I've been reading a lot of good books lately. Yeah, don't get me started. I've been reading the Strange Fire book, the John MacArthur book, the Strange Fire that came out of the conference. That book is so good. And the book, I've been marking and dog-earing it. Eventually, I'd like to do a series on the history of the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism. And I've watched most of the talks on the Strange Fire conference, and I've done a bit more reading about that. There's a thing here in the mountains of Northeast, Tennessee when I first moved here we were told about Mountain theology and how there's a lot of like charismatic stuff and some of it's pretty wild some of it's like like rattlesnake Handlers and stuff and from a mark the longer ending of mark And you almost hate to have to point out to someone who just got bit by a rattlesnake That's actually a textual variant about getting bit by vipers and not getting hurt and mark 16. I So anyway, I tried to give an Augustine citation. I guess it was too long. It wouldn't allow. Oh, really? Well, can you, David, can you paste a piece of it or paste a little bit of it at a time? OK, while you're figuring out how to do that, let me get this other thing. I have watched debates, but what do you say against the arguments about silent oral tradition that Catholics use that use? Hey, John Schell, senior. Silent oral tradition, really the idea of an orally inspired body of Christian doctrine that's passed on outside of scripture, that's actually a Gnostic concept. It's a Gnostic concept that was addressed by Irenaeus. I know that David King, who's in here, knows, David King is an expert on patristic theology. And in fact, here, hold on a second. This is required reading. I have a whole stack of these of the book that David King wrote. Um, if you need to skip some meals to get a copy of this book, you need to do that because this is the, in my opinion, the best single volume defense of a biblical case for solo scriptura that I have ever read in my entire life. This, this thing has so many quotes. There are things in here that, um, that I know that David King and William Webster, they had fresh translations made or actually not fresh ones, but translations made of things that have never been translated into English from some of the early patristic sources. And a lot of the reformation debates are in here. There's so many great quotes in here. Um, my wife is calling me. I wonder if that means that my house is on fire or something. You never know when you have 10 kids, uh, Yeah, this has so many great quotes in it. There's a John Owen quote in here that I marked. That's so good. Okay. All right, David's got the Augustine quote up there. For it is unlawful for a Christian to set up any such image for God in a temple, much more nefarious is it therefore to set it up in the heart in which truly is a temple of God, provided it be purged of earthly lust and error. Yeah, that's great. Yep, Augustine is right. He is quite right. So, okay. Two calls, two calls I've missed from my dear wife. Let me text her real quick and just make sure that everything is okay. Cause I would hate for there to be something really, really wrong. I'm doing a live program, sweetheart. Okay. Okie-dokie Sorry about this folks, okay? oral tradition silent oral tradition Iran has addressed that directly and said That really is a Gnostic concept the idea that there's special divine revelation outside of Scripture and Now you have to recognize too that when they talk about silent oral tradition, you know What exactly do they do they mean by that? Are they saying that there is an identifiable? of Christian Doctrine that was passed down outside of scripture. I know that there's some pretty hardcore traditionalist Roman Catholics that would that would say things like that. I think someone like Jerry Madetix would say, would say, yeah, when, when Paul in second Thessalonians two 15, hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word of mouth or our epistle. Yeah. That's where Paul taught the Thessalonians about the papacy, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, and the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary. And that's where you have to kind of scratch your head and say, you're not serious. Like you're not actually telling me that Paul taught. the church at Thessalonica about indulgences. I remember Matitix being asked that question in a debate. He said, so Jerry, are you saying that Paul taught the Thessalonian church about indulgences? And Matitix said, the principle behind them, yes. And you could hear all the people in the audience like chuckling, like, are you serious, man? So Melotronaic, If someone tries to bring up, well, you believe in soil scriptura, we don't, we believe also in oral tradition. You need to get them to define what they're talking about. Because there are many Roman Catholic apologists who believe in what they call the material sufficiency of scripture. They think that everything is in scripture. It's just a matter of finding under the tent pegs of the Old Testament and in the details of parables, all sorts of wonderful, fun stuff that no one's ever seen. Because they know they can't defend the idea that there is a an extra biblical source of divine revelation The Council of Trent though really it really sounds like it does think that that there's written scripture and then there's There's unwritten traditions but Getting them to define what what is this tradition? You know, can we examine it? Can we can we look at it? Some of them would say, yeah, here it is. It's all these other doctrines that we define on the basis of traditions. Others, I think the sharper among the Roman Catholic people will say, no, we don't believe that there's an extra biblical source of divine revelation. Tradition is rather the lived understanding of God's people. It's looking into scripture and finding all this additional stuff about, you know, popes and papal infallibility and the bodily assumption of Mary. I remember asking a Roman Catholic person. Okay, so where does the Bible teach the concept of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary? And the citations were like Revelation 12, one, a woman clothed with the sun. I was like, that is a proof text for the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary, really? Okay. One more question, please. Yeah, go right ahead. I appreciate your time. I want to recommend William Cunningham's historical theology. I would too William Cunningham is is fantastic. In fact, yeah, his historical theology is good Sorry, there's another book I've been reading lately the reformer or what is it the theology the reformers and the theology of the Reformation by William Cunningham another good book it was It was kind of hard to find, um, but I was glad to get this. I think I, I think I was able to find it on Kindle as well. Um, but I was taking this to, uh, my kids, uh, swimming lessons because I had, I have so many children. So when I go places I have to bring, I bring Kindles and books and things like that. Um, but yeah, you can see the, someone splashed water on it. That really upset me. Um, so anyway, yeah, the reformers and the theology of the reformation by William Cunningham really is a really good book too. But once again, I want to put another plug in. If you can find this, you need to get this. It's part of a three volume set. All three volumes are great. The second volume is a little bit thicker than this one. And it's more so about the historical case for Sola Scriptura. This is the best biblical treatment of Sola Scriptura I've ever read. And then the third volume is just a compilation of quotations from all the church fathers on scriptural sufficiency, the divine God-breathed nature of scripture, the sufficiency of scripture, and the fact that scripture is the only source of God-breathed revelation that we have. Okay. Yes. So, David, are you saying great book to yours or to Cunningham's book? You're allowed to say that about your own book because your book is one of my favorites for sure. I've used it for, I've read that book numerous times and I still use it. What do you say against the claim of God wouldn't allow his church to fall into deep error for so long? My response to that would be, how could God allow the church to not know about papal infallibility for seven-eighths, nine-tenths of church history? How could God fail to let his people know that the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived until the work of a British monk named Edmer in the 12th century? How could we not know for sure about purgatory until the Council of Florence in the 15th century defined it as a dogma? Why, if transubstantiation is the ancient apostolic faith, why is it that scholars of historical theology recognize that it was Augustine's doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in heaven that took eight centuries to overcome before transubstantiation gained enough ground to be defined as a dogma in 1215? How could the church be led into deep error for so long? The church wasn't led into deep error for so long. The church has always been there and always believed the true gospel. You need to read, they're back there, The Long Line of Godly Men books. There's two of them by Stephen Lawson about the Old Testament, the Bible first, and then it goes from the time of Christ in the New Testament all the way to about 1500. And it shows you all the witnesses to the truth. There have always been witnesses to the truth. James Buchanan, his book on the history of justification, the first 248 pages of that book are just patristic citations showing that a lot of these church fathers, when they had their noses down in the text of scripture, they could see that we're justified by faith alone and not by our works. Even though they often believed other things that were in conflict with that. When they were looking at the key passages, they tended to get it right. So yeah, God wouldn't allow his church to fall into deep error for so long. The early church, the bishops at the First Nicene Council knew absolutely nothing about the papacy, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, the Marian dogmas. justification by infused righteousness and congruent merit transubstantiation? I mean, they didn't. They didn't know anything about those things. So, what every generation is faced with is the same. Will we be faithful to the Word of God or not? Will we actually, at least for our generation, will we turn off the gadgets and turn off all the entertainment and all the stuff and open our Bibles and read our Bibles and study our Bibles. You know, I have tons of Bibles. I am a Bible file. I have so many Bibles and you know, I've had this one right here. This is my, this is my new Geneva study Bible. This is an original leather edition. This thing's 20 years old. See how beautiful this thing is still look at that. I mean it is aged really well. This thing is, is I got this in 1999 so this thing is 21 years old and I've taken really good care of it because I love my Bibles. You need to wear these things out. You need to read your Bible constantly so that you're not taken in by that kind of stuff. Okay. Cunningham. David says Cunningham. Cunningham's books are good. Um, but so is David King's book. Holy scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith. Um, okay. Jordan Foster. Let's see. Speaking of Roman doctrine, are you still getting hassled by John Piper fans? Yes. Occasionally I still get nasty grams From them once in a while. I don't care. I don't care about about the the reform celebrity cult I Don't I don't put much stock in it anymore all the gospel groups that are out there gospel Together for the gospel and the gospel coalition. I know there's good stuff there. I know that I still benefit from articles, but there's kind of this like Fortress mentality. We will know we will not allow any kind of a serious charge of false teaching on the gospel to be leveled against anybody we're associated with or something. I don't know. I don't know what the deal was with that, but, um, Yes. So yeah, I still get hassled by Piper fans. I just want to say for the record, just so everyone is clear. Um, you know, Piper himself is really not overly relevant to me. The only thing that I'm really, really wanting to make sure people understand is this. Initial justification by faith alone through the imputed righteousness of Christ and then final salvation and getting past the the judgment of God and being saved from the wrath of God by the fruits of your faith. That's not the gospel. That is not the gospel. The gospel is justification by faith alone. Justification by believing the gospel of Christ alone. alone. It is your confidence for getting into heaven rests on Jesus Christ alone. In fact, I just read a really good quotation from Robert Raymond, let me find it here, in his excellent work on systematic theology. I wish somebody would print just the section of Robert Raymond's systematic theology on justification, just the section as its own book, as its own book. Listen to this quotation from Dr. Raymond. The doctrine of justification means, then, that in God's sight, the ungodly man, now in Christ, has perfectly kept the moral law of God. Which also means, in turn, that in Christ, he has perfectly loved God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself. It means that saving faith is directed to the doing and dying of Christ alone, and not to the good works of the inner experience, or inner experience of the believer. It means that the Christian's righteousness before God is in heaven, at the right hand of God and Jesus Christ, and not on earth within the believer. It means that the ground of our justification is the vicarious work of Christ for us, not the gracious work of the Spirit in us. It means that the faith righteousness of justification is not personal, but vicarious. Not infused, but imputed. Not experiential, but judicial. Not psychological, but legal. Not our own, but a righteousness alien to us and outside of us. The Latin, justitia alienum et extra nos. Not earned, but graciously given, sola gratia, through faith in Christ, that is itself a gift of grace. It means also, listen, this is justification. This is why it is intolerable to say the gospel is initial justification by faith alone and then final salvation by fruit. Here's why that is not okay to say that. It means also in its declarative character that justification possesses an eschatological dimension, for it amounts to the divine verdict of the eschaton, that's the last day, being brought forward into the present time and rendered here and now concerning the believing sinner. By God's act of justifying the sinner through faith in Christ, the sinner, as it were, has been brought before the time to the final assize, and has already passed successfully through it, having been acquitted of any and all charges brought against him. Justification then properly conceived contributes in a decisive way to the Calvinistic doctrine of assurance and the eternal security of the believer. Amen and amen. Why do we have eternal security? Why am I eternally secure in Christ? Why is God's promise guaranteed? Because justification is by faith alone. That's Paul's argument, Romans 4 16. Therefore, It is of faith, meaning justification. Therefore, justification is by faith in order that it would be according to grace so that the promise would be sure to all the seed. You hear that? If justification, if you get into heaven by something other than the blood and righteousness of Christ, something in addition to the blood and righteousness of Christ, something alongside of the blood and righteousness of Christ, it's not grace anymore. Then you're not saved by grace anymore. Justification is by faith in order that it would be by grace. If my works come into the equation, it's not grace anymore. If it's by faith in Christ initially, and then the final salvation is by fruit, that's not grace either. That's not the gospel either. And then our salvation would not be sure, would it? Look at Romans 4.16. Seriously, teach Romans 4.16 to your covenant children. Therefore justification is by faith. Why? So that it would be by grace. It's my faith apart from works so that God is doing the saving and so that it's guaranteed. If it depends on you at all, it ain't guaranteed. And in fact, you're not going to get it. If it depends at all upon your faithfulness, upon something to you, you're not going to heaven. Okay. Let's see. Okay, okay. Yeah, so yeah, I still get nasty grams occasionally from John Piper fans Um, none of them have attempted to defend The the gospel as being initial justification by faith final salvation by fruit. No, they're not gonna try to do that Okay. Okay. David has answered the question. How could you let the how could God let the church be in error for so long? David said, my response is that God was willing to remove his presence from apostolic founded churches. Yeah, read Revelation chapters two and three. And David, that's an excellent point. And I mean, look at the letters in the New Testament. Look at Galatians, Galatians chapter one. I mean, the apostles themselves were dealing with apostasy, with fatal gospel error in the churches they founded. They were dealing with fatal gospel errors in the churches that they founded. Paul says, I am astonished that you're moving away so quickly from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel. Okay. So how could God do this? Churches fell off into error repeatedly, constantly. You know, there were divisions in those early apostolic churches. I mean, look at Corinth. Corinth was a moral cesspool. It was a, it was a real mess. Pardon me. Okay. Mm-hmm. Let's see what else is in there Cunningham mentions the wheat and tears and Israel seemed to go astray at times. Yeah, they definitely definitely did Amen. Thank you, Jordan. Appreciate that. I wonder if I'd get your opinion on Brian shortly I used to be under his spell, but the more I listen the more it seems like he's going It seems like only he is going Yeah, I've listened to His stuff on the federal vision that was kind of my first exposure to him and actually his response to it I've got his book. I see it right down there the Auburn Avenue theology Most that was pretty good. It was pretty pretty helpful But yeah his like hardcore Theonomy hardcore anti Christmas stuff And what else is he kind of into? Oh, there's a few sermons called Women in Pants. And I remember a long ago listening to one of those because I was curious about it. I was like, women in pants. And if I'm not mistaken, if my memory serves me correctly, the argument was thrown out there. I wonder if David's ever heard this or if any of you have ever heard of this. The prohibition against cross-dressing, that a man may not wear what pertains to a woman, a woman may not wear that which pertains to a man, is expanded in his perspective to mean that a woman cannot carry anything that a man would typically carry, including weapons. So a woman could not carry a gun or sword or anything like that. And as an illustration of this, it was said that When Ja'el, in the Book of Judges, nailed Sisera's head to the ground in the tent, the reason she used the tent peg is because it would have been an abomination for her to take up a weapon and do it. I thought, man, wow, I have never heard that before. So, because Ja'el was a woman, the passage there in the holiness code says that the a Man is not to wear that which pertains to a woman a woman is not to wear that which pertains to a man. It's not just Feminine clothing that men are supposed to wear. It's just male clothing that women are supposed to wear they can't carry things that men would typically carry like swords and Jael being a godly person would not have touched a sword because that would have been a violation of that passage and I thought that's, that's new. I, I didn't really look into that. I just kind of thought, wow, I have never heard such a thing. Um, but if my girls, I have seven daughters, they want to carry pepper spray or a gun. Um, I have guns at home. Um, I have shown them how to use the guns. In fact, my, my little girl, Maria, the first time I let her use my 12 gauge shotgun, she was awesome, man. She, we set up four targets. It was like, it was, it was awesome. Handle that thing like a champ. No problem, and it never occurred to me that that's a violation of the prohibition against cross-dressing so anyway Yeah, and I've warned some of the young guys that I know I said you gotta be careful you know you can you can get you can really get distracted with the Theonomy stuff and You know, I would, I mean, certainly I believe in the abiding validity of the law and I think that we need to have a proper view of the civil magistrate. I think abortion should be illegal. I think the government should not be doing most of the things that it does with education and all sorts of things like that. Gay marriage should not be allowed and things like that. But, um, Julia falling says would it be would it be okay to defend myself with a cast-iron skillet? Yes, cuz cuz that's not a weapon that a man would carry into war So as long as your implements of destruction are not technically weapons, and I guess that's okay I guess I mean a cast-iron skillet Probably would have been you probably could I mean John could have done more damage with the cast-iron skillet than a tent peg At least the tent pegs that we've used. I don't know maybe they were like really sharp tent pegs or something I don't know. OK, so yeah, shortly his book on the federal vision, I thought was was good and it had a lot of good documentation. I think you exposed a lot of the errors of that heresy. But yeah, I think I think shortly at least last night I heard he's in a denomination with one church in it. His it all. Yeah, yeah. So there's also the hardcore Psalms only no no musical instruments in it. And it's not just This is our, our perspective and this is, you know, we, we think that this is appropriate. It's, this is the truth and, and you're, you're dead. If you have, I mean, if you have a piano or something, then you guys are like corrupting worship and are, are evil and like, whatever. So, yeah, I don't know what he's up to lately. He is a little extreme for my, for my tastes, but, um, yeah, you said the more I listen, The more it seems like only he is going to heaven. Yeah. I know, I know that there are people who really do think that there's only like two other churches on this planet that they can have fellowship with without sinning. I'm not one of those. Um, I certainly not. There are, there are many, many, many great Christian people and lots of different denominations. And so, um, Yeah, what I tell people now is that I'm not even sure I would recommend any one denomination. You gotta know the pastor. You gotta know where he's coming from. What are his commitments? What is he focused on? What does he think the gospel is? Does he believe that God is sovereign? Does he think that man's will is ultimate in salvation and et cetera and so on and so forth? I mean, really, it depends on the pastor now. It depends completely on the pastor. some idea of who he is, where he was educated, and what he believes. So, okay. Have you read Calvin and the Federal Vision by Jeon Ku Jeon? No, I have not. I have not. Who's that? I've not heard that name before. Jeon Ku Jeon. Is that a Korean? Is that a South Korean? Yeah, I know that the reformed churches are doing very well in South Korea, which is really encouraging to hear that. Okay. Uh, David King says, uh, I fear all, all be, I fear all be heretics save thee and me. And I have my doubts about thee. That's good. That's good. Yeah. I think there's a lot of Christian people out there. And, um, I think Lord willing, when we all meet in heaven, there's gonna be a lot of, a lot of surprises. People came out of pretty bizarre backgrounds and yet they did know Christ. And so the sheep of Christ hear the voice of Christ. Even if there's all sorts of other voices squawking at them, the sheep of Christ will hear his voice and he always gets his people. I have heard of Mercersburg theology. Isn't that associated with Philip Schaff and them? In fact, I saw a reference to Mercersburg theology in the evangelical, and I looked it up in the evangelical dictionary of theology. Let me pull that up here real quick. Let's see. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Mercersburg. Let's see here if I can find it. Is it in here? Yeah, there it is. A romantic reformed theology, which during the mid 19th century stood opposed to the main developments of American religious thought. It was the work of John Williamson Nevin, a theologian, and Philip Schaff, yes, a church historian who taught at the seminary of the German Reformed Church in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania in the 1840s and 50s. Nevin had graduated from Presbyterian Princeton, had lectured there briefly, and then taught for a decade at a Presbyterian seminary in Pittsburgh before joining Mercersburg in 1840. He detailed The theological pilgrimage, which undergirded his move away from a Princeton form of Calvinism in history and genius of the Heidelberg Catechism. For Nevin, the Heidelberg Catechism, doctrinal standard of the German Reformed, exhibited the Reformation at its best before its modern decline into a rationalistic and mechanical Puritanism. Nevin criticized the direction of American Protestantism in his book, The Anxious Bench, a work which attacked revivalism for being too individualistic and good. Too emotional, good. And too much concern with the new measures. Yeah. Such as the anxious bench for souls. That's the, the anxious bench is the precursor for the altar call. That's where the altar call comes from. It comes from Charles Finney and that whole second great awakening revivalistic stream of thought in American Christianity. The new measures was drew attention to human foibles and away from the work of Christ in the church. To remedy these ills, Nevin proposed a return to classic reform convictions about Christ and his work. Mystical presence, I guess that's another book, argued that the views of the reformers, especially Calvin, provided a means to overcome superficial and subjectivistic Protestantism. It began with a dramatic assertion that, quote, Christianity is grounded in the living union of the believer with the person of Christ, and this great fact is emphatically concentrated in the mystery of the Lord's Supper, end quote. Against the view of communion as a mere memorial, Nevin presented a case for the, quote, real spiritual presence, end quote. God, he taught, comes to the church objectively though not materially in the Lord's Supper. The supper in turn should become the focus of worship and its presentation of the incarnate Christ, the center of theology. When Philip Schaff came to Mercerburg in 1844 from the University of Berlin, he brought along an appreciation for Germany's new idealistic philosophy and for its pietistic church renewal as well. His early work at Mercerburg urged Protestants toward a fuller appreciation of the Christian past. In principle of Protestantism, he suggested, for example, that the Reformation continued the best of medieval Catholicism, and he looked forward to the day when Reformed Lutheran and eventually Catholic believers could join in Christian union. Such views led to charges of heresy from which Schaff cleared himself only with difficulty. The influence of Nevin and Schaff was slight in the 1840s and 1850s. American Protestants were ill at ease with immigrants, and with anyone who spoke a good work for any aspect of Roman Catholicism. They were wholeheartedly given to revivalism, they were busy making plans for the interdenominational cooperation, and did not look kindly on Mercersburg's new reading of history. And America's dominant Protestant philosophy, common sense realism, had little room for the developmental ideals of Nevin and Schaff, The two Mersersburg stalwarts were able to work closely together for barely a decade. Nevin, after editing the Mersersburg Review from 1849 to 1853, retired because of illness and disillusionment. Schaff left Mersersburg in 1863 for teaching posts at Andover and Union Seminaries where he participated actively in the general evangelical life of America. Nonetheless, the works of the Mersersburg men remain a guidepost for Christians who share their convictions that the person of Christ is the key to Christianity, that the Lord's Supper understood in a classic reform sense as the secret to the ongoing life of the church, and that study of the church's past provides the best perspective for bringing its strength to bear on present. Interesting. Interesting. Okay. Oh, right. Really, Nevin almost went to Romanism. Yeah, I'm discouraged to see that there was an ecumenical push to some of that. They thought that Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Catholic could join cause. I mean, I know the history of that is not too great. I mean, those that hold to the classic great reform confessions of the Reformation just need to realize that that's where we're going to stay. There's probably not going to be a Lutheran Westminster confession Group all that that would do is would be to create three groups and those that stayed reformed those who stayed Lutheran and those those that joined the two groups Actually, it probably you create even more because then you'd have people from the first group saying the ones that's that Signed the concordant with the other group are heretics and then those say no, they're not heretics. It is different from us So you actually would create like five or six more groups if you did that. So anyway attempts at reunion between groups like that typically have not been very successful and Okay I've always David I've always thought that Philip Shaffer was really good like his eight volume history of the church the sections of it that I have read are really good Wasn't it wasn't he a really good theologian and like reformed guy. I he wasn't Sympathetic to Rome was he I mean, I've never gotten that impression from him. I've never read anything by John Williamson Nevin So I don't I don't know Okay Alex already answered that question. That was the first question I took up today. So you have to rewind it when this post about the God is the primary cause of sin. Could you discuss the relationship between the resurrection of Christ and our justification? Oh Think of Richard Gaffin his book resurrection and redemption Where it says that Christ was delivered over for our for our transgressions and raised for our justification Certainly, the resurrection of Christ is essential because the penalty for sin is death, and death not only has to be taken by Christ as a substitute, but he overcomes death. In fact, there's a wonderful passage that speaks of the abolition of death, abolished death, as in 2 Timothy 1, verses 8 and following. Listen to this passage. Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me as prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. So the gospel that we believe is not just the death of Christ, it's the death burial and resurrection of Christ. Think of 1 Corinthians 15 verses 1 through 4, that gospel by which you're saved, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried and that he was raised the third day according to the scriptures. So our justification before God is really tied biblically according to Romans 5, 17 or Romans 5, 12 through 19 to the whole life of obedience of Christ. His whole The incarnation, the birth of Christ is his whole life of humility, his whole state of humiliation, his whole life of law keeping, of perfect righteousness in the face of temptation there in Matthew four and Luke four, where he faces Satan in the wilderness and his whole life of perfect righteousness, his cross work to discharge the penalty of our sins, his death, his resurrection is the guarantee of our own resurrection. And so it's certainly the resurrection of Christ is essential to our justification before God. So it's not just the death of Christ or his perfect obedience to the law. It's that he died, was buried, and he rose again. He has taken the curse away. And so Richard Gaffin has tried to squeeze that phrase, raised for our justification, and really twisted it into a pretzel, into a mess. Certainly the resurrection of Christ is essential to Christianity. Without the resurrection of Christ, Paul himself says, in 1 Corinthians 15, 12 and following, if Christ is not raised, then our preaching is vain and so is your faith. And those who have fallen asleep, those who have died, have perished, and you are still in your sins. So there is something about the justification of our persons and the forgiveness of sins that is tied to the resurrection of Christ. The whole thing doesn't work if he stays dead. Because the penalty for sin, the curse of the law has to be absorbed by Christ, which he did. He died. There he bore the curse, the death curse. But he rises from the dead and abolishes death. He destroys death. That's why John Owen wrote that book, The Death of Death and the Death of Christ. When he rises from the dead, he has wiped death out of the universe. And when he comes back, death will be gone forever. As far as the curse is found, it'll be gone completely. Okay, I got a couple more emails here. Okay, those aren't questions. Uh, okay. I read about Schaff basically using Newman's development of doctrine. Oh, that the church changes to meet its current needs of the day. That one Catholic and reformed would somehow grow back together. Um, it's possible if Rome repents, um, and allows herself to be under the authority of scripture, which she does not. Um, I, I asked a question years ago on, uh, I used to get on Roman Catholic web forums and I asked them, I'd quoted 2 Timothy 3, 16, you know, a passage they're all used to seeing us quote. But I asked the question, um, you know, it says there that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. All scripture is God breathed and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction. And I just asked the question, how does scripture correct the Roman Catholic church? And after a lot of hemming and hauling and a lot of acid turned on my face, one of them finally said, it doesn't, it can't. Because we don't err. We don't make errors. That's exactly right. And that's why you bow down to statues. That's why you say idolatrous prayers to Mary and think that you're not committing idolatry. That's why you do the things you do. That's why you promote the Sabatine privilege and wear a brown scapular thinking that the Virgin Mary will come and get you out of purgatory the Saturday after your death if you die wearing a brown scapular on your forehead. because you're not able to be corrected by scripture. That's the problem. You see, the Christian church always has the word of God and is always subject to it and is reformed and corrected by it. As soon as Rome said, we can't make errors, God has not been able to speak to them ever since, unfortunately, sadly. Okay. If you have time, do you know much about the church of the Oh, David, good question. One other question. I want to ask David King real quick. John Henry Cardinal Newman, wasn't he an opponent? Wasn't he an opponent of the definition of papal infallibility? And as I understand it, didn't Newman after, he like prayed to the saints that they would, that Italian forces of independence would seize the Vatican and shut down Vatican I before it defined papal infallibility as a dogma. And then when it, when the first Vatican council said papal infallibility is a dogma, John Henry Newman had to go back and rewrite sections of his historical works to fit the new reality. Isn't that true? I've heard that before. Okay. Do you have specific tracks at your church for evangelism? Do you recommend any? Yes. Where are they? Yeah, here they are. Hang on one second. These, Ultimate Questions by John Blanchard is a great book. I have about a hundred of these. I keep these with me. And I've also used the evangelism explosion tracks, the little, the two question marks. I've got hundreds of those back there too. Those are good too, to walk people through the basics of the gospel, you know, and those, those great diagnostic questions. Um, do you know you have eternal life? If you die today, do you think you'd go to heaven? What would God say to you? You know, if you, um, if you die today. Okay. Um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um Okay, if you have time, do you know much about the Church of the Brethren and the Church of God, specifically what they believe about the gospel? Wow. Church of the Brethren, if I am thinking of the right group, that's like the real low church kind of Plymouth Brethren where they don't really have like elders and they have a very loosely structured worship service where a lot of people will talk and things like that. If that's who you're talking about, that's about all I know about them. They don't have confessions or doctrinal statements or anything like that. They tend to be Arminian, I think. Church of God is one of a bazillion splinter groups that came off of what was originally called the Church of God in Christ, which was a Pentecostal denomination. And that's one thing, the charismatic movement, when it really, when Pentecostalism hit, United States at the Azusa Street revival, and I think that was 1907, 312 Azusa Street, it immediately splintered into a bazillion little denominations. The Church of God is just one of those many, many, many, many, many charismatic denominations. And you have to be very, very careful because some of those groups, some of the Church of God groups, are oneness. They don't even believe in the Trinity. A lot of those early Pentecostal churches were non-Trinitarian. So, Um, yeah, good, good question. I hope that's probably not, um, I'm probably not really helping you much there, but sorry about that. Okay. Uh, Newman opposed payable infallibility at first, but eventually gave into it. Okay. Um, skip there for, yeah, this one, you can buy it at Amazon. This, you need to get this and read it, read it to your kids. Use it for teaching and Sunday school. It's called Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of our Faith. And if I'm not mistaken, isn't that a quotation from, is that Irenaeus that said that? That spoke about scripture being the ground and pillar of our faith. Wasn't that him? It's one of the church fathers, I remember that. Anyway, this book has got so much great stuff in it, I'm telling you. Let's see, introduction. There's a quote, where is that quote? There's a few really, there's so many great, great, great quotes here. Yeah, this recounting of a debate that William Farrell and Vera were debating some Catholic people and Calvin was sitting there with them. And he finally got up and made a brief speech and like, Even the Catholics were like thinking we're wrong. We should, we should probably repent anyway. But yeah, the quote is from your next good. Good. I thought, I thought I remembered that, that right. Um, pastor Hines, what is the best proof for the doctrine that the sign gets to stop Hebrews chapter two, uh, versus one through four. In fact, let's, we'll close it with that. Um, let's, let's walk through that. You need to mark this in your Bible. Hebrews chapter two versus one through four. Now listen carefully to this passage, particularly verse four. Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard lest we drift away. That's verse one. Verse two, for if the word spoken through angels proves steadfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward. Verse three, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also bearing witness, both with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his own will. Okay, now see verse three again, see the middle phrase of verse three. How shall we escape if we neglect the greatest salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, that's the Lord Jesus, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him that's the apostles, God also bearing witness with those guys, with those apostles, with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Signs and wonders are there for what? Why did God do signs and wonders during three major epochs of human history? Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and the apostles. Why? To bear witness to authenticate his spokespersons. When Moses, remember, it's actually, this question is much easier. Jordan Foster, thanks for being here, brother, appreciate you. The question is actually a lot easier than people make it. When Moses first is confronted with God at the burning bush, and God says, I want you to go down to Egypt and tell the Pharaoh to let my people go and tell the people that Yahweh has spoken, and I'm gonna bring you all out of Egypt. What did Moses say? What if they say, Yahweh has not appeared to you? Then what? And what does God tell Moses to do? Throw your rod on the ground, it becomes a serpent. And if they won't believe that, put your arm into your cloak and he pulls it out and it's leprous, white as snow, puts his arm back in and it's sealed. The signs and miracles and wonders were not, they were not attractions so that Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn can use their jackets like lightsabers to knock people down and throw the Holy Spirit across stadiums and gas their jets and live like Kings. Okay. Those guys don't do signs and wonders. Anyway, the signs and wonders, the real signs and wonders authenticated the true God's spokespersons from phonies. That's what it was for. Moses had those signs and wonders abilities, and he could do them at will. when he wanted to show them he spoke for God. Elijah and Elisha, same thing. Jesus and the apostles, same thing. So when people say to me, how do you know that there are no sign gifts today? Like, why are you a cessationist? I said, because there's no need for any more revelation from God. The signs and wonders were there to authenticate divine revelation. That's all. It wasn't about keeping every Christian healthy and we never get sick or have problems, baloney. Baloney, how could anyone that reads the Bible think it's never God's will for you to be sick? Seriously? Ever read the book of Job? Job wasn't being punished for anything. He was as sick as a person could be. He had boils from the top of his head to the soles of his feet. And it was by the will of God. What would Ken Copeland or Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar or any of the other ones say to him? Well, you just don't have enough faith. No, this is to show the devil that there are people that really love God because God is glorious. This is also to show all future generations. You need to hesitate before you start assigning dark providences to people's sins. Or thinking, God must be dealing with that. Look at what they're going through. Must be, uh, must be going through. They must've done something. We need to not dare. to probe into the mind of God about things like that. The signs and the wonder gifts were to authenticate the spokespersons for God. Hebrews chapter 2 verses 1 through 4. God also bearing witness with the ones that heard Jesus with signs and wonders and miracles and various gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will. That's what they're there for. People say, are you a cessationist? Yeah. Why? Because the canon is closed. There's no God, God is not speaking anymore because we don't need any more divine revelation. You have everything that you need in scripture. You don't need to be looking for more revelations from God. And if you think that you do underdog, I already understand everything in the Bible. No, you don't. No, you don't. And you need to keep studying it on your knees every day and asking God for help. Okie dokie. Uh, John show. Love your brother. Thanks for, uh, for dropping in here. Good, good time. David, thank you for coming in. I appreciate your participation and hope that was helpful to everybody. I enjoyed being with you all. I always enjoy these on Thursdays at three. That's become something I look forward to and enjoy. So, amen. No need for signs and wonders. We have a superior word from God and it's in Holy Scripture. You know, coming out of the charismatic movement, I was in it for a short time and I was always wondering, was that God or not? Was that impression the Holy Spirit or not? Or was that the spirit or the flesh? And I remember finally getting away from all that and reading Romans over and over and over again. I remember sitting in the public library on my lunch break, reading Romans 8, 33. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? I sat there and cried like a little girl in the library, on the seventh floor of the library, downtown Cincinnati, when I was a computer programmer. And it was just such a blessing. And I sat there, Weeping over that passage because I thought I don't need to wonder if this is God talking. I know it is Thank you all for being here and I love you all and we'll get together next Thursday at 3 This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, and you've been listening to the Pulpit Supplemental Podcast. You can find us on the web at www.bridwellheightspca.org. Our sermons are streamed through sermon audio, and you can listen to that on the iTunes podcast version of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church. Feel free to join us any Sunday morning for worship at 11 a.m. sharp at 108 Ridgewell Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee. And may the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.