Okay, we are live and I hope the sound is good. I really messed with the sound a whole bunch yesterday and tried a bunch of different combinations and the strangest thing is I have this microphone right here. There's actually a microphone in the this little Logitech camera. I think there's a microphone in the laptop and, um, the setting I've got it on right now works the best and I cannot tell where the microphone is. Like, I don't know which one it's actually using. I've, I tapped all these things and can never really could tell which microphone phone was actually picking up my voice. I actually recorded and walked all the way around my study and like spoke next to all the equipment in here. And I can't tell what is actually picking up my voice, but it's actually working pretty well. Uh, so. I guess it's one of those things, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it or don't mess with it. You know, if it works great, just leave it alone or whatever. So that's what we're going to do. All right. So today, today, um, you know, after preaching on Nehemiah chapter six, and I'll tell you, the book of Nehemiah has been a really, really useful book to preach on because it's really alerted me to the reality that the devil and the devil's agents, which are always everywhere, and we're always at war with them, the methods have not changed at all. The methods and the stuff that they pull has not changed in the thousands of years of Earth's history and the Kingdom of God as it has advanced. The Devil and his agents continue to do their thing, lying, slandering, plotting, scheming, family connections, trying to sow seeds of discord and scaria with this or that, and threats and mockery and everything else. I mean, not much has really changed. No, I, uh, because I've got videos out on the federal vision, I still get emails on a regular basis from people who have watched some of those videos because they're not quite sure what to make of, you know, Doug Wilson. What should we think about him? Is he, is he a good guy? Is he a bad guy? Is he, is he still part of the federal vision movement? Is he, has he repented of that? Okay. He's not repented of anything in the federal vision movement, but he still believes all of it, all of it. Um, and, As I have corresponded with folks over the years, you know, it's been an eye-opening thing. Churches in the good denominations, supposedly the good ones that are left, very often they start moving in this weird direction. This guy, you know, sends me an email, I'm fearful that my church is moving in the direction of the federal vision. Why do you say that? And he fires back, well, Uh, all the pastors are, went to a Theopolis Institute conference, the Peter Lightheart's thing. And, uh, they all worshiped at Rich Lusk's church. He's like, what do you think? You think, what do you think I should do? And I emailed him back and said, uh, run and never look back. Run for your life. Get away from that. Um, because there's no discernment about the gospel there. Okay. You need to, you need to run for your life and get away from it. But you know, In discussing that issue with folks recently, I was thinking about, you know, I wonder if that joint federal vision statement is still out there. And so I Googled it, and sure enough, it is. It's not at the original place it was. I don't know if they tried to remove it, but it's still out there in the joint federal vision statement. And I've got it linked in the show notes in the description here, so you can always see it. And I went back and reread it. And I noticed that there's a tactic that they use that I've seen before. And I had this memory, oh yeah, I read the sermon by Harry Emerson Fosdick that was preached in like probably in the 19-teens or around that time period, around the same time period that J. Gresham Machen wrote Christianity and Liberalism. Harry Emerson Fosdick preached a sermon called shall the fundamentalist win. Is the sound not working? Flora, is the sound, is it grainy or is it weird or something? Is the sound bad? Please tell me it's not. Is the sound bad? Someone else say something. Man, why can't I ever get this stuff to work? The mic sounds like it's peaking. Well, okay. The sound, the sound is bad. Man, I really thought I had it working well. I absolutely cannot get this thing to work right. I just can't. I've spent so much time fiddling with this and it just doesn't work. I just cannot get it to work. Sounds like it has a little water or something. Okay. Can you all hear me now? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Is the sound still on? Can anyone hear me? I can hear you though. Yes, but that's okay. I can understand you. There's no sound. Okay. Okay. Can you hear me now? Can y'all hear me now? Can you hear me now? Is it, is it picking up anything? So now it's using the, hold on one second here. Let me see if I can, um, maybe I can, what is this? No, not mute. Um, um, let's see. I don't have access to that feature. Hmm. Manage. Oh, it's the same. Okay. Well, let me, um, I'll push this back further from me. So it's not as close to me. Okay. All right. Is that better? Is that any better? Any better? Same results. I hate this computer. I really thought I had it working. I guess, I guess I didn't. Maybe there's some setting. Should we start over? Should I, should I mess with it and start over or just keep going? What do y'all think? Going once, going twice. I do have a program. Just keep going. Okay. All right. I'm going to keep, I'm going to press on. Um, I am recording this on my phone. Uh, so the audio on that is always good and we can edit out all this stuff. So, all right. Sorry about that. I know that that is so annoying, that like bristly sound that it does. It just, it's horrible. Okay. Anyway. So Harry Emerson Fosdick was a flaming liberal. He was a non-Christian. He was an unbeliever. He was a, um, an enemy of Jesus Christ and enemy of the Christian faith. And he was bankrolled by John D Rockefeller, um, who pushed this horrible sermon. It's called shout the fundamentalist win. And, um, he uses a tactic here that the federal vision guys use too. And I want to read this to you. In Fosdick's sermon, I actually did a series of programs, I might have just done one program and read the whole sermon and just commented on it, where Fosdick basically says, look, do we really have to hold to one particular theory of the virgin birth of Christ to be considered a Christian? Now when you first hear that, do you really have to hold to one specific theory of the virgin birth? Can't we allow for different theories of the virgin birth? Now listen to what Fawcett says here, quote, we may well begin with the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the Gospel, who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the Master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Now, listen to this. Here, for example, is one point of view, that the virgin birth is to be accepted as historical fact. It actually happened. Okay, so one theory of the virgin birth is that it happened. And then he says, that is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls that hold to it. But side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as a historical fact. So. When he says theories of the virgin birth, can't we hold to different theories and still love each other as brothers? Well, what he really means is one theory is that it happened and another theory is it didn't. Now folks, is that a different theory of the virgin birth or is it just a denial of the virgin birth? What kind of sophistry is this? Think about that. I mean, at first blush, it's like, well, can't we hold a different theories of the virgin birth and still regard each other as devoted servants of our Lord Jesus Christ? But then you find out, well, how many theories of the virgin birth can there be? Well, one theory is that it happened. And another theory is that it didn't happen. So what he's really saying is, can't we deny the virgin birth and still be Christians? And of course, no, of course not. Now, fast forward 100 years to the federal vision controversy. Now there is so much in this joint federal vision statement that's heretical and wrong and messed up and ambiguous and vague. This statement is a terrible atrocity of theology. It's a mess. Now listen to this. They have a section here called Union with Christ and Imputation. This is the Federal Vision, guys. So before I read this, let's see whose names are still on this. John Barich, Randy Booth, Tim Gallant, Mark Horn, Jim Jordan, Rich Lusk, Jeff Myers, Ralph Smith, Steve Wilkins, Doug Wilson, Peter Lightheart. Now listen, because they're gonna use the same exact approach that the flaming, liberal, God-hating unbeliever Harry Everson Fosdick used 100 years ago. Listen, on Union with Christ and Imputation, says the Federal Vision Joint Statement, we affirm Christ is all in all for us and that his perfect sinless life, his suffering on the cross and his glorious resurrection are all credited to us. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Christ is the new Adam, obeying God where the first Adam did not obey God. Sounds good, doesn't it? And Christ as the new Israel was baptized as the old Israel was, was tempted for 40 days as Israel was for 40 years. And as the greater Joshua, he conquered the land of Canaan in the course of his ministry. This means that through Jesus on our behalf, Israel has finally obeyed God and has been accepted by Him. We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him, we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father. Okay, now listen to this denial. We deny that faithfulness to the Gospel message requires any particular doctrinal formulation of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. What matters is that we confess that our salvation is all of Christ and not from us. By the way, every Mormon missionary I've ever talked to would affirm that. Our salvation is all of Christ. There's Muslims that say that. It's all of grace. You can't be saved by anything but the grace and mercy of Allah. The Armenians would say, all our salvation is all of Christ. Rome says, our salvation is all of Christ. Now what they mean by that is real different from what we mean, but think about the statement though, in light of what we just heard from Harry Emerson Fosdick, the liberal unbeliever, opponent, enemy of Christ and enemy of J. Gresham Machen, enemy of the gospel, said, can't we allow for different theories of the virgin birth? Well, what does he mean by that? Can't we deny it and still be Christians? What do they mean here? What are these federal vision men? What does Doug Wilson mean with his name affixed to this? We deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any particular doctrinal formulation of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. They mean exactly what Harry Emerson Fosdick meant. They mean you can deny it. I wondered the first time I read this, how many formulations of How many particular doctrinal formulations of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ are there? How many different theories of this are there? Well, there's the theory that it's the truth, which it is, and then there's those who deny it. One such person whose name is on this document, Rich Lusk. Rich Lusk categorically, emphatically denies the imputation of the obedience of Christ. Now I'm going to read some quotes from him. Oh, good grief. Okay. I might just pull the plug today and just record this because I actually got a good recording, um, yesterday. The microphones, um, receiving thing is turned as low as it can be turned if that's what it's recording from. Um, so sorry about that. That's terrible. But anyway, um, I am recording this on my phone, so. Yeah, I don't know. I think I'm just going to throw this microphone in the garbage. I hate it. It's never worked. From the day I got it, I have never gotten a good recording from it. It always, it's always distorted. So that's so frustrating. Okay. Let's let me see, uh, grow back up here and see who's here. There's a, well, there's a lot of folks here. That's good. Um, okay. The audio is badly distorted. I just hate that. Okay. I tried. I really tried to get it. When you speak lower, it's much better. You want me to speak softly? That's really hard for me. Okay, let me push this thing real far away from me. Let me move this out of the way. Push it way back over here. Okay, is that better? Is that any better? I'm getting to where I really, I'm really just weary of computers in general. You can't get anything to work well together, all these pieces and parts and everything. Try sitting back in your chair. Okay. Okay, so one such individual is Rich Lusk, and I wanted to read some quotations I highlighted here. Pardon me. He denies completely that there is a covenant of works in scripture. There is no meritorious covenant of works. And, of course, they all do. They all get this completely wrong. And he says, those who advocate a meritorious covenant of works put a great deal of weight on the so-called active obedience of Christ. I remember hearing sermons in which I was told, Jesus's 33 years of law-keeping are your righteousness. They were credited to you. He kept the law, the covenant of works, in your behalf. Similarly, but more formally, Dr. Smith writes, it is Christ's active fulfillment of the law that becomes the grounds of our acceptance of God. It is this righteousness that is imputed to us. And he goes on to say this, but the notion of his 33 years of Torah keeping being imputed to me is problematic. After all, as a Gentile, I was never under Torah, under the law, and therefore never under obligation to keep many of the commandments Jesus performed. That's true and irrelevant. Because Gentiles and Jews both are under the moral law of God and are required to keep all of its commandments. And that's what Christ did for us. Okay, now he goes on here to say, this may rub a lot of Reform folks the wrong way, since the act of obedience of Christ is a cherished doctrine. Many of us have heard the touching story of a dying Gresham Machen telegramming John Murray, I'm so thankful for the act of obedience of Christ, no hope without it. says Lusk, I would suggest that Machen would have been more true to Paul if he had telegrammed, I'm so thankful for the resurrection of Christ, no hope without it. No, he was right to put it the way he did, because what does Romans 5, 12 to 19 teach us? That it is through the obedience of the one man, the obedience of Christ, that we are saved. Now, you can't be saved without the resurrection of Christ, but that's not an emphasis in Paul's theology. It's just not. The resurrection is essential. It is an essential truth of the Christian faith. But not the way that Lusk is saying it here. And they key in on Romans 4, 25, raise for our justification. And they basically, they use that phrase as a mantra, a lens through which to read everything else in scripture, which is really weird. That's not how you do biblical exegesis or hermeneutics. You don't key in on a phrase and then force it into every other passage in the whole Bible. Now, he goes on to say this, and remember, all those names on the Joint Federal Vision Statement say that this is all fine. We deny that faithful gospel preaching requires any particular formulation, any particular theory of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. What is that code for? That's code for we don't care if you deny it. We don't care if you deny it, says Lusk. Rather, because I am in the Righteous One and the Vindicated One, I am righteous and vindicated. My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant. I do not need the moral content of His life of righteousness transferred to me. Okay, so what exactly did the Federal Vision Joint Statement mean when they said, we deny, let's get it exactly as they say it, we deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any particular doctrinal formulation of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. What's that code for? It's the same thing that Fosdick gave us code for about the virgin birth. What they're saying is, we don't care if it's denied. It's not like, well, there's just a few different theories and you might subscribe to this theory or that theory. It's, we don't care if you deny it. Because Lusk does deny it. Categorically denies it. I do not need Christ's moral obedience, his life of righteousness transferred to me. So these guys think that they can be faithful to the gospel without preaching that Christ's righteousness is the sole grounds of our justification. That's, that's horrendous. That's horrendous. And there are people who wonder, well, are these guys orthodox or are they good guys or bad guys? They're heretics, every one of them is. They don't understand the covenant of works or the covenant of grace. They don't understand the law gospel distinction. I mean, listen to this, the very next little thing here. Just let me just read this to you from the joint federal vision statement. We affirmed that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by his law, which they disobey and his gospel, which they also disobey. Isn't that so clear? Yeah. You disobey the gospel. There is one reference in the new Testament. I believe it's in second Thessalonians chapter one, verses seven and following that speaks of those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, what do they, what does the scripture mean by that? Meaning they don't obey the imperatives, repent and believe that is the only sense in which the gospel is to be obeyed. It comes with those imperatives, repent and believe. He says, the Joint Federal Vision Statement says, when they have been brought to the point of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious nature of all God's words becomes evident to them. Did you hear that? So the law is grace. And they say, at the same time, we affirm that it's appropriate to speak of law and gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the time of the law being the old covenant era, and the time of the gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God's people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary. So people, when they first come to Christ, they, not always, but frequently experience the law as an adversary. Okay, stop. If you don't experience the law as that which condemns you before God and then flee to Christ for your salvation, you're not a Christian. And by the way, as a Christian, the law becomes gentle instruction to us on how to please God, how to show our gratitude to God, but the law always, when it comes to satisfying its requirements, it always condemns us and drives us to Christ. Oh, good grief. Listen to this part. We deny that the law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news. So if you're a Christian, the commandment, you shall have no other gods before me. That's good news. Even though that commandment is not something you can keep and the threat of damnation is still attached to it. If you're, if you're not trusting in Christ alone, see, this is so ambiguous. It's so impossible to make any sense out of this. I mean, who knows what they're trying to say? It's Theo Babel. The whole thing is this stuff drives me crazy. I'm not even going to read the section on justification, my faith on it. That would just get me going on a five hour rant. Okay. I wanted to read something else to you here in closing. John Brown of Haddington, a dear, a dear man of God who lived long before there ever was a, this particular controversy. John Brown of Haddington is, is in the eight or excuse me, in the 1700s as I, as I recall, his, his dates. Yeah, 1722 to 1787. And he's brilliant. He's, he's a wonderful theologian. He wrote a really great book called counsel to gospel ministers, counsel to gospel ministers. Okay. Uh, let me just see real real quick here. What are you guys all yakking about over here? Um, I think his voice, how can you deny what is truth? What? Let's see. Okay. When you speak lower, it's much better. All right, I'm gonna try to speak softly. You have no idea how hard that is for me to do. But anyway, Council to Gospel Ministers is a series of letters that John Brown of Haddington wrote to people. And he's so clear. He understands the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace. He doesn't mix the categories and try to say, well, the Covenant of Works is a gracious covenant or anything weird like that. Listen to what he says here. This is letter number two. I wanted to read this. Basically has a list of things here, and he's saying, you're not preaching the gospel, right? One of the things he lists is, unless you truly represent the state of sinner's justification before God only through the imputed righteousness of Christ offered in the gospel and received by faith, uniting their persons to him as their surety and husband, who has completely paid their debt to the law as a broken covenant of works. and show that no works of theirs, no, not those which some call evangelical, have any influence or any part or ingredient of the condition and ground of it. Isn't that good? I read this book a while ago, a few years ago. It really, really was encouraging to read because it's just right on the money. In letter number three that he wrote to some young students, he said this, in preaching the law as a broken covenant, The aim of the evangelical preacher is not to persuade sinners to endeavor to observe its precepts, that by their obedience they may be justified before God, but to convince them of their guilt, misery, and inability to save themselves, to drive them from it, from the law, from the broken covenant of works, to drive them from that to Jesus Christ as the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in them, and to persuade believers to beware of returning to their Egyptian bondage or of looking back to the flaming Sodom from which the Lord has mercifully delivered them. But safe under Jesus's shadow, his purple covering of perfect righteousness imputed and applied to them to admire what he undertook and fulfilled for sinful men, and for them in particular, and influenced by this to yield to the very utmost sincere and grateful obedience to his easy yoke, the law as the rule of their life. And then he goes on from there, this last paragraph, and then we'll stop. He says, under the deepest impression of his own sinfulness, he should explain to his hearers the foul depravity of their hearts, how they are naturally dead in trespasses and sins, under the reigning power of indwelling lusts, how while they are in the flesh or corrupt state, they cannot please God. but their carnal heart will remain enmity against God and not subject to His law. How from this heart, deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, which not only disqualify them for everything spiritually good, but render them incapable to cease from sin, speaking and doing evil things to the utmost of their power. Affected with the terrors of the Lord, he ought, the gospel minister, ought to represent how the law, as a broken covenant, is the strength of sin, not merely as a sinner's outrageous heart is by the view and impression of its strict precepts and fearful curses, irritated and provoked more exceedingly to hate God, the lawgiver, and to work wickedness with redoubled rage, despair, and greediness, But chiefly, as the curse or condemnatory sentence of the broken covenant lays by an almighty influence its sinful subjects under the reigning power and force of sin as a principal ingredient in that spiritual and eternal death threatened against every transgressor, he should show the gospel minister should show from the sacred oracles how this curse lying on men renders it impossible for them to escape from the dominion of sin while they remain under the law and are not yet brought under grace. How it is impossible for them to live to God, or bring forth the fruits of holiness, till they become dead to the law by the body of Christ. How absurd it is, in the highest degree, to attempt any reformation of heart or life before God, while a man continues in a state and way of subjection to that law, which is the strength of sin. Nay, how even God's almighty grace does not change our nature or confer on us any spiritual blessing. but in first translating us from under that broken covenant by the application of Christ's law-magnifying righteousness to our person and conscience." Now, what's John Brown of Haddington's point there? The imputed righteousness of Christ is the heart, is the heart of the gospel. So, counsel to gospel ministers, If you leave that up, if you think, well, faithful gospel preaching doesn't require us to hold to any particular theory of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, folks, that kind of approach of saying, well, do we really have to hold to this theory of justification or this theory of the imputation of Christ's righteousness? Do we really have to hold to a specific theory of the virgin birth? Always remember what Harry Emerson Fosdick meant when he said that. Do we have to hold to one particular theory of the virgin birth? What is he really saying? Do we have to believe it at all? Isn't it okay if we deny it? And that's exactly what those federal vision men did too. When they said, we deny that faithful gospel preaching requires any particular doctrinal formulation of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ, the reason that Rich Lusk's name is on there is because he denies that truth. He denies the imputation of Christ's act of obedience. He openly mocks and rejects it. So what are they really saying? What are they really saying? What are the federal vision guys really saying? Some of us might hold to that formulation, but we're okay if you deny it. We don't care if you deny it. And I say, and let you all be anathema. That's another gospel, which is no gospel at all. Period. End of discussion. Case closed. That's all there is to it. So I just want to warn y'all. I've been thinking a lot about Satan's methods and his agents and the way that they think and write and the subtleties of speech that they use. The smooth words of flattery that they use to deceive the hearts of the simple. Listen to Romans chapter 16, 17 and following. Paul says, Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. Let me give you an example of smooth words and flattering speech. Again, just listen to it again, now that we've gone through this material. Says Harry Emerson Fosdick. Harry Emerson Fosdick, who was a liberal, did not believe the Bible was inspired, did not believe in the virgin birth, did not believe in the substitutionary atonement, says, I know people in the Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the gospel, who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Okay, what are these different points of view? I mean, guys, aren't we okay with different points of view? Shouldn't we be okay with different points of view? Well, what does Fosdick mean by this? Well, one point of view of the virgin birth is, it's a historical fact. Another point of view is, it's not a historical fact. So when people start talking about, we're not saying you have to formulate this in exactly the same way we do. What they're really saying is, we don't care if you deny it. Why wouldn't they just come right out and say that? Because they're satanic agents. That's why. Because they're trying to lure in the unsuspecting. Because they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. By smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. But folks, now is not the time for us to be simpletons who are easily misled by this kind of stuff. When you hear people, we deny that faithfulness to the gospel requires any particular formulation of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. What they really mean by that is, you can deny it. And we're fine with that. I just gave you the quotations from one of the signatories, Lusk. I mean, he says it. I mean, listen to that again. Says Rich Lusk, whose name is on that document. Uh, he says, I, uh, he says my, excuse me. I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness transferred to me. Well, that's just one particular theory. That's just one point of view. Um, that's like saying, uh, you know, what one point of view is that my car's in the parking lot. And another theory is that it's not. Well, those are total contradictions. No, there's just different points of view. One point of view of the Trinity is that God is three persons. And another point of view is what Benny Hinn said, that the Trinity is nine persons. Well, what are you saying? Is there some kind of a doctrinal test to get into heaven? You have to get perfect score in your theology. What do you think? We're saved by perfect theology. And that's the way these people think. That's the way they really think. There's just different points of view. Just know, dear ones, that Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Liberals tried that a hundred years ago, and it worked on a lot of people. It didn't work on Machen. It didn't work on people who were well-catechized and understood how not to be simple and easily misled. A lot of the people taken in by the federal vision thought, well, can't we allow for different doctrinal formulations of the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ? What are they clearly saying when they say that? Well, Rich Lusk says, I do not need the moral content of Christ's life of righteousness transferred to me. In other words, he rejects the imputation of the act of obedience of Christ. Well, that's just one particular doctrinal formulation. Okay. Am I, am I beating a dead horse here? Watch out for this stuff. People that are supposed to be these, you know, real strong conservatives and cultural conservatives, and they're always on the right side of the LGBT issues. Watch out for their theology. Listen carefully. Watch yourself. Don't be tricked. Don't be misled by this kind of stuff. And always remember Harry Everson Fosdick. That worked on a lot of people back then too, a hundred years ago. I mean, there's wonderful servants of Christ who hold to different points of view about the virgin birth. One point of view being it's true. Another point of view being it's false. That's like saying, well, yeah, I'm a Christian. Well, well, what do you think about the existence of God? Well, can't we allow for different points of view on that? One point of view is he exists. Another point of view is he doesn't. And we all evolved. No, that's not a different point of view. That's a denial of a truth. And folks, we can't be so naive so as not to recognize things like that. But we live in a time of incredible naivete. We really, we really do. Okay. Um, let's see. Wow. I feel sorry for that guy. Uh, let's see. Every word in the Bible is true. It would be better for a preacher to fall and break his neck on his way to the pulpit than lead the people astray. Yep. Calvin. Calvin is correct on that one. Um, yeah, Julia falling says I had a professor who said he wasn't all that Trinitarian. Yeah, that's like my wife. Um, well the pregnancy says, says I'm mostly pregnant. You, I'm a, I'm not all that pregnant. God, God, um, is not all that existent. Oh, let's see what else is in here. Um, How wrong can someone be and still be a true Christian? That's a good question. That's a tough question. I would say John 6 44 and 45 Strictly verse 45 as it is written in the prophets. They shall all be taught by God the elect of God when they're born again when they're regenerated They know because they're taught by God how to how to trust in Christ alone for their salvation They will never be led astray from that and I think that bare-bones rock-bottom minimum is Um, they, they might get some of their, it's not that they reject the doctrine of the Trinity or they reject biblical truth. It's just, they just don't understand it. But in their hearts, they are trusting only in Jesus Christ. Before I'd ever even heard of the doctrine of justification. If you had pressed me, I would have said, yeah, it's Christ alone. Well, what about your works? Don't you think I would have been like, no, my works don't play any role in getting me into heaven at all. None. And I'd never even heard of the doctrine of justification at that point in my life when I was a very young Christian. But God is the one who teaches his people how to trust in Christ alone. So I think that's really, um, that's what I would say to that. Okay. Um, I'm so sorry about the sound issue. We got to figure this out. I wonder if there's a, um, and I'm setting up the live link. I bet you that's what I did wrong. I had it set up to record my computer using my, um, video camera software. I bet I probably didn't. have it on the same microphone setting when I set up the live one so I'll maybe that's what it is and I'll try to get that we'll try to test it before I do this again next time but I'm gonna go ahead and knock off there I've got to get back to work on my on my sermon but well Ruth whoever Ruth is here thinks the sound is fine so I guess if I sit back and talk a little softer which is really hard for me maybe that will work better but thank you all so much for being here and for listening and I did record this on my phone so maybe my dear brother can take the phone recording and lay it on top of this to make it better, but we'll try to get this resolved one way or the other eventually, but thank you all for watching or for listening. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Birdwell Heights Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee. You can visit us on the web at BirdwellHeightsChurch.com where all the sermons and podcasts are put into our sermon audio feed, which is accessible in iTunes as well as the podcast app. You are welcome to join us any Sunday morning for Sunday school for all ages at 10 a.m. and then worship for everyone at 11 a.m. If you ever have any questions about the Christian faith or the Bible, you can email me at pastor at brittleheightschurch.org. 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.