Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast. Making theology central. Good evening, everyone. It is Wednesday, September the 18th, 2024. It is currently 629 p.m. Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio, located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, before I do anything else, let me explain that in the background, I don't know if you can hear it, that is my next-door neighbor. He's mowing his yard, and, well, his lawnmower is a little loud. So you may hear that some in the background. I just want you to know what that is. Some people would say you shouldn't even mention it because nobody will even hear it, but I want you to at least know so you're not sitting there going, what does that sound in the background? What does that sound in the background? So, so, you know, so if you hear that, you can ignore it, but that's not our focus. Our focus is to try our very best to redeem to make something that was a disaster into something that is profitable. We want to try to take something that was, well, burned into ashes and something will arise out of those ashes that will be profitable for you. This is what happened earlier today. I decided to review some audio. And I decided to review some audio because it seemed that the audio was very much connected to our ongoing series, A Survey of Eschatology. And we've been working on the Davidic Covenant. We've taken a little break from it. We've taken some detours. But I want to get back to it possibly this Sunday. And I'm like, well, you know, here is in my on my sermons 2.0 app under the feed tab here's a message entitled restoration of israel part one i'm like well if here's a message about the restoration of israel well then by all means let's just review that because we've been talking a little bit about obviously the the covenants, how they pertain to Israel, and how that many of those promises and those covenants haven't been fulfilled. So we believe that will be fulfilled literally to a literal Israel. We've talked about all of that, right? So I thought it would be easy to do. It would be great. But remember, I hold to a philosophy. And my philosophy sometimes makes me look very stupid, and some would argue that how many times before you realize that your philosophy is broken, but I refuse to change my philosophy, but my philosophy is this. Whenever I review anything, I don't listen to it first. The reason why is I want to create the idea that when I'm reviewing something is that we're all listening to it together for the very first time. You don't know what's about to be said. I don't know what's about to be said. It's not something where I've listened to it, ooh, this is really bad. I could trash this, I could criticize this, and all my reactions are almost produced and rehearsed. I know, I don't like that. I like it to be, I don't have a clue, you don't have a clue, we're listening together in real time. And whatever happens, happens. No one can accuse me of just trying to find audio so that I can criticize it to make myself look smart. No, I'm just listening to things. In this case, we've been talking about eschatology. Here's a message about the restoration of Israel. It fits perfectly with where we are in our study of eschatology. This will add to it. Let's go. So, it was pretty simple, pretty straightforward. We hit play, and immediately we were like, wait, wait, okay. So this sounds like it's a radio broadcast. And then, but the radio broadcast, he kept saying, we're going to be talking about the restoration of Israel. We're going to be talking about the restoration of Israel. And he kept dragging it out and dragging it out. And so then the next thing you know, he's reading an email. Then the next thing you know, he's doing like 15 minutes of reading prayer requests. And then he played like, I don't know, it's like five, 10 minute, maybe 15 minute musical interlude. And so I had to sit there and kind of mute the, turn the music down. It just, we didn't really get anywhere. But if we were to summarize what we did get, here was the hypotheses put forth to us in the message that we were reviewing, all right? Here was the hypotheses. Hypotheses number one, the Bible only speaks of two restorations of the nation of Israel. The first one is when they come back from Babylonian captivity, they will be restored to the land, the nation of Israel will be restored. That's restoration number one. Restoration number two is at the end where Christ will return, the enemies will be destroyed, and then they are restored in the Millennial Kingdom. So basically we have coming out of Babylonian captivity and going into the Millennial Kingdom. Those are the only two restorations. Now his argument is 1948, okay, when Israel became a nation wasn't a fulfillment of any of these restorations. He made the argument that Israel was brought back together in 1948 so that they could be scattered again so that they can be brought back in the millennial kingdom. Okay, I don't have a major problem with that. Okay, I guess, if you want to say that. Now, there were some things he said about the Holocaust. I kind of got a little nervous. We won't go into all that, but his argument is two restorations. 1948 is not a fulfillment of any of these restorations. I do agree with that. 1948, when Israel becomes a nation, does not, I believe, fulfill most of these prophecies about Israel being back. No, it doesn't. Just no way it does. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form. So I agree that you have two basic restorations. I don't know if I say that they were brought back in the land in 1948 so that they can be scattered again during Jacob's trouble of the tribulation so that they can then be restored. I think that there's two restorations, and 1948 is a sign, is a hint, is a preview of what is to come. I think that's a better way of explaining it. Now, he did handle Matthew 24 in a way which I disagree with. This was another thing he did. He says in Matthew 24, starting in verse 15, He argued that Matthew 24 verse 15, 16, 17, 18 following, that that has never occurred and that this will occur during the tribulation prior to the restoration of Israel in the millennial kingdom. I completely reject that perspective. Matthew 24, 15 and following, in fact, most of Matthew 24, is about 70 AD. This occurred in 70 AD when Israel, in a sense, we'll just say it this way, was wiped off the face of the earth. All right? They were gone. And this is what happened. This is referring to 70 AD. So many people go to Matthew 24 and say, this is prophesying what is to come. This was prophesying what was to come for those people at that time, and it was fulfilled in 70 AD. Now you say, well, there's some parts that wasn't fulfilled in 70 AD, okay. But those would be very few, very few things in Matthew 24, because this was focused on Jesus walks out of the temple. The disciples are like, look at this temple. And Jesus is like, it's all going to come down. There's not going to be one stone upon another. And they're like, when is this going to happen? And then he gives them the signs for the destruction of that temple. Not a future temple, but the temple that was standing when he was there on earth. So we disagree with that. I agree with the Bible basically has two restorations. coming out of the Babylonian captivity, and then the Millennial Kingdom, that there are prophecies in the Bible that have not been fulfilled for Israel. I disagree with the Amillennial perspective that would say these prophecies have to be fulfilled spiritually inside the church. I think they have to be literally for the nation of Israel. We had broadcasted for almost an hour, over an hour, probably close to an hour and a half before we really started getting anywhere. And then, well, the program went to a break. Then they played like a, I don't know, three, four minute kind of little clip of a sermon with music in the background. I fast forwarded past all of that. They just came out of the break. And then, so in a break, they play that kind of musical interlude with a sermon. Then they come back, read an email about a chaplain needing Bibles. Then, now finally, they're getting back to the teaching. So we're going to get back to the teaching. and where we're gonna discuss more about the restoration of Israel and we will see where this goes. Now he did promote a book by Peter Ruckman. and I do not agree with Peter Ruckman in any way, shape, or form. Ruckmanites, Ruckmantism, however you would like to refer to Peter Ruckman's teaching, I believe, no, absolutely no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I may agree that Peter Ruckman and what he may have taught about the restoration of Israel, but I believe what the restoration of Israel from what's in the Bible, not what Peter Ruckman said, because I disagree with a lot of his theology. But other than that, That's kind of all we really got in the first hour and a half of review. Now, I just feel like we had to... I couldn't leave it there, right? I would not be able to go to bed tonight going, I did almost 90 minutes or over 90 minutes of that review on the restoration of Israel part one, and it was a disaster. And now I'm just going to go to bed and leave it there? I can't. So, I wanted to come back to it. Again, if you want to find this, because this is only part one, they're going to do multiple parts. Let me go to the Sermon Audio, Sermons 2.0 app. The name of the sermon is Restoration of Israel, part one. By now the end begins Bible study archives. Now the end begins Bible study archives. That's the broadcast. They're up to 32 downloads. That's good. They were only at 20. I want everyone to download it. I want everyone to hear the rest. So here we go. Let's jump in and let's see what we can learn. As always, thank you very, very much. All right, let's just jump right into, we have set the table, we understand where we are, and our topic tonight is the restoration of Israel. And we are gonna focus tonight on the throne of David. Dr. Ruckman has a booklet called The Restoration of Israel. You can go to our website, our bookstore website, that is biblebeliever.com. and you can get yourself a copy of The Restoration of Israel by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. It's a series of six messages on the physical and spiritual restoration promised to the nation of Israel in the scriptures. I have read it dozens of times, and I promise you it will be a blessing for you. If you get the book, great, that's all great. Someone already emailed me earlier today and the book is available on Amazon. I would just say. You know, use caution, be very aware about Peter Ruckman. If you go to way of life literature, which is also more like it within the realm of independent fundamental Baptist where Peter Ruckman operated, they have a critique of Peter Ruckman's teaching. What about Peter Ruckman? If you just go to way of life literature and just do a search for Peter Ruckman, you will, I mean, maybe at some point we'll go through some of his teachings, but yeah, problematic would be an understatement. Yeah, there. So, but if you get that book, great. What I would challenge you to do is just go through the Bible and look for all the promises of the restoration and the regathering of Israel, and then just ask yourself, did this ever occur? And if it did not, well, then what do you do with it? Do you say, either you have to find a way to say it's already happened, or you have to say it's going to happen, but it happened in the church, and it's spiritual, and it's not really Israel, and I think that's a problem hermeneutically. All right, so let's see where we're going to go here. So we are looking at something called the throne of David. And this throne is talked about dozens of times in the Old Testament. And let's just get a couple of random verses regarding the throne of David. Turn to 2 Samuel 3, verse 10. And we're going to be going over a lot of verses tonight. 2 Samuel 3, verse 10. To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan even to Beersheba. to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah. Now, it's funny. You know who King Saul represents in the Old Testament? He represents Antichrist. Okay, this just took a turn. All right, on one hand, when he says we're going to talk about the throne of David, I get excited because we've been looking at the Davidic covenant and our study on eschatology. All right, so I'm like, okay, see, I made a good decision to choose this audio to review because it will supplement what we're doing. This will add to it. Now, this just took an absolutely bizarre turn and I don't know where to go. So Saul represents Antichrist? Now, can you say Saul represents Antichrist or can you say... Saul demonstrates many of the attributes and characteristics often associated with Antichrist. Maybe it's in how you say it. Because when you say it dogmatically, Saul represents Antichrist, you're just saying, like, it's dogmatically so. You would need a verse to say Saul is a representation of Antichrist. Or you would need verses about the Antichrist that connects it to Saul. If you don't have that, you can say, I see a correlation. I see something alike or in common. So I would challenge, now, if you want to do this, again, if you want to take your study a little further, grab a piece of paper, right? Draw a line down the middle of it, all the way down to the bottom, separating it into two halves. One half put Saul, the other half put Antichrist. Start with Antichrist. Find every verse that mentions Antichrist, what Antichrist is like, etc, etc, etc. And then after you have your list and you kind of write out what these verses say, just a little like, summary, okay, Antichrist has described this or Antichrist does this. Then start looking up verses about Saul that correlates to those attributes, characteristics, and actions. That would be an interesting study. But I would not then say dogmatically Saul represents or is a picture of or a symbol of Antichrist in the Old Testament. I would just say Saul has the same characteristics and attributes of Antichrist. If you want to work on that, that could be fun, but there you go. So let's see if he's going to offer us some support for his perspective. King Saul was one of the most wicked kings that Israel ever had. And in 2 Samuel 3, verse 10, it says, to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah. Now, again, that's it. Now, I see kind of where he's doing here. So this is kind of interesting. I am fascinated by where he's going. But again, I would ask this question. How would we quantify or qualify that Saul was the most wicked king? How do you qualify who's the most wicked? How do you quantify this? How do you qualify this? Here are the characteristics that make him most wicked. We could get into discussion there, but let's just see where he goes. You know what happens immediately before Jesus returns at the second advent? The Antichrist takes control of the entire world for seven years. That is what the kingdom of Saul represents. And in 2 Samuel 3, verse 10, there's a translation going on. It is translating from the kingdom of Antichrist to setting up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah. Turn to 1 Kings 2, verse 12. 1 Kings chapter 2 verse 12, Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was established greatly. 1 Kings chapter 2 verse 12, Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was greatly established. You know who King Solomon represents? King Solomon represents Jesus Christ. King Solomon represents Jesus Christ? Now, just remember King Solomon, all right? So Saul represents the Antichrist. King Solomon represents Jesus. Now just think this through. Solomon represents Jesus. Solomon was a man who, well, he basically was the hitman for David because he killed a bunch of people that David had killed. And we've talked about that. He also was a serial polygamist, a serial adulterer, and an idolater. All right, so, all right, just keep that in mind. And the Bible says this about King Solomon in his relationship to David and to God. And give me just one second. I had the verse and I lost it. Give me one second here. The verse that I'm... Here it is, 2 Samuel 7. 2 Samuel 7. Let's read verses 12 through 14. 2 Samuel 7, verses 12 through 14. And when thy days be fulfilled, God is talking to David, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. Talking about the kingdom of King Solomon, Solomon writes Proverbs and the book of Ecclesiastes. I will set up his seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom, He shall build in house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for how long? For ever. Solomon sits on the throne of David and look in verse 14. I will be his father and he shall be my son if he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. But my mercy shall not depart away from him as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house, he's talking to David now, and thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee. Thy throne shall be established forever. Verse 17 says, according to all these words and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. I want you to look at the last couple of verses that I just read, and I want you to underline where it says that this kingdom and this throne is going to be established forever. Okay, now we talked about this, we talked about this, if I can speak correctly, we talked about this in our discussion about the Davidic covenant, right? So my issue is he made a dogmatic assertion, a dogmatic claim that Saul represents Antichrist. There was no scriptural support given. Solomon represents Jesus. no support given as of yet. So I'm a little concerned where he just makes like these dogmatic assertions. This person represents this person. Again, it's how you state it. Hey, if you build out a comparing and a contrasting say, chart of Saul and Antichrist, you may come up with some interesting things, right? And we could possibly, we could circle back and work on that at some point, right? Maybe in another broadcast we'll throw out that theory and we will make it a hypothesis and we will test it. But to say that Solomon represents Jesus is somewhat concerning to me, again, because Solomon was a serial adulterer, a serial polygamist. He murdered, you know, killed a number of people. and he was an idolater. I just don't know how you—that's the representation of Jesus, right? Like, okay, so what do you mean by that? What do you—are there some similarities between Solomon and Jesus? Like, what is Solomon the—like, yeah, yeah. So let's see if he gets—if he circles back to that. That is not just in the lifetime of David or in the lifetime of Solomon or in the lifetime of the Old Testament. or in the lifetime of the New Testament, this throne that the Bible calls the throne of David is a everlasting throne. It is a eternal throne. Now, where did we start this Bible study? We started this Bible study in Luke 1, verses 32 and 33. Luke 1, 32. He shall be great. talking about Jesus, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. Now, does that remind you of anything? Turn to the book of Isaiah. Turn to chapter 9, Isaiah chapter 9. Let's look at verses 6 and 7. We tend to think of these verses as the Christmas verses. Again, there was no proof of Solomon being a picture of Jesus. There was nothing there. There was nothing there. So, I don't know if he thinks reading those verses about the Davidic covenant and what Solomon would do and about him. I don't get it. I don't get it. Now, so let's just move on. Let's just move on. All right. So now we're in Isaiah chapter nine, verse six and seven. He's gonna read it and we'll see what he has to say here. But they're really not. Isaiah 9, verse 6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For unto us a child is born in a manger. Unto us a son is given, the only begotten son. And the government shall be upon his shoulder. And his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit. Three in one, He is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Holy Spirit? Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? There's one God, three distinct persons who are co-equal and co-eternal. Did He just walk into modalism? I'm going to look something up here. I'm going to look something up here. Alright, so here we go. Modalism is a theological belief concerning the nature of God, particularly within the context of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity. Modalists assert that God is a singular entity who reveals himself in different modes or forms rather than being three distinct persons. When you say the Son is the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit and the Son is the Son, that's one is Pentecostalism. This is almost a denial of the Trinity. Are they Trinitarian? Okay, hang on, I gotta look something up. Okay, I am a little bit confused here, all right? There's a website here. I'm gonna see if I can find their doctrinal beliefs. I'm gonna find their doctrinal beliefs here, hang on. About, about, let's see here. Statement of faith, all right, hang on. Statement of faith, see if I can get to it. Hang on. Statement of faith. All right, here we go. Statement of faith. We believe in one God eternally existing in a triune form in nature, the Father, the only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe that thou, while they are equal in the Godhead, that all power has been placed in the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Further, we believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are present in Jesus. Who? Okay, wait a minute. That sounds... Okay. All right. Okay. Hang on. Give me some, I'm typing something out. Yeah, okay, all right. Okay, so, yeah, well, I'm asking AI here, because I'm very concerned. Okay, so let's go back to what modalism is. Okay, this, okay, now, now, oh, this is getting, all right, now I'm getting worried here, all right? We're trying to talk about the restoration of Israel, and he just kind of went all wacky right there, just went wacky, because he basically said the Son is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit. That's one is Pentecostalism. There's one who takes on three different modes. There's one God who manifests himself as Father, then as Son, then as Spirit, but it's just one. No, it's one God who exists three distinct persons who are co-equal and co-eternal. They are distinct in their person. So, modalism is a theological belief concerning the nature of God, particularly within the context of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity. Modalists assert that God is a singular entity who reveals himself in different modes or forms rather than being three distinct persons as traditionally understood in the Trinitary doctrine. According to modalism, there are merely different manifestations or roles that the one God assumes at different times rather than being distinct persons who coexist eternally. For example, God might appear as Father in creation, the Son during Jesus' incarnation, and the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This belief was deemed heretical by early Christian councils because it denies the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who are fully God and are co-eternal. Key figures in early Church history, such as Tertullian, strongly oppose modalism, arguing that it compromises the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. We've talked about modalism. That sounds very modalistic. That sounds very Oneness Pentecostal. So I'm getting really nervous here, right? So then they provide what they believe to be a definition of the Trinity, right? So their statement of faith is, we believe in one God eternally existing in a triune form in nature, the Father, the Only Begotten Son, and His Holy Spirit. We believe that while they are equal in the Godhead, that all power has been placed in the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Further, we believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are present in Jesus, who is the fullness of the Godhead." What is that? So I asked AI about this, and this is how AI understood it. The statement you provided contains element that could potentially suggest a modalistic understanding, though it is not fully explicit. Let's break it down. We believe in one God eternally existing in triune form and nature. This phrase seems to affirm a belief in the Trinity as it acknowledges one God existing in triune form. However, the use of form and nature might imply a non-Trinitary interpretation depending on how form is understood. We believe that while they are equal in the Godhead, that all power has been placed in the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. This could reflect the belief that Jesus as the incarnate Son has been given all authority. This is consistent with Orthodox Trinitary teaching. which recognizes the distinct persons of the Trinity with different roles or function. However, placing a strong emphasis on Jesus as the sole bearer of all power might suggest a functional hierarchy that could be viewed different by various theological perspectives. We believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are present in Jesus. This part of the statement is crucial. It cites Colossians 2.9, which says, For in Christ all the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form. In Trinitarian orthodoxy, this is understood to mean that Jesus is fully God, but not that the Father and the Holy Spirit are subsumed within him. In contrast, modalism teaches that one God appears in different modes and might interpret this statement to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just different manifestations with Jesus Christ rather than distinct persons. Thus, the statement could lean towards a modalistic understanding. So, it is very concerning here. We believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Lord, and that Jesus created everything, and that Jesus is coming for his church. Lastly, we believe that all the Godhead exist in Jesus Christ for reasons already stated. There is one, and one in three, and one in the middle died for me. That is a problematic, that is not a very orthodox explanation of the Trinity. That is very problematic. That's very problematic, ladies and gentlemen. That's very problematic. There's three distinct persons who are co-equal and co-eternal. So, okay, I'm gonna ask AI. Hang on. I'm going to look something up here. All right, here we go. I apologize having to type that. Yeah, okay. If someone says that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that would not be a Trinitarian understanding. I'm gonna back this up and see if he said that. I'm gonna see, I'm gonna, I, this does not sound like the Trinity. This does not sound like the Trinity. As soon as I heard this, okay, I'm gonna back it up a little bit here. Just, I'm gonna back it up a little bit. All right, let's see if we can find where he said it. Isaiah chapter nine, verse six. For unto us a child is born, Unto us a son is given, for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For unto us a child is born in a manger. Unto us a son is given, the only begotten Son, and the government shall be upon His shoulder. and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit. He just said Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If someone says that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that would not be a Trinitarian understanding. In Trinitarian doctrine, which is the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are fully God, yet there is only one God. They coexist eternally and have distinct roles, but they are not to be confused with one another. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. If someone were to say that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that reflects a modalistic understanding, where the belief is that the one God reveals himself in three different modes or forms as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but these are not distinct persons. In this view, Jesus would be seen as simply taking on different roles or manifestations, depending on the situation. This view was rejected as heretical by early church councils because it denies the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is a core tenet of Trinitarianism." This is a denial of Trinitarianism. This is not... I'm going to back that up again. This is seriously problematic here. This is seriously problematic. I'm going to go back here. Here we go. Isaiah 9, verse 6. For unto us a child is born. Unto us a son is given. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For unto us a child is born in a manger. Unto us a son is given, the only begotten Son, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three, the one in the middle died for me. Behold Israel, our God is one. Of the increase, verse 7, of his government and peace, there shall be no end upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. The throne of David is an everlasting throne. The throne of David is an eternal throne. Turn to... We're gonna stop right there, because that is not good. All right, ladies and gentlemen, all the stuff you may be seeing about the restoration of Israel, great, okay. Look, here's what, I would rather I would rather have massive, I will put it this way, it's perfectly acceptable to have massive disagreements about the restoration of Israel, right? Well, it's going to be a literal restoration of a literal Israel and a literal land and literal fulfillment of a literal nation or no, Israel was replaced basically by the church. You can have disagreements within that and you're still within the realm of Christianity. You get the Trinity wrong, you've left the realm of Christianity because you are literally defining Either God is a Trinity—one God, three distinct persons are co-equal or co-eternal—or He is not. And either the modalistic understanding is right or the Trinitarian understanding is right. They both cannot be right. Only one can be right, and you're literally dealing with the very nature of God. And you get the nature of God wrong, then you have a false God, and then, ladies and gentlemen, you no longer have Christianity. That is a massive issue. Their statement of faith is very confusing. In fact, I'm going to ask something, okay? I'm going to ask this. I'm going to just do some more search here. Would this be a Trinitarian understanding. OK, all right, here we go. So even AI has a little problem, even with our last statement, that whole, all right, the three and one, and one and three, and the one in the middle died for me. Even that little statement they threw there at the end. Even AI is kind of like, wait a minute, wait a minute. Here's what AI says. The phrase, 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 and the 1 in the middle died for me appears to reflect elements of Trinitarian language, but it could potentially lead to misunderstanding depending on interpretation. Here's how it aligns with Trinitarian understanding. 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. The phrase captures the essence of the Trinitarian doctrine, which teaches that God is one, in essence of substance, but exist in three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So that part aligns with Trinitarian theology. The one in the middle died for me, this refers to Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, the Son who died for humanity's salvation. This is also consistent with Trinitarian belief because it specifically identifies Jesus as the one who died on the cross. However, the phrase, the one in the middle, could be metaphorical metaphorical or poetic and might imply that Jesus is central within the Trinity, but it needs careful handling to avoid confusion and Trinitarianism. While Jesus is the incarnate Son who died, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also fully God and equally important. So, so even then they have a little bit of problems when you take the other things that they said. I mean, he said he is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. No, that is not Trinitarianism. Okay, let me go back to that. Let me go back again. Let me make it very clear. Because it's very, very important. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. They are three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal. Now, Christians are sloppy when it comes to the Trinity. Christians are careless, they are sloppy, and they act like it doesn't really matter. They'll be like, oh, you're just nitpicking. You're just getting into all that philological nuance. No, you're dealing with the nature of God. You either get the right God or you have the wrong God. And if you have the wrong God, then I'm sorry, that's not Christianity. Christianity would be the belief in the right God, correct? Wouldn't that be a foundational part of Christianity? That was crazy. Was not expecting that. All right, we'll stop there. That's where we won't go another 90 minutes. You need to go listen to the rest. It's called Restoration of Israel, part one. Again, the name of the broadcaster is NowTheEndBeginsBibleStudyArchives. If you look them up on the Sermons 2.0 app and you click on the broadcaster, NowTheEndBeginsBibleStudyArchives, you can scroll down, you'll see a link to their website. The website will take you to their statement of faith. I think most Christians would read the statement of faith and never question it, never have a problem thinking they're Trinitarian. I don't think that's Trinitarianism. I know, I'm gonna ask a question. Hang on. Did, hang on. Okay, hang on. Oh, see? Okay, I knew there was... So, they promote a book by Peter Ruckman, right? Okay, so here's what they say. Peter Ruckman, a controversial Baptist pastor and theologian, did not outright deny the Trinity, but his views on the Godhead were often criticized for being unconventional and confusing. He claimed to believe in the Trinity, acknowledging the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons. However, Ruckman expressed his beliefs in a way that some critics have argued bordered on modalism, or at least created confusion about the stance on traditional Trinitarian doctrine. Ruckman's teachings were known for their idiosyncrasies and sometimes cryptic language. He would describe the persons of the Trinity in ways that led some to accuse him of holding unorthodox views. For example, he sometimes used phrases that suggest that Jesus Christ contained the fullness of the Godhead in a manner that can imply Jesus alone embodies the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They're taking their language from Peter Ruckman. All right, so that's where that came from. They're taking it from Peter Ruckman. Oh man, I knew, as soon as they mentioned Peter Ruckman, I knew we were in trouble. I knew we were in trouble, I knew it. And there we go. Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is not Trinitarian language. That's downright modalistic, one Pentecostal type language. That is just wrong. That's, forget wrong, that's borderline heretical. I won't go so far to say heretical because it's not an outright denial, but it's not Trinitarian language. But see, they got enough Trinitarian concepts there that they could try to argue they believe in the Trinity, but it's almost a redefining of what the Trinity is. They're not using historical traditional language. This is where creeds come into play, and this is where church history comes into play. All right, we'll stop right there. That got. That got very interesting. All right, go listen to the rest. There's not a lot left. And you can, well, we didn't really get to the restoration of Israel, did we? See, this is what happens. See, this is the beautiful part of doing these reviews. We never know where we're gonna end up. We basically ended up into Ruckmanism, right? You now know a little bit about Peter Ruckman. And you just heard modalism. That's what you heard. Sometimes known as Sabellianism. Or one is Pentecostalism. It's all heretical. It's not Trinitarianism. All right, we'll stop right there. I don't know what else to say. Thanks for listening. Everyone have a great evening. God bless.