 Okay, Moses got angry, struck the rock, and couldn't enter the Promised Land. Jonah disobeyed God and tried to run away from God. Lies complained and doubted God and thought that he was the only one that was serving God. And then you go to the New Testament. Paul rebukes Peter for his treatment of the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas have a dispute and a split over John Mark. Paul was wrong. The point is, every man of God, every leader of God, every preacher, every teacher of God, at least once gets it wrong. Every now and then, I don't care who the person is, you're going to run into a favorite teacher or preacher, your pastor maybe, who is going to be wrong on something, hopefully not a lot. And I want to talk about four people who I absolutely like. These are good men of God. These are men who for the most part are sound. But there are a couple of things that I think that are just definitely wrong. That means that they are false teachers or false prophets or heretics. Everybody gets something wrong, including them. And so what do we do with them when they get something wrong? And how do we know if they've gotten something wrong? So before we begin, let me give you a really good rule of thumb when it comes to understanding the Bible. One, you need to have a good, strong sound hermeneutic, which is the method that you use to read the Bible. I suggest that you read the Bible in plain understanding, the way that the people who hear it, the people who read it originally, who the book was written to or the books were written to, how they would have understood it. And second, when you make a statement or you declare an understanding or teaching of the Bible, earn that statement. In other words, back that up with Scripture. Now keep this in mind also, if I say something about someone that you like, someone that is a beloved teacher, someone that for the most part, this person is straight, this person is right. Try to avoid the temptation or the desire to want to be defensive of that person. Again, everybody gets something wrong unless your name is Jesus Christ. And if this person, if this is a person that you can't find anything that you may disagree with or you're not willing to accept that you might be in disagreement with, if they're wrong on something, then you might be in danger of idolizing that person. So I'm going to highlight four people that you all know, most of these people that they're beloved. These are people that you know of, that being John MacArthur, Vodibhakam, Tony Evans, and Justin Peters. Now there are other people that I could have highlighted who I think are very sound teachers, but these are four that kind of stick out at least right now for whatever reasons. And I want to highlight some things that I think that they're wrong on and why I'm highlighting that because guess what? You could probably go back and look at things that I've said or even saying now and I'd be foolish to say that I'm right on everything. That being said, Tony Evans has spoken about this thing that he has called trans-dispensationalism. He coined this phrase about 10, 15 years ago and for some reason started to make a little bit of noise. Now people have brought it up. I even did a video about it, not that I agreed with it or disagreed with it. That wasn't the point of the video. But now I'm going to tell you that I do disagree with what he's saying and why. And oh by the way, he's not the only person that supports this belief. Dr. William Lane Craig who also believes in this trans-dispensationalism, this belief that people who have not had an opportunity to hear the gospel, God is going to sovereignly show them some sort of grace and bring them into the fold if their heart is looking towards him. I'm painting a scenario where a person wants to know the true God, desires to know the true God, that gives God three options. One, God can send him a missionary in a traditional way. Two, God can give them a direct revelation of himself that can get Paul on the Damascus Road. For three, and here it is, God can trans-dispensationalize it. That is, relate to him out of another dispensation because dispensations are based on information given. So that all throughout the Bible, all people had to do was believe what God had revealed and they were saved. If a person believes, somebody's up there that created this, somebody created me, I don't know who he is, but I want to know him. If that person were to have a heart attack at that moment, God could not condemn him and be just because God says, he will sink your body. So since God makes that promise, if God doesn't give him the gospel or give him a direct revelation, then he has to judge him out of another dispensation. Now, just as famous in this whole issue is the descent that John MacArthur has with them. John MacArthur, I believe, is correct that I don't see any scriptural evidence for there being this trans-dispensationalism, this God using a different matter or different means of dispensation to bring these people to him. Now, I understand his point where he comes from because if a baby dies and you believe that baby goes to heaven, it's because you believe that that child did not confess Christ because he could not confess Christ. And so God will show love and mercy to this child and bring them in. Similarly, some people will say the same thing holds true when it comes to people who don't have the ability to do so because of some sort of mental handicap. And so Tony Evans makes the leap. So does William Lane Craig. They make the leap that this also would apply to those who have not had a chance to hear the gospel? I believe this. And this is why I believe the scripture is clear on this, that people are put where they are because God puts them there. And if a person is in a place where he cannot hear the gospel, only God knows what he's going to do. God knows what I'm going to and what I'm going to say, how I'm going to respond in the future. And so it may very well be that this person is in a place where they don't hear the gospel because they're not going to accept it anyway. But I also believe that if there is a certain person, some guy in some backwoods place somewhere who's never heard of the gospel, he knows that there's a God and is looking for the true God. I believe that God is going to send this person a witness. Let me give you a little bit of a testimony. When I was in college, I did not believe in God. I kind of thought that this was all some sort of weird, hocus pocus kind of stuff. I kind of thought one way maybe, but I wasn't totally sure. And a friend of mine, my roommate, said to me, he said, why don't you just ask? And so I asked. I said, Lord, I prayed first time really praying. Lord, I don't know if you're real. I know who you are. But if you're real, would you please send me somebody? Would you show me? Would you show something? Let me know that you're there. I won't tell you how to do it. Just I'll just trust that you will if you do it. And after that prayer with sincerity, I mean immediately I started getting all these different something on TV. Somebody walking down the hallway will say something about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. And then the very next day, a lady asked me about if I'd go to heaven or hell. If I died, do I know and so forth. And so that night, on August 6, 1991, I trusted in Christ for salvation. And I think the same thing would happen to someone whether they're here in America or in Afghanistan or some other remote part of the world. I think God would do the same thing. And so on this side, you've got William Lane Craig and Tony Evans. And on this side, you've got John MacArthur. I think in this case, John MacArthur wins. Vodibachem, who I absolutely love met him a few times. I'm friends with his family. And so somebody I definitely, definitely admire. But he's wrong on this issue of eschatology. Vodibachem is a millennialist, meaning that he believes that not that there is no millennium, but that we are in the millennium. He takes a more of an allegorized or spiritual view of the scriptures. He didn't have a consistent hermeneutic, which is why I made that suggestion earlier. He does not believe that there is going to be a literal thousand year reign. In the scriptures, we have this picture of two ages, not three. We don't have, in the scriptures, a picture of the present age and in the millennial age and in the age to come. We don't find that anywhere. In the New Testament, when Jesus speaks and when his apostles speak, they speak about the present age and the age to come. And that's it. When they speak about Christ's return, they don't speak about Christ's return in stages. They speak about Christ's return and the end, period. Not he comes and does a few things and then there's a difference. No, he comes and that's the end of the age. There's this present age and there's the age to come, which is another reason why I believe that what we're dealing with here is the present age. The problem with that is that you kind of mess up some of the prophecies that were given to David and the whole Davidic covenant because this is a literal covenant that's going to be carried out in a literal fashion. That's exactly how the Jews understood it. That's exactly how David understood it. That's exactly how the writer wrote it. And so now it's going to come to fruition. And part of that is going to be in the millennial reign because again, this is going to be someone who's going to reign as a king, not like David, but a seed of his. And so there's some other problems and John MacArthur who differs with him addresses that. Now to go back to the foundation for just a very, very brief moment, you're going to end up as a millennialist. You're going to end up with a real kingdom with Christ really on earth, reigning in Israel, in Jerusalem to a redeemed...over a redeemed nation of Israel and all the saints gathered around. And I would just remind you that the plain meaning of a text is always the preferred interpretation. There is never a reason to spiritualize, to allegorize, to try to explain a text away if the plain meaning is clear. Christ will return to earth to judge the world, establish His kingdom for a thousand years during which Satan will be bound and His demons. So while I love Bodhi Bakim and he makes some strong cases on a lot of things, especially a lot of social issues, and he's just, he is a staunch warrior when it comes to the gospel. But he is absolutely wrong on this. On this side you've got Bodhi Bakim, but on this side you're going to have Tony Evans, John MacArthur, Justin Peters, and most of Orthodox Christianity. John MacArthur, who I love, matter of fact I've got my John MacArthur study, Bible's a little raggedy, but absolutely I love John MacArthur and his dedication and consistency to the ministry for these several decades. John MacArthur made a statement some time ago about can a person receive the mark of the beast? Is it possible for them to change their mind and repent and then be saved? My question is, once a person takes the mark, is there any possibility of him coming to Christ? The tribulation is a seven-year period, right? The rapture, the church seven-year tribulation, then Christ returns, sets up His kingdom. Now in that seven-year period, really two things happen. God begins to judge the world with a series of holocausts, and at the same time He begins to redeem His people, Israel. And in the process of this, the Antichrist establishes His rule and in order to function in the economy of the Antichrist, you have to take the mark of the beast. Now the question is, if you're living in the tribulation period and you take this mark, in other words, you identify with the beast's empire, will you still be able to be redeemed? And I think the answer to that is yes. Yes, otherwise there would be no salvation of anybody in the end of the tribulation. So I don't think the fact that someone takes that is a sentence to it, to permanency. Any more than you being a part of this world system once in your life means you have to be a part of the system all your life. There was a lot of hubbub about it, and then even some people have tried to address it. Justin Peters tried to address it on his behalf, and Bill Johnson also tried to address it. I'm not interested in what they say, I'm interested in what he would say, because he's over talking about making the statement. And so whether he has changed his mind, he ought to say so, or if he wants to clarify, he ought to clarify it. But the statement that he made, which is all we have, I've got to deal with that. And here's why I think he is wrong. Revelation 13 and 14, I think are pretty clear. Let's read. Speaking of the beast and the image of the beast, in verse 15 of chapter 13 says, And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and cause might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. The image of the beast might even cause those who did not receive this mark, who did not worship, gave him the ability to kill these people who would not bow down to this beast. Verse 16 also it causes all both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he has the mark that is the name of the beast or the number of its name. So you will have to either take this mark or you won't eat. You won't be able to buy or sell goods and those who don't take the beast, they'll only be able to buy and sell goods, but they will be subject to be killed. Most likely they probably will be killed. Doesn't say definitively if they definitely will be killed at this moment, but the ability for them to be killed is now given. All right, you with me? Here's where it gets hairy and this goes into kind of defeating the point that John MacArthur makes. In verse nine he says, And another angel of third, followed them saying with a loud voice, if anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he will also drink of the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of holy angels and in the presence of the lamb. So the question is, if you take this, will there be the possibility, like John MacArthur says, of a person repenting? You can't compare that to people who have committed other sins, lying and fornication and adultery and murder and all these other different sins, who have the ability to come and sin because the Bible speaks of them having the ability to repent. There is no such thing given here because what it says is, these people whatever does this, verse 10, he will also drink of the wine of God's wrath. The word that's used there is the word Piatai, which is saying future of what is going to happen. He will drink of God's wrath. There is no, this person might, it's likely happened to know, this is at a time where, let's remember what's going on, the world is in a different place. And so if you take this, you have already gone down this path and he says you will taste the wrath. There is no other way to give any sort of way around it. That's why I said earlier, if a person makes a statement, you've got to earn the statement. There are times where you can say, well, I think based on this and this and this that we can, but that I think in this case, it's probably faulty logic. And so on this case, you're going to have John MacArthur on this side, but over here you're going to have a Bodhi Baccham. You're going to have a Tony Evans, and most of Christendom disagreeing with this take. And then Justin Peters, who I certainly respect and admire, has made the statement, like many others, that God does not speak. How do you know when it's God speaking to you? You remember what the disciples asked Jesus in Luke chapter 11? Lord, teach us to pray. The ball is sitting on the proverbial tee, waiting for Jesus to knock it out of the park and affirm what Robert Morris and the vast majority of evangelicals believe today that prayers are two-way street. Lord, teach us to pray. What did Jesus say? Okay, here's how you do it. You talk to God and then you get real quiet and you listen for that still small voice. Is that what he said? No, he didn't say that at all. He said, when you pray, say this, Lord, hallowed be thy name. Nothing about listening for some still small voice. Nothing about listening for God to speak back to you. So this whole notion of prayer being a two-way street, that is foreign to the Word of God. There's nothing in the Bible about that at all. Now, not only was he saying that God does not speak audibly, but maybe God doesn't speak either in dreams or impressions or what have you. Well, God doesn't speak necessarily in English. He speaks whatever or however he needs to. That's my take. That's my belief. I believe Justin is wrong on this because he references the Lord's prayer, or we call the Lord's prayer. He says, Lord, give us this day our daily bread. And so when he's saying that, this is how we ought to pray, that he's not telling us, and then we wait for him to respond back. Well, all throughout Scripture, when we see people praying, we do see people speaking with God and God speaking back with him in different ways. He says, I the Lord do not change. And so we have no reason to believe that he has changed that. And he says, lead us not into temptation. And so what does that mean to lead us? Well, I would say that lead us can be very many different ways. It can be maybe through something that's happening in our lives, but also through impressions on our heart. Maybe we are sleeping. Maybe we're dreaming he speaks to us. Then we're quiet because oftentimes when we're sleeping, we're getting ready for sleep. We seem to be a little bit more clear-minded when we think about what we need to do. And so maybe God does speak this way. He doesn't say that he doesn't. That's my point. And so since God doesn't say that he doesn't speak a certain way to us, since he doesn't say that he does not speak, then we can't say that. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world. In the old days, in the days of the prophets, in the Old Testament, God spoke in a lot of different ways. But in these last days, says the writer of Hebrews, he has spoken to us in his Son. Friends, Jesus is the final speaking of God. The final speaking of God. Everything that God has to say, he has said to us in his Son, Jesus Christ, and we have a perfect, inerrant, infallible, all-sufficient record of that in his Word. Do not look at the passage in Hebrews and say that because God spoke in the past this way that now he speaks through his Son. Does that mean that he only speaks through the Bible? That is not what that says. And so people make their sleep. Here's why they make the sleep. It'll take us into why sometimes even well-meaning and sound and well-versed preachers sometimes get some things wrong. In this case, people will say that God doesn't speak to us that way because it's something that's been abused. There are a lot of people out there who say the Lord told me this. God told me this. I had this vision and so forth. And they're just off. And so what's the natural tendency is to push back. And so if they're this far gone on this side we might want to push back and kind of overcompensate to the other side that no guy did do that at all. Well no, because they messed up and misabused or misinterpreted something that means that we take the extreme on the other side we just call them out to note that's wrong. Similarly, you see that all four of them as a matter of fact would believe or state that these gifts have ceased. Justin Peters speaks about these gifts as being certain gifts. These sign gifts or what do you call these apostolic gifts which the Bible can call them apostolic gifts. They just call them gifts of the spirit or spiritual things that they've ceased. Well, do I think that some of these gifts are still in play? I always say I don't know. With tongues, if they are in play, show me. Just do them the appropriate way. They're not spoken about again after 1 Corinthians but are there some people that could still use the gift of languages, not this ecstatic babbling but the gift of languages in some far remote part of the world where civilization hadn't touched him and they don't speak English or we don't know their understanding of their dialect? Well, he may do that. I can't say that he will or that he won't. But there is no basis, scripturally, to say that they have ceased. Now, it may very well be that these gifts have ceased but the rationale for saying that they've ceased might be wrong. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's kind of like getting the right answer to a math question. You don't know how you got it but you just got the right one. And so you want to be consistent. And so it's okay sometimes to say I'm just not sure. We'll talk about that in a second. There's other reasons for why people can be wrong. Some of these trusted preachers, maybe they bring in their human preconceived notions into the discussion. If you've been raised by another sound preacher who maybe got tithes wrong and still teaching on tithes and so this otherwise sound preacher is going to teach that we still do pay tithes. Well, then I disagree because there is no command to do so. We're taking something that not only was in the law but also this sort of tithing was done before the law. And so again, you've got to earn a statement so for someone to say certain things I need your book that's coming from the chapter in verse. But sometimes we just believe something is and so we read that into the scriptures. Sometimes a pastor may misread a passage especially if there is a lack of understanding when it comes to Greek and Hebrew. Oftentimes pastors who have studied Greek and Hebrew because they don't apply it every day there's so much to deal with when it comes to the certain ministries that you don't have time to devote to the study and reading of Greek and Hebrew as you would like to and sometimes you just kind of fall out of use when it comes to that. And you may not use that when exiting the passage and so you might miss something. I think one of the biggest reasons why sometimes preachers get it wrong is because like in John MacArthur's case or Tony Evans's case you ask a question what pastors don't do trust me I know this for a fact from personal experience you ask someone a question and since preachers teachers are used to giving an answer we're going to give an answer. Maybe I don't have enough to give the correct answer but I've got enough to come up with something and so sometimes we're just not good at saying I don't know I'm not sure. I think that's something that we ought to get used to saying I just don't know I'm not sure maybe I think this but that right that way you're not so definitive and you allow yourself the possibility of being wrong but there's some humility in that in saying that I just don't know everything but if I act like I know everything if I give an answer to everything I'm going to be wrong on some things. A good preacher should know more than the average lay person. I mean why are you the pastor or the preacher the teacher if you all know the same thing right but a good preacher though he should know more than the average person in his in his community won't know everything but you should be able to explain what it is you know and not so much out of opinions or I feel this way there are times when you're going to have to but let's try to avoid that as much as possible. So now this is not a real exhaustive in-depth dive into who's wrong who's right about certain things. No the point of this is this again I love these preachers don't leave in the comment section hey you're this that guy you don't like that guy you're jealous of that person this guy's a good golly person why are you saying this? No the point is this the onus is not so much on them but on you now granted each pastor should be diligent to make sure that he says what he's supposed to say that he rightly divides the word that Paul tells Timothy to do and to be like but for us we need to understand that they are sometimes wrong and don't get caught up into this person's style this person's boldness and confidence as they speak to think that they can't be wrong that though they speak for Jesus that though they speak for God this is not literally God speaking to them they are not get this they are not inspired they're not like the scriptures scriptures are inspired they're not so if there's something that you that doesn't quite sound right or feel right with you then go and investigate as a matter of fact even if it does sound right to you as a matter of fact especially if it sounds right to you and feels right to you go back and further confirm that you might find that you know what hey I didn't quite see this at first I've got to rethink that and so when someone has a teaching that's not true that's not correct what do we do with that? does that make that person a false teacher a false prophet a heritage? no no again everybody has something wrong I do you do hey your mother has something wrong your father has something wrong everybody that you know who doesn't come from heaven has something wrong and so we give them the same amount of grace that we would want have done to us when we're wrong we don't want folks condemning us and coming down on us same thing with these guys we're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water so yeah Lorde Bacchum I think his hermeneutic on the last days I think that's wrong but I still love him I'm not going to dismiss him because of that do I think that John MacArthur aired when it came to this issue of the Mark of the Beast? yeah I do has he corrected? I don't know but if he hasn't I still love him still got to study Bible Tony Evans think he's wrong on transism especially I think he's wrong when it comes to tithing but love him matter of fact he was a former pastor of mine Justin Peters love him to death is he wrong I think on does God speak I believe so is he wrong on gifts having ceased maybe maybe not I think his rationale for it is off but love him to death and so you can be and admire someone and still say I just don't quite agree with that as a matter of fact do you agree with everything that you think or say so why would you agree with everything that this other person says and so let's be wise let's be constantly searching the scriptures let's back up what someone says search it as Paul says as the Bereans did to him and if what he says is true then amen I can know it for myself