 Most people have their favorites in ministry. Most of us, let's be honest, a lot of us have our favorites because of YouTube or Facebook. As a matter of fact, many of us have our favorites because of somebody else. How many of you guys, you know what, just really my show of hands. How many of you all like John MacArthur? How many of you all like Vody Buckham? How many of you like Tony Evans? As a matter of fact, let me go to the poll, let's see what we look like. 70% of you guys say that you are fine with all of them. 12% say not a fan of Tony Evans. 6% not a fan of Dislike Vody Buckham. 12% not a fan of Dislike John MacArthur. Now, all of you that have an opinion of them, most of you, if not all of you likely have never been to their churches. Don't know what it's like in their ministry. You know of them because of what you've seen on YouTube, what you've seen on Facebook, what you've seen on TV, right? That's where most of us know them from. And because of that, think about this. Think about this. There are other people that we like also. Now you might listen to these people and obviously, obviously, obviously one of your favorites is obviously Cory Minor, right? So you really have no need of listening to anyone else, but you probably listen to a lot of different people. A lot of different people on YouTube that you listen to. And so what if one of your favorites or two or three of your favorites don't like somebody, then it might cost something in your mind to start, you know what, let me look at this person. Now, let's say if you are a lifelong fan of Tony Evans, but John MacArthur has an issue with something that he said or something like that, well then you might begin looking at him a little, you might, you know what, let me look at Tony Evans again. If Vodibacum is, you like him, but someone that you like also or two or three others or heaven forbid, if five or 10 people on YouTube have a problem with someone, well, you know what, we're kind of in the same camp and so now I've got to look at them a little bit cross-eyed too. That's kind of how it happens. And so sometimes we interpret what someone else is doing or saying or how they are through the lens of somebody else. Let me just run through a little list real quick. See if you can understand where I'm going. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samson, David, Elijah. Oh, I know, I know. Peter, Paul, all of these have either, all of these have kind of done something that wasn't perfect. Now, were any of them living in sin? No, think about it. Abraham lied about his sister being his wife. That was not his biological, since we've covered that before to show that that's not his biological sister, but he says so out of fear. Well, what about Joshua? What about Samuel? What about Elijah was fearful? Elijah had a great victory, but then became fearful of his life over a woman. Or what about Peter? Peter denied Jesus three times. And he had to be confronted to his face by Paul. Paul did not believe that John Mark was suitable for ministry, but he wasn't totally correct, was he? The point is you can have somebody who is a man of God who is not necessarily always perfect. And so because of that, we've got different things, different folks that say certain stuff. And so sometimes we're not always, but not always right. And because of our society, we are always looking to find something to call that person out. Now, I hope that I would be the kind of person that if it's something that is critical, something that's major, then call the person out. And then at the same time though, not always be willing to throw them out entirely because there are things that even I or you would say that just didn't always right. And if we're honest with ourselves, we mess up a lot. Matter of fact, what we should be honest about is that even the people that we like the most, those that we really have a high esteem for, if we're honest about that, they mess up too. And if you can't ever say, if you can never say, bring yourself to say, that person did wrong. That person, I disagree with that person. That person was wrong about that. If you can't, if you can never bring yourself to say, you know what? Hody Bachman was wrong on that. If you can never say that John McCarthy was wrong about that. If you can never bring yourself to say that Tony Evans was wrong about that, then now me full disclosure, I like all of them. I have never had the occasion to meet John McCarthy, but I am fond of John McCarthy. Although there is an issue that I take with one of some things. What about Vody Bachman? Met him a few times. Again, his family went to our church. And so I just had a natural fond of for him because of that. But then even still what he says a lot, I agree with Tony Evans. Again, very fond of him. As a matter of fact was a former pastor of mine. So therefore I'm not, I'm not unbiased, but I'm also not blind at the same time. Now there have been some things that were stated. And so I want to kind of pull those up and deal with some of those things. Let me move this over here. You know what? Let me leave it right where it is. Let me leave it right where it is. I got something on my screen that I don't want to see, but I need to leave it right where it is. I'm sorry. But something for example, that Tony Evans said, I want to cover that. I want to go through what some of these men have said, what they have done and kind of the implications and what should we do with them? Should we say that, hey, this person's better? Should we throw them out? Should we get rid of them? Now, some folks might say, you know what? I can't deal with Tony Evans. Nope, sorry. He's a heretic and his daughter and we'll deal with his daughter because some of you guys are a little unfair about his daughter. Some of you guys are a little unfair about his daughter. Am I saying that all of what she does is right? No, I'm not. Not at all. But we're gonna see, we're gonna test our hypocritical levels. We'll get to that. I don't like everything that Vodibachem said, so I should get rid of them. Matter of fact, he might be a little too political. He might be a little too anti-vulc. Cause sometimes he might go a little this way. I'm not saying, I'm just throwing out something in general that other folks might have an issue with. Certainly his eschatology, now personally, I don't like his eschatology. I don't like his hermeneutics. Love most of its conclusions though. Should I get rid of them? What about John McCarthy? He's been in ministry longer than I've been alive. He's been in ministry. Soon as the resurrection occurred, John McCarthy started preaching. Right? He's 247 years old. So should we get rid of him? Well, we're gonna look at that. Well, we're gonna start off with Tony Evans, something that he said. And I wanna deal with it again, but I wanna look at the scriptures kind of go a little bit more in-depth in what he said. And then let's, you know, let's move on. Let's see if there's something that we should think or should not think about. The Bible says in Romans 1 that men suppress the truth. Now you cannot suppress what you don't have. It's like holding a beach ball on the water. It wants to come up, but you're forcing it down. When a person rejects the revelation of God in nature or in conscience, they are condemning themselves because something wants to come up that they keep forcing down. That's not the scenario I'm painting. 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 under the mask of his robe. Or three, and here it is, God can trans-dispensationalize him, that is. Now, what he's talking about is he was asked a question about what happens to people who are in a different land and they don't hear the gospel. And now he's got a theory. He's positive of theory and he's going in-depth and explaining the theory, okay? Now, I do not agree with his assessment. However, I understand where he's coming from. I understand how it got to that point. And so he's trying to explain what he's saying. It is related 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 bleeds, 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 who seeks shall find. 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, so that's where we get this from. Now, Tony Evans is dispensational. He's one of the, well, I'm not sure he still is, but was on the board of the Alice Elyseus Seminary, which is a dispensational seminary. John MacArthur, he calls himself a leaky dispensational, but he's probably more reformed than dispensational. And so if he gives a critique, and by the way, the critique that he gave of Tony Evans was a long time ago. And what Tony Evans said was a long time ago. Now, do they still hold with some of these views? Yes, as far as I can tell, they still hold with these views. And so what do you think about that? Is it that some folks have said that John MacArthur, not John MacArthur, that Tony Evans is preaching a different gospel than anybody that a Muslim somewhere could hear, not hear the gospel, that a Hindu somewhere cannot hear the gospel? Is that what he says? Or does he believe like most of us, I'll get to what other folks have said about him, let me just play him saying what he says. A lot of people are confused about salvation. If you arrest your eternal destiny on him alone, apart from your works, God will credit his righteousness to your account. Everybody here today on their way to heaven is only on their way to heaven because they're covered by the blood. And Jesus says, if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father who is in heaven. But if you acknowledge me before men, I will acknowledge you before my father is in heaven. Now, doesn't that sound like what you and I believe? It does, it is. Now, how do I know what he believes? Again, I was at his church. I used to go there. I know exactly what he believes. And what happened was people took a part of his book and then questioned him on the book without getting full understanding. And so in some cases, he may have been a bit misunderstood. He believes that you have to place your faith in Christ to be saved. People thought that he was saying that you have to, or if you are in another religion, then you can then even steal, if you have a genuine heart, you could still be saved. There was a book that came out a few years ago written by Tony Evans called Totally Saved. In that book, he said that God saves people around the world without the Bible, without the gospel, by trans-dispensationalizing them. It's according to the word, by trans-dispensationalizing them. That is, in God's mind, he just shifts them out of this age into a pre-cross age, or even a pre-law age. In other words, he wants to save them so much, he'll, in his own mind, stick them in any economy in the past that doesn't require the scripture or Christ. Now there's a big problem with what he just said. That's not what Tony Evans was saying, nor what he meant. People took it as though, that he's saying that no matter where you are, what's happening with you, that you can be saved absent the word. That's not what he said. Someone asked, is there an example of trans-dispensationalism in the Bible? There are examples of people being saved out of different dispensations without having the Gospel of Christ preach to them because what did you have before Christ? How was he not considered righteous before Christ? Well, it wasn't because he placed his faith in what Jesus did on the cross. Obviously, because there was none, but it's always been faith in God. That's always, no matter which dispensation you've been in, faith in God, trusting God, has been how you were accredited righteous. Now, he's going to explain a little more in depth about what he's talking about, and let me just say this, guys. Let me say this. A lot of you are going to have to kind of, well, what happens is this, if you are him, or if you're John MacArthur, or if you're anyone that's well-known, well-known pastor or someone that's ascribed to as a theologian, whether you are or not, whether if you've done some sort of writings, extensive writings, people could ask you different questions. The occasion over time, especially the longer you've been in ministry, the likely that you're going to say something incorrect. Live a little bit longer. You're going to say something and do something incorrect. It is going to happen. You're going to be a pastor that's going to pastor someone incorrectly. You're going to say something incorrectly. You're going to react incorrectly. You're going to do the wrong thing. You're going to rub something wrong the wrong way, and it was your fault. It is going to happen. Think about these men, other than Vodibachem, because he's not all, you know what? I'll take it back. He's getting up there, though. He's getting up there, but Tony Evans has been pastoring for almost 50 years. John McCarthy has been pastoring for over 50 years. So we're not talking about spring chickens. These are older men that have been in ministry longer than a lot of us in this chat have been alive. Even Vodibachem has had his pastoral experience, and he's not a spring chicken either. And so you're going to say something, do some things the more that you are asked questions, you're going to give an answer response. Sometimes you misspeak. Sometimes you just speak incorrectly. I say misspeak, you might have meant to say this and you said that. But sometimes what you intended to say was wrong. It's going to happen. If you don't believe that, then look at yourself. Because again, it's easy to kind of just narrow in on what a person says and go with that because there are some people that are quick to make everything and everybody out a heritage. Everybody is an heritage. Even every false teaching, it doesn't make a person a false teacher or make them a heritage, are you with me? That can happen. People can have a flaw, make a mistake and then make them a heritage. Now, every heresy is a flaw in doctrine, but every flaw in doctrine does not mean it's a heresy or a heretic, make you a heretic, are you with me? Now, he's going to give an explanation and something that he's going to say, some of you all may also have to kind of figure this out because by the way, Tony Evans is not the only one. Dr. William Lane Craig ascribes to a bit of this as well, and I want you guys to think about this for a second, because people have impugned him for a couple of things. There's a few things that people have gotten on Tony Evans for. One, this issue of trans dispensationalism. Two, obviously his daughter, we'll talk about her in a second. Three, what they think he believes or his take on original sin. Now, how he gets with original sin is why he comes to this conclusion on this trans dispensationalism. And again, I don't like the term either. If he's going to try to explain it, I wish he would use a different term other than trans dispensationalism because it wouldn't be a different dispensation anyway. But besides, we have enough trans issues anyway. And so I would not have used that term to begin with. But my question to this guy said, I want to put the comments on the screen for a second. Question, how many of you believe that if a baby, if an infant dies, either in the womb, abortion, stillborn, what have you, or they die early as a one year old, two year old, some sort of tragic accident, what have you, how many of you believe that that baby would go to heaven? Likely most of you, if not all of you, many of you will believe that or at least like to believe that. How many of you actually believe that a baby would go to heaven? So now think about this for a second. What is the mechanism, the biblical mechanism for them going to heaven? Why would God allow the baby to go to heaven? What's so special about it? The baby is still, even though he's one month old or hasn't been born yet, he's still a soul, the same soul that God would have value for if he was 20 years old or 40 years old. Why does that baby get to go to heaven? Just because something tragic happened or something tragic happened to me at age 40 or at age 25 or at age 16. Does the 18 year old, if the 18 year old dies, does he automatically go to heaven? I would consider the 18 year old, that's still a baby, he's dumb, but still a baby, right? So what is the biblical mechanism? What is it in God that would cause it? And that's the question that Tony Evans is trying to answer. That's the whole point of what he gets to is something dealing with originals. He is not, I see someone says, unable to choose. That's his point. That's where he's getting to. Tony Evans' point is that the person is unable to choose. The baby, the person that's mentally handicapped and the person that never had an opportunity to choose. Now, do I agree with all of his lines of reasoning? Not necessarily, but I want you to see where he's coming from and why, because of this reason, you don't throw him out and call him a heretic or he's teaching a different gospel. Because in that very same book, if people read the book, if they actually read the book, Tony say they'll say, you know what, I agree with him. 99% of what he just said, except for that. Matter of fact, matter of fact, if you are reformed, if you're not reformed, you're going to agree with most of what he says without question. So let's listen to his explanation. Jesus says in John 3, a man is condemned because he does not believe. Well, you can only be condemned for not believing if you have something to believe and if you have the capacity to believe it. But then what that says is that, you know, the Hindus who are doing the best they can with the information they have, having never, I'm talking about the Hindus who never heard of Jesus, never heard of the Savior, never heard of salvation in Christ, the only begotten Son of God, then there is salvation for them is what you're saying. If, well, we got to put this provide though, if they're not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, you cannot tell me, you cannot use these phrases in contradiction. You can't tell me God loves me. Jesus paid for my sin, but you're not going to give me any data and hold me accountable for that. That's a contradiction. Let's y'all see where he's going right now. Just want to make sure you guys are, are holding on. I like what some of your comments have said. So you're kind of said, people ain't got time to read, we don't. We have no time to read. Chris asks, is there a noted age of accountability? No, there is not. There is nowhere, now someone could assume so, but there is no age of accountability listed in the Bible. You're right. We do try to answer questions only God knows. And that sometimes can get us in trouble. That's why I said the best thing that you can do, the best skill that you can learn is to learn the ability to say, I don't know. I don't know. I have no idea. There's not enough information that I have. There are math questions, by the way, where they asked you this or asked you that and what's the answer. And one of the answers is that not enough information given. Sometimes that's what we have to do, what we have to say when we talk about issues pertaining to certain aspects of the Bible. I just don't know. Not enough information given. In Islam, for the person who is practicing it, there is a rejection of Jesus. But you're not going to give me any data and hold me accountable for that. That's a contradiction. In Islam, for the person who is practicing it, there is a rejection of Jesus Christ. Now, as you already said, he's saying, in Islam or these other places, there are people that have, they have rejected him. So he's not saying that a Muslim who simply hadn't heard the gospel can be saved. That's not what he's saying. A Hindu who simply hadn't heard the gospel know they have, because implicit in those religions, they talk about Jesus. They have rejected the true Christ. And so he's not saying that at all. See, they accept Jesus Christ as a prophet, but they reject him as a savior. But if they haven't heard, but the fact that if they had not heard the truth, I mean, they hear, here a guy reads this, or he hears it from his Imam, and then they tell him that he was a good prophet and he was a wonderful man and all of this. And they believe that, but they've never heard the gospel. They never heard the gospel. Well, then you have to back up to what has God revealed to them about himself and whether they are actively responding to that. If they're actively responding to that, God has to show them more. God says he who seeks shall find. That's a promise. So either God's lying, or he's gotta show them something. Then the question is, what do they do with what he shows them? The Bible says in all Romans five, in all, in Adam all died. Now, I want you to listen to this. This is how he gets to his conclusion. And again, it's not like he's not using the Bible. He's talking about how he comes with his conclusion. And so I wanna go ahead and deal with that. But before I do, someone asked, what does it mean to be reformed? Quick definition, a reform person is someone that holds two, really the five solas. They're gonna be Calvinists and they hold to a covenantal view of theology. Meaning that, and we're gonna talk about this as well, that Israel and the church, the lines have been blurred. Eschatology is different as well, which is why Tony Evans is not reformed. I'm certainly not reformed, although I agree with a lot of what my Calvinist brothers and reformed brothers and sisters do believe, but that's what it's been. Now, listen to what he's saying, what he's talking about, how he gets to the conclusion of this. Again, if he's gonna come up with it, with the theory that he has, I would have wished he had a different term, this trend, cause it's not a different dispensation. It's a dispensation, different, and I understand what, because the word dispensation means is from the Greek word, a koinimi, or house rules, and so the rules might be set differently, but I just don't like that term, but nevertheless, let's listen to how he gets there. Then it comes in the same verse, verse 18, questions, what do they do with what he shows it? The Bible said in all Romans five or in all, in Adam all died. Then it comes in the same verse, verse 18, it says, in Christ all are made alive. Either you have to turn the word all to mean two different worlds, or the same all who were died in Adam are the same all who were made alive in Christ and every human being died in Adam. So in some way, every human being has been made alive in Christ, but we know everybody's not saved, so how is that possible? Only with regard to original sin. Therefore, nobody is condemned because of the reality of original sin, only personal sin and rejection of a savior. Once I come to that conclusion, I can take that conclusion in any direction, even to the Hebrew. Now, I wanna cover some of this, where he gets this, this issue of original sin. By the way, so he says his thinking is because of not that he didn't believe in original sin, because I've heard people say that he does not believe in original sin, and then 1689, what'd you say? He said that, what'd you just say? He said something, I just saw. Oh, he holds to a sort of a universalism view. He does not. Sorry, my friend, he does not. He doesn't believe that any of these people can be saved. He's not believing, he's not part of the coexistence. Matter of fact, he's called them out. Different denominations, Mormons, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, if they don't place their faith in Christ, they are going to hell. But what he stated about this issue, and I've heard folks say that he didn't hold to or believe in original sin. No, that's not what he says. What he's dealing with is what was done with original sin on the cross. And how did he get to this issue? He gets this issue in, uh-oh, wrong passage. Am I in the wrong, I'm in the wrong passage. How'd I get there? Hold on, for some reason I typed in, that's what I did. Hold on, I put the wrong scripture under the wrong section. Hold on, let me fix this really, really, really briefly. Click enter and then go over to here and go back to Jeremiah 31. And I believe it's 29. All right, remember there's a proverb that states that the children's teeth are set on edge because of fathers ate sour grapes. But what does the pastor say? In those days they will not again say the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. Why? Because whatever the sins a father has done will no longer be attributed to the next generation. In other words, you're not paying for someone else's sin. Now, does that equate to Adam's sin? Which is why he brought up in Adam all die and in Christ all live. So that's his rationale for getting there. So in his eye, what you're gonna pay for is your own sin. Are you with me? Now, you all can agree or disagree that it doesn't matter. I'm just trying to give you an understanding as to where he's coming from. So since all die and Adam, but all are alive in Christ, here's where he's coming from and piggybacking off of Jeremiah, his view is that we are no longer gonna be accountable to Adam's sin, even though we do have this sin nature because we are going to cost or bring about our own sin. And truth be told, you are all going to commit sin. You don't have to worry about the fact that you inherited a credit card debt from your great, great, great, great, great grandparents. No, because you also added debt to it as well because you sin. That's his point. Now, where he goes with that is that because of that, babies don't have that. They have not intentionally done so. They have not rejected Christ. So therefore they are not judged the same way. Similarly, people who are handicapped are not judged the same way. Similarly, people who are somewhere, if it just happens to be Bob in the backwoods of Timbuktu, I'm sorry for anyone that's in Timbuktu, but my apologies if I'm misrepresenting the backwoods of Timbuktu, but his point is if you're in some backwoods somewhere and have never, ever heard the gospel and some sort of way you are thinking, you know what, I know there's something more to this than just these rice paddies. There's something more to this than what I'm, there's something more. I know there's got to be a guy, there's someone that created and I want to know. And so his conclusion is one of three things is going to happen. A missionary is going to show up. I think that's what's likely to happen. Two, a voice from heaven, an angel, some messenger, somebody, a voice is going to bring it to him. I think still in the form of a missionary. Or three, God would judge him out of a different dispensation like he would the handicapped or the baby. That's how he got to that point. Should he be thrown out, called a heretic because of that? No, no. No, as a matter of fact, I'm challenging, I'm not even challenging because you wouldn't, you would not succeed. I'm waiting for someone else to say, the theological reason for why babies go, there is none. Guys, let me just be clear, there is none. You cannot, there's nothing for you to sink your teeth in and say, this is why in God babies get to go. Or why the handicapped? There's nothing for you other than they're gonna go, but then why? And then why don't, and how does that apply to us? It's a different, you all would have to agree, it's a different set of rules. Now trying to figure that out, don't know, don't know. And so that's why I would have to say, I don't know, but I would trust that God would see that person since the heavens declare his handiwork that somebody, some missionary, somebody, some word of God would come to them and that they would then place their faith in Christ. That's what I believe. So I'm not gonna throw them out for that. Again, if you go and look at the man's track record, have you ever, how many times have you seen Tony Evans in a debate? Matter of fact, how many times have you seen John MacArthur in a debate? How many times have you seen Vody Bachman? You don't really see these guys voting more than they would, but you don't see pastors of that level actually in a debate. You know why? What are pastors doing? Come on, ladies and gentlemen, smart Christians, what are pastors doing? What should pastors be doing? They should be pastoring, which is why you will not, you should not see them out there debating that. Could they? In some case, they probably could. I mean, some of these guys have degrees, they have a doctor, Tony Evans is a doctor. He is the first person, there you go, 69, they're job. Tony Evans has, he's the first black person to get a doctorate from Ballast Theologic Seminary. You realize that that's no joke. To me, I think that it's the Harvard of seminaries, because what they make you go through, you are required to learn the languages Hebrew and Greek. It's not like a lot of schools where you can get your doctorate or your masters without adequately learning the languages. And so that's one of those schools that they do so. And then you think about some of the people that have come from that school who are out there, they had done a very good job of producing good, strong exposure. Now, not all of them, not all of them, just because you go to the school, doesn't mean there's a guaranteed success rate because Andy Stanley went there. So it's not to say that everybody, but then again, Judas was with Jesus. We're not gonna impugn Jesus for that. But the fact of the matter is, the fact of the matter is they have theological reasons for doing so. When you ask someone that has a theological background, they're gonna want to try to explain it and the theological reason, even in some cases when there really is no way to explain it. Now, in terms of him being a pastor, one of the qualifications says that he must then be above reproach. No one is accusing him of anything. Now, we'll talk about his daughter in just a second. And I mean like literally in just a second. The husband of one wife, his former wife, Lois just passed, well, she didn't just pass. She passed about four years ago. And now he's engaged, by the way. Temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable. I'll never forget the very first time that I met him. When I was working for Edward Jones and I actually went to his door, not on his door, he just came there. He came to his door with an old white t-shirt on. He may have been Ham sandwiched, turkey sandwich. I don't know. So just as nice and pleasant as can be, didn't know me from the next person. But that's how he is. He's not flamboyant. He's not stylish. He still lives in the same house he's been living in forever, right around the corner from the church. So, not right around the corner from the church, but close by the church. He lives in Oak Cliff. He could go and start a second church, a third church, a fourth campus and be out in North Dallas. No, but what he does is he trains other men underneath him to go and do the exact same thing. But he says he's able to teach that he is not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. Therein lies the other issues a lot of folks have a problem with. A lot of folks have a problem with Priscilla Shire. Now, let me say this. And is anyone out there, is anyone out there a member of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship? Is there anyone in the chats that has gone to there that has been there that maybe you don't, you're not a member there, but you've been there a few times, several times. Can I tell you what you haven't seen? Can I tell you what you haven't seen? You haven't seen Priscilla Shire there preaching to the men in the church. That's what you don't see. So, don't impugn him for that. Yeah, that's his daughter. And has there been times where she has preached and there were men in attendance? I believe so. And does her doctor always line up with mine? No, not always. But then again, does mine always line up with yours and vice versa? So, but here's the thing. What is his daughter's name? Can anyone tell me again what is his daughter's name? Her name is Priscilla Evans. No, it's Priscilla Shire. That means there's another man that she's under, not her father. And so he does not go and say, I don't know what the conversation is behind the scenes. I have no idea. Have no idea. And I cannot say what he's told her, what he hadn't told her, and this and that. Could not tell her, could not say. I know what she's not doing at that church. And so we can, and I get it. There are some folks that would love to hammer home Tony Evans. And I say those very same people, let's see your doctor. Let's see you. Because a lot of folks that there, everybody's a heretic. I'm not talking about the folks that are just frothing at the mouth, falling out, casting demons out of telephones that are slang demons and cats. I'm not talking about those folks. I'm talking about people that make an honest good faith effort to go through the scriptures and maybe they get it wrong. Stop calling them a heretic. By the way, if you actually knew what the word heretic is, that's the biggest problem. Many people don't know what the word heretic is. So we're gonna have to do cover that. But this heresy is someone that is causing the division that's separating themselves and others. That's at the heart of what heresy is and they're doing it with scriptures as well as other means. And so you might be, you might wanna be a little bit careful about who you call. Now, does that mean there are no heretics? There are a bunch of heretics. More today than there were ever before. But everybody that you disagree with isn't a heretic. Calvinist, let me, no, I was gonna drink some water. Let me drink some coffee first before I talk to my Calvinist buddies. Now let me drink some water so I can be clear when I talk to my Calvinist buddies. And then put your comments on the screen so everyone can see what you're saying. Calvinist friends, my brothers and sisters, I love you to death, but let me say this. You're getting a reputation of being mean-spirited. You're getting a reputation of being mean-spirited. Looking that everyone that disagrees is not Calvinist that there are false teachers that they're heretics. No, they're not. No, they're not. No, they're not. Love you to death. Matter of fact, again, I've been called a Calvinist a bunch of times because sometimes you can't tell the difference between me and a Calvinist. I love my Calvinist friends. Matter of fact, you can have my hermeneutic and still be Calvinist or Calvinist or Calvinistic, either one. But if a lot of people are saying this about Calvinist in general, then you're gonna have to start earning it, right? Same thing about Charismatics. Charismatic, my brothers and sisters go Charismatic. If a lot of you are getting the idea or the moniker or the tag that you guys don't aren't as tight with the scriptures as you should be, well then you got on it. Not necessarily you, but others. And so the people that tend to call Tony Evans a heretic the most are Calvinists. They just call it what it is. Tell the truth, shame the devil. I won't, he says, I'm not gonna say names. I'm not gonna say the name because I don't wanna do that. I don't wanna do it because these three men I think can hold up to the scrutiny. And again, I like them. I like all three of them. Now, is there something going on behind the scenes that I don't know about? Maybe I don't know, who knows? And so you can't hold me accountable. I'm just going off of what I see. That's it. That's it. So that being the case, anybody can be, oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. But notice the point about First Timothy and same with Titus, it is managing his own household. They've left the house, that's them now. Some other man is now in charge. Some other man has, she has her name under somebody else's umbrella. She's no longer Priscilla Evans. She's got a new man, so to speak. That's her husband. Amen. So what I love for him to say, hey, God and rain her in. Some of you got grown children, you can't rain in. Some of you got teenage kids that you can't rain in. Some of you got eight-year-olds that you can't. Some of you got pets. Lord knows I can't rain in, in my pets. So we need to just kind of just, all right, I wish that he or she didn't do that, but it's still my brother in Christ, right? Because we got, if they're constantly espousing things that are totally unbiblical, that's different, that is not Tony Evans. I promise you, if you ever just sit and listen to him speak about salvation, you know I agree. Or just, you know what? Just get a transcript of the words that he's saying. And you'll say, you know what, I agree. Absolutely, Calvinism is, let me say this to my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters. Let me just say this as well. I'm sorry, let me just call it for this one. To my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters, stop it. Stop it. Stop calling Calvinism a false doctrine, a heresy, doctrine of demons, another gospel. Stop it, please. You clearly don't know your word if you say something like that. Why? What must a person do to be saved? Calvinists believe it, Armenians believe it, Provisionists believe it, all the 12 different types of dispensations believe it, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopists, they all believe it. Now, what are they accepting? Now, there's something different. But the tenets of the faith are that you place your faith in Christ, what he's throwing across. Do Calvinists, are there some Calvinists in the audience? Can you testify that that's exactly what you believe that you must place your faith in Christ? Now, you can be free grace, you can be Lordship salvation, but you have to believe that you place your faith in Christ to be saved. And they believe so. Anything other than that is a different gospel. So stop with the, they preach or teach a different gospel. No, now what they do is they have a different understanding maybe than you, as to how we come about being saved, they might, maybe you think they give too much credit to God in terms of their salvation. Maybe you think that they're taking away free will, that doesn't matter, do they place their faith in Christ? If you believe in one saved, all the same, you believe you can lose salvation. Do you have Christ? There we go, I just solved it, but you guys won't let it go. You guys are not going to, cause I gotta be mad at somebody. Well, go be mad at your parents. Be mad at your parents for raising you this way to where you won't listen, to where nobody can be in the club but you. Be mad, somebody, uh-oh, somebody be mad, but be mad. Stop telling everybody they're not saved. Cause guess what? What ends up happening is people get misunderstood. I think John MacArthur misunderstood a lot of what Tony Evans said. By the way, by the way, y'all would, you all would be surprised that some of these folks that call these other folks out like the John MacArthur, Tony Evans, and the Vody Buckums are cordial with each other. They're not behind the scenes, hey, you a heritage. You want to go golfing this weekend? That's not what's happening. But everybody can be misunderstood. As a matter of fact, John MacArthur can be misunderstood. People think that John MacArthur hates charismatic and think that they're not saved. That's not the case. Now there's a myth floating around there that one of the things you said at the conference, it was basically to anaphmatize all charismatics and consign them all to the eternal flames. And I mean, you've already made clear tonight that's not your position. Are there Christians in the movement? Of course there are. And particularly in the old line, traditional Pentecostal churches, assembly of God, four square churches, there are people who believe the gospel, pastors who believe the gospel. They're Christians not because of anything in the movement, they're Christians because the true gospel is there. Oh yeah, these are brothers in Christ and that's how they should be treated and loved and revered and honored as such. Now I'm not saying that all people in the charismatic movement are non-Christians. I've never said that. The book makes that clear again and again and again. And you've made that clear again and again and again. There are people in that movement, people in traditional Pentecostal churches, people in Calvary chapels, wonderful guys. Hey man, let me answer this question. If you're a noble says, Corey Calvinists believe Jesus only died for the elect. In other words, Jesus didn't die for the ungodly. How is Calvinism biblical? Okay, couple things. Do Calvinists who believe in limited atonement, if they place their faith in Christ, are they saved? So they're not believing in different gospel. Now, is it possible to be saved and have an unbiblical view about something? Sure. I think that anyone that believes in the religion of salvation, that's unbiblical because it's not found in the Bible. However, does that make them unsafe? And what they're talking about this limited atonement, there's a basis for believing so in them. I don't agree with limited atonement. But we're both saved because we believe that you must place your faith in Christ. That's it. We're all at the same table with the same father at the head of it. So again, we need to learn how to have differences and disagree. Amen. Now, there is something that John MacArthur said that I take umbrage with. And there are a few things. There are a couple of things nowadays that he's probably known for that I think fairly he ought to find you can get on for. I'll just name the three things up front. One, the issue about the blood we're gonna talk about. The issue about the mark of the beast which maybe was clarified. And then three, the treatment of some of the members of his church, particularly a lady by the name of Eileen Gray. We'll deal with that in just a second. But this issue of the blood, this is one of the main things that I take umbrage with. And so let's go now. This is the old thing, but it's also not fairly recent, but recent enough. I think that we are redeemed, quote, not by his bleeding, but by his dying. Do you still stand by that and why? Yeah, we're not saved by his bleeding because it wouldn't have done any good if he just bled. If Jesus had just bled, nobody would be saved. The wages of sin is not bleeding, the wages of sin is death. And people must understand that it's not the bleeding of Jesus and it's not the blood of Jesus. To speak of the blood of the cross, the blood of the cross is to simply speak of the efficacious substitutionary sacrificial death of Christ. Do I think he had to actually die, actually bleed? No, not to save us, but to fulfill the Old Testament picture. Somebody suggested that I might have thought he could be bludgeoned to death. Well, I suppose if God had decided that's the way he would die, it would be fine. But the pattern and the picture of the shedding of blood was in the whole Old Testament sacrificial system. And as the fulfillment and the final lamb, he fit that model and that pattern, but we are not saved by his blood. Okay, yeah, that, okay, he's wrong. He is as wrong as it could be on that. Now, there was a person, this was some time ago who also, this came up about, I don't know how long ago this was, but also talked about how he talked to John McCarthy about how he had a meeting about it. So I wanna listen to him, his name, I'm not sure if he's still alive or not, Dr. Rathmuson. Bible says without the shed of blood is no remission. He shed his blood on the cross. In 1987, a preacher who has denied the efficacy of the blood of Christ, by saying that it's the death of Christ and not his blood that saves. And in early August, I received a call from Dr. McArthur's secretary who told me that Dr. McArthur liked to meet with me. I agreed to meet, I said we'll meet in my office. So on August the 24th of 1987, Dr. McArthur and his assistant, a man named Dr. Provost came to my office and he walked in and he said what do you have against my doctrine on the blood of Christ? I said Dr. McArthur I have several things against your doctrine. I said for example, in your 1976 letter you said in one sentence, there's nothing in his human blood that saves. I said Dr. McArthur in that one sentence there are two heresies. I said first of all, his blood was not human blood. His blood was the blood of God. Dr. McArthur said where do you get that? I said I get that next 2028 where the Bible says feed the church of God which he had purchased with his own blood. He said so you make the antecedent of God, of the word he, the word God. I said it's the only possible antecedent. I have checked with college grammarians about that. And well noted ministry before industry. We have our redemption through his blood but let's go to what Mr. Rasmussen is bringing up. And when he talks about the antecedent he says for be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you over serious because these pastors to shepherd the church of God which he, who's he? That's the antecedent that he necessarily has to refer back to purchased with his own blood. Matter of fact, let's go and look at it. Yeah. So which aim peripatoisata, which is purchased and this is a singer Eris Middle. So he did it on his own accord. And so who's the one through, we know who he's speaking up Diatu Hematis which is through the blood to idiot which is his own, through his own blood. The only way you can look at that, the only antecedent, cause the word he is not actually there but it's put there in English so that we can know that God has shed his blood. Was this the blood of God? It literally was. Remember, he's not born, he doesn't have Joseph DNA. We've covered this before in Leviticus 17. You all should know this by heart by now as many times we've covered this and this is for the life of the flashes in the blood which meant he had to shed his blood, the importance of his blood and I have given it to you on the altar. Who's saying this? God has sent me his wife says in the Hebrew Why do I not the team? Why do you not the team? Which is I, I myself am giving. And so how do we take this? That he himself, God is giving the blood. How? You don't have a body. Yes, he does because Hebrews 10 5 says a body you have prepared for me. Why? To do just that, to shed the blood. You can't shed the blood, you can't know. And so what's right? Which is why he constantly reiterates the importance of blood. You could not eat the blood. I am with the blood in it. And so, yeah, that was wrong now. He more recently tries to kinda clarify a little bit. I said God is a spirit. That was the blood of Christ. That was the blood of a man. He was 100% and to say in general, very simply that I affirm everything the scripture teaches about the blood of Christ seems very basic. You know me well enough to know that I believe the Bible from front to back cover to cover as one little boy said from geniuses to revolution. There's no point in the Bible that I don't accept totally and I believe it literally in every part. For some strange reason, people have accused me of denying the blood of Christ which is not so. I affirm that a literal Jesus Christ who was man in every respect 100% man yet God incarnate died on the cross shed his literal blood as a sacrifice for sin. And I believe that. And I believe that it was that sacrificial death of Christ on the cross that atoned for the sins of man and those who believe appropriate that atonement and receive eternal life through his death and resurrection and that's historic Christian theology. But in recent months I have noticed that there is an encroaching heresy on the blood. That there are people who say that the blood of Jesus was not human. It was divine. One pastor said to me he had the blood of God. I said what is the blood of God? He said divine blood. I said God is a spirit. That was the blood of Christ. That was the blood of a man. He was 100% man. It's heretical to call the blood of Jesus Christ the blood of God. And it demonstrates a failure to understand that theologians have called the hypostatic union. That is the God-man union in Christ. There are others who say that there's something magical in the blood. There's something in the blood itself that washes sin away. When the scripture teaches that it was the death of Christ that atoned for sin and he shed his literal blood in sacrificial evidence of the pouring out of his life for sin. But there was nothing magic about that blood itself that could wash sin. Am I the only one that is the song? Is it, maybe it's just, I can't be the only one. The song, the blood is in my head. What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood. That is in my head. But now I don't think he did a good job of cleaning it up. I don't, as a matter of fact, I think probably made it worse. I think he made it worse. And so that one, he's just wrong on that. He's just, he's just wrong. Now, has anything changed? I haven't heard so, but then again I don't go to the church. I don't hear it all the time. Do I still love John? Yeah, listen, this is my Carpher study Bible. It's worn out. Someone got this as a gift and I was thoroughly happy. I enjoy the commentary in it. I've got a, there it is, over there, a MacArthur commentary. And so I still love him. Would not throw him out because of this. Nope, I just disagree with that. I kind of see what he's saying that it was his death, but the death that was by blood. Remember, Jesus is there to be, to do exactly what the atonement does. Under the old covenant, and then at the crossing afterwards, we are saved by the atoning work of Christ, in this case on the cross. Remember, he does the three things that were required under the old covenant atonement. One, there's a high priest. He becomes a high priest. Two, there is these, the sacrifice. We'll talk about later, the animal sacrifice is the point of these animal sacrifices, even when we see them in the millennial. Cause we're gonna talk about another person that is not with the millennium. But the high priest, secondly, we need the sacrificial offering, the one who sheds his blood, he does that. And then also the scapegoat, the one who takes away sins. And so, I think there is a need personally to clean it up, just like there was kind of a, the whole issue with the mark of the beast, I think that one, am I as bothered by that as I am the blood? No, but I think it's still, I think that's still a problem. A 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 of 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. Now, I wanna cover that, but Grace said something. Is this true? Sheep's blood is an antidote for a snake venom? Wow, I didn't know that. I need, well, you know, we do have snakes around here. I need to go get me a sheep and put them in the backyard. Just in case, just in case. But what he's saying about the mark, and I know, and I know Phil Johnson spoke about it and maybe there needed to be some sort of clarification, but I don't, here's the problem. When we go to the passage, let's go to Revelation 14 and 13. Revelation 14, let's see, then another angel, a third one, followed them saying, excuse me, with a loud voice, if anyone worships the beast and his image and receives a mark on his forehead or his hand, he also will drink. And this word right here, paitai, which is, he will drink, this is his future. So he's definitely, he is going to drink of the wine of the wrath of God. He is going to, and all those that have took the mark will be tossed into the lake. So I don't think there's a way to kind of come back and say, and no, not really. I don't think you can do that. Plus, if we just look at chapter 13, look at verse eight. This solidifies it. Because I understand there's a hypothetical that if a person took the mark and then hypothetically repented, I'm so sorry, this and that, oh, I feel bad about it. Is it possible that the person who took the mark and then hypothetically repented could be saved? Or is that the, or is that the unforgivable sin? Well, I can see the hypothetical. The problem is there is no reason to even think about the hypothetical. You know why? Because the Bible tells us exactly who those people are that will take the mark and they will not repent. Why do I say so? Because verse eight, 13, all who dwell on the earth will worship him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him. Everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the land who has been slain. So who is going to take the mark? All the folks who are alive whose name has not been written. So if they take the mark and their name is not in the land of the book of life, guess what they're not gonna do? They're not going to repent. They're not gonna say, you know, I'm sorry, me and Copa, I messed up. Forgive me, Lord, let's get do over. Nope, let me scratch this thing off my, nope, not gonna happen. Because these are the people that are gonna do so are those whose names have not been found in the book of life whose names have not been written. And so for that reason, now, again, do I allow grace on this? Sure, listen, I still love John McCartney. I think he's a warm teacher. I think he just got that wrong. And then the whole issue with the woman whose husband was abusing her and then come and find out there was even more to it. Eileen Gray was put out. That was just wrong. They were wrong on that. But was there something in the pharise behind it meaning that they wanted to go ahead and defend the wife beater. They wanted to defend the child molester knowing he was a child molester. At the time, the likelihood, I won't even say like, cause I don't know. I just don't know. I can't get into the hearts of them to say that they absolutely knew for a fact that he was beating her and he was, I don't even think they even know cause she didn't even know that they were messing with the children. He was messing with the children. I don't know. They were just wrong on that. And I think you just come back and say, you know, we messed up. We should have did that. And now of course it's been 20-something years ago and so they haven't done it since. So maybe they did learn. I don't know. I don't know all the particulars. And so I will not, I will not get into their heart and say they did such and such and such intentionally with a bad heart. They, did they mess up? Sure, who didn't? And that's the point. Everybody is going to want to impugn somebody or even impugn you for something you said or did. All right. Whatever judgment that you use against that person will be the same judgment used against you. Well, I don't do this. Okay. So you say, until you stand before the Lord, until you stand before the Lord. Listen, I understand this. I understand. Someone says, has anyone confronted MacArthur on this? Yes. We haven't heard whatever the details were before. Again, Phil Johnson explained it. I saw an interview that he did. And so I imagine, obviously John MacArthur knows about it. I'm not sure if he ever came in because I don't go to the church and I don't hear everything that he says. And so, matter of fact, I think, I think in the, in his, matter of fact, I believe so. I believe in his commentary on revelation that he says really kind of the opposite of what he says. And so for that reason, matter of fact, I know he does. And so for that reason, I'm not too, I'm not too bent out of shape about the whole Mark of the Beast theme because his take in his commentary is different. Again, this was so long time ago when he made that statement. A long time ago when he made that statement, same thing with the whole blood part. I think though, that you ought to kind of, you know, fix it up for now because you don't want that to be kind of hanging out there. But again, if he never does, does that mean he's no good? No, no. There's a lot of stuff that I won't, I won't fix, because one I don't know about, not thinking about it, moved on on something else and so forth. And it may even be what I believe. So because of that, you want to be careful not to say, you know what, John MacArthur, Tony Evans, you're going to hell. All right, fine. Then maybe you are too, with a judgmental condemning mind that you might have as well, you're not, it's hard to be that judgment towards someone else and not be, and also be able to see your own faults because you don't have any. I'm not saying you guys, but let's be honest, we see a lot of folks that kind of feel that way that have a self-righteousness when it comes to their doctrine not willing to see anything. Now I have, I understand, you know, being strong and, you know, kind of consistent and holding to what you believe. I get that. I get that. If someone thinks that you're wrong, make them show that you're wrong. Let them go to the scriptures. And even still, they might show you're wrong and you still may not relent. What saves you is two things. One is the fact that you placed your faith in Christ. And if you're a pastor like these men, then are you doing what the Bible says? Are you doing what, what Peter says? In 1 Peter 4, why am I in the wrong? 1 Peter 5, he says, therefore I exhort you, elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ and partakers also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but voluntarily according to the will of God and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness. And so I give both of these men kudos for doing that. I think it'd be hard to say that they don't shepherd their flock properly. Has there ever been missteps? I'm sure there has been. I'm sure as a father or as a mother, some of you guys have had some missteps and these are your own kids. I'm sure as a parent, you've said and done some things like, yeah, matter of fact, ask your kids. Ask your kids, did you ever, especially your adult kids, did you ever, did you ever do the wrong thing or mistreat them at any point in time? Did you ever go off on them? Just use that a bad day and took it out on them? It happens. And so now, again, if I don't dislike Tony Evans like you dislike him, that's a you thing, not a me thing. If I don't dislike John McArthur the way that you dislike him, that's a you thing, not a me thing. I'm not beholden to your feelings nor are you beholden to mine. I'm just trying to make it clear that by and large, I have seen as far as I can tell, I'm okay. Am I now? Do I hang out? Am I going golfing with any of these guys? No, no. Again, John McArthur is more senior than the other two. And so how many more years is he gonna be around? I don't know, but at the same time now, you also ought to be able to say, hey, this person was wrong about that. This person was wrong about that, but I still love him. My wife was wrong about this, but I still love her. My husband was wrong about this, but I still love my children. We're wrong about this, but I still love them and I'm with them because overall, for the most part, solid. Would I say the same thing about them? Yes. Have I gotten to their hearts? No. Am I gonna try to get into their hearts? No. You might want to. Fine, you do so. Now, one of the things that I do applaud John McArthur on is his view on or how he reads the scripture. He has the same hermeneutic that I have. Now, again, some of the things that he's come to the conclusion with, they're different than mine, which tells you, again, you can have the same hermeneutic but come to a different conclusion. Someone who doesn't have the same hermeneutic that I have, I love him, love him to death, but he's wrong, that's Vodibachan. Do I think we ought to hate Israel? No. Do I think we ought to love them because they're Israel? No. Because I believe that the church is the true, real, new Israel, Jew and Gentile alike. And that those people over there and that piece of land over there, they don't have eschatological significance to me. Which is wrong. Which is wrong. I can't believe you said that. I can't believe that you said they have no, that piece of, those people, that land has no eschatological significance. Well, let's just go to the Bible because Amos begs a different. Amos says, chapter nine, verse 15, I will also plant them on their land and they will not again be rooted out from their land, which I have given them says the Lord. They have, they have eschatological significance. They do just cause you forget your promises just because what you said last week doesn't matter to you. But what God said 3,000 years ago or 4,000 years ago, 5,000 absolutely matters. Is God going to nullify what he says? Are his gifts? See, we take that past as gifts and callings are irrevocable. He's talking about Israel. He's literally, Paul is literally talking about Israel. He's literally, which is why your hermeneutics matter, which is why what you say matters. How you say it? How do you come to that conclusion? Yeah, Israel, guys, listen, I'm not saying the Israel that we're seeing today, that they are innocent. I'm not talking about what's happening there, but that land does matter. How do you know that land matters? How do you know that Israel and that land and those people do matter? Again, when Jesus comes back, where is he coming back to? He's not coming back to America. Lord knows he's not coming back to California or Washington DC. I'd love for him to stop by Indianapolis and Dallas. It's not going to happen. He's coming back to that land. He's going to set his foot on that mount. It's going to split into one part going north, one part moving south. That's what's going to happen. He's coming back to Israel. Why? Because he said he was. He said he was. You ain't got to agree with it. Fine, fine. He said it. It's the case. And there's a promise from Amos. Remember what he says. Israel, Jeremiah 31. Thus is the Lord who gives sun for light. We still have sun and the fixed order of the moons and stars. We still have those. If this fixed order, we still have the seas and the waves. We still have those. He says, if this fixed order departs from before me, declares the Lord, then the offspring of Israel will also cease from being a nation. They will always be a nation before God. God is not like, get this through your human being thick head. God doesn't lie. If he says it, he means exactly how he says it. You ain't got to fix it for him. Even the folks that thought that we were gonna replace Israel, by the way, what popularizes the fact that Israel was not a nation for all these years and then 1948, bam, I might wanna rethink that because God wants you to know that what he says, he's gonna bring it, bring it about. Funny thing though, how come most people who have that same view of Vodibachem believe that you can't lose your salvation? You believe that you cannot lose your salvation, right? You believe that God's promises are secure and because of that, you won't lose your salvation. But why does a nation of Israel have to lose their hers? Not all the people in Israel, we know that. We know that not all of Israel is going to be safe. We get that, but God made a promise to her and he's gonna fulfill that promise. It gets up and identifies what they had just done but says you are still the people of God. God has a plan for the future salvation of Israel because his gifts and callings are not subject to repentance. That doesn't mean that all Jews through all of human history will be saved. It means that there will be a time in the future when the nation Israel believes and is saved and that is described in detail in the book of Zachariah when they look on the one they've pierced, mourned for him as an only son and a fountain of forgiveness and blessing is open to Israel and then it follows into the kingdom. Hey man, he was right on that. As a matter of fact, what does he say in Romans? Remember Romans 9 to 11, guys, he's not talking about, there are elements that you can pull out to talk about sovereignty and election and so forth but the focus of Romans 9 to 11 as Paul says is Israel. And if you deny that, you just can't, you know what, not that you, if you can't read or you won't read because he literally speaks about Israel. Now, that was what he says in Romans 11. He says, I say then, God has not rejected his people. Who's he speaking of? He's speaking of Israel. What now? I know that's offensive because what do you mean his people? What about me? Am I not his? Stop being jealous. Stop, stop being jealous because God can't have somebody else. God can't, you can only love me. Some of you people are spiritual love hogs. He can't love anybody else. No, listen, he loves you. He loves you so much so that these people that Paul's speaking of, he literally gives them a spirit of stupor. He literally gives them a heart, a partial hardening to those people so that he can deal with you. That's how much he loves you. And by the way, he spoke about you, not your name, but he spoke about you before he spoke about, before there was an Israel. He said that in you through you Abraham, all of the families that there should be blessed. That's you, that's me. So he says, has he rejected his people? May it never be. No, he's not. He says, for I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin, God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew ahead of time, for do you not know what the scripture says in the passage about Elijah? Now, I want to show you something like Fire Marshall Bill. Let me show you something. I want to show you what's going to happen. He says verse seven. He says, what then? What Israel is seeking? Israel, not spiritual Israel. It can't be spiritual Israel because if it's spiritual Israel, well then that's speaking about Christians. The church, is he saying the church has been seeking it and hadn't obtained it yet? No, he's clearly speaking about physical, ethnic Israel, who at that point in time, even up to now, has turned her back on the Messiah. What then? What Israel is seeking? It has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it and the rest were hardened. So some Jews were chosen, the rest were hardened just as it was written. God gave them a spirit of stupor eyes to see not and hear not down to this very day. Now, let's drop down, because this is a part that a lot of folks bring up. Let's talk about this being ingraphed and so forth. I say then, they did not stumble so as the fall did they, may it never be. But by their transgression, salvation has come to you other people, us people, us Gentiles sheet, to make them jealous, which is just what God said. I'm gonna make you jealous with another people, call them beloved who was not beloved, a new nation, and I'm gonna use that to bring you back to me. Well, if the first part happened, him making them jealous, don't you think the whole point of him making them jealous with us is gonna happen? That it's him bringing Israel back to him. Now, if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be? What fulfillment? The fact of what God said is gonna do with Israel, but I'm speaking to you who are Gentiles. And as much then as I am an apostle Gentiles, I magnify my ministry. If somehow I might move to jealousy, my fellow countrymen and save some of them. So what's gonna happen? Their reconciliation is going to happen. Well, what about them us being grafted in? Notice, he not only says that branches, that's Israel, branches were broken off and that we as Gentiles were grafted in, grafted into what? Remember, we weren't grafted into another branch. Israel's a branch, Gentile, the church is a branch. So what we're grafted into is not into Israel, we're not new Israel. Bodhi Bakim is hermeneutically off as off can get because there is no such things as being grafted into Israel. We're not the new Israel. Look what he says, but if some of the branches, what branches? Israel were broken off and you being a wild olive were grafted in among them and become partakers with them of the rich root of the olive tree. Don't be arrogant towards them because what would we grafted into? The root, not into a branch. Remember that. He says, verse 19, you will say then the branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in quite right. They were broken off for their unbelief, for they're not believing, but you stand by your faith, do not be conceited, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, will he not spare you? Behold the kindness and severity of God. Let me drop down verse 23. And they also, if they do not continue their unbelief will be grafted in for God is able to graft them in again. What is God going to do? For you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree and were grafted contrary to the nature into a cultivated olive tree. How much more will these who are natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? So what is going to happen to Israel? Israel is going to be grafted back in again. He literally says they are going to be grafted in again for I do not want you to be uninformed or ignorant so that you will not be wising your own estimation that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until we're in Romans 11, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and so all Israel will be saved. So is Israel going to be saved? Yes, when after the fullness of the Gentiles has ended how many of all the Israel is going to be saved? We don't know. Now all of them as a matter of fact a vast majority of them will not be saved. There's the ones that are dying now who haven't placed their faith in Christ. They will at some point in time place their faith in Christ. Now, something else that Bodie has. Listen, his hermeneutics on the end times is just not very good. That's just me. Why? Because he says this. Our adversary is real. His war against the church is real. His hatred of God and the people of God is real. And we do not get raptured out of here so that we don't get to taste it. I believe for most people that just makes sense. That just makes sense. If God's going to rapture the church out of here so that we don't taste tribulation didn't he kind of forget John and the boys? What about our brothers and sisters in China right now? Can we really say to them with a straight face? Don't worry, before it gets really bad he's going to rapture us out for real. Think about that for a second. The rap, because he's saying that we're in the tribulation right now. Then we are literally in the tribulation right now. So the folks in China, or let's say Gaza, yeah, this is bad. And we're going to tell them with a straight face that it's going to get worse. Yeah, we're going to tell them that. You know why? Because if the rapture is happening in China, I mean not the rapture, if the tribulation is happening in China and the tribulation is happening in Gaza, the tribulation is happening in Yemen, the tribulation is happening all over everywhere else except most Westernized countries will then do your very best to get to a Western country. Do your very best to get to the United States of America or get to Canada, get to the UK. Because the tribulation isn't happening there, it's like there. Is that what we're really saying? That is, that makes absolutely no sense. All you got to do is get your ticket, get your boat, get somewhere across the border and you too can avoid the tribulation. No, that's not how this works, Mr. Bachman. For real, in the future, basically have to argue that he sits there on the island of Patmos in exile, writing about some terrible time that's going to come in the future while simultaneously thinking about all of his fellow apostles who were beheaded, crucified, upside down, run through with a spear, beaten to death with a branch off an olive tree, boiled in oil. Now when John writes about tribulation, he's writing about right here, right now. He's writing about the church in every age, letters to us, to saints in every age who endure. You just don't have a password to go with that. This is just you just guessing. When John is writing this, John literally says, John is being told what is, what was, what is and what is to come. And then he starts writing about what is to come. He starts writing about what's going to come and so yeah, you can have tribulation now. Matter of fact, everyone has gone through some sort of tribulation, some more so than others, but this is the tribulation that Jesus said. Jesus said it's going to get worse. It's going to get, matter of fact, matter of fact, let me bring him up, I'm a good friend, Dr. Cone. We had this conversation before and what his take is on the tribulation and you tell me if this doesn't make sense. Paul does exactly that in 2nd Thessalonians because in 1st Thessalonians chapter four, he describes this, the hope of the rapture, this catching up of living saints to be with those who had already died where Christ comes in the clouds but doesn't come to the earth. So he's not fulfilling the other prophecies of him coming to the earth and every eye sees. This is different. Then in chapter five of 1st Thessalonians, and he talks about, yeah, yeah. 1st Thessalonians chapter five, he talks about the day of the Lord and the tribulation and severity. Well, then a few months later, he writes to the same church, 2nd Thessalonians, and he explains to them, you're not in the day of the Lord because these other events have to come first. Now, when you think about this for a second, because in order for us to be in this tribulation, some things have to have taken place. You could not wear a straight face if they've happened where the lawless man, the Antichrist has shown up and these other things. Listen to what he says. So I would encourage a brother or sister who are feeling like they're in the tribulation. I would say, you know, read 2nd Thessalonians because Paul is directly dealing with that issue and he explains that these things have to happen first in order for the day of the Lord to begin. And namely, it's the departing of the church. If the tribulation has happened, you know, the departing of the church and the restrainer being removed in chapter two and the man of lawlessness is being revealed, these things all happen before the tribulation or the day of the Lord begins. So I would say, who's this man of lawlessness? And then I would also say, if any of Jesus' believers are on this planet, tribulation hasn't begun yet because of what Paul says in chapter two, 2nd Thessalonians. So the question is, who's the restrainer? Has the restrainer left? No, either the strainer has to be either the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit in us as a church. That hadn't happened yet or his activity in us. That hadn't happened. If you disagree with that take, well, fine. Who's the antichrist? Who's the lawless person? He asked me revealed first, hadn't happened. And so the point is, and I get it because here's what happens as we get ready to come to a close. Here's what happens a lot of times. We sometimes take our doctrines, our confessions, and everything has to match up with that. I could care less about your confession. I can care less about any confession, period. Doesn't matter. I mean, because why? It's not in the Bible. If your confession's in the Bible, then fine. I know what you're gonna say. Well, our confession is based off the Bible. Well, so is everyone else's. So they think. So I don't care about your confession, but you'll have someone that's gonna, you know what? I'm gonna do my best to read this into the scripture. But again, I like the way that I read the Bible. I like the way that I read everything else. You know why? Because you read everything else the exact same way too. I know how you read a menu. I know how you read a map if there was one. How you read directions. I know how you read a book. I know how you read a magazine. I know how you read a newspaper. I know how you do those things. And I know how you read 90% of the Bible. It's just that when your doctrine comes in, so we spiritualize some things. You almost spiritualize this death on the cross. How do we know that that's not what it says? Well, because it says it literally, but maybe it didn't mean that he literally died on the cross. Maybe what it was was that his, maybe there's some truth to what the Muslims say. No, we don't have to spiritualize this. Allegra, I know it says what it says because he knows that we're not that right to read into it and come to a hidden meaning. That's the whole point. And again, I've challenged folks to tell me on some of these different things that show me the passage, they haven't. They have, it's more reading into it. And I'm okay with that. I'm okay with you reading into it, but I can't read into it the same way you do, but I can look at it in the plain reading. Now, what I want to say is this. What I want to say is this. Keep teaching for 20 more minutes, please. I'll do my best. Won't be 20 more minutes though. I'll say this though. I'll say this guys. I love all of them. I'm fine with all of them until I get more reason not to. I'm fine with all of them. And so I'm not, let me tell you why. The Bible says this. He says, the elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. I think they do so. I think they do so. Are there gonna be missteps? Sure, just like I have missteps. I have a whole lot of missteps and probably some more to come. And when you get someone to put a mic in front of you, in their case, every Sunday and other times on Wednesdays or studies or stuff like that or whatever, when they put their name out there and they go to teaching, the opportunity for you to mess up increases. The more times you do it, the more you have an opportunity to mess up. You are going to mess up. And now, so the point is not who's right, who's wrong, who's better. Is Tony Evans better than John McCarthy? Is John McCarthy better than Lody Bachman? Is Lody Bachman better than? No, that's not it. The point is to recognize who these men are. They are men, first and foremost. I think that God has done some wonderful things in our life. I think some people have learned from them. And so because of that, I think that we should also do the best we can to not to impugn them their heart and so forth because of what they may have said or done, even if we disagree with it. Amen. Sean Davis think from Super Chatty says, I don't know about Tony Evans and John McCarthy are, oh, Lody Bachman and John McCarthy are legit teachers and Corey, I'm a fan, bro. Thank you. You know what, best Super Chat ever. I'm kidding. Thank you. I appreciate that. BJ says, how can Calvinism make any sense if Adam and Eve had free will to choose, but we don't? What do you mean? Well, okay. A couple of things I would say about that. And now it might very well be that it falls apart on that. It might very well be that it falls apart on that, but Adam and Eve had free will to choose. They had the ability to choose. That doesn't mean that we don't have the exact same ability to choose. No, think about this for a second BJ and everyone else. The same ability to choose that we have, they have, that they have, we have. What happened as they were choosing? They were choosing to do fine until a homeboy showed up. You know who homeboy is? Homeboy, the guy that you spend a lot of time with yourself, that homeboy, the devil, he shows up. He's persuasive, deceived Eve and Adam decide to intentionally sin. They made a choice. You and I make a choice. What are we gonna always choose? Again, they choose, they chose to do wrong in the most pristine place ever. We do the exact same thing and God knows so. So now what will God have to do in order to save us? He's gotta do something to our heart. Otherwise we ain't gonna do it. All right, here's somebody who is, listen, my friend, you're getting ahead of yourself. Corey, thank you for telling me. I appreciate when people wanna tell me what I am and what I'm not doing. Okay, fine. Everyone doesn't read or understand the Bible through the same way that you do. Can I ask you a question? I want you to think about something. Roddy Piper, can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? I guess it'd be Roddy Piper. Okay, cause if there's two P's. The reason why I noticed that is because there are rules when it comes to languages, right? There are rules when it comes to language, which is why I just noticed Roddy Piper. It can't be Roddy Piper, right? Now I know the rest are Roddy Roddy Piper, so it can't be that. So you must mean be Roddy Piper. Mr. Piper, am I saying it correctly? Is that the way you want it to be said? There are rules to languages. The I becomes a different sound because I got the two vowels. I mean the two consonants after it. Since Cory, everyone doesn't read or understand the Bible through the same way that you do. Now, when you went to school, you were taught how to read their rules. There's grammar ascribed to it. There's grammatical rules, just like with me in English and Spanish and French and Greek. There are rules that are ascribed to how we read. So far, we're right, right? We get that. So I can't, so if I read what you're saying, should I take this as an insult? Should I take this as you talking about my mother? What if I said, no, who are you to talk that way about my mother? And you think, wait a second, I didn't say anything about your mother, but wait a second. There are these words, they're written, I should understand them as best I can by the words that you use, how you formulate the syntax and so forth. So he says, if I can respond this time without y'all don't cut them off, just don't get too, you know, you are more than welcome to respond. Let them respond moderates just as long as you don't get ugly. They're gonna do their job, but there are rules to language. There are rules to how we read. The further we get away from school, high school, junior high, we forget how to read. We just, you know what, now it's up to my own interpretation. I'm 40 years old, I'm 30 years old, I'm 15, 60. I can figure this thing out. No, there's still rules to how you read it. And so all I can do is take the literal, plain understanding, the way you read everything else. Now, you said you rely on your own understanding, which understanding am I relying on? Which understanding which is shown through your relying, I'm not relying on the Greek, but the Greek is there. I would be, let me just say this, Roddy Pipper, I would be a fool, you would be a fool. Anyone on the planet would be a fool with a big gigantic F to disregard the Greek. Who gave us the scriptures in Greek, my friend? You didn't, I didn't, God did. Can I see scripture that says language brings understanding? If not, I'd like to teach you where understanding comes from, sir. No, no, no, no. What is your Bible written in? Language, with all due respect, it's an asinine statement to make as though language didn't bring understanding. You are, you are literally given these words to read. That's what we judge everything. That's how we understand the Bible based on these words that they have meaning. So if we're going to, if we are going to dissect the scripture, we're gonna rightly divide, we are rightly dividing not your understanding, not your spirit, not my spirit, but the word. If you disagree, fine. You are more than welcome to disagree, but you can't get upset because I use that. Cause what would you do if Paul was here speaking Greek? Paul, you rely on the Greek too much. Shut up with that Greek, Paul. John, no more Greek, please. Please don't give us any more Greek. Samuel, can you please take the Hebrew away? God gave us his word in English. Stop it. Does Pippur know Greek? I don't know. I don't know. If Pippur knew some Greek, Pippur wouldn't, Pippur wouldn't poop with the Greek. Stop poo poo in the Greek. Anyway. But the whole point is, guys, with these men, you give them honor for what they've done. If they've done something egregious, fine, call it out. If they've done something that is counter scriptures, call it out. No problem with that because nobody's above the scripture, but at the same time, let's also steal honor of these men, but also let's not pick sides, let's not determine whose team we're on because they are Calvinists, because they're dispensational, because they're Baptist, because they're Methodists, because of this affiliation, because of that affiliation. Let's not look for examples to impugn them because they're not part of our clique. That's what normally happens. I like this person because he is with my team. I don't like him because somebody else on my team doesn't like them. Let's not do that. Let's be godly. Let's show grace to them the same way that others will want to have some grace showing us. Yeah, that's the cat. The cat, I'm so sick of him, he knows I'm in here. He knows I'm in here. I promise you, I'm gonna kick him. I'm not gonna kick him. I'm not gonna kick him. Yeah, that is the cat. The cat is outside the door because unfortunately for me, my office is the cat's bathroom. And so he's gonna have to hold it. Maybe not. Maybe not. Let me go let the cat in. In the meantime, guys, God bless you. I love you. Do I think we ought to hate Israel? No.