(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

This is my comfort in my affliction, For thy word hath quickened me. The proud have had me greatly in derision, Yet have I not declined from thy law? Remember the words unto thy servants, Of whose thou hast caused me to grow. I remembered my judgments of old, O Lord, and have comforted myself. Horror hath taken hold upon me, Because of the wicked that forsake thy law. Thy statutes have been my songs, In the house of my pilgrimage. Remember the words unto thy servants, Of whose thou hast caused me to hope. I have remembered thy name, O Lord, In the night, and have kept mine warm. The proud have had me greatly in derision, Yet have I not declined from thy law? I have remembered thy name, O Lord, In the night, and have kept thy warm. This I had because I kept thy precepts, Thy precepts. Remember the words unto thy servants, Of whose thou hast caused me to hope. Thanks for watching! And deliver me, For I do not forget thy law. Plead my cause, And deliver me. Quicken me according to thy word. Great are thy tenders, O Lord, Quicken me according to thy judgments. The word is truth, The beginning, And every one of thy righteous judgments Endure forever. Salvation is far from the wicked, For they seek not their statutes. Great are thy tenders, O Lord, Quicken me according to thy judgments. Great are thy tenders, O Lord, Quicken me according to thy judgments. The word is truth, The beginning, And every one of thy righteous judgments Endure forever. You are my persecutors and my enemies, Yet do I not decline from thy testimonies? I beheld the transgressors and was grieved, Because they kept not thy word. Great are thy tenders, O Lord, Quicken me according to thy judgments. The word is truth, The beginning, And every one of thy righteous judgments Endure forever. Many are my persecutors and my enemies, Yet do I not decline from thy testimonies? I beheld the transgressors and was grieved, Because they kept not thy word. Hey everybody, thanks for joining us for a special episode of The Baptist Bias. We're going to be doing a reaction to a sermon that was preached about Steadfast Baptist Church and our doctrinal statement. And I've got with me in studio none other than Ben the Baptist. How's it going everybody? I'm excited to be here for this special edition of The Baptist Bias. We're going to go over this sermon together and respond to it. Pastor Shelley, thanks for having me tonight. You know, if there's anything that is better than The Baptist Bias, it's extra, a little extra Baptist Bias. It's a Saturday night edition of our show, so for those of you that are just filing into the chat room, call your friends, call your family, let them know we're on the air and join us. Can you get anything better than The Baptist Bias, Ben? You know what, at the risk of sounding a little prideful, I will say yes, there are many things that are better. You know, it's not prideful, it's just biased. There you go. You're reining me in, I appreciate that. There you go. Yeah, of course, excited to do a little show tonight and talk about this sermon that was preached about our church. And, you know, not everybody that preaches about us or preaches about our doctrinal position is necessarily a bad person. It could just be that they're off. And in this particular situation, we're not really bringing up someone that's necessarily a bad person. In fact, it sounds like they're exactly right on the gospel and it's probably even a good church to be a part of. It's just that they don't really like our doctrine and that's fine. I actually invited these people on the show if they would be willing to have a discussion, but they didn't really want to. You can pull this up on the screen. We've got a message from Reverend Tom Frazier. He's not the actual pastor of this church, but I think he's just one of the teachers that fills in. And he preached an evening service at the First Baptist Church in Land O' Lakes, Florida. So it's out there in the middle of Florida somewhere. That's where you're from, right, Ben? I moved here from Florida, and so I'm assuming there's an anti-Florida joke or some kind of comment coming next, to which I would say I'm going to preemptively disagree. Can any good thing come out of Florida? There it is. I don't know. I feel like I was set up for something there. No, I love Florida, but spiritually there's some issues there. Of course, there's a lot of bad churches. But this is, again, not one of them in the sense that I believe this individual is saved, and so I want to be clear that I'm not, and Pastor Shelley isn't either, attacking the character of this individual or trying to go personal with this guy or anything like that. We're responding to the doctrine, and I think since Step Fast Baptist Church's name was evoked, we have the right to do that. We have the right to respond to what was said, and that's exactly what we're doing. It's not personal. It's just business. We also are hosting a Spaces, and in the Spaces we're going to give people an opportunity to share their opinion on this as well. Before we really bring on some of the guests, though, I want to try and get through a little bit of this sermon, just kind of get it going. You and me can provide some commentary here, but we're just going to be watching it, and you can watch it with us. We're going to react together. We'll probably pause it here and there, and so I'm ready to get started. Again, you can join me at BandPastor on Twitter in our Spaces, and you can come in there. We'll try to add you as a speaker, but we'll probably just wait until maybe 30, 40 minutes into the show before we start integrating some of our Space speakers, but you can join us over there. We'd love to get your feedback. You can also post comments in here. You can join us on Locals. We've got about 130 people already in the show, Ben, live. That's great. A lot of comments in there, and so people are saying Florida sucks, Ben. What do you think about that? Well, whoever said that obviously doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm just kidding. Who is this here? We've got Wendy the Baptist in there, and we've got Bro J. Stu, and one other individual there, NB4Jannies, so make sure that you file into the chat. If you put something that is worthy of being mentioned, I have the chat room right here in front of me. I will respond to it. All right, so I think we're good. They didn't really say anything bad about Florida. Look at this person. It says, Florida is great. There you go. All right, my new favorite person. Hey, you know, honestly, the beaches in Florida are pretty great. They are. And if you like golf, which I know you do, there's the Ponte Vedra, which has gorgeous golf courses. It does have TPC Sawgrass. TPC Sawgrass. Yep, there you go. You should explain a lot of golf to us. That would probably be pretty comical. We should do a whole podcast where I commentate golf. What do you think about that? Well, let's go ahead and get into this, and I'm sure we have this trimmed. I don't know. We'll get it started. I think it's the full deal. Okay. We'll go ahead and see if we can play some of this. All right. I tried my button, but it didn't seem to want to work. Let me refresh. Here we go. The title of tonight's message is Israel, about Israel. You ain't seen nothing yet. Amen. And the thing is, I like to start with a particular troubling piece of news, and it has to do with anti-Semitism. Uh-oh. We've heard about a lot in the news ever since October 7th, the attack on Israel and the protests have been on our campuses and around towns. And usually we associate the kind of anti-Semitism we've been seeing with a certain part of our country, a certain persuasion. But the troubling news I have for you at first is that I think that's what he meant there. I looked up, uh, it's a group within Baptist. It's called, this is Steadfast Baptist Church. It's in Texas. And there are several small satellite churches of Steadfast Baptist Church of Texas. And these satellite churches hold the same view. So I went online and I looked at their beliefs and they have one session and it's called false doctrines. So I thought I'd be interested in reading what they call a false doctrine. Now they call themselves a new, independent, fundamental Baptist church. And one of the first tenets of their beliefs is King James Bibles, only King James Bibles. And so they go on and then I saw that they had a pastor give the gospel. So I wanted to listen to that. It was so clear. It was so right on. I just love how he said that. It was so clear. It was so right on. Here, pause it for just a second. Let me see your tablet, because my button doesn't seem to be working. I just want to make sure I can pause it. You could use it from there if you want. I mean, so far, pretty good, right? Well, I like that he said, it was so clear about your gospel presentation. It was right on. So at the very least, even though we're about to get into where we disagree, at the very least, this guy agrees with us on the essential doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone and once saved, always saved. So I would have to, you know, believe that this is a brother. I think it is. I think this is a brother. Yeah, absolutely. And so I am persuaded that this is a brother in Christ. At the very least, we agree on that and that's a good thing. So we'll get that out of the way first. Well, and at the same time, he also is King James only. King James only. Baptist. Baptist. I mean, for me, from a church perspective, my fellowship is basically you're King James only, you're Baptist, you're right on the gospel. And you're good to go. Potentially capable of being my friend, fellowshipping with you. Obviously, if you were mean towards our church or attacking our church, I probably wouldn't necessarily want you to come and preach for us or something like that. But again, this is pretty much my test for fellowship. You're King James only, you're Baptist, you got the right gospel. I mean, hey, our church should be able to fellowship with your church in theory and you as a preacher and everything else. You're obviously way too closed-minded, aren't you? Yeah, that's basically where I'm at, you know, from a fellowship perspective. Now, of course, you know, we're just talking about going out, talking to people, being nice, bringing people on our show. We're way more far-reaching than that. In fact, I pretty much am willing to bring anybody on the show that's not a reprobate. And I'm not even saying that I wouldn't necessarily debate a reprobate or something like that, potentially. But, you know, we try to give reprobates the cold shoulder when it comes to the Baptist bias. But outside of that, we'll bring all kinds of people on. We brought Catholics, we brought people that are not very religious, different denominations, things like that. And it's not to be, you know, ecumenical in a sense that we're trying to be like them, but we're trying to bring our Baptist bias, reach people where they're at, influence them in a positive direction. And so, you know, but this guy's different. This guy's even a step closer. He's someone that we would say, hey, this guy could be in our church, this guy is something that we could have a closer fellowship with. And, you know, obviously, one thing to correct, we don't have satellites all over the world. I know to contrary belief, you know, steadfast is everywhere, but actually right now we only have one. We have one in Oklahoma City and a great church right now. Brother Dylan Oz is leading our church over there. And God willing, maybe in the near future, he might end up even taking that church on as pastor. And so, shout out to Steadfast OKC. Not only is it Brother Dylan Oz, but there's a lot of great people in that church. I hope they're watching. Yeah, great people in that church. Better be Steadfast OKC. If you're anywhere over there, shout out. Don't let me down. You got to go to Steadfast OKC. It's a great church. Let's go ahead and keep going. I want to see, yeah, my tablet button. Try refreshing it. Well, I did, but. Did you turn it off and turn it back on again? Yeah. Do you know how do you know how to hit the buttons? So we're going to go ahead. Just go ahead and play and I'll say something. You can know that you're going to heaven when you die. So far, I'm thinking this is pretty good. This new independent fundamental Baptist church movement. As I went through the false doctrines, I agreed with some of these two. They have a false doctrine being the charismatic movement, a false doctrine being Calvinism. I can check these off as being something so far that I agree with. A false doctrine of using repent of your sins in order to be saved. Amen. Repent of your sins. If you mean to turn from your sins in order to go to heaven. Then why do we need a savior? Right. Again, he's right here. He's spot on. Amen. So I'm agreeing. I'll take issue with this section of the... Ecumenicalism. Pentecostal oneness. But there were two things that it caught my attention. And one is the pre-tribulational rapture. So evidently, the steadfast Baptist church, we're talking Baptist circles, folks. And this is the new independent fundamental Baptist circles. I'm not a part of them. Our church isn't part of them. But amongst the new IFB, they do not believe that before the rapture... I mean, before the tribulation, there will be a rapture. Yes. The second thing I really... Because it's not in the Bible. Matthew 24, 29, I think, makes that clear. Jew worship. In other scriptures. Just pause that again. We might roll that back. Roll that back just a second. Yeah. He said, okay, we don't believe in the pre-trib rapture, which, A, he didn't provide any verses for that. Secondly, then he brings up the second false doctrine on our doctrinal statement that he doesn't like. Let's play that again. Loud and clear. I'm mad at who that is. Jew worship. Jew worship. All right. That's what they say. Pause it again. And the boss got... Is it possible to turn him up just a hair? Because he seems just a little bit quiet for me, and I just want to see if we can just get the volume up just a little bit more. Jew worship. I also don't know... Can we go to my screen for just a second? Because I want to go to our website and see if we can... He's looking at our doctrinal statement. Pull up our doctrinal statement. There's a false doctrines section of our doctrinal statement. So if you go to our website, and you go to the About Us, the doctrine is the first tab there. We have several different doctrinal beliefs there, and then core doctrines, important doctrines, and then I have a list of major sins, and then I have, like, at the very bottom, false doctrines. So he brought up the charismatic movement, and he said, yep, bad. That's bad. So he agrees with us. He agrees with us how Calvinism's wrong. He agrees with us repent of your sins is wrong. And then he brings up how he doesn't agree with the preaching relation rapture, even though we put a bunch of verses here. And then also, I have this racism slash Zionism, and then I put Jew worship, unconditional Israel support, and then a bunch of verses. What's so funny to me is that he didn't bring up racism slash Zionism, and then I was specific about what I believed on that, that that means Jew worship. Isn't it weird that he just cherry-picked that particular phrase? Like, why didn't he just read the entire thing here? I mean, I think it's obvious that he felt like Jew worship was more provocative, and that's the point that he wanted to stick to, for whatever reason. What I'm concerned about is— But would that mean that he thinks it's good to worship Jews? And that's what I was about to say. I'm a little concerned that Jew worship would even be a sticking point with anyone. It shouldn't matter what it says. Even if it said Christian worship, hypothetically. Hey, our politics need to learn this. We shouldn't be doing Jew worship. Yeah. You shouldn't worship any man, so there shouldn't be a sticking point there. I don't think so. And I'm not saying that this guy's arguing for— You can join us in our spaces. I put that up over here. Worshiping Jews, but it seems like the fact that we're against Jew worship is somehow anti-Semitic, perhaps, according to the message, and I don't agree with that sentiment whatsoever. I want to see, also, if we can get— Can we get a button on our screen here to switch camera views? That would be cool, too. And then, let's go ahead and see. Let's see if— I think we got our control back now, Ben. Let's see. Go for it. Let's see if we get some magic here. Ready? Jew worship. Yeah. Jew worship. That's what they say as a false doctrine. Jew worship. Yes. And I'm thinking, wait a second. What we associate with anti-Semitism is not usually in Baptist circles. Wait a minute. Okay. Now he equates Jew worship with anti-Semitism. So, if I say I don't want to worship Jews, I'm now an anti-Semite? Am I interpreting that wrong? It seems like the opposition to worshiping Jews is being labeled as anti-Semitic in this sermon. You are not interpreting that wrong. That appears to be what he is saying. If you oppose Jew worship, you must then be anti-Semitic. I mean, is this not crazy? In my mind, I just feel like it's preposterous because it shouldn't matter what it says. If it says Christian worship or Muslim worship, whatever, it shouldn't be a controversial statement to say we shouldn't worship people who believe in an anti-Christ false religion, a satanic, wicked, blasphemous false religion. And I don't mean to get ahead of myself here. Yeah, but wait a minute. Just insert any other word before that. What if I said Islam worship? Exactly. Or black worship or white worship or any – America worship. Wouldn't you have to say that we have to be against worshiping America as Christians? I mean, we should only worship the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't even understand how this is a conflation. You're basically saying idolatry. You don't believe in idolatry. Or racism. That was the first line in this particular false doctrine. Racism. Because if you think the Jews are more special than the, quote, goyim or Gentiles, then is that not a form of racism? I think it is. I mean, racism, by definition, is believing that one particular group of people are superior to another group of people. And, of course, that could be based on race, ethnicity, just any kind of outward physical characteristics, maybe even geography, heritage, lineage, something like that. And to say that Jews are more special than Christians or just anybody would be a form of racism that I think is necessary to call out, because there are some people that are giving a blank check to the modern state of Israel and to Jews as if no matter what they do, they're just extra special. And they're a certain class of citizen that's above the rest of us. And so if you think anything negative about them, it's just automatically anti-Semitism. In fact, including not worshiping them. Is this not like Haman in the Bible, where if you don't bow down and literally worship Haman, you're somehow anti-Semitic? I mean, what do you think about that parallel with Mordecai, like, refusing to bow to Haman? Yeah, I mean, obviously that's what set him off. And it seems like the same is true for some of our Baptist brethren, where if you refuse to bow down to the quote Haman, which is a type of Jew, according to how Pastor Shelley is applying it, and I agree with him, then, you know, it leads to them freaking out. I do want to mention that Bro J Stu in the chatroom said, I assume he thinks Jew worship is a slang for anti-Israel, not as in the literal Jew worship. And to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he's actually responding to an anti-Israel sentiment, an anti-Zionist sentiment, and not defining more clearly what it is that he's arguing against. But on the surface, on the surface, it seems like he's taking issue with our opposition to Jew worship. And so on the surface, it sounds preposterous, even though I do think it's likely that what he's actually responding to is an anti-Zionist sentiment. And I want to make sure you can join us on Spaces on X. I want to make sure you guys that are in Spaces, can you give me like a thumbs up or something if you can end up hearing me? I just want to make sure that we're broadcasting correctly and you can hear us in there OK. Of course, we'll get to some speakers here in a moment, but I want to play again some more of this. And we kind of set the tone a little bit. We'll go ahead and just start kind of watching a lot more of this and then we can give some feedback here in a minute. But thanks for joining us on the show. And of course. Oh, nice. We got some thumbs up in there. It looks like we're good. So I just wanted to double check on that. Let's go ahead and play a little bit more of this. If you've got a question, you can pop it in the chat as well. But here amongst some Baptists and fundamental Baptist believers, they're listing as a false doctrine. Jew worship. Now, that bothers me. I don't know about you, it really bothers me because I don't want to be associated. The Baptist's name to be associated with antisemitism. But it can be. And it's an important. Wait, one more quick comment. Maybe I should just below that, add another doctrine, false doctrine, antisemitism, and then just like explain what antisemitism is and how I don't actually agree with that. What do you what do you think about that? Well, the word Semite is it. Let me start over. The word Semite encompasses more than just religious Jews. And first of all, they're white people anyway, first of all. And second of all, a lot of Arabs fall under that umbrella. Well, how about just ethnic Jews? Or ethnic Jews. Ethnic Jews and then anybody from the Middle East basically. You know, I'm pretty sure, I'm like 99% sure. Aren't you from Lebanon? Aren't you Semitic? A Lebanese is Semitic and you're a good friend of mine. So if you hated people who had a Semitic ethnicity, then why are you friends with them? But Pastor Shelley, maybe you should add that and we'll see how they respond to it, right? No, I mean, I'm just, you know, I'm just kind of curious. I just, for me, and I don't know if you feel the same way, but I just kind of get frustrated with this label of antisemitic because what do they even mean by that? What is a Semite according to you? Is it just a Christ-hating Jew? Yeah, but how about this? Is it according to the Holocaust Museum that said by saying the Jews killed Jesus, you're antisemitic? Is that the type of Baptist he doesn't want to hang out with? Like, this is frustrating when they won't define their own terms or define these terms for us, at least so that we have some idea of what we're even fighting against. Because, you know, maybe we're fighting a straw man here. We don't know. But it's a black box. It's like, oh, I don't want to be associated with antisemitic, you know, Baptists. Well, what does that even mean? And again, the word Semite encompasses many different people, including many Arabs. I'm Arab, so I don't feel like I'm part of an antisemitic church. I think the problem is they attribute that word only to Christ-hating, Christ-rejecting Jews. Someone in the chat says I'm okay being labeled that. Well, obviously, you know, it just means that you have some kind of a brain in your head most of the time when you're labeled that. And I'm pretty sure the person who said that is Semitic as well. I might be wrong, but I know who that is, I think, and I believe he's Semitic. But let's keep going. It's easy to think that, and I'm not in any way knowing anything about what's being asked this new pastor, but I know that one of the questions should be, what do you think of Israel? What do you think of God's chosen people of Israel? Is God done with them? Well, he's not done with the true chosen people of Israel, but modern-day Israel is not them. We'll just keep playing, because that's a loaded issue. That kind of question is sometimes not asked, and we just assume if they have the Baptist name, they're going to be a lover of God's chosen people, Israel. But that's not to be taken for granted. Okay, I have to say one quick comment. Does this mean that I have to love Ivanka Trump? That's what I want to know. Does this mean I have to love Rabbi Shmueli, or whatever his name is? Does this mean I have to love Harvey Weinstein? George Soros. Do I have to love George Soros? The Rothschilds. Do I have to love Netanyahu? Do I have to love every single person in Hollywood? Larry Silverstein. Is this why Christians love Hollywood so much? I mean, maybe that's why they love Hollywood so much. You want to love Hollywood. I mean, you have to, right? If you want to bless Israel. You better go down that movie ticket later and buy a movie ticket right now. Buy a Hollywood movie right now. Are you a lover of Israel? Bless a Jew. God not done with Israel. All right, let's keep playing. Romans chapter 11. Will you turn there? Because any time you think about what should be the church's attitude about the Jewish people, Romans chapter 11 answers that question. And Paul's going to answer the question in Romans chapter 11. Is God done with Israel? Is God done with them? And Romans chapter 11, we're going to look at this tonight. Let's look first at the forest and then we'll look at some of the trees. And that's all the time we'll have. When I say let's look at the forest, let's divide the chapter up. If you like to draw lines under sections of the chapter like this, I see that verses 1 through 10 are one section that answer a question. And the first question that's asked is, hath God cast away his people? Now the Apostle Paul is writing this and he, and this is going to in verses 1 to 10, he's going to answer that question. Has God cast away the people of Israel? The next section, it's almost the next 10 verses. The next section verses 11 through 21 is going to answer the question that starts in verse 11. Has Israel fallen permanently? There's probably no doubt that Israel has stumbled. But the question that Paul is trying to answer in starting verse 11 is, have they stumbled to the point that they can't get up anymore? Have they stumbled to the point that God is not going to revive them or use them anymore? Have they stumbled to the point that they're fallen but they can't get up? Just about the next 10 verses. In Romans chapter 11 verses 22 through 32, it's a warning to Gentile believers. Now we're trying to look at the forest in Romans chapter 11 before we try to focus on some of the trees. But the fact is, so far I see about 10 verse sections answering one question, answering another question, and then the next 10 verses are about Gentile believers, watch out. Paul addresses Gentile believers. What are we watching out for? Because if we're watching out about being replaced or desolate, doesn't that mean then the Jews could also be that way? I mean, if the warning is, watch out because what happened to them can happen to you, then my question would be, whatever can happen to Gentiles could happen to them. But it's almost like they pretend like we could be cast out and cast aside and done with and replaced, but they can't. But it's funny because the passage is actually saying that, comparing the two and saying they're both in the same boat in a sense, right? Which again, he hasn't even answered in these questions. It's like, hath God cast away his people? Well, the Bible just says God forbid. But then it explicitly says in verse 1, I mean this is the Apostle Paul writing, he says, for I also am an Israelite. So here's the question Ben, do you hate the Apostle Paul? Of course not. Do you despise the Apostle Paul? Of course not. Do you love the Apostle Paul? Of course I do. See? I mean, yeah, how am I anti-Semitic? Do you love the chosen people of God? Yes, I do. I do love Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I love David, and I love Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and I love John, and I love Paul, and I love, of course, all of these first century Jews who got saved and turned to the Lord. And we have many examples of people who are Jewish in that context of being from the nation of Judah, or Jerusalem specifically, in the first century. Yes, I love those people, and I'm glad they got saved, and I'm glad that they spread the Gospel everywhere. Which is the context, and the context is basically Paul saying, is there still anybody out there that is of this particular nation that can still be redeemed? And the question is yes. The question is yes, right? He's not cast all of them away yet. They're not completely done yet, and the people that got saved, he's not done with those people. Those people are still in the tree. They're still in the branch. They're still grafted. They didn't get replaced or something like that. The question is what's going to happen to all the people that didn't get saved or believe in him. And of course we see the example in Romans 11, in verse 17, Now notice this is an important word in verse 17. Some. Did it say, Ben, that every single branch was broken off? Some. Some. Oh, that's an interesting word. Yes. Why? Because the Apostle Paul never got broken off, and Matthew didn't get broken off, and John didn't get broken off, and Peter didn't get broken off, but some were broken off. Otherwise this verse would make no sense. And then some were graphed in. Who were the people that were graphed in? Those who believed. Timothy. Right. Titus. You have Titus. Philemon. Philemon, yep. Onesimus. The Jews that were in those areas, but not only the Jews that were in those areas, the Gentiles that were in those areas, where Paul went out and preached the gospel. Jew and Gentile were being brought into the fold that weren't already in the fold. And so, of course, again, that doesn't mean that Gentiles are more special than Jews. It doesn't mean that Jews are more special than either. I mean, basically he broke down the middle wall of partition between us is what Ephesians chapter 2 brings up. I mean, am I really not answering these questions? No, I think that so far you're in agreement that the chapter is essentially making a distinction between believing Israel and unbelieving Israel and making the point that unbelieving Israel still can get saved if they believe. And that's the part that I feel like our old IFP brethren is missing if they believe. If they abide not still in unbelief, the Bible says. I don't know why my voice cracked. Sorry about that. But Pastor Shelley, it seems like that is where, and we're going to get into it, that is where they kind of go off the deep end here when it comes to Romans chapter 11. Because free will, we will find out, goes out the window once we hit verse 26. Yeah, well, and see, here's the thing. It says in Romans chapter 18, we're not supposed to boast against the branches. That's what he's bringing up. Verse 19, he says, thou wilt save them. This is what we would say. The branches are broken off that I might be grafted in. Yeah. And they say in verse 20, well, because of unbelief they are broken off. It's not like, oh, I decided that Gentiles are better than Jews, so I'm going to replace them. It was no, the only reason they got broken off is because they didn't believe. It's because they made a mistake, they rejected the Gospel, they didn't get saved, and so therefore they were broken off. We are grafted in, but not because they were broken off, but we were grafted in because we believed. They were broken off because they did not believe, not because I'm more special or they're less special. It's not about the ethnicity, about the race, about the nation, or any of these things. But at the same time, instead of God continuing to have a physical nation that represents him, he changes to the church. And how is that not the facts of history? I mean, where is the Jewish nation from 70 AD until 1948? Did it exist, Ben? No. No, but did the church exist? Absolutely. And the church still exists. So of course God has made a change in the New Testament that he no longer has a physical nation, he represents a spiritual nation. And you know, I posted on my Twitter account an interesting quote from Roger Williams, the first, like basically one of the first Baptists in America ever. He said this, the state of the land of Israel, the kings and the people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow. So, you know, again... Explain that if you would. I believe that the right interpretation of what he's saying here, and it's pretty clear in the broader context, is he's basically saying, yeah, of course right now in Israel there's still people that live there, kings and people. And there's been these holy wars, even if you study history, there was a major holy war between Islam and the Roman Catholic Church in that particular area of the world. I think there's a movie about it, it's called The Kingdom or something. It had that, what was the name of the guy that's in that movie? Orlando Bloom. I think Orlando Bloom's one of the main actors in that particular film. I don't know him from Adam. I think it's, let's look it up. Orlando Bloom, Kingdom of Heaven. That was the name of the movie. There's like a movie about this. I've never seen the movie. I just basically know that it's about some of the Crusades. I thought that maybe this would talk about the timeline. I think it's loosely based on history. You could fact check that on me. But essentially that particular movie is about that. But I think what Roger Williams is saying here is that, hey, while there's been that stuff, the nation of Israel now is still just kind of figurative and ceremonial. There's nothing legitimate about the nation of Israel at this point. And it's not for us to ever have another physical nation of Israel. And that all the stuff that we have in the Old Testament is for us to use as a figure or some kind of a picture for how nations should be modeled. And that's how we look at it. Don't we look at the ceremonial laws as being just a figure at this point? It's not literal. We're not doing animal sacrifices. We're not doing any of these things. We're just simply using them. The difference between animal sacrifices of the clean and unclean animals that was figurative of the Jews and the Gentiles that Peter is supposed to rise up, slay, and eat. So I think that he's making abundantly clear, look, the Old Testament stuff is now spiritually understood, not carnally at this point nor ever, ever, for us to do anymore. Yeah. So this guy's not pro-Zionist. Oh, for sure. For sure. I think I get the gist of it now after you explained it. I mean, is that not kind of what you're reading here? Yeah. No, for sure. Maybe I should have zoomed in a little bit so people could have seen that a little bit better. But yeah, there it is right there. We've got some people in our space, so thanks, guys. We'll try to add some of you guys as a speaker here in a moment. Let's keep going because we really haven't gotten much into the sermon. Yes, we could end up by our own. Specifically in Rome about what they should think about the Jewish people. Now, I just I just stand up here. Anybody can stand up here and say we should love Israel, the God's chosen people, and we go on and on and on. But I'm not interested in doing that. I'm interested to see what Paul said. And what he's saying is a warning to us because I believe most of the people in this room are of Gentile background. Now, if you are Jewish background, OK, Paul is not talking to you in that point, but he is talking to most of us when he says you watch out what you think of God's people of Israel. Don't get the wrong idea about them. And wait a minute. Is this a don't get the wrong idea about them or does it say don't boast against the branches? Well, and again, he's talking to nation groups here. So just to be clear, we're not talking about individual salvation because I know this is a separate topic, but the only reason I bring it up is because a lot of these heretics who think that you could lose your salvation will take Romans 11 20, where it says, well, because of unbelief, they were broken off and thou standest by faith. Be not reminded, but fear, for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. And it goes on and it talks about how, you know, you could be broken off potentially if you, you know, if the Gentile nations choose to reject the gospel, they could end up getting broken off from that olive tree. But it's not about an individual. Well, I want to comment on that and then I want to bring a verse up. Isn't the way that we would get broken off is if we say, oh, I guess God now just thinks Gentiles are more special than Jews. And the reason why we have God's blessing is because we're Gentiles, not because we believe the gospel. And therefore, if we have a generation that we raise that doesn't actually get saved and believe the gospel, God would potentially remove the church from us or destroy us as a result. Not saying if you don't like Jews enough, you're going to get you're going to get ripped out of the olive tree. I mean, look at the Apostle Paul's attitude in Acts chapter 13, verse 45. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you. But seeing he put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, well, we turn to the Gentiles. Wait, I thought that the Apostle Paul was who we're supposed to be listening to in this guy's sermon. I don't remember when the Apostle Paul said, oh, but you guys are Jews, you're special, don't worry about it, you're awesome. Sorry that I bothered you guys in your blaspheming of God and your rejection of the gospel. I'm sorry that I interrupted your little anti-Christ meeting that you're having here. I mean, what is Paul's attitude in the book of Acts towards the Jews? It's a harsh rebuke. It's referring to them as unworthy of everlasting life. It's frustration and anger over and over again, Pastor Shelley. And you brought this up in one of your sermons where you said, when did they stop being unworthy of everlasting life? Somebody said beans and chili is blasphemy. I agree. That might be going a little far, but that's okay. Oh, we're getting off topic, but I don't want to lose this question. Ben, we're going to put you on the hot spot. Oh, great. What's better, Texas or Florida? Oh, great. Okay, I will give you a politician's answer. Spiritually, Texas is way, way better. I would say carnally, Florida is better. Hmm. I think it's both. And I've just been banned from the Baptist bias. Yeah. Well, you can be wrong, but yeah. Alright, let's keep going. Then, congregation, the last verses of Romans chapter 11, they end with one of the greatest praises that Paul ever wrote. And you put it all together, and you find out that when he answers these questions, when he gives this warning, and he shows how God is a master at putting things together that look impossible, and he praises God in a way that is just amazing. Look at what it says. I know we're looking at the end first. But look what it says, starting in verse 30. Look what it says, starting in verse 33. Verse 33. Oh, the depth of the rich. Okay, I want to stop here. It was funny. Oh, let's read verse 30. Let's read verse 30. And then he was like, oops. Let's read verse 30. Let's read verse 30. So, Romans 30 through 32 is saying, okay, you Gentiles, you didn't believe in times past. Right? But now, some of you have believed, right? You've obtained mercy. And perhaps it's because of their unbelief. Who's unbelief? Jewish unbelief. And as a result of their Jewish unbelief, it sent apostles out into the rest of the world to preach the gospel. Even so, have these also now not believed? Jews have not believed still. That through your mercy, they also may obtain mercy. So, okay, so us as Gentiles, we need to be gracious unto Jews to give them a chance to get saved. But verse 32, for God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. What does that mean in verse 32, Ben? And I'll let you have the first stab at it, and then I'll give my comment. Well, they're all in unbelief, and the… Who's all? Jews. So, all Jews are unbelievers? Well, not necessarily all of them, but I think what he's trying to say is that he concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, meaning that they can still get saved. They have an opportunity to get saved, I believe. But go ahead, if you have a different view on that. Well, I think that what verse 32 is saying is he's saying he concluded all the Jews in unbelief so that he could get rid of the Jewish nation, he could get rid of Israel, that then he could have mercy on all nations. Okay, that makes sense. And that's all Gentiles. Which would be important to then understanding verses 33 through, I believe he's going to read the rest, through 36 here. But let's go ahead and read, or let's let him read us more. Do you realize that when we grasp what Paul says in Romans chapter 11 about the Jewish people, that we can burst into the same praise? Now, taken out of its context, any of these particular sessions, they might lose some of their impact if we don't realize he's talking about Gentiles who are believers becoming anti-Semites. When did that happen in this passage? What was the verse that said, Gentiles becoming anti-Semites? No, it doesn't exist. I think the... He's twisting the boast part, right? Yeah, I think, again, the theme is that they could still get saved if they believe on Christ, if they believe the gospel, they could be graphed in. There's nothing here about Gentiles becoming anti-Semitic at all. I think this is what he's misunderstanding, and I think there's a lot of people who are misunderstanding. God cast away the nation of Israel in the sense that they're no longer a nation, but he didn't cast away the people because he still gives every single one of those Jews an opportunity to be saved. To be saved, yeah. So he's concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, meaning he's gonna let the whole world hear the gospel, anybody can still get saved. And even those Jews, when the nation gets scattered, and they get scattered in 70 AD, and they get basically just dismantled and put all over the world, it's not that those individuals are doomed because their nation was doomed. Those individuals could still get saved, and we should still provoke them unto... They're supposed to be provoked unto jealousy by the fact of, okay, well, God obviously took his blessing off of Israel by destroying the nation, and look how the church is prospering. So therefore, it should provoke them unto jealousy to then say, like, I still want God, therefore I need to believe in Jesus Christ and get saved and then be a part of the church. I mean, how is that not the narrative of Romans 9, 10, and 11? That he wants them to be saved, Paul's desiring them to be saved, but they're gonna be concluded in unbelief, they're gonna lose their nation, God's broken them off. Yet, that doesn't mean they couldn't still be graphed in, in the sense that he's breaking off the entire chunk here, dispersing the Jews in 70 AD, but that doesn't mean that the individuals couldn't be saved. And again, this has nothing to do with being an anti-Semite. I don't believe that it's saying that a Jew... I'm sorry, a Gentile that hates Jews is gonna magically now not be in the branch. Because that would be work salvation, wouldn't it? Right, exactly. Look, racism is wrong, and being against just... if you just hate all Jews because of their ethnicity or something, that would be wrong, that would be a sin. But that doesn't mean you're gonna go to hell. You know, this is, this is, you know, unpopular opinion, but, you know, members of the KKK and Nazi Party that believed in Jesus Christ were still saved. Albeit, that was super evil and wicked, and I don't want to be a part of those groups necessarily. But it's just kind of funny that he's just, like, conflating these things, and he's not... he didn't show a verse in Romans chapter 11 that talked about anti-Semitism. No, the closest you can get is just the idea that he's trying to affirm that physical Israelites who have not believed can still believe, and that's in verse 1. I say then, had God cast away his people, God forbid, for I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin. So he uses... Paul uses himself as evidence for the fact that these people can still be saved if they believe on Christ. And, again, we're talking about... what are we talking about here? The New Testament. We're talking about the New Covenant. How can a physical Israelite get in on the New Covenant that was prophesied in the book of Jeremiah? That was prophesied, I believe, in Ezekiel chapter 36, I believe, where it talks about how God's going to give his people a new heart. How are they going to get that new heart? How are they going to get in on those wonderful promises by believing? And they can believe! Romans 11 tells us that. That's the theme. Back to you. No, that's a good point. And in the comments, WRLATX says, Florida is mid. Has nothing to do with our stream tonight. Stay on topic, chat room. I don't like it. Someone said, Idaho is greater than Texas. That's also a lie. Come on. Someone said, is that Dylan? Idaho? Yeah, I don't know. I've heard that Idaho is like little Texas. So I'd be willing to put it somewhere behind Texas in the list, but it's hard for me to get behind the Idaho doctrine. It's too cold. That's my problem. I like it hot. I like warm, hot weather. Florida has beautiful weather, I have to admit. It does. But it also has hurricanes. Well, the hurricanes are exciting. Hurricanes are exciting. I find them to be exciting. Felonies are fun. Yeah, okay. Let's keep playing. And he's warning against them doing that. So again, my authority, it doesn't mean anything. Don't become anti-Semitic. But the fact is that Paul says don't fall into that trap. Let's look a little more closely at the verses. Will you look back in chapter 11, verse 1? Romans 11, verse 1, it says, I say then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew. What you not what the scripture saith of Elias, how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed by prophets and take down thine altars, and I am left alone. And they seek my life. What saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so, then, at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works. Otherwise, grace is no more grace. Great verse right here. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace. Otherwise, work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh that for, but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Can I make a comment? Before we go on, let's look a little more carefully at verse… Okay. Verse 7 proves the elect are not Israel. Because it says Israel has not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election has obtained it. Your response to that? Election means chosen. Exactly. I mean, what do we do on the election day? We're choosing a president. So that's a great point in light of all this. And again, I don't know what he's going to say on this, but so far, amen. When people read the Bible, it just sounds so good. So you have replacement theology in the chapter that anti-replacement theology people always go to. Let's just take back… I say we just take back Romans 11. No, no, no. That's our chapter. It's anti-Israel being God's chosen people universally. That's true. All right, let's keep playing. The question, from what I can see in all the commentaries I read about this, the question is not meant to be a question that could have any answer but no. In other words, you could reword this first question instead of asking, You could reword it as being God has not cast away his people, has he? Question mark. Do you understand the difference there? In other words, don't make it a question as it could be, it has, Paul doesn't really know. He's not asking in that way. He's saying there's no way that God is going to cast away his people that he foreknew. There's no way. And his first evidence that God has not cast away his people, because if you're wondering that, if you're wondering if the nation of Israel, the Jewish people, the hatred that you see expressed towards them, is this something that we should take a middle ground or what stance should we take? Paul definitely says there's no way that God would cast away his people that he foreknew. And he says the number one evidence is me, Paul. I am an Israelite. We already covered this. But when writing it is an Israelite, he is Jewish. If God has cast away his people, Paul's saying, well, look, I'm Jewish, and God is using me. He hasn't cast me away, right? Because he believed. And the most interesting thing about Paul, do you know when Paul got sick? Not because of his ethnicity. It's kind of different from the others. Which he foreknew. In Romans 11, look in 1 Corinthians 15, I mean the other apostles, Paul's different. Look in 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection chapter, it's a little past where we were in Romans. 1 Corinthians 15, Paul talks about what the gospel is, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for our sins. And then he talks about the resurrection being witnessed by people. And he says in verse, and that he was buried, verse four, and that he was buried, that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remained unto this present. But some were falling asleep. After that, he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen of me also as of one born out of due time. Now, it's interesting, as Paul talks about his particular experience of salvation, he uses that term, I've seen the resurrected Christ, but I saw him last of all as if I'm born out of due time. Now, I've always assumed he's talking about I was born last. You know, Cephas and all these others got to see, but I was born last. But think about this. How many of those apostles that Jesus showed himself alive to after his resurrection were already saved? Peter was. They were off. They were already saved. They weren't people who were persecuting Jesus. They weren't people persecuting the church. They weren't people killing believers. You understand the difference between when Jesus appeared to the apostles, that is one group, and Paul says he appeared to me last of all as one born out of due time. And it may not be that he was born late. It could be that Paul was saying, I was born early. Now, what do we call that kind of... Now, what do we call that? Just saying the opposite of what the text says? I don't get it. I mean, that's what we call that. I don't understand what he's saying. Okay, the context was apostles, being an apostle. He saw Jesus last, isn't that interesting? He was saying he's the last of all the apostles. Right, so... Let's look at the verse. Okay. Verse 7. After that, he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all, last of all, last of all who? Last of all, the apostles, he was seen of me also as one of born out of due time. He saw Jesus last. And then verse 9. For I am the least of the apostles. So the whole sandwich here at verses 7, 8, and 9 is being an apostle. And if this guy explained it correctly, he even said, I've always thought that just many said he was the last one to see Jesus. And this is like, right, exactly, because it's exactly what it says. And he's like, well, what if it says the exact opposite? But it doesn't. It just doesn't say he was born early. Which word? Show me a word that would point to early. And then he's like, born out of due time. But that was saying it was past due. He was born out of due time in the sense that he wasn't born on the due date. It doesn't say that he was born before the due date. It was born out of the due time. Out of due time, yeah. So it's like way over past due. Past due, yeah, that makes sense. And that fits the context perfectly. Nothing about being early. He's just... The rabbit trail he's going to go down on this is pretty bad, but I just wanted to first cover the verse before we go down this rabbit trail. At birth, he was born premature. It's possible that Paul is saying here, while his particular salvation experience, here Jesus chooses to show himself to a person, a man who was set in his mind determined to hate Jesus. Now, you notice, Jesus didn't appear to Pilate. Jesus didn't appear to Caiaphas. Jesus didn't appear to the men that nailed him to the cross. Jesus didn't appear to all these, did he? He appeared to his disciples, to his believers, except when we get to Paul. Now, James could be also an exception. But when we get to Paul, I definitely know Paul was not saved. I never noticed that side comment. What does he mean by James is an exception? I didn't get that. Is James unsaved? I don't know. Okay. On that road to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him, everybody agree? He's saying, I was born, last of all, I'm born differently. And he could be meaning, I was born prematurely. And what he could be meaning by that, when he says in Romans 11, I am an example of how God is not done with the Jews. Do you know the Bible says that there's coming a day when the Jewish people, Zechariah chapter 12 describes this, they shall look upon him whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him. Do you understand? Yeah, Zechariah is fulfilled in Christ being on the cross. Yep, in John, I believe, John chapter number 19 is the one that's fulfilled. I mean, absolutely. In my Bible, it brings that up. Let's see, do we have an exact reference mentioned? It says, it alludes to Zechariah 12 in that passage. Well, he's definitely pierced. Yeah, yeah, let's bring this up. I'm going to bring this up on the screen. Okay, so, but one of the soldiers, John chapter 19, verse 34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water, verse 35, and he that saw it bear record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that he might believe, for these things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken, and again another scripture saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced. So, verse 37 is the direct reference to Zechariah that he's bringing up. Exactly, and it's fulfilled then, but I also- And here's the verse in Zechariah. Yes. Zechariah 12, verse 10. And I'll pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications, and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. Now, I've actually preached through the book of Zechariah recently, and chapter 12, and you could go listen to that full sermon, but the context of Zechariah 12 brings up Jesus and the crucifixion, and that timeline, and this is of course a future prophecy. Zechariah is hundreds of years prior to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, and then it's fulfilled in John chapter number 19, which he doesn't bring up, and he's taking 1 Corinthians 15, which is about Paul being the last apostle, and Romans chapter 11, which just says Paul is an apostle. He's just like kind of cherry-picking verses here to create a narrative, but none of these narratives are what any of these texts are saying. I will say this. I do think that there's a dual fulfillment to that passage in Zechariah 12. To Revelation chapter 1. Yes, you stole my thunder, but it's okay. In John chapter 19, that's your primary fulfillment, and then I think that there's an end times fulfillment when the Bible says in Revelation chapter 1 in verse 7, Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of them, even so. Amen. And then in Revelation chapter 6, it talks about the kings of the earth, and great men, and rich men, and chief captains hiding in the dens of the rocks, and saying, Fall on us, and hide us from him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of his wrath has come. So my point is that they mourned for him in John chapter 19, but I also think you're going to see weeping in the end times, not because they changed their mind about crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ, and now they feel sad about it, but rather they're mourning because of the fact that they know God is about to pour out his wrath on them, which he then begins to do in the second half of Daniel 70th week. Well, and you read this, but Revelation 1 didn't say, And Jews only will see him who they've impierced. It said like the whole nations. The whole, yeah, everybody. Everybody's going to see him. Everybody's going to be mourning. Right. So it's not an Israel-only context when we look at Revelation chapter 1. No, of course not. And again, the reason I bring that up is because a lot of times they'll say, Yeah, but what about in the book of Revelation? Because, yeah, I do think there's dual fulfillment for that passage. It's just that the end times fulfillment, what we see from an eschatological perspective is not a mass conversion of Jews, but a mass weeping of all nations that are afraid of the wrath that is now coming upon them. Well, they'd all have to be unsaved because the saved are going to be with Christ in the clouds. Exactly. Okay, let's keep playing. Dan, that that verse is talking about a future for the Jewish people that no matter how you look at them now and say, Well, they don't believe in Jesus. They don't want Jesus. They don't want anything to do with Jesus. I'm talking about the majority of the Jewish people. That's his first point. He says, Yeah, that's the way I was. But when Jesus appeared to me, I believed. He's saying that if there's a future for Israel, that no matter how unbelieving they might appear to be right now in the land of Israel and unconcerned about Jesus and not wanting to hear about him, that he will appear to them and they will see him. They will see the one that they have pierced. And they will understand and receive him as their Messiah. That's where we're going to disagree. Paul is an example of what's going to happen to the Jewish people in the future. In mass, there will be a revival year. It's unbelievable. A lot of us think, Well, why would Jesus show himself to somebody who hates him? He did that with Paul. Okay, I just want to make this comment, because let's just think about this logically for a second. And I'm not even against this viewpoint entirely, but I just want to think about it for a second. I understand his logic. If these unbelieving Jews that live in the Middle East are going to see Christ in Revelation chapter 6, and then they're going to get saved after this, okay, well, let's just think about a couple things. Number one, I can't do literally anything apparently to even get them saved, because he's basically making the argument that the only thing that's going to get them saved is an appearance of Jesus Christ. Okay, so then what's my motive to even preach to those people? It kind of strips away my importance. Secondly, if we really understand the Apostle Paul's conversion, I believe that the Apostle Paul still had to go and wait for Ananias to come and preach him the Gospel. Okay, so let's just run with this guy's narrative for a second. Is it possible that at Revelation 6, when Christ comes in the clouds, the church is raptured, we all go to heaven, and there's just a bunch of Jews still left on the earth that weren't saved, they saw the rapture and they're thinking like, wow, I've really messed up, and then maybe the 144,000 come down and preach the Gospel, could we see a lot of those people end up getting saved or believing the Gospel? I think at that point it's just unknowable. It's unknowable. Who knows? Who knows if a bunch of those people could get saved or could not get saved? I think that it's unknowable if a bunch of ethnic Jews would potentially get saved. But I would say this, the vast majority of a lot of these Jews are people who are practicing Judaism, which is an anti-Christ religion, so it's not just like they are a little off or something. I mean, these people hate Jesus with a burning passion, and I would argue that a lot of them are reprobates, which I don't think any reprobate is going to get saved. So, again, I think it's highly unlikely, like that would just be my personal opinion, that it's highly unlikely, I don't see precedent in Scripture, I feel like these people, they're different than the Apostle Paul, and I preached a whole sermon on this, I preached Paul versus the Jews. So you should listen to that sermon, Steadfast Baptist Church, go to our Rumble. Or our website. Yeah, go to SBCKJV.com, go to the preaching tab, check out Paul versus the Jews, and I explained in detail why I don't think that the Apostle Paul is the same as a lot of these unbelieving Jews in the modern state of Israel. Again, I'm not against the idea that many of them could get saved, because that would be great. I mean, I'm not against that, it would be wonderful, right? I'm pro that idea, it's just, is that really in the text, or is that just kind of someone's speculation, Ben? I think it's speculation. I would argue, though, that the timing is peculiar, because if you're going to argue for a mass conversion of Jews, I think you have to make the argument that it happens at the Battle of Armageddon, not the rapture. That doesn't fit, because if you compare Luke 21, which talks about the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled, and verse 24, and they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be led away captive unto all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, which starts at the midpoint, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. So this is a time that is fulfilled at the end of Daniel's 70th week, according to Revelation chapter 11. And so if you're going to argue for a mass conversion of Jews, I think that's when you would have to put it. Not the rapture. So the timing isn't even making sense to me here. Well, and I have to make this point, okay, because honestly, to even have this conversation, I granted him a lot of points that I don't even agree with. Number one, Revelation 2, verses 9, and Revelation 3, 9 say that there's a group of people which say they are Jews and they are not, they are the synagogue of Satan. There's been such a diaspora of the Jewish people that now no longer is there really a race or an ethnicity of Jews. It's just people that have converted to an anti-Christ religion. I would argue personally at this point in human history, I think that everyone's Gentile. I don't believe that there's this group of people out there that are even, quote, Jews when we put them in the context of Romans 11. The apostle Paul is a Jew, yes, but I believe that they've been intermingled too much at this point that it's ceased to exist. The nation has ceased to exist. The apostle Paul and some of these individuals, they were born in that period of time and that location with that lineage, and yes, they were the children of Abraham in a carnal sense, but at this point, it's so intermixed and mingled, I believe we're all Gentiles. So when it says the times of the Gentiles, I think just because they're all Gentiles from the true sense that there's no such thing as Jews anymore, and that would really destroy this guy's narrative. I don't think he would like the point that I'm making, but of course, I think that there was a distinction of Jew and Gentile for a little period of the New Testament and for those early apostles going out, but after the destruction of the nation and, I mean, what, several centuries afterward, do you even really believe there's still Jews? No, I think our genes are ubiquitous and everybody's been mixed so much. I also don't even believe in race to begin with, but if we're going to use their terminology, then Jews and Gentiles have been mixing together for so long that I don't see how you can even identify them, and Pastor Shelley, when it comes to the times of the Gentiles, would you say that that started at Calvary, or do you think it starts at the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week? Yeah, I would say it loosely starts after the Gospel, and it's just kind of, it's just basically the church age. I understand. And in a sense, and that it's going to cease. I was just curious what you're thinking. But I mean, you know, somebody could argue that we're still in Daniel's 70th week, like, a second time around. Like, obviously it kind of ended in 70 AD in a sense, and then it also has, like, a reverb for an end times fulfillment or another week that's going to be, like, a dual fulfillment. But to me, it's the times of the Gentiles. The Gentiles are what's the focus. The Gentiles are the people of God. The Gentiles are the one that received the Gospel. The Jews were all concluded into unbelief, and there's no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. They've all intermingled and mingled. They were supposed to, I mean, think about it. What were Jews supposed to do? Jews were supposed to join the Christian church. Is that not correct? Yeah, of course they were. Were they supposed to mandate in the New Testament for Jews to stay pure in their marital situation? Or were they supposed to just marry a Christian? I think that they were supposed to stay pure spiritually, meaning marry, like, we're all commanded to marry a believer, a fellow believer, but nothing carnal. Right, but that would mean that they would mix with Gentile Christians in theory, and therefore they would basically be weeded out, or watered down, or however you want to look at it. Genetically speaking, yeah. To the point where there's no such thing as an ethnicity anymore. And, again, you could say, well, there are all these unbelieving people just kept intermarrying each other, and cousins, and whatever, in all these random places in the world. But, I mean, even if you look at Jews as a whole, like, there's some really light-skinned Jews, there's some really dark-skinned Jews, and everything in the middle. I don't believe this is a pure ethnic race. You know, they've obviously, and you have converts everywhere. You can look at all, Ivanka Trump is now a convert. She has another son, is it now going to be a Jew? Is that really supposed to be this racial purity? Is this what this guy's advocating for, is Ivanka Trump and their children? And so, like, when Christ comes, a son of Ivanka Trump is going to now magically get saved because he's God's chosen people because of a special lineage? How is that not racism? How is it not racist to think that there's these special people with special blood, and special skin, and special whatever, and they're the ones that are just going to magically get saved in the end times because they get to see—and they just get to see Jesus and unbelief, right? Obviously, the apostle Paul, I think, is a special case, and he pointed that out. May I ask a question here? How would I—just to go off of what you're saying. I want to bounce off what you're saying. How would I figure out or discern whether or not I am part of a group of people who will magically get saved if I'm not already in the end times? How would I figure that out? What would I have to do? Wouldn't I have to, if I'm unsure, take a genealogy test or some kind of test to determine? I would have to do that. And the Bible says to avoid genealogies. Thank you. Titus 2, 9. But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law, for they are what? Unprofitable and vain. So in order for me to figure out if I am the apple of God's eye, God's chosen people, if I'm unsure about my family ancestry, I would have to engage in a practice that the Bible explicitly states is both unprofitable and vain. I didn't even think about it, but that's a great point. How in the world do you reconcile that? And even if you say, well, I'm not having to think about mine, you'd have to think about theirs. I've had people literally even just tell me, they're like, well, but God knows. God knows who his chosen people are or something like that. And it's just like, come on. But I have to be able to identify them. How much reality denial are we in? I would have to be able to identify them to bless them. And so, you know, I would, hey, let me see your genealogy before I know if I should bless you, according to Genesis 12. And again, how can I identify myself without engaging in this practice? Because if I want to know which group I fall under, I would have to engage in this practice. Okay, let's say you go out on the street, Ben, and there's a black Hebrew Israelite, and there's a Jew. And they both spit on you and say that you're wicked and evil. According to the Bible, you're supposed to bless the Jew, right? So which one? Which one? Who's the Hebrew? That's a good question. Better take a genealogy test. Is it the black Hebrew Israelite? And maybe they're right. Maybe they're the ones that have a closer lineage to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How do we not know? How do we know? I'm skeptical of that. We're just skeptical. We have to just believe anybody that claims they're a Jew? I mean, this is silly, folks. We'll keep playing a little bit more of this. Let's keep playing. Paul's saying, I was born, I believe he's saying, prematurely. I want to get to verse 26, absolutely. I'm an example of what's going to happen with the Jewish people, the nation of Israel, and they're going to see the resurrected Christ, and they will receive him as Savior. Can we fast-forward through some of this? That's going to be Israel's future. You ain't seen nothing yet, folks. If you think that Israel, and it's tiny, it's fighting its battles, it's every day on the brink of destruction. The people of Israel right now, they're even able to live in their homes. Wherever they go, they've got to find the nearest bomb shelter. What about the Palestinians? And figure out how long it's going to take them to get there when they hear the sirens. It is a totally, it seems like they're being cursed. You know why it seems like they're being cursed? Because they're cursed. At those moments, think of what Paul's saying here. God is going to do something great with that people. And when he appears, and they see those wounds that they put in the Savior's hands, they'll recognize what they've done. That's what Paul did on the Damascus road. Go back now to Romans chapter 11. Paul uses his first example of how God is not done with the Jewish people is himself. And his second example has to do with the idea of a remnant. Anybody ever put carpet in a room, and you have some carpet left over? What do you call that? The remnant. It's a small example of a big piece that you put in. When Paul says, and I read this, but look what he says here. Verse 2 says in the middle of it, What is not what the scripture saith of Elijah, how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets and digged down thine altars, and I am left alone and they seek my life. Be careful, folks. If you say that Israel totally rejects Jesus, you are inaccurate, because that's what Elijah was doing, a prophet to the northern kingdom. And when Elijah was at his lowest, he interceded against his people. Now, most of the time, I would hope that if you come up to me and say, Hey, Tom, I'm interceding for you in prayer. I'm interceding for you every day. I would be able to say, that's good. But if you said, I'm interceding against you. If you say, you know, that Tom, he doesn't deserve any of your blessings, God. In fact, it would be best if you just crispy critter him right there. Just do it. Zap him. That kind of interceding is not the kind I would like to have. And that's what Elijah was doing in his lowest moment. He's praying to God, not for Israel, but against them. God, wipe them out. I'm all by myself. And God answers him. No, you're not. There's a remnant. You don't see what I see. No, there's some leftover carpet. You see, there are 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. And you just don't see them, Elijah. Do you realize that if 1% of the population of Israel, I have no idea what that percentage would be that believe in Jesus. Okay, I'm just going by a low number, a low percentage. 1% is part of us. Maybe 99% don't. But if 1% of the Jewish population of the world believes in Jesus, and then 1% of the Gentile population of the world believes in Jesus, the proportions are about the same. I would say they're about the same proportion of Jews that believe in Jesus as the ones that are... Wrong. It's got to be like 5% Gentile and like 0.1% or 0.01% Jew. It's not the same percentage. Gentiles that believe in Jesus, you go out in the street, you go out around and ask people if they believe in Christ as their Savior. You'll find a lot of religious people. Or you'll find today a lot more agnostics and atheists and things. But the fact is, just because they say they go to church, that doesn't mean they're saved. Really, the percentage of the proportion of those that are saved among the Jewish population and those that are saved among the Gentile population, I work it out, and the numbers proportionally are about the same. And so, do not look at the Jewish people and say, look, they rejected Christ, God's done with them. Paul says, don't make the same mistake Elijah made. And thinking, he was alone. That's a bad argument anyways. Oh, because more Jews don't believe than they're not different or something. Because it's like, if you just talk to a bunch of Jews, they don't believe. And there's plenty of Gentiles that do, and even in a percentage-wise. But, you know, I don't really agree with this logic. Do you know where this other section is? Because I can just fast forward, but we'll just have to keep playing. I'm going to be honest, I don't know. If we just double-speeded it, maybe we can get to it faster. I don't think so. It says in verse 5, even so then, at this present time, there also is a what? A remnant, according to the election of grace. Look at this! But if it works, then there's no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. What Paul is saying there is, he's saying, when God saves a Jewish person, he doesn't save that Jewish person because the Jewish person is doing the sacrifice and making all the offerings just correctly and eating the right kosher foods. That's the meat and potatoes of this. He saves them because they put their faith in the Savior, in the Messiah that he's provided. Okay, so there's a remnant, and he's been passed away. And he chooses them. We're going to have an election soon. That's the main point here. What does that mean? Well, we're going to have our chance to choose. And when God sees that a Jewish person puts their faith in Christ as their Savior, they become part of the election of grace. Now, if you're thinking, well, you know, the Jewish people, when it comes to the election of grace, there are not many. There are not many. But again, proportionally, really, there are not that many Gentiles compared to the total number of Gentiles. Okay. Look what it says in chapter 9, verse 30. There's no more work. I'm going to just see my point. Amen. Not because they sacrificed, not because they did the law, but because they believed God's provision. You're saved by your works, but it's God's grace. Has he at any point proven why we should worship Jews? Unfortunately for him, no. This has not happened yet. Look what it says in verse 11. Let's see if he gets to verse 15. I'm curious what he says about verse 15. You know, one thing I don't really like is when you give all your application first and then tell us what the Bible says second. Shouldn't you kind of prove your points first from the Bible and then... All these Jews are just going to see and just believe in Jesus. I don't know why we can't get on the front page of rumble, because we have more live viewers than... I blame you a lot of podcasts. It's you. You're censored every week. To bring in the Antichrist? Sure. I try to forget those days. Oh, man. That's the Gentiles. ...through the grapevine that this new girlfriend really likes. He's so kind. This is so boring. Do you know where this is at? What? We'll find it. Is this it? Maybe this is it. What is it? Well, the Jews never believed. I'm going down to verse 18. Here's the warning. Okay, so he's in 18. That was not against the branches. Well, can I just make a quick comment? Whenever we have a second. He goes on and says, Listen, the Jewish people to receive Christ can get high-minded. We are the example of it. Sorry about this. We're just trying to find a kind of end, wrapping up this sermon. We've got some people in the space. We'll get you and some speakers here in just a second. Yeah, make your comment real quick. Okay, real quick. So, I feel like the way that he interprets, hath God cast away his people, and in verse 2 when it says, God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew, the way he interprets that, and you can correct me if I'm wrong in misrepresenting him, is that the Jews are present tense right now today, God's chosen people, because God has not cast them away. Correct? I mean, isn't that the point that he's been making? You're talking about the preacher, not the Bible? The preacher. No, no, no, the preacher, not the apostle Paul. He's saying God's chosen people are Jews. Even if they reject Christ because the Bible says God has not cast away his people which he foreknew. Right. Right? Okay. Okay. Verse 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world. Yeah. Who got cast away? Did anybody get cast away? That's an important question. Okay, isn't that not Jews there? Or physical Israelites? And is it not like he concluded them all in unbelief? What does that mean? Exactly. So, there's a distinction between the people who have not been cast away, because they believed, and the people who were cast away, because they didn't believe. That's all I want to discuss. There was no nation of Israel. Yes, exactly. And you're reading now in the same context that Paul is writing there. Don't think God's done with the Jewish people, because he's not. It says blindness has happened unto them in part. Here we go. And to the wholeness of the Gentiles come in. Every commentary I read about this kind of had a different thing. But here's the one I like, so I'll share it with you. That there's a certain number of Gentiles that are going to be saved. Did you just hear that? When that last Gentile, the fullness of the Gentiles, when that last Gentile gets saved, then God will turn back to the Jews. I'm not saying the last Gentile that ever lived, but what we're saying at that moment, that's the fullness of the Gentiles. So, the next person you lead to Christ, that's a Gentile, might be that person. So, wait a minute. Does that mean that we should be done with Israel right now? Is he even making that point? He's saying that God's done with Israel until the last Gentile gets saved? That's his interpretation. I'm just saying, like, is that not what he just said? Seemingly. I think it's funny. There's a lot of different commentaries that say completely different things. I just picked the one that I liked. That I liked. Okay. Maybe he was trying to do some comedy there. Sure, I don't know. I don't want to pick on him too much. And after that will come the rapture and the tribulation and the end. And I want to close with this. It says, and so all Israel shall be saved. It's talking about the nation of Israel, not the individuals. Israel shall be saved. As it is written, there shall come out of Zion a deliverer, shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And I'm skipping down because we're out of time. This is my covenant. For God, in verse 32, hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Now, Paul gets to that point. But what about verse 27? How is this not like this redemption, almost like God redeeming Sodom and Gomorrah? I mean, they are called Sodom and Egypt. I mean, did he redeem Sodom or did he just rain fire from heaven and fire, hell, and brimstone? It's like, I don't... Amen to that, though. That's a good point. I don't see the parallel here. They're referred to as Sodom and Egypt in the book of Revelation. Let's just try to let him finish and then we'll get some comments in here. In verse 32, that's maybe a secretary writing his words or that he's writing them himself on the papyrus or whatever that they're writing, the parchment, that he picks up his stylus, his pen, and he thinks about what he just just said. And he is filled with praise. He says, God is amazing. And one of the greatest moments of praise in the New Testament is in the next verses about this very issue that God's not done with his people. He says, oh, the depth, the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out. For who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counselor or who hath given to him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Does God owe anybody anything? He's God. No, he doesn't. Does he need your advice in giving to God to him? I think we can just cover verse 26 at this point if you're up for it. The reason you have a Bible, all Israel shall be saved is the main argument of the Zionists. And also, that all the promises that God made to Israel are noted about in forever. Okay, so then he prays. He does never bring us back up. Here's the thing. I want to bring some of our people in spaces. If you want to come on the show, send me an invite on Spaces for you to talk as a speaker, and I'll add you in as a speaker. We already got one guy with his hand up. Daniel, we'll get to him in just a moment. But I want to say this about verse 26. Even if we went with his interpretation here, and I'm going to go back to our space here, even if we go with his interpretation, it doesn't really change anything in my view. Let's just say I said, Ben, I just think that a lot of Jews might get saved after the rapture. Does that really invalidate us not being pre-trib? No. That's still compatible with our post-trib pre-wrath position. And then additionally, I guess here's the problem. If you take his interpretation, especially mixed with pre-trib, then you make the entire tribulation about the Jews or something like that. But it's really about us having to go through that tribulation and go through that difficulty. So that's still an important distinction. But I'm just saying, if you have the same eschatology as us in theory, this idea of a bunch of Jews getting saved randomly in the end times doesn't really contradict anything. To me, it just seems like a bad idea. It's not in the text. It's kind of contrary to a lot of their positions. And it really undermines the fact that there are, in many cases, the synagogue of Satan. It leads to a lot of this Jew worship and thinking that they're extra special, which is racist. And it's an unconditional support of all the things that the nation of Israel does, including bombing Palestinians and killing all kinds of different people, influencing our elections. I think that it's really bad, and we need to have the right doctrine on this particular issue. And so I think it's really important. I mean, to just give a simple explanation, and all Israel shall be saved, I believe that's talking about the millennium. So when you talk about the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled, I think that that's the culmination of the end times. That's that Daniel 70th week. That's that last seven years. And as soon as that's over, we enter in the millennial reign, and the physical nation of Israel will be filled with only saved people. Because in Romans chapter 9, it brings up, they are not all Israel which are of Israel. So there's never been this perfect one-for-one match of the physical nation of Israel is also saved Israel, and they're elect, even though they want to call them God's chosen, they weren't chosen in the sense they were all elect. And that's brought out in chapter 11. But at some point, there will be a one-for-one, and I believe that's the millennial reign. It'll be us that are saved with, of course, Old Testament saints as well, and that we will make up the nation of Israel. We will be God's special nation on earth during the thousand-year reign of Christ. That's a time of peace, and we'll be the light that's going out into the world. We'll be ambassadors for Christ. We'll be ruling and reigning with Christ. I mean, there's all these promises about the millennial reign. I think that's a pretty simple explanation. Do you have more that you'd like to add on that particular verse? I'm very passionate about Romans 11, 26, and I wholeheartedly agree with what you just said. I also think that your interpretation, which is my interpretation, we're in complete alignment, is found in the Old Testament, over and over again, that one day, Israel will consist of 100% saved people, and it'll be those people who inherit the land. An example of this is Psalm chapter 37, which says, The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell therein forever. You can go to many other passages in the Old Testament as well that I think are foreshadowing this time to come. Psalm 69, For God will save Zion and will build the cities of Judah, that they may dwell there and have it in possession. The seed also of his servants shall inherit it, and they that love his name shall dwell therein. I can go on and on. Joel 3, 17, Isaiah 60, verse 21, Jeremiah 23, verse 6 says, In his days Judah shall be saved. Isaiah 45, 17 says, But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation. Again, I don't want to just go forever here, but the point I'm trying to make is that this concept of the entire nation of Israel consisting of saved people is prophesied in the Old Testament. It's found in the Old Testament, and so you're right that at the end of Daniel's 70th week, that is when the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. There is blindness in part that has happened unto Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles become in, and then all Israel will be saved, but the thing is, what that means is that it will consist of only saved people. Why? Why would that be the case? Because the Bible says, But those mine enemies which would not, this is Jesus saying this, but those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me. So I personally believe these unbelieving Jews today, they will be slain. They won't be there anymore. They'll be gone. The Bible says the iniquity of the land in the book of Zechariah will be taken out in one day, and I think that day is the Battle of Armageddon. So that is Romans 11 26 in a nutshell, and I would invite everybody to go look at Pastor Shelley's sermon about this. Go to SBCKJV.com if you want more detail. If you think we're not providing enough detail right now, then just go to the website SBCKJV.com. Put Romans 11 in your F3 search bar and watch his sermon about this because he'll go into even more detail, but that's my view. Hey, good points. And, you know, again, if you think about and in times theology, and I'm trying to put my mindset into like a pre-trib view just to understand their viewpoint a little bit here, but if all the Gentiles that are saved get saved and raptured out, and then he's saying all Israel shall be saved, then you have to believe then literally Ivanka Trump, Weinsteins, Goldbergs, all of these people in every single part of the world that hate God and spit when they hear his name, they all magically get saved, including the reprobates, wouldn't you? I mean, it's almost like saying reprobates would get saved, and I'm not saying the Bible. I'm saying think about his theology timing. If every Gentile and Jew that's saved gets raptured out, and then we enter into Revelation, you know, first seal, because according to them, the tribulation doesn't start, which is the whole seven-year period in their mind, until all of the church has been raptured, because we have the pre-tribulation rapture, then you would have to believe that literally every physical Jew on this earth, even some of the reprobates are all going to get saved. That's contradictory to the reprobate doctrine. So, you know, I think we could talk about this a lot. I want to give some of our speakers, they've been waiting here patiently, a chance to speak, and I hope that it's going to work out. Of course, when you do these spaces and stuff, sometimes we have to check some of our technical difficulties. One last thing, it'll just take me ten seconds. What did Jesus Christ say in the book of Matthew to the twelve disciples? They will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel during the millennium. So you're going to have regenerated saints that inherit that land. Of course, all Israel will be saved at that point. Great point. I don't think it really proves our side or his, but that's a great point. Let's see if we can go to Daniel and I want to see if we can hear you and everything's working. Daniel, how's it going? All right, buddy. Can you hear me all right? Sounds loud and clear. All right. Great. I originally stuck my hand up because I came in late and couldn't tell what was going on. I heard like three different voices. So apparently you're playing a recording of someone. Yeah, we're streaming on Rumble simultaneously. And on our Rumble channel, we were playing a sermon. So someone in Florida, it was First Baptist Church of Land O'Lakes, Florida. He preached a sermon against steadfast in a sense. And look, I love brother Tom. He's a good guy. He saved. He at least complimented us and said we were saved. But at the same time, he was against us saying that we have a false doctrine, our doctrinal statement saying that we don't believe in Jew worship. And he was kind of advocating for Jew worship or I don't even know because he didn't really say it clearly, but just basically loving Jews. Is that the right way to word it, Ben? I think he was saying that the fact that we said we stand against Jew worship is in and of itself anti-Semitic. And so he wanted to attack our anti-Semitic doctrine of don't worship Jews. Right. And again, I still love Jews. I still want them to be saved. But someone that's an obvious reprobate and crossed that line and is blaspheming the name of Jesus Christ and doing all manner of evil and wickedness, I can't say that I love that person anymore if they've crossed that reprobate line. But I'm curious, that's some background. Does that kind of help you with the context of what you're saying? No, absolutely. I live in Titusville, Florida. I'm in Zionist hell. I swear to God they worship Israel more than they worship Jesus Christ. I actually had to leave my church because I approached my pastor and I was just like, you know, have you noticed since the 1950s to now the world's declined and the 501c3 thing seems to be the thing that changed the world because this country was founded on a church front lawn. Right. A lot of people don't know the shot her wound around the world in 1775 was on a church front lawn in Lexington. Right. I happen to be from Massachusetts. I live in Florida now. But and there was a big story behind that where the church was involved in the revolution, you know, and the church used to lead this country. And once and it seems it you can look at when they approved the 501c3 designation and the decline of the country. Right. So I merely approached him saying the church needs a lead again. And I guarantee you will increase membership because the young kids are looking for leadership, you know. And the next time I went to church, all of a sudden he was just like, I don't know where all this anti-Semitism comes from. It's fucking demonic and satanic. And the only thing I brought up to him in our previous conversation was Martin Luther's writings. Right. I'm like, how did this guy go from only wanting to convert the Jews to all the sudden, you know, one who burn everything that they owned and expel them? You know, and that was it. That was like I was just like, how does this guy go from this point to that point? You know, and then basically in the next sermon, he had, you know, just basically called me a demon and a satanic demon. So I. Well, I mean, you know, again, I obviously don't hold that guy's opinion. I think that, you know, as long as you're respectfully talking to your pastor about these things, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But, you know, I mean, I want to make a few comments on this. I just typed it into Google, but 501c3 was established in the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894. Now, here's the thing. I guess there was an overhaul in 1954 as well. But I think that some people have a weird opinion of 501c3. You know, one thing that I don't think that very many people realize is that a church. If you form a church in in the United States and it's correctly set up as a church, you're automatically 501c3, whether you file anything with the federal government at all. In fact, the only thing a church can do is they can send a request for a verification. But the verification doesn't make you 501c3. It just asks the federal government if they agree with you that you're 501c3. But according to the 501c3 guidelines, as long as you are a church and you're not doing anything weird, you're pretty much an automatic 501c3. And so, you know, I'm not going to hold that against a church for being 501c3 or even asking for their verification letter. But I think that anybody could let anything influence them. Obviously, the 501c3 could cause somebody to not preach something that they should. It's also possible that, you know, just the fear of losing your bank account, your YouTube channel, your money, having protesters could also be influences for you to not preach the Bible. And I think that's for every pastor to say, you know what, I'm just going to preach what the Bible says, but I'm going to do my best to manage and navigate the laws of the land, too. And so, you know, I appreciate that the federal government isn't taxing churches the same way they tax small businesses and for profit corporations. So it is a benefit. But if I end up losing that because the government changes their mind or goes against the First Amendment or something, well, then, you know, so be it. But to me, I'm not against churches for just having that particular label. I think that maybe some people go a little overboard with their anti-Israel viewpoint and to say, like, everything that they're doing must be wrong because they're pro-Israel. I don't think that the 501c3, I think that's a separate issue personally. I don't know what you think about this, Ben. I don't have a strong opinion. You're more of an expert on this area, having actually done the paperwork to start churches and things like that. I don't think that 501c3 is an issue at all for me. And like I said, you're more experienced in this area. And we could look it up, but off the top of my head, there's basically five points that you have to meet, like five criteria and you have to meet to be a 501c3. And it's like, it's like that you're, there's no personal enurement, which personal enurement means that no, none of the directors of the church are receiving just like excess bonus wages based on a special donation of the church. And then like, secondly, you're not doing criminal activity. A third is that you're not like actively participating in politics, which is a loose definition. But they've even like quantified it and said that as long as you're not giving more than 10% of your funds to a political candidate, then you're still within the boundary, which to me is insane. It would be insane if I heard a church saying like, we're giving 20% of our money to Donald Trump or something like that. That would be insane to me. But what's crazy is you could literally give 5% of the donations of a church to Donald Trump and still be within the guidelines of 501c3, which is crazy to me. And then there's, again, I think there's like two other particular ones, but they're, they're kind of nuanced about just like minutia that doesn't even matter that every church should be following if you weren't following it. Like, it's like selling illegal things, doing criminal activity, things like that. So like to me, I think that every church, generally speaking, is going to follow the model of a 501c3 guideline regardless of if they file paperwork or not. And this is what people don't get. These houses, these house church movements or these other groups that are meeting as a church and they say, we're not 501c3. Well, number one, they're not paying federal taxes. And number two, the reason why they're not paying federal taxes is because they were automatically exempt as a 501c3. And therefore, they're actually receiving that benefit while preaching against 501c3. And then if there was a particular church that, you know, was not doing things correctly, that they could potentially get shut down. But I mean, generally speaking, if you form a church, you're going to be a 501c3. I don't know if you have a different opinion there, Daniel. I'll let you give a comment again. Something happened in the 1950s. I don't remember if it was 53 or 56. World War II. Obviously, we bring in all these Jews after World War II. I mean, yeah, that changed. Well, yeah, the Jews definitely didn't help anything. I'm just saying that the there was some if you look at the 1950s. So let me let me start from here, right? I let me just kind of revert. I grew up in Massachusetts. Okay, sure. I was never actually taught the truth about Lexington conquered the battle that happened in 1775. Okay. And and I was never taught the fact that that that battle occurred on a church front lawn. And the pastor happened to be Jonas Clark. And it was Sam Adams and I believe it was John Hancock came to his house because the Brits had a arrest warrant on them. And they came to him and said, Hey, you know, we don't want to cause you trouble. But we need shelter. And he said, I've been preparing my flock for this for years. Right. So the next day, they stood on the church front lawn 80 guys, 250 British guys came in, and they lost eight guys from the church, but they managed to do a pretty heavy dent in the British and they ran. And the guys from the church ran through the woods over to Concord. And as the Brits were coming over to bridge in Concord, they killed them all. Right. And and people don't understand the involvement of the church in the Revolutionary War. Most people don't. But the thing is, like I was saying is there's something that happened in the church. And I don't know if it was that they allowed the church to be involved in the 501 c three. I don't know if the church always had that ability. But something happened in the 50s. And if you look at the decline of the United States, when the church stopped leading the country to where we are now, it's it's there's a big difference. Well, you know, here's the thing. I just I just don't think that it's a political fight that we lost. Like I think it's a spiritual fight that we lost. I think that churches stop preaching the gospel. They stop standing on the King James Bible. We brought in the modern Bible versions. We have a major apostasy. I mean, we have the Southern Baptist Convention getting so bad. They don't even believe Genesis is history anymore. They don't believe Jesus is God. I mean, they're just like all kinds of just crazy, weird psycho doctrines are, you know, infiltrating these churches. I don't think it's because of 501 c three. I would say that's more maybe a symptom of government control or the government is just trying to put its tentacles more on the church. But I don't think that that was a catalyst. I don't think that had anything to do with I think it's just people preaching the gospel, not preaching the Bible. And, you know, I appreciate your comments. I want to give I want to give by you, Jared, a chance here. He's also speaker. If you want to speak, you can send me a request and we can try to get you in your eye. I tried to invite a few different people. Sometimes it's kind of slow. Try to invent invite brother Jimmy over here if he wants to come on the show by you, Jared. How's it going? Hey, going good. Good evening. How are you doing? Good. Yeah, I wanted to comment on Romans 11 26. Go for it. Yeah. So what it doesn't say is, and so a lot of Jews shall be saved. It doesn't say that. It says all Israel shall be saved, right? So none of the Jews that live outside of Israel, if that's your interpretation, that it's the nation of Israel, that the modern nation state of Israel, if that's what it's talking about, then none, then all the, you know, Muslims and Christians that live in Israel that just it's everyone within the border, you know, so if you want to be saved, you just got to cross the border. Like right before that happens and you'll be saved. So that's a good interpretation. Well, yeah, I mean, it doesn't even matter. Either way, if you said it was the the physical nation, like the boundaries, like you just brought up, or even if you just said the physical Jews that have somehow gone through the last 2000 years unscathed by ethnic missing, mixing, you say like the guy in San Francisco and LA and Miami and Chicago and New York that hates Jesus and wants nothing to do with him. He's just going to randomly believe and get saved or something. Like, I mean, again, I'm just, it's just weird. It's just weird. And it's, how is that not racist? It is. It's preposterous. And I want to say this real quick. So you have all Israel shall be saved in verse 26, right? We spent a large portion of the stream talking about everything that came before it. And the theme of that first half is really basically like, hey, Israel could still be saved if they believe, right? They could be graphed in again. The Gentiles were graphed in because they believed. How does that connect, though, to verse 26, right? Because verse 26, it seems kind of random. Like, after we talked about all that, all of a sudden it says all Israel shall be saved. And I came up with how they connect, how these two concepts connect. I personally think that the reason he brings up that one day Israel will consist only of saved people is because of the fact that when the Millennium starts, it will consist of regenerated Gentiles and physical Israelites. So if he's making the point that, hey, physical Israel can still get saved if they choose to believe on Christ, what actually helps to substantiate his point is to say, and in fact, one day all of Israel is actually going to be saved. Why? Because of regenerated Jews and Gentiles. To go back to something that Daniel brought up, Swords as Plowshares also says that their history teacher actually taught them about that revolutionary act that happened. I don't even know what that is. No, it's a good point. What is that, Pastor Shelley? The one that the previous guy was talking about? Yeah, he was talking about how the shot heard around the world. I see. Obviously, everyone's a Christian. I mean, there's an important documentary we're trying to make called One Nation Under God. It's an important documentary because it's going to explain how our entire nation was Christian. I mean, there's a Christian church on every street corner virtually in the South and in America because we were a Christian nation. So it'd be hard to say that there weren't Christians in the fight for freedom in our country. So was America great? It's better than every other nation. But that was a great point by you, Jared. Do you have any more comments here? We'll go back to you. Good point on Romans chapter 11. Yeah. And the point of that, obviously, is just that if you're interpreting Israel as the nation, then it's a pretty strange interpretation. But I would like to just offer my own interpretation of what I think he's talking about. And I don't even necessarily need to bring in like, in times, prophecy and stuff. You know, so in verse, let's see, where is it? He talks about the election, right? In verse five, even so at this present time, also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. He talks about, hath God cast away his people? So I think these, these terms are talking about the same, the same thing. His people talked about his people in verse one, his people in verse two. And then it talks about the election of grace in verse five. And then it talks about the election in verse seven. Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it. And then he talks about the olive tree, right? So I think God's people, the elect, the election, the olive tree, this is all the same group. And that he's cut off from the olive tree, from the election, from his people, certain branches and grafted in other branches. So you have this tree, and everyone that's on the tree is the elect, is his people, are the saved. It is, the tree is true Israel, which I would say is fulfilled by the church today. So anyone who's a Jew today believes in Christ, they're in the body of Christ. I don't think you guys believe in the universal church, but that's basically how I would see it now. It's just all, every believer that's in the universal body of Christ would be this tree. So God has pruned out the unbelieving branches and grafted in the believing branches. This is true Israel and true Israel will be saved. So I wouldn't even necessarily have to like get into, well, is it pre-trib or post-trib? Is it pre-mil, a-mil? You see what I'm saying? You're basically saying, well, all Israel shall be saved because all Israel is just the people who believe, so therefore they're going to be the ones who are saved. So kind of more of a simplistic approach to it. Do I have that right? Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Did you hear Ben's comment? I think he might have lost the ability to hear us. I can't hear you guys, maybe I need to drop down and come back up. Yeah, Spaces does that from time to time. We'll cycle you through again. Did I give an accurate characterization, you think, Pastor, of his interpretation of the verse there? I was interested to see what he would say. Not what I would say? Is there something wrong with me? No, I thought that was a fair question. Is that what you meant? Can you hear anything? Yes, I hear you can hear us. Can you hear us still? Yes. Elon's got to fix this ex-Spaces thing, man. It's so glitchy. We might need to just drop him. You have to drop him and have him come back, potentially. Let's see, I wonder if I can kick him out or something, or uninvite him as a speaker or something. It's too glitchy. We need to have you fix it, aren't you a program guy? Yeah, it shouldn't... Program guy? That shows my intelligence. Well, I could fix it, but to be honest, if we let our production lead fix it, then it would really get fixed. He's a more talented program guy than a lot of people. Yeah, I'll just be humble enough to say that he's better than I am in that area. That's okay. He's better than me in a lot of areas, that's for sure. That's definitely true. While he was bringing this up about the simplicity, I did want to comment on something else, too. He kind of brought up about the universal church, so at least remind me, because I want to make a comment. Well, we believe in a local church. Yeah, I just want to make a comment on that, but I want him to be in the conversation when I make that. If I don't, it means I forgot. Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yeah, can you hear us? Yeah, I can. I don't know where you guys lost me. It seemed like what you were saying is, all Israel shall be saved just means those who believe are Israel, therefore they're going to be saved. It's more of a simplistic approach to the passage, is that right? Like, simpler than our interpretation? Is that an accurate characterization? Well, I think there's definitely a lot of overlap. I just, and maybe there's some view towards end times, things that are taking place, but I just view the olive tree is synonymous with the election according to grace, synonymous with true Israel, which the church is the fulfillment of Israel, and God has pruned out all the unbelieving branches and grafted in the believing branches. And so this olive tree, they're all true Israel, they're all believers, they're all the election according to grace, and that whole tree will be saved. I understand. I don't even take issue necessarily with what you're saying at all. I think where I get hung up, though, and why I feel like I have to make it something that has to do with end times, is verse 25. If verse 25 wasn't there, then I'd probably hold to a position that's closer to yours, but in verse 25 it says, For I would not brethren that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel. So, present tense, when the Apostle Paul is saying this, there is blindness in part that has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. So, it seems like, according to that passage, the blindness has a termination point in which they will no longer be blind, and that'll be when the fullness of the Gentiles happens. And I think that Scripture is clear when I compare Luke 21 and Revelation 11, that the fullness of the Gentiles does happen at the end of Daniel's 70th week from an eschatological perspective. But I definitely see where you're coming from. I don't even have an issue with it at all. I'm just saying the reason why I kind of hold closer to an end times view on this is because of verse 25. Yeah, I guess I would say it kind of reminds me of, you had a different interpretation of Romans 11 at some point, and I felt like it just was not answering the question. Preterist view. Yeah, but I just feel like it's just like ignoring what the text is saying, because the context of Romans chapter 11 is the physical nation of Israel. That's what we're addressing. So it makes sense to keep that as the focus and keep that as the attention throughout the entire chapter. And again, in part, the blindness in part, I like what you said in about 25, is of course when we talk about the difference between, there's some physical Jews like Paul that are saved, and then there's some physical Jews like Caiaphas who are unsaved. So we have this physical Jew, not a spiritual Jew. But at some point, it's going to be a one for one. Again, that's what I already tried to explain, but in verse 26, you will have a moment when all of the physical nation of Israel is saved, and that hasn't happened, and it's not happening, and Israel is partially blind. And I want to say it is in the sense that it's not like it's a new thing. It's always been a mixed multitude. Because in Romans chapter 9, they're not all Israel which are of Israel. The part that's being brought up by that pastor, or the reverend or brother Tom, he brought up how there is a remnant. And specifically he's bringing up Elias how, well at that point in time, there was only a small portion of people that were Israel of that greater person, you know, partition of Israel. And so, you know, it makes sense to me, our interpretation, I think that oversimplifying it to just say it's just saved people are saved becomes a meaningless platitude that doesn't really answer what the text is saying, and it's not very satisfactory to the people that have a contrary view. When we talk about the difference between a universal church and like that some like the Catholics or Catholic lights will bring up, I believe the word church goes beyond just saying save people. I believe it's save people congregated together. So yeah, I deny the universal church because I don't think that we're physically congregated together until we go up into heaven. You could then argue that we were a universal church in that sense, at the rapture, but right now save people are scattered throughout so that's why we have the local churches where it's just a congregation of believers together and that's the church. I don't think the universal church is a, it's kind of a contradictory term in my mind. Obviously when we talk about just all the saved and we call them the church, if someone means that loosely then I agree, but I just don't think that we're all congregated together. What do you think about the universal church definition, Ben? I would echo your sentiments. I don't have anything new to add to that. Is there something that I'm missing in this universal church viewpoint? And back to our guests. Yeah, I think there are some verses that are difficult to interpret as a local congregation. Just one that comes off the top of my head is, I think it's Matthew 16 where Jesus says, you are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So, I mean, it depends on when you think the church began. I know some people would say, you know, Jesus's congregation is the beginning of the New Testament church or an ax to the church begins. But I think to interpret it as Jesus is talking, he's only talking about his disciples, his close companions, is kind of missing the point of what's taking place in that passage. As he's, you know, he's giving the keys and authority to his disciples and there's a lot going on there. And there are some other verses that I would have to do a search. That's the only one that really comes to mind off the top of my head. But with Israel, so you do take an interpretation that all Israel shall be saved is talking about the modern state of Israel? No. No, no, no. No, I think that is talking about the millennial reign. The millennium. During the millennium, Israel will consist of only saved people because, of course, its inhabitants will be regenerated people who take over that land, those who believed on Christ. The Christ-hating Jews are going to be slain by the Lord Jesus Christ, in my opinion, Luke 19-27. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me. So, no, I don't believe that Christ-hating Jews are going to automatically just believe and get saved somehow. Right. And, you know, I appreciate that we have somebody that, you know, has different views because I invited Brother Tom to come on the show and talk about his sermon or talk about his viewpoint and explain it to us so that it's not like a straw man because, you know, seems like a good guy, loves the gospel, and I would love to have them come on because to me, I think if we were able to put some pushback, I just don't see how they're going to have a reasonable explanation. And, you know, the goal would be to maybe influence them or change their mind. I think that they're just afraid of believing like us because we have all these awful labels of being anti-Semitic and blah, blah, blah. But, you know, we're not anti-Semitic, so it doesn't matter. And generally speaking, like, if you're anti-Semitic by the world's definition, that's just believing the Bible. So it's not even a fair label in many cases. But I would love, I mean, I would love for a Zionist to debate us on this show. I'd love for someone that disagrees with me to say, like, hey, all the Jews are going to get saved. Like, hey, come on the show. We'll talk about it. Hey, invite your pastor. You got a pastor that wants to, you know, challenge us on that particular viewpoint. I'm ready. I'll give them all the, you know, everything they could want, everything they could need. They can bring all their commentary. They can bring anything they want. Let's have a conversation. I mean, should we be afraid of Zionism, Ben? No, I think that the truth doesn't fear investigation. And we're not afraid of having our worldview challenged. And even with this gentleman, I'm sorry, I forgot your name, but the gentleman who chimed in tonight, I believe he also chimed in the other night when we did spaces and had a different perspective. I believe it was on the King James only issue. And I welcome that. And I think this guy is a very mature and I appreciate him coming on and being able to, you know, give us a different view on some things. I appreciate that. But no, just echo what you're saying. You wouldn't have any issue discussing Zionism. And I want to underscore pastor Shelley. There are good people who believe in the Zionist doctrine. They're wrong on this, but they're still brothers in Christ and including a friend of our church who disagrees with us on this. I'm hoping that something didn't go wrong. But he's still a good guy. I was trying to bring in another speaker here. Can you guys still hear us? Okay. Brother Jimmy, can you hear us okay? I think he has his hand up. So can we, does he want to be... I can hear you guys. Okay, good. Something was weird on one of my other screens. I just want to make sure. If you're in there, brother Jimmy, go ahead. Unmute. Let's talk to brother Jimmy. Get in there. I gave him the best intro I can. Well, we gave him the opportunity. Bro, Jay, Stu, unmute yourself. Let's hear what you have to say. Live on the Baptist bias, the floor is yours. All right, maybe his mic... I just went to you. Of course I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah, we can hear you. I'm unmuted. I don't know. I'm so sorry. We can hear you. We can hear you. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Oh, that's so weird. I can't hear you in here. Okay, I think I hear you. So, looking at a couple of scriptures just as he was talking, I was thinking about... I was thinking about a couple of different scriptures here, first off in Romans chapter 9, 32, because they sought it not by faith, and then if you just kind of look back at Romans 3, and even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, and I bring these scriptures up because when I would talk to people about this topic, I would say to them, so when did faith just get thrown out the window, and someone can just see Jesus, and then all of a sudden they're saved? I'm like, that was never the case in the Old Testament. You know, you had people that lived in the land, but they weren't necessarily saved, and it's kind of the same type of idea that just because someone is of... I'm kind of putting a couple of things together here. Just because someone is of a particular lineage, or they have a particular stamp in their passport, and then they look up and then, okay, they magically get saved. Well, what about the guy that lives five feet across the border? When he looks up, does he see Jesus? Does he get instantly saved? And it's like, well, no, because their DNA or whatever, but we've established that the DNA aspect has nothing to do with it. So, they kind of forget that righteousness comes by faith, and any Jew that gets saved, amen, that's great, but it's going to have to come by faith and not by seeing Jesus in the clouds, and then somehow that means, oh great, they'll all be saved. And to then say, well, that means all of them will get saved, and then, you know, some of the hard nosers literally say, yes, all of them will get saved, and you're like, okay, come on now. It's just getting a little bit crazy with that kind of stuff. So, no, I think they really kind of forget other aspects of Christianity because they have to hold to this Jew-worshipping view, where you're like, now all of a sudden here's a guy who clearly believes that salvation is by faith, but now all of a sudden salvation isn't by faith because Jews are going to look up and see him. So, it's kind of frustrating when that kind of situation happens, and, well, no, they're God's special people, and it's like, what special, what? Like, can we need to talk in more than 140 characters at a time here? We've got to look into this a little bit deeper, and let's lay out a solid doctrine here. So, anyway, I just wanted to throw my two cents in there. This is like, a Muslim looks up and sees Jesus, doesn't get saved, but a Jew looks up and he magically gets saved. What about these apostate Christians? Did they even have a chance? You know, that would be another question I'd have. Was that for Jimmy? For anybody. I agree with that. You know what's amazing is that they'll take passages like Ezekiel 36, 26, a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And they basically will say, well, there's Romans 11, 26 right there. And to me, you're literally removing free will out of the equation, first of all. And second of all, you're turning such a beautiful foreshadowing of the New Testament, and twisting it into something that it is not. Of course, yeah, I do think that Israel will get a new heart. I believe that. They will get a new heart. If they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, just like all of us did, when we believed on Christ, we got a new heart. And you know what, I also believe that God put in us the ability to keep the law through the Spirit, if we walk in the Spirit, if we through our free will walk in the Spirit. So here we have magnificent passages in the Old Testament that foreshadow the New Testament, and they take them and they make them about this Romans 11, 26 conversion. Well, you know, think about this. If this brother Tom's view is right, and this is their moment where they see and they get saved, just think about all the unlucky Jews who died just like right before he came back. Because if you had just lived a little bit longer, and you'd seen Christ coming in the clouds, you would have gotten saved, but you're one of those unlucky Jews who just died at 90 years old or something. I mean, if we're going all the way back to 1948, I mean, people that were teenagers in 1948, how old are they now? I mean, we're talking about what, let's say they were 20, plus 52 years, that's 72, plus another 24, that's like 96 years old or something like that. I mean, how many people that were even just teenagers in 1948 are still going to be making, still going to be kicking it? I mean, this is insane, right? Well, you have to remember though, Pastor Shelley, he brought them in in unbelief. Ah, and then they stayed in unbelief? And then they died in what the hell? I mean, yeah, unfortunately. And again, it's not like to laugh like I'm glad people are dying and going to hell. No, it's the false doctrine I'm laughing at, not people dying and going to hell, just to be clear. It's just silly to think like, why did all of these, I mean, because again, we're not even contrasting Gentiles and Jews, we're contrasting Jews and Jews. If you're going to say these people are special, why were all the ones that have died in the last 50, 60 years or 80 years in the nation state of Israel that didn't get to see Jesus physically, why didn't they get that opportunity? Why didn't they get saved? Why did Jesus come into his own and his own received him not? Why is it that Jesus is calling them children of the devil and saying that they cannot believe? Why is it that the Apostle Paul is saying you've judged yourselves unworthy of everlasting life? Why did he say, hey, from henceforth we're not going to go into the Jews because they won't hear it, we're going to go into the Gentiles. Like, why did Paul say all these things? Why is he writing letters to the Romans and to the Corinthians and the Galatians and the Ephesians and the Philippians and the Colossians and just to Timothy and to Titus and to Philemon? And then it's like, okay, oh, he did write a passage to Hebrews, sure. You know, if you want to say that Paul wrote Hebrews, which I think is a reasonable belief, but it's just like he spent so much time on Gentiles. Like, why are we just so obsessed, so concerned with unbelieving Jews? Why don't we care about unbelieving Palestinians? Why don't we care about unbelieving people in India? Unbelieving people in Australia? Unbelieving people in America? Like, this obsession with Israel is racist. It doesn't make sense. It's not in the Bible. It's not what it teaches whatsoever. And look, I love Brother Tom, and I would be his friend, but he's wrong on this doctrine of thinking that we should worship Jews. He's wrong on thinking that a bunch of reprobates are going to get saved in the end times. And look, I'm not saying there won't be some ethnic, quote, what we call modern state Jews today getting saved. I hope there are some. I hope that a few of them turn and believe. And look, I even know people that are ethnically Jewish today that have believed on Jesus Christ and they got saved and praise God for them. But I just think that this unconditional support of Israel, being a Zionist, being afraid of these labels anti-Semitic when it's not really a true accusation, is leading people into false doctrine and not preparing them for the real end times. I think it's important that people really prepare themselves for that. That's a mic drop moment right here. Hey, I think we have, oh, we got another. If I had a mic, I would drop it on the desk. I want to get another guest in here. Common Sense 2323. If you're able to speak, go ahead and give us a shout out. Give us your thoughts. I think he's able to speak. He just needs to unmute. Well, he might not be ready. But as soon as you're ready, Common Sense, just interject. If there's anybody else that wants to join us. We need some Common Sense. Who doesn't need Common Sense? Zionists. We need some fundamental Baptist brethren to get some Common Sense on these issues here. And people say, oh, you're picking on a guy. First of all, he invoked our church's name. And second, we've said multiple times we believe this is a brother in Christ who's right on the gospel and that we love him. So stop being so over sensitive. But can't your brother be wrong? Yeah, of course. And you know what, I think for a lot of them, they're just emotionally attached to this position that they were taught probably from the generations preceding them. It doesn't make them a bad person necessarily. From their perspective, we're wrong. Have the conversation. Come on the show. Explain what verse we got wrong and give us the right interpretation. We had a nice dinner with someone. Am I really supposed to believe in 1 Corinthians 15 as saying that Paul was born prematurely and all these Jews are going to be saved? But you can get along. Here's the thing. You can get along with folks who disagree on this issue. We had a nice dinner with an individual who does. I mean, it happens. I have friends that are pre-Trib and pro-Zion. Pre-Trib, pro-Zion. It's like this idea that the new IFB is just my way or we declare you unsaved heretic false prophet devil is a work of fiction. That's not our position. Common Sense, how's it going? Good, Pastor Shelley. How are you doing? Pleasure to speak with you. Ben, it's a pleasure to speak with you as well. Thanks for having me on. Are we going to finally have Common Sense in year 2323 or is that what the name means or what? Well, no. Common Sense 23 was taken, so I just added another 23 to it. Okay. Maybe by then, you know, a couple centuries. Hopefully by then we'll have some. Are we in the millennial reign by then, Ben? I think so. Great, great space and rumble. I really appreciate your guys' channel. Glad I found you. I found you on a space with a couple nights ago, I think, was it election night when Cenk Uygur and Fuentes and everything came on? I think you're in that space and I found you here. So I just wanted to touch base on the subject tonight and bounce a couple things off, maybe a different topic. First off, really like that you have the false doctrines that, you know, your church doesn't believe in. I think it'd be really helpful if every church do that, that way you could figure it out a lot quicker when you're trying to find the church. So, and love the way you phrase it. I mean, you didn't, you know, it wasn't anything you do worship. I mean, that's pretty, like you guys have been saying all night, what's there for a Christian to argue against that? I don't understand. This whole Zionism that's infiltrated the church in the last, you know, hundred years. And like you say, it's not that they're bad people, it's not that they're heretics or anything like that. It's what we've been taught from the pulpit, from many churches, you know, that are Bible teaching, verse by verse churches. And that have just been being taught to us since I can remember, so luckily I came across and it's a big thing. And it's a big thing because even, you know, I watched, I think you did the documentary, you're affiliated with who did the Marching to Zion documentary. Yeah, the guy who sent me out in Ordaimi, Pastor Steven Anderson, he's the main contributor to that film. Right, and that's a great movie. I mean, that's a powerful movie that just really speaks and something, first time I spoke to my mom who's, you know, older, she's a boomer. She started crying thinking that I was going to hell. And then she watched the, not because I was saying, you know, the Jews and the God's chosen people, she started like cheering up and everything. It's like, I can't believe you're saying that. And then she watched it and now she's the one in her morning Bible studies on Sunday with my dad, raising questions and causing havoc and, you know, making other people think and brought it up to the pastor in their church in Tennessee. And the pastor is saying, yeah, our son says a lot of the same ideas too. So the word's definitely getting out and you're not antisemitic. And I think it's crazy for Christians to accuse other Christians of antisemitism over this because this is relatively a new doctrine. And if you read any of the church fathers, then they were all very antisemitic until, you know, the late 1800s. Yeah, that's definitely true. But yeah, just wanted to encourage you, that movie's really powerful. Boomers, if there's anyone listening, show it to your parents, your family. I mean, pretty much covers everything and it's biblically sound. There's not much you can say once you finish that. So thanks for that. Thanks for your comments. Yeah, thanks for being a listener. I have a couple. And then on, yeah, as you're saying, I mean, if Jews are saved just by being Jews, then shouldn't that Pastor Jim, you know, that's his name, right? Pastor Tom, I think. Tom, sorry. Then I mean, instead of, you know, shouldn't he be telling we should just go out and marry Jewish women and have Jewish children and then we know for sure that they're saved? I mean, this way. Are you stupid? That's hilarious. Are you stupid? I'm sorry? Are you stupid? Who's saying that? I'm saying it. Are you stupid? No, I'm saying it as a joke. It was a joke. If you follow their logic through that if you're Jewish, you're automatically saved for your genealogy and they trace their genealogy through the mother. Whose logic? Earlier in the space, we were bringing up a pastor who thinks that all Jews are going to get saved regardless of if they believe in Jesus or not. So the commentator is just making a joke. He's saying, look, if everybody just believe that, it's a great point. I totally that's why I thought it was funny. That's why I laughed because it's just like, why wouldn't we just marry Jews and ensure your children are going to go to heaven? I guess the question is, do you still allow them to get the nose job or not? I think that's the bigger question. Destroy all sacredness? Yeah. You destroy all sacredness? Where is the sacredness of humanity when you categorize something like the Jews? And then that's like a point of attack. Where's the sacredness of humanity, which is an image of God? Question. Sincerely. I don't understand what's going on. What's your question? Are you disagreeing with our position here? If so, you're more than welcome to offer a counterpoint. Absolutely. So in Christ, there is no slave nor free, no male nor female, right? Sure. Okay. Galatians three. Yeah. And to attack or mount an attack on a category is to claim a superiority, right? I don't know if I'm understanding your question. Could you just get to your question? Yeah, that was my question. Say it again? I think I understand it. You're attacking Jews. You're categorizing Jews or, say, the inner slave or free or male or female or any fucking thing, right? Are you not anti-Christ? Well, I don't think I'm against any person as an individual. Oh, okay. Based on their race, creed. So what was the joke? I want to laugh. Go ahead. Say it again. The joke was if you want people to, if you want to ensure that your children are going to go to heaven, you would marry someone that's Jewish because by marrying someone who's Jewish, they're automatically going to go to heaven. Yeah, it's so funny. Awesome. Sorry for interrupting. Yeah, I don't think it made any sense. I'm going to remove you as speaker, but we'll go back to common sense. I mean, I don't mind somebody disagreeing, but the thing is, like, you can't just make emotional appeals. Oh, you're categorizing them as Jews, therefore you're anti-Christ. We never said that we were superior to Jews based on any physical characteristics, and that's what Galatians 3 is trying to get you to understand, is that your physical characteristics don't matter when you're in Christ. But here's what does matter, your ideology. And my ideology is superior than the ideology of somebody who worships Satan. Well, I think that he's, he kind of made this conflation of, like, just recognizing physical differences makes you an anti-Christ or something. If I say someone's black or white, or if I say someone's a slave, or if someone's of a different religion, obviously we're talking about categorizations. I already said earlier in the stream, which I don't think this guy was in there, but I said earlier in the stream, I don't even believe in these ethnic Jews. Like, I don't, I think we're all Gentiles at this point, it's been mixed so much. But even if you just use that line of thinking and claim that there was these ethnic Jews, it would make sense to marry them. I thought the common sense was making a good point, sorry you got interrupted there, that was actually really funny. Yeah, let's go back to common sense before we had somebody get all offended. You can unmute. He has his hand up. Alright, sorry, I was, I'm doing some errands and didn't want to have a bunch of background noise on your space. No, you're good. No, anyway, yeah, I didn't understand that, but I mean that's often what you see amongst our brothers and sisters in the church nowadays, is that Christians can be bashed, you know, Jesus can be put in artwork and the worst things. But then if Christians say anything, then it's like, oh, you're supposed to love and be kind and everything, and yeah, we are called to be kind and love. But that doesn't mean that we should allow our faith and our brothers and sisters in Christ and our Lord and Savior to be the mockery of the world and just sit there and take it. So I don't agree with that previous speaker. Yeah. Well, you were making a really funny point, so. I was just making a joke, so. It was funny, it was hilarious. No, and it's just like logical to me, but can I ask you a quick question on something else? Yeah, go for it. Can I do a different topic? Yep. Or do we have to stick to this? No, go ahead, ask your question. Okay, I listen to a lot of, I don't know if you know who he is, Jay Dyer? Have you heard of him? Yes, I know who that is. Okay, and I mean I think he makes a lot of good points, I think he's very interesting, I think he does a good defense of the faith from his point of view. I have a couple questions, though, because I do believe in sola scriptura. I believe you would as well, correct? Yeah, I agree. Okay, so when that point is raised often in his debates and everything, he says, well, the first century church, you know, for the first few centuries, the canon wasn't even finalized. So how well were they basing themselves on? They would be basing themselves on, he's coming from an Orthodox perspective, I'm assuming you know. So he would say that the church had oral traditions and all this, so I think there's, I'm sure, a lot of Orthodox that are saved, but some of their traditions seem a little odd to me. How would you argue that for the first few centuries? I mean, they still had the Torah, obviously, or the Old Testament, right? Yes. Okay, and then they would have still had whatever letters Paul had written, he was writing them to the churches, so they would have been handing them around. Is that how you would argue the point, or how would you go about arguing sola scriptura for the first couple centuries? Well, to me this is a funny argument, because they say, well, the canon wasn't finalized until 300 AD when they had the ecumenical council, they identified it. But here's the thing, in order to even identify it, don't you have to have it? And here's the thing, how did they identify it? No one even describes this as a supernatural event. Obviously, they already knew what the Bible was, and they already had the Bible, that's how they could even make that determination, is because they already had received it and agreed to it and recognized it. So the Scripture's always been available, I mean, you have in Acts, the Bible makes it clear that the Law of Moses was read in every city, even in the time of Acts, so the Old Testament's already been established, well before even the time of Christ. And, you know, the Bible, of course, there's always going to be discrepancies on the Bible, like what's the Bible, what's not the Bible. You see even in the Epistles, the Apostle Paul talking about people corrupting the Word of God, you had Septuagint translations that predate the time of Christ. There's always been a controversy, even, over do we go with the Greek Septuagint, or do we go with the Masoretic Hebrew for the Old Testament. You're going to have some discrepancies, of course, people believing and adhering to the Apocrypha prior to this Ecumenical Council. So the question of what's the Bible or not is just really just every generation has that struggle and that battle, and they have to determine for themselves. It is just a fact of history that at one point a large group of Catholics got together and identified what they believed to be the Bible, but they still kind of include the Apocrypha, and it's kind of like later in the Protestant Reformation when a lot of these people are saying, like, we don't even want to include this, we don't agree with this, and even post the King James Bible being translated when they just started leaving it out altogether. But even the translators of the King James Bible made it abundantly clear in their documentation that the Apocrypha was not to be used for doctrine, it was only for historical value, and so, you know, I think that the Word of God is validated by itself. My sheep will hear my voice, they will not follow a stranger. So, you know, it's silly to say, well, at this one point when they identified it, that's when the Bible came to be. It's just rather a large group identifying it. I mean, what if we just said, like, the United States of America got up and said, and you know, I'm a Baptist, of course, but they just said the Baptist Church is the best church. Well, that wouldn't be, like, the time that the Baptist Church started. That's just the government as a whole recognizing, like, this is the best church. So, like, if the whole government came together and said, like, we believe the King James Bible is the Word of God preserved and accurate, it's the best translation, we all need is the King James Bible, that doesn't mean that people didn't recognize the King James Bible as the Word of God in the times past. I mean, you even have Ronald Reagan saying, as pious judges try to get it right, it will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right. So, you have Ronald Reagan identifying that the Word of God is already gotten right in the King James Bible. It doesn't matter if a large group later identify that, too. And you have people prior to the ecumenical council saying, this is the Word of God, we should rely upon these particular history of manuscripts and appealing to these verses as authoritative scriptures. So, I think the argument that says the Bible didn't come into existence until the Catholics made it is just, like, the weirdest argument, it has no bearing on reality or fact whatsoever, it's just kind of a straw man argument to try and be Catholic, but it's a bad argument to be Catholic. Do you have another addition here, Ben? All I would add, I appreciate your historical perspective, and I appreciate the point you made about the Bible validating itself. I would just add that I personally believe that the believer can authenticate scripture for themselves, meaning that every believer has the Holy Spirit inside them and has the ability to validate for themselves whether what they are reading is God's word or not. You know, the Bible says He will guide us into all truth, and so I think believers throughout all ages were able to identify what is or is not inspired by God and infer themselves through the power of the Holy Spirit. Pastor Shelley, what do you think about that? Great points. Does that help you a little bit, common sense, or do you have a follow-up on that? No, that does help me a lot, but I have a quick drive here and my car is, like, making noise, so I don't want to interrupt. You want me to click back in and, like, I don't know, I'm good. You want me to just click back on and zoom in? Yeah, just throw your hand up. Just throw your hand up and we'll get some final comments from you. But I'll go back to Bahia Jarrett. Did you want to have a comment on the Bible here? Yeah, I had a comment on Sola Scriptura. So, I didn't hear Jay Dyer's comments, but... So, Sola Scriptura says, like, briefly, that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and doctrine for the Church. So, whether or not, you know, which books of the Bible were available to whom at what time is, it's a separate issue. It doesn't really have any bearing on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, whether it's true or not. Because Sola Scriptura does not mean you have to have a complete canon in order to rightly understand Scripture. So, you know, if you're talking about the very earliest parts of the Church when the New Testament was being inscripturated, you know, maybe the Church at Corinth had a few letters plus the Old Testament, you know, maybe an incomplete Old Testament, they can still apply the principle of Sola Scriptura in their faith. And they can use those Scriptures that they have to check any doctrine that anybody traveling through might be trying to teach them, you know, like the Bereans did. So, that's not really an argument against Sola Scriptura. And I would also say that if you read the early Church Fathers, like the anti-Nicene Fathers, Ignatius, Martyr, Mathetes, some of the other, like, earliest writings, you'll find that they do appeal to Scripture to, to, uh, to solidify their arguments and their points. And they're not appealing to tradition because, at that point, they, you know, they are the quote-unquote, tradition is the Church Fathers. You know, there, there's not a lot before them, you know, besides the Apostles themselves. themselves. So they're constantly quoting scripture to make their points. So I think to say that if you look at the early church fathers they're not using sola scriptura, well maybe not in the way that we kind of view it and define it now, they hadn't really thought that through maybe as in depth as how we have at this point, but I think you can definitely see that they are practicing this idea that scripture is, you know, you can't go against what scripture says. I think those are good points. The only thing I'd push back on is the idea that if you have a doctrine that says we can only use the scripture for as our authority, the logical conclusion that follows is then what is scripture? So I think that it's kind of tightly coupled in the sense that I think some people would argue that we can't identify what scripture or not, everybody kind of has a different opinion and it wasn't until this ecumenical council that it somehow got locked in but then people have changed it, there's been new discoveries, so like some people try to make this argument of like we can't determine what scripture is and that somehow that would then invalidate the idea or concept of sola scriptura and I think that, you know, for some Catholics, and I don't want to speak for all Catholics, but from their perspective they kind of elevate tradition above scripture and that they would maybe argue that well we've already determined all the right doctrines and all the right things to believe and so you just need to follow our quote traditions and if you were to find something contradictory in some Bible or some passage or the apocrypha well you're just not interpreting it right or you're not learned enough and if you kind of followed our tradition then you can make sure you're locked in and so it just kind of becomes a giant cult at that point where essentially they kind of take away the power of scripture to say that they could do anything wrong so I think that that's there, I want to let common sense before we get too far away from this, I want to let common sense give us some final thoughts, go ahead At least I saw his hand up there No, sorry, sorry No, thank you for those points, yeah I think that helps make some sense of it, I mean it's basic, I just sometimes don't know how to work things so I appreciate it and Jay Dyer obviously knows how to debate, so No, he's an Eastern Orthodox Okay, I didn't know for sure He debates Catholics, Protestants, Islam I don't know if you agree or not, I think his view on the Trinity is correct, I think he's argues against dispensationalism I think he's right on a lot Obviously by my comment of saying he's a Catholic I don't know what his doctrinal positions are on virtually anything I do know who he is, of course I'd be willing to discuss or debate any topics with him if that's what he wanted but I think that a lot of those people shy away from us because I think some people are nervous to have a conversation with us because they kind of in the back of their mind feel unprepared they kind of know that we are confident in our talking points so maybe they're nervous because they think that they're maybe right but they may not present well so maybe they're just afraid to have the conversation when the fact is it's just that they're wrong, that they need to have those conversations No, I appreciate your comments I'm sure he'd be open to having a conversation, he hosts spaces where he'll let anyone even come up and talk He's pretty easy to get to Quick second question because I've grown up evangelical, not charismatic or anything, just Calvary Chapel I think pretty much I would agree with almost your theological views on everything maybe something, but I've never heard I've heard on some of the debates that Protestants believe that Jesus at the cross was damned, I've never heard that I heard that he went down and preached the gospel Do you believe that Jesus was damned on the cross? Is that a doctrine? I want to make sure I understand what your question is because I've never used that terminology I've never said that Jesus was damned on the cross The Bible does say in 2 Corinthians 5 that he became sin for us who knew no sin That verse indicates he had to become sin The picture and figurative of the serpent on the stake is kind of a picture of Christ and him becoming sin for us I do believe that the Bible is clear in Acts chapter 2 verse 31 that he went down into hell I think a lot of people maybe differ opinion on what happened in hell but I believe that he most likely suffered in hell because you kind of have in Acts chapter 2 a few verses preceding that he was not loosed from the pains of hell until the resurrection To me it seems logical and reasonable to believe that he could have suffered in hell and that's what the Bible means when it says that The idea that he was preaching in hell to me is weird because I don't think anybody in hell can get saved I think that they're already eternally damned really in a capacity to even necessarily receive information I think it's a place of great torment There's weeping and gnashing of teeth, there's suffering, it's like darkness I don't think it's really an environment where even preaching could really work very well I'd heard teachings that he wasn't in hell that he was preaching to the Old Testament saints In paradise, like in a compartment next to you? When it talks about 1 Peter 3, when it talks about by which he also preached out of the spirits in prison when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing wherein few that his eight souls were saved by water I would say that 1 Peter chapter 3, the language is very difficult no matter what interpretation you hold to, but I have reached whole sermons I believe the spirits in prison is just, to be very quick is just reference to people that are unsaved on the earth and you can kind of look at chapter 4 and it also kind of brings up the idea of people that are dead and how Jesus is preaching the gospel to them and we also can look at other passages that are parallel passages where we're taken captive by the will of the devil The Bible also talks about how that we were all children of disobedience at one time, and so I think that the Bible is just making this illusion or this figurative language to describe the idea of everybody that's unsaved is like in a prison and when they get saved, they come out of that prison and you can think about the truth shall make you free and they're in bondage to sin, they're in a prison in a sense He came down to earth to preach to the spirits that are in prison and he preached the gospel to them. I don't believe that 1 Peter chapter 3 is in view of him going into hell and preaching to the unsaved or even going to... No, I don't believe that or I don't think that's not what I was trying to say, so no Sorry if I misrepresented your position. There's a few different flavors of this I just never heard, it's again In these debates with Protestants, he says Protestants believe that Jesus, when he died on the cross was damned, I mean was, I believe he paid I know he paid for our sins, and then the argument that they state is, well if he was damned, then that would sever him from his god ship, or you know his being god, and he couldn't separate, that's impossible so how could he be damned? Well, to me that's kind of a weird argument, because I'm like, how can God be born of a virgin how can God learn, how can God grow how can God die on a cross, like I think every part of the hypostatic union of Christ's mystery, I mean great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, like the Bible literally says that there's a mystery tied to the idea of God being coming flesh in the sense that that was something that they didn't understand in times past, how that was going to work, and even now, there's some parts of that It's hard to wrap your mind around it still to this day You have two statements that are made in the Bible, one that Jesus is God, you can't deny that, and then secondly that Jesus died, so like, okay, how do you reconcile all of that I don't know, I mean, in some sense I don't think that you can really make all these clean distinctions between those and say like, well, because I've heard some people say like, well the human part died and the God part didn't or something, but I believe in the hypostatic union, which for the most part I feel like I agree with when I read about it, is the concept that you can't really make these distinctions while these distinctions exist, that he's one person completely 100% God and 100% man, and so you couldn't chop off the quote God part from the human part, like it's just, you know, and you have some passages that literally just kind of if you read the text it says like God died in the sense that 1 John 3.16 that God laid down his life for us, can you quote that? I might have to look that up to get the exact, I used to have that He laid down his life for us, and it says something about God 1 John chapter 3 and verse 16 reads Hereby persuade we the love of God because he laid down his life for us and we have to lay down our lives for the brethren. I can see someone like, again, devil's advocate saying like well, the he is that is Jesus and it's just in reference to God the Father loving us because he sent his son like if you wanted to try and wiggle out of that, I think you could, but I think the text is clearly referring to Jesus consistently in both of those usages so, but again, whether or not you use this verse, Jesus is God and Jesus died, and Jesus laid down his life and he was risen again from the dead by God the Father, and so, you know, I don't think he was damned because it wasn't eternal, but I do think that he did take all of the sin, the Father couldn't look upon him, turned away from him, sent him to hell, and rose him again from the dead. I do believe that, I think Then what would you do with the verse that Jesus says no one takes the life from me, I lay it down and I pick it, raise it back up, like So that's an interesting verse, and I've heard an interpretation which I think is pretty interesting about that and it's basically like the word take is not in the sense of acquiring, but it's more in the sense of like that's what happened, so in the sense that, like if someone offers something to you and you take it, it doesn't necessarily mean that you purchased it or did anything, so it's like if God the Father raises Jesus back from the dead and he goes into his body, that's him taking his life back, but it's not necessarily he did it He's relying upon the Father to give him that back. I think you're talking about John Maybe it's actually Matthew. I know what verse you're talking about, and I want to see I think it's a beautiful verse, and I think it speaks to the power of Christ Again, the Trinity is hard to wrap our mind around I was recently challenged on this doctrine, and I kind of agree with what I heard. I would love to study it a little bit more, but it's the idea that Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead, that the Father rose him from the dead and that kind of actually makes Acts 2 make more sense, but okay John chapter 10 verse 17, you brought up, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again Again, so he's laying down his life in the sense that he died on the cross, and he allowed himself to die on the cross That's that part of the verse. That I might take it again could just simply mean that he's going to be resurrected Not necessarily saying that he is going to do it Verse 18, you also brought up, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father I would say this, let's compare this to John chapter 1 verse 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God I became a son of God when I believed in Jesus Christ, but I didn't actually do anything. God the Father did all of that to me He quickened me and made me born again and I became a child of God. I can't physically make myself a child of God I don't have that power. I had the ability to believe in Jesus Christ and that's what gave me that. And I believe when saying he had power to take his life again, that it's not necessarily and it could be, but it's not necessarily saying that Jesus had the ability to raise himself from the dead, but rather he was given the authority and given the commandment to raise himself from the dead because this commandment have I received of my Father. So it's almost like God the Father commanded the son to be risen from the dead and then he comes out from the dead based on the power and authority granted from the Father. I don't know if you have an opinion on this. I want to back you up. I want to back you up. Is John chapter 5 For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. So you're saying that he took that which was offered to him and John chapter 5 literally talks about the Father giving him life. Well and he had the authority to come back out of hell. Like think about this, there's one other person that technically it's this authority in a sense. It's the Antichrist. So somehow the man of sin or the man of perdition, the son of perdition goes out into hell and then comes back out. So in some sense you could say he had the power to come out of hell or to take his life back again. But it's not like he internally has that power. It's like he was given the authority and the opportunity to do so and I would almost argue that's the same with Jesus that it wasn't so much that Jesus could just raise himself from the dead whenever he wanted but rather the Father is the one that's authorizing that and giving and God the Father is the one that rose him from the dead. He just obeyed that commandment and came out. So the Father didn't just give him the ability to do it though but rather the Father actually rose him from the dead. So that's the distinction between the Antichrist though and Jesus Christ. Well neither of them have the ability I think God the Father raised Jesus from the dead and maybe, I don't want to misquote the Bible here, we could look it up, but I think the Antichrist is the dragon that gave him the power to do that. Actually you know what it is? I think it's the devil that orchestrates the resurrection of the Antichrist. He receives a deadly wound to the head and here's the reason why it's the devil because he's referred to as the son of perdition and he's possessed by Satan so that's the distinction between the Antichrist and Jesus Christ. I thought it was in Revelation 13 when it described the Antichrist coming back up out from... Verse 3, and I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death and the deadly wound was healed. Yeah but there's a specific verse that's talking about him coming out of hell, right? Do you know what verse I'm talking about? Let me see, which was and is and is not or something like that? Maybe we can get some help from the chat. Revelation 23 that's what I'm thinking of. Revelation 20 verse 3. Let's see if I can get there real quick. So it says in Revelation 20 verse 3 oh that's 19-3, here we go, and cast him into the bottom of his pit and shut him up and set a seal upon him that he should receive the nations no more. Oh he's bringing up the devil coming out, not the Antichrist. Oh I see. That's a different... No I'm trying to think, what is the verse? There's some verse that I thought was alluding to the Antichrist coming back. Sometimes you just blank I'm going to drag this back over here for a moment Maybe it's just the 2 Thessalonians chapter The Restrainer are you talking about in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2? Well I thought he's going to descend out of the bottomless pit. That's what I'm thinking in my mind. But I descend Revelation 17 the beast that thou sawest was and is not and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition. Yes this is what I'm saying. When they behold the beast that was and is not and yet is Sometimes you have these on the tip of your tongue and then other times you forget. Okay so Revelation chapter 11 yes The beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit Revelation 11 verse 7. To me that's another example of someone having the ability to come out of hell and I don't know that it's necessarily, it's not like Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. Here's another person coming out of hell. I don't think it was necessarily they had the internal ability or capability of coming out of there. It's like God doing a miracle. So I would say the same with. Well I think it's the devil isn't it? It doesn't say. Oh yeah that's true. He is possessed by the devil but yeah I guess you're right. It doesn't necessarily tell you. I don't know common sense do you want to follow up on that? I don't know if we lost him or not. Maybe we bored him. By you Jared did you have a comment there? I don't know if our spaces is still working right. Spaces is glitchy as hell. Sometimes. We got some thumbs up. Okay so he agrees with us. Yeah. Maybe. Alright well he's back to a listener it looks like. Let's see if I cycle. Let me try to get back in there myself. See if it's I do think the Antichrist is literally possessed by the devil after he comes back from his deadly wound which is why he's referred to as the son of perdition and the only other man who's referred to as the son of perdition in scripture is Judas who was possessed by the devil. Just as a fun fact although I don't know how fun that fact truly is since we're talking about something so morbid as the Antichrist but just something that I felt like pointing out there. What do you think about the points that I made though? Well I agree I mean I think that the father gives the son life and so he's resurrected by God the father. I don't see an issue with that and I think the way that you make sense of that scripture in John you know it aligns with those other verses. Yeah sorry I tried to add you back in there I don't know what happened on the space but Hello? Yep we can hear you. I can't hear you Oh man. Wonderful. You gotta love spaces ladies and gentlemen. We try we try. Let me I wonder if I cycle them again one more time. Let's see. You're having this conversation and then technology Is it the devil? It's Elon. It's Elon. He's like this space has got too many truths in here. They're right on the juke hill. Hello again. Alright can you hear us? We can hear you. Are we back? Yeah we can hear you can you hear us? I can hear you. Okay good I can hear you too now. Perfect. Yeah I think yeah I mean I I think I agree with your points. I mean I have a hard time thinking about Christ and hell but at the same time we did pay for it. I mean it's something kind of in the back of my head I thought and then isn't there a psalm where David says like where can I go to be away from you? Like if I go to heaven you are there and you are there in heaven you are there in hell you are there. Well here's another one. How about Jesus in Matthew 12.40 he said for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the wells belly so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Like that's a pretty case closed. Plus in Jonah chapter 2 if you read it it has really gratuitous language about Jonah you know in his situation and you can tell it's kind of a metaphor but it seems like it's literal from Christ's perspective and it says out of the belly of hell cried I. So you know Jonah wasn't really in the belly of hell he could have been in a metaphor since but I believe that that's Jesus literally being there and then that gives the whole context of Acts chapter 2 that my soul shall rest in hope that he won't leave my soul in hell. So like think about this is to me this is an incredible point because if what I'm saying is true which of course I totally believe it but if what I'm saying is true Jesus not only died on the cross but he went to hell descended to hell without the ability to raise himself relying only on the promise of the father to raise him again from the dead and in a sense the ultimate faith the ultimate faith to say like I'm going to give myself mortality I'm going to die physically and put myself in hell with my only reliance and trust in God the father to raise me from the dead as like an ultimate picture of faith in the sense that he's like trusting the promise of the father to raise him again from the dead three days later as kind of like an ultimate example of faith. Now again he is God and he knows everything and so I don't want to take away from that but in a sense isn't that kind of like an amazing picture of faith Ben? Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah I get where you're coming from the thing is you just have to get ready because we're going to end up in a troll video whenever you bring this topic up. I hope so. No I see what you're saying and the reality is there's a full reliance on the father to raise him up from the dead. But isn't that a picture of faith? The dragon gave him his power Revelation 13 2 by the way. But that gave him his power, seat, and authority that's the context. I had someone text me that but yeah yeah I appreciate you brother Wallach. No let's get to common sense what I said your thoughts. No I mean yeah I oh I'm sorry let's go to common sense. No it's a big topic you know and I think yeah definitely looking at it that way then definitely you know and it says that that would be a huge testament of faith to lay down your life that way. I just you know it's the big I mean I get it it can it can sound a little jarring at first to hear that that Jesus went to hell like I get it but you just have to think about it from the context of he took our sins he became sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him the Bible says he bore our sins in his own body on the tree so he took the sins of the whole world onto himself died on the cross was buried and then he descended into hell for three days and three nights taking our punishment so he essentially took the punishment that you and I would deserve so that's the way that's the context in which we should think about it and then it does kind of start to make a lot more sense. And that okay but then from that then I've always understood that the payment for our sin was on the cross Christ said on the cross it is finished if he goes to hell and then has three days of continuing to pay for our sins that would sound more like the beginning than the end. Well. On the cross as it's finished. Yeah of course it's not to take away from the cross because I mean here's the thing though I'm just thinking out loud I'm not trying to think about it. Yeah yeah yeah no no no these are great points because I've thought about them too. This is a subject that a lot of people have a different opinion on so I've heard a lot of these arguments before and to me number one if he said it's finished well technically the gospel by strict definition of 1 Corinthians 15 is the death burn resurrection. If you think about it none of those events has even taken place when he says it is finished. So you know to me you have to kind of look at what he could also what would be another way to interpret that and and frankly speaking he uses the word finished a few times in the book of John and it's always in the context of the works that he needed to accomplish from the father that he'd given him in the flesh. Is it the actual translation is paid in full? No it's just it's tepidilesti that I mean here's the thing even if you wanted to take that kind of a strange English idea which again I think it means it is finished because that's what the King James Bible says but even if he said paid in full like it nothing is quote being paid in that sense of like monetary which usually if you're going to use that that English it's like a paying like with currency but he did accomplish he did fulfill everything necessary as far as from a scriptural perspective and I think that's what he's alluding to because he knows that he's fulfilled one more scripture that's why he drinks the vinegar and then he's like okay it is finished and he has a like seven statements that he makes right before he dies on the cross and you know so there's nothing to take away I'm not taking away from that statement or what happened on the cross but let's be honest he has to rise from the dead or none of it even matters that's the whole point of first Corinthians chapter 15 first Corinthians 15 is abundantly clear and you know there's a lot of verses on the subject Romans chapter 6 verse 9 says knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him well Romans 6 9 is telling us that death at some point did have dominion over him it just now no longer has dominion over him and I think if we kind of take him out of hell then we don't really have a period of time where death quote had dominion over him so you know to because death if you understand the word death in the Bible a many times it's alluding to just hell itself it's the same thing sometimes it's alluding to just hell itself it's not just referring to a absence from the body that is a interpretation of the word death and it can mean that in places but for many of the places in scripture death simply is referring to hell as a location which would make sense again that he was in hell and dead for three days and three nights but then he rose again from the dead whereas when you contrast that with living saints because the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus you'll never taste of death like Abraham Isaac and Jacob weren't dead in a state of being they're in heaven Jesus is the only one who is quote saved that had the state of being of being dead for three days and three nights and then he rose again from the dead which is the state of being so I mean there's a lot of verses on this subject I've preached whole sermons on this and you know I'm not I'm not against people that disagree with me on this but at the same time like I do think the Bible provides sufficient scripture to argue very clearly that he did go to hell and and came out of hell victorious that's why he was loose from the pains of hell obviously the cross paid for our sins of course the death prayed for our sins the burial the resurrection all of it all of it everything he did he had to fulfill messianic prophecies about himself perfectly and when he accomplished that and his work on this earth was done he stated it is finished before he died before he was buried before he rose again which is why I think that eludes to the works that preceded that statement not that he had done everything to save us because he hadn't even died yet yeah I mean think about it this way if if if if paid in full is that interpretation and all the sins were accomplished at that point why didn't he just go straight up to heaven why did he have to die then why did he have to be risen from the dead if it's technically all paid for already like to me you're taking away from what the what the text is saying is that it's in his blood like you know it's it's it's in his death it's in the cross I mean like the point of the cross is death the point of the cross is not just torture the point of the cross is death itself and it's through the death burial and resurrection that we have the forgiveness of sins not just him being nailed to the cross but dying on the cross absolutely and all of it is what saved us all aspects the entire gospel the full gospel there's these you know churches it comes a full gospel there's the heretics but the full gospel right the entire thing is what saved us and so just because we believe that he went to hell doesn't mean we're taking away from any other aspect of the gospel we believe in all of it all of it is equally important we're just adding a new dimension that I think creates even more weight to what Jesus did and makes it that much more powerful in my estimation well and I like Romans 5 10 it says for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life so that's giving a complexity to this this argument it's not just the death it's the life which was the life was what the resurrection yeah exactly right we were reconciled through his death and we were given salvation through his life it's a package deal you can't really cherry pick only one aspect of it he was raised again for our justification the bible says in the last verse of Romans 4 you can't have the resurrection without the death right so it's all together to me it's a package deal yeah you don't have to pick and choose I don't know if that helps you know maybe with with what you brought up common sense what do you think about some of the verses we brought up no it does it does yeah it kind of puts it all together and you know chew on it for a little bit just chew on it for a little bit I don't want to monopolize your no you're good I mean think about what Jesus says in Revelation 1 I have the keys of hell and of death like that to me fits with my viewpoint you know how does he get the keys of hell and of death you know otherwise but no well thank you for answering my questions I appreciate love watching you guys and listening to you and you know respect the fact you know you guys are calling out a lot of heresies in the church and I just appreciate the biblical foundation that you have in your teachings and your preaching and so in your world view so thank you for that and appreciate you taking the time to answer some questions for me I appreciate your common sense thank you now have a great night and thanks for chatting with us we're probably going to have to wrap this up it's pretty late already hey I enjoy it I like having the conversations thanks guys for coming on the show thanks guys who joined in our spaces and so I think we're pretty much going to be done I'm not mad at brother Tom for his sermon I just wish that he would have the conversation because I would love to you know push back on some of the things he said with him in person and you know of course I invited him to be on the show I would have preferred to have him here but he would rather just not so hey we still made a video about it maybe someone can share it with him lovingly we'd love for him to change his mind I don't think that I ever was necessarily wrong on this issue but I think that I was just ignorant but I have been wrong on other issues before and I'm glad that people were willing to you know have conversations with me show me what the Bible says and I think we need to have some meekness humbleness because we all probably at one point we're wrong on something goofed up on some doctrine and it's nice to have people not necessarily just slam dunk you when you're wrong I don't know what's your opinion Ben do you want me to just slam dunk you the next time you're wrong? Just let me have it I can take it I got thick skin hey the Bible says for we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived so yeah we were all there I mean I definitely was wrong on Zionism at one point in my life and especially on Romans chapter 11 I'll just leave this as a final point in Exodus 19 it says now therefore if you will obey my voice and deed and keep my covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people for all the earth is mine so a lot of folks on the opposite end of the spectrum here when it comes to the discussion tonight would argue that the Jews are God's chosen people in spite of scriptures like this which make it clear that if that's the case there should be some obedience well guess what they haven't even obeyed the gospel they're not God's chosen people as a result the kingdom of God has been taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof spiritual Israel I think tonight we offered in my mind a fair response to the sermon Pastor Shelley and I also think we made it clear that we are not making it personal with this individual we do believe he's saved we do believe he's a brother in Christ and there will always be those naysayers who argue that we were hateful and mean and all that but I really don't think we were you know at the end of the day you can disagree with someone without hating them okay we're not liberals here they demand 100% ideological purity that's not who we are and so you know what I think we offered a fair response and at the end of the day those who are wrong on this it's too bad I will just be praying for them to get it right. Amen. Thanks so much for tuning in of course you can check us out Tuesday nights 8pm we're going to have a special guest Skeeter Gene coming on the show you can join our mailing list BaptistBias.com slash join you can join our locals if you want to send us an email you can send us an email at info at BaptistBias.com and I'm really excited about this season we've been having a lot of good guests a lot of good conversations but we need your help to still share the show invite people to check it out and encourage people to watch we really appreciate our speakers today join me at BandPastor on Twitter we love to add you as a speaker in one of our next shows hopefully it works out and that's going to pretty much do a wrap for us hey guys don't worship the Jews worship the Lord Jesus Christ and get the Baptist Bias music music music music