Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Ask a Theologian on this Thursday. Glad to have you. For biblical, theological and worldview questions. I hope we'll have a fun and delightful time together today as we'll deliver up a little sarcasm, a little snarky and a whole bunch of rightly dividing the word of truth coming straight from the Bible. Hey, this is Thursday. On Thursday we study. We've been in a doctrinal study right now doing some of these doctrines. You've seen me talk about these books before that we'll send out absolutely free. What they Believe, Southern Baptist Convention, the Free Grace Movement, Independent Fundamental Churches of America, Calvary Chapel Association. Got those four ready to go. Tonight we're going to add the Chicago State statement on Biblical inerrancy. This is a pretty standard conservative evangelical statement of what the Bible is. We've had four discussions already about what four places believe about the Bible. We're going to see some of where they get their stuff from. There's going to be some cheers and some jeers on the, on the Chicago Statement of biblical inerrancy tonight, 7:00pm you know what will help you is not because you care what some statement in Chicago was stated in the 70s. What'll help you is you'll see us interact with certain theological ideas and you'll say, ah, never thought about that. That's a good point. That's right. Let's put that in, let's figure that out and come with it. So there we go. Tonight, 7:00pm Mountain Time. I certainly look forward to, to that. Hey, a couple of things that I should tell you about on randywhiteministries.org let's just pull this up here for you. You know, Nathan was working on this this morning and I'm going to, I'm going to see if it's up and ready. You're going to see with me at the same time. So if we, if we go right over here, let's see, right over here to. I'll get all my buttons right here. Okay, there we go. Right over here to our website. There we are live right now. Things might look a little different when you get there, but click the events button right there. And now we've got two events. Not only the Systematic Theology for Biblical Literalists in Branson. We have maybe the best crowd ever. I, I, I haven't looked back at the numbers but really nice crowd gonna show up in Branson and I talked to the hotel yesterday, can still get you in, would love to have you there. So again, randywhiteministries.org events or if you want to go straight to Branson slash Branson, but you can click the Events tab, go right there and read about that. But here's the new one. If you click on that unveiling the unseen. We have. How about that? Yeah, I do have the date. Okay, I thought I left the date off. And this is our, our conference at America's greatest tiny church, formally called the Taos Prophecy Conference. I have finally decided we're going to change the name to the Taos Bible Conference. Taos Bible Conference information is up right here. Friday 27th September 28th, 29th. We are going to talk about, we're going to have a biblical look at angels, demons and Satan and the origin of Satan, the role of angels, what the Bible actually says about spiritual warfare, why a literalist approach matters. Now more than ever. We're going to look into all of that. So if you'd like to come to Taos New Mexico at a beautiful time of year, do that. And then you'll notice at the bottom of the page it says stay tuned for information about the New Mexico road trip, which happens right after that. And you might want to be a part of that. My final announcement is that we have a new book up available at dispensationalpublishing.com American Christianity. It goes through things like the first great awakening, the second great awakening, the rise of religious liberalism, the rise of fundamentalism, the rise of neo evangelicalism, the Rockefeller legacy, from Fosdick to Osteen, Harry Emerson Fosdick down to Joel Osteen, Contemporary evangelicalism and the megachurch movement all right here. How did we get into the mess we are in by yours truly? Get that Only available at dispensationalpublishing.com order today, goes out today. And those of you who will be in Branson, I'll give you a discount there since you drove to pick it up. And oh, Jay in Tennessee. Jay's talking about this conference right here and he's asking if Dan Brown's going to be there. That's, that's a good one. No, there's the answer will go Randy White instead of Dan Brown, the novelist. Okay, let's, let's jump in here to some questions we've got. If you would like your question, if you're, if you're watching live and you want your question, put it, put the word question. Or you can go 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ask the theologian.com what does it mean first question of the day. What does it mean that a man should leave his parents? Two passages that were given in the question. Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:23. 2. That's 2:4. We want to go to 2:24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Paul says it this way. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore the church is subject to Christ. Okay, so what does a man. What does it mean? A man should leave. I am going to assume Luca confirmed this for me, but I am going to assume that the word leave in Hebrew just means to leave. That, that there's no real nuance there that is going to surprise us or anything. It is leave, leave and cleave is. Is the word there. So does it mean he should not live in the proximity of, you know, Jesus? I guess in a sense you could say he left Nazareth and he moved to Capernaum. We don't know where Joseph was at this point, but that's, you know, he was 30 years old by then. Probably a stretch to say you can't be in the same town or you can't be in the same neighborhood. He never got on to Peter. Peter and Andrew, James and John, their parents were right there. Now, you know, again, you get James and John, leave their father, Zebedee, in the, in the boat, leave the family business, go on to be with him. But he doesn't chastise them for. What are you guys doing still living here at home? Peter was married, but his mother in law seemed to live right there in Capernaum also because she was, you know, healed. At Capernaum, at the. Was it Peter's house or his mother in law's house? So I don't. I don't think we have to put physical distance between mom and dad and a man leaving. I do, however, think there has to be somewhat of an independence. Let's go ahead and use James and John leaving their father's ebony. Let's assume that, you know, they spent several more years in Capernaum. Let's assume they'd go down, they'd check on dad in the morning, make sure he's got everything, you know, hey, dad, anything we can help you out with? But they had enough of an independent mind that they were men in their own right. Not. Not so much sons of their father as they were. This is James and this is John. And so that, I don't know if you want to call that an emotional independence, a freedom under the care of their father. I would suspect that that is what it means, that really you can't have a situation in which, for a healthy marriage, you can't have a situation even if they're living in the same house. You can't have the situation in which their mom and dad, grandma and grandpa are still controlling all of the behavior that is taking place in your marriage and in your family. So I think we come to this and we have to end up saying this is a. An independence that is talking about in man leaving his mother and his father. And I think we who are dads especially, should raise our children to leave. As much as we don't like that, and moms like it even less, I can tell you, but we should raise them to say, okay, here's the keys, there's the road. Have at it. I trust you. I believe you can do it. Call me if you need anything. But there ought to be both in their mind and in our mind, that this is a limited engagement that we have signed up for, and our daily and controlling aspect of it is going to be set free. And so we have a different relationship with our parents and with our children once they become adult. It's, you know, you're an independent person. You can think like you want leave. Was I right that leave just means leave? Yeah. Ephesians 5:31. I thought there might be a problem in. In that. Yeah. Repeated in 5:31. I said 5:23. For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery. But I speak concerning Christ and the Church. That's the overall mystery that was given. And he brings this up. Leave, independent. There you go. I hope that is helpful for you. Now, I didn't tie that as much into Christ in the church as it's possible that you are wanting more information on that. If so, swing back around and follow up on that. Appreciate. Appreciate that very much. Okay, let's hit this one. Galatians. This came in yesterday. Ask the theologian. Galatians, chapter two, verse 20. I'm gonna go ahead and pull that up. It's a Familiar 1. Galatians 2:20. I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless, I live. Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me in the life I now live in the flesh. I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. That's the question is he seems to be con. Contrasting his life now to the life that he formerly lived. Let's check that out. I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless, I live. Yet not I, but Christ. The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith does at least beg the question, what about the life that you used to live? So I think, I think the way you worded that, I'm comfortable. He seems to be contrasting his life now to his former life. You could at least read that in and it wouldn't be unreasonable. Where'd you come up with that? I, I agree. He now lives by faith. How did he live before his old man was crucified with Christ? So I am. I think we could hear even, even go ahead and put this. Where's the, where's the now? Here, right here. Let's, let's take the word now and I think we could insert this word here. I am now crucified with Christ. Now, even though I'm in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God. The answer seems to be right here. I live by the faith of the Son of God that prior to he was still living in the flesh. I'm not, I'm not sure though it is Pauline language and we would want to parse that out and debate it. Well, I'm not sure I would, I would personally use the word old man before his old man was crucified in Christ because he was in the flesh then, he's in the flesh now. Now the life I live in the flesh, the difference appears to be now I live by that. That's one of those million dollar words. In, with, by, sometimes even through, though not, not typically. In with and by are the, are the, the strongest three. So now the, the. I'm living in the flesh just like I was then. But the thing I've added now is that the, the goal, the motivator, the drive, the worldview, the understanding is the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. Now, let me continue. Make sure we're on the right path. He now lives by faith. How did he live before his old man was crucified with Christ? Did he not also have faith when he lived in the flesh under the law? Okay, very good point here because Saul of Tarsus was absolutely a man of faith. I don't think that, I don't think there's any way you could convince the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that he was not a faith driven man. Now you could possibly even say, the life I once lived, I lived in the flesh, but I lived it by the faith of my kinsman Israel, by the faith of the covenant, by the faith of Torah, by the faith of God who is sending his Messiah to redeem us. Some of them would even be close like that, but not by the faith of the Son of God. Now even, let's, let's, let's say you got somebody who's really going to be nitpicky and God bless you. And they say, well, wait a minute, the Jewish people. I've heard you old bald headed man before. I heard you argue that the Jewish people believed that the Messiah was going to be the Son of God. And I think there's plenty of evidence, especially in the psalms, for that. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. That was the expectation. God is going to send his Son and someday his Son would sit upon his throne. Psalm 2 and whatnot. So, so could you even say, if you want to be nitpicky, wait. Saul of Tarsus lived by the faith of the Son of God who loved me. If, if you want to argue that, let's let. I know it's a little bit of a stretch here, but let's, let's try to do this. Let's say it was the exact same faith he still had. He was still in the flesh. He still lived. He still lived by the faith of the Son of God. And by that we mean I lived in a messianic faith. The Son of God is going to come redeem us. He's going to judge us according to the law. I'm living according to the law. We'll get into, of, of the sun here in just a moment, but let's, let's take it in its normal sense. So I live this messianic faith. And he did. Paul Saul of Tarsus absolutely believed there was a coming of Messiah. He just didn't believe it was Jesus. He might even have been able to say, then, so let's go ahead and make it green to give the benefit of the doubt on Saul's side. He might even been able to say, okay, is this God or is this the Son of God? But there was a love there. God, you know, I loved Jacob. I hated Esau. Saul says, I'm of Jacob, not of Esau. God loves me. His Messiah loves me. Maybe we could even say all of this is exactly the same as now. Nothing has changed. So then what would change would be this matter right here. Gave himself for me because Saul of Tarsus did not, nor would he believe that the Messiah had given his life, given himself. I said his life, given himself for Saul. That was not in his wheelhouse. It was not in his theology. But it's kind of interesting here because later on he does come, say to the Thessalonians in Acts chapter 17, and he preaches the Gospel of Christ. It's a free little booklet available at dispensationalpublishing.com and in preaching the Gospel of Christ, he's trying to convince them that God sent his Son who loved us and gave Himself for us. That was the key. Because they were. I think they. I think they would have been okay with God's Son who loves us. It's the death, burial and resurrection they had a problem with. So could it be that the difference here really is what I put right there in pink, Chartreuse gave Himself for me and that everything else was the same. Now, I think a more standard approach is to take all of this that I've got highlighted in blue there for a second, all this to say, that's the difference, the faith and the Son. Now, he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that God loved him, sent his only begotten Son, gave himself. But to. To. To have a robust argument, you probably do have to narrow it down just to. This is the. What is in pink? There is. Is the difference. He gave Himself for me. Now, let me get back to the question. Make sure I answered that. Did he also. Did he not also have faith when he lived in flesh under the law? What's the passage, Luca, that talks about Paul being of the tribe of Benjamin. And he. He brags a little bit on his Jewishness in that passage, which we'll confirm here in a moment. I think his own testimony is he had faith. And we could piece together enough to say it was faith in the Son of God, the Messiah whom they believed was going to be his Son, and that he loved him. All that together. What's that passage? Romans? Yeah, it's the other one I want. Philippians. You said Philippians 3:5. So here is Paul. I'm actually going to back up 3 4. Though I might have confidence in the flesh. Ah, I might also have confidence in the flesh, maybe because of this issue right here. In the flesh. I even lived by the faith of the Son of God, though I might have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh he have whereof. Whereof he might trust in the flesh. I more circumcised the eighth day of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. You could take that right there. And if I was the. I don't know, the defense attorney, and my client was being charged of not being a man of faith, I would say, wait, wait, wait. What are the Hebrew people? They are faith people. And my client, it has been testified in the holy writ, is a Hebrew of Hebrews. That's as much faith as you can get. A Hebrew of Hebrews. That's touching the law. A Pharisee, he's. He's saying this really in a. In a positive way. The Pharisees, you know, they, they, they. They carried out the law every jot and diddle concerning zeal, persecuting the church, touching the righteousness which is in the law. Blameless. Notice what he says there. The righteousness which is in the law. That required faith. Many times Jesus and probably even Paul talked about, hey, you can't just come check these things off like a grocery list. There's. There's got to be this aspect of faith. James talks about that. Show me your faith. Show you by works. Touching the righteousness which is in the law. Blameless. Notice he does not say there is no righteousness which is in law. He said he had it. But what things were gained? To me, those things I counted loss for Christ. So this. Hey, I realize that this Messiah, the Son of God who loved me, actually gave himself for me. And now I preach Christ and him crucified. So I think I'm going to come down to. Did he not also have faith when he lived in the flesh under the law? Absolutely he did. Did he believe that Christ gave himself? No. That he figured out on the road to Damascus. Now, more to the question. Or is the. Now in this verse, don't you like it when I. I've already settled it. And now you come up with another one. Good for you. Or is he now in this verse, repudiating a workspace life which could not save him? Is he in a sense saying, now I acknowledge the saving gospel of grace by faith in Christ through his death, burial and resurrection? Well, sort of, kind of. I think I would say it a different way. I think that he is in. In the Galatians passage here on the left, he is saying, now I acknowledge the saving gospel of grace. Because the gospel of grace requires this pink part here, which is the gospel of Christ. And the gospel of the law did not include the gospel of Christ in. In the belief, the faith in the fact that Messiah was going to die, be buried and rise again. They. They didn't know that part. In fact, the scripture says in gospel of Luke, at least if not others, that that part was hidden from them. Excellent. I like that question. I hope that helped. I do need to say one more thing about this verse. The life I live by the faith. Let's talk about this right here. Of the Son. The faith of the Son. This is one of those. I have argued it before and I think there is a case to be made to say this is the Son's faith. The faith belongs to the Son. As I mature, I come to realize that some arguments are not as strong as other arguments. And there are two things I have practically, that means you might find an exception, but I have practically sworn off that is making an argument from the Greek article or making an article an argument from the Greek genitive. Faith of the Son is in the genitive. Both of those can seem simple, but if you read the book on them, you find out, oh wow, this is one of those. You know, if you're gonna, if you're gonna argue that statute, you better really be an expert because there's a ton others right in there that. Yeah. You'd have to take and put in there and bring all that together. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Again, a question that came in that one was from yesterday on askthetheologian.com and appreciate that. Let's. Let's move into a question that came in today from Felicia. Good to see you down in Alabama. Would you comment on the phrases first unto them of Damascus, Jerusalem, coast of Judea, that they should repent and do works meet for repentance. This is found in Acts chapter 26, verses 20 through 23. And Felicia says, seems Paul is proclaiming the bulk of John the Baptist message here. I think you are going to be right. There's more to this, but we will get to it. And I do appreciate the way you parsed that question out to say here's the parts I want to know about. Thank you very much. But Acts, Acts 26, beginning in verse 20, Paul is speaking and he says, but I'll stick an eye I showed first unto them at Damascus, now that he was on the road to Damascus. So that makes sense. It was first. But might I add that he was going to the synagogue there under the authority of the chief priests and the synagogues in Jerusalem. So there among the Jews of Damascus, first unto them at Damascus and at Jerusalem. He was away for three years, but he did end up at Jerusalem. And throughout all the Coasts of Judea, that obviously is Jewish territory and we do have. And then to the Gentiles. But that was not one of those highlighted. Okay, what did he show them? He showed them that they should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance. Can you, Luka, find me cross reference that shows that John the Baptist said, repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance. Especially I want that works meet for repentance. I think there's one of those that ties in with John the Baptist and we'll just pull that up. But most of us would say, yeah, I don't even need to see the scripture. I read that before. I know that that's. That is the message of John the Baptist. So when you say here it seems Paul is proclaiming the bulk of John the Baptist message here, I think, I think you are right. Let's Continue on verse 21. For these causes, the Jews caught me in the temple, went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue to this day witnessing to both small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. Okay, now do we have. Do we have John the Baptist saying, thank you, Matthew 3. 7. When he, John the Baptist, saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said, O generation of vipers, who hath warned thee to flee the wrath to come, bring forth the fruits, meet for repentance. John the Baptist right there. Okay. So that they should repent. That's embedded in there. Turn to God and do works meet for repentance. Same message. But wait a minute. Doesn't have, Doesn't Paul have a different message? A different message? That is not to jump down here to verse 22 saying, none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. Now let's, let's actually tie that into a third passage of Scripture. Let's go to Ephesians 3. The dispensation of the grace of God which is given to me, you, word. How by Revelation he made known verse five. Let's. So here he's saying none other things. Let me get that lined up again. Saying none other things than those things which the prophets did say over here in other ages was not made known. We just go right there, those two things. You know, one can't go all the way back to Moses and the prophets and you can just read it there to not made known. So he's got to be arguing in Acts 26 he's got to be arguing, I gave the Jewish message. Now here's why it seems he is co proclaiming. I see is your word there. Why does it seem that Paul is co proclaiming the bulk of John the Baptist message here? I think it seems that way because that's exactly what he said. That's what he was doing. But don't be alarmed. So let's come back here. Let's. Let's back up. I don't know where I need to back up. Let's say verse 15. Well, here he's telling the story of being on demand on the road to Damascus. Rise, stand up. I've appeared to thee, delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom I now send thee to open the eyes, turn from them the road to Damascus Experience, verse 19. Whereupon, O King Agrippa, I want to highlight that right there. Hey, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. I did it. Damascus, Jerusalem, all the coast of Judea. And to the Gentiles. I'll get to that in a moment here. But even to the Gentiles, I told them to repent and show good works. And that is why for these causes, the Jews caught me. We'll just go right there. For these causes, the. The Jews, what causes? The John the Baptist causes. That's why they caught me. Now I might remind you they also killed John the Baptist. He is absolutely saying I preached a Jewish John the Baptist message. And he's saying this under oath to King Agrippa. Now, King Agrippa was the king of the Jews. He was the grandson. I think I have that right. He was the grandson of King Herod. King Herod the Great. And he's in Acts 26. He's not talking about what he does today in that day. First of all, in that day, he was in prison in Caesarea, which is in Israel. He wasn't. He wasn't going to the churches of Galatia there at that point. So he's going back and saying, here's what I did. Now this goes into my idea of the overlap. It's not just mine, but my idea of the overlap and the fact that Paul originally received no new message. He just came to understand Jesus was the Christ and he needed to repent, be baptized, show works, meet for repentance. Messiah is going to come later on. It happened because remember that I don't have my Schofield Bible here, but I think the road to Damascus experience was about 40, 41 AD. Check that out for me and maybe just, you can even just ask. You got your Schofield. So, so check, check Acts 9 and see what date is that? Acts 9. And then Acts 15 is going to be 48 to 52 somewhere in there. So we got, we've got a number of years that can pass 35. Okay. On, on chapter nine, correct, chapter nine, Usher puts A.D. 35. So that's, let's call it 15 years to 50 A.D. so he's telling, he, he, he really did start under the apostles. And I don't think he received the revelation of the mystery right then and there on the road to Damascus. So this is, explains why he's saying, hey, you know, back, back in 35 A.D. what was I doing? I was right lined up with John the Baptist. And I think he would, he would say, this is why I was arrested. This is why I'm arrested today. And this also then is, is the same message. The John the Baptist message is the same one I preach when I'm in Judea, even to the Gentiles here. Remember, that's one of those words we have to take very carefully because it doesn't mean uncircumcised. It's the way we use it. But Gentiles here, especially in its context, Damascus is a place. Jerusalem is a place. Judea and the borders of Judea, that's a place. And then to the nations. I don't think you can find a place where he goes out into a synagogue and teaches the Pauline message. Only when he gets kicked out of the synagogue and is. Is now dealing outside of the covenants and commonwealth of Israel. That's when he begins with this green thing over here, which in other ages was not made known, and he begins to share the, the witness. So he's, he's saying, look, I understand the jurisdiction here. This is the jurisdiction of the Jews. When I'm in the jurisdiction of the Jews, they are being offered. The king need to tell kingdom stuff. That's what I do. So you really have to rightly divide Paul there. Now let me go on. Felicia says, does Paul's defense in verse, verse 22, having therefore obtained the help of God, I continue to this day witnessing both to small and great, saying none other these things. Okay, does Paul's defense in verse 22 mean not saying none of these things? Does it mean not contrary to or literally? Did he preach nothing else but the searchable list? In verse 23, I'm going to say he preached the searchable list, that he did not preach the Dispensation of the grace of God. And so then Felicia says, and if so, but I already said not. But let's go ahead and read it. If so, is that list applicable only to areas specified in verse 20 indicating perhaps a custom tailored his message based on geographic location in keeping with Romans 15, 20, 1st Corinthians 3:10, another man's foundation, 2 Corinthians 10:16, Galatians 2:9. You know, we're almost in the same place there in that I am saying, yeah, there is a context here and based upon geographic location to one degree out to the nations spreads that out. But even there he's in the synagogues among the Jews that there was a context specific message that he gave, whether it was circumcised or uncircumcised Jew or, or, or not Jew. Felicia goes on to say the Last line of 2623 is interesting. Christ should suffer, be the first to rise from the dead, should show light upon, to. Upon the people and to the Gentiles. Last line is interesting. Is it a stretch, Felicia says, to imagine Paul was cleverly disguising the whole of the new dispensation of the grace of God mystery within his wording in good conscience to keep him out of prison? I think. Well, first of all, I would say if he was, he didn't do a very good job because he was in prison. And I think there's some place in Acts this would take us a little bit to find it, but it's there where Paul is accused of preaching a freedom from the law to Jews. And the scripture specifically tells us it is a false accusation. I don't know if we can find that, but let's see if we can find that passage there. So I don't think we can say he's cleverly despite disguising it. Excuse me. And there are some things, you know, I, I will have to admit I do go some places, speak sometimes or talk to someone and I'm really careful with my wording. I'm sure Felicia and many of you are too really careful with my wording because I don't really agree with what they say. But I also understand in the context that, you know, we don't have the two hours for me to get you up to speed. Therefore I'm going to say this in a way that is accurate. But somebody, you know, maybe if Felicia's listening, she would be saying, why aren't you saying the rest of it? And some of it has to do with audience. So I do it I'm sure Paul does it. I'm sure you do it. You know, you, you. I don't know if you say you pick your battles or you just recognize, hey, here in the context and the timing, whatever. It's like that's not the main purpose of it. Let's get to the main purpose, you know, deal. But I don't think Paul is doing that here. I think he's. He's legit, saying, I don't preach the dispensation of the grace of God to the Jewish people. When I am in the synagogue, I preach the gospel of God, which was told by the prophets. He says in Romans, chapter one. So the gospel of God versus the gospel of the dispensation of the grace of God, my gospel, as Paul calls it, God's gospel, the Pauline gospel. Imagine if I went into an evangelical church and say, today, I don't want to preach to you God's gospel. I want to preach to you Paul's gospel. They just cough up a lung right there because they so much they couldn't understand because they're evangelicals. Did we find that? Verse 21, Acts 21, verse 21, middle of the screen here. They are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it? Therefore the multitudes must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say unto thee. We have four men which have a vow to take. Purify thy with them and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads and may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing but that thou also walkest orderly and keepest the law. Now that one's. That one says the same thing. But there is another one still yet that specifically says these were false accusations. Now that one's good enough, because it does say these are false accusations. If. If Paul goes along with their scheme in Acts 21, then he's not cleverly disguising. He's just a fraud. If it's not true, I think it's true. Paul walked orderly, keeps the law. He was not teaching the Jews, abandoned the law. Those are false accusations given, I might add, continually by the church. Today. I think you could go just about anywhere and say, you know, Paul taught Jews that they were free from the law. True or false? True. Free from the law. And yet his own testimony is he didn't Pray that that is helpful to you, Felicia. Appreciate that and came in just this morning on Ask the Theologian Dot com. I better. I better look over here at my chats here and see what I got. I've been ignoring the chats here as we've gone along. I'm just going to look for the word question. There goes Ron up in Chugwada has a question about Titus, chapter 2, verse 11 for the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. I think before I even read the question, I'm going to highlight two things here. The grace that bringeth salvation and all men. There is a couple places in scripture the the terminology of the manifold grace of God. Manifold means variegated. It means there's a lot out there and goes in various places, different kinds of grace. Not all graces are the same. So here he specifically says the grace that bringeth salvation, it has come. But there's even more than one salvation. We're talking kingdom salvation. Are we talking individual Sal? What are we talking about? And so he says the grace that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. Which then would imply not completely solve the case. We're talking about the dispensation of the grace of God which the middle wall of partition has come down. This is for everybody. Now with that, the question Titus 2:11. Does this mean that God has shown his grace to all mankind or to all at the time of writing? Okay, the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared. Would you check for me, Luca? I think that hath appeared is probably in the aorist tense, but it might be in the perfect tense. Could you check that for me and see? I would. I would like it in the perfect tense, but I don't. I doubt it is just dealing with Greek enough. Could be, but I doubt it is. The reason I'd like it in the perfect tense is because it would grammatically solve the question. Because the perfect tense is it has appeared. It's never left. It's still appearing. It's still present, it's still available. That's the tense that you would use. It's not used all that much, but it is used sometimes. The heiress tense is has come, did come, or will come at a certain point in time. Doesn't answer whether it's still there. We have heiress. That's what I figured. Eris is much more common than the than the perfect tense. And the way it was translated there, I assumed it was probably heiress. Now, eris does not mean that it's not still here just means I'm telling you it came. And, and we do this in English all the time, in any language, all the time. You know, something happened. Okay, well, is it, Is it still, you know, what, what, what's going on? So on our question, does this mean God has shown his grace to all mankind or at the time of writing? I think it means. It. It definitely means that at the time of writing, the grace that bringeth salvation had appeared. Now, because it is the aorist, we can't read that as saying always without some evidence. It appeared at a point in time. So there was a point in time in which it had not appeared. Covenant theology, by the way, really says the grace of God that bringeth salvation has always been. It's always appeared to mankind. Adam saw it, Seth saw it, Noah saw it, Moses saw. It's always appeared the grace of God that bringeth salvation. But you, you could use the aorist there, but you would have to assume it's talking about at the beginning of the created order. So for all men of all time, it's always been available, which is covenant theology. I don't think this is where you would put that start point. I don't think that would be a normal reading almost. If it's just part and parcel of the world, God people, everybody else. Why would you even bring it up to Titus? Duh, of course the sky's blue. But he does seem to be bringing something up that happened at a point in time. Now, the argument that the preacher has to deal with is to say, when is that time? I'm not sure that the passage here is actually going to announce that, but maybe in the context even I was looking at the next verse here. Teaching us. So it appeared. Teaching us that denying ungodliness, worldly lust, we should live soberly, looking for that blessed hope, the glorious of appearing of our great God, you know, as you define the blessed hope and the glorious appearing who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity. This seems to put that, put the appeared point after the. The cross. Anyway, I'd want to go through and build. Build an argument for when it appeared. The challenge with a book like Titus is true with any of them, but especially true in the smaller books like Titus. There's a lot of information that is assumed about Titus. I mean, that Titus has. So Paul doesn't come and start his treatise right from the beginning. Hey, Titus, you've never met me. I'm Paul. And let me, Let me start back at ground one and, you know, build the whole case. He. He assumes some knowledge on Titus's part. So we have to build an argument and convince people Titus knew this. Maybe. And what I would want to do is try to check. I'd start with Titus chapter 2. If I couldn't do that, I'd back up into Titus chapter one. And I would want to argue that. I want to argue when the appearance of the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all happened. Was it yesterday? Will it be tomorrow? And Eris can be future. I don't think that would fit here. Was it in Moses's day with the giving of the law? Was it in Jesus's day with his resurrection? Was it in Paul's day? Where was that? What's he talking about? And, and put that together. So certainly I think, I think the easiest argument to say who's definitely there by the time that Paul writes to Titus, it's almost a axiomatic. But when. Build that argument and you'll have a good sermon. I didn't give you the answer, but you'll have a good sermon. Stephen in Shrewsbury. Good to see you over in England land. Hope you are doing well at the home Bible College. The question is, do you think Paul seemed to be able to reach Jews, Gentiles and believers with the message appropriate to each dispensational setting? In Acts 17, he preaches to the Gentiles on Mars hill. In Acts 19, he takes on 12 disciples from John, from John's message of the gospel that we preach. So, yeah, I do think Paul really did have a great ability to teach to his audience the appropriate material for his audience. It's not always an easy thing to do. I think of politicians, Politicians are sometimes pretty good at. Who's my audience here? I want to give something to them. But a politician always has to be cognizant of the fact that somebody else is listening. So what's, what's up there? What's that, what's happening? What do we do with that? I think Paul's able to, to speak right there to the audience. We, the listener, have to determine what, what's, what's the message to us. He's talking to them, not to us. And so we gotta, we gotta bring that in and put that together. Does that make sense? So, you know, sometimes. Let me, let me go back to a politician. You know, maybe a politician is speaking to the Teamsters Union. Okay, let's, let's go with that. But the real audience he wants is Vladimir Putin and the Teamsters. May Be sitting there and like, what does this have to do with us? The politician knows. Here's my real audience. I think when we come to the scripture, we can know that Paul, it really is talking to the people. It says he doesn't have some other audience and he's able to dispensationally put that message together there and bring it together. There we go. You know, home Bible College. Also, Stephen mentions going back to our last question. And this is a challenge. In the book of Titus, it says, amazingly, the letter to Titus seems constantly referenced to the day of the Lord and the obligation of the covenant people. Verses 13, 14 seem to be referring to the revelation of Jesus Christ in the second coming. There is some of that in Titus that you have to deal with. It's like, okay, which again, coming right over here, even this, looking for that blessed hope is typically taken to be the Rapture. But the glorious appearing. Wait a minute. I think the glorious appearing. Isn't that the second coming? That's the glorious one. It could be. And I think this is the way I've taken it in the past that the Word and is of supreme importance here. Looking for the Rapture and the second coming of the great God our Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself and. And take that. And in a very literal way. Not a. Also described as. But. And thanks for good work in England. I appreciate that. Very good. Rhonda says, when truth is what is spoken, then no worries needed. The chips fall where they will. Exactly. And Paul was able to do that. And. And then it is up to us to say, okay, is he on Mars Hill or is he with 12 disciples of John? It. You know, what's. What's going on here? And it's not all that easy. This is, you know, my rightly dividing a. Paul has been received by some and not received by others because I do think, hey, there's. There's a. Some of this stuff Paul's saying to the Jews, even in Titus. I am out of time. And I have questions which came in today. Three of those. Sorry about that. Even a few that I missed from earlier in the week. My apologies. Tuesday and I'll be back tonight. But I am on the summer schedule because I'm cramming for Branson. Would love to see you there. Randywhiteministries.org Branson and we'll be working on that all day tomorrow. So will not be on Ask the Theologian. We'll be back for Ask the Theologian on Monday. But. And then we got three broadcasts. We got Thursday night We got two on Sunday morning. Join us for any of those. You can submit your questions, of course, in advance@askthetelogian.com because I do get busy sometimes. If you really want to know where, when I answer, put your email address in and I will respond to you and let you know. Thanks very much, my friends, for being here and look forward to seeing that. Don't forget, I got a new book there, american Christianity, and gives a little history there of what's going on, what has gone on. And you can find that@disensationalpublishing.com till maybe tonight. We'll see you soon. God bless. Sam Sa.