1, 2, 3.

Welcome to the Rap Report with your host, Andrew Rapaport, where we provide biblical interpretation and application.

This is a ministry of Striving for.

Eternity and the Christian Podcast community.

For more content or to request a.

Speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity.org welcome to another edition of the Rap Report.

I am your host, Andrew Rappaport, the executive director of Striving for Eternity and the.

The Christian podcast community of which this podcast is a proud member.

We are here to give you biblical interpretations and applications for the Christian life.

And with that, I have someone who I have known.

I don't know if we've met in person, but Ryan Denton, have, Have we met and done some evangelism in person.

That I'm aware of?

No.

We run in similar circles, though, so I'm surprised we haven't.

Yeah, well, we, we'll have to find an event so we could both go evangelize together.

And I think that's what we have in common is our, our, you know, love and, and kind of evangelism type ministries.

But you're coming on today to discuss something different.

And what we're gonna, we want to do is, is talk about the idea of the certain spiritual gifts, the continuationism, cessationism.

But more so you've been kind of vocal online about what, what you see is more some of the extremes.

We know the extremes on the continuationism side, but you have voiced concern on the cessationist side.

So that's, that's what we'll end up talking about.

But first, let folks know about you a little bit about yourself here.

And, and then, you know, maybe we start with what we.

Where we have the commonality and then get to where we might disagree.

Yeah.

So I'm in Texas.

I'm a Presbyterian minister over here, church planner, pastor before, as you mentioned, done a lot of evangelism.

And so that's, that's certainly where, where I'm most at home as far as ministry goes.

I, I enjoy doing that.

And then as of late, I would say the last two or three years or so really, I guess you could say a, you know, we all have those, those, those, those hobbies, those pet doctrines, pet hobbies.

And that's, that's really this topic that we're discussing today has become that I don't claim and, and I've tried to maintain that I don't claim.

I have been reading a lot of the primary sources and secondary sources.

I don't consider myself an expert in the history of really anything.

I mean, I'm just an observer and a reader.

And even when it comes to the Scriptures, it's the exegesis, the text, I think for everybody, we want to be biblically accurate and dividing the doctrine accurately, dividing the word of God accurately.

And so that's, of course a chief concern of mine as well.

But that being said, I.

I do consider myself a cessationist.

I sometimes characterize that or qualify that by saying I am, I would say much more in line with some of the reformed views of cessationism, or at least how they.

How they nuance some of that compared to maybe some of the versions of cessationism today.

And so I think there is a lot of commonality in these areas, but I think it's some of those and some of the other places as far as dreams, visions, prophetic impulses, that kind of stuff, I think that's probably where there would be a difference between me and a lot of the more contemporary cessationists.

So that's who I am, and that's what I'm doing here.

Yeah.

As far as on the.

Yes.

So you and I, at first you were looking for debates, and at first I thought you were a continuationist, which I jumped on because I'm like, I've been looking for a continuationist to debate with me.

Let me define some of the terms for folks that may be brand new to it.

So there were gifts in the first century that some believe continue to today and some believe ceased.

Those gifts would be things like the gift of languages, the gift of prophecy, the gift of wisdom, healing, things like that.

What some would refer to as signed gifts or miraculous gifts.

I refer to them as revelatory gifts.

If you watch the film cessationism, that's where that, that came from when we're working on producing that.

And so the idea that is, these gifts either point to something or for the purpose of something.

But there's other gifts that continue today, like teaching, administration, mercy giving.

These are ones that still continue for today.

So the idea is that certain gifts vindicated, and this would be my position vindicated, the writing of Scripture.

And if folks want to dig in deeper on that, just go to.

I have an article, Striving for Eternity.org Miracles.

You can find the sermons I did at the cessationist conference going through all the miracles, showing that there's really only three periods of time where we do have these miraculous gifts happening.

And it's all tied to the writing of scripture.

Outside of that, you only have about 8 instances.

So either way, I'm going to make the case that they're not normative.

They weren't in, in the 4,000 years of biblical history.

I don't think they are today, but there's people who think they do.

I, and I have been looking for, for debates on it.

You and I were talking because I thought you were average.

I thought you were a continuationist.

And, and then you're like, no, no, I'm a cessationist.

I was like, oh, you know, I'm still supposed to have the debate slash long form discussion with Michael Brown, but he's the only one that's agreed to it.

I know the guys from Remnant Radio.

You and I were talking about this how they're always saying, well, we'll debate someone we want someone to debate.

And everyone tells me I'm running from those guys.

I'll say it again publicly.

Anyone that knows them, tell them I'm ready if they, if they wanna surprise me and not even give me time to prep.

I'm apologetics live Thursday nights, 8 to 10 Eastern Time.

They can come on unannounced.

I won't know there's a debate.

Let's do it.

That, that's how confident I am that the scripture is clear.

But everyone's telling me I'm running from them.

Ryan.

I'm saying publicly, they say, they say they are willing to debate.

I've never seen them debate.

Maybe they haven't.

I don't know.

Clearly I'm not.

I don't run from debates.

I do a show where people can come in and debate me when I don't know there's a debate going on, so I'm not running from it.

So.

But then we got into a thing where you and I went back and forth because your issue is not so much on the, the continuationist side, but what you see is an extreme on the cessationist side.

And you, you put out a challenge to debate, you know, three guys, Justin Peters, Scott Annual, and Nathaniel Jolly.

Now, I don't know much about Scott, but I, my point was that, well, Justin Peters is really clear.

He doesn't debate, especially with believers.

And so, and I don't think Nathaniel's ever did a debate.

So I was kind of like, hey, why don't you debate someone that wants to debate?

And I had forgotten that you, you were like, hey, I'm a cessationist.

I thought you were trying to debate them on it.

And you were like, no, I'm.

This is.

Oh, that's right.

So.

But you have some concerns with what you see, and you tell me if this fair, that you see as an extreme position from folks on our side that you feel either, I want to make sure, I reiterate, that you either feel are going too far or maybe need to be balanced.

Would that be fair?

Yeah, that's, that's, that's fair.

I think that's, that's a nice summary in general.

So what I'm looking at is this.

So the, the idea of cessationism, of course, we would say, okay, well, you, you see it in the Scriptures, but really it's not codified as, as an actual doctrinal term or thing until the 17th century.

And when you look into, let's say the 17th century or even the 16th century, especially what you'll find is that you will find, you will find theologians who will agree basically with what you just described as cessationism, where you're saying, okay, the, the sign gifts or the revelatory gifts had a, had a specific purpose in, in the, in the very initial phase of the apostolic era.

And, and those gifts, and I mean offices, the apostle office of apostle, prophet, those things have since ceased.

Okay.

So I think on that front, okay, everybody's kind of like, yeah, we're on the same page, but however, here's, here's where it gets interesting is when you begin to look into how they viewed what exactly that meant when these, when they say these things have ceased.

It's not as rigid as how we are defining it.

It's not as rigid.

It's not as inflexible a thing.

So, for instance, in fact, let me, let me, let me pull this up.

So this is, this, this.

And I'm bringing this up because this is, this is recent information as far as, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna give you some examples from the reformers regarding the offices themselves.

So as far as the apostles and, and the office of apostle, evangelists and prophets, so those are called extraordinary offices, typically.

Okay?

So as opposed to the ordinary offices, which would be pastor and teacher.

So the extraordina here's from the 1577 Second Book of Discipline.

I'm a Presbyterian, so this is, this is, this is pretty important stuff.

I mean, this, you're talking about the, the, when the, when the, when the Scottish Church was overthrowing Rome.

The, the church, the government, the church government that emerged was, was Presbyterian Church government.

And, and it comes, it comes to us through in large part, some of these, some of these, these, these books of discipline.

Okay, so this church of Scotland's 1577 Second Book of Discipline, this was written under Andrew Melville.

He says some of these ecclesiastical functions are ordinary and some extraordinary or temporary.

Okay, so that's this cessation aspect.

There be three extraordinary functions, the office of the apostle, of the evangelist, and the prophet, which are not perpetual and have now ceased in the Kirk of God.

So there's the idea again of cessationism, at least when it comes to the officers, except now.

And here, here's what I was saying.

As, as far.

Far as just the nuance and the surprise that comes in here, it says, except when it pleased God extraordinarily for a time to stir some of them up again.

And that, of course, is going to be a reference specifically to Luther and maybe to others.

But John Calvin says the same thing.

John Calvin says, still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes, at a later period, meaning after the apostolic period, raised up apostles or.

Or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day, which is a reference to Luther Bootser, of course, who's Martin Bootser, was a very renowned figure in that whole era as well.

He says it may be that the Lord still provides this sort of ministry today, meaning the apostolic ministry, the prophetic ministry, and at all times.

But we do not have so many of them, nor do they maintain in their apostolate so powerful a spirit and so exalted a role as the first apostles did.

Which is important because none of these guys, and I want to clarify this because this is important.

None of these guys are saying that you are going to have a re.

A duplication of the 12 apostles.

You're not.

None of these guys are saying that, okay?

But they are acknowledging.

They're recognizing that there are times when God does.

He does use men in an extraordinary way in a way that, like you mentioned, not normative.

And that's something that would distinguish me from, let's say, a continuationist or a character charismatic, especially because when we're looking at some of these things, and I'm saying there needs to be.

There needs to be recognition or flexibility or understanding here, especially regarding.

Not so much the opposite.

I think there's a place for that, obviously, just from looking at the Reformed data, but especially when it comes to things like dreams and visions, and we could talk about that, but dreams and visions, not so much as a gift, you know, not so much as I have the gift of dreaming or I have the gift of having visions, but as something that God continues to do.

And so, and the same thing regarding just the, the, let's say the office of prophet.

What's interesting is guys like Samuel Rutherford who were an essential part of the, the Westminster assembly and of course from the Westminster assembly, even if you're not a Presbyterian, you know, a lot of the Second London Baptist Confession, they, they admired the Westminster Confession of Faith.

That's a polite way of saying plagiarized.

That's a nice way of saying plagiarized because.

But Samuel Rutherford even speaks of, of this as, as certain men such as John Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, and then he mentions George Wishart, John Knox.

He mentions these men as, as, as prophets.

Okay, so my point in saying this, there was another man named Alexander Peden that the Scottish Covenanters refer to as the Prophet Pe.

My, my point in saying all of this is at the very least we have to admit that the, the, the Reformed Church traditionally was much more comfortable discussing things like dreams, visions, angelic communications, prophetic impulses is the way that it was described.

The office of apostle, the, the, the, the, you know, prophets, things like that.

They were much more comfortable bringing some of those things up than we are in our current version of cessationism.

And so that's what I am trying to push back on because I think functionally, I think it can, it doesn't perhaps always for everybody, but I think it can hinder how we view the work of God, how he operates, how he continues to, and I'll use the word, reveal things to his people today.

And I think it, I, I think that's where the discussion needs to happen.

Okay, so a couple things that you brought up for folks listening to understand and the way I word it is the gift of miracles versus the reality of miracles.

Right?

We, we all, I don't know a cessationist that doesn't believe that God does miracles.

Okay, this is, that's fair and this is what everyone always accuses us of.

It's the gift of it.

Can God heal today?

Yes.

Can Ryan Denton heal today?

No.

That, that's becomes the difference now and people are going to say, oh, but God could do it through Ryan, then it's not the gift.

And if he's doing, if he's doing it through Ryan, then what's he really doing?

Is it because Ryan prayed?

Is, you know, like what, what exactly is that?

So if so the, the issue being is that we, we have to be really clear on those sort of things.

I think that the, the two biggest confusions in this, you Mentioned prophet.

And we talk about prophecies and what most people that are continuationists, when they refer to prophecies, I think that's what we would call providence.

Things that God orchestrates to work together.

And they go, oh, well, see, I, I woke up in the middle of night thinking of someone and I prayed for him, and next day I found out he was in a car accident at that, at that moment.

And they'll call that a prophecy.

I would say it's God's providence.

Right.

So I think that we, we need to be clear on, on definitions on both sides.

So let me, let me ask it.

And one thing, when you quote Folks from 17, 1800s, why is it that they had a different view we have today?

Well, we, even continuationists recognize that something changed in the early late 1800s, early 1900s, where there was a start of the, these gifts, where people started thinking they're normative.

Okay.

You're referring to people in history who at least allowed for these gifts to continue, or they, they didn't speak very often on it.

Why do we have such a reaction today?

Well, because we have a charismatic movement that's putting it out there.

Let me push back a little because the Reformers were very much in the middle of a lot of enthusiastic expressions of what other people were calling like gifts, such as the quietest and some of these more radicals that were out there and in fact, the quietest.

That's where eventually you get the Quakers from the quietest and some of those elements that, that emerge from that.

So they're, they're very much pushing back against that.

They also had the Roman Catholics who were a lot of times claiming that the reason why we should be Roman Catholic was because miracles were happening in their day and they were seeing things and they were seeing like the stigmata and things like that.

So, so these were, the Reformers were very much in a world of people reacting against, you know, what we would call cessationism in that sense.

So they had, they had their, they had their crazy charismatics then, too.

Well, I think we're still much more comfortable discussing these and going back to your idea of Providence.

You know, they of course believed in Providence, but they also recognize prophecy.

Okay, that's the difference.

Yeah.

And I mean, one thing we, we both agree the Reformers are not Scripture.

Right.

I mean, we're ultimately, we're going to get our doctrine from Scripture, but you're, you're highlighting what others before us had believed.

So it, it doesn't make it absolute, but it provides that, hey, this is not unusual is what for folks to understand why you're doing it.

Exactly, exactly.

And a lot of, because a lot of our, you know, our, our understanding of cessationism relies on some of the things that they had knocked together and they had worked through.

So that's why to me, if, in other words, the term cessationism was not invented by Justin Peters, you know, and he knows, we all know that.

And I'm saying that tongue in cheek, but the term itself goes back to the 17th century.

And so that's, that's why I think it's important to, when we're using the term cessationism, we're recognizing, yes, they were cessationists, but they were cessationists.

According.

I have a, you know, there's, there's, I'm sure you've heard of some of these quotes, but there's tons of quotes like Kevin DeYoung says, without a doubt, the Westminster Confession teaches cessationism.

The Reformers taught cessationism.

But it's the cessationism which requires considerable nuance and allows for supernatural surprises, working with and through the word of God.

And when he says that, he means things like prophetic impulse, he means things like dreams and visions.

Nick Needham, of course, says the same thing.

Nick Needham, he's a Reformed Baptist historian and he says some of the later scientists, cessationist ideas should not be read back into the Reformation era.

While the Reformers were quite clearly not met modern charismatics, they were also not so suspicious of the supernatural, which of course he's, he's referencing as, you know, a knock maybe on some of our, our cessationism today.

And that's the point that I was trying to say.

We have to, we have to understand the Reformers and what they're responding to in their day.

What we're dealing with is not what they were dealing with.

And so our response is to this, to the Continuationists today.

Right, sure.

So, but they had, going back though they did have, their continuation is back in those days as well.

And you know, they had the inner light people, they had the spiritualists, they had what would become eventually like the Moravian movement.

So they had these, they had these sects of people that were very loud, the Roman Catholics maybe being the loudest that they of course were rejecting.

And yet they were still, they were still able to nuance all of this and say, yes, but let's not go to the extreme of denying things such as, like we've seen in the data regarding dreams and visions and prophetic, what they described as prophetic impulses, things like that.

Okay, Angelic communication.

So you've come to the dreams and visions a couple times.

I think that's a central thing for you.

So what is your concern with what you refer to as a hyper cessationism?

First define it for folks.

Explain the difference you see between cessationism, hyper cessationism.

And then what do you think is the danger?

Well, I think it goes back.

Hyper cessationism is in a lot of ways what we're describing.

So it's the cessationism that is more rigid and less flexible, less nuanced than the cessationism of the 17th century.

Because again, if that's where our understanding of cessationism comes from and they were very open and understanding of or flexible to the idea of how God operates, even to the extent of recognizing there might be seasons where God raises up apostles and prophets.

So these were, these were the, the catalysts, you could say, for what we now consider cessationism.

And so I would consider anything that is not using that term, or put it this way, using the term cessation cessationism in a more rigid way.

That would be to the right of that.

Now I've used hyper just because I don't, I don't really know of another term to use.

We can call it neo cessationism.

We can call it, I don't know, you know, contemporary cessationism.

I don't know.

I'm not real concerned about the term so much as I am just saying when we, when we speak of these things, I think it's important to really flesh out the fact that there, there is, there is a, there is room, in other words, for some of these other things.

Such as, like, like we, we've.

Where I've been mentioning dreams and visions.

Going back to your second question, what is the danger here?

I think the danger is, is it really leads down, it leads us down a road of.

Now I'm not, I want to be careful here because I'm not claiming any hyper cessationists is a deist or anti supernatural.

I want to be certain on that.

Okay.

And like you said, I totally understand and I agree that I don't know of a single cessationist, at least that's alive today, that denies miracles, that denies that God is operating, that God moves.

But I think functionally and practically how we see the world, I think it does lead to a more Deistic reference of reality or you could say a more anti supernatural view of reality.

Now how, how does that.

You know, I think on the more extreme side the problem there was would, would be we don't want to quench the spirit.

Nobody wants to quench the spirit.

You know, none of the, no, nobody.

None of the men that I've been dialoguing with on this subject want to quench the spirit.

And, and I believe they're brothers and I, and I appreciate a lot of their work against the hyper charismatics.

That being said, though, I do think that hyper cessationism does, I would say inevitably lead you down that path, whether you get there all the way.

Probably not.

But is it possible that we're quenching the spirit or we may quench the spirit by, by going in that direction?

I would say yeah, I think that that's certainly more possible.

The, the issue being if, if God's word says he's not going to do certain things, it wouldn't be quenching the spirit to say I don't think he's giving these gifts because he says he's not.

Now we, we much of the debate and really it comes down to First Corinthians 13, 8 and following where he says three gifts are going to stop, right?

The gifts of languages, the gift knowledge, gift wisdom, they will cease.

That's where we get the word cessationism.

That's, that's, well, that's where we're going to have a lot of.

And I think this is the, you know, this is where it gets fun, you could say, because now you're talking about these interpretations of, of these certain passages that even amongst cessationists there's disagreement regarding First Corinthians 13, regarding Hebrews 1, regarding some of these.

Yeah, you mentioned it.

Justin Peters and I disagree with what the, the perfect, the teleos is there.

I.

Do you take it to mean.

Yeah, what do you take.

I take that to be the canon.

And, and it basically it's because of the rules of, of interpretation.

Right?

You have to, what you have to do is put together.

He's making a point of something that's going from partial to complete.

That's what teleos means.

It's the idea of not perfection but something being matured, perfected, completed.

And, and that's what he says.

He says we know in part, we prophesy in part, but when the teleos comes, well, the, the partial will be done away with.

So the, the prophecy and the knowledge is a Partial thing.

So whatever, whatever wisdom and Prof.

And profit or the the knowledge and prophecy is, the teleos completes it.

And so prophecy being, you know, I think a lot of folks would.

Would agree it's the deals with revelation.

And so I think that these are revelatory.

What a lot of people do is take the next three verses 11, 12, 13.

Well, really 11, 12, what he's doing there is illustrating the idea of partial to complete.

But people take, oh they say face to face and they, because they see that, they say well that's got to be a personal encounter.

Or they see the word perfection and say, well that's got to be Jesus.

And you know, or I'll know as I'm fully known.

And rather than seeing those as illustrations of the main point in verses 9 and 10, they take the illustrations as the main point and then, you know, interpret the main point from what should be the illustration.

And that's where like a Justin and John MacArthur come to the view that it's the, the, you know, the return of Christ.

That's my view.

It's same with Shriner.

Shriner agrees.

Yeah.

Who Is there anyone in your, I mean, I'm sure who, who Is there anyone that agrees with you on that passage?

Oh, many.

I mean Justin, Justin Peters, old pastor Jim Osmond for one.

But yeah, I mean there's a lot that do.

And the, but the issue is, is that I'm dealing with it from the context and looking at illustrations and following the rules of interpreting an illustration, which is you don't go beyond it's what it's illustrating and what the child looking in a mirror dimly.

It's not the point's not looking face to face.

It's the comparison of it looking dimly versus looking face to face.

You knowing partially versus known fully being like a child versus being an adult.

They're each illustrating the very meaning of the word telios.

And so as illustrations, we don't interpret them beyond the point that they're illustrating, which is something is coming to completion.

A child coming to adulthood looking in in polished metal, not the mirrors we have today versus looking even in this camera that the dimly versus clearly knowing partially versus knowing fully.

It's all illustrating what verses nine and ten say it's partial to complete.

So the, the only thing really has to be is what is the partial and the partial is the, the knowledge and prophecy.

So the teleas has to be tied to that because it completes that.

Right.

And when that comes Shriners take on.

This, I, I have seen it Many years ago.

I don't, I'm not super familiar with it.

To, Well, I mean, to me, I don't see how you could read that in any other way but the return of Christ.

What if, Let me ask you this, let me ask you this because if, if part of this is okay, so on, on the gifts, on some of that, we're going to be in agreement as far as the normative, even how they operate.

I think there'll be agreement in some ways that.

But let me ask you this.

If you go to let's say Acts 2, when he's quoting from Joel, when Peter's quoting from Joel, what's your take on that?

Because that's, that's that to me is, is, is the reason why I think the reformers were very much over the target when they were at least acknowledging, again, not normatively, but they were acknowledging that God continues to, to, to operate as far as communicating through dreams and visions in a, in a circumstantial way, not level of scripture way, but on, in a circumstantial way.

So what.

And I'm just wondering for my own curiosity how you would take, let's say Acts 2, verse 17.

Do you think so, do you think we're in the last days still?

Well, okay, so let me just read for the audience.

It says and, and it shall be in the last days.

God says that I will pour out my spirit on all mankind.

Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.

So there's a couple things and I'm going to have a little bit of a different take.

Then you'll hear from many and I'll explain why.

But I, I would say that what this is, is he's.

Again, the writing of Scripture is when we see these things.

That's why I don't call them apostolic gifts because we saw the same type of miraculous gifts in Moses's time, in Elisha and Elisha's time.

Okay.

So the, the.

My point is that he a.

He doesn't recite the whole thing of the Joel, what Joel said.

So there's, there's some future things there.

I think that the key and, and where I'm going to give you what you may not hear before is be because of my Jewish upbringing, because of my Jewish thinking, being raised that way.

A big part of what we would think of as the new covenant, Jeremiah 29, Ezekiel, is the idea that the Holy Spirit would indwell, we wouldn't need a priesthood and that's the, that would be a big deal.

So him saying he's pouring out his spirit on, on sons and daughters to be able to prophesy.

Well, that would be something only priests could do.

So the, this is.

I see what Joel was saying is going back to what Jeremiah said, what Ezekiel said about the new covenant.

So are we in the last days?

I, I think Paul said we were that he was in the last days.

It's just a really long last days.

Okay, that and I agree.

But that would mean to me the, the, that would mean that we, you know, as far as your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams in the last days.

That's take place.

Those things are going to have so much.

But it did take place in, you know, when the apostles were alive.

I, and, and this is where with some cessationists I would disagree where they.

I, I'm as.

But not just a cessationist, but also a dispensationalist.

I know, don't shoot me.

But I, I wouldn't.

I could see when Christ returns for the millennial kingdom, new revelation.

Now there's some that would disagree with that, but I don't see why there couldn't be.

I mean yes, Christ will be physically reigning, but he could give more revelation.

He could give miracles to people for that revelation.

You might be more continuationist than I am.

Funny.

Well, the, the issue totally deny that.

I would say not at all.

It's far as revelation, new doctrine, new ethics.

There's no new revelation on that level.

Now I'm, and I'm with you when it comes.

And I don't think this is what you're saying.

But, but you know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm definitely a.

And I have been beating the drum for the, the idea of two tier revelation as far as you have the immediate type that God communicates on an apostolic, infallible level.

But then you also have revelation in the sense of lowercase R.

God continues to, I would say give us impulses, gives us leadings of the Spirit.

See, and I would, I would call that providence.

That's the distinction.

I think some of this is semantics.

Yeah.

I think that's, that's where when I listen to the guy is like the remnant radio, right?

I'm listing them going that's providence.

That's what we would historically refer to as providence.

And I think there's a mixing of those.

I don't deny that, that God could give impulses.

It was funny.

We had.

The only guy I've really debated often on this is Matt Slick.

He's.

He's a continuationist and it was really funny.

Matt and I are sitting there having lunch with this third guy.

He's one of my board members.

He's been on both of our boards and, and this guy's trying to get a word and Matt and I are just going back and forth and if, you know, Matt and I, we could talk and, and this guy's trying to get a worded.

And Matt's arguing for continuation, for the gifts continuing.

I'm arguing that they ceased and this guy wants to say something and he like he cuts in and mattress goes, hold on a second.

And he goes, look, Andrew, I think they continue but I agree that we shouldn't see them as normative today.

And I'm like Matt, I.

I think they ceased, but I agree they shouldn't be normal today.

This poor guy is like.

That's what I've been trying to say for 10 minutes.

Guys fighting about.

And that's what I've heard like Poythorus talks about that a lot.

As far as if you.

This is what think.

Check this out.

So Poythros says this about.

So Richard Gaffin of course is a cessationist or.

Yeah, cessationist.

Wayne Grudem, of course the continuationist.

He says people debate about whether prophecy, quote unquote, prophecy in the New Testament and the early church was divinely inspired and infallible.

Did it possess full divine authority?

Richard Gaffin says that it was.

That it was inspired.

Wayne Grudem argues that it was not inspired.

He says many people believe that the outcome of the debate is crucial for the future of the charismatic movement.

Now Poytheris is a cessationist, he's not a charismatic, but he says actually the outcome of the debate makes very little practical difference today.

He says and he gives the example, okay, so you take Grudem's view.

Such prophecy is fallible.

It's not identical with the inspired prophecy of the Old Testament.

It's in fact a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through non discursive processes, etc.

I'll just summarize it for him.

And he actually says this.

He says hence it is just information and has no special authority.

Hence Grudem ends up with substantially the same practical conclusions as does Gaffen.

The disagreement is merely over the label given to the phenomena and about whether the New Testament phenomena were identical or merely analogous to the modern Phenomena.

And so that's basically what you're saying as far as.

But I would argue, I mean, I would push back a little though, because, because going back to the word prophecy, again, I would argue the Reformers were.

And revelation, they were very much more comfortable using those words revelation and prophecy in a way that did not mean like a capital P prophet or capital R revelation.

Yeah.

And so the issue I have with using the term revelation, for example, or prophecy is the fact that when they say, well, I have a prophecy, but it doesn't have, it's not inspired.

Well, if, if it is a revelation, a prophecy that's coming from God, it has to be inspired because that's what inspired means.

What makes it infallible is the source of it being God, not, as the guys on remnant radio say, the interpretation.

And that, that's their kind of out.

Is to say, well, it was, I interpreted it wrong.

God's prophecy isn't misinterpreted it.

You know, it's, it was, it was spoken.

And so the, the thing is, is that what we end up seeing is that when they say, well, only 85% of the Prophet, the quote unquote, prophets today are, are accurate, like 85 of their prophecies come true, then the scripture says you stone them because it has to be 100.

That's why it had to be 100.

Like, there wouldn't be a command to stone people for getting a prophecy wrong if it didn't have to be.

This was the way of testing whether it's from God.

Right.

It.

That it's accurate.

So when they say that they have a lowercase P prophecy or like, they don't want to compare it to Scripture.

Now, I'm okay with saying, like, there's some people that will say the.

Well, if you had a prophecy or revelation, you should add it to Scripture.

Not everything that Christ said is written down.

Right.

And yet everything he spoke is revelation.

Because it's the source in that.

Correct.

Correct.

Period.

Yeah.

Not every.

So, so just the fact that there's a revelation doesn't mean it has to be added to Scripture.

I, I think that's a bad argument.

But every, every revelation from God has to be equal in authority to the Scriptures because of the source of it.

Yeah, that's, that's fair, I think when you're talking.

Yeah.

I mean, because what you're doing is you're bringing out the fact that it's.

How can you, how can you say revelation is fallible?

Like, if I have a.

Let's Say I have a prophetic impulse.

I think I do.

I'm not sure.

And I say, hey, this is a fallible, let's say a dream, maybe that's even clearer.

Let's say I have a dream like Flaville.

I mentioned on the Keith Foskey podcast that Flavel would have these dreams and whenever he had these certain dreams, they would usually turn out to be correct.

And he, he would operate according to the dreams he has now.

He was always bringing those dreams to others so that they could help him out and try to figure out, hey, is this like, what do you make of these things?

And there was actually disagreement between Flavel and some of these guys regarding how to interpret these things.

And I think to the Remnant radio guys, to their point on this, I think in this, when I think, in this case, I, I think they're more, I think they're closer to what you see amongst the Reformers than, than, than.

Than the opposite view, which is there's no such thing as, as God doing this.

Because you can look at the monographs and like from, from a guy like Milne and some of these other guys, and they'll say that when the divines pin their cessationist clause, this is a quote.

They were operating with a conscious distinction between two types of revelation, one of which they deemed had ceased and is infallible, one of which continued, which is fallible, which is not infallible.

So it's not on the same level of Scripture.

And that's going.

So in other words, I now the Remnant radio guys, where they would, where their take would disagree with the Reformers is how normative this stuff is.

But I think as far as how they're viewing, how it works, I do think that it's closer to the Reformers than maybe like our contemporary cessationism is.

See.

But I just think I'm closer to the Bible, so they could be closer to the Reform.

I would disagree because I'm looking at Acts too, and I'm saying throughout the last days, which I agree we're in the last days, but I also see that as saying that that is going.

To continue well, and, but then you have.

And this is when, when I Debate Matt Slick, First Corinthians 1:7, he.

He would always bring up, and it says this so that you are not lacking any gift, eagerly waiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And he will point out the word gift there is charismata.

So he'll say you're not lacking any charismatic gift until the Day the Lord returns.

My.

In my debate with him, what I said is, that's fine.

The Church isn't lacking.

Now the question is, does the church have a need for it?

Because the Church may have had a need when the Scripture is being written, but now that we have the, the canon, we don't need this.

So we're not lacking anything because the word lack of requires a need that, that's the very definition of the Word.

And that's where even some of the charismatics in the, in the audience told me that they thought I won the debate just on that point.

So the next time Matt and I debated, he, he's added.

He actually added a lot of things.

Not as much as you had, but he did.

I had a lot of the reformers and their views of, of the gifts.

But the, the thing though is, is that as.

As we look at it, I think the, the, the nudgings or the feelings.

See, I think that's, that's God's providence providential work.

But when you have people that have dreams and they put it this way.

I used to date a girl in college who was very into the horoscope because she'd read her horoscope every single day, and every day it was right.

And what got her to finally stop was that I made her read all 12 horoscopes every day.

And she discovered all 12 were right every day because they're, they're so general that when you're looking to make it happen.

And I had a guy, he, he, like Flavel says he's got lots of dreams and he actually would write them down in a book and he says they, a lot of them come true.

I said, what do you do with the ones that don't come true?

He goes, well, I just wait for them to come true.

And so what he's doing is he's writing it down and he's looking for things.

He could say, well, that's what the dream was about.

And the.

You will have that in the Old Testament where they looked forward to Christ and yet they didn't even see how some of that was going to be fulfilled.

They didn't understand their own prophecies.

And I get that.

But I think that often when it comes to dreams and things like that that are subjective, it becomes an issue where do.

Was I remembering it right?

I mean, one of the issues I had with Matt Slick was, you know, Matt tells a story of what he claims is he got a prophecy.

Now people can test this, go back in history and read all the times he's talked about that story.

The account has changed now.

He'll.

He.

He told me in one of our debate, I remember it vividly, every detail.

When I first talked to him about it, she.

This woman, he gave a prophecy, she met him years later and came up to him, and he didn't remember meeting her, didn't remember any of it.

She told him the details, and then he remembered it.

Now, the issue, I said to him, because he's his.

His argument is he's a man of God.

I agree with it.

You know, he'll be like, I'm a man of God.

I'm not lying.

These things.

These things happen, you know, why would you doubt it?

I said, well, because that's not the test, right?

The test is the scripture.

I'm looking at what you say versus scripture.

But the reality is, did she plant a memory?

Because I actually met a guy who.

He does, like, hypnotism type of stuff.

But he told me, he says, I can plant memories in.

In people.

And we're on the boardwalk and he was.

He literally told me that I'm going to plant a memory, that I met a person at some event that I know their uncle and, like, literally walked up and he starts talking to this person and where they like to vacation, and they mentioned some pond, and he.

And he's like, you know, and he literally was making it up.

And I watched this girl start to remember, supposedly that they met.

She even told him what he was wearing, and he just played along with that.

And I.

And I realized our memories are not what we think.

That's what I'm looking forward to having when we have a perfect memory.

Ryan, you may have this, but I can't wait to see all the people I handed gospel tracks to, share the gospel to.

And I think I'm gonna, like, instantly see them and be like, hey, I remember sharing the gospel with you.

And they're gonna go, I remember you give me that gospel track, right?

You know, and so when it comes to the visions and dreams, I think it's very subjective now.

I know because I did listen to your Calvinist podcast.

I, I invited you on, and then I.

Then I saw that you were on with Keith Foskow and your Calvinist.

And one of the things you brought up was, is all the, The.

The visions, dreams in the Middle East.

And I have.

I've looked into some of them.

Some of them, it's.

I go, okay, you look at these guys, and they're.

They're.

They had A dream of Christ, but they're going to heretical churches, you know.

Could that be a demon?

Could be.

I don't say it is.

That's one thing that I'm careful with.

Right.

I know there's some people that say, oh, when you speak in tongues, it's demonic.

All the things that.

No, but some of it could be.

There's a lot that it could be.

Okay.

But we tested with Scripture.

When they start when they're saying they had a vision and that vision led them apostate, then.

No.

Right.

However, there are things like there, there was one person who had a dream that he needed to go to a, a certain road to meet a man who was going to give him a book.

And a guy, you know, the guy's standing just in the street and some guys, you know, some missionary's car breaks down, his car's filled with Bibles and gives him a Bible.

Now, would you let me ask you a question because that brings up a good point.

You mentioned earlier, that you, you believe in miracles, that you believe miracles continue to happen.

God still uses miracles, works in miracles.

But would you also agree, as Scripture tells us, that, that even demons can counterfeit miracles?

Demons can do miracles.

They can, they can do things like that.

And the reason I bring that up is because you, you, so you have, on the one hand, you have the legitimate thing called a miracle from God, but then you also have a counterfeit thing that is conjured up by Satan.

And, and so I would argue the same thing regarding dreams and visions and, and nudges or impulses, anything like that.

Because on the one hand, yes.

Could it be a counterfeit?

Could it be Satan?

Could it be a delusion?

Could it be.

Yes, a subjective thing that has nothing to do with any of this?

Yes, I think it could be.

But at the same time, I don't think that negates the fact that God still communicates at times through dreams and visions.

So in other words, yeah, there are counterfeits, but that doesn't, that doesn't correct preaching.

You know, you have, you have counterfeit preachers, but that doesn't mean all preaching is bad.

It doesn't negate it.

But let me push back on you a bit and ask the question.

When you say communicate.

See, that's, that's the thing where, where I guess I have the sticking point.

I can see God's providence that he puts, he puts something on your mind, puts a person on your mind just at the time that they need prayer.

And you, he puts that person on your mind and you pray for them.

That's not a communication.

I think when I think of that, that's the Holy Spirit working through you.

Yeah.

And that could be.

Yeah, semantic wise, I'm totally fine with that.

I would be fine with that.

I would, you know, whether it's, you know, impression nudging, I always think the word nudge is a little, I like that word.

It sounds kind of fruity.

Nudge, nudge.

But, yeah, so I, but I'm with you.

I think a lot of this is semantics.

I think, in fact, here's a good quote from Shriner.

He says what most people, what most call prophecy in churches today, in my judgment, isn't the New Testament gift of prophecy.

It's better to characterize what is happening today as the sharing of impressions rather than prophecy.

But again, he goes on and he basically makes the case that, you know, I mean, what, what some people call prophecy, I'm calling, I'm calling impressions, so and so calls it a, you know, communication.

And I agree with you that that might.

The word or even revelation.

The problem of course is with revelation, and I agree with this, is that unless revelation is very defined, then it could be very misleading.

And I think that is one of the problems with the word revelation.

I, I don't have a problem using it because it's the way the reformers spoke about it.

But I think, of course, in our context, it does require a lot of, a lot of defining and definition.

Same thing, of course, with communication, but same thing.

Yeah, I guess maybe impressions is, it does, it does sound like it's a lower form of God moving on us, I guess you could say.

In other words, it's not like this infallible theophany necessarily.

It's something that's more subjective as far as the impression goes.

So I'm with you.

I'm with you on that front.

But I still going back to kind of maybe just to follow the thread of some of this when, when I still see in our contemporary cessationist world a real, not so much reluctance, that's one thing.

But even a discarding, I would say a discarding of things like some of these things that we're discussing, such as dreams, such as the visions in the Middle East, I'm totally, I mean, I would be the first to tell you that there needs to be scrutiny when it comes to any of these things.

And I think the reformers were very much in the same category.

Of course they were.

But I at the same time think that where we can be a little better at is recognizing that God actually still does operate and do these things and be okay with that and be comfortable with that.

Well, see, but like at least some of the names you mentioned and I'll speak of two of them because I know them personally.

Right.

Nathaniel Jolly and Justin Peters.

Justin, I don't think anyone regular listener here would be surprised.

He's a personal friend of mine, someone I know well, someone I've traveled with.

So I know, I know him well.

He believes mirror that God still does miracles.

But I do think, and I'll be curious if you, you agree.

I think a lot of what we're seeing is people that are responding to, to a.

Well, a lack of discernment on the continuation aside, I had an interesting conversation with Michael Brown over this and I said, look where you accuse us cessationists as lacking in grace because we're too hard line for you.

I view that continuationists lack discernment because anything goes.

And he actually said it's a, it's a valid point.

And I think that to, to the point you were just making, I think what you're seeing is people who are responding to the, the lack of discernment in the charismatic circles to where anything goes to everything's a dream, where they, they will, even if they're not charismatic.

So much of it has influenced even non charismatic people.

I, I remember in a, in a Wednesday night Bible study, a guy asked for prayer because as he said it, he had a co worker who did something wrong.

His boss comes to him and says, hey, I know you're a Christian.

I want to know what happened.

And this guy said that the Lord told him to lie to the boss so that he could witness to the co worker.

That's terrible.

And yeah, and I was like, that wasn't.

The Lord's never going to tell you to lie.

Okay.

I've heard people say that the Lord said, you know, I should divorce my wife and marry this other woman that I'm not married to.

That kind of thing.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean that's, that's horrendous stuff.

But, but the response there is not.

It's kind of like what Paul says, you know, where the, the response is not, well, we throw everything out.

He says, do not quench the spirit.

Do not despise prophecies, but test everything.

So it's not, you know, the, the, it's not the rejection of the whole thing, but it's testing, it's refinement.

It's acknowledging that there are counterfeits but.

You, I mean, would you agree that when especially people are making it a major part of their ministry to respond to, to, you know, the extremes that they could, they could go a little bit too far.

Just.

I think that's what we're saying, man.

I think that is the issue that we're seeing.

I think that sometimes you, you go so hard and you do good ministry.

And I mentioned earlier, Justin Peters has done incredible ministry when it comes to the hyper charismatic, exposing some of that, exposing a lot of that.

I think he does a great job and I think he is a sweet guy, man.

He is a very humble guy.

He's an awesome guy.

There's no doubt in my mind he is a brother, of course.

But I think on this issue, I do think that he's gone.

I think he's gone a little far for sure.

And I think.

Yeah, of course.

I think there is it.

I think it is because of the, the reaction that, that, you know, I would call it an overreaction, a knee jerk reaction to what he's saying.

See, I don't know that it's knee jerk as much as when you see so much of the, so much of Christianity, totally crazy going in and start.

Because what they're doing is they're so, I think so many of them are taking their own thoughts and attributing it to God, making it spiritual, making it authoritative.

I mean, when I was in college and I've shared this on this podcast before, but I had this guy who he, he really wanted to date this one young lady, but she was engaged.

And I remember sitting there, we're have, we're praying, and he got a quote word from the Lord, unquote.

And wouldn't you know that the word he got from the Lord was that she was gonna marry him, exactly what he had wanted.

And I was, I remember questioning that because I said, look, we all know you like her and, and now you support.

Like if someone else got that word, I think it's different than you getting that word.

But, but they ended.

She broke off the, the relationship and married this guy.

Now, by the way, they're divorced today.

So.

But it's like, well, this.

I have to do that.

I mean, the Lord spoke, you see, and I'm.

That's spiritual abuse.

Well, see, that's, that's a, that's an abuse of the spirit.

That's spiritual abuse.

That is, that is.

You know, you talk about quenching the spirit.

That's certainly, that's.

I mean, that.

See, but that's all too common.

Spirit.

See, but that's all too common.

It is common, absolutely.

But it was common in Paul's day too.

And yet Paul didn't say throw it all out.

But see, but, but like some of the guys that you mentioned aren't saying throw it all out.

Right.

I mean, Justin doesn't say God doesn't do miracles.

He would agree with me that God doesn't give the gift of that.

The category of miracles is, Is, you know, that's not a catch.

Although for dreams and visions as well.

I mean, for him it's strictly, as far as I know, it's strictly miracles.

You know, it's strictly, hey, if I pray for somebody who's sick, then God potentially, yes, he could heal that person.

I grant that, but I'm, I'm talking more about immediate revelation.

Immediate revelation.

Media.

Not immediate, but media in the sense of God still gives things like impulses or, or impressions or leadings, however we want to describe that.

And then, and then on a more dramatic scale, things like dreams and visions.

Now, going back to the normative thing, according to the reformers, from my reading, I don't see them seeing this as that normative, but I do.

I do see them saying, you know what?

It still happens.

And so.

But it does.

But it doesn't happen as a gift.

Correct.

And I think every.

And that's where I think we're all in agreement as far as that goes.

Now, I would.

When it comes to.

Yeah, because I mean, dreams.

That was never a gift anyways.

Or visions.

Correct.

It is still something like according to Acts 2.

That's why I, you know, it comes down.

That's why I have a real problem with the hardcore hardline stance of saying, nope, God does not give dreams.

He does not operate through visions.

Well, if we're still in the last days, which I think we all agree we are, then to me, the consistent exegesis is to acknowledge that, you know what, God still does do that.

Unless, well, God can still do what God because not outside of his nature.

Okay, so he could still do whatever he wants, but he doesn't give that gift.

And I, I go back to that because that's where I think so much of the issue is when they talk about the continuation of spiritual gifts.

I don't think that continued.

I think it stopped.

God does it.

And, and he could do it.

You pray and he, I mean, Justin Peters talks about a case with a young girl who he thinks got healed, but God healed it.

It wasn't.

They did.

They Pray for the.

Yeah, they prayed, but God did the healing well.

And, and a lot of that is semantics too because when you talk to more of the moderate continuationists, they'll say, well yeah, we agree, yeah, and I think, you know, that, you know, God healed him, but he used so and so.

And I think even when it comes to prophecy, for instance, let's take, let's take the gift of prophecy.

I think that'd be an interesting case study because when you have a guy like Rutherford said, hey, I think John Knox was a prophet or Alexander Peden was a prophet or John Hus was a prophet, and you say well, well what that comes down to is, is in a sense semantics.

Because I think for them what they were looking at is that there was a consistent, without using the word gift there, there was a consistent expression of prophecy that came true in the ministries of these men.

And so I think for the moderate, you know, some of these more level headed continuationists, what they're doing is they're saying someone who has the gift of prophecy is, is someone like a John Knox or an Alexander Peaton who consistently periodically demonstrates a prophetic ability and therefore, so in other words, they don't see it as something that's resident within the person that he is just going around prophesying over everybody.

I think that's the wacky charismania stuff, which makes the conversation very convoluted because you have so many different takes amongst every group out there.

But, but I think for instance, like the guys on remnant radio are going to, they're going to say that the gift of prophecy is not something that's resident.

The gift of healing is not something resident within the person so that they can just go to the children's hospital and heal everybody.

And I think that's kind of where some of the semantics, we run into that problem again because I would say.

Yeah, it's not a gift then, right?

Because I mean if you have the gift of teaching, it's not oh, I only get that gift at the pulpit or I only get that gift at certain times.

No, you have the gift of teaching and mercy and giving.

And so, so the issue being is they are there becomes two different, they recognize it's two different types of gifts, right?

And, and they, they end up saying okay, the prophecy done in the Bible is not the prophecy done today.

Then it didn't continue because it's different.

Right?

It's a different thing.

But the, the, I think that we, we have some agreement with as far as a lot of this is semantics.

We have same concerns on the side of those who are on the continuationist side, especially the, the extreme side where they are saying they speak for God and things.

And, and I think that a lot of what you're responding to are people, and you correct me if you think I'm wrong, are people who are regularly correcting, slash responding to the people who are promoting the continuationism and where they're responding to what they see as a lack of discernment, a lack of carefulness to, to question their own claims with the word of God.

And, and therefore they're, they, they are coming off in what you're interpreting, I think, as a more hard line than I think they actually are.

You know.

Yeah, that's how I would describe it.

And if they are not that, that, that's great.

And I, and I've tried to say from the beginning I'm rooting for these guys.

I don't have any vendetta against any of these guys.

I think they're all great guys.

And so I think we're all on the same team.

But I do think that there's, I think, I think for all of us, we have imbalances, and I think this is an imbalance amongst the, in the cessationist world.

I think sometimes, and this is really the issue.

It's not so much just a person, you know, like a Justin Peters kind of thing, but it's the whole.

So in other words, when we are promoting cessationism, if we don't nuance some of that, then we're giving off a cessationism that's actually, it doesn't actually do justice to the reformers that use the word cessationism.

Yeah.

Okay.

Category, I think there needs to be, there needs to, it needs to shift a little bit back towards a more.

In a more supernatural direction.

Well, yeah, I, I, but again, I, I don't know that at least the guys that I know are not denying the supernatural.

And I know that's your fear.

I don't, I don't think they are, but I, I have a feeling that you and I could, could talk even more about this.

So let me ask you this.

Would you be willing to come on to a longer show on my Apologetics live show where then we would actually engage with audience questions as well?

Yeah, I think that'd be great.

I think that'd be a lot of fun.

So we'll, we'll schedule some time for you to come on a Thursday night and, and continues.

Because this has been I think that we've had some disagreement, we've had a lot of agreement.

I think that, I think we have some similar concerns with folks on both sides or the extremes on both sides.

I, I don't, I don't think that I agree completely with you that at least some of the names you mentioned, I don't think are to the point that I think you, you're fearing that they are and who knows, maybe, maybe they'll come on and defend themselves like that, you know, but, but in a discussion way, I, I, I mean, at least that's right.

Anyways.

Yeah, yeah.

And I, I think there, there would be, actually it'd be better if it's offline, but you know, because I think, I think that in, in a long form discussion you'd see that.

I think some of the fears you have, at least the, the guys you mentioned I think are probably not, I think are not well founded.

You could disagree with me.

Well, I would love, I would love to be wrong.

No problem being wrong.

So, so Ryan, let folks, as we wrap up any, any last words you want to say and let folks know if they want to, you know, maybe go to your church or find out more about you, how folks can get a hold of you.

The easiest way is to go to ryandenton.com and, or you can go to Twitter.

My handle on Twitter is Texas Preacher.

Or you can find me on Facebook under my name and, and if you want to send an email, you can go to, if you go to ryanden.com there's a contact Us page on there.

You can, can fire off an email.

We always say any comments, concerns, criticisms, emotional outbursts, whatever you have more than willing to receive those and, and try to respond to those in a way that glorifies God.

So you know, if we can be helpful in any, any way, just, just reach out.

Well, one thing for sure you and Justin share is your amazing ability of creativeness.

Justin peters.org ryandenton.com I mean you guys just, the creativity is just there, my man.

Just cut from the same cloth.

That's no joke.

I used to, used to be Christ in the Wild Ministries, but we lost the, I didn't keep up with the, with the domain name, so we lost that.

And then I thought, you know, it's kind of a funny name because it's not technically Christ of the Wild Ministries.

I'm the only one.

So I mean it's just me.

So I'm just gonna strip it all down and call it for what it is and so yeah, I mean, go to ryan den.com.

there you go.

All right.

Well, hey Ryan, thanks for coming on, folks.

I hope this is, has been helpful for you.

It, I think that it's, it's good and healthy for us to have discussions even when we disagree.

Okay.

And I think that, but I hope if nothing else, what this did was maybe provide for you in the audience an example of two guys who agree on some things, disagree on some things.

You know, I, I, some of the things Ryan's saying, it's like, hey, these are personal friends of mine.

Yeah.

You know, I, I want to be more defensive because these are people I know well and love.

Right.

But we have to be able to have honest discussion and respectful discussion.

I hope that this was a good display of that.

Let me let you guys know also of some events coming up.

The Roadmap to Revival, if you want to check that out, just search for a Roadmap to Revival put on by CRBC.

That is Jeff Rice's church there in Olahoma, Tennessee.

That's going to be September 12th to the 14th.

So if you guys can make it out there, tickets are available right now.

So just search for road map to Revival and you'll get those.

Also want to let you know that if, if you are around the that same weekend, if you can't make it to Oklahoma, if you're in the Pennsylvania area, Philadelphia area, more specifically striving for eternity.

Even though I will be not I will be out at the Roadmap to Revival.

But one of our other speakers, Aaron Brewster will be doing something in actually in my home church and that is Oxford Valley Chapel there in Levittown, Pennsylvania.

So if you want can make it out again September 12th to the 14th.

He's going to be covering a number of topics about our responsibility in the world to our family, to our church, to others.

So a responsibility to God.

So it's going to be a very good, very edifying and equipping event.

So if you want details, just reach us, reach out to us at striving for eternity.org we'll get you all that information.

So with that I just want to encourage you guys to reach out to Ryan, get to, to follow him on, on X and and see more what he's he is posting out there.

And, and if you can be an encouragement to him, maybe do that.

And with that, that's a wrap.