Transcription
Well, if it isn't the gift that keeps on giving. Today, we are responding once more to Jeff Durban's video, "Roman Catholicism's False Gospel: Collision with Jeff Durban." I like how the series is called "Collision," 'cause that's basically what we're watching with Jeff. It's just a train wreck.
So, a couple videos back, we looked at how Jeff Durban tried and failed to add the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 3. Then, in the next video, we looked at how Jeff Durban tried and failed to add the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 4. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that Jeff Durban really wants the Bible to teach us stuff about faith alone.
Well, today we have a very special treat for Mr. Durban, because there is one place in the entire Bible that actually does say "faith alone." You don't have to pencil it in there like Jeff has been doing with Romans. You just open your Bible, you know, open it like a normal person, arm over top of it, and just really yank it open. And it's right there. It's printed in the Bible: "Faith alone." It says that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. I believe in that teaching, and you know why? Because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. And our Protestant for the day is Mr. Jeff Durban of Apologia Studios. This is Christian versus Protestant on James chapter 2.
Now, James chapter 2, I I would love to see a Roman Catholic actually engage with the exegesis of the text in a fair way, in a in a just way, with a reformed person who's bringing it. So, Jeff Durban would love to see a Christian in Christ's one and only Christian Church engaged with the text of James chapter 2 in a fair way and in a just way. Let's give the man what he wants. Let's begin by reading all of James chapter 1 and then move on to chapter 2.
It starts by saying, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the 12 tribes in the dispersion greetings." Okay, so this seems like a letter. It's from James, who's a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it's to the 12 tribes in the dispersion, and he says, "Greetings."
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the Crown of Life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is fully grown, brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore, put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
So, that's chapter one. And here we can see that James is saying, "Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore, put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." So, James is telling these people how they should act. He tells them the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Here's what you've got to know: be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. He tells them to put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save their souls.
So, James is telling these people to do works. Put away all filthiness, put away all rampant wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, and that implanted word that he's telling them to receive with meekness is able to save their souls. So, he wants them to get rid of the bad and receive the good. He tells them to be doers of the word and not hearers only. He says, "If anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing."
So, according to the Bible, the doer who acts, the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, he will be blessed in his doing. It seems to be very clear here in chapter 1 that James wants people doing stuff. He wants them to work. These are the things he wants them to do. Now, we're going to be hearing this term "law of liberty" in the next chapter as well. So, just remember, James told these people that the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
James continues by saying, "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless." So, according to the Bible, a person's religion can be considered worthless if you think you are religious and you're not doing this, but you're doing this instead, then your religion is worthless. Now, what does it mean to bridle your tongue? Well, to bridle something means to restrain it or to have control over it. But why would James want people to bridle their tongues?
If you go to chapter 3, James talks about how the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. He says, "How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing, my brothers. These things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water."
So, yeah, you can use your tongue for good, or you can do bad with it. So, this is likely why he's saying to bridle your tongues. He wants them to stick to the blessings, make sure they restrain from things like the cursing, because a salt pond cannot yield fresh water. So, James is here telling people to do works. And then he's also explaining that not doing certain works could result in your religion being worthless. Good news, though. James also explains which works will be present in a religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father. James says, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
So, James is still talking about works here. Visiting people, keeping yourself unstained from the world. So, if you're doing these works, then your religion might not be worthless, and instead, your religion can be a religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father. So, that's chapter one. Let's get to chapter 2.
James says, "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, 'You sit here in a good place,' while you say to the poor man, 'You stand over there,' or 'Sit down at my feet,' have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers. Has God not chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you and the ones who drag you into to court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable Name by which you were called? If you really fulfill the Royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,' and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? You think Rahab somewhere just reading her Bible like, 'Rahab the prostitute'? Could have just said, 'Rahab. It's just it's just Rahab. I go by Rahab.' You said, 'I received the messages and sent them out by another way.' They get it. They know which Rahab you're talking about. Do you have to put the descriptor in here anyway? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
So now we've read all of chapters 1 and 2 in James, and it's time to hear Jeff Durban talk about it.
"In James 2:10, the text says, 'For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.' Now, that's going to create a great challenge to anyone who's trying to teach that scripture teaches faith plus works for justification, some combination. It says that whoever keeps the whole law and stumbles in one point, you're guilty of all of it. So, bind that to the conscience of every person you're teaching faith plus works for justification. Bind it to their conscience that at any point when they violate the law of God, they're guilty of the entire thing. You can't do it. And that's James 2:10."
So, Jeff starts his discussion in James chapter 2 at verse 10. Now, when you see it on the screen here in front of Jeff, you might not think anything of it because Jeff is just showing this one verse. But let's use our graphic here and highlight verse 10. Kind of a weird place for Jeff to start, don't you think? He's in the second paragraph of the chapter, and he's three sentences in. Now, it's not always a bad thing to just jump to a verse, but we've seen Jeff adding words to the Bible and skipping verses that are very clearly teaching against what he's teaching. So, when Jeff does this, I get a little curious. What's in these other verses? Let's find out.
So, to start off, James is telling his brothers to show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. He gives the example of the rich man coming in and the poor man coming in, and he says, "If you pay attention to the one who wears a fine clothing and say, 'You sit here in a good place,' while you say to the poor man, 'You stand over there,' or 'Sit down at my feet,' have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"
So, James is saying to show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, in the next paragraph, he's saying, "If you really fulfill the Royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." So, even these first two sentences in the paragraph, the two that Jeff jumped over to get to verse 10, they say a lot. James is giving his brothers two scenarios here. He says, "If you really fulfill the Royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." So, that's one scenario. The other scenario is this: "If you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."
So, James is saying that his brothers can either be doing well, or they can be convicted by the law as transgressors. And how can they be doing well? If they really fulfill the Royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And how can they be convicted by the law as transgressors? If they show partiality. This would be committing sin. And why are they convicted by the law as transgressors? Well, that's where verse 10 comes in. "If you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."
So, why are they convicted by the law as transgressors? Because whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. And why is that? Well, that's because "he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."
So, Mr. Durban pulled verse 10 out of this paragraph and he's pretending that verse 10 somehow invalidates the idea that works can justify a person. "It says that whoever keeps the whole law and stumbles in one point, you're guilty of all of it. So, bind that to the conscience of every person you're teaching faith plus works for justification. Bind it to their conscience that at any point when they violate the law of God, they're guilty of the entire thing. You can't do it." And that's James 2:10.
So, what are you saying? You can't be justified by works if you know that whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it? Because if that's what you're saying, Jeff, then why not? Why can't you do that? I mean, James seems to think that people can do that. James literally said, "If you really fulfill the Royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." So, according to the Bible, people can be doing well, or they can be convicted by the law as transgressors. Of course, you wouldn't know that if you just watched Jeff's video because he only used verse 10, which is the third sentence in that paragraph, and it's the explanation of the second scenario.
Now, I think that Jeff knows that he doesn't actually have an argument here because he literally makes no attempt to elaborate on what he's saying. "You can't do it. And that's James 2:10." That's not James 2:10. James never told these people they couldn't do it. James never said they could not be justified by works. He literally goes on to tell them, "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." He talks about how Abraham was justified by works. He talks about how Rahab the prostitute was justified by works. Jeff Durban is the one saying you can't do it. The Bible doesn't say that. There are two scenarios here, and in one of them, the people are doing well. So, Jeff, I'm not going to follow the word of Durban. I'm going to follow the word of God.
Now, after James explains those two scenarios, he continues by telling his brothers, "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." So, again, we're hearing about this "law of liberty." In chapter 1, James said, "the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing." And James is now giving the advice to "speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty."
So, James is still saying to do works. Speak in a particular way, act in a particular way. These are works. And James wants his brothers to work as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. He doesn't want them showing partiality. And he explains, "for judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." So, what it sounds like James is saying here, and I'm pretty sure Jeff Durban would agree, is that if they're showing partiality, then they are not showing mercy. And if they show no mercy, they will get judgment without mercy. Showing mercy, by the way, is yet another work. And why might it be good to do this work of showing mercy? Well, as James says, "Mercy triumphs over judgment." So, anyway, nice try, Mr. Durban, but verse 10 doesn't help you at all.
Continuing on, James says, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" All right, so James is asking two questions here. "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" All right, that seems pretty straightforward. He's talking about faith that does not have works, and he says, "Can that faith save him?" Oh, unless, of course, you ask Jeff the question.
For James, it's not whether faith saves, justifies alone, or if it's some combination of faith and works. The question for James is, "What kind of faith saves?" It's a question of "what kind of faith saves?" No, that's not the kind of question this is, Jeff. You see, because if it was a question of "what kind of faith saves," then the author wouldn't have asked, "Can that faith save him?" referring to the faith that does not have works. Instead, he would have asked, "What kind of faith saves him?" I don't know if Protestant pastors like Jeff just think that we're all idiots, but we're looking at the question right there on the screen. It says, "Can that faith save him?" And what's the faith? We just heard about faith that does not have works. So, does Jeff think that his audience is just so dumb that they can't see that the question on the screen is different from the question that Jeff is saying is being asked? The question for James is, "What kind of faith saves?" We're not being asked, "What kind of faith saves him?" We already know the kind of faith that's being discussed here. It is faith that does not have works. So, no, Jeff, this is not a question of what kind of faith saves. This is a question of, "Can a specific type of faith, a faith that does not have works, save?" Anyway, the actual question is, "Can that faith save him?" We know the kind of faith we're talking about. A faith that does not have works. James is asking, "Can that faith? Can that faith that does not have works save him?"
Now, let's continue along with Jeff. James brings in an example. "If someone comes and you say, 'Go, be warm, be well-fed,' but you do nothing for them, the point is you didn't mean it. That's false. What came out of your mouth, you didn't really believe. It's not really true." Whoa. That's not what James wrote. The Bible says, "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?"
But if we read it the way that Jeff is reading it, then it would say, "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you don't mean it, you just say it without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" There's nothing in the Bible that says they didn't mean it when they said this. The point is, you didn't mean it. That's false. What came out of your mouth, you didn't really believe. It's not really true. Jeff's not getting that from the Bible. He's just adding that in there himself. We're never told if "go in peace, be warmed and filled" was said truthfully or not truthfully. But my guess is, if the author wanted us to know that these people didn't mean it when they said this, he probably would have wrote it in there. Call me crazy, but I don't think James was like, "You know what? I'm just going to write this because I'm sure, like, after 1,400 years, someone's going to come along and say, 'Hey, by the way, they didn't mean this.'" So, that should clear up any confusion. I don't have to write that they didn't mean it. Jeff Durban's going to tell them in the future, a thousand some years from now. It's all good. The text is just talking about them saying, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled."
So, in the actual passage, we have a person saying something nice but doing nothing to make what they said a reality. Jeff's version of the passage is about a person who's saying false things and doing nothing to make those false things come true. So, now we have two different scenarios here. We have what the Bible actually talks about, and we have what Jeff Durban is claiming that the Bible is talking about. Now, it's clear that Jeff is adding stuff to the Bible here. So, we could just leave it at that and move on to the next thing. We could say, "He's adding words to the Bible. Shouldn't be doing that. What's next, Jeff?" But we're not going to do that just yet, 'cause there's still some fun to be had here.
So, this alternate version of the passage that Jeff is creating, the reason why Jeff is adding stuff into here is because if he takes the actual teaching of the passage, he's screwed. His false teaching won't survive. So, by changing the passage, Jeff is dodging a bullet. But Jeff, in changing the passage, you just exchanged the bullet for a boomerang, and it's going to come back and smack you right in the face. You see, because Jeff is trying to say that James is telling us about a person who says things that are not true, true, and also does nothing. If that's correct, then yeah, Jeff just dodged the bullet. But in the process, he unknowingly threw a boomerang. And I've never thrown a boomerang before, so if that's not proper boomerang for him, don't get on my case about it. If you write that in the comments, we we're not doing that again.
So, yeah, let's pretend Jeff is right. Let's say that this is an example about a person who says something false and does nothing. That would mean that James goes on to say, "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." So, here James is making a comparison. He gives a situation, and then he says, "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." This "so also" here is comparing the first thing he said to the next thing he said. So, what does that comparison look like in Jeff Durban's world? Well, let's see. If the situation was about a person saying something false and then not doing anything, then I guess the "saying something false" would be related to "faith by itself," and the "not doing anything" would be related to "not having works." And the boomerang clocks Jeff in the face. If Jeff's additions to the Bible are correct, then he just made the example teach that faith by itself, in other words, faith alone, is comparable to making a false statement.
So, in the past two videos, just been all about faith alone. He just wants faith alone in the Bible. This verse gets faith alone. This verse gets faith alone. Isn't faith alone great? Not according to Jeff. Faith alone is the equivalent to making a false statement. So, nice job, Jeff. You just accidentally attacked your own false teaching with another one of your false teachings. H. Protestants.
The passage goes on, "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" Oh, and the boomerang hits again. I want to put some ice on that. Why did it hit? Because the Bible says that the demons believe. The demons have faith. Now, my guess is Jeff would say something like, "Yeah, they have faith, but it's a dead faith. It's not a true, living faith. They have a dead faith." But Jeff, James already defined what a dead faith was. James said, "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." But remember, Jeff changed the passage. So, according to Jeff's passage message, "faith by itself" is now comparable to saying things that are not true. "If someone comes and you say, 'Go be warm, be well-fed,' but you do nothing for them, the point is you didn't mean it. That's false. What came out of your mouth, you didn't really believe. It's not really true."
So, that's what faith by itself is comparable to in Jeff Durban's world. Which means, in Jeff Durban's world, a dead faith is when a person says something false and does nothing good. And that's why, logically, Jeff Durban can't say that these demons had a dead faith. Because let's read a little more about the demons. According to the Bible, "demons came out of many crying, 'You are the Son of God!' But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ."
Well, that's interesting. How was it that Jeff classified a dead faith? "The point is you didn't mean it." Well, that doesn't work here, Jeff, because the Bible doesn't say that these demons didn't mean this. In fact, the Bible says they knew that he was the Christ. So, my guess is, when they said, "You are the Son of God," since they knew he was the Christ, they probably meant it. But Jeff, what else do you have to say about what these demons said that's false? "That's false." What are you talking about? They call Jesus the Son of God. Jeff, do you think that's false? Do you think Jesus is not the Son of God? Man, that boomerang is working overtime today. Seriously, these demons are coming out of many crying, "You are the Son of God." That's what's coming out of their mouths. What do you have to say about that, Jeff? "What came out of your mouth, you didn't really believe." Jeff, we've been over this already. They did believe. The Bible says they knew that he was the Christ. The Bible even says the demons believe. So, seriously, man, one more try. What do you have to say about these demons who came out of many crying, "You are the Son of God"? "It's not really true." All right, can we get a medic over to him? I think that boomerang hit too many times. "It's not really true that Jesus is the Son of God." "It's not really true." That's not right, Jeff. Jesus is the Son of God. When the demon said this, this was really true.
Anyway, as it turns out, the demons here do not qualify for Durban's definition of dead faith. That's why we're not going to be using Jeff's version of the passage. We're just going to stick with the actual word of God. Because when you do that, then the comparison that James makes now has "faith by itself" being compared to saying nice things, things that can be true, such as "You are the Son of God." So, a dead faith would be if someone had faith, they believe like the demons, but they don't have works with that faith. So, now, in the passage, we're seeing that James is comparing their faith to the demons' faith. They could all be believing the same thing, having the same faith, but what is it that the demons lack that might be causing them to shudder? Could it be that the demons aren't doing the work necessary to keep their faith from being a dead faith? That's a reasonable possibility. It's, you see, when you read the passage as it is, you know, without cramming your own words into it, it actually makes a lot of sense. When you read the passage as is, you can say the demons had a dead faith because while they believed, they had faith, they can still have a dead faith if they're not doing works along with that faith.
Now, let's continue the reading. "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,' and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Okay, Jeff, have at it. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." So, what's the context? James is pointing to living faith versus dead faith, real faith versus mere professions of faith. James never makes any mention of real faith versus anything. Jeff Durban just continues to add his own stuff to the text. Jeff is trying to make this text be about different types of faith. It's a question of "what kind of faith saves?" But that's not found anywhere in the text. James says nothing about there being some kind of real faith and then some other kind of faith. James is just talking about faith, and there's two situations regarding faith that James is talking about. He's talking about having faith with works and faith without works. But James never says that one faith is real and the other is not. He just says faith. Now, James does mention that a faith could be dead. So, Jeff does have that part correct. James is pointing to living faith versus dead faith. But James never says that this dead faith was not real. Jeff is adding his own categories to the text. James is pointing to real faith versus mere professions of faith.
Now, in this video, Jeff doesn't explain where he's getting this "mere professions of faith" nonsense from. But we did find this video in which Jeff says the following: "In James chapter 2, he asks the question, 'Actually, let's go to it. I want you, let's let's make sure you're in the text. James chapter 2.' He says, 'In verse 14, what good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?' What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith? What's, what's the point there? It's the profession. Someone one says he has faith, but he does not have works. He says, 'Can that faith save him?' He says, 'Can a faith that is a mere profession but not a real possession save?' And his answer is, 'Of course not.'"
All right, so let's walk through that. Jeff starts out by emphasizing that the word "says" is in verse 14. James chapter 2. He says, "In verse 14, 'What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?' What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith?" There's no problem there. The word "says" is in verse 14. James writes, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has Faith but does not have works." The word "says" is in there. If Jeff wants to emphasize it, fine by me. Next up, though, what Mr. Durban does is he takes this "says he has faith" and he rewords it a little bit. So, it's a profession of faith. "What's, what's the point there? It's the profession. Someone says he has Faith but but he does not have works." Again, this is completely fine. The text says, "If someone says he has faith but does not have works." So, yeah, this person in this hypothetical situation is making a profession to faith. Again, totally cool with this. But then Mr. Durban tries this, and he says, "Can a faith that is a mere profession but not a real possession save?" And his answer is, "Of course not." Oh, so now it's not just a profession of faith, it's a "mere profession of faith" and "not a possession of faith." Okay, that's not what the text says, Jeff. So, Jeff kind of slowly eased his way into that false teaching. And that's what you want to look for.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has Faith?" He starts off by pointing out the obvious. He's like, "It says 'says' here." And you're like, "All right, it does say 'says.' I got you." "What's, what's the point there? It's the profession." And then he changes the wording on "says he has faith" to "makes a profession of faith." And you're like, "All right, that checks out." And he says, "Can a faith that is a mere profession but not a real possession?" But then he just throws in a bunch of other words. And if someone isn't paying close enough attention, they might fall for it. And that's why you've got to listen to what these false teachers are saying, because they try to hide the false in with the true. Yes, this text is about someone who says they have faith, but check this out. This is a list of all the people who can say that they have faith. First off, there's the group of people that Jeff is talking about: people who don't actually possess faith. So, people who don't have faith can say they have faith, even though they don't have it. But then there's another group of people who can say that they have faith. And this took like hours of research to figure out what this second group was. But apparently, the other group of people who can say that they have faith is the people who actually possess faith. Weird, I know, but it's true. A person who possesses faith can say that they have faith. For instance, Paul possessed faith, and he said he had faith. So, when James 2 talks about a person who says they have faith, then yeah, it is talking about about a person who's professing they have faith, which leaves us open to either of these possibilities. But Jeff is trying to shut down one of the possibilities. Jeff is inserting this into the text and trying to say it's just this group of people. When James says that this person says they have faith, he's talking about these people who don't have faith. I know because I wrote it in the Bible. See, I signed it. But yeah, Jeff is adding stuff to the verse to say that a person who says they have faith automatically is one of these people who don't have faith.
So, does that mean that Paul didn't have faith because he said he had faith? He shared the same faith as other people. He's saying he had faith. So, does Jeff Duran think that Paul was just making a mere profession of faith as well? He doesn't actually have possession of faith. He was just professing it, because that's what Jeff would have to say in order to be consistent with his teachings. James 2 is talking about a person who says they have faith. That could be someone who doesn't have faith, but it could also very easily be someone who does have faith. So, Jeff is adding this to the text, and he has no support for that. In fact, when you read on to the very next question, Jeff loses his all support for it. Because James goes on to ask, "Can that faith save him?" So, James is acknowledging that the person in the example has faith. James doesn't say, "Can that mere profession of faith save him?" James says, "Can that faith save him?" If James actually meant what Jeff is trying to add to the text here, then it would make no sense for James to follow up with, "Can that faith save him?" because even if the person is saying they had faith, James is still going to know that they don't actually have faith. So, his question would be, "Can that mere profession of faith save him?" There's nothing in this text that talks about there being some kind of real faith versus some other kind of faith. James simply talks about faith, and he explains the situation in which it could be dead. He says, "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." And likewise, we can say that a battery itself, if it does not have a charge, is dead. This sentence lets us know that batteries can be dead. But in Jeff Durban's world, this sentence says a whole lot more than that. James is pointing to real faith versus mere professions of faith. And Jeff Durban's world, this sentence is telling us that there is such a thing as real batteries versus some other type of batteries, mere professions of batteries. People claim that they're batteries, but they're not real batteries. The category that Jeff Durban is inserting into the text here makes no sense. At no point in this passage does James ever say that there's such a thing as a real faith and then just some other type of faith that is not the real faith. What James is talking about in this passage is faith, and he talks about faith in two different situations: one, one of the situations is faith with works, and the other situation is faith without works. And in that situation where you have a faith without works, then that faith can be considered to be dead. But James never says that it wasn't a real faith. Jeff Durban is adding that to the text. It's a nice try, Jeff, but you failed again.
I love how as a Christian, I could just read the Bible and let it say what it has to say. Meanwhile, Durban's over here on the Protestant side just trying to rewrite the thing. Like, you're putting too much work into it, man. Christians have the easy job here. While he's making stuff up, we just be like, "Here's what the Bible says," and then you compare that to what he's saying. Clear as day, the guy's adding stuff. But go ahead, Jeff, try again.
He brings up the point of Abraham and Isaac on the altar. And he brings up the point that, "You see, you see that Abraham believed because of what he did in obedience. But note something for the Apostle Paul, the point of justification in Abraham's life is Genesis 15:6. And that's faith in God credited righteousness before what? Circumcision. Way before Isaac on the altar, and hundreds of years before the law was given. And in James's letter, James is appealing to the fact that later on down the road in Abraham's life, you know that Abraham truly believed and had living faith because of what he did."
All right, so if you heard that and you don't exactly understand what Jeff's argument is, don't worry. I'm going to walk you through it. First off, Jeff's entire argument revolves around Jeff's assumption that being justified is a one-time thing. Now, Jeff has supplied absolutely no proof that this is the case, but Jeff believes that this is true. As you may or may not have guessed, I'm not so quick to jump on the Durban train. So, Jeff, if you're watching, please explain how do you know that justification is a one-time thing? How do you know that it's not something that happens multiple times? Please cite the Bible, and only the Bible. Don't go throwing your own words in there. We know that's a habit. Just cite the Bible passages that you think teach that justification is a one-time thing.
Now, can Jeff actually use the Bible to prove that justification is a one-time thing? No. The Bible never says that justification is a one-time thing. In fact, the Bible literally gives us two instances of Abraham being justified. We've looked at them already through the course of these videos. The Bible says that Abraham was justified at this point on the timeline, and the Bible says that Abraham was justified at this point on the timeline. That being said, Mr. Durban still believes that justification can only happen to a person once. Now, you might be thinking, "How in the world can Jeff convince himself that it's only once if the Bible says it's happening twice?" But we'll get to that.
First, this time, Jeff is looking at this timeline of events and he sees that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. But before this, Abraham was circumcised. And according to Paul in Romans 4, which we looked at already in the previous video, Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised. So, this is the timeline Jeff is using, and Jeff has this correct. Everything you see on this timeline is supported by the scriptures. But then Jeff applies something to this timeline that is not found in scriptures, and that's Jeff's man-made teaching that justification is a one-time thing. So, again, Jeff, before you can take this teaching and apply it to the timeline, you actually have to prove that it's a real Christian teaching. And for you, that requires that you tell us where you can deduce this teaching from the Bible.
Protestants like Jeff have this "sola scriptura" teaching. It's really dumb. We have a bunch of videos on it. You can check them out. They're linked in the description. But basically, they're allowed to believe various sources, but the Bible is their supreme authority. Christians believe that God is their supreme authority. But Protestants, they just, they love this book.
I mean, apparently not enough to just accept it as it is. They keep adding stuff to it, but oh, this right here, this is their sole infallible rule of Faith. So I guess that means God can't be an infallible rule of Faith because the book's the only one. As you're probably recognizing, there's not a whole lot of thought that goes into Protestant teaching. It's just, "Let's come up with something," and if it blows up in our face later, that's fine. If the boomerangs keep on coming, I'm sure people won't pay attention to it.
But yeah, Jeff, please tell us where you're getting this teaching from. Because what Jeff is doing next is he's taking this timeline. He's seeing two events where it says Abraham was justified. But in head, the real justification, the being saved justification, that can only happen once. So he's like, "Okay, Abraham was justified here, but if I go earlier on the timeline, it says he was justified here. So I guess this was the real time he was justified, and this time something else happened." And we'll tell you how Jeff deals with that in a minute.
Circling this event, though, as the only justification event doesn't really help Jeff out. Because even in this event, Abraham's doing a work. He's believing. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. In doing the work of believing, Abraham had faith, and that faith was counted to him as righteousness. But the justification event that Durban's picking here still involves faith and works.
Now let's get to Jeff's other problem here. He's got two events where the Bible says that Abraham was justified, and Jeff is saying that this is the only event in which Abraham was justified in the salvation way. So how is Jeff getting around the fact that the Bible says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works, and the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness," and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. So how does Jeff get around this? Let's have him explain.
Now, the key issue here is that word "justification." Now, this is very important. Just because a word is used in scripture one time a certain way doesn't mean that it's used that way in every other instance. Justification in the New Testament, this word, there's a number of different uses. The context has so much to do with understanding how it's being used at that time. But clearly, in this case, it's being used in the point of vindication. How do you know Abraham believed? Because of what he did. Therefore, he was vindicated by his works and not by faith alone, not by mere profession. That's what the text says. Yeah, that's not what the text says. If that was what the text said, then we'd all be agreeing with Jeff. But again, that's not what the text says. In both instances, we're told that Abraham was justified. One doesn't say, "And this was the saving justification," while the other says, "And this was the vindication type of justification, not the saving kind." Don't worry, it didn't happen twice. But yeah, that's how Jeff is getting around the fact that the Bible notes of two justification events for Abraham.
Jeff is pointing out that the word "justify" can have multiple different definitions. Just because a word is used in scripture one time a certain way doesn't mean that it's used that way in every other instance. So at one point, "justify" could mean one thing, and then at another point, "justify" could mean another thing. That's actually true. I have no argument with that. The word "justify" can mean different things in different situations. But unfortunately, this fact doesn't help Jeff out at all. Because even though "justify" can mean different things in different situations, there's no indication in the Bible that these two justifications are using different definitions.
Do you want to know who put this definition here and this definition here? Well, that was this guy, Jeff Durban, senior Bible Scribbler over at Apology of Studios. So yeah, Jeff, that's true. The word "justified" can mean different things in different situations. But you don't get to just randomly decide which definition is used. Remember, you're the sola scriptura guy. You got to find your support in the Bible. So where does the Bible tell you which definition to use, Jeff? What's that? Oh, you didn't tell him to do that? Oh, Jeff, someone's talking behind your back.
So Jeff, that's now another thing on your plate. If you can prove that justification is a one-time thing, then even after you're done that, you still have to prove that you're applying the correct definition to the correct event. Cuz I could just switch the definitions around and, hey, look at that. We got one justification event where it's just a vindication, and then another justification event where it's that saving justification. See what I did there? I pulled a Durban. I just applied definitions without any biblical support.
Now, you might be asking yourself, "Hey, Ferris, don't you define the terms?" Don't you say that they're both this definition? And the answer to that question is no. I have no idea which definition the Bible is using here. I just take it as "justified" and leave it at that. Unlike Durban and the Protestant, I don't limit Christianity to a book. So I don't need the book to tell me that this type of justification is the same as this type of justification. For all I care, they could both be talking about vindication. Justification that doesn't hurt my belief at all. Because I believe the Bible for what it's saying. But I'm not limited to the Bible. God's word is not limited to the Bible. God is a source of his own word.
So even if this "justified" here is just talking about a vindication, like maybe that is the way James intended it to be, maybe he just meant, "Hey, this is a vindication." Even if that were the case, it could still be true that Abraham was justified in the salvation type of justification in that very same moment. Think of the word "hottest." The word "hottest" could mean having a temperature value greater than something else, or it could mean most popular. It could also mean the best looking or most physically appealing. Used in a sentence: "Trent Horn is my hottest nemesis." Wait, who put that as the example sentence? I mean, it's not wrong. I only have the one nemesis, so by default, he is the hottest. But I think we're getting off track here.
The point is, the word "hottest" can have more than one definition. Now, imagine that a person writes this: "The iron was the hottest item in the store today." Now, which definition is that referring to? Is it talking about the temperature value, or is it talking about the popularity, or is it talking about its sexiness? You know what? Let's ignore that definition and just try to figure out the first two. It's one of these two, if not both. But which of the two is it? How are we supposed to know? We could ask the author, the person who wrote this. Let's say we do that. Let's say we ask the author, and they say, "Oh, when I said 'hottest' here, I meant like most popular because a lot of people were paying attention to it and a lot of them sold." So yeah, when I said the iron was the hottest item in the store today, I meant that it was the most popular.
So now we know. Now we know which definition this word "hottest" is using. But just because the author used that definition, does that mean that the other definition cannot also apply? No. It could have been both the most popular item in the store that day and temperature-wise the hottest item. Maybe there was a skylight above the iron display, and the sun was just really beating down on that section. So somebody was doing a temperature reading of the entire store that day, and they found that the hottest spot was the iron. So somebody else could say that the iron was the hottest item in the store today, and they could be talking about the temperature. It's completely fine for both of those statements to be true, whether you're using this definition or this definition. This statement can be true. Just, just because this author didn't use the temperature definition, that doesn't prevent the temperature definition from also working in this situation. That same thing can be true of this word "justified" in James 2.
Jeff is saying that this word "justified" in James 2 is just referring to being vindicated. Let's say that's true. Let's say that Jeff Durban even hopped in a time machine. And Jeff, if you're getting in a time machine, don't hop. I mean, it's delicate machinery, just be careful with it. But yeah, let's say Jeff got in a time machine, he goes back, and he confronts the author of James as this sentence is being written, and Jeff asks the author, "What do you mean by this word 'justified' here? Do you mean vindicated? Because I'm from the year 2023, and we got to find this out." And the author is just like, "Oh yeah, I just mean vindicated." And Jeff records that on his phone. So he heads back to his time machine, he puts in today's date, hits start, and he's back here with his video proof that this "justified" here meant "vindicated."
Even if all of that happened, including the part where the author of James was just completely unfazed by the fact that Jeff Durban showed up from the future, but if all of that happened, that still wouldn't prove that this same exact statement using this definition is not also true. Because just as we saw with the iron example, both of these statements are true. The author only meant this statement when he wrote, but that didn't prevent both statements from being true. So even if Jeff could prove that when the author wrote "justified" here, he just meant that using the "vindicated" definition, that doesn't prevent the "salvation" definition from also being true. It just means that when this author wrote about it, he wasn't using it with that definition. That doesn't mean that this statement with this definition is incorrect. It just means that this author was not talking about it in that sense.
But just like with the iron example, where both statements were true, even though they used different definitions, both of these statements can also be true, even though they're using different definitions. That all being said, it is much more likely that this word "justified" here is being used in the saving sense. Because James is literally talking to people about being saved. That's the question of this section: "Can a faith that does not have works save a person?" And the answer that James gives to that question says that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." So if James is using this word "justified" in the saving sense, then that goes along perfectly with the question that he asked. He was asking the people, "Can this guy's faith that does not have works save him?" And if this word "justified" was used in the saving sense, then his answer would have been directly related to that question: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." That would all make sense. James would have had a question about being saved, and James would have had an answer about being saved.
But Jeff Durban's attempt to assign his "vindicated" definition here makes no sense at all. Because if this word "justified" just meant "vindicated," then that means that James asked a question about being saved, but then he decided not to answer that question. Instead, he just told people about how they could be vindicated. So in Jeff's world, James is basically saying, "Hey, you want to know the answer to this question? Too bad. I'm going to talk about something else. Suckers." In Jeff's world, James is asking the people a question, and then James is answering a completely different question. Doesn't it make much more sense that James would ask a question about being saved and then answer a question about being saved? Why would he switch from talking about being saved to talking about being vindicated? Why ask this question and never answer it? Ha, Protestantism is hilarious.
Now let's finish off this chapter. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And in the same way, "Was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. So a faith apart from works is dead. James makes no mention of a "real faith" versus "some other kind of faith." He just talks about faith, and he explains faith in two different situations: faith with works, and faith without works. Abraham's faith was active along with his works, and Abraham's faith was completed by his works. And James clearly states that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Now, if anyone's thinking, "Wait a second, doesn't the Bible teach about works that don't justify people?" Then the answer to that question is yes, yes it does. But these are specific types of works. "By works of the law no one will be justified." Works of the law are not the same as works of love, or good works, or works of God, or works of the flesh. These are all different groupings of works that the Bible talks about. We have a video on this, you can check it out. It is linked in the description. But yeah, we know that a person is not justified by works of the law. We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. But here's the thing, it's, it's not faith alone.
A person is justified by works, not works of the law. Different types of works. For instance, the works we see discussed here are helping people who are in need, feeding them, clothing them. We see works such as protecting people, like that prostitute Rahab did. And we see works such as obeying God, like that guy who wasn't a prostitute did. Abraham, I believe, was his name. Those are the kind of works that James is talking about when he says, "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
These parts of the Bible that talk about faith and different types of works are actually very easy to understand. And when you're not adding words to them. As soon as Protestants put the word "alone" in here, that screws everything up. And that's why we see Jeff Durban constantly editing James chapter 2. Because as we saw in the first two videos, he put the word "alone" into two places where it did not belong. And when you do that, nothing makes sense anymore.
So when Jeff gets to this part about "a person being justified by works and not by faith alone," he has to come up with some other explanation as to what that means. Because Jeff is still going off of this belief that we are justified by faith alone. But here's, here's the thing. The Protestant teaching of justification by faith alone is not true. It is a man-made teaching. It's unbiblical, meaning it's not found in the Bible. It's anti-biblical, meaning the Bible teaches against it. It is an anti-Christian teaching, and it is the reason why we are watching Jeff just massacre James chapter 2.
The only reason why Jeff Durban is struggling to understand James chapter 2 is because someone told him that we are justified by faith alone. This is not a teaching found in the Bible. So wherever Jeff got this teaching from, he got it from somewhere outside of the Bible. And seeing as the Bible teaches against that, the intelligent move would be to get rid of this teaching. Because once you get rid of that teaching, it all makes perfect sense. We're justified by faith, but not faith alone, because we're also justified by works. But not any kind of work. Not works of the law, not works of the flesh, not works of darkness. But certain works do justify a person. For instance, there's the obvious: God's works justify a person. But also works that people do, such as feeding the hungry, clothing those in need, helping keep people safe, AKA being a protective prostitute, and obeying God. These works justify.
So Jeff, serious question: Why aren't you getting rid of this teaching? It's not found in the Bible, and the Bible teaches against it. So why are you hanging on to it? Because it doesn't make you look good. Like, seriously, Jeff, do you really think you have James chapter 2 correct? Before you answer that, let's do a little recap. And editor, if you could drop a beat for this. Oh yeah, that'll do.
So what was that quote that we heard from Jeff earlier? "James chapter 2, I, I would love to see a Roman Catholic actually engage with the exegesis of the text in a fair way, in a, in a just way." Ah, that's right. Jeff Durban wanted a Catholic Christian to engage with the text of James chapter 2 in a fair way and in a just way. Keep in mind that Jeff Durban never read his audience the start of this paragraph. He just tried to use verse 10 out of context. So the first thing is, is is James 2:10, and he threw in his own words as well. "You can't do it." And that's James 2:10. But Jeff Durban wanted a Catholic Christian to engage with the text of James chapter 2 in a fair way and in a just way.
And don't forget, Jeff tried to claim that James wasn't asking the question that he was clearly asking. The question for James is not whether faith saves, justifies alone, or if it's some combination of faith and works. And Jeff tried to swap out that question with his own question. The question for James is, "What kind of faith saves?" But Jeff Durban wanted a Catholic Christian to engage with the text of James chapter 2 in a fair way and in a just way.
Oh yeah, and Jeff tried to add words to this scenario that James gave his readers. "If someone comes and you say, 'Go be warm, be well-fed,' but you do nothing for them." The point is, you didn't mean it. That's false. What came out of your mouth, you didn't really believe. It's not really true. Which ends up turning James's scenario into a very different scenario. But bless his little heart, Jeff Durban wanted a Catholic Christian to engage with the text of James chapter 2 in a fair way and in a just way. Because Jeff is a sola scriptura boy, and he just loves the word of God. I mean, he did try to insert an entirely new category of faith into the passage. Cuz I guess the word of God wasn't good enough for him. James is pointing to living faith versus dead faith, real faith versus mere professions of faith. But yeah, Jeff Durban just wanted a Catholic Christian to engage with the text of James 2 in a fair way and in a just way.
He did take it upon himself to decide how the word "justified" should be defined. "He was vindicated by his works." Even though the Bible never tells us to use that definition. "That's what the text says." But yeah, this guy, Jeff Durban, he wanted a Catholic Christian to engage with the text of James chapter 2 in a fair way and in a just way.
So here's the passage from James chapter 2 as we, the Christians, read it. And here's the passage from James chapter 2 as Jeff, the Protestant, read it. And when I call this "the passage from James chapter 2," I'm saying that very loosely. This is no longer the passage from James chapter 2. This is what the passage looks like when Jeff Durban is desperately trying to protect his dying false teaching of justification by faith alone. "I, I would love to see a Roman Catholic actually engage with the exegesis of the text in a fair way, in a, in a just way."
So we're going to throw this one out to the comments. You guys decide which side do you think engaged with the text in a fair way and in a just way. I imagine this will be a fairly easy response because when the Christians read the passage, they simply read the passage. But when Protestants like Jeff read the passage, you get this mess. Jeff's version of James chapter 2 looks like he mistook his Bible for a Mad Lib. Jeff, did you really think you were going to get away with this?
This is why I don't think that Protestantism is going to last much longer. This is why I truly believe that education is the cure for Protestantism. Because when you compare the Christian side to the Protestant side, it's clear as day that Protestants are just adding crap to the Bible to fit their man-made doctrines. Christians believe in the word of God, and Protestants like Jeff Durban believe in the word of man.
All right, so that's it, Mr. Durban. I hope these past three videos have been helpful to you. I hope it'll be helpful to any followers of yours. If you are a follower of Jeff Durban and you're seeing these videos and you're realizing, "Hey, Jeff is adding stuff to the Bible. I don't want to be a part of that," then that's great. Feel free to let us know about that in the comments and keep on researching because there are a lot of Protestant false teachings out there. We're trying to cover as many as we can. Feel free to check out our playlist, "Christian versus Protestant." But by the end of it, hopefully, a lot of people will drop the Protestantism and just keep the Christianity. Because that's the thing we have in common. Jeff and I, we're both Christians. Jeff is a Protestant and a Christian, so his Protestantism gets in the way of Christianity sometimes, as you can see when he's just completely ignoring the Christian Bible and inserting his own Protestantism.
But I do think that Jeff actually wants to follow Christ. I think he's been mixed up with the wrong people, and I think they somehow managed to get him to think that what he's doing here is okay. But Jeff, let's read a little more from James. This is chapter 3, picking up right where we left off. James says, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. Look at the ships also, though they are so large and driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things."
So that's just something to think about, Jeff. You're telling people that all this stuff is in the Bible. You're that pilot with the rudder. You're guiding the ship. Are you sure that you're guiding it correctly? Because when I tell people what the Bible says, I just read straight from the Bible. But when you're telling people what the Bible says, you're making stuff up. "We who teach will be judged with greater strictness." So I hope you'll watch these videos and you'll actually consider what we had to say. Because we're open to hearing your explanations. We want to know answers to these questions. If this is what you're going to stick with, now, if you're not going to stick with that, that's great. You are always welcome in the one and only Christian Church that Christ created, and that's his Catholic Christian Church. We meet on Sundays, and sometimes there's donuts. So feel free.
Now, a grung meer 6029, thank you for the suggestion. If anyone watching has suggestions, leave them down there in the comments. Like the video, subscribe, click the notification bell, and all. And if you want to support us at hwbchristian.com, feel free to do so. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you to all of our supporters there. You made these last three weeks possible. This is adby Christian. You all have a great day.