The Voicemail

0:00Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast, making Theology Central. How did your day begin? Did your day get off to a great start or did your day begin with something that kind of makes you go, no, no, it's something negative, something that maybe has impacted you all day? Well for me, everything started at 4.58am Central Time. 4.58am Central Time. I get a notification. I get a notification that someone has left me a voicemail. I went and listened to that voicemail. It's now 12.22pm and I've spent most of the day thinking through analyzing and kind

1:02of working out a response to this voicemail because my first reaction is, oh, oh, I'll just go to the microphone. I'll just read the transcript of this voicemail and I'll just start responding. It'll be more on the spot, emotional kind of reaction. I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I'm going to think this through and we're going to work through it basically statement by statement because I think ultimately what this is going to do is it once again demonstrates how many Christians think, how many Christians respond, how many, how I think some Christians respond by feeling and emotion and not philosophically and biblically or logically. So this is going to give us a real time example of what's going on and how many Christians think. It doesn't say everything about every Christian because it's just one, I'm assuming

2:03Christian. And so, um, yeah, so we're going to, we're going to do our very best to respond to this and we'll see where it goes. So I guess what I need to do is I'll go ahead and get this out of the way because man, all I can say is buckle up, buttercup because this is going to be a bumpy ride. I'm going to try my very best to respond to this carefully, accurately, philosophically and logically, but let me make it very clear. I am a human being, all right? And I'm a very sinful human being who just happens to have a microphone and I tell you that all the time. So I'm going to try to handle this correctly, but I'm going to, I do have some strong feelings about part of this, but I'll explain everything right after I say, good afternoon everyone. It is Thursday, September the 17th, 2026. It is currently 12, 24 p.m. Central time and I'm coming to you live from the theology central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas.

3:04All right. Before I say anything else, I need to explain to you what I'm about to do because what I'm about to do may strike some people as being very unfair. Some may say very unnecessary, right? I can address the fair part here in just a second. I'm going to address that the necessary part. Hopefully you'll see what I'm trying to do. I've already alluded to it a little bit. I will, I will mention it again because I want people to truly understand, okay? Here's what I'm about to do. I am going to play for you a voicemail that I received at 4.58 a.m. this morning. All right. Someone took the time to contact the theology central podcast and leave a voicemail. It's agreeing with me, criticizing me for some things I said on this podcast.

4:11Now, here's the frustrating part. The voicemail doesn't bother to specifically identify the episode they're responding to. You always have to love that. I've talked, I've said that many times on this podcast. If you're going to respond to me, I need you to tell me what is the episode? What is the timestamp? Give me something because I have, it's like I think people think I've done 30 episodes. I've done 5,000 episodes plus if you put everything together and if I could gather everything together. If you look at my entire broadcasting career, I mean, who knows how many? I've been broadcasting for what 30 something years. So I mean, come on, you got to give me some idea what you are talking about, all right? But based on what they are saying and based upon the responses I've received previously

5:15and for everything I can determine, I am going to respond to this under this kind of assumption, this kind of my presupposition. Where upset about something I have said in regards to 28 19 church and it's Pastor Philip Anthony Mitchell, right? Now for those who do not know, I started telling everyone about 28 19 church years ago and we have done an entire series called the 28, the 28 19 project, all right? And where we've spent over 12 plus hours examining, criticizing, investigating, reviewing, I mean, we discussing, we've done everything. So I want to put that in its full context, all right? I didn't just, you know, hop on the online one day and did 10 minute criticism of Philip Anthony Mitchell and taking something out of context, all right?

6:18And I get very irritated if anyone even implies otherwise, all right? Now, we're going to deal with all of that later, but I just want to go ahead and get that out of the way. I believe, and again, I can't, I can't be 100% dogmatic, but that's on the person leaving the voicemail. You're not going to tell me what you're responding to. I can either just ignore your voicemail because you're not even telling me what you're responding to, or I just can, I have to try to make some kind of assumption and go ahead and respond. And the only reason I'm going to respond is because this voicemail gives a great example of again, how Christians sometimes respond and how they think and how so much of it is emotionally driven. It's not biblical, theological or logically driven, all right? And so I want to make that very clear. This goes beyond just this voicemail. It goes to these bigger issues. And before I play one second of this voicemail, there's something I have to explain because

7:18I know some of you are already like, whoa, he's going to play a voicemail. This is totally messed up. Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down because I'm going to explain, all right? And I do understand your initial concern. I know you're saying, oh, no, no, no, no, don't do that. Don't do that. I understand. All right. And let me, I'm going to make sure you understand this. If someone contacts my personal telephone number and they leave a voicemail, that voicemail will remain private in the sense I'm not going to play it. All right? I'm not going to give everyone the number or the name or anything. I may talk about something that was said on a voicemail, but I'm not going to play it. I'm not going to give you any information. You just know, oh, someone called and said something, all right? Because I believe that a person leaving a voicemail on my private phone number has some reasonable expectation for privacy.

8:19So I'm not going to give their name. I don't give, I just, I may sometimes will say, I got this call and this is what someone has said, all right? So that would always remain private, all right? So I want to make sure you understand that distinction, but that, but this is not what happened here. This is a completely different situation. This voicemail was not left on my personal telephone line, okay? This person did not privately call me. This voicemail was submitted through the theology central pod page, theology central dot net theology central dot net that the hosting side, the hosting company is there, they're called pod page. And what they do is they allow people that can use their phone, a tablet or anything. They basically can just press a button and leave a voicemail. It's a cool feature.

9:19And it first came out, I told, I told everyone about it because you know, I was hoping I was going to get, hey, I'm going to get some positive voicemails. People are going to be like, you're really cool. And you make me laugh and you're entertaining or you have helped me greatly or think, hey, how can I support your podcast? I would really like to support what you're doing because I believe it. You know, you're thinking you're going to get something like that. I know stupid, stupid, stupid. Nobody's going to be asking me how they can support the podcast. All right. So I told everyone about it. For the most part, and initially it was ugly. It got bad. In fact, initially it got so bad that pod page basically will make, hey, man, some of these things, what do we do here? Like, you know, do you want us to, you know, they kind of set it up where they wouldn't be posted or may even be deleted. Sermon audio kind of had a kind of a similar policy where they would not post it and they would email you. I think some things they would just refuse to post. I can't remember all the different companies have different policies, but sometimes people's

10:20responses, you know, companies don't necessarily want that on something that they're associated with because some of the comments I get have been, you know, downright just insane. Okay. So for the most part, though, it's been quiet for a very, very long time. All right. Until 458, 453 AM this morning. I don't have the email in front of me somewhere after 450. All right. So they go there and this is where they leave a voicemail and this is very important. If you go to theology central.net and you choose to leave a voicemail, a little window appears allowing you to record a message for this podcast. But before you record anything, there is a statement directly on the screen. I went and verified it this morning to make sure because I'm like, wait a minute. I believe there's a statement there and that statement reads and I quote by recording,

11:24you consent to being recorded and to your message being stored, edited and publicly used for this podcast. So they by recording just handed me permission to play their voicemail. They know that because it states it right there and directly beside that statement is a link to the voicemail terms. Okay. So this is not something buried somewhere that I'm trying to use as a technicality. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, the notice appears right there before you even start recording. You are being informed that you choose to record and submit a voicemail and that your voicemail is stored because it is stored. Oh, not only that, pod page gives me the ability to download it.

12:28I wonder why they would give me the ability to download it because it specifically says a podcaster can use your voicemail. Well, I'm going to need to be able to download it to do that. Okay. So I want to make it very clear. So I want to I'm going to establish this, right? I don't want anyone listening to this and thinking. I don't want anyone to think, man, that's really messed up. I don't want anyone to think that they're leaving him a private message. And now he's putting them on full blast. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You went to theologycentral.net. You got ready to record and there was a message telling you exactly what could transpire. All right. So that's where the voicemail comes from. So that's I want to just make sure we understand that and we have full clarity.

13:29All right. Everyone, everyone understand class. All right. Now, if you go live a voicemail, you need to understand that as well. And listen, if there was positive ones, I would play some of the positive ones. But there's never been a positive. Okay. Maybe there's been some positive reviews left. And I do want to think some people have gone to theologycentral.net and left positive reviews. I think I. Oh, no. There was a positive voicemail. Someone was like, Hey, I really want to talk to the person. I was listening to this person on serious XM. How do I talk to this person? And that was a positive one. And I think I did talk to that person on the phone. I can't remember all of them. So I can't. So let me correct that. There has been some positive ones. Okay. There has been some to be fair. I'd have to go back and look. The feature has been there for like, I don't know. Five years, six years. So it's hard to remember every single thing. But I want to be accurate as possible. All right. But there is a second issue here. All right.

14:30Just because I can play the voicemail doesn't necessarily mean that I should play the voicemail. That's a completely different question. And I thought about it. I have kind of wrestled back and forth that maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't. But here's what I started thinking. You know, when I, when you read, when I read the transcript, let me think about, let me say this way, when someone sends me an email or if I see a transcript of a voicemail and I don't even go listen to it, I just read the transcript reading words on a page. You know what can happen. You read them with a certain emotional inflection. You can read it like, oh, this person is angry or this person is being sarcastic. Oh, you smart. I like what do you think? And so you kind of read it that way. And then sometimes you start formulating a response that is not really a response to what

15:35they're saying. It's a response to the perceived emotion you think are behind the words or the perceived attitude. This is where text messaging and things can become very problematic because you can be like, oh, oh, I see you don't care. Okay. Oh, oh, you think that. And sometimes when you, as soon as the person picks up the phone and you start talking to the person, like, oh, okay, I'm sorry. I completely misread your words. I did not hear you correct. Okay. I was, I was thinking you were saying this. And because all sometimes you need to hear is tone, right? So what I, so, but it and not only that if I take the transcript and read it to you inevitably, what will I do? I will read it with some kind of emotional inflection. I may raise my voice like they're yelling. I may make it sound sarcastic. I may and that's always a negative thing. And that's what happens sometimes when I respond to emails. I sometime, I know that, but I have no choice in those, those matters. I have to try to interpret the words.

16:38And in this particular case, why try to interpret the words? We have the voicemail and they gave their consent for it to be used by submitting the recording because they were told what could possibly happen. So I'm like, you know what? I've never done this before. Let's play the voicemail so that you can hear the tone. You can hear the inflection and you can draw your own conclusions of what they have to say. And then nobody can accuse me of, oh, that's, that's not how they said it. That's not how they meant it. Everyone, no one, everyone will have to acknowledge I'm being very fair. I'm being very transparent. And I think that's the right approach. I think it's the right approach. I think it's the right approach. It's my attitude here about it, okay? And so that's the decision I made because either reading it, I'm going to give it the wrong inflection. And so then the person may accuse me of not being fair to what they meant. Um, second, I may respond in a way that isn't fair because I'm reading their tone.

17:45I'm reading a tone into their words. So for the, so for the, for the sake of the caller, they get to be heard in their own words. And nobody can accuse them. And so they, so that protects their tone. In other words, their tone will be accurately reflected. It protects me because then I'm not tempted to read into what they have to say. Now I still may do it. All right. I still may do it because again, I'm a human being, but I'm going to do my very best. All right. Now there's a lot of other things I could say in regards to all of this. We've already gone 18 minutes. And, uh, but I had to get all of that out of the way. I don't know, man, this is going to go long. It's going to be hard to get this done, but I'm going to try my very best. Some of these things, I may have to shorten what I want to say. Um, some things I'm going to try to stay very close to things I wrote down because I want to, if I start just kind of improv, you know, if I just kind of go, just start just not following any kind of like, here's what I should say.

18:47And I just start responding freely without following some things I've written down. Then I may respond in a way that's not completely fair. But at the same time, I've got to be honest with you. There are things in this voicemail. At least the words, I'm not saying the tone. The words really, in some cases, ticked me off. All right. And, and, and for long time listeners, you're probably going to quickly pick up where I'm going to get ticked off at. Now, this is going to go by relatively quick is one minute and 17 seconds. I'm going to play it uninterrupted. And then we're going to take it apart and the theology central way. Word for word, line by line. And we're going to try to do it in a very, very quick way. So are you ready? Here. Oh, man, I've got to try to hurry. I don't want this to go way over an hour. But man, we're going to try. Here we go. I received this at 4.58 a.m. this morning.

19:47I've already explained why I can play this because the website itself says that, hey, your recording can be used, stored, edited, and played. So here we go. I'm not giving the name. I don't because it's about the words that are used. It's not about an individual. It's not about a person because these words reflect how some Christians respond. And I think they demonstrate logical fallacies. And in some cases, complete. Well, you, you just listen to you decide. Okay. You know, I just don't understand how you criticize a teaching when this obvious that the man is learning his self as well. You pick like little pieces out of a whole sermon.

20:50Like you picked out like four or five things out of a whole sermon and said, he's full of crap. And then the audience, the congregation is, you're saying they're just as fake because they're you know, amazed by the word. It's coming from the Bible. How wrong can that be? You're really, really, I'd say devilish to be exact. You might need to do some soul searching. There you have it. You're really, really, I'd say devilish to be exact.

21:54You might need to do some soul searching. That's always wonderful to hear at 458 in the morning. I'm devilish and I need to do soul searching. Now, there's a lot of accusations in that one minute clip. There's a lot, one minute and 17 second clip. But let's, let's go through this. But here's what I'm going to do. Instead of starting at the beginning of the clip, we're not going to do that. I want to start at the very end because I think that final statement establishes something very important before we examine anything else. And I don't have to spend a lot of time there because if you think logically, you kind of, I think you're going to know where I'm going, all right? Because they established something here at the end that I think is very important.

22:55I'm going to, I've got the exact words in front of me here. You're really, really, I'd say devilish to be exact. You might need to do some soul searching. Now you can see there's a little inflection in my voice. Now to be fair, that collar never yelled. They never raised their voice. They didn't scream. They didn't make any threats like sometimes I received. So I want to make it very clear. One of the reasons I wanted to play the voice mail is they come across very calm and very thing. Now logically, I've got problems. So some of my inflection, I do not want you to think I'm, I'm imposing my inflection upon them. I may be imposing some of the inflection about how these words make me feel, okay? But when you're told, you're devilish. Okay. And I need to do soul searching. Oh, okay. All right. So let's see if we can work through this, all right? All right. And I want to make sure we represent the collar accurately. They didn't say, hey, I just listened to your episode.

23:56This is the episode. And I think you're mistaken. They didn't say, you know, I don't think your criticism is unfair and here is the reasons why. They didn't even say, I think that what you're doing is devilish. They didn't even say that. They said, you're, you're really, really, I'd say devilish to be exact. That's the characterization of me. And then you might need to do some soul searching, all right? Now I want to make this very clear. This is not about me. You're like, oh, they called me devilish and they said I need to do soul searching. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's not interesting to me. That's not interesting to me. That's no, no, if I wanted, if I wanted to make it that way, that would just be boring. It would be no point. And even redoing it. This is like, oh, he has, he got his feeling short because they called him devilish. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Here's what's interesting to me.

24:59Because maybe this is me thinking at more and lines, like if I'm debating someone, like, you know, I was on the debate team, you kind of look when people make these major logical fallacies or these major issues. So to me, is that the caller at the very end has just established by their own words of few things. And here's what they've established. They have established that criticism is acceptable, right? Apparently you can listen to something. Other Christian says, and you can evaluate it because they listen to me and they evaluated it. And here's their evaluation of what I said that I am devilish. So they listened, they made an evaluation, they made a judgment and they made a criticism. Therefore they've established that that's perfectly valid and perfectly acceptable to listen, make a judgment and make a criticism.

26:02They've already established that. So thank you because now you can't criticize me for criticizing because you've just demonstrated criticism is perfectly okay. In fact, not just criticism, you can literally make a judgment about a person and say that they're devilish even though you've never met me or even spoken to me, all right? So and you can tell me what, and not only that, not only can you criticize, you can prescribe and you're prescribing what exactly I should do, which is so searching. So apparently you can reach conclusions about a person simply based on what you've heard. You're establishing that. That you can listen, you can criticize, you can judge, you can prescribe all on the basis of just hearing something. I'm glad we're establishing, because you know what? I think you and I are in a lot of agreement at this point. I think we're in a lot of agreement that you can listen to something and criticize it and

27:03analyze it and come to conclusions. And I guess according to your standard, you can even make a determination and a judgment about the person speaking. You can go so far to say that that person is devilish. All right. All right. So, so let's, I guess I should say this. If you believe something I'm teaching is wrong, then by all means you can criticize it. If you believe I'm mishandling scripture, all you've got to do is demonstrate it. If you believe I've misrepresented 28, 19 church or Philip Anthony Mitchell, all you have to do is show me. If you believe I've been unfair, all you've got to do is present the evidence. If after listening to my podcast, you believe there is something about me that deserves criticism, you're free to share your case. I'm not asking for immunity from criticism. In fact, the entire philosophy behind this program demands the opposite.

28:04Statements should be tested. Arguments should be examined. Interpretations should be challenged. Claims should require evidence. And that applies to theology central, but guess what? It also applies to 28, 19 church or any other church. So I'm not objecting to you offering that criticism towards me. I'm identifying it. You've criticized me. You have evaluated me. You have judged me. And you have even gone so far to prescribe what you believe I need to do in response, which is, hey, I'm devilish. I need to do some soul searching. Now that gives me a perfect place to begin. Because now we're going to go back through the voicemail from the very beginning, and we're going to listen carefully to what you object to.

29:05And here's going to be the question, is the caller criticizing me for doing the very kind of thing the caller has just demonstrated is perfectly legitimate to do? I'm not going to say that's what's happened. I'm not. We haven't worked through the voicemail yet. I think the host listening may be able to draw a conclusion. The whole thing is they're criticizing me. Come on, the irony here is just too great to miss. You criticize, then you make a judgment. I'm devilish. And then you prescribe you criticize, declare a judgment and then prescribe. You've established that it's okay to do this. So then I don't know what your problem is. Is the problem is, isn't it, isn't the problem I criticized? Is it the problem that I may have declared a judgment? It's not even a problem that I may have prescribed a solution or steps that should be taken

30:08because you've already established that's okay. The problem is, I've established a preacher you like. Now the question is, is that preacher above being critiqued? Is any preaching of God's word above critique? Now here's where we have to ask ourselves, are we Roman Catholic? Now for Roman Catholic, then the Magisterium has the authority, the interpretive authority and their authority, well, by their authority their interpretation stands. I'm not really, and I don't really have the grounds to criticize it because I've not given the been given interpretive authority, but within the non-Catholic world, oh, we live in a whole different world. Because we're supposed to be the ones who search the scriptures to determine whether these things are so. We're supposed to be the ones to be on the lookout because there are false prophets who come in,

31:08you know, that wolves come in sheep's clothing and you've got to be able to identify them. You've got to know them, you've got to avoid them. We're supposed to test all things. We're supposed to challenge all things. We're literally supposed to do this and we're warned over and over that the false prophets are not going to come from outside the church. They arise from inside the church. And if you post your sermons online, then ladies and gentlemen, they're open for criticism. They're open for critique. And over and over and over, what do I say on this podcast? It's never about the person. It's about the words. It's about their interpretation. I try to separate the person because in most cases, I'm not that interested in the person. I want to know, whoa, that's your interpretation. Okay, now guess what? We can test that interpretation objectively using rules of hermeneutics. Now it may end up that we cannot come to an objective conclusion and therefore it's

32:09a subjective mess, but it can be critiqued. It can be analyzed. If the apostle Paul could preach and then people would be like, check the word, the scriptures to see whether those things are so, that would even mean the apostle Paul could be checked. Are you telling me 28, 19 church is above the apostle Paul? But if I cannot strongly criticize Philip, Anthony, Mitchell, or 28, 19 church, while someone who's defending possibly that church can strongly criticize me, even to the point of calling me devilish and telling me I need to do soul searching, then I need to understand the principle being applied because that's confusing.

33:09Why are you criticizing them? Why are you criticizing me? You're mad that I possibly called them fake or you made an accusation that I said he's full of crap. You may direct accusations. We're going to see if those accusations stand, I don't know, five seconds of searching, but we will see. So the point is you can make accusations. So you can offer criticism, make accusations, make a judgment, and then tell me what I'm supposed to do. Well, if it's good enough for me, then it's good enough for them. All right? So don't ask me why I'm criticizing because criticism is perfectly okay because you're criticizing. All right? Now, I want to make it very clear.

34:10I am not just saying, hey, this person is just a fan and they're just defending their favorite preacher because I don't know. All right? I don't know this caller. I don't know their relationship to the church. I don't know whether they attend the church. I don't know anything. Okay? But I do know this that they are criticizing me for criticizing, well, criticizing. And I just don't get it. All right? So I guess as we work through this voice, but voice, now you've already heard all of it. Maybe we'll discover that the caller, I think we're going to discover that the caller condemns me for criticizing, evaluating and judging or prescribing correction to a preacher, but then they freely criticize, evaluate, judge, or prescribe correction to me. And if that's what's happening, then hey, what's the difference? Why can one be criticized? Yeah, there's going to be a lot of issues here, all right? So we're going to see what we can do here.

35:14We're going to see, all right? There's a lot more, there's a lot more we could say there, but for time's sake, I'll just move on. I think you get the basic principle there. And that's why that's kind of why I wanted to start there at the end because it's just like, wow, you just, you just kind of, it's kind of that idea when people, and I'll get this sometimes. I don't get it as much, but used to, if I offered a criticism or a critiqued, judge, not let you be judged. And I would simply email him, by going, are you judging me? Because you would have to make a judgment that I'm judging for you to tell me to judge not, let's I be judged. So then you're judging me about my judging. So you're making a judgment. So is judgment right or is judgment wrong? Logic people, logic, these are like basic logical issues. So this is what's been established in this call at the very end. You can call someone devilish and you can tell them what they need to do and that's perfectly okay. And if you go through the entire entirety of the voicemail, you can make accusations as

36:18well. All right. So let's start here at the very, very beginning. All right, I'm going to start this at the very beginning. Okay, hang on. I'm going to. Okay. You just don't understand how you criticize a teaching when this obvious that the man is learning itself as well. Okay. So the first argument is they don't understand how I can criticize a teaching when it's obvious that the man is learning as well. Now this one is somewhat just confounding to me.

37:22All right. This one is confusing. So let's try to walk through this. All right. Why would the fact that a preacher is learning himself as well mean or how can I see this? Why would the fact that a preacher who is supposedly still learning for himself as well? Why would that mean that his public teaching cannot be critiqued or criticized? All right. I'm going to try to deal with this carefully because there's a lot contained in that sentence. All right. There's a lot there. And again, it just shows how some Christians think. So the idea is, hey, you can't criticize him. He's still learning. Okay. Well, now if we follow that logically, we're going to run into a mess. We're going to run into a mess. But okay. All right. Here we go. I'm going to try my best to give the caller the most charitable interpretation I can.

38:22Now it's hard for me to do this because they've already said I'm devilish and I need to do some soul searching. So they end it and they make a lot of accusations against me. But I'm going to try to be charitable here. Maybe their point is, hey, come on now. Just give the guy some grace, right? He's learning. He's growing. He doesn't know everything. He may say things imperfectly. He may get some things wrong. Don't expect him to have every theological issue perfectly figured out. Now if that's what the caller means, then maybe okay. I mean, I can't agree. I can't agree with you on this. Nobody knows everything. I agree. No pastor knows everything. I agree. No theologian knows everything. I agree. I certainly don't know everything. And we're all capable of being wrong, right? Right? I mean, I would agree with all of that. But here's where I kind of get frustrated. If that caller has listened to this podcast, I don't know for any significant amount of

39:27time. You know that that's one of the ideas I have repeated. And this is not even exaggeration. Probably over 1000 times. I don't want to rely on what I taught or what I believed 20 years ago. How many times do I say that? I don't want to say. Well, I've studied that passage 15 years ago. I know what it means. I don't want to say, hey, I've been in the ministry for 25 years. Therefore, I've got this all figured out. I don't ever want to say that. I don't want to say I went to Bible college. I went to seminary. I've been in Bible institutes. I've got a degree in religious education, biblical studies, theology. I've got an associate. I got a bachelor's. I got a master. Now, I never do that. No. I, I, I never do that. This is what, this is what I'll say. Oh, we're going to be studying a Romans chapter 10. Well, guess what? I don't care what I've taught about Romans chapter 10 in the past. I'm going to throw that away. And we're going to study Romans 10 again, fresh without any past presuppositions

40:31or bringing any of my past ideas. Or we're going to study Matthew chapter 5. I'm going to forget everything I've ever said or taught on Matthew chapter 5. I'm not going to use past notes or past conclusions. If we're studying Isaiah 53, I'm going to study Isaiah 53 again, just like I'm studying it for the first time. And if you listen to me, sometimes you're probably thinking, this is the first time this guy's ever looked, read this passage. Because I'll start walking through it and asking questions and, and doubting. And sometimes you're like, oh, my goodness, what is wrong with him? And then ultimately, I may arrive at the conclusion you think I need to lead, end up with because I'm throwing out everything I've ever knew when I open my Bible again. And why do I do that? Okay. Why do I do this? Because I state constantly, because I could have been a wrong in the past. So when I study in the present, I cannot rely on the past, because I want to hopefully learn more and correct the things in the past

41:32as I move into the future. The book I read could have been wrong. The professor who taught me could have been wrong. The sermons I've listened to could have been wrong. The interpretation I repeated for 25 years could have been wrong. That's the foundational idea of the Theology Central Podcast. We're always learning. We're always studying. We always go back to the text. We're always willing, or at least we're supposed to be willing, to have our conclusions challenged. So if the principal is, hey, the guy for 28 and 19, George Philip Anthony Mitchell, he's still learning. Absolutely. But in this interesting, so am I. So why do I not get? Well, I'm not going to criticize you because you're still learning. I mean, why are you criticizing me?

42:34It's obvious I'm still learning because I've only said that 25 billion times. Oh, grace demanded is not grace given. I got it. I can't still be learning, but he can't. In interesting, the guy with a little podcast, no writers, no producers, a podcast that cannot go on tour, where I can charge people $100 to get in. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I can't be viewed as I'm still learning. But Philip Anthony Mitchell, if this is about 28 and 19 church, a church worth who knows how many millions of dollars can go on tour, charge people all kinds of money to get in. Oh, don't criticize him. He's still learning. Come on now. Someone's got to laugh. All right. Now, and just think about this. If he's still learning is a reason why his teaching cannot be criticized,

43:39then guess what happens to the entire process of theological examination? You got to think about the logic here. Someone preaches a sermon. You identify what is clear exegetical error. That's not true. That's not what the Greek word means. That's not what the Hebrew word means. No, Augustin did not say that. No, Aaron A.S. did not say you, you, you, you, you, origin didn't say you're, you, you find all of these errors. And as soon as you get a response, I was like, no, no, no, no, no, no, you can't criticize him. He's still learning. Someone teaches a doctorate that appears to contradict scripture. They teach modalism or subalionism and deny the doctrine of the Trinity. No, no, no, no, you can't criticize. They're, they're still learning. So then exactly are we allowed to examine anything? You can't examine anything because everyone is still learning. If being a learner exempts a teacher from criticism, then all Christian teaching becomes exempt from criticism,

44:40which would be you can't criticize me because I'm still learning. Oh, Christianity, where logic comes to die. Man, I mean, that, think of the logic there. How can you criticize him? He's still learning. Okay. Well, there's just so much, there's so much we can say, all right? There's just so much we can say, all right? It just, and I just want to make it very clear. scripture says search the scriptures to see whether these things so. Test all things, hold fast, what is good? I mean, testing something. Is what we're supposed to do? First, John 4.1, I think, what does this say? Something like, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits and why? Because false prophets have gone out into the world.

45:42There's false prophets that have gone out into the world. Paul warned the elders at Ephesus, they say, hey, do you, and the ravinian wolves are going to arise from within the church. It's the false teaching comes inside that church. False teaching always arises inside the church. The biblical response to the possibility of error into the presence of false teachers is never to say, hey, hey, everybody's a learner, just don't criticize. The biblical responses examine, test, discern, compare, search, hold fast, reject what is false. Now, I will, I will say this because I want to be fair. If I'm listening to an 18 year old teach the Bible for the first time, you know what? I'm going to approach that very different than I approach someone who's assumed

46:45the office and responsibility of being a pastor and teacher. Okay, if I'm listening to some person who's, I don't know, sitting in a broken down building with seven people, okay, I may, I may approach that. If I, if someone is still in Bible college, I may approach it very different. Okay, those are all very different situations. All right. But my goodness, man, we're talking, if this is about 28, 19 church, if that is true, we are not talking about someone sitting around a kitchen table with 15 people, okay? This is not someone saying, Hey, guys, I'm trying to work through this passage and I may be completely wrong. I don't think, no, I haven't listened to every sermon Philip, Anthony Mitchell has ever preached, but he definitely comes across very assertive and assured of himself that his interpretation is correct. Where on this podcast, the one that you're criticizing, I constantly say, okay, here is my hermeneutical hypothesis.

47:45That is one of the most common phrases used on this podcast. We're going to try to figure this out. We're going to work on it. We're going to stroke. Well, I don't know. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe this, maybe that, no, we're talking about a man standing on a platform that reaches people all over the place. The people line up for hours to get in, being very assertive and very dogmatic. This is a big platform that reaches millions of people. And I think the greater the reach, the more important the examination of what's being taught is important because this is the thing influencing everyone. That's why I started even reviewing 28, 19 church so many years ago. Whoa, this thing is moving up the podcast charts like wildfire. We need to look at it. And I'm not saying Philip, Anthony Mitchell's not allowed to make mistakes. I'm not saying that he's not. I'm not saying pastors have to possess perfect theological knowledge before they're

48:46allowed to preach. I'm not saying that. I'm saying but because human beings are fallible and that there are a million different interpretations for every verse out there, then we have a responsibility to test what we hear, analyze what we hear, critique, think about it. Hopefully in a humble spirit so that we can struggle and wrestle with the concepts and try to find truth. If learning is a meaningful reason to temper criticism, then that principle does not belong exclusively to the preacher you believe I'm criticizing. That then principle would apply to me. And you didn't seem to hold back your criticism for me.

49:47You said, I'm devilish and I need to search my soul. All right. So, uh, yeah, there's a lot more I could say, but I think you get the idea. All right. Okay. Now let's, I'm going to go back, start it from the beginning and we'll move to the next segment. All right. We're already at 50 minutes, man. We're never going to get through this. All right. Here we go. Just don't understand how you criticize a teaching when, uh, this obvious that the man is learning his self as well. Um, you pick like little pieces out of a whole sermon. Like you picked out like four or five things out of all.

50:48Oh, sermon is. Oh, my goodness. Now this is where I really get irritated. I was just told now if you've listened to this podcast for any of the length of time, you got it. I hope you start laughing right there. I hope you do because I, I pick out, I pick out little pieces of a whole sermon. I picked out four or five things out of a whole sermon. Oh, man. Okay. I'm going to try to remain calm here and I'm going to try to be nice, but I'm just going to be very honest with you. I get, I'm pretty, I get ticked off right here. I get really ticked off, especially if this is about 28, 19 church. If this is about 28, 19 church, that I'm even more aggravated and more irritated and I'm going to quote my exact words to explain why. All right. Okay. Ah. See, this is not, this is where I get met. This caller now is not disagreeing with my theology.

51:51This caller is not saying, Hey, I think maybe you misunderstood his sermon. You should check out this sermon. This isn't even a caller saying, I think your criticism is a little unfair. Maybe you're a little harsh. Okay. You're being a little harsh on the beaver. Okay. I'll leave it to beaver. Okay. All right. Never mind. All right. That the caller here is now making a factual claim about my methodology. Ooh. According to the caller, I pick and I quote like little pieces out of a whole sermon, four or five things. That's supposedly what I do. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we can test that. And I'm going to say this as clearly as I possibly can. And I'm going to, I may scream it.

52:53That's not how I do sermon reviews. In fact, my methodology is almost exactly the opposite. And in fact, my methodology is being demonstrated in the way I'm taking a part your voice mail. I'm going through every single part, every single word. I'm not just taking three or four things. When I do a sermon review, I allow you to hear the entire sermon from start to finish. So how do I do a sermon review? First, I pick a sermon. I do not listen to it first. That's intentional. I don't sit down and listen to an a sermon, identify four or five moments like this guy is whack. This guy is out of his mind. This is going to make for a good podcast episode. Now, I do not do that. I select the sermon and then I listen to it live on the air in real

54:00time, no edits, no production, no tricks, one person in front of a microphone, no producer behind a mirror or behind a window, nothing. No, no, no, just me. And I play and we stop and we discuss and we wrestle through it and we try to figure it out. Many cases doing research live on the air. We work through sermons. We do not create highlight reals of the worst moments. And that's why when it came to 28 19 church, what did I do, ladies and gentlemen? I didn't review one sermon. I created an entire series called the 28 19 project. I'm going to quote from one of those episodes. I'm quoting me. The point is to hear one of their entire sermons and to be as fair and accurate

55:09as possible. And so that nobody can say, well, you ripped them out of context. No, we listened to every single word they said unquote. That is literally me saying that about 28 19 church that it would be unfair to simply take certain parts of their sermons. We were going to listen to an entire thing because I wanted to be fair. I wanted Philip, Anthony Mitchell to be heard and his own words from start to finish. How dare you accuse me of just ripping four or five things out of context? No, I play the entire sermon. What were you listening to? That's not me reconstructing my methodology because someone left me a voicemail.

56:09I said that during the project itself, that is what I do. During another episode in that same sermon review, I told listeners, now you're ready for this and I'm quoting because at one point we were reviewing a sermon and I was getting very frustrated and I was getting very irritating. Here's what I said. We have now spent more than five hours reviewing one sermon. We spent five hours plus reviewing one sermon and you're going to say, I take three or four things. Oh my goodness gracious. Misrepresentation. Why bearing false witness and you want to wait? You got I'm the devil. And after I said that we have spent more than five hours, here we go.

57:13I'm quoting, I stated we're not finished. There is still more than 30 minutes of the original sermon remaining. I went and pulled all of the clips. I went and pulled all of my statements because I know how much time I spent. We spent probably 15 hours. I can't verify 15 hours. We spent just on one sermon. We spent probably over six to seven hours. I think we went over seven hours on one sermon review. And then you come and tell me you pick little pieces out of a whole sermon. No, I don't four or five things, more like four, five hundred things. So you can dislike my conclusion. You can think that I stopped it too often. No, you paused it too often. Well, I posit too often because it has to be transformative.

58:14If I just played the sermon uninterrupted, then that's no longer fair use. And that could be a copyright violation. I have to make it transformative. That's someone someone listens to me. They're like, oh, he just played the sermon. Give me a break. The sermon is 45 minutes long and I go five hours reviewing it. That's transformative. Right? You can think that I talk too much. Well, that's fine because that proves it's fair use. Okay. You can think you may can think every single one of my objections is completely wrong. That's perfectly okay. Christians don't stinkin' a gray on anything. So I don't really care if you think I'm wrong. But for crying out loud, you cannot say that I just picked four or five things. You would have to say, man, that guy spent five hours plus reviewing that sermon. Now, you could say he spent five hours plus and he ended up somehow misunderstanding the entire thing. That's okay. They send me a voicemail telling me what I misunderstood.

59:16Tell me where I was harmoniously wrong. Tell me where I was still logically wrong. Tell me because I'll go back and we'll do 30 hours and take the text apart that I misunderstood. In fact, while reviewing one of his sermons, I stopped what we were in the middle of review. I then did an hour plus long episode doing what? Taking the text, he was preaching and I worked through it exegetically on my own without a sermon. But yeah, come at me and tell me where I messed up. Do not describe what I do as grabbing four or five little pieces out of a sermon when the recorded episodes demonstrate that I work through the entire sermon. And I explicitly state what my purpose was and why we were listening to the entire thing.

1:00:19In fact, in the 28 19 project, we encountered an interpretation of Jesus' statement in Matthew 513, you're the salt of the earth. Instead of simply saying, that's wrong. Next clip, I did not do that. I then produced a separate extended theological study dealing specifically with Matthew 513, worked through the passage, established what I believe the text actually meant before returning to the sermon review. And you can go listen to that episode anywhere where my podcast is found, which then proves your entire statement is false. Man. No, I could go on for anybody who's listening to my sermon reviews. No, man, that's just not fair. Context matters.

1:01:25And obviously the caller believes context matters. Why else complain that I'm supposedly taking little pieces out of a whole sermon? The complaint only makes sense if the caller believes that individual statements should be understood and a lot of a larger context in which they occur. I completely agree. That's why we review entire sermons and not sermon clips. But if context matters, then why are you criticizing me without actually considering what I do in the full context of this podcast? All right, now we're at 62 minutes.

1:02:26Here we go. I'm going to back this up from the beginning. You've got to hear the next part. Here we go. OK. You just don't understand how you criticize a teaching when it's obvious that the man is learning itself as well. You pick like little pieces out of a whole sermon. And like you picked out like four or five things out of all. Oh, sermon and said he's full of crap. I was just accused of saying what from the best we can tell Philip Anthony Mitchell is full of crap. That's a factual accusation.

1:03:31The caller is that I got the impression that you think this man is full of crap. That don't even say it's seem like he were saying that he's full of crap. The accusation is that I said he's full of crap. Where did I say this? Because after listening to your voicemail, I didn't simply rely on my memory because I've done almost 5,000 episodes. So I took the transcripts from every episode that I did about 28 19 project. I took those transcripts, gave it to artificial intelligence and said, hey, search the actual words of these episodes to find where I said that Philip Anthony Mitchell was full of crap. Guess what? It couldn't find it. We're not talking about, we're not talking about me sitting here saying I don't remember saying that. So I probably didn't. Oh, no, no, I provided the transcripts and specifically asked AI to examine the words I actually used and locate the statement.

1:04:39And it could not locate it. So here's my challenge. Find it. Give me the episode. Give me the time stamp. Play the audio. Show me where I said it because if I did, I got no problem going to listen to the context and either coming back saying, man, I said he's full of crap and that's not fair. Or if I say he's full of crap because he said something that is full of crap, then I will then try to prove that. But at this point in time, the only thing full of crap is the accusation that I said he's full of crap. Now, I said strong words about his teaching. I think I said things like it's wrong. It's a theological train wreck. This is a disaster. This is going to make me become an alcoholic. This is driving me insane. I could probably spend better time smashing my head into a brick wall. I don't remember all the things I say. Anyone listened to this podcast knows my hyperbolic responses sometimes to walked out sermons.

1:05:47But then at that point, that's just my feelings about the sermon. And most of you know, I'm very careful not to say much about the preacher. I try my, I say it all the time. I'm not going to make this about the preacher. We're going to make it about his interpretation. I may say that interpretation. I don't think I've ever said it. And here's the reason I know I think one time I got ready to say that's bad crap crazy. And I'm like, and I think I stopped it or I may have even gone back to edit it because I know some people don't like that word. Some people don't like that word. So I try my very, I usually try not to say it. I try not to say it in an, an, an episode. But whenever I get upset, I may say that interpretation is ridiculous. That interpretation is insane. That interpretation is whacked. That is the most. But I never say that pastor is an idiot. I, I almost always try to, I say my serenvious. It's not about the pastor. It's not about the church. It's about the interpretation.

1:06:48I say that a million times. Now I can get very mad. So maybe an, an anger. I did say it. Person provided no context. No timestamp. Hey, I could not find it. But you know what? I was like, you know what? I don't know if this is about 28, 19 church. I don't know. So this is what I did. I went even further. I didn't just search the transcripts of my 28, 19 episodes. I went to sermon audios, artificial intelligence, their own system. The one that's the theology central AI, right? We have our own little chatbot, which has access to every transcript I have ever done. And guess what? I'm like, Hey, have I ever said someone was full of crap? Anyone? It doesn't matter. Not just Philip F. Indie Mitchell. Anyone? Have I ever said anyone is full of crap?

1:07:49And then I started coughing. Okay. No. That's why I muted the mic. And here's what I found. This is what their AI came back said. The only relevant result week. I can locate involving the word crap was an entirely unrelated 2022 broadcast where somebody in material being played played in material being played or quoted said. I mean this whole years just been crap. This whole year just been crap. That's the only phrase they could find. This whole year has just been crap. That's it. I didn't say anything about Philip F. Indie Mitchell being full of crap or any other preacher. I said, I would have to go listen to it. I've got the screenshot. I should have saved it, but I was going to play it for you. But so there's I can find no evidence. I have ever said this zero evidence zero evidence.

1:08:56All right. Now we'll back this up again. Because I don't want them to think I'm just taking three or four things out of context. So now we're going to get to the next part. We're almost done. Just don't understand how you criticize a teaching when this obvious that the man is learning himself as well. You pick like little pieces out of a whole sermon. You picked out like four or five things out of all. How sermon is said. He's full of crap. And then the audience, the congregation is you're saying they're just as fake because they're

1:09:58amazed by the word. Okay. So then I'm accused of saying that the whole congregation is fake because they're amazed by the word. Oh, now this one is a little bit more interesting because unlike the previous accusation. I never said he's full of crap. I can find the source of this accusation. And this is why I think they're referring to 28 19 church because I did use the word fake. But you know, we don't want to take three or four things out of context, right? So I tried to go find the context, you know, in that crazy, what I'm being accused of, they're actually doing, but okay, okay, okay, okay. Because because we're going to do exactly what the caller just accused me of failing to do. We're going to put my words back into their context. Here's what I actually said and I quote, it can come across as fake enthusiasm.

1:11:08Immediately I said and I quote, I don't want to say that it's fake, but it comes across that way. Right? Because I can never truly know what's going on in people's hearts. Wow. And it amazing when you look at my actual words. Man, dealing with Christians, man, I'm telling you I'd rather deal with atheists. Accused me of ripping things out of context. You make a complete false accusation and then you completely misrepresent my words. I did not say the congregation is fake. I did not say these people are fake Christians. I didn't say they're justice fake as Philip Anthony Mitchell. I did not say that. And I certainly did not say that they're fake because they're amazed by the word.

1:12:15I was describing how the atmosphere, the hype, the reaction, the enthusiasm, the music in the background, the rising crescendo. How it came across to me and then I immediately stopped myself from turning my perception into a dogmatic declaration. That's why I said and I quote, I don't want to say that it's fake. Why? Because I can never truly know what's going on in a people's hearts. Unquote, that was my exact words. Now, from what I can tell, I can't find where I said they're fake. But from what I can find, I didn't say it like that. Now, if I did, again, nobody, no one ever, I so frustrating was stinking emails and voicemails.

1:13:21They want me to do all the work. They want me because if I'm going to defend myself, I've got to go spend hours looking everything up. How about if the next time you accuse someone, you take the time to do the work. I'm about sick and tired of dealing with Christians who can't be even remotely fair and honest. Stop stinking lying. Man. Okay, I'm not going to rewind it. I'm just going to keep playing because I think we're almost at the end. Here comes probably the most significant statement in the entire voicemail. And this is one of the main reasons I did this. Man, you can hear I'm frustrated, but my goodness. Man, this started at 458 in the morning. It's now 136 in the afternoon. I wasted my entire day responding to this thing.

1:14:22What I should have done is just deleted it. Should have just ignored it. But man, when it's so irritating and I listen, 90% of the time, if you see the emails I get, 90% of the time, you never even hear about them. You don't hear about them. I don't say anything. I just delete, ignore or send a response. Some of them I can't even respond to because I don't even know what I'm supposed to say. All right. But there's just sometimes things bother me because this misre... This voicemail misrepresents everything this podcast is about. They completely misrepresent me, my methodology, and they literally lie about the things that I said. It's coming from the Bible. How wrong can that be? It's coming from the Bible. How wrong can it be? Very wrong.

1:15:25It's coming from the Bible. How wrong can it be? Very wrong. It can be completely wrong. The fact that someone is using the Bible tells us almost nothing about whether the interpretation of the Bible is correct. That's the entire reason, hermeneutics matter. And that's when we talk about hermeneutics on this podcast. I don't know. 50,000 hours a week. I know, that's hyperbole. That's the entire reason, context matters. That's why exegesis matters. That's the entire reason Christians are told to test everything. Let me make it very clear. Within Christianity, you got people who take the Bible and they say, You must be baptized and if you're not, you're not saved. And their others will take the Bible and say, No, if you die and you're not baptized, you can still be saved. One will take the Bible and say, You can lose your salvation.

1:16:25Another one takes the Bible and says, You can't lose your salvation. Another one takes the Bible and says, You got to baptize a baby and it will save them. Another one says, Well, you got to baptize a baby and it won't save them. It just puts a sign of the covenant and they get to be a member of the church. And one says, Hey, God is done with Israel. The church is replaced with Israel. And another one, I can go on all day. There's a billion different interpretations. Everyone claiming that it comes from the Bible. So guess what? Not all of those interpretations can be right. Just because someone opens a Bible and teaches doesn't mean it's right. It means it has to be examined and critiqued. And if it comes from the Bible, if anybody's listening to this podcast, everything I say comes from the Bible. So then why can't then how wrong can I be? Well, guess what? Either they're wrong and I'm right or either I'm wrong and they're right, but we both can't be right. We could both be wrong. It is insanity.

1:17:28One is Pentecostals who deny the Trinity say they use the Bible. Charismatics who fall on the floor and start barking like dogs and speaking and tongues and doing all kinds of other crazy stuff use the Bible. Calvinist used the Bible are many and use the Bible Lutherans use the Bible. Babd issues the Bible Roman Catholics use the Bible church of Christ uses the Bible. Pentecostals use the Bible. Dispensational issues the Bible. Calvinist theology uses the Bible. Omolynialist use the Bible. Praterists use the Bible. Premillennial uses the Bible. I could go on all day. Everyone says it comes from the Bible. It's so absurd. What if it's from the Bible has to be right? No, it does. Oh, my. Okay, I could go on for hours on that. It's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

1:18:30I don't even know what to say. All right. So we'll just now finish it. Here we go. Let's bring this home. You're really, really. Ah. Yeah. I'd say devilish to be exact. You might need to do some soul searching. All right, I did some soul searching. And you have falsely accused me, misrepresented me. How about you do some? I'm. When we started, I said I was not going to object to the collar criticizing me. And I don't. You want to call me devilish? Go for it.

1:19:31You want to tell me I need to do some soul searching? Great. But if you're going to make judgments that strong about another person, you need, I don't know. Let me see. What do we call it? Evidence. And that's the standard which I have applied throughout this episode. Because I went and looked for the evidence. And what did we discover? The voicemail began by questioning how I could criticize Philip, Anthony Mitchell's teaching when the man is learning himself. And we established something very simple. We're all learning. He's learning. I'm learning. The caller is learning. Every pastor is learning. Every Christian is learning. But being a learner does not place your teaching beyond examination or critique. If anything, the fact that all of us can be wrong is exactly why we all have to have our teaching examined. And then I was told, well, you pick little pieces out of whole sermons like you picked out like four or five things out of a whole sermon.

1:20:33That's not an accurate description. In fact, it's just a thought of misrepresentation. It's a falsehood. And the very project I stated that the goal was to listen to the entire sermon so that nobody could accuse me of ripping statements out of context. And what happens? Oh, leave it to Christians. We spent more than five hours reviewing one sermon. And at that point, we still had more than 30 minutes of the sermon remaining. When we encountered a theological or hermeneutical issue that could not be adequately handled during the review, I stopped and produced a separate teaching devoted to the biblical passage itself. You can disagree with my conclusions. You, you, but do not describe my methodology as grabbing four or five little pieces from a sermon. Then I was told that I said he's full of crap. I went looking for it. I didn't simply trust my memory. I took the transcripts of the project.

1:21:34I did everything I could and it's not there. Now, my challenge remains, produce it. Give me the episode. Give me the timestamp and I got no problem owning it. But you better be ready because if you find me saying he's full of crap and I can go examine what he said and I can prove he's full of crap. Then I will double down on it because I've heard pastor say things. Hey, this person was raised from the dead and you go do 30 minutes of research. You're like, that's a lie. Now, I'm not saying he did that because I don't know. But if I, if I said he's full of crap, I'm pretty sure there was had to be a strong reason why I said it. But considering no transcripts, AI, no one can produce the quote and you didn't bother to tell me where I said it. Then you said that I accused the congregation of being just as fake.

1:22:35But guess what? I did use the word fake and I didn't hide that. But guess what? When we look at that, my exact words and I quote myself again, I don't want to say that it's fake because I can never truly know what's going on in people's hearts. In fact, here's what's funny. If you listen to that entire examination, I turned that examination on 28, 19 church in Philip Anthony Mitchell and I turned it back on myself. I stay, I stated things like, well, could some of my reaction be because I'm jealous? I mean, he brings in all of this money, all these people lining up and I can't get people to give me $5. To keep the podcast on the air. I had not acknowledged that could, could some of this be my own problem. I even asked that question. Why am I reacting the way I'm reacting? I asked myself these very questions. So you said I need to do soul searching.

1:23:36Well, if you listen to my podcast, I'm always doing soul searching. I'm always questioning myself. I'm on what do I constantly say? I'm a sinner with a microphone trying to figure this out. Maybe listen to a podcast before you decide to criticize the thing because with Philip Anthony Mitchell, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and spent, I don't know, 15 plus hours just behind a microphone. Don't even count all the hours I spent researching. But I guess I don't deserve the same respect, do I? If it comes from the Bible, it has to be right. No, it can be very, very wrong. That's why we study. That's why we test. That's why we examine. That's why context matters. That's why hermeneutics matters. That's why criticism, a biblical teaching isn't necessarily an attack upon the Bible.

1:24:36We're trying to figure out what the Bible actually says. And that brings us right back to where we started. You're really, really, I'd say devilish to be exact. Now, after working through this entire voicemail, I'm not going to call you a label. I'm not going to call you devilish. I'm not going to speculate on your heart. I'm not going to tell you that you're stupid. I'm not going to say you're a fake Christian because I don't know you. But I can't examine the words you gave me. And that's exactly what I have done, not by taking anything out of context. I'll let everyone hear every single word you said. You want to criticize me? Good. You want to judge me? Fine. You want to tell me that I need correction?

1:25:36Good. But guess what? Apply that same standard to everyone. If I misrepresent Philip Anthony Mitchell, call me up. But if you misrepresent me, I'm going to call you out. If you're going to misrepresent me, then I have every right to call you out. If I take Philip Anthony Mitchell out of context, demonstrate it. But when you quote me, put my words in context. If I attribute words to Philip Anthony Mitchell that he did not say correct me, but do not attribute words to me that you can't produce because they're not there, because I never said them. If I, if my interpretation of scripture is wrong, show me. But don't tell me an interpretation is protected from criticism simply because it comes from the Bible. Nobody gets special exemption. Philip Anthony Mitchell doesn't get a special exemption.

1:26:3828, 19 church doesn't get a special exemption. Theology central doesn't get one. The caller doesn't get one. I don't get one. Everyone gets tested. We're supposed to open the Bible. Check the facts, examine the context, test the interpretation, demand, evidence, and be willing. Whoever you are to discover all of us that we could be wrong. Because we're all still learning. And that's not a reason to stop examining what we believe. That's one of the most important reasons to never stop examining what we believe because we're all still learning. Now, I don't know what else to say. It's very frustrating. On one hand, I do want to say this to the caller. You were very calm and much calmer than I am. And you were very polite. And so I got nothing to, but I'm grateful for that.

1:27:42You didn't come yelling, screaming or making a thread against me, family or people I know or any, because I get some of those crazy things. So I do appreciate that. But at the same time, calm, cool, collective doesn't change how misrepresent, how messed up your words were and how much you falsely accused me and misrepresented everything I do on this podcast. You heard something. I don't know why you heard, but you didn't understand what you were hearing. And you didn't take any time to do any research or searching out to go, let me, let me make sure I understand what this guy's coming from. Or here's a novel idea. Hey, and let me just try this out. Hey, I just heard your teaching. And I'm assuming on Philip Anthony Mitchell in 28, 19, sure, it was this episode. It kind of bothered me. Could you explain exactly like, you know, why you feel this way, where you're coming from, have you done any additional teaching? Is this just a one time thing?

1:28:42And then I could have said, well, here's my entire 28, 19 project. And then you could have listened to the entire thing. You could have said, you know, you're doing like a sermon review. Do you do these frequently? What's your method? You could have just asked some questions. And then you would have gained information. And then you may have still decided I disagree with you. And I think he's the greatest preacher to ever walk the face of the earth. And you know what I would have said? Then go listen to him. I don't care. Because here's the thing. You're going to think he's right. And someone else is going to think another preacher's right because Christians can't agree on everyone on anything. Everyone thinks they're right. No one can agree on anything. There's not not three people can get the same interpretation. It's just total spiritual andarchy. And I point that out all the time. So that's fine. Go listen to him. I don't care. Believe that he's right. Fine. There's three. That's the way that church is in Atlanta. There's probably 50 churches in Atlanta who thinks he's wrong. And he probably thinks they're wrong. And if he thought they were right, then why is there another church in Atlanta?

1:29:46And but man, fairly right. It's just so weird. I'm getting criticized for criticizing him and all of your criticism about me is false. So that makes your criticism the more problematic one. It doesn't make my criticism problematic because you didn't point out one thing that I said that was false because everything you said I said was was just made up. Take my criticism. What did I say? Man, we examined websites. We examined ticket prices. We examined all their merch. We examined news articles written about that church. Not just my words, other people. We examine so many things. We try to be comprehensive. We try to be fair. We try to be in depth. What do I get a one minute, 17 second voicemail that falsely accuses?

1:30:48And that's what you have to and this is why sometimes you just start thinking what's the point of broadcasting? What's the point? Because you'll always get the person who will contact you to say you're wrong. You rarely get anyone to email you to say that you're right or to say, Hey, I want to give you $20 today for, you know, doing five hours of work on that subject. No. Everyone people will benefit from it, but they won't support you. But the people who got to her criticism, they're going to make sure their voices are heard. And so at some point, he's like, well, if all you're going to do is get criticized, there's no point in doing all the work. So yeah, by the end of this, I get frustrated and irritated and I'd get tired of this. Now, I got another email, multiple emails from someone trying to understand the difference between imputed and fused righteousness. So I got to work on that. So I spent hours working on emails, crafting responses, doing research. Why? Because I do believe people have a right to be heard.

1:31:51That's why that's why I leave comments sections on that I want to make this very clear. There's when it comes to podcasting or when it comes to content creation, there's two approaches, right? You take people's comments and you take their engagements and you monetize the heck out of it, right? And so then you can turn on the microphone, say something shocking. You get everyone mad and they're in the comments. That helps the algorithm. And many cases you can monetize that and you can make money, but I don't monetize anything. Right? So if I leave comments on, I don't, it doesn't benefit me. The only way it can benefit me is on YouTube. If people leave comments, that can help the algorithm to pick up a pick it up. It doesn't help me on sermon audio because I don't have an algorithm that's going to push theology central to everyone. So, but on YouTube, it can benefit me if I can get a lot of people commenting. That can benefit me. But it's not going to benefit me financially. So a lot of people have the comments on because there's a monetary gain that can come from it or possibly a gain from the algorithm.

1:32:56But for me, in most cases, it would be better to shut down an email, get rid of voicemail, and end all comments. But see, that's not fair because then I'm hiding behind a microphone. So I try to give people the ability to be heard. And if you've ever emailed me, you know I respond. Now, sometimes I don't because some of you people be sending, I won't, we won't even get into that. All right. But I try to, because people have a right to be heard. I like to hear. And in many cases, your emails can lead to very important conversations and theological discussions online. That person who emailed me about the doctorate of inspiration. I mean, come on. That's brought up so many questions, hours of discussion. And we're not even done with it. That's see, that's the kind of email. We may disagree all day long, but his email got us into some very important topics.

1:33:56See, that's beneficial. So you don't want to stop that, but my goodness, sometimes you're just like 458 in the morning and I'm being told I'm devilish. And I need to do some soul searching. Why? Because the person made absolute misleading and false accusations. But guess who will do the soul searching? You know what I'm going to do now? Because I know what I'm going to do the rest of the day. I'm going to be mad. You know what I'm going to be mad? Because I know I got two upset. I got two angry. I got two upset and I did too much yelling because what I should have done has become cool and collective and return the same vibe that they gave me. But I didn't. Why? Because I'm a no good, stinking center. I'm a human being and I got too emotional and that's on me. And so now I'm going to feel bad about it all day. I'm going to be upset with myself, probably only going to generate more negative comments. And so then I'm just going to get frustrated and that's on me. That's not on this is not on the caller. This is my fault because I allowed it to get to me and I shouldn't have because in the end it's one minute and 17 seconds.

1:35:02All I took was one second to hit the lead and move on with my day and I could have done something better. Now my voice is blown. I'm frustrated. It's 175 degrees in here. Probably going to drop dead in 30 seconds. And why? Because I got mad and I shouldn't have got mad. That's on me. I'm responding emotionally when I should have responded. Doctrically, philologically and logically. So in the end, guess what this proves? I'm the one messed up and I know that. So now I'm going to be mad at myself and I'm going to have regrets. My whole life is just showing how much I fell at everything. So now I'm just irritated. So now I was like delete the whole thing. I'm not going to delete it because then I'm hiding the reality of what I did. So I'm going to show the reality of what I did. I think all of my arguments were logical and factual and I wouldn't and I proved the logical problem. But I stated from the very beginning, are we responding emotionally or logically and biblically? And guess what I did in the end? I responded emotionally, not so much logically and biblically.

1:36:03I think my arguments were biblical and logical, but I threw in too much emotion that the overshadows the logic and the the logical and biblical approach. So I failed in my response. And I did 96 minutes when I should have did this in 15 minutes. But if I did it in 15 minutes, well, then I would be accused of you didn't take my comment and you see, just I did five hours on Philip, Anthony Mitchell, one sermon and I still got accused of taking things out of context. So I wanted to demonstrate I don't take things out of context, not even a voicemail. Your entire voicemail was heard from beginning to end. So don't accuse me of ripping things out of context because I don't do that. So we will end this way. I'm going to play the whole voicemail and then I'm just going to end the program. I'm not even going to say goodbye. I will do this before I play it because I do like to do this because for everyone

1:37:09that's been here for this train wreck. Minnesota, thank you for listening. Iowa, thank you for listening, Missouri, thank you for listening Kentucky, thank you for listening. Maryland, thank you for listening. North Carolina, thank you for listening. South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Canada, British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia, who was here first. So the rest of you Canadians, I'm sorry Nova Scotia is beating you. Yeah, the rest of you Canadians, you got to step up. All right, now trying to make a little bit fun, but I am very frustrated, but I'm going to end just playing the whole voicemail in its entirety with no interruption. So I will not be accused of anything. All right, here we go. And when this ends, I'm just ending the broadcast. So God bless. You just don't understand how you criticize

1:38:12a teaching when this obvious that the man is learning his self as well. You pick like little pieces out of a whole sermon. Like you picked out like four or five things out of a whole sermon and said he's full of crap. And then the audience, the congregation is you're saying they're just as fake because they're, you know, amazed by the word. It's coming from the Bible. How wrong can that be? You're really, really. Yeah. Yeah, I'd say devilish to be exact. You might need to do some soul searching.