Restoration of Israel and the Trinity

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast, making Theology Central. Good evening everyone. It is Wednesday, September eighteenth, twenty twenty four. It is currently six twenty nine pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, before I do anything else, let me explain that in the background, I don't know if you can hear it, that is my next door neighbor. He's mowing his yard, and well his lawnmower is a little loud, so you may hear that sum in the background.

0:43 I just want you to know what that is. Some people would say you shouldn't even mention it because nobody will even hear it. But I want you to at least know, so you're not sitting there going what does that sound in the background? What does that sound in the background? So you know, so if you hear that, you can ignore it. But that's not our focus. Our focus is to try our very best to redeem, to make something that was a disaster into something that is profitable. We want to try to take something that was well burned into ashes and something will arise out of those ashes that will be profitable for you. This is what happened earlier today. I decided to review some audio. And I decided to review some audio because it seemed that the audio was very much connected to our ongoing series, A Survey of Eschatology, and we've been working on the Dividic Covenant. We've taken a little break from it. We've been we've had taken some detours, but I want to get back to it, possibly this Sunday. And I'm like, well, you know, here is in on my sermon's two point zero app under the feed tab. Here's a message entitled Restoration of Israel Part one. I'm like, well, if here's a message about the restoration of Israel, well, then by all means, let's just review that. Because we've been talking a little bit about obviously the covenants, how they pertain to Israel, and how that many of those promises and those covenants haven't been fulfilled. So we believe that we'll

2:14 be fulfilled literally to a literal Israel. We've talked about all of that, right, so I thought it would be it would be easy to do, it would be great, But remember I hold to a philosophy, and my philosophy sometimes makes me look very stupid. And some would argue that how many times before you realize that your philosophy is broken? But I refuse to change my philosophy. But my philosophy is this. Whenever I review anything, I don't listen to it first. The reason why is I want to create the idea that when I'm reviewing something is that we're all listening to it together for the very first time. You don't know what's about to be said.

3:00 I don't know what's about to be set. It's not something where I've listened to it. Ooh, this is really bad. I could. I could trash this. I could, I could, I could criticize this, and it's and all my reactions are almost produced and rehearsed. I know. I don't like that. I like it to be. I don't have a clue. You don't have a clue. We're listening together in real time. Whatever happens happens. No one can accuse me of just trying to find audio so that I can criticize it to make myself look smart. No, I'm just listening to things. In this case, we've been talking about eschatology. Here's an article, here's a message about the restoration of Israel. If fits perfectly with where we are in our study of eschatology, let's this will add to it. Let's go. So it was pretty simple, pretty straight straightforward. We hit play, and immediately we was like, wait, okay, so this sounds like it's a radio broadcast. And then but the radio broadcast, he kept saying, we're gonna be talking about the restoration of Israel. We're gonna be talking about the restoration of Israel. And he kept dragging it out and dragging it out, and so then the next thing you know, he's reading an email. Then the next thing you know, he's doing like fifteen minutes of reading prayer request. And then he'd played like, I don't know, it's like five ten minute maybe fifteen minute musical interlude, and so I had to sit there and kind of mute the turn the music down. It just we didn't really get anywhere. But if we were to summarize what we did get, here was the hypothesis put forth to us in the message that we were reviewing. Right here

4:32 was the hypothesis. Hypotheses number one, the Bible only speaks of two restorations of the nation of Israel. The first one is when they come back from Babylonian captivity, they will be restored to the land. The Nation of Israel will be restored. That's restoration number one. Restoration number two is at the end where Christ will return, the enemies will be destroyed, and then they are restored in the Millennial Kingdom. So basically we have coming out of Babylonian captivity and going into the Millennial Kingdom. Those are the only two restorations. Now, his argument is nineteen forty eight, Okay, when Israel became a nation, wasn't a fulfillment of any of these restorations. He made the argument that Israel was brought back together in nineteen forty eight so that they can be scattered again, so that they can be brought back in the Millennial Kingdom. Okay. I don't have a major problem with that. Okay, I guess if you want to say that. Now, there were some things he said about the Holocaust. I kind of got a little nervous.

5:40 We won't go into all that. But his argument is two restorations. Nineteen forty eight is not a fulfillment of any of these restorations. I do agree with that nineteen forty eight, when Israel becomes the nation does not believe fulfill most of these prophecies about Israel being back, And no, that doesn't just no way it does. It doesn't in any way perform. So I agree that you have two basic restorations. I do. I don't know if I say that they were brought back in the land in nineteen forty eight so that they can be scattered again during Jacob's trouble of the Tribulation, so that they can then be restored. I think that there's two restorations in nineteen forty eight. Is a sign, is a hint, is a preview of what is to come? I think that's a better way of explaining it. Now, he did handle Matthew twenty four in a way which I disagree with. This was another thing he did. He says in Matthew twenty four, starting a verse fifteen, when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet stand in the Holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand. Then let him, which would be in Judea, flee into the mountains.

6:48 Let them which is on the Housetop not come down to take anything out of his house. He argued that Matthew twenty four, verse fifteen, sixteen, seventy eighteen, following that that has never occurred, and that this will occur during the tribulation prior to the restoration of Israel in the Millennial Kingdom. I completely reject that perspective, Matthew twenty four, fifteen and following. In fact, most of Matthew twenty four is about seventy a D. This occurred in seventy a D when Israel and a sense will just see it this way was wiped off the face of the earth. All right, they were gone, and this is what happened.

7:29 This is referring to seventy a D. This is not referring so many people. People go to Matthew twenty four and say, this is prophesying what is to come. This was prophesying what was to come for those people at that time, and it was fulfilled in seventy a D. Now you say, well, there's some parts that wasn't fulfilled in seventy a D. Okay, but those would be very few, very few things in Matthew twenty four. Because this was focused on Jesus walks out of the temple. The disciples are like, look at this temple, and in Jesus like, it's all going to come down. There's not going to be one stone upon another, and they're like, when is this going to happen? And then he gives them the signs for the destruction of that temple, not a future temple, but the temple that was standing when he was there on earth. So we disagreed with that. I agree with the Bible basically has two restorations coming out of the Babylonian captivity and then the Millennial Kingdom, that there are prophecies in the Bible that have not been fulfilled for Israel.

8:24 I disagree with the all millennial perspective that would say these prophecies have to be fulfilled spiritually inside the church. I think they have to be literally for the nation of Israel. All right now, So we finally get we're at right And we had broadcasted for almost an hour, an hour and over an hour, probably close to an hour and a half before we really started getting anywhere, and then well the program went to a break. Then they played like a I don't know, three four minute kind of little clip of a sermon with music in the background. I fast forwarded past all of that. They just came out of the break, and then so in a break they play that kind of musical interlude with a sermon. Then they come back read an email about a chaplain needing Bibles. Then now finally they're getting back to the teaching. So we're going to get back to the teaching and where we're going to discuss more about the restoration of Israel, and we will see where this goes.

9:19 We are hoping. Now he did promote a book by Peter Ruckman, and I do not agree with Peter Ruckman in any way, shape or form Rugman Knights Rugmantism. However, you would like to refer to Peter Ruckman's teaching, I believe no, absolutely no, no no no no, no, no no no. I may agree that Peter Ruckman and what he may have taught about the restoration of Israel, but I believe what the restoration of Israel from what's in the Bible, not what Peter Ruckman said, because I disagree with a lot of his theology. But other than that, that's kind of all we really got in the first hour and a half of review. Now, I just feel like we had to. I couldn't leave there. I would not be able to go to bed tonight going. I did almost ninety minutes or over ninety minutes of that review on the Restoration of Israel Part one, and it was a disaster. And now I'm just gonna go to bed and leave it there. I can't, so I wanted to come back to it again. If you want to find this, because this is only part one, they're going to do multiple parts. Let me go to the sermon audio sermon's two point zero app. The name of the sermonis Restoration of Israel Part one. By now the inn begins Bible Study Archives. Now the end begins Bible Study Archives.

10:36 That's the broadcast. They're up to thirty two downloads. That's good that we're only at twenty. I want everyone to download it. I want everyone to hear the rest. So here we go. Let's jump in and let's see what we can learn. As always, thank you very very much. All right, let's just jump right into. We have set the table, we understand where we are, and our topic tonight is the Restoration of Israel, and we are going to focus tonight on the Throne of David. Ruckman has a booklet called The Restoration of Israel. You can go to our website, our bookstore website that is Biblebeliever dot com and you can get yourself a copy of the Restoration of Israel by doctor Peter S. Ruckman. It's a series of six messages on the physical and spiritual restoration promise to the nation of Israel in the scriptures. I have read it dozens of times, and I promise you it will be a blessing for you.

11:48 If you get the book, great, that's all great. Someone already emailed me earlier today and the book is available on Amazon. I would just say, you know, use caution, be very aware about Peter Ruckman. If you go to Way of Life Literature, which is also more like it within the realm of Independent Fundamental Baptist where Peter Ruckman operated, they have a critique of Peter Ruckman's teaching. What about Peter Ruckman? If you just go to Way of Life Literature and just do a search for Peter Ruckman, you will I mean, well, maybe at some point we'll go through some of his teachings, but yeah, problematic would be an understatement so yeah, so, but if you get that book, great.

12:31 What I would challenge you to do is just go through the Bible and look for all the promises of the restoration and the regathering of Israel, and then just ask yourself, did this ever occur? And if it did not, well, then what do you do with it? Do you say, either you have to find a way to say it's already happened, or you have to say it's going to happen. But it happened in the Church and it's spiritual and it's not really Israel. And I think that's a problem hermoneutically. All right, So let's see where we're going to go here. So we are looking at something called the throne of David, and this throne is talked about dozens of times in the Old Testament. And let's just get a couple of random verses regarding the throne of David. Turn to Second Samuel, chapter three, verse ten, and we're going to be going over a lot of verses tonight, Second Samuel, chapter three, verse ten, to translate the kingdom from the House of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan even to Beersheba, to translate the kingdom from the House of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah.

14:00 Now it's funny. You know who King Saul represents in the Old Testament. He represents Antichrist. Okay, this just took a turn, all right. On one hand, when he says we're going to talk about the throne of David, I get excited because we've been looking at the Dividic Covenant and our study on eschatology. All right, so I'm like, Okay, see, I made a good decision to choose this audio to review because it will supplement what we're doing. This will add to it. Now, this just took an absolutely bizarre turn, and I don't know where to go. So Saul represents Antichrist. Now can you say Saul represents Antichrist? Or can you say Saul demonstrates many of the attributes and characteristics often associated with Antichrist.

14:53 Maybe it's in how you say it, because when you say it dogmatically Saul represents Antichrist, you're just saying like it's dogmatically, So you would need a verse to say Saul is a representation of Antichrist, or you would need versus about the Antichrist that connects it to Saul. If you don't have that, you can say I see a correlation, I see something alike or in common. So I would challenge you now, if you want to do this again, if you want to take your study a little further, grab a piece of paper right on, draw a line down the middle of it all the way down to the bottom, separating it into two halves. One half put Saul, the other half put Antichrist. Start with Antichrist, find every verse that mentions Antichrist, what Antichrist is like, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And then after you have your list and you kind of write out what these verses say, just a little like summary, Okay, antichristis described this, or Antichrist does this. Then start looking up verses about Saul that correlates to those attributes, characteristics, and actions. That would be an interesting study. But I would not then say dogmatically Saul represents or is a picture of, or a symbol of Antichrist in the Old Testament. I would just say Saul has the same characteristics and attributes of Antichrist all right, if you want to work on that, that could be fun. But there you go. All right, So let's see if he's going to offer us some support for his perspective.

16:26 King Saul is one of the most wicked kings that Israel ever had, and in Tewod Samuel chapter three, verse ten, it says to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah. Now again, that's it. Now I see kind of what he's doing here. So this is kind of interesting, all right. I am fascinated by where he's going. But again I would ask this question, how would we quantify qualify that Saul was the most wicked king? How do you qualify who's the most wicked? How do you quantify this? How do you qualify this? How? Like what would be here are the characteristics that may make him most wicked? Like, yeah, we can get in a discussion there, but let's just see where he goes.

17:24 You know what happens immediately before Jesus returns at the Second Advent, the anti Christ takes control of the entire world for seven years. That is what the Kingdom of Saul represents And in Two Samuel chapter three, verse ten, there's a translation going on. It is translating from the kingdom of Antichrist to setting up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah. Turned to First Kings chapter two, verse twelve. First Kings Chapter two, verse twelve. Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was established greatly. First Kings chapter two, verse twelve.

18:23 Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was greatly established. You know who, King Solomon represents. King Solomon represents Jesus Christ. King Solomon represents Jesus Christ. Who Now just remember King King Solomon. All right, so Saul represents the Antichrist. King Solomon represents Jesus. Now just think this true. Solomon represents Jesus. Solomon was a man who well he basically was the hit man for David because he killed a bunch of people that David had killed. And we've talked about that.

19:10 He also was a serial polygamist, a serial adulterer, and an idolator. All right, So alright, all right, just keep that in mind. And the Bible says this about King Solomon in his relationship to David and to God. And give me just one second. I had the verse and I lost it. Give me one second. Here the verse that I'm looking here, it is Second Samuel, chapter seven, Second Samuel. You will chapter seven. Let's read verses twelve through fourteen. Tewod Samuel, Chapter seven, verses twelve through fourteen. And when thy days be fulfilled, God is talking to David, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers. I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. Talking about the kingdom of King Solomon, Solomon writes Proverbs and the Book of Ecclesiastes, I will set up his seed after thee which shall

20:42 proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for how long? For ever, Solomon, it's on the throne of David. And look in verse fourteen. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasen him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. But my mercy shall not depart away from him as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before THEE and thine house he's talking to David now, and thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee. Thy throne shall be established forever. Verse seventeen says, according to all these words and according to all this vision. So did Nathan speak unto David. I want you to look at the last couple of verses that I just read, and I want you to underline where it says that this kingdom and this throne is going to be established forever.

22:11 Okay, Now, we talked about this. We talked about this, if I can speak correctly, We talked about this and our discussion about the Davidic Covenant. Right, So my issue is he made a dogmatic assertion, a dogmatic claim that Saul represents Antichrist. There was no scriptural support given. Solomon represents Jesus, no support given as of yet. So I'm a little concerned where he just makes like these dogmatic assertions this person represents this person. Again, it's how you stated, Hey, if you build out a comparing and a contrasting, say chart of Saul and Antichrist. You may come up with some interesting things, right, and we could possibly we could circle back and work on that at some point, right maybe maybe in another broadcast, will we'll we'll throw out that theory and we will will make it a hypothesis and we will test it. But to say Jesus Solomon represents Jesus is somewhat concerning to me again, because Solomon was a serial adulterer, a serial polygamist. He murdered, you know, a killed a number of people, and he was an idolator.

23:22 I just don't know how that's the representation of Jesus, right, Like, okay, so what do you mean by that? What do you are there some similarities between Solomon and Jesus, Like what is Solomon that? Like, yeah, yeah, so let's see if he gets if he circles back to that. That is not just in the lifetime of David or in the lifetime of Solomon, or in the lifetime of the Old Testament or in the lifetime of the New Testament. This throne that the Bible calls the throne of David is a everlasting throne. It is an eternal throne. Now where did we start this Bible study. We started this Bible study in Luke chapter one, verses thirty two and thirty three. Luke one thirty two. He shall be great talking about Jesus, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom.

24:40 There shall be no end. Now does that remind you of anything? Turn to the Book of Isaiah. Turn to chapter nine, Isaiah chapter nine. Let's look at verses six and seven. We tend to think of these verses as the Christmas verses. Again, there was no proof of Solomon being a picture of Jesus. There was nothing there. There was nothing there. So I don't know if he thinks reading those verses about the Dividic Covenant and what Solomon would do and about him like I, I don't get it. I don't get it now, I so so, but let's just move on.

25:34 Let's just move on, all right. So now we're in Isaiah chapter nine, verse six and seven. He's gonna read it and we'll see what he has to say here. But they're really not Isaiah chapter nine, Verse six. For unto us, a child is born. Onto us, a son is given. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed it in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For unto us, a child is born in a manger. Unto us, a son is given, the only begotten Son. And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful counselor the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three. The one in the middle died for me.

26:40 Behold Israel, our God is. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There's one God, three distinct persons who are coequal in eternal Did he just walk into Modalism? I'm gonna look something up here. I'm gonna look something here.

27:21 Okay, uh, all right, so here we go. Modalism is a philological belief concerning the nature of God, particularly within the context of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity. Modalists assert that God is a singular entity who reveals himself in different modes or forms, rather than being three distinct persons. When you say the Son is the Father, and the Son is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the Son, that's one is Pentecostalism. This is almost a denial of the trinity. Are they trinitarian? Okay? Hang on, I'm gonna look something up. I'm okay, I am a little bit confused here. All right, I'm a there's a website here. I'm going to see if I can find their doctrinal beliefs. I'm going to find their doctrinal beliefs here. Hang on.

28:08 About about to see here. A statement of faith? All right? Hang on statement of faith. See if I can get to it. Hang on statement of faith. All right, here we go. Statement of faith. We believe in one God, eternally, existing in a try uniform in nature, the Father, the only Begotten Son, in the Holy Spirit. We believe that thou, while they're equal in the God, had that all power has been placed in the only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Further, we believe that the Father's Son and Spirit are present in Jesus who. Okay, wait a minute, that sounds okay, all right, okay, hang on, give me some I'm typing something out, yeah, okay, all right, okay.

29:31 So yeah, well I'm asking Ai here because I'm very concerned. Okay, So let's go back to what modalism is. Okay, this okay, now, now, oh, this is getting all right now I'm getting worried here. All right, We're trying to talk about the restoration of Israel, and he just kind of went all wacky right there, just went whacky because he basically said, the Son is the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. That's one is Pentecostalism, right, that there's one who takes on three different modes, right, he there's one God who manifests himself as Father, than a son, as as Spirit. But it's just one. No, it's one God who exists three distinct persons who are coequal and co eternal. They are distinct in their person so all right. So, Modalism is a thological belief concerning the nature of God, particularly within the context of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity. Modalists assert that God is a singular entity who reveals himself in different modes or forms, rather than being three distinct persons as traditionally understood in the trinitary doctrine. According to modalism, there are merely different manifestations or roles that the One God assumes at different times, rather than being distinct persons who co exist eternally. For example, God might appear as Father in creation, the Son during Jesus incarnation, and the Holy Spirit and sanctification. This belief was deemed heretical by early Christian councils because it denies the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who are fully God and are coeternal.

30:59 Key figures in early Church history, such as Tertulia and strongly opposed modalism, arguing that it compromises the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. All right, so we've talked about modalism. That sounds very modalistic, That sounds very that sounds very one oneness pentecostal. So I'm getting really nervous here, right. So then they provide what they believe to be a definition of the Trinity. Right, So their statement of faith is we believe in one God eternally existing in a triune form in nature, the Father, the only Begotten Son, in his Holy Spirit. We believe that while they are equal in the Godhead, that all power has been placed in the only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Further, we believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are present in Jesus, who is the fullness of the Godhead. What is okay? What is that? So I asked Ai about this, and Ai, this is how AI understood it. The statement you provided contains element that could potentially suggest a modalistic understanding, though it is not fully explicit. Let's break it down.

32:06 We believe in one God eternally existing in triune form and nature. This phrase seems to affirm a belief in the Trinity, as it acknowledges one God existing in triune form. However, the use of form and nature might imply a nontrinitary interpretation depending on how form is understood. We believe that while they are equal in the god Head, that all power has been placed in the only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. This could reflect the belief that Jesus, as the incarnate Son, has been given all authority. This is consistent with Orthodox trinitary teaching, which recognizes the distinct persons of the Trinity with different roles or function. However, placing a strong emphasis on Jesus as the sole bearer of all power might suggest to functional hierarchy that could be viewed different by various theological perspectives. We believe that the Father, Son and Spirit are present in Jesus. This part of the statement is crucial. It cites Colustions two nine, which says for in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. And Trinitarian orthodoxy this is understood to mean that Jesus is fully God, but not that the Father and the Holy Spirit are subsumed within him. And contrasts, Modalism teaches that one God appears in different modes and might, and might interpret this statement to mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different manifestations with Jesus Christ, rather than distinct persons. Thus, the statement could lean towards a modalistic understanding. All right, so it is very concerning here.

33:35 We believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord, is Lord and Lord, and that Jesus created everything, and that Jesus is coming for his church. Lastly, we believe that all the God had exists in Jesus Christ for reasons already stated, there is one and one in three and one in the middle died for me. That is a problematic. That is not a very orthodox box explanation of the Trinity. That is that is very problematic. That's that's that's very problematic, ladies and gentlemen, that's very problematic. Yeah, there's three distinct persons who are coequal and co eternal. So uh, okay, I'm gonna ask. I'm gonna ask ai.

34:48 Hey, guy, I'm gonna look something up here. All right, here we go. I apologize having to type that. Yeah, okay, if someone says that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that would not be a trinitarian understanding. I'm gonna back this up and see if he said that. I'm gonna see, I'm gonna i this does not sound like the Trinity. This does not sound like the Trinity. As soon as I heard this, Okay, I'm gonna back it up a little bit here. Just I'm gonna back it up a little bit or see if we can find where he said it.

35:32 Isaiah chapter nine, verse six. For unto us, a child is born unto us, a son is given. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believed it in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For unto us, a child is born in a manger. Unto us, a son is given, the only begotten Son, And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful counselor the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit.

36:22 He just said Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If someone says that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that would not be a trinitary understanding and Trinitarian doctrine, which is the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Godhead. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are fully God. Yet there is only one God that coexist eternally and have distinct roles. But they are not to be confused with one another. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. If someone were to say that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That reflects a modalistic understanding, where the belief is that the One God reveals himself in three different modes as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but these are not distinct persons. In this view, Jesus would be seen as simply taking on different roles or manifestations depending on the situation. This view was rejected as a radical by early church councils because it denies the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is a core tenet of trinitarianism. This is a denial of trinitarianism. This is not I'm going to back that up again. This is this is seriously problematic. Here, this is seriously problematic. I'm going to go back. Here.

37:31 Here we go. Isaiah chapter nine, verse six. For unto us, a child is born, unto us, a son is given. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believed that in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For unto us, a child is born in aa. Unto us, a son is given, the only begotten Son, And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful counselor the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He is the Father, he is the Son, he is the Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three, the one in the middle died for me. Behold, Israel, our God is one of the increase, Verse seven of his government and peace.

38:43 There shall be no end upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice. From henceforth even forever, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this. The throne of David is an everlasting throne. The throne of David is an eternal throne. Turn to. We're gonna stop right there, because that is not good.

39:25 All right, ladies and gentlemen. All the stuff you may be seeing about the restoration of Israel. Great, Okay, Look, here's what I would rather. I would rather have massive Well, put it this way, it's perfectly acceptable to have massive disagreements about the restoration of Israel. Right. Well, it's gonna be a literal restoration of a literal Israel and a literal land, and literal fulfillment of a literal nation, or no Israel absolutely was replaced basically by the Church. You can have disagreements within that and you're still within the realm of Christianity. You get the trinity wrong, you've left the realm of Christianity because you are literally defining either God is a trinity, one God, three distinct persons are co equal, co eternal, or he is not. And either either the modalistic understanding is right or the trinitarian understanding is right. They both cannot be right. Only one can be right. And you're literally dealing with the very nature of God. And you get the nature of God wrong, then you have a false God, and then ladies and gentlemen, you no longer have Christianity. That is a massive issue.

40:35 Their statement of faith is very is very confusing. In fact, I'm gonna ask something. Okay, okay, all right, I'm gonna ask this. I'm gonna I'm gonna, I'm gonna I'm gonna just do some more search here would this be a a trend Aitarrian understanding? Okay, all right, here we go.

41:18 So even AI has a little problem even with our last statement that whole all right, that there the three and one and one in three and the one in the middle died for me. Even that little statement they threw there at the end, even AI is kind of like, wait a minute, wait, here's what AI says. The phrase three in one and one in three and the one in the middle died for me appears to reflect elements of Trinitarian language, but it could potentially lead to misunderstanding depending on interpretation. Here's how it aligns with trinitary understanding. Three in one, in one and three The phrase captures the essence of the trinitary doctrine, which teaches that God is one in essence of substance, but exists in three distinct persons, father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that part aligns with trinitary and theology. The one in the middle died for me. This refers to g Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, the son who died for humanity salvation. This is also consistent with Trinitarian belief because it specifically identifies Jesus as the one who died on the cross. However, the phrase the one in the middle could be metaphorical, metaphorical, or poetic, and might imply that Jesus is central within the Trinity, but it needs careful handling to avoid confusion and trinitarianism. While Jesus is the incarnate son who died, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also fully God and equally important. So even then to have a little bit of problems when you take the other things that they said, I mean, he said he is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. No, that is not trinitarianism. Okay, let me go back to that.

42:42 Let me go back again. Let me make it very clear, all right, because it's very very important, all right. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. There are three distinct coeqal coetern all. Now, Christians are sloppy when it comes to the Trinity. Christians are careless. They are sloppy. They and they act like it doesn't really matter. They'll be like, oh, you're just nitpicking. You're just getting into you're getting into all that philological nuance. No, you're dealing with the nature of God. You either get the right God or you have the wrong God. And if you have the wrong God, then I'm sorry, that's not Christianity. Christianity would be the belief and the right God correct, wouldn't that be a foundational part of Christianity.

43:32 That was crazy was not expecting that. All right, we'll stop there. That's where we won't go another ninety minutes. You need to go listen to the rest It's called Restoration of Israel Part one. Again. The name of the broadcaster is now the end. Now the end begins Bible Study Archives. If you look them up on the sermon's two point oh app and you click on the broadcaster, Now the End begins Bible Study Archives, you can scroll down. You'll see a link to their website. The website will take you to their Statement of Faith. I think most Christians would read the Statement of Faith and never question it and never have a problem thinking they're trinitarian. I don't think that's trinitarianism. I know. I'm gonna ask a question.

44:14 Hang on, did okay? Hang on? Oh see, okay, I knew there was. So they promote a book by Peter Ruckman, right, okay, So here's what they say. Peter Ruckman, a controversial Baptist pastor in Theologian, did not outright deny the Trinity, but his views on the Godhead were often criticized for being unconventional and confusing. He claimed to believe in the Trinity, acknowledging the Father's Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons. However, Ruckman express his belief in way that some critics have argued bordered on modalism, or at least created confusion about the stance on traditional Trinitarian doctrine. Ruckman's teachings were known for their idiosyncrasies and sometimes cryptic language. He would describe the persons of the Trinity in ways that led some to accuse him of holding unorthodox views. For example, he sometimes used phrases that suggest that Jesus Christ contained the fullness of God, the Godhead, and a manner that can apply. Jesus alone embodies the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They're taking their language from Peter Ruckman, all right, So that's that's where that came from. They're taking it from Peter Ruckman.

45:40 That's that's where oh man, I knew as soon as they mentioned Peter Ruckman, I knew we were in trouble. I knew we were in trouble. I knew it. And there we go. We just that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is not trinitarian language. That's downright modalistic one Pentecostal type language. That is just wrong, that's forget wrong, that's that's borderline heretical. I won't go so far to say heretical because it's not an outright denial, but it's not trinitarian language. But see, they got enough trinitarian concepts there that they could try to argue they believe in the trinity, but it's almost a red defining of what the trinity is. They're not using historical traditional language.

46:25 This is where creeds come into play, and this is where his church history comes into play. All Right, we'll stop right there. That got that got very interesting. All right, go listen to the rest. There's not a lot left and you can you can. Well, we didn't really get we didn't really get to the restoration of Israel, did we. See. This is what happens. See, this is the beautiful part of doing these reviews. We never know where we're gonna end up. We basically ended up into Ruckmanism, right we you now know a little about about Peter Ruckman and we we we just you just heard modalism. That's what you're heard, sometimes known as Sabellianism, or one is Pentecostalism. It's all heretical, it's not trinitarianism. All right, we'll stop right there. I don't know what else to say. Thanks for listening, everyone, have a great evening. God bless