The Moscow Mood: Doug Wilson and Kevin DeYoung Dr. Bill Roach 2026-09-23 | The Moscow Mood: Doug Wilson and Kevin DeYoung
Guarding the Truth: John MacArthur’s Legacy of Fidelity Bill Roach 2025-07-15 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses the life and legacy of John MacArthur.#johnmacarthur #gracetoyou #bible #christianity https://x.com/billroach_/status/19450902643530920530:00-4:26 Introduction4:26-9:52 Inerrancy9:53-17:22 Hermeneutics17:23-24:06 Charismatic Movement24:07-30:56 Premillennialism30:57-35:06 ECT: Evangelicals and Catholics Together35:07-39:42 Wokeness and CRT39:43-43:50 Conclusion
What is the Woke Right? Engaging with Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, and Elijah Schaeffer Bill Roach 2025-05-08 | In this video, I engage with @JordanBPeterson and @newdiscourses (James Lindsay) on their topic of: What is the Woke Right? I also engage Elijah Schaeffer from @RiftTVChannel and his claims about myself. The X threads I engage are: https://x.com/billroach_/status/1920106416968290355https://x.com/billroach_/status/1920209590521901088https://x.com/billroach_/status/1920229993604673618
Was Jesus Really Nailed to the Cross? Debunking Christianity Today | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2025-04-21 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach responds to the claim by Christianity Today that Jesus was possibly not nailed to the cross, but merely hung on the cross by ropes. christianitytoday.com/2025/04/was-jesus-crucified-with-nails/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=articletiktok.com/@variata42/video/7350693995732880682
Effective Pastoral Visitation Tips | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2025-03-25 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach offers some practical advice and examples of how to perform a pastoral visitation.
Mark Dever: Believers Baptism or Infant Baptism Bill Roach 2025-03-17 | In this video, we provide a popular clip from Mark Dever addressing the issue of baptism. Specifically, as it relates to believer's or infant baptism. He also addresses the topic of congregational church government.#baptist #baptism #infantbaptism #presbyterian #congregational
Defending Evangelicalism: The Apologetics of Norman L. Geisler | Dr. William Roach Bill Roach 2025-02-14 | In this video below, Dr. Bill Roach discusses his latest book: Defending Evangelicalism: The Apologetics of Norman L. Geisler. amazon.com/Defending-Evangelicalism-Apologetics-Norman-Geisler/dp/B0DWH5CZW4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VGH25GMKOT5U&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ofZcOcVk_um3pe8rqL8rLu9nEAwShVL4ohaaSuhBwCWXG0sDiNbHwgER0cWP8rrVKtBia6z4virImawx8dq9TiD-sEb96lgkcncdKECpQ_IVVlwR6Mz9GhljocOfFDiLM8pPDf8G4v9wn1-guTxa6w.QZliMvXGRERPzXBcFP-7ycol8am01Cp2SVO79kaHDQM&dib_tag=se&keywords=defending+evangelicalism&qid=1739541912&sprefix=%2Caps%2C122&sr=8-1
The Best Apologetics Book for a Beginner Bill Roach 2025-02-06 | In this short video, Dr. Bill Roach addresses the question: What's the First Apologetics Book You Should Read?
Mike Licona & Limited Inerrancy: Where He Goes Wrong | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2025-01-30 | In this video, we respond to Licona's video here: https://x.com/DrMikeLicona/status/1884661829139419612https://x.com/billroach_/status/1873077003391242268
Top Practical Takeaways From Wesley Huffs Interview on Joe Rogan | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2025-01-14 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach shares some very practical takeaways from Wesley Huff's interview on Joe Rogan. @WesHuff @joerogan
James Lindsays Marxist Hoax Paper on American Reformer Bill Roach 2024-12-05 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach engages with a hoax paper James Lindsay (aka., Marcus Carlson) published on the website of American Reformer. Here are the relevant links: americanreformer.org/2024/11/the-liberal-consensus-and-the-new-christian-right web.archive.org/web/20241129221603/americanreformer.org/2024/11/the-liberal-consensus-and-the-new-christian-rightnewdiscourses.com/2024/12/a-communist-manifesto-for-christian-nationalists-testing-the-woke-right
Christian Nationalism Exposed: How James Lindsay’s Hoax Paper Revealed the Woke Right’s Agenda Bill Roach 2024-12-03 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach engages with a hoax paper James Lindsay (aka., Marcus Carlson) published on the website of American Reformer. Here are the relevant links: americanreformer.org/2024/11/the-liberal-consensus-and-the-new-christian-rightweb.archive.org/web/20241129221603/americanreformer.org/2024/11/the-liberal-consensus-and-the-new-christian-rightnewdiscourses.com/2024/12/a-communist-manifesto-for-christian-nationalists-testing-the-woke-rightGrievance Studies Affair video: youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k0:00-11:05 Introduction To The Situation11:06-20:26 Background To The Grievance Studies Affair20:27-36:48 James Lindsay's Explanation36:49-53:05 Final Takeaways To Understand CN and the Woke Right
Honest Advice For Struggling Seminary Graduates | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-11-19 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses several issues seminary students face during and after seminary. He then offers counsel for how to proceed.
The New Face of Cancel Culture | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-11-12 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses many ways people have used the phrase "This is Politics" in order to engage in a modern-day expression of Cancel Culture. He illustrates it with these two videos: youtube.com/shorts/pykyckWSW-4https://x.com/billroach_/status/1853831012360314893
Christian Nationalism: The Woke Right | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-10-29 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach responds to Andrew Torba on Christian Nationalism going mainstream. He then proceeds to explain the particularities of the movement and why it should be rejected. #wokeism #crt #christiannationalismhttps://x.com/billroach_/status/1851254862882681325
John MacArthur Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) Study Bible Review: Should You Get It? Bill Roach 2024-10-17 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach reviews the updated Legacy Standard Bible. @LegacyStandardBible @gracetoyou @thomasnelsoninc Links referenced: amazon.com/LSB-MacArthur-Study-Bible-2nd/dp/1400339731/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ZL63NSRJENPE&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.dQFx0LBs32JC1Zc3cC_1UY6xMbxiL8JRwLJDnWPD_uFWC7F3jI1uvnTWAovApJn3LVn159-0YaF3ms0lggJ95MMwaMpwepRJqLIRQblZfkJE_8oiHgbHqsytUONUjy5nK6k6swlml8h_Mc34c3PSrx4_EqKajrEx7MUUYvNkQv595HiItI9E293ILk5EH4V2VMaAITL6foE50M6mPHpOIhQgrh2dJ-OKUBAb8Fs367c.qKebeouCxDcmbtNZa1GQwJ7e26pLw3opS6c6bye3vYA&dib_tag=se&keywords=macarthur+study+bible+lsb&qid=1729189394&sprefix=macarthur+study+bi%2Caps%2C141&sr=8-1lsbible.org/faqsPlus this video by @aigkenham was played as an endorsement: youtube.com/shorts/oIeXM-XpN8o
To Vote or Not to Vote: A Christian Dilemma for 2024 | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-10-15 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses whether a conservative Christian can and should vote in 2024. In particular, whether a Christian can and should vote either Republican or Democrat.
The Future of Christian Apologetics | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-10-10 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach deals with the question: Has the apologetics movement died? He argues for the reality of the current movement and discusses issues to keep it from growing irrelevant.
Debating Biblical Inerrancy: The Lausanne Covenant & The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Bill Roach 2024-09-12 | In this video, I discuss the Lausanne Covenant on Biblical Inspiration and the Chicago Statement. I discuss Michael Licona's views on the matter and demonstrate why they are incorrect. Here are the works cited: defendinginerrancy.com/billy-graham-and-biblical-inerrancynormangeisler.com/on-licona-muddying-the-waters"The Lausanne Covenant adopted at the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization stated in its final draft that the Bible is “without error in all that it affirms.” Some have contended that this wording provides an escape hatch for those who exclude a historical Adam and Eve (Richard N. Ostling, “A Message from Lausanne,” p. 24); members of the drafting committee disowned this intention, however, declaring that they emphasized only that biblical inerrancy relates to the range, purpose and genre of the content."--Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:175.Francis Schaeffer in his book titled, No Final Conflict, makes the following comments on people who try to use the Lausanne Covenant as a loophole to bypass affirming Biblical Inerrancy. Schaeffer writes: "Another quote. This is a translation from another language and a country far off from the United States.More problematic in my estimation is the fundamentalist extension of the principle of noncontradictory Scripture to include the historic, geographic, statistical and other biblical statements, which do not touch in every case on the questions of salvation and which belong to the human element of Scripture.Both of these statements do the same thing. They make a dichotomy. They make a division. They say that there are mistakes in the Bible, but nevertheless we are to keep hold of the religious evangelical circles.Now look with me at what the Lausanne Covenant says about Scripture.We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.I ought to say that the little phrase, “without error in all that it affirms” was not part of my own contribution to the Lausanne Congress. I didn’t know that phrase was going to be included in the Covenant until I saw it in its final printed form. But let me speak about why historically it is a proper statement, if the words are dealt with fairly. We are not saying the Bible is without error in the things it does not affirm. And one of the clearest examples, of course, is where the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” The Bible does not teach there is no God. The Bible does not affirm that. Furthermore, we are not saying the Bible is without error in all the projections which people have made on the basis of the Bible. So that statement, as it appeared in the Lausanne Covenant, is a perfectly proper statement in itself. However, as soon as I saw it in its printed form I knew it was going to be abused. In August 1975, Dr. Billy Graham wrote me as follows: “I was thinking of writing a brief booklet on ‘in all that it affirms’ which I took to mean the entire Bible. Unfortunately, this statement is being made a loophole by many.”Unhappily, this statement, “in all that it affirms,’ has indeed been made a loophole by many. How has it been made a loophole? It has been made a loophole through the existential methodology which would say that the Bible affirms the value system certain religious things set forth in the Bible. But on the basis of the existential methodology these men say in the back of their minds, even as they sign the Covenant, “But the Bible does not affirm without error that which it teaches in the area of history and the cosmos.”Because of the widely accepted existential methodology in certain parts of the evangelical community, the old words infallibility, inerrancy and without error are meaningless today unless some phrase is added such as: the Bible is without error not only when it speaks of values, the meaning system and religious things, but it is also without error when it speaks of history and the cosmos. If some such phrase is not added, these words today are meaningless. Infallibility is used today by men who do not apply it to the whole of Scripture, but only to the meaning system, to the value system and certain religious things, leaving out any place where the Bible speaks of history and the things which would interest science.
John MacArthur on The Inerrancy of The Bible Bill Roach 2024-09-10 | In this video, we play two clips by John MacArthur on the inerrancy of the Bible. We also provide quotes from Carl F. H. Henry and Francis Schaeffer on the matter. Finally, we conclude by answering the objection by Michael Licona that "Norman Geisler considered inerrancy an essential of the Christian faith." Sources: youtube.com/watch?v=vA5rGF35-Cw&t=243syoutube.com/watch?v=aPtGVtCOlLEbible-researcher.com/schaeffer1.htmlhttp://richardghowe.com/index_htm_files/InerrancyExplainingInerrancy.pdfThe same criticism from Carl F. H. Henry could be labeled against those who affirm who affirm a "flexible" view of inerrancy (i.e., limited inerrancy). "Those critics who would partition Scripture into errant and inerrant segments have never achieved a logically persuasive division; those who venture to take this course disagree radically among themselves. They have never, moreover, adduced a theological, philosophical or biblical principle that objectively justifies dividing the Scriptures into “truth and error” rather than “rightly dividing the word of truth”(2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). The inevitable consequence of insisting on biblical authority and inspiration on the one hand and an errant Bible on the other is, of course, that inspiration ceases to be a guarantee of the truth of what the Bible teaches; the authority of Scripture must then somehow be divorced from the truth of its content. The problem with such alternatives is that they destroy the objective truth of the Christian religion, trivialize theology, and lead finally to skepticism. The historic Christian case for the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture is not predicated on wildly irrational argumentation, nor has it been logically invalidated by modern biblical studies. What has led modern critical scholars away from this evangelical affirmation has been considerations of another kind, that is, philosophical preconceptions to which they alternatively adjust the evidence, and which often involve—even while the critics lay claim to be Christian—a conception of God different in many respects from the God of the Bible who himself is truth and who cannot lie."--Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:192-193.
Unpacking Michael Liconas Views of Inspiration and Flexible Inerrancy Bill Roach 2024-09-04 | In this video, I am responding to key points of Michael Licona's ETS paper on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
Bill Roachs Response to Michael Licona on Inerrancy: Part 2: Claims of Misquoting J. I. Packer Bill Roach 2024-08-03 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach responds to Dr. Michael Licona's video response concerning J. I. Packer. Roach responded to the many claims found in this video: youtu.be/x_A2waU3fFc?si=djQmLTFpsOULYJZmResources include: Classic Misuses of Packer: normangeisler.com/the-misuse-of-j-i-packer-to-defend-mike-liconas-denial-of-inerrancyGeisler's Phone Call With Packer: defendinginerrancy.com/j-i-packer-stands-firm-on-inerrancy0:00-09:27 Key Issues and Background of ICBI09:28-23:53 Consistency and Inconsistency in Licona's Method23:54-39:07 Failure To Account For All The Data39:08-01:24:17 Dealing With Specific Objections01:24:17-01:28:27 Licona, CSBI, and Packer
Bill Roachs Response to Michael Licona on Inerrancy Part 1: Claims of Slander and Misrepresentation Bill Roach 2024-08-01 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach responds to @BraxtonHunter and @MikeLiconaOfficial (Dr. Michael Licona) and their latest video concerning alleged misrepresentations of Licona's views. 0:00-6:59 Introductory Matters7:00-17:10 The Big Picture of Licona's Views17:11-23:19 Personal Interactions with Licona23:20-40:42 True Nature of the Apologetics World40:43-42:37 Licona's View of Limited Inerrancy42:38-53:11 Weltanschauungskrieg53:12-01:14:56 DARVO Explained and Illustrated01:14:57-01:33:01 Motte and Bailey Explained and Illustrated01:33:02-01:42:56 Correspondence View of Truth and Postmodernism01:42:57-02:13:21 Examples of Slander02:13:22-02:16:40 SEBTS Journal02:16:41--02:23:56 Assortment of Various IssuesHere is Licona's original video: youtu.be/R0dnEWsaNho?si=EH_4sJNRRKlUGAZe Here is Braxton's original video: youtube.com/watch?v=Mf0RfMgGMzo&t=7sHere are the works referenced: James Lindsay Video: youtube.com/watch?v=XSEwiO-0aDgGeisler's Response to Licona: normangeisler.com/on-licona-muddying-the-watersLicona's Response to Geisler: risenjesus.com/chicagos-muddy-watersPublic Response to JP Holding's Video: normangeisler.com/support-outrage-and-some-unfortunate-approval-in-response-to-the-satirical-youtube-videos-that-slander-dr-geislerSEBTS Journal Article: normangeisler.com/brief-comments-on-the-licona-dialogue-at-southeastern-baptist-theological-seminaryGeisler videos by JP Holding: youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5D4B4AB81DB12BA8Geisler's Christmas Carol: youtube.com/watch?v=hSMEsQkoH3A&list=PL5D4B4AB81DB12BA8&index=1
Examining Michael Licona’s View of Inerrancy Bill Roach 2024-07-28 | This video initially posted on @christicommunity. We were given permission to repost it here as a first response to @MikeLiconaOfficial.Here’s a link to the original paper:risenjesus.com/etspaper2023
Mike Liconas Misrepresentation of J. I. Packer and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Bill Roach 2024-07-03 | normangeisler.com/dr-r-c-sprouls-judgmentnot-even-remotely-compatible-with-icbinormangeisler.com/the-misuse-of-j-i-packer-to-defend-mike-liconas-denial-of-inerrancynormangeisler.com/a-response-to-misstatements-about-j-i-packers-supposed-support-of-liconas-viewLydia McGrew: I'm still reading through the transcript of the interview that came out yesterday. So you'll find this interesting. Link below. In answer to a question from the audience, Licona says, "The concept of inspiration, given the middle knowledge, is that inspired basically means it is ultimately from God, and God has put his stamp of approval on what we have. I would say, yes, even any errors that may be in there, in that sense, is inspired. God breathed. Now, are they inerrant in a Chicago sense? No, they wouldn't be. Are they inerrant in more of a flexible inerrancy sense? Yes."So there you have it, right out there. Not inspired in a Chicago sense. And we can recall that back when the whole controversy with Geisler was going on, it was about whether Mike himself could *affirm* inerrancy in the Chicago sense. It wasn't *just* about whether this particular view of his or that was compatible with Chicago inerrancy, because he was supposed to be signing on personally that he *personally* affirmed inerrancy, in a context where the Chicago statement was in view (SES).https://www.youtube.com/live/N5N5snM1PSQ...“As the former and only President of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Dr. Michael Licona’s views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI.R.C. SproulMay 22nd, 2012As a framer of the ICBI statement on biblical inerrancy and once studied Greco-Roman literature at advanced level, I judge Mike Licona’s view that, because the Gospels are semi-biographical, details of their narratives may be regarded as legendary and factually erroneous, to be both academically and theologically unsound (Letter, 5/8/14). J.I. Packer
The Dialectic and the Legitimatizing of Soft Complementarianism Bill Roach 2024-07-02 | In this video Dr Bill Roach deals with the issues related to Hegel, the dialectic, complementarianism, and egalitarianism. #criticalracetheory #feminism #southernbaptist
CRT, Theology, and Female Pastors Bill Roach 2024-07-02 | #crt #criticalracetheory #theology #feminism
Exploring How Resolution 9 Affected The Law Amendment in the SBC | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-07-01 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses how the adoption of the epistemology of Resolution 9 led to the inability to pass the Law Amendment in the SBC.#southernbaptist #sbc #bible #christiandoctrine #criticalracetheory #crt #feminism
Unpacking Mike Liconas Views on The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Jesus Contradicted) Bill Roach 2024-05-21 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach interacts with Dr. Mike Licona's ETS paper on inerrancy. This original paper can be found here: risenjesus.com/etspaper2023?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR29dNOJ4nql9kxLL_Oqq_qZ3Vzbiig4WCOC7h7pwiKIG7a4ydAkwiLI3mg_aem_AdmJA18g9eE1gv890SZbopYarl-B76ld9Iu3La7ZYH6niFcWmeFRBaG_af4M3GENnYBoNWIeX-jJImj08FWCJhwh
Exploring the Woke Right, Christian Nationalism & Post-Liberalism | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-05-14 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses the rise of a Christian Nationalism and Post-liberalism.
Peter Kreeft | The First Philosophy Books You Should Read (Evaluation by Dr. Bill Roach) Bill Roach 2024-05-09 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach discusses why most philosophy today is anti-philosophy because it fundamentally undermines the concept of a love of wisdom.He recommends the following books by Peter Kreeft:1.Philosophy 101 By Socrates2. A Socratic Introduction to Plato's Republic3. The Platonic Tradition4. Back To Virtue5. The Best Things in LIfe
The Untold Truth Behind the United Methodist Churchs Historic Split | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-05-02 | In this video, Dr. Bill Roach evaluates the real situation facing the United Methodist Church. #unitedmethodistchurch #lgbt #lgbtq #bible #christian #christianity cnn.com/2024/05/01/us/united-methodist-church-lgbtq-clergy-reaj/index.htmlhttps://x.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1785331805735842053https://x.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1785799894780842037https://x.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1786019770095087876https://x.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1786012350765551881https://x.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1785684482609000653
John Piper: Dont Waste Your Life (review) | Dr. Bill Roach Bill Roach 2024-04-30 | In this video, @DrBillRoach engages with John Piper's video with @desiringGod to discuss why we should still be committed to Piper's vision of the Christian life. He reviews this video: youtube.com/watch?v=mfpmbmsvu3A
BJJ Tournaments Ban Transgenders From Womens Sports Bill Roach 2024-04-25 | In this particular video, we discuss why combat sports should ban transgender's from women's sports. tapcancerout.org/transgender-athlete-policyamazon.com/Queering-American-Child-Religious-Poisons/dp/B0CSP4L1T9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QKGUWCXRO0BK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qVEv9iBRwg50sPGsKauBRgTKksgu2EnzS1x6vXUbk8vdyT4uvZbiA-l5gfmqPK7EbCqeCiE8paJ4opxJKLnqCYiQnr3qkIF2HGcmvBRt5p4.okqipGdqfT3PECdfRFi8q7316HXXH9NnGpbooC2ibqo&dib_tag=se&keywords=james+lindsay+queering+of+american+child+book&qid=1713983923&sprefix=james+lind%2Caps%2C92&sr=8-1youtube.com/watch?v=neKhgvukXqwThis is the email I sent Tap Cancer: To whom it may concern,I am writing to notify you that me and my family will no longer participate in Tap Cancer Out Tournaments.Upon reading your website (with the desired goal of registering for a tournament), I noticed you have updated your policy to allow transgender figures to compete at your tournaments. I recognize your qualifications that a transgender male will not fight against biological females. However, even this concession is catering unto the predominant Critical Queer Theory driving this entire transgender movement. The only rational and consistent approach is to ban biological men from competing against women and not create a separate category just for transgenders. This strict approach is taken by the IBJJF, NAGA, ADCC, FUJI, etc. I wish you would adopt their policy and revoke your current position. If so, I would gladly participate at future tournaments. My motivation for this stance is consistency. I travel the country giving speeches and interviews against DEI and Critical Theory because they fundamentally undermine classic concepts of freedom, truth, justice, and ethics. I cannot in one arena stand against this movement to then participate in my private life. I hope you understand.
