It was Abe Cho. Scripture lesson was from 2 Peter 1:12-21.
Cho connected the "cleverly devicsed stories (mythology)" in 16th verse to Christ's transfiguration (v. 17-18), instead of resurrection. But I see it unnecessary to compare that with resurrection. Cho's 3 points: What is the Bible. Why do we need the Bible. What does the Bible do. I see no clarity in referencing those points.
When he touched on the subject of extra-biblical word revelation (which is the specialty of the Charismatics, of course he didn't say that), he did not come outright to disagree with it but instead, he described HOW one should read the Bible as how to fit into God's world instead of trying to look for how to live from the Bible.
I therefore observed that the Young Restless and Reformed pastors love to approach controversies not by changing the topics (that's the evangelicals' specialty), but "mutate" the subject in a subtle way to get the reformed "message" (not correction) across, but so subtle that the opponents of the message almost certainly cannot discern what has been said. Therefore, nobody was convicted, nothing has changed except that the "preachers" were convinced that they had preached what they were called for.