11/13/2014 Today on The Dividing Line: David Gushee abandons a biblical view of homosexuality

And greetings. Welcome to the dividing line. Uh no it's not really cold here. I guess my shirt looks like it is a little colder here but i mean it's in the 70s right. Uh upper 70s. Something like that.

Uh i don't know i i i think it was supposed to be like 77 today. It's supposed to be high of 72 on sunday. That's. Whoa. What. Yeah. But i no no no no no no no 75. .9 degrees. Officially. Dress like a lumberjack.

Well thank you very much. Okay. Phoenix sky harbor. It is 80. Okay. Never mind. Hey hi hi. Today was supposed to be 78 but uh 76 77 and sunday 70 and a low of 50. All we're doing right now is just yeah right now we're just mocking everybody every everywhere else.

Pretty much because i'm seeing all over facebook and stuff summer's talking about. I had to find this special winter socks that you gave us. And uh we're all dying here. As i know. Goodness that ain't happening here.

Ain't happening here. But um that means if it's 50 here uh some of the outlying areas it will get down in the upper 30s on uh on sunday night. So that's. Um you you look like someone popped you in the face.

It wasn't me was not me. There's been no.

No work violence got a little tmj thing going on here and you know it's uh i guess i'm getting old.

And well let's not go there. Starting to dysfunction it's as well. Yeah all of our bodies are falling falling apart anyway. Hey i am. Have you noticed. Uh wow that looks really different.

That looks really really different now. Well we turn the lights up adjusted the uh the uh white balance uh-huh uh-huh and then of course uh i don't know it sort of looks like i'm.

Just looking through the window or something that actually looks rather realistic. It's.

That was what i was going for. Move a few things around. Make it look a little homey.

And where did i get that thing from. I i forget which church i was speaking at church that is so pretty and i really liked it and they just gave it to me. And i i wish i could remember who it was. Oh man that's terrible.

I mean for years i did remember who it was and then it's been so long it just goes away. That's that age thing again. Anyways have uh has anyone been noticing uh the tweets i was i this is the third program one two three third third program i've done today.

Um did the janet mefford show on this simka jakubovich obviously is running out of money again. Story uh it's been seven years since the uh talpiet tomb story i think since then he claimed to have found the the nails across and uh now he's decoding sixth century stories about joseph and his wives and turning it into stuff about jesus and mary magdalene.

And it's i mean i i think the talpiet tomb was jumping the shark but now he's jumping the shark wearing a uh black leather jacket with too much hair gel. I mean he's going for the full fawns thing uh jumping the shark now and as i said to janet mefford look if you hear something weird um about gnostic gospels jesus getting married any of this kind of stuff finding jesus's body all that stuff.

Look at the calendar if it's november or december february march or april just move on because that's when these books come out and people try to make money and that's all they're doing. They're just making money.

I've got that much respect for simka jakubovich. I mean just so um we talked about that and then uh i was on live with um todd wilkin on issues etc and we talked about uh trinitarian heresies uh an article i wrote for modern reformation is out right now on that subject.

And um he did mention one of the categories that i i made up called uh what was it. Confused etarianism. Yeah confused etarianism. That was the that was the last one. And uh that's just how many evangelicals are just simply confused as to what the doctrine of uh the trinity is.

And um somebody in channel must have watched the video that i linked to uh janet mefford yesterday james white is associated with luminati. Look at the a from the ailman logo. It's a triangle. Yep yeah there are there.

That was that was a great video. I should have queued that up because it was it was just way too much like too many people i debate um how they how they think. But i'm trying to get back to here uh i have to scroll past some stuff here and i'm trying to look for matthew vines because i started going back and forth a little bit with him.

Matthew Vines and the Refusal to Answer Arguments

Oh wait a minute where'd it all go. One day ago oh i'm looking at the never mind uh i'm looking at the wrong thing here. Um matthew vine started posting something and i wasn't sure what he was going for at first uh but the first first one was um there it is for those who have been sharing andrew wilson's article mockery is not an argument.

It isn't very christ-like either. And i shared it and i'll share it again. And i wish i had written it because i had i had that exact idea many many times to parallel the absurd abuse of the biblical text that is being promoted as serious exegesis by matthew vines and by others in his cadre but to andrew wilson got to it first.

Well so what do you do rather than demonstrate what the error is in the parallel because there is an argument being made there. Uh you just simply try to shame the people making the argument. This is i mean this is classic um homosexual homosexualist activity.

This is this is how they do it. They don't address the argument which contains an argument in of itself that they won't defend that there's something wrong in your drawing is parallel. So for example yesterday when i first posted it there was this one guy going all those that that slippery slope argument stuff is is foolishness.

Explain why. It's just it's arbitrary. Can you explain why. They can't explain why. It's just all emotions. It's just all feelings. That's why i've said so many times um these folks are looking for people to dialogue with who will not force them to really be mature in their thinking.

There's a tremendous amount of immaturity in homosexual and homosexual the whole homosexual movement. Tremendous amount of immaturity. You hurt my feelings. Get over it. How about dealing with the arguments.

You hurt my feelings every day. So what i thought when you grow up that you you grow up and you get past that the the the level of immaturity is shocking to me. It really is. Uh the biggest thing is thou shalt not offend.

Especially if you happen to be a homosexual not be a homosexual and happen to be a conservative christian. Well you're you. You can be offended. All we can say all sorts of things about you. We can accuse you of being responsible for for suicides.

Oh it's it's all your fault. And if you're offended so what. But you can't offend us. You can't see the double standard there. Amazing really is. But um uh yeah right after uh yeah he he retweets matthew andrew wilson's thing and says those have been sharing andrew wilson's article.

Mockery is not argument. It isn't very christlike either. It wasn't mockery matthew if you can't even hear what the argument is and seemingly you can't. Well no i believe you can't. I think you know what the argument is.

And you know what else. Matthew you can't respond to it. You can't demonstrate where the parallels break down. So you have to go the only other way you can and that is to attack the person and to try to shame the person without actually providing any evidence of what they did that was wrong other than making the assertion the argument in your words that it's wrong to do this.

If you don't want to be seen as having contempt for lgbt people then don't write and applaud pieces that demean and dismiss them. Demean and dismiss them. What is the argument of andrew wilson's piece.

Andrew wilson's piece. Those who didn't see it. I'm sorry uh for those of you who didn't see it andrew wilson wrote a piece yesterday where he talked about idolatrous christians. What he did is he paralleled the common argumentation that homosexuals use with someone who would want to engage in a form of idolatry.

So jesus never talked about it didn't use these terms. This is what it meant back then. But we know things so differently now. Blah blah. All the standard means that homosexuals use to deny the sufficiency of scripture to address this issue.

He just turned it to something else. I mean i've used that argumentation many many times. Um but you know it could be used for thievery gluttony just all sorts of things you could. You could find cultural differences between now and then throw that in there.

Say g has never talked about this real easy to to produce the parallel which demonstrates the fundamental error in the type of argumentation that is being used by those that are promoting homosexualism within christianity today.

And so where's the um where's the where's the the refutation. How does that uh demean and dismiss them. So if you argue that homosexuality is a sin you're demeaning people and you shouldn't do that. So there can be no debate.

I mean this is exactly what came up when matthew vines actually took a few minutes a couple weeks ago to interact with me on twitter. Well i won't debate you because i just don't get the feeling that you're well basically that you're willing to uh admit that i'm a homosexual christian.

Oh so we have to capitulate before we debate. I believe homosexual i homosexuality is not consistent with biblical christianity. I was debating that when you were a teenager. Okay yeah well 2001. So you know 13 years ago.

Yeah okay yeah. When you were yeah yeah okay even before you were a teenager uh i debated barry lynn on that i've debated john shelby spong on that. Uh so you're you're late to the party on this matthew.

Um and i'm not going to capitulate my position just simply so you will actually stand up be a man and defend what you've put in into writing ain't gonna do it. Sorry. And if you're offended by that well i would say well i'm offended by you.

But actually i'm not because you see as an adult i can see the difference between these people have a different view. This is my view. And so let's debate it let's find out what the truth is without having to go.

Oh you hurt me. Stop with it people. Oh and this is just what happened. So he he put that out. And i responded uh once i saw if you don't understand why andrew satire is profoundly disrespectful and degrading.

Please work to build more friendships with lgbt people. Friendships will not explain why you think that is disrespectful and degrading. You are making an argument but you. But you're making it without honesty without laying it out there.

So it can be examined. How can warm feelings about somebody change the reality that the parallelism which he created is a valid parallel. How does that change anything. I i know that for modern people who are not trained in logic and they are not trained to think rationally and they are not trained and are not convicted by their worldview to think that truth is vitally important and that we must promote the truth.

And we must live on the basis of truth. People who think that emotion and feeling is the most important thing in the world don't get this. But it remains irrational to make this kind of argumentation.

Okay. Um it's the only way it's disrespectful and degrading is if you can then demonstrate that the parallelism that it is promoting is invalid. Why not just demonstrate that take the argument apart then you can deal with it.

So i responded that maybe you should come to realize your personal feelings seem to preclude you from hearing cogent argumentation. Friendshipping will not change the reality. The bible's actual teaching about god's purpose in his creation.

And a few moments later uh he posted. Remember what matters isn't just what your position is but how you hold and express it. Non-affirming christians you can do better. Now we've got this. This guy is very good at utilizing this kind of grossly invalid argumentation.

And it's grossly invalid. Um what matters isn't just what your position is. See he won't deal with his position is no refutation of what andrew wilson wrote and the validity of its argumentation. Nothing about that.

No no no no that's not how these guys are doing this but how you hold and express it. Oh i don't like the way you're saying it. I don't like the way you're saying it. Well what did he say. Well you're paralleling us to sinners.

Oh uh. Well our position is that homosexual activity is um sinful. So it's a part of our position that it's sinful behavior. So you're saying that if we express our position we lose. Sounds like a really irrational position to hold.

Doesn't it. Non-affirming christians you can do better. See there's an assertion there what's the better way. What's the better way to grant us what we want. Capitulate retrench somewhere down the road but capitulate on the key issues.

That's what you need to do. Okay all right. Uh how about explaining the actual error of the parallel made in the argument rather than avoiding its weight. Matthew. If the argument's invalid identify what is invalid.

You are avoiding the real issue. And uh i didn't get any responses to that. I didn't get any response to any of my uh tweets at all. Um but then just a few moments ago as we were getting ready to go on the air uh let me see here where did that one go.

I wonder somebody removed it because i had just responded to someone who yeah it looks like it went bye-bye. That happens sometimes. I hate when that happens. I wonder if there is a if you hit the conversation thing.

Uh you conversation there it is. Uh kelly ray ramoser wrote to me and said i don't think anyone needs to invalidate the argument. There's a way to talk about the issue without being hurtful. So once again um why is it.

You know we hear all the time they've won the argument. They're not making an argument. Not if you define the term argument in any meaningful fashion they're winning the fee the war of emotions because this next generation has been taught not how to think but what to think.

And as a result they are the the slaves of their own emotions. There you go there you go illustrated by what's going on right now. Amazing stuff amazing stuff. It really is. It's sad. Sad stuff is what it is.

Um okay uh okay homosexual. Then she responded that i just saw this uh homosexual is not a what is irrational emotional about this conversation. I'm confused. Well kelly don't have time to explain it to you right now.

But uh if you can't see how homosexualism is a movement today and has been identified as such by people on both sides i don't know what to say about that. What is irrational emotion about this conversation.

Uh your statement that you don't have to invalidate the argument that it's just simply since it hurts somebody then it must be wrong. That is an emotional argument. There you go. I will have to um i'll have to uh respond to that after the program is over.

Uh no i didn't see. Yeah i i did see uh yeah yeah people are asking me how come how come matthew vines is willing to talk to other people not to me. I guess i my guess would be i spent four and four over four hours refuting his original position.

And he must be aware of the fact that um he his position is is not going to survive in a dialogue with me. So he chooses not to even consider the possibility of going there. That would be my guess. That'd be my guess.

So anyways let's uh let's press on uh i want to do a few more quotes well a lot more quotes from the david gushy book. And then we'll get back to austin fisher. So we'll have covered a bunch of stuff there.

Um i see a squirrel is mesmerized by the uh that's not a plasma lamp. What is a plasma lamp. Now which one would that be. The uh the uh that's called a lumen glass. That's its technical name is lumen glass.

Some people like want to call it the borg regeneration light. Um but that's called a lumen glass. There used to be a lot more choices of lumen glasses than there are now. Unfortunately i guess now that ds9 is off off the earth is not quite as much of it.

We we need another borg movie uh to get some uh some some more of them available uh for for purchase or something. Yeah it starts to feel old when people start going. What what. Yeah what was that. What's a board board.

What. Only only the die-hard uh trekkies know about that uh and but but then again how long has it been since uh lava lamps were real big i mean that's you know 1970s. Right there. But just like bow ties.

And now plaid shirts.

I'm doing everything i can look at it this way you don't have a pet rock and you don't have a.

Mood ring. This is true though. I did like mood rings because they were colorful. It's colorful can you tell. I like color. Yes i like color. Wait till i wear wait till it gets cool enough for me to wear one of my kuji sweaters in here.

Ha ha. Let's let's see your cameras survive that one. They they haven't designed a camera yet that can survive a kuji. It'll completely.

Knock it out of the party. Oh that's right. The room was white. Last time you wore a kuji. Oh sure.

Yeah so yeah it's gonna be it's gonna be ugly. Um not the kuji. Well i was gonna say you just catch it right there. Boom watch it. Yeah i know i know. Uh bill cosby called. He wants his. He wants his.

Uh his sweaters back. But uh anyway let's get back to david gushy. Um and some of the quotes that i marked from my reading of uh of his book um he talks about the situation remains. The situation remains that terrible.

In other parts of the world however including in africa where retrograde christianity is playing a major role. So uh those uh retrograde christianity remember he's already used the term smarter christianity.

So dumber retrograde christianity is now. Why can't i be offended by that. I consider that offensive. But see if you're on that side you don't say anything offensive. No no no no that's that's fine. They can they can do that.

And then just uh one paragraph later still in more sophisticated christian conversations today including many among many on among many on the traditionalist side the lgbt issue is not couched any longer in the language of deviance and hellfire with the word gay or homosexual a little more than an epithet.

Well okay. Um but deviance and hellfire deviance as in moving away from god's intended norm. Um how could you not do that. And hellfire you mean punishment for sin. So it's no longer an issue of sin. It's no longer an issue of god's natural intentions for mankind.

Sounds like capitulation to me. Uh there you go. Um we continue on. Um oh i forgot to give you locations on those sorry location 717 in the kindle book. And this is not even to speak about the gaps in adherence to the same to sex within marriage only ethic on the part of heterosexual singles especially with the rapid rise in cohabitation.

So what he starts doing is he he starts making the argument that basically well you know that the church is changing and look at how it's changed his views of marriage. Well let's admit up front that if there has not been such a major uh cultural accommodation to a collapse in the high view of marriage on the part of many christian churches we would not probably be dealing with what we're dealing with now especially in regards to the profaning of marriage in regards to saying that two men can marry each other which is a violation of every possible meaning of the word marry.

You don't have a husband and a wife. You don't have a marriage period end of discussion. Husband wife male female. That's all there is to it. Um but i find this to be a real common ploy on the part of those pushing homosexualism uh especially within the church is to try to say well hey you know uh we shouldn't be focused on this because there's a problem here is a problem there there may be a problem there.

It doesn't change the fact. This is a problem. In fact in some ways it's just simply recognizing that there's sin issues everywhere and that includes homosexuality. It's not being used as that kind of an argument but the pastoral decision to seek to minister healing and direction to such couples where they are even if it is not god's best as designed could be extended to gay and lesbian couples.

Actually i need the context for that. Well that was the context. Um so the idea is um the pastor's decision to seek to minister healing and direction to such couples where they are. In other words outside of marriage.

Shacking up. Okay is the term that we used to use even if it's not god's best as designed could be extended to gay and lesbian couples. Really this is this is an ethicist speaking folks this is an ethicist speaking.

What he's saying is well there's parallel here. You know if you've got people that aren't living together now um what should the church do. Someone comes amongst us and uh they're not. They're not married but they're living together.

Does does the church just oh we don't. We don't want to offend anybody. No you speak directly to the issue. You bring god's word to bear. And that's what you do. And i i don't i won't even don't you want to use this gay and lesbian couples.

No such thing. A couple also has a meaning a husband and a wife male and female. The the created uh gender binary is right there. God made it that way. I will not join the movement to rebel against god and to deny the nature of his creation.

And i would invite everyone else to join with me in rebellion against this movement. Let's be counter-cultural couple has a meaning. Husband has a meaning. Wife has a meaning. Father has a meaning. Mother has a meaning.

Let's not join the society in scrapping the meaning uh let's start extolling the appropriate uh meaning of these particular uh things. It's amazing how fast you get through this book. It's not a long book.

Uh there are under the uh you know what to do. Number one. Read narratives of lgbt people as well as reputable work in contemporary psychology to inform your interactions with this population in the ways you speak privately and publicly about these issues.

Dive in if only to be better informed. Be aware that in any room with 20 or more people likelihood is at least one is lgbt and orientation and or identity. Two two problems here as i've already mentioned when i started reviewing this earlier it's backwards.

For any meaningful christian perspective is backwards. Um psychology a personal interaction with people is the primary source. You go to the bible and make it fit what you've concluded from those those sources.

That's sadly exactly what you have here. Um now i don't think there's anything wrong in being familiar with the arguments of the other side and being totally familiar with what their feelings and emotions are.

It's interesting. Um when are we going to start getting that emphasis for all the other behaviors that want to be normalized. But when when are we going to start hearing. Um read narratives of of i l a people intergenerational love advocates.

So read narratives of ila people as well as reputable work in contemporary psychology to inform your interactions with this population the ways you speak privately and publicly about these issues. Dive in if only to be better informed.

Right. We should be reading the uh the first-hand narratives of of those who uh wish to have relationships within families um grandparents with grandchildren uh brother with brother sister with sister.

We should be reading their narratives and getting to know them. That'll help a lot. Right. Um but secondly i dispute this next be aware that in any room with 20 or more people likelihood is at least one is lgbt and orientation and or identity.

If you mean that that room is simply made up of a cross-section of humanity. Maybe. But this is directed to the church. So notice the subtle insinuation here the church is simply to reflect. Not not.

It's not a it's not a place of holiness. It's not the body of christ. It's it's not what first corinthian six says. It's not but you were washed. But. No no no uh it's just to reflect the society as a whole.

That struck me that that was. Um that struck me. What's wrong with couple. My wife and i are a couple. Um we share love. That is not mirror image love. That's what's wrong with couple. That's what's wrong with couple.

Then someone in channel asked i refuse to give up the word and to allow it to be redefined. That's why. Okay. Okay then we went into a section that once we finally got to the biblical argumentation we're we're second location 828.

We're finally going to start getting the stuff on the bible after all this stuff. Finally we're gonna we're gonna get to a very very surface level uh discussion of of the bible. Um and he will repeat what many skeptics say.

So um they further ask how christians know which way to interpret the verses they do select from the vast canon of scripture not a vast canon uh who determines authoritatively whether we are connecting the biblical dots correctly.

He really wants to throw out some questions about connecting biblical dots. Some skeptics consider this dot connecting to be an essentially random arbitrary and normless process. Well yeah there are some skeptics who uh who think that.

Um then he's all throws out all sorts of things where christians disagree about that and christians disagree about that. All these fights over biblical texts and our interpretation of course led many to a deep skepticism as to whether the canon of scripture should be viewed as having such profound authority.

Now he's going to say his personal opinion is x y and z. Uh the problem is that you're not really given anything other than his personal opinion. So you're left this idea that i'm not really sure really not i'm not sure that god's really spoken with clarity.

And look let's be honest the only way to maintain this position is to assert that god has not spoken with that's it you there is no way to maintain scriptural sufficiency and be one of those promoting homosexualism within the church.

Just not possible. Um and so i'll stop with this one before we go into the biblical material. If we take the most commonly cited text on the issue from the traditionalist side their drive from 11 of the 1189 chapters in the bible.

But it is not unusual to hear the broader claim that whenever the bible mentions licit sex it is exclusively heterosexual. Well two points. Um the first is to try to say ah six verses here you've got 11 chapters.

He actually expanded the number a little bit. Thankfully uh to address some other things. Um does not even begin to reflect whether what is being said is true or not. I mean the shema is only quoted in how many chapters in the bible.

And yet it was the very central affirmation of the jewish people that somehow affect its centrality and importance. Nothing. But it is not unusual to hear the broader claim that whenever the bible mentions licit sex it is exclusively heterosexual.

That's for sure the bible has absolutely positively nothing positive to say about any form of homosexual behavior. Nothing. The only way around that. Well they didn't know about what we do. You sure about that.

You sure about that god didn't know jesus didn't know really fundamental denial scriptural sufficiency. Just admit it. Just just just say yeah the bible's not enough. Just be honest. Just just say it.

That's really where you are. That's that's exactly where you are. Uh so start here. I like that that works. That works. Pretty cool. I know exactly where to go with with that next time around. All. Right.

So there's some more from david gushy put in the clutch. Let's shift gears. I'm gonna i'm gonna look over here and see what this is telling me here. Uh okay nothing really specifically on that. All right.

So we press forward. We had gotten uh to a section in the um old debate new day calvinism. Um thing where i was just about to put calvinism into into my bible program if i could work too. Well. Um not not the section i was looking for uh there at all um where austin fisher is attempting the impossible.

And that is in four minutes to address roman's nine and look you know what. Give him give him his props. You know four minutes. Not easy to do not easy to do. Um but we're still going to take it apart anyways because um he knows that it's a it's troubling to his position.

And um and we need to know that as. Well. Let's remind us ourselves of what. Uh the.

Last statements uh made uh were now. According to the calvinist interpretation paul's answer to this is basically unconditional predestination that god has unconditionally elected some of the jews but then has unconditionally damned most of the jews leaving them to their sins.

Okay so.

He's recognized appropriately what john piper recognized in his book the justification of god that verses six and seven are the key hermeneutical juncture here. But it is not as though the word of god has failed.

For they are not all israel who are descended from israel. Now if you're into the national interpretation and service interpretation. You got to deal with this because the in my opinion when when people try to get around roman's nine it's not the best you can do when you try to get around it.

What is going to absolutely block your path. Like the the 300 spartans in front of the the persian army. What's absolutely a block your path are the objections that paul himself raises. You're not. I have never found anybody who can actually honestly deal with the objections as they are expressed just can't do it.

And so there is a insinuation of an objection in verse six. But it's not as though the word of god has failed. So oh paul all this wonderful stuff you just got done in romans eight. Oh who shall separate us from love of god and god's eternal purposes.

And all the rest of that stuff. Wonderful. Awesome. Paul it's great. But um you guys are a minority movement within judaism. You know um most most jews don't buy what you're saying. How does there's an objection.

How does the apostle respond to it. But they are not all israel who are descended from israel. In other words there has always been even in the history of israel divine election god shows for the promise to go through certain people.

And it had nothing to do with their character. It was not. I'm looking down the corridors of time and oh i see someone chooses me. Oh that person's gonna choose me. So i'll make the promise go through this this corridor here now.

Of course that raises the question. What if there was a um what if there was a generation where no one chooses to believe. Well that that raises all sorts of other issues too. But we'll leave that off to the side for the moment.

The point is that there is a specific purpose that god is fulfilling. And it's not based upon foreseen merit and actions on the part of the people. It's god's sovereign specific choice being fulfilled within the people of israel.

How do you avoid that. Nor are they all children because they're abraham's descendants. But through isaac your descendants will be named. So it's not genetic. It's not passed down genetically. It's not because you've got jewish genes.

I think it's important in romans 11 too i think a lot of people forget that. That is it is not the children of the flesh who are children of god. But the children of promise are regarded as descendants.

So whatever israel is. Um children of promise. Yeah it's right there. Yep right there in the text. Ow one illustration for this is the word of promise. This time it'll come and sarah shall have a son.

Not only this but there was rebecca also when she conceived twins by one man our father isaac. For though the twins were not yet born and not done anything good or bad. So god's purpose according to his choice would stand.

Not because of works because of him who calls. It was said to her the older will serve the younger. Now look again. Just follow the argument. Just follow the argument. What is the argument. He is saying.

It's not genetically passed down. It's not based upon what people do. And so verse 11 says. For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad why bring that up. It's not something foreseen.

It's not god looking down the corridors. It's not mankind by his actions determining god's course of action contrast. So that god's purpose according to his choice would stand. Let's repeat ourselves.

Not because of works but because of him who calls. You know it's amazing how many people can recognize that when we're talking about justification by faith that language would exclude works. And if the next part was but because of him who calls had something to do with faith they'd have no problem seeing the complete disjunction between the two.

But because it's election because it's him who calls. All of a sudden all bets are off. And those who are consistent in decrying work salvation justification by faith will look at that. And they won't see it.

They won't see it because of their traditions. I know a few people like that. But the other point is this. What's the common way around this. We'll get back to austin here in a second. What's the common way around this on the part of so many people.

Well it was said to her the older will serve the younger. Oh that comes. That comes to the minor prophets. You know i mean well actually it's not the old story. It's the very next phrase which is jacob i loved esau i hate it.

That comes from the minor prophets. So this only has to do with nations has nothing to do with jacob and esau. But what's his whole point. His whole point was the propriety of god's choice of one line of promise which involved one person jacob.

And it wasn't because jacob was a really nice guy. In fact for most of us we read that story. We go. I wouldn't have chosen jacob i i esau looks like esau would have been on espn all the time. You know i mean he you know they would have had on the hunting shows and the fishing shows.

And and you know he sort of reminds me of brett farve. You know it. Just you know duck dynasty. Oh man you're right.

He would be a robs robertson. He would be a robertson.