Gene Bridges, Anthony Bradley, Greg Johnson, Michael Heiser, and Bruxy Cavey!

Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We have an eclectic program today. Let's put it that way. I actually, when I have a bunch of topics, I have to type them out or I'll forget one of them.

And I look over the list here and it's like, Okay, well, I guess there's something for everybody somewhere in here. But I wanted to start off with a Facebook post. I saw a comment, actually a meme that was placed it on The Witness, a black Christian collective.

In other words, the old RUN group, Reformed African-American Network. Quotation from Jamar Tisby, white evangelicals must ask why does our theology lead to republicanism? And my response, not being a Republican myself, my response was maybe, just maybe, in the light of the skyrocketing rise the totalitarian left, we might want to ask how can anyone with a semblance of a biblical worldview not oppose the secular totalitarianism that is the Democratic Party?

It is no longer just abortion. No, now it's infanticide. It is no longer just homosexuality. Now it is the gay mirage and the myth of transgenderism and the open desire to forcibly pervert the sexuality of our youngest children.

The party of death is on the march and they are no longer shy about saying they will crush religious liberty under their pink sequined shoes. As doctors are forced to engage in euthanasia and abortion, that's what's happening in Canada, by the way, as universities purge themselves of the last vestiges of their Christian heritage, how is it that we find professing believers saying it is okay to help them in their cause?

The answer is seen plainly in Jamar Tisby's own writings, Political Commitment to Economic Socialism, parentheses, Income Equality. That is why it is so obviously true that biblical terms like justice and equality have been redefined on the basis of leftist paradigms, surely not on the basis of Christian scripture nor a Christian worldview.

Well, there were some interesting responses to that. A Melissa Vandenbout said that's full-on conspiracy theory level stuff and way out of bounds for folks who worship truth incarnate. And a number of us said, Do you listen to the news?

Melissa, do you do you read anything? Do you, do you? I referred her to this morning's episode of the briefing with Dr. Albert Moller who discussed again, probably for the 30th time, 40th time, 50th time this year, articles substantiating each one of these things.

The court in Canada specifically ruling that Christians had to participate, they had to become complicit in euthanasia. If someone came to you, as a doctor, wanted you to, if they're a candidate for euthanasia, you had to find them someone to kill them.

You couldn't just say, I will have nothing to do with this. Nope, got to do it. This is, this is all over the place. And as I have said for a long time, as Dr. Moller's been saying for a long time, the intention of the left is to ghettoize the Christian worldview.

They specifically want to make sure that when it comes to the legal realm, the medical realm, powerful positions, doctors, lawyers, you're not allowed to have the Christian worldview expressed in those areas any longer, because the influence that that, those professions have in the society as a whole.

And so, that's not conspiracy theory. Maybe, maybe Melissa just lives in a cave and doesn't bother to watch the news, or read, or think about what's going on today. That's, that's possible. Then, Gene Bridges, and the name rang a bell.

He says, later on down in the thing, when I mentioned, I said, I have copied down your entire comment. We'll go through it line by line, live today on The Dividing Line, and he says, please note that I am the same Gene Bridges who once wrote on Triablog.

I thought the name was slightly familiar, but not overly. So, sorry, Gene. I don't know who you are. Apologize for that, but I don't, I don't. So, maybe somebody will send me something in in channel, or something like that, or in Twitter that will give me some information.

But, anyway, it doesn't seem like you hold those views anymore that you once did. I don't know. But, this is a lengthy comment. I just want to go through it. Again, we are absolutely realistically facing not only deplatforming, which means YouTube, Google, same thing, Facebook, Twitter, silencing any opposition to the moral, the immoral, revolution.

Which is a part of the desire of people on the left to fundamentally destroy Western civilization, remake civilization in a very, very, very different form. And, they use many different tools to do this.

Critical theory, critical fill-in-the-blank theory applied to all sorts of different areas to deconstruct and destabilize and to divide. So, there can be no harmony between races or classes or anything.

I saw, I literally saw a video this morning put out by the AFL-CIO. With a Marxist, it was said right there, they put, they put, that was identifying him, Marxist worker. This could have, this could have been the 1910s in, in Russia before the, we have to seize the product, the means of production.

I mean, it was playing up Karl Marx. No hiding it. No, no nothing. I am a communist. We need communism. That's what it was. That's, that's what we're facing. That's what people are trying to do. And, so, in light of that, in light of the imminent loss of freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the United States of America, this is coming.

If you, if you doubt this, you have your head stuck in the sand. You are not paying attention to what is going on. You are not listening to what is being said. You are not listening to the legal decisions that are coming down.

You're not seeing what's happening in the EU. You're not seeing what's happening in Canada. You're just daft. That's all there is to it. You're, you're, you're whistling as you walk by the graveyard. That's all you're doing.

And so, Gene Bridges responds to my statements. How can you continue voting Republican when the GOP's economics are keeping wages low and flat for the people who are the most likely to, to access abortion services?

Stop immediately. The issue is the humanity of the pre-born child. And if you start anywhere else, as he does, you have bought the poison hook, line, and sinker. You're not thinking as a Christian. You are not thinking as a Christian.

Now, I would dispute that whole assertion to begin with. In fact, it seems like most people are doing much better than they did only a few years ago. But hey, the economy is a cyclic thing, and I'm sure there will be a downturn sometime in the future as well.

But, did you blame Obama for the stagnant economy during his time? Probably not. Then he talks about higher the abortion rate, all the rest of that stuff. The abortion rate is directly relevant to moral choices.

Once you turn into an economic thing, you've, again, you're no longer thinking as Christian. You're just, you're just a secularist. You're just a secularist. That's all you are. Alabama is a case study in this phenomenon, and now their law seeks to imprison physicians who do this, which is tantamount to stoning them.

You know full well that stoning is the option of last resort in Scripture. George's law does the same thing to women. On top of that, the motive behind these laws is outright litigiousness, which is condemned in 1st Corinthians and 2nd Timothy.

Just trying to follow this, folks, is going to be pretty tough, but this gives you an idea of what happens when, instead of having a biblical worldview, a Christian worldview, you take the secular leftist worldview and try to sort of baptize it with religious flavoring.

It's a mess. Yes, it is their intention for the horrific absurdity, the modern-day Dred Scott called Roe v. Wade, to be thrown out. That is their intention. You're saying that that is a violation of Scripture because it's litigious?

I mean, what? So the Christian application would be to not be litigious and allow an absurdity like Roe v. Wade to stand. Yeah, how'd we get Roe v. Wade? Through litigious activities, right? I mean, the left is the essence of litigiousness.

They have abused the system and have taken over the judges. I mean, if you want to start down that road, you got no leg to stand on, dude. Wow, amazing. Their motives are about holding on to power, position, and prestige.

No, that's the left. Now, people on the right do that, too, but the motivation here is saving life, saving children's lives. Believe me, the institutional pro-life movement has lost control of all this.

The institutional pro-life movement wanted a little bit more restriction, a little bit more restriction, a little bit more restriction, but only to a point. They never went for full abolition. Now they've been bypassed, and everybody else is like, no, this needs to stop.

And these people aren't looking for power? That's absurd. Absolutely moonbat absurd. Aren't we supposed to resist the third temptation of Christ? I guess that's power. And litigiousness? Why are we saving the babies by ignoring other sections of Scripture?

What other sections of Scripture? You're seriously, seriously, Gene, you are so confused, so muddled in morals, morality, and ethics, that you can't see the difference between saving children and being litigious, as you describe it.

You can't... One thing that I am certainly discovering in trying to reason with leftists is they absolutely cannot make category distinctions. They cannot place things in proper categories. It's... Wow.

We have got to stop falling in line with GOP on abortion when these things go along with the legislation they pass. Yeah, so you got to go with the Democrats so that we can have infanticide and transgenderism and homosexuality and the profaning of marriage and and destruction of religious liberty and freedom of speech and totalitarianism.

Yeah, that's the way to go. Okay. Why not find common ground with anti-abortion Democrats? Because it's easier to find a unicorn than an anti-abortion Democrat. That's why. Okay. We need to ask ourselves how scripture evils like abortion in a world of imperfect justice and hard hearts.

How scripture evils... I don't even know what that means. Okay. Scripture prohibits divorce as an ideal and, on the other hand, regulates it by way of concessions in the moral law. Jesus actually said that was because of the hardness of their heart.

Scripture also sets a similar pattern with respect to providing for indentured servitude in order to prevent chattel slavery in A &E Israel. Ancient Near Eastern Israel. Scripture also shows us that it is not illicit to reduce the number of moral evils as crimes associated with the death penalty.

Okay, then there's these points. Number one, thou shalt not emote thy way through this issue. That is the essence of the leftist approach, however. You can't get anyone to, on the left, to sit down and actually try to think through.

Oh, well, like the the woman on CNN last week. When a woman's pregnant, what's inside her is not a human being. What is it, a dog? I mean, you can't get them to, just as soon as you try to get them to start reasoning, just emote.

That's the left, ma 'am. Thou shalt recognize the hardness of the human heart and look to the scriptures. Well, that's for sure, but that's the exact opposite of anything on the left. There is no hard human heart.

They have no, the human heart is irrelevant to leftists. They're all about power and structure and groups. Thou shalt learn to speak to each other and not past each other. And you didn't start off too well.

Number four, abortion in general is murder when the motives that underwrite it are invidious, rising the level of murder. If someone aborts a child, for example, because he, she values money over carrying a child full term, then that is, in God's eyes, is murder.

Agree. If, however, the child will be born with an uber severe deformity, like the cranium outside the muscular, then there is no murder if the motive of the parent choosing then that pregnancy is, for example, to love the child enough to send the child to the Lord.

That said, it is not generally a crime. That said, it is not generally a crime under the civil code. Which one? I can't tell which is which. But everyone was posting the same Florida chart a couple days ago.

95, 96 of all abortions have nothing to do with any of that. 96 are simply this would cost me too much or, eh, just not interested right now. It's a birth control methodology. So 96%, I guess you would agree, are murder.

In order to end abortion, we shouldn't set the bar there while failing to regulate abortion. Regulatory practices are actually on the right track in this regard. We should take the good and leave the bad.

In other words, he's a incrementalist. Six, abortion should be extremely rare at the same time safe. Sounds like Bill Clinton at that point. And it's not rare, and we are funding it with hundreds of millions of dollars from the public treasury.

And so that's a problem. Physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and RNs with specialist training should be authorized to carry out these procedures. What procedures? The 96 or the point, what was it for that fell into even those categories?

0 .1 Something like that? Yeah, it's just tiny. Super, super tiny. The candidate for the procedure should be treated with kindness and respect by everyone involved. Depends on the motivations. Again, the only issue here is the incredible rarity of the one example you gave, which is 0 .00001%.

We're ignoring the 99 and focusing upon the 0 .1%, which again is a tactic of the left. Calling women who get abortion murderers as well as those who perform them is not Christlike, though you did it yourself up above.

It's murder in God's eyes, but I guess not in supposed to be in our eyes. So you think Christ would have looked at someone who murders their unborn child in the womb and gone, well, no, we shouldn't do that.

We shouldn't say that. I thought it was pretty straightforward with the identification of sin. It was repentant sinners that he had all the mercy and grace for, not the people. You really think Jesus would look at the shout my abortion folks and go, yeah, I'm with you, honey.

That's what it means to be Christlike? Don't think so. This only serves to put unconstructive roadblocks up between ourselves and people who need Christ, like their sin didn't. Classifying physicians who perform abortions as felons worthy of 10 years life is not constructive either.

Unless, of course, they're actually committing murder, which they know they're doing. Look at Kermit Gosnell. If an abortion is performed, it should be in the first trimester. Make third trimester abortions go away.

Second trimester abortions are to be evaluated medically on an ad hoc basis. Well, again, we already know medically there's no reason to do it. So this is, but again, the point is losing track, losing view of the fact this is a human being.

This is all politics. Politics. Oh, here you go. Love this. Comprehensive sex education with a Judeo-Christian moral element whenever possible is to be preferred over abstinence only education. Yeah, I know.

What? With a Judeo-Christian moral component whenever possible. But if not, then let's not worry about it. Wow, this just, I'm just going to skip some of this because it's just so obviously worldly thinking.

Stop running to the courts to fix this for you. It's the left that designed this entire methodology of overturning the legislative process by court fiat. It's the left that has done this, not those trying to fight this.

Be honest about that. The passage of anti-abortion legislation to test the courts displays a spirit of litigiousness that does not honor God. Stop cursing Ruth Bader Ginsburg as well. That is conduct unbecoming Christians.

The enemy curses, we bless. Curse Satan and the beast, not SCOTUS justices. That applies to all parties in this societal discussion. Wow, OK. It's about health of the mother, homicide, pray for unity, make adoption less burden.

Well, we all know that adoption should be, it should cost you 10 ,000 times more to abort a baby than to adopt a baby. So it goes on from there. So let's see. Here you go. Your continued insistence that what is culturally and ideologically conservative in the U .S. is also biblical is a betrayal of biblical values, such as.

It's really easy to say that. It's really easy to say that. But be specific. I responded to Linda Sarsoura for the first time on Twitter today. She said something about how she was trying to figure out how you can be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time.

And I said, Moses managed to do it. It's simple category issue. Pro-life is defending innocent human beings from being put to death, and pro-death penalty is killing guilty human beings who have taken human life.

Category issues, adults do that kind of thing. So what specifically do you have in mind? Do you want to try to defend the redefining of marriage? So it's no longer marriage. Do you want to defend looking at a man and saying that's his wife or looking at a woman saying that's her husband or not even be able to look at anybody and say his or her at all?

You really want to defend the transgender insanity that is the left? Which one of the presidential candidates on the left would stand up and say anything positive from a Christian worldview against transgenderism today?

Which one? Name them. Name them. Which one? Not a one of them will. Not a one of them will defend marriage. Not a one of them will say anything about homosexuality. Not a one of them will defend abortion.

Which one? Which one, Gene? I'd like to know which one it is. It is a worldview. It is a worldview that has absolute venomous disgust at God's law about anything. And don't try to drag in some type of socialist economic theory.

Try to say, well, they got this right with Jesus. Jesus was not a socialist. Okay. If Jesus had wanted to address economic issues in his day, there were plenty of opportunities for him to do so. And he didn't.

That's because he knew his church would have to exist in many different contexts down through the ages. So this was just, this was just an amazing example. Then he goes on to say, your attitude toward gays is also showing.

Hmm. On the one hand, you say correctly that if we want Muslims to become Christians, we should love them as much as Christ does. Which means that I accurately represent them and I specifically and clearly make sure they know exactly where their theology is in not only contrast to, but contradiction to God's revealed will.

And yet you use epithets online, calling our Democrats for their pink sequined shoes. Actually, I was talking about the totalitarians who specifically right now in our culture are shutting down anyone who would speak the truth about human sexuality in a university.

Try it sometime. Who are passing laws right now, passed the law last week, House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, which is the end of free speech, religious liberty, and a constitutional form of government in the United States of America, if it were to get through the Senate and be signed by the president.

That's happening right now. That that happened on Friday. The most anti-constitution, anti-religious liberty, anti-Christian piece of legislation ever, ever dreamed of in the United States of America passed the House of Representatives.

That's what I mean. And I will not apologize for what I just said. I will not apologize for it. There's nothing offensive about it. It's truthful. We are being crushed under the LGBTQ dominance, not equality, but we are being told that we must celebrate this lifestyle and this worldview.

What that means is we are being told that we must deny Christ. If you want gays to become Christians and you should do better. I'm sorry, Jean, I haven't seen any of your debates with homosexuals that have been being done since 2001, but I have done such debates numerous times, written at least one book on the subject.

Maybe you're not aware of those things. Instead of infantilizing the Christians who refuse to bake the cake for the gay couple, we should call them out for their legalism and encourage them to bake the cake with an underwriting motive to love them and meet them where they are with respect for them in order to shine the light of the gospel into their lives.

In their lives, we should. No, sir, you've missed it again. You're not operating on a Christian worldview. You're operating on a secular worldview. And then you're trying to baptize that with religiosity.

The emphasis and desire of the left is to force us to violate our consciences to celebrate and use our skills to celebrate their debauchery. That is what it was about. If you can't see that, then you are the problem.

Jean Bridges is the problem, is emblematic of what's happening in the United States. The Bible forbids gay marriage. Actually, it never even addresses it, but it positively defines what marriage is in such a way that you cannot, by any stretch of any theological perversion, come up with the idea that there is such a thing.

Yet it also forbids us from failing to love and serve our neighbors. Not on the same level. Once again, the leftist incapacity to provide proper category thinking. It's childish. It's childish. Fundamental to human existence and culture is the first ordinance of God in the creation of the institution of marriage.

To put anything equal to that and say, well, but you know, hey, it's sort of like, well, yeah, so the Bible says something about homosexuality, but it also says something about overeating. That is infantile thinking.

It's childish on its face, and yet it's succeeding in our society because our society no longer thinks as adults, they think as children. And that's what you have here. To love and serve our neighbors means to speak the truth to them, Mr. Bridges.

Not to join with them in celebrating their rebellion against God's law. And it also teaches us that if there is no evil motive behind an action, there is no sin. Baking the cake is not a sin and not endorsing gay marriage unless that is the motive of the baker.

Again, you've missed the point. I already said it. Should we oppose transgenderism? Yes. At the same time, if you cannot be bothered to address them as they present themselves, then you don't love them the way you say Muslims should be loved.

Wrong again. Total confusion. Total confusion. What happened to you, sir? I mean, what happened to you? If you once wrote for Triablog, then you once at least demonstrated to somebody for a period of time that you had some concept of a Christian worldview.

You don't anymore because you've lost it. Let's look at that again. Should we oppose transgenderism? Yes. Why? Because it is a fundamental rebellion against the created order. It is rejection of God's right to determine the status, role, behavior, and function of his own creatures.

It is a rebellion against God and the entire created order and will result in a diminishment of the life of that created order. But then notice, missing that, yet yes, and at the same time, if you cannot be bothered to address them as they present themselves.

In other words, you should go along with their rebellion, go along with their fantasy, and use the pronouns they want, even though that means that you are joining them in their rebellion against God because that's the loving thing.

No, it's not, sir. No, it's not. That is simple capitulation and is not Christian love by any stretch of the imagination. And you cannot look me in the eye and tell me that that's what the apostles would have told us to do.

I can just see Paul doing that. Mm-hmm. Yeah, right. I can see, right, right, right. I can see Paul doing that about the same time that he had an ecumenical get-together with the Judaizers. Right. Mm-hmm.

Then he goes back to the Muslim thing again completely. Gene Bridges cannot do categories. That's the problem. And Gene Bridges is just simply representative of the left. This is your classic liberal Episcopalian PCUSA, leftist Lutherans, United Church of Christ, the whole mess.

This is how they think. This is how they think right there, just laid out for us very, very clearly, very, very clearly. And it is, again, simple matter of just thinking through what's being said. If you want to see another example of this, I guess this morning, yesterday, I don't remember, I didn't look at the time stamp on it.

Yesterday, and I retweeted it, a graphic was put up. And I didn't know about this because it's going to be at the Southern Baptist Convention, and I'm not a Southern Baptist. But the G3 conference that I've been speaking at fairly regularly for at least four years now is going to do, you know, when the convention takes place, which is only in a couple weeks, there's normally, you know, the Armenians get together and the traditionalists get together.

And there's all these, you know, since everybody's coming to town, let's all get together and do our thing. Yeah, okay. So thank you, Nicholas, for posting that. There is, I guess, the stuff is still posted at TriBlog.

Well, they might want to rethink that. Anyway, so G3 is going to have a pre-SBC get-together. And it's Dangers of Social Justice in Evangelicalism, SBC 2019. Tom Nettles, Tom Askell, Josh Bice, and Dr. Troublemaker from Texas, Tom Buck, who graduated last Friday from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

His doctorate is in New Testament and specifically expositional preaching of the book of Hebrews, something that I was practicing for a number of years. And so Dr. Buck is going to be speaking as well.

Well, I retweeted that. And the very first comment, the very first comment was, where is the black guy? You know, the very first comment, let's racialize it, which shows that the people on that side, you can talk all you want about biblical definitions of social injustice.

You don't have either one of them. You have an overriding external definition, primarily economic and political in its origination. It's not how the New Testament defines society. It's not how the Old Testament defines society, certainly.

The social aspect of it, you're getting someplace else. And then you try to, again, sort of baptize the justice thing in, ignoring the biblical concept of justice and come up with a different definition.

But you don't even know what's going to be addressed, how it's going to be addressed. You go, well, yes, we do. We can just look at what happened to G3. Well, I would assume that there's going to be a fair amount of consistency, but you know what?

I haven't seen anything other than wild-eyed leftist gobbledygook in response to this. I mean, the Bradley Mason stuff, I mean, that's all there is. And we've already demonstrated just how vacuous, self-contradictory, what a mess that stuff is, based on misrepresentations of straw men and zero meaningful biblical content and just all sorts of issues with that.

So why wouldn't it be consistent? Well, so I was seeing comments during the day, yesterday, about the responses to the announcement of the dangers of social justice in Evangelicalism SBC 2019 gathering.

And so this, I think it was this morning, I think it was this morning, I got up and Anthony Bradley has blocked me. So, you know, there's always easy get arounds for that stuff. But anyway, and so I see a tweet from Anthony Bradley and what he's done.

Now, there is some reason for hope. My daughter posted something. I'm not sure if I can scroll back far enough. But my daughter posted something before the program and I was like, man, she must be having a good day.

But it was something about social media that sounded absolutely, just glowingly post-millennial. That's the only way I could describe it. Here we go. Here we go. She posted a old picture of Clint Eastwood in response to me.

So you can sort of get an idea. The response to her was give it 24 years summer and you'll change your tune. But here it goes. This was an hour ago. She says, I have an incredibly optimistic attitude towards social media.

I love the idea of it. The good we can do with it. Our ability to communicate quickly and easily with so many people. Trolls don't bother me. Missteps don't bother me. Let's grow, learn, dialogue and do better.

Did the kids clean up their room or something? They all ate lunch without spilling anything or having any fights. Like I said, my response was give it 24 years summer, you'll change it. I'm 24 years older than...

26 years, actually. Yeah, 26 years older. I'm 24 years older. Anyways, I remember when my parents would stop and have to start thinking about ages. And I was always like, oh, come on. Yeah, well, once you got that many decades to calculate, there's something you gotta do about it.

So there you go. Anyway, yeah, well, you know, Bradley Mason, Anthony Bradley. Why do you all have the same name? Anthony Bradley posted a... he took the dangers of social justice and even... Well, can you show this?

This whole reason we plugged this thing in. I don't know it's gonna change anything, but yeah. So here's what he did. And he posted... I can't see Anthony Bradley in that. But it does say Anthony Bradley at the top.

And has the hashtag don't waste your life POC, person of color. Which I'd imagine is his way of saying don't go to this. What he's done is he has juxtaposed this with something from the 1950s with a bunch of white folks protesting race mixing as communism, stop the race mixing, march of the something, you can see it says Christ, race mixing as communism, etc, etc.

Now, the one positive thing here is that I read through the comments. I normally am not a big comment person. But I read through the comments. And he was getting roasted. Appropriately. Being called to repentance and this is slander.

And he only made one comment and that was basically his explaining, well, they're both coming from the same source. They're both coming from the same source. It's the genetic fallacy argumentation that that side likes to utilize a lot.

They're all coming from the same source. And lots of people were saying, you know that's not true. You know that that's not true. No, no, it's part of the narrative and I'm sure he probably does believe that.

There has been such a massive swing. And it seems to be getting more radical with each passing week. In Anthony Bradley that it's a sad thing to observe. But it is there. Also, over the weekend, another rather fascinating development took place.

I remember, in fact, I thought of this yesterday. I got caught out in some bad weather yesterday. There was 0 rain in the forecast, but I didn't look at 30 miles north. And big old storms came in. Well, they're cells, but they would be pretty heavy downpours when you hit one.

And I'm on a bike. I hate riding in the rain. I hate what it does to my bike, first of all. But I just hate having squishy shoes. You know, you're hammering along and there's still fountains of water coming out of your shoes because they're so wet.

So Summer responds, she must be listening. No, lunch was gross and schoolwork has been a battle. And I've been called a whitewashed tomb on social media today. But don't threaten me with a good time. Dat Post Mill, keep hanging out with Jeff.

Yeah, well, Jeff has some rough days, too. So anyway, all of that about the riding, too. It struck me that one of the corners I went through. Well, it's 83rd and Happy Valley. Was where I was. I was on that route when I listened to the cross politic interview.

Of Greg Johnson, the pastor of the PCA church that hosted the Revoice conference last year. I remember it was early in the morning. It was dark when I was listening to it. And over the weekend, news came out that Greg Johnson came out as a homosexual.

And I asked Chocolate Knox, because I couldn't remember all the details, but I would have thought I would have remembered that part. That that came up, if that had come up. Well, it did come up, sorta.

And so let me just play a section of it here. I asked Chocolate Knox, he gave me a link directly to this portion of the interview. We don't need. Oh, OK, that'll work. All right. You have nothing else to do in there.

That's pretty good. We're not taking calls, you know, and this time you stayed awake. That's good. Anyways, so here here's here's the section.

And coming to this family, but before we go, I want to ask you a question. Greg, are you gay? Are you asking me out on a date? No, I just want to know how you identify.

That would be disgusting, actually. You want to know about my sexual brokenness? I am happy to talk to you about what I talked about in the pulpit two weeks ago, and that I think is relevant to this conversation.

I am a pornography addict. I have had a pornography addiction for 15 years. Actually, 18. Are you still doing pornography, Greg? No, I haven't for 15 years. So you're not an addict. Oh, but I know what it does inside of me.

See, OK, so the point was Chaglan asked him straight straightforwardly. Are you gay? And, you know, that would not be the first question that I would ask in that context. And so I was sort of wondering, did that just sort of pop in your mind?

Was there something was said, you know, I don't know. But from what he has now said, he didn't tell them the truth. He didn't answer truthfully to that question at that particular point in time. Now, I think I think Three Voice Conference is the same location again this year.

Makes sense with the connection, that type of stuff. But he has come out. And again, this is a PCA congregation. The question is going to be, what's the PCA going to do? And there is a lot of stuff going on in a lot of places, not just the PCA.

I'll be honest with you. I've seen some stuff coming from some OPC context that I was like, which means fellow Reformed Baptists, I think we are in more danger of this than almost anybody else because we think we're not in any danger of it at all.

I really do. I mean, I've had conversations. And I've tried to warn up. That could never happen here. As it can. As long as you think that it can't, that's when it's going to happen. That's what's going to happen.

You've just got to be constantly vigilant, constantly vigilant on what's going on there. Okay, now, we are shifting a lot of gears here. We are shifting a lot of gears. We've already covered a number of different topics.

This was a possible Radio Free Geneva. I mean, we could even play the theme song because it gets everybody excited. But then the topic I have after this isn't really relevant to that. So we won't do that.

And besides, it's only 10 minutes long. So you can't. But I knew that I had this file from a couple of years ago hiding somewhere on the hard drive of this, my old MacBook. And so I did a search, tracked it down.

Years ago, I had run across a audio discussion of, from Dr. Michael Heiser on Calvinism. And I remember listening to it going, Wow, I should use that in Radio Free Geneva sometime. I never did. I never did.

And so I have some stuff from other people. I've got some recently done stuff from Dr. Andy Woods down in Texas. He's one of Brandon House's guys. And it's really bad. It's really surface level. Lots of straw men, lots of misunderstandings, just your standard stuff.

We'll get to that, hopefully. But this was nice and short. And to me, it demonstrates a willingness to address a subject that you clearly have never done any meaningful study of at all. Now, maybe before the clip I had somewhere, he said, Well, you know, I don't know anything about this, but here's my thoughts.

I didn't find that part. But this is a scholar addressing Calvinism and completely pulling this thing. Straw man, over and over and over and over again. And there's no reason for it because we're talking about basic stuff here.

Basically, his argument is that Calvinism's view of man being dead in sin means that man can't do anything, he can't make any decisions, he is inactive in anything. And we all know that isn't true. Calvinists don't believe that.

Calvinists believe that man is suppressing the truth, is actively suppressing the truth, actively seeking to find more and more ways to hide from the knowledge of God. Man is actively involved in rebellion, actively involved in twisting and brewing the truth.

Romans 1, exchanging the truth of God for lie. Man is active. What man cannot do because of his fallen nature is submit to the law of God, Romans 8. Cannot do what is good in the sight of God. That's the inability.