Our New Dividing Line Search Engine and More

Oh boy! Well, uh, hi. We're late getting started. I doubt this is actually gonna work. Um, the computer that Rich uses to get in, it's Windows, and Windows dies eventually, all Windows computers do. It's just part of the design of it, I guess.

Um, so we, I'm sitting here trying to start the program, and it goes to Facebook. And then, of course, Rich is looking at, uh, software, um, on Windows, and I'm looking at software on Mac, and stuff isn't at the same place, and we'll go here.

Is it, well, there is no there. That's, that's not what it looks like on mine. Uh, so yeah, that was not how to start the program at all. Um, but, uh, that's, that's life, and so we're doing the best we can.

We're still on the road, and things happen, and I'm told it's working, so there you go. Um, sorry about that delay, about a five minute delay, while we were messing around with stuff to try to do things, and I will probably mess things up as we're going along too.

So, uh, that's what happens when you, you get all discombobulated right from the start. So, um, before I forget, I mentioned on the last program that this incredible indexing thing that has been going on for, well, since February, I think, because the fella came up to me at the conference in Tullahoma, where you can now put in a search parameter, phrase, term, something along those lines, and you can search an AI-generated, um, database of the dividing line, and I think the debates too.

I'm not sure if the debates are in there right now, but I know the dividing line is, and hopefully, eventually, all my sermons will be too. Uh, now, obviously, one of the issues is, and I, I saw this, um, there's a lot of terminology that I use, you know, when I'm reading Greek, I really doubt that it's doing what it needs to do, and being able to figure out what the Greek is, or things like that.

So, it's not flawless, um, but what I wanted to do is show you, uh, let's look at it here. Um, I wanted to show you where it's at now. So, if you go to aomin .org, there is a new entry right here, right in the middle, up in the upper, I don't know which menu bar, I guess, called transcripts.

Transcripts. And so, you press transcripts, and up this comes, and you'll see Let's Church over here. That's the website that's doing all this stuff that we're working with. Let's Church beta, and search channel.

And so, you can pop stuff in there. Let's, let's put in CBGM, and hit return, and you get Media 9 Transcripts 119. And so, here are, uh, videos, uh, dividing lines, basically. A lot of them have CBGM in the description, stuff like that.

Um, ECM of Mark, Mormon's Hide in Basements, Gregory on the Spirit. It's hard to get, I've always hated coming up with titles. I really, whenever I'm, whenever I'm out and about, uh, people are like, uh, whatever.

Um, and, you know, speaking of churches, what sermon title do you want? I'll leave that up to you. It's just not something I want to do. But then, if you click on transcripts, this is really neat. Um, here's 120, and you'll notice what happens here, is it says at 52 .50 in the dividing line, it looks like the dividing line, of January 2nd, 2019.

Um, and tomorrow, we'll talk about CBGM. CBGM has introduced a conjectural amendation. So, there it gives you an actual, uh, portion of the transcript. Uh, Tim Keller on Jesus Getting Close to You, DTS and Ephesians 5, the Book of Abraham, at 44 .32.

I'll be really interested in seeing what CBGM, what light CBGM. And then, if you, if you want, you can, uh, click on something like that. And, uh, well, for example, here's one, uh, at 45 .04, First John 5 .7, the Kamiohanium Examined.

And so, I click on the transcript, and look what it does. Now, I have this silence at the moment, but, no, I guess I didn't. CBGM has, you know, doesn't give any place whatsoever to the Kamiohanium. It can't.

There's not enough manuscripts. Okay, so I will need to silence it, or we're going to be talking over each other. But, but notice what it's, what it's doing. It's playing that, uh, particular episode, and when you go over here to the transcript, and that is a really incredible feature on YouTube.

The problem is, um, that, that's also how they censor speech. So, you know, most everything that we're, we're facing today, you know, when we first started using Google, and just what an incredible assistance it is for driving, and, and stuff like that, that's the positive side.

And if you could trust the people with that data, that wouldn't be a problem, but you can't. So, they know everywhere you've ever been, everywhere you've wanted to go, everywhere you've driven, um, and they're just part of this.

It's Big Brother, and you can't trust Big Brother. Big Brother is your enemy. And so, uh, but here's also an example of where I said, you know, nothing's perfect yet, um, probably never will be. Notice in the transcript, it says, we don't have, have time to go into today, called CBGM, Coherent Space Genealogical Method.

CBGM doesn't give any place whatsoever to the, and notice the transcript, Kamionium. It can't. There just aren't enough manuscripts. Well, that's Kamayohonium. So, that's a Latin phrase, and it does the best it can, but if you were to do a search for Kamayohonium, you'd probably end up missing a lot from the transcripts, because it's not necessarily going to sync up.

Now, if you spell it right, it'll, it'll find it in titles of, because it's in the title right down here. You can see it right there. Scroll it up a little bit. Um, it's, it's in the, it's spelled right in the, in the title, so it'll pull that up, but you could miss some other stuff.

And so, for, um, Bible references, most Bible references, this should be able to pull it up. I mean, as long as I used it, as long as I gave the reference. Um, so, uh, let me see here. Uh, Romans, I'm just doing this on the run, on the fly here.

So, I put in Romans 5 .1. The media says 2251. That seems, that's probably because 5 .1. Maybe you have to, let, let's see, let's see if we put, I've not played with this myself. We're just, people were asking, what are you talking about?

Okay, you put, put the quotes around it, and that does limit it somewhat to 1179 in media and 102 transcripts. Um, so, yeah, well, that worked. Look at this one. So, all scriptura continue with interact, and with interaction with Carla Broussard of Catholic Answers, and then you click on the, uh, let me roll it up so you can see it there.

Click on the, uh, transcript section. I'm not sure if you can see it. That's sort of, it's not really grayed out, but it has a different color on my screen. Um, I'm not sure that's coming through well, but anyway, let's click on this.

And if it does not accurately represent what Romans 5 .1 says, you're going to be better off just reading Romans 5 .1 without reading 47 volumes. It'll just confuse you in the process. So, that, that pulled up Romans 5 .1, and that was from seven years ago.

Um, I was nice and skinny back then, and in the best shape of my life, um, before my heart went crazy. Anyway, uh, yeah, you can find that kind of stuff. This is, this is something I've dreamed about.

Of course, I dreamed about some poor volunteer going through and tagging all this stuff. It would have taken, um, uh, three generations of some poor volunteer doing this, I guess. But there it is, and, um, I'm sure the scanning type software will, uh, only get better over time, I would assume.

Could be wrong about that. Uh, but pretty amazing stuff. I mean, you gotta, you gotta admit, that's, um, wow. It's, look, as I've said before, it's a little scary. I, I mean, all of you who are ministers, preachers, teachers, who recognize you're going to be held accountable for what you said.

Obviously, God's transcript of everything we have ever said, typed, and everything else is perfect. And, um, so it does make you go, it really makes you think about responsibility for what you say, and what you type, and everything else.

Um, you know, it makes me, makes me wonder if, if we could get permission from Bethany House and my other publishers to include my books. Um, in a fully searchable database as well. If you had the books, if you had the, if you had the blog, so all the articles from the blog, um, you had the sermons, the debates, the dividing lines, about the only thing left would be text messages, I guess.

Um, tweets, I bet you, I bet you, you could do that with Twitter. I bet you really could, because I think there is a download all of your tweets option type thing. And that would pretty much be it. Pretty complete, complete record.

Woo. Okay. All right. Um, there it is. That's, um, that's not scary, but great in a, in a sense. Um, so it's right up there under transcripts, uh, at topofaomin .org. And try it out. Check it out. Uh, I may, during dividing lines, throw out, hey, could someone see, could someone find out when I first used this illustration, when I first used this phrase, that type of thing.

I bet you it would work. We already did that. Cause I, I think on one of the recent programs I said, you know, I don't know how long it is I've been saying it. It's solo scripture is not you and your Bible under a tree out in the forest someplace.

And so somebody threw it in there and, oh yeah, back in 2002, you were saying so over 20 years. Now the database only goes back to 98 and the dividing line as a radio program. Started, I'm not sure when we first named it that because we named our newsletter, the dividing line first, I think they were probably contemporaneous.

It's probably around the same time. Who knows? Um, but, uh, you know, we don't have that stuff. So it's not absolutely exhaustive. And to be honest with you, I'm very glad about that. Uh, you know, I mean, I, I, we do have like the atheism series we did back in the, that would have been late eighties and maybe, maybe, maybe the early nineties.

And I stumbled across something, one of the debates I did, and I didn't, I was still developing my presuppositional understanding of things. And so there were, you know, when I was still in Bible college and I was doing the Tom Likas show with atheists on KFYI radio in Phoenix, I was not a presuppositionalist.

And so there'd be all sorts of stuff there where you just go, uh, um, but anyway, uh, there it, there it goes. Uh, over here on the right-hand side, I'm watching Rich trying to fix the windows computer.

It's just like Bill Gates, man. It's just Bill Gates. Okay. So transcripts top of the website. Enjoy do it. Uh, see what you can find and, uh, and go from there. Uh, Gregory Cole is the name of the individual that I will be debating on September 16th in Mannheim, Pennsylvania.

He is the author of a book, Gregory Coles. It's got an S at the end, forgive me. Gregory Coles. He is the author of the book, Single Gay Christian, A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity. InterVarsity Press is the publisher of said book.

And so for those of you who were really excited about the Brownson debate, um, this might be, uh, in fact, uh, half an hour ago, uh, I got an email or not an email, a message from Chris Arnzen. Gregory Cole's assistant sent me the contract.

So it's official. Hallelujah. And, uh, so, so there you go with that. Um, but, um, this will be, um, oh, that's interesting. 3 .30 PM in the afternoon on September 16th. Now the, uh, the location sounds weird, but it's not.

It's called SpookyNooksSports .com. But evidently it is, uh, the Republican candidate for governor in the last race. Um, or was it Senate? Governor. Anyways, one of the Republicans, I think it was, uh, for governor, uh, had one of his biggest rallies there.

So I guess it's a really, really nice location. It's just sort of the name issue. Excuse me. The name issue is a little bit like when we had a debate at The Grind. Uh, that was the name of the place, The Grind in, uh, in Florida.

So sometimes the name is, um, but the location's actually really nice and should work really well. This debate will be hosted by the Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society and Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. You can register at futureofchristendom .org.

We will, we're having a graphic put together, uh, to put this up. Futureofchristendom .org. And in some ways, some people have mentioned that this is probably providential. Obviously I want to be able to interact, um, with Dr. Brownson's thesis, which has been picked up by many other people.

Uh, but the revoice, gay Christian, uh, yes, it's appropriate to identify a Christian in this fashion movement. Um, I'm not, I didn't look at the dates, but this conference is going to be taking place pretty much contemporaneously at, uh, Andy Stanley's church with, uh, David Gushy and stuff like that.

That's where we are right now. That's where we are right now. I've already interacted with the primary element of stuff on the divine line. In fact, you could put Brownson in the transcript search bar and you'll pull it up because I played, I was playing, I know that I stopped somewhere, but I was playing Brownson's presentation at one of Matthew Vine's events and responding to it.

Cause I remember a lot of the details. He was talking about certain Greek philosophical perspectives allegedly is behind Romans one. And I, I went into a rebuttal of that. And now all you gotta do is throw that at, at the transcript search bar and you should be able to pull it up yourself and access that information.

And, um, uh, there you go. Um, so the Gregory Cole's debate may actually be more relevant, um, to, to that particular, um, that particular thing. So, uh, September 16th coming up less than two months.

Um, I already have his book. I may have read it. Um, but it's not ringing specific bells. So obviously I will reread it if I haven't read it before. And, um, hopefully you all will find that to be a very useful debate.

And then, uh, the other debates that I mentioned coming up in, uh, February inclusive of now, just, just pray for this. Okay. We have so many critics and opponents that listen that. So I'm just speaking to those of you who support the ministry, care about the ministries, uh, that type of thing.

It is going to be hard for me to figure out how to get um, Trent Horn, Dale Tuggy, uh, Leighton Flowers, myself to Houston at the right times, along with traveling to, um, Conway, Arkansas to teach a class and a subject that I have not taught before, which means between now and then I've got that to be working on as well.

Um, and to Tullahoma, Tennessee for the Calvinism conference where Tom Bucks could be speaking. I'm going to be a bunch of, a bunch of guys are gonna be speaking and I'm supposed to do a debate, um, with our landmark Baptist friend from last February, who hopefully will not be speaking quite as fast.

Um, and I've somehow got to do this all in February to early March at, at the best. And it's one thing if you were hopping back and forth in a plane, but that's not how I travel. So the complexities are many.

Uh, so for those of you who want to see this kind of thing happening and you're going, yeah, that we, Trent Horn topics, uh, Soul Scratura, we're going to be talking about the Anustos and Trent. Um, I'll have TLG up.

I'll be ready to deal with Poirier's arguments from semantic domains. And you're the one that presented the argumentation. So you've got to be able to defend it. You've called it the death knell of Soul Scratura.

Hey, if you want to dump it and say, I'm not going to do that. Okay, fine. Um, but you're going to have to be prepared for it. And the other topics purgatory and a lot of folks like, ah, purgatory. Uh, y 'all ever watched the debate I did with Peter Stravinskis on purgatory.

That was a clearer delineation of the biblical doctrine of justification from the Roman Catholic understanding than any other debate I've seen. 2001, 22 years ago. Um, I hadn't even started shaving my head.

I started later that year, I think. Um, but, um, vital important to be able to debate that topic. And again, the issue is very clearly the apostles had no concept of such a thing. It is utterly absent from anything that we can say comes from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

And therefore, if it is dogma of Rome, this demonstrates Rome teaches for dogma, that which the apostles never dreamed of. So you have to come up with some idea of new revelation if you're going to come up with that.

Oh, I know the development, know it very, very well over centuries, but it took a long time, at least a thousand years to reach the final form that it has, um, say in the 15th century, Council of Florence, places like that.

So, um, those are vitally important. The Dale Tuggy debate, obviously, is Jesus Yahweh. And by the way, I am wide open. I hope you all realize how much work I am gladly saying I will take on over the and I will debate Dale Tuggy's thesis on John 1 because he has, he has material in his books, his books are sitting right there.

Uh, he's done entire presentations at Unitarian conferences on John 1 .1 and it's real, it's real basics, real simple. He's always citing somebody else and that makes him utterly incapable of mounting a text-based defense for the comments he might make about the text.

And so I would love to have that happen as well. I think that would be extremely useful. Um, uh, Leighton Flowers, John 6, this was a topic that was actually raised to him by Edmund McClanahan, the pastor there at, uh, in Houston, I think over a year ago.

I think it was the Stratton debate, I think. Anyway, I don't want to speak out of turn there, but I think it was. And so, um, should be very useful. Um, I mean, obviously, vitally important text. So, lots and lots of stuff.

I mean, lots and lots of stuff coming up that is, um, yeah, that's, hey, that's why we do what we're doing. And so I want to let you know about what's coming up, but the one that you can be getting, you know, registering for and stuff like that right now is with Gregory Coles.

I'm, I could be wrong. Maybe the Tullahoma conference is already registrable. I'm, I haven't looked, I'm not sure. Uh, it's possible. Uh, look up Jeffrey Rice, Post Anabis Lux on Facebook, and there might be something there already.

I don't know. Um, probably is, but let you know that that's something you can do. But the Gregory Coles debate, um, in, on September 16th, um, that is already available for, um, sign up and for registration.

So there you go. Exciting stuff. All right. So one of the professors who I've known for a long, long time, we don't, we don't stay a lot in contact right now. Um, but, um, fellow that I knew back when he was doing his doctoral studies long, long ago overseas, because he was a regular part of our chat channel back.

We had a chat channel from 1996 to, I think it was, was that 2016? Uh, around there. Um, and, or maybe it's 2019. I don't remember. Uh, 2019 sounds more like, I think it's about like 23 years. Uh, 2017 ish, Rich says.

Okay. Uh, he was sort of our, our overnight guy. He'd keep an eye on the channel overnight because he lived, lived, he was doing his PhD work, I recall in Edinburgh. So there was a time shift which would allow him to do that.

But he teaches at RTS in Charlotte and posted a screenshot that he has been blocked on Twitter by Credo Magazine. And the, the number of people who have that particular screenshot is very large today.

It really seems that to be a Thomist is to be very sensitive. I need a safe space. I, I don't think the Dominicans provided any safe spaces in Thomist's day. So things have changed along those lines, but it's just like, and, and I tweeted, uh, publicly, I said, well, you know, you, you have said some nice things about me in the past.

And, um, he says, yeah, but I thought that was off the record. It's like, yeah, that's, that's about the only way you should ever say anything nice about me is off the record these days, because, uh, there's a lot of folks that will make you pay for them.

But what I'm seeing and what a lot of people are seeing is now we have one of the well-known, Thomistic aficionados saying that we need a new and improved edition of Calvin's Institute. And why is that?

Well, one of the, now what's funny is, and this is Matthew Barrett, by the way, he says, we need a new and improved edition of Calvin's Institute. McNeil inserts over 40 scriptures into the opening chapters, which masks Calvin's natural theology and gives the impression he's at odds with Aquinas.

Oh, really? Huh. How interesting. Because, you know, I, I sort of thought that everybody knew that those were editorial insertions, that they weren't Calvin, that these are editions that have editorial notes that give cross-references, allusions, references to cited sources that necessarily weren't a part of Calvin's original work.

And so isn't it amazing that you could insert Bible references to what Calvin's referring to, and it's like, no, we don't want those. That makes it sound like he's opposed to Thomas, and we don't want anyone being opposed to Thomas.

The patron saint of us all now, we've lost our minds about him. So we want Calvin to have lost his mind. There's only one problem with that. And that is, as everybody knows, there are exactly two references, two sections, where Calvin specifically refers to Aquinas.

Now he, hundreds and hundreds of places to Augustine and to other writers that he appreciates, John Chrysostom and things like that. So he certainly knows of Aquinas, but he, the one, the one reference is just a neutral reference, just a, you know, talks about this and such and such place.

And then the other is a negative one, arguing with Thomas's understanding of grace in predestination and merit and relationship and all the rest of that kind of stuff. And of course, today, you've never spoken to a Thomist unless they have told you, you just haven't read enough of Aquinas's works, because that is all you ever hear.

It's just, if you just read more of him, like the rest of us, you'd get the glazed look, you'd become easily offended, brittle, need safe spaces and stuff like that. It's very obvious that, don't worry about the sounds that Rich is making in the background, it's okay.

It's very, very obvious that Calvin could have used more of Aquinas, but he did not have any desire to do so, that he found Aquinas to be a really not useful source. Now, remember, he initially wrote the Institutes as a defense of the faith to the King of France, who was persecuting Protestant believers.

And so it was, it was always his intention that this work be a, an overall summary of the faith and a defense of that faith, and he did not find Thomas Aquinas to be a useful person in that task, and I wouldn't either.

And I think more and more people, now that it's being shoved in our faces, and books are being put out, and major publishers are being used to put this stuff out there, and, and you've got all this stuff going on, I think more and more people are realizing the same thing.

I was talking with a well-known Christian scholar who's written books on Thomas, but who is not a big Thomas fan, and I said, you know, I heard you once say that reading Thomas Aquinas dries your soul, and he said, I said that?

I don't remember saying that, but that's a fairly accurate summary, and that's exactly how I feel. I realize that I have Christian brothers, and maybe even Christian sisters, who read Aquinas and are thrilled, or at least benefited in some fashion.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, when you compare the enjoyment that I receive from reading Calvin over against reading the same amount of Thomas. I mean, if I read three pages of Calvin, I want more.

If I read three pages of Thomas, I'm ready to go to sleep, and I'm not the one that comes to that conclusion. I'm really not, and it's not just the style, because I can read Edwards, if I can find a large, large enough print edition these days, but I can read Edwards, and Edwards is not as flowing and communicative a writer as Calvin was.

In fact, the amazing thing is how good Calvin is, even in translation. You're not reading the Latin or the French, because as you may know, he kept writing both versions. He had a French edition of the Institutes and a Latin edition of the Institutes, and would do revisions of each one, and so it's amazing at how well Calvin flows, even in translation, and most people just can't write that well.

You know, you've heard me say it, and you can prove it now. In fact, someone should throw out the inks still wet. They should throw that at the search engine, the transcript search engine from Lett's Church, and see what that pulls up, how many times I've mentioned that on the Dividing Line since 1998, but I have said repeatedly that in my opinion, when you read the Institutes, the ink smudges, so it might be the ink smudges or the ink still wet, terminology like that, and what I'm meaning by that, and I don't know that I got it from somebody else, I might have, but what I mean by that is it's so relevant today, and I've normally said along with it, my writing is never going to be like that.

No, there was just something special about so much, especially the beginning of the Institutes, that just remains relevant for such a long period of time. I guess there are some people who feel the same way about Thomas.

I do not. I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, and so the meme now, the idea that's being presented now, is that Calvin and Luther, they were just ignorant of Thomas. They hadn't done enough reading in Thomas, and so we need new additions to unmask Calvin's natural theology, and to demonstrate that he's not at odds with Aquinas, which is why he only quotes him twice and once negatively in the entirety of the Institutes, because he loved him so much.

No, he didn't, and everybody knows it, and there was a reason for that. There was a reason that Calvin could recognize what we ought to recognize, and that is the fundamental different source, ultimate foundational source of divine truth between Calvin and Aquinas, and so watch out for future new editions of Calvin that try to turn him into a fan of Thomas Aquinas when the reality is he was not.

Okay, I have a few more, I have a few screenshots. I think I'll just pull, yeah, I'll pull Signal over here so I can see anything that Rich has to say, and oh, well, you know what? Real quickly, I did not see a response from Brother Camp to my discussion on the last dividing line about his statements that all theonomic post-millennialists mistranslate Matthew 28, 19 through 20.

We demonstrated that that is a misuse of the term translation, and it is an issue of an understanding of what it means to disciple the nations, and I actually agreed that given the participial phrases that are modifying the verb that's baptizing and teaching that this is individual, but if you have 90 of a nation, and I just really, I remember where I was when I honestly said, you know, I'm a Calvinist, but do I really believe that God could do that, that God could bring about that kind of change?

Because much of the rejection of it is, well, that could never happen. Just look at what's happened in church history. Well, yeah, if you're thinking we're right at the end, we're not near the church anymore or middle or anything else, okay, then you can use that as an argument, I suppose, but man, as a Calvinist, you really can't just sit there and say God can't do that.

God cannot draw a majority of the people of a nation to Christ, and I realized you're being really inconsistent as a Calvinist. Your entire ministry is in basement. Let's go talk to the Mormons. Oh, they're too hard to talk to.

Back at North Phoenix Baptist Church, why do you all bother the Mormons? I mean, come on, there's plenty of lost people. Don't worry about them. Okay, well, so I've always believed God has his elect everywhere, so how can I argue that God doesn't have a large number of elect that maybe is like the sand of the sea or the stars of the sky or something like that?

I read that somewhere in the Bible. Anyhow, so there was a tweet. We'll take a quick look at it here. Oh, look at that. Steve says, there's not one passage of Scripture, Ben, I guess he's talking to someone named Ben, that speaks of the atonement or the outwork of the atonement is to Christianize nations, not one.

Okay, the atonement is personal, election is personal, but election is not disconnected from God's entire purposes. So I've said again, I'm not sure if I'm gonna be able to keep saying I've said for decades because now people can check it all out for themselves, but I've said over and over again that a discerning, believing, healthy church is a blessing on a nation, and I stand by that, and I don't know how anybody could dispute that.

So if that's true, then the individual salvation of the people that make up the church is a part of God's dealing with a nation as a whole. So in other words, if God wants to withdraw his blessing from a nation, then that's going to impact the size and activity of the church itself.

So I've always had that in the background, and so you have to be able, if you're going to say that negatively, being a good Scotsman, then you have to also say positively if it is God's intention to bring about blessing to a people.

Aren't we the ones always praying for revival? Well, what's revival? Revival is not just one person getting saved, it's a whole bunch of people getting saved and walking in the light of that new life in Christ, huh?

And that's going to impact a nation big time. How do we understand the passage that the nations, the coastlands will seek after his Torah, after his law? How does that happen? Does the natural man do that?

No, no, natural man runs from the law. So if you have nations streaming to Jerusalem and streaming to Mount Zion, what is that about? Well, that's in the millennium someday and right before Armageddon or something.

Okay, that's how you want to deal with it. But what if it's actually God saying, I'm going to do a massive work in this world? That's different. So I agree that that speaks to the atonement, the outward atonement is to Christianize nations.

But what I would say is that there are universal, all of creation impacts related to the atonement. So it's not just the individual, you know, all the atonement is about is me and Jesus. No, there's much bigger things.

The atonement, the Father, Son, and Spirit are glorified in the atoning work of Christ. It is absolutely central. How many times have we talked about this? Trinitarian harmony, the gospel and the Trinitarian harmony in the atonement, the decree of the Father, the accomplishment of the Son, the application of the Spirit.

So again, if it would be God's intention to pour out His Spirit and to draw His elect and it becomes a majority of a nation, well, wouldn't the atonement be central to that? Well, of course it would. So he says, in other words, Lord came to redeem Americans, not America.

Okay, I agree. I agree. And if it is God's sovereign purpose to only redeem a certain number of Americans and then wipe America out, he's just to do that because he's done that down through history, down through church history.

Look at all the places you can go visit where the Roman Empire was once everything and now it's not there. Yeah, so that's true. But what if it's His intention to all of a sudden save a majority of Americans?

What will that do to America? Nobody wants to talk about that because in reality, it's like, that's not going to happen. Nope, not possible. Not possible. God couldn't do it. He says, the post slash mill slash theonomy lacks clear biblical foundations at this very point and it's important.

Again, we haven't found old Steve to be overly accurate in his understanding of how these things are related to one another. I'm not even sure how theonomy relates at this point. I mean, if you have 80 of the people living in a land upon whose heart God has written His law, Jeremiah 31, New Covenant, then what are they going to want?

Are they only going to want Christ's law in their lives, but not in their societies, even though 80 of the people in their society has the same desire? That doesn't make any sense. Again, all coming back to, yeah, but that'll never happen.

God can't do that. Oh, okay. I suppose there are lots of times back in church history, you could look at how many millions and millions of Christians there are today around the world and go, that would never happen.

Well, it has. Praise be to God. So, lacks clear biblical foundation at this very point. Well, again, what does it mean for, ask of me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance. What does that mean?

And I hope you recognize, I'm sitting here as a person who consistently over and over again says, the only way for this to happen is the outpouring of the Spirit of God. This isn't sacralism. This isn't this isn't forced submission.

This isn't what the Holy Roman Empire was about and all that kind of stuff at all. I'm not talking about the Stephen Wolf's type of Christian nationalism either at all. So you got to identify who you're talking about.

But these massive claims being made by the PMT crowd, I guess that's post mill theonomy, have zero evidence, now listen to this, in all of human history. No nation has ever Christianized, ever. Not the point of the gospel, nor the great commission, nor of the two great commandments.

And there you go. There you have the same kind of, well, God hasn't done it in the past, so there can't be any great blessing coming in the future. And that's the same attitude that the Jews had about the Messiah.

That's not how God's done in the past. It's not how we thought the Messiah would be. Well, the Messiah ended up being a lot bigger than you thought, huh? So I just find this kind of argumentation really, really bad.

Really, really, really, really bad. But it does allow us, whoops, sorry about that. It does allow us to interact a little bit. We have a, I have to look at how long we've been on the air. There is a quick, I'll just read this to you, and then we're going to do a little quick something out of Revelation 5.

I've got some Anthony Burnaby, or Burnaby depending on how you pronounce it, tweets here. Basic syllogism for Trinitarians. Point one, P1, Jesus is Yahweh. P2, Yahweh is the Father. Conclusion, Jesus is the Father.

You can only argue a premise is incorrect. This is logically valid deductive syllogism, a valid deductive argument, which again is why amateur philosophers or professional ones who try to pretend that their little teeny syllogistic arguments are big enough to deal with all divine revelation are fools, and will be told that on the day of judgment.