Refuting Bradly Mason’s Critical Theory Diatribe, Interacting on “Cultural Marxism,” Live in London

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. I'm coming to you live from London, England, where tomorrow evening

I will be having a debate at Selhurst Evangelical Church with Adnan Rashid.

Who resembles Jesus, Christians or Muslims? It will be at 6pm. The church might seat 150, maybe 200 max.

I'm just very thankful they stepped forward. I saw someone complaining, you should have been advertising this months ago.

That's much easier said than done. We had all sorts of issues.

First person I was going to engage wasn't able to do it. Adnan stepped in and then the location didn't work.

I'm just very thankful that Selhurst stepped in and made it possible for us to have a location for tomorrow evening.

This past weekend I was in the Netherlands. I prefer referring to Holland personally.

That's the old, I guess that's the less popular terminology today. I was in Holland. The one thing

I wanted to see, I'm not much of a sightseer, but when they mentioned that Harlem was very close by and that I could go see the

Ten Boom Museum and the location of the hiding place. I know modern generation isn't as big into this as mine was.

I think I read The Hiding Place when I was in high school, if I recall correctly.

Certainly the movie came out somewhere around that time, the Billy Graham Evangelist Association I think was the ones that put that together.

It's a great film and a great book. If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend The Hiding Place to you.

Anyway, you would probably saw,

I think they actually shot some within the actual house for the movie, if I recall correctly.

But it was pretty much what I expected it to be. But it was pretty special to have that opportunity to see where it took place and to be reminded of the tremendous sacrifices that people were willing to undergo to do the right thing at that time, to resist the

Nazis, to protect Jews. A lot of people gave their lives to do the right thing.

And of course the depth of the suffering of the people, the women there at Ravensbrück concentration camp, important stuff.

It was great to see that. So anyway, I also visited today's

Wednesday. When you travel, it's hard to remember which day is which. But on, was it

Monday? I think it was Monday. Yeah, it was Monday, I think. I visited the location of the

Synod of Dort in Dordrecht, which was right next door to where I was staying.

I think it's Weindruck. Anyway, so got to sort of run around there briefly.

And the actual location doesn't exist anymore, but the area where it was in.

And so that was fun to do. Anyway, all that just as background for the fact that I spoke at a conference over the weekend.

And there were people from all over Holland that came. In fact, I did a lot of walking.

That's all I could do, is I could walk around the area. And so I would walk at night and in the morning. And there were all sorts of people that came and they just had these little up tents out there.

It was pretty nippy. But they were there and it was a big conference.

A lot of people could speak English. And so as you normally have in those situations, when you're doing translation, you have a situation where,

I've got this light in my eyes, sorry if it's bothering you, but hopefully I'll get adjusted to it. I'm sort of bouncing off the wall, but it's still making things weird.

When you do translation and half your, about half the audience, maybe a little bit more speaks English or speaks

English well enough to understand you. If you say something funny, you end up with this double, and I remember this from the very first time

I spoke a translation down in Brazil in 2003. You get the double laugh.

You get the initial people who laugh at your joke and then half the audience is sitting there doing nothing waiting for the translation.

Then they get it, and if your joke translates into the other language, then they laugh too.

But sometimes you only get one, and that's when you realize that didn't really translate very well at all.

Anyway, so we spoke on scriptural authority, homosexuality, presuppositional apologetics, and Islam.

One thing I should note of interest, there was, we did a lot of talking about how

I was going to handle the homosexual issue because this was the group that got a tremendous amount of pushback earlier this year, late last year, early this year for translating the

Nashville Statement into Dutch.

The government was talking about coming after them for hate crimes and stuff like that. One bit of discussion we had is when

I got here, my translator said to me, well, excuse me, it is later in the evening here, but it's just this light is really strange.

Stephen Anderson's coming. He sent me a link, so I clicked on it, and here's

Stephen Anderson talking about coming to the Netherlands, Ireland, what's the other one,

Denmark, Sweden. I think it was one of the Norwegian countries. I could be wrong, but that's what I think it was.

Anyway, and he said, I have a strong feeling they're not gonna let do that.

I think there's going to be, and I just saw an article today, he has been banned, so they have banned

Stephen Anderson from going to the Netherlands. Now, on the one hand, you go, well, thanks

Stephen Anderson. When they, even when the Dutch produced a video explaining this, they've got him standing on his pulpit, they've got him saying, you know, talking about stoning homosexuals.

And of course, the big thing is they've got him denying the Holocaust, holding up books about the mythology of the

Holocaust. So they can just put a bunch of stuff together and just make him look like a complete idiot.

But the reality is that, on the other hand, you know, if they're banning him now, how long till me or someone else?

I don't know. At least he got to be there once, and we'll see what comes from after that.

But it was a great time with the brothers there. We did get to cover a lot of important stuff, and hopefully that'll be the beginning of more things.

And then we did a bunch of recording of these little short videos. I guess that's the thing now. In fact,

I'm going to be doing, in a little over a month, I'm going to be going over to California and doing three days of recording of questions that basically want like three -minute answers.

And we did that. We did, I think, 15. They have 200 in California. But I think we did about 15 in a real nice church setting in Holland that will then be, was it subtitled or voiced in?

I think it'll be subtitled. I'm not sure. But anyway, they're going to translate them. And if you have ever, believe me, it is much easier to answer a question in 10 minutes than it is in three minutes.

Trying to be concise, trying to be clear, that one in California is going to be a challenge.

No choice, but I'm going to be a zombie by the third day. No choice about it. So anyways, we did that and had a great time.

Now we're back in London. Debate tomorrow night. If you could pray for that, that would be great. And then

I'm not really sure what's happening over the weekend, though. My friend here locally says there's going to be something. We've just been putting this stuff together rather quickly, last second, because people had scheduling issues.

And so we're just trying to put stuff back together. I'm not sure I want to come home, though.

I mean, obviously, I'm ready to come home. I haven't been on a bike now for two weeks, and so I'm starting to get a little twitchy.

But I want to get home. But part of me doesn't, aside from the fact that I do love

London. It is a wonderful city. Some of you who follow me on Twitter have seen some of the pictures I've been taking on early morning runs.

I took a beautiful one on a five -mile run I did along the Thames this morning. And what I wanted to do is

I wanted to run down the Millennium Bridge, across the Millennium Bridge, and then back on the other side of the

Thames. And you catch the sunrise over the city, and sometimes it's a little foggy.

It's really, really nice. But that's not why. Starting about 36, 48 hours ago,

I start seeing this stuff. And of course, I'm eight hours ahead of Phoenix, five hours ahead of the

Eastern. So mornings here are when everyone's going to bed back there.

And so part of your day, it's sort of quiet until the US starts waking up, and then things start getting crazy.

And I started noticing on my feeds, on my phone, the first thing was this.

It had to do with the synagogue shooting. And thanks be to the

Lord, the kid that was doing it had a malfunction. I guess he had an

AR -15. When I heard about it, but then heard how many people have been killed or wounded,

I was like, something doesn't add up there. And I just heard today that there was a malfunction, and he ran out of the place because the thing jammed.

And thank the Lord for that. But anyway, I started seeing,

I had seen early on that this individual was raised in a family in the

Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And, you know, so immediately you start thinking about the realities of the fact that I do not believe that God promises that your children are going to be regenerate.

I do not believe being born into a Christian family means you're automatically Christian. You always have to be calling to repentance and faith.

And certainly over the years, I've seen many a person who was raised in a good context with, you know, under the preaching of God's word, and there was restraint upon them.

And then as soon as they get out from underneath that restraint, off they go. Because they may have even made a profession or at least outwardly submitted to things, but once that control is off out in the world, they go.

And so, you know, how tremendously painful that would be for the parents and the whole community and the church and everything else would be something else.

But I started seeing something in social media. And basically, people start basically saying that this was white supremacy, and maybe it was.

Didn't get that from the OPC. You didn't get that from the Westminster Confession. You didn't get a hatred of Jews.

I mean, my goodness. Talk about being antithetical to any orthodox understanding of the relationship of,

I mean, if you've read Romans 11 recently, you know. But I started seeing this stuff about how

I was being blamed for things like the synagogue shooter.

And I'm just like, what now? And so this sort of bubbled for a while.

It started happening right as I was going to bed one night and then starts bubbling up yesterday.

And finally, this morning, I received a link.

And this is a pretty neat little thing, by the way. I've actually subscribed to it called Thread Reader. And it will allow, it unrolls threads.

Because man, I'll tell you, sometimes Twitter can be difficult. I mean, I just had a guy just a matter of two hours ago jumping on me and accusing me of hypocrisy and everything else.

Because he says, there's this, you let this guy get away with it. I didn't know what guy he was talking about. I hadn't even seen this guy's stuff.

Well, he commented on something you said. Well, that doesn't mean I saw it. But anyway, someone that we have talked about many, many times before,

Bradley Mason, at Also A Carpenter. We have done entire programs where we have gone through his articles, provide a biblical response, demonstrated where there were imbalances and errors and misrepresentations.

But it seems like Bradley Mason decided to put all his cards on the table.

And he did so. This is what prompted it. Beth Moore tweeted the following.

There are simply no gospel grounds for defending white supremacy, whites capitalized. None. This isn't theological rocket science.

The Savior of the world gave himself on the cross for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age according to the will of our

God and Father wearing a brown body. Now, I haven't seen anybody take the time to go, excuse me, but that's not even

Orthodox. Jesus was not wearing a body. Okay? That is such horrific theological language that,

I mean, failure in Theology 101, right there. Bible college level. Wait, well, we need to talk after class.

Okay? It's just wearing a brown body. Anyway, no one said anything about that.

Everyone's just been, oh, that's great. That's wonderful. As if anyone was disputing this.

And this is where the issue is. We have been talking recently, we've had to talk recently, about critical theory.

And I've attempted to explain to you look, let me say something right up front.

I detest studying this stuff. I feel like it's a complete waste of my life. If it were not for the fact that this was a church issue, that it's impacting the church,

I would not for a second spend one more minute on it.

The books and the resources are stultifyingly boring. I cannot work up any passion for it outside of I see what it's doing to the church.

But having said that, when you figure out how critical theory is functioning, once you get the idea, once you understand that in critical theory, who you are is determined by what group you're in.

We as Christians think the Christian worldview and the worldview that comes out of critical theory are antithetical to one another.

In Christianity, we are judged based upon our actions and the intentions of our hearts.

In critical theory, you are judged by the group that you're a part of. We know that in the final day, the judge of all the earth will do right, the books will be opened, and we will stand before God, and we will be judged, and that judgment will be just, and that judgment will not be based upon our ethnicity, anything like that.

It'll be based upon the light that we had and the intentions of our hearts, which

God knows better than we know. That's why it'll be a perfectly just judgment. In critical theory, that's all gone.

Critical theory does not arise from any kind of Christian thought. It does not arise in scripture.

It does not arise from a Christian worldview. It arises from an evolutionary worldview. As such, when you try to attach it to Christian thinking, something's got to give, and critical theory has no mercy.

It has no grace. It has no way of giving. It will either take the central place or it leaves.

It will not coexist with the claims of Christ. And so,

Christians who become infected, and that's a very good term, infected by critical theory, that's one of the reasons that when you see in seminaries, this concept being presented in a positive light as something that could, well, you know, we can gain insights, and la la la la la.

It's an infection. It infects the person who begins to adopt its thinking, its concepts.

And so, because of that, you need to understand that in critical theory, the ultimate good is the removal of oppression.

And you are an oppressor by the group that you're in, not by the actions, the intentions of your heart.

And so, once we get into actually thinking about the argumentation, critical theory doesn't have to worry about consistency and argumentation because the ultimate good is the removal of oppression.

So, if you can use three contradictory arguments that result in, within critical theory, the removal of oppression, you did the right thing, even if you contradicted yourself in the argumentation you used.

The whole concept of truthfulness, honesty, integrity, accuracy of representation of others, there's no basis for it once you are infected with critical theory.

And that's what we're seeing from these folks. So, no one, I've not met anyone,

I have not yet seen any person promoting white supremacy. They're out there.

They stay away from me, but they're out there. So, what you need to understand is, on the one hand, what the critical theorists do is they will offer an actual definition of what would be more accurately called majoritarianism.

And that is, as we've mentioned before, in China, you would have, what would you call,

Chinese supremacy. You would have brown supremacy, if we're going to use color or something.

When you have a people who have the majority position, when they have the power in a society, they're going to order that society to their greatest comfort.

And so, when you have that in China or Russia or Brazil, wherever it might be, that's the majority.

And so, in the United States, it's called white supremacy. So, they'll use that, and they'll use language of power and structures.

That's what they call structural racism. It's not really racism, it's majorityism.

That's why so much of this stuff only makes sense within the United States. As soon as you go south of the border, it doesn't make any sense anymore.

As soon as you go across the ocean one way or the other, it doesn't make any sense anymore. But that's why it works so well here, because our people don't care about what's going on every place else, and so something works here, then it must be true.

I was commenting on how the friend that was driving me around in Holland knew so much about what was going on in our political process.

We don't know anything about their political process. We don't know who's in charge, we don't know what parties, no, but they know about ours.

And it's because we don't think about anything else, and we don't know what's going on anywhere else, that a very

Anglophile, well, that might be England, but a very

American, America -centric theory can take up so much of the conversation and not be challenged.

So when Beth Moore says white supremacy, then,

I don't know, she would put it in these terms, but you can talk about this idea of systemic power structures, oppression, etc.,

etc., and try to it as far away from skin color as possible.

But then you can't maintain that differentiation. Eventually, I mean, she doesn't even hear wearing a brown body.

Huh? Because if white supremacy is a power thing, then the brown body was, so the white supremacy was the

Romans, even though they're actually white, but so that's the, is that the power dynamic here? Most people reading that tweet are going to get two contradictory messages depending on which of those paradigms they've already embraced.

So anyway, so good old Justin Peters asked

Beth Moore a question, and this was on April 29th, and he says, who is doing this exactly?

Who is defending white supremacy using the gospel? Seriously, aside from a handful of wingnuts who are not connected to a true biblical church, who is doing this?

Who in the evangelical world is doing this? And so it was to that that Bradley Mason wrote this long diatribe, and it's a diatribe.

He clearly lost it. He decided to do a core dump of social justice warrior, critical race theory, critical everything theory.

I'm just going to let you all have it. I don't know if he just had a bad day, just what it was,

I don't know, but he went off. And if you think

I'm being nasty here, let me just remind you that at some point here, let me find the specific quotation here.

Yeah, here we go. It includes whole groups like sovereign nations,

AOMN, grace to you, including gasp assimilationists like Daryl Harrison.

Hey Daryl, you're an assimilationist now. Pulpit and pen. Oh yeah, I just go ahead and throw everybody in here.

Reformation Charlotte, same group, and other trash that you and yours don't mind sharing if it calls the right person a

Marxist or heretic. Trash. Trash. Okay, so this is, you need to understand,

Bradley Mason has decided that we're all trash. That we're all promoting white supremacism and we're so, you know, someone was saying, well, let's just be nice to each other.

Gloves off. Gloves off. He has declared nuclear war. So we just need to, you need to see,

I said in Twitter, Bradley Mason is what happens when you replace covenant theology with critical theory.

You trade one CT for another CT. And what does that mean? Covenant theology, as we understand in Reformed theology, he claims to be

Reformed. He's not anymore by any stretch of the imagination as far as worldview goes, and that's obvious as I'll come out here.

But covenant theology, this is a useful contrast.

Covenant theology is grounded upon seeing that beautiful harmony of God's actions in time and bring about his own glorifications, the redemption of a particular people, working with them in history.

Covenant theology is unifying. Remember Ephesians chapter one, the summing up of all things in Christ.

That's the beauty. That's the focus. And so covenant theology ties everything from Genesis to Revelation together in this beautiful, beautiful, harmonious, unified purpose of God.

Critical theory cannot unify anything. The whole purpose of critical theory is to divide and to splinter and to destroy.

So when you try, for whatever reasons, to bring critical theory into the

Christian faith and wed it with covenant theology, well, one's going to have to predominate over the other.

One's going to banish the other. You will be a walking time bomb of inconsistency if you try to hold those two things together.

It can't be done. Can't be done. You want to see what happens when you try?

Bradley Mason's your man. Also a carpenter on Twitter. Okay? So he answers

Justin Peters. I'm late to this, but I'll play. So you want names.

Off the top of the head of my head, you, Justin Peters, John MacArthur, James White, Phil Johnson, Doug Wilson, Jordan Hall, Josh Bice, Tom Askell, and every other public figure who has made a cottage industry out of fighting social justice.

That's the first tweet. That's just the first tweet. So cottage industry. Hmm. Okay.

Yeah. Cottage industry. Don't expect accuracy. Mr. Mason is unconcerned, as critical theory would make you be unconcerned, about accuracy, fairness, consistency.

All that stuff is gone now. This is, he's sold, he's sold critical theory, and now he's, he's going to deliver the, deliver the goods, deliver the goods.

No one's made a cottage industry out of anything, actually. And that's silly, but again, it's just part of the rhetoric.

Claiming those who are driving the race conversation are sowing division. He probably can't see the irony of that.

He probably, he probably cannot see the irony of the fact that, that he's thrown all these names out, and not a one of them has ever said anything positive about white supremacy or anything like that.

And he's going to admit that later on. But remember, in critical theory, that's not the point. Once you accept critical theory, as long as you make movement toward ending oppression, which is not biblically defined oppression, but quote -unquote ending oppression, then you've done the right thing.

So this is, see, even, even the moral and ethical system ends up being warped once you replace covenant theology with critical theory.

Claiming those who are driving the race conversations are sowing division. We have seen a tremendous amount of sowing division.

There's no question about it. How can there be anything other? Are damaging the gospel, yeah, when you decentralize the unifying effects of the gospel, when you accept the idea that there needs to be black spaces in the church or at the

Lord's table, that's damaging the gospel. Definitely. But remember, in critical theory, all you have to do is say these things.

It doesn't matter if the other side has sound arguments. It doesn't matter if they have a basis for saying it. That's irrelevant. It's the accusation that is important.

You've got to keep the accusation out there to shut down the conversation. And that's what we're seeing happen. Our cultural

Marxist, long discussion going on, and we'll get into this later on, long discussion, quite interesting discussion going on, still,

I think, still going on in Twitter about the utilization of that, thanks to the

TGC article that hopefully I'll get an opportunity to get to.

The way that I'm going at this speed, I may not. But hopefully we'll be able to talk about that was posted on yesterday by Joe Carter at the

TGC U .S. edition, Kinism, Cultural Marxism, and the Synagogue Shooter, where Joe Carter tries to make the argument that using that phrase, cultural

Marxism, has racist overtones, it has something to do with synagogue shooter and all the rest of this stuff.

And people have blown a bunch of holes through the argumentation already, but we'll hopefully get to some of that a little bit later on.

Our cultural Marxists, so you cannot talk about cultural Marxism. You cannot talk about the reality that the

Frankfurt School was deeply influenced by Marxism, but morphed Marxism, bring in other concepts, but that there was still a heavy influence from Marx, and that cultural

Marxism is the application of those fundamental principles in a wider area than Marx envisioned, including family, sexuality, race, which is exactly what we see going on today.

You can't talk about that. You are causing people to get shot in synagogues, if you dare say that.

So this is shutting down conversation. This is a total capitulation to a worldly way of thought.

No, no talking. No, no, can't say that. Don't believe in biblical authority.

Well, what is your ultimate authority is really becomes the question for so many of these things.

Our only following critical race theory, not just critical race theory, but critical theory, it does become the lens.

When you have a competition for the interpretive lens of the worldview, you can't have more than one.

You can't switch them out. There can only be one central focusing element, and once you grab hold of a system that is not derived from scripture, it is derived from anti -scriptural concepts.

You can never make it biblical. You can never make it biblical. You will end up following only critical race theory.

Liberation theology, lots of parallels to that, and worldly ethics. It results in worldly ethics. Those who make and sign ignorant statements.

How can a statement be ignorant? People can write it can be ignorant, but how is a statement ignorant?

Yeah, probably not going to get too much in the way of specifics there, but again, that's not his point.

He just wants to throw his stuff out there. Red meat for the followers. It's just part of the leftist way of doing it.

Sign ignorant statements meant to shut down discussion and alienate. Wow, which side is really trying to shut down discussion,

I wonder? Who's trying to alienate? This is called projection, big -time projection.

Those who write whole series on how Black Americans are just playing the victim and want white people's money.

I'm not sure what that was referring to. Probably has to do with anybody who would go, you know that reparations thing?

Is that really all that wise? Those who continue to defend their, here we go, their racist theological heroes at all costs because they got the gospel right contradictorily and they were just men of their times.

I guess that would include me for saying I'm not going to throw Jonathan Edwards's works out the door.

Neither am I going to decide that George Whitefield was an unregenerate.

I'm guessing that Bradley Mason's finally to the point where he's ready to throw those folks out and just say, it's not even

Christians and make it part of the gospel, which may be very divisive. But anyway, let's see here.

Those who have no qualms quoting evil men from the pulpit because they said something theologically profound.

I'm not sure what that was referring to, to be honest with you, unless it goes with the preceding thing.

So I guess if you quote Jonathan Edwards from the pulpit, then you're promoting white supremacy.

Because remember, this is all white supremacy. Those who believe that Europeans are and have been the protectors of orthodoxy.

Well, what if you believe that there was once an

African who was a protector of orthodoxy? What if you believe that there have been

Americans who've been protectors of orthodoxy? What if God can use whoever he wants?

I mean, Athanasius was the defender of orthodoxy. So what? How is that relevant?

He didn't think his skin color was relevant. I don't think his skin color is relevant. Never crossed my mind that it was. But critical theory has to divide, divide, divide, divide.

You see how all of this is just when you actually see, he doesn't realize he's doing this because once you get buried in critical theory, you lose the ability to objectively examine what you're saying.

But if you take all of this, what does every single one of these tweets do? Divides, divides, divides, subdivides, subdivides, subdivides, divides, divides, divides.

It's its nature because critical theory cannot unite anyone because it has no basis for uniting.

It can only divide. So Europeans have been protectors of orthodoxy, as have been others.

You have a problem with that? What was that supposed to? That has something to do with the kid with the malfunctioning

AR -15? Has nothing to do, not rationally, not logically. But we live in a day once critical theory infects the society, rationality and logic.

Let's not even worry about that. We don't have to demonstrate that our arguments actually follow.

That's the old way. As long as it accomplishes what we want to accomplish.

And that black churches are and have always been gospel deficient. Well, again,

I think it's racist. In the old definable, meaningful definition of that term, not the modern one that has no meaning at all.

But I think it's racist to even talk about the black church or the white church or Chinese church or anything else.

Because, you know, look at China. If you talk about the Chinese church, you have the suffering Chinese church, then you have the state

Chinese church. Are they the same thing? Of course they're not. So stop talking about the black church.

He's a heretic. So if you can't make, see, there's critical theory.

He doesn't, again, he doesn't see this. He's been so sucked into it. But once you do the group think, the group defines, then you can no longer make the distinctions that we are called upon as Christians to make in every single situation.

We are called upon to differentiate between sound churches and unsound churches and not based upon color.

There are sound churches that have a majority of black people in them. And there are lots of unsound churches that are barely more than community centers or where you're not going to hear the gospel.

There are churches like that. There are white churches like that and brown churches and Chinese churches and there's all sorts of churches.

You have to be able to differentiate. You cannot do this group think thing that critical theory says you're supposed to. Those who love to argue every other day that MLK was a heretical womanizer.

I've never met a single person personally who has any desire whatsoever to,

I hate even talking about it, but it almost sounds like you're saying that you cannot believe, that you must believe, if you do not believe that MLK was an upstanding, godly, saint of orthodox belief, that you support white supremacy.

That's what's being argued here. So the facts don't matter. The writings don't matter.

The it's irrelevant. You just simply bow the knee.

Go with the flow. Those who blame black

Americans themselves for society -wide disparities suggesting they are,

I guess, greater sinners than white people. Who's doing that? I don't know.

But again, one thing I certainly recognize in reading the modern promoters of intersectionality studies and all the rest of this, this is what you do.

You repeat this kind of argumentation so often that people eventually believe that must be what the other side is saying, even if they've never actually said it.

Those who show none of the compassion of Christ toward those within our own faith, who long to have the pain acknowledged.

It probably should be acknowledged, maybe. I'm not sure what pain.

That's just a badly written sentence, and so we won't dwell on it. And it is not you and they.

So finally, that's the end of the sentence that went from how many tweets. And it is not only you and they.

So everyone who's been named so far. It is all the little sycophantic followers who slander their

Christian brothers for addressing any other systemic sin than just abortion, and whose every other tweet is right -wing political propaganda.

Do you get the feeling that this fellow just blew a gasket?

Sycophantic. When you're throwing that one out, you're really trying to dig as much as you can.

And again, right -wing political propaganda. Well, I see a lot of people on the left -wing political propaganda.

It should be irrelevant, but anyway. How about those who appear to sit around and wait for folks like Dr.

Bradley to say something they can dunk on and get hearts from their co -religionists?

I think Anthony Bradley enjoys throwing out the grenades himself, actually.

And certainly, if that was meant as a shot toward me, again, total misrepresentation.

But again, he doesn't care about that stuff anymore. The dishonesty part is just part of the cultural stuff and the critical theory.

But the reality is that I tried for a long time to very respectfully interact with Dr.

Bradley. And he's the one who just went nuclear himself a couple months ago.

And I just muted him. So I'm not sitting around waiting for him to say anything because I'm not listening to him.

He lost my respect a long time. It should also include the thousands of kinists floating around, all with Calvinist, Reformed, or Presbyterian in their bio.

They go to church somewhere, my friend, and they pretty much tell us where. And I think that's the only thing he says about that.

So let me just mention this. I had never heard of kinism until,

I don't know, a decade ago, around there, maybe. I forget exactly when it was.

And I remember seeing something said about something. I'm like, what is that? Did a little digging around and I see this.

On the one side, these folks want to accuse me of promoting white supremacy. And on the other side, they want me to declare as a heretic.

Why? Because I have promoted colorblind theology. You can't put those two together.

Well, in critical theory, you can. Because again, it doesn't matter. Those are two obviously polar opposites.

But if either one works, then the critical theorist is like, got it. We did the right thing there.

I've told the story about my upbringing and the fact that the first family

I knew outside of my own family was a mixed race family. Very blatantly so. I mean, a very, very, very black man and a very, very, very white woman.

And one of their sons was one of my best friends. Well, it was my best friend. My first best friend.

And so when I first ran into kinism, I was like, oh, that's disgusting.

What is wrong with you people? But I only heard it being referred to.

I don't, I honestly, I have a vague recollection of maybe one time someone came out and said that that's what they were promoting.

And I don't think my response was, let's just say the conversation ended at that point.

Because I just find that so far removed from anything that has any,

I mean, I have, I think I did remember seeing someone's attempted argumentation biblically.

And I was just like, you people are out there. So I had a bunch of people saying, well, you need to spend time talking about that today.

What am I supposed to talk about? It's absurd. It's on the same level as flat earthism. What are you supposed to say about it?

I mean, it's just, it's against everything that, everything that I said in response to the

MLK50 thing over a year ago now out of Colossians 3 and Ephesians, totally against all of that.

But evidently in our day, even if a position is completely against everything you've ever taught or said or done, people will still accuse you of it anyways, unless they can find a tweet someplace where you specifically referenced it,

I guess. If there has ever been a kinnest in any church that I ministered in, was a member,

I've only been a member of two churches in my adult years, well, three in my adult years. I can assure you, the big mega

Southern Baptist church, that wouldn't have been an issue there. Or even spoke in, preached in, they've never said a word about it to me.

I think they know better. I repudiated Entoto. It also includes all the narrow spirituality of the church folks.

And that's put in, in quotes, I don't know what that means. And radical 2Kers, okay, that's the two kingdoms folks, who rail against anyone believing the church has any social responsibility beyond preaching and sacraments.

West Cal professors, Westminster Seminary in California. Oh yes, names,

R. Scott Clark and Southern Machen warriors alike.

It includes whole groups like, and this is what I read earlier, Sovereign Nations, AOMN, GTY, grace to you, including grasp assimilationists, gasp assimilationists like Daryl Harrison, Pulpit and Pen, Reformation Charlotte, and other trash that you and yours don't mind sharing if it calls the right person a

Marxist or heretic. So what we do is trash. Gives you an idea of where Bradley Mason is.

It's even Presbyterian aggregators like the Aquila Report. Well, I'll let the Aquila Report deal with that.

They can certainly do that. Oh, and we better not leave out all the white knights working tirelessly behind the scenes to oust good

Christian men like Joel McDermott from American Vision. Well, Joel left the reservation a long time ago.

So I guess the people who are trying to put American Vision back on a orthodox path are white knights, capitalized.

I don't know what a white knight is. Or Mohler and Duncan from Ligonier, which there's a background to that.

And so a lot of bad information out on the web about that. But anyways, just thought of another name,

Burke Parsons. Oh, well, congratulations, Burke. You've gotten into the white supremacy promoting group too.

Congratulations. Yeah, I get it. You ready now? Yeah, I get it.

You all condemn white supremacy in any form. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So see, it doesn't matter what we say.

It doesn't matter how we live. From the critical theory perspective, until you bow, until you kiss the ring, until you embrace the system, it doesn't matter what you do.

It doesn't matter what your intentions are. It doesn't matter what your statement is. It doesn't matter what your history is. It doesn't matter what your faith is, how you live, how you interact.

It's irrelevant. Critical theory owns everything. That's why it's so inconsistent with Christianity.

That's why this is such a grossly false narrative for any person who professes to be a

Christian to put out there. And it's something that Bradley Mason needs to repent of because it's sinfully slanderous.

But he doesn't see that because the heart of the Christian faith has been replaced with critical theory categories.

So you can condemn white supremacy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So did Cotton Mather, George Whitfield, Robert Dadney, James Thornwell, J .G.

Machen, Morton Smith, Nelson Bell, Bob Jones. Bob Jones, oh great. And on and on and on.

So I'm not particularly impressed. So let's say there are people in the past, and of course that list is not a fair list.

It's, again, consistency don't need consistency. Critical theory does not require consistency.

You can throw lots of people from different periods of time with different viewpoints together. As long as you accomplish what the critical theory goal is, you can do that.

We would say it's dishonest from a Christian perspective, but different morals, different ethics when you have a different system.

So I'm not particularly impressed. So it doesn't matter what you say. It's, you can, you are convicted by critical theory, by the group you're in.

Now he's, as far as I know, a white cisgender male, but once you begin the process of the constant life of penance, then you can be accepted into that group, dependent upon the continuation of the penance.

You can never stop. It's just something you have to do for the rest of your life. He says, boy, do

I have a list of quotes for you from enslavers and segregationists of the past employing there is no

Jew and Gentile to oppose abolition and integration. Let me know if you want to see. And hopefully any clear -minded person immediately goes, is he really that confused?

Has his thinking process been that perverted? I mean,

I can show you all sorts of heretics down through history who have misquoted scripture about anything and misused scripture.

How is that relevant to anything? It's not logically and rationally, but it is in Bradley Mason's book, which is no longer logical and rational, but it is right in line with the accomplishment of critical theory.

Then you don't have to put on a white hood to feather a bed for a

Klansman. Now that was a tweet unto itself. And so I think that just popped into his head and I said, oh man,

I'm going to take a shot. And then he goes off. You don't have to put on a white hood to feather a bed for a

Klansman. Remember, he's admitted every person that he is tarring and feathering and slandering would say,

I repudiate white supremacy. But you see, it doesn't matter from critical theory because that may be what your heart says, but the system says this, therefore you're guilty.

So Klansman. Can actually refer to you as a Klansman. Yeah. White Knight is a

KKK reference. That's nice. See, the point is not that you defend white supremacy by arguing for white supremacy, but that you and the many

I mentioned have, for whatever reason, decided to take an active and incessant role in making sure there is a comfortable lodging place for those who do.

You see how this works? See how this works? By not being on our side, you're giving them a place to hide.

Because the only way to deal with them is to be on our side, is to join our cultural revolution.

So, you know, Justin was asking who defends it and this whole thing up to this point, this whole diatribe has been you are, but okay, you don't defend it, but because you would oppose us, because you would oppose replacing the unifying message of scripture with the divisive message of an intersectionality and critical theory, and because you will, you fight against the insertion of these foreign concepts into the

Christian faith, then it's your fault. It's your fault. You are providing a comfortable lodging place for those who do.

So, we are providing a comfortable lodging place for white supremacists. I mean, be honest, wouldn't you go to the most conservative evangelical church possible if you were a card -carrying white supremacist?

I don't know. I've never met one. I can't even imagine the mindset.

It's disgusting to me. You seem to know a whole lot more about them than I do. But they're, but they would not be in any church that I'm associated with because the preaching of that message would be constantly opposed to all of their secret sin.

Where else will you hear race, where else will you hear racists quoted from the pulpit with honor?

So, the only thing I can figure there is, again, that's, is that referring to Edwards?

Is that referring to Whitfield? Is that, is this thinking so blessedly twisted that you think someone reading

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is going to go out and shoot Jews? I mean, really?

How about the racist James Cone? I bet you,

I bet you Bradley Mason would want to be in a church where the racist James Cone is quoted because he was a racist.

How about that? We'll talk about that a little later on. Where else will it nearly be considered a sin to explicate biblical passages as condemning racist

American history or addressing systemic racism? And again, notice, the

Bible was completed before that, so there isn't any biblical passages condemning racist

American history. You have to make application in a meaningful fashion and in a fair fashion to do that, but I'm sure many people do that.

Or addressing systemic racism, that is majoritarianism, which I guess, you know, when you go through the law and its establishment of Israel, I guess you could actually make an argument that it establishes, what,

Jewish supremacy within Israel or something like that. I'm not sure how exactly you'd handle any of that.

The reality is, let me put the sarcasm aside for a moment, the reality is what this is saying is you need to twist the scriptures into a sledgehammer to use politically today, you know, go after immigration or whatever else it might be and, you know, bash

Republicans. That's basically what they're saying. I'm not a Republican, by the way, nor am

I a Democrat. Either one. Um, where else could you be assured that you will only hear a narrow gospel of salvation and afterlife with social questions off the table?

That's just so dishonest. I mean, makes me ill. But again, I'm sure he felt that was, you know, this type of stuff just twists your sense of reality.

Um, let's be serious about this. Well, you're not being serious about this. Those are names and organizations.

Why not take the anti -racist off your hit list and put the white supremacist ideology, overt or covert, not welcome in evangelicalism sign up on the conservative church doors for all to see?

Rather than the, well, it's so complicated, there's a lot of factors and the church shouldn't be in the social business, anyhow, sign.

And from what I've seen, that last sign would actually even be a move in the right direction.

Okay. There you go. Um, this guy's on his way to sojourners as fast as he can get there.

And I, and I would actually wish that he would go there, just go so that we, so that we would know, you know, um, where you're, you know, just don't pretend to be something that you're not anymore.

I say this all as a conservative reformed evangelical, who is a member in good standing of a historic reformed nomination by entire

I hope they know that you intend to spread this poison within the congregation, take it for what you will.

And I do reject it for the critical theory infected balderdash that it is.

Um, and from the first question I received from the thread, it appears I was unclear. The point is not that any of these men support white supremacy.

They don't, but all I'd argue have a hand in making conservative evangelicalism, evangelicalism, a pretty safe place to harbor such views.

That's just take deep breaths, take deep breaths.

Remember folks, he's been infected by a worldly viewpoint. Got to try to pray and say, deliver this brother from his self -deception.

Even though I am certain I haven't looked, but I'm certain that this threat has been reposted by every social justice war on Twitter by now, including leaders of the gospel coalition.

Um, and PS, I don't think the anti -Semite shooter was radicalized by his church.

I have said nothing about it at all. And when I saw how sanctimonious these defenders of, but when

I saw how sanctimonious these defenders of the tribe became, I couldn't help but name the names.

Hence I'm responding to Justin Peters, not current events, sanctimonious. Well, Bradley Mason, you're the most sanctimonious social justice where I've ever met.

You take the cake, sir. So good term that you brought up and notice how sanctimonious these defenders of the tribe became.

I didn't even, I'm, I'm over in Europe. That, that, that shooting didn't even make news here.

I only picked it up like a day after it happened, or maybe two days after it happened via Twitter. Uh, I had absolutely zip to do with any of that.

So, so there you've got the nuclear option on a less nuclear level was

Joe Carter's article, which was very interesting up until a certain point where all of a sudden it took a hard left turn.

And basically if you go into Twitter, you'll be able to find, uh, Neil Shevney has been, uh, talking with him and I wish

I had set up my other, uh, monitor. So I have more, have more room on the, on my screen.

It's getting a little bit on the, um, uh, jumbled side here, but, uh, see if I could just give you a quick grab onto here, uh, where you could read this yourself.

Uh, man, there's been a lot of stuff that's been posted since I, uh, started the program here.

Um, come on, where is it? Uh, he seems to have stopped interacting recently, but there, it was just a few hours ago though.

Okay. There it is. There it is. Yeah. Neil Shevney's that's

N E I L S H E N V I. Uh, there's also a Josh Dawes in it and I was in there.

And so if you can look that up, you might be able to find that thread. It's about four hours old right now, uh, where there was a discussion of sources for the term cultural

Marxism and, and stuff like that. And, and again, I just, I was,

I got dragged into it cause I was mentioned by him and saying, well, Voti, why they are probably just reading these conservative things.

I'll go back to Lind. I don't even know who Lind is. Um, I gave him in that thread, a screenshot from, um, introduction to critical theory from 1980, which is what

I've looked at. Um, and that would have been before this Lin stuff.

So it was just, it just off on that. Um, and I'm, but I'm wondering though, um, because he, he talks about, basically the argument is he, he tries to assert that Lin was an anti -Semite.

I don't know. I, um, but he's using a genetic fallacy as far as I can tell, uh, because, uh, he says, uh,

Lind developed a conspiracy theory that claims Marxist intellectuals, almost all Jews at the

Frankfurt school developed a deliberate agenda to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place.

Well, let me just stop and say something. There is no question that the cultural elites in the

West want to fund. What was, what was Obama's phrase fundamentally, um, remake, reorganize whatever.

And if you can't see what's going on in our culture as exactly that, I, you know, why call that a conspiracy?

I mean, there are people who want to fundamentally remake Western culture and get rid of any reference whatsoever to the foundation that had in the

Christian faith. Is that actually an arguable thing from somebody at TGC? I mean, that's, that's so obvious.

It's like child's play, but anyway, uh, Lind also wrote a novel in 2014, Victoria, in which the main character explains cultural

Marxism to a professor who supposedly promotes the theory. Here's the, here's the description now, almost everything here completely can defend just from today's news, just about, but listen, like economic

Marxism, your cultural Marxism said that all history was determined by a single factor.

Classical Marxism argued that factor was ownership of the means of production. You said that it was which groups defined by sex, race, and sexual normality or abnormality had power over which other groups.

And I just stopped for a second. That's a description of critical theory intersectionality.

That that's perfectly accurate. And, and the, the, the personal preferences of an individual who says something is perfectly accurate, does not change the perfect accuracy of what is said.

Classical Marxism defined the working class as virtuous and the bourgeoisie as evil without regard to what members of either class did.

You define blacks, Hispanics, feminist women, and homosexuals as good and white men as evil, all again with no attention to anyone's behavior.

Been to a local university recently? Seen anyone try to say anything against that on a university recently and get absolutely shut down?

Or, or if a professor says it, kicked out? Classical Marxist, where they obtained power, expropriated the bourgeoisie and gave their property to the state as the representative of the workers and peasants.

Where you obtained power, you expropriated the rights of white men and gave special privileges to feminists, blacks, gays, and the like,

Marcuse's revolutionary class. Now, Joe Carter identified that as a racist statement, but is that not exactly what we're seeing?

Is that not exactly the whole idea? Critical theory cannot, critical theory simply treats all white men as white men.

There is no, there's no individuality that is to be allowed.

So, so he says,

Lind may not consider himself a kinnest, but the idea is embedded in his use of cultural

Marxism. Like many others that have used the term over the years,

Lind is just as obsessed with identity politics as the people he's criticizing. No difference is he's worried it's his own ethnicity that might lose power.

So if you push back against identity politics, then you are guilty of identity politics.

What's the only answer to this? What I said back at the MLK 50 thing last year hasn't changed.

It was mocked and derided and put down. It's, I'm never going to be able to give a different response because you see all this identity politics stuff, all this, well, you can't use that term because that person once said that and that person did this, you can't do that.

You can do that on both sides. I mean, the number of people who use the term social justice who have tremendously evil anti -Christian backgrounds to them is legion.

So obviously that's not going to keep these folks from using the term social justice. So what, what is the only sense of, of sanity that anyone can drag out of any of this?

There must, if only there was a way where you could have a society of people who are united together because of an absolute basic core commonality that transcends all their politics and ethnicity.

And that in fact, their politics and the history of their peoples are considered to be as, as refuse and unimportant in comparison to what they now see that they share together in this one community.

If there was just a way that we could do something like that. Yeah. Wouldn't that be nice?

Yeah. Okay. One other thing

I needed to address from over here. And that was, I don't know, sometime in the middle of April, I tweeted maybe a total of two times, maybe three times.

I didn't, I haven't figured out, I haven't gotten all the programs yet to go back, figure out where things are and find old tweets and stuff like that.

But the New York, was it New York Times? I think the

New York Times, April 20th, 2019, a op -ed by Molly Werthen on, you can go by, you can go back and get it.

It was titled, Can Black Evangelicals Save the Whole Movement?

by Molly Werthen, published April 20th, 2019. And I linked to it because of the discussion that it had about Walter Strickland.

Radical thinkers have found their way into the citadels of white evangelicalism, reading the black liberation theologian,

James Cone helped Mr. Strickland, the theology professor, see how white theologians often ignore the structural sources of earthly suffering.

In 1969, the Reverend Dr. Cone admonished new blacks redeemed in Christ to say to whites that authentic love is not help, not giving

Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, economic justice, which also means a redistribution of power.

Well, he went a whole lot farther than that, as we have documented over and over and over and over.

James Cone was a heretic, he was not a Christian by any meaningful orthodox standard, nature of God, atonement, scripture, anything.

Anyone who will argue that point, we're just, you obviously believe that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Buddhists are all

Christians too. Courses in African -American theology have been on the books at moderate evangelical seminaries since 1970s, but it's significant that Mr.

Strickland has brought a thinker like Dr. Cone into the heart of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. Mr. Strickland spent years studying in majority white evangelical schools, where he mastered the idiom of the

Christian right. When he speaks to conservative white congregations, he is careful, this is the key thing here, he is careful, quote, while Cone's ideas are in play,

I don't mention him by name because I don't want to put unnecessary stumbling blocks in their way, period, end quote.

Unquoted, scripture's authority comes first, quote, if I'm able to demonstrate this black man in front of them has read the

Bible, I gain credit with them, end quote. Now, I linked to the article, and as I recall, the only comment

I think I made was in reference to, what was it, a month earlier, a month and a half earlier, something along those lines.

It was, okay, when was SHEPCON? It was within three or four days of the

Q &A at Shepard's Conference, that the discussion came up of how pervasive this movement is, where has this infection taken place, how quickly is it moving, et cetera, et cetera.

And I put up a tweet that just got everybody angry because I made specific reference to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which is where Strickland's at.

He is vice president of diversity or something, you know, the kingdom diversity, kingdom initiative, kingdom diversity initiative, whatever it is that they have there, where when

Cone died, what was that, last summer? You know, I hear these blog articles that start appearing, video blogs,

I think Strickland was in them, talking about James Cone and all the rest of these things, and they've always said, but you know, we wouldn't agree with everything that James Cone said.

That'd be like me saying, I wouldn't agree with everything Joseph Smith said. I mean, if you have to say we wouldn't agree with everything, it would literally be like me going, well, you know,

I know that Joseph Smith taught that there is a plurality of gods and men can become gods, and he was a polygamist, and he brought in new books of scripture and things like that.

But, you know, there are insights we can gain from Joseph Smith. Why are we so bereft of orthodox

Trinitarians that we have to go for this kind of stuff? I mean, there's been discussion recently about, you know,

Dwight McKissick was saying, I just cannot believe that they would ban James Cone from being read in seminaries.

Well, no, you shouldn't ban James Cone from being read in seminaries. Just ban him from being read as a

Christian in seminaries. Put him in the cultic section where he belongs. Right?

Is someone actually going to dispute that? Please tell me, give me a consistent argument where you can defend

James Cone's Christianity while at the same time saying we should not have fellowship with Mormons.

Can you do that? Because most of these folks, this is the only area they focus on.

They never go outside that into other areas and actually have to be consistent in doing this type of stuff.

So anyway, what happened is on April 30th, so I think

I was over here, so April 30th, just a couple days ago, an article was published at intersectproject .org

and this called The Real Ideas in Play, Foundational Convictions, Black Theology, and My Journey with James Cone.

And so this was the sort of inevitable,

I would say, article. I say inevitable for Mr. Strickland because once that article went out, here's how things work in the

Southern Baptist Convention. I learned this the hard way 15 years ago.

Go back 2004, you'll figure out who I'm talking about. But when word gets out that there is a professor at a seminary that has said something particularly controversial or troubling, it will not be long, it will be within 10 days, this was 10 days, that you will have a statement that somewhere in it, no matter what else it says, what it'll specifically say is

I affirm the Baptist faith and message. It is just the Southern Baptist way. I've seen it for decades.

Well, you read the article, it's a short article, and what does it say at the end?

I'm now more committed to my theological foundations representing the Baptist faith and message 2000 than I was before I studied

James Cone. And basically what the article says is nowhere does it dispute that the article misquoted him.

Instead it's, well, you need to understand that what

I'm presenting and the insight that I gained was only the idea of systemic racism.

Even then, I have a problem with the broad application of that phrase, systemic racism.

Again, it's an Americanized thing, and exporting it outside the United States creates all sorts of problems everywhere else.

But that's the assertion that is being made here.

So specifically, I referenced using Cone's ideas without mentioning him in order to walk around linguistic landmines.

My point was not that I hide unorthodox ideas in my teaching, sort of sound like what he was saying, rather that I don't mention his name in order to eliminate stumbling blocks as I show how

Scripture answers certain observations about the world that evangelicals sometimes overlook. In my ongoing writing and teaching on Black theology, it is clear that Cone's theology is not my theology.

He espouses profoundly different answers to the questions that he raises than I do. While his questions and critiques are at times helpful,

Scripture is a sufficient guide to answering Cone's concerns. And again, I just sit back and go, replace

James Cone with someone equally as heretical and ask yourself the question, why is this even having to be said?

Why is this even having to be said? If it is truly a biblical sin, you could have found that from Scripture or from many other sources.

You didn't need James Cone. If that's where you got it from, then

I guess that's the landmine you're trying to get around.

I don't know. I don't know. But what this article is, is, well,

I wasn't misquoted, but I want to make sure that everyone understands that I'm a

Trinitarian. I never figured he was anything other than a Trinitarian. But what

I don't understand, forgive my naivete, please. I've read

James Cone. I read James Cone in 2008 when

Obama was running for office for the first time. That was the first time I read James Cone, it was 2008. And I've read a lot of heresy, and James Cone's part of it.

And I'm pretty confident that we can sit down and open up his Black Theology and Black Power book, and I can just start, you know,

I have it on Kindle. I can say, okay, let's go to the next page. Okay, that's good. And it's going to be a long time.

And all I get is, yeah, yeah, yeah, well, okay, yeah, you know, we don't necessarily go with him everywhere.

That's like reading the King Follett Discourse and saying, but, you know, if we look hard enough, we can find something good in here.

No, you can't. And why are we digging through the garbage to find something? Why? I don't understand.

But the point is that none of this changes the reality of the emphasis at SCBTS.

It's there. Don't believe me? Go to the website.

Read the articles. Watch the video blogs. And maybe even take the time to listen to some other folks who have posted stuff, and they've gone through their experiences at Southeastern, and listen to what they have to say.

There's always more than one side to the issue. But there was one guy, you need to repent.

What? Repent of having linked to the article? Or repent of saying the

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is a woke seminary? What is there to repent of?

This doesn't change any of that. I don't get it. There's a lot of weird stuff going on back there right now.

That's why I say I'm really not sure. Rich Ver thought about London. It's a great place.

Pretty expensive, but it's really, really great place. It's really, really cool. Nope. Long ways from fresh.

It really is nice. It really, really is a beautiful, beautiful place. But anyhow, so, oh, by the way, did

I, no, I forgot to mention this. One last thing we'll wrap up, we've gone nearly a full jumbo edition here.

But let me see where I put this. Oh, man, that story about Francesca Marzari, the judge up in Canada.

If you want to see what totalitarianism looks like, just look at that situation.

You can't even in the privacy of your home refer to your daughter as a daughter if she does not want to be called a daughter.

We need to be straight up in saying to any state that would do that, God will bring his wrath against you.

You must repent of this. That is evil.

I mean, this judge is evil, but she's evil because of an evil worldview that she has embraced, which has a whole lot to do with the same social justice stuff we've just been talking about.

It's the same anti -God, anti -biblical worldview that allows her to do this kind of thing.

Justice will be done. Oh, I guess I didn't save it to that.

I'd have to bring up another program. But there's a Chris Thomas and some of the guys,

I posted it. Actually, oh, I put it in Facebook. That's right. There's too many ways of storing things and quoting things anymore.

That's just all there is to it. And I closed that down too. So I can't get to that either. But anyways, there's a

I was forwarded an article about all the myths and stuff on the

Texas Receptus materials. And what I found funny, I might have, oh, there it is.

Yeah, there you go. Chris Thomas. So it's Trent Still, Chris Thomas, William Sandell, and A .J.

McDonald Jr. I've seen McDonald before. I don't remember seeing William Sandell or Trent Still, who is a student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

But Chris Thomas, they're having to try to come up with new names.

And so I hold the historic confessional view of scripture as found in chapter one,

Westminster Confession of Faith, second Linden Baptist Confession of Faith. I reject restorationist textual criticism and affirm preservationist textual criticism.

So we've got all these confessional, the confessional text position.

And now we've got restorationist textual criticism versus preservationist textual criticism.

Now, once again, obviously, Erasmus would have gone, Beza would have gone.

Well, we don't have to worry about that. Because once you've got your final authority in the

TR, we don't have to worry about the fact that both Beza and Erasmus would have done what is called restorationist textual criticism because they kept talking about, you know, corruptions in the text.

But there you go. And they posted something. I don't know when I'm going to get a chance. It looks really enjoyable to take apart.

Because these guys know that the stuff I've been talking about recently, that you get right down to specifics, right down to what

Erasmus said, what he did, the readings where he's translating from Latin, and there's no

Greek manuscript support. They know it's indefensible. So they just try to keep the attention to themselves.

But it's sort of like, I go overseas, and things get crazy back there. And all sorts of stuff ends up getting thrown my direction.

So who knows what it's gonna be like by the time I get back. I'm due back on May 6.

That's Monday. And only been home for a few days before I've got a trip to make.

And the rest of the year is gonna be crazy. It really is gonna be crazy. By the way, we're already setting some important stuff up for South Africa in August.

Really important. Let me just put it this way. This isn't written in stone yet. But if you found the debate on homosexuality with Graham Codrington in Johannesburg to be useful, could you help us get back there so we can do some more stuff like that?

Because we're putting stuff together for the end of the month of August in Johannesburg and Durban.

October, we're gonna be down in the Sydney area. So that's lots and lots of flying right then and there.

And then November, back here in London, a really major debate that both sides are really looking forward to.

So I'm gonna be doing a lot of traveling the rest of this year. You help make that available.

And so there are a lot of folks cursing me right now.

If you'd like to be a blessing, now's a good time to do it. Because man, I'll tell you, you turn on the computer, it's like, oh, oh, man,

I'm a terrible, horrible person. I don't believe what they have to say, thankfully. But anyways, that's sort of what it feels like sometimes.

So anyhow, I'm not sure. It sort of depends on Rich's schedule, if we're gonna sneak another program in or not.

I certainly wouldn't mind trying. But you know, Rich is the flighty one. He's here, there, everywhere, who knows.

So we'll see if there's some way of working something out at some point to where we can maybe sneak one more in.

It sort of depends on what my schedule ends up being like as well. But I'd like to be able to give a report on the debate.

But if not, we'll do so as soon as we get back to Phoenix. So thanks for watching the program today.

Pray for the debate tomorrow night. And Lord willing, we'll see you back in the good old