The Religion of Moloch Lives, Lizzie Schofield’s Review of G3 Debate, S&K Swings & Misses Yet Again

Welcome to The Dividing Line. Over the past week or so, we were treated, I guess that's not the appropriate term, to some incredible cultural commentary coming out of the nation's capital. Specifically, we watched in horror as the...

I'm not sure what to describe this particular political party as any longer. Their chosen name is not anywhere near descriptive of what they themselves are. They are socialists, but they are also totalitarians, and the only thing that that holds them all together is a complete, utter dedication on a level that, wow, I'll tell you, if we could get Christians to be as dedicated as these folks are, the church would turn things upside down.

But an utter dedication to the sacrament, the sacrament of human child sacrifice. That's really what it is. We live in a day when there has never been less excuse, scientifically, logically, rationally, philosophically, ethically, morally, on any level, for the murder of unborn children.

We know, every time I hear a millennial online say, well, it's not a human until 23 weeks. What was it before then? Was it canine? Feline? What was it? I mean, we are really reaping the result of no longer teaching any type of meaningful logic, history, morals, ethics, in the public, we used to call it the educational system, it is now simply the public indoctrination system.

The amount of absolute blather that flows from the hearts and souls of modern secularists is next to impossible for me to even wrap my head around, let alone show any respect toward. We live in a day where in essence, the womb has a window.

We have seen the impact of this, we have seen because most of us have grown up, well, I certainly didn't, but most people in the audience have grown up being able to see ultrasounds hanging on the refrigerator when someone is pregnant.

You may have seen your brothers or sisters in the womb through ultrasound. Now that came after me, my children, we experienced that with my children and then certainly with grandchildren after that, but even back with my kids, those were very grainy, difficult to read things, now you've got such incredible resolution that the darkness and silence of that womb has been broken and the reality that each one of us began our existence there is well known.

We know so much more about embryology. I mean, that was for me, as a science major in college, that was just one of the most fascinating areas. And we've learned so much in the past 30 years since I did that study, and yet there's still so much mystery.

Even when we discover certain mechanisms as to how certain things develop and what the keys are that allows this to take place, it just boggles the mind the idea that this just happens. There's no design, it just takes place.

No, it doesn't. There is design, there is beauty, there is order, there is purpose, and as we recognize that, for example, the old ontology recapitulates phylogeny garbage from years ago is completely bogus, that it's no longer true, that the embryo goes through the stages of evolution in the womb and all that kind of foolishness that was foisted upon people for decades, we truly have more information today than we've ever had before.

We can do in uterine surgery, and we can do so much more we've ever been able to do before, hence leaving us completely and utterly excuseless for the existence of maniacally evil organizations such as Planned Parenthood that thrive on the murder of unborn children and that own a substantial portion of the most powerful politicians in the United States government.

To even say these things, I risk this program ever being able to stay in public distribution, because the powers that be in the major technical companies are all ultra leftists. They have no interest in honesty, fairness, truth, free speech, liberty.

They're totalitarians to the to the core and hence any expression of the truth, which they cannot begin to dispute, but because it might hurt someone. It might hurt someone's feelings. The idea that the hurting of someone's feelings who's been born is more important than the dismemberment of a child who has not yet been born, indefensible morally, ethically, on any level.

But that is where we are. The head of Planned Parenthood is leaving and the Babylon Bee did a great article about an internal memo of who to get to take her place. That brought up pretty much a number of the nastiest characters, mass murderers of history, demons, various sundry other mechanisms.

Did they bring the Borg in? I wonder if they brought the Borg in, because that would be one I would suggest. Or species, whatever that was, 73849 or whatever it was. I never memorized the number, but that would fit pretty well as well, I think.

Here is a woman celebrated and you just truly, when you think about the guilt that that woman and every person she has bought and paid for in the United States Senate and House of Representatives, every judge, every one that they have bought and paid for, will bring the guilt of the bloodshed with them before a Holy God.

And there will be no excuse, there will be no place to hide. When you think of Jesus' words about Chorazin and Bethsaida in light of Sodom and Gomorrah, i .e. the more light you have, the greater will be your judgment.

Well, in light of where we are today and our knowledge of exactly what we're doing, Species 8472, thank you. I'll have to memorize that. I knew someone would, you know. Who did? Oh, I didn't see that.

Oh, oh, oh, and YouTube? Oh, okay, all right. Are you looking it up? No. Oh. Well, because now everyone's going to want to know, you know. But anyways, and if you don't get what any of that is, don't worry about it.

It's a Star Trek thing and only one particular, I think it was only in one particular series. Anyway, none of us can rejoice when we think of the frightful wrath that will come upon such individuals, because we know we're deserving of the same kind of wrath for many other reasons.

But at the same time, there is something right about recognizing that justice will be done. That all these children who have been murdered in the womb merely for the sexual convenience of those already born, they cry out for justice, and that justice will be done.

That justice will be done. You can't say that in our society anymore, but that justice will, in fact, will, in fact, be done. And so as I saw pictures of socialist senators fist bumping each other on the floor of the United States Senate in having blocked the bill that would have forbidden abortion after 20 weeks, someone posted, I almost reposted it myself, a picture of Moloch worship.

And that's exactly what you have. It is, this is a sacrament for this religious group. It is the sacrament. You cannot reject that sacrament and maintain your membership in this particular group. It is sacramental in nature.

It is viewed as holy. It is viewed as good. And it speaks directly to the essence and the nature of the worldview. That is that sexual expression is the ultimate good of mankind. Do you realize how dehumanizing that is?

Do you realize? It makes perfect sense. If you think man's just an animal, then spread your genotype anywhere, everywhere, at all times. That's the logical result of the secular worldview and the secular view of man.

But it is absolutely dehumanizing. Absolutely dehumanizing. It shreds mankind. It destroys what makes man different than animals. It is a return to a low form paganism. The problem is now we have technology to go along with the low form paganism and the results cannot possibly be good.

But it is dehumanizing. And people recognize it's dehumanizing. We can only hope and pray for a change in our society through the work of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel. That's the only hope the society has.

If it continues this direction, I when I hear Christians talking about, you know, God bless America, and I just want to go, why? With what? I see no signs of repentance. I see no signs that there is any move toward holiness.

And you might say, well, other nations are the same way. Well, yeah, Western culture as a whole once it is divorced from its foundations, which gave it its morality and it gave it its meaningful worldview, yeah, it becomes incredibly ugly, what you see.

And as you saw those headlines, you know, naming these senators, these senators voted against and there's so many different ways you could appropriately express it. You know, the dreamers who are dreaming of getting to be born, just the just the incoherence.

Babylon Bee likewise had one, having a defeated bill to protect unborn children, senators return to lecturing us on compassion. And it's exactly the case. One of the things that absolutely offends me beyond all comment is how the left is getting away today with referring to this as women's reproductive health.

You're denying women's reproductive health. They've recognized that the the pro-choice thing doesn't work. And so what they have to do is keep the object they must kill out of the discussion. And so they talk about women's health care.

It has nothing to do with women's health care. It has nothing to do with reproductive health care. They know in their heart of hearts, because they're the ones that are chopping the babies up for parts, remember?

Still doing that. You know they are. They know what it's about. They know that it's about the child. But they know they cannot win that battle in light of the sonogram, the ultrasound. So you just simply close the door to that.

Even when someone asks you a question about it, you just you refuse to answer it. You just beat the mantra and hope that the repetitious nature of it, together with a very thorough indoctrination in the secular mindset within quote-unquote public education, public indoctrination, will get you by.

And so far it is. So far it is. I would like to hope that there will someday be a day when we're going to look back and we are going to just with with utter shock and amazement go, I can't believe that after having defeated the Nazis and seeing what they did, the experimentation the the unbelievable things that were done in those few short years that within a matter of decades in the bright shining nation we allowed this kind of activity to take place.

And blessed it and called it good and moral. And Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry as a whole through its entire fortune and weight of finances behind the promulgation of this infanticide I hope someday that we will look back at this time with abject embarrassment.

It may not be us to look back. It may be another people that have taken our place. That would be fitting and it would certainly have a lot of historical precedent to it as well. So could not help but to notice these things as we listened to those who have been given a reprobate mind.

They have been given over to a reprobate mind expressing their rebellion, their love of their rebellion, their hatred of life, their hatred of God. And these are the people who want totalitarian control over your thoughts, your behaviors, your children.

We need to keep in mind and pray about, though I imagine the decision has already been made, but God is in control of these things. That big Supreme Court case has probably been decided already and we're just waiting for the months to pass before that decision is handed down in regards to that inevitable clash of sexual autonomy, i .e. man as a mere animal under the control of his sexual desires and religious liberty and freedom, man as image of God, worshipping God.

Again, it is an absolute reversal of civilization. It is a rapid degradation moving backwards. That's what we see going on in our culture. And parents, you must be explaining this to your children, young people.

You must understand when your parents start talking to you about worldview issues, don't just don't let your eyes glaze over. Your parents need to speak to you about what is going to allow you to stand firm and to have real meaning as a human being made in the image of God.

The society around you wants to steal that from you, wants to take from you that which will make everything else worthwhile in your life. Without an understanding of who you are as God's creation, anything else you accomplish in this life will be robbed of its value.

You must understand who you are as the creature of God. That is where your value comes from. That's what makes your self-sacrifice, your service to others worthwhile. The world around you will want to take that from you.

As your parents seek to explain to you what the Christian worldview is, listen carefully. Pray that God will give you understanding and make it real in your life. Because I cannot imagine, I love my grandkids, but I can't imagine the world they're going to be facing in comparison to the pressures that I faced when I was their age.

I faced nothing. I had it easy. They're going to have to have a foundation. I can trust God. God knows his people. God can bear his people up, but my grandkids, that generation, unless God moves in great revival, which normally follows after great judgment, they are going to be facing a technologically supercharged amalgamation of 1984, Brave New World, that we can only begin to theorize about right now.

I don't even know what to say to them. Because what if they ask, well, why did your generation allow these things to happen? I think a lot of us got to say, well, because we were so concerned about our 401ks that we didn't look into the future.

We were very satisfied with our ease of life, and so we didn't warn people because it was easier to keep your mouth shut. I don't know. But anyway, certainly in observing the events culturally over the past number of weeks, just in that particular area, let alone in the continued number of examples of well, not just in the United States, but looking at what's going on in Canada, just to our north, the rise of state-sponsored secular totalitarianism is upon us, and we must pray for God's intervention.

Not in the sense of just sitting back and doing nothing, but only God can change hearts and minds, and Western culture needs revival in a major, major way. Shifting gears a little bit, pretty heavy start, I realize, but shifting gears a little bit, I want to play something for you.

I want to play a few moments from the debate, the pre-conference debate at G3. Between myself and Adnan Rashid. This is just simply a portion of the cross-examination, and for those of you who were there or have watched the debate, then you know that what had happened was toward the end of Adnan's second opening statement.

It was supposed to be a rebuttal, but I mean, technically, what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to limit the presentation of factual information to your opening statement. Adnan didn't get done with his opening material, so he continued it on into the next section, and really sort of beyond even that, even into his closing statement.

I pointed that out to him and said, Adnan, you need to work on your timing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Anyway, right at the end, and then we took a break, but right at the end, he had put up a graphic from 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 and 10, and had basically said, well, what good does the death of Christ do if all these people, all these kinds of people, swindlers and adulterers and homosexuals and everyone who's mentioned in the vice list there cannot have salvation?

That's pretty much everybody. And I was like, whoa, because I know what the next verse is. And so, we start the cross-examination. I go, now, before everybody forgets—well, actually, everybody has already forgotten anyways—but let's go back and let's think about this, okay?

So, let's listen to just this portion of the debate, and then I'll make some commentary upon it. Okay, Adnan,.

You were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Spirit of our God.

So, the statement that Paul is making is all those things. I need you to pause it.

My bad. The audio of everything you've just played there didn't go through, so we need to start this segment over. Can you do that? Yep. So, it'll work now. My bad.

I have a timer, so we're good. Okay, Adnan, before everyone forgets what you were just saying— well, everyone already has, but we'll assume that they haven't— you just quoted from 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verses 9 through 10.

And you basically said, well, then for whom did Christ die? Was that what I understood you were saying? Yeah. Okay. Do you have a Bible program up, or could you use that really nice ESV study Bible I gave you, or whatever, however?

Could you read the very next verse after the one you quoted? You want me to read now? Well, I can read it for you, if you like. Go ahead, please. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Spirit of our God.

So, the statement that Paul is making is all those things—the idolaters, fornicators, thieves, covetous, drunkards, swindlers— such were some of you, but there was a radical change, but you were washed, but you were sanctified.

The only way you could be washed is in the blood of Christ. So, doesn't the text actually answer the question? And that is anyone who can turn in faith, anyone who turns in faith to Jesus Christ, even these people listed here will find him to be the one who is able to bring about their sanctification and justification.

Isn't that what the very next verse says?

Yes, it does, but you have to read Paul holistically, right? This is what I've learned from you. You have to read Paul holistically. Holistically, yes. Right? And when you read Paul, I mean, for example, Hebrews 6, 4, 6, it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away to be brought back to repentance.

So here Paul is talking about someone who has had the Holy Spirit, someone who has been enlightened, someone who has believed in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And if someone goes away, it is impossible to bring such a person back.

So there is no salvation if you have believed in the cross and somehow break the rules of the cross, whatever they are, you cannot be brought back according to this passage.

This is how I understand it. Guess what the passage of the sermon from last Sunday that I preached was. Okay. Hebrews chapter 6. Right. So if you have it... And how do you respond to that then? Well, it's my turn to ask you questions.

I'd love to do that. But if you have it up, you could look at verses 9 and 10, and you'll notice that Paul says, well, and we're not sure that Paul wrote Hebrews. You directly said that he was, but I theoretically think that he did.

But that's another issue. The writer specifically states, but we are convinced of better things concerning you, things which accompany salvation. So I think that is a misapplication of Hebrews 6, first of all, especially with what comes afterwards at the end of the chapter.

But going back to 1 Corinthians chapter 6, the point is, and you said reading him holistically, well, first you got to read him in his initial context. He is saying that all of these kinds of people can be saved because of the cross.

Would you at least say that that's what's being said in 1 Corinthians chapter 6?

Okay, let's assume that's true. Let's assume for a second that's true.

Okay, so I just wanted to give you a sense, if you haven't watched it, I'd recommend that you do. But going back and forth with Adnan, when you have made a commitment, both of our parts, to hear the other person out and to show respect to the topic that you're addressing, I would suggest that one of the questions that has to be struggled with by anyone who involves themselves in going out and engaging others is where is the dividing line for you where you have to stop and say the subject that I'm seeking to communicate, whether it be the cross, the trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, the inspiration of scripture, whatever it might be, when do I cross a line to where that subject is no longer being properly respected in light of the behavior of the individuals who are before me?

Because there have been times, outside of temples, Mormon temples, or wherever it might be, where I've shut a conversation down myself. I said, I don't think we're getting anywhere here. I think this is no longer a profitable exchange, and I've moved on.

And I am not saying that where I am comfortable with that has to be where everybody else is. There are going to be people who are going to do that earlier than me, and a lot of people that are going to do that much farther into the fray than I do.

But I have to answer before God for that. So I will bear that. The point being, in this context, we have a debate, and we are seeking to show respect to the subject by the way that we address it. We are also showing respect, not only to the subject, but to one another and to the audience.

See, you could follow all that. There were there's a thousand people in that auditorium, and they know exactly what we're saying. They're able to actually look up the references, follow the discussion.

This is why you do debates. This is, from my perspective, providing benefit to a wide variety of folks. And I want to compare that. Shouldn't actually have to change anything. I don't know. Did that change something?

We're fine right now? Okay. I'd like to compare that with this, and I'll just play a few minutes of this, and then we'll make some application. Okay. All right. What I'll have to do is, it's this, yeah.

All right, here we go. You just have to restart that thing. Here we go. What? Uh-huh. That's what you said. So, can we try it again?

I know you're upset. I know you're upset. I know you're hurt. I know you're hurt. I'm upset. I'm upset. Who was it? Who was it? Why is it so difficult? They're not even fighting.

They're not going to the military defense. They're not going to the quiet hall. They're not going to dining street. They're going to a concert with little kids and blowing themselves up. We will not have that anymore.

We will not have that anymore. And we are going to confront you on the life of your prophet and on the life of your prophet. This is absolutely economic. Our prophet categorically taught even in war you cannot kill women.

You cannot kill children. I know it hurts. I know it hurts. I know the teachings of the prophet. Prophet Muhammad's teachings. Okay. Okay.

Do you get the idea? That's Speaker's Corner in London. And the lady there is Lizzie Schofield. And that's Adnan Rashid. And so it's a nice comparison because Adnan's in the middle of both. Let me just ask a simple question.

Which one did you learn more from? How many people will learn more about 1 Corinthians 6 or Hebrews 6 and the cross and so on and so forth from the exchange with Adnan that I had than they will from people screaming at each other at Speaker's Corner?

Now, Adnan sort of that was Adnan's introduction to Christian polemics. So the first few debates we had were not, they were never like that. But you know, it would be pretty easy to assume that everybody on the other side is like what you see at Speaker's Corner.

When the reality is they're not. And so you might say, why raise any of that? Well, because about a week ago, Lizzie Schofield posted the beginning of a review of my debate with Adnan Rashid. And this is from dcciministries .com and so since Lizzie Schofield decided to weigh in on the issues, I thought it would be appropriate to respond.

The recent encounter between James White and Adnan Rashid on Is the Cross Necessary to Salvation was predictable enough. Dr. White did okay on the apologetics and preached the gospel beautifully at the end to his credit.

But this was not a debate. Everything was so terribly polite with lots of rather pointed comments about how respectful everything was, subtext, not like nasty speaker's corner. Well, I'll stop for a moment.

Immediately, we have a fundamental definitional issue here. For Lizzie Schofield, a debate is a screaming match. It's how loud... Can you possibly out scream and talk over the other person? That's a debate.

Now, the funny thing is, if she's from London, she should know better. There is a long history of debate in English Parliament, in English educational systems, Oxford, Cambridge. In the middle 1600s, to even become a credentialed minister, you had to be able to debate in Greek, which no one I know can do that today.

But there are rules to debate. And debate is intended to allow for a respectful exchange between two perspectives that allows both sides to be heard equally, and allows for meaningful interaction in front of an audience.

But its primary purpose is to communicate information to an audience. That's not what Speaker's Corner is about. We have a fundamental disagreement. This was not a debate. What we did as a debate, what you do, is scream over people.

Now, you can make an argument that screaming over people has its place. Fine. But don't call it a debate. From a scholarly and historical perspective, that's not a serious debate, any more than the absurd political spectacles in the American electoral system, called presidential debates, or senatorial debates.

They're not debates. They're fashion shows, or whatever else they might be, but they're not debates. I continue on. The cross-examination was more like a polite exchange of views, hardly worthy of the name.

Well, you just saw it. An hour in, trying not to nod off, I was still waiting for things to get a bit more feisty, more passionate, more real. You can respect someone and still be confrontational, right?

They seem to manage it at the House of Commons and Channel 4 News well enough. Even at Speaker's Corner, that's always our aim. Well, you're just watching it. Vigorous debate is much more honest and engaging, and my own experience of debating Adnan Rashid is that he can certainly handle it.

Well, again, if you call yelling over people and screaming at folks a debate, well, we have a fundamental definitional issue right from the start. And I really wonder, do you think that the apostles were doing the yelling, screaming thing?

It seems to me, in Acts chapter 13, once the Jews begin behaving in such a fashion where they can no longer communicate the gospel, they wash their hands of it and walk away. We're leaving you, going to the Gentiles.

And they walk away from it. I really have a hard time with the idea that the apostles stood there screaming over other people, and the only people going to understand what was being said were the people within three or four feet, one way or the other.

James White's first objective was to demonstrate the centrality of the cross and divine revelation beginning with the writings of the apostles. I wasn't sure why he didn't start with Jesus himself. The many times he predicts his death, Jesus' statement in Mark that he would give his life for the ransom of many, which, of course, did get discussed, the Last Supper.

He dwelt on the fact, Acts 2 .36, the crucifixion, rather than its necessity, Acts 4 .12. Actually, I did both. J .W. elaborated on Paul's teaching on the power of the cross to reconcile mankind to God and how the suffering of the Messiah is prophesied in the Old Testament as stated by Jesus himself.

This seemed to be slightly off-topic, as the central issue is atonement, not the suffering of the Messiah or his identity. No, the topic was the cross necessary. So, obviously, if you're dealing with a Muslim, you have to deal with the prophetic testimony to the cross.

I would think that was sort of a given, but okay. The Quran states Jesus is the Messiah, so that shouldn't be an issue for Muslims, although it does open for them a big can of worms. Well, the problem is, the Quran may say he's the Messiah 11 different times, but that doesn't say what the Messiah is or what the Messiah is supposed to accomplish.

You can't just read that in. You have to demonstrate what the scriptural teaching on the subject is. There was no mention about the necessity of blood sacrifice in the book of Hebrews. We got into the book of Hebrews a number of times.

She may have fallen asleep, like she said. She was trying not to nod off. Although he made some strong points about Jesus' identity, it felt like he missed the main meat of the argument, which was a shame.

Okay. I missed the main meat of almost everything that she says while she's screaming at people, but that's another issue. Adnan Rashid argued that only Paul taught salvation by the cross, salvation by faith and the cross of Christ, but the Old Testament doesn't teach the necessity of blood sacrifice.

It does! And then she goes on to quote a few texts. Instead, his argument relied heavily upon cherry-picked, decontextualized verses and appeals to scholarship. He tried to turn every reference from the Gospels into either an authorship issue or a textual criticism issue.

For example, asking, why does Luke omit Mark 10 .45? As Lydia McGrew argues in her excellent lecture, sometimes a variant is just a variant, and an omission presupposes the author's intention, when they just might have remembered things differently.

The Mosaic Law, the Last Supper, Hebrews, etc., were all, again, conspicuous by their absence. His most interesting argument was whether or not the book of James teaches salvation by works, therefore contradicting the letters of Paul.

Well, actually, that was his primary argument. His primary argument was that if Paul was the only source of the cross teaching, therefore if he's in contradiction to James, you make the connection between James and the original disciples, and therefore Paul's off on his own.

James might should have recognized this for the clever tactic it was, rather than allowing for sidetracking with his just-read-my-book answer. This rather pompous response doesn't work in a debate situation.

A failure to give a simple answer comes across like you have something to hide. But there is a reasonable, simple answer to the Paul vs. James objection, which John Piper summarizes well. Now, everyone knows Lizzie's obviously being extremely unfair.

It wasn't a read-my-book answer. It was, first of all, to point out that Adnan had not familiarized himself with meaningful discussions of the appropriate relationship between Paul and James. I did, in fact, take Adnan to James 2, verse 14, to discuss the nature of faith that was being addressed.

That's not a read-my-book response. That's a misrepresentation. I don't know why she would want to go that direction. Then she gives John Piper's summary. Which, of course, is what I said from James 2, verse 14.

I'm not going to quote someone and expect Adnan Rashid or somebody else to accept that type of quotation. But I do want to take them directly to the text itself and demonstrate the consistency of the exegesis from James chapter 2.

This was James White's response, but not very succinctly put. It was unfortunate that the rebuttal and cross-examination time were unnecessarily dominated by this issue. Otherwise, while James White did correct some of Adnan's misapplication of verses quite skillfully, he bypassed others.

For example, he didn't refute Adnan's claim that Psalm 91 says the Messiah will be saved. Well, of course I did. The way I did that is I specifically addressed, even in my opening statement, preemptively, the reality of the nature of the prophecies concerning not only the Messiah but what the Messiah would do, and that, therefore, what you have in Messianic prophecy has to have a greater fulfillment.

The Old Testament prophecy— and Michael Brown and I discussed this on the last program a number of times— both the Muslim and the Jew argue that texts like Psalm 22 or Psalm 91 or whatever else cannot have a greater fulfillment than what was actually found in the original context.

And we addressed that. I addressed it in the debate, whether people understood that that was a necessary application. Everybody knows, in a debate, when you do real debate, not the screaming debates, but when you do a real debate where you have time limits, a scholarly debate, that you have to choose which text you're going to respond to.

And so Psalm 91 would be a great one to deal with, but so is Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 or whatever else ends up coming up. Messiah will be saved. This is the psalm quoted by Satan during Jesus' temptation to wilderness in Matthew 4, 5 through 7.

How does Jesus respond? Why is Adnan using an argument with Satan on which to base his objection? Well, the reality is we discussed, I think, much more importantly, what it means to be saved. How was it that God heard Jesus' cry?

Because we did mention that, for example, in Hebrews 5, which also came up. How did God hear Jesus' cry? How was he delivered from death? Through resurrection! That's the greater fulfillment. A much greater fulfillment.

Again, both Michael and I addressed this on the last program, and we did, I did, in the debate. In conclusion, the debate, still not the right word for it. No. That's the exact word for it. What happens at the speaker's corner is not a debate.

That's just screaming. It was fine, neither a triumph nor a disaster from an apologetic's perspective, but the real disappointment was how very one-sided it was. The Islamic perspective was mentioned only occasionally, let alone challenged.

Statements like, Islam is consistent with the Old Testament, Islam teaches the law, and you will be forgiven. Simply repent, and the law will forgive you. We have been promised forgiveness as long as we die as Muslims, all slipped by unchecked.

Those were all in his closing statement. See, again, the mindset of the street brawler is, I would start screaming my rebuttal at that point, and therefore it's rebutted. Well, serious scholarly debate means that if the other person wants to make statements in their closing statement, you can't respond to them.

That's the reality. That's how it works. Someone has to go last. But check it, we will, in our next post. That's Lizzie Schofield. I have not had any encounters with Ms. Schofield before, but we are obviously going to have a very fundamental disagreement as to what a debate actually is and the long-term benefit.

I don't see the long-term benefit of Speaker's Corner, personally. I don't. I mean, if you, in the sense that you can learn to be prepared or to remain focused upon your point or something along those lines, in preparation for street ministry, okay, I suppose, up to a certain point, but to confuse that with much more useful and in-depth talking multiple hours, meaningful exchange where you have clarity of expression and development of argumentation, things like that, there is no comparison to be had between those.