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

Greetings and 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 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 these folks are, the church would turn things upside down — but an utter dedication to 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.

And 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 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.

And even when we discover certain mechanisms as to how certain things develop and what the keys are that allow 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, recompletion, phylogeny, garbage from years ago is completely bogus, that it's no longer true, that the embryo goes through 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 than 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 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 is 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 Borgin? I wonder if they brought the Borgin because that would be one I would suggest, or Species 73849 or whatever it was.

I never memorized the number, but that would fit pretty well as well,

I think. But 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, in YouTube?

Oh, okay. All right. Are you looking it up? 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 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.

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 is just an animal, then spread your genotype anywhere, everywhere, at all times.

That's the logical result 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, when

I hear Christians talking about 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. 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 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 incoherence.

Babylon Bee, likewise, had one, having 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 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, has nothing to do with women's health care, 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 you, 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 utter shock and amazement, go,

I can't believe that after having defeated the

Nazis and seeing what they did, the experimentation, 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, worshiping

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. 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 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 accomplished 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. 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. What if they ask, why did your generation allow these things to happen?

I think a lot of us have to say, 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.

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.

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 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 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. You've got 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. 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. Yeah, go ahead, please. Go ahead, yeah. 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...

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 the line to where that subject is no longer being properly respected?

And 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.

So 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, and 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'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. I 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. Why is it so difficult?

They're not even fighting. They're not going to make a huge offense. They're not going to preach to the quiet.

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, what are your scriptures?

This is absolutely Islamic. Our prophet categorically taught, even in war, you cannot kill women, you cannot kill children.

I know it hurts. I know the teachings of the prophet. Prophet Muhammad's teachings.

Okay. Okay. Did 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.

And 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'd 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 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. So we have a fundamental, yeah, we have a fundamental disagreement. You know, it's just this was not a debate.

No, what we did is 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 in 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.

I really wonder, do you think that the apostles were doing the yelling, screaming thing?

It seems to me in Acts 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 for 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. JW 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 Qur 'an 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 Qur 'an 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 Mosaic Law.

Actually, I brought up the law and its fulfillment in Christ in regards to sin. Fulfilled in Christ and explained at length 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 faith and the cross of Christ, but the Old Testament doesn't teach in 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 White 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 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 relationship between Paul and James.

And 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.

And then she gives John Piper's summary. useless faith and does not justify, 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 response, but not very succinctly put. It was unfortunate 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. And 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 in wilderness in Matthew 4, 5 -7. How does

Jesus respond? Why is Adonai using an argument with Satan on which basis 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 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 Speaker's Corner is not a debate. That's just screaming. It was fine, neither a triumph nor 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.

Okay, well, anyway. So that's Lizzie Schofield. I've 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,

I mean, 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.

All right, next topic. I am feeling better, thankfully, but I do still need to wet the whistle once in a while, partly because it's just so dry here, partly because you're still fighting a few things.

I got up this morning, or was it? No, it was last evening.

Last evening, I was sent a notification, an article from our dearly beloved brothers and friends over at Pulpit and Pen, which we lovingly call

Slander and Keyboard, because what they do has nothing to do with a pulpit and little to do with a pen.

So I went and checked it myself. It says, sadly,

James White, who has apparently forgotten the Trinity, has defended Michael Brown for saying that one -nosed

Pentecostals still hold the fundamentals of the faith. We have the evidence and his words, and we'll post them tomorrow. Very sad.

It's time to say farewell to AOMN. I immediately knew what was going on, and so this morning,

I sort of ruined the whole thing for them by telling the whole story.

We had a gentleman start to troll our social media sources.

Was it during the program? Yeah, even during the program that we did on Tuesday on Psalm 22.

And by the way, can I point something out? I have yet to see one whisper of criticism of anything that Michael Brown and I said on Tuesday in this program on Psalm 22, from nobody, no matter what their perspective.

People like Jordan Hall and this individual, was it

Dengess? D -E -N -G -E -S -S? I'm sorry?

Ed Dengess, yeah, Dengess. Anyway, they know that what we did in that program was sound, orthodox, useful, and extremely unusual in the sense that you don't get that kind of a program with that level of analysis of the biblical text in Greek and Hebrew and application and prophecy.

My critics know they could not have done that program themselves. They can't just sit down and do that.

It's beyond their capacity. They know that, but they don't care. They would rather destroy a ministry that produces that kind of in -depth information so as to accomplish their own desired ends.

This is the utter abandonment of any meaningful Christian motivation on their part, is that they're willing to just, we don't care, doesn't matter.

We will ignore everything you've written. We will ignore everything he's written. We have our crusade.

We have God's called us to destroy. We are the practitioners of the theological politics of personal destruction, and we will not be stopped.

And that's what we're looking at with these folks. So I just point out that no one has said a word.

Then this morning, the polemics report will be at 2 p .m. Mountain Serenity today, same time as this program for some odd reason.

Isn't that interesting? James White rips into one of his fans and defends

Michael Brown for affirming the Christianity of Pentecostalism. How far will James White's pride go?

Is there a limit? Now, at this point, Jordan Hall was in possession.

What happened is I had one conversation with one individual on Facebook, this

Dengis fellow. That was the only conversation I had with anybody, so I knew what it was.

I knew that what happened is after we had this conversation, this guy ran straight to Jordan Hall, even though he claims not to be a fan and stuff.

We have reason for highly questioning the accuracy of many of the things this man has said and continues to say.

Anyway, so I knew what it was, and that means he possessed, in written form, the absolute documentation that what he wrote in this graphic is a bald -faced lie, charges -in -front -of -elders lie, that obvious.

When Pulpit and Pen says that I am downplaying the Trinity, that I don't believe the

Trinity is definitional of orthodoxy, affirming the Christianity of Oneness Pentecostalism, he had on his screen the very words, the document, that that is a lie.

And so I can only conclude that either the man has completely lost touch with reality and cannot understand the language any longer, or he is desperately dishonest.

All you have to do is this morning, I went, I posted, I put on Facebook an article where I gave the conversation, and I gave the link that I gave to Mr.

Dengis and asked him to listen to what

Michael Brown actually said, which of course, again, Slander and Keyboard will post these articles and then they will leave them there.

Whether they're accurate or truthful or fully refuted, they will stay there, because this is their purpose.

This is what yellow journalism does. It is meant to destroy people. It is meant to create rumor mongering, because it has no integrity, has no desire for truthfulness, accuracy, anything like that.

The whole point is you put it out there, and if it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish, then it stays there.

Even if clarification is offered, you're refuted, it doesn't matter, you leave it there.

That's what we're dealing with. So I gave a link to this gentleman and asked him to listen, and I want to play a portion of Michael Brown's line of fire after the video of the question he answered in regards to Oneness Pentecostalism came out.

I contacted him, and once again, we went back and forth in Twitter on the subject.

Since he was about to go on the air, he then read what I said to him on the air.

Of course, again, this doesn't fit into the Slander Keyboard paradigm, but that's because the idea of making distinctions, following categories, thinking rationally, fairly, that kind of thing, doesn't fit when you're just trying to destroy people.

When your whole outlook is, I serve God by destroying others, when that's what motivates you, then you don't care whether you're lying about someone, because it's not really a lie as long as it's serving the truth.

That's pretty much how the Inquisition functioned, too. When those Dominican priests would turn that rack, they were serving

God. They had a clean conscience as they're ripping people's bodies apart, because once you've missed the story.

Anyway, so here, this is the section that I asked Mr. Dingus to listen to, and he said, don't change anything.

I said, okay, have a nice day. All right, so here's the section. Before I go to the phones,

I just want to address one of the most recent controversy. I was asked the other day about, one, this

Pentecostals and are they saved or not? We've gotten to a larger discussion of Roman Catholics, are they saved?

And I said that I've met saved Roman Catholics, but that's despite the error of what

Roman Catholicism teaches. To me, if you strictly adhere to everything Roman Catholicism teaches, then you're denying fundamentals of the gospel.

Yet, I've certainly met saved Catholics. To me, that would be despite Roman Catholicism. What about Jehovah's Witnesses?

Well, they're a cult, period, plain and simple. They're a cult. People in Jehovah's Witnesses are lost.

However, one time in my life, I met someone that seemed, from our conversation and beliefs, to be saved.

What was my take on it? Probably the person was a believer before they joined Jehovah's Witnesses, and they still didn't know what

Jehovah's Witnesses taught. If they adhered to what Jehovah's Witnesses taught, then they can't be a believer.

That's obvious. That's simple. So what about Oneness Pentecostals?

So I was asked about this, and I said I've met Oneness Pentecostals, as far as I know, what their practice and beliefs is very much cult -like.

But I've met some that, when we talk things through, that they absolutely hold to the deity of Jesus.

They hold to the eternal nature of the Son. They hold to Jesus dying on the cross, rising from the dead.

They confess him as Lord. They believe in one God, one God only. They seem to have had a born -again experience.

So even though they would not hold to classical Trinitarian doctrine, they would argue if they have the

Son, they have the Father also. And I've met some that seem to be saying, a swirling call, can you say you're saving me?

Deny the Trinity. Yeah, there's a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding. All right.

So I said, if my friend James White was on, there's a question he would ask, and I didn't remember the exact phrasing of it, but he has since tweeted me.

So I'm going to go to the phones momentarily. But he said this. He said, modern

Oneness folks all believe, as defined by the UPCI, that the

Son is a creature indwelt by God the Father, but deny the eternal existence of the

Son, quote, as a self -conscious divine person. So James asked me, is your position that many of these people are just ignorant of these issues and have a simple faith in Jesus, as many

Trinitarians are actually modalistic in their thinking, or that one can knowingly deny the existence of the

Son as a divine person and yet still have eternal life? So as I wrote back to James, the former. In other words, that they are ignorant of what

Oneness Pentecostals strictly teach, and that they do have a faith in the eternal Son.

They believe in the deity of Jesus. They said there's one God, one God only, Jesus is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Of course, that's wrong.

That's not what Scripture teaches. All right. But that they affirm all of the fundamentals for salvation, and therefore could be saved, because of their ignorance of Oneness Pentecostals.

If they espouse this, and James feels that a good 80 % do, if they espouse this, that the

Son is a creature indwelt by God the Father, but they deny the eternal existence of the Son, of course I wouldn't see them as saved.

Of course not. So again... Okay, now did you catch that? Michael wrote to me,

I think earlier today, and said that Mr. Dengis had been on his YouTube channel, and actually posted a comment, right, and they removed it, saying that I was saying that 80 % of Oneness Pentecostals are saved, on the basis of that.

That's the exact opposite of what I just said. I mean, to any fair -minded person, it's the exact opposite.

And when someone can so completely twist every word that you're saying, you really start wondering, why is it?

Is there a prejudice going on here? And I think there is, yes. Well, I think it illustrates, when you argue from a position of emotion, that anger, rage, and malice is what is driving you.

And this is what got Mr. Dengis kicked out of the YouTube channel last week, where he quickly ran over to Facebook, in our

Facebook page, and tried to post his objections there, and I banned him there, and then he ran to Twitter, and I banned him there, which you can only really block somebody on Twitter.

Twitter, it's the... Anyway, I'm not going to go there. But my point is, is that when you're arguing with such emotion, you're not listening clearly, and you're not speaking clearly, you're not thinking clearly.

And I saw nothing in what he was posting as someone who had any interest whatsoever of being fair -minded and trying to actually interact.

All I could see was someone, I hate Michael Brown. He's been taught to hate

Michael Brown. He's been driven to hate Michael Brown, and he's going to hate Michael Brown, and there's nothing you can say to change his mind.

Yeah, well, I don't know what his background is, as far as hating people is concerned, but if we could move the camera over, that would be useful.

But the fact is that I want to play this one more time, just this one section, so you can hear it, because this isn't what

Slander and Keyboard wants you to hear. ...espouse this, and James feels that a good 80 % do, if they espouse this, that the son is a creature indwelt by God the

Father, but they deny the eternal existence of the son. Of course I wouldn't see them as safe. Okay, that's the end of the conversation.

That's the end of the controversy. Unless, of course, you're going to say, well, he's lying.

There's always the easy way out. But with that statement,

Michael once again is saying what I've said all along. There are, sadly, and I've lost track of how many times

I've said this, and for how many years I've said this, if you took a survey of the vast majority of people attending an evangelical church in the

United States of America, sadly probably around the world as well, on this coming

Sunday, and allowed me to phrase the questions, I think more than 50 % of the respondents would test out as having modalistic tendencies.

Why? Because that's what they're being taught? Well, they're probably not being taught much of anything as far as Trinitarian theology is concerned in the large majority of churches.

But out of ignorance. Out of ignorance.

This has led to the discussion numerous times on this program, even recently, of the difference between denying something and not properly confessing something.

This is part of the discussion with the

Reforming America Ministries people as to whether you have to be a five -point

Calvinist or whether Amaraldians are going to hell because they have a false gospel.

All this goes back to the issue of proper categories, whether you know something and deny it, are confused about something or completely ignorant about something, and how to relate all those things together.

It is much easier when your audience just wants red meat to forget about those careful distinctions that must be made and just open fire full -auto and empty your clip.

People like that. It's fun doing that. I've fired a few full -auto weapons very often, but I do have a friend who at the time was in SWAT, and so I got to empty a few clips.

After the third round, you were just having fun. You weren't hitting anything because you can't control something.

That's why I really like the ones that had the three -round burst choice. You can control about three rounds, and after that, it's just noise and show.

It's fun to do that, and it's fun to do it theologically, too. Just mow people down.

It's not truthful. It's not honest. It's not Christian, but it's fun. That's what these people are doing.

What Michael said is what I have said all along. Unless you're going to be willing to say all those evangelicals in those churches are going to hell because they have inaccuracies and ignorances in their

Trinitarian theology, which some people are willing to do, then we're saying the same thing.

He was saying, in spite of, it's possible that such a person could believe

X, Y, or Z, but he agreed with me that someone who makes the specific confession of it, and I explained to him.

He didn't mention this on this segment. I think he may have done so the next day.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. I mentioned to him that the reason that there is a higher percentage of Latter -day

Saints who specifically do know that they are not only denying the Trinity, but denying the existence of the

Son as a divine person in eternity past, is because it's that and their

Jesus -only baptism belief that differentiates them from just plain old Pentecostals.

And when you have doctrines and dogmas that differentiate you from others that look a lot like you, and that maybe in the past you're related to, better chance you're going to be familiar with those teachings than maybe some other elements that are not at issue between yourself and those that look the most like you and that you would be having the most interaction with.

And so, Michael Brown, as a

Jewish believer in Jesus, has from the earliest days of his conversion had to defend his belief in the

Trinity against rabbis and some of the strongest arguments.

In fact, against arguments that I would say the vast majority of my critics would struggle mightily to begin to even try to respond to.

He has written on the subject, debated on the subject, and therefore the people who jumped all over him, ignoring all of that, look,

I've got a clip, you owe him an apology.

Not that anyone at Slandering Keyboard's ever going to apologize for anything. To then extend that accusation out to me and to say that I'm compromising the

Trinity, that I've forgotten the Trinity, funny how someone would use the title of a book that they could never write and have never written as an argument against someone who has defended the doctrine of the

Trinity in so many places that they could never go and would never do and don't want them to do, because they would face plant in the process and it would be embarrassing.

So don't try to go do that kind of thing and not suggesting that you do.

But to then extend that out when the truth is so clear, there is no question about it, there is no debating it.

You have literally thousands of hours of video.

You have entire books all documenting the same thing.

For you to go against the clarity of that documentation, simply to try to besmirch to cause division, to engage in the theological politics of personal destruction,

I don't know what language to use of someone who would be consistently motivated to behave in such a fashion.

All I can tell you is, is God will judge and God knows your motivations,

He knows the facts of these issues, and His judgment will be just.

It will be very just. And that is my confidence, and it should be anyone else's confidence as well.

We haven't forgotten the Trinity. Though it was not the primary focus on the last program, the salvific work of the

Messiah was. You cannot help but touch upon the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit as it is prophetically looked upon in those

Old Testament passages. Remember, I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is a New Testament revelation. Actually, it's revealed between the

Testaments. But the

Trinity is central to God's self -revelation of Himself. Not a one of us has a perfect knowledge of God's triune nature, but He has chosen to reveal

Himself in this fashion so that we may worship Him right, and so we are to continue to grow in our grace and knowledge of the

Lord Jesus Christ and the revelation that God has given to us in Scripture of who He is and how

He would be worshipped. And the oneness

Pentecostal—the irony here is that just next week, I'm driving all the way to Salt Lake City so that I can engage in a discussion debate with Sean McCraney on his own program on the very issue of modalism to seek to bring correction to his misapprehension of this vitally important truth.

So, when you have someone who is willing to just go against all this mountain of facts, and then even after I posted what

I posted today, still today, James White doubles down on Michael Brown even as he minimizes the

Trinity. This is pulpit and pem, of course, news division, always afraid to put a name on it,

I guess. Even as he minimizes the Trinity—this is a lie, L -I -E, capital L, capital

I, capital E—hasn't happened, isn't happening, filled with false assertions and just twisting of the truth, it's just the essence.

But, of course, not any of these quotes, which would militate against the idea. At G3, the speakers were very uneasy sharing the stage with White.

Really. I'm appreciative of the fact that both

Tom Buck and Josh Bice have called pulpit and pem out on their too. And it's ongoing, even as we're on the air.

Tom Buck and others have challenged this, because it's yellow journalism. It's all they've got.

It's all they've got. The facts are just so glaringly in evidence that this is slander on their part, that they are unconcerned about fairness, accuracy, anything like that at all.

But we've become so accustomed to Jordan Hall face -planting and the people who follow him face -planting in this fashion that you really do wonder.

But anyway, there's the refutation, there's the documentation, there's the statement from Michael himself.

It's truly amazing that they're trying to make an that somehow,

Michael and I, who have together done probably more hours together in defense of the

Trinity, certainly, than everybody at pulpit and pem put together and multiplied by 100.

So it's just astounding that they would try to use this.

I mean, talk about desperation. It is truly, truly an amazing thing.

It really, really, really is. So anyways, will that stop them?

Of course not. I don't know what will. I have absolutely no idea what would.

Yes. You know, it seems to me that I had a conversation last April with Jordan, where I pointed out what

I perceived to be a practice, a common practice of yellow journalism on the part of he and his team.

I gave specific examples of it. And my charge to him was not fold up shop.

My reaction wasn't, I'm going to shut you down, or anything like that.

My point to him was, you guys need to do better. I want you to raise your game.

I want you to dot your I's and cross your T's. That's what I think you need to do. What's his response?

His response has been nothing short of, I will destroy Alpha and Omega Ministries.

And it's getting more and more intense every day that goes by. Yep. Yeah. Well, that's what happens.

So you were dealing with him as someone that you were assuming had proper motivations.

Now we know what the motivations are. The motivations are the destruction of Alpha and Omega Ministries. And others.

We're not the only object of his vitriol. But there's no question that that is his ultimate desire.

And anybody who gets in the way. That's why I say to most folks, stay away from Jordan Hall.

Just don't go over there and try to say anything to him.

Believe me, everything that could be said to him has been said to him. I don't want to see other people with him going after them.

There's nothing we can do about it. Okay. It's the way that it is. Since we will not bow down to him.

And since we will not compromise the commitments that we have consistently made for decades, then we're stuck with this.

But you don't have to be. You can just stay away from him.

There's no reason. I know that David Wood and Volcad Malone have been putting together a video a satire video about Pulpit and Pen.

Well, I know David's used to all sorts of controversy. And he's got

Muslims firing off death threats at him all the time. I can't see anything good coming out of that.

Now, I know why David's doing it. It's because of what Pulpit and Pen did in regards to Nabeel. I'm not going to. I just say to most people, you don't need to be poking that hornet's nest.

I had hoped that maybe running for public office would keep certain people busy enough that maybe they'd stop doing this kind of silly stuff.

Guess not. It had actually been a few days since something had been said, but can't let that time go by, evidently.

So stay away. Just stay away. When lies like this are posted,

I'm going to have to tear them apart. They will remain posted and the utter refutation of them will be misrepresented, twisted, ignored, whatever it is.

Nothing I can do about that. All I can do is speak the truth, demonstrate that it is truthful, and next week it'll be something else.

It'll be some other false cavil, some twisted thing until God sees fit to deal with this situation as he chooses to deal with the situation.

That's how that is going to go. And there you go.

There you go. Okay. Pretty much right at an hour and a half there. And something tells me that's going to get all sorts of folks going, not just that segment, but the segment before that too.

Interestingly enough, the first segment would be the one most likely to get us in trouble with the powers that be.

So we'll see what happens from all of that once it gets out there. And Lord willing, we will be back again next week.