California AB 460

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602, or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now, with today's topic, here is

James White. And welcome to The Dividing Line, a jumbo edition, only edition for this week.

Heading out tomorrow to visit with Pastor Shane and the folks in Honolulu, Honolulu, Hawaii, was there basically a year ago, approximately,

I think, I think it was a year ago, might have been April or March, somewhere around there, same, similar, similar time frame.

And they've managed to schedule a 50 % chance of rainstorms for every day that they're out there.

It's like, hey, that's what happened last time. But and it's nice and clear now, you know, just, it's just, just when

I'm there and it clears up after I leave. It's like, hmm, okay. Anyways, heading there tomorrow.

And interesting topics have been assigned. I mean, all of them very passionate issues for me.

But looking forward to speaking on that. Right as I was getting set up here,

I've, if you hear, if you, if suddenly it either goes blank, or you hear a scream followed by a cutoff, you got to understand, this is the,

I think this is the very first time I think I've tried to think back, maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is the very first time

I've ever tried to do a program, let alone a jumbo 90 minute edition of the program, the same day of doing a century ride.

I don't think I've ever done that before. Normally I would be flat on my back taking a nap right now, but not today.

A century ride, in case you're wondering, is a ride over 100 miles, 101 .37 today, actually with 4 ,803 feet of ascent.

And it was much windier than I thought the National Weather Service said it was going to be. And it was right in my face on the climbs.

Great. Just, you know, you're going uphill and you got to win the face. It was, it was fun. So if all of a sudden you hear a scream, it's because despite my best efforts to hydrate and do all those other things you're supposed to do,

I'm sitting now, I'm going to be sitting for 90 minutes. And those, those legs could go, and it would, we'll just have to take a brief break.

So anyway, right as I'm sitting down, I look over and Petey Lumpkins has, has been so kind to send me a little tweet.

Tweets are sweet. Aren't they? Every, everyone in Twitter is just, I mean, it's a little birdie, so everyone's so kind in Twitter and in comments on blog pages and things like that.

Anyways, James White and humility, James White and humility.

So in other words, it's a, it's a personal attack from, from Petey Lumpkins, which is Petey Lumpkins way of doing things.

But so I went over and listened to it and I thought, this is great. This, this is such an excellent example of why it is absolutely impossible to even try to reason with Peter Lumpkins.

I don't even know why he bothers to try. People have been trying. But, you know,

I mean, aside from looking at his web webpage and seeing the, you said, you said you looked at it and pretty much everything that Christians are told to avoid was found in the comment section, you know, the whole nine yards.

Yeah. You know, he can sit there and remember, I had sort of forgotten about people like Craig D 'Alessio and Diane Penn and people like that from back in the

Cantor days. I just sort of forgotten just about how nasty these people are and utterly, again, utterly beyond all reason.

Well, here's, here's a great example. This has been put up. Is this on YouTube? I guess.

Vimeo. No, it's YouTube. It's YouTube. All right. Bring, make sure it's up here. Rich. Here's James White and humility.

Forty second clip. Let's, let's listen to what, what

Petey has a problem with and then put up. By the way, in everything that we address today, in everything we address,

Harwood, Emir Cantor, Eric Hankins, Peter Lumpkins, Gregory Boyd, all these folks, all these folks, ask yourself a simple question.

How could any of these people stand in many of the places I stand in with regularity and defend the

Christian faith? There you go. I am a terrible, horrible, non -humble person.

Now you notice it stopped right there because we all know that Peter edits things because he has to. He can't defend himself by actually dealing with the issues.

You got to edit things. Everybody who heard that knew exactly what it was about. Everybody. Now on his website, notice it says, uh, first one must wonder why

James White listed among Southern Baptists, Adam Harwood, Eric Hankins, Emir Cantor, and Peter Lumpkins, one open theist,

Gregory Boyd, in his criticism. Uh, does anybody else know why I did that? Everybody who actually listened to the program knows why

I did that. Because I responded to a number of different issues on that Radio Free Geneva.

And what was one of the issues we had responded to? An attack upon penal substitutionary atonement by Gregory Boyd from the

Unbelievable Radio Program. I played it and I responded to it as part of the program. So this is called, let me explain this to Mr.

Lumpkins. This is called a summary statement. So everybody who had listened to the program knew why

I mentioned everybody that I mentioned because I had already dealt with them. Now it, it, it takes a person without capacity of logic to go, well, if you deal with different people in the same program, then that means you're saying they're all the same.

That's a basic failure of rational capacity, which is being illustrated for us here by, by Peter Lumpkins.

And then why did I say what I said? Everybody listening knew exactly why I said what

I said. And that was their sub -biblical perspective would hamstring them in doing apologetics.

Because to be involved in apologetics, you have to be consistent. Remember the, the debacle when

William Lane Craig threw Original Sin under the bus in his debate with Shabir Ali? Remember the debacle when

William Lane Craig used Kerberos as an example of the Trinity? Okay, that's what

I'm talking about. Once you take these sub -biblical perspectives, don't take that into a place like the

East London Mosque. You are going to be destroyed. You're going to be destroyed.

Because the folks that we are engaging are intelligent people. They will point out the inconsistencies.

Now everyone listening who is even semi -fair understood that.

The fact that Petey Lumpkins can put this up, and we better save the link or something as proof that he did it because knowing

Petey, he'll pull it down eventually once people point out that he just, he blew it again. But put this stuff up only demonstrates that the issue is with Peter Lumpkins' either capacity to follow context or willingness to go to the greatest lengths to engage in personal attack.

And I can't imagine who he's attempting to impress with that. But Petey, the line's open.

877 -753 -3341. If you'd like to call in and defend that, explain how that's even slightly relevant.

Maybe explain why you missed, why I mentioned Gregory Boyd. It's a program where I had dealt with Gregory Boyd.

Did you not listen to that part maybe? Just skipped over that part because you're just looking for stuff?

It's a possibility, a possibility. But that was on my screen once I turned the computer on here as I rushed into the office and I appreciate

Peter's helping us to do that. The, I mean, aside from stuff like the absurdity that George Bryson put out, remember that?

Repeated by, what was that guy's name? I have to look at, look at the books over here. Ah, don't even remember the guy's name.

Down in Tucson. Yeah. Anyways, young kid that put out a book that repeated the absurdity.

Aside from stuff like that and the stuff that Petey Lumpkins puts out and stuff like that, leaving that stuff to the side, one of the most, and we are taking calls today, 877 -753 -3341.

In fact, I need your assistance because I've only got X amount of stuff and today would be an excellent day for someone like Peter to call in because I'm tired.

I'll admit it. You spend six hours or four minutes on a bike on a windy day, climbing almost 5 ,000 feet, you'd be a little,

I dare anybody else to do that. I bet you there aren't very many people in the audience today that did that. So today would be a good day, but I need other people's assistance, 877 -753 -3341.

In fact, it might be a good idea if I actually fire up the phone thing on my side or I won't know whether we have anybody who's called in or not.

Anyways, the phones are ringing, so 877 -753 -3341. And so leaving aside the silliness you get from people like Peter Ruckman and all that, the cultish side of Calvinism and all that kind of stuff,

Michael Cote, that's right. Thank you, Hebrew student. Just had to look over at the channel, figured people help me out.

The channel's going to have to help me out today. They're going to have to be the, my extra brain over there because I'm tired anyways.

Anyways, the single most absurd thing I've ever seen in my life on the public level,

I saw this weekend. I forget where I saw it. I, oh, I, Bill Muhlenberg, Bill Muhlenberg made reference to it.

And I, I, I thought it was the dumbest thing. So I had to double check it. Now I think this is right up there next to the guys that wear their pants below their, you know, on their thighs.

Fashion -wise, that to me is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life. Especially when I see someone waddling down the road, holding their pants up with one hand and then they've only got one hand to do other stuff with.

It's just like, you know, God gave us hips for a reason. And I guess it's just the modern generation figures are smarter than everybody else.

And so they do stuff like that. But anyway, Bill Muhlenberg mentioned this thing and I looked it up and I tracked the information down on it.

And I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about it. So I'm, I'm now late getting to this, though. I heard about it sometime over the past couple of days.

I'm trying to laugh, but I'll be honest with you. This is California and anything can happen in California.

Simple common sense has absolutely abandoned everybody. I mean,

I sort of feel like I, I spoke at a church up in Sacramento recently and I made a few, a few comments about the fact that, you know, you're awful close to the state house here.

How have you all kept the disease that obviously has infected everyone who goes there from infecting you all?

Because it is simple insanity. But here's, here's the dumbest thing

I've ever seen in public. AB 460. It is a bill introduced by Tom Amiano, Democrat of San Francisco and openly gay member of the, openly homosexual member, sorry, of the

California state legislature and a part of the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ caucus.

And basically what it says, I'm, I'm actually hearing you for some reason,

Rich. Yes, I'm hearing you in my, in my headphones somehow. Did you have your, you, you, you had the, okay,

I see. I understand. Professional broadcast engineer person there. Yeah. Anyway, um, at first I thought maybe

I was just hearing it through the window and then second, second thought was hallucination. And then finally

I realized, no, I can actually hear that. Anyway, AB 460, Tom Amiano, a bill that would require health insurance companies, a bill that require health insurance companies to provide infertility treatments to homosexual couples.

Yeah. A bill that would require insurance companies to provide infertility treatments to two men or two women who are engaging in some type of sexual activity with one another.

And now, now you, you, I, I, I'm hearing people immediately, immediately.

And people, you're making this up. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. Go to, um, theweeklystandard .com

slash keyword slash AB dash 460. Capital A, capital B dash 460.

Uh, this was posted April. Uh, how could it be April 15th?

Cause it's not April 15th yet. Uh, I don't know. It's, oh, it's the, um,

April 15th edition, volume 18, number 29, Wesley J. Smith is the, uh, is the author. Now, obviously what this, you know, people immediately are saying, come on, it's

California. It'll never happen. How many times have we said it will never happen and California does it?

Okay. On one level, it makes perfect logical sense. I mean, once you have assumed as they are clearly assuming,

I mean, this assumes that Prop 8 will be overturned. This assumes that the

Supreme Court is going to just, you know, establish the utter redefinition and destruction of marriage and they're just going to run with it.

But if that's the case, then think about it. Um, the fantasy is that these are actually marriages.

And so the fantasy is marriage results in kids. So the fantasy is, fairness of demand, that health insurance companies should pay for either in vitro fertilization for lesbians or some kind of adoption services.

Maybe surrogate, surrogate, uh, stuff for, uh, two men.

But I read this and I looked up Tom Ammiano and everything he's ever done has been, you know, it's just, just defined by homosexuality.

And I look at this stuff and I go, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I mean, this is called basic biology. Two men can't have babies.

Two women can't have babies. That's just a fact of life. But these folks are so defined by their capitulation to their sinful sexual inclinations and behaviors that they're willing to redefine marriage, redefine culture, redefine family, redefine everything in light of themselves.

In fact, we're going to listen to, uh, well, on the ride today I listened to a lot of stuff. But I re -listened to the

Douglas Wilson, Andrew Sullivan debate. And I kept hearing Andrew Sullivan talking about his husband, his husband.

And I'm like, I'm sorry. If you have a husband, you're a wife.

So you're the wife? Does your husband have a husband? That's, it's, it's, it's not possible.

It, it, these folks are demanding that language, meaning, everything be redefined for them.

Even though they admit they're only 3 % of the population. But everything has to be defined for them.

And I said, I've been saying for decades, homosexuals do not want equal rights. They want uber rights.

They want absolutely supreme rights. They want to redefine everything in light of what makes them feel good.

That's it. So, here you have someone actually introducing a bill.

Um, Dennis on Twitter says, Such legislation corrects the homophobic laws of nature.

There you go. I mean, that's what they're trying to do. That's what they're trying to do. Let's redefine nature.

Let's make insurance companies, that is, you and me, pay to provide us with what we cannot provide to ourselves because we are violating the most basic element of our own created nature.

It is, it is the best example I have seen of the fact that there is a darkness.

There is a veil beyond just the spiritual veil of the gospel we talk about in the

New Testament. There is a darkness descending upon our culture.

And I don't mean a lack of light. I mean a lack of simple common sense.

People cannot see basic truths that are right in front of them.

We played the D question from a while back. I'm going to play another one here in a little while.

And there is a darkness to the mind. And once God allows that to happen to a majority of people in a society, isn't that a clear indication that His judgment is all over that society?

It is. And when you can have people seriously suggesting that health insurance companies should have to pay so that two men can have a baby, or two women can have a baby, single most absurd thing

I've ever heard in my life. Without question. And there you have it.

Will it pass? I certainly would hope not. I certainly would hope not.

But it just speaks to where we are. Some of you saw a few days ago that Ben Carson, who has had the opportunity of speaking up for what's good and right, was attacked by Johns Hopkins because he dared, he dared to point out what's already happening.

And that is that bestiality and pedophilia, those who promote those activities, are choosing to use the same kind of argumentation that the homosexuals have been using.

That is, I'm made this way. Since I'm made this way, you cannot say it's morally wrong. It's the way

I'm wired. It's the way I've been created. And that somehow is supposed to be enough to say, and that means it's morally right.

And so if bestiality is the way you've been made, then it must be morally right.

And pedophilia, there are already published scholarly articles arguing that it is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.

And if the moral foundation is, if it's natural, it's good, if that's the way it is, then these things should be good.

Well, you can't say that. You cannot say that. The public square is being closed down to any meaningful argumentation on these issues.

People keep saying, you're losing the argument. What argument? No one's even engaging it.

I don't think that movies produced by Hollywood are actually an argument. But if the millennials, the younger generation, are actually so shallow -minded, so completely controlled by their secular traditions that they can't see that, well, not much we can do about it.

I mean, we can point it out until they use the power of the state to shut us up.

And that's what's happening. That's what's happening. 877 -753 -3341.

Very disappointed, I think a lot of people are, very disappointed about what happened over the weekend and the beginning of this week.

I don't know what to do about it, but when

I got word of Dave Hunt's death, I made note of it on Twitter and Facebook.

Now, what I do is I have TweetDeck, it's connected to Facebook, and I can choose to post this to Facebook.

And that's how that works. I'm generally not sitting around on Facebook, hitting refresh or whatever it is you have to do to just watch whatever's going on.

Well, the responses, I just didn't expect

I should have my bad. But I don't know, it just seems so obvious to me that when someone dies, you don't jump up and down their grave.

It just seemed real obvious to me. And yet I come back a little while later and here's all this stuff where people are attacking

Dave Hunt and doing all the rest of this stuff. And hey, I've debated

Dave Hunt, wrote a book against Dave Hunt, talked about the errors in Dave Hunt's book. I did all those things.

But I've got enough common sense to realize there's a time for everything.

And evidently people with computers don't possess that same level of common sense.

If I recall correctly, I forget which one it was. I just had to delete one of them. There was like 192 comments or some absurdity like that.

And so when the next day, I think it was, the news came out about Rick Warren's son, and I mentioned that,

I just included right in it. And if you dare say anything, if you lack the simple common sense to go after Rick Warren about this, your comment will be removed and so will you.

Well, that doesn't do anything. It's just, it's keyboard stupidity.

I'm convinced that 95 % of these people would not make these statements if they were face to face with someone.

But because there's a keyboard in the way, all of a sudden it just allows your fingers to do the stupidest things.

And Michael Brown has talked about it on his program. Just an amazing level of immaturity represented by the internet.

Which, you know, that's why I don't do comm boxes. I thought it was really funny that Peter Lumpkins said, why don't you come over to my website and we'll argue about this.

That's the website where you let people wish for my death and use profanity and stuff like that. And we're going to have a real good conversation about original sin over there.

That's good. Because comm boxes and places like that, I call them internet ignorance aggregators.

It's just where people who really don't know much about what they're talking about just come together to explain the fact they really don't know much about what they're talking about.

And the behavior level is just beyond comment.

It really is. I've got two more things to get to. We've got one phone call. And hey, if I can get it all done by 4 .30,

I'll be happy to get it done by 4 .30. I could use a half hour nap.

That's okay with me. We'll see what happens. 877 -753 -3341. Let's talk to Steve in New Jersey.

Hi, Steve. Hello, Dr. White. How are you doing? Good. First of all, I think you're crazy for doing the show after a century,

Mike. Yeah, well, I'm thinking that, too. But I've got a flight tomorrow at 2 o 'clock.

And when else was I going to get it done? I couldn't. Basically, this was weather forced upon me because we had a really weird storm come through on Monday and it sort of hung around longer than I expected.

So you've got to, you know, I've got goals, man. Got to work for them.

Wayne, just so you know, I am praying for you as you brave the barren conditions, as you do the

Lord's work on your trip. Thank you. Yeah, it's tough.

You know, the palm trees swaying and all the rest of that kind of stuff. We all have our crosses.

Well, you know, Brother Shane, the pastor there, he's tough to work with. So that's... Actually, obviously,

I'm looking forward to it. But that's not why you called, is it? No, but my question's real quick.

Just the last thing you said about your Facebook, I definitely understand why you don't do comments.

But I even said in my response to one of the rabble -rousers on the

Rick Warren post that, you know, we all know that when the world labels us as hate -filled bigots, it's a canard.

But the degree of truth or the degree of rightness, I lay it at your doorstep, people, because there's a loudest one.

Yeah. Well, you said lay it at my doorstep? No, no, at the people who come on with, as you said, no common sense to bash people who have made a disagreement.

No, and it's not like you're in league with Saddleback. No, no, of course not.

You know, I was thinking about the fact that many, many moons ago, this is an illustration that I thought of.

Many, many moons ago, it was right around the time when

Norman Geisler was ramping up his responses to The Potter's Freedom, and they were just really, really bad.

I mean, it was that appendix in Chosen But Free, and it was clearly written by people other than Norm Geisler, and it was just really bad.

Right in the middle of responding to all of that, I found out about the death of one of Geisler's kids.

And so I just dropped it. I just let it go.

Now, when he then picked it up the next year, okay, then I went back and utilized that information, so on and so forth.

But there's a time for these things, for crying out loud. And unfortunately, people don't get that.

By the way, Steve, do you ride a bike? Not to your level, no. Oh, well, you just seem to know what a century was, so I didn't know if you were a...

Well, I'm familiar with, like, century runs. Oh, okay, okay. Century runs? There are people that do it.

Not me. Wow. That would be pretty... That would be four marathons.

Which made me... When I heard you say that, I was doing the math in my head, because I know that the runners, it takes them like a day and a half at least.

Right, right. No, that's the nice thing about a bike. It's six hours and four minutes. I wanted to beat six, but I did so much climbing in this one that it didn't work out.

But anyways, you have a question, sir. Yes, just a comment on inspiration.

This just occurred to me. I'm sure I have Warfield's inspiration and authority of scripture sitting on my desk.

I'm sure he points out something like this. But I just wanted to get your thought on... I've heard you say before that, for example,

Origen's works will probably never all be read, because he had a scribe following him around for large portions of his life, just writing down everything he said.

Right. And that always stuck with me, and it made me think, and I wouldn't use this as an apologetic, but just as, like, a strengthening the believer's faith in the inspiration of scripture.

It made me think, in the Gospels, Jesus seems like he almost went out of his way to not make a point to have things he said written down.

And in light of passages like John 14, 26, where he says that the helper will bring to remembrance all the things

I've said to you, and John 2, 2, where the disciples are remembering what he said about, I will raise the temple back up in three days after his death.

Just what are your thoughts on the significance of just that Jesus never left a written record, either himself or during his lifetime, just that it's that much more maybe supernatural that we can kind of take comfort in that?

Yeah, well, it is interesting. People will often object to the idea, well, you know, we can't really know what

Jesus taught because Jesus didn't leave us a record, and this is all secondhand and all the rest of that stuff. And that betrays a particular view of inspiration.

But you do have the recognition in both Synoptic Gospels and in John of the fact that Jesus knows this is not the last chapter.

And so while the New Testament comes into existence much, much faster than the Old Testament did, it was in a different context, things like that.

As it is, we struggle with hyper -red letterism. We struggle with people who give the words of Jesus in the

Gospels more weight than anything else, as it is. And so if we had the

Jesus portion of the New Testament, then the four Gospels, and then Paul or something like that,

I would imagine that would really cause a major issue as far as I'm sure there would be people who just would absolutely insist upon elevating that beyond anything else.

And so it really requires, I think, a balanced view of inspiration. But certainly, yeah.

I guess it really, I'm thinking of it as a means of strengthening even further those of us who do believe that God has spoken and that the

Bible is inspired and errant. It struck me just the fact that it's almost like Jesus had three years of very accelerated ministry to do, and it's almost like he was kind of given a nudge by saying, the

Holy Spirit's going to accurately and faithfully cause these guys to testify to what they need to.

I don't need to make a point to do it while I'm here. I've got everything. Well, certainly it shows

Jesus' trust went both directions. In other words, he'll quote David and say, as David said, by the

Holy Spirit, so there's a trust in Scripture, Scripture's inspiration in the past, and then there you have it in the future.

The same Spirit that spoke by David in the past can speak by Paul or Peter or anybody else in the future.

So there's no question about that, yeah. All righty. Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Steve. Thanks for listening. All right, God bless. Bye -bye. 877 -753 -3341.

Let's talk with Joshua. Hi, Joshua. Hey, Dr. White. How are you doing?

Pretty good. I was just noticing you were talking about that homosexuals are only 3 % of the population.

Isn't this the same liberal left who only a couple years ago was taught how to battle cry, we have a 99%, you know, because that 1 % of all those rich people were just stomping on the foot at that 0 .99

% of the population, but now we have 3 % that want the Uber rights and all this other...

Well, now you're expecting some kind of consistency on the part of individuals and their thinking about cultural issues, and that's obviously not something that you should be expecting, and if you are expecting it, it's going to make you a very unhappy person over time.

No, but that doesn't make it any less fun to just point that out, because we know how long their attention spans are.

Well, yeah, how long the attention span is of the vast majority of folks in our culture today, unfortunately.

What was it you were saying? I'm sorry. That was quick, yes.

Yeah, you're right, I mean, and they don't see it, nor should we expect them to.

Their self -analysis, the actual desire to be consistent in your own thought is so rare today, because it goes back to a worldview, and if you're just the result of random forces over time, why should you worry about being consistent anyways?

You're not glorifying anybody, you're not reflecting God's image in your life or anything like that, you're not thinking

God's thoughts after him, you don't have a reason for doing any of that. You should just be very pragmatic, and if it works to yell about the 1 % and then turn around and elevate the 3%, as long as it works, just be pragmatic about it.

Oh sure, we've got these folks who are the heirs to the Enlightenment, supposedly, that are the spearhead of the de -Enlightenment in today's culture.

There is a de -Enlightenment going on, no twist about it. By the way, McFormtus says you're a jerk, just thought

I'd mention that. Well, you know, look who's talking. That's true. Thanks, Joshua!

You know, it's that brotherly love between co -religions.

It is, it is. That's how it is. He's from New York, so he's used to hearing it. Thanks for the call, man!

No problem. Alright, we'll see you. 877 -753 -3341.

McFormtus did not expect me to do that. Anyway, before we get back to our phone calls,

I want to totally shift gears here for a moment.

Don't worry about whatever your topic is. We're all over the road today. I'm going to be all over the road today, so it doesn't really matter.

But, you know what? At quarter after, you know what would be wise? It would be to queue up a break at quarter after.

Because then I could stand up. Just stand up for a few minutes and go,

I'm probably going to fall asleep on the plane tomorrow and wake up cramping or something like that. That's what I'll do. A fellow that I call the

Assyrian Encyclopedia pointed something out to me that I thought was rather interesting that I thought

I would mention very quickly. Of course, it is going to require me off the top of my head to remember the reference, but I think

I can find it. Do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do.

Yep, there it is. Surah 7320 in the

Quran. Surah 7320 in the Quran. It's a long verse, long ayah.

Let me just read the part that is relevant. He has known that you Muslims will not be able to do it and has returned to you in forgiveness.

So recite what is easy for you of the Quran. He has known that there will be among you those who are ill and others traveling throughout the land seeking something of the bounty of Allah and others fighting for the cause of Allah.

So recite what is easy from it and establish prayer and give zakah and loan Allah a goodly loan.

Now, this is talking about standing in prayer and Allah allowing the

Muslims to basically have sort of a not so strict way of practice because there will be those among you who are ill and others traveling and then it says and others fighting for the cause of Allah.

Now, here's one of the reasons why it's helpful and by the way, just a reminder of whatever

Christian needs to know about the Quran is out now. Those of you who passed us over didn't worry about AOMN .org

and went to Amazon are going to be waiting a while to get yours. I don't understand why but we've got them in stock.

How many more we got in stock? We've got about 200 just sitting there, yeah. Now, they're not signed.

We've signed the 400. Operation Hand Cramp is over. And I believe by the count

I've got there's one signed copy left. One.

And they're first come first served, isn't it? So everybody better really hurry up and get on there and order them. This is true.

Anyway, I included in the book the same chart that I keep referring people to on the website which gives you the general order of the writing of the surahs of the

Quran. And if you look at that then you discover something interesting.

And that is that this portion of the Quran was given in Mecca.

Now, why is that relevant? Well, basically you have division between the

Meccan surahs and the Medinan surahs. And that means this was given prior to Allah giving the

Muslims the responsibility, right, and freedom to engage in jihad.

To engage in military self -defense. So, what's this about fighting for the cause of Allah in a surah that is written before Allah allows the

Muslims to actually fight in the cause of Allah? Now, Ibn Kathir points to this and says yes, this was given before fighting was legislated and allowed but what this proves is that Muhammad was a prophet because he was foreseeing future events.

Now, okay, alright. You know why

I'm pointing this out, don't you? If you're thinking with me, you know why I'm pointing this out. How many times, how many times have we heard

Muslims pointing to issues in the text of the

New Testament or Old Testament for that matter where naturalists, materialists

I mean this is all of what Itzhar al -Haqq is. Itzhar al -Haqq, again

I'll mention it to you, it's the book that was written in the middle of the 19th century in India. It's really spawned

Achmed Didat and all these other people a pile of horrific research but what it's all based upon is let's go look at the

Christian liberals and let's throw all the standard objections against the text of the

Bible from a naturalistic perspective and the one thing you cannot do is have a supernatural explanation.

The Muslims love those books. They think they're great. They love making those arguments except here because you see if you were to apply the exact same worldview the exact same form of scholarship that is utilized by people like Bart Ehrman and people like that, they would say well this is clear indication of redaction.

Redaction. This section was written well after jihad had become a part of the community and whoever was writing this knew that reflected that and either insert it later on or this all was just written later anyways and it doesn't really come from Muhammad in the first place.

That's how modern day western scholarship would look at this text but that's not how

Muslims look at it. They'll use the same scholarship to attack New Testament but when it comes to something like this where you have the exact same kind of evidence no no no no no no no no no no no no no no reason to do that.

Just a little bit of inconsistency isn't it? Okay Brad and Lionel we'll get to you in just a moment.

We're going to take a quick break and be right back. Man is sinful and God is holy.

That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior.

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. Pulpit Crimes The criminal mishandling of God's word may be

James White's most provocative book yet. White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word.

What has happened to this sacred duty in our day? The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain, pandering to pluralism, cowardice under fire, felonious eisegesis, entertainment without a license, and cross -dressing, ignoring

God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women. Is a pulpit crime occurring in your town? Get Pulpit Crimes in the bookstore at AOMEN .org

Ah, just enough time there for a quick stretch.

Someone in channel, audience question. Is James going to Santa Fe this year?

Yes, I will be there July I'm getting the calendar up here

Let's see That will be July 7th through the 10th

I will be in Santa Fe. So see you at that time

Alright, let's get a couple more calls in here I've got a clip from the debate with Andrew Sullivan and Douglas Wilson if we run out of things here and let's talk with Brad in Minnesota.

Hello Brad in Minnesota Greetings there Mr. White How are you? Have you eaten some lutefisk

Oh no, no, I've been a little under the weather there That'll make you under the weather if you eat lutefisk

Sorry Some people have no earthly idea what lutefisk is but thankfully

I managed to get out of Minnesota before anyone even bothered to try to introduce me to it either, but we'll leave that for another time.

What can we do for you Brad? I just had a call, first time caller and your listener, thank you for your tireless perseverance in the faith

Oh I get tired, I'm tired right now Yeah, you're weary but you're not fallen my friend

That's true I just had a call after listening to you make some comments last week about Greg Boyd before the

Lord graciously saved me. I attended his church back in the late 90s and early 2000s and back then when he was still meeting at Arlington High School they had a debate in their church on Calvinism It was quite interesting.

It was between Greg Boyd and representing Calvinism was another one of the elders of the church But the interesting part was you could see where I could see where his reasoning where he said that penal substitution atonement leads to cheap grace he had the charge when he was debating

Calvinism that what it leads to is I'm elect, I can live my life any way

I want and of course he had the strong argument that he knew people that no matter how much of a lascivious lifestyle or rebellious lifestyle, you try to talk them out of it and they say,

I'm elect, I'm in, I got my ticket punched I suppose there have been people like that but when

I run into that attitude I run into that attitude from people who walked an aisle and signed a card and they didn't use the term elect they used the term,

I'm saved and once saved, always saved, and that's what the preacher told me and that ain't

Calvinism by any stretch of the imagination so it doesn't make a lick of sense why anybody would think that it was ok now this would have been after the time

I didn't really get into all this stuff but I know that Piper and Boyd were in the same denomination yeah they still are, they're still in the

BGC the Baptist General Conference yeah and there was some back in the 90s where they were trying to Piper was trying to not allow open theism but they decided that it is within the bounds of orthodoxy and would still allow them to teach at that time

Boyd was still teaching also at Bethel College which is now Bethel University I knew there was stuff there and I knew that Piper had not been able to actually accomplish that then again the

ETS couldn't get rid of the open theists either so what can you say well, interesting stuff up there in the land of the midnight sun and of the mosquito oh yes, the best part was of course when they had the mocking thing about Calvinism, you had people screaming and wanting to get in the kingdom and they're held out, and the other people don't want to get in and they're being dragged in it was the most ridiculous straw man argument of course at that time

I really enjoyed the beating that Calvinism took until later that I see how ridiculous it was if you ever get a chance to debate

Greg Boyd there would be a lot of people at that church that would love to listen and it would do them some good

I'm sure they'd never heard what Calvinism really is well actually we contacted the big three of the open theists back in 2000 -2001 and the only one that would respond to us was

John Sanders but I've been noticing that Justin Brierley clearly has a connection somehow to Gregory Boyd so he has mentioned that as a possible topic

I've just asked if we're going to do that could I have enough time, more than a day or two to prepare because I would certainly be willing to do so it wouldn't be the first time

I've debated the topic but I would want to do so in a meaningful fashion the week before I go to Berlin to teach textual criticism would not be a good week to be doing something like that we'll see if it works out

I had a question Boyd was still a Baptist I saw online this week as I was looking it over they're putting a church vote whether they're going to join a

Mennonite instead of a Baptist now well that's interesting

I guess that's coming up in a church vote that was just from February that couldn't be an overly conservative

Mennonite branch though I don't know, but I found that kind of interesting well

Brad thank you very much stay warm up there it's pretty cold up there right now isn't it we got possibly up to another 10 inches of snow or something coming tonight so I hope not, it shouldn't stay on the ground long but we're still waiting for spring it's a myth around here don't you love global warming, that's all

I can say thank you God bless it's been ugly all over the place this morning

I was figuring 79 degrees today so when I left I was dressed for 79 degrees 10 miles into the ride

I've got a digital thermometer on my computer 41 degrees now add in the chill factor of going 17 -19 miles per hour and it was a little uncomfortable just a little bit uncomfortable

I was really not liking whenever I hit the shade of a tree it's cold out there this is

April in Phoenix but it's going to be in the 90s pretty soon so we can't complain too much alright let's go over to New Mexico and talk to Lionel hello

Dr. White I'm doing excellent I'm just calling to let you know that you are also the

Lord using you with the Hispanic crowd I'm a southern Baptist bilingual, bivocational pastor in northern

New Mexico and I thank God for your ministry I'm currently working on my

Masters of Divinity through Southern Seminary and Dr. McClellan I do not know he mentioned you and said that you had been a great influence in his life and you through your broadcast and through your ministry the

Lord transformed my life I've been a pastor and preaching for many years but couldn't figure things out and through his grace and the working of the

Holy Spirit through the preaching of the word it came alive and now I feel kind of lonely because there's not a lot of Hispanics that embrace reform well you know

I'm not sure why that is because I mean just in the broader sense of things you just have so much

Roman Catholicism in the entire community I guess that probably sort of in some way influences the non -Roman

Catholic response that is sort of going to be a pulling away from anything liturgical or anything like that so maybe,

I'm really not sure why it is I'm not sure how much influence people like Jack Chick have, have you ever heard of Alberto Rivera?

Yes I have, and as a matter of fact I think that the fact that Hispanics tend to be very traditional that as soon as you try to expose them to the truth of God's word it goes against their traditions and that really made inroads with me because I remember

I was listening to the Bunyan Conference and you mentioned something like that about as soon as you feel that tug of your tradition well now you're allowing tradition to dictate your faith and your beliefs and I see that a lot in my congregation

I'm still a little bit in the stage cage Is that what you call it? Cage stage, yes.

I thank God that you said, I heard it quickly enough to where I had to draw,

I put myself in the cage and I said you know I need to be careful How far are you from Albuquerque?

I am three hours, about three hours I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Santa Fe since you said northern,

Santa Fe would even be closer right? Well I still have to drive through Albuquerque to get to Santa Fe, it's about three and a half to Santa Fe Oh really?

Yeah I'm on the northwest corner of the state in Farmington I'll be in Santa Fe like I was just saying in July for about four or five days

I just didn't know where you were located there And I did have a quick question In your comment on the

Baptist Press that article, Peter Lumpkin says that you are you're making implications of heresy by Baptist Calvinists and the question that I have is is it too difficult to see that sometimes we may hold a view but that doesn't immediately imply that you're calling them a heretic

I mean how does he make that leap? Well you know I didn't take the time to look at it,

I should have, but my understanding is, let me see if I've still got this, yeah here it is my understanding from looking at Micah's article that he posted

I tweeted it, I'm not sure that it's on the blog, but that Peter Lumpkin was confusing my reading of a statement actually from Dr.

Moeller and thinking that somehow that's what I was making a statement of I'm looking at the text here from the bpnews .net

because as I recall what I focused on with Hankins was his statement in regards to Harwood yeah right here

Harwood referenced an article Moeller wrote on his blog in 2012 titled Southern Baptist Salvation, it's time to talk along with Moeller's claim that a 2012 document signed online by many non -Calvinist

Southern Baptists called a statement of the traditional Southern Baptist understanding of God's plan of salvation appeared to affirm semi -plagian understandings of sin, human nature, and human will understandings that virtually all

Southern Baptists have denied and then it defines what semi -plagianism is and says

Harwood said unity within the SBC may depend in part on Moeller retracting his claim, well what claim is he supposed to retract?

that by denying the imputation of Adam's sin that they're holding to a form of semi -plagianism or that semi -plagianism is heretical what is he supposed to retract?

now Petey has not shown himself really overly concerned about how one word relates to another word one sentence to another sentence so I don't really worry myself too much about that but I do worry myself and this is the point of what

I was saying last time you don't believe that man is fallen at birth absolutely undercuts as far as I can understand the entire argument of the book of Romans and universality of sin let alone federal headship and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and all the rest of this stuff it's all of a kind and I just have to ask the question why is it that people would take this perspective?

what is it that they think they're gaining from this? it doesn't seem to me that it's a natural reading of scripture that's doing it there's something else and that something else is trying to avoid the implications that come with something like that so anyway let me see they do as part of a hiring process but the faculty exhibition it just seems to me that as a

Hispanic I notice that with us it's also very emotional I asked the congregation just Sunday why if a child passes away or dies how do you reconcile that with scripture?

and without missing a beat they immediately said because the baby's innocent and not understanding what they're saying so my thought was if someone takes a

Pelagius stance I may be calling them out on that particular subject but I'm not going to call the members of my church heretics

I'm just going to correct their misunderstanding of that particular point that Pelagius this is a good point to point out that there is a difference between someone being ignorant of truth and as a result being inconsistent with it and someone who knows what the truth is and yet remains adamantly opposed to what the truth is there's a vast difference

I've used the illustration many times sadly most evangelicals are actually modalists when it comes to their view of the trinity do

I identify modalism as a heresy? yes. do I believe that most evangelicals are heretics?

no. oh you're inconsistent there's a difference between ignorance leading you to inconsistency and those who know what the truth is and rebel against that truth are adamant in their affirmation of a falsehood in the place of that truth and that's where the issue of heresy comes in that's extremely helpful none of us have a perfect knowledge of theology you've got to be scared of anybody who makes the standard a perfect knowledge of theology because no one in this life ever obtains that I haven't, nobody else ever will that's just the way that it is and so you have to think through if that's the case, should we not even worry ourselves about people who have aberrant theology?

no. you seek to bring correction and we need to be long -suffering in it because people can be very very attached to their traditions but there comes a point when especially within the fellowship of a church and this is why a plurality of elders is always helpful too is you've brought correction you've explained the scriptures you can affirm that the person you're talking to really does understand what the issues are and they are simply adamant in rejecting that truth now you've got a church discipline issue and it becomes the necessity of the elders to deal with that and this again is where I think a church needs to have a very clear expression of its faith because otherwise you're leaving the door open for people to come in and there are people who will come in solely to disrupt fellowships solely to cripple a church nothing will cripple a church more than division does

I know it's a process in my little

Hispanic church obviously all of them are Spanish speakers but you're right, it takes time and I just pray that the

Lord will allow me to bring that reform that needs to happen within the church, but it's a battle well it's going to require obviously anyone who's seeking to do what's right in any church today is going to be under attack because a balanced,

God -honoring Christ -proclaiming fellowship of faith anywhere in this culture today is a blessing from God and when

God's wrath is on a culture well, there are going to be fewer and farther between and we just need to recognize that so stay faithful,

Lionel, and it would be great if sometime I'm over there in the New Mexico area we could get together if you're ever at something

I'm speaking at make sure to introduce yourself thank you very much, and I hope you translate some of your books if they're current books that's really not my issue that's the publisher's issue if they're older stuff,

I've had a dozen people say, oh I'd be glad to translate your books and it never really actually ends up happening but if it's current stuff, like the new book on the

Quran that's all up to Bethany House because they're actually the copyright holders for now how about Chosen but Free?

that's Norman Geisser's book The Potter's Freedom I read it, it was excellent and I'm also a

Spanish teacher so I'd love to be used by the Lord in that way get in touch with us, we can get you in touch with Calvary Press, and I'm certain they would be open to something like that great, great it was an honor, and God bless you brother

God bless, thanks Lionel that's very encouraging high calling to be a pastor of a small church in a rural area the world doesn't view it that way you shouldn't expect the world to view it that way sadly, many

Christians don't view it that way but it is a high calling to be called, to be the shepherd of those sheep in those contexts it doesn't matter whether you've got 10 people in that flock or 10 ,000 people in that flock though I'm not really sure how anybody could actually shepherd 10 ,000 people there was a

Mutato said something in channel actually Milo Hotzenbuehler said something in channel here I was talking with Brad up in Minnesota we were talking about Lutefisk and he said

Norwegians invaded Saudi Arabia and tried to introduce Lutefisk the Muslim response was to introduce

Ramadan fast now we would think that's funny, but he would probably be killed in Saudi Arabia I don't think

Milo would do well in Saudi Arabia I think Milo's humor would be completely lost on most of those

Imams, and he'd have so many fatwas on him, it wouldn't even be funny though he and I could probably cooperate on a completely politically incorrect

Milo goes to Egypt type of a spoof album that would get us in deep trouble so we probably shouldn't do that anyway, where am

I here? I had this queued up, where did it go? there it is listening again to the

Andrew Sullivan debate I was actually at this point heading out toward Bartlett Lake I didn't get all the way because I was really concerned about the wind at that point, so I turned around and added a little bit later on I could have had over 5000 feet of climbing if I just kept going, but anyways as you can see,

I'm just sort of wandering about here I heard this out in that direction and this was one of the audience questions

I just went, Doug Doug, dude, speak up and it just didn't work it just did not work, but we need to know how to respond to these things and he did eventually respond to it but you've got to be there right at the punch

I realize he's in a situation where you've got university students most of whom are utterly unaware of the fact that they even have a worldview they don't even realize it they think secularism is default they never analyze it and so you're talking about massively shallow thinkers here no, they're massively shallow thinkers you can tell by listening to them, listen to Dee for crying out loud she can't listen to something for more than about four and a half seconds that disagrees their worldview without just shutting down that's shallow that kind of person can never engage in meaningful interactions with any other perspective at all you shouldn't be insulting you need to learn what insulting is saying that Dee was ugly would be insulting since I didn't look at the video

I couldn't tell you that one way or the other she might have been a knockout beautiful person I don't know, it doesn't matter the fact is, her words she walks away going, he can't do it would

I have responded to Dee differently than Doug Wilson did? just as I would this question here is our culture talking to us, it's

Bree what is Bree? isn't there a food or something?

it is a cheese dip type thing? it sounds really snooty to me unless they named her after cheese but then again,

I don't know how she spells her name I don't think she had it on her t -shirt it is kind of a snooty cheese which is probably why

I've never had it because I don't go to snooty places do you think that comment is going to be on Peter Lumpkin's blog tomorrow?

Rich Pierce calls Bree snooty yep, it probably will be and he'll probably go, see

I told you this is how those people are I'm going to speed this up just a little bit at least

I didn't say what Milo said in channel which we will leave off for the moment I'm going to speed this up just a little bit so we can get a little bit more of it in but here is the kind of question that you need to be prepared to answer here we go it's time for another question hi, my name is

Jonah Mitz, I'm not a student, lived here for a long time I follow both of your work very closely and I want to come from the perspective that I'm not a

Christian unlike both of you, I'm an atheist but I have a deep respect for Christianity and my question for Mr.

Wilson by the way, can I just make a comment here Andrew Sullivan is as much of a

Christian as I am an atheist I mean, I know he started off my fellow brothers and sisters but did you listen to the man, aside from promoting the redefinition of marriage promoting homosexuality, someone comes up and says what do you think about premarital sex, that's a great idea

I think everybody should do it, I did it in fact, you know what, us male homosexuals we don't actually settle down and do this monogamy thing until we've sowed our oats oh, and you're a

Christian, right okay, thank you very much I don't think you're a bigot in any way but every single argument you've used tonight was used not only to say that black people and white people can't get married it was also used when we argued whether or not

Jewish people had souls or whether or not women should own property or whether or not every number of social and moral movement forward in our community in our world society, our movement towards what now we believe to be just completely obvious truths it's been opposed by people every step of the way who talk a lot like you and it's been pushed forward every step of the way by people who talk a lot like Mr.

Sullivan and my question here is, straight answer why should we take your arguments that doing this is going to lead to social breaking apart, it's going to ruin the institution it's going to promote moral anarchy when those arguments were used against every class of citizen who we now give rights to without thinking a second thought about it everything you've said, if you replace the word gay with black if you replace the word gay marriage with rights for women it's happened over and over and over again as men like you have said these things,

I want to know, why should I trust your argument now when the same argument was used by people who we now correctly think of as monsters you're a monster, that's what's being said here

I hope you really understand what he's saying a lot of these people came up and said I greatly respect all of you and then they don't, they're doing that as a cover because what they're really wanting to say is you are a moral monster, that's the argument here now,

Doug's immediate response thankfully again, I was out in the middle of the desert so hopefully there wasn't anybody out walking their dog or hiking or something to hear this because I yelled it out but I said, no it's not, here was

Doug's immediate response I think oh, first of all you had to have all of the homosexuals in the front row and their supporters scream because that's just how they do it self control, stuff like that no earthly concept of that I think that's a fair question no

Doug, it's not, now the funny thing is this goes on forever and eventually he is forced to address it and at the very end says what should have been said at the very start that is not a fair question, it is not a good question it's not just a loaded question it's not even a question in fact it should be identified for what, it's not even a question that was an accusation, phrased as a question and it is a lie my immediate response would have been sir,

I don't know what debate you've been listening to this evening because though I know it is a meme in our society to say everything you've just been saying to say, just take out the words homosexual and put in black or woman

I know that's a meme, you've been taught to say that but if you actually listened to my arguments this evening none of that would make a lick of sense now,

I would have had a few different arguments I wouldn't have depended so much on the polygamy, though I think the strongest argument, the single strongest argument the home run ball that Doug Wilson hit in this debate was to emphasize that when you change the direct object of a verb you change the meaning of the verb, so to say

I am going to marry a woman as a man, is a completely different statement than saying

I am going to marry a man, when you change the direct object you change the meaning, and that's exactly right that's exactly right, that's why

I was saying when Andrew Sullivan my husband, that makes you a wife, well no, I'm his husband nope, doesn't work that way, one husband can't have another husband, that's a violation of the term there is meaning to what it means to be a husband, a husband is a protector of, provider for and nurturer of a wife, and if you are someone's wife that has meaning too so, my immediate response would have been to demonstrate to immediately challenge the nature of the question it's unfair, it's actually an accusation and not only that, you haven't been listening to any argument

I've made, where have I made any argument most of these people have never, ever, ever, ever read any of the arguments that were made to defend racism or stuff like that 60 years ago they're just repeating this is stuff that is passed out it's given to people you've got to understand homosexuals and those who are absolutely wedded to this issue because they've got nothing else in life to do will do anything anything at all to continue to promote their cause and so they will travel and they will indebt themselves and they will do all this kind of stuff and they'll come to these things and they are ready to throw these things out whether they've ever actually seriously thought about those issues or not doesn't matter so,

I would say to this person what on earth are you talking about how on earth can you take my argument that the meaning of the word is fundamentally changed by the object that is attached to it that there is a fundamental difference between men and women that marriage is defined by God that you cannot be in love with a mirror and be a healthy person because I for one am not going to stop talking about the fact that homosexuality is a moral evil even though in the

Supreme Court of the United States you can't talk about that anymore you can't talk about that anymore not possible, not allowed to so you just have to be prepared to presuppositionally challenge these folks you've got to challenge them on the fact that they embrace an entire world view uncritically that they put one set of restrictions and standards on the

Christian faith that they would never allow for secularism and then when you hear the question don't let them rope you into doing a response where you can't give a response because the assumption of that question is a false assumption it's a false assumption well let's listen to what happened

I would answer it this way take for example the miscegenation laws which was struck down by the

Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 it wasn't that long ago, I was 14 at the time so it wasn't that long ago, it's within living memory

I think there were something like 16 states that had their laws struck down at that time, it was not a bagatelle it was not an incidental problem it wasn't that sort of thing there were people who argued vigorously in defense of it and they said if we allow blacks and whites to marry in our state then we'll end up with a president like Barack Obama but don't get me distracted what they were doing they were saying if we allow blacks and whites to marry that's going to open the floodgates and our pristine state of affairs is going to be ruined by these couples practicing miscegenation that's what the argument was my argument is not if we let homosexuals marry they're going to come in and ruin our pristine institution of marriage

I think we ruined it, I think it's already ruined it's already shot all the blazes now

I don't think homosexuals are going to come in and ruin marriage I think heteros have ruined marriage that doesn't really answer the question though I really like you to answer the question what is the difference between your argument and the arguments that were used

I just told you they believed they were the last bastion of a pure white race they were arguing for white supremacy and they said if we let these people in they're going to wreck our perfection here

I'm arguing the opposite the difference between them and you is that you don't think it's worth defending but you want to keep them out anyway

I'm seriously wondering sir the institution of marriage is absolutely worth defending

I've been a pastor for 35 years plus and I've had to do 100 times more damage control of onslaughts on the institution of marriage that were conducted by men and women in heterosexual marriages so should we make it so only gay marriage is legal is that what you're arguing here no, what

I'm arguing is that the premise of your question that my argument was structurally the same as die hard conservatives in ages past is false it's not structurally the same

I'm doing something completely different than what they were doing I'm saying that marriage is under assault, not by homosexuals ok, by the way, that's where he finally got around to saying no, your question's all wrong but that was, how long down the road are we here now from when the question was first asked you've got to get that out first because 95 % of the people, even your followers are asleep by now you've got to get that out there first, you can't let that be the last thing you say but by sin, marriage is under assault not because of the gay rights agenda and that only it's under assault because people are sinners there are variations of sin, there are heterosexual sins there are adulterous sins, there are promiscuous sins and I believe that same sex expression of sexuality is also a sin

I believe that because I believe the bible but I don't believe it's the only sin and I don't believe it's the most damaging sin for the traditional concept of marriage

I believe marriage is worth defending but I have to do a lot more of defending marriage against heteros than I do against homosexuals yes or no answer real quick do you think that I'd like just a quick follow up well anyway at least at this point

I can say I've been in at least similar circumstances I mean I've debated Barry Lynn well yeah we did do the gay marriage thing once but that was not against much of an opponent obviously

I I speak in public context and so I can say I have sort of been in that situation and I just don't know why

Doug answered some of the questions that he did the way he did there was a couple of them here where it just sort of seemed like the tide turned and it was only it really wasn't because the questions were all that difficult to deal with there just seemed to be an unwillingness to come straight out and do and say what needed to be done and said and I really don't know where that was coming from I don't know what the background of that was

I just don't know tell you what it really would be impossible for me to play the next section and really get into it and so let's give me five extra minutes the voice is starting to go well

I'm tired thanks for listening to the program today it's the only one we get in this week but next week should be pretty normal I think

I'm back on Tuesday Tuesday morning we'll see how

Tuesday works out just watch the blog, twitter, facebook whatever, we'll figure it out from there but we'll definitely get two programs in next week thanks for listening, if you're in the