Judas and Open Theism, Preston Sprinkle and Pronoun Hospitality

Greetings and welcome to the Dividing Line, you know, yesterday I was watching Fox News and I even listened while I was going to pick up my wife at the airport because I thought that Aaron Coates was going to be on Tucker Carlson and I looked closer and it was supposed to be tonight.

And I find out the Edmonton television station won't let them record there. They won't let the wife of the guy in prison.

Remember, this is the same Edmonton that has so far over the past two weeks released two child sexual predators from prison with warnings to the public that they will probably repeat, but they're keeping

James Coates in prison. Um, I, as, as I said on Twitter this morning, these people, they, they care nothing about sexual victims.

They don't care anything about children. This is all about power, power, and more power.

And they fear someone like James Coates. They fear the gospel. They fear people who will not bow down to the totalitarian state, but they are cowards themselves.

They are, they are personally cowards. They would never show their faces in public.

And now, did you see, was it Portland? I was just looking at it. I think it was, was it

Portland? Oh, I, I, I've got stuff queued up there. I can't go looking for it. But there was a, I think it was

Portland University. I think it was what it was, um, they're there, they've passed the staff

Senate has passed this resolution. It's sort of like, you know,

Tucker Carlson went after that reporter from New York times and now everybody wants, you know, got to get rid of Tucker Carlson.

If you're not allowed to do that, we only, only we can expose people. Only we can dox people. Only we, that's only for us side to do.

And so, oh, I know that because he's had people show up at his house.

But they, now that now the big thing is since finally sane people are pushing back on critical theory because critical theory is not sane.

Critical theory leaves you living alone by yourself, your own little intersectional box.

It's just, um, and people are starting to push back. And so now all of these privileged overpaid gender studies,

PhDs, um, who live in this tightly sealed little safe space are going, well, we need to, we need to have academic freedom.

We need to be, no one can criticize us. We, we just need to train young people to go into other people's classes and yell and scream and stop them from saying things we don't like.

And so somebody made a video documenting these people talking like this.

And then I think it was Portland university said, you can't use that. And so now the video is up and it gives the person's name and it goes blank and gives you the

URL and YouTube where you can go watch the whole thing. And that's all it is just over and over because it's, it's, and it's on the censored version of the video on censorship.

It's where Orwell is sitting someplace going.

I tried to tell you it was not meant as a manual.

It was not a book of instruction. It was a warning. Yeah. Yeah.

Well it worked. It worked out real well. Anyway, before we get to really have an important thing today and a thing, we have a thing today.

I have an important thing today. Finally after it's been a month

I'm going to interact a little bit, not as much as I would like with this book embodied by Preston Sprinkle embodied transgender identities, the church and what the

Bible has to say. And I'm going to be talking specifically about, um, well

I'll go ahead and use their terminology. Pronoun hospitality, pronoun hospitality.

Are you not familiar with pronoun hospitality? You're what?

Rich is not rich. I'm, I'm just shocked. I thought Rich is a man of the world and that he would be familiar with his stance on pronoun hospitality.

Just so everybody can hear now, I am non -plussed. To use apparently a phrase that no longer, you know, and it was kind of along those lines back then.

So do you, do you, um, you don't, you don't list your pronouns on your, on your stuff? Um, that's not a real thing.

Well, I think Preston Sprinkle would disagree with you, but we will be talking about pronoun hospitality.

I never thought, um, when Alpha and Omega Ministries was founded and I was reading,

I was reading, either Rich is choking on something or he's laughing horribly, but, uh, and I was reading

Brigham Young sermons from the Journal of Discourses. If someone had said, you know what, you know what you, you, you who are, um, in an office at 16th street in Camelback in a, in a dying office building.

Okay. It's a dying office building. It was, it was going down and it has gone, it's, it was, it's been flattened and turned into a storage place now.

But we're in this one office and it was a big, that was cavernous.

It was huge because it didn't matter. They, they couldn't rent to anybody else.

The carpet was literally not OSHA compliant.

Okay. I mean, it was so badly tacked down that it was, you know, it was, you could trip over it.

And I mean, oh wow.

Yeah. Anyway. But it was that conference room where you first heard about Calvinism.

Just so you remember, I, I remember you in the back, oh, excuse me. Yep. Anyway, it was in that, that was where I used to,

I had this draft draftsman's board and we had a nine, no, 12, no 12.

That NEC had an odd number of pins on the head. Remember that first one, 18 pin, we had an 18 pin dot matrix

NEC is before we got our first laser. Did it have one bad pin?

Well, it didn't when we first got it anyway. And we would put together our newsletter and I would print that thing out and then

I'd cut it. And I'd watched my dad doing this for a long time, you know, cutting and pasting stuff with him. So I knew

I actually did a decent job of it, but we, we would cut and paste, put all that stuff together.

And that, if you had told me back then when we were writing articles about Joseph Smith and the

Book of Mormon and our missions trips to Utah and everything else, if you had said,

I hate to tell you this, but, uh, 35 years down the road, um, yeah, blood atonement, the

Mormon church. Oh yeah. Yeah. Well, that, that wasn't the most graphically pleasing, uh, tract we ever did.

Yeah. Um, if you had told me that 35 years down the road, we would be doing a program on pronoun hospitality, pronoun hospitality, face it, none of us, none of us would have believed it.

It would have said, wait a minute, we're, we're actually got to be sitting around talking about what pronouns you, what it's where we are and it happened fast, man.

Happened fast. I think 10 years ago, if you had told us that we would have gone, what now once, once, once a

Birgefell hit, it's been up to six years now where, where insanity has, has gone real real.

Anyway. Okay. Look, before we get into all that, um, I mentioned briefly, uh, last week and we were looking at that, uh, open theist, uh, acts or Isaiah chapter 40 and open theism and stuff like that.

I mentioned that I had first heard this Chris Fisher guy. And even after the program,

I happened to be looking, I wanted to, I wanted to link to something and I found a 2017 video that he had done going after me, this

Chris Fisher guy. So he's, he's been, but I mean, almost nobody has ever heard of him. So there's, there's on one level you're sort of like, do you really want to give a platform to these folks?

And, but then again, and there's, there's useful stuff, but I had heard him on this Warren McGrew's program.

This idol, the idol killer is what he calls himself. His big thing is the provisionist stuff.

And he, his, his pet, he calls it this pet doctrine, uh, his pet doctrine is, um, denying original sin.

And so this, uh, this morning's, uh, one of the provisionist people on Twitter, it may have been, it actually might've been

Layton Flowers, if I recall correctly, uh, posted something. You know, it's the same old, whenever we talk about man's sin, their thing is, well, you're

God decreed it. That's, that's all they know. It's just, it's just, you could sit here and talk all about God's self -glorification within time and the purposefulness of time and the incarnation.

That's just way, way, way too high theology to even be bothering with these folks. And so, uh, you get this canard and I, I responded to it and, uh, this

Warren McGrew jumps in. And so I'm like, okay, you know, this is the guy who says he's not, you know, he's not necessarily an open theist, but he, he holds an open theory, which he calls, uh, um, dynamic omniscience.

Um, and of course, once you get into all that area, every person is now his own creator of his own theology.

You know, there's no churches or anything that actually believe this stuff to go back anywhere. But, uh, anyway, so I started asking you some questions and the issue had come up about, you know, predestination and stuff.

And so I pointed out again, the early church's faith in Acts chapter four, verse 27 and 28, where you specifically have the assertion that God foreordained, uh, the state, some statement have been made about God never foreordains or predestined sin or something like that.

And so I just pointed out what is right there in Acts chapter four.

The early church says Pilate, Herod, the Jews, the Romans did whatever your hand, your will predestined to occur.

And that was in the crucifixion of Christ. Um, and so I asked the question,

I said, um, so could, uh,

Herod, I'm sorry, Pilate, could Pilate have done anything other than what he did?

Could he have done the right thing? I asked this specifically of the idol killer. Um, and his answer was this, yes,

Pilate could have chosen to do the right thing. Had he, had he, there are a million other ways

God could have accomplished his purpose. Jesus is the anointed one, not Pilate, the Gentiles or the Jews, Acts four.

So when the church says that Herod and Pilate, the

Romans and the Jews did exactly what God's hand foreordained to take place, Warren McGrew says, well, actually

Pilate did what Pilate chose to do and God had nothing to do with it.

And if Pilate had done something else, then God would have had to go to plan B. And now think about how many free choices, what if the

Roman soldiers wouldn't drive the nails? Well, if the Jews decided not to, to, to turn

Jesus in, what if Herod got in the way and had Jesus put on a chariot and driven out into the desert?

The whole point is the timing at this time in this place, not possible because you have the free will actions of not dozens of people, not hundreds of people, thousands of people involved in that one situation.

And they're all allegedly autonomous free agents. There is no divine decree.

Okay. So the idea of Jesus, of God being able to accomplish the cross at that time on that day in that way, totally dependent upon the cooperation of free human beings.

Yes. What if all those people in that crowd had not called for Barabbas to be released?

You're right. I mean, it's just all this myriad of people. People look back at history and they don't realize the complexity, you know,

Isaiah naming Cyrus, which is why scholars call it

Deutero -Isaiah because they don't believe there can be prophecy. God can't know. They're naturalists.

But just think of all of the free actions of free creatures that would go into a baby boy being born at the right place at the right time named

Cyrus. It just doesn't work.

You can play, you can jump on, you can stand on your head and spin in circles all you want.

It just doesn't work. It doesn't work. So, yes, Pilate could have chosen to do the right thing. Had he, there are a million other ways

God could have accomplished his purposes. Million other ways. So I immediately had a question.

I immediately had a question. And the question that I asked was, okay, you want to do that with Pilate?

All right. Let's get more specific. Now, those of you who've listened to my debate with the open theist up in Denver, Colorado, yeah,

Bob Enyart, you will recall that this came up very much in the cross -examination.

And Bob Enyart, just to be perfectly honest with you, fell apart. Could not provide a coherent response because open theists can't provide a coherent response at this point.

They really can't. John chapter 13. John chapter 13.

Now, most, if you deal with Jehovah's Witnesses and things like that, you should be fully aware of the key text in the

Gospel of John where Jesus is identified by the Greek phrase ego, I me, the emphatic,

I am, or I myself am, which comes to us from the

Old Testament. Not from Exodus 3 .14. It is in Exodus 3 .14, but that's ego, I me, ha -on. I am the one being.

I am the one existing. It's used as a euphemism for God, the name of God, especially in Isaiah.

And so it's used in very important places in John 8 .24,

John 8 .58. Most people do know John, most people know John 8 .58, before Abraham was,

I am. In 8 .24, if you, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

Very, very important. A lot of people know about John 18 .5 -6, you know, the soldiers are coming to arrest

Jesus. Jesus says, who are you seeing? We're seeing Jesus. Jesus says, I am, ego, I me. And then

John makes sure that as soon as he says, I am, the soldiers fall back upon the ground.

Now, if you ever want to just find out if a Unitarian has any honesty in them at all, hit them with that one.

So why do soldiers fall back upon the ground when Jesus says, I am? And you come up, you read some of the most amazing statements.

Well, when they were faced with Jesus's deep moral purity, they fell back upon the ground.

It's out there. Honestly, I've read it. And you're just like, yeah, yeah,

Roman soldiers are always falling back on the ground when they encounter deep moral purity.

That's just, it happens all the time. In fact, we've found ancient Roman soldier tush protectors, because it just happens so often, they design specific armor to fall on the ground.

It's just so dumb. You don't even know what to say to this kind of stuff. But anyway, most of us know the

I am statements in those contexts, and they're important. They really are. But there's one

I am statement that most people are not aware of. They're just not aware of it. And it's important.

It's beautiful. Homeschool moms, you've got to find a way to teach your kids.

But I leave it up to you. Cupcakes could be used, slices of pizza, whatever.

Whatever it takes. This is what you do. John chapter 13,

John chapter 13, Jesus truly, truly, I say to you, oh, yes, well,

I guess I can go full screen on that. Truly, truly,

I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master. The servant is not greater than his

Lord. Neither the one sent, an apostolos, greater than the one who sent him.

If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I am not speaking concerning all of you.

I know, I know which ones, that's exalexata, that's

I have chosen. I know which ones, plural,

I have chosen. But in order that haegrafe pleirothe, now, you've got to, let me scroll this up here and let me, let me, yes, it will, it will work.

Let me turn on my new, oh, where'd it go? I thought

I had it fired up and ready to go. Annotate, annotate.

Huh? I didn't think

I had reset the, the system since, since yesterday.

So I, I thought it was already up and, up and running. But if I can't see it here real quickly,

I won't, I won't bother with it. But yeah, it's not,

I can't, if I could remember what the name of the program was, it'd be fairly easy to find, but I've forgotten what the name of the program was.

So we'll just have to go without it for this time. Anyway, when you encounter haegrafe pleirothe,

Scripture fulfilled. Now you're dealing with something, this isn't, this isn't, this isn't personal opinion.

We're talking about the fulfillment of the Scriptures here. Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. That's pretty important.

And so what are we going to do with this? Scriptures cannot be broken.

Well, what is the Scripture? What is the Scripture might be fulfilled? The one eating my bread has lifted up his heel against me.

So there is this theme in the

Old Testament, in the Psalter. There is, you know, how many times does David, for example, this is from Psalm 41.

How many times does David talk about the ones close to him? The ones eating at my table.

In other words, people who are close to me, my close fellows, betraying him.

But it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled. This is Jesus speaking. All right, this is

Jesus speaking. So if you're going to call yourself a Christian or something, you might want to be really careful to going, well, you know,

I'm not really sure this is really a prophetic passage. Hey, this is Jesus's interpretation. Or what you have to do is say, well, this is just John sticking words in Jesus's mouth.

Whatever you do with this theology, you end up having to trash biblical inspiration.

You just, it's necessary. It happens over time. He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.

So we have in verse 18, a Scripture fulfillment narrative.

What does the very next verse say? From now on,

I am telling you before it comes to pass.

In order that when it comes to pass, you may believe.

Believe what? That I am.

Now I've told the story. So I apologize. To all of you old timers.

Rich has heard this story so many times. He's already repeating it in the other room. Because he knows what's coming.

But I remember so clearly. Back about 1984.

I think around 1984. Second bedroom of our spacious two -bedroom apartment.

Down there off of West Pasadena. Third Avenue. Wife was already asleep in bed.

And I had one, I had this, I still remember this. White desk lamp.

Little thing with those little round bulbs would burn out fairly frequently. And that wonderful, compact, portable computer.

With the dual floppy disks. No hard drive. But 640K of RAM. That was a lot of RAM before hard drives.

Six -inch green screen. It was portable. You could pick it up. You'd get a hernia. But you could pick it up.

About the size of a sewing machine. Nobody knows what a sewing machine is anymore either. Huh?

It was a suitcase. Size of a suitcase. It was. It really was. And I was studying the

I Am Sayings of Jesus. And I don't remember. My assumption is.

That I looked at John 13 .19. And I'm going. That looks familiar.

I've. I've seen that somewhere before. What. I don't.

I don't know. And. I think I grabbed my. My Greek Septuagint.

My old Greek Septuagint. And I grabbed. And I started thumbing through it. And I said, where have

I heard this before? Well, I'll show you where I heard it before. I heard it.

In a text. That. Was apologetically.

Partially memorized. What does that mean? There are a lot of verses.

That apologists use. Where you only need to use a part of the verse. In fact, if you try to use the whole verse. It's too long.

And. You lose the advantage of citing it. And so you only cite a part of the verse. And then you move on.

Isaiah 43 .10. Is probably. It's one of the top three verses. I think.

That most people memorize. When dealing with Mormons. And it says. You are my witnesses.

Declares Yahweh. Says the Lord. And my servant whom I have chosen. But you don't worry about all that part.

Because what you want to get to. Is at the end of the verse. It says before me there is no God formed. And there will be none after me.

That's the end of the verse. But the problem is. That's just part of a sentence.

You are my witnesses declares Yahweh. And my servant whom I have chosen. So that you may know.

And believe me. And understand that I am he. Before me. There is no

God formed. And there will be none after me. I even I am Yahweh. And there is no savior besides me. It is

I who have declared. And saved and proclaimed. And there is no strange God among you. So you are my witnesses declares Yahweh.

And I am God. Even from eternity I am he. Now over here is the

Greek Septuagint. And it's interesting. My servant whom

I have chosen. And then look back here to. Right there.

I know the ones I have chosen. Exelex Amein.

And then you go to the Greek Septuagint. Oh! Look! It's the same verb.

You are my servant whom I have chosen. In order that you may know. And believe.

Exact same form of Piscuseta. And understand that. Ego I me.

I am. Both are in the context of prophecy. And Jesus.

Plainly quotes the one. Where Yahweh is identifying himself. As the

I am. Jesus quotes it to his disciples. In John chapter 13.

Verse 19. On the night of his betrayal. But in what context? But in what context?

The context is saying. He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me. Now do you see what's going on?

Jesus predicts his betrayal. By Judas. And then he says.

From now on. I am telling you before it comes to pass. So that when it does come to pass.

You may believe. That I am. Ego I me. Same phrase used in John 8 .24.

8 .58. 18 .56. 13 .19. The context of Jesus.

Self -revelation. To his disciples. I'm going to tell you.

Before it takes place. Because that's what the true God can do. Because the true God can do prophecy. He's not just predicting things.

He's not just going. Well I got more information than anybody else does. So my predictions normally come true.

Every open theist has to say. There are false prophecies in scripture.

That it's no big deal. Every open theist does it. They have to. They have to.

But here's the question. What if Judas had changed his mind? What if Judas changed his mind?

Because see. If Warren McGrew is going to be consistent. From what he said about Pilate.

Then Judas could do the same thing. Now Warren McGrew will not answer the question. He will not. Read. Go look up my threads on Twitter.

DrOakley1689. Look up his. It's exactly what he wants. He wants this kind of promotion.

But go ahead and look at the conversation. He won't answer it. Is it because he knows about this? I don't think so. Maybe. He should.

Should have watched the debate with Bob Enyart. If he didn't. Doesn't matter now. Won't answer the question.

Because logically he's stuck with it. He'd have to say. If Pilate could change his mind.

And do the right thing. So could Judas. And think about what that means.

So. God has this all set up. And I suppose you could say.

Well you know. Doing it around the time of Passover was nice. But God would be willing to take.

A couple month delay. If he has to go to plan B. Right? Right?

I mean that's where you have to go. You cannot have God accomplishing anything in this thing. Because there are too many free creatures running around.

That the open theists say. Nope don't know. I don't know. So. If Judas doesn't do it.

Theoretically. It would be possible. That if God goes with the next person.

And then the next person. All of them refused to do it. And there's no redemption. Right? I mean since we're doing the philosophical.

Let's play games thing. Rather than going with scripture. And it's worldview. You'd have to say.

Boy God was awful lucky. To get the cross accomplished. Maybe God had been trying to get.

Hey maybe this is an explanation. God had been trying to get the Messiah. Crucified since Adam.

But this is the first time he could make it work out. Why not? Why not?

I mean since we're playing this kind of speculative foolishness. Why not? But what else does it mean?

Jesus says I'm telling you. Before it comes to pass. And when it does occur. You may believe that I am he. And then

Judas goes out and says. I'm not going to do it. So what does that mean about Jesus? So you may know and believe that I am he.

Oh. Oops. I false prophesied. Because Bob Enyart said.

Yeah Judas could do that. But remember Bob Enyart went so far as to say. That Jesus could disobey the father.

For Bob Enyart. The free will of man. Is God. And the triune

God could explode. From internal inconsistency. And disobedience on the part of the son of the father.

But as long as the free will of man. We're good. It's another religion.

Completely. It's nothing that any of the biblical authors. Have even dreamed of. Obviously.

So here you have Jesus. Putting his self revelation. As to who he is.

On the line. I am telling you before it comes to pass.

Jesus can do that. Why? Because God's sovereign and man is not. That's why.

As soon as you invert that. And then try to be consistent.

You will eventually. Have to leave the faith. Because it's not going to work.

It's just not going to work. So I tried. I tried.

To. Get a straight answer. And like I said. Maybe did some looking around.

And found out about this. I don't know. I have no way of knowing. But some of the stuff you run into.

On the. On the web. Interesting stuff. Okay. I do have.

Let's get to this. I don't want to go too long today. I heard about this book.

There we go. That's how you get him to change the camera. Eventually. I heard about this book.

Before it came out. Embodied. Preston Sprinkle. PhD. Is the president.

Of the center for faith. Sexuality and gender. And a

New York Times bestselling author. Who's written a dozen books. Including people to be loved. An award winning book on faith and homosexuality.

He also hosts a popular podcast. Theology in the raw. Preston and his wife Chris live in Boise, Idaho. With their four kids.

Okay. So Preston Sprinkle. Embodied.

Transgender identities. Now I listened to it. He did the narration of his own book.

Which isn't always. Not everybody should do that. I'm not sure.

I should do that with any of mine. Never have. But it was.

It's interesting to me. That when you're reading your own book. I'm going to take the voice inflections.

As being indicative of something. And. Sprinkle. Punches right.

Big time. In this book. Really does punch right. And you can tell.

That his. Sharpest venom. Is aimed at.

Critics of. Homosexuality. Transgenderism and things like that.

Even though he is seeking to. Present a. At least somewhat orthodox.

Biblical perspective on things. Um. There's a lot to be said about the book.

It starts off. With a. A real strong section.

Talking about. A person named Leslie. L -E -S -L -I. Um. Well here's the end of the book.

My friend Leslie. Whom I opened this book with. Currently identifies as non -binary. And prefers they them pronouns.

Leslie is attracted to the same sex. Believes in a traditional view of marriage. And has a massive heart for LGBT people.

Leslie has become one of the dearest. Wisest and most godly people in my life. Leslie is so godly that they'll.

T -H -E -Y. L -L. Hate that I just said that.

And he goes just on and on. About how Leslie is the most Christ like person. That he knows. But Leslie.

Is non -binary. And. It's even confusing to me. That they'll hate that I just said that.

I mean. I'm old school. Sorry I start looking for plurals. Messing with pronouns on that level.

Is just the end of the English language. In my opinion. But anyway. And the book started off.

Talking about this person. So you got from the start.

You got a lens. If you started at the start. You got a lens. That let you know where the conclusion.

Was going to be coming from. Though you. I expected. That at least when.

The subject of transitioning came up. You would. Have to.

In some fashion. Say that's. Not an option.

For a. Christian. Obviously you have to deal with people. Who've gone through that ordeal.

Have been. Damaged in that way. Because there is no such thing as transitioning. It's just not possible.

It's a. It's a fantasy. It's a. Science fiction fantasy.

That ends up destroying the physical body. And normally. The mind and the spirit as well.

But anyway. You have to deal with those folks.

And what happens in their lives. That's down there. But the question.

If you haven't done this yet. Is this an option and so on and so forth. Which the obvious answer is no.

It's not from a biblical world view. But obviously. Preston wants to be. Much more nuanced in the approach.

So you can sort of see what. You're going to be running into. Up and down the line.

The weakest part of the book. By far. The part of the book.

Where I just. I was like. Really? You're actually going to argue that. Was the section on.

Pronoun hospitality. Now. Right now we're talking about.

Pronoun hospitality. But as we already well know. You can be banned from social media.

For not practicing. Pronoun hospitality. Which if it's demand. That's not really hospitality.

It's sort of like when you go to these restaurants. And they put the tip on the bill. For you.

That's not a tip anymore. That's just another tax. Isn't it?

That's not gratuity. Which comes from gratis. Thanks. That's the pointy end of a gun.

So. We're no longer talking about. Pronoun hospitality in that situation. We're talking about.

Being forced. To alter. Not only the language.

That we choose to use. But the categories that language. Provides to us.

And to do so. Dependent upon the individual. I mean as you know. Most universities now.

For the freshman students coming in. They can get name tags. For their freshman orientation stuff.

With their pronouns on them. And all the professors. Have their pronouns on.

And stuff like that. I don't know why. Honestly. Any of us.

Are bankrupting ourselves. To send children. Into these places today.

There are very few places left. That actually do education. These are indoctrination centers.

These are secular. Mind. Bending. Brainwashing indoctrination centers.

That's all they are. And any Christian parent. That would spend $150 ,000.

To make sure. That your teenager. Comes home as a. Gender -bended atheist.

You're just a fool. It's just. It's just abject foolishness. Well I want to make sure.

Better than get a good job. That may not be something. We're overly concerned about in the future.

Our simple freedom. May be much more. On the basic level of things. Anyway. Yeah hey.

Thanks Neil. Just. Dropping this in. Before I continue.

I posted. Right before the program started. I posted. A paper.

From. Some dear brothers in Germany. I've sort of mentioned them.

A number of times in the past. But I. Because the way things are over there. I don't get overly specific.

I mean anybody could dig back through my timeline. And probably find stuff. As to where I've gone in Germany.

And churches I've spoken at. And pictures that have been posted online. And things like that. But things are tough in Germany.

For the church right now. And a paper. Was written by. Ostensible evangelicals.

I think November. Of last year. Basically saying. Yeah Romans 13 says.

If the state says we need to continue doing this. Basically indefinitely. Then we just do whatever the state says.

And they've put together. I think it's about seven pages long. About a seven page response.

To that. That I just posted in English. At AOMN .org. With a link to the original

German. If you feel like reading that instead. And. I hope.

I hope you'll take time to look at that. Or if you know of pastors. Dealing with these issues. I think it's a valuable contribution.

And what's really valuable is that it reminds us. We're not the only ones. Involved in this.

We have dear friends in South Africa. We have dear friends in Germany. We have dear friends in Australia.

And literally all over the world. Struggling with these issues. And it has forced all of us.

To start thinking through. The relationship of church and state. And so I'm sorry. I was just. Neil in Twitter.

Had posted a statement. He's coming from.

North Africa. Northern Ireland. And was saying. This needs to be nailed.

On all the doors. And all the churches in Northern Ireland. And so. Well get to it

Neil. You're closer than we are. That's right. Get that thing up there.

Anyway. Sorry. A little distraction there. Alright so. I got to.

The section about. Pronoun hospitality. Now some of you may recall. How long ago was it now?

I think it was before. Coronavirus. I think it was. We had had some discussions.

About this issue. I have played various. Advocates. And individuals on the air.

On both sides. Discussing. These issues.

And so. I asked the question. Pronoun hospitality. Or creaturely rebellion. That really is the question.

That we're dealing with here. And so. I can't do that.

I forgot that it goes to a second screen. So we'll just have to go with what I've got here. Oh you already zoomed in on it?

Very good. Now. Presto Sprinkle does represent.

The other side. Because he comes down on the side. That we should exercise.

Pronoun hospitality. Which means you should be willing. To as a Christian. Adopt. The preferred pronouns.

Of whatever individual you're speaking with. Whether it's Z, Zer. Or you're speaking with.

A biological male. And he wants you. To refer to him. As her and she.

Or vice versa. Obviously. So. He does give some quotes.

For example. I would be lying to call a he a she. John Piper. Though Piper does say.

As he points out. That. Pronouns reflect reality.

Names reflect choice. So if you're talking to a guy.

Who's six foot four. Shaves twice a day. But wants to be called Susan.

Then. Well of course if he's six foot four. You might just want to call him Susan. Just for the fun of it anyways.

Just because you like. The way your face looks. And your nose being between your eyes. And things like that. A boy named

Sue. Yeah. I don't know. I just came up with Susan. Just for the fun of it there. You still got the thing up there.

They can't even see us talking. So anyway. But Piper basically says. You can go ahead and call the guy

Sue. That's a choice. Rather than reality. Anyway. Then he quotes the Nashville Statement.

Which says. We affirm the duty to speak the truth in love. At all times. Including when we speak to or about one another.

As male or female. We deny any obligation to speak in such ways. That dishonor

God's design of his image bearers. As male and female. So the Nashville Statement is saying. That to speak in those ways.

Is to dishonor. God's design of his image bearers. As male and female.

So there is a recognition. Of the design of God. The intention of God.

The created order. And there is a. It's an element of speaking the truth. Speaking the truth in love.

At all times. Including when we speak to or about one another. As male or female.

Because those are categories of truth. Then he quotes.

Someone named Laurie Higgins. Trans communities use language. As a tool to transform culture. They redefine words.

Emptying them of their former meanings. And invent new words. And embody subversive and false assumptions. I would agree with Higgins at that point.

Rob Smith says. It communicates. And so potentially endorses. And perpetuates the false claim.

That gender. In Judith Butler's words. Is a free floating artifice.

That's important. Because that is exactly. What. The trans movement.

Is about. Is that gender is a free. Floating artifice. It is artificial.

It's free floating. It's not rooted in anything. In nature. And so.

You can be he today. Her tomorrow. The next day. The next day. It doesn't matter.

Because it's a free floating artifice. And not only is communication.

In that context. Impossible. But. It has lost all connection.

To reality itself. To any concept of objective truth. Then he quotes

Denny Burke. Who says. I must never encourage. Or accommodate gender fictions.

With my words. In fact. I have an obligation to expose them. For me that means. That I may never refer.

To a biological male. With pronouns that encourage him. To think of himself as a female. Likewise I may never refer.

To a biological female. With pronouns that encourage her. To think of herself as a male. That's Denny Burke's position.

And of course you would recognize. It's mine as well. So let's take a look.

At Preston Springle's case. For pronoun hospitality. Because I was wondering.

Everything that I just. Read to you. Is based upon.

A creation reality. God. Made. The world.

God's the creator. And God has a purpose. In his creation. And that fundamentally.

All of this. Is designed to reflect. His glory. In the end.

It's not primarily about the creation. It's about the creator. It is to reflect. The creator's goodness.

In his design. And in his decree. Yes. I do believe.

That non -reformed theologies. Struggle at this point. I believe they have a foundational.

Problem. In their premise. In dealing with these issues.

That's not to say that there are not. Liberal Presbyterians. That have bought into all this stuff.

But they don't believe any of the faith. On anything else anymore anyways. So. Makes sense.

So here is the case. For Pronoun Hospitality. And so I'm expecting.

You know because he's. Presented a fairly decent case. On the other side. It wasn't more than a couple pages.

But at least it was. Represented properly. And I would think his position.

In his center for. Sexuality and stuff. It would sort of force him to.

Have to deal with this. At least represent the other side. So I'm expecting some kind of.

World view based response. Because. Our side.

Is basing this upon. We live in God's world. And you do no one any favors.

By encouraging them. To think that this world. Is malleable.

Based upon their emotions. And feelings. I'm a parent.

And now I'm a grandparent. We had our grandkids over. Last weekend. And when you've got them for a couple days.

That first few hours of niceness. Wears off after a while. And you've got to go. No I told you not to do that.

No that's not the way you ask for things. Etc. You've got to start disciplining again. That's one of the nice things about grandparenting.

There's sort of a. There's sort of a period. When they first show up. Where you don't have to worry about any of that stuff.

And then eventually you do. Anyway. We live in a day.

Where. Us old folks. Can remember. Being told that there comes a time.

When you have to realize you live in the real world. And it's not all about you. And you're not always going to get what you want.

And you can. You know. My mom. Never professed to be a philosopher.

But my mom. Said it so many times. That it became part of me.

There's two kinds of people in the world. People who choose to be happy. And those who choose not to be. And you can just simply look at your circumstances.

And you can look at the neighbor across the street. And they've got a bigger house and a bigger car. And they're healthier.

And they've got more money. And you can live in covetousness. And just be unhappy.

Because they're there. Or you can be happy with what you've got. That's lost in our society today.

That's just. That's sort of like the sticks and stones. The break your bones thing. You're just not supposed to believe that kind of thing anymore.

I mean. All of Neo -Marxism is based upon covetousness anyways. We're all supposed to have the same amount of everything. Right? You can't have a

God who's behind all of that. Giving gifts and blessings to some people. That he doesn't give to others.

So I'm expecting some kind of world view response. That would say. Well. The categories that God gives.

Are not necessarily the categories we should be. Enforcing upon people. Or something.

That's not what he got. First thing. There's actually going to be four points.

I'll get to at the end. But there's some arguments he gives before him. Language is flexible and changes over time.

And he gives examples. Such as the words. Nice and pretty and girl.

And how within. Centuries. Of their current use.

Those words. Had different semantic domains. The semantic domain being.

That range of words. That range of meaning. That a word can express. At a given time.

So. For example. There are lexicons based upon semantic domains. For the New Testament.

But it's at the time of the New Testament. It would be different if it was about 200 years earlier. Or 200 years after.

And so yes. In English. Words can change meaning. And we've certainly seen that. In our experience.

And obviously. The invention of printing. Then the invention of.

Modern technology. And now the internet. Has been incredibly disruptive.

To the. Consistency of language. We now bend language.

To fit our feelings. Rather than. Doing the hard work. Of expressing ourselves.

By growing our vocabulary. I'd. Be willing to bet.

I'd be willing to bet. That. The average American's vocabulary.

Is significantly smaller today. Than it was 40 years ago. And much smaller than it was 140 years ago.

Of course. Vast majority of Americans don't read a single book in a year now. But they read.

Thousands of tweets. Yeah. Anyway. So. Language is flexible and changes over time.

Fine. That doesn't have anything to do. With utilizing pronouns. That express the negation.

Of God's creative intent. That's irrelevant. It's just irrelevant.

Then he says that scripture. Exploits language's flexibility. Especially when they are.

Contextualizing a message for a particular culture. End quote. And when

I heard that. I was sort of like. What's this? What? And he gives the example of Paul.

In Acts chapter 17. Quoting Greek poets. But applying the quotes.

To the one true God Yahweh. So. The Greek poets were initially.

Talking about Zeus. But Paul applies that to Yahweh. And comes to the conclusion.

He prioritized people. Over dictionaries. And I went.

Really? Now he realizes this is super weak. Because he says.

Now this doesn't map. Exactly onto our situation. That's because.

It's on a map. On a different continent. That's why it doesn't really fit too well.

It's not even close. It's not even close. Paul was not. Doing anything.

That is even semi -relevant. To the utilization. Of faux pronouns.

That. Encourage people to think. That the gender binary.

Created by God. Is. Changeable and malleable. Based upon their emotions.

He's utilizing. What they know. He's demonstrating.

He knows what they know. And he's read their literature. And now he wants to explain to them. How that's not enough.

Has nothing to do. With prioritizing people.

Over dictionaries. Zero nada. Total fail. Logic class. Faceplant.

Boom. Gone. Then he quotes.

Mark Yarhouse. It is an act of respect. Even if we disagree. To let the person determine what they.

Want to be called. If we can't grant them that. It's going to be next to impossible. To establish any sort of relationship.

With them. And there my friends. Is where theology comes in. Here's where the theology comes in.

Because when you boil. All this down. It is very very clear to me. Preston Sprinkle.

Don't have a reformed bone in his body. When it comes. To doing evangelism.

And when it comes. To trusting the spirit of God. To take the word of God.

And make it alive in someone's heart. It's funny. It's interesting. It's not funny. Yesterday morning

I think. Michael Brown sent me. A DM on Twitter. And he said hey.

Check this out. And he took the time. And thank you again Michael. He took the time. To time index.

One of the programs he did this week. To one of the callers called in. So I didn't have to go searching for it.

It's a very nice feature. And here is this woman. Who I guess had.

Pretty much accepted. The cultures. Understanding of.

Sexuality and things like that. And somehow she stumbled upon. The debate that Michael and I did.

Against the two homosexual pastors. What two three years ago. Three four years ago. It was in Florida.

And she said. That debate. Put her on the floor. Put her on the floor before God.

She realized. She had been completely wrong. In her views of herself.

And her sexuality. Michael and I. Did not compromise.

At any point in that debate. We weren't. Mean or nasty.

On any meaningful definition. Of mean and nasty. I mean today's definition of mean and nasty.

Means that Jesus, Paul, Peter. John, Luke. Moses. Don't call him holy

Moses. He's mean Moses. I mean all of the prophets.

Isaiah. They're all mean and nasty. There is nobody.

Who wrote a word in the Bible. That would not be banned from Twitter. That's just the way it is.

So we weren't mean and nasty. In the real sense of mean and nasty. We were straight forward.

We were clear. But we proclaimed the truth to these folks. And there's an example. God takes that.

And uses it. Because it's the truth that God uses. It's not. Michael and I didn't have to sit around.

Before and go. Okay so what terms can we use. To try to reach this audience.

And we want to make sure these folks like us. We didn't even think about any of that stuff. Don't need to.

Don't need to. So. If we can't grant them that.

So Mark Yarhouse says. It's an act of respect. The question is. Respect for whom? I do not believe

I'm showing respect. To that person. To capitulate.

To their self. Serving. And self destructive.

Demands. I'm not showing respect. To my wife.

To refer to. The man from Pennsylvania. In the.

Blonde wig. As a female. I am disrespecting my wife.

I am disrespecting the woman. Who brought my children. Into this world. Who nursed those children.

Who bathed those children. Who with me.

Experienced the truth. The 2am diaper explosion. With the children.

Okay. She's a woman. And it is disrespectful. To all women like her.

Who nurture. And who do. What only women can do. To turn around.

And say to a man. You're a woman. There are a few things.

That are more anti -woman. Than the transgender movement. Actually there are a few things. That are more anti -man.

Than the transgender movement. It's anti -human. But it is. Anti -human.

So. Yarhouse thinks it's an act of respect. The question is.

Who do we need to respect? We need to respect. First and foremost God. His creation.

His word. And call everyone else. To obedience to that. But see the problem is.

From Sprinkles perspective. We're putting the emphasis on the wrong thing.

He quotes. Greg Coles is saying. None of my interviewees. Were inclined to interpret. A cisgender

Christian's. Pronoun hospitality. As an automatic indication. That this Christian agreed with everything.

About the way in which the trans person. Expressed their gender. These interviewees saw the cisgender Christian's. Willingness to define gendered pronouns.

In terms of gender identity. Rather than biological sex. As an indication that that person.

Was willing. Willingly. I must have mistyped this. Show respect for the existence.

Of non -cisgender identities. I apologize for mistyping it. I thought

I quoted that. Straight out of the Kindle book. I'm not sure how I would have lost that. Maybe I lost something.

In between two pages. Here's the problem. That person.

Was willing to show respect. For the existence of non -cisgender identities. But we don't.

At least we shouldn't. Because we're calling people. To repent of that. But I don't think

Preston Sprinkle thinks. That's something that needs to be repented of. Not with what he says about Leslie. I don't think he sees that as.

Um. The thing that struck me. And Rich will remember. I think

I sent you a message. While I was still on bike. Because I listened to this on a real long ride. Last month.

And I sent you a message. And I said please get the Kindle version. And the paper version.

Because I had the audible. I burned one of my audible things for it. Um. And the reason

I wanted to do that. Is I wanted to. The advantage of having an electronic. Version of a book.

Is you have an instant. Full. Index. A full concordance.

Of all uses of all words. And let me.

In fact I have it up. So. If you put repent in.

You see. Denying God the right to define.

Your personhood. Is sinful rebellion. So. How are you going to write a whole book.

On transgenderism. From a Christian perspective. Here are. The only places where.

Anything based on repent. Occurs. There are three places. Um. And yet.

Accepting people doesn't mean. Believing that such people. Have a flawless view of God. The world humanity. Or themselves. Christian acceptance.

Is always acceptance. Into a flawed community. Seeking holiness and repentance. It's acceptance.

Into a countercultural family. With a different pattern of life. A fresh way to be human. An otherworldly ethic.

Rooted in creation. And longing for resurrection. Now all that sounds great. But if you actually apply that.

That would also mean. It doesn't include. A violation. Because if it's based upon.

If it's rooted in creation. Then it's God's creation. That means God gets to define it. Um.

That's where the ethic comes from. But it's a flawed community. Seeking holiness and repentance.

There's nothing about. Repentance. For the transgender person. Uh. That then becomes a block quote.

Same statement. And the last one is. All of this is dehumanizing.

We can't just care about intersex. When it comes up in an argument. Intersex people are people.

Image bearers the divine. And gifts of the church. I've fallen prey to treating such. Beautiful people as mere concepts.

And I'm in a process of. Repenting from it. Largely because I've gotten to know intersex persons.

And heard their stories and learned from their experiences. So the only other use is. Him repenting.

Of an attitude that he had. About intersex persons. And if you're wondering what that is. Again. That is the discussion of.

The. Large number of. Syndromes.

Based upon. Primarily genetic abnormalities. That result in.

Some kind of impact. Upon. The development of.

Gender in a person. And so if you have XXX or XXY. Or XYY.

If you have reduplication of chromosomes. And there are a number of things that can happen. Along those lines.

That can be very very serious. Or only. Some people don't even know it happens.

Until they get a genetic test later in life. Or something like that. There's a whole spectrum. What he's saying is.

In writing this book I got to know some of these people. And so I'm repenting. Of having just viewed them as.

A part of an argument. That's it. There is nothing in this book about repentance.

And yet. I would say to you. That the vast majority. Just think with me for a second.

What has been the increase. In the expression of. Transgenderism.

Since 2010. 2010. Just a decade ago.

It's been huge. An explosion. It's contamination.

It's spreading like a contagion. These people are not. Experiencing. Gender dysphoria.

They're getting it. From YouTube. They're getting it.

From Facebook. And it's a mechanism of rebellion.

Sure it may happen at a very confusing time in life. But we all did. A lot of dumb things.

At that confusing time of life. And it was still rebellion. And it still needs to be repented of.

Okay. So if you look at the guy. Who at 13 started doing crack. You don't say.

Well as long as it happened then. You were so young. There's no big deal. You can keep doing it. No. You repent of it.

And you put it away. Same thing with this. Never in this book. There is no call.

To repentance. From rebellion against God's creative design. In male and female in this book. It's just not there.

So we come to the. I'm going to wrap this up. Sorry I was going to try to get done on time today. I didn't have very often.

As trivial as pronouns may seem to you. Something as simple as using a person's chosen name. And pronouns.

Might be the small. Whisper of grace. That nudges them.

To put the gun down. And give this Christian thing one more chance. So there is a.

As in a lot of these things. There is recognition. That in homosexuality.

Transgenderism. This whole complex of sexual sin. Very often.

There is a self destructive element of this. Suicides. Everybody knows.

Transgender people. Have a much higher rate of suicide. Um. And that.

Says what? Well it says there is a real problem with this mindset. And so.

The idea is well. That might be the small whisper of grace. And that's why

I say. We're defining grace in a very. Very different way. Because.

Grace in scripture is a saving power. It is the kindness of God.

That leads you to repentance. It is grace. That leads you.

To faith in Christ. It's not grace. That leads you. To an acceptance of your rebellion.

So he concludes. To me this is an easy one. So we've got all that worldview stuff.

That we talked about before. All those quotes we gave from Nashville. And stuff like that. But for him this is an easy one.

And here is his argument. I think we should do our best to use they them pronouns. For the following reasons. One they them pronouns can be used generically.

Of any human and can be used in the singular. So he's saying. Don't worry about he her him.

Let's just. Let's just destroy the language. So you don't know who in the world you're talking about. And use they them pronouns.

Um. In fact Merriam -Webster dictionary not only says. That they can refer to a singular object. Including a person. But he also recently added.

That they them can refer to a single person. Whose gender identity is non -binary. I .e. they've collapsed. Just like I have.

And so I'm going to quote them as a source. Two. They them is gender neutral. It's different than calling a biological male she.

Or a biological female he. But it continues to be an abandonment. Of what they really are.

By God's. God's decree. Three. On a practical level. It might nudge people to put down the razor blade.

And not cut themselves. Actually I.

I could see a situation where someone's demanding. Z Zer. And you do they them.

That that might push them right over the edge. Right? Four. It could make non -binary or trans identified people.

Actually want to be around you. Rather than run the other way. What is the actual.

Determiner. Of whether they'll want to be around you. Or run the other way. Of course.

It's the work of the spirit of God in their lives. If the spirit of God is at work in their lives. It's going to attract them to people of truth.

Not people of compromise. So you'll notice there really wasn't anything there at all.

That gave any meaningful response. To the worldview issues. It was all.

Well it might be a nudge. It might be a whisper. But that's.

Sort of what I expected. When I picked up the book. In the first place. The initial.

Argumentation presented. Stands unrefuted. And the question becomes.

Can. You meaningfully. Talk to someone. About repentance.

And bowing the knee. To their creator. When you begin.

By being more concerned. About offending them. Than offending their creator. That's the question.

That's the question. And if your theology. Is primarily a man -centered one.

Then you're going to understand exactly what he's saying. You need to. It's the music at the invitation.

It's the. What year was that? Around 2000 I think.

I had a friend. That was taking classes at. The old Golden Gate. And I was teaching

Greek. And told me that in the evangelism class. They had been handed a list.

Of words not to use in evangelism. And one of the words. Was repentance. Because that will push.

People away. It will. Unless the spirit of God is drawing them.

Which is the only way you actually get. True conversion in the first place. So there you go.

There's a little discussion from. Embodied by Preston Sprinkle. On. Pronoun hospitality.

Are you going to be. Pronouningly hospitable? Probably not.

No. What I found interesting about his. Initial argument.

Was how he trivializes. This issue. Trying to bring it down to a level of.

The name. Like a name that you call someone. If my preferred name is

Rich. As opposed to Richard. It's accurate to call me Richard. But I prefer

Rich. And so. All these years people call me Rich. This is not what we're talking about here.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. But to try to. Bring it down to that level.

Of triviality. And yet raise it up to such a level. That it might keep somebody.

From blowing their brains out. Or slitting their wrists. That's not rational. That's not rational dialogue.

There's no logic to it. But then again. Like you pointed out. If you're dealing with.

People from a particular age group. In their lives. That looked in the mirror.

How many of us looked in the mirror. When we were 14 or 15 years old. And we hated what we saw. Something confusing and crazy.

Was going through our heads. And we did something extreme. We're supposed to grow out of that.

Supposed to. We're supposed to have parents. That step in and go.

Uh uh. No. You're not doing that. And here's why. That's what's self destructive.

He tries to point out that stepping in. Is the self destruction stuff. Is the destructive element.

And he's. Completely upside down. Well we live in a completely upside down world.

These days. But we're trying to keep it right side up. Helping you to do the same thing. That's why.

I go on 80 mile bike rides. And read books like that. This does not make you go.

Any faster. It doesn't. Um. Skillet makes me go faster.

This no. Did not make me go any faster. But. Doing it again Monday. You know what

I did last Monday right? How many miles did I go last Monday? Remember? 124 miles.

That was exactly 200 kilometers. On bike. You know what

I'm actually. Thinking about doing on Monday? I'm already queuing the stuff up. I'm getting the files and getting them converted.

And recording stuff onto. MP3. Cause that's a days worth of study there.

But um. The goal Monday. Is 241.

. 3 kilometers. I .E. 150 miles.

Rich just said you're a crazy man. Yep. Probably. But the weather looks like it'll be pretty decent.

And um. I've got my route picked out. And so like I said. We always say on this program.

I read the heresy so you don't have to. So. There you go.

I'm not sure which books I'm going to be getting to. Actually I'm going to try to read some good books. I think you need to read good books once in a while too.