Road Trip DL from Willcox, Arizona

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, coming to you from our Mobile Command Center in my last stop on the trip home. I get home tomorrow, Lord willing. It's not a super long leg tomorrow.

I could have pushed through tonight, but it's always just a matter of safety. And everybody else that was at the debates and stuff, they've all been home and are shocked that I'm not there. But remember, I went farther east, a good bit farther east after the debate series.

And so we'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second. And two things. First, the shooting in Canada is really troubling, because Western society is now so crippled, so decrepit, so without a moral foundation, that you can't even recognize that transgenderism is a fundamental denial of reality, and that to be involved with it indicates a person who is truly a danger to themselves and everybody around them.

The number of transgender shooters now is higher than any other group over the past number of years. And these people are not just sick. Maybe some of them are, but most of them are just simply in open rebellion against everything around them.

And if they'll rebel against how God has made them, they will rebel against man's laws as well. They will lash out when people—look, once you do the transition thing, you discover you can't. It's mythology.

It's impossible. It's a lie. And once you come to that conclusion, you become very angry, and you lash out at others. There seems to be a propensity to kill children, probably because that's when your rebellion started.

This guy was 12 when he decided to engage in this kind of rebellion, and that's what it is. And if you go, that's too young. One was bar mitzvah. One was a person considered a son of the law, son of the covenant.

13. So yeah, don't give me that either. So this is going to happen more often. And right now, this society, whether it's Canada, the United States, Europe, cannot deal with this because we have no moral foundations left.

And what I'm saying right now would get me brought up on charges, possibly imprisoned, certainly fined, certainly financially destroyed in Brazil, in many European countries, especially Scandinavian countries.

And I believe, if I recall correctly, it was just a couple days ago that the European Union passed some new draconian insanity on the subject of transgenderism as well. Genders are fixed. You cannot trans anything.

It's a lie. It's rebellion. It's moral insanity. And a society that cannot say that is a society that will not survive. Not for long. It may run on old moral capital for a while, but that's what we're looking at.

That's the situation that we see. So it shouldn't surprise us what happened up there. And it's going to happen again. And the amazing thing is, people will sit around going, it's the white, heterosexual, cisgendered people's fault for not just fawning all over this guy with his beard and a dress.

Given over. Absolutely given over. And don't give me, but you're a post-millennialist. You don't understand it. If you say that, just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop. Okay. Next thing, I wake up this morning and I start getting some texts about the biblical Unitarians.

Okay. They're a small group. They're a very small group. They pretty much all know each other. And I think the vast majority of them showed up in Dallas for the debate a week ago tomorrow. Yeah, a week ago tomorrow.

So it hasn't even been a week yet. And lo and behold, they are tooting their horn. So, Dr. Smith posted a tweet evidently this morning under the biblical Unitarian podcast on Friday, February 6th, 2026.

I defeated James White in a public moderated debate concerning whether the Bible teaches the Trinity. In this week's episode, Dr. Dale Tuggy joins me to discuss the six reasons why Merge is the winner of this debate on the Trinity.

I'm surprised there's only six. Why? Well, first of all, you know, getting Dr. Tuggy on, whom I've debated twice, and I'm sure they probably proclaimed him the victor of all those too, is really fair.

You know, I mean, we're talking about really examining these things carefully. And the funny thing is, here is a picture. Yeah, let me see if I can do this. I think I can. There we go. And yeah, here's one of the final images that Dr. Smith displayed during his closing statement during the debate.

Now, the debate, I've been told, will be premiered on Monday. So we've still got a ways to go. I got skipped over because other people asked that theirs come out sooner, I guess, and I didn't. So there you go.

So there were actually 10 screens of this scorecard, this scoreboard, that he put up during his closing statement. Now, I pointed out on X that, you know, I find this unprofessional. I found that unprofessional during the debate.

Amazingly, Tuggy and some of the others tried to say, well, you know, he could have done that during the debate. Because my point was, it's very obvious to me that he had this put together before he walked into that room.

So he had decided he was the victor when he put his presentation together. Because this is 10 different slides, because each thing had a different question at the top. And the Unitarians literally tried, well, he could have done that during the debate.

No, he couldn't have. And if he was, he wasn't listening to anything I was saying, which makes it even worse. So this was, and I'm going to, Dr. Smith, honestly, did you have these slides put together before the debate, yes or no?

I know what the answer to that's going to be. Even if somehow he did it, it's extremely childish. Again, I struggle with people who instead of summarizing the debates, going with the flow, helping people to understand, I struggle with people who have closing statement graphics, rebuttal graphics, cross-sex graphics, all that kind of stuff.

It's one thing for your opening statement. But after that, I think it's just cheesy, really, really cheesy. And as you'll see, on Monday, when the debate is live streamed, and I guess the term is premiered, not live streamed, premiered, I walked up and did my closing statement with nothing in my hand.

I didn't bring anything to the podium. I didn't have any notes. I just stood up and summarized what the issues were, pointed out where my opponent had failed in his argumentation. Probably made reference to a couple of the cross-examination questions where I really felt that he face-planted badly.

And by the way, like I said, over here, there was a little group of Unitarians. The vast majority of the people in that audience knew what had just happened. I stood and greeted people, signed books, answered questions for an hour and a half after the debate.

And nobody came up to me at all with any questions about what he said. Everybody was like, wow, that was good. I mean, wow, I hope he can recover from that type of thing. So the people in the audience didn't have any question about what took place.

And I don't think anybody else will either. But I haven't come online. I haven't been posting stuff. And this is called spin. And generally, this kind of spin is damage control. So I think what's going on here, to be honest with you, is they know that this did not go well for them.

Dale Tuggy is their big philosophy history guy. And Dr. Smith is their Bible guy. And I've debated all of them. And if you're a Unitarian, you can believe what you want to believe. I mean, I'll put those debates out there for anybody to analyze and to consider and to think about.

But I don't have to spin them. I don't have to do webcasts about them. I can put them out there. And I guess part of it's being reformed. I can trust the Lord with results. If you do your work beforehand, I mean, you know, the debate last year with Dr. Tuggy on John chapter one was very clear.

Only one side exegeted the text. Only one side gave a consistent presentation. And in the debate a week ago tomorrow, my presentation was not a shotgun approach. It wasn't a scattergun approach. It wasn't a gish gallop, as they call it.

I don't like that term. But where you just throw dozens and dozens and dozens of texts out, you don't really explain them. You just make assertions about them. That's what he did. That's what Dr. Smith did.

The very thing I chose not to do. Now they're saying, well, that means you didn't engage the debate. No, I did. I engaged the debate very clearly. And I said to the audience, what you're going to hear, here's what you do.

Which side is consistent in the exegetical methodologies that they use on the places where we agree? Messiahship of Jesus, virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus. How do you prove those things? What hermeneutical method, exegetical standards do you use to prove those three subjects?

That we agree on. And then who remains consistent in looking at the key texts about the deity of Christ and hence the doctrine of the Trinity? So I laid out the three foundations. I point out where our primary focus is in the equality of the persons.

And cross-examination really showed, you know, when Dr. Smith tried to hide from the fact, quite literally, that 1 Corinthians chapter 8, all of it is Paul reworking the Shema in light of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

And tried to say, oh, no, the first part of the verse, yeah, that's the Shema, but the last part of the verse, that's actually Psalm 110, and it goes someplace. It was so arbitrary. It was very clear to everybody.

I could hear people in the audience, not the Unitarians. They got quiet. But I could hear people in the audience sort of whispering to each other, wow, hasn't he ever thought about that before type of a thing?

So I presented that argument. I did my closing statement. The Q &A was Q &A. You know, I wish the closing statements would be the end of the debate personally. I don't like when you have a bunch of audience questions afterwards.

Though, in this case, he got the last question, which means I got the last response. No, no, no, no, no. I got the last question. What they did is it was sent to somebody else. So if the person got it, they got to say something, the opponent got to say something, and then the person who was originally answered got like 30 seconds.

So I had answered. He then gave rebuttal. And in my 30 seconds, it was sort of a mic drop moment. And that's how the debate ended. I didn't even realize we were out of time. But it sort of ended with a mic drop moment on my side.

And that's what a lot of people remembered. I think they know this. I think the Unitarians are aware of this. And so they are doing major damage control. They're trying to spin before the debate is even out.

So you're trying to control the narrative ahead of time. I'm not trying to do that. The only reason I'm talking about this right now, I would have given you a bland, it was very enjoyable, look forward to when it's going to be premiered.

I might have told you, you know, look for this type of topic, that type of topic, but I'm not doing entire webcasts or anything else to try to control the narrative. I don't need to. I don't need to. It speaks for itself.

That's the wonderful confidence, you know, you speak the truth, and you don't have to do the spin. So it's, yeah, it's weird to see this, to have people, I won the debate. And you haven't seen it yet.

But we're gonna tell you why I won it beforehand. And he does the same thing in the closing statement, you know, with this scorecard thing. I find it unprofessional. It's not, it's not respectful to the, to me, but okay.

It's not respectful to the audience to do that kind of thing. And quite honestly, it's childish. So would I debate him again? Sure. We should debate specific texts. We should really dive into, you know, Paul's and Peter's uses of the Granville Sharp construction, because contextually, there really isn't any question about them.

We should dive into first Corinthians chapter eight. I'd love to see him explain how in the middle of a verse, despite the fact that the words being used by Paul are derived directly from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy six, four, all of a sudden, the context changes, you know, that's what I told the audience, watch for that.

And they saw it. And you'll see it on Monday, Lord willing. That's, so yeah, it's interesting to see that kind of stuff. All right, let's see, where are we going here in the time that we have left? I don't even know.

20 minutes in. Okay. All right. Then, after I commented about that, I saw someone mentioned that, well, here's what happened, man, I forgot to grab a drink. That's not wise. It may get so bad here in a second, I have to walk over there and grab, grab a bottle of water or something.

It's not like I have that far to go, but, you know, it's real life and I'm getting dry here for some reason. Anyway, on the last program that I did from here, so again, for those of you that may not know a lot about the program, I am in our 40 foot fifth wheel on my way home.

This is how I travel now. And by the way, let me just mention this for those who don't know, talking to people at the debate again was extremely encouraging. Talk to some very encouraging people at the church.

I spoke at, talked to encouraging people at the dialogue with Yasir Qadhi. There were many times over the past two weeks where, again, and this would happen when we go to G3, this would happen, this happens a lot now that I get to be out in smaller churches and meet people.

And this way of traveling allows that. Many people, I'm trying to remember which all the different groups that were mentioned that people had come out of to faith in Christ through this ministry. And when Mormonism specifically is being referred to through me and Jeff Durbin, so I apologize.

So Roman Catholicism, Atheism, Islam, Oneness Pentecostalism, that was an interesting one, Jehovah's Witnesses, and that was all just on this one trip. And to get to shake people's hands and sometimes to see the tears in their eyes and tears in mine, that's worth this long trip home for me.

It really is. And so, you know, we did a fundraiser to buy for this thing, just buy this thing a couple years ago. And we let people know the dividing line is not a subscription program. It's not behind a paywall.

You don't have to be a Patreon member or a this member or that member, and then wait for three days before the episode drops to YouTube or something like that. I know plenty of good, solid people who do that.

And I know plenty of non-solid people who do that too. So I'm not criticizing how other people raise funds. I've explained over the years that because we do apologetics, I think there's a stricter standard that we simply have to follow, not because there's anything biblically demanded of us, but we need to be able to say what we need to say when we need to say it, basically.

It's also one of the reasons we don't do as much networking as a lot of people do. So you can say what you need to say when you need to say it. And people have come to trust us to do that. They may disagree, but they at least know what they're going to get.

So when we have a financial meeting, we just let people know. And this unit became available to us. I would still love to drive its wheels off. The truck, by the way, has been perfect on this trip. I mean, wow.

Just so thankful for that. And just awesome. And the unit had been too. I mean, the unit's very well insulated. It's got double pane windows. And so in the cold, it did great. All that stuff. I started noticing something.

It was little things. And then they become bigger things when you start putting them together. And to not go into a lot of detail, we're very concerned we have a frame issue with this unit. Now, we put these things through a lot.

I mean, we're talking 40 ,000 miles a year. And most fifth wheels, they're just not designed to do that. Most people use these things. They take them on summer vacation. They may take them to go see the grandkids.

And maybe they live in them full-time. That means they're not going anywhere. The slides stay out. The thing's not shaking. You know, I had to drive through New Mexico today. And, you know, little minor earthquakes all over the place.

Not even minor earthquakes. Sometimes really big earthquakes. And so this is our third, fifth wheel. The first one did fine, but it was small, not well designed. We went to the second one. It turned out to be a COVID coach.

It had a frame issue. And then we managed to snag this. And it was made before COVID. It's beautiful. It's big. I figured we'd pull it till the wheels fell off. But now there seems to be a frame issue.

Stuff's moving that shouldn't be moving. Let's just put it that way. So we may need to look at trading, buying something to be able to continue doing what I'm doing. And a lot of people say, just fly.

I don't get to do a lot of the stuff that I just talked to you about. When I fly, it would take a lot of money to get me back to the status that I had before to make that worthwhile. I'd frequently end up getting sick when I would fly.

You're exposed to a lot of stuff in those little sealed tubes. And I, at my age, just don't want to lose the opportunity to be in churches that could never afford to fly me out. And so we may be coming to you over the next few weeks.

We have plans and then plans to try to make this work and to get everything going properly. All of that to say, that's how we've raised money. Everybody knows we're a nonprofit organization. We get everything on donations.

Our YouTube channel is not monetized. I initially monetized mine when it first came out a long, long time ago. I think it was even before Alpha Omega had a YouTube channel. But we dumped it. And we dumped it because it seemed pretty obvious that if you monetize, YouTube is going to be examining you much more closely.

They're going to have more say over what you can say. And so the YouTube channel isn't monetized. We don't have paywalls. There's no subscription for the dividing line. People are either going to keep us going by donating to us, or we close up shop and go home.

We're not doing, I'm not monetized on X. Can you imagine how much money I could make on X? I haven't looked. I'm somewhere, where am I? Let me see here. Over 175 ,000 followers. And so if I understand it correctly, when you have all those followers, interactions, responses, clicks, everything earns you money.

And there are people making a semi-decent living as influencers and stuff like that. Not going to do it. I think it fundamentally shallows out motivation and the quality of interaction and stuff like that.

Just not going to do it. If you do, hey, it's between you and the Lord. I'm just not going to do it. Again, what we do, I need to be able to say what I need to say when I need to say it. And if I'm worrying about clicks and likes and stuff like that, just not smart enough to do it.

Anyway, so what happened, so just letting you know ahead of time, the travel fund is open and ready for business. If you go to the donate thing, there's a thing for the travel fund. And if you like that we do this, then we'll just let you know.

I mean, we may get back and it's no big deal. Personally, once you start seeing separations between walls and roofs, I think it's probably a big deal. But anyway, we'll see. Maybe it's reparable. I don't know.

Anyhow, so what happened is, I'm taking too much time here. I made a comment. Joel Webbin had fired back at Doug Wilson. Missed wildly. Joel does not understand the concept of punching above your weight.

He takes people on that, I mean, Joel has no expertise in anything at all. He has no training. He has no scholarship. He has no background. He's got nada. And he surrounds himself with people who also have nada when it comes to experience, accomplishment, anything like that.

So he's going after Doug, and he swings and misses. But then in the process, he says something along the lines of, and for all you former Canon Press subscribers, go sign up for at NXR, you know, that's his big new pop up thing that, you know, the new Christian right, which is not new, and it's not Christian.

And it won't stay right forever. Somebody always moves farther to that other side. Anyway, so I made a comment about it, about how he said to all the former subscribers and stuff like that. Well, somebody popped that out there, and people started taking shots.

Eric Kahn, of course, who takes shots at everything. I think he just lives online to take shots at people. Made comments about, well, you know, you all raise money, and you all do this. Look, if you can't tell the difference between a ministry that's been around for almost 43 years, that simply lets people know, this is what we're doing.

This is what we've been doing for over four decades. And this is what we're going to continue doing. And if you like what we're doing, then you can help support us. But we're not going to limit your ability to watch our material when we do programs on topics, debates, whatever else it might be.

And we're not going to raise money by, you know, getting clicks and likes and all that kind of stuff, because that can impact the quality of what we're saying. If you can tell the difference between that and what you're seeing right now with Nick Fuentes, and by the way, there are people asking questions.

Was Nick Fuentes paid to do that interview with Joel Webbin? And how much was he paid? I don't know about you. I'd be interested in knowing. I'd be really interested in knowing. Because obviously, Joel's popped into some support, some business support out there.

So I'd be interested in knowing. That would be interesting. But anyway, if you can't tell the difference between those, I can't help you. And it seems the crisis nationalists have lost all discernment.

They can't tell the difference either. It's sort of sad to watch. But yeah, there you go. All right. Let's see here. So, hold on a second here. I'm not sure what that is. Oh, okay. Thank you. In the AO think tank, our intrepid vice president, who I don't say enough about how much I appreciate the guys in that think tank.

I can throw stuff in there, and they're throwing stuff back at me when I need it, especially when I'm on the road really fast. But especially Chris. Chris, you are deeply appreciated. You really, really are.

You do a great job, and we're so thankful to have you. I'm not sure too many people on X realize the connection there, that you're our vice president. I think you might get some more subscribers if you talked about it more, but you'd also get a whole lot more hatred.

You'd get a lot more AI-generated videos insulting you too. You really would. But he sent me a little thing here, and I'm not sure who Fatarechi is. I can't tell. But it says, catching up, I listened to the discussion between Tuggy and Smith.

Oh, okay. So somebody actually listened to their thing. He admitted he made the slides beforehand. I thought the discussion was respectful though. Oh, okay. Interesting. So that part of the issue has been settled.

The scoreboard had been made. I don't know why Dale Tuggy tried to say it could have been made otherwise during the debate. But yeah, so my point stands. I find that unprofessional. It's disrespectful to the audience.

It's disrespectful to the person you're debating. I think it's disrespectful to the topic. What it means is you're not going to be listening to what the other guy is saying. That's why I would never, ever...

There are two people I would never dream of debating again. And that's Leighton Flowers and Jimmy Akin. Because the way Jimmy Akin behaved in Livingston, he doesn't debate. He shows up to make a presentation disrespectfully and has no interest in actually interacting with the person that he's supposed to be debating.

That's not a debate. It's just disrespect. So yeah, there you go. There's confirmation that that was, in fact, done beforehand. And I knew it was. I could tell it was. There was no way they're putting together 10 slides while I'm doing a five-minute closing statement.

Ain't happening. So back to what we're talking about here. While I was gone, a Roman Catholic, seems to be a fairly nice guy, called Catholic Maximus. You know, he actually has Johann Eck in his ID. And if you know who Johann Eck was, he was...

Well, Johann Eck was so anti-Jewish that he makes Martin Luther look weak on the subject. If you know Martin Luther's latter days, that's pretty amazing. Eck wrote one of the worst, horrific screeds against the Jews.

Massive tome that was just vile, is the only way to describe it. And so it's interesting that someone who seems to be nice asked that. Or has that in his thing. But he had sent me a...

Where'd it go?

And I'd seen it and I'd made a note to respond to it. He had dug up... Where'd it go? It was under mentions. All right, let's see if I can follow it in the thread. That's the problem. Oh, look at that.

There's a...

The Bad Trad. Christopher Barka. Oh, he's lying about me too. There's some lies right there. That's nice. I'll get him. Oh, wait a minute. And remove this follower.

Where'd it go?

Oh, who cares?

Block.

He asked me in one of your debates, a questioner asked the following, to which you replied, no, it's through his demons. I want to see what you meant. Because if Satan, a single fallen creature, described as a prowling lion by St. Peter, contempt billions around the globe at once, then why would it be impossible for Mary, united to Christ and perfected in glory, to intercede for the prayers of billions simultaneously to the same divine power?

So this was from my debate with Patrick Madrid, which was 2001, maybe. Actually, the audience question lighting was so bad, I thought it might have been, well, the earlier 1996, 97. Anyways, so it's a long ways back.

And we have been asked to be concise. So I gave a very concise answer when this guy asked the same question. He basically asked the same question. And the whole thing was, well, why can't Mary hear billions of prayers if Satan can tempt billions of people simultaneously?

And I just pointed out that we're not being tempted by Satan himself. We're being tempted by demons. If there's even any demonic activity being involved, the fallen nature is more than capable of doing temptation without supernatural inclination being provided by a particular demon.

So I don't believe the, anytime you feel a temptation, it's because of that, you're fallen. It could be, there can be instances of that, but it doesn't have to be. I mean, if you're in a pattern of sin, that pattern of sin will, it doesn't need to be exacerbated over and over again.

It's already there. Anyway, so he seems to be asking the same question. The primary reason, look, if you want to come up with the idea that Mary is supernaturally, given a supernatural capacity by God to become a demigod, to have supernatural knowledge as a resurrected glorified believer.

Now, if you want to come up with a reason for that, I can't stop you, but it's plainly obvious to me that's not apostolic teaching. It's nowhere in the Bible. You try to come up with verses. They are, I was listening to an Orthodox guy trying to come up with verses about the intercession of the Theotokos, Mary.

None of the texts that he used and none of the exegetical methodology used is what we would use to prove monotheism, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, basically anything, scriptural revelation, creation, nothing.

It was all allegory and simile. And it was painful, painful, painful, painful.

To listen to.

Really, it was, it was horrible. So, you can try to talk about the martyrs in Revelation in an apocalyptic book and try to say, well, that means they know this and that means they know that and that means everybody in heaven does this.

It's baloney, okay? Again, this is why, you know, I remember back during the great debates on Long Island, this little group of Roman Catholic ladies would come to all my debates even when they weren't on Roman Catholicism.

And, well, we just love when you debate and defend the deity of Christ. You know why? Because Catholics don't argue the way I do. I actually make it clear from scripture and not from canons and decrees or allegories or all the other kind of wacky interpretational stuff that's another reason why I'm looking at the Thomistic resourcement and we need pre-modern exegesis.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I go, have you people read any of that stuff? You ain't taking in the debate, that's for sure. And you wouldn't be able to. Nobody would understand a word you were saying and it wouldn't make a lick of sense.

So, yeah, I wouldn't necessarily go there. So, anyway, the primary reason not to believe that Mary hears billions of prayers is because there isn't a scintilla of meaningful evidence that the apostles ever taught that she did.

And, in fact, it is utterly contradictory to what it means for a believer to enter into the presence of his Lord or her Lord. The amount of sin and despair and rebellion that Mary would have to be exposed to after her death, that's not peace.

That is abuse. There is nothing in scripture that even begins to hint that we need anything like that, should desire anything like that. This idea that all grace that accrues to mankind comes from God through Mary as the neck that turns the head of God's grace, blasphemy.

It's utter absurdity. And if you really think that you can take an allegory from an apocryphal book and connect it to a phrase over here and this is sufficient basis to come up with something like this, you can believe anything.

Whatever your ultimate religious authority, you'll believe anything. And you'll call it apostolic. Oh, yeah, that's what the apostles taught. Why? Because my ultimate religious authority told me that's what the apostles taught.

And so, I don't need anything more. And then, oh, yeah, but there's, you know, this early prayer to Mary, and it's actually from the 6th century. Give it a break. We'll have to do a whole program on that one sometime.

But, well, there's something scribbled on a wall that might be Mary,.

And the desperation is so sad.

It's like, have you guys ever tried to defend the real central doctrines of the faith with this kind of argumentation against, you know, real polytheists like the Mormons or real Unitarians?

You'll get torn to shreds.

And that's why you generally don't see them doing that. So, anyway, so to Catholic Maximus, it says something along the lines of, how do you reconcile the difference in your theology? There's no difference in my theology.

I'm not sure why you didn't understand what I was saying. But we're not tempted by Satan himself. I mean, I suppose some people might be, but he's not omnipresent. He's not omniscient. There are demons.

I don't think you're claiming any of that for Mary. It still raises the question, where in the world do you get the idea that Mary has been given this position? There's nothing in scripture that even suggests it.

The woman of Revelation 12, Israel is a church, depending on, even the early church agreed with that. The Marian interpretation comes much later. There's so many places in the text of the New Testament that you guys just don't spend much time with.

At least not in its original context. You place it into an ecclesiastical context that developed many centuries later. But there's no place in the New Testament, well, I'm sorry, there are many places in the New Testament where Marian intercession would be central.

It would have to be mentioned. It never is. It's not there. You're twisting the scriptures to insert it. It's called eisegesis. And here's the problem you have. Once the spirit of God moves in somebody's heart, they'll see these things.

That's why when I see converts to Romanism, people are like, oh, I wonder why. I'm like, hey, Romanism appeals to the flesh. And so if you have people who were false converts, Rome appeals to the flesh.

It appeals to the ego. I'm in charge. I'm in control. That kind of thing. It's my free will. Same thing with Pelagianism and Provisionism and everything else. So I understand why people go there. And that's why I don't become discouraged.

Because I know when the spirit of God moves, the spirit of God's going to move. Going to accomplish things to his honor and glory if he uses us in that process, great, fine, wonderful. Otherwise, you just serve and you move on.

That's how it works. That's how it works.

So, yeah.

Somebody, I have no idea who this is.

Let's see.

This is Common Sense PhD.

Oh,.

I'm a sarcastic Christian libertarian, hate religion, love Jesus, MAGA. Okay. He wrote to me, P .S. Check out Michael Heiser. He misspelled it, Heisner. It's not Heisner, it's Heiser. Unseen Realm, Psalm 82.

It's hard to argue with biblically. And I just simply responded with, no, it's not hard to argue against it biblically. I have for 20 years and provide the link to the article that I had written, I think in 2006, on Psalm 82 and Michael Heiser's I think abuse of Psalm 82.

And haven't seen a response to that yet, but that's all right.

Okay.

Well, this is interesting. If you don't mind my being live on the air and following this. Interesting. Okay. We have a debate coming up. It's already been announced. Have we put it on the website? I haven't looked to see if it's on the website yet.

Beginning of April. It's not in front of me. So, sorry. But I'm going to be debating Jacob Hansen,.

Who is sort of.

An LDS apologist. I mean, this is, I listened to a presentation by Aaron Shavafaloff. I think I got that right that time.

Shavafaloff.

I normally say Shavafaloff,.

Because it's,.