Theodicy, D'Souza, Christless Nationalism, Webbon On The Grim Reaper

Well, greetings and welcome. We have decided this particular computer sometimes decides to take a day off without talking to anybody else about it, actually. And so I did yesterday. So we let it die last night.

Just, you know, it's I think it's from an Eastern religion. It has to do reincarnation every once in a while. And it has to just completely die. Let you shut off. Let you go to zero. And then you can charge it back up.

She's at 100 right now. She's staying there. This is the second time it's happened in. How long do you think we've had this thing? At least six, seven years, maybe longer. And it's happened twice during that time.

And it comes back and you get years more work out of it. So I'm Scottish. You just do it. So we were supposed to be here yesterday. You know, as the 33rd Psalm tells us, you know, we make our plans and then God does what God wants to do.

So I was going to be wearing this really cool necklace that Rich had me looking for something. And my guess right now is that we will find what Rich had me looking for sometime in the major process of clearing this place out after I croak.

It will be found. And whether Rich will still be around then or not, I don't know. But I think my parents, at least my dad, I think, lived longer than most of your parentals did. Am I right? 90? You have any got to 90?

My dad was 92. 92. Oh, OK. Well, then it's possible. Anyway. Yeah, that's gonna be a fun thing. And so in the process of looking for stuff, I found this necklace has the Alpha Omega logo on it. I remember it as soon as I saw it.

I can't wear it, first of all, because the microphone we're using. And secondly, because I couldn't get the clasp on that necklace to work. So I'm going to be replacing the chain on that one. But we're going to put it back into the into the into the sunlight.

But while looking around, I found. What did Stravinskis call it? Your gadget? Was that what he called it? Gizmo. Gizmo. That's right. We found my gizmo. We found my Tungsten T5. And well, there was a there was a T and then a T5.

I had both of them. And of course, we can't use any of these anymore. You have none of the connectors that you need. Even if you could find the software, you can't charge them up. I found my TI -55, my scientific TI -55 calculator.

And I'm dating myself here. All the old guys are going, oh, yeah, yeah. Texas Instruments. Yeah. And but you can't charge it back up. And who knows where the the cables are for there? I'll bet you there's some Facebook group someplace.

What do you think of people that still are using their TI -55s? But found a bunch of stuff. But I wanted you to see the we have always been techie. OK, we have always been techie here at Alpha Omega Industries.

And I want you to see the first tech that we developed. Now, it's held together with old tape and it was always held together with old tape. And I can't turn the lights off in here to show this to you.

But everybody back from the 1980s and early 90s remembers this thing. I need to silence a certain thing here because it goes crazy. Mute that baby for an hour and it'll stop doing that. This is the Trinity box.

The Trinity Illustrated Through Old Testament and New Testament Revelation

And Alan Willis helped us to make this. Alan worked in the TV ministry at North Phoenix Baptist Church. And in fact, if I recall correctly, yes, the first time we drove to Salt Lake City for the General Conference, where we left Friday night, drove through the night, got up there, changed and showered at Gerald and Sandra Tanner's basement, stood outside and passed out tracks all day.

It was me, Mike Beliveau and Dave Warner. Dave Warner. Dave never did that again because for all the training we tried to do on that drive up, that wasn't enough. We were young. We were very young. And we drove up there in Alan Willis's car.

It was a real nice Honda. And I always thought, man, if I had owned that car, I never would let anybody borrow it. But he did. And as I recall, he got a ding at a gas station in southern Utah. We had stopped at it like midnight to get gas, and this guy just ran into us.

So I didn't judge things right. And so anyway, that was Alan Willis. Alan's still around. Alan and his wife and kids have come by a number of times when I was in St. Charles and visited while I spoke there.

So he's still out there. Anyway, Alan worked in the TV ministry, and I was a volunteer in the TV ministry. I ran one of the television cameras. And so I worked with Alan. Alan took my Christian doctrines class.

And so here, you're hardly going to see this, but I'm going to turn it on. Okay, you can see that. Okay. You see a little white light up front, right? And I would talk about the testimony of the Old Testament to monotheism, and prophecies of the coming Messiah.

We talk about Isaiah 9, and we talk about how there are things in the Old Testament text that point us toward fulfillments in the New Testament, but how we're not given the lens in the Old Testament to be able to clearly distinguish the persons.

I know there are people who disagree with this. Fine, I'm giving you the B .B. Warfield perspective here, and I'm convinced of it. Anyway, and then you come to the New Testament. In the New Testament, all of a sudden, things come in focus.

And so I'd have the lights turned off, and we'd have this, you know, facing everybody. And then I'd turn it off, and in the dark, I'd turn it around, and then I'd turn it back on. And now you can see red, green, and blue.

Now, it's the same light in the box, but now you have the lens to be able to make the distinctions that are there in white light. Red, green, and blue are constitutive of white light. But now, with the Incarnation, with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, you have the lens that allows you to see with clarity what was there.

The red, green, and blue is still there. It's the same light. But now there is clarity in what you're able to see. And so Alan helped us to put this together, and I don't know how many years we used it.

And there is an election box, too. There is a—and that one, I know where that one is, too. It'd be a little bit hard to show on the camera. But there is our Trinity box. So this was 40— yeah, this was right at the beginning of Alpha Omega Ministries, so it was over 40 years ago.

And yeah, the tape looks like it's 40 years old. And I'm sort of surprised every time I plug it in and turn it on that that little lamp in there keeps working. It's 40 years old. Someday I'll switch that, and there will be some theological problems as a result.

But ran across that while looking, and I did not find what Rich needed. Like I said, we'll find it. But ran across that, I wanted to show it to you. I wanted to start this yesterday, and it's sort of heavy to start with.

And we've got a lot of heavy stuff to deal with today, at least troubling stuff, really troubling stuff in the church. But some of you may have seen the astonishing footage of the floods in Tibet, China, Nepal, I guess, that part of the world.

Natural Disasters, Human Dignity, and the Problem of Evil

It wasn't due to rain. It was due to—it's fascinating to read what happened. How a lake gets dammed up, and then it builds up, and then it explodes, and it all comes flashing down. And this is the border crossing that was simply wiped out when the flood came through.

And you can see all sorts of people running, all sorts of big buses here. It's only 41 seconds long, and so if you didn't see it, I'll play it here. You can see people running, cars trying to drive away, and you can see the flood there on the left.

And now you can see the power starting to hit the building here, and it just simply obliterates everything. I mean, there's just nothing left there. Every vehicle, every building turned into dust. Absolutely destroyed.

And I posted this on X, and let me see if I can get that back where it belongs here. And I asked a question on X. I said, how does your theology handle this? Because those are human beings who lose their life suddenly and completely.

None of those people lived. Most of their bodies will never even be found, honestly. And they were made in the image of God. And part of this is because of the Dinesh D'Souza stuff. D'Souza has now demonstrated beyond all question.

Dinesh D'Souza, Calvinism, and the Limits of Arminian Objections

By the way, night before last, I spent an hour and a half with Tony Acosta on his program. If you look up Tony Acosta, Toronto Apologetics. I'll try to remember to link it, but I won't remember, I'm sure.

But we spent an hour and a half. And I said pretty much everything I felt like I really need to say. And nothing's changing my opinion. The more he harangues, the more he posts basic, simplistic objections that have been answered 10 ,000 times before, has no ears to hear.

At some point, you just got to go, okay, there's no one serious here to talk to. So let this rage die down, as it will. And go on from there. But I have to admit, the cavalier attitude he has toward scholarship, original sources, doing his own homework.

If that extends to the other work he does, I don't think I could trust anything he ever does again. That doesn't mean that he's wrong about election stuff and things like that. But what it does do is, here's a very, very arrogant man.

Because you would think that anybody by now would realize, oh, that's right, I don't have it in front of me here. But he had just posted, and I think I have it on my phone. I don't have it in front of me.

But he had just posted, he was, again, attacking Calvinists for changing the meanings of words. And he said, I can't believe these Calvinists, they're pretending that there's a difference between absolute depravity and total depravity.

Well, absolute means total. And it's like, okay, again, basic level stuff. Calvinism 101, been discussed for hundreds of years, but this man is so arrogant, he doesn't think he needs to learn any of those things.

He can just repeat the objections that have been made over and over and again, and respond to it over and over again. Serious Arminians have to be embarrassed by this guy. I mean, the Evangelical Arminian Society must be going, oh, this is not helping us at all.

Because it is basic level stuff to understand. The total depravity means the totality of man's being is touched by sin. Absolute depravity would mean that man is as bad as he can be. They're not the same thing.

We confess common grace, we confess that in God's providence, man is never as bad as he can be. Well, I won't say never. I suppose Caligula and maybe Nero, in a few instances like that, God just takes his hand completely off and says, wow, look at what happens if I'm not restraining this stuff.

And I don't think D'Souza even has a concept of common grace or anything like that at all. Again, he's just massively ignorant and proud of being massively ignorant. And utterly unwilling to become unignorant.

That's the thing that bugs me the most. I'll just be honest with you. We are all ignorant of things. I use the example of AI. You know, there's a bunch of stuff. I mean, I understand certain things about AI.

I've been interacting with AI and trying to figure out how AI does things and seeing if you can sort of, not reason with, but dig through to the moral foundation. And I've had some success over the past couple of years as AI has been developing and pushing AI to admit that they do have a moral foundation and worldview that they honestly cannot analyze for themselves.

It had to be given to them. So there's some parts of AI that, yeah, I know something about. But the technical aspect? Know nothing about it at all. And so it would be like me railing at the creators of AI on the technical aspects, and I know nothing about it.

I'm a complete ignoramus. And if I was proud of being a complete ignoramus and still kept railing at them, that's what we're looking at with Dinesh D'Souza. It's embarrassing to him. He doesn't seem to recognize it, doesn't seem to understand it.

Someone actually has pointed out today to me, I did not know, that I guess he has a book on C .S. Lewis coming out. And Lewis, of course, wasn't reformed. So is that part of it? Is this just to get clicks and stuff like that?

I would like to have thought better of someone, but after seeing the behavior, it's pretty bad. So anyways, here he is. Again, railing about absolute and total the same thing. You know what? There's been hundreds of years of discussion about this.

You refuse to catch up on it. It is not our responsibility to educate you. If you want to remain completely uneducated and ignorant and smash your face into a wall, embarrass yourself publicly over and over again, I guess that's what you're going to do.

I tried. Like, first, second day, I tried. And got nowhere. So, there you go. Anyway, back to the video. Everyone, because of this, has a theodicy. They have an understanding of how God exists in the light of evil.

Whether it's moral evil or natural evil. Now, you could argue that that was a mixture of both, because there are situations where things like this happen, and man sort of created the circumstances that would allow it to happen.

So sometimes it's a mixture. But everybody has to answer this question. This is the thing that's frustrating about D'Souza, and then Jenna Ellis, and the Provisionists, and they're all running around doing their thing.

They figure, oh, cool, we can get some more followers. They tend to not have a positive theology that they're actually presenting and defending. They just tend to attack Reformed theology. What gives them coherence with one another is their detestation of Reformed theology.

Their detestation of Calvinism. It's the same thing in the public sphere. What keeps all those Democrats running around with their hair on fire? They hate Trump. And once that's gone, what's going to hold them together?

I don't know. But the Provisionists, and the Pelagians, and all of them, we hate Calvinism. But they never apply the same standards to their own system. Tony actually wrote to D'Souza and asked, what church are you associated with?

I never saw an answer. And I don't know. It would be nice to be able to hold his positive theology to the same standards he's using to criticize Calvinism. But you can't, because there is none. And so, I just want people to think, when you look at that video, you see those lives being snuffed out just instantly.

If you're a theist of any kind, you have to deal with the questions that that raises about your belief in God. There's been plenty of people who have said, that's why I can't believe in God, is because bad stuff happens, and that's all there is to it.

Well, okay. What's the Bible's answer to all of this? And that's what a lot of people have, they would not be able to meaningfully put together five verses. If they quote Romans 8 .28, boy, they're in big trouble.

That passage is about as reformed as you can get. But there have been all sorts of attempts to isolate God from natural evil. When I started working as a hospital chapel, and I got hired the first time, I went to Brain Christian Bookstore, and I bought three or four books on grief counseling, and stuff like that, and I read them, and I was like, oh no.

Every single one of them isolated God. God had nothing to do with it. He'll do the best he can for you now, but God had nothing to do with it. And I was already reformed, I knew that wasn't going to work for me.

And the fact of the matter is, the vast majority, well, down through history, Christians understood that God was in control. And that when a flood took place, or things like that, that was, it was called what?

It's even in our law, an act of God. It was considered an act of God. So you have to have a defense as to, then how is God good? How does that work? And, you know, the free will defense only goes so far, because that raises all sorts of questions about God's knowledge, God's decree, God's eternality, his knowledge of future events, that leads to issues regarding open theism, you have process theology, you know, there have been all sorts of attempts to find a way to basically get God out of the picture.

And, like I said last time, I have no idea how de Sousa can avoid open theism, I don't know how the provisionists do it, other than just simple, mere inconsistency, just unwillingness to go there. But they don't have anything positive to present.

Their positive theology is shallow, and doesn't answer almost any of the questions that they are so confident in asking of the Reformed position. They don't even seem to recognize it, de Sousa certainly doesn't.

But how does your theology deal with it? And how does your anthropology deal with this? That's the other thing. For many, many people, the comments, when I asked that question, had to do with the people, first and foremost, not the act of God.

And I even had to ask a few people, so, from your perspective, these people were innocent? If God had caused one of those buses, that's parked there, to have fallen off the narrow road that brought them there, and everybody on it perished, would that reflect negatively on God's holiness?

I mean, if God decides to bring judgment to bear upon a sinner in this life, at any point in time, does that denigrate from God's holiness? And see, that's one of the major issues now. You know, sinners in the hands of an angry God, Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, just doesn't even touch people today.

Because he's describing the reality of God's wrath and the fact that it could break forth upon any sinner at any point in time. Our anthropology is so weak, so sub-biblical, so sentimentalized, that the idea of God bringing wrath to bear upon somebody in this life?

Nah, he'd never do that. I'm not going to worship a God like that. That's where we are. Which means that they were considerably closer to truth back then, than we are now. Even in evangelical churches.

Even in churches that would say they preach the whole counsel of God. They really don't. And so, when I look at that, I realize that Romans 1 says, the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness of men.

And that doesn't make me any better than them. I'd like to think that some of those people running down that street, they're just about to die, are Christians. At least we know where they're going. So it's not that we're better.

It's that we haven't experienced that wrath suddenly breaking forth on us. And we live in a fallen world. And God demonstrates His wrath against sin in a fallen world. And He does it in many different ways.

And if we have Biblical eyes, we'll see it. But most people do not have Biblical eyes. They do not have a Biblical worldview. And so, when those people came to that border that day, did God know that was their last day on earth?

If you say no, I don't think you believe anything in the Bible at all. I think you've decided you're going to pick and choose what you are and are not going to believe. And I think that's horrible. But that's where you are.

You may want to pretend that yours is a Biblical position. It's not. When you see that type of thing happening, how can you give comfort to any of those families? The judge of all the earth would do right?

I mean, maybe like Job did. Tholmas did. That's not enough. There's your problem. There's your problem. If you won't accept the answers given in Scripture, if you're looking for something else, oh, there you go.

There you go. So, did God know from eternity past that was going to happen? I say yes, but the vast majority of doctrines of God being represented on X right now would make that impossible. I don't think, if you really pushed him, that Dinesh D'Souza would have any rational way of explaining how God knew from eternity that was going to happen outside of his own sovereign decree.

I don't think he has a meaningful doctrine of foreknowledge in the philosophical sense, let alone foreknowing in the biblical sense as we talked about last time. So, yeah, that was a tough thing to watch, but there you go.

Christless Nationalism and the “Christ Is King” Conference

Okay. Boy, there's so many things here. I may get to that one sometime in the future. There is a guy named Harrison H. Smith, who evidently, now I cannot play the video that I have here in my bookmarks, because of all the F-bombs that he uses at the end.

I was sent a number of screen captures from his feeds that contain the vilest of blasphemies. The conjugation of the blessed name of Jesus with torrential F-bombs. And, look, there are a lot of people who do that all the time.

There are some people who could not go 60 seconds without profanity, vile profanity. So why would I be concerned about Harrison H. Smith? Because Harrison H. Smith is one of the headliners at the Christ is King, America After Trump Christless Nationalism Conference in November.

Headlined by Alex Jones, but put on by Joel Webben. And defended by, now, pseudo-Anglican Dale Partridge. We'll talk about that in a minute. And Refuge Church, Brian Salve, Eric Kahn, who just had Webben on their program, talking about him as the most hated man in America.

And it was all just a promotion piece. They have this kind of self-defense pact where anybody attacks the one, the other will succumb to them. Sort of like NATO, but for Christless Nationalists. And so, when I threw out this guy, Harrison H. Smith, invited speaker.

He's going to speak on a platform that has a sign over the top that says Christ is King. And yet he can use Christ's name mixed with F-bombs in public. And we know Alex Jones, the man's not a Christian.

Now, interestingly enough, something did come up, and this is fascinating. I asked those questions. And Salve responded, We don't want to have a fight about this. We don't want to. Oh, come on. These are the guys always talking about the longhouse and feminism and all the rest.

They're just the big warriors. Testosterone everywhere and they're lifting the new. And someone comes along and says, Hey, you guys are a bunch of hypocrites. You're a bunch of hypocrites. You wouldn't have done anything with Alex Jones three years ago.

You would have recognized putting him under aberrance as Christ is King is the biggest act of hypocrisy to ever be put on the internet. You would have agreed with that three years ago. And now you're going to not only be there, but you all are charging people $250 a person to be there.

To watch this. To watch this profaning of the name of Christ. So don't give me the we don't want to have a fight about this. If you're going to be there, right up and do your thing. And defend it. You know you can't.

Nobody can. That's why you have to do this. You can't defend what you're doing. You know it. So that's the whole point. And so I posted that. And this guy, and I wish I could find it, but I remember enough of it.

This guy responded, I just don't know why you're so upset. All these men affirm the Nicene Creed. My response to that was, there it is. In fact, let me look here just for a second. Hold on. No, man, if I do that, I'll lose that one too.

Or will I? No, I won't. All these men, let's see, mentions? No. I want me. What did I post? History? Not bookmarks. Notifications? Mentions? Probably not. Anyway, I responded to the guy, and I said, I wasn't looking for more examples of Christless nationalism, but there it is.

I don't know if there's something on the NXR website that says everyone who speaks at our conference has to affirm the Nicene Creed. Maybe there is. But let me just ask a real simple question here. If you can, in public, and I'm not going to repeat it in public.

This is so much, I need two drinks. That's water, and that's isopure protein. The problem is, isopure protein actually makes you more thirsty. If you think that a person who behaves as Harrison Smith does in public, and uses language as Harrison Smith does in public, about Jesus, let's say, and I don't know if this guy even knows this, but he seemed rather confident about it.

Let's say he affirms the Nicene Creed. What does that tell you? What does it mean for someone to say, I affirm the Nicene Creed, and then use Jesus' name as a vile swear word in the next sentence? What does that tell you?

Because if you understand the Nicene Creed, the Nicene Creed is saying that Jesus is homoousios with the Father. He has eternally been God. That means he's your creator, and so you don't use his name as a vile swear word in the next sentence, do you?

And if you do, what does that tell us? It tells us, you don't mean what you just said. So, simply saying, I affirm this creed, but I refuse to live anything close to consistently with that creed, means what?

Well, folks, we've already experienced a thousand years of that. And that's what these guys want. That's what Christless nationalism is all about. Affirm the creed, we don't need regeneration. This is what the people that decry, Stephen Wolfe, when he decries the post-millennial hope of worldwide evangelism and regeneration, this is what leads to.

We already did this. Christendom 1 .0. I affirm the creed. I have no concern about Jesus. Leads to the nominalism, the deadness that we experienced and had something called the Oh, we had to get out of it.

What was it? Oh, the Reformation! Isn't it interesting that the Christless nationalists are collapsing on the Reformation? Oh, I know, I know, I know. We're going to look at it. Webbin, when he posted his response to Phil Johnson.

And of course, we're all praying for Phil. Bad medical news, aggressive cancer back, doesn't look good at all. Probably a mortal situation. Within days of that, Joel Webbin has the self-awareness. He thinks he's self-aware.

Which Joel Webbin is he self-aware of is the question. A lot of people are starting to point out he doesn't even talk the way he talked. He used to talk. I mean, he's just morphing all the time. Almost as bad as Dale Partridge, but not quite.

But he literally talks about how they actually believe what the Reformers taught. All of their theology. Which would include what? Sacralism. That's what he's talking about. He's saying we agree with the state church doctrine.

The sacralism of the Reformers. So we're the heirs of the Reformers. As if that was the essence of the Reformation. Guys, listen to me. Please. Joel, you are one of the most ignorant men I've ever met.

You don't know what you're talking about. You pretend to. You've glommed on to scholars and people and sat with them and made it sound like you understood these things. You just talked about going on tours to Calvin's tomb.

There is no Calvin's tomb, sir! Anybody who knows John Calvin knows that. You don't know that. The guys who sit on each side of you looking at you going, duh, don't know that either. You don't know what you're talking about.

And here's the glaring example of it. What defined the Reformation? What was the material principle? What was the formal principle? Was it sacralism? Was the state-church relationship what gave rise to the Reformation?

No, it wasn't. That was a leftover from before the Reformation that then becomes examined in later generations after the Reformation. When you turn that around, you're just demonstrating you are so blessedly ignorant.

It's astonishing. It's embarrassing. It truly is. You just wouldn't listen. I was one of the people. You know I was. You know I was. Don't follow those clicks. Don't try to get those people. Where are you now?

He has the gall in talking about the Grim Reaper coming for Phil Johnson because Phil Johnson named him by name. I guess the Grim Reaper is coming for me, too. The Grim Reaper is now controlled by Joel Webben.

To talk about actually holding the Reformerist theology when he is ignorant of the Reformerist theology. And he is the one standing around smoking cigarettes with Calvin Robinson who thinks the Reformation was Jewish.

At times, you're just left going, how can someone be this utterly absurd in their thinking? I don't know. But it's been patently obvious that this group is collapsing on Rome. It's collapsing into ecumenism.

And I've called that one for a long time. They have no reason to remain Protestant. They really don't. And in the King's Table thing that they did with Refuge Church that just came out they specifically and where was this?

There it is. Webben was speaking and he says he's given stuff about white Catholics and white evangelicals and blah blah blah. That's my point though. On these issues there is a disparity. It's not massive but there is a disparity.

But part of the reason why is because even for the white based Catholics who regularly attend Mass here in the United States globalism is inherent. I'm a globalist despite being a Catholic I'm a globalist because I'm a Catholic.

So Taylor Marshall is a friend. We had him on the show. I didn't know that. I think he's a great guy and he's a big Catholic apologist. He used to be reformed. He went to Westminster, got his Master's, all that kind of stuff.

Really sharp and really kind. James White hates him. So you know he's a good guy. But he even said when we talk about immigration it's like what kind of immigrants are we taught? And so Taylor Marshall challenged him to debate.

He will not debate. Tries to court the trads but is Novus Ordo. So he's sort of in between. But he's at least conservative. He is an apostate. I mean he made a profession of faith. He denies that faith now.

The faith that he once professed. But did you hear Webin? We're buds. He's a big Catholic apologist. Do you think Joel Webin could dialogue with Taylor Marshall and survive? He'd be destroyed. Utterly destroyed.

How long is it going to be until that happens? Good question. What about Salve? What about Khan? So let's put this really simply. Salve and Khan had no response. Because there is no response to be given.

Inviting Alex Jones and this Harrison Smith guy and putting them on a platform charging $250 to see them. A platform that has Christ as king over it. Is the most absurd thing they've ever done. It's more absurd than what they did with the Nazis because at least the full spectrum of how Nazi the Nazis were only came out sort of afterwards.

Maybe they knew beforehand. They said they didn't read the book. Khan said he read the book. He should have known. You don't have any excuses now. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. And if you sit there and say they all hate us rebuking you for pretending to be reformed and denying the reformation is not hatred.

It's just rebuking people who are extremely foolish. And warning others. And as I said in the question I asked you every single one of the members of your churches should be asking you these questions.

Every single one of them. And if they're not that tells me something's gone really wrong in those churches. Really wrong in those churches. So right along with that I forget it was in the late 90s I think when a guy that used to be a part of our circle went off into what he called reformed Catholicism.

Reformed Catholicism and the Meaning of the Reformation

Reformed Catholicism. Tim Enlow was his name. And am I recalling that correctly? And we had long, long, long interactions with this idea of reformed Catholicism. And there probably every year I just heard myself talking to myself.

Yes, now I'm hearing myself talking to myself. It sounds like it's coming from that headset over there. I don't know. You just did something and I'm echoing. Oh, sure you did nothing. You think I did it over here?

Can you hear what I'm hearing? Well, I'm going to try. There. Okay, Rich has said that is not supposed to happen. You know we went to a church, Rich and I did. We went to a church where the pastor I think did actually firmly believe in the possibility of the demon possession of sound systems and electronic devices.

And that may be evidence of it right there. I don't know. I don't really believe that. Hey, the guy back there says he didn't do nothing. I didn't. I touched nothing. He's got his hands up in the air right now like this.

But somehow this monitor started repeating everything I was saying. It just suddenly started doing it. I don't get it. I'm just going to let him sit here and dig the hole. I don't need to do anything more.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh, reformed Catholicism. We had a lot of discussions about it back then, and at least that guy was sharp and well-read and so it had some type of meaningful content to the discussion, things like that.

Dale Partridge’s Anglican Claims and Ecclesiology

So I'm looking for something else. I go to the NXR Studios website to look for something else. And I see this thing from Dale Partridge. He had a church up in... Is it Prescott Valley or Prescott? Prescott.

It is not Prescott. And we have an expert on that subject in the room right now. So it's Prescott. And he's blown that church up. Driven almost everybody out of it. And people that were there only a year ago are long gone.

Because he keeps evolving and changing and blowing in the winds. And all of a sudden because he actually took was that Baptist church history he took from me or early church history? He took a church history class from me in person in Conway, Arkansas.

We stayed at the same RV park during the class. And so he was a Baptist. And in fact he had a booth at the ReformCon, two ReformCons ago. The one before the last ReformCon. Out in Mesa, I think it was.

So he was there and he was a Baptist. Now a lot of stuff has happened. Allegations of plagiarism and all sorts of claims about places he allegedly graduated from that never heard of him and all sorts of stuff like that.

He allegedly repented of all that and took time off but never really did. And then I hear he's starting a church up in Prescott and all of a sudden he's a Paedo-Baptist. Now that happens the funny thing is when it's people that I know that do that, they never talk to me first.