Necessary Honesty, Documenting Deceivers

Welcome to the Dividing Line. Here we are. We have a lot to cover. We're a little bit early today, because, well, we won't mention how old somebody is, but somebody's birthday and family's doing stuff.

So we're a little bit ahead of schedule today, but that's all right. And here we are, got a lot to cover. I'm going to sort of try to tie everything together. It's not easy to do because there's three different topics.

Making Presuppositions Explicit in Theological Discussion

Last week, some of you are aware, we've mentioned this, that there is a gentleman, he claims to be from Nigeria. That's what the ID says in Twitter, but it says that the account's actually based in the United States and that it's accessed in the United States.

And there might be reasons for that, you know, safety reasons. You know, I'm not going to get into all that, but there are questions. A lot of people have a lot of questions about this particular fellow who writes these long, 2 ,800, 3 ,000 word posts promoting, well, that's just it.

It's some form of synergism. It has similarities to provisionism, but he doesn't really identify himself as far as where he's really coming from. So, you know, I've posted long responses and posted sections of chapters.

We offered to send him, which would not have been cheap, my books to Nigeria. Never heard anything back about that. Inquired a couple times about that, which also is a red flag, make you go, hmm, interesting.

And so finally, he chimed in on the Judas stuff. And, you know, Judas, the Jesus said, was the son of perdition and the scriptures had to be fulfilled about the son of perdition and prophecy and all that kind of stuff.

Just amazing how many people are still so wedded to a Greek concept of human autonomy that they can literally go, yeah, we're not overly concerned about scriptural prophecy being fulfilled. Got to have man's free will.

That's the most important thing. So, yeah, Judas could have chosen to be one of the good guys. Everything's cool. Again, an anthropology of neutrality, not a fallen son of Adam. The vast majority of people do not believe in original sin.

They just don't. They don't believe in federal headship. They would reject federal headship, even though that's how we receive the righteousness of Christ. But, you know, you know, holding a theology that is consistent with itself, not a real high priority in the world today.

So, he chimes in, and this is what I wrote, and it's all going to tie together, so stick with me. I said, I'd like to ask a few questions before investing even more time into these lengthy responses. Number one, what is your confession of faith?

Church membership, denomination, by what standards are you defined? To what confession can you be held accountable? It is easy to know where I stand, but very often next to impossible to know where everyone else stands, and hence impossible to hold the other side to a standard.

And then I said, number two, number one is relevant because, for example, you use the unusual odd phrase, God had to cause Judas's unbelief. Unbelief isn't a thing. It is a lack of a thing. Unbelief is the default position of the fallen sons of Adam.

So, it seems you have some major assumptions in the area of anthropology that should be laid out by your answer to number one. God did not have to cause Judas's unbelief. God would have to graciously grant the gift of saving faith to a rebel sinner for Judas to have such saving faith.

Ephesians 2, 8 -10, Philippians 1, 29. So, you're importing some kind of extra biblical anthropology that needs to be identified and defended. And so, I go on with more argumentation in regards to the stuff about Judas, and he had used the phrase, prevent his repentance, which, of course, as I said, again, you're assumed, and yet unidentified anthropology asserts itself.

Since repentance, likewise, is a gracious gift of God, Romans 2, 4, the entire phrase is truly weird. The only logical way to refer to the situation would be, God used Judas's sinful disposition for his purposes and did not, by grace, restrain him from accomplishing the betrayal.

Notice the vast difference in the phrasing and the meaning. So, I presented all this, and then I did mention, I said, finally, you know and acknowledge that I have offered from the start to send you, free of charge, my books on these topics.

Thus far, you have not contacted us. Is there a reason you have not divulged, or that you did, but I have not seen? And I've closed by saying, this is October 2nd, by the way, if you could answer these briefly and not in multi-page treatises, that would be helpful.

Okay? So, that's what I said. And I think it's self-explanatory. It's clear. It is obvious. He's using theological terminology that has background. He has traditions. He has some kind of belief system.

And if you're going to get anything out of a conversation, then putting all that out there, so that everybody knows where everybody else is coming from, so communication can take place, that's how adults do it.

You know? I mean, I know it seems to be unusual in social media, but that's sort of how adults do it. So, I wasn't sure what to expect. The response surprised me. He says, I must say, sir, none of this really surprises me.

I have followed you long enough, read your interactions with other believers, and watched some of your debates. I have seen how quickly things can become ungracious when someone persistently challenges your theological framework.

And I have seen people blocked for doing so. I had actually wondered when my own turn would come. Apparently, here we are. So, if you ask someone, could you tell us where you're coming from? I documented, you are using theological terminology, you have a view of man, a biblical anthropology, a sometimes you think it's a biblical anthropology, and it would be really helpful for everybody involved if you would identify where you're coming from, what you believe.

And this is what you get. I'm going to block him and end the conversation. I'm like, I didn't say anything about blocking him. I block lots of folks. It is amazing to me that people actually believe that on X or any other social media thing, that I have some responsibility to put up with people who I find abusive, mean-spirited, willing to say really stupid things, annoying, whatever.

That's my timeline. And I actually enjoy some of the people that I follow and some of the topics that I follow. They don't necessarily talk a lot about. I follow stuff about climate and stuff like that and follow a few people that talk about cats and stars and stuff like that.

And I just don't want my feed constantly contaminated with nasty people. And so, yeah, I have an epic block and mute list. And I will continue that. And it shocks me that people think that that's some terrible, horrible thing.

But I said nothing about blocking him. And none of those questions were at all aggressive. Just tell us where you're coming from. And here's why. See, you're using terminology that means a certain thing.

It would be helpful if we could understand where you're coming from. Here's what he says. But I owe you no confession, denomination, church membership, academic biography, or theological resume before the biblical arguments I have presented can be examined.

The phraseology he was using is not biblical. There's the thing. See, this sounds like the truly reformed who like to attack the term biblicist. This is the kind of guy they're talking about, who refuses to be held to any external standard at all.

He's using unbiblical terminology as if it's biblical and refusing to identify where it's coming from. You can't do that if you want to have integrity, if you want to actually have communication with people.

You may establish whatever requirements you wish for engagement on your X page, but scripture remains perfectly capable of judging my arguments without first knowing which denominational box to put me in.

If my exegesis is wrong, demonstrate it from scripture. When you're using non-biblical terms for your conclusions, we need to know where they're coming from because they will impact your interpretation.

It is arrogant. It is hubris. It is condescending. For someone to stand there and say, I don't need to tell you where I'm coming from. I don't need to be honest, transparent. I will not be held accountable to any standard of consistency.

It is me and my bible under the trees and that's the final standard. If I come up with a different perspective next week, well fine, I can do that. I will not be held to consistency. So yeah, that must be what people are talking about.

That's not what those of us who call ourselves biblicists actually do or believe. But I'm sure, here's an example. The number of people who rushed to his defense. It was astonishing. Very clearly, most people in X don't have a clue how adult conversation and especially scholarship function.

The idea that one side gets to be held to a standard. One side gets to be accountable. But the other side can just bounce all over the place and say whatever they want and they don't have to identify their presuppositions.

They don't have to identify their methodology. Hey, his hermeneutics has a background and he may not know it, but the terminology he uses, the methodology he uses, he's standing on the backs of people who came before him.

It's extremely helpful to know who they were, to help identify things, to help interpret the use of vocabulary. But he doesn't want to do that. He doesn't want to do that. He doesn't want to be held accountable.

Now we know Dinesh D'Souza, that's his thing. That was obvious from the start. This guy obviously knows a whole lot more than D'Souza, but he's still utterly unwilling to be held accountable to his own position.

I mean, look, and I asked and D'Souza never answered. D'Souza never answered when I said, are you obedient to the command in Hebrews chapter 13 to be under the elders, to be under their authority, to be in submission to them?

He would never answer that question. I asked it at least half a dozen times, if once. He'll never answer it. And there's a reason for that. I doubt that he is. I'll be honest. I do not believe D'Souza is a member of a church under elder rule.

I just, I see no reason to believe it. You know, the last church that I saw that he was associated with, Calvary Chapel, Calvary, most Calvary chapels don't even have church membership, let alone church discipline or anything like it.

So, you know, maybe that's where this guy is. I don't know. No way to find out and no way we're going to find out now because he has voluntarily said, I refuse to identify my starting presuppositions.

I demand that everyone else allow me to act in such a way that I don't have to be consistent. I don't have to be transparent. I don't have to be accountable. I am, I, it's just me and my Bible and I don't have to worry about anything that came before me.

I have not been influenced by any of that. You know who that reminds me of? I couldn't help but think about it when I first read this. Dave Hunt. Dave Hunt. When we did that radio interview, he called it a debate.

It was an odd debate. I was actually interviewing him. I was filling in for Marty Minto on KPXQ. And when we started talking about John chapter 6, he gives me his understanding of John chapter 6 and it has nothing to do with the text.

And I said, Dave, that's, that's just your tradition speaking. And remember what his words were? James, I have no tradition. I have no tradition. And I think the very next dividing line we did, I think the very next one, I said, I said something I've repeated many times since then.

A person who says he has no traditions is a slave to his tradition. And you have no way of examining it. Now, so for everybody who, you know, just went crazy, you know, defending this idea that you, you don't have to identify what you believe.

Just throw it all out there. I'm sorry, but you're not an adult. You don't engage in the adult world where there are certain things you do if you want to be understood by others, if you want to actually accomplish something.

Hayden Carroll's Disguised Identity at Frank Turek's Event

But a lot of people, that's not how they are. Let me give you an example of exactly how this works. Now, I wasn't looking for this, but lo and behold, it came along. I think just yesterday now, or maybe the day before.

Yeah, I think it was just yesterday. Yes, it was. Jeff Durbin sent me this. Evidently on the 28th September, so a week ago Monday, I think, Frank Turek was in town at Arizona State University. Now, I didn't know about it.

And one of the professors out there that I've had some interaction with let me know that he was in the audience and he saw this interaction. And so Hayden Carroll, the LDS influencer, semi-apologist guy, who's put out a self-published little book.

When I first looked at it, I'm pretty certain it said it was 69 pages. Now it says it's 73. I don't know what the edition is. But anyways, it's a self-published book from Amazon. You know, you take your blog articles, you send them to Amazon, boom, you got a book.

And it's called The Creation Dilemma with the subtitle, Does the Triune God Truly Will the Greatest Good of Every Person? And when I saw this, I took that subtitle and I posted it and I said, allow me to answer.

No. The whole thesis is based on an aberrant understanding. Does the Triune God truly will the greatest good of every person? I'm sure that there have been Christians who've talked about God wanting the greatest good.

But I have this thing called the Bible. And I remember to bring it in. I said last time I had this one, it's one of my Jeffrey Rice ones, but this one's going to stay here in the studio, this studio anyways.

And my Bible tells me all sorts of stories that make it impossible for me to answer that question in the positive. The most obvious one that I've used before is, okay, are you telling me, you know, is this sort of like the, you know, living your best life now theology, you know?

Does he think that we all believe like Joel Osteen or something like that? Ask the Israelite who's standing on the far side of the Red Sea, having been miraculously delivered from Pharaoh and his armies by the parting of the sea.

As they stand there and watch that sea coming down and crushing and killing Pharaoh's army, horses, everybody else in that water. And you tell me what the answer to this question is. Did the Triune God will the greatest good of every soldier who died in the Red Sea?

In the same way he willed the good of the Israelite that he delivered. How about the Amorite high priest that I keep making reference to, who is wiped out by the invading Israelite army that is under command from God to wipe out every man, woman, and child.

I'm pretty certain that Hayden Carroll does not believe that that happened. He has rejected the testimony of scripture at that level. And eventually, if he has any consistency in his life at all, he'll have to reject all of it.

All of Mormonism, the Hawaiian yards, because there's a whole lot in the Book of Mormon that's pretty objectionable too. But anyway, so yeah, I had responded to this as soon as I saw it and said the answer is no.

That pretty much ends the argument as far as, you know, his idea is this puts things back in creation and evil's back in creation and why would God create people that he knew was going to end up going to hell.

And again, my answer to all this is Hayden Carroll has no place in this argument. He can only argue as an atheist because his God has nothing to do with any of this. His God has no control of any of that.

His God became a deity subject to external powers that he did not create. So he's a creature. He's an exalted creature, but he's still a creature, just like all the rest of them. So he's got nothing to offer here.

He's got nothing. He can't explain the origin of the universe. He does not have a God that can create all things. He only has eternal matter and eternal principles, but where it all came from, who knows?

Mormonism doesn't know. Can't answer. Just a mystery. Just a mystery. So this pops up and I didn't know where it was, but now I do know. It's from Arizona State University a week ago Monday. So a week ago yesterday.

And is that correct? Yeah, that's about right. Anyway, here's Hayden Carroll and he's asking a question of Frank Turek. Now I want you to hear, hopefully this will work real well, I want you to hear the first section of this because this is what ties it all together.

Why do you need honesty and transparency from the guy from Nigeria in a conversation about Judas? Judas comes up in this too, interestingly enough. Why do you need that? Well, here, let's see.

Yes, sir. Hi, my name is Hayden. How are you? Hey, Hayden. How are you doing? Good. Thanks for being here. Big fan, big fan of Charlie Blake. Thanks for what you've done. Frank, I appreciate your book, Stealing from God.

Really, I appreciate your presentation. I'm a believer. I recently read a book that kind of goes after the classical view of God on the problem of evil, but the book, it's called The Creation Dilemma, and it actually puts the problem of evil before creation itself.

Okay, now, did you catch that? I just want to make sure you catch that, okay? The guy is doing audience Q &A with Frank Turek. The camera hasn't showed Frank yet, but it will, and some other guy that I don't know.

He stands up there, compliments him, you know, stuff with Charlie and things like that, and then he says, I'm a believer. What does that communicate to Frank Turek? What does that communicate in this context?

What was it meant to communicate? What was Hayden Carroll attempting to do as a Mormon, as a self-professed Mormon? Not even a Neo-Mormon. He's not like Hanson. He still holds, last I heard, to Orthodox LDS theology, the King Follett discourse, things like that.

When you say in that context, I'm a believer, what are you doing? He's hiding who he is. He's communicating something to Frank Turek. He's putting his question, and then notice what he says, I've read a book called The Creation Dilemma.

He's the author of the book. What author writes a book and goes, I read a book called The Forgotten Trinity, and you know, he's being deceptive. He's a deceiver. He is deceiving Frank Turek. He's deceiving the audience.

The professor that was there said, yeah, that's how everybody understood what he was saying. Everybody, nobody was saying this guy's a Mormon, nothing like that. He is deceiving Frank Turek, and so he's putting the question into a context other than it would be put into if he was honest.

If he was honest and said, my name is Hayden Carroll. I'm LDS. I recently wrote a book called The Creation Dilemma, where I, as he advertises it, and he's pushing this clip all over the place right now.

I mean, I've seen three or four different versions of it. One of them, he says he debated these guys. In case Hayden is a little confused, this isn't a debate, okay? You're not debating anybody here. You are an audience questioner at someone else's event that you crashed and lied to him about who you were.

That's what you're doing. That's not a debate. You are being deceptive when you make that kind of thing, and then he has an advertisement for the book. I put a screenshot up on X with an arrow pointing down to this, and he identifies the book as debunking the trinity.

So a 70-page booklet, self-published, that debunks the trinity. Wow, we're impressed, aren't we? Oh, he's certainly impressed with himself, evidently, but it debunks the trinity. So just watch what he's doing.

He's got the phone there, and I've read this book, it puts the problem of evil back before creation. I'm a believer, and I need your help in answering this question. He's lying through his teeth. That's what this is called, folks.

All of you who have been saying, oh, come on, he's just promoting his book. What is wrong with you people? I guess Rich says there's some bozo that keeps following him on X that posted a picture. I didn't see it.

I've obviously blocked this guy a long time ago, but somehow got pictures of me holding up my books. Not in this context. I even said to a guy, well, you promote your books, and I said to the guy, I said, excuse me, if you want to go show where I crash someone else's event, lie about who I am and who wrote the books to try to promote them, please do so.

Obviously, crickets, because I've never done that, and I wouldn't. That's what Hayden Carroll does. This man has no honor. He has no integrity, and he's a liar. He's the one posting this stuff. This isn't someone who's done a secret, oh, we found Hayden Carroll, and look what he did.

No, and so I posted, yesterday morning, as soon as I saw this, I posted the screenshot to him, and I said, Hayden, is this you lying to Frank Turek? Crickets, the day goes by, I see him posting other things.

Hayden, you're posting on X, you've seen this, is this you lying to Frank Turek? Then I write to Frank Turek, who of course ignored me as well, he won't respond to anything I say, I wrote to Frank Turek.

You realize that the guy posting all this stuff is a Mormon who was lying to you. No response. Until this morning. Until this morning when Hayden Carroll goes, thanks for promoting my book on your channel.

So, he knows, he is repentant, he thinks this is cool, so the man has no integrity. Zero. None. He has shot his own character in the head for the service of a self-published book. There's Hayden Carroll.

The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and Molinism

So, you want to hear the argument? All right, we might as well hear it. I have just a line from the author, can I just read it to you? I just have a line from the author, which is me. Oh my goodness, how do people do this?

How can you be so…. I….

It says, God infallibly knows before creating John that if he creates John, John will freely reject him and ultimately experience eternal conscious torment or hell. God is under no obligation to create John and could simply refrain from creating him.

Why, and here's the question, why would a perfectly good and loving God choose to create John rather than not creating him? Because if John doesn't exist, this is an entirely different universe with a different result.

Right, but the book, the author basically says if God can do whatever he wants, how is it loving to create someone? And he grants free will actually, right? He's not saying that God causes hell, he's not saying John didn't earn hell, but he's saying if God loves his creation, including John, how is it loving to create somebody knowing that they're going to end up being eternally consciously tormented?

I wonder if it takes extra energy to refer to yourself in the third person like this. He keeps talking about the author. He says this. I mean, for me, I would know I'm lying, and so I'd feel badly about that, and I'd be afraid there's going to be someone who's going to end up saying, he's the author, you know, something like that happening.

But I wonder, what is the thought process that goes through somebody's mind when they're being deceptive like this and trying to look so earnest? Because what he's doing is he's trying to argue his point by going after someone who hasn't seen the book, there wouldn't be any reason why anyone would, and hence isn't prepared for his particular spin on things, and he knows he's got somebody recording this.

He didn't get this, I don't think he got this off of their feed. I think he had, he brought somebody else with him and said, okay, you ready? You got your camera going? All right, here we go. Watch for when I get up to the microphone, and then we're gonna hit this thing.

So he knows exactly what he's doing. It's self-promotional, it's deceptive, it's dishonest, it's lying through his teeth, and he doesn't care. He thinks it's, he's patting himself on the back, he's thinking, this is great, this is awesome.

What does that tell you? I didn't...

It'd be more loving to simply refrain from creating because God doesn't have to create. No, because then this is an entirely different universe, and is God obligated not to create at all if some people freely choose to reject him?

Because no matter what universe God creates, if he creates free creatures, some are going to reject him because they're free, and even God can't force free creatures to do what he wants, otherwise they wouldn't be free.

So the question is,.

What are we hearing here? We're hearing Molinism. Not well expressed. Frank struggles with his Molinism, but that's what you've got. You've got Molinism here, and Molinism makes no sense. We've debated it, you can go watch it.

So yeah, the response is not a good response, it's not a biblical response, it's a bad philosophical response. So you've got a deceptive Mormon getting a bad philosophical response. It's basically what you got going on here.

Is God obligated not to create because no matter what creation he makes, some people are going to reject him? And my answer is no, he's not obligated not to create. In fact, people who get justice, that's actually a good thing.

Justice is a good thing, grace is just a better thing. So if you know that somebody's going to go to hell, it's better to create them than not create them? They're freely choosing that. Right, yeah, the book grants that, but the question is, how is it willing the person's ultimate good to create the person knowing that they're going to choose hell?

He grants free will. Because they're getting what they want. They're getting separate.

Okay, now, that's the front cover of the book. Does the triune God truly will the greatest good of every person? He's just quoting himself. This is his new argument, and he knows he can get, he just got Frank Turek to buy the presupposition, which is not a biblical presupposition.

And when you have people who have primarily a man-centered theology, when I say man-centered theology, I'm not saying they don't have a God, anything like that. The purposes of man are foremost. Not the glory of God, not the demonstration of his power, not demonstration of his holiness, not the demonstration of his character, none of that stuff.

In other words, pretty much almost all non-reformed expressions of Protestantism. Okay, they're going to buy into this. He didn't even catch it. It should have been immediately, well, wait a minute, what do you mean ultimate good?

What do you mean by that? Because a lot of them would say, yeah, God does want your very best life now. And it's like, no, actually, God in his sovereignty chooses to use condemned sinners to his own ends in his own glory.

And that's not popular, okay? You're not gonna get all the big clicks and be invited to the big conferences, but that's what that book over there teaches so plainly and obviously, place after place after place after place.

I mean, do we just have to start going through the names of the kings that Israel destroyed as they took over the promised land or the Israelite kings themselves who then were used to demonstrate God's power and ability and God's righteousness and holiness?

I mean, it's on every page. It's on every page. But it's not popular. It's not popular today. Man-centeredness is popular today. And so there you go. So there's that. So can we see, I'm not gonna be playing any more of this, can we see why it is absolutely important, why it's absolutely central to be honest and upfront about where you're coming from?

If Hayden Carroll actually wanted an answer, then he would have been honest in how he approached Frank Turek and at least given Turek an opportunity. Now, I don't think he would have gotten a really solid answer, I'll be honest with you.

I mean, I've criticized Frank and his apologetic stance, challenged him to debate apologetic methodology, reform theology, these types of things. He won't, he will not even respond. You know, he says things about Roman Catholicism, he just not gonna do it, not gonna do it, not gonna touch it.

So I don't think he would have gotten a whole lot different response, but there was no way that Turek could give any kind of meaningful response because the man asking the question is an inveterate liar and the truth about where he's coming from was not presented to him.

You see what I'm talking about? So in any conversation, one with the guy from Nigeria, you've got to know where he's coming from to be able to interpret his words properly. What does he mean, cause Judas' unbelief?

There is an entire anthropology, there's an entire theological language lying behind that terminology, and he's trying to say, I'm just reading the Bible. No, you are not. Stop lying to yourself. Stop lying to yourself.

There's something more going on there, and maybe if you'd come out and tell us, we could identify what it is, and then you'd actually be able to have a meaningful conversation. But that's not what's going on, is it?

No. So, right along those lines then, we then had this. Now I'm not sure if this is gonna, eh, it's close enough. Jacob Hansen, and you know, Jeff Durbin had tried to get something together with Jacob Hansen and Hayden Carroll.

They used to work together. I'm getting the feeling they don't anymore because the theological split. Jacob Hansen's a neo-morm, so he's not really a Mormon as far as his doctrine of God is concerned.

He still pretends to be a Mormon, but I'm sorry, if you do not believe what Joseph Smith taught in the KFD and the Sermon on the Plain, Sermon in the Grove, and if you don't believe what was taught as LDS Orthodoxy in Utah until Blake Osler showed up at BYU, basically, you're not a Mormon.

Get a different name. You're just causing confusion. If you can hear Joseph Smith, your founding prophet, saying, we have imagines to pose that God was God from all eternity, I will refute the idea and take away the veils that you may see.

If you can just throw that out and say, yeah, not so much. You're not a Mormon. Just stop calling yourself. Come up with a new name. Call yourself an Oslerite or a neo-morm or something, but just be honest about where you're coming from.

Jacob Hansen's Use of Deuteronomy 22

Well, Jacob Hansen's a neo-morm. And so he doesn't buy into that stuff, and if you want to see how that works out, see the debate we did in Ogden back in April. But evidently, he's doing one of these Jacob Hansen versus 10 things, and I may be doing something like that.

I don't know. Possibly in a few months, actually. Maybe. We've been invited. I've been invited to do it. Jeff's been invited to do one, too. This looks like it was online, which, I don't know. I don't know how well that would work, to be honest with you.

I think in person's a whole lot better for something like this. Online, I think, can get really confusing as to who's saying what to whom and backgrounds and things like that. Anyway, so this popped up over the weekend, too.

And so I'm only going to play, I think, the first two minutes, because then it switches to another topic. But let's just listen. You don't ever see Hansen. You've just got his voice, which is what.

I found weird. But anyway, here's the clip. Okay, let me read a quick verse. So I want you to listen to this. Now, you believe God is all loving, that he is just, that he is merciful, all of that. I agree.

But then we have to reconcile that with your interpretation that this was all from God directly. In Deuteronomy 22, it says, If a man takes a wife and after sleeping with her, gives her a bad name, saying, I married this woman.

But when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity. If the charge is true, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house, and there the men of her town will stone her to death. Do you believe that God commanded those words to be written so that people would know in the Old Testament times that they should stone, beat a woman to death with stones if she wasn't a virgin?

What is your question again?

Do you believe God commanded that? I believe God is just. I believe he's righteous. And I believe he judges sin. And sins that deserve to be judged, I think, are going to be judged. And I think that's.

Just, it is just to beat a woman to death with stones for not being a virgin on her wedding night.

I think if that is the way God chose to do it, and I think if that's what the Bible says, then I think you have to remember who, what was sinned against, right? If we sinned against an infinitely holy God, then the consequences of sin need to be serious.

And so I think God's message that he takes sin very seriously. And though in our modern day, we don't perhaps like the way that God judges sin, I'm not going to argue with him on how he judges sin. If it's against his command and his holiness, then that is the way he judges sin.

I'm not going to argue.

With him on that. Okay. Deuteronomy 20. Okay. So go ahead and take that down. Now, hopefully, and these guys didn't really have an opportunity. I mean, this is out of left field. This is not the type of thing that's normally presented.

Hansen was very deceptive in his citation of the text. He skipped most of it. And I responded on X and he wrote to me, and I was going to bring it up. It might still be close here. But his response to me that caused me to say to him, you are a deceiver.

Was, I mean, I'm just scanning here really quickly. A lot of this sort of got taken over by other stuff here. I'm not seeing it. Anyway, the way he put it, there it is. Ah, found it. Ah, yes. Thoughtful faith, October 1st.

It was the day before. Thoughtful faith is at Thoughtful Saint is Jacob Hansen. So you really think at one time, God wanted men to beat their wives to death with stones if they were not virgins on their wedding night?