Mega DL! Lots of Topics, Including P&P, Proud of Multiple Abortions, Muslim Arguments, KJVOnlyism

Internet Troubles and a Few Topics for Today

Greetings and welcome to the dividing line one of those programs where we're still working with our internet service provider. Well, we're just trying to find people at the internet service provider who actually know something about the internet.

That's that's the tough part these days. So anyway Just recording the program so we're not going to be talking about the channel or anything going on on Twitter though. I will be showing you some some tweets and things like that.

We've got I Don't know half a dozen different topics to to look at today. So we're not going to spend a whole lot of time on any one of them. But that means we'll have a little bit of something for for everybody at some point along the line.

If I start off with some of the silly stuff I Don't I don't understand what this was. I saw this last night. It's a tweet from those Wonderful purveyors of peace and unity and edification on the on the net called pulpit and pen.

And it says if James White can't handle inner faith dialogue Without acting like a child he needn't engage in interfaith dialogue. What is inner faith dialogue mean does that I Guess I guess that means Be I think he means intra faith, maybe I don't know.

But I.

Guess. It's what I'm talking to myself. So sometimes I use a childish voice when talking to myself. Okay, I Think this was about the fact that on the last program We were talking about the news Division.

Wink wink. It was the wink wink of the news division. Which I wouldn't have to go wink wink if they just actually used the right names. Bill O 'Reilly has not gone to work for pulpit and pen. No, no, that's there's no connection there at all.

No. So but my my main reason for showing this Aside from the fact that I hadn't seen it until somebody else retweeted were the comments. The comments were great. Toby Logsdon, I like you guys, but it's childish to post stuff like this.

Seriously. You just made yourselves the pot calling the kettle black. Eternity matters unfollowing you guys post some good stuff, but get petty and stupid not to mention hypocritical with things like this.

Pete Enns and the Nashville Statement

Darren. Incoherent. So it's like yeah, I didn't even have to you know, even respond is just so like yeah fine, whatever. There you go. Speaking of interesting weird things. Anyone remember Pete ends. We used to we used to talk a little bit about Pete ends years ago.

When.

Westminster very wisely appropriately properly got rid of Pete ends Because Pete ends was so plainly and clearly to all of us that were observing anyways Departing from the once-for-all deliver the Saints faith and heading off into the Into the woods of modern-day leftism theologically speaking well, he's he's continued going that direction and he decided to post a Satirical response to the Nashville statement and of course I you know, I I look at something like this and What I see is it's so sad because Pete ends started off well and isn't finishing well as far as What he's trying to do is to in essence Make the Word of God incomprehensible like it cannot actually communicate something with clarity to The modern situation or or context like that.

It's it's sad to see but just a couple of things He has here and this is all it's just all from him. His website's called Pete ends the Bible for normal people You can always tell when someone has left the building Because they always want to you know, throw rocks back backwards at where they once were We affirm the God having given us minds rejoices when we use them we deny the God intended scripture to relieve us of this responsibility as if there was that's the amazing thing is as if someone was actually suggesting this in the Nashville statement, which is You know, no matter what you else you say about it evidences Clear thought and Consideration and and things like that We affirm the scripture by God's wisdom was written by actual people in actual historical context for actual contextual reasons.

And that such contexts are central to the proper biblical understanding and application, which of course everybody believes. We deny a scripture which reflects the wisdom of the Creator is simply sitting there waiting to be used Irrespective of its various contexts don't know anybody don't know anybody.

That that would say otherwise. Certainly no one in the Nashville statement would say anything even Close to that. So you just sort of wonder is that just taking up space so you have a certain number of articles.

We.

Affirm the humans who are creating a God's image who are endowed with powers of reason analysis and an irrepressible curiosity. Have thereby made enormous strides and are staying the cosmos the nature of humanity and the wonders of the world around us and that many.

Who have contributed these strides our fellow believers in Jesus? Not sure really what that means. We deny the scripture when handled in willful isolation from or dismissal of such strides is faithful or pleasing to the Creator.

I.

Wonder where the part about sin rebellion that stuff. Sort of sort of missed that it doesn't seem to find really much of a place in most leftist understanding of things. We affirm the Christian faith though a broadly unified and distinct tradition.

Is.

Both historically and globally not monolithic in its expression and that therefore truly got true godly wisdom is found in humility and dialogue among the manifold voices of the Christian faith,. I wonder if you would say that about monotheism.

Trinity deity of Christ resurrection. One wonder where the line is drawn. We deny that though. It's a free country. I guess this is just a statement for folks in the u .s. A small number of largely white males.

What does that have doing anything? Living in one moment of the human drama are in a place to make statements that claim abiding normativity for all Christians for all time. Well this here you here you really see it from Pete ends perspective.

We can't make any type of statement that is binding for all of humanity. God's Word is not sufficient to do that. So the Bible for normal people is basically don't worry about what the Bible says anyways, because it doesn't really matter.

We can't really know it's just this hyper skepticism stuff because he's become a hyper skeptic. It's it's sad to watch but there you go. We affirm that all our theological utterances because we are not God but mere humans are contextually generated and bounded.

So.

You know, the Word of God is insufficient. We can't know it well enough. We can't apply it in the modern situation. We've been left just sort of mumble along just like all the other religions of the world.

We deny that any of our theological utterances can claim plain fact neutrality and therefore reflect unfiltered the divine mind. So, you know if God God says that he created all things. Well, well, you know, we have that has to be contextualized.

We don't really know exactly what that means, you know. You know it you're left with this religiosity. That is that has no there's no revelation. There's no authority. There's no message. It's it's sad to see we affirm the human experience is rich and complex presents us with numerous Ambiguities and therefore defies simple categorization.

We deny it the Creator has assigned to us the task of sorting out and simplifying the richness and complexities of the human drama. Which I guess is the way of saying we we deny the Bible actually addresses God's purpose in the creation of men and women gender roles marriage.

Yeah, it's addressed all over the Bible. But you know, we don't we don't really know what the Bible says, you know. We just we just we have to be very skeptical. Then this this is where it gets really weird.

We affirm that the binaries of Genesis 1 which includes animals restricted to living on land in the sea or in the air. Reflect by the will and wisdom of God ancient ideal conceptions of cosmic order. We denied the binaries of Genesis 1 teach that amphibians mammals that fly live in the ocean to lay eggs or any other Creatures of God's creation that do not fit the Genesis 1 binary are outside of God's wise design.

I Guess it's this. You can understand when people Fall off into liberalism. They forget what they once believed and they they they they mischaracterize what people once believed. Any conservative Christian understands that there is a difference between The the books I have on my shelf in my office that describe.

All.

Sorts of aspects of biology and The categorization of life, you know. Into families and classes and species and and genuses and so on so forth. We all those of us who actually, you know Believe the Word of God continue to believe the Word of God believe in words like inerrancy and things like that that Pete ends Does not believe in anymore.

We know all about that and and we're not looking to Genesis 1 to give us specific stuff like that. And we recognize that it wasn't the intention of the writer of Genesis to utilize modern concepts like that.

But it's it's much easier once you've jumped ship to you know, just make it look like what you jumped ship from was silly. We affirm that God is the infinite and inscrutable creator, which is itself affirmed in Scripture.

I'm not sure how you'd know that given your viewpoints, but and therefore we should be careful to claim to be speaking for God as if nothing could be more obvious and Of course the problem being but if are you saying that the God who made us?

Capable of being clear what we're saying himself can't be clear in what he's saying. We deny that God's voice is easily easily replicated in our own nobody nobody at the national statement. We're just talking about easy replication.

We affirm the public statements are largely written for the already convinced are therefore belligerent by design too often passive-aggressive in tone and therefore Our colossal waste of time not to mention Make it that much more difficult for others to bear witness to Jesus.

We deny that Jesus is rooting for us to write more statements. Sign Pete ends White male my dogs gizmo Miley and Stassi my cats snowy marmalade and Baron my rabbit thumper and I'm sure a lot of other people.

Well, thank you Pete ends For your deep contribution to to the subject of things Go to something a little bit more uplifting. A couple days ago, I heard our molar mentioned this and It's just sort of struck me.

I wanted to mention it. I wanted to say something about it last night. I was actually Was it last night. Yes, I was I I spoke from First Corinthians chapter 15 at church last night didn't record it but anyway.

And.

There's a section there.

That is.

Quoted verbatim in handles Messiah and I couldn't help but sort of hear the music in the background as as I was reading that particular Section and you may have heard the news that China Has banned handles Messiah, I Guess up till now private orchestras or things like that could have holiday Music and could could play the Messiah.

But now the official Chinese stance is that the Messiah? Is to be banned and cannot be played in China, which of course will mean it'll be played more often in China Played before and with more interest, but What it made me think of is you might go.

Well, why why would they do that? Well, it's it's obvious and It made me think of this. This is from back in 2010 so now it's been seven years. Well, this that's when it was posted. It may have yeah, that's been probably right around 2010 and This is This is a random act of culture.

It's one of those things where remember it was popular for a while where you'd have people sort of show up in a in a shopping mall or something like that and Then all of a sudden everybody get together and and do this.

Remember this one. You're not showing this.

There we go, sorry about that. Nope.

I'm sending it.

You said no, so I said no. We're trying to get it for you. Hold on a second. I'm not sure.

My system says it's doing it now as you watch this. I I'm well aware of the fact.

That many of the people in this choir Are not Christians. They may not be thinking about the meaning of the words, but the reason the Chinese Will not allow this to be sung in China Is because of what it's saying and he shall reign forever and ever and it doesn't have any borders.

There are no limits Here anything like that at all and that's why they're banning it. Because it doesn't you know, as long as the human voice is singing it. I'm awful glad to hear it. And I'm sure it's just as beautiful in Chinese though.

I bet you it's quickly a pain to translate Into Chinese and make it fit the music but it's the message of.

The.

Lordship of Christ Messiah ship of Christ. Communicated in some of those beautiful music that's ever been penned by man. It truly truly truly is an amazing thing, but you can't do it in China anymore.

So I would imagine that some of our Chinese brethren this Christmas season will be Singing it quietly in the corner of their home or maybe listening to a mp3 recording. They have hidden on a thumb drive in the top of a closet someplace or something.

I don't know. But it is it is beautiful. So, yeah, I just made it just reminded me of that and just the the fact that You know when a government Says you can't sing that that's it. That's a government in fear a government in fear right there.

It really really Really is. Um, I had said I was gonna play this a while back and.

I.

Didn't because we got involved with a bunch of other stuff so I need to try to fix that. Unfortunately, I've got to go all through this thing all over again to Get it to find the right thing. And there we go.

I.

Was directed to a comment from the worldview apologetics conference 2017. Now I probably asked with you looking at the picture here. The screenshot other than William Lane Craig. I don't recognize anybody I really don't.

I have no worth the idea who who anybody else here is. But it's the audience question and the response that is that is offered. Which once again makes us all sit here and go. Yeah. What what's what's the problem here?

William Lane Craig asked a question from the audience. Let's let's listen in and see what what happened.

Is for a William Lane Craig. So when you're talking about the problem of evil and suffering if you Make the assumption that free will does not exist. How would you go about approaching that problem? If if we make what assumption that free will does not exist.

Oh I'll leave that up to the Calvinists.

Okay, so remember remember when When Craig was having that debate with Christopher Hitchens the late Christopher Hitchens and Hitchens was hitting him up about false Christian Faiths and things like that.

And the only thing that Craig could come up with was Calvinists and We were told after that. Well, he was just Come on. He was just sort of kidding or it was just like a thing of at the moment or you know.

Various and sundry excuses were offered. Well, this is 2017 and If you don't understand that Calvinists first of all believe that God has free will that God has autonomous will. And if in 2017. By now you don't seem to understand that for example if you look back there at those those two brown and red volumes the works of Jonathan Edwards, which I can no longer read because the print is too small, but If you've not read Edwards on that subject and his rather in-depth discussion of the nature of the will and What freedom of the will means as a creature.

The difference between creaturely free will and divine free will between an autonomous will and a creaturely will. What the bondage the will means historically going back to the time of the Reformation itself.

If you can't do all of that in 2017. Well, what can I say?

And.

There are all sorts of works on theodicy The justification of God's existence in the light of evil from the Reformed perspective that are in-depth. But unfortunately as we saw in our review of his comments on the Saiten Bruggenkate radio discussion of presuppositional apologetics Doesn't seem that he has any interest whatsoever in even investing the time to hear what Calvinists have to say let alone to interact with it meaningfully and As a result he By definition, I understand now he's looking at the doctrine of atonement.

By definition, you're gonna have an extremely limited Perspective expressed there because there's just there's just no interest in in. Listening to the entirety of the perspective listen to a little bit more of the comment here.

Um, that's a huge problem. It seems to me that in the absence of free will It's almost inevitable that you make God the author of sin And and the author of evil which I. Now what does that mean?

Think think about what think about what? Dr. Craig has just said. What he's saying therefore is that in his worldview? He explains the existence of evil solely on the basis of the existence of man's Ability to bring evil into existence.

So in other words, there is something that God didn't bring into existence. That's outside of God's creative activity and it finds its origins solely in the creature. Which again then we start asking questions about Molin ism and going I.

How does exactly that work? I mean you.

Obviously.

The Molinistic perspective is that.

God.

God's range of choices in creation are limited by his middle knowledge by the by the will of. But well middle knowledge. We don't know where middle knowledge gets its knowledge of what men will do. It's that it's that vague shadowy card dealer back in the background that somehow Determines.

Who is.

Going to do what? Without actually there being a decree of creation of the creation of those things. It's just it's such a mess That it's it's it's hard to even try to coherently interact with it. But but what you're hearing here is His theodicy is is not primary and secondary Actions, it's not anything like that.

It's it's it really is God is God is there wasn't much that God could do about it. It's it's man man's free will that is the origin of these things whether God knew about it The idea of a creative decree on God's part and The complexities that introduces but also the questions and answers just not a part of his theology I regard as.

Unconscionable and unacceptable. So for me. Through free.

Unconscionable absolutely unconscionable. That's why I think he doesn't even try To listen to what the other side has to say because it's unconscionable. It's just it's just beneath Consideration and I folks I've seen that so many times.

I've told you the story of Talking with Norman Geisler at lunch in in Dallas once and The instant you brought up something from reformed theology presuppositional politics something that was based upon the idea of the sovereignty of God.

You just it's like the curtain just falls and There's just no desire for interaction beyond that point. Can't possibly be anything to that. I've Been there done that got the t-shirt not interested in anything more.

I've seen it happen over and over and over again, and it it seems to be the case here as well.

Will is a non-negotiable and I don't I think that reformed thinkers Are going to be very very hard-pressed to have any kind of acceptable solution to the problem of evil.

So you haven't read any of them. I mean there are Extensive works in a subject and it almost said well, they they're gonna have a are going to have a problem. We've been dealing with this for 400 years.

I'm sorry folks. I could be completely wrong. But if I am it's because I've been misled but it just seems to me that the more dr Craig addresses these things the more he demonstrates ads, you know, that's just beneath my that's beneath my My time frame.

I'm just not I'm not gonna Not gonna address anything like that. It you know, it's just it's just not worthwhile.

Without that will not make God the author of evil and sin.

Martha Plimpton and the Celebration of Abortion

Okay, so there's that it was. I was pointed to that and I just wanted to Look at it and go. Hmm. Okay. You know, I almost hesitate at this point to even play this but everybody else has been looking at it and I suppose I should At least comment on it.

You all have heard about the Plimpton video and And this is in regards to Martha Plimpton.

And.

Her comments at the beginning of a interview with Parker the alleged Christian abortion doctor if you if you just want to see.

What.

Para did a me means to be given over to be given over to the point where your your humanity you just your fundamental humanity is Eclipsed by evil. That's what we have here and to hear the Joyous applause of the audience for this likewise is Is truly amazing.

Here you have a woman honestly confessing her utter sexual promiscuity without without any I mean In our world today, that's good thing. The ultimate human good is sexual satisfaction, that's the ultimate human good now and So anyway with anybody anywhere that's the ultimate human good.

No society can long survive that. But that's the ultimate that's the ultimate good and that's what's being celebrated here and So just It's as troubling and repulsive as it is. Maybe you haven't heard this sort of hard to believe that I've heard it a number of times just driving in the car, but Here's just just a moment or two.

Significance for me for lots of reasons. I have got a lot of family here. Some of whom are here in the audience tonight. I also had my first abortion at the Seattle Planned Parenthood Notice. I said first I Said first and I don't want Seattle.

I don't want you guys to feel insecure. It was my best one. Heads and tails above the rest. If I could yelp review it I totally would. And If that doctor's here tonight, I don't remember you at all. I was 19.

I was 19 and but I thank you nonetheless. And if if the doc, I mean you won't you probably won't remember because I wasn't that famous then. It's a little warm in.

Yeah, it's a little warm in here it's could be a whole lot warmer in the future I assure you. What what do you say? Depravity on parade.

Rejoicing.

Roman Romans won all over again. It's not like we need to have Romans one proven correct, but you listen to that whole audience applauding. And You you now understand what happened in Germany when people are Saluting Hitler, how could that have ever happened?

Well, they're applauding at the murder of unborn children. And they think it's cool. So what's the difference? Well one's culturally. Well, they're both culturally acceptable. If you don't have an objective revelation morality, none of this makes any sense at all.

Interfaith Dialogue, Islam, and the Need for Consistency

Couple other things. Yeah, let's do it in this order. This will be audio only.

But.

Haven't listened to all of this but I Started seeing a bunch of stuff on Twitter this morning or maybe last evening about some guy named Jason Pratt On Brandon houses network or something and I I ignored it Until Earlier today, I saw that Phil Johnson had responded to it Which is what told me that it was about what it's about and that as With so many other things what has happened is an attempt to bring together Some attack upon me and upon Phil and.

So.

Here's just a portion of it, let's.

Just play it and see what it says. So again for my military background. I appreciate what's being said here and When you have somebody that sounds the alarm and says hey, there's a problem here. You don't go attacking them and what we have here is kind of a civil war.

Where the interfaith dialogue with James White was called out and I think again. This is a very significant event because it was wrong. There was no scriptural support for an interfaith dialogue. Now we yeah.

We just have to point out we have provided Written video and audio refutation of these accusations I have discussed the meaning of various terms I've gone into various texts and And there has been no no response.

We played the one the one time when House had That dr. Jimmy somebody whoever was some Bible prophecy guys.

What?

Jimmy DeYoung, whatever never heard the guy before. I'm sorry. I'm not into Bible prophecy guys. Haven't been since I put down the late great planet Earth in high school. It's not really Too interested in what they have to say.

But anyway. You may remember that that house asked what they thought about what I said about 2nd John 9. Where I had gone into the text that had given it and the responses were so childish. So No one has no one has even tried to interact with the text in a meaningful fashion.

They can't. Steve Camp hasn't done it. Janet Mefford hasn't anybody on that's that's done it. Brandon house can't do it. And so they just ignore it like it's just like it's not there like it doesn't exist like.

And and it's like how do you how do you do that? How do you? How do you get on the air and record stuff when when you know in the back of your mind? Well, you know, they've actually Respond to us. Maybe they still know maybe just a you know, this guy just might have been told.

Yeah. He's he hasn't ever responded to this. Okay. All right. I believe you so I'll go ahead and attack him. I won't check for myself. Is that how it works? I don't know how I don't know I don't know how people do stuff like that.

But anyway, will you come together again. A dialogue is talking about and trying to reach, you know consensus agreement again these.

And we all know that that's not actually what happened it. Honestly, it makes me wonder did Jason Pratt actually listen to the dialogues. Because when you start off the dialogue saying this is what our purpose is here and then you say it's actually here.

How do you. Where's where's the? Where's the honesty thing. Be nice to find the honesty thing and the types of things are known to be tactics of.

Communism socialism and. And as well of the Muslims.

They the communist socialist Muslims. So again, it's just vague Interfaith dialogue, we won't you know, we'll just do the peanut butter thing. You know, we're just not gonna worry ourselves about the specifics and the purposes and the intentions.

You know that that takes too much work. And if we do that, then actually our whole our whole position falls apart, so we're just gonna sort of throw it all out there and If you really want to get certain people the communists the socialists and the Muslims that's.

That'll that'll do it. And it's not that we don't have communists we do. I was listening. Dennis Prager had a professor on today Who did not participate in a white absence day. We're basically I don't know if you've noticed this but have you noticed that there's a movement on campuses now to reintroduce segregation.

But it's reverse segregation you guys get out of here. No white people a lot right and It is rather odd that I read an article from a rather well-known reformed African American talking about the need for Folks in the church to be able to do black things separate from white folks.

Sounds similar to what's going on on these College campuses. Well, this white professor didn't go home. He didn't participate and He had him on today to talk about his experience look the communists are back.

I'm not arguing that they're they're in charge of our College campuses universities. No question about it, but what that has to do with me or Yasir Qadhi an honest Dialogue about what we believe. I have no earthly idea.

Because it isn't meant to bring about Chris slum or a compromise or anything else. You have to misrepresent stuff to be able to come up with that.

But anyway, we digress you have stated exactly what their intent is and that they want to do interfaith dialogues. Particularly with the two largest groups being Muslims and Christians in the world. They really were the enemy and they're in they're an antichrist religion something by the way that James white refuses To acknowledge.

Really.

I'm gonna be talking about some particularly bad arguments that we've posted just today on on Twitter. But in case you haven't noticed Dr. Pratt, I don't know who you are. Sorry, but Jason Pratt in case you haven't noticed I Defend the Christian faith against the claims of Islam.

I've defended the deity of Christ in mosques and in other places in churches mosques rented auditoriums, whatever else it might be the Trinity the.

Scriptures.

I am fully aware of the fact that the Muslim Jesus is not the true Jesus. I have taught that for years long before you ever even got involved with any of this stuff.

So.

Mr. Pratt as a Christian believer, may I just exhort you to? Expand your efforts to be truthful. Because right now you're failing at them rather rather poorly in fact, so you might want to.

Pick up on those things and I find that very very telling. Now again Paul said that these things much. And by the way.

The only way he could make a statement like that is if he would have some type of extensive exposure to me and to my Writings which would make him only doubly responsible and guilty for the misrepresentations.

He's already given so which which is it gonna be must happen.

These schisms must happen so we can know who's approved whose side is who on. And when I look out there and I see certain people employing tactics of propaganda. Logical fallacy, you know, I covered logical fallacy for several weeks and will continue so that you know.

Christians we need to avoid logical fallacies on our own because We have scripture. We have God's Word. We come from a position of strength of truth. We do not need to rely on logical fallacy to try to win an argument.

Besides. We're not out to win arguments. We're out to win souls, but.

Generally the two go together since God uses truth to we are to give.

You know examples of reasons. Defense. For the reason for the hope that we have. Why the scriptures are true. Why we can trust them. Why the gospel is significant. What is the gospel? But we're not doing that in order to try to either win an argument or to Reach a consensus some sort of agreement or middle ground.

We're there to proclaim the truth now to catch that again the middle ground fallacy. That that's what anyone's trying to do. At least that's what we were trying to do. Refuted a thousand times already just after a while you hear them repeating it.

Yeah, and we were to love people and love them enough to proclaim the truth. And that's something but not enough to actually.

Respect them and invest time and getting to know them or stuff like that.

That we don't see when we see the people that are defending James White defending him. They're not using scripture again.

They're using not using scripture. No one's ever no one's ever done that. No, it's not power anywhere.

All kinds of other rhetoric and Some examples, you know to a couple people that have kind of defended it. One is Phil Johnson now. You know the people that are involved here people that I've respected for a long time.

But I've even used some of them as examples in my own Sunday schools for years that even if so-and-so Were to come out and violate the scripture. I would call them out on it and if their ministry if they were if their theology were to take a wrong turn and go Down the direction of heresy.

I would call them out on it and I would not play favorites. So to this point is Phil Johnson. He's very significant at grace to you. He's editor very close to John MacArthur edits many of his books. Phil Johnson is a regular speaker at Shepherds conference.

I love attending. I love Phil's talks. He usually gives a very excellent sermon. But in reality talk is cheap. We're to live our faith. And. Another individuals Justin Peter someone who I you know again greatly respect for calling out the word faith.

Theology and heresies and yeah, don't don't tell me he wasn't given a list here. We know we know who's actually speaking here. This is this is one of Brandon's mouthpieces. Once once again, no question about it.

His boldness in that but then his kind of twisting of scripture saying well It doesn't really apply when we want to use the scriptures to say that You know what fellowship has light with darkness or that we're not to engage in these types of things.

He's like well that doesn't really apply here. Well, that's that's just simply nonsense and he goes that's just simply nonsense.

That's the level of response you get from the Brannon house group when you Demonstrate that not only have they misrepresented the intentions that misrepresented the reality of what was going on, etc, etc but then when you go into whether it's 1st Corinthians 6 or 2nd John 9 or whatever they've brought up. We've gone into every single one of them and Their responses have not been meaningful.

They're not exegetical I'm sorry. I don't get the feeling that Brandon house Knows the original languages. I don't get the feeling Jason Pratt does.

Of.

Dr. DeYoung, I'm sure would claim to but I didn't get much evidence that he did either. We don't get anything. All we get is well, that's just that's just silly. Well, we've laid out our case and Phil Johnson is not has not been doing this.

I've done this. Phil Johnson has just simply said that the arguments people were using against me were unhinged. He's he's actually not on my side in defending what I did With Yasir Qadhi and what I will do again with Yasir Qadhi.