More on Possibility of James White v Stephen Wolfe - Part 2B

Today's show is sponsored by Curios Consulting. That is Curios with a Y, K-Y-R-I-O-S. Real estate investing can be intimidating. That's why you don't do it alone. Curios Consulting gets you from no real estate to your first rental property.

My friend Steve did it right here in New Hampshire, and he wants to help other Christians do the same. Visit consultingbycurios .com. Again, that's with a Y, consultingbycurios .com. No more excuses. The world needs more Christians with passive income, not more passive Christians.

Make it happen. The link is in the description. All right. Well, yeah, let's continue. Let's continue. I hope you had a good weekend, a good Lord's Day, a good everything. I've had a great couple days and stuff like that.

I went fishing the other day and didn't catch anything. And I don't know, maybe I'm just made for Florida. I don't know. But let's just press on. If you watched the last video, you know that I talked about the next section for like 10 minutes without recording it, which I'll try to redo it.

But I highly doubt I'll be in the same headspace to give the same quality content. I promise you it was quality. It was the best stuff I've ever said. I mean, it's as simple as that, but it didn't get recorded.

But you'll just have to trust me on that. I'll try to recreate it. We'll see. Maybe I won't even try. But before I begin, I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments that were kind of they were consistent comments.

And so I figured I'd address it. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Even if I was, it's always worth, you know, kind of clarifying if I can. One thing that well, this one's really not worth clarifying.

But one thing that hold on a second here, watching my kid here, and it looks like he was getting upset. I don't know. My wife's at the gym. So I'm trying to keep an eye on that. Anyway, one thing that I got a handful of times, this isn't the common response.

But one thing I got was very familiar from Woke Wars One with Big Eva. And that was basically a how dare you who doesn't know as much as Dr. James White, who's done so much for the church? How dare you even critique him?

You know, you got to be put in your place. You're just one of those thunder puppies. Nobody said thunder puppy except for Tim Beauchamp. But I really appreciated his responses to all this mess. But anyway, you know, basically saying, you know, how dare I, who haven't done anything for the church, say anything to the guy who's done so much for the I got to be honest with you, that's a tired tactic, and it's not going to work.

I mean, I heard that the first time around with Russell Moore and Matt Chandler and all that kind of stuff. And I heard that when I was being very respectful to those guys. Now, I'm not for a moment saying that James White is equivalent to Russell Moore.

I'm not saying that. But I remember my early critiques of Russell Moore were very respectful. But I was like, hey, he's wrong about this. He's wrong about that, whatever. And I got the same kind of response.

It's not going to work. It doesn't make any sense to do that. I mean, I'm gonna if I think somebody's wrong, regardless of whether they're doing, you know, 20 times as much for the church as I am, and I feel like it's my place to say something, I'm gonna say something that that strategy, maybe it used to work.

I highly doubt it. But maybe it used to work. It doesn't work anymore. It's definitely not going to work on me. That's for sure. I've heard it all at this point. So if that's what your comment is going to be, you might as well save it because I immediately disregarded it is complete nonsense.

And that's all I have to say about that. That being said, I did hear one thing that I wanted to address. And a few people took umbrage with my perspective on why I think James White wants nothing to do with debating Stephen Wolf.

And people were commenting that over the years, James White has often criticized various, you know, people in the Reformation and Reformed Fathers and, and things like that. And so obviously, he's not afraid to do that.

And I don't think he's afraid to do it. I know he's done that. You got to remember, I used to watch every episode of The Dividing Line. So I've heard him talk about this numerous times. I'm not saying he doesn't want to.

He's not he's afraid to talk about it. I'm not saying he's afraid to say it. I'm not saying he's incapable of saying it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that in the last episode, I said, it would be very easy for him to debate Stephen Wolf, but I don't think he wants any part of it.

And I still don't. Because here's the problem that we have, right? So, of course, he has said that Martin Luther was wrong about this, or Calvin was wrong about this, and they'd want to put me in jail for teaching this.

He has said that again, and again, and again. But the problem is, he's okay with Calvin. He reveres Calvin. He lionizes Calvin and Luther and all of these kinds of guys. But the problem is, essentially, I mean, he's treated Stephen Wolf as if he's the devil.

He's treated Stephen Wolf as if he's a false teacher that you can't even share a platform with him. That's how wrong he is. That's how evil he is. Stephen Wolf has been treated as if he's teaching these wild, dangerous, evil things, and no one ought to even share a platform with him.

That's how he's been treated. I don't think James has publicly said no one should share a platform with him, but that is how he's being treated. And so, if he's going to debate Stephen Wolf on this, and then Stephen Wolf has the opportunity to give quotation after quotation in context, he's not wrong about Calvin.

He's not wrong about Luther. He's not wrong about what the Reformation said about political theory. He's not wrong. So, if you're going to call him wrong, that's fine. But the problem is, you've treated him like he's a pariah, and you lionize the very people that he's promoting what they said.

And again, none of this has anything to do with the Reformers must be right about everything. Obviously, it's okay for them to be wrong. So, if you think they're wrong, you say they're wrong. Nothing wrong with that.

But the problem is how Stephen has been treated in comparison to guys like Calvin and Luther and things like that. That's the problem. And so, it would be very awkward for James White to debate Stephen Wolf, given how he's treated Stephen Wolf.

He's treated him shamefully, and so have a lot of his friends. Shamefully, that's the problem. And so, that's why I say it will be awkward for James White to debate Stephen Wolf. He wants no part of it, in my opinion, because it puts him in a really bad situation.

It would be very easy for Stephen to come out of that debate looking great. And it would be very difficult for James White to come out of that debate looking great. I'm not saying it's impossible, because I'm not that stupid.

But the thing is, it'd be very difficult. James White has a lot to lose and not that much to gain. He has a lot to lose and not that much to gain, because really, all he has to gain is to say, yeah, the reformers were wrong.

Okay, I mean, okay, the reformers can be wrong. That's all he has to gain. That's not very much. But what he has to lose is the reformers were wrong, and for whatever reason, I'm treating Stephen like a pariah, and I'm celebrating the reformers.

That's a big, awkward situation that I believe, in my opinion, Dr. James White wants no part of that. And I can understand why, because again, I'm not an idiot. I can understand why. And so I personally don't think any debate like this will happen.

I really hope I'm wrong. I really hope I'm wrong, because it would, especially if done carefully, it would be so beneficial. It would be so beneficial. And this is coming from a guy who does not agree with Stephen Wolfe on everything, but I understand that he's a brother.

I understand that he's right a lot. I understand we can work together with him. We don't have to do the thing where you pull out of freaking conferences because I can't share the stage with Stephen Wolfe.

That's the direction that they're going. That direction does not have to be. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is that way. Why are they acting this way? I have no idea. I don't know. It's not going to work.

It didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work this time. So I'm not worried that it's going to be bad for my side of this, but it doesn't have to be. I would prefer it to not be that way. But again, I mean, I can't, I just have to accept the fact that it is that way.

It doesn't have to be this way, guys. It really doesn't. And I think like, and again, like, you know, I'm not mad at Dr. White for disagreeing with Stephen Wolfe. I mean, obviously not. I don't care about that.

I disagree with Stephen Wolfe. What frustrates me, though, is how shamefully, and it's absolutely shamefully, that they've treated him. And by proxy, I mean, Stephen Wolfe is a guy that I've, I mean, I've talked to him, and I happen to like him.

I think he's a nice guy. But at the end of the day, I'm disconnected from Stephen. But the problem is he's a proxy for a lot of my friends. And so when you treat Stephen Wolfe this way, you have to understand you're treating a lot of people this way, and it's shameful the way that they've been treating him.

It's shameful. He's a big boy. He can handle it. It doesn't hurt his feelings, but it's just like, it's just so counterproductive. It's so, instead of treating them like they're the devil, you should work with him.

And you should correct him if you need to. I'm not saying you don't correct him, but don't correct him from the place where you're throwing him to the wall. Yeah, that's just one of those racists. That's no centrist.

Like, I just don't understand that. That obviously is not helpful for any of our causes, any of them. We can work together. There's enough overlap with myself and Stephen Wolfe that the things I disagree on, sure, we can talk about them and all that, but we've got so much basic work to do.

I've said this so many times, and I'll say it again. We're not at the level of figuring out exactly how the political situation is going to look in a hundred years. No, we're at basic levels. Like, they're killing babies, for example.

They're killing babies and everybody loves it. There's trannies everywhere and everybody loves it. They're importing massive amounts of pagans into the country, and they're eating our cats and stuff, and everybody loves it.

We're at basic levels here. It's just so pathetic. We should be working together. We're not. I've got to accept life as it is. I've got to make sure my thing's on here. Anyway, let's continue. Biblical and always damaging intertwining of the authority of church and state.

And so that sacral system produced the Crusades. And so there wasn't... This is another one that I heard once or twice, and I wanted to address this. They said, hey, you guys are both missing it. You and Dr. White are both missing it.

The Crusades are just a symbol. They're just symbolizing, you know, some kind of resistance, some kind of pushback, some kind of offense that we're playing, and people are using—they don't care about the theology—but they're using it as a symbol for Christians to actually get up and do something.

I'm not missing that. I think the person who said that to me most recently is right for a lot of the time. A lot of people are just using it as a symbol. But I also think that the history actually is way muddier than Dr. White wants to allow us to talk about it.

And he knows that. He said that. There's some complexities there and stuff like that. But he's decided to die on the hill of, well, because of theology, the foundation was wrong, then you can't say anything good about it, I guess.

That's how it comes across. That's how it comes across, Dr. White. But I think some people are going back and saying, well, yeah, I learned in elementary school that this was bad, but really, was it as bad as I was taught?

Can I be grateful for it? And I believe the answer is, of course, yes. I mean, I don't think that the and the theological underpinnings were good in themselves, but there was good that came from the Crusades.

This is 100 the case, just like I've said about the slave trade, right? The slave trade wasn't good, but a lot of good came from it. So I can be grateful for these kinds of things, just like the wars fighting over the nature of Christ.

The wars fought over the nature of Christ weren't good in themselves, but a lot of good came from it, and God worked through it, all of this kind of stuff. And the right side won, and so I'm happy about that.

And so this is the thing. I think that a lot of people are using it as a symbol, but Dr. White doesn't want to allow that. He doesn't like that. He's annoyed by that. But also a lot of people are saying, yeah, it wasn't quite as black and white as I learned from my social studies teacher in seventh grade.

And I think, and Dr. White doesn't want to allow for that either, but I think that there's a lot of truth there as well. There wasn't a whole lot of dispute. The Christian states that were briefly founded by the Crusades all collapsed.

They couldn't last. They couldn't be supported. And the idea that this somehow kept the Muslims at bay, well, it really didn't. Europe fought for its life in the 15th and 16th centuries. I know a lot of my friends are going to want to debate that point.

I'm not going to debate that point. That's not really what this is about. I'm not trying to adjudicate history here. That's just not, I'm not capable of doing it. I don't want to do it. But a lot of my friends would debate that point.

And so whatever, it's debatable. Again, why is this the hill you want to die on? I just don't understand. ...being besieged and... And he'll say, well, this is the principles of the Reformation that we all agreed on.

This is the thing of most importance. We all agree on those parts though. That's the problem. It's like he makes it seem, and he's going to mention Joseph Spurgeon in a minute, like we don't agree on the principles anymore because we disagree on how to interpret the positive aspects of the Crusades versus the negative.

Like we don't agree on that, so therefore we're not agreeing on the gospel. In fact, he said to friends of mine, well, if you don't understand why the Crusades were all bad or something like this, you don't understand the gospel.

And it's like, I know this guy, he does understand the gospel. And so he's making this mountain, mountain out of what's really a molehill. And it's just, I don't get it. He doesn't get it. He says he doesn't get it many times.

I don't get it. ...versus army. And I suppose probably Crusader language was used at that time too. But it never crossed my mind that in the summer of 2024, I would have ostensibly Reformed men, OPC, PCA, and enough 1689ers to start a number of Reformed Baptist churches, because we're normally pretty small.

You know, you'd think, and this is something that is so interesting to me. You'd think that a lot of these men who are ostensibly Reformed, they're Reformed. That's their foundation. They are Reformed.

That's as simple as that. In fact, if you haven't watched Tim Bouchon's video on eschatology matters about this, him and this guy that he interviews, I don't know who the guy is, but they did a pretty good job, you know, talking about this controversy.

And one of the things that I appreciated so much is it's like, they didn't directly criticize Dr. James White for saying ostensibly Reformed, and he's going to die on that hill too. I mean, he made it very clear to me directly that that's something he's going to keep saying.

He's going to keep throwing shade. Whatever. I tried. You know, you can only try, right? You could try, but it doesn't matter if the other person doesn't want to play ball. They were very clear, though, that these guys are Reformed.

They're 1689ers. They're Westminster Confession. They're three forms of unity. They're Reformed. That's their foundation. But you would think that if Reformed guys are talking positively about the Crusades in certain instances, and they're saying certain things that, you know, maybe 20 years ago they wouldn't have said or that you didn't learn officially in Sunday school or in seventh grade or something like that, they start saying different things about the Crusades, you would think that maybe you would stop for a second.

You would stop for a second before you fire up the camera and say, well, I mean, there is ostensibly Reformed. You would think you'd stop and say, am I understanding why they're talking positively about these things that I think are completely evil?

Am I misunderstanding it? Maybe I'm not quite hearing them. Maybe I'm not quite understanding what the positives are. Why do you immediately... They might not even understand the gospel. I mean, I thought we agreed that Luther and the theses and it was good and the Pope wasn't the vicar of Christ.

I thought we all agreed. Why does your mind jump immediately to, well, I guess they don't get anything. Maybe they're not even Reformed. Instead of saying, hmm, I don't agree with this. They're Reformed.

Maybe, maybe they're talking about something else besides the fact that they were guaranteed indulgences for going off to battle. Maybe, maybe, maybe that's not the part of it that they like. Maybe, you know, it's not like if that was like some kind of wild theory, I can understand.

Maybe your mind doesn't go there, but that's a very reasonable assumption that you should make if you're sitting there talking to a Reformed guy and they all of a sudden start talking positively about the Crusades.

It seems pretty reasonable that they don't all of a sudden think that actually the Pope is the vicar of Christ. That actually, you know, plenary indulgences, that actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

Maybe, just maybe, but it's as if there was no consideration of that. I'm not saying there wasn't any consideration of that, but the way these presentations have gone from Dr. James White, it's as if that's not even in the realm of possibility.

They might not even be Reformed. They probably don't understand the gospel. Where have I heard that tactic before? I'm being serious. Where have I heard that tactic before? If you don't understand why reparations are great, maybe you don't even understand the gospel.

It's the same tactic, and the reason you employ it is to make everyone think this is the most serious issue of all time. It's to browbeat people into your position. All you got to do is say it's a gospel issue.

You don't think the Crusades were the same way I think they were? Gospel issue. It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable. Maybe, maybe I just understand that reparations and restitution in the Bible, they're very different.

They're very different. Reparations in the modern sense. Maybe I just understand differently than you. Maybe I do understand the gospel perfectly well, and I just don't think that modern reparations to pay black people who were never enslaved, who were never defaulted, who were never defrauded, to pay them with white people's money who never did the defraud, they never enslaved anybody.

Maybe I understand that's a little different than the kind of restitution that Moses was talking about. Maybe, maybe. It's so similar. I mean, the woke wars 2 or woke wars 3, whatever we're at at this point, it's the tactics are the same.

The tactics are the same. Literally saying to me the Crusades were great. This is what we got to do. And in fact, within the past 24 hours, I've got a guy waiting to be a Christian going, they didn't go far enough.

This is another one of the tactics that it's from the original, you know, big evil wars, right? It's like, it's like you got Joseph Spurgeon who's saying reasonable things. You know, he's a reformed pastor.

He's got a reputation that precedes him in many circles. This guy is friends of your friends. He's known he's reformed. He's reformed. He's got a solid foundation. He's reformed. He might even be more reformed than I am.

You know what I mean? You've got this guy and he's saying, you know, things that I don't agree with, but they're reasonable. And then you've got people online, random people, some of them anonymous, some of them aren't, but random people.

And they say some wild stuff. And what you do is you combine them both. Why? You see, I mean, that's the same tactic from the original big evil thing as well. And anyone can do it. I mean, I could find rabid Dr. James White followers that say wild, stupid, ridiculous things.

And I could put them at the feet of Dr. White and pretend like it's all one big sandwich. But that's not honest. That's not being honest. Any side can do this. And both sides do do this. You know what I mean?

It's common, but it's not it's not right. It's not true. We need more of this. And I'm just like, yeah, and Dr. White did this to me as well, like like in in the in the in the most recent dividing line that addressed me specifically, you know, he he assigned a position to me that I don't hold.

He specifically he said, and guys are telling me I need to be more encouraging of the youth. And you included, A .D., you included. I've never said that. I've never said that. Again, you take what other people say and then you assign it to somebody else.

And there you go. And so I have there's a pastor, Joseph Spurgeon. It has to be on the screen right now. Um, I had written a tweet. I said, OK, for the folks who are still going, what what on earth? The crusades did not stop the expansion of Islam.

In fact, they were not intended to. That was done the old fashioned way. Armies representing nations fighting against each other. Other armies. The sacking of Constantinople by crusaders, all done on the basis of money and politics, actually hastened the fall of that last bastion holding back the Muslim expansion westward.

It was disastrous. But folks, listen, please. Have you seen the images these mainly young men are posting? What do you see in them all? Yes. The cross prominently displayed on the armor of men slashing and hacking the infidel to pieces.

The crusades were definitionally religious in nature. I know. I know. Rome was quite involved in politics and like by that time and very corrupt. No question about it. But here's the point. They joined religion, their avarice and thirst for power.

They promised eternal life to those who died fighting the infidel. The entire foundation was a fundamental and outright denial of the nature, efficacy and truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ. What completely and utterly shocks me is that outside of the Romanists who are promoting this stuff, ironically, against the views their own current pope.

The majority of the wild eyed zealots I'm seeing are reformed. Well, they claim to be anyway, that should be where you stop and start thinking before you type out something more, before you fire up the camera.

How could this be that the reformed are talking positively about the crusades, knowing that reformed people, instead of just saying, well, I guess they're really not. Maybe they're even reformed. They claim to be.

Who knows? Instead of saying that, instead of saying that, why not just say, you know, I disagree with a lot of their interpretations here. You know, why are they saying that? Hmm. I think it's still dangerous.

I think. But why does it your brain immediately go, well, they might not even be reformed. I mean, I thought we all agreed the pope was no good. You know what I mean? Like, I made my point there. I've already talked about that.

I truly wonder how anyone with a semi-formed theology that is even slightly reformed can buy into this stuff. But the fact is, these folks are saying the crusades did not go far enough. Far enough in what?

Blaspheming Christ? Disparaging the gospel? Promoting hatred? What would you like? Let's let's let's just be let's just try to keep our heads here. Do you honestly think that any of them think that that what they're saying when they say the crusades don't go didn't go far enough that they're saying they didn't go far enough disparaging Christ.

They didn't just blaspheming Christ. They didn't they didn't they didn't go far enough in those things. Like, honestly, honestly, I don't know. Maybe just ask them. Maybe just ask them. What do you mean they didn't go far enough?

Like, far enough in what? I think he did ask a few people. I'm pretty sure they didn't respond. They didn't go far enough blaspheming Christ. Like, again, why does your mind go there? And this is this is a problem, I think, with a lot of people that I've known over time and even my co-pastor at the church I pastored.

You know, every sermon, it seemed like, was as if we were the only Christians in town. And I used to call them on this. This is just not true. It's not true. Just because the church down the street is a little more seeker sensitive than you.

And I don't mean like, you know, in the completely heretical type of way. But, you know, they weren't, you know, you know, saying homosexuals were OK and, you know, female pastors were OK. They weren't saying that kind of stuff.

But they had different kinds of not nothing, no service that I would attend. Right. It doesn't mean we're the only faithful Christians around. That's not what it means. But so many of these kinds of presentations make it seem like that that's the that's the case.

That's the case. And it's like, well, they must be ostensibly reformed because, you know, the faithful, they're just like me and my friends. That's it. That's how it comes across. That is how it comes across a lot of the time.

I know you're not saying that. So don't hear me putting words into your mouth, but I'm telling you how it's often received. It's as if, well, they must be ostensibly reformed because they disagree with me on the crusades.

And I mean, after all, the amount of faithful Christians out there, I mean, it's like this big. It's like this big. It's not the case. To see more of exactly what would be far enough. And so in response to that, this Joseph Spurgeon says James White has lost his mind here.

Right. And and again, like so reformed pastor, it sounds like you know who he is, at least in some respects. And that's not surprising because he's a lot of people know who Joseph Spurgeon is. But a reformed pastor says James White has lost his mind here now.

Now, maybe he shouldn't have said that. I haven't talked to Joseph, so I don't know that this is the case. I have talked to Joseph before. I've met Joseph. Maybe he shouldn't have said James White has lost his mind here.

But he did. So what could he be talking about? Right. Like, you got to think to yourself, I wrote this this wall of text. And he's saying James White has lost his mind here. Now, if I knowing both of these guys, right, both of these guys, you know, I don't know James White personally, but knowing their track records and background and stuff like that, here's what I would think Joseph was saying he lost his mind to the first part where he says the crusades didn't do anything to stop the spread of Islam.

That's what it sounds like, because I understand that Joseph being reformed, not ostensibly reformed, being reformed would agree with all of the other stuff about the religious underpinnings and all that kind of stuff.

I know he would agree with that stuff. He does not. He's not ostensibly reformed. He's reformed. So what's left is I disagree that the crusades did nothing to slow down Islam or whatever it was he said.

Let's see if that's the, you know, interpretation that Dr. James White says or does he call into question Joseph's reformed knowledge, his theological knowledge, you know what I mean? He just got done saying that anyone with even a little bit of reformed, you know, bona fide should be able to agree with him.

Yes, the crusades had the effect along with the wars to retake Spain to slow and stall out Islamic advance. This doesn't mean I defend every atrocity, but it was war. War involves atrocities. James has an ideology driving his comments to rather than the truth.

What was the vast majority of what I read you? It doesn't matter what the vast majority of what you read was. That does not necessarily mean he was disagreeing with the vast majority. He could have been disagreeing with exactly what I said.

In fact, that's how I interpreted it. Editing AD here. So I was listening to this as I'm editing it and it's not just my interpretation. In fact, Joseph's tweet in itself after he says he's lost his mind tries to refute the part of it in which he thinks James White has lost his mind.

And so he directly tells you what he's disagreeing with, where he thinks James White has lost his mind, and it has nothing to do with the gospel issues there. It has to do with your interpretation of the history and the results of the battles and the history.

And so it's not a mystery. It makes no difference what the vast majority of what you said there, James White was. He tells you in the context what it is he's disagreeing with you. Now, maybe he shouldn't have said you lost your mind, but you still have to allow him to speak for himself instead of assigning.

Now, all of a sudden, everyone's now got you got to throw shit. Maybe his reform bona fides aren't really that reformed. You do. James White does himself. Let me let me let me let me back up. Dr. White, you don't do yourself any favors when you act this way.

This is not how you are in your debates. This is not how you are most of the time. But you're just not you're. How do I put this? It doesn't have to be this way, man. These guys are they. We should be friends.

We should be working together. You know what I mean? You think we're misinterpreting the history. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you now have to throw you. You do whatever you want. I'm in no position to tell you what to do, but it hurts you.

And I don't want to see people because I've seen I've seen exactly what you've seen. I've seen exactly. I'm done with James White. I know he's completely never going to listen to him again unless I know that stuff frustrates you.

And I'll be straight up with you. It frustrates me because I know it doesn't have to be this way. They shouldn't be acting like that. But at the end of the day, I do understand why they're saying those things.

I do. It's because in these kinds of issues, this this this is how this is how you engage in these kinds of issues. And it's it's I wish it wasn't that way. It is that way. But, you know, I think you could be so effective if if if you didn't do this with with people that should be your friends.

You can you can say, you know, Joseph is totally ignorant history. Nobody cares. I wouldn't have even thought to do a video about this if that's what you were saying, because I frankly, I don't care about that kind of debate.

I don't. I'm not interested. I'm not that interested in who's right about history. But it's when you start to when you start to, you know, pretend like it's the gospel thing that that we're, you know, now not getting and we're getting a little soft on on on Romanism and the Pope and the indulgences and all that stuff.

That's the kind of shade that you're welcome to continue doing, but you're only hurting yourself. You're not hurting me. You're not hurting Joseph. You are hurting yourself when you pretend like when we misinterpret the history from your perspective, when we misinterpret the history, that that now calls into question maybe even our Christianity.

It just doesn't make any sense. And I like, you know, I recorded the this video. I recorded this video a couple days before I'm doing this edit part. And, you know, that's the issue. That's the issue.

That's why I'm doing this video review. And it's not because I don't like you. It's not because I don't, you know, like I said in the video, I've got love for you and you can't stop me. You could say you can call me anything you want.

I mean, you could say anything you want to me. You know, you're not going to stop me from loving you. But I don't want to see you hurt yourself like this. You're hurting yourself. That's what you're doing.

You're hurting yourself when you are treating guys like Joseph Spurgeon like this. And honestly, like Stephen Wolfe as well. When you, you know, it's one thing to disagree with them. Nobody cares about that.

I mean, maybe some people do. I don't care about that kind of thing. I would never fire up a video defending Stephen's positions against yours. But all the extra stuff, so reminiscent of Woke Wars 1, so reminiscent.

That's why I fired up the camera, because I care about this stuff. It's as simple as that. Knowing that Joseph is reformed. Knowing that Joseph has good ideas on the separation of the powers of the state and the powers of the church and all of that kind of thing.

And knowing he understands, you know, there might be some overlap there and he's very, you know, he's good on that stuff. I know all that stuff about him. So I would assume he's not responding to the stuff that obviously he would agree with you on.

Can you even muster a little generosity? Or are you going to say, well, I must be ostensibly reformed because the majority of what I said was about the gospel. And I mean, I guess I went crazy. That's what he's saying.

It doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be this way. Why? Why make it this way when it doesn't have to be this way? That's the thing. Like all this fighting, you know, I'm okay with a lot of it.

I think a lot of it is healthy. But ultimately, I do think, like Tim Bouchong said on that, I highly recommend you watch it, Eschatology Matters. It was about the Fifth Commandment and the Crusaders. Look it up on YouTube.

Highly recommend it. But it's like, we could fight, you know what I mean? But let's not toss our friends over the wall and hand them to the infidels, you know what I mean? Like, let's fight like normal people, all right?

Before we was, oh, you mean maybe you're not even reformed. Discussion of how the Crusades Just a little generosity. I, again, I can't say this enough. I don't care how much you disagree with Stephen Wolff.

I don't care because I do. And chances are some of the stuff that you disagree with Stephen Wolff on, I disagree with Stephen Wolff on. Chances are, not all of it probably, but some of it. But again, it's like, can we do it in a way where we can also work together?