Eerdmans Raised the Rainbow Flag, Unitarians and Will Hess

And greetings and welcome to the absolutely worst gaming stream on Twitch. Yeah, this is the dividing line. And for those of you who don't know what that's all about. I, I had never even heard of Twitch until, I don't know, a few days ago.

And evidently gamers use it primarily to show each other. And that's something I've never understood either. Watching, watching, watching somebody else playing a video game. I'm okay. Um, I'd really rather do that myself personally, but if I was going to do it, which I don't anyway, so let's not talk about that.

Um, yeah, we're just going, stop, stop. Don't do it. Anyways, this is the worst, um, uh, gaming thread, uh, great gaming stream on, on Twitch. We assure you of that. Uh, do not attempt to utilize your, uh, your controls to get in the game because this, this nothing works.

Um, the avatar is an old fat Scottish guys. It's just, you're stuck with a nice big white beard. Now, anyway, um, I'm, I'm being called white beard on, uh, on YouTube. Now I'm sort of like that. That's something I've always wanted.

So yay. Um, we're going to jump right into it here. Um, not everyone is, is, is aware. Um, and I hope Rich remembers to do something that he was said he was going to do as soon as he got started here.

Um, the fan, please, sir. Uh, thank you. Uh, short term memory is the first thing to go and it was, it was gone. It was completely gone. Uh, anyway, uh, over the past few days, a, um, controversy has erupted in light of the fact that the Erdman's, uh, book publishing company, one of the last, I mean, uh, one of the last big publishers that hasn't been, to my knowledge, been bought up by some big secular company, um, posted a tweet and a blog article directing people to listen to LGBTQ voices.

And these are the books that they would recommend that you listen to, to hear LGBTQ voices and so on and so forth. Uh, in fact, uh, here's, here's it said, regardless of your doctrinal and ethical convictions, Pride Month is a good time for listening to LGBTQ plus voices.

Here are some books to help you do that. And then they sent you to a particular blog article on their own website. Well, there was an immediate response as you would expect there would be, and should be, uh, I, I think I mentioned at one point on Twitter that I don't know why, and I could be wrong and my mom's been gone for 12 years, so I can't ask her and my dad's been gone since February.

So I can't ask him either. Um, but basically I, I recall, I think that at some point in time, my mom worked for Eerdmans. I don't know why I have this recollection. It's weird things you remember from your childhood, but I seem to recall, uh, back in the early 1970s, uh, my mom talking about, maybe talking with my dad about the fact that Christian publishing houses needed to have some type of doctrinal standard and that Eerdmans did.

I, I don't know why I remember that. Uh, I wasn't playing on writing books or anything at that point in time. So, but it stuck and, um, uh, it goes long, long, long ways back. Now I have been aware of the fact that Eerdmans and pretty much everybody with very few exceptions, I mean, I don't think Crossway has done it yet.

Um, but a lot of the quote unquote scholarly, uh, publishers, they have been busily working on expanding their, uh, expressions and, and, and, and the kind of, and, and so on and so forth. Um, and hence have been publishing LGBT friendly, uh, books and, and things like that, and Eerdmans has been doing this as well.

But that's one thing then coming just straight out and, uh, joining in pride month, uh, which is our yearly reminder of, uh, why God's judgment is rightly falling upon our, our nation. Um, it's also, when you think back just a year, just, just think of how much, how much more that wrath is being felt in our own nation since last year.

Um, good reminder, uh, not something we want to think about, but something we should be thinking about. So there was, there was quite a response and I would like to look at the very active, uh, response that, uh, whoever is in charge of Eerdmans Twitter feed, uh, has been providing, cause I think it's, I think it's important.

And I think, um, it's certainly at the very least, uh, gives me the opportunity of going, you know, we started telling you this stuff back in the late 1990s that the homosexual movement, now the alphabet soup movement, uh, does not want equal rights, they want Uber rights.

That's what we started saying. It'd be interesting. Um, I, I was talking to someone recently, I think I was talking with Jeff or maybe Isaac at Apologia Studios, but there are places now where you can, you can, you know, cost some money, but they will produce, um, transcripts of all the stuff that you have, um, in, you know, online.

And man, can you imagine what the dividing line archives would look like with fully searchable transcripts? Um, yeah, uh, that's, that's something that we really need to be looking into. And it'd be fascinating if we had that, uh, to go back and find when, when did I first use the phrase Uber rights?

Uh, because it was a very, very, very long time ago. And now we are in a situation where, where we have, we have people clearly stating that if you do not celebrate their sexual perversity, um, that you should be fired, you should be considered criminal.

Um, you shouldn't be allowed to live in certain places and do certain things. And, um, far more than we had even imagined about that back then. Well, could it ever get that bad? No, I can't imagine getting that bad, but it could get this bad.

Well, it's gotten worse. And, uh, that's, that's the reality. So we all face this. And so, uh, I think I also said on Twitter that it seems to me like some recent seminary graduate from a PCUSA, United Methodist, uh, ELCA, um, uh, seminary, uh, is in charge of Erdman's, uh, Twitter feed because they're arguing along these lines.

So let me, uh, I didn't take the time to make a fancy presentation out of this. You can find it on Twitter if you want it. This weekend, we took down our post because the overwhelming, well, the overwhelming vitriol was alarming and we wanted to protect our authors.

First sentence, first sentence, victimization, play the victim card. We're being attacked. You all are mean, terrible, horrible people. First sentence. I mean, this is, it's, it's the absolute playbook of the left.

Uh, we stand by our eared word post. So we have tweeted the link again, but we think we should offer some explanation. Some of the replies to our original tweet could be summarized as quote, with this tweet, you have gone over to the dark side.

Your company is now useless and we hope you go bankrupt and your employees become jobless end quote. Well, um, I, I would agree that there is definitely a dark side here. Uh, and I would agree that publishing with Erdman's would be, uh, I certainly have books that could never be published with Erdman's and I'm thankful.

They're still in print with somebody. Um, uh, but I, I didn't see the, uh, we hope you go bankrupt and your employees become jobless. Uh, but no, someone might've said something like that. That's Twitter.

Uh, we certainly get a whole lot more going the other direction for those who thought that cursing and reviling would be an appropriately Christian response to an invitation to try to understand LGBTQ plus Christians, we offer no response.

Now here is where, and I'm, I'm not the only one who has been trying to help us to discern these things for a long, long time. Michael Brown, Robert Gagnon, um, many people have been talking about the same things, but you need to recognize loaded language and you need to, uh, disarm it.

Um, for those who thought that cursing and reviling, okay. So you're using really harsh terms that don't even match what was said beforehand, well, I hope your company goes bankrupt. Oh yeah. That's cursing.

Uh, okay. Um, would be an appropriately Christian response to an invitation to try to understand LGBTQ plus Christians. You do realize that that is an argument, right? You do realize that that is now the official position of Erdman's.

They are taking a position. This is, this is vitally important for, for our young people to understand how to be able to listen, read, and recognize the presence of arguments. But they're not arguments that are given a foundation.

They're arguments that are just simply assumed. And so this is a argument. There is such a thing as LGBTQ plus Christians. So that alphabet, which is completely incoherent, it's contradictory. And so you'd have to look at each particular letter and it would be child's play and simplistic to be able to go to each one and go, that is against God's word, period, end of discussion.

I mean, um, bisexual, bisexual. Really? Transgender, queer, uh, how about two spirit and all the rest of this wild and insane stuff that utterly denies God's creative activity in the world and everything that the scripture says about his will, about man being made in the image of God.

I mean, it's just, it's simplistic to be able to do. And I speak as a person who's read far more of the other side than I've ever, ever, ever wanted to. I, I probably Gagnon and Brown are probably two of the only people that I know of and there's, there are others, but they would be the best known who've read more in the pro homosexual side than I have, but I have read dozens and dozens and dozens of books in that field, including some I'm sure published by Erdman.

Um, and so I don't say this in some simplistic, oh, we just all know that. No, I know exactly what the arguments are. I've, I've been in print on this. I've debated this, uh, for a long, long time. And so you need to recognize there is an argument.

There is a stance being taken, but no argument being provided to substantiate that position. We offer no response. Their self revelation speaks for itself and it grieves us. So here is the, here is the virtue signaling.

Here is the, we're going to put an argument out there that's unbiblical. And then we're going to turn that on its head. And make you sound like the bad guys. Cause we've already played the victim card.

Like I said, this is straight out of the, the leftist handbook. This is, this is how it is done. And unless we learn how to turn it around and go, no, wait a minute. You are not putting that on me. And you are not putting that argument out there.

Uh, and you can use all the pious platitudes you want. You're taking a position and you need to substantiate that position. Um, we need to be able to do that. Uh, for our conservative Christian readers and friends.

Who may be disturbed by the slander of the revilers. We want to explain the misunderstandings they voiced the revilers. So, so this whole whole screen is, is it does not even, does it not even, I mean, it pretends to be being balanced, but it doesn't even try.

I mean, it is creating this, this, uh, bifurcation right from the start because the left has to do that. That will happen tonight. Um, with the January 6th stuff. Uh, you're not gonna get balanced. Balance has no, no place in a leftist vocabulary.

All right. And it has no place here either. The revilers say we have changed our position and begun to teach heresy. There are several problems that accusation. We do not think it is for us as a publisher to define doctrine for the church.

But as you know, as a publisher, you once had doctrinal standards and it is not a matter of a publishing house defining doctrine for the church. But a publishing house, if it's supposed to be a Christian publishing house, is going to have, has to have some kind of standard and you've had one in the past and you've changed it and you know that you're well aware of that.

We are not the Pope or an ecumenical council or even a pastor, again, empty rhetoric to hide the fact that this is bad argumentation being presented. No one has said the publisher is supposed to define doctrine for the church, but it is a very reasonable thing to say that a publisher should have a doctrinal standard.

Are you going to publish the Moonies? Are you going to publish Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you going to publish the Mormons? I imagine Erdmans would publish the Mormons. I think, in fact, I think they have come to think of it now.

Um, but again, if you want to be a Christian publisher, are you going to have any standard at all? What, what about people who defame the name of Christ? Are you going to publish them as well? I mean, but we don't want to define doctrine for the church, right?

Our role is to publish books representing both settled and experimental positions. Um, here's, here's, here's a newsflash for Erdmans. Um, sexual ethics in this area is actually settled and has been for about 2000 years.

Um, and experimental positions that serve the church in its ongoing deliberations, hear the argument? The argument is that what the church has believed all along in regard to the Imago Dei, in regards to homosexuality, in regards to Jesus' teaching, Matthew chapter 19, that God created the male and female, uh, we need to be having ongoing deliberations about these things.

There can't be anything objectively settled in the past. Uh, these are ongoing deliberations. We therefore routinely publish books that contradict each other on many contested doctrinal points. We publish conservative and liberal books.

We publish Catholic Orthodox and Protestant books. We are not confused. We are a publisher that serves the ecumenical church. Well, there's much that could be said right there. Um, except that historic Catholic Orthodox, Orthodox and Protestants have all believed the same thing about this subject as well.

Um, so that's a little bit of a, well, see how broad minded we are, even though we're taking a position that historic Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants of all, um, rejected, uh, until the past, you know, 30, 40 years at the most.

Uh, there you go. With regard to Christian understandings of LGBTQ plus people, Erdman's hasn't been publishing books for quite a few years. Notice a few years, not a few decades. A few years. I wonder when the first one was.

I don't know. Uh, I would, I would be very surprised if it was before 15 years ago, maybe. Uh, but for a lot of these younger folks, 15 years is forever. It's like, yeah. Okay. Um, for quite a few years by authors who have come to an affirming conclusion on biblical and theological grounds, this is not new for us underlying message.

We don't really know. And if you think, you know, you're being arrogant. Uh, so scripture is not clear enough to actually explain these things, despite how clear it really is. At the same time, Erdman's has continued and will continue to publish books by and for people who have not come to this conclusion, this conclusion, I assume that would mean who have not come to an affirming conclusion.

Well, isn't that wonderful of them since everybody they published for the first 60 years of their existence, uh, had not come to that conclusion. It's just wonderfully open and loving, but Erdman's does not publish books that deny the existence or ignore the voices of LGBTQ people propagate false teaching about discredited slash harmful therapies or in general, condemn slash revile LGBTQ people.

Oh, you don't take a position, but if they deny the existence of what is that even supposed to mean? Now I've, I hear that all the time. We all hear that all the time, don't we? Uh, if you say that God created men, male and female, and that transgenderism is a myth, you're denying the existence of transgender people and transgender rights and transgender rights are human rights and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

All this insanity is Erdman's now saying we will not allow that historic Christian position to be expressed because that is the historic Christian position. The historic Christian position is that, uh, homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism are all, whatever, whatever terms were used in the past are all violations of God's law.

So the historic Christian position that was pretty much agreed to by everybody up until the earliest in 1980s and really well into this century, uh, is no longer, uh, going to be published by Erdman's?

Sounds like what they're saying. Uh, or in general, condemn LGBTQ people. So if you conclude with Paul in first Corinthians six, that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, you can't be published by Erdman's?

Is that what is being said? Important questions. Too much of that has been done over time and we want no part in continuing it. Again, it really makes me wonder, is whoever's writing this, whoever's tweeting this, did they run this past the board, the people at the top?

Because if they did, Erdman's is done. It's, it's, it's become an affirming leftist propaganda organ, like all the rest of them have been. And a believing Christian should go, I can't, I can't work with that.

I, sorry, um, can't go there. Um, but if this is, like I said, sounds, the terminology is so Gen Z laden with all sorts of empty terms that it really does make you go, you know, what seminary they just graduate from?

Um, it's, yeah. We reject the tendency to promote division and discord by categorizing Christians into two camps, considering us to be right about everything and them to be wrong. Catch the horrible argumentation, catch the spin, catch the, we are actually creating division, but we're going to accuse you of creating division.

Okay. Uh, two camps. So affirming, non-affirming, or in other words, historical up until the past few decades, and now the progressive in the current decades, and most of these folks could, could not defend their thoughts on this.

If they tried, they don't bother reading the other side. They just, they just do the thing. Um, considering us to be right about everything and them to be wrong. Everything? What do you mean everything?

On this particular subject or all subjects in general or what? Again, it's, it's language meant to create emotion, not, uh, truth. We decline to swear loyalty to one faction's us and join their hostilities against all corresponding thems.

Again, this is that kind of language. Uh, so we declined to swear loyalty to historic biblical Christianity. Uh, and, uh, and hence we are becoming hostile toward it. That's, that's what you've got from Erdman's right now.

So we reiterate our invitation, uh, especially to our conservative friends. Oh, it sounds like you're pushing a position here, huh? Whom we value and respect, but we're really not a part of you anymore.

Use pride month to read a book by LGBTQ plus Christians. In other words, we're saying that is consistent with biblical Christianity and their allies, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. As always, our aim is not to tell you what to think though.

We just did and attempted to do so by using really bad argumentation. That's really obvious. If people actually studied logic today, it is to provide books that we believe will promote informed and charitable thinking.

So we'll use the nice words. We just made our arguments and we just did it to try to deal with your emotions and hopefully we'll get away with it. There you go. I, you know, I, I just can't imagine what my mom would say.

I really just can't imagine what my mom would say, uh, about, uh, all of that kind of stuff because it truly, truly is amazing. Now, um, some of you may recall switching gears, not much of a place there to throw the clutch, uh, I just realized half the audience.

Listen, I have no idea what a clutch is going. You clutch your bag. No, it's nevermind. I love those memes where it says, um, millennial anti-theft device. And it shows the gear shift of a manual transmission.

I miss, I do, I do miss shifting. It's, it's, uh, it may driving. I mean, the older I get, probably I'm not all that concerned, but I, I, I don't remember what the last manual I had, but I remember once doing a leg workout years ago to gym and I had to drive home and I had just fried my legs and trying to push that clutch.

I almost didn't get home. It was ugly. Um, that was a very, very long time ago. Anyway, um, some of you may recall. Uh, and I only have these in, uh, this form right here. And I do not know why that's silence.

Oh, you had it silenced. Okay. Rich had it silenced. Uh, it's Richard's fault. Once again, just pointing these things out. Um, remember back, I was coming back from, I think it was in February. Yeah. I think it was February.

It was in February because I came back through Wilcox that time. And I remember sitting in, uh, the RV, uh, at the KLA and Wilcox writing up a blog article documenting how Wilhess, um, of church, the church split webcast had just mangled my words.

It was, yeah, it was February. Cause it was after the, uh, Molinism, uh, debate. And remember he, he just took my words and just made a mean the opposite of what they very obviously meant on any English grammar, lexical, any rational person recognized that he was turning my words upside down, misrepresenting me.

And, and he would not accept correction would not nothing. And then I think twice after that, we did some programs where, uh, he and that young kid, um, uh, were, uh, going after the Potter's freedom and just the argumentation was barely up to a standard that it was even worth trying to respond to, to be honest with you.

But I think that was the last time I've mentioned anything about, about Wilhess. Uh, we haven't had any back and forth cause I had been on their program last, last year and we'd had fun talking about King James only ism and things like that.

Mainly cause we didn't really get into much doctrine. Anyway, um, the, the church split seems to be doing splitting, getting as good at the split part, um, because they had gotten involved with, with other former fundamentalists and had, had, you know, done some webcasts and things like that.

And then started getting into doctrinal statements that started causing some real issues. And so, um, I didn't, I couldn't follow all the argumentation and there was a lot of stuff going back and forth for a while, but a statement of faith was written up and they just, they just wouldn't even sign it.

It was just a really, really, really basic level, uh, confession of the basic, uh, Christian faith. And, uh, at, at one point as they were responding to this statement of faith, they made reference to Unitarianism.

And remember, not aside from just being a Molinist, there was, there was an openness on his part to open theism. And we started seeing very clearly that on a, on a doctrinal level, there was serious issues with Will Hess and his, and his folks.

And other people who have more time to listen, um, were seeing the same, the same things. And that's where all the controversy started with. And so in responding to the statement of faith that they refused to sign, and therefore there was this splitting of the ways, parting of the ways, uh, of necessity that, that had to take place.

Uh, this little segment came up and so I, hopefully this will, will work. Let's, uh, let's see if it, uh, if it does.

Eerdmans, LGBTQ Voices, and the Charge of Victimization

First level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Christ, justification by faith and the authority of scripture.

These first order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith as a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself. And I'm not going to lie.

I disagree with that. Like somebody such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, somebody cannot believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and still not deny Christianity in and of itself.

Because nowhere in scripture does it say you have to affirm his deity. Now, does it make it clear that he is?

I think so. Oh yeah. But now let's, let's catch what he said. So what Wilhus is saying is the Trinity and deity of Christ are not definitional to the Christian faith, which of course the Christian faith has denied for a very, very long time.

Uh, his position has affirmed that most definitely the Trinity, the deity of Christ, these issues are definitional. Without them, there's nothing left to be definitional of Christianity. Um, and he keeps going this direction and Unitarian Universalism is right there, right around the corner.

And, uh, just look at what they've been like throughout their entire history. Um, but when you have someone say, well, the Bible never says you have to believe in Christ deity to be a Christian. Um, and then they say, no, I think they're wrong.

I think it does teach that what you've done is you have diminished the teaching of scripture on who Christ is. You have brought that down to, oh, Bible's really not clear on that. We really don't know.

That's what, that's what's being said. We really don't know. My personal feeling is that that's the better interpretation, but hey, you know, this Bible thing, it's pretty, it's pretty complicated, you know?

Um, and so yeah, it's yeah. You know, there's these passages and, and, and well, okay. Yeah. So, so Colossians tells us that the Christ is the standard of all things and in him, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.

And we are, we are awaiting the appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. And, and yeah, there's, there's, in fact, we can't really explain how the atonement will work if Jesus truly wasn't the God-man and we, we, we can't really understand any of that stuff, but then again, I don't think he believes in penal substitution and atonement anyways.

Uh, so, uh, there goes that. Uh, but yeah, you end up with this vanilla mishmash of whatever. Theological stuff. You want to end up thinking you're seeing in scripture, but Hey, that's just me. You know, it may, it may not be somebody else.

I don't know. Um, and so you can be a Unitarian and you're just as you're that's, that's fine. I really, does, does, does this guy go to a church? Do these guys go to a church? Uh, or are they, we are the religiously abused.

We've, we've been kicked out of churches. And so we don't go to the church anymore. And, and that kind of a person, I don't know. I really don't know. But do you go to a church that has no statement of faith?

Do you go to church where you can either worship Jesus or not worship Jesus or believe Jesus is Michael, the archangel, or believe that, uh, Jesus is, uh, the spirit child of Elohim and one of his heavenly wives.

And, and, um, uh, just a, a great moral teacher. What you throw it all together and, Hey, we're perfectly happy. Let's just sit down and, and have potluck after Sunday service, even though I'm not sure what you're doing during Sunday service, you don't know who you're worshiping.

You don't know who you're praying to. You don't know what message you have for the world. It's pretty much a mess, I guess, but don't know. Um, that's, that's what happens. So, so you don't really have to believe all those things.

And then you have this statement.

Does it mean that someone's less Christian for it? Um, because they are, because actually if you listen to Unitarians, they actually have various reasons for what they believe and they have ways to deal with those, those other proof texts.

I have some friends of mine, like I said, that are Unitarians and they are some of the strongest believers of God that I know, so believers of God that I know.

So whether you believe God is triune or Unitarian, Trinitarian, Unitarian, those are not, they are contradictory things. They're, they're not the same thing. So you can believe in God strongly, but believe he's Unitarian, right?

That seems, I mean, Wilhess is a very confused man, a very, very confused man. And there are a lot of people that are confused like him. And what happens to a lot of these folks who they leave an authoritative system and they overthrow all authority.

They overthrow all authority. And then everything just becomes grab bag of whatever you want. I, I've, I wonder, nah, I was, I was gonna, I was gonna bring up, um, oh, rat, I forgot to do this at the top of the program.

Uh, we're not gonna be talking about the stuff we've been talking about for months now today. But I, I did want to mention, and I see the reason I thought about this is might might they fit into the solo scriptura, nudist scriptura type thing, but I don't think they'd have a high enough view of scripture to even fit into that conversation, to be honest with you when, when they're going, when they're saying stuff like this.

Um, but one of the things I wanted to say at the top of the hour, I want to say was, we're not going to talk about all this stuff today, but, uh, there's an article by, uh, I think it's James Sweat, um, at the G3 ministry blog today.

It was posted this morning. And, uh, he does something a lot of other people have done, but it was really well presented. I had thought about using Bob Inc, um, and maybe Voss and stuff to do some of this stuff, but, um, I've really wanted to focus, especially on biblical exegetical aspects, but, um, there's an excellent article there about natural theology and he makes the strong argument, uh, that whatever you do along with Bob Inc, um, you have to start with the primacy of special revelation of scripture, the norm that norms all of the norms, the norma nomata.

Um, and so he's, he's dead on in recognizing the direction you have to go and the authority issue that drives some of what scripture is as theonistos. It's, it's, uh, it's good article. So I recommend it to folks.

I retweeted it this morning and things like that, but I'd recommend it to you. So I forgot to mention that, um, 36 minutes ago. Apologize for that. But this sort of reminded me of that. So here you've got this going and then we had this.

So, um, I disagree with them, but I'm not going to sit there and say that they're less Christian. Um, I believe they're wrong, but whatever. Uh, actually we had them on, uh, to, uh, on a Torah debate.

So whatever. Shout out to alternate media.

All right. Alternate media. Alternate media is what, um, he refers to said we, we had them on. We had Unitarians on. Now it doesn't sound like they were debating the Unitarians, but we had them, we had them on.

And so here are the, um, clips, uh, that now, okay. That's part one, part two. Um, okay. That's the John 21. Okay. Hold on a second. I know that I have it here and I think I have it. Nope. That's not it.

Oh no, that's right. Here it is. You have to spin the mouse many times. So here's alternate media. I don't know these guys from Adam. Sorry. Uh, you know, if, if I, I suppose I probably should have contacted and said, Hey, I'm going to be responding to some of the stuff he said, but I didn't have that opportunity.

Feel free to let them know if you have to know who they are. Um, let me see. Uh, there we go. All right. Now, um, when this first happened, I was sent some of these links and I, I happened to just pop this up and I was starting to just, you know, how you'll jump through something and I landed on their discussion of John one, one.

So, um, let's take a listen to this and then we'll do a little, a couple of little sections because what Unitarians do, these men are Unitarians. They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Um, Unitarianism inevitably leads to a collapse of the supernatural level of the supernatural nature of Christianity.

Unitarian, uh, universalism, uh, just, just look historically. I don't believe that a Unitarian perspective can maintain the highest view of scripture. And so we've dealt with Unitarians for a long, long time.

And eventually what happens is they start questioning. And what we'll see in the other clips is they start questioning the historical validity of the gospel of John's testimony to the deity of Christ.

Because there's only a certain number of ways around John 20, 28, there really are, and they're, they all collapse upon examination. There's no question about that as we will see. But I caught this section.

I think I have it at the right spot. I hope I have it the right spot because that little slider down there is really, really small. But, uh, here is a discussion of John 1, 1. And so let's, let's see if this doesn't sound familiar and respond a bit to it.

Um, and you know what, you know what, just for, uh, yeah, for Trinitarian sake, I'll pull out the absolute most Trinitarian version of the Bible that exists, the King James version.

The Bible I'm holding now is still a, um, and at the end of the day, um, the, the major standard translations are still some of the best translations on the market, hands down. Um, but primarily all of them are Trinitarian.

Uh, and you know, we, me and Brad will get in later on. I'm sure we'll discuss this, but we don't really have a problem with that. Um, and we'll get into why and everything as we do this, but yeah.

Yeah. The, the truth behind scripture gets through regardless of the inherent translational bias. Um, but the reason I say the KJV is the most Trinitarian, uh, translation that exists is because it was very specifically translated with that in mind.

Like the, the purpose, one of the chief purposes behind the translation was to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

I don't know where they get that. Um, that was, I mean, I suppose, you know, uh, Servetus had, had come along before the, uh, before that and things like that, but, um, I can, I can think of at least two or three modern translations that are more consistently, um, usable in defense of the deity of Christ, for example, than the King James, not because the King James translators had any issues with it, but in one case, the rule of grammar hadn't been identified yet, and in other cases, they were just a little bit more Latin friendly than, uh, than Greek friendly in some things and stuff like that.

But, uh, interesting assertion anyway.

Uh, so beginning in John one, uh, let's see, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made in him was life and the life was the light of man, the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it.

Not there was a man sent from God. Okay. So this is when it gets into the whole, uh, yeah, John the Baptist narrative. And let's see, isn't it? It's like in verse 14, I think. Yeah. And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Right.

So. Okay. Obviously, if you really want to hear the prologue of John's testimony to the deity of Christ, you can go to verse 18, which is the bookend of John one, one. Uh, no one has seen God at any time.

The unique God who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known. So I point out that they're sort of stopping early, but there you go. Yeah. So there you go.