China’s Totalitarianism, Union Theological Seminary Invites You to Apostacy, 1 Timothy 6

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line on a Wednesday, moving things up one day, basically, so I can have a little time over this weekend, be that as it may. Real quick, I got my copy of Tom Askell's Traditional Theology in the SBC in the mail, an interaction with and response to the traditionalist statement of God's plan of salvation.

Um, what? Oh, well, quit, quit playing around the cameras. And, uh, so, uh, it'll, uh, it looks, I don't know what I'm talking about now because the guy over there is messing with me, but whatever, they don't care.

Um, not a huge tome, uh, but obviously a very, very welcome, uh, addition to the, uh, discussion going on there. Yes, I do know that Leighton Flowers put out some type of a video about how Calvinism destroys apologetics, all the rest of the stuff.

I'm sorry, I'll just refer you back to the debate and, uh, refer you to, uh, the times that Leighton Flowers has actually engaged in apologetics and just have you compare and you just go from there. Anyways, but, um, appreciate, uh, Tom Askell's work.

Uh, he's much, much nicer than I am, much, much nicer than I am. And I listened to him on Sheologians with, uh, Summer and Joy. And, uh, he just, he just has the grandfather voice down. Just, just spot on.

Very, very, very, very good. Uh, I can't believe I did this yesterday, but the first thing I was supposed to talk about on the, on the program, uh, was, uh, China and, uh, I just completely spaced it.

I guess I got other stuff on the screen and, and it, uh, um, got me going, but, um, I want to start off with the, uh, there is a article, uh, at, uh, Chinapartnership .org updated September 11th. And, uh, you want, you want statements?

China’s Totalitarianism and the Persecution of Christians and Uyghurs

Um, let me, let me tell you about statements that actually really, uh, cost you. Uh, a lot is going on in, uh, in China. Um, and there, there are two things to keep in mind. China is, um, using, uh, Orwell as a how-to book.

Uh, 1984 is 2018. And yet, uh, the point is now that China has, um, technology that Orwell could not have possibly thought of. And as a result, uh, facial recognition software and the ability to track people, um, those view screens from Orwell, um, now they're real.

Now they're just, now they're just real. And, uh, the ability to control people in this way is, um, it's, it's every dystopian movie maker's dream, except that it's real. And so if all those movies were supposed to be warnings, nobody's been listening.

Um, they are establishing, and, and again, from a Christian worldview, this makes perfect sense. There is an absolute cult of the state that is fundamental in China now. And the state is everything. And therefore, any other claims to ultimate authority, specifically monotheistic religions primarily, um, is a threat to the state and hence is heresy.

And so China is cracking down on both Christians and Muslims. So you have a group I had never heard of before just a few weeks ago called the Uyghurs, uh, Muslims of, I don't know anything about them.

I don't know if they're Sunni Shia, something different. I don't know. Um, but they, um, are being horrifically persecuted, uh, imprisoned in the hundreds of thousands, uh, children separated from parents, forced into reeducation camps, which is nothing but mind mind messing around the mind brainwashing, um, specifically told they must abandon their Muslim beliefs and they must praise the state.

Um, uh, forced to chant prayers to the, the chairman and give thanks to the state before eating and this kind of stuff, just amazing stuff going on. And we certainly should pray for the Uyghurs. Why? They're not Christians.

That's true. We want them to become Christians. And so they're not going to become Christians while being enslaved by the Chinese communists. So you pray that they will, uh, be freed or that somehow don't ask me how, but God's big, uh, there would be a Christian witness that would come to them because I sort of doubt they've had much in the way of a revelation of the truth of who Christ is or anything along those lines at all.

But it's consistent what they're doing to the Uyghurs and to Christians. Uh, they're cracking down on, uh, house churches that have been in existence for many years right there in Beijing were well-known.

Uh, and as a result, uh, 116 at the time of this writing, September 11th, uh, 116 Chinese pastors signed joint statement on the new religious regulations. And, um, you know, we, when we think about, uh, statements, you know, we have the freedom, there've been over 7 ,000 people that have signed, uh, the statement on social justice and the gospel.

Um, very thankful for that, but we have, and, and yeah, there is, there is a price to pay for signing it, uh, I will admit, but not yet, uh, the price of your freedom. Um, and so in looking at what they write, it is truly amazing.

Um, we believe these unjust actions are an abuse of government power and have led to serious conflicts between political and religious parties in Chinese society. These actions infringe on the human freedoms of religion and conscience and violate the universal rule of law.

We are obligated to announce bad news to the authorities and to all of society. God hates all attempts to suppress human souls and all acts of persecution against the Christian church, and he will condemn and judge them with righteous judgment.

I'm not sure that you, you'd get that into most Western statements to be perfectly honest with you. Um, God judging, uh, but we are even more obligated to proclaim good news to the authorities and to all of society.

Jesus, the only begotten son of God, the savior and king of mankind in order to save us sinners was killed, was buried and rose from the dead by the power of God, destroying the power of sin and death.

In his love and compassion, God has prepared forgiveness and salvation for all who are willing to believe in Jesus, including Chinese people. At any time, anyone can repent from any sin, turn to Christ, fear God, obtain eternal life and bring great blessing, uh, and bring great blessing from God upon his family and country.

For the sake of faith and conscience, for the spiritual benefits of the authorities in China and of society as a whole, and ultimately for the glory, holiness, and righteousness of God, we make the following declaration to the Chinese government and to all of society.

Listen to this. Now I'm, when we get done with this, I'm going to run through the arrogance dripping article that Union Theological Seminary put out. I mean, if you want to hear the, it's just, it's just, it is the arrogance of the left.

I mean, it's just astounding. Um, that's the Union Theological Seminary statement. And it just, it's just so condescending. Oh, you poor people to believe in the inspiration of the Bible. It's so sad.

Compare the unbelieving attitude of Union Theological Seminary and its leftist agenda with the brave Christians of China. There is a huge difference. Listen to this. The first point, and by the way, we were criticized for having as our first point, the authority of scripture.

Well, Christian churches in China believe unconditionally the Bible is the word and revelation of God. It is the source and final authority of all righteousness, ethics, and salvation. If the will of any political party, the laws of any government or the commands of any man directly violate the teachings of the Bible, harming men's souls and opposing the gospel proclaimed by the church, we are obligated to obey God rather than man.

And we are obligated to teach all members of the church to do the same. Yeah. Uh, who's, which side would Union be on in this situation? The commies. Yeah, you bet. Exactly. Uh, number two, Christian churches in China are eager and determined to walk the path of the cross of Christ and are more than willing to imitate the older generation of saints who suffered and were martyred for their faith.

We are willing and obligated under any circumstance to face all government persecution, misunderstanding, and violence with peace, patience, and compassion. For when churches refuse to obey evil laws, it does not stem from any political agenda.

It does not stem from resentment or hostility. It stems only from the demands of the gospel and from a love for Chinese society. Christian churches in China are willing to obey authorities in China, whom God has appointed and respect the government's authority to govern society and human conduct.

We believe and are obligated to teach all believers in the church that the authority of the government is from God. And that as long as the government does not overstep the boundaries of secular power laid out in the Bible and does not interfere with or violate anything related to faith or the soul, Christians are obligated to respect the authorities to pray fervently for their benefit and to pray earnestly for Chinese society.

For the sake of the gospel, we are willing to suffer all external losses brought about by unfair law enforcement. Out of a love for our fellow citizens, we are willing to give up all our earthly rights.

For this reason, we believe and are obligated to teach all believers that all true churches in China that belong to Christ must hold the principle of the separation of church and state and must proclaim Christ as the sole head of the church.

We declare that in matters of external conduct, churches are willing to accept lawful oversight by civil administration or other government departments, as other civil social organizations do, but under no circumstances will we lead our churches to join a religious organization controlled by the government, to register with the religious administration department, or accept any kind of affiliation.

We also will not accept any ban or fine imposed on our churches due to our faith. For the sake of the gospel, we are prepared to bear all losses, even the loss of our freedom and our lives.". 116 signatories names listed right there.

How long do we have to do something like that? I'll be honest with you folks, it could be a matter of a few, a certain number of elections. You think that there is some huge bulwark keeping the same thing from happening here that's happening in China?

What is it? Well, we've got the constitution. The constitution is a piece of paper. It's got words written on it, and once you adopt the idea that words have no meanings and words can be changed, hey, if you're a guy, you can be a girl tomorrow, right?

If your very gender has no meaning, if what you are has no meaning, then you can interpret words any way you want to, and all you got to do now to completely subvert the governmental system United States of America is to fill that Supreme Court with people who believe that.

There's already four people on it that already believe it. Put them on there. Well, at least three, three and a half, whatever, and voila, you got it. It's done. It's done. There is a thin, thin, thin veneer of civilization that is sustained by God, and we never give him thanks for it, and all you got to do is look across the ocean at this huge population, many times the size of the United States, and yet they're controlled, absolutely totalitarian control, and what you have is you have the state becoming God.

The state becomes the religion. Have we done this before? Yeah. Did we already forget about how bad it was? Yeah. Pray for these folks. Pray for the church in China. Pray for the Uyghurs, that there would be a testimony made to them.

They are being persecuted by the very same system that is persecuting the Christians for the same reason. They have an ultimate authority, other than that, of the state. Anybody. See, the polytheistic religions, they can sort of, they're not seen as much of a threat by the totalitarians, because there's no, you know, in polytheism, basically, you've got one God over a certain area, and so even back in Rome, you know, as long as your God was just a God over a certain area, then you could acknowledge the existence of other gods, and hey, we can all get along that way, right?

They recognize it's monotheistic religions, specifically, that are such a challenge to the totalitarianism of of Chinese communism. And it's, I don't know, seems just a little bit scary to me that the Russians are currently having joint military maneuvers with the Chinese.

You put those two powers together, and that's a major portion of the world's land mass, and a major portion of the world's military, right then and there. So there you go. There you go. And then there was another article in Christianity Today about major new rule recommendations in China to completely control online access, completely control online access.

So information involving religion, including that relating to religious doctrines, religious knowledge, religious culture, religious activities that is transmitted as text, images, audio, or video through means of internet websites, applications, forums, blogs, microblogs, public accounts, instant messaging, or online live streaming.

All of that would have to be controlled by and approved by the state. There you go. Totalitarians will be totalitarians, and that is what China is all about. And so when you see, essentially, a communist running for office in the United States, keep that in mind.

Keep that in mind. That's what we're looking at. Now, so I didn't get to that yesterday, and I apologize. I'm trying to be quick here, but there's a lot of stuff here. Union Theological Seminary, shortly after our article, our statement came out, put up an article on their website, and they also posted it on the website, and then they broke it into a tweet thread of about 14 tweets, I think.

And I responded to that fairly quickly after it came out, and the very first thing that they affirmed was biblical errancy. And I just walked through it as just a incredible example of the empty nature, the ahistorical nature, the corrupted nature of liberalism, which isn't, it's really leftism anymore.

It's not really liberalism, but of Christian religion that loses its foundation and ends up, when the Christian faith created the structure, the shell, and then the insides are sucked out by apostasy, and you try to fill it back up with worldly philosophy, the result is a stinking corpse.

And that's what you have in the mainline denominations that are just swinging off into the ozone on the left and affirming everything that could possibly be seen to be opposed to biblical law and morality and ethics and everything else.

And so we responded to it, and I'm sure other people responded to it as well, but they decided that they wanted to continue that thread, I guess, and especially respond to the pushback they got in their denial of inerrancy.

Now, you just need to understand, I've talked about this many times before, when you go to a conservative seminary, in the conservative seminary, you learn what the liberals believe. You read their books, you understand their perspective.

When you go to a liberal seminary, you do not learn what conservatives believe, because that is considered to be a waste of time. Conservatives are Neanderthals, they never think, they're just stupid fundamentalists, they repeat the same things over and over again, have the IQ of a wet shoelace.

That literally is what you're taught in a liberal seminary. You do not study the conservatives. You want proof? Look at my debates with liberals. Do they ever do homework? Do they ever read our books?

When I debated John Shelby Spong, had he taken the time to read anything that I'd written on homosexuality? Of course not. What did I do? I listened to his lectures. I read his books. I was ready. It doesn't matter who they are, they just don't believe that we have anything worthwhile to say.

It is an extremely arrogant, condescending worldview, but that's the essence of what it is. That's just what you deal with. They really, really may think they're speaking the truth. They have not taken the time to read serious scholarship from our side because they don't believe it exists.

I mean, if you say, have you read any serious scholarship in defense of inerrancy? I'd be like, that would honestly be like saying, have you read any serious scholarship in defense of flat-earthism or unicorns?

That's how they would hear that. Well, there is a Denny, so how could I have read it? That's really what they think. And that oozes through every word of this statement. So, number one, a word about biblical infallibility.

This weekend, we received much damnation from fundamentalists over our denial of scriptural inerrancy. Now, of course, I would probably interpret that as more along the lines of, we got pushback, and so we'll interpret that as fundamentalist damnation.

It's understandable. Now, listen to this. I almost wish I had a musical background. I have some pictures of flowers. It's understandable because once you relinquish conviction that the Bible is literally God's word, faith becomes a messier affair.

It's easier to simply believe that the Bible is a plain record of the divine, that it clearly and concisely states what Christians should believe. In a world that feels so chaotic, biblical infallibility can provide distinct comfort, but comfort and truth aren't synonymous.

So, from their perspective, everybody—now, are there people like that? Are there people who believe in biblical inerrancy and authority, who never expose themselves to any other perspective? You know, just—yeah, there are.

Is that everybody? No. My shelves in my library are lined with books written by excellent scholars who know everything about every objection these people would make to our belief, and yet still believe it and have good answers for it, but they don't read those books.

They would consider that to be a compromise. It'd be given in, even a waste of time. But notice how the Bible is literally God's word, believe that the Bible is a plain record of the divine, that it clearly and concisely states what Christians should believe.

Well, it certainly does clearly, but anybody who's read the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Lundenbaps Confession of Faith, it says same thing, slight differences, but same thing.

We recognize, we understand the need for meaningfully critical scholarship, not hypercritical scholarship, learning the original languages, recognizing there are difficult passages, all these things. They don't know that we actually know that and actually practice that.

The truth is, it goes on to say, that the biblical books were written by humans. Really? You mean like men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, like Peter said? Well, Peter didn't write that—well, see, I went to Fuller.

The truth is the biblical books were written by humans. They represent the fruits of people grappling with God. Did you hear that from Brian Zahn too? The emergent church folks? They represent the fruits of people grappling with God and what it means to be human for centuries in all the complexity those questions necessarily entail.

Well, that's partially true. I mean, Job was definitely grappling with God, but why do you say that's all it is? Especially if you continue—I'm not sure if you do—claim to be a Christian, because I would think you'd want to like, you know, what did Jesus say about this?

What was Jesus' perspective on this particular thing? And obviously, he went well beyond that in his views of what the Scriptures were. Moreover, this is where you needed to be listening carefully. Last January, when Dr. Michael Kruger and I walked out on stage and spent about an hour talking about the canon of Scripture.

Why is that important? Well, we tried to tell you, here's a wonderful illustration. Wonderful illustration. Number four, moreover, even the decision about which books would be included in the Bible was a human choice, one that didn't solidify until centuries after Jesus died.

They by no means represent all early Christian texts. Then it's interesting, they put a little advert in. Dr. Hal Taussig's A New New Testament collects many others. Well, I saw that and I went, I can guess what's in there.

And then I thought, I think I have that. And lo and behold, I do. A New New Testament. I talked about this. I don't remember when I talked about it. It was sometime over the past couple of years. And yeah, that's a big book.

And totally unsurprisingly, all it is, is New Testament books bound together with Gnostic Gospels. So you got the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. And some of these we have, you know, just a bunch of Nag Hammadi stuff and the secret revelation of John's right after the revelation of John.

And so you take stuff from a completely different worldview with demiurges and all that kind of stuff. And you stick it all together and it makes for a nice mishmash of utter confusion. But again, most of the people at Union don't realize that every time we've had story time with Uncle Jimmy, I've been reading you these very books and we do study them and we recognize they come from a completely different worldview.

And normally centuries later, after the time of New Testament. And we have entire books on the subject of the canon that actually go far more in depth than your guys's stuff does. Because we read your stuff, you don't even bother with us.

So ours is just a little bit better off than yours is, but you don't know that. So yeah, there's the book they suggest. There is no consistent message here. That's the whole point. If you accept this, which they evidently think that the canon of scripture needs to be expanded, then you cannot address any theological issue.

There's no reason to believe in the deity of Christ. There's a reason to believe in the resurrection, the atoning death of Christ. There's no reason to have any Christian theology at all because you have no basis left for it.

It's just, there you go. That's all there is to it. Number five, furthermore, the languages in which most Americans read the Bible reveal yet another layer of human interpretation decisions made by translators who labored diligently over the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

Well, you know, most of those translators tend to be fairly conservative folks. They're not normally of your ilk. But yeah, you know, that's true. We've talked many times. Any Bible translation does introduce another layer of interpretation.

That's quite true, which is why we emphasize so strongly the reading of the original texts in the original languages. There is so much humanity in the Bible and humans are by nature fallible and often blinded by our own cultural prejudices and blind spots.

That was every bit as true for the early church as it is for the modern church. Well, again, liberals are really good at stating the obvious and then not stating what they're really meaning by that. So, none of us will deny, for example, that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What that means is there's two elements there and the unstated presupposition of the liberal that is seen so clearly here is that the overriding element of the writing of Scripture is the sinful—well, not even sinful, they would say fallible—humanity.

There's nothing here about the supernatural, superintendence, providential protection, anything else about the Holy Spirit of God or spiritual nature to these things. It's all just, well, there's just so much humanity in the Bible and humans are fallible and got blind spots and what they're trying to say is, so the Bible does too.

So, the Bible does too and we get to determine what they are. So, whatever flavor of current scholarship that you happen to be imbibing, that's going to be your ultimate authority and the Bible can no longer function from generation to generation and give us any meaningful direction.

That's the result of this perspective. But they don't seem to see that. Number seven, but by no means should an admission of fallibility be read as an admission that the Bible is worthless or a denial that God speaks through Scripture.

Instead, it simply opens the door to a far deeper, nuanced, and complex faith. Again, I'm sure they actually believe this and you'll see the false dichotomy. I mean, okay, so you're not saying it's worthless, but you are saying it's not the final authority.

You are saying that there are other books that need to be added to it. I suppose you probably will likewise say that we need to listen to the Quran and to the Bhagavad Gita and the Talmud and a bunch of other stuff, you know, along the way and the result is going to be this massive soup bowl of contradiction that you get to, you know, sort of mix and match and do whatever you want with.

Number eight, it means being a critical reader of the Bible, interpreting more difficult passages in light of clearer ones. That's called the analogy of faith. We do that all the time. Reading biblical scholarship, see, from their perspective, we don't do that.

We don't have any of it. There are no biblical scholars other than their group. They really, really, really believe that. They really do. It is the massive theological echo chamber. The left is. It just is.

Reading biblical scholarship to better understand the cultural context in which texts are written and how that informs them. Like, we never do that. I mean, certainly, there's nothing in any, you know, when I read Murray's commentary on Romans or Morris on John or any of these, there's nothing about, nothing about original languages or social contexts.

Hopefully, you understand I'm being exceptionally facetious when I say that. But on a deeper level, it means opening up faith to doubt. It means acknowledging that when it comes to God, there are no easy answers.

There's no cheat sheet that you can simply refer to, to read God's voice clear as day. Letting go of that can be painful. I told you, it just drips with the arrogance of the left. It's just, yeah, all we want are easy answers.

Yeah. Cheat sheets. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's the historic view of the church. Yeah. When I read Calvin or Augustine or anybody else in history, that's just all they had. Yeah. Right. Wow. Just stunningly offensive.

But once you embark on this new religious adventure, see, they're, they're inviting you, please come apostatize with us. Come to Union Theological Seminary. Apostates are us. This is, this is what's, once you embark on this new religious adventure, you'd be shocked at how it can deepen your faith because we know you can serve it as your faith.

It's just a lot of people seem worried about relinquishing biblical inerrancy because it would render Christianity meaningless. This could not be further from the truth. No, it wouldn't render Christianity meaningless.

It would render Christianity groundless, foundationless. It becomes a, a building on shifting sand that eventually falls down into the mess that you see at Union Theological Seminary, where instead of Christian theology, now all you've got is social justice.

All denominations that abandon the word of God eventually become nothing more than social justice movements. And eventually they tire out and you end up with the Episcopalians or something like that. 11, the Bible still speaks divine truth.

Those who study it still benefit from the centuries of spiritual contemplation and reflection it contains. Because remember, all it is, is man's thoughts about God. That's how you can get rid of all the uncomfortable stuff in the Old Testament about judgment and nations and stuff like that.

This is just what people back then were thinking about God, see? And so the main thing we can take from that is we don't want to think about God that way. And so the Psalms are no less beautiful, though of course Jesus quotes the Psalms as being the very words of God through the Holy Spirit that are prophetic announcements of what he's doing.

Proverbs, no less profound, Job remains an unparalleled distillation of grappling with theodicy. Well, you know, um, the difference being that for a believing Christian, that grappling with theodicy has authoritative impact upon us.

And we can then use it as a guide rather than just sit around and talk about it and then go, well, that's what they thought back then, but I'm not sure what's going on now. And of course, back then they didn't know all the stuff we know.

That's one of the main things is, you know, back then they had a lot of wrong ideas. They thought men were men and women were women. They thought they were created by God. And we know better now. We know better now.

And so we don't really need to listen to what they had to say. Only two sections left, in case you're starting to feel ill. 13. Moreover, now, if you, you know, up until now, you know, there, you know, there was a thing here and you could agree with a sentence there, but now you see what, now we're going to find out what this is really all about.

Moreover, relinquishing infallibility is the only means. Listen to this folks. This is, this is union theological. This is, this is a place that would be viewed by the world as a place of great scholarship.

Moreover, relinquishing infallibility is the only means by which you can fully square scripture with a loving, just God. You want a loving, just God? Gotta get rid of scripture. That's union theological seminary folks.

That's union theological seminary. Um, then when it says loving, just God, it's capitalized G. A God, small G, that would condemn LGBTQ people for their love or consign women to subservience is not a small G God worth worshiping.

There's union. There you go. There, there's the real motivation. These are rebels. They hate God's law. They hate the very foundation of the cross, but they still want to be religious. And the resultant mutation is what you have in modern day liberalism.

Um, yeah, I, I saw that same tweet. Who's, who's that guy I wonder? Uh, I have no idea. Yeah. Why, why should he care? Every time atheists like that start doing it, they're, they're, they don't realize they're demonstrating that they know God exists and they hate him, but they're doing it anyways.

It's, it's sort of humorous to watch it, but yeah, some guy named David Anthony, uh, the James White comedy hour is an absolute doozy tonight. His bunker set has never seemed more apt. Oh, bunker. Oh, I see.

Does this look like a bunker? Doesn't look like a bunker to me. Most bunkers have, you know, food cans in them, not books. Yes, we could. Ammo cans, actually. Yeah. Survival gear, stuff like that. Yeah.

Anyway. Yeah. Wait, well, we could, we could take after certain people and sell that stuff. We won't mention any names though. I should, I should, cause I don't think I ever read what he said about the statement.

So maybe I should anyway. Um, so back to this point here. Sorry, got sidetracked. Uh, notice all the sidetracking has been because of disturbances outside of the four walls of this room, because unfortunately it's not fully soundproof, uh, which it needs to be.

So I can just close that door. And if I don't have that in, then it's just moving of gums, you know? Yeah. Uh-huh. Back to number 13. Moreover, relinquishing infallibility is the only means by which you can fully square scripture with a loving, just God, a God that would condemn LGBTQ people for their love, which of course is not what the Bible does by any stretch of the imagination or consign women to subservience, whatever in the world that is, is not a God worth worshiping.

So in other words, these folks really detest Orthodox Christianity. And so you have this weird situation where what God has revealed, the church has believed down through the centuries, uh, is now the evil, terrible, horrible thing.

But you still get people who want to call themselves Christians, but detest what God actually said in his word. And the result is this distorted, mutated mess called liberal theology. Number 14. Fortunately, that God, small g, was never God, capital G, simply an idol worshiped by people who valued print and ink over divine justice.

Letting go of that idolatry, idolatry is the first step towards truly knowing God, the developing faith that honors both humanity and the divine, not God, but the divine, which is this vague thing. So from this religion's perspective, being a Christian who believes what Jesus said about scripture is idolatry.

Uh, that's why Jay Gresham Machen said Christianity and liberalism, two different religions. And they are, and they are, um, amazing, amazing stuff. But remember, and this came out as a result, this was prompted because the statement, the statement on social justice and the gospel, which began by confessing inerrancy.

And so there you go. Um, I think there has, uh, aside from all the other good stuff that has happened. Um, I think there, it, it's been very, very valuable that you've got that, uh, progressive Asian Americans, uh, statement, which I didn't go over.

Uh, I'm not, I'm not going to just look, just look it up. I tweeted it. And I think there's like 12 signatories on it, but, um, or maybe, yeah, I'm not sure how many that one has, but, um, it's just, again, it gets into homosexuality and, you know, all the rest of this kind of stuff.

And, uh, just like, just like union does, uh, way off to the left, but it is really turned a light on and, and shown us what is very often just as they know very little, but they all the way to the top, I mean, all the way to, um, the professors, things like that know next to nothing about what we believe.

Most of our people don't know anything about what they believe and assume wrongly if they call themselves Christians. Well, they must at least believe that the Bible is the word of God. They must at least believe Jesus really rose from the dead.

No, no. Um, you know, I'll, I'll never forget about halfway through the debate, Dr. Renahan and I versus John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, the late Marcus Borg, when it very clearly dawned on the other side and halfway through the debate, they're like, are you saying that you think that the grave was literally empty as in the body left?

And we're like, yeah, yeah, no. All right. We're yeah. That's, that's what you're dealing with, with, with people on the, on the left. Um, uh, Lucas, um, in Twitter, you need to, you need to go watch my, um, uh, discussion with, um, uh, Dr. Michael Kruger from the G3 conference January of this year.

And you'll get all the information you need, or at least get started on all the information that you need at that point in regards to the issue of the canon of scripture, who wrote scripture and things, uh, along, along those lines.

So there you go. There is the, uh, union statement, uh, against, uh, the Bible. Now I had just saved. At least I thought I had just saved. Uh, I wonder, Oh, I wonder where it went. Um, I did listen, uh, to, uh, oh, there it is.

I did listen to, um, the podcast this morning that, uh, Dr. Moore did on social justice, but just like the drop the mic program, it's cut into two parts. And so while there were a few things, um, I think any type of full response, if I choose do one would need to, um, probably wait for the second part.

There is one thing I do want to comment on, on Dr. Moore's, uh, podcast. And that was the assertion that in his view, um, and he was clearly talking about Dr. MacArthur and primarily aiming his comments toward him, but all of us who were involved in the writing and editing and promulgation of the, of the statement, um, he makes the accusation, you know, cause, cause when he, when he represents our side, he says, there are people who are saying, uh, you know, uh, we can talk about abortion in the church, but we can't talk about racism in the church.

And no one obviously has said anything like that. Dr. Moore is very well aware of the fact that, and he even raises the issue of communism. This is, this is one of the arguments that, that that side is using that is, that doesn't interact with what we're actually saying.

And that is, um, that, well, there were people who made the argument, the Jim Crow laws represented influx of communism. And therefore, if you today point out the origin and source of neo-Marxist concepts in intersectionality, um, power structures, oppression systems, uh, all the rest of that kind of stuff, then you're just supporting Jim Crow laws.

Now it's never going to be put that way because that's so patently illogical and irrational, uh, that they wouldn't get away with it. Um, but what you do is you only, you only, uh, state half the argument.

There were people who did this and then you leave unstated. So if anyone points to neo-Marxist concepts behind what we're saying, then they're doing the same thing. And so they leave it to a, an audience that unfortunately these days, you cannot assume, um, has ever taken a class in logic to make the unwarranted leap.

So they don't have to do it. See, if they, if they just laid it out, then we would go, you just blow it up and go, see, this is a common error of reasoning. And here's the documentation, so on and so forth.

So you leave yourself when I was at, well, I never said that, but you're hoping that your audience will make that leap for you. And evidently it is very, um, effective in the way that you, uh, you do that.