No Place to Hide: Responding to Dwight McKissic and Others

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. Here we are. Looks like we're getting really close.

We had some breakthroughs today in the new studio. We've got Zoom working and we're trying to get one of our guys to do some

Zoom stuff with us so I can have the tablet going and the flipboard going and testing all the stuff that we've got to make work.

But this morning, when I Zoomed in, it worked well and so I'm excited.

It's come together. I already have two or three guests lined up to join us in the new studio and then we can start planning on debates and stuff like that.

I might as well start with something up -tempo with all the weirdness that we have to deal with. Let's go over here.

We've got to clean this area up. There's too much stuff over there. Grogu's over there.

You may have wondered where Grogu was going ever since they fired the MMA lady.

I'm just sort of figuring Mandalorian's done. I've been reading articles about the people in charge at Disney and they should be called

Comrade. So why even give them money? It was great, but you should realize anything coming out of Hollywood today that's great will be destroyed eventually because you can't do anything like that.

I'm not sure that's really up -tempo. I was just looking over there going, Anyways, this morning on Blog and Mayblog, Doug Wilson was talking about the collapse of the secular worldview.

One of the thoughts I've had about what's going on around us, it's real easy if you give a lot of credit to evil men to see the global Great Reset and the utilization of technology and totalitarianism and tyranny.

See all of it. It's really easy to see. There is one problem though.

The worldview that they are utilizing that has very effectively taken us down, divided us in only a matter of years.

The foundations were laid before this, but it's only been the past few years that they've pressed the button to go,

Okay, let's divide everybody from everybody else. Let's take this nation down. Let's destroy the foundations.

Now that we have drilled through the foundations enough to completely weaken them. The whole worldview that they're utilizing is utterly incoherent.

Sometimes you sit there trying to deal with someone who is steeped in this worldview and they don't care.

They don't care that it's incoherent. They don't care that they're doing the things that they're doing, and they're just going to keep doing it,

I guess. I get it. But it can't build anything.

They're going to have to eventually come up with something, which they can't do, they live in God's world, but they've got to come up with something to replace this insanity.

That you're seeing, because you're seeing the leftists turn on the leftists.

There's only so far you can turn left before you're going right. I mean, they're circling in such tight little circles.

Intersectionality destroys everything. You eventually end up fighting with yourself. It's a little bit like what we've said for years about certain

Christians who just keep dividing and dividing and dividing until they're standing on one foot to stay inside the circle of orthodoxy.

And they're the only one left. And then they start fighting with themselves. This secular worldview is just so empty and so rife with contradiction.

I know they like contradiction. Contradiction right now, that's a wonderful thing. But you just can't live that way.

No one lives that way. The world falls apart very quickly.

And so I just have to wonder if we're giving them more credit than they deserve.

Because they're doing a great job right now, but it just makes you wonder if they've not planted the seeds, not just the seeds, but the

TNT, the C4 of their own self -destruction.

I don't just mean in eternity. I mean, in this life, they are turning on one another. They have to.

It's just necessary. Anyway, just thought I had this morning as I was listening that going, yeah, well, you know, wonder how long it'll take that self -destruction.

Because it's going to be aimed at us first. I mean, wow. If you believe what was commonly considered middle of the road in 1990, you are now a radical, right -wing, white supremacist, white nationalist, transphobe, homophobe.

I mean, just list it all there. It's pretty amazing to think about how quickly things have changed.

Which leads us to our first topic for the program, at least as far as what I have in front of me.

If you follow any of the social media, you know that there are a lot of questions right now amongst conservatives, both in regards to, well, let's just say every quote -unquote conservative denomination is dealing with the influx of woke ideology.

And some of it's coming from the seminaries. Some of it, it's just simply our society and the people going into the seminaries are already bringing it, and so they just amplify what they end up getting presented there.

It's not necessarily just coming from, it's not like they walked into the seminary with a good, solid foundation and then that all got washed away.

Many are coming in with a really bad foundation to begin with, and then it's just exacerbated.

It's amplified in the context of seminary. But I had the experience over the past few days of having somewhat of an interchange with Dwight McKissick.

Now, Pastor Dwight and I have tangled on a number of different issues in the past, especially

I remember very clearly back when I used to travel many, many years ago now, as in 2019, and I remember sitting at a certain gate at Sky Harbor International Airport, which

I used to know very, very well, knew everybody by their first name, typing on my phone in regards to the subject of Reformed theology.

Remember when you used to argue about that on Twitter and Facebook and stuff like that? Yeah, those were the days.

And so we've gone back and forth. And at one point, Dwight said to me, you know, I just don't think you and I are really going to be able to talk with one another.

I think we should just, you know. I'm not sure that, I don't know that he ever banned me before, but I think he basically said,

I'm just not going to interact with you. Well, then he got involved.

He's gotten involved with a lot of discussion with Tom Buck on various and sundry issues over the past couple of years.

And I've just watched from the sideline. I mean, like I said, he wasn't really interested in having interaction with me.

But finally, he rebuked Tom Askell and he rebuked everybody.

He has been, he was the person who started off on the Jezebel stuff. So Tom Buck makes reference to Jezebel, says, you know,

I don't think any godly Israelite parents would have pointed Jezebel as an example of a woman in power.

And this was all about all the people saying, well, isn't it just wonderful? We have a woman in power and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And the issue was, it's not whether you're a woman or how much power you have. It's your character that matters.

And clearly, Dwight McKissick has been quite defensive of Kamala Harris's character.

Now, of course, the rest of us go, but isn't character, isn't it connected to your worldview?

She was the most leftist senator, according to most studies.

The brief time that she was in the Senate, she is supportive of unlimited abortion rights.

Transgenderism. And then I posted this picture. I put this picture, I posted it to Dwight McKissick.

And I said, all right, Dwight, a simple question for you. Is this something that a

Christian does? Is this something a Christian does? Because here's Kamala Harris and she is presiding,

I guess is the term you would use. I would use the term profaning, but she is presiding at a homosexual mirage.

It's two women. And according to scripture, that's not a marriage. According to Jesus, that's not a marriage.

But she's proclaiming it to be one, which puts her in direct conflict with Jesus' teachings.

Now, as Dwight likes to point out, Kamala Harris is a member in good standing of a

National Baptist Church. Now, National Baptist Church is a black denomination.

And at least its statement of faith is predominantly

Orthodox, historically speaking. And so how dare anyone say anything?

But I'm like, but yeah. So for example, this is what

I was responding to. He said, sad. I strongly rebuke Tom Askell for saying this. And anybody who agrees with him,

Madam Vice President Kamala Harris is a member of the Third Baptist Church in San Francisco. A NBC church that describes the

NBC doctrinal statement almost identical to the BFM, which is the Baptist faith and message.

And so I asked, does a Christian do this? Would you allow a person who does this in your church to be a member of your church?

I think this is, Al Mohler has been saying since when, when did that book come out that he did?

There's no place to hide. When it comes to the sexual revolution, there's no place to hide.

You're going to have to take a stand someplace and you're going to have to, there's only, there's a divide.

Okay. You know, you're either going to be on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon or the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. There really isn't much in between because you'll be down in the

Colorado River. If you try to straddle between the two, it ain't going to work. So you're going to have to take a stand.

And I can tell you that if there was a member of my church that all of a sudden it came to our attention, this individual had officiated in some official capacity at a homosexual mirage, was using their position to promote absolutely unlimited abortion.

I mean, to the, not only to the point of birth, but had actually used their position to stop legislation that would require doctors to give assistance to a baby that was born from a botched abortion.

This person was actually believed that it was appropriate to let the baby die on a cold metal surface.

I mean, partial birth abortion and then transgenderism, giving of puberty blockers, which not only is incredibly dangerous, but stops development of internal organs, the brain.

It's just disgusting what this stuff does. It's the same stuff you use to chemically castrate sex offenders.

Give it to an eight year old. Good job. This kind, I can just tell you right now, if we discovered that there was someone in the church doing these things, there would be an immediate meeting.

There would be immediate presentation of what the scriptures say about these subjects.

Immediate call for repentance and repudiation of these actions. And if there was no repentance forthcoming, there would be an immediate excommunication and a removal of this person from the fellowship of the church.

Because this is a direct, obvious, unquestionable rebellion against the teachings of the master himself,

Jesus. So it seems like, you know,

I don't know how anyone can say, well, you know, we shouldn't be asking these questions today.

How can we not? The world is asking these questions. The world's going to demand. I mean, this woman may be the woman who cast the deciding vote in the

Senate. The Equality Act has been reintroduced. It's coming.

It's coming within a matter of literally days. Well, it could be weeks, but weeks are only seven days.

And the answer to these questions, everyone's going to be having to answer these questions.

And it just seems to me, if you're unwilling right now to come straight out and say, yes, this is sin. And yes, this is a specific situation where you have the obvious reality that Jesus upheld the appropriate moral power and righteousness of the law.

He said, anyone who teaches you to break the least of his commands, least in the kingdom of heaven.

Why? Because the law is good. It represents God's holy character. There is zero evidence anywhere.

When you even look at what Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount, he's not lessening the moral law.

He's expanding and making it deeper. Moral law says you shall not commit adultery.

But I say to you, if you even look on a woman to lust after her, you've committed adultery with her already in your heart.

And what he's doing there is he's saying the law actually touches, is supposed to touch the inward part.

That's what writing the law upon the heart is all about. You rejoice with God's law in the inward man, which was what was missing in regards to ancient

Israel. Well, outside, of course, of those who were truly born again, who were numbered amongst

God's elect. Anyway, so churches today that are dodging and hemming and hawing and won't just come straight out and say, right, that's wrong.

For example, there was an article, Peter Hack had an article about the

SBC preparing to expel a member church in Kennesaw, Georgia, Town View Baptist Church.

Because they have become, quote unquote, accepting, which is, once again, utilizing the language, use the language, control the language to turn it into the opposite of what it is.

We are accepting LGBTQ people, which means we are rejecting biblical standards that are directly laid out in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 -11, it's right there. Do not be deceived.

Do not be led astray. Those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

And the Town View Baptist Church is saying people who do these things will inherit the kingdom of God. That's not accepting.

That's just accepting of rebellion. That's rejecting of biblical parameters. So, okay, there you go.

That's what's going on. So I asked this question, and I also later posted, this is another, just in case people are unaware of this,

I want to remind you that we have pictures of Kamala Harris doing this. And here is a picture of the current spokesperson for whoever's in charge in the

White House, Mr.

Biden, who reads the teleprompters. But I don't think Mr. Biden's there anymore. But this is actually in Joe Biden, well, it's gone, but that was actually in Joe Biden's house.

And I believe these guys worked for him, if I recall correctly. But this, again, is a profaning of marriage being performed by an alleged

Roman Catholic. I thankfully know many

Roman Catholics who would look at that picture and go, oh, for a

Pope with a backbone. Oh, for a Roman Catholic bishop with a backbone that would get rid of this guy.

There you go. Now, we also had a guy, by the way, by the name of Thomas Horrocks.

I've seen this guy. We've run into each other, but I don't remember where. But so strange to see these

Southern Baptist gentlemen who spend the last four years supporting and defending Trump, who rarely attended church, denied the need for forgiveness and mocked

Christians, now fiercely attacking the faith of Kamala, a Baptist church member in good standing. So this is what we've got going on.

This is what we've got going on. The narrative. And of course, when

I challenged him, he wouldn't respond to the same questions. I'll mention why he did later on if I remember to.

So the response that I got from Dwight McKissick.

Well, I found that eventually, because by the time

I got to Twitter, someone sent me a notification that Dwight McKissick wanted to talk about this on The Divine Line.

I never saw that. I never saw that. And it's been deleted.

Because by the time I got to Twitter, I was banned by Dwight McKissick. So I couldn't even see what he actually said to me.

So somebody else screenshot it. And here's the answer that Dwight McKissick first, when

I posted it, he didn't respond. He normally doesn't respond to me. But I guess enough people pushed on him.

And so this was his response. Simple question,

Mr. White. Will a Christian enslave persons as did Edwards and Whitfield and treat them as property?

Would a Christian write a sermon on the back of a slave receipt? Would a Christian participate in murder as did

Calvin? Would a Christian rape as DJT is accused of? That's Donald J.

Trump. Evidently, if Donald Trump is accused of it, then that's credible.

But if Joe Biden is accused of it, that's not. Again, asking for consistency these days is a fool's errand, tilting at windmills.

So I responded to each part of this on Twitter.

I wrote responses. You can go to my timeline. You can see that I did so. I saw no replies.

On February 19th, Dwight said, if Mr.

White will answer my question, which he probably will not do, which I already had. He'll simultaneously answer the question he asked me.

And then he says, for those who say I haven't answered Mr. White's question, herein is my answer. So I would like to respond to Dwight.

I mean, I like Dwight. I really do. But Dwight is not a clear thinker by any stretch of the imagination.

He just never has been. He either lacks the discipline to do so or respect for other people so as to extend the effort to do so.

I don't know what the reasons are. But this is called deflection.

This is called deflection. The question that the church, that every church, every church is going to be asked, where do you stand on these issues?

Especially once the Equality Act passes. And how you answer may determine on whether your church will be closed down by government officials.

Whether it will lose its tax -exempt status. Whether it will come under crushing financial stress.

Whether your bank will stop processing donations for you. Oh yes, that's coming too.

That's coming too, you better believe it. Uh -huh, that's coming too. All these things will depend on how you answer the same question that I asked

Dwight McKissick. And an answer like this isn't going to cut it. Though it might deflect enough to allow you to keep functioning under the leftist regime.

Because it sounds like you're being supportive of these things.

I would at least like to hear Dwight McKissick say, I would never do that. And I would like to hear him say,

I would never allow that done in my church. And I would discipline anyone who did do this in my church.

How hard is it to say that? How hard is it to say, I'm just simply going to leave this up to the local elders that have responsibility for Kamala Harris.

Well, okay. But not even that was said. Instead you get utter deflection.

Let's say you answered all of these questions the way that Dwight McKissick evidently wants you to answer them.

What would any of that have to do at all, logically, with the question that I had asked, based upon the picture of Kamala Harris officiating at a gay mirage?

Logically. Let's say if you said a Christian would never enslave persons.

Philemon doesn't belong in the canon of scripture. Abraham wasn't the great patriarch because he had slaves.

David, him too. Solomon, gone. Entire authors of scripture were actually demon -possessed men.

That's where you've got to go. But let's say you did all that. What does that have to do with the question? What if you bought into, and I have a real strong suspicion that Pastor McKissick doesn't know much about the consistory, the little council, the governmental structure in Geneva in the middle of the 6th decade of the 16th century.

I really doubt that he has any idea what the other Swiss cantons were communicating in regards to Cervetus.

He probably doesn't know that Cervetus escaped from the Inquisition the night before he was to be burned.

Made a beeline for Geneva. He probably doesn't know any of those things. He probably doesn't know that the ministers in Geneva asked for a different form of execution and were overruled by the secular authorities.

All those things probably don't matter to him all that much. So let's say you just go, yep,

Calvin was all wrong. Calvin should never have functioned as the minister in Geneva to bring the charges against Cervetus, who was known all across Europe as a denier of the

Trinity. Nope. And then you go ahead and throw

Trump under the bus and ignore Biden and all the rest of that stuff. And you answer all the questions the way he wants.

What does that have to do with Kamala Harris? Absolutely, positively nothing. Nothing. It doesn't answer the question.

It's complete deflection. It has nothing to do with the fact that we're living in a day where we have to stand up and we have to do something more.

We have to turn this conversation around. We are seeking to speak to a culture filled with people who, while they are made in the image of God, are every day told and taught in so many different ways that they are nothing but a cosmic accident.

And so how do we respond to that? How do we deal with this situation?

And right now, we're not doing a really good job because it takes a tremendous amount of energy on our part to redefine the conversation and recapture the language.

And that's not something that a lot of people have a lot of experience having to do.

I have to do that in debates all the time. Certain debate opponents will either ask questions with loaded language, change definitions, things like that, or will respond in similar fashion.

And you have to be constantly listening, carefully analyzing, and clarifying so as to keep the conversation going in the right direction.

And that's what's required of us today. What is frustrating so many

Christians is that we are constantly on the defensive linguistically, having to deal with, well, that's transphobic.

What is that supposed to mean? I mean, it's a negative term.

You can get fired for it. In fact, oh yeah, did

I? No, I guess I didn't save that. I retweeted it, but there was a university professor, probably a wild -eyed leftist, who told a story about trying to find a bar to go to, saw some good -looking women outside one, and they decided to go to that one because there was good -looking women standing outside of it, and then saw a sign that said something about best -looking transvestite contest or something, cross -dressing contest, and they decided not to go in.

And therefore, he's gone. Fired. For telling that story.

That's how wildly, immaturely, childishly sensitive people are.

But the whole idea, I mean, you don't want to be accused of being a transphobe, whatever that is, because now that's just bad.

No one's given any reason why that's bad. It's just, well, because it's offensive to somebody, somewhere, they're offended.

And we don't care if you're offended, because you don't matter, because you're the oppressor and not the oppressed, and blah blah blah.

It's the breakdown of meaningful conversation. Anyway, this kind of control of language, it's just every single day.

It gets tiring. I think a lot of people are just getting tired of the battle, but we don't have any choices, because God has chosen to communicate through the means of language, and therefore, we have to defend that language, and continue to point out that it's the other side that is perverting meaningful communication.

And so when you find Baptist pastors who can't answer a direct question without deflecting like this, without just going off into complete other areas, and I just have to wonder, for example, when

I pointed this out too, and I haven't had anyone who said, no, no, that's not true.

It was only, I mean, as recently ago as 2010, 2011, we were all, no matter what our ethnicity, gathering at big conferences, and we were, you could have, it was very common to have studies, and sermons, and themes on Whitefield and Edwards.

Edwards resolutions, Edwards theology of the will, Whitefield sermons, and everybody was there, and nobody had any problem with it at all.

And a decade later, a decade later, evidently, you are a slave apologist.

That's what I was called on Twitter this week. A slave apologist, if you think

Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield were even Christians. So we were all together 10 years ago, and now, talk about division.

If you even think that what was believed back then is still true, you're a slave apologist.

And you have to, the new narrative is, you have to consider these men to be non -Christians.

It sounds like, for Dwight McKissick, that this is non -negotiable, and he's seemingly trying to parallel it with performing homosexual marriage.

And he won't answer. He won't, you know, he's blocked me.

But I'd certainly like to find out, so you are now saying this is a gospel issue. So you are consistent.

Are you consistent? David is in hell. Solomon is in hell.

Abraham is in hell. Joseph, Joseph is in hell.

Most of the Israelite kings, in hell. Philemon, in hell.

And everyone that Paul addressed as a lord or a master, in Colossians and elsewhere, in hell, right?

You're being, is that consistent? And you know the only answer I've gotten to that? Well, that's what the slaveholders said.

So? I don't care. Why should you care? Well, but you're using their arguments.

Back in 1999, I think it was 1999, I did a debate on, well, sorry, 1998.

I was doing a debate on Long Island every other day. Thanks to Chris Arnzen.

If I wasn't debating a heretic, I was debating Chris Arnzen, which sometimes, well, anyway, that woke

Chris up. He was just starting to nod off and now he's, now he's awake going, Oh, yeah, that's

Chris. I can hear him from here. Anyway, I debated

Dr. Robert Sabin, who was one of the leading oneness apologists in the past.

Oneness Pentecostalism. And if you've listened to the debate, you know that one of the arguments that he made was that Roman Catholics persecuted innocent people in the

Inquisition. Okay. There's lots of arguments as to exactly how many, but yeah, even the

Popes have apologized for that. Well, Roman Catholics are Trinitarians. And therefore, that's an argument against the

Trinity. No, it's not. Dwight, if you can see that, that that's not an argument against the

Trinity, then you shouldn't have made the exact same argument right here. If your whole argument is,

I'm not going to deal with that argument because someone that I disagree with in the past, that we all agree was wrong, used that argument, then you're not really engaging in meaningful reasoning.

We're not going to get anywhere. And it's your fault we're not going to get anywhere. And that's the problem.

Apologists for slavery did point that out. So the next logical thing that should come into the mind, if we're thinking logically, is how do you refute that argument?

What was the refutation of that argument that the other side used? Because, you see, if the argument is, well,

Philemon was a slave owner, which he was, and if your conclusion from that is you're just going to take one step, and that means he was an unbeliever, you obviously missed a bunch of steps in between.

And that's where the real issue is. And since you're just skipping it, then the real issue is never going to be addressed. You're never going to be able to get up to the actual level of how the abolitionists were arguing.

Because you might actually have to deal with different kinds of slavery, and you're going to have to deal with the reality that slavery was a part of the human experience and continues to be a part of the human experience to this very day.

We've made huge strides. It still exists in the world.

We've made huge strides, and it's primarily the Christian church that promoted those huge strides.

But it's still out there. It was the economic backbone of many empires.

The Greek and Roman empires. Alexander and then Rome basically absorbing what

Alexander did. Slavery was definitional.

Definitional. And at times it was race -based. It was ethnicity -based.

In certain areas. In the Roman Empire as a whole, it generally wasn't.

Though, a barbarian by the nature of being a barbarian, I mean, that's not one ethnicity.

But it is, I guess you might call it an ethnic group in some sense. But anyway. But there was chattel slavery all along.

And there is long history of slavery within Islamic countries. All the way up to the modern period.

And so, that's the reality. That's what has happened in the past.

And you can stand on your head and hold your breath.

You can do whatever you want. But the Bible addresses God's people in history.

Not your utopian visions of what you think should have been in the past. So, you have to deal with those realities.

And obviously, if you're going to in any meaningful fashion address something like an

Edwards or a Whitefield, you've got to do so by examining the context in which they lived and what they knew.

And we can do that with anybody. And we would demand 200 years from now to be judged based upon what we knew today, not what will be known 200 years from now.

Dwight McKissick would demand the same thing. Though he will not extend that to anybody else. So, you have no right.

If you will not recognize that people in the past lived in the context in which they lived, then you have no right to ask future generations to be fair in their analysis of what you believe, what you've said, and how you act and behave.

You can't. If you won't extend it to the people who came before you, on what basis do you expect it to be extended to you?

Now, obviously, if we want to do history meaningfully, we have to do that. We have to look at where people were.

And for years and years and years as I've taught church history, all my students will tell you,

I emphasize strongly the need to look at anyone in the context in which they actually live.

How much light did they have? How much tradition got in the way of that light?

And I know people don't think about these types of things. They need to. Because it's what comes into this type of thinking.

When you look at what happened with sacralism in the Middle Ages, coming into the

Reformation, the mixture of church and state, rather than the proper definition of the two, with the one functioning as God has intended, under the law of God, to reward the good, punish the evil, the other acting as light, to constantly be calling the state to its proper role, and providing the information as to what that would be, and yet it's their separate spheres, in the sense of who's the ultimate authority.

The ultimate authority, even for the state, remains God, because they are under God's rulership.

They are ordained by God, and therefore when they punish the good and promote the evil, they're in rebellion against God, and will be held accountable thereto.

Anyway, when you look back at what happens in the

Reformation, whether it be Servetus or anybody else, and you actually put it in its context, nobody wants to do that today.

The greatest evidence of the completely non -historical way of thinking of people today, is that they will transport anything in the past right into the context today, and judge by today's standards.

That's it. And those are people that have never looked at history in any meaningful fashion at all.

Speaking of strange things on the internet, just in passing,

I don't know if you saw, but briefly, the Vatican said that they would fire anyone on their staff in Vatican City that would not receive the

COVID -19 vaccination. Now, there are a lot of different reasons why people do not want to take the

COVID -19 vaccine. I have no interest in touching it until I have two and five year safety studies.

That is a completely fair, completely logical request, that up until 2020, would have been fully understandable for a new technology that even the most sold out of the promoters of these vaccines has to admit, there are questions about autoimmune diseases,

ADE, and other issues with these vaccines that will not be decided in a matter of weeks, or even a matter of months, but will only be decided over years.

There are questions concerning fertility. There's a lot of questions about fertility, period, these days.

I don't know if you saw that article that came out recently, that basically documented that men aren't nearly as virile as they used to be.

I mean, we're talking reproductive problems in the future. Big time reproductive problems. And there's various theories, everywhere from the horrible kinds of plastics that we're constantly exposed to, to the fact that we sit around too much.

All sorts of issues along those lines. That's a whole other issue that I'm not interested in getting into, but it's a little on the scary side.

But there are questions about the impact of the COVID -19 vaccine on fertility.

Pregnant women aren't supposed to take it. And if you're thinking about getting pregnant, you're not supposed to take it.

All that kind of stuff. But the Karen cult doesn't care. I mean, the Karen cult is Big Brother's little wild -eyed crazy people who are just glued to MSNBC for 23 hours out of the day, and just watching that number just go up and up and up, and the whole world's going to die, and it's going to get me too.

And so they don't care about issues like longevity or stuff like that. It's just, deliver me now.

And I'll keep wearing triple masks until, well, I'll just keep wearing triple masks forever.

That's right. We only have nine years left anyways, according to Kerry. And they're undoubtedly connected somehow.

I'm sure there's a lot of people who think they are. Anyway, thankfully, the

Vatican walked that policy back within a matter of hours because people came unglued, appropriately so.

And they walked that one back. But it's very obvious where Francis stands on all that kind of stuff.

And I'm glad to see that they dumped that.

And I took a screenshot of an email that I received. Like I said,

I still have my flight status. I will for a few more months anyways. From all the flying

I did in 2019 and years before that, which I'll never get to use anymore.

I need to find some way of doing something with those miles. Because I've got enough of them, but I'll never get to use them again.

So anyway, but they sent me a top -tier flyer with American Airlines.

Check and complete trip requirements. Download the mobile health passport app

VeriFly to check for destination travel requirements. Use Let's Get Checked at home testing or visit your local clinic if testing is required.

Upload your travel and health documents to VeriFly for clearance to fly.

I think it was March of last year that I went,

Oh man, my life has changed. And I said, they're going to have

COVID -19 passports. They're going to have vaccination passports. Yep, there it is.

It's sad. A few other sad stories here. Ran into a young fella.

Looks like he's probably at least six years younger than my youngest. Graduate of Truett Seminary.

Truett Seminary is at Baylor. Remember we mentioned last week that Baylor is As so many others in academia, collapsing the culture, collapsing to the left.

Nothing at all surprising about any of that. But a young fellow who has an

MDiv, Master's of Divinity, Degree in Confusion. It seems like by the name of Tyler Lee Conway.

Tyler Lee Conway. He was, he got himself famous and he wanted to by rejoicing by the fact that Pastor Gabe was kicked off of Twitter for a while and will eventually be kicked off of Twitter.

The story that eventually came out is that he had reported Pastor Gabe's tweets like a year ago.

And, but that somebody else had beat him to this one where if you saw the Joe Luman tweet, and we've talked about Joe Luman.

I don't know why anybody is, so many people just lose it over Joe Luman.

Joe Luman is just your standard, progressivist, unbelieving, liberal, religious person.

I mean, it, I get it. You just gotta remember,

I went to Fuller. Okay, so I've been exposed to this stuff for a long, long time.

And so it just, it doesn't strike me as all that unusual. So I read a

Joe Luman and I, you know, you see the unbelief, you see the rejection of the authority of scripture, you see the heresy, you see all that stuff.

And it's because that, because Machen said Christianity and liberalism, they're two different religions.

And so Machen was right. And I just function that way. Most people will say

Machen was right, but they haven't run into enough liberals to actually go, oh, they really believe that?

Yes, they do. And so Joe Luman had posted this tweet where she said, being transsexual isn't a sin, being gay isn't a sin, being this.

And she's just going down, just denying all the moral elements of biblical revelation, basically.

Paul, she would have stood up in Corinth when Paul's first epistle was read and would have rejected his apostleship.

I mean, she would have been one of the first people to say, that man's a hater. We need to get rid of that man.

That's Joe Luman. So Pastor Gabe took her tweet and reversed it and then gave

Bible verses. Well, Joe Luman, of course, is free on Twitter to say whatever

Joe Luman wants. And if that means denying every element of biblical revelation, that's fine with Twitter.

Twitter doesn't care how much heresy you throw out there. That's fine. But let

Pastor Gabe take the same list of sins and reverse them.

You're out of there. Well, this Tyler Lee Conway kid from Truett Seminary was posting what

Twitter said. You know, this account has been reported, has been found to be in violation of Twitter rules.

And he's like, yeah, all right. Woohoo. Isn't that great? And so at one point, after I challenged him about that, he said, what y 'all don't realize here is that my plan all along was to bring out

James White so I could report him as well. I'm just doing my duty and trying to send them all to the shadows, a .k

.a. Gab or Parler. I'm doing this for us all. And these are the people.

These will be the people that will be our challenge in the future.

Because once we have to start meeting quietly in home gatherings, our buildings have been closed, they've been padlocked, they've been turned into nightclubs or abortion mills or whatever else.

One of the big questions that was faced by the church under the

Soviet domination was when you invite people to church and you're meeting in secret, who do you invite?

The Soviets sent spies. They sent people to specifically act as if they were

Christians. Who do you trust? And the vast majority of Christians who were imprisoned were imprisoned because they were betrayed by people who call themselves

Christians. And so we're seeing an example of who the people are who think they're doing

God a favor by joining with Twitter in promoting heresy, suppressing gospel truths, and doing it as a graduate of Truett Seminary with a

Master's of Divinity degree. And this is what's pouring out of our seminaries.

It's a pouring out of our seminaries. I mean, there are numbers of people who have contacted me from all over the

United States, and they've said, man, my church is looking at bringing someone new in.

But man, I just looked at the guy's writings and the timeline on social media, and it's just filled with woke stuff.

I'm like, yeah, and that's what's going to be filling your pulpit too. That's what you're looking at.

And these folks need the gospel because they didn't get it in seminary and didn't seem to bring it with them.

Last one here. Good old Jory Micah. Oh, Jory Micah. I think

I heard of Jory Micah before Summer talked about her, I think. I'm not a thousand percent sure, but I think so.

But I love her full name. Can you imagine if I did this?

My full name is James White on Twitter. Jory Micah, M .A.,

Christian Doctrine slash Church History. Well, that's nice.

Yeah, I got my M .A. in 1989, actually. Here's Jory Micah.

I've spent my whole life studying the Bible. She's not very elderly, which

I believe has made me a wiser person. And yet the Bible is not my final authority anymore because I'm wise enough now to understand that I could be interpreting it wrong.

What I trust most now is my own inner guidance system.

Which just said that's not very wise. That's true. Christian theology teaches us that when we decide to follow

Christ, our hearts, minds, and spirits are redeemed and rejuvenated. Then we teach

Christians not to trust themselves. It doesn't make sense. We need to learn how to flow with the

Spirit of God inside us. Jesus, when he quotes

Psalm 110 of himself, says,

David said, by the Holy Spirit. When Jesus addresses

Scripture, he says Scripture cannot be broken. When Jesus quotes

Scripture, he says, have you not read what God spoke to you saying? But when

Jory Micah consults her own inner guidance system, she tells us the

Bible is not my final authority anymore. You think you might understand why that is now?

If you think you're wiser than Jesus was, you haven't been studying the

Bible very well at all. Yes. You know, it seems to me,

I think she finally got the clue that we've all been trying to tell her all this time. We have.

That's an admission to me. I read that and it's like, first of all, it's extremely foolish and arrogant, but yeah, this is what we've been saying.

You don't know. You've already, you've been there for a long time. We knew you were going there. We knew you were going there and we see all the other people going with you.

No two ways about it. Jory Micah.

Yeah, there's a good warning for everybody. Once you start down that path, that path has ruined many, many people.

It's littered with dry bones. It is littered with dry bones. It truly is.

Well, there you go. So I was going to say, and I'm glad he always,

Chris, Chris Honholtz is, he should learn not to tweet during the dividing line while still going.

Because I understand, I understand he's got a birthday today,

I think. And so we had sort of tried to scare him a little bit.

He has a webcast and he and his co -host were, he and I have been sort of, they do

VOR radio. So look them up, VOR radio, give them a listen.

See, I'm giving you some free advertising here, guys. But Chris is a great guy.

I was going to tell everybody on his birthday that if you really wanted to make

Chris happy, he loves everything elf. And so movie posters and plush toys and little hats and stuff like that would just...

But he doesn't. So I just couldn't do that on his birthday. I sent him an elf doll and he posted pictures of it with tape over its mouth and in his car, trying to attack him from the rear and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

And so we've had a lot of fun with the elf doll. He calls it the demon doll.

But anyway, actually, I would tell you the stuff that Chris actually does like.

But I want you to listen to the program. And because...

Because I'm not kidding. You can find it for yourself. Let's just say there's some

Japanese cartoons in there that I watched many, many, many decades ago.

Myself as well. But I haven't since then. But anyways, happy birthday,

Chris. I hope you have a good one. And we will find some way.

Because he has his own rich. His co -host is Richard. So he has his own rich.

So we both have riches. And we'll find a way to keep things going sometime in the future.

But happy birthday to those guys. And like I said, dude, if you don't want me doing this, don't tweet during the show.

That's the big thing. Yep, there you go.

I should have learned my lesson by now. Yep, there you go. It's still fun to be able to communicate someday.

We won't be doing that anymore. But it was fun while it lasted. Anyways, thanks for watching the program.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to doing more of the

Trent Horn response in the other room. Because especially when we want to put up early church father citations and stuff like that with accordance.

And if I have to bring this in, I guess the thing that we need just arrived. Okay, Rich is holding it up in the air there.

The thing that will allow this computer to go in there. Because I can put, for some, that I have the resources, early church fathers,

I can put the English and then Latin, Greek, whatever on the other side.

And then you can draw on it and point things out and do all sorts of fun stuff.

And we're going to do some of that with Clement of Rome as well.

With 1st Clement. Do that type of stuff. So that's going to be enjoyable.

That's going to be the next step beyond what we can do here. As well as having other people on and things like that.

So I'm not sure exactly what we're looking at next week. I think next week we're supposed to be able to have, we've already booked 2 booked.

I've asked 2 folks to join me. And so if everything comes together real fast, who knows, maybe we might be in the studio later this week.

We'll see. But we've got to do it a few times. Because everything works if it's not being broadcast.

Once it's broadcast, that's when you find out really where everything is.

That's right. That's when the explosions take place and all the rest of that kind of stuff. That's my experience.

It's been that way for a long, long time. So thanks for watching the program today. We'll see you next time.