Road Trip DL from Virginia

Oh, there we go. I have to hit that extra button whenever Rich is doing this. Greetings and welcome to the divide. Well, Rich is always doing this, but welcome to the dividing line. Here we are. I'm not gonna tell you where.

It's somewhere between Gettysburg and Conway, Arkansas. How's that? Really nice spot. Nice folks here. And a super solid 5G ultra fast connection. And so we're very, very, very thankful for that. Some little kids walking by.

The sun will be off my head here in a while. So the glare will end as the sun is setting here in the East. And so I'm really honestly excited to be with you. Let me just explain. Some people, I guess there were some people actually suggesting that I had gone into hiding or something because of criticisms of things I said.

Actually, what happened was I messed up pretty badly and oh, by the way, do you see this here? I'll forget this if I don't mention this. Some guys gave this to me in Loisville. It's a little facsimile of P52 and it fits perfectly up here, but you can't see it up there.

So I stuck it down here for now. I'm not sure how we're gonna get that into the shot there because that's not a good spot. But anyway, thanks for that. I appreciate that guys, really do. It's super cool.

Ministry Update from G3 and the Pennsylvania Trip

Anyway, what happened was you can travel long distances in Arizona in a short period of time because we have big wide roads and they're straight and you can go really fast on them, okay? And so I'm like 35 minutes from Apologia, but I think I'm 35, 40 miles, probably about 40 miles.

But you get to get there so much faster because of things called freeways. In Pennsylvania, unless it's two spots that happen to be on a freeway, you can look at the distance and I did all my calculations in Arizona thinking or maybe Texas thinking or Western thinking.

That's what it was. Pennsylvania is forests, hills, and agriculture. Cornfields everywhere. And all the roads are two lanes, 45 max. And then you'll always go, you got corners and steep hills and turns.

And then you always have to drive through little towns at 25 miles per hour. And so I had sort of figured, yeah, I'm close enough here, there, that, wow, I was driving everywhere. And unlike this KOA, the KOA I was at in Gettysburg basically doesn't have wifi.

Oh, okay, it has a free, unsecure wifi signal. My system wouldn't even hook up to it. It's like, nope, that's not secure. Nope, not gonna play with that. And so even the cell coverage there was one bar, very minimal.

We tried, yes, we've got satellite capacity, but it was fully wooded. I mean, there wasn't enough of the sky available to do anything. So we were just out of it. I just, there was nothing I could do. And Chris Arnzen, of course, had me scheduled pretty much every single night as he always does.

So I really didn't have any extra time to be trying to sneak something in anyways. So this looks like it is,.

There we go.

Now it's at least even. I was wanting to go like this the whole time. So anyway, so no, we weren't hiding. I was busy speaking. Okay, Chris and I did spend one day at the Gettysburg battlefield, but I spoke that night.

We traveled from there. And it was a lot of fun to do stuff with Chris again. But here we are. And I just, let me very quickly say some quick thanks. Of course, Chris Arnzen, all the stuff that he arranged, the debate, we will be talking about the debate.

Here in a little while.

And the other speaking that I did in the general Loisville, Carlisle, Harrisburg, and to the east general area is where I was speaking. And that took a lot of work. Before that, of course, we were at G3.

I haven't had opportunity to talk about that very much, but I just wanted to thank Josh and Virgil and Scott and Kathy Stewart with Sovereign, all the guys with G3. It was a really wonderful time. I really, really enjoyed the opportunity to speaking at the conference, extremely encouraged by all the people that came up to me.

Once again, people always come up to me and say, I know you've heard this a thousand times before. And it's true, sometimes I have. But to just realize the unique blessing that we have had over the past number of literally only, what, 15 years?

When you really have the web doing what the web's doing right now. And we don't know how long we're gonna have access to that in the future. But just the ability to have global ministry from an RV out in the woods, like I am right now, it's just truly amazing.

It really, really is.

And I'm very, very thankful for it. And so to hear the testimonies of people coming to know the Lord, people being brought out of false faith, being encouraged in the true faith, it never really does grow old.

And so there at G3, we had all sorts of opportunities of talking to people. And of course, we had the fun at the Museum of the Bible, where even though they wouldn't let me do a tour officially, we ended up doing that anyways, sort of.

And just a grand time with the first edition of Erasmus and facsimiles of P75 and P72 and Vaticanus and all sorts of stuff like that. It was a Wycliffe Bible, a Tyndale Bible. It was really, really, really enjoyable to do that there at Museum of the Bible.

So I'm glad I got a chance to see that and to meet all of you there. Then up to Pennsylvania and everything that took place there. The debate on Saturday afternoon, like I said, we'll get to that as well.

And so I also want to thank very much Dr. Kyle Daimler, who is a member at the Church of the Living Christ in Loisville, which was that beautiful facility we had for the debate. And then I preached there yesterday, yesterday morning on the sufficiency of scripture.

And so Dr. Daimler put me back together again. We can't really afford to pay Dr. Wibrew to travel with me, separate units, and her and her family, that wouldn't work really well. So it's tough for me when I travel to be away from the best chiropractor in the world.

I don't know how you all that don't go to chiropractors survive, to be honest with you. But he saw me last Wednesday, and then I woke up Sunday morning with a banging headache. I theorize it was because I was looking left for like three hours during the debate.

That may have triggered something, I don't know. But I just contacted Chris. He got hold of Dr. Daimler, and Dr. Daimler grabbed his portable table and took care of me before service, before I preached.

So I didn't have to fight through all that stuff. So I'm very, very, very thankful for that. He's an excellent chiropractor, and that's great. So thanks to everybody who did all that. People who gave us rides, and when we were in, well, and a certain person who gave me rides, let me park my truck at his house, and all that fun stuff that we had going on up there.

Just lots of folks that made all of it worthwhile. Just one thing to note, the panel discussion that we did the second day at G3, you just get assigned to panel discussions, and sometimes, once in a while, they're interesting.

Most of the time, it's sort of same old, same old, and it just fills time. I had no idea what to expect with this one, because Virgil, Virgil Walker was leading it,.

And then you had me.

And then you had Jenna Ellis, who represented Grace Community Church in their lawsuit with the state over the shutdown stuff, which they won. But she's much better known for representing Donald Trump, and I had met her over dinner, speaker's dinner the night before, and I was just, I didn't really get into stuff.

I was just sort of listening from the outside, but it was very, very interesting. And then, I'm sorry, I just, got all set up and stuff like that, and Delano Squires, there we go. It just, the old brain has to, you know, sort of got an 8088 processor, I'm afraid, and it just, some of you have no idea what that means, but some of us lived with 8088 processors before the Pentium came along, nevermind.

Anyways, so it was the four of us, Virgil, Delano, Jenna, and myself. I didn't know what to expect. It hasn't, to my knowledge, been posted yet. It was fire. I mean, I guess that's how you're supposed to describe things, that it was fire, and use your fire emojis and stuff like that.

It was really good. It was, we worked really well together. It was the first time I had ever been on a panel discussion, where when Virgil said, we're out of time, the audience started chanting, go longer, go longer, go longer.

I had never, normally when you get done with a panel discussion, it's like, thank you very much, thank you very much. Or you could have ended 10 minutes ago, we would have been fine. That's normally how it goes.

Not this time. They wanted us to keep on going. And when it gets posted, I'm gonna make sure everybody knows, because it was really good. The Lord blessed, and it was really, really good. So we'll make sure to get that one out there and make sure everybody knows.

Yeah, did you see this story? It just, you know how you'll get notifications thrown up, and this is thrown up on top of my Zoom thing. But about the FBI, 30 some odd agents, heavily armed agents, busting into a pro-life guy's home because of something last year, where some person outside of the abortion clinic got in his kid's face, and he pushed the person.

You know, when you talk about the left's personal thugs, who would have ever thought how quickly we could degrade to a level beneath where the Soviets were? Because I mean, this is the KGB. These are just, that would never happen to an LGBTQ activist.

It would never happen to a Democrat. This is so obviously politically motivated. It is so obvious that it's the people in the regime punishing the people they don't like, that I sent it to Jeff and said, well, get ready, because that's the kind of thing that's gonna happen.

And it is amazing the speed at which the fabric of law and order is being shredded purposefully by the people on the left. And we'll see what happens in November about that. But yeah, there was a notification that popped up about that.

Concerns About Neoscholasticism and Biblical Authority

Okay, there's a lot of stuff that's happened since last week. And let me start off with this. I mean, aside from talking about what we just did. We're already 15 minutes in, so I obviously have been addressing these things already.

When I made reference to Master's Seminary on a webcast a couple of months ago, a lot of people misunderstood why that would be relevant. I am deeply concerned about a form of neoscholasticism that is manifesting itself in the Reformed world, amongst Reformed Baptists in particular, but also amongst Presbyterians as well.

And we have obviously spent hours on this program talking about these issues and delving into Dr. Carter's book and reading. We started off providing a response to James Dolezal and raising questions and issues related to the issue of biblical authority, exegesis, natural theology, speculative philosophical theology.

Confessions, creeds. And we went from truly, truly speculative discussions about the relationship and nature of God's attributes ad intra and inseparable operations. And whether saying God accomplishes His will, there is no contradiction, the Father, Son, Spirit are in perfect unity.

That's not enough. You literally have to say that whatever God does ad extra outside of being internal is a Trinitarian act leading to confusion about incarnation and the Spirit's role. And it just exegetically, it's amazing.

Anyway, it's amazing how you went from that necessarily and very quickly to the issue of authority. And if you push back against the people pushing this neo-scholasticism, then you are called a biblicist.

And that term biblicist is said with a hiss. It is a pejorative. It is an insult. And the whole reason I mentioned masters was an every person in this audience knows anything about the school and is more than 10 years old, knows that in 2012, 10 years ago, if you had spoken to any staff member, any professor at Master's Seminary and asked them if they were a biblicist to a man, they not only would have said yes, but they would have seen that as a compliment and a high compliment at that.

And so as I have been discussing who is promoting great tradition exegesis and interpreting the Bible in the light of the great tradition, and the whole, and I don't like using the term classical theism thing because that's been stolen.

We're all classical theists. Again, the open theist came up with the term classical theist and nobody has any more bona fides in arguing against open theism than I do. You could put all of my critics, all of them who meet together like they did back around April 19th, 20th, you could put them all together and they haven't done nearly as much in actually engaging with open theists as I have.

But they've stolen that term and so they're using it in a specific way. So it's not the classical definition of classical theism. It is a much more specific assertion that would include a elevation of creedal statements and creedal positions.

Elevation in the sense that you are viewing those creedal statements as necessary to the proper interpretation of scripture itself. And so we've talked about these issues and said, hey, there's a lot here that we need to be thinking about and talking about in regards to the relationship.

When people freak out when I said the Council of Nicaea is true because what it's taught is in scripture, not because the Council of Nicaea has said it. So denying that councils in of themselves have inherent authorities separate from the divine revelation of scripture, people freak out.

You're denying Nicaea, denying nothing at all. I'm saying what everyone in 2012 would have agreed with me about. And so again, the whole reason that I mentioned masters is when I tell people that, people look at me and go, masters?

That's actually a compliment. That's a compliment that masters would be so well known for being biblicist. That's a compliment. Now, by the way, there are professors at masters that are not promoting this kind of stuff and are not trying to push this kind of stuff.

And that's great, that's wonderful. And I pray for their success. But that was the whole point was that if this stuff can rear its head at masters, it can go anywhere. There is none of our institutions are immune.

And in fact, it is, in my opinion, it's the nature of a graduate Christian education that we have created that leads to this issue. I've bemoaned it many times. How many times have I said in this program that all Christian scholars should have to read 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 every six months and be reminded that the wisdom of the world is foolishness?

Because of the tremendous temptation that exists to want to sit at the table and to imbibe in and embrace a form of scholasticism that is not properly subjected to the ultimate authority of scripture.

And so that was the whole point there. And the reference to the recommendation that had been given to masters or one of the primary leaders of masters by a well-known evangelical, no one can question that it happened.

The point was, again, there's this constant pressure on all of our institutions to be almost ashamed of being biblicist. And of course, that has become a part of this over and over and over again. Well, that's just biblicism and that's against this and that's against, and you're against Nicaea and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

Neo-Sassanians, biblicists, that was part of the connection, by the way, was right there. And so I understand that it has been decided that the seminary is going to specifically take a stand against and oppose EFS.

And that's their choice. I do not believe in EFS, never have, but I believe that the best, I believe that the only meaningful, weighty refutation of EFS is a biblical one. It's an exegetical one. If you refute EFS with speculative facts, speculative philosophy, then EFS can use speculative philosophy to reestablish its position.

And the children of God, the sheep of Christ, will be fundamentally convinced by the voice of Christ in his word, not by what pretends to be the voice of Christ through some form of speculative philosophy and things like that.

And if you, by the way,.

If you would like tremendous example, and Rich, remind me, I need to, when I type up the blog, I will forget. This is the kind of thing that just goes in one ear, out the other. So remind me, I listened to, I've been doing a lot of driving, many, many hours.

And many of those hours, I was preparing for the debate on the way out here. Those were not wasted hours, but I'm glad I'm not gonna have to continue that particular aspect any longer. But I listened to, and Rich listened to, a webcast that Dr. James Dolezal did.

Well, he was the guest. And not overly surprisingly, I mean, there seems to be a pattern here. I listened, for example, I played a portion of Carl Truman's comments on that webcast with the two young men who, one was Catholic, one was Orthodox, and they were both formally reformed.

And I played that one section, interactive that one section that you had from Truman. And I listened to this webcast James Dolezal did with a Roman Catholic, who I guess became a Roman Catholic from being an atheist, all on the basis of philosophy.

And I don't remember how long it was. Was that about an hour and a half? I think maybe a little bit longer than that. It was fairly lengthy. And it was just, I mean, they're both very, very brilliant philosophers, but there was exactly one scripture reference even referred to, and not exegeted, just simply a meaning was assumed.

Yeah, an hour and a half. And there was not enough divine revelation in this conversation to, if you were a thirsty man and that was water, you'd be dead in no time. It was best example I've ever heard of surely speculative philosophical chatter.

And that was its only value to me,.

To be perfectly honest with you,.

That was its only value to me. I mean, I was listening to what they were saying, but it was just sort of like, man, if I had an hour and a half on a webcast, there are about 159 ,000 topics that I would find to be far more edifying to an audience than that one.

And I never want to listen to, waste another hour and a half like that again, but I'll link to it. So you can listen to yourself. So you can hear what we're talking about. You can hear it for yourself.

And I'm just absolutely convinced that there is no future for this. 99 .99 of the people in the church would listen to five minutes of that and go, why am I doing this? I don't see its role of edification.

I don't see that it represents anything the apostles taught or believed. And if we go that direction, because we're afraid of being called a Biblicist, that's not gonna bode well for the future. So I saw some stuff.

I have not had, I just simply did not have time, especially since if I see something while driving, then I really can't follow it up on anything until I get where I'm going and stuff like that. But I saw some confusion as to why I had mentioned Craig Carter and something about the TMS Journal, that one episode, that one volume of the journal did have a bunch of the major leaders in the neoscholastic movement speaking there, writing there.

But when I made reference to Craig Carter, I was making reference to his book, which specifically promotes the necessity of being a Platonist Christian. But it's just all there. So I need to track more of what was said down so I could be a little bit more specific in my responses to that.

But there's some clarification to start with in regards to, well, why even mention masters? Well, because there's been a change and everybody knows it. And I'm concerned about the direction of what that change is, if it includes any kind of neoscholasticism that would include a concern about, quote unquote, biblicalism.

It just astonishes me that anything like that could ever happen and astonishes everybody else that I've mentioned it to. And so that's what that was all about. And I'm not sure if that was understood by those who took issues with it.

Okay, so there's that. That's not over with yet, but one of those big, big, big honking units is trying to get up a hill over there. If you can hear something in the background. Man, I just, I'm 44 feet long.

I actually backed out of a gas station a couple hours ago. I think I would have hit my, I think I would have, I think I need 13 too. Rich thinks I only need 13, but it was only 13. So I backed out of it.

But that thing, that baby over there is a whole lot taller than me and a whole lot longer too. And nah, nah, too much stress. It was bad enough today. It was very windy today. And it was a crosswind. One thing when it's a headwind, another thing when it's a tailwind.

When it's a crosswind, you gotta slow down because you're just magnifying the effect of the wind the faster you're going. So it made for a little bit longer drive than normal. Yeah, pulling in right over there.

I'm not sure if you can, nope, can't see that there yet, but they're pulling it across the way. So this is live folks. Yeah, it's the real thing. It's nice to be back. Okay, over the weekend. Well, let's, the debate.

Did I expect what happened in the debate? Now, if you've not watched the debate, I guess I should go spoiler alert or something. I'm not sure if we've grabbed it yet. And since we delayed the start, they started the live stream.

So it was like 20 minutes of dead air at the beginning. So if you grab the posting that they did, you just wanna fast forward past them. Great, man, you would think that they did debates there regularly because they had, the tables were perfect and it's really nice.

They did a really, really great job with all of that stuff. For those of you who had never heard of the Van Cleek father and son team, they're both Peter Van Cleek, senior and junior. I hadn't until about three weeks ago either.

And what had happened, and in fact, the guy that's sort of responsible for all this, who had contacted Chris, he had been told that Kent Hovind had said, I would never debate him. And so Chris is like, would you debate Kent Hovind on the King James days?

Yeah, sure, why not?

I mean, I've criticized him. And so I'll back it up, you bet. And so Chris contacted Kent Hovind and blah, blah, way too busy for that. No, can't do that. And so Chris starts looking around and once Chris starts looking around, Chris is gonna find somebody eventually.

I mean, that's, the bloodhound will find something for you to chase and hunt eventually. And so he got in touch with Kent Hovind and Peter Van Cleek and contacted me. I'm not sure if Squirrel wants me to do this, but are you listening right now, Gene?

I'll wait.

Gene, if you're actually listening right now, let me know. Cause I just got a text from Squirrel. And I'm wondering if Squirrel's wife calls him Squirrel now. That would probably be a scary thing. But somehow Chris got hold of, yes, okay, hey, it's listening live.

So you're, okay. Gene Clyde, everybody knows Squirrel. He's probably the most famous rodent on the internet. And he's, I'm not sure if he's driving right now, but he's heading same place I am because he's taking the class I'm gonna be teaching.

He said, Van Cleek's explanation of how he arrived at the text was the worst word salad I've ever heard outside of politics. Yeah, yeah, in general, that would be true. He mentioned during the debate how many minutes of my lectures and stuff he listened to as if that was supposed to mean something.

I purchased four of his books. The last one, okay, the last one was, well, they're all self-published. And the last one was self-published in June of this year. So there are very few people that have ever heard of the Van Cleek hypothesis.

But I converted, you know, I got him on Kindle, converted him to MP3, and invested many hours driving, listening to all three volumes, and his little book about poking the bear, which was without a doubt the worst book I had ever read, expressing radical skepticism about textual criticism.

I mean, he makes Bart Ehrman sound like a fundamentalist. It's just, it was Gail Riplinger-esque, a bat. Very, very plain to me that Dr. Van Cleek has never done any textual critical work. And why would you?

If you believe the TR is the autograph, what a waste of time to be doing textual critical studies of Monogamist Theos at John 118. You already have the original. The rest of it's a waste of time, right?

Yeah, must be.

So it was just filled with errors. It was horrible, that little book. You don't really get to the meat of anything because the first few, the first volume's philosophical, and it's Reformed Epistemology, and it's Plantinga, which Plantinga never applied this stuff to the text of scripture because he knows it's an obvious category error.

We're talking about historical facts, historical datum. It's the third book where you finally get into it, and I quoted some of that. I didn't quote as much as I would like to have in the debate, but that's where the substance was anyways.

And so I had a feeling which direction it was gonna go. And I just wanna make sure everyone understands how dangerous TR-onlyism is and how that was illustrated by Dr. Van Cleek's argumentation because, and I pointed this out a number of times during the debate, he kept saying, he kept criticizing me for all sorts of things, evidently for being old and crusty and almost dead and stuff like that.

But he kept criticizing me. He's telling you that your belief in the Bible should be different than your belief in any other Christian doctrine. Now, that involves clear, there's a clear error there, again, because when you say belief in the Bible, everyone can tell there is a fundamental difference between believing that God has spoken and believing in divine inspiration, believing that there is a word from God that has been committed to writing and determining, recognizing that at Revelation 16, five, the Texas Receptus that he believes is the autograph has a reading that no one before Beza had ever seen.

And of course, I know, you raise anything like that to Dr. Van Cleek, it's like, well, we don't know that. Once you start with a TR, then you can make any argument you want. But there's no manuscript, but it might have been, there might have been something somewhere at some point in time.

So any reading at all, you can go, we don't know. I mean, just because we have sermons and commentaries and manuscripts and, but it might have been there. That's the exact argumentation that Mormons use to defend the Book of Mormon, that the Muslims use to defend the Quran.

It is identical. And the door opens. It's windy outside. Obviously I didn't get it latched all the way. So make sure, yeah, no, no mad hordes of TR-onlyists outside with their Trinitarian Bible Society TRs.

Sharpened to sharp points,.

Ready to finish me off.

Just check and look around.

Anyway, but here's, again, here's the important part. When he said over and over again, he's telling you your belief in the Bible should be different than his doctrine. And I said, yes, determining what the manuscripts read at Ephesians 3 .9 is not the same thing as believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

They're not the same kind of belief. One is a central object of faith. The other is a historical reality determined by the examination of manuscripts. And so when you think about what they're really saying, what he was really saying is the belief that the TR is the autographs is on the same level of necessity.

As the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And I think he probably would argue that you really can't know the resurrection of Jesus Christ apart from that absolutely certain text. And that requires you to have the TR. But when you don't recognize, you know, I didn't get into it.

I wanted to have more time to get into it. The, I wanted to point out to him and ask him questions about where, for example, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Natsianzis regularly gave readings differently from the, that were different from the TR.

Are they part of the church? Were they denying God's truth by giving a different reading from the TR? And he knows that those are issues that he's supposed to be dealing with. And so they've come up with these phrases that really have no meaning, canonical iterations.

Canonical iteration, they made it up. Nobody has any idea what it means. But those manuscripts were a canonical iteration at that particular point in time. It's funny, he can know what the canonical iteration was of those manuscripts point in time, but he can't show us TR at any point in time prior to Erasmus.

Interesting. But that confusion of how we have faith in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the cross, atonement, and how we determine the readings of disputed texts, conflating those two was one of the clearest demonstrations of the fact that he, his system is utterly incoherent.

And cannot even be considered to be a viable option for anyone who wants to seriously deal with a text description. It was truly amazing to hear it.

It really was.

Now I, and I don't even know, honestly, if I watch the video, if I'll get to see much of this. Because back when I debated Bart Ehrman, people told me afterwards that he was making strange faces and the camera normally wouldn't be on, if I'm speaking, camera's gonna be on me, not on the other guy.

And so I had caught a few things during the Ehrman debate, but I'm told it was much, much more intense. The behavior of my opponent, who then in his closing statement did proclaim himself the winner of the debate.

And I always chuckle, especially when young men feel like they have to proclaim themselves the winner of the debate in the closing statement. That normally tells you the exact opposite had actually taken place in the course of the debate itself.

But I have seen TR only guys, oh, that was great, that was wonderful. Why can't answer any question? And you know, for him to say, you didn't answer any of my three arguments, three arguments were absurd, that's why.

Oh, and then a Bayesian analysis of the probability that the TR is the autograph. Bayesian analysis requires you to assign a level of probability for certain aspects. And, you know, the level of probability that the TR reading Ephesians 3, 9 is original is about zero.

It is zero for Revelation 16, 5. Close to zero for Revelation 14, 1. And there are numerous others that we could look at. You put all that together and a serious Bayesian analysis would be extremely small probability.

But the whole idea of the TR is this text just sort of floats around. It's, it was amazing. But again, I'm thankful for having had the opportunity of once again, demonstrating that TR onlyism is functionally no different than King James onlyism.

It really isn't. It has the same goal. Dr. Ward's right about that. And it is just as circular and just as incapable of producing a meaningful argument as King James onlyism as well. So there's that. Okay.

Response to the Doug Wilson and Michael Brown Criticism

Last thing for today that we'll sneak in here. Over the weekend, everyone has noticed that there was another explosion of what I call DWDS, a Doug Wilson derangement syndrome. And it's very obvious to me, very obvious to me what launched this one.

Last, you know, earlier in the week, maybe even a week before you had the, was it Meet the Depressed? Meet the Depressed. Did the interview with Doug and talked about Moscow and seeking to bring a Christian culture to that small town.

And Doug had owned the interviewer. He just did. I mean, when she says, well, what about gay marriage? Well, no, there wouldn't be any gay marriage. Even as though it's the law of the land. Well, you mean like Roe was?

Boom.

He had received a lot of good press. And so there are just certain people. There's the examining Moscow website, Twitter people who are anonymous, who say they, we have multiple ministers that we are accountable to, but we can't tell you who they are, who we are, but we're accountable.

You know, these are mudslingers that are absolutely focused upon the past. Everything they say has been responded to over and over again and over and over and over and over and over again over the years.

But then, you know, so you're used to that. There are just certain people that if Doug Wilson's name is mentioned, that's what you're gonna get. You're gonna, it's the same old stuff. Well, I was a child abuser.

It's like, okay, all right. And so what was different was, I think it was only yesterday, maybe the,.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

It's Friday or Saturday, sorry.

Friday or Saturday.

Kosti Hinn got things rolling by citing a NoCo Radio episode with Mike Ebendroth. And, you know, basically said, he's not benign. We need to be warned about this man and stuff like that, so on and so on.

So I listened to Mike's podcast and he had a guy I'd never heard of before. Sounds like a really young guy. I've since discovered he's written for or been discussed on the Heidel blog. So he's with our Scott Clark.

And there is one thing that is absolutely 1 ,000 certain. The last person who has any credibility in talking about Doug Wilson is our Scott Clark. The man is the king of Doug Wilson derangement syndrome.

If Doug dove into a lake and saved a baby at the risk of his own life, our Scott Clark could not find anything positive to say. He would find some grounds for saying that that was an example of the federal vision.

I mean, that's just a fact. I mean, the large majority of people who have been following this for any period of time at all have recognized that our Scott Clark is utterly imbalanced on this issue. Not, doesn't even try, does not even pretend to try.

His detestation of Doug Wilson and sadly, as a result, anyone who would have dinner with Doug Wilson or say something positive about Doug Wilson, even debate Doug Wilson, it's just, wow. And so as I listened, I didn't realize, I didn't know the connection to our Scott Clark and Heidel blog as I was listening to the NoCo Radio episode.

But I was just sitting there going, man, the animus this guy has. He's judging Doug's heart. He's judging his motives. He's claiming to know. I mean, they're just assuming over and over again. And Mike, you did it too.