Misdirection - Jim Hamilton' Sad Little Game - Southern Seminary Exposed

Hi, my name is A .D. Robles. Things you should know about me right up front is

I'm a Puerto Rican, and if you know anything about Puerto Rico, what you know is that that probably means, and this has been confirmed by DNA testing, but most

Puerto Ricans are roughly 60 % European, 20 % native, which means

Taino Indian, and 20 % African, and that African part is interesting because what that pretty much always means is that your ancestors were brought over in the

Middle Passage in the slave trade, and so I have intersectional receipts that a lot of you people with that lovely white skin simply do not have.

I've got slave ancestors in the very recent past, but this video is intended to be for people who, for the most part, agree with me already on social media, on social justice rather.

I'm not going to make the case that social justice is sinful, evil, all of that stuff.

I can definitely make that case. In fact, I have hundreds of videos making that case on YouTube, but this is assuming that you already agree with me, and if you don't already agree with me, this might help you as well, so go ahead and stay tuned.

On May 19th, I tweeted out a poll that I wanted to get everyone's take on.

I've been using a lot of polls lately on Twitter, and the question that I asked was, what will the primary response today be to the

Dr. Fuller interview? So Dr. Fuller was fired, was clipped from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I wanted to know what people thought the response to his, you know, exposing what really goes on at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

25 % of you said it would be character assassination, 25 % of you roughly said it would be something to the effect of, well, that's not really liberalism, about 10 % of you said that, you know, you're too stupid to understand these professors, you know, you don't understand academics, and 40 % of you said that it would just be incoherent screeching of the word slander.

And really, I knew it would be all of these, I mean, all of these are going to be used primarily by the people that want to pretend like there's nothing wrong, everything's fine at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But this was on the 19th, and so we all kind of knew what the response would be, character assassination and screeching slander, and boy oh boy did we get character assassination and screeching slander.

But there was a twist here, which I find very interesting, and I want to frame this conversation like this.

So Dr. Fuller is the one who's exposing what's been going on at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I expected that the character assassination would come hot and heavy on Dr.

Fuller. I fully expected them to shift their position on Dr. Fuller 180 degrees instantly.

You know, yesterday he was the greatest guy ever, a great, well -respected brother, and today, well, he's a white supremacist, obviously, he's a racist, this and that.

That's what I kind of expected, but that's not what we got. In fact, I haven't really seen a whole lot of people engage with Dr.

Fuller at all, despite the fact that he's offered to debate anyone on the information, despite the fact that I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even need to debate you, he'd probably just talk to you.

Despite all that, we haven't really seen too much come out about Dr. Fuller. Instead, the thing that people have decided to do in this situation where Dr.

Fuller is releasing all this information about Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, what the

Guild, what Big Eva has decided to do is to go after John Harris, the guy who interviewed him.

Now, I think I know what's going on here. I think this is how predators work, right? Like predators, you know,

I love watching documentaries about predators because predators, I find them to be fascinating.

My favorite animal when I was a kid was a wolf. And predators are smart. You know, you get this idea that they're these vicious beasts and they just don't care, they just have reckless abandon.

No, no. Predators are smart. Like when they go to a herd, they find the weakest one, the one that they feel like is the most vulnerable, and they attack that one because that's how they get a meal.

Otherwise, they're going to probably get hurt. You go after a big bison, you're going to get hurt. But what you do is you go after the young one or the sick one or something like that.

Then you'll definitely get a meal. And I think that the social justice warriors are licking their chops because they think

Dr. Fuller is going to be a harder target for them. And social justice warriors are not anything if not predators.

They're predators out there. They try to character assassinate people. They try to wield their power against people that are vulnerable.

And so you don't see often social justice warriors going after me because I'm less vulnerable. I think that's really what it is.

You know, I'm self -employed, so you can't like get my boss to fire me because I'm not going to fire myself, obviously.

And I'm Puerto Rican. That makes me less vulnerable. But John, he's got, you know, those steely blue eyes.

He's white. And he has some interesting opinions about the

Confederacy. That's what they've decided to go after. They won't really say it typically.

But what they're trying to do is to say, well, you can't trust this interview because John, a known racist, is in the video.

And so Dr. Fuller, I mean, his credibility gets drugged through the mud because he was willing to talk to a known racist without calling him out for his racism.

Can you believe it? That's what they're trying to do. And it's not going to work, obviously. But I want you to notice right up front that this is a really weird way to refute

Dr. Fuller instead of actually dealing with the information. Instead, you just call the person who interviewed him a racist.

That's really sad, guys. That's pretty pathetic. Here is something that I thought was interesting as well.

This is John Stark. I guess he went to Southern Seminary. He is now a pastor at Apostles in New York City.

Fun fact about Apostles. When I met my wife, we used to go to Apostles for evening service every now and then.

Anyway, here's what he says. And he's typical Big Eva, protect the guild, protect the guild, circle the wagons type of style.

Here's what John Stark has to say. This is a pastor, mind you. He says, as someone who attended

Southern Seminary, the accusation that there is a liberal agenda and deviation is wild to me.

That's fair. That's in his opinion, totally fair. And then listen to what he says. Until you see that it's consistently black and brown professors who are receiving the concentration of backlash.

This is a lie. So this is absolutely a lie. This is slander.

Because slander is when you say something about someone that isn't true. And the reality is that these videos that came out are not just about black and brown professors.

In fact, the day that he posted this, John Stark, it came out this Pennington guy who's a white man.

But maybe John didn't know about that. Maybe John didn't know that they were criticizing white men too. But of course, he did know that because the very same day,

John Stark, just a couple tweets later, says, I'm a better preacher because of Dr.

J .T. Pennington scholarship. And he didn't just say that out of nowhere. He didn't just say that because he really wanted to just say

John Pennington or J .T. Pennington is a good guy. No, what he said that for is because that day they dropped a video criticizing

Pennington's teaching as well, a white man. And so this little thing here, this might make you get a couple attaboys, 172 likes, 12 retweets, but it's not true.

John Stark lied about John Harris and Dr. Fuller. He said that they're just only criticizing black professors.

They're concentrating on blacks and browns. And it's just really not the case. In fact, he's been made to look like a fool even more because the next video dropped.

And, you know, fair enough. It was before he tweeted this before the next video dropped. And again, it was criticizing white men.

Ain't nobody more white than Matthew Hall. I'm pretty sure of that. Anyway, so this is the thing like this is the weird kind of weird kind of approach that Big Eva has taken.

It's just, you know, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't respond to the actual charges. Just call them racist.

Maybe this time they'll care, but nobody cares about that anymore because we know your game.

And so, again, this is this is a video geared towards people who agree with me already. Guys, I know that you know this, but let me just encourage you in this.

Nobody cares when Big Eva calls you racist. Nobody cares. I know Big Eva is going to say, well, we're going to pull your funding.

You're going to be tarred and feathered. You're going to be. No, don't listen to them. They, they, they thrive in keeping you in fear and anxiety about being called a racist.

When you're not one, they thrive knowing that you might just stay in line because you don't want to get that label that, that, that, that, that black mark on your, on your, on your name that says,

Ooh, you're a racist. But let me just tell you guys, nobody rational cares about that.

We've seen who they call racist. We've seen all the lies. John Stark is lying here.

This is a lie. Everyone who looks into it can see that this is a lie. Joe Carter liked it.

I mean, if you need any more evidence that it's a lie, just look at fake, fake news, CIA agent,

Joe Carter. He liked it. So obviously isn't true here. Everyone's dunking on this guy.

Capstone report. I wasn't aware that Matt Hall was black RJ Garner. He probably views himself as black on the inside.

We're just ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Anyway, but a lot of the criticism has focused on John Harris, like I said, and what came out was a thread that was retweeted by Jim Hamilton.

Jim Hamilton is a white man. Um, and, and Jim Hamilton is, is pushing this narrative.

He decided to, to call in the big guns, which is, again, this is pretty sad guys. Like, again, if you're, if you're scared of these big

Eva types, like just look at, look at what they look at what they do when they're, when they're trying to respond to criticism.

Jim Hamilton, Dr. Jim Hamilton responded to this stuff. And he said, here's a thread of everything you wanted to know about John Harris.

Again, why John Harris and not Dr. Fuller? Well, I think I know again, they're predators, these guys.

And what does he do? He calls in the big guns, Bradley Mason, and everyone was dunking on Jim.

Like, dude, Jim, if you, let me help you out here, buddy. It's, it's, it's, it's kind of like when you see a, a spider drowning in the toilet and you know, you hate spiders, but like, you feel bad for him.

Cause he's like desperately trying to get out of the toilet. You kind of pull for the guy a little bit, but you know, at the end of the day, it's just a spider.

But Jim, let me help you out here. Cause you're kind of like that spider pathetically trying to get out of the toilet. You don't call in Bradley Mason to help you out.

He ruins your credibility. This guy is a serial slanderer. He just pulls the, he does his research and then he makes these weird insinuations.

And this whole thread, I urge you to read it. This is a hilarious thread. He said, this is, let me just read the first tweet and I'll tell you what this is about.

Cause I, I I've happened to have read the book that he's really up in arms about. He says, Confederate apologist by definition, see below John Harris.

World view convos brings up the issue of integrity. And I think it's worth discussing in the process.

I think we'll see who this guy really is and why he has no credibility on issues of race, theology, or honesty.

Now the point of this, this thread, I urge you to read it. So you know that I'm not misrepresenting this thread.

The idea here is that John Harris has defended the

Confederacy. And so he's a Confederate apologist. And so he has no credibility on issues of race, theology, or honesty.

Now, point one, let's just remember this. This is the theme of this video. John Harris is interviewing

Dr. Fuller. And so why you question John's credibility, which is totally valid to do.

You can question anyone's credibility you want to. That's valid, right? Why do you think it's an argument when you question the interviewer's credibility, but not the person who's being interviewed, who's the one who has the information?

That's who you should be targeting. But the thing is, I know why you do it, because you're predators.

You think that John is, and look at him, look at him. He's white. He's a white man.

And he looks pretty scary right here too. So they think he's vulnerable. And Dr. Fuller, it would cost a lot more to directly attack

Dr. Fuller or take more effort. It would cost a lot more because yesterday you said that he was the greatest guy ever.

And today he's going to be the white supremacist racist. So they're biding their time with Dr. Fuller. I mean, let's face it, though.

We know it's coming for Dr. Fuller. They're going to say he's a racist. They're going to say he's a white supremacist. He might even be a Confederate apologist too.

Who knows? Anyway, so just see how insane this is.

Dr. Fuller exposes all this stuff about Southern Baptists. And so to fight it, they say

John Harris has no credibility. The guy asking the questions, not the guy answering them.

That's a weird, weird play, guys. Jim, that's desperate, man. That's kind of sad.

But anyway, this thread basically makes the case that he's a Confederate apologist and therefore has no credibility on issues of race or theology or honesty.

Now, the central coup de grace of this thread is this book, which I have read.

This book, it's called Sacred Conviction. This is a very interesting book. And the idea here is that anyone who writes this book is so unreliable and so evil that if you share a space with them and you're

Dr. Fuller and you're in that interview, then now you have no more credibility because you shared that space with John Harris.

John Harris, the evil guy who apparently wrote this book. Now, if you look, the author of this book is

Joseph Jay, right? So the idea here is, and the guy in the thread,

Bradley, kind of lays it out. He says he thinks Jonathan wrote this because if you look at Jonathan's writings and you look at this, it's very similar, blah, blah, blah.

Whatever. Read the thread. It's totally fine. But I've read this book and I quite like this book.

This is an interesting book. And here is kind of the typical, excuse me here, let me find my tweets here.

Here's the typical way a conversation about this book goes. So I, somebody responded to me,

Luis Gonzalez, this Vato over here says this. He says, I would like to know why

John wrote a book under a pseudonym named Joseph. Why is he afraid of signaling his racist beliefs?

Now, what's interesting about this is these, this guy, this Vato over here claims to not understand why someone might write this book under a pseudonym.

And that's just, that's pretend he knows exactly why someone might write this book under a pseudonym because social justice warriors are predators.

They try to ruin your life by lying about you. And so that's why someone might write a book under a pseudonym, obviously, but I don't know.

I mean, he's asking me why John Harris wrote a book. How, why would, why don't you just ask

John? I don't know. I didn't write the book. In fact, in one of my tweets, I said, I don't know. I didn't write the book.

Why are you asking me? But, but the thing is I've read this book and I have the sneaking suspicion that Luis Gonzalez did not.

And so I asked him, I said, Luis, is this, is it your contention that this is a racist book?

I've read this book. Can you show me the racism in this book? And the reason why I asked him that question is because I've read the book and I, I know it's not a racist book because I've read the entire book.

It's not a very long book. I mean, look, it's kind of short. I don't know, a hundred pages, maybe. Yeah, just about a hundred pages.

And so his response, this is, this is, this is the thing. Like, like, like, think about, think about how irrational this is.

I said, how is this a racist book? Here's his, here's Luis Gonzalez response. Claiming Southern Christians were

Orthodox is nonsense. The covenanters, a Scottish Presbyterian denomination, opposed any form of slavery in the

South before the civil war on biblical grounds. These were the Orthodox, not so -called slave owners, twisting scripture.

So I asked him, how is the book racist? And he says, the Southern Christians weren't Orthodox. Okay, well, that's a fine position to take.

Go for it. I don't care. But, but again, that's, this is not how it's racist. So I said, I understand.

But back to my question, is it your contention? This is a racist book. Show me the book. Show me the racism in this book.

He can't, he didn't respond because he can't, and he probably didn't read the book. There is no racism in this book.

Okay. You might find this book distasteful, but there is no racism in this book. When I, when

I first read this book, the premise of this book is, is amazing, by the way. You should, you should really consider buying this.

This is a good book. So, you know, I'm a Yankee, right? So when I grew up, I learned about this, the civil war.

And the way I essentially learned it was the Northerners were the heroes. The Southerners were barbarians who just hated

Black people. And they were so desperate to hold onto their hatred of Black people that they fought the

North. That's how I learned the civil war. And then when you grow up and you become an adult, you learn that there was a lot going on there.

There was economic issues. There were constitutional issues. There were all kinds of issues between the

North and the South. And this book is so fascinating because it argues, it makes the argument that there were also theological differences that led to this conflict.

Very fundamental theological differences. And I find that idea fascinating. In fact, if you read this book, it's chock full of quotations from Southerners and Northerners about theology.

And it makes a very interesting case that the foundations at play were way deeper than simply slavery or simply economics or simply the

Constitution. They were fundamentally theological issues. And it was a theological clash fundamentally.

I find that idea fascinating. I want to learn more. This is a great book. I would suggest social justice war is that you try reading books instead of burning them.

But anyway, so that's what this book is about. There's nothing about racism here. Now, when

I read this book for the first time, probably a year ago at this point, I circled a part on the second page and I labeled it.

You might see it says kryptonite. And I did that because I knew one day that this book would cause somewhat of a controversy.

I didn't think it would be in this context. And here's what this part I circled says.

This is what I called kryptonite. It says this quote, one more important matter.

It should be stated at the outset that no aspect of this work can justify nor is intended to justify the

American slave labor system, because he knows that if he says, look, there were some aspects of slavery that weren't as bad as the

Northerners learned in school. There were some aspects of slavery that weren't as insane as the worst cases that you could imagine.

But that doesn't sugarcoat the issue of slavery. The American system of slavery was wrong.

It can't be justified. And I'm not going to justify it. That's extremely nuanced and rational.

And I knew that this would come out. This book would cause a controversy because the idea that theology in the

South might have been better than in the North is that's trigger fest. That's absolutely trigger fest.

And so I knew that that would be important one day. And of course, it is. That's where I circle. That's the kryptonite social justice narrative on this book.

But again, let's think about this for a second. Let's think about this for a second. Let's just say that this is the worst book ever.

Joseph J is John Harris. Let's just say that's 100 % accurate. That's the case that Bradley Mason made in his tweet here.

Let's say it's the worst book ever. It's wrong. It's not correct, right? And let's just say that it's like a racist book.

It's totally racist. Let's just believe the whole narrative, right? Because I think that's an important thing sometimes, a practice to try to do.

Just believe the narrative and see if their case is consistent. See if it holds water. The book is so racist, so bad, so evil that sharing the stage and not calling them out on it ruins your own credibility.

So Dr. Fuller is wrong because John Harris is a racist. Okay, so let's just say,

I know it's hard. Let's just say that that's how it goes down. Dr. Fuller is wrong because John Harris is so racist.

Well, check this one out. This is Goodreads. This is

Goodreads and this is the page for this very evil, very unapproved, very racist, even though there's no racism in it, book,

Sacred Conviction by Joseph J. And look what we have here. The villain of all villains on my birthday,

November 20th. What a gift. Thank you, Doug Wilson. Thank you for this gift.

Douglas Wilson, Moscow man bad, gives it four stars. He gave this book four stars and here's what he has to say about it.

Really good book. This is too good. This is the best birthday gift

I ever got, Douglas Wilson, November 20th, 2018. Really good book. A treasure trove of citations from antebellum sources to help illustrate what

Southern theologians believed the stakes were. I agree. This was fascinating.

I've never heard any of this stuff. I'd never heard it framed in this way. Does this mean that the only issue was theology?

No, it doesn't mean that, but the book doesn't say that. What it says is that was an important issue. That was a foundational issue to the

Civil War. And I don't see any reason to deny that after reading the book. Were there other issues?

Was slavery an issue? Of course it was an issue. Was economics an issue? Of course it was an issue. Was theology an issue? Well, this book certainly seems to make a strong case that the theology of the

Southerners was better than the theology of the Northerners. Does that mean that they were right about slavery? No.

You see, adults can hold complicated thoughts in their minds sometimes. I mean, that's just how it goes.

It's not just slavery, evil, everything that they'd say is evil. And Northerners, of course, everything they say was great.

No, it's not that simple. Things are rarely that simple. Doug Wilson, on November 20th, my birthday.

Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Doug. Really good book. A treasure trove of citations from antebellum sources to help illustrate what

Southern theologians believe the stakes were. Doug Wilson, you might know, was known for writing another overtly racist book that had no racism in it,

Black and Tan, which people also likewise say is a very bad book as well that I found to be fascinating.

Remember, Ancestor of Sleaze here. I found it to be fascinating. I thought it would be a great book. Black and Tan was a great book.

Why am I bringing this up? Yes, it was on my birthday. That was great. But that's not why I'm bringing it up.

No, no, that's not why I'm bringing it up. Dr. Jim Hamilton, who retweeted

Bradley Mason and said everything you want to know about John Harris, basically making the argument that John's so racist that you can't trust

Dr. Fuller. Dr. Jim Hamilton, I seem to remember a time you shared the stage with another known racist named

Doug Wilson. An evening of eschatology, Piper, Hamilton, Wilson and Storms.

And so if sharing the stage with a known neo -confederate, pro -confederate, evil, racist bigot like John Harris ruins your credibility on issues of race and theology, that's the case that Bradley Mason is making that you retweeted

Dr. Jim Hamilton. By the way, you can't contradict me because you're white and I'm brown.

If that's the case, my friend, which I don't buy for a second, but I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt, then how do you have credibility on issues of race, theology and truth or whatever it is that Bradley Mason said?

Because here it is. You, a white man, sharing the stage with another white man, a known confederate, evil, racist bigot.

I don't even know what else to say. And you didn't call him out. In fact, you had cordial, brotherly relations.

Well, you talked about eschatology and you're a little bit ornery, but you know, that's fine to me. I like a little spice every now and then.

This was a great conversation. One of my favorite quotations on post -millennialism is in this video.

I urge you to watch this one as well. So Dr. Jim Hamilton, so what's the standard here?

Is Dr. Fuller not credible for sharing the stage with John Harris? Because if so, then you're not credible.

So keep your mouth shut. Or is this just a smear job to avoid the actual issue?

Dr. Hamilton, which one is it? And so I want to frame this at the end here, just to remind you that none of this topic of this book,

I think this is a great book. You should read it. None of the issues of John Harris putting out videos, why he defends the

Confederacy. That was a YouTube video he had out that gave the reasons why he defends the

Confederacy. What you want to bet that not one of them is because I'm a racist and I don't like black people.

I'm pretty sure probably that's not one of them. None of this, though, as interesting as I find the

Confederacy and this book, Sacred Convictions, as interesting as I find all this stuff, none of it has anything to do with Dr.

Fuller. And so you got to ask yourself, eventually a reasonable man starts to ask themselves, you know, why aren't you talking about Dr.

Fuller? Why do you think that attacking John Harris somehow has something to do with Dr. Fuller?

Because all us normies out here can see that you're really kind of sidestepping things. You're trying to distract.

You're acting like a predator trying to pick off who you think is the weak one.

It's not going to work, man. We don't care if you call us racist.

We see how it works. We see the lying. We see the slander. We see all of it.

And we don't care. And so this is meant to be encouraging to those of you on my side, because here's the reality, boys.

They're going to call you racist. They're going to call you white supremacists. They're going to say that you only go after black and brown professors, even though most of the people you've gone after are white.

They're going to call you all those things. My suggestion to you is do not let them wield any power over you.

Just say Jimmy Crack Corn, and I don't care. Because once you realize that they actually don't have any power over you, once you realize that most people, when they hear you get called a racist, pretty much ignore it because they've the boy who cried wolf.

They've heard this a million times, and it's never been true. And so what are the chances it's true for you? Guys, don't play into their hands.

Racist, white supremacists, those used to be meaningful terms. Today, they're not meaningful terms.

We've seen it too many times. And so let me just encourage you to stay on the course of truth, regardless of what these people call you, because it's powerless.

It's meaningless. They're desperate to make it work. They're trying to move the needle. Maybe it'll work this time.

Maybe I'll call you racist this time. Maybe someone will care. Maybe someone will care this time, this time, this time, this time, this time, this time. And it never works, but they keep trying.

And every time they do it, more people see through their nonsense and more people see the truth of what's been going on here.

And so that's what I want to encourage you guys. Just stay the course. Stay truthful. Don't lie. It's okay to be wrong about things.

Just don't lie. Don't be like Jim Hamilton. He's a liar. Don't be like John Stark.

He's lying. Don't be like Joe Carter. It's one thing to be wrong. It's another thing to just flat out lie.

Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful. God bless. And seriously,

Joseph J., this book, I highly recommend that you purchase this book. Joseph J.

makes a really interesting case here. Do I buy 100 % of this book? I don't know.

I'm not a historian. I found it fascinating. I found the quotations to be super helpful, and it's definitely worth looking more into.

Anyway, so I highly suggest you buy this book. It's very interesting. And as an ancestor of slaves, well,

I'm not an ancestor of slaves. Slaves were my ancestors. I always mix it up like that. I'm giving you permission to buy that book and find it interesting.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you're a racist. The only way to know if you're a racist is if you're treating black people and brown people with partiality, but you know, whatever.