Matthew Vines Releases his Book and Ergun Caner's Marine Corps Video

And welcome to the Dividing Line on a Tuesday afternoon. It's one of those days. It's gonna be an interesting week. We have another Dividing Line tomorrow, and then I don't know if we're gonna be able to work anything out for the rest of the trip that I'm gonna be taking.

I'm going to be in Nashville on Tuesday of next week. Pretty certain I'm not gonna be able to do anything that day. And yeah, not sure what next week's gonna look like. May just be, might be able to do a few ScreenFlow videos or something to keep the channel rats happy or something like that.

But anyways, we're gonna cram two programs in, one today and one tomorrow. Probably just normal programs, yup. Probably not going mega. We've got plenty of stuff to be doing today though. This morning, very early, very early in the morning, someone is saying, is it just me or is the audio really peaked out?

I don't know what that means, but this audio is bad, distorted, stuff like that. So I'm not sure what that means. I will talk more quietly. Obviously there's nothing much I can do about that. Anyways, early this morning, I was up very early this morning.

My wife flew to Miami on business and she wanted to get a ride in before she left. So we got up at 2 .10 this morning. Yes, there are some of us who actually ride bikes at two o 'clock in the morning.

Matthew Vines, Boswell, and the Crisis of Biblical Authority

And so I was pretty early on getting hold of not only the new ebook that has come out that Albert Moeller helped to edit. Well, Albert Moeller edited, I guess, helped to edit. In response to Matthew Vines, but I was very thankful to see, cause I did not think this would happen, that Kindle released the Matthew Vines book concurrently with the paper.

Now, some of you may have noticed that Kindle will sometimes, they delay the Kindle release till after the paper release. So that if you really want the book, you're gonna have to buy the physical product and then you can get the Kindle version later on.

Well, as soon as I got up this morning, there was an email in my email box about the pre-order of the book. Was it? Yeah, and then I, so I fired up my Kindle and lo and behold, there it was. And so I started recording it immediately.

So I'm already about two thirds of the way through Matthew Vines book. And I read all of the e-book as well. Some of you may not know who I'm talking about when I talk about Matthew Vines. You may recall, I think it was 2012, sometime in 2012, did a five hour response to Matthew Vines.

Well, it wasn't technically five hours cause we played his presentation. And I did a little search for the word white and there's exactly one footnote that references the same sex controversy written by myself and Jeff Neal.

And it is a passing mention of the fact that we quoted rather in full the statements of John Chrysostom regarding homosexuality. And that's it. Now, my assumption is, is what Matthew Vines will say is, well, I've tightened up my arguments or I've this, that or the other thing.

And I didn't really see that. I do see some material in the book. It wasn't the video, but that would make sense. The video is an hour long. The book is three and a half hours in audio. So there has to be more there as far as footnotes and references like that.

But it does not appear that any particular response was provided to the criticisms that we made. And most of the same arguments are still there because what you have is a, as I said earlier, a Boswell retread, a restatement in a more personal way of the type of argumentation that John Boswell presented years ago.

And almost all the books you see coming out are indebted to Boswell's material. Boswell himself, a homosexual and his work, highly suspect when it comes to historical accuracy and fairness. And so very important to keep that in mind.

One, I'll just, let me just mention one thing about this book, because I don't want to get into too many things other than just one little point here. Everybody's saying the sound's back, huh? What did you do, lay hands on it?

Restart Wirecast, okay? That's good, that's a good thing, I suppose.

It's still not the best scenario. We've definitely got a problem with the sound card and I'm not exactly sure why it's doing what it's doing, but hopefully we'll muddle along and get the gist of

How's the blood pressure, John?

Oh, don't, yeah, yeah, right.

Okay, for those who've never done anything like this, if you're sitting in front of four screens, five screens, five screens, two cameras, and three people, trying to talk about something like this while you're seeing all the stuff going on on Twitter and in the channel, it ain't easy.

So if I've seemed a little bit scattered, aside from the fact that I got up at two o 'clock this morning, that's probably why. So I apologize for that, but it does happen and we will get it all worked out.

Once we got it working, we won't touch anything. And that's sort of how you do these things. But anyways, Dr. Moeller has recognized the importance of this book. I recognize the importance of this book.

I recognize the importance of Ken Wilson's book, A Letter to My Congregation. I recognize the importance of Torn, Justin Lee's book. Let me use an illustration that maybe some of you will catch that otherwise you might not hear from me.

How many times have I talked about the fact that most Protestants are Protestants of convenience rather than conviction? They believe what they believe because that's what we believe at my church. And the Roman Catholic Church, well, it's a little bit weird, the Pope and the silly hat and the censors, that stuff.

But it's not a conviction that it's a gospel issue. It's not a conviction that the gospel stands or falls with issues that are related to Roman Catholicism, that Rome has a false gospel. There aren't that many Protestants of conviction anymore.

And many that are Protestants of conviction are ignorant Protestants of conviction, so it becomes Protestants of prejudice rather than conviction, which doesn't really help us much either. The reason that someone will hold to the truth of justification by faith is when that conviction really goes into the soul.

I've said of people who've become Roman Catholics, for example, I can't imagine anyone who has ever truly with their heart and soul recognized the beauty of the imputed righteousness of Christ then trading that away for the treadmill of Roman sacramentalism.

I can't believe that that could happen. It'd be so strange for someone to be able to do that. Well, use that as an illustration of what we have here. I'm afraid the vast majority of evangelicals who are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and certainly opposed to the redefinition of marriage do so not out of a knowledgeable, knowing, thought through conviction about God, God as creator, gender as part of God's intention for mankind, as a result, marriage being something that reflects God's purposes as being a gift of God that stabilizes society, that gives us what we need to be raised properly, to have a proper foundation for living a godly life, et cetera, et cetera.

Rather than having a positive conviction that this is Jesus's teaching, Jesus clearly taught that marriage is this, gender is this, he honored the law of God, all of that, I'm afraid that most evangelicals, the real foundation of their view of homosexuality is the ick factor.

Now, there is an ick factor to homosexual practice and to the vast majority of homosexual experience. There is an ick factor. It's a natural ick factor, but that's not enough. It may have been enough in generations past.

It's not enough anymore and it's not gonna be enough for us over the next few years because given the speed at which this has been going, I'm not in any way being an alarmist to say that 10 years from now, we may not have the freedom to even discuss what we're discussing right now without facing severe civil and who knows, maybe even criminal repercussions for so doing.

And if anyone says, oh, you're just being, you haven't been paying attention. You haven't been paying attention. And as Dr. Moeller says, it's an inevitable moment of decision and everyone's gonna have to make that decision.

You are gonna have to make that decision. And if you say, well, I'm just gonna leave that to my elders. You gotta realize what your elders decide as the position of the church is gonna have tremendous impact upon you as an individual.

And it has to be a personal conviction on your own part that your church is speaking the truth on this matter. And there'll be many of you listening to the sound of my voice right now that will go to churches that will choose to go the other way, that will choose to de-emphasize the biblical teaching on morality and ethics and sexuality and especially the nature of marriage.

And the reason they will do so is because they will read these books and they will read Ken Wilson's book and they'll read Matthew Vine's book and they will fundamentally reorient the Christian message to avoid the pressure of the society.

These books, and Dr. Moeller brings this out, these books will give them the excuse they need to opt out of the conflict. And I'm no pollster, I'm not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. My gut feeling is that as I look at the state of evangelicalism in the United States today, that split, that change is going to leave those who hold to, and I hate this terminology, but the traditional view of marriage, those who hold to a biblical, the only possible biblical understanding that marriage is heterosexual, one man, one woman.

I'm listening to all you liberals going, yeah, but they had this and I know all about that. Look at what Jesus taught, okay? One man, one woman, it's heterosexual. That's definitional of what it means to marry.

That's how you get a husband and a wife, not two husbands, not two wives. The words have meanings, you can't change that. The number who will stand on that ground will be the minority of what calls itself evangelicalism today, that's my prediction.

And it's gonna cost, it'll cost us, it'll cost each one of us individually, and it all comes back to where our convictions are. If this is an issue of the sufficiency of scripture, and it is, folks, listen to what Matthew Vines is saying.

Matthew Vines, John Boswell, Ken Wilson, all these people are saying that the ancient writers, that Paul and Matthew, they didn't know what we know today about sexual orientation. They were ignorant of these things.

Think about what that means for a second. It's a convenient foil, it's a convenient way around things, but think about what that means. They didn't know. And on the basis of their not knowing, there have been, well, one of the biggest arguments of Matthew Vines.

Here's Matthew Vines' positive argument. A good tree brings forth good fruit. Since the teaching of Orthodox Christianity has brought forth negative fruit in alienating homosexuals, homosexual suicide, homosexuals abandoning the faith, that's bad fruit.

Therefore, that can't be from a good tree. Therefore, we need to rethink all these texts, all based upon the idea that, well, no one back then knew about these things. How do you hold to the sufficiency of scripture now that you've adopted that perspective?

He goes right after complementarianism. He goes right after a biblical view of male and female in this book. He has to, he has to. It's the only way that he can establish his position. Notice how all this stuff's related.

Sometimes, again, I've tried to warn people, you can't do the chicken coop theology thing where you've got, you know, you've got your theology of God here and your theology of the Bible here and your theology of man over here and your theology of church here, and it's all separated, and you never bring them close enough together to get uncomfortable as to whether they're consistent with each other.

Now we're seeing why, because really, one of the reasons evangelicalism as a whole is gonna collapse on this is because what? What's the, what would be the only foundation that could bear the weight of really dealing with this issue, the highest view of scripture?

And have I not said over and over again that even in conservative seminaries, there are many who teach who will sign a paper that says I believe in inerrancy. You listen to what they're saying. They've redefined the term.

They've redefined the term. They don't believe in inerrancy. They believe that the Bible inerrantly communicates X, Y, or Z, but they don't really believe that the Bible is inerrant. They don't believe that what was written by the authors is theanustas, or that what they really believe is that sort of some type of spiritual message is communicated, but the words themselves, well, you know.

There's a foundation here. And what Matthew Vines is saying would absolutely destroy any commitment to scriptural sufficiency, and it absolutely destroys our ability to define sin as to proclaim the gospel.

If there is no sin, if you cannot define sin, if sin is just simply a personal preference that I have, and I define it, and it's when I just, it's when I'm not the best I can be. If that's what sin becomes, how is that going to impact our proclamation of the gospel?

The gospel becomes a personally defined thing rather than an objective, powerful message that calls men and women, boys and girls, to bow the knee in submission, in repentance, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a gospel issue. What Matthew Vines is doing is nothing, absolutely nothing short of seeking to completely subvert the gospel message. That's what's going on. And so when we look at these books, they are providing the excuse for those who are already compromised, already compromised in the area of scriptural sufficiency, sola scriptura, tota scriptura.

They're already compromised there, so the foundation's no longer solid for them to stand firm on issues like this. And so when we talk about, when we've seen what's been going on, we've seen what's been going on in what calls itself evangelicalism in the erosion of the roles of male and female, in the denial of complementarianism.

And Matthew Vines recognizes, look, if complementarianism is true, if God has a purpose in maleness and femaleness, and if there is a complementary relationship between male and female, both physically, mentally, and spiritually, so that a man is changed by the otherness of the woman.

And every man that I know of that's been married for more than two months knows what I'm talking about. Every man who's been married more than two months knows exactly what I'm talking about. They don't think like us, and they don't act like us,.

And that's a good thing.

We like that, but not all the time. I mean, sometimes the arguments are over, well, honey, why can't I do it that way? And she can't necessarily give you a really good reason.

But if you wanna stay married for a while,.

You don't necessarily look for that good reason. I just got amens from the other side of the wall. I mean, that's amazing. I didn't know I was preaching, but it's a all-male audience here today, so I got amens.

There, we are changed by the otherness of that person to whom we become bound in a way that we could never be bound to anyone else. I mean, I've been married nearly 32 years. That's not bad, you know?

32 years is a while.

Some of you are listening to me haven't been around that long. A lot of people listening have not been around that long. 32 years, all right? I have not been the perfect husband. We've had our trials and difficulties.

Nor have we been poor as church mice. She works hard so that I can do what I do. But when I think back on our lives and I think about the things we've been through together, that is a heritage that I could never share with anybody else.

And the things we've been through, I'll tell you a story. I've told this story before. When Kelly went into, Kelly, my wife always has children, always has. It sounds like we're still having children.

We're not. Both of our children came early, seven weeks and four weeks. And we had gone to one childbirth class before she went into labor with Josh. And one of the things they had taught us in this childbirth class is called effleurage.

And you're supposed to help her relax by doing this little thing on her forehead like this. So Kelly's laying there and you know that the contractions are coming and we're alone in the labor room and contractions are coming.

So I'm like, I can do this.

This is my first kid, you know? And so we went to one class and I'm a good student. And so I can just tell she's really in pain with this contraction. And so I'm like, okay, you know. And so I reached down and I do this effleurage thing on her.

Her eyes pop open and flames flew forth from her eyes and burned my hands from my body.

At least that's what it felt like.

Her eyes pop open and she looks at me and she says, with the voice of Legion, says, don't touch me.

Oh, after a while, guys, you get the message. Even when my daughter was in labor for 44 hours, whenever I'd walk into the room in the ward there, I don't know, I just felt guilty as a man walking into this.

It's like the entire mental attitude of all the women was this is your fault, people. If they weren't for you people,.

We wouldn't be going through this.

I was like, I say it outside most of the time. It just wasn't. So the point being, there are experiences. I could not have had that experience with a man. Complementarianism says that there is something in the correspondence and yet the difference between man and woman that changes us both and is absolutely necessary in God's created order for that kind of life giving, the two shall become one flesh relationship.

The point is, homosexual relationships, whether it's man, man, woman, woman, is a relationship with a mirror image. It is fundamentally disordered. You can not have the kind of union. And I know, yeah, but look at how you heterosexuals.

Have messed up marriage.

I know, that doesn't change what I'm saying. That doesn't change anything. The reality still is that if we want what God has designed us to be, you don't fall in love with a mirror. And Matthew Vines knows that's exactly what the problem is.

And that's why, look at under gender complementarity here. I actually have it, I should have it anyways on the screen. How would same-sex unions undermine scripture's plan for human sexuality? The term he uses for us is non-affirming.

Christians frequently answer that question with one phrase, gender complementarity. As they see it, God designed men and women as exclusive complements to one another in marriage, making the differences between the sexes essential to the meaning of marriage.

Now, he's exactly right. Matthew Vines knows exactly what his target must be. And as Al Mohler points out, the audience that is not going to be able to resist his reasoning is liberal. Protestantism that's already collapsed on complementarianism already.

They've already lost this, they've already collapsed on it. It's done. They have no basis for standing against it. Now, it's interesting. Let me bring it up here real quick. Are we not able to show anything today?

Oh, okay.

All right, I just, well, then why isn't it showing accordance? Let me show you something real quick here. I'll go back to the window and go to accordance.

There it is.

And I want to go to the Old Testament right there. Okay, Genesis 2 .18. Oh my goodness, look at the time. Then the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him.

Now, notice the septuagint here. Tan antharapan manan, man only. Not just alone as in separated from others, but only man. And then you have, I will make for him, boethan kat auton is the Greek septuagint.

The septuagint translation of the Pentateuch is very, very good. The level of septuagint translation elsewhere, man, not so much. But in the Pentateuch especially. So that is how they render here in verse 18.

This, an etzer, a helper, kenegdo, a corresponding to. Corresponding to. Not the same as. The whole context here is all the animals are brought before Adam and look, they're in pairs, most of them are.

Look at that, you know? And none are found that corresponds to Adam. And so I will make a helper that corresponds to him, a helper fit for him. And Matthew Vines recognizes, you know what, in this story, he doesn't make another man.

He makes a woman. And nobody that I can think of until the modern age ever thought that what this story was saying was, well, you know, the whole thing is that Adam needed companionship. And it just so happens that God made a woman so that we could have like humans, you know, because, you know, that's how you have humans.

But that's not really what the correspondence is. No, it is what the correspondence is. The fit helper for the man is not another man. It's a woman. And the one for whom she is created to be the fit helper is not another female.

It's a man. Gender is a part of God's good purposes. And fundamentally, we are having a denial of that. We see that in Vines. We see that in how he's going to argue this later on. Here, here's, yeah, here we go.

God was looking for someone, oh, I'm sorry. Let me pop this over to Kindle. There it is. God was looking for someone more similar to Adam than the animals were, someone with whom Adam could form a one-flesh bond that had to be, notice it says another human being.

Well, that's true. Adam commented only on the qualities he and Eve shared. Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, he said, she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man. Adam and Eve were right for each other, not because they were different, but because they were alike.

Alike as humans. I suppose that would be a good argument against bestiality, but that's not all the text is saying, is it? Because he calls her something other than himself. He misses that. He misses that.

Notice that? He says, he even quotes, she shall be called woman. That's not the same thing as man. For she was taken out of man. Oh, that's a difference. He sees obviously that she is of his kind, but she is not him.

She is not a mirror image. She is different. And he likes that. And that's a good thing. And he goes on to say, other common renderings include a help answering to him and a help corresponding to him.

The Hebrew term for suitable, as a number of commentators have pointed out, can also encompass a sense of difference. That's right. It's not sameness. It's correspondence. But notice what he says. Now, this is a young man who says, I'm not a linguist.

He's not, but he certainly makes a lot of arguments. But that's not an adequate basis on which to import the entire concept of gender complementarity we discussed in chapter two. Actually, it is, Matthew.

It is. It is.

So there's a lot more to be said. I just, I want everyone to be aware of the fact that we are facing a flood of this material. And every one of you listening to me, housewives, high school students, I don't care what your position is.

You must think through these issues in your own mind. I don't know how long this microphone is going to be attached to the internet, but as long as it is, I am going to try to warn people and encourage people.

Your faith must be your own. You must have thought it through. Once you've thought it through, you'll be able to express it with more clarity to others. This is vitally important. No one thought 30 years ago that this would be the apologetic issue of our day,.

But it is.

And you know as well as I do that so many opportunities are available to you right now to discuss this area. Have you ever thought through how you can move from this area to the gospel presentation? Not in some cheesy, cheap way, but in recognizing that since this is a gospel issue, it naturally leads us directly to making that presentation.

I think it's vitally important. I think it's vitally important. We have much more to say about that. We got off on a little bit of a rough start, but we will press on in the few minutes that we have left.

We only have about 12 minutes left in the program, so I did want to shift gears a little bit. And I wanted to play something that's, I think it's important to play this, and this is a real shift. I mean, you smell that?

That's the clutch burning. It's the clutch on the program. I have, it's really screaming right now, but we're gonna, we're gonna, this would normally be like, hey, do you have a commercial queued up? You know, that type thing, but we're not gonna, we don't have time for that today because we had some issues at the beginning.

Most of you heard the announcement that I made the last time that we were on the air that Pastor Jason Smathers, who was sinfully sued by Dr. Ergen Kanner, who is unrepentant of his having sinfully sued a fellow Southern Baptist and fellow Christian, that the lawsuit against Jason Smathers for having posted the videos of Ergen Kanner lying through his teeth to the Marines was dismissed with prejudice, that the judge found quite appropriately that this was a matter of fair use, this was a matter of criticism of Ergen Kanner, and therefore the lawsuit was dismissed.

I would really hope that once people have an opportunity of viewing these videos, that if he were to consider appealing this judgment, that so many people would come down on top of him that he would never think to do it.

That would be the right thing to have happen. Whether that'll actually happen, I don't know, because he has a number of enablers and people who assist him. I wanted to show you just one little short snippet from one of the two Marine Corps videos.

The quality stinks. The very fact that someone would try to copyright, he never has actually finished even applying for copyright, but the fact someone would try to copyright things that he now says, you know, what is the story anyways?

I mean, on Twitter, he's talked about how these are all edited and uploaded by hyper-Calvinists and all the rest of this lunacy, and that so evidently, these are all just a bunch of lies, that this really isn't Ergen Kanner.

In fact, I imagine it's so dark here in this picture that he'll say, that wasn't me, that wasn't me. So we'll have to get all those Marines together to go, remember that guy? But anyway, I just wanted to play one little clip here and point something out, and then invite everybody to call the Office of Communication at Bruton Parker and talk to good old Petey Lumpkins and see if he can explain this for you, because I guess that's his job now, is to make up excuses for Ergen Kanner.

But I want you to see this. Here is Ergen Kanner speaking to the Marines, presenting himself. He's half Turkish, half Swedish, and he's pretending he's an Arab. And it's just pathetic, but he's talking about how we're just so thankful for what you've done for all of us, and he's primarily talking about Iraq, and our people there, and I have half sisters that have now learned to read thanks to what you, and I'm like, what?

Swedish, the Swedish school system can't teach people to read anymore? What are you talking about here? It's just ridiculous. But some of you remember, in fact, let's do it this way. Okay, let me go to this, and to this, and to that, and to that.

Let's see if we can bring that up. Can we pop that up on the screen? There we go. This is, you can't see that because it's cropped, but up at the top of the screen, it would normally say, you would see the URL bar, and this is NormanGeisler .net slash article slash ErgenKanner slash default .htm, okay?

This is currently on Norman Geisler's website, and you'll notice number seven, Ergen claimed his father had many wives, and two half brothers, and two half sisters, but there's no evidence for the half brothers.

Response, Ergen's father did have two wives, having divorced the first one. He had three sons by his first wife, Ergen and his two brothers, so Ergen has two full brothers and two stepsisters from his father's second wife.

While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his half brothers. This is hardly evidence of an attempt to embellish or deceive. After all, he had the right number of each sibling, and he didn't claim to have 10 brothers or sisters.

And notice the assertion here. Ergen's father did have two wives, having divorced the first one. So what's the Norman Geisler, and we all know this was written, you know, we've told the story before that we know this was written on a computer, licensed to Truett McConnell College, where Emer Cantor is the president, and has something to do with Thomas, and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

And so we know this is the Cantor excuse sheet. It's even been edited down since it was originally published because so many of the responses were just so completely absurdly ridiculous. And then Norman Geisler had nothing to do with this, but he's putting his name on it, so he's accountable for it, so that's a shame for Norman Geisler.

But what it's saying is that Ergen Cantor's father was not a polygamist. Now, we now have numerous recordings of Ergen Cantor claiming that his father was a polygamist, that he had many wives. Not that he had married his mother, then divorced his mother, then married somebody else, had more kids.

That's not called polygamy in most people's minds, and it certainly wouldn't be the Abraham lie where he brings his wives with him and all the rest of that stuff. Might that be one of the reasons why Ergen Cantor didn't want this little segment out there in the public?

This is part of the video that Ergen Cantor sued and lost to suppress. Here's what he says.

My father had more than one wife at a time. As you know, the Quran says in Surah 4, you're allowed up to four wives. My father had three.

Now, Dr. Lumpkins,.

Calling Dr. Peter Lumpkins of Bruton-Parker College. Dr. Lumpkins, sir, could you please explain how the president of your college could say, well, what he just said? Where he said, my father had multiple wives at the same time.

And in fact, he said he had three in the context of at the same time. Could you tell us that? Now, someone on channel had said that if I go to one minute and 15 seconds, or I'm sorry, to one hour and 15 seconds.

Let's just see.

Because my father had listed my mother as property.

It's true.

And the guy said, your mother wife's not property. He said, of course she is. And then he brought his sisters. She's his other wives. That's how we bring in our other wives into America. We call them our sister.

There you go, folks.

There isn't any question about this. No rational person on the planet could miss what Ergen Cantor was saying to those Marines. He was saying that when his father, now if you're, and there's so much more we could do.

He was, he talks about how, you know, he pretends that when he came here, he had no idea what American culture was like and all the rest of this. Remember, this is a guy who was here from the time of his earliest memories.

How many of you can remember things before your third birthday with clarity? And even that, before that, he was in Sweden. So here's a man standing in front of these people, pretending to tell them what life is gonna be like where they're going to serve.

And he has no earthy idea. And what he's telling them without any question is that his father was a polygamist and that he brought, not married once he got here, but brought with him his other two wives and claimed they were his sisters.

That's what he says elsewhere is the Abraham line. There it is.

You just watched it.

You just heard it. The only excuse that these people are gonna offer is, well, wonder how much time Jason Smathers spent editing that video. Man, he must have, he must have industrial light and magic working for him.

Must have, I mean, there must be, I did not know that Hollywood was infested with hyper-Calvinists, did you know that? Did anybody, did y 'all know that? I didn't know that, but it must be because that's the only way you could have so many people trained in video editing to somehow create Eric Encantor's voice and his likeness and stick it on video like this.

I would love to hear what P .D. Lumpkins, Dr. Peter Lumpkins, Vice President of Communications, Bruton Parker College. I'd like to know what Peter Lumpkins says about, because we can't seem to get Eric Encantor to comment on these videos.

But maybe Peter Lumpkins will.

So why don't we ask? Why don't we ask?

And while we're at it, could somebody please, who knows Norman Geisler, who has Norman Geisler's ear, some of you powerful big guys,.

Could you show him this?

Could you print out what's on his website and then show him this video and go, Norm, what you doing? He ain't gonna listen to me. Maybe some of you who are older than Dr. Geisler, because he won't listen to people who's younger than him.

So maybe some of you that are older realize, you know, Norm, you got a little problem. Somebody needs to deal with it. Somebody needs to deal with it. So there you go. Wow, that was fun. Are we gonna have some real surgery to do afterwards, try to fix this thing?

So I wasn't even recording right, right?

Well, the first part, I mean, we got the audio and all, but you know.

Freeze frame.

We, you know, the vast majority of the show, we got the audio and the YouTube. Apparently it's a little muddy, but they got the gist of it. So we'll figure it out.

All right.

Was it his fault or his fault? No, no, no, no, no, you know, Stan, we have scapegoats here.

Oh yes, we do have scapegoats. Well, no, I don't do what Peter Lempkin's, I mean, no, it was, it was definitely, definitely me.

Okay.

No question about it.

It was not, not any hyper-Calvinists.