TikTok Lady Theologian Refuted, Comments on Dr. MacArthur and Losing Down Here

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We are back here in the regular studio for now. We have to work through some issues as to how we will play video and be able to hear it.

Which is a trick. And something tells me I'm going to have to have it on a different computer.

I'm not going to be in control of it. Someone else will have to start and stop it and stuff like that. It's going to be a little challenging. So things to work through.

That's fine. We still want to address these things. Important things to be talking about.

Here at the top of the program I want to read you a little something and hopefully it will be useful to you.

Let me just read a couple paragraphs and hopefully we'll move on from there. In economics, redistributive legislation in Marxist countries means the open transfer of land and wealth from private ownership to the state as the trustee of all the people.

In the democratic nations, the same restributive goal is achieved by a variety of means, most notably the inheritance tax and the income tax.

In the United States, 75 % of all farms, businesses, and activities are wiped out by the death of the owner because of the confiscatory nature of the inheritance tax.

The income tax works annually to redistribute wealth, as does the property tax and a variety of other taxes. In fact, the goal of taxation can no longer be said to be the maintenance of civil order and justice.

Rather, its goal is social revolution by means of taxation. Taxation has indeed become the new and most effective method of revolution.

It is the reactionary redistributionists who still think in terms of the armed overthrow of existing orders.

The more liberal ones know that taxation is the more efficient means of revolution.

In politics, the redistributive state works to equalize and scatter all independent sectors, whether religious, racial, or economic, which can form pockets of strength and resistance to the saving power of the state.

Catch that phrase, the saving power of the state. The redistributive state wants no dissident minorities, only an undifferentiated and submissive majority.

Now this stuff, I'll tell you what this is in a second, but do you remember when I read the story of the

Uyghur woman in China who survived two years in the Uyghur re -education camp? Remember what they were being taught.

Remember what they were being asked to find to be good was a populace of undifferentiated people that happened to be a certain kind of Chinese people they want to be in the majority.

But that's what they want. They want an undifferentiated and submissive majority.

That's what China is doing right now. These words were written almost 50 years ago.

In brief, the redistributive state wants a world beyond good and evil, where there is no good nor evil, there can be no criticism and no judgment.

So we are forced to conclusion, I'm sorry, in a world beyond good and evil, there is no standard for condemning a civil government and the civil law is thus beyond criticism.

Moral judgment disappears and coercion replaces it. In fact, where there is no moral law and no

God whose court is the source of all law and judgment, then the only binding force in any social order is coercion.

Thus the more humanistic a state becomes, the more coercive it becomes. The brutal slave labor camps of the

Marxist states are not aberrations. Notice it says are. This is before the fall of the Soviet Union. Are not aberrations nor errors of principle on their part, they are the logical outcome of their humanism.

The humanistic state replaces God's predestination with man's plan of predestination by total coercion and it replaces

God's moral law with a purely coercive law whose purpose is alien to man's being and destructive to it.

As we are facing new realities and people who are openly unashamed to be promoting pure totalitarianism, just straight up silence everybody but those that are saying what we want them to say.

We are now seeing this. Bob Gagnon, scholar, researcher, writer, gone from Facebook.

That's not, they didn't come and shoot him yet. But tech is saying, nope, if the new regime says that transgenderism is the new great good thing, then it is, period, end of discussion.

Can't argue it. You can't do worldview critique, nothing. Just like this is saying, if there is no higher law than the state, then the state becomes

God. And if the state had transgenderism as the greatest good, there can be no appeal.

There's nothing to appeal to. And so when we Christians say, but that's not how

God, nope, you have no word from God. Ours is the highest authority. You're gone.

You're out of here. Right now, you just can't talk anymore. We don't want your opinions being heard.

But if you dare keep talking and find ways for opinions to be heard, that's what gulags were designed for under the

Soviet Union and under whatever country is going to continue along those lines. Thus, the more humanistic a state becomes, the more coercive it becomes.

Talk to me about the United States of America. Talk to me about Canada. Talk to me about the United Kingdom. Talk to me about Germany. Talk to me about all these nations.

Are they becoming more and more humanistic? Are they becoming more and more secular? Is there becoming an ever greater fundamental acceptance of the idea that mankind is nothing but an accident, has no transcendent meaning?

There is no moral law above that which the state defines. Just that's it. Yeah, that's where we are.

That's what we're facing. And some of you know, in fact, the last,

I think it's the last, I didn't check this morning, but the last blog and Mayblog entry from Dougwills .com,

Douglas Wilson, was really excellent. And no matter how hard some people might want us to try, we cannot help but recognize that there are people who lived 40 and 50 years ago who saw what we are now living through.

They saw it coming. They talked about it. They mentioned it. They warned us. Most of us just could not imagine the possibility ever coming true.

One of them was Francis Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer spoke prophetically, but a less popular individual was named

Rufus J. Rushduni, and I was just reading from him.

And his analysis of the coercive nature of the state, once it is freed from the moral constraints of cosmic law,

God's law, the law that exists above what any gathering of human beings can ever vote into existence, that criticism is being validated with every shaky signature

Joe Biden is placing on his dictatorial commands.

And if you think that's a, you shouldn't be so mean, the man has signed more executive orders in one week than his three times more than the collection of his four predecessors did in their first week.

And more coming. And more coming. The entire concept of this being a representative republic, where we have representatives who are actually doing that thing called representing, is simply being tossed out the window.

This regime doesn't care. Doesn't care about those restraints, doesn't care about any of that stuff.

And you combine that together with the new mantra that if it even crossed your mind that something weird happened in the counting of votes, you are in deep trouble.

You should lose your job. You should be kicked out of government. You probably should be put in jail for just thinking it.

Just having had the thought go, you know, that was pretty weird. Look at that go, whoop, whoa.

Where'd all those, if you even thought that. Now it's a thought crime.

It's a thought crime. It's scary to even tune into MSNBC right now because it's like, whoa.

I mean, Big Brother is just sitting on the set now, you know, he's just sitting there going,

Orwell may have imagined me, but here I am in living color. And they're loving it.

They think it's great. They don't realize they're useful idiots. And if they ever dare cross

Big Brother, they're toast. But most of them would never, ever, ever do that. So here we are. Wow.

The more humanistic a state becomes, the more coercive it becomes. And therefore a humanistic state must see as its most mortal enemy, what?

The claims of the one that it can never, ever suppress because the stone was rolled away from his tomb.

Because there's a lordship they cannot, in any way, shape, or form, get rid of, ameliorate, buy off, redefine.

Not that they don't try. I mean, they're buying off, quote unquote, Christians right, left, and center.

They've got them doing their bidding right now, like anything. But there you go.

There you go. So I think that's what lay behind. I did not, there's a lot of stuff

I haven't, I have seen coming, and I haven't seen coming. One of the things I haven't, I did not see coming, that is all over us right now, is this is forcing anyone who wants to seriously prepare, try to prepare for the future, try to think things through, try to teach their children to persevere and to withstand what's going to be coming.

Everybody is now learning to think presuppositionally.

We presuppositionalists have been saying all along that the outcome of the debate is determined by the foundations, the epistemological foundations upon which it's based.

And if there's rebellion down here, if down here at the basic level of where you start, man's autonomy is allowed to have its central place, you're never actually going to build a stable

Christian argument up here. It's not going to happen. Well, now we are seeing, with a vengeance, the need to always think presuppositionally.

And if you've watched any of my debates, you know I've always worked this way.

When I'm listening to an argument, I am analyzing it presuppositionally. What are the foundational elements that would be required to substantiate the assertion this individual just made?

And if I can tell they haven't done that work, then that's what I'm going to ask them to do in cross -examination, and that's when the wheels fall off.

Thinking presuppositionally. Now we have to do that. Well, we still have the freedom to do it.

Now we have to do that. It's the only way to understand the motivations of the people who can, with such impudence, engage in such outrageous hypocrisy.

They don't care about hypocrisy. It's part of the system. It is meant to break us down. It is meant to humiliate us.

That Dalrymple quote, we should all memorize it. Just put that one down for the memorization.

It is the purpose of the people on the left to engage in hypocrisy.

Because why is hypocrisy wrong for aggregates of stardust?

It's not. Because hypocrisy, the reason hypocrisy has been wrong in the past, is because it involved dishonesty in regards to what?

God's creation. You are God's creation. They are

God's creation. You are to be honest in your dealings with other people who are made in the image of God.

And therefore, hypocrisy is your attempt to deceive them, to put on airs, to put on a face.

Of whom? The people observing you. Or even before God. But if there's no

God to observe, and the people on the other side of the room have no transcendent meaning, and there is no objective truth, then hypocrisy is merely a cultural concept.

That might be colonial. It's probably racist. See, you can just throw terms out there that have actually no historical connection.

They're no logical connection. But being logical is also not something that a person who is just a collection of stardust has to worry about either.

So I mentioned on the program yesterday, toward the end,

I was talking about this hit piece against Right Reverend Dr.

Tom Buck. I just like to put them all together. By Mark Wingfield, SBC pastor, calls

Vice President Kamala Harris a Jezebel two days after inauguration. And I read the actual quote.

I can't imagine any truly God -fearing Israelite. Okay, stop right there. What's a God -fearing Israelite? God -fearing

Israelite is a person who believes not only that God exists, but is in covenant relation to him, and therefore is in submission to God's law, and therefore has objective truth and objective moral values.

I can't imagine any truly God -fearing Israelite who would have wanted their daughters to view Jezebel as an inspirational role model because she was a woman in power.

So what's his point? The idea of woman in power is irrelevant to whether we should be pointing to someone as an example, an inspirational role model, to use specific words that Dr.

Buck used. Woman in power, I'm not going to pretend to be

Dr. Buck, but I would say he's one of my closest ministerial friends in the world.

I really do. I hope. He feels that. I think Derek Melton and Tom Buck and some of these guys,

I've been in their churches. They mean the world to me. And so I think he'd allow me to say on his behalf that what he was talking about is that a woman in the home who is a godly wife and mother training up her children in the fear and admonition of the

Lord is because of the content of her character and the consistency of the worldview that she is living in is the true and only real inspirational model that we should need to have.

And the idea of transporting her out of the home into a position of power, actually,

I would suggest she's in the greatest position of power she could ever have in shaping the next generation.

Being right there in the home and being mom has the greatest power. But the idea is people say, here's a woman in power now.

We're so excited. And as Christians, we should be going, and what is her moral worldview?

And when we examine that, we find it to be utterly debauched. Utterly debauched.

And so I stand with Dr. Buck and what he said in that tweet.

And if Mark Wingfield would like to write an article or maybe do what he didn't do with Tom Buck, like contact him?

Like get the context for his words? Maybe Mark Wingfield would like to come on this program where we can have a discussion of what the appropriate example for young girls would be.

And whether Kamala Harris's worldview in regards to abortion, infanticide, the profanation of marriage, transgenderism, and a whole host of other issues would be what we should be pointing our young girls to.

Or do we point them simply to the outward rather than the inward? Might be some questions to think about.

But this is the point. This is the same. It's the issue of thinking presuppositionally.

What is the presuppositional basis of looking at a quote unquote woman in power and analyzing whether this should be a person that we are seeking to emulate?

All those worldview conferences we've been doing for the past 25 years, now all of a because we know.

Now we see. Here it comes. That's the important part. That's the important part.

Okay. Along those lines, along those lines, last night

I was sent a video. We didn't. Let me see. That's going to be about the best we can do there.

Are we good on that side? Okay. I've got her plugged in over here. That's fine.

I was sent this video. I think this is the first TikTok video that I've ever played on.

Rich says, I know it is. And so that means I think Rich is a little concerned.

You would know? Okay. All right. Okay. Well, I don't do

TikTok. I don't have TikTok. My understanding is it's basically a

Chinese spy program. So whatever. As is Zoom, for that matter.

But I was sent this last evening. And once I listened to it,

I was just, well, part of it, you got to understand.

We could link you right now to how many hours did I do with Matthew Vines?

I think it was five, at least five. And then

Gushy was at least four, maybe as much as five. That's about 10 hours.

The debate with John Shelby Spong, the debate down in South Africa.

So that's about three, six, nine. Other two, maybe, let's just go small, eight.

Minimum of 17 hours worth of stuff we can just link to right now.

Going in depth on these issues. And not just me sitting here. I'm actually playing the other side.

I'm playing the best the other side has to offer. This ain't low hanging fruit.

We're going at the best they've got. And of course, there's a little book back here,

Same -Sex Controversy. And this is a subject that we have addressed many, many times.

But it doesn't change the fact that Christians still struggle to provide a confident and gracious response to some of the wilder claims that people make.

Now, what's interesting is this woman claims to be a former clergy person with the

United Methodists. That tells you a fair amount right there in most situations.

I'm sorry? Well, yes, I had some

United Methodists with me at Fuller many, many years ago. And she is going to claim quite a level of expertise in the biblical languages.

And she claims to have translated books of the Bible. That's, I think, where some

Christians go, Folks, you have to demythologize scholarship.

You have to demythologize scholarship. Some of the people that I've known in my life that had the least amount of simple common sense in their brains had the most degrees after their names.

And some of the smartest people I know, who are able to take information from numerous different fields and bring them together into a cohesive whole that produces deep and sound wisdom across the spectrum, had no degrees after their names at all.

We are now living in what I would call the post -educational period.

You are not being educated if you're being told what to think. You're educated when you're told how to think.

And so when you see people from big -name schools today, especially that are as young as this young woman, there is a 99 % chance they've never listened to any other perspective than the one that that educational institution wanted to implant in their minds and therefore control their behavior.

I know that in seminary, whether it was when I was in it or teaching in it, we would listen to the other side.

We would analyze what other people believed. Most of the books I had to read in seminary were from people who would not have ever been allowed to stand in the pulpit of my church.

The vast majority of them. So conservatives actually listen to the other side and learn from the other side.

And when you disagree, you know why you disagree. Liberals, leftists do not do that.

They do not do that. I can guarantee you this bright -eyed young lady doesn't have a clue about the mountain of documentation that demonstrates that she has no idea what she's talking about.

None. And they don't even believe that there is another side.

I've told you, when I debated Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman didn't care what I had to say about any of the texts we'd be looking at.

He doesn't think that we have anything meaningful to say. When I debated John Shelby Spong, I read all of his books.

I listened to his lectures on all the subjects that would be relevant to our debate. He didn't even know who I was and he didn't bring a

Bible to a debate on whether homosexuality is consistent with biblical Christianity because they don't think we have anything meaningful to say and they have no intention of listening to what we're saying to begin with.

That's just the way it is. So these people will confidently say, I've studied

Koine Greek and I've studied Hebrew and the reason that they used homosexual was because they wanted to do this.

Now, to actually substantiate that kind of assertion would require a wide range of knowledge and a fair handling of that knowledge, none of which this woman possesses by any stretch of the imagination.

But that's why they make very confident statements. They're confidently wrong, but they make confident statements.

So let's take a look at it. Let's analyze it and here we go.

I literally want nothing more than for this to be a valid argument, but I'm going to tell you why it's not a valid argument.

As a former clergy member, somebody who used to work in the Methodist church, who has a Master of Divinity, I know biblical

Hebrew and Koine Greek. I've translated multiple books of the Bible. It's not a valid argument because the word homosexuality literally does not exist in the original text.

Nope. In the 1940s, the word homosexuality was invented by biblical scholars translating the

RSV translation in order to propagate homophobia. So it's listed nowhere in scripture, nor does

Jesus ever talk about it. And before anybody's like, oh, well, in Leviticus, it talks about man shall not lie with man. Well, first and foremost, an

American publishing company did that. That's not in the original text either. Because if you look at the Martin Luther Bible, the

German word that's used is Krabben, which means boy. Talking about pedophilia.

So take several seats. Take several seats.

I guess that's how you say sit down or something.

I don't know. So there you go. Now, again, on the one hand,

I understand why that kind of a presentation could cause people to sort of stand back and go, okay,

I don't really know how to respond to that. I'm not sure. She threw some stuff out there.

I don't know about what happened at such and such a time or anything like that.

I'm trying to pull up. I should have had this up before. I apologize. I love having all of my

Bible stuff here in accordance. But the problem is when you try to find a specific thing, it can be very, very, very, very, very, very difficult to do.

And there it is. I found it. Thank you. I'll bring that up in a moment when we replay this.

All right. What should be the first thing that absolutely stands out to you in hearing something like this?

First, don't be intimidated by such claims. She's got an

MDiv. Most people can get MDivs without even taking Greek or Hebrew anymore. So don't be intimidated by that kind of thing.

It's easy to make that kind of claim. Most of these people couldn't translate their way out of a wet paper bag. Of course,

I've taught both Greek and Hebrew at the same level where she was a student. So if that makes you right, then she's wrong.

I'm right. Yay. Argument from authority. No, I'll demonstrate she's wrong from the text. Demonstrate the reality of that.

Secondly, what is—and

I've seen a lot of Christians who've been caught by this because we think somewhat anachronistically.

In other words, we don't automatically think about what has to come before something else chronologically and logically.

The term homosexual—recently I made some comments about William Tyndale and the number of words that Tyndale brought into the

English language. It's hard for us to imagine that there was a time when the English language had a whole lot fewer words than it has today.

But there was. And when you look at the list of words that Tyndale brought into the language, you're just astonished.

And we can't imagine bringing new words in, but we do. Meme. Meme is a relatively new word.

I remember what was first brought in by Richard Dawkins. And it's still being redefined over time, but it still happens today.

It's not just, well, we invented something new, and we need a new word to describe the thing that this does.

But there are—the language does grow. It also loses words.

There are all sorts of—you read books from the 1800s, and modern people are going,

I don't know what that word means, even though it was quite common in the past. So languages evolve and change.

It doesn't mean that meaning evolves and changes as in there is no objective truth.

Language is what we use to describe these things. Anyway. But the term homosexual in the

Bible would be determined by what? By Greek and Hebrew.

By the original languages. If there was any references in the few chapters in Aramaic, that would be relevant too, but I don't think there are.

So, Greek and Hebrew. And so, when you look at texts such as Leviticus, and you look at the

Hebrew words that are used there, then they have to be defined in that context. The English language did not exist in the first thousand years of the

Christian era. In fact, scholars argue as to where you could even put down, okay, it starts existing here.

It's not like one day it didn't exist and the next day it did. It's a slow process of development.

But English as a language is relatively young. And so, what does it matter what terms we use in English?

The question is, did the scriptures as originally written describe homosexual activity?

That's the term we're using today. In the past, it's been called sodomy. Sodomite. A term used in the

King James. There were other terms that were used at that time. But we know what it refers to.

Ars Iniquitas, the term in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, means, well,

I've told the story before, but I did a radio program back in 99 or 2000.

And I was joined in studio by Jeffrey Neal. And he and I took on two homosexuals on a talk radio program here in the

Phoenix area. And that eventually led to us writing this book, The Same -Sex

Controversy. I don't know how long this is still going to be in print. I appreciate that it's been in print as long as it has been. But you and I both know.

And during that discussion, Jeff said, almost direct quote,

Ars Iniquitas means that which men do with men in bed, and that ain't eating crackers.

Pretty much direct quote. So what

English words develop, well, almost two and a half millennium after Moses writes what

Moses writes is irrelevant. It doesn't have any meaning. If someone comes up with some new language, it's not going to change what was written by Moses, does it?

So the issue is how accurately the English words we are using represents the intention and meaning of the original language.

So to say homosexual does not occur in the original language is not saying anything at all.

Homosexual behavior, men lying with men as they would lie with a woman, engaging in penetrative sexual intercourse, men with men, women with women, that's what's being described.

Call it what you will. Use whatever words you want to use. But that's what's being described.

And yes, that's in the Bible. That is right there, as we'll take a look at it.

So let's go back through this a little bit more slowly now, now that you have the argument, and let's demonstrate the truth of these issues.

Sorry about that. There you go. Okay, let's start at the beginning. I literally want nothing more than for this to be a valid argument, but I'm going to tell you why it's not a valid argument.

As a former clergy member, somebody who used to work in the Methodist church, who has a Master of Divinity, I know

Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. I've translated multiple books of the Bible. It's not a valid argument because the word homosexuality literally does not exist in the original text.

Okay, the word homosexuality does not exist in the original text. Homosexuality is an

English word. So a meaningful statement, if she's actually arguing that the concept of same -sex attraction and behavior, men engaging in sexual behavior with men, women with women, is not in the text of Scripture, that's absurd.

If she's saying that the word homosexual doesn't appear, it couldn't have because English didn't exist.

So the only meaningful way to address this is to talk about the actual original language itself and say, well, what is said back in Leviticus, let's say, let's look at Leviticus chapter 20.

And let me add a parallel here because that's what he had said.

Somehow it's relevant, which we'll get to in a moment. German is older than English, but it's not as old as Hebrew or Greek.

But if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, okay, so what does lie with a woman mean?

I mean, again, this is pretty obvious stuff, but if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, that is about as succinct a description of homosexual activity as you could have.

So you lie with a woman in a particular fashion. That has an established meaning.

Numerous examples in the Pentateuch of exactly what that means. There is clearly a complementary physical structure that allows that possible.

And when a man lies with a woman, the result normally is babies, okay? So, if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed toevah, a detestable act, an abomination.

That's also a term that's used to describe idols in the book of Isaiah. They are toevah, an abomination.

They are a violation of God's created order. That's what an idol is, and that's what that kind of physical behavior is.

They are toevah. They shall surely be put to death, their blood guiltiness is upon them. So this is a capital offense in the

Mosaic law. This is not the first time it's referenced. It's not the first time it's referenced.

In Leviticus chapter 18, and this is very, very important, but you can take a look at it.

When you go and look at the beginning of the Holiness Code in Leviticus chapter 18, you have an entire listing of behaviors, especially incestuous behaviors, the nakedness of your sister, the nakedness of your father's daughter, etc.,

etc. There's a number of verses that go through, in essence, every possible incestuous relationship and saying you shall not do this, you shall not do this, etc.,

etc., etc. You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister. As a rival, she is alive to uncover her nakedness, etc.,

etc. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife or to be defiled by her. You will not give any of your offspring to offer them to Moloch.

And then, Leviticus 18 .22, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. Same thing.

Here, it simply says it is an abomination, because Leviticus 18 is not establishment of Mosaic law with penalties.

Because what's going to happen at the end is Leviticus 18 .24, do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations which

I am casting out before you have become defiled, for the land has become defiled.

Therefore, I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.

Alright? So, you had a listing of all of the sexual perversions of the people of the land who are being dispossessed and spewed out of the land in Leviticus 18.

Which is interesting, because that's before any prophets were sent to these people.

This is not just Mosaic law. This is not just cultic law. Cultic has a different meaning in scholarship than it does in popular usage.

Cultic law would be in regards to the temple cult, for example, worship in Israel.

Leviticus 18 tells us that without the presence of prophets, natural law that God writes upon the conscience, was enough for them to know that this was an abomination.

That they should not be engaging in these behaviors. But they were. And we know from history that they were.

The pottery, the statues, figurines, debauched.

Just really bad. So, you've got the two references, Leviticus 18 -22, and then you go to Leviticus 20 in the

Holiness Code, and now you're into Moses saying to the people of Israel, and that's why the death penalty, their blood guiltiness is upon them, that requires revelation.

And revelation is being given in regards to that. So, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20. There you have those texts.

And so, well, let's keep listening to what she has to say, and I'll get to how this is relevant to the

New Testament here in just a second. Oop, can't hear it.

Okay, got back up here. Nope. In the 1940s, the word homosexuality was invented by biblical scholars translating the

RSV translation in order to propagate homophobia. Okay. Now, that obviously is an absurd statement.

It's just absurd. To propagate homophobia. I remember homophobia. Oh, no, wait a minute. That's a brand new term, isn't it?

She's doing exactly what she's accusing them of doing. Nobody knew what homophobia was back then, but they wanted to propagate it.

No, actually, if anything, if that was even true, that would be attempting to use a less offensive term than sodomite or other terms that would be used from earlier in the

English language. It's simply trying to describe men lying with men as a male lies with a female.

Okay? Homosexual. Same sex. Makes sense.

It's descriptive. Accurate. Has nothing to do with homophobia at all. Has nothing to do with homophobia at all.

That's absurd. Where do you get that? Prove it. Document it. They can't, because we know today, asking for proof and documentation is, well, it's racist, or white privilege, or colonialized, or whatever other term you use to get around actually having to do meaningful.

It's white European. Yeah, yeah. So it's listed nowhere in scripture, nor does Jesus ever talk about it.

Okay, okay, okay. It's listed nowhere. What is listed nowhere in scripture? The word homosexual?

Or the clear, obvious action of homosexuality? Did we skip

Genesis 18 and 19? That all the males, the technical word for male, all the males of the city said, bring them out that we might know them?

This was not the welcome wagon. This was not we want to sit down, have a few beers, talk about sports.

This was knowing them, and Lot knew what knowing them meant, and that's why he said, do not do this evil thing.

The ways of trying to get around Genesis 18 and 19 are astonishing. They really, really are.

This may be 20 years old this year, but the biblical arguments haven't changed.

I mean, I really would love to be able to update this, but I don't know if even this can stay in print. But the chapter on Genesis 18 and 19,

I wrote it. That was one of my assignments. That was part of my duty. And we have gone through it in the past.

We can go through it again if we need to. But Genesis 18 and 19 is very clear. When they said we want to know them, they wanted to have homosexual sex with them.

That's what they wanted to do. And Lot identified it as evil, and that's when they turned on him.

And the amazing thing to me is, and maybe we need to go over it, but the amazing thing to me is, read the story.

God struck them with blindness. God struck all the men with blindness.

Can you imagine being in a group? Now, cities weren't as big back then as they are now, but there's at least 100 people in this group, and you're trying to bang on the door to get into Lot's house, because who is this man who is acting as judge over us?

And all the men have gotten together, and you're trying to get into that house, and then all of a sudden, you can't see anything.

And the first thought that crosses your mind is, did somebody put something over my head? And then you're listening.

And all of a sudden, for a second, it's quiet, because it's happened to everybody at the same time.

And then someone cries out, I can't see! And you go, I can't either!

And you feel a hand, and you feel an arm, and everyone's feeling.

And it would take a few seconds, but it wouldn't take all that long for the realization to hit you.

Everyone can't see. We've all been struck blind.

Now, what should be the immediate response if you are not completely given over in your evil?

But have you ever noticed something? They didn't stop trying to get in the house.

That has always blown me away. They didn't stop trying. They were struck blind, and they didn't stop trying.

Wow. That's called being given over. That's called being given over.

And so we know what the moral evil was, to which

Lot made reference. And it wasn't just a lack of hospitality.

Yes, Ezekiel says they were inhospitable. They were. But Ezekiel says in the preceding verse, they committed that which is toevah, which

Leviticus 20 applies to homosexuality. You can try to get around it.

They were doing it even back... Man, when we wrote this book, I read about all the books I could get from the other side at that time, and there were still more and more coming out, and that was 20 years ago.

Can you imagine now? Oh my goodness. No, the arguments haven't changed.

Well, they'll throw... This one about the terminology is fairly recent.

It's been about four or five years since I first heard it, but it's just so absurd because it's a pure anachronism. Who cares what

English term we use? The reality is that the act and the orientation is plainly what is being referred to in Genesis 18 and 19.

Plainly in Leviticus 18. Plainly in Leviticus 20. And it seems in other texts as well, in regards to temple prostitutes, you would have had homosexuality involved, and then there is zero question.

Homosexual scholars admit there is zero question. Romans 1, 1

Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1. Zero question at all. There is perfect, consistent harmony between the apostolic teaching found in Paul and the

Old Testament law, the Mosaic law, in regards to these issues. And there is no one in history for all the time before Jesus and for I don't know how many centuries after Jesus, there is no one in the

Jewish community that would have disputed any of this. None. Nothing.

Zero. Nada. Absolute unanimity. That's why

Jesus didn't say anything about this. I've said this many times before. As soon as someone says to me,

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, I know I am talking to a person who is abysmally ignorant of Jesus' teaching.

Abysmally ignorant of Jesus' teaching. Because you can't do gospel studies without recognizing

Jesus' view of Scripture. God's word cannot be broken.

All he has to do is quote from the Scriptures and the argument is over.

Have you not read what God spoke to you saying? So Jesus does not have to repeat everything found in the

Tanakh. The Torah, the Nevi 'im, and the Ketuvim. The law, the writings, and the prophets.

He doesn't have to repeat all of it. Because he said it's all God's word.

He's not having any arguments about the extent of the canon with anybody, including the Sadducees. He holds men accountable to it.

He says, you've heard that it's said, but I say to you, and he doesn't undo what the law said, he applies the law to the heart.

So for someone to come along and say, Jesus taught positively about homosexuality, so they'll never say that because they know once you make that argument, you have to substantiate it.

Well, at least in the old world where logic and facts were relevant. You'd have to actually substantiate it.

So think about what the form of the argument is. Jesus never mentioned anything about it. The assumption there is

Jesus needed to repeat everything that was in the Old Testament law for it to be considered valid. That's not true.

Jesus didn't repeat the other stuff in Leviticus 18 about incest, and yet when

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he said, even the Gentiles know this. You should have known this.

It's still valid, isn't it? And their response, would their response to Paul have been, but we didn't hear

Jesus saying about it? It's absurd, isn't it? Of course it's absurd. Now, I know she was probably taught by absurd heretics.

Okay, I get it. But the point is, those absurd heretics never made them read a book like this because they don't think books like this exist or that they don't think there could be meaningful argumentation in it.

That's what you're up against. She probably honestly believes what she's saying.

She's just horribly uneducated and horribly deceived. But uneducated, deceived people deceive other people.

That's how deception functions. Anybody's like, oh, well, in Leviticus, it talks about man shall not lie with man.

Well, first and foremost, an American publishing company did that. American publishing company did that.

What? What? So, she doesn't seem to know which one is which, which one she's referring to.

But let's talk about Leviticus 20. It's the most specific. So, what did an

American publishing company have to do with the Hebrew? With the Greek Septuagint?

Even with Luther's translation? I don't understand.

What does any of this have to do with anything? That's a statement that has no meaning.

That's not in the original text either. That's not in the original text either. And then she's going to talk about Knaben in the

Luther translation. That's not

Jungian. I don't even know where she's trying to go. And again, it's completely anachronistic.

What is found in any translation doesn't matter. What is in the scriptures itself?

And let me show you. And this is something I suggest anyone who wants to really be prepared today.

You need to be ready to show this. You need to be ready to do this. Let's take the nice, pretty

United Methodist lady out of the way here. Very confused and deceived United Methodist lady.

Let me show you something. Let's go into so we can see it mode here.

In fact, let's get a little bit larger than that. Alright, I think that's big enough.

Okay. Alright.

Ish, a man. Standard term for a male.

Now notice, accordance here, I have the cursor on Ishkav and it highlights the

English translation. So lies. And it also attaches to the Greek septuagint. This is what's important.

Koime -the means to lie as in a bed.

Okay. And it is constantly used as a euphemism for sexual behavior.

Alright. With zakar and the

Greek septuagint has arsenos. Now you're sitting there saying, well, wait a minute, how could any of us do this if we don't read the languages?

Well, just follow along and then let me explain why you do need to be able to explain this.

Okay. So, a male. And then notice these two words, notice how they look very similar in the

Hebrew. That's because you're taking bed and making a participial form out of it, which very often is an ancient language's way of making an action out of a noun.

So a bed is the noun, but bedding, we even use that, bedding someone down, we even use a similar type of language ourselves.

A man lies in bed with isha. Ish -isha.

Male, female. Male, female. Okay. So, these are the terms we need to be looking at.

And here's the next thing, this is what you need to be able to explain to someone. Let's keep that up, and let me just pop over here for a second.

And let me make this... Alright.

1 Corinthians 6, verse 9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit of our God. Now I want you to see a word. The New American Standard has two words, effeminate and homosexuals.

These are the translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai.

Arsenokoitai is the plural of arsenokoitais, which the

New American Standard translates as homosexuals. Now, the ESV combines malakoi and arsenokoitai and simply says homosexuals.

Why? They interpret these two terms as the passive and penetrating part of the homosexual pair.

The submissive and the dominant. Malakoi being soft, effeminate.

Now, there's argument about that. I think it has pretty strong argumentation behind it, but there you go.

But this is the term being translated as homosexual. Arsenokoitai. Now I want you to look at that term.

Arsenokoitai. Arsenokoitai. And then I go back to Leviticus 20, and I want you to see it in the

Greek Septuagint. And where would Paul be deriving his language when writing to the

Corinthians? What Bible is he quoting from?

He's quoting from the Greek Septuagint. They're Greek -speaking people. They have the Greek Septuagint.

That's the scripture of the early church. Alright? When we look at extant literature, it seems that Paul is the first person to do this.

There's one possibility of something that might have been earlier than Paul, but most people believe that it's after Paul.

If Paul is the origin of this term, it's possible maybe he got it from a rabbi before him, who did not write, and therefore

Paul seems to be the first one to use it. But there are terms that he made up that he, in Greek, expresses

Hebrew concepts. But when he does so, he derives his vocabulary from the

Greek Septuagint, from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. And when we look at the

Greek translation of the Old Testament, Leviticus 20 .13, here is what it says. Gounikos is woman.

Gynecology, that's where it comes from. Gounos. Gounikos, woman. Look at the

Greek again. Arsenos koitain. Man sleeping with.

Engaging in sexual behavior with. So an arsenos koitais is a homosexual.

And it's derived directly from the Greek Septuagint in Leviticus 20 .13.

In any other area of New Testament interpretation, especially

Pauline studies, if you can demonstrate direct linguistic parallel to Septuagintal usage, that's central to your argument.

It's central to your understanding of Paul's terminology, everything. It's right there.

So if we were talking, let's say if we were talking about something that wasn't controversial, this would be considered sufficient.

Well, here, this is the background of Paul's terminology. And so you will find people today who will tell you, oh, arsenos koitais, you know, there's a 4th century reference to some economic application.

Doesn't matter, that's 4 centuries after Paul. What was Paul's sources? What were the sources he was drawing from?

The Greek Septuagint. The Old Testament. The Old Testament.

Now, that's not the only relevant aspect of it. But here's what you need to be able to tell people.

Paul's utilization of the term in 1 Corinthians 6 is drawn directly from the

Bible of the early church itself, the Greek Septuagint. The terminology is directly right there.

And its meaning is transparent. It cannot be argued. It cannot be argued.

So, Paul uses this twice. He also uses it in 1

Timothy 1. And notice this. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully.

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed

God with which I have been entrusted. Now, these are not the most popular texts because they're not positive.

You know, they're talking about, you know, these vice lists, these sin lists.

Nobody really likes to dig into those. They're not uplifting, allegedly.

But when you step back for a second and you look at what is being said here,

Paul has said the law is good. I'm really wondering how many New Testament Christians say that.

You can't help it, right there in Romans 3, right in the middle of justification of my faith, the law is good. We established the law.

But there is such a deep antinomianism amongst people that they just want to get rid of it.

I'm not going to worry about other uses of the law. Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious.

Boy, is there a description. Those who are lawless antinomians, right there.

Anamois. And who are rebellious.

They will not submit. For the ungodly and sinners.

For the unholy and profane. And then, why would it say, after unholy and profane, killers of fathers and killers of mothers.

And then, murderers. And pornois.

Pornois. Immoral men and arsonic coitus. What? Why go here?

Kidnappers and liars. Do you see what's going on here? I hope you recognize it. Paul's going through the

Ten Commandments. In the same order as the commandments.

Honor your father and your mother. Do not commit adultery.

Uh -oh. Do not murder. Do not commit adultery.

And he interprets honoring father and mother as, don't kill your father and your mother.

Do not murder. Androphonois. And then, do not commit adultery is, pornois, arsonic coitus.

So, pornois covers a wide range of sexual sin, but just to make sure it's all covered, let's talk about homosexuality.

As part of the commandment itself. Remember, we're talking about a benighted, ignorant woman who thinks she's a minister, who's been deceived and misled, now deceiving and misleading others.

And saying, well, that's never in the Bible. And here Paul, writing to Timothy, is going through the commandments, after saying the law is good, and it needs to be used properly, and includes homosexuality as the application of the prohibition of sexual sin.

But it's not in the New Testament. Like I said, the poor woman probably thinks it's not.

Look, she had these professors who stood up there. And remember, her professors were probably as incapable of defending their position in a meaningful debate as every one of those people

I've debated were incapable of defending their position in debate. But they'll never debate it, because they don't think the other side has anything worth saying.

And besides that, they've got the cultural moment, why should they expose themselves? So the point you need to understand is that that term that Paul uses back in 1

Corinthians chapter 6, arsenikoitai, the plural, arsenikoitai is singular, means men who have sex with men.

It's listed by Paul. It's listed in the vice list, and it says they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

And then, please always remember verse 11. And such were some of you.

Were, not are. There are no manuscripts

I have found anywhere in the world that have a textual variant that would in any way say a present tense for the verb.

They all say the same thing. Such were some of you. But, and Allah there is clearly adversative.

But, you were washed. But you were made holy. You were sanctified.

But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our

God. So there is hope. Those who say, once a homosexual, no salvation, there are people who say that.

Not according to 1 Corinthians 6 .11. Not according to 1 Corinthians 6 .11. Such were some of you.

There were people in the Corinthian congregation that had worked in the temples as prostitutes with men and women.

Who had been redeemed. Had been washed. All that was gone.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a temple prostitute? To have your body used by males and females.

And to hear the words of Paul, but you were washed. You were made holy.

You were justified. God can look at that temple prostitute and say, holy one.

Why? Only in and through Jesus Christ. Only in his righteousness. Which is why everyone, the church of Corinth, could come to the same table, by the way.

And it didn't matter what their ethnicity was. Just in passing.

The interesting thing is, we haven't even looked at the clearest text that even homosexual authorities, homosexual scholars say is the clearest text.

And I'm going over my time anyways, and Rich has limited time today. I happen to know. So, let me just briefly,

Romans chapter 1, I'm going to be very quick here. Extensively discussed in here.

Extensively discussed in God Who Justifies. Very quickly. Romans chapter 1, when it speaks of homosexuality, does so as an example.

It's not a part of a vice list. This is where J .D. Greer was wrong, and many other people are wrong, about the

Bible whispering about sexual sin. Or that in Romans 1, it's just one of many sins.

No, it's not. Look, Therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity.

Why? These are the people who have rebelled against God. They will not acknowledge God. They are suppressing the knowledge of God.

So, he's given them over, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature, rather than the creator, who is blessed forever.

So, when the proper relationship between the image bearer and God is broken, then the image bearer becomes an idol factory, and begins looking at the created order for images of God.

For this reason, verse 26, so here's, this is an illustration. How deeply does sin go, in the experience of man?

For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions. And I would translate, haitei gar, theilaia, theilaiai, sorry.

I would translate that as, for even their women, exchanged, same term he'd used earlier, the natural function, fusikein, the natural function, for that which is parafusin, against nature.

Likewise, also the men, so you've used two terms here, again, specific terms, we're not talking, ancient men knew the difference between men and women, unlike modern men.

Men abandoned the fusikein, natural use, of the theilaia, the woman.

So there is a natural, for a man, there is a natural use of a woman, which is sexual intercourse.

So they've abandoned, afentes, that, and they burned with desire, to ais alelus, one toward one another.

You'll always hear people saying, well this was just pederasty, this was just man -boy stuff. No. This is mutual, ais alelus, for one another.

They burned in passion, toward one another. This is homosexual attraction.

Men, with men, committing, men with men, committing indecent acts, working indecent acts, and receiving, in themselves, the due penalty, of their error.

Romans 126 is, arguably, the only clear, specific reference in the

New Testament, to female homosexuality, lesbianism. But it's there. And there are many homosexual scholars that admit it.

That admit this clearly. This is not a list, this is an illustration, that at the most basic definitional aspect, of human experience, homosexuality, can attack.

It is an illustration, of the twisting of the creator -creation relationship. That's what it's about. We didn't even get into that, just had to do that very quickly, just wanted to make sure that, that was, understood.

In response to our TikTok theologian, gal, who now has been thoroughly refuted.

Completely refuted. In regards to, what she had to say there. So again, all the stuff about,

American language, German language, whatever. Pure anachronism. The issue is, what did the original languages refer to?

And now we have seen, without question, what they referred to. Without question. Alright?

Okay. Really quickly, well not really, really quickly, I can't go really quickly.

I still have the KOL thing queued up, that's funny. I, commented, on,

Twitter, last week. Oh man, that tastes good.

I commented on Twitter last week, about, Dr. MacArthur's, statement, in, a sermon titled, 2020

Clarity Reflecting on God's Goodness in the Last Year. Everybody knows, that I have great respect for John MacArthur, but everyone knows that I've disagreed, down through the years, with various things that Dr.

MacArthur has said, if I was done so, respectfully. I remember, late 90s,

I was asked, at the church, where I was at the time, to, write a paper, in response to a position that Dr.

MacArthur takes, in regards to children, of elders. Dr. MacArthur takes the position that, all of your children must be

Christians, for you to function as an elder in a church. If you have any, children who become apostate, then you should step down, who aren't

Christian, you should not be an elder in a church. And he based that upon a couple of texts,

I wrote an entire paper, in response to that, coming to the conclusion, that that's not what these texts are saying, that pistis there does not mean, having saving faith, but they are under control, when they're in your home.

And, when I submitted the paper, this wasn't in school, this was for the church,

I made sure to send a copy, with a cover letter, expressing my respect, but my respectful disagreement, with Dr.

MacArthur on this issue, here's my argumentation. So, I think that's the way it has to be,

I think anyone who, insists on, absolute unanimity of opinion, before you'll have respect for someone, is going to end up, having a very very small circle of friends.

And basically, it'll just be you, and the person in the mirror, be the only people that, can agree that, that closely.

So, when I heard this, first of all, I sort of backed up, and listened, before and after, so I'd have, a bit of a context.

It's important to have a context. And, I recognize that, if you type out, what we're going to listen to, if you transcribe it, transcription can't, tell you, for example, the fact that this, was unscripted, and was not in the notes.

But it's plain, if you watch it. People, he has just, he has just, done one parenthetical, thing, which

I also would disagree with. He was talking about religious freedom, and saying no Christian with a brain, would ever say he believed in religious freedom.

Well, there's obviously context, in which you would say that. You're not talking about the, broad context of saying, all religions are equal.

But, there is a, proper, of saying, that the way that, the supremacy of the

Christian faith, should be established, is through, argumentation, in the, in the synagogue, so to speak, to use

Pauline example. Not, by the way, the Donatists were suppressed in North Africa.

So, I would not have said, what Dr. MacArthur said, even before this, on that, that level.

And, I would refer you, also, to some of the comments that, Doug Wilson made, in the last,

Blog in May blog, about this, making reference to, Rush Dooney. And, in fact,

Joe Boot's conversation, about this, on the same subject, in the Mission of God, which is right, there.

Anyways, and by the way, to whoever, bought this off my, my list, for me, there was no name, but I've got the three volumes, of the

Institutes of Biblical Law, sitting over here. Thank you very much. I don't know who it was, but, so I can't send you, a thanks, but thank you very much.

Anyway, sermons, unless you are reading, your sermon, from a manuscript, sermons tend, to have, parentheticals.

All right. So for example, I had a dear friend, ask if, I might have a manuscript, from Sunday night sermon, at,

Apology of Church. And I just sort of chuckled, and I said, you, you do know me, and he said, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I almost never have notes, and I had no notes, Sunday night. That's not always the way it is, but that's just, sometimes.

Anyway, so you tend to, have, thoughts that come up, and I've noticed, the older you get, the more likely you are, to express those thoughts.

And, so John, will make, a lot of parentheticals, in between main points.

This was a parenthetical. This was, people started clapping, about something he said, and oh, by the way, and then he went back, you can tell, and he goes back to, what he had, in the notes.

There, is a pause, at one point, that I think is long enough, that, a lot of the objections, that I've seen, have been people saying, he equated, post -millennialism, with, prosperity gospel preaching.

Well, obviously if he did, I would strongly disagree, with that. I mean, that's mixing categories, that are just so, massively different from one another, that, it would be damaging, to make that kind of an argument, because it, requires, muddled thinking.

But I think, there's just enough of a pause there, that it seems to me, he thought of, something about the prosperity thing, and then, talked about that.

But again, if you just transcribe it, you can't see those things, you can't hear those things, you can't see where it necessarily, where it is in the sermon, let's see, transcribe the whole sermon, and you can't see where the pauses, really are.

And so it's, somewhat difficult to interpret, the spoken word in that way. So let's take a look, listen to what was said,

I'll have a few comments, and then we will, wrap up for today, and go from there.

So here, here we go. Guess what? We don't win down here.

We lose, you ready for that? Oh, you, oh, you were a post -millennialist, you thought we're just going to go, waltzing into the kingdom, as you took over the world.

No, we lose here, get it, they killed Jesus, they killed all the apostles, we're all going to be persecuted, if any man, come after me, let him, what?

Let himself, garbage of prosperity gospel. No, we don't win down here.

You ready for that? Just to clear the air. I love this clarity. We don't win.

We lose, on this battlefield, but we win on the big one, the eternal one.

Okay, so there's the section. So, we lose down here, but we win on the big one.

Now, there's a lot, so much that could be said. Folks on Facebook, and Twitter, and websites, remember, remember when

Dr. MacArthur made his comment, about pre -millennialism, and reformed theology, back at the

Shepherd's Conference, when was that? That was, that was over a decade ago, maybe 15 years ago now, wasn't it?

And Sam Waldron, I think wrote a book, and, again, in hindsight, it was useful, because it made people think things through, and that's the way it should be, and that's appropriate, and I'm not saying that John shouldn't have the right to say, you know, now today, if anyone, if you disagree with somebody, you're saying they should be silenced.

No, I'm not, in any way, shape, or form. Did you see, by the way, why

I choose, and if I'm wrong, somebody, if John, clarifies himself, and says, yes,

I was equating post -millennialism with the prosperity gospel, then let me know. But could you see why

I sort of felt like the prosperity gospel thing was just sort of a throwaway statement that just popped into the mind, and it wasn't meant to be a rational continuation of what was being said before?

Okay? Maybe I'm just being, bending over to be too kind or something, but I don't think so.

I, I, I want to believe that John MacArthur recognizes there's a difference between post -millennialism and the prosperity gospel.

They're very, very, very different things. But, do post -millennialists believe that you just go waltzing into the kingdom after you take over down here?

Well, no. And, I've been making the argument recently,

I'm having to think all this stuff through. We, we, we live in, in days that at least, in our experience, no one has lived through before in the

Western world. It's not that the rise of the

Soviet Union was not an incredible evil. It was. Millions of people died.

Millions of people under Mao. Millions of people now in Communist China. But those were kept to a certain portion of the human family.

This is looking like it's going to be the entire human family. Globally. And now we have technocracy.

Now we have technology. Our, our, our globe is surrounded by mechanical devices, electronic devices that can track us everywhere.

We are facing new challenges. And, while the

Soviets and the Chinese in the last century were atheists, we now have a form of secularism that's even more virulent than existed back then.

And so, all of us are having to put our theology to the test.

And that includes myself. And so I have described the strain and pressure of seeking to drive wisdom from Scripture as people in Scripture were persecuted for their beliefs.

And what it means to be faithful within the context of persecution.

Combining that with the global context of secularism, which is not what the early church faced, the unbelief of the

Roman Empire, pagan as it was, was not secular. Darwin kicked open a door that allows a new level of inhumanity on the part of man.

Really does. So, I have described one decision that we have to make, that all of us have to make.

I think most of us, no matter what our eschatological positions are, would recognize that we are called to be faithful in whatever moment

God has placed us. And I'm primarily talking about people who are Reformed and they're understanding that God actually places us in,

God's actually accomplishing something in this world. If God has no decree, then who knows what in the world He's doing. Maybe He's confused too, if you're an open theist.

But, sound Orthodox Reformed men of differing eschatological perspectives, there is plainly a divide.

And that divide I have described as the difference between escapist and endurantist.

Escapist and endurantist. We are either going to escape from this tribulation or we are going to endure and there is going to be on the other side a restoration, a rebuilding that is not a part of the escapist idea, where there's not going to be any of that.

And so the point is, if you're on the escapist side, you are not thinking about how do you communicate the faith through the period of darkness that eventually leads to a period of great light.

You're just going, it's getting darker, darker, darker, boom! That's it. You don't have to worry about the transmission of the faith, the preparation of the next generations to endure.

You don't have to worry about any of that because you interpret tribulation to be something other than something that was fulfilled a long time ago.

So that's the escapist view. Now, amillennialists can fall on either side because you've heard the terminology optimistic amillennialism and pessimistic amillennialism.

So a pessimistic amillennialist might go, man, this is about to be wrapped up.

You look at all the things that man's doing, we've got nuclear weapons and we're playing with genetics now and we're literally standing on the doorstep of I Am Legend together with Space Odyssey 2000 and a whole bunch of other ones all thrown into the mix and let's just stir it all up and see what blows out of this.

So it's real easy to be sitting there going, yeah, I can't see how we can ever get out of this mess.

So there you go. That's the pessimistic side. The optimistic amillennialist says, hey, it's been dark at times in the past too.

What about postmillennialists? Well, if you read meaningful postmillennial literature, you come to the recognition that postmillennialists recognize that God raises up kingdoms and takes kingdoms down.

God is still doing the work of demonstrating his character through the judgment of the nations.

And as I understand it, the postmillennial commitment, fundamentally, is found in 1 Corinthians 15. God, in fulfilling the promise of Psalm 110 .1

and 2, is putting under the feet of Jesus all his enemies, and the last enemy is death.

God has started doing that as soon as Jesus rose from the dead.

He's been continuing to do that ever since then. But it's not a straight line.

It seems to me that Dr. MacArthur has the idea it's a straight line, and it's just straight up to heaven.

That's not how it's ever been. And when I think of someone like Eresh Duni, he knows church history.

And what's attractive to me about this is I know church history. And one of the most important things for me right now is

I just know that there have been so many times in the history of the church that if I had lived at that time,

I would have been tempted to have a wrong view of the future. Judging on what was happening in my day.

You cannot determine your eschatology this way. But we all do it that way. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are tempted to do it that way, and we cannot completely avoid doing it that way.

Because we're trying to look past this next thing called the next second, and we can't do it. And so I look at church history, and I see ups and downs,

I see dark, dark periods, and then periods of great blessing. And it's not a line like this.

It's an up and down type thing. But I see Christ's enemies being put under his feet.

And it seems from this perspective that if Christ's enemies are going to be put under his feet, it's just simply going to be at the big smackdown at Armageddon.

That's when the enemies are put under his feet. But most of his enemies are not nations, or tanks, or things like that.

They're systems of thought. And do you really subjugate a system of thought by just simply wiping out everybody who holds it?

Or do you put those enemies under the feet through the defeat of that system?

What if we're going into a really dark period that may last for generations? What if we're going into a really dark period, there's no one alive today that will actually see the end of this dark period?

That's hard to even think about. But what if we are? Does any of that change the truthfulness of the

Christian faith? For a lot of people, it does. And that's somewhat of a problem.

My commitment is that I want to do everything I can, and we may have to do it secretly, we may have to do it underground, we have to do it through the church, we have to do it through teaching our children and our grandchildren, but I want to communicate the truth that Jesus Christ is

Lord, and what that means in all of its glory. And the fact that mankind in all of his wisdom, dig as deep as you want, all you're going to find is the more you learn about how we exist, what the universe is around us, it's all going to end up reflecting the glory of Jesus.

He's the creator. He's behind it all. How do

I communicate that? How do I pass that down so they can look back and go, there were those that God used to safeguard.

To safeguard the faith that once for all delivered to the saints' faith. Now, God's going to do it.

I want to be in on it. I want to be in on it. I want to endure.

And so it does have an impact as to how you're going to respond to the coming global socialist totalitarianism.

If you're just waiting for your ticket out, that's going to have some impact on what you're going to be doing between now and whenever the jack -booted thugs show up to drag you off, right?

I want to be very, very actively involved in communicating the faith and in challenging the darkness, being light in the darkness.

If the darkness wins, well, but in the end, okay, if it's just at the end, then why have we been going through all this stuff for 2 ,000 years?

I'm glad that Christ is still gathering his elect. And I think about those passages in Scripture that says, the elect will be as the sand of the sea.

Think about it. Think about it. So, I just want to respond that's not an accurate representation of post -millennialism, first of all.

And secondly, giving your life for the gospel is not losing.

It's winning. And it's winning down here. So, I know what he was talking about, but I don't think that's the biblical way of looking at it.

I really don't. And so, your eschatology does have an impact on how you're going to interpret these things, how you're going to understand these things.

I'm going to have to hold off the last thing I wanted to talk about until the next time. But, hopefully, you know, even when

I used the escapist and endurantist language on Twitter, I had somebody, I can't believe you're accusing

John McEnany! It's like, oh, we just live in a day where it does, oh, yeah, it just does not matter what you say, how you say it, how you love somebody.

Well, one last thing. Did you see the Babylon? You probably haven't seen the

Babylon B thing. You watched it? Okay, good.

Alright, did you notice what they put as the, I don't know what you call it, screen image or whatever it is when you look at it on YouTube.

It's got something there. And it said, we must, what was it?

We must respect people who want to burn us. Yes, because I said that.

And I did say it. And it actually was not taking me out of context, because sometimes Babylon B, believe it or not, will actually take things out of context for the sake of humor.

No, Rich is saying that's not possible. I said that because I was talking about the reformers.

And I was talking about how Luther would have had me kicked out of town, and Zwingli would have drowned me from the bridge, and I would have been kicked out of Geneva too, and other places

I probably would have been burned. And I said, we need to learn how to respect people who would have burned us. That's what studying church history allows you to do, is to see the good and to recognize, well, they took the position they did because this is where they lived, and this is what they believed at that time, and this is their context, etc.

We lost all of that, and social media seems to just completely drive any ability whatsoever to look for a meaningful context.

It's just gone. Just no willingness to do it at all. It's amazing. Alright, there you go, kids.

I hope that's useful to you. We can't do programs that don't cause us to think these days, because I don't know how many more programs we'll have.

You do realize that if they take Bob Gagnon off of Facebook, do you have any idea how many of the dividing lines we've done over the years would require our removal as well?

It's coming. What? Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Oh, remember me? I sent this over to you, but I don't think you've seen it.

It's in our chat channel. No, remember, I can't have it over here. Yeah, you can't see that during the show.

Well, and I can't get working on my phone yet either. There's that too. So I'll see it when I get home. So there's been an announcement.

Epoch Times is reporting Facebook has hired a Biden transition and Obama administration official as their

Vice President of Civil Rights. Oh! The headline doesn't list his name, but does give his picture.

Is it a man? Yes. A real man? It is a real man. Yes, yes. But, yeah, you can start to see that there are more than just efforts that are more than just to take this person down and throw the policies and stuff at people, which are, again, the problem my problem is not that they have the policies.

It's fine if you have the policies. It is the extremely selective enforcement of those policies that I object to.

You want to take all of them down? Fine, but no. We're going to have now this.

So, anyway, that's all from here for now. All right, well, there you go. There you go, folks.

We want to be encouraging to you. We want to make you think. And, Lord willing, if we get a chance to be back again, but like I said, if the standards that took

Bob Gagnon out of Facebook were applied to us, I'd be out of Facebook. I've said the same things

Bob Gagnon has said a thousand times over. This one program would provide all the grounds it was needed.

I said to my wife when I got done preaching Sunday night, I said, they'll play that sermon at my trial.

And they will. So, that's where we are. So, I am thankful for all of you who, down through the years, have tuned into this program and have been blessed by our feeble efforts to try to glorify

Christ, the teaching of his word, defense of the faith, and things like that. And if this is the last time that we get to talk to you, well, we're going to do everything in our power to make sure it's not.

But I just simply want to ask all of you, you have gotten very used to having ease of access.

If this program actually means something to you, then one of the greatest commitments you can make is,

I'm going to keep digging for it when it's not as easy to find. That would mean the world to us, and that would be what would help us keep going.

So, it's not going to be as easy in the future. It's going to be on other sources, but we're going to keep trying.