Road Trip DL from OKC

Hello, greetings, and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name's James White. It's a road trip dividing line. In fact, I just realized almost all the light on me right now is sunlight reflecting off the back of another RV.

It's the same company as mine, and they tend to have very flat, white back ends. And the sun's that way. It's that way. It's just like blinding me. I guess I could have pulled that shade. Oh, well, here we are.

We're on the road. I'm in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I figure I can tell you where I am, because, I mean, if there were bad people trying to track me down, they probably aren't watching this program, first of all.

And secondly, by the time they get here, I'm going to be gone. Anyways, it's funny. I'm getting to know all of the KOAs along the 40 and the 10, and a few others that are not KOAs. But, you know, KOA works, you know?

It's always the same. And I like same. Same is nice. And when you're traveling, you don't get a lot of same, so I'll take what I can do. We're going to try out a satellite connection today. And it does work, but it has latency issues.

You can get really super high speeds, but for continuous broadcasting on our side, we'll have to keep tweaking that and seeing how that works. Besides that, literally 10 feet through this window is a 5G Wi-Fi tower, so I'm getting irradiated here.

I'll probably be dead by the end of the show. But it's right there, so it's like, might as well use that. So here we are on our way to G3 in Washington, D .C., and looking forward to seeing everybody there to talk about the Bible.

And I have been, I am preparing for the debate the next week with Dr. Peter Van Cleek, Jr. on the subject of, well, the Van Cleeks, senior and junior, have interesting views, and I've been listening to their books.

I will have read four of their books by the time, well, probably by the time I get to G3, I would assume. You know, there's a lot of similarities between their position and Jeff Riddle and some others, but differences as well, and it'll be an interesting debate.

I listened to a smaller book that Van Cleek, Jr. did. It's just basically a long... The only thing I can compare it to, I'll be honest with you, is to Itzhar al-Haq. No, we did not have a... I did not choke, and we did not have an internet hiccup.

Itzhar al-Haq, of course, is the Muslim apologetics book that was written by an Indian Muslim scholar in the 1860s, and very, very important in, for example, getting Ahmadinejad to go into doing dawah.

It fundamentally changed how Muslims around the world look at the Bible, and what the guy did is he just took all this negative stuff about the Bible from German rationalism and liberal theology and stuff like that and crammed it into one book, and this was Dr. Van Cleek's book, was basically a hyper-skeptical attack on all of textual criticism, and, I mean, the category errors, historical errors, just astonishing.

Blew me away, but the thing that... I'm just driving down the road, just sort of really getting frustrated with, is the text that he promotes was created by textual criticism. Couldn't exist without Erasmus practicing textual criticism.

Now, Erasmus didn't do it consistently, but Erasmus did not use, did not use, a methodology anywhere near... Well, Van Cleek doesn't have a methodology outside of direct divine revelation as to what is scripture.

You pray about it. So, you know, that'll come up, but I was really amazed, to be honest with you, at how that played out, and so it's going to be an interesting debate, very, very interesting. It's going to be a long evening.

I can tell. Anyway, that's coming up in, I don't think, I'm not sure if we've even grabbed what Chris has put together yet, and put it up on the website, and we should do that. Yes, we should. So professional here.

Anyway, that's coming up the week after, and then I preach there at the church in Laysville, I think is what it's called, and then I head for Conway and Grace Bible Theological Seminary, and will be teaching church history the following weekend, an intensive Thursday, Friday, Saturday course.

Really looking forward to that, though there's not near enough time to cover everything. Like I said, the church that I've been teaching church history for, remember last, it was last week, I believe, Tobias Reimann-Schneider.

I heard somebody say Tobias Reimann-Schneider on a webcast, and I'm like, no, Tobias Reimann-Schneider. That's the same church. So the Frankfurt Declaration, he was central in putting the Frankfurt Declaration together, same church that I've been teaching church history for for a couple of years now, and we haven't gotten to the Council of Nicaea yet.

So we're getting there. We're getting close. We're right around the corner. We will finally get there, but I've got to get almost 300 years past Nicaea, which means Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constance, and Oval.

And the Antiochian School, oh, there's just so much. It's complicated. Anyway, looking forward to that, it's gonna be great. So that'll be the rest of this trip. And then we're gonna be heading in December, of course, to St. Charles.

We'll be talking about the Trinity in light of current controversies. That was their suggestion, not mine. And I'm more than willing to do that. So we'll be laying out a biblical case for the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Well, I'm a biblical Trinitarian. And gonna be speaking in Texas, East Texas on the way back that following week, the second week in December as well. And then it looks like just right now there's something possibly going on in February, possible debate in there.

And then I know I'm supposed to be back in Texas again in May. So we'll see if you're still allowed to travel without the 47th Omicron booster shot. Maybe they'll be injecting people from drones by then.

Who knows? But the world is absolutely going crazy. And some people are noticing it like this guy. There's only one person that's gonna watch this program who's gonna know what that was. But just for him.

Anyhow, so saw the news this morning about grave concerns about the Queen's health. And so as I was driving from Amarillo here, news came, I turned on Fox News in the truck so I could hear it. And I'm a little stunned.

I made one comment on Twitter and there's just these vile, nasty people out there that are spitting on the Queen's grave. I don't even understand it. I blocked them all. I don't wanna have anything to do with you.

Just go away. I'm not, stop following me. I'm not interested. I've got nothing for you. You know, about three or four years ago, I think, I remember watching the Queen's Christmas address. And I was just so thankful for the clear Christian testimony that she gave.

The centrality of the cross and the work of Christ and all the things that went along with it. And of course, she represented the very end of that last age, that last era. You know, the great generation, World War II, it's done, it's over with.

And I could not help but think about the leadership we have in the world today, not just in our nation, but in the vast majority of nations. And just thinking about duty and honor and self-sacrifice and self-control and you compare the Queen to someone like Nancy Pelosi and they're not even on the same planet.

They're not even on the same planet. I knew it was gonna be a really sad day because there's really no one coming along. Charles is a mess. He really is. He's a globalist fruitcake nutcase. Cheated on his first wife and all the rest of that stuff.

Royal consort and blah, blah, blah. So we all knew it was coming. The dear lady was 96 years of age. She had survived COVID. That picture of her alone masked up at her husband's funeral, that would have been enough for most people to have gone much faster, to be perfectly honest with you.

But I remember back in 2016, the meme was going around, instead of make America great again, it was make America British again. I had a picture of the Queen. It was like, oh yeah, I'd take her over either one of these two people any day.

So that does not mean that she was a, roiling conservative. She really, politics, it's a figurehead position. It's not a political position. It obviously once had a tremendous amount of authority. It doesn't anymore.

She stayed out of a lot of that stuff. And I just, she finished well. I mean, good luck to any one of you being under the microscope for 70 years. 70 years. Oh my. I see all these videos that people post of young people today that don't know.

I saw one where they're asking young people about what's the Holocaust? They didn't know. What's Auschwitz? Don't know. And I would imagine other than today, if you had asked a lot of people who the Queen was, when she became Queen, they wouldn't have known.

And they don't care. Connection to the past. That's a public education system for you. Designed, it's specifically designed to make a people much easier to control. Because you don't know history. Don't know what came before.

Can't learn when you don't know what came before. So my condolences to everyone in the United Kingdom and its protectorates and nations and Commonwealth and every, you know, to Colin Smith, who, you know, Colin, you did renounce fealty to the Queen.

So there is that. But I think today it's okay to be sad even though you did do that. And I know she was very sad about that. I'm sure she was. But to all of my British friends and, you know, I spent a lot of time in London when I was still traveling the world.

Wonderful, incredible city. And I never saw the Queen, but I went by, you know, a number of important places. So maybe I ran by once while she was looking out the window, who knows? But yeah, a major day, a major day, no two ways about it.

And again, if you on Twitter are going to make some kind of comment about the Queen to me, if you're looking for getting blocked, that'll be a good way to do it, really will be. I'll be happy to do that for you, if that's what you're, if you need some Twitter martyrdom, we're good.

We'll take care of it. All right, let's look at what, you know what I forgot to do? I got here just a little while ago. Like I said, I was trying to set up various things, but I had grabbed, well, I really can't, it probably wouldn't look all that good.

I am very thankful that I had the opportunity. My daughter was due on September 2nd, and I was due to leave September 6th. So I figured, okay, I mean, enough time. But that little booger decided he liked it in there.

And so time's going by, time's going by. And I figured when I went to bed Monday night, knowing I had to pull out Tuesday morning, that I was probably gonna not get to see the little guy until I get back a month from now.

And so he made his appearance on Labor Day. And for some reason, my daughter does not think that's funny but everybody else does, thinks it was appropriate to be in labor on Labor Day. And just under eight pounds, 20 inches long, Ransom Vance is his name.

And already they're calling him Ran Van, Ransom Vance. Okay. So I got a chance to go by on my way out of town. I just routed myself a different direction and got to go by and hold the little booger and inform him.

He was very quiet, sleeping. But I informed him of a number of things. But first thing I informed him of was that he was going to have four mommies because he has three older sisters, all of whom are more than six years older than he is.

One is 12 years older than he is. So they're, yeah. He does have one older brother to sort of help, but yeah, three older sisters that much older than you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's gonna be a challenge for that little booger.

But it was great to hold my fifth grandchild. And I sent a picture to Jeff Neal, co-author of the Same Sex Controversy. We were chatting about other things. And well, I had contacted him because a professor that he and I both had at Grand Canyon College back in the day, Dr. Clark Youngblood had gone to be with the Lord basically during my sermon on Sunday evening.

And we had known he was gonna have major heart surgery and it was dangerous and he did not survive. And so I was letting him know. And so we were exchanging pictures. He sent me pictures of his grandkids.

I sent him pictures of my grandkids. And I was like, dude, we are really getting old, aren't we? We were, I don't know if I've told this story, but I look back on it now and I'm somewhat embarrassed, but he worked at Green Christian Bookstore.

There was a Green Christian Bookstore right next to Grand Canyon College. And when I was building my library, I can't believe I did this. But I marched in there with the CBD flyer, the CBD catalog. I think they still send it out, but it was a newsprint thing, big, huge, all these books.

And I had all these books I wanted to get. And I basically sat down with the bookstore manager, well, actually the bookstore manager had Jeff do it, and said, can you beat him? That's not fair. I'm embarrassed I did that now, but I did it.

That was what started my library long, long ago. There was no such thing as Kindle back then. That means your library looked a whole lot better than it does now. And, but yeah, Jeff and I knew each other when we were at Grand Canyon together.

And he was a year ahead of me. And then for some reason he didn't start seminary at Fuller until a year after me. So I was a year ahead of him at Fuller. And so we went through a lot of stuff together.

He took Hebrew after I took Hebrew. Oh, the memories. But so we've known each other since we were both fairly young. And to now be exchanging pictures of our grandkids and stuff like that, it's good to have friends you've had for a long time.

Because one thing I've learned is, you can think you've got friends, but it's the ones who stick with you that really are your friends. And you don't have many of them. You don't have many of them. And so you better appreciate them while you've got them.

Appreciate them while you've got them. So Little Ransom is now here. And I'm going to have the real privilege, and I do consider it very much privilege. I'm not sure why this wire is attacking me today, but things bounce around in the, this poor little thing.

Can you imagine what it's like to experience like 20 earthquakes per day? That's what this thing has to do. I am going to have the privilege when I get home of baptizing one of my grandkids. I've already baptized two of them upon professional faith.

And so there will be another baptism to perform when I get home. And I'm very much looking forward to that. And that is a, of course, a great privilege. By the way, I have a continued, it made sense to continue the baptism series at Apology of Church.

We covered 1 Corinthians 7, 14, and Mark chapter 10. Suffer the little children to come into me. We did those texts on Sunday night. If you've been following the baptism series, that's of any assistance to you, then that is available up there as well.

So hopefully you can take a look at that. Let me just mention, just on a real practical level, hopefully a benefit to, especially you younger people who are seeking to prepare yourself apologetically, be prepared to give an answer for the faith, whether that be to people who are part of false religions, or simply to the wildly and angrily secular world that is all around us now.

There are certain texts of scripture that when you memorize them, you can utilize them in many different contexts. You may, for example, when I memorized Isaiah 43, 10, as a young person, the motivation for memorizing it, it's part of the 100 verse memorization system for dealing with Mormons, which I wrote, but I mean, so my initial context was dealing with Mormonism.

Now, that's perfectly fine, necessary if you live in Utah, you know. And the danger there is, when you memorize the text of scripture, and you have a particular group in mind, it's probably even more important to make sure that you look at the context and realize the contextual meaning of the verse before you then make application to a particular group.

So if you do go back and look at my 100 verse memorization system for dealing with Mormons, you will see that my goal there was in providing those verses to let you know what the context and meaning of each one of those verses was.

So you'd start there and then make application. The danger is when you memorize verses within a particular context dealing with a particular group, but you don't really understand what the verse is saying as a whole.

And that has always been a central aspect of my teaching and apologetics and theology and everything else is starting with that sound contextual biblical basis and then making application as the need arises to whatever group it might be.

That's why I remember reading Isaiah 43, 10, or maybe it was John 13, 19, but reading one of the two. And when I realized what the connection between the two was, that Jesus was quoting the first portion of Isaiah 43, 10 of himself in regards to his prediction of the betrayal of Judas and thereby identifying himself as Yahweh and his knowledge of the future and all that other stuff.

When I had memorized Isaiah 43, 10, I had focused upon the end of the verse. I had memorized all of it, but when you're in Salt Lake City, when you're standing out in Mesa, you're mainly gonna be quoting, when talking to a Mormon missionary or a group of Mormon missionaries, something like that, you're probably not gonna quote the whole verse because by the time you get to the part you really wanna get to, they've already moved on.

So as God said in Isaiah 43, 10, before me there was no God formed, there should be none after me. Well, there's something before that. You're my servant who I have chosen, that you may know and believe and understand that I am he.

That's the section that Jesus quotes of himself. And that's why it's important to look at all of these texts in their actual context to see how they fit together and how they present to you divine truth.

And so all of that is a really long introduction. Hey, I drove a long ways there, but I didn't drive nearly as far today as I did the last two days. And I mentioned the rich for the program, so I said, this is a lot easier.

It's nice to get where you're going and still feel like you're human. And most of the rest of the legs are about this length. I don't know why I did it the other way. I could have left a day early, but if I left a day earlier, I wouldn't have seen ransoms.

So there you go. It all works out in God's sovereignty. All of that to say that there is a verse that I would highly recommend that you have memorized for many reasons. And you're familiar with it. We've talked about it recently, but it's Colossians 2 .9.

But there's a context, obviously, of Colossians 2 .9. Everybody knows Colossians 2 .8 as well. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

For in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily, and in him you have been filled, who is the head over all rule and authority, in whom you are also circumcised, in circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, et cetera, et cetera.

Just realize something. I want you all to see, I want you to stare at this window for a second, because I'm not gonna be in the camera for a second. You might be able to still hear me. I'll start to yell back there as I grab something.

There we go. And we're back. And I think Jeffrey Reilly should be unhappy with me if I didn't show you this. It has nothing to do with Galatians 2 .8. Well, I guess in a way it does. But I am very, very thankful to have, notice the blue, the blue stamping there.

No, this does not mean I'm a Denver Broncos fan. I'm not. If you know your colors, you know that orange and blue are optical opposites, and so that's strongest contrast. I've just always loved that. And I asked Jeffrey months and months ago, I said, if I sent you an LSV block, you know, this block of text, could we find a buttery, soft orange leather?

And this is as soft, yeah, it is as soft as my mom's red King James was. I still have that one too. And so this arrived last week. So this is what I preached from on Sunday. And oh yeah, that smells wonderful.

As normal, you see the number of ribbons that Jeffrey always does. And you may be wondering what it says people were asking on Facebook when I posted pictures. Bebe Ahron Logon is from Peter. The more sure word or the established word or the certain word, the grounded word is what's on the front with the Cairo and the alpha and omega around the Cairo, Cairo being the first two letters of the term Christ.

And on the spine, you have his post-Tenebrous Lux logo. Oops, sorry. And it says, die altan basal uine. It is necessary that he reign from 1 Corinthians chapter 15, that he reign until his enemies have made a footstool under his feet.

So once again, post-Tenebrous Lux comes through. Jeffrey Rice, beautiful job. I have my Nessie Allen 28th over there. I think I still have my, yeah, I think that's my, I forgot to take out my NASB 77.

There's no reason for me to drag that along with I've got this here. But I have a number of my PTL rebinds with me. And so very thankful for Jeffrey's skill and craftsmanship in putting these together.

And so I'll be preaching from that when I, I'll have that with me on the desk in the debate. And all the rest of that fun stuff. I may not bring it into Washington DC because I've just seen too many videos about what goes on in all of these cities these days.

It is, it is amazing. All right, sorry for that. It crossed the mind. And when you're my age, you act because you're gonna forget it anyways. And I would have left it over there. Well, Ash is 29. In a day where man's philosophies are taking many captive, the traditions of men taking many captive, the elementary principles of the world, man, that was probably a spiritual concept in Paul's context, but in our secular world, you can make some application there.

The point being that all these things are not the standard. The standard is Christ. And the only way for Christ to be the standard is if he's something more than just simply an ancient religious teacher, which is what the vast majority of people in our society think he was.

That's all they know. The day when you could actually assume some level of knowledge on the part of people in our society about Christian theology concerning Christ is long past us. And so when Paul says, don't be taken captive by these ways rather than according to Christ.

So all these things are not according to Christ. So Christ is the standard. All of man's philosophy, all of his traditions, all the elementary principles, they all are subject to the higher standard, which is Christ.

That's an amazing statement to make in our day to the secularly minded, secularly educated, brainwashed, American, European, German, the idea that an ancient religious teacher who's been dead for over 2000 years, from their perspective, could it all be relevant to us, is just utter foolishness.

And so it is in that context, the apostle says, for in him, all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. In him, all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. Now, that term deity is the term Theotokos. It is different than Theotokos, which is found in Romans 1 .20.

The King James translates both of them as Godhead. And confuses things as a result. So I think the King James at Colossians 2 .9, for in him, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, or something along those lines.

Most people have no idea what Godhead is supposed to mean. But Theotokos is that which makes God, God. The very essence of God. And so Paul's assertion here is that the Pleroma, the Gnostics had a whole concept of the Pleroma.

The, in Greek, ta pleroma te steatitas, the fullness of deity, which I don't know if the Gnostics had already developed this theology, or if this is almost prophetic. I've brought that up before. Paul's use of the language of the Gnostics.

There are some who would argue, I think a mosquito got me. There are some who would argue, I'm not used to that in Phoenix, okay? It's just, you go outside and these things flying around. Amongst trees, there's green trees, and there's no irrigation, it's amazing.

The Gnostics, most people don't believe that Gnostics had fully developed their theology at the time of Paul. Well, we don't know. We don't have some kind of documentation to know. But one thing is for certain, Gnosticism was the greatest challenge to the church in the first 300 years of the church's history.

And so it would not shock me, and would certainly not be outside the paradigm of scripture for scripture to prepare the church, even before that threat arises. I mean, Paul's dealing with a form of proto-Gnosticism here.

We know that much. You can tell by the use of language. But he actually used that term, pleroma, the fullness of deity dwells somaticos, bodily. Now, when you understand Gnosticism, you understand Greek dualism.

The idea of anything having to do with the pleroma, which is the fullness of, well, remember back when we were demonstrating that Ken Wilson's book is really silly? We talked about Gnosticism, Valentinian Gnosticism, and Manichaeism.

And it's extremely complicated. We're not gonna go back into that right now, but remember the pleroma had, and again, it depended on what kind of Gnosticism. It's not like there was a single systematic theology of the Gnostics, but it had these eons.

The lowest of the eons was wisdom. Sophia, remember, she had a demi-urge. She tried to contemplate the highest God separate from her male counterpart, and that caused her to become pregnant. And she gave birth to Yahweh, Yaldabaoth in the term that they use.

Anyway, it's really, really weird stuff. That's what the pleroma is in Gnostic language, and here it's being used by Paul, saying that in Christ, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. And if the emphasis in Symmetricos is bodily form, that is like slapping a Gnostic right across the face.

Last thing they could ever believe, because it seems like they were making room for Jesus. Gnosticism did. That is, as it would roll along, it would make room for the various deities that it encountered, because it really wasn't making a claim about objective truth.

And if that's what they were doing with Jesus, then Paul's saying, you can't do that. He is the fullness of deity in bodily form. So when you memorize this, first of all, just on a practical level, Jehovah's Witnesses, this is not one of the primary verses that they are accustomed to dealing with.

I've heard they're starting to go door to door again. They must've just been dying during COVID, because the vast majority of their growth has always been in the form of death. From their door to door encounters, running into people that are hurting at that point, they've had a falling out with their church.

Man, I ran into so many situations like that in years past. So when they stopped going door to door, sending letters to people, their numbers must've just crashed badly. Anyway, Jehovah's Witnesses don't spend, this is, they're used to hearing John 1 .1.

They're used to hearing John 10 .30. They got memorized responses to all of them. This is not one of them they're used to hearing. And so when you can explain the text in its context, so you're not just going, well, this is just all about you.

No, here's what it actually says positively. And say to a Jehovah's Witness, how could Paul say that all the fullness of deity dwells in Christ, that that makes him the standard of all things when you believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, a created being.

This is also relevant to Mormonism. Mormonism's polytheistic system cannot deal with the exalted status of Christ. But now today, when dealing with the religion of secularism, and if you haven't caught how very religious the secular system is, sacraments and religious terminology and religious activity, and they are very, very religious.

When you think on the authority systems within secularism, you can see how this is directly relevant again. So many times I find myself in conversation with those the world now, and they're asking, why should I care about what this Jesus guy you're telling me about said?

And I like to just go, well, because he left behind an empty grave, and he's the only person that ever has. He predicted it, then he rose to the dead, and he ascended into the presence of the Father, and he's gonna come to judge the living and the dead.

That sort of gives him the authority to say, yeah, God created man, male, and female, and that trumps your Yale trained gender studies PhD by a long shot. And so we need to have an answer to the secularist who asks, why do you put such authority in the words of Christ?

And I think Colossians 2 .9, just if you're prepared to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, secularists, and it's a nice short verse. It just flows off the tongue. Hati enauto katoikai ponta paeromates theatetas somaticos.

And I don't suggest you memorize it in Greek unless you can read Greek. But it rolls pretty well in either language and whatever translation you use in the assertion of the supremacy of Christ. So grab that one, memorize that one.

There are lots of them. The 100 verse memorization system, and was there one for Jehovah's Witnesses too? I think there was. And I think if you put 100 verse into the search engine at aomin .org, it'll pull up whatever is up there and whatever is available to you.

Okay. Looking at the clock, looking at the various subjects here. Yeah, I'm not gonna get this done, but I want to, before it gets, people forget it. Remember the 1946 movie? I don't know why it's not out yet.

That sort of tells me they're having problems fundraising. That's fine with me. But we've warned you for a couple of years now about the 1946 movie. We've done numerous programs. We've, in the big studio, used the big board to walk through the meaning of arsenikoites and not only in Leviticus, but then look at Romans 1 and walk through 1st Timothy 1 .10 and 1st Corinthians 6 .9 -11 and the consistent testimony of scripture regarding homosexuality and God's intention for mankind and things like that.

And so when quote unquote scholars comment on this stuff who are fundamentally compromised, they don't believe scripture is consistent with itself. They don't believe it's a consistent divine revelation.

They don't believe when Jesus said scripture cannot be broken. They're embarrassed by Paul's interpretation of Old Testament passages. And that would be a majority, a majority of teaching professors in what are called seminaries, academic institutions in the West today.

I've told you over and over again, if you believe the scripture is theanoustos, that it's consistent with itself, that it's God-breathed, that God has preserved it for us, that then you are in a small minority.

You're in a small minority. People tend to be converted in churches that believe stuff like that because they're actively involved in preaching the gospel and doing things like that. And so they just assume, all Christians, that that's a common belief.

But you need to recognize you're in the minority if you believe those things. And that explains the lesbian, Native American woman priest in the liberal church in the rainbow-colored stole giving the supper of Skittles and 7-Up to her cat and her dog because she's so inclusive.

That sort of explains where that came from. You don't believe. When you don't believe that you can hear everything this says and that there is a fundamental consistency from Genesis to Revelation, not a surface-level consistency, it takes work.

There are themes to be seen. There is, you know, as Peter put it, men can twist the scriptures to their own destruction. If it was just a simplistic little pamphlet with three little rules, you couldn't twist it to your own destruction, but you can twist this to your own destruction because God wants it to function in such a way that it is a light to our path and not just ours, but to all believers down through the ages which may well include many, many, many, many believers in the future.

And so an article popped up, let me see, did it last edited September 4th, so this was four days ago. Walter Brueggemann, How to Read the Bible on Homosexuality. And of course, all the pro-homosexual people sources were tweeting and retweeting.

And as soon as I saw it, I'm just like, I know what that's gonna say, cause there's nothing new. There's really nothing new under the sun. I have read so many books from quote-unquote progressives, leftist, non-Bible believing people since 2001 when Jeff and I were working on that book on same-sex controversy.

I have kept up with stuff, I've read dozens, literally dozens of books. A new one will come out, oh, it looks like they got a new twist. I would take a look at it, eh, it wasn't really a new twist. It was just, they took an old argument, stuck it in the microwave and spray painted it, made it look a little nicer.

But I knew what Brueggemann was gonna be saying. Brueggemann is a progressivist. He does not believe in the consistency of scripture. And in fact, in the article that Erwin was promoting that he wrote, that's the fundamental issue.

The fundamental essence, he admits, yeah, Levinicus, pretty clear. He skips Sovereign Gomorrah, tries to say Romans 1 really isn't all that clear. It is, there isn't a question about that. Doesn't really touch on 1 Corinthians 6, 9 or 1 Timothy 1, 10.