Debate Announcement, Korean Baptist, Allen on the Wooing Spirit

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. Some sad news here at the start. I just saw this this morning. Spurgeons College announces closure after 169 years of service. A living vital faith is struggling a good bit in the United Kingdom these days.

And 169 years, that's an amazing long time. Founded in 1856 by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the college has faithfully served for 169 years, training thousands of men and women for Christian mission, ministry, and leadership in the contemporary world.

But they can't keep the doors open. They don't have the funding to do it. While at the same time in the same country, Bishop Cherry Vann has been elected as Archbishop of the Church in Wales, becoming the first woman an LGBTQ-plus cleric appointed to lead any of Britain's Anglican churches.

While the broader international Anglican communion has had openly gay bishops before, most notably Gene Robinson in the United States, the Episcopalians, of course, Vann will be the first lesbian to serve as archbishop globally.

So a sound institution closes its doors due to lack of financial support. And meanwhile, you've got this. Well, the dialogue we're going to be having, I read my dialogue partner's book yesterday. It's not a long book.

He would be very excited about her being appointed in this way. Our LGBTQ siblings is what he refers to them as. And so that obviously takes us into a discussion of what scripture is and what it isn't, really, from his perspective.

And that is a consistent revelation from God. But, you know, I remember 15, 20 years ago, we commented on a Anglican cleric that the church refused to remove when he said he basically came out and said that he was an atheist.

And it's, unfortunately, large institutions like that, their death throes frequently extend over many generations. And that's certainly what we are seeing there as the apostasy continues and accelerates.

I'm not going to make any comments about, you know, there's a reason we don't do advertising on the dividing line. And therefore, we do not recommend any dating services, educational institutions that don't exist, anything like that at all.

We don't have to worry about things like that. It's not that there aren't some people I would like to advertise for. It's just, yeah, it's really sticky. And so, yeah, we don't. It's, you know, some people, well, you know, what if there's somebody, you know, you really think you had a great product.

I know, I know. And I do think of people who have some great products out there. You can make some money for them, I know. But we've just never done it that way. And the fact of the matter is, Rich and I are way too old to start doing anything new.

So, who wants to do anything new? I mean, that's for young people to do. Oh, well, you know, that's true. With the arthritis in my fingers, working in a tire store in Alaska, yeah. Well, Alaska, period, with the arthritis in my fingers.

That would be, you know, I've actually been doing some weightlifting recently. It's been 20 years since I did that seriously. And I enjoy it on one level, but man, the rest of the day is just sort of like, ah, is this really worth it?

Okay, I'll keep trying. Because I have a bunch of weightlifters in my family now. And they remember when that was me. I mean, you look back at some of those late 1990s, early 2000 videos, and everybody called me Jesse Ventura.

So, most people don't think about that now because they haven't gone back and looked at that stuff. But it did get pretty big. But when everybody in your family dies of heart stuff, that's probably not the best direction to go long-term.

Anyway, I'll just go ahead and do this, because it's, and then we can dive back into some of this material in David Allen's book. But it, I don't, I'm not sure why it is, but most of the weirdest stuff that I see on social media, either it gets sent to me in a link.

On Misunderstanding Apologetics and Historical Standards

Oh, oh, oh, wait, wait. Meep, just put that one right there for a second. I want to say something about something I said in the last program, because there was some people that completely misunderstood it, or they did understand it, but they don't understand how to do apologetics.

I made some comments about stuff going on within apologetics for Islam. And one of the things I said was, okay, J. Smith has really come out strongly for the mythicist position. It's not that mythicism is anything new.

In other words, the mythicist position is when someone has come to the conclusion that Muhammad didn't exist, that Muhammad is a fictional historical character created up to 100 years after, probably normally this around year 700, so 70 years after the claims, the standard Islamic narrative, sin, S-I-N, the standard Islamic narrative, Muhammad dies in 632.

And then for 100 years, you have the century of Islamic expansion until that is finally checked, the Battle of Tours, 732, Charles Martel. Anyway, so the mythicist position is that really this idea of a actual historical character by the name of Muhammad develops 70 to 100 years later, the stories about him begin to develop and things like that.

Well, J. Smith has not always been a mythicist. He has always, from the time I've known him anyways, I first met him, what was that, about 07, 08, somewhere in that timeframe? Very nice man. And I'm not trying to oppose him or anything.

I'm just simply, I'm doing what I've always done. And that is in my very first debate with Shabir Ali at Biola University, what'd I say? We have to use equal scales. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument and we have to use equal scales.

We cannot use one set of standards in evaluating our own historical information and another set of standards in evaluating Islam's. Now, we can recognize there's a difference. Islam is 600 years younger, chronologically speaking.

And so I think you can ask for some level of greater historical evidence, though it arises out of a part of the world that is significantly less friendly to the preservation of historical records, shall we say?

I mean, Rome and the Roman Empire, highly literate historians and culture and stuff like that. Yeah, there's culture and things like that in certain parts of the Arabian Peninsula, but certainly not to the level that you have in the ancient world in Rome.

But still, point is we need to use, we can't use techniques to attack the other side that could be equally used to attack us as well. And so all I did on the last program was I said, I'm not following some of this.

There's some back and forth. Raymond Ibrahim has done a couple of videos, relatively short, barely 11, 12 minutes at most, I think, in comparison to two hour long videos from Jay. But I have questions that I would love to ask Jay directly, and I may contact him and do this, though timing isn't good because I have a debate coming up.

And that actually got nailed down only yesterday, so we haven't actually talked about it on the program. Oh, okay. So, on the 11th of September, in Tullahoma, at Jeffrey Rice's church, we are going to be doing a debate.

And in fact, I posted it here, so let me just scroll down and find it here. Did it, did it, did it, did it? Well, there was, there's Dale Tuggy congratulating me on my 200th debate, which will be with him.

Okay, so September 11th, 6 p .m., Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, 1605 East Lincoln Street, Tullahoma, Tennessee. Debate thesis, John 1 is not Trinitarian. Now, everybody's going, you don't have a negative thesis, David.

All Dr. Tuggy was attempting to do here is James is always having to take the positive. I think it's fair that the other side should have to take the positive. So, I mean, if you don't like the negative, then just turn it into positive.

John 1 is Unitarian. I mean, that's the opposite of that. Given the two people debating, you're either going to have a Unitarian or a Trinitarian. There aren't any Mormons showing up, so no one's going to, he's not going to be presenting the idea of polytheistic or something like that.

And so I just appreciate Dale's willingness to take the positive, at least the affirmation part in it. But anyways, I'll be debating Dr. Dale Tuggy. This will be our second debate. Our first debate was last year in Houston on Is Jesus Yahweh?

And I did post some things to social media about why I feel like this is a very important debate. It is not going to be a knock down, drag out, ooh, gotcha type of a situation. That's not the type of person Dale is, first of all.

I have very honestly, and he knows this, very honestly and straightforwardly said, listening to Dale Tuggy is like listening to an insurance salesman. He's a philosopher. He's not the most passionate speaker on the planet.

And so that's just the way it is. I would be surprised if he would dispute that. And I think he just sort of turns around and said, yeah, well, you're just a preacher. So go from there. Anyway, the topic, I've had a lot of people say, oh, wow, you don't even have to study for that one, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And I'm like, no, the vast majority of evangelicals have never heard a solid Unitarian's arguments in regards to prologue of John, specifically John 1, 1 through 18. And since we sort of live in our own echo chamber and they certainly live in a much smaller echo chamber, there's a sense in which I'm at a disadvantage because all Dale's got to do is show up with lots and lots of slides, like he will.

I would just like to point out to him that if you do that, you're really debating for something other than the audience that night. You're debating for an audience later on because no one's going to be able to follow all that that night, read all the stuff on the screen.

But the debate will, if you've never heard a Unitarian argue against a prologue, well, as long as he shows up and doesn't drool on himself, then he wins because you don't think there is another side. Well, there is.

It's sort of like when dealing with homosexuality in Romans 1, people just read Romans 1, they've only heard it interpreted one way and someone like Brownson comes along and says, oh, that's actually stoicism and therefore the background's this and da, da, da, da.

And they're like, who knew? Wow, and people are blown away as a result. So again, my reason for doing debates is to produce material that will be relevant long after I'm gone. And so this is a very, very important subject.

We've sort of touched on this before, but the Unitarians, most of the time in my experience, try to distance themselves from Jehovah's Witnesses who are also Unitarians, but Jehovah's Witness version of Unitarianism is peculiar, has its own oddities to it.

And a lot of folks don't like being tagged with that because of all the historical stuff and 1914 and blood transfusions and all that kind of stuff. So we did do some of this. I don't think that we're really gonna be, I would be surprised.

I've got hours and hours of Dale stuff to be reading and listening to over the next couple of days that I had gotten weeks and weeks ago, months ago, when I wanted to do this debate, first thought of it.

But I've put it on hold because I'm doing everything else until we found out where the debate was going on. So the next month's gonna be very, very busy for me. But I don't think that the primary argument is gonna be even touching on the actual translation of Kytheas and Halagas in John 1 .1.

I think it's gonna focus upon more contextual background issues. So it will not be a simple debate to follow. It will be the kind of debate that you might wanna get a transcript of and then spend a fair amount of time digging into at a later point in time.

But again, the point is value over time is what we're looking at having there. And so the voice behind the glass wants to add something to this.

To be fair, I spoke with Dr. Tuggy a couple of times yesterday, and I brought up, he kind of chuckled, I brought up the number 100 slides, and he's like, look, it was just a number I was using as an example.

Well, he probably doesn't realize, no, there'd be no reason for him to realize what happened in Tullahoma a couple years ago when they made that other guy that did the impersonation of the FedEx commercial and had, I don't remember how many, I've got the number somewhere, massive amount of slides with tiny little print.

And he's just whipping through these things. And the whole audience is just sitting there like, what? We can't even listen to you that fast, let alone process what in the world you're saying. And it was just so disrespectful to the audience that it's like, you're not really here for us, are you?

You're here for I think the thinking there is is that people are gonna be hitting the space bar a lot.

Well, yeah, I think so.

But to be fair to him, we went through the debate format a little bit. I think he has his mind very much right as to how it's supposed to work. His chief concern was in the video that they're going to produce that the slides that he does put up are clear and easy to read, which is gonna be a reason why he told me that the church will not be live streaming this.

Really?

And the reason for it is the slides, because I guess the last time it was just impossible to see the slides in the live stream.

So Unless you're running the computer feed to the projector through the computer in the back that's also doing the live streaming, no, you can't read it.

Well, there's that and the timing.

Well, you can read mine, because I used a big enough font.

Yeah, but there's also the timing of it all and the following of the slides, the movement of the slides, all that stuff. And I did promise him that when we do our version that I would do his slides justice to make sure that they were presented properly and not a big fuzzy thing on the wall.

Anyway, wanted to put that in there.

Okay, all right. So anyway, that is 6 p .m. September 11th, Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, 1605 East Lincoln Street, Tullahoma, Tennessee. This is gonna be part of the whole conference that's gonna be going on, which we have jokingly called, and I hope we don't get sued by G3, but the Harbor Freight G3 Conference.

Jeremiah Nortier, I believe, will be doing the moderating and Keith Foskey's gonna be there. I'm not sure if Keith's gonna do a comedic introduction to the debate, though that wouldn't surprise me. And like I said, this should be number 200.

And I'm hoping for, I said, we might have a special protein-infused Texas sheet cake to celebrate, but probably not. Well, maybe somebody will be nice to eat, but probably not. So when I say protein-infused, I don't mean bacon.

Okay, for some people, that's all protein infusion is. My wife made some protein brownies yesterday. So again, she's big into the lifting. Summer, my daughter's big into lifting. Not as much right now because my wife has her bag packed and sitting in the kitchen with other bags of treats and stuff to take because when she gets the call, the kids have moved about an hour and a half from where we live now, and summer's due any moment.

So sometime probably over this next weekend into early next week, little Kuiper is going to arrive and Kelly will be heading off to stay with the grandkids and do stuff like that. So anyways, she made me some protein brownies.

So at least you can eat a brownie. It tastes like a brownie. It's as good as a brownie, but you're also getting about 10 grams of protein while you're at it. So maybe, I love Texas sheet cake. I don't know if any of you have ever seen a Texas sheet.

It's that real thin, it's wide, real thin. It's disgustingly rich in sugar. It's just basically a real thin layer of cake with about an equal layer of frosting on top of it, but it's sort of, I'm not sure how to describe the frosting.

It's sort of harder. Anyways, it's good stuff. So I'm sure you can make a protein-infused Texas sheet cake. And so maybe if someone in Tullahoma take, you know, have some mercy on me, they'll make me a protein-infused or those make a Texas sheet cake and tell me it's protein-infused, how would I ever know?

I just still end up getting fat on it anyways.

So there you go.

All right. So I was, sorry about doing all that there, but I wanted to make that announcement. And it all of a sudden struck me that I had written up the announcement yesterday, but I had not actually done that.

So back to the Islam J. Smith thing, because it was, what I was mentioning was the debates, why we do debates, the standards we use in debate. We have to use equal standards, equal measures. And that's what made me all of a sudden think, hey, you didn't make the announcement about the El Toggi debate coming up next month.

Number, the big number, two, zero, zero. Now you see, if I was like a lot of folks, we would have some big fundraiser about this and we'd be sending stuff out with a big 200 on it and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

And that's why we don't do that kind of stuff. So back to that. So all I'm saying is I heard there are questions I want to ask Jay. He was fundamentally discounting, for example, the historical relevance of any of the Hadith.

And it seemed to me, and that's what I need to ask questions about. It seemed to me that what he was saying is the manuscripts that Western scholars use to make the standardized translations of Bukhari or Muslim or Jamiat Termini or whatever, the various Sunni Hadith collections were very late and far removed from the timeframe of Bukhari's life.

And I was like, well, okay. But if you know anything about, remember the big controversy a few months ago when I was talking about, we were talking about the Ignatian, the recension of Ignatius's letters and the different versions, the longer version and the shorter version and different translations and things like that.

One of the things we pointed out was, the earliest manuscripts we have for a lot of this stuff, sometimes a thousand years later, one of my favorite writings of the early church, which is the Epistle to Diognetus, but we don't even have the one manuscript that had it any longer.

It was destroyed in the Prussian War in the 1800s when the library was in, was bombed as part of the war, shelled with artillery, actually. And so it's sort of like, does that mean that's no longer? Because at one point, Jay actually referred to Bukhari as a lie.

But what does that mean? You'd have to prove that, you'd have to engage in fair textual study, historical textual study of the manuscript tradition behind Bukhari. Now, that's a perfectly valid thing to challenge Islam to do.

Given the centrality of the Hadith collections in the formulation of Sharia law, you should, it shouldn't just be a discussion of how you determine whether something is Sahih or not. Part and parcel should be textual critical studies.

And Islam is way behind on that. There is no critical edition, critical text of the Quran. And the people pushing for a text, a critical text of the Quran are not Muslims. Well, there might be Western Muslims, but it's primarily Orientalists, Christians, or not necessarily non-Christians, but just Western scholars in the field, whatever it might be.

The push should come from the Muslim people themselves. Same with us. We should, what have I said for decades? I want to know what John wrote. I want to know what Paul wrote. And if you remember my debate with Adnan Rashid, hey, if it was good enough for Uthman, it's good enough for me.

Well, that's not how you do textual critical studies in a fair way. And so I'm just simply saying if you're gonna develop this entire system of saying that the historical materials are lies, that it's fiction, it was made up, you have to use the same standards.

And when he did sort of seem to recognize that, and he started mentioning early references to Jesus, and I just have to admit, there's this one slide. I can put it up. I didn't take a screenshot of it, but there's one slide where it's comparing the early references to Jesus in comparison to Muhammad.

And some of the references that he put up there are highly disputable. A couple of them just had to do with earthquakes or eclipses in the early fourth decade of the first century. Had nothing to do with Jesus.

And yeah, later Christian writers interpreted it that way and tied it together with period of darkness and the earth trembling and stuff like that. But those writers didn't do that. So I was like, these are very susceptible to disputation.

You need to be really careful with your utilization of such things. So I wasn't trying to take a position. I'm simply saying, if we're gonna be consistent, got to use the same standards. And right now I'm going, I'm not seeing how, I've got a lot of questions about this stuff.

And we talked about this on the program. Back when I think it was Robert Spencer and David Wood, did a debate and David defended the historical existence of Muhammad. I think Robert Spencer was denying it.

That's my recollection. I could be wrong. We talked about this very same kind of stuff. What's the origin of this massive body of tradition? Even Islam says 99 of it's bogus. Even Islam says that. But there is still a substantial body of material here where you have crossover between Muslim and Bukhari and things like that.

But they're not, it's not the kind of, it just doesn't look manufactured to me. I would have a hard time proving that. Unfortunately, some people, Christian people, just like some Muslims the other direction, have the idea that, hey, as long as it's negative to them, I'll accept anything.

I've seen people, there are people who do that with Mormonism. That was one of the problems with the Godmakers too, was you started getting into the, hey, maybe Joseph Smith said this, maybe not, but now we're gonna accept it because we know Joseph Smith is a bad guy anyways.

So yeah, Joseph Smith said every stupid thing ever attributed to him. You can't go there. You have to, no, you can't, you can't do that. So we have to be careful about stuff like that. So anyways, so there's the comment about that, comment about the debate, and I've already gone through half the program.

And so that takes me back to a fellow. You run into interesting people, okay? You really do. There's a young fella, and I do believe he exists because there's a YouTube link. You go to the YouTube link and there are some rather poorly produced, just a young kid, young Korean kid, staying in front of a web, sitting in front of a webcam, okay?

And I really think he exists. I don't think he's AI or anything like that. And he uses the name Korean Baptist, at Korean underscore Baptist. And I'd never heard of him before, but someone linked me to this or something because I wasn't tagged in it.

And what it was was a comment someone, Kuiper Belt Productions long ago had put together this meme with two more missionaries knocking on a door. Then the next scene is me and Jeff recording something in Apologia Studios on Mormonism.

And it says, come and knock on our door. We've been waiting for you. And again, you have to be a boomer to even know what that was from, right? I mean, the vast majority of people, it would just be straight over their heads from a 1970s rather raunchy sitcom.

Well, raunchy back then in comparison today, it would be squeaky clean, but back then it was like, ew, really? Anyway, so he's commenting on that. He's commenting on Jeff and I talking to these more missionaries.

And so here's what he says. He says, both Calvinists and Mormons believe in work salvation. Calvinists believe in the backdoor work salvation through the perseverance of the saints. And many Calvinists also believe in the front-loading work salvation by believing in this repent of your sins to be saved heresy just like the Mormons do.

Mormons don't believe in the Trinity and many Calvinists also don't believe in the Trinity by believing in a fake version of the Trinity where it teaches this lie that calls Jesus the only son of God.

God the father has many, many adopted Christian sons. So Jesus isn't the only son of God. Okay, that's straight up Christological heresy here. So like Calvinists like to use corrupted fake Bible versions.

Oh, here we go.

Corrupted fake Bible versions like the ESV. Does he know all the King James translators for Calvinists that teach this lie instead of using the King James Bible? God the father does not view Calvinists as Christians and has amazing insights into God's views since they have not obeyed the gospel.

I found that, obeyed? Did you think about that before you wrote it? Is that they have not obeyed the gospel?

Oh, okay.

There is not a single Christian in this picture. So it's two more missionaries top and then Jeff and I both. So we're not Christian. Both James White and Jeff Durbin and those more missionaries are cursed heretics and false prophets, corrupt trees.

And they can't be saved from hell fire because of the Galatians 1, 8 -9 curse applying to them. The Lord Jesus Christ will one day say, I never knew you depart from me ye that work iniquity to all four of them before casting them in the lake of fire.

And then he quotes Jude 1, 13. And so I just reposted it and said, you ran into some really wild stuff. And he did respond to that. And I'll see if I've got time to look at it. I'd rather spend more time with Alan, but what this illustrates is how error compounds itself.

You know, interest can compound itself over time and you make more money. Well, error compounds itself as well. Here you've got a young man, clearly not balanced, clearly not in a situation where there are either cooler heads around him that can cool him down, or he's only paying attention to the worst of the worst.

And the resultant incoherence is shocking. People, you know, how can someone, you know, the guy's reading his Bible, but how can he just, there's no balance here. This is just nutty stuff. And then it results in dishonesty, just straight up dishonesty.

And misrepresentation of history, illogic, incoherence. And, you know, we see that in people. You know, years ago, remember I had to point out all sorts of fundamental logical problems with Dave Hunt.

I mean, half the time I was responding to him in our book was just where he was being inconsistent and incoherent in his argumentation. He was making categorical errors and just all sorts of stuff like that.

We see that, but social media tends to concentrate the incoherence. So Calvinists and Mormons do not believe in work salvation. Even the Mormons, you know, you'd have to actually know something about Mormonism to recognize the difference between salvation and exaltation.

And people like this, they don't care to actually know what the Mormons believe or accurately represent what the Mormons believe or anything like that. Certainly what Calvinists believe either. But the vast chasm that separates Reformed theology and Mormonism when it comes to the doctrine of God, doctrine of man's eteriology, all the category, every word, what eternal life means in Mormonism is eternal lives.

The ability to have children via procreation as a God, part of the power of God, the procreation and priesthood. I mean, the chasm is massive. And so to be able to leap over that chasm requires an awesome amount of ignorance and a complete and utter disregard for anything called logic, honesty, truthfulness, anything like that.

But King James-only anti-Calvinist fundamentalists don't care about any of that stuff.

They really don't.

So Calvinists believe in the backdoor work salvations of the perseverance of the saints. So this little young man has no idea of perseverance. He says right on his channel, I believe in OSAS, once saved, always saved.

Okay, I doubt you have a meaningful foundation for that if you detest reformed theology, because that is any kind of meaningful idea of the permanence of salvation is based upon the perfection of the work of Christ.

And if you, by your free will, got yourself into it, then you, by your free will, can get yourself back out unless you actually believe by free will you can get in and then God says, that's it, no more free will, and you can't get back out.

Again, another incoherent position. But it's very common for these folks to believe that perseverance of the saints means you're working for your salvation. And he says that later on. He says that to somebody else, that perseverance of the saints means that you produce good works and you don't sin.

So since Christians sin, then obviously Calvinists aren't actually Christians and stuff like that. It's pretty wild stuff, but that's not what perseverance of the saints means. And if he were to be, if he was to even be slightly concerned about truthfulness, he would want to understand that, but he doesn't.

Perseverance of the saints simply means that because of everything else, God's sovereignty, total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, the result of that is Christ will not lose any of his sheep.

And so the saints will persevere because that's God's purpose in their life. And that's the power of the spirit in their life. And that's the obedience of the son of the father. The father's will of the son is he'll lose none of those that has been given to him.

So this is all about God. It's not about us. Any perseverance that the saints have is the result of God's work within them and God's accomplishing his own purpose. This is, we're going to see this in a moment when we get back into Dr. Allen's book, is that we consistently begin with God.

Provisionists, synergists, this fellow, consistently begin with man. They have to. If they don't start with the sovereign decree of God and the ultimate glorification of God in all things, where else are you going to start?

If you've gotten rid of that, which King James translators believed in, by the way, just for the fun of it, then what else do you have? But then, and many Calvinists also believe in the front-loading work salvation by believing this repent of your sins, we saved heresy, just like the Mormons do.

Again, ignorance of Mormonism, massively so. And then repent of your sin. Wow, what a heresy. This, of course, is the utter foolishness of non-lordship salvation, of the free grace position. If just somewhere in the Bible, there was a clear, direct statement about the necessity of repentance, oh, Jesus said that over and over again, but that was then, this is now.

Maybe he's a big dispensationalist, maybe a mid-acts dispensationalist, who knows? But yeah, that's not work salvation either. But again, the errors are just so many. Mormons don't believe in the Trinity because they're polytheists, obviously.

And many Calvinists also don't believe in the Trinity by believing in a fake version of the Trinity where it teaches this lie that calls Jesus as the only son of God. Now, I don't know where that one's coming from because this guy's now just saying, I am a full Christological heretic.

I reject any recognizable definition of the Trinity, the son as the son. Yeah, I don't know. He doesn't expand on it, and I'm not interested and I don't have the time to go digging through his videos to find out what on earth he's babbling about.

But monogamous Huyas, the unique son, it's just straight up right there. And here's the problem. The King James accurately translates monogamous Huyas as the only begotten son of God in the King James Version of the Bible.

But he just doesn't understand it. He's evidently stuck just to the English, not with the original language, so he doesn't get it. God the Father has many adopted Christian sons, so Huyas isn't the only son of God.

Someone who really struggles with category errors here. It's just, you mean you're the same kind of son of God as Jesus?

Okay, well, all right.

And then, of course, he gets into King James stuff, ESV, corrupted fake Bible versions, blah, blah, blah, blah. And God the Father does not view Calvinists as Christians since they have not obeyed the gospel.

And again, obeyed the gospel? I thought you said you didn't have to repent and believe, but obeying the gospel? Is that believing exactly like you believe? That's how a lot of these folks do that. This stuff's all over out there.

And it attracts a certain kind of person. That wants an absolute certainty that's actually based upon fear of any kind of uncertainty. And that's what this guy is all about, sadly. And yeah, that was, yeah, because he did respond to that.

Also, this blind guide who is known as James White called this post a royal mess, but didn't come up with any reputation, I suspect, because somewhere deep down, he knows that I'm right and he's wrong.

He can't really disprove my post since my post is based on the scriptures, unlike the Reformed theology that has no basis on the word of God. When has this guy read a Reformed theology?

Nothing.

So you have to just keep pumping yourself up, shooting at the other side, because you know you're actually the one that doesn't have any substance. And you fear, what if there is something to what these other people are saying?

You can't even bring yourself to think about it. That's what fundamentalism has done to many, many, many people. Someone just posted a picture of me with a 200 debates T-shirt on. So yeah, Eli Ayala.

Dr. James White is approaching 200 public debates. An incredible consummate in the realm of apologetics and ministry. What's your favorite James White debate or moment? Share in the comments. Well, that'll get some interesting comments.

There might be some encouraging things to read there, but it probably would just be a really good way for me to know who to block today. My block list hasn't expanded a whole lot recently. So I imagine there'll be some comments in there.

All right.

Okay.

So, someone posted in one of our chat channels, a Jeopardy question. Something you can describe in detail that almost everyone agrees with until you say its name. The answer, Calvin is, it's true. It's true.

There's no two ways about it. That's how it goes. All right. So back to Dr. Allen's book. I apologize again. Day before yesterday, when we did the program, I had said on social media, I'm gonna comment on a particular quote.

I never got to. I spent too much time on the quote that I did get. There's a lot of stuff that we can spend a lot of time on in this book. My goal eventually is to, I'm gonna go ahead and deal with its attempt to deal with Romans 8, because that's what we've done in the past.

I mean, we could put together hours, hours of what the other side cannot put together. So we can present to you hours in this studio or in the big studio of us putting Dr. Allen's book or Dr. Allen's work right up there on the screen and opening the Bible and going, here's what it actually says.