Upcoming Discussions and A Few Articles

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. It is Thursday and the world is still insane, but God is still on His throne.

I was just, once again, distracted by stuff coming in from social media.

This one caught my attention because it's at the University of Utah. Another one of those situations where you are being given the very, very clear indication that the next generation of voters are already very comfortable with totalitarianism.

They're very uncomfortable with liberty. They're uncomfortable with disagreement.

They're uncomfortable. Everybody has to think the same thing, say the same things.

I keep thinking about that one young, they're called activists, they're actually revolutionaries, in the restaurant, yelling and screaming at this person trying to get them to make the communist symbol, put their fist up in the air in the communist symbol, which if you don't realize what that is, well, of course, nobody who reads history.

Nobody. I mean, the 1960s were so 1960 ago, so no one cares.

And the camera panned a little bit. I think maybe the person was just moving. You know how it is with your cell phone, doing cell phone videos.

It's not exactly professional level stuff, but that's what we get these days. And here's this older couple sitting next to the people that are being berated and screamed at and they're just in utter compliance.

They're just sitting there with their fists in the air, just probably to the point where their fingers started getting numb, but they're just in utter compliance.

And that's what you've got going on here. They're going to kick a senator out because he made someone feel unsafe, which means he actually thought for himself.

He didn't just go with the group. And this is just so universal that you just go, how did this happen?

I mean, my kids will tell you that I was very straightforward in presenting the

Christian worldview, but never in this mindless totalitarianism.

They saw me engaging other worldviews all the time, and hopefully maybe the fact they also saw me spending so much time studying and learning what the other side was saying, that the whole idea of just simply silencing the other side wouldn't even enter into their thinking.

So that's the difference here, I think, is that you have this communication of this totalitarianism and it comes along with the idea that it is a good thing to silence anyone who differs from you in anything, looks different than you, so y 'all dress the same, say the same things, utter the same words, make the same gestures.

How did a movement that started off on the basis of destroying cultural norms of morality end up now creating its own that are just the exact opposite of what it was trying to destroy?

It's absolute totalitarianism, it's obviously the opposite of liberalism, which is why

I think we need to stop using that term. Liberalism is actually allowing freedom of expression and then believing that the best way of promulgating truth is to contrast it with error.

We live in God's world, therefore—and that again is about the only place my hope can find any foundations here—is in the reality that this kind of totalitarianism, because it enforces a worldview of lies, cannot long last.

But right now it just seems to be absolutely everywhere. It is astonishing to see and just so sad because these are supposed to be students, they're supposed to be learning critical thought and it's very, very plain that they have been taught the exact opposite of critical thought.

That is, they cannot critically analyze anything at all. It's just not possible.

So there you go. It's absolutely all around us.

I did—now, was it on the last program that I talked about the lady that was—or that come out after, the lady that was arrested down in Australia for her

Facebook post? That came out after it, huh? Most of you have seen it by now. It's on LifeSite News and all sorts of other places.

But the video of—now, it's interesting because one of the articles I saw identified her as a witch, as a

Wiccan. That was the only article I saw that mentioned that. But I sort of could tell by the language that while she has kids, she's living with a guy who isn't married to him.

So we're not exactly talking about an upstanding Christian woman here.

But she had posted on Facebook, which by the way, has tried and convicted the young shooter in Kenosha.

He has been tried and convicted by Facebook. And my understanding is if you post anything in support of him, it will be removed.

Yeah, that's what I'm hearing. So they've tried and convicted him.

Yeah, yeah, all that stuff is just—you're not allowed to do it. Even though you could post all the

GoFundMes to get people out of jail for burning buildings down and doing stuff like that, that's fine.

That's—there you go. Yeah, yeah, there—I looked down at my screen and the screen says, we've designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support.

Yep, there it is. Yep, so Facebook has decided that the legal system in the

United States is not relevant and that they have greater authority than the legal system.

You know, we all still use it and we all complain about it, but we all know what's coming.

And we probably should just start weaning ourselves off of it. And if somebody else, if Parle would put some money into expanding its services and maybe allowing you to do a little bit longer stuff on it and stuff like that, they could—there's room for people to be moving in and let

Facebook just die a thousand deaths and just tell every single sponsor, advertiser, ain't touching you as long as Facebook continues doing the things it's doing.

But I don't see that happening. You get used to something and that's where you see all the stuff going on and that's where you want to be until they get rid of you.

And they're going to. But yeah, there's that going on. And where was

I going with that? I've seen something over there. But anyway, a couple articles

I want to get to. I hope you enjoyed the last program where we went through John Chapter 6. I didn't really see any commentary on that.

We did get it posted and everything, right? And part of it, honestly,

I think along these lines, the continuation of the thoughts through the next section, unless you are involved in dealing with a lot of Roman Catholics, just doesn't ring the bells as much.

It's not as exciting as the battle in Reformed theology and stuff like that.

But for me, it's vitally important because there is a need to give a meaningful, deep exegesis of the continuation of Jesus' thought and the presentation of his centrality.

And it's striking how he presents it and how few

Protestants see it. And that means the other side, which has been given a false narrative, an ahistorical narrative, an acontextual narrative, connecting it to something really, literally that doesn't develop for a thousand years when you really go into the issue of transidentiation.

Um, we have to, we have to have a meaningful, um, response that comes from passion in our hearts, a passionate understanding of what's being said.

And I'm afraid, I guess I'm guilty of it. And I think a lot of us are guilty of just breaking

John Chapter 6 up into portions and not really seeing how, you know, we know everything there is to know about 637 through 44, should know it through 45.

Um, and then after that, it's just sort of like, yeah, it goes on to that other stuff that, you know, if you deal with Roman Catholics, you know, you can talk about that stuff.

And that's just not the case because once in a while we will go, oh, remember 665? That says something, it sounds like, you know.

Yeah. So, uh, we do need to know those things. Oh, by the way, let me mention this before I get to these articles.

Um, I'm doing a lot of this Zoom stuff. Um, and I remember to find out if this

WebEx stuff, I was really disappointed that WebEx didn't have green screen, um, capacities.

Um, got to find out about that. If that, is that an, is that an add on? That's something you have to pay for plugins.

We got to, got to find out about that because, because that's like, come on, um, catch up with the

Chinese. He said, that's, that's, that's not good. Um, got to catch up with the

Chinese on that, but I'm going to be doing a bunch of stuff. Um, I'm going to be teaching in Germany again tomorrow morning on, uh, church history.

Um, and I'm doing a sweater vest dialogue via that mechanism. Um, I should remember to take that sweater vest because that's the latest sweater vest.

It's hot in that room. It's going to, it's going to be the perspiration of the saints, uh, uh, sweater vest dialogue.

I'm afraid, uh, today, but I'm, I'm still gonna wear my sweater vest. I'm, I'm sticking with, it's like a hair shirt.

It's just gonna stick with the traditions here, but we're gonna do that tomorrow, uh, this afternoon, uh, after program.

And so probably be up it's normally, sometimes it gets, it gets dropped over the, over the weekend.

Sometime next week, um, we'll be talking about God's law. So you might find that to be interesting. And then tomorrow evening, we are going to,

I've got a stack of my texts over here. And so you can sort of garner an idea of what we're talking about.

Um, um, I'm taking the Stephanos home and, uh, Dr. Gurry at Phoenix seminary, uh, had see the, huh?

Well, you can sort of see the top of it right there. That's Codex Sinaiticus down there. It's my, I thought for sure we used to be able to see that.

Oh, maybe we did when it was farther over here. Yeah. That's what it was. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Good. Good. Anyways, Codex Sinaiticus, um, uh, Dr. Gurry at Phoenix seminary posted a picture and they have a bunch that I don't know.

I'm not sure how many of them that they have. It's the same one. It's that facsimile of Sinaiticus down there.

And so I asked him, um, if he could curl one of the facsimiles of Codex Sinaiticus, because he's a young man, he's younger than my son.

So, um, so I asked him if he could, and he says, I use different muscles. And then he said,

I told the students about your Stephanos and they were really interested. Would you like, would you be willing to come out and, and, uh, do show and tell, uh, with your, could you please bring us the funnest text?

Uh, have you noticed, look, look how bright you see that you see the gold on the edging.

That's original. That's original. So that, that you're, you're, so you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're, this year, this is 470 years old.

Yeah. 470 years old. Um, now obviously we had it rebound and everybody had to, it was, it was falling apart, but the text itself, 470 years old.

And, um, so, uh, I'm, I'm, I'm taking this home and I'm taking my

Tyndale. Jeffrey Rice rebind, uh, Tyndale retestment home.

And I'm taking one of my TRs home. Why would I be doing that? Well, because, uh, tomorrow night, uh,

Stephen Colson and I are going to be joining Samuel, um, on the same program that the four perspectives on, uh, apologetics, uh, thing was done.

And I guess it's actual, it's actual origination point as far as airing is, is in the

Philippines or something, I think. Um, so, uh, it's nighttime here, but I guess it's morning over there.

And so our primary topic is discussion of the Texas Receptus. And we're going to be looking at, um, the

Kamiohanium and, uh, I think we're gonna do Revelation 16, five, maybe Revelation 14, one,

Luke 2, 22, uh, some of the key texts that of necessity define the

TR only position, because they go against all the other positions. They go against the text, the, uh, uh, majority text,

Byzantine text, um, uh, and of course against the eclectic or modern critical text theories.

Uh, they are unique readings to the TR. And of course the argumentation that one utilizes to substantiate each one of these readings.

So Long Riding of Mark and Kamiohanium, uh, Long Riding of Mark and the

Percopaea Adulterae are not unique to the TR because those would be

Byzantine and majority text readings. But these others go against the majority text.

They go against the Byzantine text. They go against critical texts. And so they're definitional of TR only -ism and the arguments that you would use to substantiate those readings, as well as Long Riding of Mark or the

Percopaea Adulterae, John 7, 53, 8, 11, are all going to be contradictory to each other. So this to me is the fundamental revelation of the error of TR only -ism is that you have to use different arguments for each of the unique readings that identify your position over against the positions that are closest to it.

So the arguments that a TR only -person uses over against Maurice Robinson in the

Byzantine text position, Byzantine priority position, or a majority text position, or even position of James Knapp, um, they're going to be different from one another.

And so the arguments you use for Revelation 16 .5, Revelation 14 .1, Ephesians 3 .9,

Acts 8 .37, Luke 2 .22, they're all going to be different. They're going to be different from one another.

They're going to be contradictory to one another. In fact, if you use the standard that you use in Luke 2 .22 for Ephesians 3 .9,

then you're going to get different results. And this is what illustrates the fact that TR only -ism is not a textual critical theory.

It is simply a means of defending textus receptus as it exists in this form.

That's, that's your conclusions already decided. The arguments that you use to get to the conclusion can all be very different.

And so we're going to be discussing that. And we've been asked to spend a few minutes,

I guess there's a conflict going on, um, in that area on that side of the planet in regards to Islam.

And a member of parliament having made a comment about the

Bible being corrupted or changed. And I'm just like, well, is he a

Muslim? Yeah, he's a Muslim. Well, that's Tarif al -Nas, Tarif al -Mana.

These are, this is, uh, this goes all the way back to the earliest sources within the first couple hundred years, two mainstreams, the

Muslims who believe that it was the interpretation and meaning that had been changed, not the text itself.

And then I think later, the position that is now prominent, but only really became prominent after the publication of Azhar al -Haq from the

Pakistani Muslim scholar in the 1860s, uh, that the text itself has been changed.

That there has been an actual corruption of the continental text. It's not a continental text in Greek, but anyway.

And so I was like, why would there be a controversy about this? This is just simply what

Muslims believe. It's what they've been asserting for forever. And you can go back and find

Christians and Muslims arguing about this assertion into the earliest days of the interactions between these two religions.

It's, it's a necessary element in light of the nature of the Quran and the teachings of Islamic theology.

So you're, but anyways, we've been asked to comment on that and to give response to that.

And, you know, so I'm going to point to Surah 5 and, you know, reiterate to folks what the issues are.

A lot of you who listen to this program regularly already know, and probably, probably a lot of you have actually looked up Surah 5 and you know what

I'm referring to there. The fact that Surah 5 tells the Al -Anjil, the people of the gospel, to judge by what is contained in the gospel.

And so for those words to have any meaning in the days of Muhammad means the gospel had to exist in the days of Muhammad.

And the problem is that Surah 5 is talking about the Torah given to Moses, the Anjil given to Jesus, and the

Quran given to, to Muhammad. And so even the modern excuses used by Muslims, well, it's just only referring to five books given to Moses, and that's, that's the, the gospels, we don't have a gospel because it's just one and there are four in the

New Testament, just don't make any sense because at that point in time, what would those words have meant to the people to whom they were addressed?

What was, what was given by God to the old covenant people? What was given by God to, through Jesus to the

Christians? Same thing that people, the Muslims look at the Quran as the full revelation of God given to Muhammad is found in the

Quran. Well, that's the New Testament for us, actually Old and New Testament, Tanakh and the

Greek scriptures, Hebrew and Greek scriptures together. And so we'll talk about that.

And so that's a little preview of what you'll be able to see on that. But I've got, I hope my internet at home is working far better than our internet here.

And it is, it's, huh? Yeah, Rich says it really stinks right now.

So there you go. So we're going to be doing that. So that's what, three, three programs before tomorrow evening from my house on various teaching church history and textual critical issues and talking about God's law.

It's going to be interesting. So keep an eye out for, for all of those. One third, I'm sort of behind on this.

Sorry about this, but I don't know. I don't know about you, but sometimes it almost gets a little depressing though.

We should take it as necessary indication of just what we need to be doing.

But on August 28th article came out.

I think this was from discern, but it was, it was okay.

It was Ligonier's research. It was Lifeway Research released by Ligonier Ministries.

Yeah. So you've probably already seen a couple of these, but I think it's important. One third of evangelicals believe

Jesus was a good teacher, but not God. Uh, obviously, uh, once again, we face the reality of attempting to describe what an evangelical is to even identify what that might mean.

And it's tough to do. Um, but, uh, a new survey conducted by Lifeway Research released by Ligonier Ministries revealed that 52 % of Americans and 30 % of evangelicals say, believe

Jesus was a good teacher, but he was not God. So that, that means 70 % disagreed.

So I suppose we could take that as a positive thing in some way. But then again, that would mean that that 30 % is pretty much agreeing with the

Muslims, even though the Muslims would say he was more than a good teacher.

And Jehovah's Witnesses, who also would say he was not God, but at least they believe he's Michael the Archangel. I mean, is it really possible that there's a third of people identify as evangelicals who do not have as high

Christology as Jehovah's Witnesses? That's depressing. Um, it's just like, uh, um, so, uh, one of the quotes is here, statistics like statistics like these from the state of theology survey, you give us quite a shock, but they also shed light on the concerns that many

American Christians and churches have expressed for decades, said Stephen Nichols, the chief academic officer of Ligonier Ministries, as the culture around us increasingly abandons its moral compass, professing evangelicals are sadly drifting away from God's absolute standard in scripture.

It's clear that the church does not have the luxury of idly standing by. This is a time for Christians to tell you scripture diligently, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, here's my question. When this is finally, uh, released in full, what

I would like to see, wouldn't this be helpful? I mean, this, this would really, really, really be helpful.

I'm not sure. I doubt, I doubt that Lifeway asked this. Did they ask and really press for how often these individuals are under the ministry of the word?

How often do they, are they really in church? Because as far as I know, every single study has said that people exaggerate how many times they go to church each year.

When these surveys are taken by factors of like 10, um, oh, I, I probably go,

I don't know, 10, 15, and they went to a Christmas Eve service. And that's, that's about been about it.

And I would like to know how many of these people are church going individuals,

A and B, how many of them go to what we would call a confessional church, a church that has a confession of faith.

Because I'm going to tell you something. Let me just give an example. I, I'm not bragging on him. I'm just giving you an example from my own life.

Um, my church is a family integrated church.

And so the kids have to listen to all this stuff. And in fact, Sunday, Sunday night,

I decided off the cuff, I had not planned to do this. You can go and watch this, watch the sermon.

You can see, I did the perseverance of the saints, the final point of the tulip. And I talked about apostasy and, and made lots of important applications,

I think in regards to that. But one of the illustrations I decided to use was, um,

Eric and Summer and my grandkids have a new dog named Watson. And when

Watson first arrived, um, Watson's life was in extreme danger, uh, from my daughter.

Um, at least from the comments she was making on Facebook. I, I sort of figured that Watson was not long for this earth, but he's, he's still going.

And so I decided to use, um, Watson as an illustration. And so Eric and Summer and the kids are sort of over this direction.

And so I just, I just looked down and I, I looked at Summer. I said, so is, is

Watson still with you all? And she's sort of like, like this. And then I looked at Clementine and I said, so Clementine, you, you still have

Watson and her head stays down. I said, Clementine, Clementine. And it's like, and she was so engrossed in whatever she was writing or drawing or doing something that everybody else is looking at her.

But, but she's, she's just didn't, didn't even, didn't even see me there. Um, so anyway, uh, the point is the kids are with us when we do our catechism study and I'd say 95 % of the kids at our church are homeschooled.

And if you go into those homes, you will find the same catechism questions and verses being memorized and they're up on the wall and, um, all the rest of this stuff, uh, this, this year,

I know in the co -op, they're doing a lot of stuff on Colossians and things like that. So the point is we have a catechism and we, we know we believe.

And right now I've been on the same, I've been on the section of the catechism that talks about Jesus and the offices that he fulfills.

And I can guarantee you vast majority of our kids would be able to tell you what our catechism says as to the three offices that Jesus holds.

How many in the audience would be, would feel comfortable if I asked you what offices does, does

Jesus hold? Of course, we're talking about prophet, priest, and King. And so we've, we did that question.

Then we, we did prophet, uh, that was especially back in, uh,

March and April. Uh, I remember we were doing that one and now we're on this wonderful, uh, catechism question that is going through how

Jesus functions as priest. And we spend time on that every single week.

I don't know how you could possibly do anything but be unconscious from the first hymn till the last prayer and not answer this question from this survey correctly if you're a member of our church.

So what does that tell you about the churches these people are attending? Either they're A, they're not attending or B, they only attend the main services and they don't avail themselves.

Because a lot of churches have decided, a lot of churches have decided that the education part doesn't need to be a part of the worship part.

So if you want to go deep, then we have classes that you can go to and you can go deep.

But we want everyone to feel comfortable just to come to the service. We don't want to put any undue pressure on you.

And as a result, there are certain churches you go to, those sermons are never going to introduce you to these things.

And I can guarantee you in the sermons themselves, we will bring those questions up.

We'll say, now remember, what's the answer to this? And we expect audience feedback. We expect a response in regards to memorized scripture and all sorts of things like that.

So it really makes me wonder because how do we make sure that the next generation knows that, yes,

Jesus was a good teacher. Jesus was a wonderful prophet. He is our high priest.

He is our king. He is Lord. He is the son of God. He is the son of man.

And he is Yahweh in human flesh. How do we function in such a way to where we are basically saying you'll only come to know that if you go to the special classes.

But if you just sit in the sermons, we'll make sure you never feel uncomfortable.

You'll always, you know, least common denominator Christianity all the way across.

Look, there's a lot of people that have taken that viewpoint. I understand that. And if this was some type of a secular educational system, okay, fine.

Here's the difference. We believe that if they're true Christians, everybody's indwelt by the same

Holy Spirit who gave us the New Testament that says we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of the

Lord Jesus Christ. And the Holy Spirit can accomplish that.

So we can call people to a higher plane. We don't have to do this secular safe space stuff.

There is no safe space for the spirit indwelt person. Okay, no safe space.

The spirit does not drive us to safe spaces. The spirit drives us out into service and risk in the name of Christ.

And how can we do that? Remember the beautiful picture? Hebrews chapter 6.

Yes, Hebrews chapter 6. I'm starting a campaign so that when people hear

Hebrews chapter 6, they don't think of the apostasy warning at the beginning. They think of the we have an awesome savior passage at the end, which describes

Jesus as our forerunner who has gone into the holy place, who is an anchor for us, an anchor for our faith, steadfast and sure.

So if I have an anchor that's steadfast and sure, then I can go out in service and never have to worry about the safe space because my anchor holds in the only safe space there is.

How's that? I don't even know. I don't even remember. It was not that long ago that I first heard that phrase safe space.

I mean, we didn't grow up with that. That's not a part of our experience. Safe space, what in the world is that?

I have no idea. Well, we have a safe space in the presence of God in Christ, but that means we can then go out and we don't need to be hiding in a safe space with our cuddly blanket and favorite stuffed toy, which is where most of the world is.

But anyway, so I'm not sure where the State of Theology thing is going to be published at or whatever, but it's interesting.

Yesterday, oh man, here's another article I need to get to. Yeah, I did get it,

I think. I haven't had a chance to listen to it. Anyways, there's an issue. I want to get to it.

It's important. It's just so many other things. We're definitely staying busy despite the lack of travel, but I do want to comment on Tremper Longman's stuff on Exodus 21 and abortion eventually.

I think there's something that's really missing in the commentary that he gives in his book on the

Bible and the ballot or something like that. I think I just got it. I haven't had a chance to.

I've only seen the argument about this and need to delve into it some more. So I was just looking at that.

We will get around to that. But a while back, you undoubtedly saw that Biologos, now

Biologos are semi -evangelical elites with a strong left -leaning bent as far as their politics go.

Of course, they're the folks that are strongly opposed to creationism, especially seven -day creationism or young earth creationism.

I'm not sure they would say they're opposed to intelligent design so much, but they're very strongly in support of a full -throated embrace of at least what used to be called back in my day, used to be called theistic evolution, that God started all this stuff and then that's how it all got going.

Anyway, so Biologos, you will normally find them on the left side of most issues.

So they put out an article just a couple weeks ago, in essence, saying that Christians should be the first ones in line to be vaccinated against COVID -19.

The way I put it when I first saw it is Biologos is already in the bus with their sleeves rolled up, and they most certainly are.

What makes it interesting was the announcement from President Trump yesterday telling the states to start setting aside locations for vaccinations right around the time of the election, which

I assume means that he has been given information that at least one of these vaccines that are in stage three trials will be mass -produced and available by early

November. Now, I'll be perfectly honest with you, the chances of that are very, very small, and we all know that people tend to massively underestimate all the necessary time elements in the production of such things.

But let's say it happens. The argument, as we all know, is going to be very, very, very, very obvious and very forward, and it will go along these lines.

If you have already been wearing a mask so as to love your neighbor, then the next thing that you must do is you must be vaccinated so as to love your neighbor.

And if it turns out that these are similar to flu vaccines in that they do not provide lifetime immunity, either requiring boosters or, like most flu vaccines, requiring seasonal insertion, vaccination, then that's something you just need to be doing regularly.

And I am not having to wear a tinfoil hat because this has been in numerous articles, published articles and various sources, that the documentation of your immunization is going to be extremely important in future access to travel, international travel, could be internal travel, all travel, in airplanes and things like that, who knows how far this will go.

There are certainly lots of people, especially people who are in charge in Victoria, Australia, who want to use these things to massively increase government monitoring of movement, control of individuals, expression, words, everything.

So if you've already bought the masks show your love for others argument, then vaccines will show your love for others even better than masks will.

And so that's why Biologos is already in the bus with their sleeves rolled up. And look,

I am not against all vaccines by any stretch of the imagination. I have been poked and prodded.

What? Oh, well, you got to understand if you're going to raise the microphone, you're saying you want to participate.

So don't raise the microphone if you're not going to be participating. I got to hit the right button here.

Okay, so you are further out from it than I was.

I was right on the border. You notice I don't have that mark. I do. You do?

Yeah. Wow. I do not have that mark. Somehow in my youth, I did not get the polio vaccine.

However, I was told to have been told by doctors for years that I need to watch out for hep

C. Gee, but they'd been doing it for years.

How did they not know that they were spreading hepatitis?

For almost a decade, they were giving out that vaccine. And I'm not sure what you're referring to.

So the polio vaccine? Yeah, the polio vaccine. They used a hypodermic needle that used air.

And the particles from the guy who got the shot just before you, okay, went blowing back into the device and then gets shot into you the next time around.

Next thing you know, they're spreading hep C all over the place, and it doesn't manifest until you're in your 50s.

Yay. Yay. Yeah, well. But then, you know, they're all smart. They know what they're doing.

I mean, we should trust them, right? Because they've never, ever, ever had problems before.

No, no, the 1976 flu thing didn't happen, and none of that happened. But look,

I'm not against all vaccines. I think Jonathan Edwards would have been against all vaccines for other reasons.

But I am not against hearing the argumentation.

My understanding is, for example, that the front runners in this vaccination program are genetically manipulated substances that imitate a certain element of the

COVID -19 virus that then causes your body to produce antibodies against it that are also effective against COVID -19.

It's obviously a very interesting area of science, so on and so forth.

Okay, I'm not saying that just simply on principle, I would never take a vaccine against COVID -19, even though, to be honest with you,

I don't take flu vaccines either. And the reason I don't is

I almost never get the flu. And the reason I almost never get the flu is that I work very hard at maintaining my immune system, and therefore,

I almost never get the flu. So why should I take a vaccine for something I almost never get?

And that would be the same thing with COVID -19. And you say, how can you turbocharge your immune system?

There are ways of doing so. The most effective way is taking care of your gut, because a lot of your immune system is found in your gut, and being in shape, just not being morbidly obese, being active.

And I am, I realize I am insanely active, a whole lot more than most people would be.

I was listening, Rich just went like this. Yeah, yeah,

I'm on track for 9 ,000 miles on bike this year, and that's a little bit much,

I realize that. But ran 15 kilometers this morning, this was fun, listening to the

Tour de France. Now that's interesting while you're running, it's one thing listening to Tour de France, like I did day before yesterday when

I'm riding, and they're riding. But this morning, I ran 15 kilometers in 90 minutes, and I was listening to the

Tour de France, so it's a little strange. But anyway, I don't need,

I don't see the need for it, but I'm not saying that, just on principle, that I would never do it.

But here's the thing, here's what I want, minimally, absolutely minimally,

I want five years of documented testing.

This is a genetically modified substance.

I think it's based on RNA, which can be taken into the genetic structures of living beings, and might have impacts years down the road that we can't tell or predict right now.

So minimally, I'd like to see five years of studies, and of course, we're not going to have five years of studies until five years from now.

10 would be nice. And of course, you know that part of the speed at which this has been done, involves indemnification of the drug companies.

They cannot be sued. You take this vaccine, and you end up bedridden for the rest of your life, or blind, or deaf, or something else.

You got nobody to sue. You can't sue the government, and you can't sue the vaccine company.

They have protection. They're not going to lose anything. So once you put it in that context, then

I'm going to go, I'd like five years worth of study, please. And they're going to say, you don't get five years worth of study.

And so I'm going to go, well, thank you very much, but no. And yet, we all know that in many countries, that's not going to be an option.

In many countries already, they have said, once it's available, everyone will be vaccinated.

And I think those same countries will then say, you cannot enter our country if you have not been vaccinated.

That's what we're going to be up against. That's the situation. And that's why we're exchanging all of our foreign currency, which we've had sitting in the office for all the traveling, because I don't see how

I'm going to be able to do it. You're looking at the computer like you just saw. No, I just did a quick search on it and realized what

I got. Apparently, I must have been right on that benchmark there, where they switched from the air jet gun to the sugar cube.

And I remember getting the sugar cube for polio. So the fact that you're—

You're talking ancient history here. What's that? You're talking ancient history. Yeah, but the fact that you have that scar puzzles me because I thought they had stopped doing that.

You know, we got the sugar cube thing. But my point here is that we don't think like you're talking about here down the road.

We knee -jerk reaction. Polio was a bad thing, but they did that method for eight years.

Eight years. And it's not until those children got into their 50s that they started realizing what had happened to them.

And by then, there's not much you can do about it. Not much you can do about it. By the way, just thought of this, and I'm switching subjects, but I just thought of this.

Yesterday, I had to drive out to the East Valley. And so what I listened to was

Thinking in Public, Dr. Al Mohler's program, Thinking in Public.

James Lindsay was on. Now, you're with me, right? See, you just pulled a

Clementine. You were with me at G3 when we had dinner with James.

I was with him. I just thought you all would want to know that. We had dinner with Dr.

Lindsay at the G3 conference. Yes, back in January, before all the world fell apart, when people could still have dinner together and stuff like that, it was nice.

But James Lindsay is an atheist who's written a number of books on atheism, actually.

He's sort of a polymath. His PhD is in a certain form of mathematics, but he has put out a book, which

I'm going to be reading on critical theories called

Cynical Theories. It's got critical and then it's crossed out, so Cynical Theories. So he was on with Dr.

Mohler discussing the history of these things. In the first third of the program or so,

I was wondering if he was going to get to say anything. Because I'd say in the first third of the program,

Dr. Mohler was talking a whole lot more than James Lindsay was. He eventually got rolling and it was really useful in understanding the history of critical theory.

All philosophers, though, love to throw around names with the assumption that all you have to do is say

Foucault, Derrida. Now everybody knows those.

They love to throw around the names of the tertiary folks that only the truly initiated would ever really know.

But anyway, I'd highly recommend it to you, especially in light of what happened to Southern Baptist Convention Resolution No.

9 and the utilization of critical theory as an investigative tool, research tool.

It's not a tool and critical theory is meant to destroy whatever you put between the

C and the T. So critical race theory, critical gender theory, critical justice theory, critical history theory.

Critical theory is meant to function as the universal solvent. That was one of the illustrations that was used,

I think, yesterday in what I was listening to, to break everything down. By its very nature, it cannot build anything up.

It tears everything down. And so I would highly recommend that you get a chance to listen to that and then make the decision as to whether you want to get the book from there.

I say that partly because it just floated through my mind and then partly because the last thing I want to look at here is the continuing saga of what happens when you have unrighteous judges in a land who get hold of this critical theory.

Critical gender theory has given to us the concept of transitioning and transsexuality and transgenderism.

And once you combine that in the mind of a progressive activist judge, you have gross injustice taking place.

Here in the United States, we know the story of the young boy whose father's being forced to pay absurd amounts of money to pay for the destruction of his son's body.

That's the only way to put it. The mother, the boy doesn't want to transition, but the mother insists that he does.

And my, I would not want to be her standing before God someday. But here you have a situation where you have just gross injustice on a level that's astonishing to believe could ever happen.

And that, again, reminds all of us that there is a day of judgment coming for every judge, every person in authority.

Because if otherwise, if there is no day of judgment, eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow, we die.

There's no reason to be doing any of this stuff. But anyway, we have that situation here in the

United States where this judge is pushing forward this transitioning, quote unquote, which means the mutilation of this boy's body.

Quite probably leading to his never being able to function as a man. Because all the secular studies show that if anyone even does have some type of gender dysphoria, they almost always outgrow it.

And this is before puberty, for crying out loud. This is not only stupid on the level of you have the

IQ of a wet shoelace stupid, but it's evil on the same level. And yet we have this happening in the state of Texas of all places.

Probably Austin, if I were to guess. Anyway, Canada is even worse. And we know of the situation in Canada where a

British Columbia father known only as C .D. in court documents has been trying to prevent court -ordered testosterone injections for his female to male transgendered child,

A .B., since A .B. was 14 years old. So this is the reverse. This is a female, and she actually wants to pretend to be a man.

And so once again, mutilate the body. He has been fighting this.

And so a court -ordered ban was placed upon this father where he is not only not allowed to talk about this, but it was also demanded of him that he use the appropriate pronouns in talking to his daughter as a boy.

Again, when I married my wife in 1982, if someone had told me that this was going to be something we were going to be facing in my lifetime, let alone less than 40 years down the road,

I really don't think I could have possibly believed them. It is the worst.

I would have considered the worst kind of immoral science fiction you could possibly come up with. It would have struck me as, you must be a

Christian who's just going overboard here in trying to make things look as bad as possible.

And yet here we are. And again, where does it come from?

Well, this critical gender theory. And ironically, when transgenderism first started hobby -horsing on the back of the arguments of homosexuality, basically, borrowing those arguments, even then it involved the gender binary.

At least then it was males and females. Then critical theory comes along and has to blow up even that.

You can't have males and females. You have to have, you know, 153, two spirit, three,

I don't know, it's just absurd. And so that's what critical theory is all about.

That's what it does. And we are, most of us sitting around each day, and I used to say you'd open the newspaper.

Who does that? You open your browser, you see what the headlines are, and you ask yourself the question, where did this incessant demand of constant change and overthrow of everything that defined us as a society, that allowed us to function as a people, that allowed us to fight wars against Nazi Germany.

There had to be something that held us together. There had to be commonly held beliefs that were worth fighting for.

What has destroyed all this? Well, that's what critical theory is all about. It is meant to destroy those things.

That's its purpose. That's its function. And we see what the results are in our own experience now.

We see it. And so we bring these things before the father and we say,

Lord, you taught us to pray. Jesus taught us to pray.

Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It is to be our desire for what happens on earth to be conformed to the perfection of the accomplishment of the will of the father in heaven.

Now, there are some that don't believe that. There are some that go, no, no, actually it's God's will that what happens down here, everything just goes the other direction,

I guess. But the desire of our heart is not for the destruction of this young woman.

Because you and I both know that if this young woman in Canada were to experience

God's grace in her life, she's going to want to marry and have kids and not have been neutered chemically before she could have that opportunity.

So we pray for the young boy in Texas. And of course, these are just the cases we know of.

There are probably a whole lot more out there that we do not know about. And we pray that God would deliver these people from evil because there is a tremendous amount of evil that is going around in our culture.

Okay, I've got to run because in a couple hours, sweater vest dialogue, and then tomorrow, hours worth of stuff to be doing.

Keep an eye on that. I'll try to post links when those things are made available. So we're not abandoning you.

We're actually going to be recording hours of more stuff, hopefully for your benefit and edification. Thank you for supporting us.

Thank you for keeping us here. And Lord willing, we will see you next week. And unfortunately, probably still slowly and in low resolution.

But the week after that, hopefully back to where we we've been in the past. So thank you for your patience.