Bob Morey's Debate Challenge, Frank Turek and Michael Brown on Reformed Issues

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is a beautiful day here in Phoenix, Arizona. It's supposed to start getting a little holiday-ish on Friday. It's supposed to rain all day. That'll be nice.

And then Saturday is supposed to be 58, and that's almost going to be how old I am. Not quite. It'd have to be a little bit colder to match things, but fairly close. And yes, Saturday is the big day. And my wife reminded me today while we were climbing a mountain that my tradition is to what?

No, I'm not plugged in yet. My tradition is to climb 100 feet for every year of my age on my bike. And so I'd have to do 5 ,400 feet of climbing on Saturday. And I said, why did you have to remind me that that was my tradition?

But it is, so maybe we will have to do that. I don't know. There's two ways I can do that. I can go down to South Mountain and do it that way. Or there's another way, but it's 95 miles of riding, so we'll see.

Anyways, lots to get to today. Got to start off... Yeah, I'm not wearing a kuji today because it's too warm. What is it going to be today? I don't think today is 76, but it's going to be 74 here today.

77 on Wednesday and Thursday. And then Friday 66, Saturday 59. So now I've got up to 59. But yeah, I wanted to wear this really nice kuji that I did get primarily because of all of the anti-kujiness that took place last week.

Beautiful, beautiful, but it's way too thick for almost anything inside actually. But it's way too thick for this. I'll wear it on my birthday on Saturday. And anyone who's mean to me then just is a meanie head.

And they should be arrested by the social justice warriors. Anyway, so much to get to today. But I have to start off with something fairly serious and fairly sad, really, in my opinion. I was getting a number of notes over the weekend concerning Dr. Robert Mori and some challenge to me to debate him.

Now, in March of 2015, I was just looking on the website. In March of 2015, some comments were made that I responded to at that time. But evidently, Dr. Mori is back in the saddle. I've seen some odd things about where he's back in the saddle at and a few things like that.

But anyway, I guess he's getting more active again after a fair amount of time not being really active at all. And from what I've heard, from what other people have told me, so I'm getting this secondhand, he wants to debate his Allah is the Moon God theory.

Given that all I've ever said about that is, you know, I wouldn't want to debate that position. I'm not going to take that position. It would require utilization of forms of argumentation that I have consistently rejected over the years.

I have often warned my fellow apologists that we always in our thinking have to be recognizing that when we utilize argumentation, are we being consistent? I realize that the other side is not going to be consistent.

No question about it. I realize that it will not, that's not even an issue. The reason Christians seek consistency is because we're followers of Christ. Whether we get it back from the other side is really irrelevant.

I do it as worship to my Lord and it's definitional of who I am and what I do. I don't understand how to do it any other way. So I've just simply said that, you know, I went to a seminary for part of my education where I was exposed regularly to the perspective that you can draw parallels between every religion because every religion borrows from every other religion.

And so every kind of parallel to El, Elohim, Yahweh, to every kind of Assyrian, Babylonian, Canaanite deity on the planet has been thrown out there. And I've argued against those things for a long time.

So why should I then turn around and argue in a situation where there's even less data? Especially in a debate situation where you're seeking to bring the gospel and gospel light to Muslim people, you have to look at it and go, what's my best way of doing that?

And I don't think that trying to make argumentation concerning the history of what might have been concerning Allah and if for certain people Allah was a lunar deity or something, I don't see that as a useful approach.

And that's what I've said. But he wants to now debate it. Why don't you debate the Muslims about that? Oh, I forgot, because you constantly misbehave in debates and so they won't debate you anymore. I forgot about that.

Let's be really, really straightforward here, okay? Since this is getting all over the place and other people, people I thought were friends are jumping on the bandwagon and things like that. Let's keep this really clear.

I have criticized Dr. Mori on three issues and only one of them would be worth discussing. Only one of them would even be debatable. And it's not even debatable, to be honest with you. But it's the only one that could be put into a propositional format.

First thing is I have criticized Dr. Mori for his behavior in his debates with Shabir Ali and Jamal Badawi. I stand by those criticisms. And part of that criticism came from the second thing that I've specifically criticized him about, and that is his unwillingness to accept basic simple correction on basic simple factual issues.

What do I mean? In his debate, and I played this, I played most of it years ago, probably 2005, 2006, probably been 10 years now. In his debate with Shabir Ali, Dr. Mori brought up a hadith where he alleged that what was said in the hadith is that one of the sahaba, one of the companions of Muhammad, while riding with him, his cloak moved and he saw the whiteness of his thing.

Now, I've never fully understood what Mori's point was by trying to say that one of the sahaba, okay, even leave that, just this man who's riding with him, companion, saw the whiteness of his thing. And he's talking about his sex organ.

I've never understood what that was about. But Shabir responded, it's not thing, it's thigh, the whiteness of his thigh, not thing. There's a perfectly fine Arabic word that would not be thing. And one of the first things I did when I had the opportunity starting in around 2006, 2007 to have an Arabic tutor was I tracked down that exact hadith in the Arabic.

And without telling my tutor what the issue was, I just gave it to him and said, could you read this for me? Sure. So he starts reading it and he saw the whiteness of his thigh. And I told him about what had happened in the debate.

He's like, really? It's not even an issue. Then after the debate with Shabir Ali, he then debated Jamal Badawi. At least I'm assuming that that was the order of the debates, didn't make much sense if it wasn't.

He brought up the same thing again. He just won't let it go. And it's not even a question. But he just kept... And in the debate with Shabir, he went so far as to make a comment. I'm not even going to repeat it.

But it was just so beneath what any Christian should do in a debate that it was just... So I've criticized Dr. Mowry for his behavior toward Muslims in debate. And I stand by what I said. I don't think there's any question about it.

And I think I have standing for making that kind of accusation. I've done more debates than Robert Mowry has. And I've been in just as many difficult, tough situations as he has. And I've never had to resort, I'm sorry, to that kind of behavior in responding to people.

And Lord willing, never will. But those are not debatable issues. The fact of the Arabic in that Hadith is not a debatable issue. It would take two minutes to debate that. Here's the fact. Here's the lexicon.

Okay, let's go home. The only thing that could be put into a proposition would be the claim that nuking the Kaaba would destroy Islam is the stupidest thing that anyone has ever said. Now that could be put into a debate proposition.

And I would defend that. And I don't think that anyone could possibly defeat that proposition. Because what had happened, and once again you can go back to what was the date on this, March 7th, 2015. Here's a quote from Robert Mowry.

And what had happened, for those of you who want the whole story, and I guess we do need the whole story here because people are contacting Rich and saying, Oh, this is exciting. Wow. Here's what happened.

I went to a church in Houston a number of years ago. And I gave a presentation on Islam. And afterwards a man asked me, he said, I was listening to a guy lecturing on, and he didn't tell me who it was.

He says, I was listening to a guy lecturing on Islam and he said that the best way to deal with Islam would be to nuke the Kaaba. What do you think about that? And I just stared at him. And I went, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

It's funny. My wife and I climbed one of the local mountains here this morning. And as we were driving, I was telling her about this situation. And I told her, this is what he said. And she said, well, that's silly.

I can't imagine anything that would unite the world's Muslims more than something like that. And I'm like, common sense coming from the wife. Yes, you're exactly right. And, you know, most people just recognize, I'm not even addressing the abjectly anti-Christian attitude of doing such a thing.

I mean, if you're a Christian and think you should nuke the religious sites of other people as a way of promoting the gospel, you are nuts. OK, you are crazy. OK, that is not Christian. You don't know what Christianity is.

You need to go back to 101 if you think that's Christianity. That's not how you promote the gospel. Not with weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass instruction. Hello. So when this guy asked me this question in the Sunday school class, I'm just I normally don't respond by saying that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

But that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. And so that's how I responded. Well, I went back to the same church a second time years later. And for some reason, the guy asked me the same question again.

And so when I came back, on the air, I pointed out while we were doing the dividing line live, I said, Does anybody know who this is? Who is saying this? And if I recall correctly, I could be wrong. But I thought it was Turretinfan and Channel that pulled up the URL to Bob Morey's website.

Where Bob Morey was the one saying, nuke the Kaaba. And I was like, because, look, I had interactions with Bob Morey long ago. That just made me stay at arm's length, stay at arm's length. And it's funny, before I debated Shabir Ali in 2006 at Biola, he said to some friends of mine, Oh, I'm not coming to debate because all James does is just repeat my arguments against Islam anyways.

I didn't know his arguments against Islam because I didn't consider him a worthwhile enough source to even look at him. I've not read his books on Islam. I just, I heard his moon god presentation. What year was that?

Oh, it was way, way back. Oh, what year was that? Was that 90? It was a long time ago. I remember it was in Philadelphia because I went from Philadelphia. I drove down, drove up to Harrisburg where I used to live and did some stuff there while I was going somewhere else.

Oh, I was going, either I was going from New England down to Philadelphia and stopped there or the other direction. I forget which one it was. But anyways, it was a long time ago. So I did hear his presentation, but it was long before I had any interest in Islam and doing anything along those lines.

But as far as, you know, just saying, oh, he just repeats my arguments. No, he's not been an influence upon me at all in my studies of Islam at all. Maybe that's why I didn't recognize the vitriol of the nuke, the Kaaba comment and make the connection.

I just didn't. So I said on the air once it was, once we brought it up and I'm sitting there looking at it, I said, yep, there it is. There's the quote. And I said, you know, Bob Mori has written some good stuff, but that is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

I mean, I'm just on a political basic level. It is so plainly obvious to anyone who has their eyes open that if you want to erase the distinctions between Sunni and Shia, between all the infighting and everything else amongst the Muslims and unite them into one huge angry army, then do that.

What's more is just simply on a real basic level. The fact of the matter is the fifth pillar can't be fulfilled any longer anyways. If you just run the numbers, there are too many Muslims in the world.

Given how many people are allowed in to do Hajj, you can't really fulfill the fifth pillar any longer anyways. And so it's just so obvious to anyone who's not rabidly lost it on this subject that the result is going to be the creation of a Hajj of desire type concept that you may not be able to do Hajj, but as long as you really want to desire to do Hajj and you would do it if you could, that's still fulfilling the fifth pillar.

I mean, that's already where they pretty much are. This idea of using weapons of mass destruction on other religious sites. Wow. And so, as I said, even once I discovered that, who was responsible for it, it didn't change the fact that I just never heard anything that completely erroneous, that completely unsupportive, something that every believing Christian should condemn as abject foolishness than what Maury had said.

So what's his response? His response is to say that I've said everything that he says about Islam is stupid. That's funny because he would know how many categories of logical errors he just created and just committed in such a statement.

But one of the things that I said, I think, in that very first program where we realized who it was that was saying this, was that what really concerns me here is that Robert Maury has said true things.

He has defended the deity of Christ. He has defended the New Testament, etc., etc. When you combine speaking the truth with speaking abject lunacy, you damage the truth. That's the problem here, is combining these things together actually damages the truth.

And so I have never said, I have never suggested that everything Bob Maury has ever said about Islam is untrue. Now, if I recall correctly, he did put out a series of comic books making fun of the Hadith and pulling things out of the Hadith.

And this is absurd and that's absurd. And look, I've read all of Bukhari and Muslim. There's some really strange stuff in there. But I've also seen atheists do the same thing in comic book form toward the Old Testament.

So once again, it's that consistency issue. It's that what will actually allow me to communicate in love to the other side issue. And that's where we obviously part ways, not only with he, but evidently his students as well.

Someone just texted me and I have no idea what they're talking about and it threw me off there. We differ completely in our motivations for why we do the things that we do. And so when Maury now comes out and saying, well, I challenge James White to debate me on.

Look, if you want to debate, the only thing to debate is, have you yet repented of your nuke the Kaaba position? That's all there is. In fact, as long as Bob Maury holds that position, no Muslims should ever debate him.

No Christians ever have anything to do with him. Because it's foolishness. It is reprehensible for any person who proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ to be suggesting to the rest of the world. That a political governmental entity should drop nuclear bombs on a civilian religious target.

That is not what Christians say you should do. There's no world war going on. There's no comparison here with what was going on in 1945. There were all sorts of differences there. This is saying, well, if we destroy this element of this religion, what person seriously thinks that a truly dedicated ISIS fighter is going to go, huh, the Kaaba is gone.

I guess I might as well just go get a good job now. It's just so dumb. I can't show respect for it. I cannot show respect for it. Okay, I just can't. I'm sorry. There's got to be a line. So the only thing to discuss, there is no reason to be talking about moon gods or anything else.

If Robert Moyle come out and say, what I have said and what I have suggested in regards to the utilization of nuclear weapons was unchristian, foolish, inane. I repent of it. Congratulations to you. At least that puts you back.

That would be the first necessary thing to do. Only then would anything else be relevant. And then all your theories about moon gods and stuff debate the Muslims about that. I just don't go that direction.

I don't use that kind of argumentation. There's a lot of argumentation that other people are quite comfortable in using. It's very popular for some people to go after the Quran right now based upon particular theories of its origination and its history.

Just as it's very popular to attack the New Testament based upon certain theories about its origination and history too. Yeah, I don't get to utilize a bunch of arguments because I seek to be consistent.

That's all there is to it. There you go. I haven't seen these challenges, but until someone provides to me a link to Robert Moyle saying, I have been wrong from the beginning in ever having suggested, and I ask forgiveness of the Christian people and the Muslim people for ever having suggested this.

There's nothing else to talk about. Nothing else to talk about. There really isn't. There you go. That is taken care of there. Which one are we going to do first here? You mean the video? Okay. That's what we'll do.

Move the taskbar over here. Got some reformed issues to deal with today. The second of which will be, I mentioned this on Twitter, Dr. Michael Brown had a call from a synergist who's arguing with his brother, who's a monergist, for some help with John chapter six.

Now, Michael and I did, we've done a number of debates now, and on the dividing line, we did. Book, can I do reformed issues? I need to get permission from Book and Channel because he's truly reformed and I'm really not because I'm just a reformed Baptist.

So, I have to get permission from my Presbyterian overlords before I talk about things like this. On the dividing line, was it three? I asked him, we did three texts that I wanted to exegete and discuss, and then we did three texts that he wanted to exegete and discuss.

I think that's how it worked out. We have discussed John six, and maybe we did some more even on line of fire at some point. But be it as it may, we have discussed it, but not as deeply as maybe it needs to be pursued.

And I did appreciate the fact that in his answer, Dr. Brown did make reference to what I at least have said about it. So, we do need to look at that, but I only have audio of that. But before we get to that, we will be looking at an answer to an audience question that Dr. Frank Turek offered.

And again, I really wonder, honestly, when synergists, especially synergistic apologists, answer questions about predestination by referring to Molinism, when they don't explain what Molinism is, how useful is that to the listening audience?

Because I know one of the few things I can do well is I can explain really complex things so that all sorts of people can understand those complex things. I can explain the Trinity, I can explain textual criticism, stuff like that, and people go, I've had people go to me after debates, man, I've heard so many people, I never understood it till now.

Okay, all right, one of the few things I can do. And I know that in trying to explain Molinism to people, that's still hard to do. It takes a long time. You cannot just simply assume Molinism in answering your question.

But that's what Dr. Turek does here in answer to this fellow's question. Well, I'll be interested to see if you see or hear, if you're just listening, where the Molinism comes in. Because it is there.

But let's take a listen to this question and then the answer that is offered. And I think I'm plugged in and full power on the audio. So here we go. There you go.

Thanks, we're ready to go. All right, Stephen, go ahead. So my question has to pertain more to the theological aspects of, I guess, the problem of evil that sometimes atheists will question Christians on.

And those who have prescribed a Calvinistic type of idea of how God preordains and predestines not only who we are, but also our will and our thoughts and everything. So I guess how, as Christians, do we answer that if they were to?

And I guess what's scriptural support and evidence to answer that as well?

OK, predestination, free will. That's a good question. Unfortunately, we're not predestined to talk about that here tonight. I've just been told that we can't talk about that tonight. I think wherever God says, believe or trust in me, that implies you can do it.

And of course, the scriptures say that God wants all to be saved. Well, if he wants all to be saved and God is completely in control in the sense that we don't have free will, he can zap all of us and just make us believe.

Then why isn't everybody saved? If he wants all to believe and all to be saved, but not all are saved, it must be that we have some say in the matter, too. And I think it's true that none of us would seek God unless he sought us first, right?

God's Holy Spirit goes to all people, but only some respond to it. Now you say, how can we be free and God-sovereign at the same time? Let me give you an illustration. Let's say you love football, which you do, and you love NFL football, so you have NFL Sunday ticket.

But you're away one Sunday, and you can't watch any of the games. And so you decide that you're going to record them all, and when you get home that night, you're going to watch your favorite team. But on your way home, your friend texts you the scores, and you go, Man, I do not want to know the scores.

But you go home, and you elect to watch the game anyway. Now, you already know what's going to happen, right? But does that mean that because you know what's going to happen, the players on the field don't have free will?

No, they still have free will, right? Even though you know what's going to happen. Well, the same is true with God. God's outside of time. He can see the end from the beginning. He knows what we're going to do before we do it, but that doesn't mean we don't have free will.

We're still freely doing what we're doing. And when God elected to create this universe as opposed to any other universe, He elected the outcome. He knew that you would believe, and maybe Richard Dawkins wouldn't.

But you're believing, and Richard Dawkins is not trusting in Christ based on your own free will. His Holy Spirit went to you and Richard Dawkins, and Richard Dawkins said no, and you said yes. So we're chosen, but we're also free.

In fact, my co-author Norman Geisler wrote a book called Chosen but Free, and if you really want to get into it, I recommend you get that book. Does that make sense? Yes, sir. All right, thanks so much.

Okay, so there you go. Hopefully you caught the possible worlds reference there, which requires all the Molinistic presuppositions that come with it and things like that. But that's a very common kind of answer.

You'll notice that the only biblical content was to say, well, we know the Bible says these things. And the problem is the very things that you said we know the Bible says, we don't know the Bible says.

We know God wants to save everyone. Well, where does it say that? Well, and then you start going into the big three, which we've covered so many times before. And you discover that there is clear exegetical foundation for rejecting a universalistic reading of 2 Peter 3 .9 or Math 23 .37 or 1 Timothy 2 .4.

And you ask, have you really thought through the idea of Jesus being the mediator, the intercessor for all people? Are you really being consistent? And look, how many times have we seen people utilizing these texts?

How many times have we seen? This is part and parcel of Roman Catholic argumentation as well. You got to understand that from a reformation perspective, that answer was just given is on the other side of the Tiber.

That's not Luther. Okay, that's Erasmus. Now, do you know what that means? It's important that people have some idea. You know, this is, we're coming up on 2017. And when we talk about the Reformation, we're not just talking about Reformed theology.

When we talk about the Reformation, the first written debate of the Reformation is between Luther and Erasmus on the issue of the will. And the Reformation's on one side and Rome's on the other side. That's no longer the case today.

The majority of people who, from an external perspective, you would go, these are the children of the Reformation, have gone away from the Reformation on this issue. They're on Rome's side. They are synergists.

They believe in the autonomous human will. And they believe in prevenient grace. You heard him saying, God's grace has come to Richard Dawkins and you, but you chose because of your free will and Richard Dawkins didn't.

So it's prevenient grace. So God tried to save Richard Dawkins just as strongly as he did anybody else. He just failed. You know, the Father tried, the Son tried, the Spirit tried, but it's all, Richard Dawkins is more powerful than the Father, Son, and Spirit.

And he tried just as hard to save Richard Dawkins as he did Peter or Paul or any other follower of Jesus Christ. Just as hard and failed just as badly in that intention. But that's what Jesus turned. And so this idea of synergism, of the autonomy of the human will, it goes back to the Reformation.

And as I've pointed out many times before, Luther said to Erasmus, you of all my opponents have placed your finger upon the heart of the issue, the hinge upon which it all turns. And what was that? Either the autonomy or the bondage of the human will.

And so this is the synergistic response. This is not the response that, to be honest with you, the people that answer like Dr. Turek just did should not be celebrating October 31st, 2017. Because on the most fundamental level, they reject what that Reformation actually taught.

They may appreciate that it gave them eventually religious freedoms and things like that. But the reality is the substance of what was being taught, no, no. And that also means that you need to think through the relationship between that subject and the subject of justification.

Because there are many who on the one side was, oh, justification by faith alone, you bet, you bet. But then they'll hold to a synergistic view of the will on the other side. And the vitally important cement that biblically holds together the doctrine of justification and the rest of biblical revelation is the grace of God.

And in a synergistic system, you always end up having to introduce this fake grace called prevenient grace. There's no such thing as prevenient grace in scripture. It's just a myth. I picked up a book a couple years ago, a guy defending prevenient grace.

And I listened to the first few chapters and that's where he tried to make his biblical defense. And then after that, it wandered off into all sorts of irrelevant things. And I was just stunned. There was nothing there.

It was just so shallow and so non-existent. There's no such thing as prevenient grace, as grace that tries and fails. Oh, but it says in Acts chapter 7 there that you hardened your hearts. Harden your hearts against what?

Well, God was trying, is that what it says? No, it's not what it says. You're reading into it. So that's what's being presented. And then you throw in a little bit of Molinism. And you throw in a little bit of, well, let me give you an illustration.

One of the reasons that Reformed theology speaks to the real heart desire of so many young people today is that if someone asks me a question on a subject like that, you know that I'm going to respond with biblical answers.

Not just answers that are consistent with an overarching concept of the Bible. I'm going to respond with answers that come straight from Scripture itself. And we're going to look at what Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan king, properly said about the relationship of human beings to God.

We're going to look at what the psalmist said in Psalm 33. And we're going to see that the Bible plainly teaches man has his plans, man has his purposes. God has his plans and God has his purposes. And it's God's that win.

It's not the other way around. It's not this, oh, God wants to do all these things, but he's just disappointed right, left, and center because we just won't allow him to do things. I heard somebody, I forget.

I think it was a conversation in Channel or somewhere about somebody abusing, what is that text in Psalm 78 in the King James, they limited God. Yeah, remember that? Someone was misusing the King James at that point.

They limited God. Somehow we have the ability to limit God. And I point out that years and years and years ago, a Southern Baptist pastor who was attempting to preach a sermon during tithing week or month, whatever it was, yeah, quarter, yeah.

Even though this pastor always preached the New American Standard, always preached the New American Standard, for that one Sunday night, he preached from the King James. Why? So he could preach that text.

They limited the God of Israel. And he made the connection that by our not cooperating with God, we limit what God can do. And it was all in reference to giving. And I remember I had gone home that night and I looked at the New American Standard.

I was tempted. And I looked it up in Kohler Baumgartner and the King James translators had missed, it was a real easy error in root and probably wasn't really even that they had missed anything. It's just that we've learned a lot about cognate languages and roots and things like that since of 1604 and 1611.

And that's why all the modern translations had proper translation. The point being, there's always this desire on man's part to find a way of limiting God. If someone's going to ask me, I'm going to go into the scriptures and I'm going to give the positive testimony that God works all things after the counsel of his will.

That God causes all things to work together for good. Then to love God, then they're called according to those who are the called. The called according to his purpose. There is no the called according to his purpose in a synergistic system.

You can try to find a way to rescue it. It's just not going to happen. You can't do it. And so I think the synergists need to understand that that kind of an answer to that question, because it was not rooted in the word, is only going to suffice for a brief period of time.

It's not going to have long-term effect. One of the things that is so exciting to me is I will meet people and they read a book. They heard a debate 20 years ago. And it was the presentation of the scriptures, the exegesis of the scriptures, that changed their life, changed the course of their life.

They're in ministry now or churches have been found or whatever. Was it me? No. It was the unleashing of the power of the word of God. An answer that is not derived from exegesis may suffice for a moment, but it will not suffice for the redeemed of God in the long run.

They need to hear the voice of the shepherd on those matters and on these issues. And when you actually go to the scriptures, the scriptures teaching on the subject is overwhelming. The scriptures teaching is clear.

And that's what I think people need to understand. You'll also need to notice that the answer that was given about the NFL ticket and scores and stuff, once again, the only way to make that work is to have a view of God who learns things.

Now, that's not even Mullinism. Well, in a sense, it's Mullinism in the sense that it goes back to the car dealer, but that's not even a really consistent perspective from that viewpoint either. But that's not how God's knowledge works.

That's not the God of the Bible. So why go that direction? Why give an answer like that? Well, because if you are an apologist and your apologetics are the primary focus and the theology isn't really there to substantiate it, well, those inconsistencies will be demonstrated over time.

They will be demonstrated over time. And I think that's what you have in a situation like that. So I could hope that the young man asking the question maybe will be at Ohio State University, in fact, will be directed to a fuller response to his question as we just provided to him there.

All right. Now, let's go to audio only now. And as I said, Dr. Brown, I don't know when this was, 12, 10, so just last week. Well, that's when I created this. That doesn't mean that's when it was. So sometime last week, I think, this call came into the line of fire.

And I'm not sure I'm going to play all of it because it's eight minutes and 44 seconds long. But what we will see, if I played all of it, is the same thing that we saw in our discussion on the dividing line, and that is Dr. Brown will not spend a lot of time in John 6.

He'll mention it, and then he'll go to John 1, and he'll try to sort of create a narrative there, and John 17, and doesn't spend as much time in the text itself, which we will try to do, which we've done, of course, obviously, many, many times before.

But let's point something out here. Let me do point something out. For all of my Michael Brown haters, and there are a lot of you, there are a lot of you. It is good that my security and my foundation is found in a true faith, in the truthfulness of the gospel and the fact that it transcends all of us.

If any one of us or all of us together were wiped off the face of the earth right now, the kingdom of God, God's going to accomplish His purposes. It's going to go on. I just can't get into the, you know, there's so many people just are so obsessed with their own little kingdom and stuff, and I don't want kingdoms.

I don't want followers. And when I see how many people are just sitting around, just waiting to find some reason, because by the way, did y 'all notice something in my response? Did I attack Frank Turek?

Did I say, no one should ever have that man come speak? Did I ever say anything like that at all? No. All I said about Dr. Turek in that response was, he's a synergist. He made that very clear. And I addressed the substance of what he said.

The man's a very nice man. He's a brother in Christ. I didn't have to attack him. I didn't have to do the fundamentalist separation thing. And the sad thing is there are Calvinists that do the fundamentalist separation thing too.

And they'll do it to me. Oh, I heard you spoke at an Acts 29 church down in New Zealand. Yeah, I did. Folks were great. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Oh, so much for your bona fides. I don't want your bona fides.