Future Predictions, Social Issues, Refuting Bradly Mason, Erasmus, and Steven Anderson Chapter 3

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is going to be a packed program. We've got a lot to get to and it's going to be exciting, at least exciting for me, I suppose. Maybe not for you, I don't know.

But we try. I suppose in passing I should mention I said something on Facebook this morning about 2025 and what I see coming in our society. And one of the things I mentioned was the drawing of the target right on the forehead of all homeschooling in the United States.

And I made the assertion that fundamentally by that time period you will have people, you already have people doing this, but you will then have the foundation for people calling for universal educational standards like they have in Europe and getting rid of homeschooling.

Because they have to have your children, they have to have your children from the smallest age to inculcate them properly in secularism, to get rid of the negative religiosity that is passed down from parents to children and grandparents to grandchildren and so on and so forth.

They've got to have that time to cram all the insanity of transgenderism, homosexuality, everything else in their minds. And so some people had commented on that and had mentioned how often there are homeschoolers that watch The Dividing Line as part of, almost part of their curriculum.

And maybe that's why we cover some of the stuff that we do and some of the topics that we do. Again, we don't sit down and go, okay, here's our audience and our audience is made up of this percentage of this and this percentage of that.

And I would stop doing this if we did sit down and start doing that anyways. But because we don't do that stuff and do what I find to be, you know, that's sort of like Rush. We talk about what's interesting to me.

Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you don't like that, start your own program. If you can do a couple hours worth of talking by yourself or taking phone calls or switch from textual criticism to church history to Trinitarian theology or Islam or whatever, hey, go for it.

No one's stopping you. Do your thing. No skin off my nose. But the point being, I'm glad we've had opportunity. But as I mentioned in that Facebook article, I was thinking very, very, very seriously this morning.

When is the last time we're going to get to do this? Because we see, yeah, okay, once in a while we'll see a little step forward and then it's 50 yards back and then a little step forward and then 50 yards back again.

Yeah, I don't just spend all my time thinking about how bad things are, but I have to be a realist. I have to recognize what's going on around us. And I know that there are, you know, we're seeing people just banned from Facebook, groups closed down.

You see it happening and I don't see any evidence it's going to get any better. And in fact, I would think once the attention of the leftists is no longer on a man by the name of Donald Trump, which who right now seems to be the focus of the vast majority of their hate, once there is a leftist socialist in the White House, whether that's 2020 or 2024, I can't see it being held off any longer than that, to be honest with you.

Then they will be emboldened and the tech companies will be emboldened, the Googles and the Facebooks, to just get rid of any dissenting opinion. They don't want it. It's not inclusive. It's hateful. And all these hate crimes laws.

I remember, I'm old enough to remember when those things started and I'm old enough to remember that there were a number of us going, I'm really uncomfortable with people trying to read hearts. I mean, the law says X, Y, Z, and you can't see inside someone's heart.

So I can see this being abused and everybody's all, no, I think it's a great idea. It's wonderful. You know, it's just great to add a little punishment in there. And now it is the the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

Because once you establish in law that you can't misgender somebody and there's already places that are putting that in law. First it's in the civil, then it becomes criminal. Then you can use that as a basis of hate speech and you can shut down that speech.

And that's what's coming 2020, 2024, whatever it might be. I put 2025. So it would be the year after the regime change. And that's exactly what it would be. I don't think we should, I don't even know if we should talk about administrations anymore.

Administration was back in a different day. That was back in a constitutional day. I think we're in a post-constitutional America. And you might say, well, no, no, but we got two good supreme court judges.

Well, I don't know how good they're going to be. I don't know that yet. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to die in office. It is going to be her final act of leftism. You know, she just, I have taken my stand in trying to change the United States into a leftist stronghold.

And her final act is going to be to whether she's functional or not, she's going to keel over on the court. And that's, you can just tell that's what she has. This, that's going to be her final legacy is what she's going to do.

And so I don't know, there'll be a third. And even if there was, I'm sorry, but I'm, it's scary to see people thinking that supreme court justices are our salvation. They're not. If the constitution is that malleable and that liable to, to gross misinterpretation, so much for recognizing that our rights actually originate in God, in our creator.

Hey, once the society stops thinking there is a creator, there, there, there aren't any stopping places. I haven't watched it yet, but I'm going to try to at some point. But what is, what is the, is it Thin Air?

What's the, what's the name of that documentary they did, the guy who climbed the free climbed the, oh, I've forgotten the name of the thing. Somebody I'll mention in channel here a second. But there was a, there was a bunch of discussion about the morality of their recording this because he's climbing.

It's not the Matterhorn. It's that thing up in, you're not helping at all here. You're staying there staring at me with my, with your, with your mouth hanging open. It's, it's one of the most famous climbs up.

What? No, it's not an Everest. It's the United States. Obviously you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Anyways, I've just completely lost the name of the, both the movie and the, the vertical wall that that they, that they climb anyways.

They, they had a, yeah, obviously you ain't helping me at all. They had all sorts of moral problems, you know, quandaries and stuff like that about where they should document this. Cause the guy climbed without a rope.

So it's a 3000, yeah, El Capitan. El Capitan in up there and the guy climbed it. And I, I have a hard time watching those things. I'm afraid of heights and it's called Free Solo. Thank you. Who was that?

Oh, Ken Gontaros. Thank you. Kenny G is out there. Free Solo. I, I don't know if I can watch it. I mean, some of those things they show on, you know, on Facebook and stuff where the people are riding bikes on these teeny tiny little, my legs just start getting wobbly and I'm like, Oh no, I can't do that.

So anyway, that, that movie, I was getting connected to something. See, I know you don't know nothing. You didn't do nothing. That's the point. Where were your Google skills? Anyways, I was going to make a thing about that.

And then somebody posted a picture of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a, as, as a robot. And I, that, that was it. It just, it just, it just lost me. What was I going to say about that? Cause I was just gonna say, I can't, I can't watch that type of thing, but what was I going to make the Anyways, nevermind.

Let's just start this thing all over again. Uh, yeah, we, I can't say that. That would get me in too much trouble. I'm not going to say that. Uh, I was going to connect it in here somewhere, but I'll, I'll figure out after, after the program's over and go, Oh, missed that opportunity.

Anyways, let's go back to this here. Um, it sort of connects in. Yeah. Free Solo. Yes. I, I, I realized that 2018 documentary. I can't, I can't watch it. Uh, I want to, I want to try it, but, um, there was, uh, there was some connection.

I'm just going to, I have no idea. I have no idea. Just going to move on. I got too much, too much to go to, um, had nothing to do with Colorado cause it's not in Colorado, but I do have two Colorado stories.

One of which is, I guess in a sense, both of these are sort of counterbalances to the overly negative, um, uh, stuff that I've had. Yeah. A guy named Alex Honnold, he, he made it. And, uh, I suppose that should help me to watch cause they know he's not going to fall, but it's just, it's just astonishing to me that anyone would climb that thing with ropes or anything else, let alone, I mean, it's just, uh, it's just stunning, uh, that, that anybody could do that.

So it's great. Um, uh, sorry, Matthew, we don't have interaction. That's why we don't have comments on the YouTube stuff either. Um, oh, sometimes we do, but anyways, uh, there are two stories that have come out just recently that at least are somewhat positive.

So I thought it'd be a little bit of a counterbalance to all the negativity. And it's also the illustration of what I was saying. Sure. There are, you know, sometimes there's one step forward. There's a, there's a little bit of a pushback, but when I look at the millennials and the iGens or Z-gens, whatever they're being called these days, I don't know.

Um, there are a whole lot more Ocasio-Cortez's than there are the good guys. And so they will eventually outnumber the people who have any idea what this nation was supposed to be about. So there you go.

One of which, uh, both have to do with Colorado, which is interesting. I love Colorado, but, and I love certain people in Colorado, but I do not love the state government of Colorado, uh, which is thanks to places like Boulder, just ultra leftist and the, the, the state's beautiful.

Uh, the government's nuts and bolts. Um, the, uh, Colorado civil rights commission. Now remember it's just, it's the exact same type of group that you have up in Canada that has been persecuting Christians for decades now.

Now we've got our own in certain States and Colorado being one of them. Uh, Tuesday announced Tuesday, it will dismiss its most recent charges against cake artist, Jack Phillips in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state's ongoing hostility toward religious freedom.

Um, the state of Colorado is dismissing its case against Jack stopping it's six and a half years of hostility toward him. And his beliefs said ADF senior vice president of us legal division, Kristen Wagoner, who argued on behalf of Phillips at the U S Supreme court, Jack's victory is great news for everyone.

Um, the fact that one commissioner called Phillips a hater on Twitter was already publicly known, but a Colorado state legislature, legislator recently disclosed that he spoke in November, 2018 to a current commissioner who expressed a belief that there is an anti-religious bias on the commission.

Shocking really. Um, and just last week, ADF attorneys uncovered statements from a 2018 public meeting in which two commissioners voice their support for comments that a previous commissioner, Diane Rice made in 2015, those comments, which the U S Supreme court sternly condemned and it's ruling in favor of last year called religious freedom, a despicable piece of rhetoric.

And so, okay, the Supreme court ruled and pretty much the same day they, they went right back at it from a different perspective, totally set up call. Nobody's rights had been violated. It was complete garbage, but that's, this is what happens.

This is why the founders were wise. They could not see the level of, um, corruption that would come with secularism. The founders were writing from a Christian worldview. And so they couldn't see, they, they would have made the system even weaker, I think, with more controls in it, keeping, controlling the power of government and the size of government, if they had had any idea of what was going to be coming.

But when you put secular people who do not believe that they are under the judgment, they will ever stand before the judgment of God in positions of power, and then multiply that power, this is what's going to happen from a Christian worldview.

I do not understand any Christian who says, I'm, I'm, I'm reformed. I believe, and then you're going to support this kind of stuff. I guess you haven't read Romans one recently. Um, you don't have a biblical anthropology.

That's for sure. Um, so it's, they got caught. Do I think this is going to the end of it in Colorado? No, they're just looking for another way to go because, oh man, all right, let's let this blow over for a year or so.

And then we'll, we'll go this direction. The goal will always be to limit or destroy, um, the rights of religious people, uh, because there can only be one religion, the religion of the state. You must bow down to us.

You must kiss the ring of Caesar. But it's also interesting that it's in Colorado. You heard the story. A Colorado Springs wrestler made history when he knocked himself out of the state tournament rather than wrestle a girl.

And so once again, you have a young man by the name of Brendan Johnston, a Christian who basically says, I do not believe it would be appropriate to do to a girl on a wrestling tournament. I would not allow me to be arrested out anyplace else.

18 year olds with significantly more common sense and significantly deeper morals than the vast majority of the progressive elites in the United States today that are forcing this insanity upon all of us.

Um, he's exactly right. He would have to touch her and grab her. Look in wrestling, everything's fair game. You've got to be able to, there's, there's no place you can't grab in wrestling. And so the whole idea of males and females wrestling against it is absolute insanity.

It's just as insane as transgenderism. It's just as insane as profaning marriage. It's just, it's moral and ethical insanity. And this young man is not the first young man to have done this. There are others who have done it.

My hats off to all of you. You are the true champions. You need to know before God, you're the true champions. But the whole point is why should, why should young Christian women train hard for track and field when the reality is that you are probably anymore going to come up against a male pretending to be a female, um, who is going to leave you five seconds behind.

Women cannot compete with men in track and field. That's a fact. There is not a female body on the planet that can outrun Hussein Bolt. It's not possible. It's called physics. It's called, it's called testosterone, muscles, bones, connective tissues can't happen.

This is the stuff we talked about with Martina Navratilova. She knows that Pete Sampras would blow the serve past her. Roger Federer, I know Sampras is older, but she knows it. It's a fact based upon gender.

And she may be confused because she's a lesbian, but she still knows what a woman is and knows what a man is and knows she likes one more than the other. It's a confusion, but at least she knows what they are.

So all of this stuff, um, our young, our young women, why bother? Why bother training for track? And parents, oh my goodness. What? Moller talked about this on the briefing and he said back years ago, he did a commentary on the briefing about girls wrestling against boys.

And the parents of girls that went after him, he said was incredible. I don't care. Well, first of all, I don't care because Rachel answers the phone. But secondly, and I don't think rich cares either.

Um, but secondly, I don't care because I think you're nuts. If you, okay. Rich says he does too. So if you're so nuts that you would degrade your daughter in that way that you would put her in a situation where she is going to be handled by a sweaty young man in that fashion, you're nuts.

Okay. I don't respect you as a parent to begin with. So to that, I don't care. It's just like, where did common sense go? It has been banished. It's gone. There needs to be a male wrestling championship and look at the genetics and a female wrestling championship.

Look at the genetics and that's it. None of this transgenderism, none of this crossing over. Make it fair. That's the only way to do it. Only way to do it. Period. End of discussion for that. So two things out of Colorado.

Once again, my hat's off to Brendan Johnston. You are a champion in the eyes of anyone who understands morality or ethics. And I think you will have a wonderful life ahead of you, except that you're in the United States that because of its cultural degradation isn't going to reward your kind of moral and ethical stand.

But eternity is a long time, Brendan. And so hats off to you and to the others whose names I don't have, who have likewise done the right thing in that situation. Very, very, very, very good to all of you.

Women, Scripture, and the Unity of the Apostolic Teaching

Okay. Saw a tweet this morning from Beth Moore. And there are a lot of people who see the handwriting on the wall and are predicting that in the very near future, Beth Moore will be president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

A lot of people saying it. A lot of people saying it. And she wrote to Denny Burke, who evidently agreed with this tweet. This is great. Somewhere along the way, Denny, we have to reckon with the fact that we, myself included, went too far.

We put limitations on women that exceeded what Christ demonstrated. We did it instead of wrestling. No connection there. We did it instead of wrestling with the tension between the gospels and epistles.

We're watching a backlash. Now, I commented on this tweet because I have seen this language for a long, long time. I first began to get accustomed to the language of tension while a student at Fuller Theological Seminary in the 1980s.

Late 1980s. Graduated in 89. And so, you know, part of the conversation there was it hadn't been all that long since Fuller had abandoned A View of Inerrancy and they were moving left quicker and quicker.

And so, when you would encounter a situation where non-Christians would say there's a contradiction in the Bible, the language they would use is, will we sense a tension in the text? Now, we have to recognize there are people who propose straight-up contradiction between Paul and James based on Romans 3 -4 versus James 2.

And they make the accusation that James is arguing against Paul's position. Even though there might be a chronological issue there, that's the accusation that's made. And people make that, you know, Muslim apologists make that argument.

Lots of people do. I address that rather fully in The God Who Justifies, if you have that book, and went through rather painstakingly the passages in James and Paul and demonstrated that that is a shallow and errant reading, generally based upon not actually having exegeted the relevant text.

Anyway, so we recognize there is a proper use of the term tension because different writers have different things they're attempting to address. And so, you can have a focus of one writer in one context, say 1 John dealing with a form of proto-Gnosticism, Colossians doing the same thing in the form of proto-Gnosticism, and that might create tension with other texts that are not addressing that particular issue.

That tension is not a contradiction. It is due to the fact that the New Testament writers addressed different issues at different times and different contexts, and proper categorization, proper exegesis will relieve those tensions as long as you believe that all Scripture is theanustos, and not that there's one human author of Scripture, because there isn't.

There are different styles, different times, writing to different audiences, but that there is one supernatural author of Scripture, and hence that there is an underlying unity and harmony that is to be found in Scriptures.

If you believe that, you are in a minority. I hate to have to mention this to you, but if you really do believe that Scripture is itself supernatural, and that there is a harmony and a consistency to it, and that therefore exegesis should take that in consideration, you're in a minority.

You're in a minority in the Western world. You're not so much, well, sort of depends on where you are, I suppose, but here in the United States. Amongst those who call themselves Christians, you are definitely in a minority.

But that's not what we have here. That's not what we have in the Beth Moore tweet. Instead, we have a tension between the Gospels and epistles in reference to women. Now, in a matter of just a few words, a whole theology has been smuggled in there.

A, first of all, a theology that posits that Paul's restrictive ecclesiastical statements in regards to the Church. And Jesus said very little about the form, function, and proper ordering of the Church.

He left that to his apostles. And in the work of the Holy Spirit, one primary apostle, though there are others who wrote, who wrote the most on that subject? That would be Paul. And so, the idea is that you can look at Jesus's interaction with women and the fact that he broke social norms and that he, his talking with the woman at the well in Samaria and his appearing to the women after resurrection, all of these things certainly go against cultural norms.

But what people want to do is they want to then exaggerate that and create a tension and say, well, the trajectory of Jesus's actions is this way, but the trajectory of Paul's is this way, see? And they go different directions.

There is a fundamentally flawed view of the unity and harmony of Scripture in those words, and hence in Beth Moore's perspective. This is the line, what I said on Twitter this morning, is this is the language that is used by people who are just about to throw out biblical standards, and that's how they cover it.

Well, we're just, we're wrestling with the tension. Yeah, I've been hearing that for a long time. How about wrestling with the unity of the text, wrestling with the divine calling of the apostle Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ?

And how about realizing if you think Paul's trajectory can be ignored on that subject, why not ignoring his trajectory on justification or sanctification or adoption or the atonement or any number of other issues?

Yeah, well, because he was pretty clear on these issues, really was. Now, how do people get around that? Oh, it's simple. It's easy. There's an easy way around this. All you got to do is come up with a minimized Pauline canon.

Remember, we've talked about that before when we were reviewing, and I haven't heard a lot of, about a lot of debates with Bart Ehrman recently. He was doing a lot of them for a while, and I haven't heard of one for a long time.

It's very expensive, that we know. Yeah, no kidding. Maybe that's how he's dealt with it. Anyway, but we point out that Ehrman has a minimalized seven-book Pauline corpus, six or seven are all he accepts.

And so, that way you can get rid of the pastoral epistles. They're not Pauline. And so, once they're pseudepigraphal or pseudonymous, least pseudonymous, obviously their authority is diminished thereby.

And that way you can start prioritizing your texts and coming up with just a way to pretend that you're still believing the Bible when you really don't. That's how you do it. Am I saying Beth Moore is going to do that?

Well, I don't know. It's possible. There's certainly a trajectory on her part, that direction. And of course, all the others that are a part of promoting her stuff. And so, yeah, there you go. Okay. I've been looking forward to this.

It was posted and doesn't seem to show this here, unfortunately. At least it's not showing it in my... Oh, it says, okay, created February 27th. So, I think I said I was going to deal with it when I got back from Virginia.

Had a great time there in Virginia with Jeff Downs, who's a longtime figure in the apologetic community in the United States. He's really good at collating information and gathering information. He used to publish an index of relevant apologetics articles in scholarly journals and stuff like that.

And he's pastoring now at a PCA church there in Mechanicsville, Virginia. We had a conference on the Trinity and got to meet a number of you folks there. Again, can't tell you how many former King James only independent fundamentalist Baptists came up to me, even at a conference, which is a whole lot smaller than G3.

But still, there were a number of people that came up to me during the breaks and after I spoke and stuff like that and said, you know, I was in the King James only movement and I was an independent fundamentalist Baptist and, you know, ran across your stuff and, wow, changed everything and now I'm in trouble because I'm a Calvinist.

So, and almost always there's somebody who will say, you know, now my whole family just won't have anything to do with me. We've been shunned, which unfortunately often happens. But anyway, so we had a good time there.

I thought I'd mentioned that because I had said this came out beforehand and I said, we'll get to it when we get back. Because of the fact I didn't have time to because we had the Michael Brown program, which got a lot of nice reviews.

I didn't see a whole lot of uber negative stuff. I saw a lot of, you know, positive, wish all the conversations were like that, type stuff. Didn't see a whole lot of uber nastiness in response to it. Well, yeah, there's some hotheads out there, but that's what you get.

Somebody told me that service Christie guy put up that nasty video a couple of days ago. What was it? Calvinist hucksters or scammers, or I don't know what it was that he had talked about, but I didn't even bother taking the time.

I don't think he's done enough to be worthy of my investing time. So Bradley Mason is a social justice warrior who's been, we've talked about before on the program and he decided to try to take a shot at Colossians three.

And one thing I can at least be thankful for is he did quote from my response to the BDN of wheelie. So at least there's some truth in it. And maybe somebody will pick that up. And of course I'm looking over the other direction now.

Of course, thank you. The points that I made in what was quoted, he doesn't refute. A lot of the guys in the social justice stuff, they're so dedicated and they are so biased and they are so sold out that they just don't even hear the other side.

So they don't even realize when they're not actually refuting what you said. The nice thing is there are still people who are listening to both sides and they see that and they go, well, wait a minute, but he said this, and you're talking about this guy over here and stuff that happened back then.

And you're not even getting to his point. And it's like, yeah, well, don't know why he can't see it, but there you go. So he starts off by saying, I've become more and more baffled how passages like Galatians 328 and Colossians 311 have been used to oppose advocates of racial justice and reconciliation in the church.

Well, the quotation he then gives is from me, so let's read it and see if that doesn't explain it in a way that Bradley Mason doesn't seem to understand. Quote, I've walked through Colossians 3 and argued that within the fellowship of faith, the singular lens by which we are to view each other is found in our common redemption, our common faith, our common indwelling spirit, and the common renewal that is being worked out in us, whereby we are being conformed to the image of Christ.

I argue that the apostle specifically and clearly denies that there are any distinctions in this renewal based upon one's history, one's ethnicity, or social standing. The unity of the body is found not in the noting and prioritizing of such things, but in recognizing that in light of the redemptive work of Christ, those distinctions are no more.

In this renewing work, there is no Greek and no Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. The phrase, but Christ is all, should not be overlooked.

There is something utterly unique in the Christian faith found in the uniqueness of the God-man in the Incarnate One, Jesus. The reason every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, that's Revelation 5, can be one is that they are focused not upon themselves, but upon another, Jesus.

I assert this means that my relationship with each and every true believer in Jesus must, by nature of who Jesus is and what he did, transcend and eclipse any other human relationship, and that includes ethnicity, history, or skin color.

That new man looks forward to the consummation of all things, not backwards to sources of hurt and animus between ethnic groups. This is why, again, the Christian church can bring peace in the most horrific of human conflicts, but that all ends when we import the lens of race into the body.

This is why I've stood against this woke movement and its unbiblical attempt to insert a lens the Apostles Nowhere demanded, direct quotation, from my response to Thabiti Anubili, the racialist lens disrupts true Christian unity.

Now, once again, they can't hear this, they won't hear this, they refuse to hear this, or they lack the ability to hear this, they're plugging their ears and going, la la la la la, I don't know. But for those who aren't doing that, what I'm saying is that the reason that the Christian community could exist as the Christian community did in the apostolic period was because the relationship that is formed by the common faith, the common confession of one Savior, the common forgiveness of sin, the common imputation of one righteousness.

So, there is a renewal in which there is no, and in Colossians 3, political, sociological, or religious distinctions in this renewal. The reason that you could have unity in that church, the reason they could all gather around one table, including slave owners and slaves themselves, was because of the reality of that truth, that divine truth that gave rise to the body in the first place.

And so, to drag into the body, and hence to begin segregating the body, having black church, white church, demanding that one group be held accountable for what their forefathers did over against another group, about their forefathers, even if you can't actually trace the forefathers, either one back there, but, hey, they look like it and they look like that.

Therefore, there needs to be this constant penance. There needs to be constant, you know, talk about reparations and all sorts of leftist political ideology, which is what's being snuck in the back door using terms like racial reconciliation.

When races aren't reconciled, people are reconciled. Tribes, tongues, people, and nation have already been reconciled. That's what makes the body the body. To say there's something that still needs to be reconciled is to ignore the reality that already exists.

What you're really saying is, we want to keep looking backwards, keep digging up the things of the past, and saying, everybody, this group has to be in constant penance toward that group. And the whole reason for it is to divide.

That's the only reason for it. People have said, I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, a thousand times, and it doesn't make any difference. There is, therefore, now much condemnation in the woke church, because the woke church doesn't have a finished work.

So, there will be constant recrimination, because the whole point of it is to divide. That's why it exists. That's the whole purpose behind all of it. And so, you've got to keep looking back, looking back, looking back.

Yeah, but this was terrible back then. We can all agree it was terrible back then, but it's not terrible now. Oh, there it is, there it is. Yes, it is. Just as bad now. That's why we talked about Jim Martisby's book.

That's why we quoted the section from it just a couple weeks ago and said, don't you realize what this book is doing? It left being a work of history and went straight into leftist socialism toward the end, well, really halfway through, because of its definition of racism now.

And now, the new definition has nothing to do with your personal attitudes. It can't be defined as sin because of that. But now, if you support the current president of the United States, you're complicit with racism.

If you don't want reparations, you're complicit with racism. It's a whole new definition that is absolutely designed to make sure that the divide continues to get wider and wider and wider. That's wider, not whiter.

So, this is what we've got in the woke church. This is what we've got going on all around us. And so, what is the answer to that? The answer is a theological answer, and the answer is to say that there can be no white spaces, black spaces, Asian spaces, Hispanic spaces in the body of Christ.

That that's wrong, it's sinful, and it's a direct violation of what the these texts state as they have been exegeted clearly and fully. I do notice that in the articles that Bradley Mason has attempted to, has put up so far, exegesis is not the central aspect at all, because what these texts actually mean is pretty straightforward.

Instead, this one is specifically and clearly filled with the poisoning of the well fallacy, which works for a lot of folks today, unless you've studied logic and things like that, then it doesn't work for you, but you're in the minority these days.

So, after quoting that, the very first sentence after the quotation, the first thing that comes to mind upon reading such claims is that these very same passages were used to defend, quote, Christian, end quote, slavery and segregation in America.

On any meaningful logical scholarly level, you can stop right there because Bradley Mason just shot his credibility to death in the first sentence. Let's use an illustration. Some of you know the Unitarian Anthony Buzzard.

I believe the name of one of his books is The Trinity, Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, and there are a number of people who make the argument that we should not be Trinitarians because it diminishes our ability to reach out to others.

There's just so much bad history that Trinitarians have done, and there's just been so many bad things done in the name of the Trinity that we should just abandon it, because if we have as our highest goal reaching out to the Muslim people, if we abandon the Trinity, we'll be able to really reach out to the Muslim people in a much better way because there's just been so many bad things done in the name of the Trinity, and these passages that have been quoted by people to defend the Trinity, there were some bad people that did that.

I mean, there were inquisitors that were quoting passages of the Bible while torturing people, and so we just have to get rid of this stuff because you see the error in the argument. It's so plain and obvious that it's stunning.

It's amazing that I've seen people pointing to this, that's great work. So what you do is instead of dealing with what the text says and dealing with what I made the application in saying this is why there can't be black spaces, this is why we can't be white spaces, this is why we can't divide along these lines, this is what's coming in, this is what's being demanded, no, based on this.

Instead, it's, well, let's give you lots of examples of people in the past who misused these texts. That's what it is. That's what this article is. It is a case study in bad argumentation, violation of the fundamental rules of logic, and ignoring what the real issue is.

And yet, in our day, because of the emotions and because, you know, like I said, Bradley Mason has just sold out this stuff. I mean, it is just central to everything he does. Maybe he doesn't even see it.

Maybe he thinks this is good argumentation. Maybe he really actually believes that, well, hey, as long as somebody ever misused this text, then it can't mean that over there, even though what you said was totally different than what these people like.