Steve Camp on the Janet Mefferd Show: Review and Refutation

And greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line. We've got a lot to get to today, and I need to start by finishing up what

I forgot to do yesterday. I apologize, but we did a response to a

Muslim gentleman who posted a video asking for clarification from Christians in regards to the doctrine of the

Trinity and the annunciation of the incarnation of Christ to the

Virgin Mary. And I got distracted by stuff on the screen, other stuff that was going on.

We went really long as it was. And I kept saying, when we go through the text, when we go through the text, and I sort of did at points go through the text, but not the way that I wanted to.

So in just a few moments here at the beginning, we'll do that. Then we've got to jump right into the

Janet Mefford show with Steve Camp and some new developments in that area and try to get that done in a timely fashion as well.

But in regards to Luke chapter 1, beginning of verse 26, now, in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called

Nazareth to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph of the descendants of David, and the virgin's name was

Mary. Now, I just very quickly would point out once again, in the New Testament way of doing things, we are placing this at a particular time, particular place.

It's historical, it's grounded. It's not like so much of the mythology that you find in so many other, well,

Gnostic gospels and things like that where they're not concerned about stuff like that. This is very grounded.

And coming in, he said to her, Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you. Of course, that contains the very important phrase kikartemene in the original language that Roman Catholicism has built an entire multi -tiered story building on a simple greeting.

That is the phrase, I say, full of grace and try to build all this stuff about Mary out of that when in reality, it simply doesn't mean all those things.

To try to pack that in there is to only have to admit that those doctrines and beliefs developed centuries later really don't have any basis in the

New Testament. But she was very perplexed at this statement and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.

The angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him

Jesus. Now, once again, we just simply point out that this was a period of time where you can demonstrate from the intertestamental literature, the literature that was written between what we would call the

Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevi 'im, the Ketuvim, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, and the commencement of the events that lead to the writing of the

New Testament. This is a period of time where you read that literature and there's a tremendous amount of messianic expectation.

There is a recognition on the part of the Jewish people that the bath kol, the voice of God, has ceased. And so the next event on the prophetic calendar, so to speak, would be the coming of the

Messiah. And so for an angel to appear to Mary and speak about her conceiving and bearing a son named

Jesus, automatically her mind would be turning to this exact area.

And we don't have time today, but a serious study of the materials, the background, the text.

If you look, for example, at Daryl Bach's two -volume work on Luke, you'll find pages and pages and pages where you take the terminology that Luke utilizes here.

Even the Nessie Olin text places this in poetic form. You can trace so much of the terminology back to the

Old Testament, especially back to the New Testament. And when you do that, you get a lot of depth in your understanding of what's actually going on here.

And again, this is the intertestamentality, the intertextuality, is a less specifically biblical phrase, the intertextuality that you have between Old and New Testament that you do not have between Torah, Injil, and Koran.

Even though that relationship is claimed in Surah Ta Maida, Ayat 44 and following, it's not there.

You do not have intertextuality between the Koran and the biblical stories.

Instead, what you have are oral stories in the Koran, not the kind of intimate knowledge on the part of the writer of the

Koran of the preceding materials that you have between the Old and New Testaments. It's just, it's simply not there.

And honestly, I've never heard anyone dispute that. It is a fact, but it's a fact that I don't know that many

Muslims have ever really pondered or considered as to why that's the case.

Anyway, when you look at this terminology, especially verse 32, he will be great and will be called the

Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end.

There is absolutely no question that this terminology communicates to Mary the complete revelation that we are talking about the

Messiah here. These are all Messianic phrases, very high

Messianic phrases. He will be great, will be called the Son of the Most High. Even though you don't have, as a

Muslim, any, I think, contemporary basis for making any disputation, here, long before Jesus says a word, the very word that you deny to him is used of him.

He's called Son of the Most High. He is the Son of God, and it's right there in front of us. This is the most primitive material there is.

He's the Son of the Most High. And as we pointed out, the gentleman mentioned, well, you know, none of these things actually came true, so on and so forth, but they do.

He is called Son of the Most High. He is given the throne of his father David. The only reason you're confused about that is you think that there has to be a physical throne.

There wasn't a physical throne in Israel to be given to him in that way. Obviously, the Davidic kingdom is a Messianic kingdom, and the nature of that kingdom of God must be defined by the

Messiah himself, not by your expectations of what that might be. So often,

I have to point out that my Muslim friends are in the exact same boat with my Jewish friends, and that is that they refuse to recognize that prophecy has to be allowed to have a greater fulfillment than the mere categories in which it was originally made.

This is a major problem, and what I mean by that is if you sit there and go, well, there can't be anything in a prophecy that would point to something greater than what the person giving the prophecy could have understood.

Think of the limitation of that. Think how narrow that requires fulfillment to be.

The Old Testament prophecies just give us little glimpses, but the fulfillment is so great, and the

Jew says, no, we will not go there. Well, the Muslim hangs a U -turn and goes back and stands with the

Jew and says, yeah, I agree. We're not going there. Problem is that you then would have to ask the question, well, since Islam comes after Christianity chronologically speaking in the history of the world, then was there an accurate understanding on the part of the founders of Islam of what

Christianity actually taught? And it seems to me that that's a major, major, major issue.

Mary said to the angel, how can this be since I'm a virgin, specifically since I do not know a man? There has been no physical relationship.

The angel answered and said to her. Now, and this is seemingly where, again, the gentleman finds the level of confusion, and I think it's primarily because of importing a context of a book written 600 years later in a different language 700 miles away.

I really do. The angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the

Most High will overshadow you. As we pointed out, this is, and in fact, in the Nessie -Allen text, this is put out in poetic form.

So it's very similar. For example, I just last evening gave a

Bible study out of Isaiah chapter 44, and one of the things we're talking about is how in the rest of Isaiah you have the poetic form, but here you have prose form, and we were talking about Hebrew parallelism and things like that.

Well, this is very much along the same line, and when it says the

Holy Spirit will come upon you, the power of the Most High will overshadow you, this is not two different forces. This is a common standard way of speaking here.

The Holy Spirit is the power of the Most High, and so coming upon you, epiusetai and episkiadzo are being put in parallel here, coming upon and overshadowing you.

And as I pointed out yesterday briefly, if you look, for example, at Exodus chapter 40, verse 35,

Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the

Lord filled the tabernacle. And so you have, because episkiadzo epautai nepheli, the cloud of the glory of the

Lord overshadowed it. There wasn't anything sexual or anything involved with this.

This is the presence of God casting the shadow in a physical sense.

And so when you look at these terms, you're able to see what is being referred to here. And so the point is that the agency of bringing about this miraculous event is the

Holy Spirit of God, nothing physical. See, the Jewish person, Mary, would have not understood the

Muslim concern about this because the answer is this is going to be a spiritual act.

And for that reason, the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God. So all of the pagan, polytheistic, male

God, female deity, offspring in the Chaba, all that stuff, totally blown away by this.

And only by importing it yourself do you end up with a problem with it.

It's not in the text itself. It would not have suggested itself to a person knowing the Old Testament backgrounds and things like that.

So doing serious biblical research will help you to come to understand why we believe the things we believe, hopefully between what we've said last time and that, that will give you some assistance.

And I still went 12 minutes on that. Once you get into the text, there's just not much you can do about it.

I'd like to, I'm sending Rich a graphic here.

This, I just, this was posted, I guess, yesterday. Yeah, well, you're going to have to anyways, because I'm going to be reading it anyways.

Steve Camp, yesterday, 909 AM, IFD, interfaith deception, when apologists cozy up to an antichrist teacher to be mentored in their demonic inspired error, then asking that false teacher to make an hour long

YouTube video of that false doctrine to distribute to gospel -centered churches and then arguing that it's biblical.

I don't know what he's referring to because any honest person is well aware of the fact that if that is an attempted description of what happened in Memphis, then it's a bold face lie and Steve Camp needs to repent of it just as Brandon House needs to repent of it.

We've blown this away. Steve Camp could never defend this to my face.

He couldn't do it. It's not possible because the facts refute it. We've already gone through these facts millions of times before.

The fact that the YouTube video I mentioned was about jihad. It was about who speaks for Islam.

It was about the fact this man has been chosen for execution by ISIS.

The fact that he has given lectures about what the group called the Karajites in Norway and identified

ISIS in these groups with the Karajites. He goes back into Islamic history. The problem is

I understand what he's saying because I've studied so much Islamic history, but most other people do not.

And so what I was saying was, you keep saying we've condemned this stuff over and over again.

We've condemned it. Here's why. Here's the reasoning, but not in a way that other people can understand.

And I even mentioned, and I mentioned this in the program yesterday. I even mentioned the, seemed like a kindly little old man who did a lengthy video on the errors of ISIS from a fiqh position.

That is an Islamic jurisprudence position. And I even said to Yasir Qadhi during the dialogue,

I said, I'll be perfectly honest with you. You get about five minutes through and you about fall asleep.

The point was it was not presented in such a way that it would even be understandable to anybody that doesn't want to dig into that level of stuff.

The idea that you're asking a false teacher to make an hour long YouTube video of that false doctrine, it's just a lie.

It's indefensible. It is absolutely indefensible. Reprehensible on the part of a minister of the gospel.

So the question then becomes, why? Why are these people doing this?

Why will Janet Mefford allow the kinds of statements that are being made?

Why did she have James Simpson not never ask him, why didn't you contact James White? Why didn't you give him an opportunity to comment?

Why? He makes comments on the program about making money.

There wasn't any money at all. There was no charge to take. Why are these people, Christian people, behaving in such a way to demonstrate that they have no concern about the truth of this matter at all?

None whatsoever. They are willing to absolutely ravage myself and others.

What's the motivation? What's going on here? Well, I think we get some of the idea by listening to this program and by listening to what is said and to start to understand that there are people who have developed an imbalance in regards to the relationship of gospel and state, gospel and patriotism, gospel and Western culture as if Western culture is the most important thing in the world and it must be protected at all costs.

And if they interpret a certain group, and obviously when it comes to Muslims, don't even bother asking for even the slightest bit of fairness.

It reminds me a lot, to be honest with you, you know, again, this is where knowing a little something about church history helps a bit.

Man, I've seen this attitude before. There has been this attitude in regards to Roman Catholicism in the past.

There's just so many times in history where a particular group becomes the group.

It doesn't matter what they do. They're automatically going to be interpreted in the worst possible light.

You can say anything you want about them. It's astounding.

So I want to listen to, I took the time to go through. It's only, well,

I'm not sure if I took out all the commercials, but there's only like 44 minutes. I certainly don't have all of that.

Yeah, I certainly don't have all of that marked. So we're not going to take 44 minutes, obviously. So as to get through it a little bit faster,

I've kicked it up to 1 .2. So again, it doesn't really change much, but you just get through just a little bit faster.

Let's start listening to some of the key issues from Monday's Janet Mefford Show with Steve Camp.

Now, for years, conservative Christians have eschewed interfaith dialogue as an unbiblical compromise, and that's because of the dangers of the setup, which requires

Christians to pull back from faithfully presenting the gospel and having to confront error because the setup requires everyone first and foremost to get along and not confront.

Now, first immediate instance, immediate issue, we've addressed it a million times before, and that is confusing, liberal, ecumenical interfaith dialogue of what happened in Memphis.

It wasn't the same thing. We said it wasn't the same thing. No honest person can say that it was. I'm sorry if you say it's the same thing.

You are a liar. If you cannot listen to the first five minutes and see how many times

I laid it out, how many times Yasir Qadhi laid it out, this is not some situation where you've got a bunch of liberals getting together, and we're trying to find some common ground.

We're trying to find Chris Slom, all the rest of it. That's just a bunch of lies. That's all there is to it. So if you're going to talk about interfaith dialogue, then you need to be very specific.

Are you talking about two people who believe what they believe, discussing their differences, not compromising them?

What about a debate? Steve Camp has rejected the use of debates for quite some time. He has mocked the debates we've done, even overseas in mosques and things like that, for years.

So he doesn't, very clearly, he has no idea, does not support the idea.

This evidently does not believe that it's good to bring the gospel to bear against false teaching except in the context of where it's protected.

In other words, within the church. But even then, I don't know if you should even explain what false teaching is within the church.

I don't even know. We'll find out from him. But once again, the equivocation of all interfaith dialogue, and the vast majority of it, is compromise, ecumenism,

I reject it, never done it, never will do it. Anybody who says otherwise, again, is just simply massively truth -challenged.

Just massively truth -challenged. I'm going to Birmingham in less than two weeks to present the case for the crucifixion in front of a primarily

Muslim audience. Shortly after that, Durban, South Africa.

A deity of Christ, same context. You really have to go, what color is the sky in your world?

When you're trying to talk to people going, well, yeah, it's just the same as those liberals. No, it's not.

If you can't tell the difference, if you couldn't hear the difference, then you're just simply not dealing truthfully with what took place there.

It's just a shame. But we continue on. We live in a generation that want to feel their God and not know their

God, and I think this is really the foundation of the IFD, of the interfaith dialogue. There were many things said in this program that, if the context was simply ecumenical, gospel -denying, you know, if the gospel hadn't been proclaimed, if the truth hadn't been made known, if it had been, well, you know, we just sort of think

Jesus is a great guy and we'd sort of like you to think Jesus is a great guy type thing, fine.

No one would have had, there wouldn't have been any reason to do the program. But knowing what the background is, and even though they didn't mention my name, that was purposeful on their part, by the way, even though they didn't mention my name, they mentioned the situation.

Knowing what the background is, what the reality is, that's where the dishonesty comes in. That's where the deception, because,

I mean, Steve Camp says he watched it three times. That makes him three times more culpable for the misrepresentations than he would be otherwise.

That's where it comes in. If anyone thinks that Yasir Qadhi and I were there because of a feel -good thing, and again, that's the problem here.

Steve Camp knows me well enough to know that's just, yeah, right, okay.

I'm just so well known as the feel -good apologist. I'm sorry.

It's hard not to laugh because some of it is just so silly. There'd be a lot of people who wish that I was a little bit more on the squishy, emotional, loving side, but, you know, anyway.

So try to find unity or common ground or similarities on faith constructs on things that pertain to biblical

Christianity. There's going to be very little common ground, and what we are told in scripture to have real unity with is other believers in the faith, though you rightly said we're to love our neighbor, we're to be in the world, but not of it.

Now, just notice something. Notice, and this is the real major problem with all these folks, category problems.

Part of the reason is they don't do this kind of stuff. They're not out there doing this. He's not in any mosques anywhere.

He's not debating Muslims. He's not engaging in any of this type of stuff. So I'm not sure what makes him an expert on any of this stuff, but that's why he makes the category errors.

Notice what the category error there was. Well, looking for common ground, but the real place of unity is to be with fellow believers.

Notice the category error? It's pretty obvious. What you have is looking for common ground.

Well, what do you mean by that? Well, it's important to recognize if you're going to have meaningful discussion with well -read, intelligent

Muslims, that their understanding of monotheism is

Unitarian. My understanding of monotheism is Trinitarian. Now, it does me no good whatsoever to ignore the fact that we both claim to be monotheists.

We've had people say, doesn't matter if they say there's a false god. That's not thinking straight.

This is not using the God -given intellect. We agree

Allah is not Yahweh because Yahweh has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but it's rather plain to me that the revelation of Allah in the

Quran, even though the author of the Quran knew the stories of the Tanakh much more than he knew the stories of the New Testament, still there are fundamental differences between the

Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Allah of the Quran. I agree.

It doesn't change the reality that Muslims and Christians agree that there's only one true

God. We have to establish that. For me ever to be able to explain the Trinity, for Steve Camp to be able to ever explain the

Trinity to a Muslim, he has to recognize that we share in common a commitment to monotheism so as to be able to differentiate between Trinitarian monotheism and Unitarian monotheism.

If he doesn't do that, he's never going to accomplish anything. And I really have to wonder if he wants to. I really do.

I really have to wonder that because this seems like such basic stuff to me. I've stood on the streets of London and spoken with the

Muslims about these issues. Steve would have been lost, wouldn't have had any idea what to do with these guys because they know this stuff.

He would have been torn to shreds. He just would have been spinning, repeating himself because what we have, what we're going to hear here from Steve Camp is the apologetics of ignorance.

The apologetics of ignorance. We don't need to know. All we need to know is know the Gospel. So the idea is, and if there's barriers in the way, well, well, what are you going to do then?

What are you going to do then? Don't know. We'll find out. But there's the category error.

Well, the only place we share true unity is with fellow believers. Notice, again, category error.

The one we're talking about specific theological beliefs of another world religion, and then you shift from a discussion of what they believe over to the idea of unity amongst believers.

Sounds good, but it's really bad thinking. It's really bad thinking. Of course,

I cannot have unity of faith with Yasir Qadhi, and Yasir Qadhi knows that, and he agrees from his perspective.

We cannot have unity of faith. We do not believe the same things. We said that. He heard us say that three different times if his own testimony is true.

But by shifting the context, you make a point without actually making a point. Sounds like you made a point.

You didn't. You're actually misrepresenting the point. Okay? Boy, at the rate we're going here, this could be a long day.

We're even to love our enemies, and we're to go into all the world and preach the gospel. So the biblical breakdown happens when we take that what was meant for intra -faith among believers and make it interfaith,

I believe, among non -Christians who want to espouse their religious activity into what we would call as biblical

Christianity. Okay, so notice the idea is, well, we should be looking for similarities only within the church.

We shouldn't have any conversation with those outside the church to seek to understand what they believe, to clarify what the real issues are.

We should just leave it at a very surface level. You throw the four spiritual laws at them.

They'll throw some Akama Didot materials at you and go home. You just glorified God. No, you didn't.

And this may work in Florida or Arizona or Dallas. It's not going to work in the rest of the world.

It's not going to work in the rest of the world. This is not helping the

Christian believers that live in majority Muslim nations. It's not helping at all. They realize that's not going to work.

That's ridiculous. But that's how you can get away with it here in the good old

U .S. of A. I've never seen the purpose in interfaith dialogue, but maybe I'm not understanding it correctly.

What do you think the end goal truly is for those Christians who say, I think this is a good idea to put this together? Well, I think based on what we've seen maybe in recent months on some of these issues, it's on the basis of peaceful coexistence.

So again, interfaith dialogue, no differentiation, no recognition of differing purposes, different kinds of people, none of that.

Just simply peanut butter it out all out there. How can you accomplish anything like this? You can't.

You're not making proper distinctions. And so you're going to condemn the good along with the bad.

Doesn't really accomplish anything, might get your base riled up, things like that. I don't know. But it seems like Brother Camp then said, well, in light of recent months, in other words, our situation, feel good situation.

Yeah, that's why we did it. We wanted to, I needed to feel good. I confess it now.

I just need to feel good. Every once in a while, I just do something crazy so I can feel good. No, that's not why we did it.

That's not why I contacted him. That's not why I literally talked Yasir Qadhi into doing this.

He wasn't out. This wasn't some, oh, the Muslim Brotherhood. We're going to try to get an interfaith dialogue going and we're going to promote our blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I'm the one that contacted him and I had to talk him into doing it. And the reasons

I explained, when people get to hear two knowledgeable people talking about their perspectives, they get to see what the real issues are over all the smoke and mirrors.

How many Christians really know what the real issues are? What you need to be focused upon in dealing with Islam?

Well, the people who listen to this program, we do it all the time. We take videos that Muslims have put out and we walk through them and we talk about what the real issues are.

We do it all the time, but that's just having them say something and then

I respond and then they say something and I respond. This is a situation to actually have interaction and to have someone with a tremendous amount of credibility to be stating these things.

And so it's another piece of equipment.

It's another way of equipping the saints. They can listen to that and go, oh, wow, okay. Well, when

I encounter a Muslim that comes from this perspective, and there are many here in the United States, Al -Maghrib Institute, very large institute, here's the dean.

When I encounter someone coming from this perspective, I'm going to be able to better understand what they're saying to me.

And in listening to James's responses, he's focusing upon this, that, and the other thing. That's going to be very useful.

That's the whole reason for it. Unless you don't have confidence that the gospel should be put into those situations of having to actually deal with that, but there you go.

Now, in terms of evangelism, which we cannot take from the centrality of our faith, that here people think if you master the error of a false religious system, that that gives you better street cred in order to go and to talk with them.

Now, hear this. Listen to what's being said here. Here's the apologetics of ignorance. Here is where I stand firmly against Steve Camp and his apologetics of ignorance, and I will refute it gladly and unapologetically, obviously using the term in two different ways.

Catch what was just said. Let's just repeat it. Now, in terms of evangelism, which we cannot take from the centrality of our faith, that here people think if you master the error of a false religious system...

Now, since the 1980s, we have been seeking to help people understand what the gospel is and how to communicate it to people in false religious systems.

Steve has sat on cruise ships and in conferences where I've done this very thing.

He never uttered a word of... I guess he's changed. I guess he's changed. He used to support this. He used to recognize at one time in the past that it is important to be able to overcome the language barrier.

In fact, I'm pretty certain he was on a cruise where I gave an actual lecture on the language barrier in regards to Mormonism and how they use different terminology, different language, and so we have to be recognized.

You say eternal life, they sort of translate that into eternal lives and salvation versus exaltation, and there's all this stuff that's in the way of being able to communicate the gospel meaningfully to a

Mormon. And so even though I've said over and over again, I'd rather have five people with me in Salt Lake City that know the gospel well than 50 people that can rip and shred

Joseph Smith and have nothing to give in its place. I've said that over and over again. That doesn't change the fact that those five people know the gospel well will be much more effective in reaching the

Mormon people by being able to overcome the barriers that stand in the way of the presentation of the gospel.

How is this not understandable? How is this not clear? Do we have to go through the examples of the

Apostle Paul utilizing the very language of the Protonostics and Colossians to refute them? Do we really have to go through that?

Do we have to go through the fact that he was willing to quote pagan philosophers to make points, demonstrating that he knew what their background was, he knew what their perspective was?

Do we really have to go back through basic Bible 101? Why? What's the motivation here?

Well, we might pick up some of that as we go along. But that gives you better street cred in order to go and to talk with them.

It's not a matter of street cred. It's a matter of actually being able to interact on a meaningful and respectful level.

This is where I don't think these folks seem to understand. They don't seem to be concerned at all that we are making very little impact upon the

American Islamic population, because they recognize that the people who say we believe the

Word of God show them no respect. Show them no respect. How can you believe, well, we love you for Jesus' sake, but just get out of here?

You expect that actually to fly? You think that really works? Doesn't that actually say something about you?

The inadequacies of their faith and answer it with a biblical ideal. It's the field of apologetics.

But what happens, Janet, I think, is that a reductionist gospel, when you take the heart and soul of the atonement, a

Christ -exalting resurrection gospel that communicates that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that the only way for salvation is to repent of your sin, to come to the end of yourself, to deny yourself, as Jesus said, take up your cross and follow

Him. If that's not central, foundational in the dialogue, then what happens is you appeal to,

I think, a fleshly or a social standard, a kumbaya moment, if you please, a syncretistic methodology that wants to communicate something different than the gospel.

Which is exactly what happens in liberal interfaith dialogue. It is also self -evidently, self -evidently what didn't happen in Memphis.

It didn't happen in Memphis. Do we have to replay the segments where he talked about heaven and hell, about what

I want for him, what he wanted for me, about what the nature of the gospel is, the necessity of the atonement, the nature of the church?

Do we really have to go back over all that? Steve said he watched it three different times. Evidently, he didn't remember it. What causes that?

What causes someone to have that kind of a memory loss might be one of the questions we would ask. The last time that I think that someone ever preached the true gospel in a mosque, it wasn't met with warm fuzzies and a big hug at the end of the night.

Actually, we have entire debates. How about we just, you know, if I really wanted to invest a lot of time in this, and I just don't simply have time to because the ministry goes on, and we've got more debates to do with Muslims overseas, but it would have been so easy to just take these little quotes and then blow them out of the water with video.

But if you want to do that, take that one and compare it with my presentation of the gospel in the

Abu Bakr Hasidic Mosque in Erasmus, South Africa in a debate with Shabir Ali. And watch as the camera pans the

Muslim audience as those Muslims are hearing me saying,

I have absolutely no self -worth in myself. If I don't have the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, if I don't have the great exchange, my sin imputed to him, his righteousness imputed to me,

I have no standing before God, I have no peace with God. Watch as that is proclaimed there, and then play that against Steve Camp's words.

That would be a fairly effective type thing. I thought the video that the fellow from South Africa put together of a portion of the closing statement from a debate that took place after Memphis in Lanasia, South Africa on the crucifixion was extremely effective along those very same lines.

He did that of his own choice. But it's just so easy to give the lie that that's what's going on here, because it isn't.

That's not what happened. That's not the intention. It's just total, complete misrepresentation.

If you call people to repent of their false religion... I'm sorry. I almost forgot. Despite the clarity of that presentation,

I wasn't driven out of the Abu Bakr Asidic Mosque. There were good conversations.

Many of the Muslims were very thoughtful. And you know why?

Because from their perspective, here's a Christian who's done his homework, shown us respect, and didn't back down and proclaim what he believes.

You see, for many of these people, they think doing the homework and showing respect is compromise. So all you can do is just simply boldly proclaim what you believe, whether it communicates or not, whether you put it in categories that would be understandable or not.

They don't care about that. But that's how you show you're standing firm. But you see, the reality is, when you do your homework, when you show respect, and then you say to the people around you,

I love you for the sake of Jesus Christ. I want you to know who he is. Man, it makes a huge difference.

It makes a huge difference. And I say this with love in my heart for any

Muslim that might be listening to repent of their false god of Allah, their false book of the Quran, their false prophet of Muhammad, and follow the living and true

God. And you're dealing with an imam and a teacher of that faith. They're not going to hug you. They may want to behead you.

Now, as soon as you say that, see that the words sound, I say it was all the love in my heart.

Put those words and that attitude in a Muslim's mouth saying to you with all the love that I have for Christians, you need to say the

Shahada, you need to stop saying three, you need to submit to Allah's final prophet

Muhammad. And then say something along the lines of, and I would imagine if Christians hear that they'll want to kill me with a drone strike.

What's that going to communicate to folks about what you really think about them? See, these folks never,

I just don't think they travel enough, get out enough to realize just how narrow their little perspective is.

It's stunning. And it ends up hurting the gospel. Oh, no question.

In fact, I love the example. I've dealt with Bob before on Twitter, in almost little. This was,

I don't know, they were talking about, they were talking about some people that have gone into this other kind of interfaith dialogue that has nothing to do with what happened in Memphis, or is going to be happening in the future.

Compromise stuff, Chrislam stuff, whatever, we all worship the same God stuff. It's like these folks, it would have been nice, given that I've done so much of Steve Camp in the past, it would have been nice given

I've done so much of Janet Meffer in the past, it would have been nice at some point for one of them to say, now, obviously,

James has strongly criticized all of the liberal interfaith dialogue stuff.

He has done numerous videos on the subject of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same

God, done a tremendous amount of study in this area. And so we should acknowledge that.

No, can't do that. Can't do that. That doesn't fit the meme.

It would have been nice. It would have been nice. It's a shame. But there you go.

Oops. What did I do? Click something else? I don't know. Twitter debates online there in past years, where he'll share with me that they are having a common prayer meeting.

And I said, well, brother, who are you praying to? And they said, well, it's the same God. It's Allah. He believes that Allah of Islam is the

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now, since I have specifically...

You can go online, as long as YouTube hasn't wiped our stuff out as of today. Go online and find this stuff.

Why not mention it? Why not mention it? I'd like to know. Yeah, absolutely.

And we're united, Janet, in our Christian worship. Acts 2 is clear on this. Apostles' teaching, that would be the sound doctrine of the scriptures, fellowship, the breaking of bread.

That's the communion and prayer. Well, when you're taking those essentials of Christian worship and you're trying to spill them,

I like what you said, trying to sanitize Islam into this kind of belief system, we're minimizing the worship of a true

God. Wait a minute. Sanitize Islam? Who's trying to sanitize Islam? Who's trying to sanitize

Islam? I mean, I suppose if if Steve believes some of the worst apologetic arguments that are not accurate in regards to historic

Islamic expressions of faith or that ignore Islamic jurisprudence or whatever, then maybe he might think that my unwillingness to utilize that is quote -unquote sanitizing

Islam. No one's trying to sanitize Islam. We want it to be fully understood, but accurately and truthfully.

The gospel shines beautifully against the backdrop of the

Islamic statement of works righteousness before Allah. It does.

It does. And when the Holy Spirit of God works in someone's heart and they're convicted of their sin, you compare what

Islam says with what Christianity says, there's not even a comparison. Not even a comparison.

No one's trying to sanitize it. Don't need to. Don't need to. It's not happening. I think the quintessential scripture on this chant is 2

Corinthians chapter 6 verses 14 to 17, and it's the passage known on being unequally yoked.

Now, we know what a common yoking is. It was a piece of... Now, let's stop for a second. Once again, uh, we have written entire presentations on this subject.

It's almost like it doesn't matter what we say. We've gone through the text. We've gone through, you know, we can go through them again.

There was no common spiritual project in Memphis.

We don't believe that we have a common basis in the worship of the same

God so as to be able to have a common spiritual ground for doing anything.

It is not, Paul is not talking about, for example, the recognition that both

Muslims and Christians are in danger of losing their religious liberty to fanatical, secular totalitarians.

That's not a common spiritual thing. That's simply life in this world and recognizing what's happening around us.

Paul was talking primarily about union in marriage and union in worship, in doing spiritual things.

What does this have to do with having a dialogue with Yasir Qadhi about what he believes that has no compromise and allows both sides to speak openly?

It's not like we're saying, well, you know what? Despite all of our differences, we're going to have a prayer service afterwards, and we're going to ask whatever

God you want to refer to, to protect us from the secular left.

We didn't do that. We couldn't do that. We wouldn't believe that to be appropriate. A believing

Muslim does not believe that they can engage in that kind.

Now, there are some more liberal Muslims out there, but I don't think Yasir Qadhi is one of them.

But just a few weeks ago up in Denver, someone asked a question during the Q &A session after I was speaking about prayer.

And the Muslims that were in the audience all confirmed, we can't do common prayer.

We believe that if you're praying to Jesus, you're committing shirk, major shirk.

So this idea of being yoked together, where did we say anything about a spiritual yoking?

Either one of us. Give me some documentation where either one of us said anything that could even come close to me saying, yeah, we think we have enough in common that we can actually just sort of get together on this, and we're going to have a common spiritual perspective.

Never happened. Never happened. Lengthy conversation here won't have anything to do with the reality.

Wood wrapped around two animals that would plow a furrow in the same direction and get work done for produce and agriculture and the planting of seed and all kinds of things.

Moses talks about in Deuteronomy of yoking an oxen with a donkey. And if you take that piece of wood and put it, you're not going to be able to plow a straight furrow.

It's different natures, different gates, different temperaments, different functions of two different beasts, as it were, two different animals.

Well, he borrows that language the Apostle Paul does in 2 Corinthians 6 when he says, don't be unequally yoked with unbelievers.

That's the genuine category. We cannot have that same wood, as it were, placed around us in a common ministry or enterprise involving a

Christian with a non -believer. Which, of course, never happened.

Valid criticism of ecumenical compromise. Never happened in Memphis.

Never happened in Memphis. What partnership has righteousness, lawlessness? What fellowship?

And we all know that Greek word, koinonia, that was the intimacy of fellowship, has light with darkness. And then what harmony?

And Paul uses a Greek word there to define a symphony of sound. And he says, what harmony has

Christ, the worthy one, as it were, with Belial, the worthless one, symbolizing Satan?

Okay. Again, lots of words. What does it have to do with what happened in Memphis? We aren't told.

Because, you see, they have to equivocate between the liberal compromising stuff and believing stuff.

Because, you see, you've got to remember something. For Steve Camp, this is actually just as equal a criticism of the debates.

The debates that we do, no matter where they are. Evidently, that's some kind of a spiritual yoking.

I guess any witnessing situation would be a person to engage in a spiritual activity with you to talk about spiritual truth.

Obviously, that's not what Paul had in mind, is it? So this equivocation, this utter unwillingness to draw clear categories and then stick with it, do the hard work of being accurate in your thought.

It's one thing. I mean, Brannon House is a conspiracy guy. I mean, that's what you expect that.

Just so disappointing. Just so disappointing to hear some of this from Janet Mefford and Steve Camp.

But both of them have really been beating away on this, you know, make

America great again stuff, you know, and it has had an impact,

I guess. What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? And what does the temple of God, here we go, have in common with the temple of idols?

And so I think, Janet, there's the biblical foundation for us when we come to a common spiritual ministry or enterprise.

Common spiritual ministry or enterprise. We don't have a common spiritual ministry or enterprise across, what was that term

I used? Oh, it's within the first, like, three minutes of the, oh, the chasm that separates us.

Oh, yeah. Well, that would actually require you to listen to what I said and to listen to it fairly and allow me to actually define my own terms.

But we won't do that, even though we've worked together in the past. We cannot yoke with somebody of a different faith in a different kind of religious belief system and one that is completely foreign to the work of Scripture.

Paul gets dramatic there, he says, if you try to do that, even if it's try to understand each other's belief system.

Now, did you catch that? We just hung a hard left. Because up to now, what he's done is he's established something that's not even, you can't argue about it.

Because as far as just, you know, hey, there can be no fellowship of light and darkness when we're talking about a common, you know, the work of the church, evangelism, you know, you can't, you can't do that with a

Mormon. We don't have the same, we don't have the same, same God. And all of a sudden, without even, without even trying to provide a foundation, did you catch the shift?

It was done so quickly. It was done so, so swiftly that most people wouldn't even catch it.

All of a sudden, now it's even trying to understand someone else. Well, wait a minute.

You didn't lay a foundation for that. That's something completely different. How can you make this connection?

Let's catch how that happened again. Belief system and one that is completely foreign.

So that he's still here talking about, okay, having a common spiritual activity with, and then watch how fast we make this utterly unwarranted transition.

Paul To the work of Scripture, Paul gets dramatic there. And he says, if you try to do that, even if it's try to understand each other's belief system, betters any kind of a common yoking.

Whoa, wait a minute. Now, see what you had there? You see, this is, this is where people just don't, don't follow.

This is where it's good to be able to analyze really bad arguments because that this is a really bad argument.

And this was a shift here. People use this a lot in politics. You get people going with you and you're, you're presenting something that's truthful.

That's really not up for debate. And then you throw in what you can't really defend, but you throw it in under the rubric, under the umbrella of what you've already established and hope that no one's going to challenge you.

Well, it's not going to work on this program because how do you get from the yoking idea where we're both going the same direction to now a completely different idea?

And that is we need to understand where we differ from one another. So you really think, you really think the

Apostle Paul didn't spend any time at all coming to understand the protonostics before I wrote the book of Colossians?

How about John? He had no idea what the dissetics, the early dissetics were teaching before I wrote first John, right?

Had no idea. Because that would be a common spiritual thing. No, that's ridiculous. That's absurd.

Absolutely absurd. It is an unwarranted transference of the authority from one subject to something you didn't even try to provide the foundation to.

And you've been caught. You've been caught, Steve. What are you going to do about it?

The Islamicists is brought into the church or the church is brought into the mosque. Church brought into the mosque.

Catch that? Now there, again, this type of rhetoric is meant to communicate something to the person who's not thinking.

It is rhetoric. It is demagoguery. It is unworthy of Christians.

Bring the church into the mosque, the mosque into the church. What's that supposed to mean? Well, obviously in this case, it means that on a weeknight, the building was used in a ticketed event for a discussion.

And the next night, the mosque was used, the same type of discussion. But what's communicated is the idea of the church as a place of worship, which it wasn't.

Unless you confuse buildings with the church, they're not the same thing. Place of worship, compromise, mixing of religion, etc.,

etc. As if we in the mosque had me involved in the prayers or something.

We weren't involved in the prayers. That type of intermingling, both of us recognize is utterly improper and it didn't happen.

But notice how you just throw it in there. So what you've done, and I'm watching people, I'm watching people.

Well, there's a guy on Twitter right now. I asked him, he said,

Steve made some good points. I go, such as? He says, here's the problem with your approach. You're trying to use logic and reason with dishonest and irrational people that will never work.

Are you talking about Steve? I ain't following what that response was.

But with people who do not practice logical thought, this kind of presentation is extremely effective.

Because what you do is you throw out Bible, throw out a few Greek terms. We threw in a little koinonia, the term for symphony, symphonia.

We threw a few of those things in there. Gives us a little extra credibility. And then having gone on for quite some time, then at the end, you throw in your actual argument without having provided any foundation for it in the process.

Unfortunately, that passes for preaching in a lot of churches. Really does.

It really does. This ain't the first time. Steve isn't the first one to do it.

Passes for preaching amongst a lot of folks. We're not there to share one thing, and that's the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Then we've succumbed to what the mandate of their, maybe, ideal is, and that's to find a new portal to expand their audience.

And they're using, unfortunately, and witting, very compliant evangelical leaders to help do their bidding.

Now, there you have the whole argument. Oh, you're the useful idiot, you've been taken advantage of, the portal for their proclamation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

All of that connected back to 1 Corinthians 6. What in 1 Corinthians 6 was actually applied to the actual argument made at the end?

Nothing. That's abusing Scripture. That is absolutely abusing Scripture.

I reject that. I refute it. And since it results in Paul contradicting himself in his own methodology, that is a twisting of Scripture.

Steve Camp is twisting Scripture publicly on the Janet Mefford Show, and Janet did not call him out on it.

She did not. She will not call. She will interrupt me repeatedly, but she never called out

James Simpson. She never asked him a serious question, and she will not call out Steve Camp. There you go.

Thems be the facts. We continue on. Well, that's exactly right. Now, when we look at the biblical data, though, this is such a different picture than some people would have us believe.

There has been argument, for example, that Paul on Mars Hill, when he was interacting with the Epicureans and the Stoics, was doing exactly what interfaith dialogue participants are doing.

He was reasoning. Now, notice, Janet fails to make any differentiation between motivation, style, purpose of interfaith dialogue.

This kind of constant obfuscation, this kind of constant using the same term that has multiple meanings, is not honest.

It is dishonest. It cannot promote truth. I call upon Janet to stop this.

Be honest on this matter. Be honest. From the scriptures, he was interacting with them.

Isn't that what Jesus called us to do? And this is the argument. I would say no. When you look at the picture in Acts 17 of what Paul did with the

Mars Hill folks, he was not saying, hey, Epicureans, present your Epicureanism and do it to new

Christians, and then I'll present Christianity to your folk. Now, let me stop there. Do it to new Christians. What's that about?

What are we talking about here? Do it to new Christians. Let's remind ourselves, once again, of the facts, as uncomfortable as they might be, as the things that James Simpson ignored, and that Janet's ignored, and that Steve ignores, and Brandon ignores, and everybody ignores, even though they're out there.

This dialogue was done at an event that is announced and ticketed.

The people that came wanted to hear exactly what they wanted to hear. They wanted to be taught in this area.

That would be like saying no seminary should ever have a class on advanced Islamic theology for people that are preparing to go to Islamic countries.

I think Steve Camp would agree with that. I think Steve Camp is like, that's right, total waste of time. Total waste of time, don't do it.

Thankfully, thankfully, people with significantly more training and experience than Steve Camp are still in charge of most of the better seminaries, and they won't do that.

But the idea being, if you do that, a new Christian might hear something they've never been challenged with before.

See, this is, again, where people overseas just sit here and go, what are the Americans arguing about now?

We're surrounded by this. Every new Christian in our society is surrounded by this.

We actually trust in the power of the gospel. What are you people afraid of?

Christ can't keep his sheep. You've got a shepherd that can't keep the sheep.

What are you afraid of? But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should bring an imam in on Sunday morning to preach a class on the

Quran. No one has suggested that. But this abject fear that people have,

I just remembered, it was Steve Camp that called me the coward. Who has the cowardice here?

Seriously, what are people thinking? We can't let our people hear anything that they might disagree with.

They're thinking like the people on the university campuses. They need a safe space. It's a gospel safe space.

And they're the first ones to complain. They will be the first ones to complain about the immaturity of our society today.

And then turn around, what do they do? We need gospel safe spaces. My goodness.

The gospel never had a safe space in the early church. Never had one.

And ain't going to have one in the future either, I assure you. Belief system and one that is completely foreign to the work of Scripture.

I think my thing skipped. Yeah, I think, hmm. Scriptures, he was interacting with them.

Isn't that what Jesus called us to do? And this is the argument. I would say no, when you look at the picture in Acts 17, and what Paul did with the

Mars Hill folks, he was not saying, hey, Epicureans, present your Epicureanism and do it to new

Christians, and then I'll present Christianity to your folks. And then we'll just shake hands. And at least we've got some dialogue going. That was not at all what

Paul did. What Paul did is he used two terms, and I've presented this, nobody, Brandon House, Janet Mefford, Steve Kemp, nobody's even tried to touch this.

It's just, oh, oh, okay. I'm not going to respond to that. I pointed out, wrote out for people the terms that Paul uses.

And he not only uses the term for dialogue or debate or interaction, but he also uses the term

Pytho. He uses the term to try to persuade. And there is no way, especially when they're used in conjunction with one another, that you can avoid that what

Paul was doing was the equivalent of interaction with people from different perspectives than his own on the matter of religious issues in public.

Paul did this. He did it regularly. He didn't hide it. And it was part of the

Holy Spirit's ministry in his life. Now, does that mean every person in the church in Corinth or the church in Ephesus engaged in the same type of thing?

No. There are some people that are just not prepared for that. You don't send new Christians out.

I get that. But there are people who did. There are people who did it and they did it to the glory of God.

And it edified the saints. And we're going to keep doing it. And if you all want to cower in fear in your safe space, more power to you.

And you know what? If you want to keep shooting at the advancing armies from the rear like you're doing now, nothing we can do about that.

That's just the way things have been. But you know what? We're not going to stop advancing just because you're scared.

We're not going to do it. I recognize that Paul engaged in dialogue, debate, and he engaged in seeking to convince people, to persuade people.

That means he actually had to listen to what they were saying. He had to communicate with them in a way that they could understand.

Now, did Paul ever debate a Muslim? Well, no. That would be a little bit of an anachronism since Islam hadn't developed yet.

And so we have to take principles. He went in to the public places and this is what he did.

Oh, but he didn't invite somebody to tell about Epicureanism. If he had encountered someone whose beliefs he had never heard of before, are you simply telling me he wouldn't want to hear?

How do you know what these Gnostics believed? You don't think he did some research before he wrote to the

Church of Colossae? Seriously? It just fell down from heaven.

Just zapped him. Just happened to use the terminology that they use in their own writings, right? Sorry, folks, but it sounds to me like this apologetic of ignorance is the end of doing apologetics.

I'm sort of passionate about apologetics. Been doing it a few decades. No, that's right.

In fact, it said when he walked into Athens, his soul was grieving because of all the idols. By the way, Paul didn't target the

Epicurean. I wonder if he closed his eyes. He didn't learn anything about those idols. Philosophers, the

Stoic philosophers of the Europagus, they invited him. Why? They were hearing strange teaching.

And what was the strange teaching? The resurrection of Jesus Christ. So they brought him to the place where they would discuss those kinds of religious themes.

And why would Paul go? Did he bring any other Christians with him? He might have exposed young Christians to false teachings.

And doesn't this mean that he was getting yoked with the Epicureans and the false people? I mean, looking for a little consistency here,

Steve. Paul went, he began with the God of all creation. He says, my God is not made with human hands.

You know, the funny thing is he didn't start off with a gospel presentation. He laid a foundation first.

And he seemed to understand what the people around, he seemed to want to lay a foundation so that they would understand what the gospel actually meant.

That they'd have some context to be able to understand that this God who's going to judge us all, he's going to judge us justly by this one man,

Jesus Christ, whom he raised from the dead. He didn't just start off the four spiritual laws.

He tried to get them to hear what he was saying and provide a context. You don't do that if you don't know what they believe.

He does not live in temples made by hands. He has given himself to all mankind for life and breath and everything.

He has talked about even a God who created one man from every nation. Here, he's going back to the creation of the garden. And then he says that they should seek this

God, because in him, we live and move and have our being. In other words, God's sovereign over all of his creatures. But then he goes on to tell.

He's laid a foundation. He seems to know where they're coming from. He seems to be wanting to build a bridge of truth so that they can understand.

And in that being unequally yoked, and isn't that a violation of first Corinthians? Oh, maybe someone's misunderstood first Corinthians six.

This God who is not made with stone, not made with gold and silver, precious jewels, but he calls all men now to repent and he's fixed the day in which he will judge the world in righteousness.

And he brings in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when he was done, he says, well, we may hear about this again with you,

Paul. But the whole point was some believed. Some believe by God's grace. Yes.

The majority reject him. They laughed him out of the room. Soon as he said resurrection, Anastas says, what are you talking about?

They're duelists. They reject him. God still had his people. That's why

I go where I go. Do the same thing. That was the model. Paul didn't partner.

Now, Janet, could you imagine? What do you mean Paul didn't partner? Of course he partnered. That was a common spiritual thing, wasn't it?

No, of course it wasn't any more than what happened in Memphis. Paul, at the end of this great sermon said to the men of Athens, listen,

I want you to come down to the local church here in Corinth tomorrow or wherever we may be in Athens.

And we want you to give us a detailed explanation of your idol worship so that we can be more sensitive to you and understand your belief system better.

Didn't Paul quote from their leaders? He already knew it. He already had that knowledge, didn't he?

He didn't have to do that. And therefore, we'd be able to minister to you more effectively.

But it'd be absolutely insane for the apostle to do this. And we all know that. By the way, people don't realize this, but the

Church of Satan today that Anton LaVey officially, as it were, began with his satanic Bible in the late 60s,

Satanism will say that they are founded upon the Epicurean teachings of Epicurus.

And what Paul was dealing with in Acts 17 is what we recognize today as abject

Satanism. And can you believe that maybe an evangelical leader would want to contact the head of the Satan church, have part of a meeting there, and part in a real church, have them hand out a satanic

Bible so that we could become better experts on the teachings of the devil as revealed in the satanic church, all for the purpose of getting along and being better neighbors?

That would be blasphemous and unthinkable, but that's exactly what's happening today. There you go, folks.

When you don't have anything meaningful to argue, you've got to create these incredible—we saw

Brannon House doing it, you know. And so now you've got—you had to throw Anton LaVey in and distribute the satanic

Bible. Oh, my goodness. There is the apologetics of ignorance. There you go.

Here's a man whose knowledge of Islam is derived totally from secondary sources.

Totally from secondary sources. Steve, please, never accept an invitation to do a debate with a real

Muslim. Please. It would be so embarrassing. Don't do it. Don't do it.

Because what I'm hearing you actually saying is you think that—you don't have to have any preparation.

Or you can just read secondary sources. You don't need to read any primary sources. You don't need to do any meaningful preparation.

That's what you were just telling everybody. Astounding. Astounding. It would be nice, since he talks a lot about exegesis, how about dealing with what dialogue means?

How about dealing with Pytho? How about dealing with the semantic categories and the relationship of the two together and what that would absolutely have to have meant that there had to have been give and take between Paul and the people of differing perspectives that he interacted with.

Are you seriously telling me that in the marketplace when someone of a religion that Paul had never encountered before, that he would just stand there and say,

I'm sorry, no, I will not listen to what your faith is. I do not have any interest. You just simply listen to me.

That's what—this is the apologetic methodology that you're suggesting to us. Okay.

Well, we'll see how far that gets you. Presentations of different presentations of the gospel, whether it's

Paul on Mars Hill or Christ himself or the Old Testament prophets or what have you, they took a supreme position.

And what I mean by that is they went to the highest point in the mountain, and they said, our God is God, the

Lord is above all other gods, and here's the truth. They didn't say, here's my God, tell me about yours.

They always had this understanding that our Lord is supreme, that he is sovereign, and I am to proclaim him to you, not put him on an even playing field with everybody else so we can get along.

So we can get along. Have you noticed that that's tacked on at the end of almost everything when it's completely a misrepresentation?

Neither Yasir Qadhi and I have as our ultimate desire just to get along. We had a discussion about that.

Remember, they just keep forgetting that part. Okay, they don't forget it. They're just not concerned to accurately represent it.

They are so focused upon what they think is an act of compromise that they will dishonestly misrepresent what actually took place.

It's a shame, but I've seen it over and over again. Zealous Christians, and I believe both these people are

Christians. That's what's so scary here. I believe they're both Christians, and yet here they are twisting what you can watch on a video.

In fact, when I was watching that Hagman Report thing, do you know what the bottom video in the recommended videos on the right -hand side with all those comments flying by, and the bottom one is the dialogue with Yasir Qadhi.

It's right there. That's going to change with what YouTube's But anyways, it is such a shame to see

Christians twisting what's right there, documentable, and what was said by a

Christian. Just ignore it. It's astounding, but I want to deal with this assertion.

Well, we need to be at the top of the mountain, and we just need to be telling people what to believe. We just need to proclaim the true

God. Okay. All right. I heard one of our

Irish brothers likewise saying, I don't like this idea of just making our God one of many.

Yasir Qadhi does not believe Allah is one of many. I do not believe that Jesus Christ is just one of many, and the idea is people who don't engage other people of other faiths, people who've never really sat down and invested their lives in somebody and tried to really explain, they're uncomfortable when there is any give and take.

They just want it to be a monologue instead of a dialogue. And it's only coming from one side.

You just heard Janet say that. It needs to be a monologue. But here's the problem. To be able to communicate to that person who has many misapprehensions about what you believe, you have to be able to communicate with them.

And that requires you to understand what they believe and what they think you believe.

And again, is this something new that I've just developed recently? No. Mike Beliveau gave me a bunch of slides.

We got to send them off to one of those places to get them all turned in pictures because we've got a 35th year anniversary coming up, and that would be really good to get that done so we can say, hey, look at these skinny young people running out there.

That was us back when we had dark hair and hair. Now it'd be skinny old people.

Yeah. But anyway, looking at these meetings that we used to have before we go up to Salt Lake City and what are we doing?

We're getting people prepared to witness to Mormons by explaining not only what

Mormons believe, but also what Mormons think we believe. So that you can detect when they're misinterpreting your words so that you can make your words all that much more effective.

That was 30 years ago. I haven't changed. I'm just doing the same thing on a much bigger scale now.

And you see, let's be honest. Let's be honest. I keep talking about Mormonism because that's what we started with.

Most of these folks could care less that we deal with Mormonism. It's the fact we're doing this with Muslims that's so offensive to them.

I never got a single word of remonstrance for the dialogue that I had with Alma Allred at the

University of Utah. Because you know what? These people don't care about Mormons because they don't see Mormons as a threat.

They see Islam as a geopolitical threat, and therefore every

Muslim is a threat. And therefore, oh, no, no, no, no. Those Mormons, except for the

Danites a while back, maybe if you're down in Manti, you might have a problem. But other than that, most of them don't know anything about the

Danites. That's not a threat, so I don't care. Do what you want, waste your time, whatever.

But you're talking about Islam here, and we've got to be united. We've got to be united.

Anyway, we press on. No, that's exactly right. And I tell you what, Janet, there's several examples of this people are familiar with.

In 1 Kings 18, 19 to 40 is Elijah, Alma Carmel, and he is ending up calling down fire out of heaven to completely obliterate and destroy the prophets of Baal idol.

But what happened was at the end, they followed them down the mountain. There was 400 prophets of Baal, 450 prophets of Jezebel, and they ended up killing the prophets.

It was something that was absolutely unthinkable that could possibly be given over to any kind of unity whatsoever.

So there you go, folks. I guess that's how we should deal with Islam. I guess you put the four spiritual laws on all the cars outside the mosque, and if they don't all repent, then you call the fire of God down on them.

I guess that's how it works now. I guess the fact that we're dealing with the old covenant situation here, we're dealing with the nation of Israel, we're dealing with the issue of the legal penalties for even seeking to get someone to worship other than Yahweh.

You really honestly think there's supposed to be a direct parallel to how the church is supposed to – where did the early church do this?

I forget. I'm trying to think through Acts here where the fire was called down upon unbelievers.

I'm trying to find that. I think someone missed basic biblical theology 101 somewhere here.

I'm sorry, folks, but this just – it's so easy to sit in our little conclaves and our little walled off communities and talk like this.

But what it shows me is, man, we don't get out much, do we? We don't get out much.

Let me just ask a question. If you were a

Muslim that the Lord was beginning to deal with in regards to your sin, like Martin Luther long ago, and you were starting to find that all the ablutions and Hajj trips and prayers and all that stuff just, it wasn't bringing you peace.

And you started looking around and you started listening to Christians. Would you be attracted to this?

Yeah, we should – oh, I forgot to do this. Sorry.

Maybe I'll do it in the next dividing line. But there was a meme that I was going to respond to from Twitter – not from Twitter, from Facebook that had been posted about Christian theology.

I'll try to remember to do it on the next program. It was a really bad misrepresentation of Christian theology from a

Muslim perspective. Now, that doesn't exactly commend

Islam to me, but I'm sort of used to it, and I'm the one that follows all these

Muslim guys on Facebook, so I'm the one exposed to it. But someone in that group posted a picture of a bumper sticker from Texas, and the bumper sticker said,

Kill a Muslim for Jesus. Now, you tell me if a

Muslim is under the conviction of the Holy Spirit of God, and they look to Christian people, and they listen to Steve Camp talking about calling fire down from heaven and killing the false prophets of Baal, you think they're going to be going to Steve to go,

Could you tell me about the love and mercy of God? Can you tell me about how my sins can be forgiven?

They've already got a law and fire. They need something more than that.

They need something more than that. At the very least, my sincere hope is that many of these

Muslims will understand that there are those of us out here that have thought through these things, and we've shown them the respect of actually knowing what they believe, and we reject this.

We reject the disrespect that is shown to them by this kind of rhetoric.

We reject it. Ever seek to get along or to find common ground with that which is at the core satanic of a false prophet, a different faith, a different religion in order to somehow understand them better, thinking our mastering of their error propagates the gospel.

There's the apologetics of ignorance. First of all, it's again, it's dishonest. This idea of seeking common ground as if there's some middle ground.

No, we rejected that. Again, more dishonesty than misrepresentation would actually happen. But the idea here is we don't need to understand these things.

We don't need to understand. We don't need to be able to clarify. What that really means is we don't need to build these bridges.

We don't need to communicate to these people. Listen, we love them. We want anyone to come to faith in Jesus Christ.

God does not delight in the death of the wicked, neither should we. But who we partner with and our methods matter, not just the purity of the message.

Not just the purity of the message. Who we partner with. Partner with in what?

See, notice the equivocation. Just a logic teacher would, if they had hair, would be pulling their hair out at just the number of category errors that are just part and parcel of Steve Camp's thinking.

There's no clarity of thought at all. It's just equivocate here, equivocate there, mix this category, mix that category.

I wasn't partnering with Yasir Qadhi in evangelizing Muslims. What are you talking about?

But what you're doing here is you're presenting the idea of the apologetics of ignorance. It's best not to know.

It's best not to know. So when

I hear a Muslim and I automatically, because I have interacted with them and I understand where they're coming from,

I see them automatically assuming Unitarianism, misinterpreting a text of the

Bible because of a Unitarian presupposition. Steve just has to go, well,

I'll just repeat that text again and hope the Holy Spirit opens their eyes. Okay. You think maybe they might come to conclusion you don't really have much respect for them if you're not really willing to accurately represent them?

Well, you shouldn't represent them at all. I guess you don't really want to engage in Pytho, do you? Persuasion.

And Steve, do you think it's just that we're not that much into proclamation anymore? We're so into wanting to be touchy feely and to get along with people and to not draw any criticism.

You know, if in the back of any part of Janet's mind, she was thinking about me, did she not listen to any of the programs we ever did?

Touchy feely? Really? Okay. You have to be a pretty strong person of the

Lord to be able to talk the way Jeremiah did or Elijah did or Paul did. They were confident in the message of the gospel.

They were confident in their God and they did not shy away from proclaiming him. Is that part of the problem?

We just don't want to proclaim and seem as if we're really exclusive and trying to know what truth is? Yeah, I'm lost there too.

Who's doing the proclaiming in the places where you're saying you shouldn't? Who's doing the proclaiming here?

Who's the one that's looking for gospel safe spaces? And who's taking the gospel everywhere?

I don't even know how to respond to that. In order to find common ground that serves as a basis for further action, they refer to it as ideological jihad.

In other words, if you talk about dialogue, even if you talk about having Okay, Janet then went through her objections and what

I want you to hear, I'm not going to stop and start every little thing, what I want you to hear is there is a bunch of Robert Spencer mixed into the theology.

The problem is Robert Spencer shouldn't be mixed into anybody's theology because it doesn't have a theology. It's politics.

And the political situation of today will change tomorrow, especially in the

White House these days, and certainly change 100 years from now. The gospels could be the same.

And the people who are going to make a difference now are going to be the people who make a difference for the gospel today, not the people who are concerned about politics.

I'm not saying that it's not important things in politics. What I am saying is, when you start looking for a safe space gospel, because of political considerations, you've missed it.

You've missed it. That's the problem. In order to find common ground that serves as a basis for further action, they refer to it as ideological jihad.

In other words, if you talk about dialogue, even if you talk about having a debate or something with a Buddhist or a Mormon or somebody, they are a completely different ball of wax than Islam, which has a stated objective of wanting to see the caliphate come back into power in implementing

Sharia law and instituting all kinds of horrors for Christians and for Jews as well. This is something that I'm so concerned about,

Steve, because this is a dangerous footsie that's being played. So again, you have the idea there's one

Islam, it's monolithic, any Muslim that says otherwise isn't a real

Muslim, they're engaging in taqiyah, etc., etc. That's the mindset of fear.

And we are called to risk that. Could I be lied to by a Muslim? Sure. Could any

Christian in the early church been lied to by a Jewish person they're sharing with and get betrayed and end up being executed?

Yep. Yep. It's for call to do. To change the heart of someone else.

So especially as you're saying with Islam, Islam has no problem trying to adapt and mask itself and live in the shadows of whether it be a constitutional form of government to implement

Sharia. How does he know any of this? It sounds like, have you been doing some original research stuff?

Or is it just a secondary stuff? Whether it's in the shadow of evangelical leaders under the guise of interfaith dialogue, they truly desire, and I believe, unfortunately, that many of these evangelical leaders are being played by Islam.

They are happy to accommodate them, even in their mosques, without persecution, without retaliation, welcoming them as friends and welcoming them as those that have similar...

Now remember, Steve has criticized the debates with Muslims for quite some time now. That's what's behind this.

And you want to know why? Oh, because compromise. ...of faith with them in order to gain an audience with the evangelical community.

When we see Christians, and especially the pastors... Now think about what this means. See, he's thinking politically here, not spiritually.

Because can the message of Islam have power amongst true believers, yes or no?

Now he knows what the answer to that is. But he doesn't live in light of that answer. Because he's driven here...

Steve is a political animal. There were a lot of people who really liked Steve up until the last election cycle.

And then they muted him, blocked him, stopped following him, because the idea that there was the slightest bit of balance in Steve's perspectives was blown away by what happened in 2015 and 2016.

Even the non -conversation on Apollo Gear Radio illustrated parts of that.

But this is where you start doing theology by politics.

And you assume this whole meme of the monolithic Islam and so on and so forth.

Lower the standard to guard the trust of God's really infallible and errant word.

Under that guise of having dialogue. If we're no more discerning than that, we're going to reap what we sow in the next generation, and we're going to see this unholy alliance between Christianity and Islam.

And it may begin with methodological issues, but it ends up with a stunted and watered -down theology to condone the very methods now we've unfortunately have come to embrace.

That's what's happening. That's what's happening. I'd like to know, where did that come out in the dialogues?

Was the Doctrine of the Trinity that was presented? That wasn't Orthodox Doctrine of the

Trinity? Necessity of the Atonement? Scripture? Exactly what was it?

In the debates that have happened since then, there must be some evidence of this, right? These folks will never provide that evidence because there isn't any, and they can't.

This is fear -mongering. Because you got nothing in the actual documented stuff to use, so you come up with that stuff.

You're so right, and this kind of dovetail... Every single time one transitions into the other, it's, you're so right, you're exactly right.

There's no pushback. There's no critical thought going on here at all. Yeah, I know.

Spencer and Amba Simpson. Yeah, I know. I was going to read from the same site. They said, there is another reason why

Muslim Brotherhood leaders engage in interfaith dialogue. They strive to make non -Muslim leaders repeat Muslim Brotherhood mantras to non -Muslim audiences.

Where have we heard this? It was Brandon House. These are talking points, and I think there's a common source for these talking points.

Let's just say. Steve, the first thing that comes into my mind is what they have tried to do to push this

Muslim Brotherhood coin term of Islamophobia. They want the... Did y 'all hear Brandon House saying that on the program?

I played part of it just yesterday. ...to feel guilty. You're all a bunch of fearful

Islamophobes. We are not all terrorists. You're not giving us a fair hearing. You guys, in fact, terrorize us on occasion when you don't give us the benefit of the doubt.

All of a sudden, now you're doing some kind of psychological warfare on Christians who actually are, I think, exercising discernment and saying,

I'm not going to necessarily trust until I verify. You're taking away their natural inclination to be careful in light of all of these attacks around the world every single day, and you're beginning to use them for your own purposes.

Then you have a sheeple that will now say, well, don't say anything about Islam because they're really nice people. Is this not a way to advance what they're doing?

This is exactly what they want us to do. There is one of the best descriptions of the fear -mongering that I've seen.

Because what's being said here is, well, look, there are

Muslims in the world that do terrible things, and there are

Christians being persecuted in other lands. And so, therefore, we dare not ever recognize that there would be anyone that would act in bigotry or prejudice or arrogance against a

Muslim in the West. We cannot recognize that that happens, because if you do, you're defending all of Islam.

No, you're not. That is a categorical error of thought. It just sounds better when

Janet says it than when Brandon says it, for some reason, because Janet doesn't sound like she's

Brandon House, or else to put it, because she doesn't go off talking about Jesuits and Illuminati within five minutes and weaving stuff together on a program about UFOs and selling survival food.

Yeah, I don't think she sells survival food. I don't know. That is a massive category error of thought.

There are people who act in abject bigotry and bias toward Muslims.

That's a fact. No Christian should ever deny facts. Is that defense of Islam?

No, no rational person can say that. Yeah, absolutely.

So when you can advance Muslim brotherhood mantras to non -Muslim audiences, and they don't care the vehicle of that transmission of that dialogue, then they've won.

One of the things they've done today in our nation, and I think people that say that the threat of Islam or even

Sharia law upon our nation isn't something that we should be concerned about. There's not enough Muslims in the nation to do anything of damage here.

Only a handful of Muslims want Sharia law. Even ISIS is irrelevant. I've heard evangelical leaders say this in the last few weeks.

And what happens when that kind of naivete occurs with... Naivete, but Steve, you're the one who wants us to be naive.

You don't want us doing original study, do you? Oh, it's okay as long as it's politically oriented.

It's okay to spend hours on these websites that make all these connections amongst all these different groups and spin all these conspiracy theories.

But if you spend time actually doing the theology and the history and stuff for actual gospel purposes, well, then that's all wrong.

To these kind of dialogues, now what happens is they're open at another level where Islam is happy to invade, and that's on the social issues.

Look, folks, how blind are we?

How blind are we if we cannot see that the social issues right now, the reason for us to be very aware and very concerned are all coming from secular totalitarians?

Oregon. Oregon's abortion law. Did you catch that? What does that have to do with Islam?

Nothing. Nothing. And all of you people who just simply see a

Muslim hiding behind every bush are accomplishing zippity -dippity -doo -dah in regards to what's really happening in the social, sexual, ethical revolution taking part around us.

The millennial generation has been taken over by secular totalitarianism.

The Muslims are not the biggest problem. My goodness, how can you not see that?

Oh, but I'm sure they're behind it somewhere. And then you got the Jesuits. You got the Illuminati. Whether it be on the issue of marriage or whether it be on the issue of abortion or whether it be on the issue of race relations.

Okay, I need to stop right here. I've seen this happen. I need to stop right here. Steve Camp's tweeting. He's tweeting.

I don't know if you just noticed that. Let me give you one minute. He said to somebody, let me get the context.

He's talking to someone named Will Hoffman. And this was what

Steve just said. No, he wasn't in regards to explaining the gospel. He didn't do any of those things.

Jim has a man crush on Kadhi. That's all. The gospel in IFD isn't the primary thing.

That's Steve Camp. That's Steve Camp. That's disgusting, sir. That's disgusting.

I've seen other people making comments along those lines. It's disgusting.

It's reprehensible. I call you to repent. You are clearly completely out of control and unstable, simply unstable.

We are sitting here playing your own words. Demonstrating error, after error, after error, after error in your thought and your scriptural application.

And you're on Twitter. And that's the best you can do in response. It's disgusting.

It's disgusting. Somebody make sure to screenshot that because sanity might return and it might disappear.

I don't really. Actually, you know what? This cool screenshot program I've got.

Crop. Save to Dropbox. Got it. It's done. This is a cool program.

It's called Super Screenshot.

Maybe we could do like survival Super Screenshot commercials. We could become a licensed.

Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Okay. All right.

There you go. I'll be honest with you after that.

What do you do? I mean, I mean, why? Why continue?

Why would just be repeating ourselves? I had more. I had more stuff here.

I had I had all of Janet stuff at the end, but we've heard it all. What what more is there?

What more is there to say? Once once you've got that level of inanity from a man who calls himself a pastor,

I might as well be talking with this guy. You know, Plato would be on a higher level,

I think, actually, at that point. So anyway, yeah,

I think I think we've established. I think that was a full enough response. We've done an hour and 41 minutes.

And at that point, I'm just sort of like. What after that?

What do you what do you say? What do you say? Let me just make this application. Someone posted a.

Screenshot from someone who had just. Grossly twisted my words in regards to my, again, public acknowledgement of how much

I had learned from Yasir Khadi. And I want to once again.

Just express my deepest concern about the kind of Christianity that would produce people who are proud of being ignorant, who are proud of prejudice, bias, bigotry, closed mindedness.

Of how they can so voraciously condemn others when they've never taken a moment to even know what those other people believe.

I find this. Kind of Christianity, absolutely reprehensible and disgusting.

It is a blight on the gospel. People outside the church see it, people outside the

United States, especially see that it's primarily Americans that are this way. People who live in countries that are that have been primarily secular for a long period of time, they see it.

People that live in countries that are another religion as the majority, they see it. It's just within our little conclaves that people get away with this.

And it's actually considered to be spiritual. I have learned.

A lot about other religions from the practitioners of those religions. I have done so with discernment.

I have done so checking out what those individuals say against written sources, against original sources. I spend so much more time than the vast than any.

I don't know of a single critic. I'll be perfectly honest. I don't know of a single critic of mine. That would have been out on New River Road.

At 3 30 in the morning yesterday morning. On a 100 kilometer bike ride listening to lectures from a very well read.

Islamic scholar on the text and transmission of the Quran. I just don't. They don't spend that kind of time.

To try to be accurate and try to be fair. They don't think it's important. They don't think it's relevant.

Steve Camp certainly doesn't. But to be proud. Of the fact that you cannot list a single person from another faith tradition that you've learned anything from.

Well, that's wonderful. Clearly, you want to reach out to them with understanding and truthfulness, right?

What some of the things that Steve said. Were very basically true.

If you're talking about a new Christian. If you're a new Christian, don't be afraid to present the gospel to a

Muslim. You don't have to know what I know to witness to a Muslim. But obviously.

If you have. If you're in a situation where a Muslim begins working in the cubicle next to you.

Muslim moves into the house next door to you. You're going to have the opportunity over time to speak to this person.

You want to prepare yourself. You want to show them the respect and love of Christ.

To be able to speak his truth to them with the greatest accuracy possible.

You do not show them love. And you do not show your God love by being lazy. In your approach to those people.

And that's what we're hearing. Prompted by fear. Politics. Need to be lazy.

The apologetics of ignorance. We'll never do that here. Might result in our being shut down and silenced.

Certainly is resulting in my being. Having many, many doors closed to me.

It's not just people. See, there's a lot of people who. Would give me the freedom to do what

I do. Even if they go, yeah, I'm not sure I would want to do that. But hey, more power to you. You don't have to agree with me on everything.

There's a lot of those people that are starting to realize. I can't really. I can't really do anything with James White. Because these people come after me with pitchforks.

They will come after me. If I have anything. Look what, look what Brennan House did. I mean, these people are nasty.

They're just nasty. And what's it all about? Well, let you judge for yourself.

When you can see Steve Camp. Posting that, you know,

I can actually. I bet you I can get that tweet. Reposted. And still talk on the program at the same time.

I bet you I could multitask that way. Folks, don't misunderstand.

I take all this very, very seriously. But after weeks of this now. I just,

I just, you know, I've made it a part of my thinking for years.

I only give the weight to someone's criticism. That that person by their consistency of behavior and life deserve.

And when Steve Camp. You know, I remember first getting introduced to him.

He was going through some tough times. I tried to be of assistance to him. Spent hours on the phone with him. But I've been told by others.

He's burned almost every bridge behind him. Almost every relationship he ever had. Why? Why? I don't know.

But when I see what he's doing now. How much, how much weight can you, can you give.

To someone who would post something like that publicly. I can't give almost any at all. So, so there you go.

Um, so next time around, I've got to remember. Uh, to, uh, maybe if I put it on the, on the desktop.

I'll remember to do it. There was this meme that was posted about Christianity from an

Islamic perspective. I want, I said I was gonna respond to that. And Facebook didn't get around to it. We'll try to get around to that.

I still want to find some time before it's too old of a story. But the amazing, um, story of the

Portland. What is going on in, in, in the Northwest? Oregon, Port, Oregon and Washington.

My goodness. I mean, I think they're too close to China. They've just decided to become communist.

But Portland transgender man gives birth to baby boy. And the first line of it. This is a

New York Daily News. This was yesterday. You know what the first line is? Now that's a miracle.

Now that's a miracle. No, that's insanity. And look, it's absolutely natural.

Your first thought is just disgust. But pretty quickly, the second thought for me anyways, is that poor child.

Oh my. And when I start thinking about the Bible. I immediately think of the description of men in those final days.

They will be what? Lovers of self. Isn't that what it says? Lovers of self. Self lovers.

Isn't that the very definition here? I want to have some time to talk about that.

So we'll try to get around to that. It's in my, it's in my Evernote list of things to get to.

So we'll, we'll see. But after all this, one last thing, as we, as we get ready to close down.

A week from Sunday, I head for the

UK, Birmingham. And I would like you to pray for the debate on the 15th between myself and Zakir Hussain.

Zakir is the young man that I was debating on whether Muhammad is prophesied in the

Bible. Right after the attack on the

Benghazi consulate in the East London mosque. And obviously that encounter is going to have an interesting aura to it.

In light of what has been happening over the past number of weeks. I would ask that you would pray for myself.

For the clarity of the expression that I will give. Pray for Zakir Hussain.

I want it to be a good debate. Sometimes Zakir does the machine gun thing where he's just throwing a bunch of stuff.

I really like it to be much more focused than that. And so I, I want you to pray that it will be a debate that will be useful, that it will be recorded well, made available to a wide audience while we still can.

And that the people that are there will hear and hear with clarity.

And that God's truth will be honored that evening. Despite the fact there could be a lot of people that just don't think we should ever do anything like that at all.

I think it's a wonderful opportunity. I think it's a tremendous opportunity. And so I'd ask that you would pray, support, getting us over there and the costs involved.

You pulled your microphone up. I guess that means something. I don't have. We will let you know as soon as we can.

It should be seven o 'clock. The location is being worked on. As soon as Zakir has that information, he's going to let me know.

And we will, of course, announce it. That was the first thing I wanted to talk about. And the second one is, and since you mentioned

Birmingham last week, actually, I think the first time, we've been getting, I mean, an amazing number of gentlemen who are willing to assist you, transport you, etc.

And I haven't been able to get back with everyone. So I'm hoping they're all listening now. We have worked out your transportation.

With the exception of getting to the location. Yeah, with the exception of getting to the location. So that might be something that I may want to reserve there.

It'd be nice. Yeah, it'd be nice if we could arrange something like that. Maybe, yeah, that'd be good. You're going to be staying near the...

Let's not get overly specific. Near, in the general vicinity of the train station.

Right. Well, that makes sense. And so that would be where the transport would take place from.

But, you know, as far as people, I mean, I think one gentleman actually had it in mind that he was going to drive you from London to Birmingham.

And we've got that worked out. It's all taken care of. And so that's not an issue.

But I just wanted to kind of put that out there that, and as far as what we've worked out, that's been made possible by the folks who've donated to the

Travel Fund. So donations to the Travel Fund, still appreciated. We've got more travel to do this year as it is.

So it is amazing that the vast majority of the opposition we're getting to doing this kind of work is coming from people who call themselves

Christians. But it is. It's really not anything new in the sense that down through church history, it's been the way it is.

But if you believe that we should be accurate and truthful and careful and respectful and loving and gracious and adorn the gospel of Jesus Christ, stand with us.

Stand with us. If you reject the apologetics of ignorance, stand with us. We need your help.