Deedat, Adam Hamilton, ERLC, and the Pope

Well, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. We have a lot to get to today. Twitter's burning down. The ERLC is burning down. And it's all my fault, evidently. If you point these things out, it's all your fault.

Been an interesting 24 hours on social media. One of those, do we really have to do this type things? But there you go. But before we get to all of that stuff, there are apologetics things that would be good to get to today.

And by the way, I'm not sure why there are so many people who think that this is their prerogative. But you know, I could ask Rich right now. So what are all the topics I'm going to do today? He hasn't got a clue.

Religious stuff. Religious stuff. That's true. I don't run things by people. I put together what clips I'm going to play. And that's just sort of how it is. And there's nobody on Twitter that I need to run my topics by.

But there are some of you who think that you're in charge of what we should address. And, you know, been doing this for over three decades. Didn't need the help of Twitter for the vast majority of that time.

And aren't looking for it now. Aren't looking for it now. So for those of you who want to offer your expertise, not really interested. Not really interested. Not going to be looking for that. Anyway, so where are we going to start off?

Ahmed Deedat's Misreading of Matthew 7

We're going to start off. Some of you might remember, wow, probably 2008, 9, 10, around that particular area. I spent a fair amount of time on the show playing clips from what's called the Dean Show. Now, Dean in Arabic means religion.

So it's the religion show. But the Dean of Islam. And we pretty much got the sense during that time period that the Dean Show sort of goes for the low end of things. They had people on, you know, they like to have experts on Christianity on.

And then when you dig into the experts credentials, you know, they were a United Methodist youth minister for one summer or something. And that makes them an expert on these things. By the way, Dr. Boldt, it's Dean, D-E-E-N, not D-E-A-N.

Not sure what they're teaching people in PhD programs anymore. But anyway, picking on people in the chat channel. I just happened to look down there. Not the Dean Martin Show. This is a different Dean.

D-E-E-N. Anyway, we played a number of programs. They had Zakir Naik on. They're throwing him these little softballs and he's doing his thing. I haven't played anything from the Dean Show for a while.

Because it's clear that Eddie, the primary interviewer guy on the Dean Show, has no interest in himself coming out and actually dialoguing and doing it. It would be really interesting to find out if he is aware of the dialogue that Yasir Qadhi and I had and will have more in the future.

And if that would change his mind about anything. I just don't get the feeling that the Dean Show is interested in anything, but it's just presenting its one perspective. But anyway, they put out a video.

It's a four and a half minute video. And I clicked on it. It was one of those facepalm moments. Because the voice that came out. Now at one point, I don't know what happened in the recording, downloading something, but there's a bit of a portion where the sound gets all messed up.

It doesn't really impact anything else. But it was none other than Ahmed Didat. And sometimes I started thinking, one of the positive impacts that we've had on the da 'i, the people who do da 'wah amongst the Muslims.

Some of them have really tried to pick up their game. And I just think that some of them, they may not want to say it within their groups, but they've come to realize that Didat's material is just, it's not repeatable.

It's just not honest. It's bad stuff. He was not a scholar. He did not do his homework. He was a showman, not a scholar. And it just seems that at least some have abandoned that. But then many others, he still remains the most listened to Muslim in the world, even though he has been dead for a while.

And so they put together, and I had not heard this particular clip before. So they put this together and I wanted to respond to it before we got to the juicy stuff about Catholic vegans and things like that.

And this is not working. Okay. So there's nothing there. I can't hear nothing. So, and I can't hear myself here. So, you know, we didn't adjust the volume thing. So maybe the volume thing is all messed up.

I don't know. But there's nothing coming through that. Anyway, let's listen to what Ahmed Didat said here. And again, you might say, well, why play that? Well, because he is so incredibly popular, which means that his presentations like this impact much more of the broad audience Muslims that we would be interacting with in the workplace and things like that.

And again, I believe that we as Christians need to be ready to give an answer, desirous of entering into conversation with the Muslim people. You might say, I live in a place where I'll never run into a Muslim.

Well, that's changing all over the world, but even in the United States. So if you're praying for them and praying that God would give you a love in your heart for all people, but especially for Muslim people that you might share with them patiently and so on and so forth, then you want to be ready.

So let's ask yourself the question, as you listen to this, how would you respond in talking to a Muslim who has been influenced by this kind of conversation?

But Allah took him up to himself. We Muslims believe that God Almighty took him up, saved him from that ignoble death and nakedness of the cross, because the people in the cross were absolutely naked.

They didn't expect you to put a little loincloth around the man, the messenger of God, you say the son of God, naked and bare before the world, you know, flies buzzing around him. God Almighty didn't allow that to happen to his servant, his messenger, Jesus.

God saved him and took him up. And I say he's coming back to just you. He is coming back to do what? You know, we Muslims believe and we claim that Islam is the culmination, the fulfillment of all of God's revelation to me, all true guidance, all guidance is given to us.

We don't have to learn anything new from Jesus or Moses or Muhammad anymore. Whatever God wanted to give, he's given it to us. So what does Jesus come and do? I says, no, he's coming along to rectify you.

And he's telling you in the Gospel of St. Matthews, he says, many will say to me on that day, in his second coming, on his return, and many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name and in thy name cast out devils and in thy name do many mighty works?

They're going to ask Jesus, didn't we do all these things? We build hospitals, you know, orphanages. And we look after the aborigines and we look after the Maori's and we look after the Indians. Yes, yes, all these things we did.

We educated all these fools, you know, we civilized them, we cultured them, we did all the things. So did we not prophesy in thy name and in thy name cast out devils and in thy name do many mighty works?

What does Jesus say to that? He said, I never knew you. Depart from me, foot sack, get away, you rubbish, get away. He said, depart from me, ye that work iniquity. You are evildoers, you are evil mongers.

Amazing. You who are working in the name of Christ, looking after the lepers, looking after orphans, Mother Teresa, wonderful work she's doing, by God, I tell you, you know, I bow my head down out of respect for her.

All the wonderful things you people are doing, the way you look after the animals, you know, animal conservation to preserve life, fantastic things you are doing. But for human beings as well, what you are doing and that's what you're going to say to Jesus.

Didn't we do all these things for you in your name? And he's going to tell you, foot sack, foot sack. I don't know, this African's word, means get away, get away, you rubbish. He's going to do that to you.

Why would he do that to you? When you did all these things for Jesus? Come, come. I am asking the Christians, he's not going to tell the Jews, foot sack. He's not going to tell the Muslims, foot sack.

He's going to tell the Hindus, foot sack. He's going to tell you. Why would he tell you, foot sack? Get away, you rubbish, I don't know you. I'm asking the Christians, answer me. You know why? You know why?

Because you call him Lord. He's not your Lord. He's not your God. That's the reason. That is the reason. You make him into a God. That's the reason you did all this. You bloody rubbish, I don't know you.

Get away. You're not mine. You don't belong to me. Not to the Muslims, not to the Hindus, not to the atheists, but to the Christians, to the Christians and those who are claiming to be his followers. He's going to tell you, get away, rubbish, get away.

I don't know because you have made him into a Lord God when he told you to worship the Father in heaven. He's telling you, come, come, come. I'll teach you how to pray and pray like this. And he puts the words in your mouth.

Like a little baby, like a little child, pray like this. Oh, our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Where did he say the Father of Jesus Christ in heaven?

Oh, Jesus Christ my Lord in heaven, where? He said, this is how you pray. But you have forgotten that. You're worshipping him instead of worshipping the Father. Therefore, he says, fat sack, get away.

I don't even know.

So like I said, Akhmed Didat was a showman. And that's what that was, what you just heard was how he would, you know, speak to his people. Because he would know that his people are going to be ignorant of the context of scripture.

He just twisted and distorted the Bible in a way that if I did that to the Quran, I would be personally embarrassed at what I've done. But Didat showed no embarrassment in his ability and willingness to absolutely twist the Christian scriptures.

What do I mean by that? Well, you know, Jesus himself said, you call me Lord, and I am. There is no way that any honest person can look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and say, what Jesus was talking about there is if you call him Lord, you're going to go to hell.

Because that's what he would say. You've exalted him. And that's what's, that's not what's going on in Matthew 7. But he knows that 99 of his audience is not going to look that up. In fact, back in his day, back in the late 80s, most of his audience might not have even had the ability to do so.

Now, we all grab our phone and you can just throw a few words in and track down verses fairly easily. You don't even have a Bible program, you can just do it on Google. But back then, you know, you get away with it.

What's he quoting? He's quoting from Matthew 7. And Matthew 7, verse 15, where the false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing and really ravenous wolves, you'll know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes or figs and thistles, are they?

So every good tree bears good fruit, but bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire, so then you will know them by their fruits.

And so Jesus is talking about how one lives and the consistency of one's life, that if you are a good tree, you will have good fruit. Warnings against false prophets. We're in the midst of a whole section on kingdom living and kingdom morality and the whole nine yards.

And it's in that context that Jesus says in verse 21, not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. Now notice he does not say, if you say, Lord, Lord, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

That's not what he said. That's what DDOT represented as saying. Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. The only way to make sense of that is that to enter the kingdom of heaven, you have to say, Lord, Lord, which is what DDOT is telling people not to do.

He's teaching against Jesus. But notice what it says, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven will enter. Now just stop right there. No Orthodox Muslim believes Jesus spoke like that. He didn't call God his father.

That's inappropriate terminology, right? He didn't mention that. Jesus is here saying that if God is going to be your father, Jesus is going to be your Lord. And if he's going to be your Lord, then you are going to do the will of his father, which by the way, in one gospel, the will of his father is that you believe in him whom he has sent.

That is Jesus. But he who does the will of my father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name, cast out demons in your name, perform many miracles.

And I will declare to them, I never knew you depart from me who you who say, Lord, Lord, that's what you would think if all you had done is listen to DDOT. But that's not what it says. I never knew you depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.

So you see, there's a fundamental contradiction between saying to Jesus, Lord, Lord, and practicing lawlessness, which is how this fits into everything that came before and comes after. There's this thing called context.

It's a thing called honesty in dealing with a text. Now, Achmed DDOT was a smart man. And if he had wanted to deal honestly with this text, he could have, but he didn't. Now, DDOT's gone. But why are groups like the Dean Show repeating his horrific misrepresentations of the Christian scriptures?

Why is that? That's a question that is, I think, needs to be answered by those who support the Dean Show and support this kind of rhetoric. This is not how the conversation between Muslims and Christians is to be undertaken.

That's just pure showmanship based upon misrepresentation. The words are plain. Jesus was not for a second saying that calling him Lord is what's—that he's going to come back and judge people for calling him Lord.

He is going to come back. And every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, the glory of God the Father. That's the consistent teaching of scripture of Matthew and Philippians.

There's a consistency that the Muslims simply cannot engage with because the author of the Quran did not know what was in Philippians and what was in Matthew. That's where the problem lies. That's where the problem lies.

So this kind of thing, again, it just keeps coming and coming from the Dean Show. It is a true shame that they have an opportunity to push the conversation forward in the proper way, but they just won't do it.

They just won't do it. It's a shame. There really is. Okay. That's topic number one. We managed to get through that with introduction in only 20 minutes. That's pretty good. That's pretty good. Topic number two.

We should—you should type these up so that when we get done. Not beforehand. No. As you're listening, you're not doing anything out there. You're not even taking phone calls today. You're just trying to keep yourself awake.

I mean, I would understand if we had phone calls, but we're not even taking phone calls. So, you know, come on. As somebody said in channel, pay attention, AOMN. Someone else in the channel said, Zacher Naik is Akhmed D. Light.

Yeah, he really is. You know, D. at least was an original. Naik is just a 3D printed version of Akhmed D. and that's pretty sad. That's pretty sad. Anyway, I—where did I see this? I think I saw it on Facebook.

Adam Hamilton, Scripture, and Same-Sex Marriage

In light of the upcoming debate in September on the subject of homosexuality, it said mega church pastor explains his view on acceptance of gay marriage, et cetera, et cetera. Well, you clicked on it and it is a United Methodist Church.

I'm not sure there are that many mega United Methodist Churches left, but I guess there are a few. And, you know, this seems to be an intelligent, well-read individual, but he's saying that he has a high view of Scripture.

A high view of Scripture has to have a corresponding relationship to theological practice and to the supremacy of biblical teaching. In other words, if you're going to say that I have a high view of Scripture, but then allow societal norms and movements to be the primary soil out of which you bring the categories of your theology and pastoral practice, then you don't have a high view of Scripture.

This is somewhat related to a topic I'm going to be addressing here in a moment when I talk about the ERLC thing. I have a hard time, you might want to call it a character flaw, if you want to, but I have a hard time dealing with irrational people.

I have a hard time dealing with people who do not think with clarity, or even try to think with clarity, or think that thinking with clarity isn't all that important in the first place. So emotive people who primarily reason with their emotions rather than their minds, I struggle to show a whole lot of patience because from my perspective, it's an adult-child thing.

When you become an adult, you put the brakes on your emotions, you control them, you're to be discerning, you're to be rational, logical, seek to think in such a way that you're consistent throughout your life.

And yeah, I struggle big time when I start trying to deal with somebody that just has no discipline in their thought life. And I probably, sinfully, am willing to engage in sarcasm and mockery of someone who's 35 but has the mental capacity of reasoning of a 10-year-old.

I struggle in that situation. And my character flaws aside, as Christians, I think I can make a real strong case that the scriptures tell us to act like men. Don't even try to transport that into some gender-confused Western culture thing.

What it means is to be disciplined, willing to give up things to do the right thing, to be strong, to be consistent, not to be ruled by emotion. Well, man, over the past 24 hours, the stuff I've seen on Twitter and the stuff that people have written back to me, even on subjects like how to treat your doggie and your kitty, I'm just like, oh my, where did the Christian worldview go?

If your worldview does not impact how you think about things and how you respond to things, you don't have a Christian worldview. You've got the world's worldview. You may have slathered a little bit of religiosity on it, but it's not a Christian worldview.

If you're not seeking, in all things, to take every thought captive under the obedience of Christ, if you're not seeking to arrange everything under the lordship of Jesus Christ, you're not looking through the lens of God's revelation, don't call it a Christian worldview.

It may be a religious worldview, but it's not a Christian worldview. Anyway, this fellow is, like I said, well-spoken, United Methodist, claims to have a high view of scripture. I want to play just a portion of his comments because he responds to Mike Huckabee.

Is there somebody? Okay. He responds to Mike Huckabee. I'm looking at something in channel. Well, Dr. Bolt, if you would be so kind as to post said rant in channel, then I could see it, huh? Live programming is always much more interesting than deadcasting is, but I guess there's something interesting going on in Twitter or something, which I wouldn't be able to see because I'm blocked from that particular person.

Anyhow, is everything okay out there? No invasions? Were you able to keep the protesters out? Did you just use some of the spray? A few shots in the air and they scattered? Okay. Somebody will do something with that one.

But wait a minute. That's what the vice president said to do. A few shots in the air and anybody will run off. Okay. That's what I said. You still call him Mr. Vice President. Yes. I'm aware of that. But anyway, what were we talking about?

Oh, yeah. Back to this subject. Maybe while I play this, someone will post some of what's going on about Southern Seminary. By the way, let me just mention this since the topic of this conversation is homosexuality.

Let me just mention this. Once again, I mentioned this in the last program. I made a single tweet after the Revoice Conference in light of the comments that were made there and the relationship between Dr. Collins and Southern Seminary that Southern needs to be very, very clear in its response to this.

Well, that conference took place during the July hiatus of the briefing if you don't know what that is. The briefing is the Monday through Friday, except for holidays, examination of current events about 22 minutes long or so.

I noticed that last season when it started off, it was about 16 minutes long. It eventually got back out to about 22 minutes long by Dr. Albert Moeller, who, of course, is the president of Southern Seminary.

Even he commented when it starts up again August 1st. It started yesterday. Even he commented on the fact that this July there had been a huge amount of culturally relevant, biblically relevant developments that had taken place in our culture.

Anyway, today, Dr. Moeller spent quite some time criticizing Revoice, saying many of the same things we said yesterday. Obviously, he has a much shorter program, so he can't go into quite as much depth as we did in listening to what Dr. Collins said.

He specifically criticized the fundamental paradigm that was being presented by Dr. Collins. It is very, very good to see that. It is necessary to see that needed to happen. Evidently, I haven't seen anything yet, but evidently, Kyle Howard is going off after Southern, which is sort of strange because he's a student there.

I'm not sure what that is all about, but maybe while I'm playing this, someone will post some of that for me so that I can see that. It's sort of difficult to look things up, especially when you're banned or blocked from certain people.

Anyway, let's listen to Adam Hamilton. He's the keynote speaker at the 2018 Uniting Methodists Conference. This is fairly recent, and he's interacting. He's going to play a clip, and I want you to hear how he responds to Mike Huckabee's.

Statements. Now, I want to begin with a little video clip that captures how some traditionalists and this person is a Baptist, not a Methodist but how some traditionalists, you know, come when they start thinking about same-gender marriage, how hard it is for them to see beyond, you know, the way that they're looking at Scripture.

And this is Mike Huckabee. A few years ago, he was asked about same-gender marriage, and this is what he had to say. Take a listen.

I'm not against anybody. I'm really not. I'm not a hater. I'm not homophobic. I honestly don't care what people do personally in their individual lives, but I tell you, the reason when people say, well, why don't you just kind of get on the right side of history?

I said, you got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history. This is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it's not my book to change.

Folks, that's why I stand where I stand.

Now, with the black screen there, yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. That is just a basic now, look, I understand, you know, Stephen Anderson says that and uses that to defend wacky, crazy stuff.

Okay, I get that too. But there is in those words by Governor Huckabee an implicit recognition of the supremacy of Scripture and the completedness of Scripture. What you're going to hear reminded me a lot of what we heard from Daniel Kirk in his debate with Bob Gagnon two years ago.

If you don't remember that, it took place here in Phoenix, I was in the audience, one of the few debates I've ever attended that I wasn't actually involved in. And that was where Dr. Kirk enunciated this idea that, well, just as the early church had to struggle with the idea of the inclusion of the Jews I'm sorry, the Gentiles by the Jewish church that's where we are today.

And so when the Holy Spirit guided the early church to recognize that the gospel is for all people and that you didn't need to keep kosher laws and, in other words, provide an understanding of what the function of the law was, we're in the same situation today.

But now what the Holy Spirit's doing is revealing to us the goodness of the homosexual lifestyle and the necessity of the acceptance of homosexuality within the church as an accepted relationship, vocation, life, etc.

And that's when he made the comment, Dr. Kirk did, that we need to rethink, you know, just as we have had to rethink things Paul said because he was a first-century Roman citizen, we need to be willing to rethink the things that Jesus believed because he was just a man.

And I talked about my conversation with Dr. Kirk afterwards as a result of that. What we're going to hear reminds me of that. And this seems to be the primary when you listen to the people who have collapsed on this, they've given in.

They once recognized what the Bible taught, but now they're doing same-sex marriages and the Hawaiian yards. This seems to be the argument that is winning them over. And so we need to understand it and see where it's coming from, what ground it is born out of.

And so here, listen to what Adam Hamilton has to say.

What it feels like for many people, this is not my book to change. And unless, you know, I'm not going to be, I don't care about being on the right or wrong side of history. I want to be on the right or wrong side of God.

And who doesn't want to be on the right side of God? We all should want that. So the question is, you know, he says, so unless God comes down from heaven, I think that's how he said it. I can't remember exactly the words, and rewrites it, then I have to stick with this.

But imagine if Paul had said that when it came to circumcision or the kosher laws.

Now, let me, I'm going to back that up just a second, but I was just, I guess I was aware of this, but did you know, Rich, that if on YouTube you have restricted mode on, you can't watch The Dividing Line?

We've been marked as a something, been a long time ago. You sort of wonder who, what brilliant person came up with that. I say things. I say Christian things. I know, I know.

Should want that. So the question is, you know, he says, so unless God comes down from heaven, I think that's how he said it. I can't remember exactly the words, and rewrites it, then I have to stick with this.

But imagine if Paul had said that when it came to circumcision.

Okay, let's stop right there. What, in watching this and in watching the ERLC video in a few minutes, what I want to try to communicate to the audience today, and I realize probably everyone who actually watches this show and does so for the proper reasons already knows this, but what I certainly saw on Twitter over the past 24 hours is that there are very few people who live this when you analyze an argument, and this is an argument.

See, I think one of the problems is a lot of people go into things like this, they've been disarmed, they don't think they're getting an argument. They are getting an argument. Almost all communication is an argument.

An argument is not a bad word. An argument is a word for individuals. It's a good word. And when you get an argument, when you're being presented an argument, you don't have to be being yelled at. In fact, the best arguments are presented without any of that.

The most persuasive arguments are presented by people who can get you to agree with their position without you ever realizing that you have just been argued into a position. Those are the most dangerous people in our day because we no longer teach people the basics of communication rhetoric.

That's why our society is so easily swayed one side to the other. That's why the social media is a morass of absolute immaturity and stupidity. It's because we no longer know how to think. I mean, how many adults today have actually taken, seriously taken, a class on logic?

A hundred years ago, that percentage would have been huge because it was just a general part of even public education. But not anymore. Not anymore. No, no, no, no, no. Logical fallacies abound. I mean, people were responding to what I said about the ERLC video with so many logical fallacies and so much absolute abandonment of basic categories of logical thought that it was astounding.

I mean, I pretty much gave up on Western culture yesterday watching these responses from people just going, because there's no way to correct this rampant ignorance of basic thinking properties. And on Twitter, I mean, Twitter just it's not possible to do.

So you're getting an argument here and the wise person is going to be the person who is going to want to be able to identify properly what is being argued to them and why it is being argued to them and to be able to challenge the foundations.

Because very often, if someone's presenting to you a weak argument, they will present you with all sorts of emotional elements elements that do not go to the argument itself. And today, what happens is people are like, well, you know, it made me feel good.

So, you know, that's good enough for me. And you end up buying an argument that is completely erroneous, but you're doing it because of the fact that you're not really analyzing it. So we're being presented an argument here.

What was the argument? What if Paul did that with circumcision? Okay, so back up. What is the foundational presupposition of that statement? That we're in the same situation the apostles were in, that there's revelation going on, that there's a new era in church history and in revelational history, that the Spirit is still speaking.

Remember how wacky it seemed in 2001 when Barry Lynn, United Church of Christ pastor, in our debate claimed the same level of inspiration and revelation the apostle Paul had? And we're all like, really?

Right. Okay. Here it is again. Oh, no, he's not as crass as Barry Lynn. But the only meaningful presupposition that can make those words relevant is that we are in a period of doctrinal revelation where the Spirit of God is adding to the scriptures, just as during the time of the New Testament and the New Testament writings.

So the presupposition is what we have ain't enough. Paul could rethink the Torah and the Nevi 'im and the Ketuvim and evidently by himself come up with this new idea. And so we can do the same thing, except now we're rethinking not only the Torah, the Nevi 'im and the Ketuvim, but the apostolic writings as well, and the pastoral epistles and all of that.

Now for the parallel to hold, then our resultant decisions should be tacked into the Bible someplace. Because we're talking about revelation here. Now, he's not going to say, oh, no, I'm not saying we need to expand the canon.

Yes, you are. Yes, you are. You're basically saying, no, there needs to be a sort of a new revelational period. I can't put that together with this professed high view of scripture that he's already claimed to have and to be functioning from.

Or the kosher laws, or a whole host of other things that Paul said. Jesus didn't say this. Remember, Jesus said not one jot or iota will be taken away from the law before all is fulfilled, but he doesn't explain what that means.

So Paul's theologized about this, right? He's interpreted and theologized about this to say that this means that God is doing this new thing, and we see the Holy Spirit working among the Gentiles. And even though it's in the Bible,.

Because remember, Paul doesn't have a New Testament. Okay, so what you're going to get here is we're seeing God working amongst the Gentiles in the apostolic period, which results in the writing of the New Testament.

And so now in our day, we are allegedly, I certainly don't, but they say they are seeing God working amongst homosexuals, and then the next thing will be married homosexuals, and then pedophiles, and then there's no end to any of it.

But working in these transgender and all the rest of that stuff, God's working in these communities, and therefore that's just like God working amongst the Gentiles. Now, of course, that work amongst Gentiles, well, if I recall correctly, was supernatural and directed by the Holy Spirit of God and sent apostles amongst these people.

And when you read Acts chapter 15, there's this, wow, it seems like the apostles gave all sorts of scriptural foundation and prophecies about the gospel going to the Gentiles, and there certainly are a number of passages like that.

I can't think of a one about homosexuality, because there isn't, obviously. But you ignore all that, and you're going to try to create these extremely weak, ridiculously childish connections. But you hope that if you do it in such a way that you can cover over the weakness of the boards with a nice thick amount of it feels good, that you're going to get away with it.

But you've got to listen to the presuppositions of what's being said. You've got to listen fairly. You want to actually hear what's being said, but you can't let the presuppositions go by. You've got to examine them.

You've got to catch them as they're being woven into the fabric of the argument.

This Bible is the Tanakh, right? The Torah, the Nabiim, and the Chetashim, the writings, the prophets, and the law. That's all he has. And everyone agrees the most authoritative part of the scriptures is the Torah.

And yet he's setting aside major sections of the Torah. By what authority does he do this? I mean, you can understand why there were people who followed him around and thought he had a low view of scripture and thought he didn't take seriously scriptural authority and he was missing God's will.

And they were serious. They cared deeply about the scriptures and they were Christians too. They wanted people to follow Jesus, but they thought these rules are God's will. They're inscribed. And unless God comes down from heaven.

And he rewrites them, we got to still do them. Okay, and you see what he just did? He just drew a parallel between Governor Huckabee's position and the Judaizers. I thought the Judaizers were big on tradition, not scripture.

And they were. What was their accusation that Paul had a low view of scripture? No, their accusation was that he was breaking the law of Moses and the traditions of the fathers. So that was an inaccurate presentation, first of all.