Epic Christian Debate Highlights

I would say if the authorities didn't want us involved in the public square, they ought not to have crucified

Jesus in the public square. Use humanistic principles. Well, I would say, Dan, I would say that. I would say, what's the problem with stardust bumping into stardust?

In the cosmic picture, none. There's no problem. In the cosmic picture, it won't matter. No, Mr.

President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom. You are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.

I'm sorry, my friends, but I am tired of seeing Jesus presented as a weak beggar.

He is a powerful savior, and the gospel is not a suggestion.

It is a command. Reverend Mahler, don't you sympathize with that?

I sympathize with every single human heart wishing to know the one true and living God, but I believe there's only one way that that can happen through Jesus Christ, and the gospel is about repenting of sin, not celebrating it.

An amazing adventure.

We will explore the spiritual abyss. You have not experienced this before.

That their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is

Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. What's up, guys?

Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. This is the gospel heard around the world. You get more at ApologiaStudios .com

A -P -O -L -O -G -I -A -Studios .com So much going on right now.

Very excited for you guys to join us today. We have a very exciting show planned for you today. We're going to do some epic debate highlights with Dr.

Griggity Gregg Bonson. Bring it on down to Bonsonville. By the way, you can get that shirt.

Is it up? It's up, baby. I was wondering that. I didn't get to see it on the store. ApologiaStudios .com

Share that. You can go. You can get the... We'll find it. You can go to the store at ApologiaStudios .com

You can get two brand new Gregg Bonson t -shirts up there right now. ApologiaStudios .com

And, yes, it's official. BonsonU is official.

It is up at ApologiaStudios .com I want to encourage you guys to go check out the first series we put up there.

We have 1 ,900 audio lectures, sermon series, seminary -level courses to work through.

We're remastering them. We also have video that will be up on the site as well. So the site had to get basically ready for it.

So all this time we've been building it to get it ready for it, to handle everything and all the traffic and everything we want to do with it.

But also we need to remaster all of those. And so that's in process right now. You're going to be seeing over the course of the next couple of weeks just stuff just consistently dropping.

So be ready for it. Right now, the basic introduction to Christian Apologetics is up and it's live. Next is

Advanced Christian Apologetics, which I think should be up in the next day or two. So be on the lookout for that.

I encourage you, please don't go to the Advanced Christian Apologetics until you have taken in the basic introduction to Christian Apologetics.

Dr. Bonson always was known for not leaving any stone unturned. And so if you go right to the Advanced, it might discourage you.

So don't do that. Just trust me. Don't do it. Also, I want to give you everybody—first of all, that's the bear right there.

Hi. Hello. I'm the ninja. And we have in a moment here a very special guest who is joining us from South Carolina that's going to tell you about something very, very important happening in South Carolina on May 4th.

And I'm going to be there. We'll be there with our team. I want you to come and meet with us. Join us for this very important event.

But just a heads -up, too, also, just so you know, on that first course—by the way, you have to create an account when you come to apologiastudios .com.

It's totally free to do the Bonson U, and that's being made available to the church globally for free because of the

Bonson family. So shout -out to David Bonson. Thank you, brother, for all that you've done and allowing us to have the privilege and the honor to do this, to expand your dad's ministry and his teaching from heaven.

So I want to thank you for that. But just a heads -up, the basic introduction to Christian apologetics, when

I first took that course in seminary, I had to listen to those audio lectures. I just want you to be aware, the first—

I believe it's five lectures in that course. There's like 30 of them. The first five were just treacherous in terms of the audio.

I think it was recorded in the 80s. I remember sitting in a coffee shop trying to study for the coursework and for the testing, and I remember holding the headphones right to my ears as tight as possible just to try to squeeze out every bit of information

I could from those. Don't skip them, but you need to hear them. And just so you know, even the remastering of something that was that bad, the first five lectures, they're good.

They're not great in terms of audio. You can only do so much, I believe, with those. They were just treacherous.

You could barely hear them. We're not miracle makers. Yeah, just work through them. The first five, hard audio.

There's only so much we can do. Now, as you get further along into Bons' ministry and everything, some of the audio doesn't even need to be remastered.

It's fine as it is. We're just going to be able to put those right up, not worry about remastering those. But some of them, I mean, guys, stuff recorded in the 80s off like a

Radio Shack recorder or something like that. It is what it is, but trust me, it is gold.

It is gold, gold, gold. All right, so I want to talk to you guys right now about a very special guest we have on the line.

Honored to have Representative Jonathan Hill from South Carolina. He is behind the bill for equal protection for all human beings in the state of South Carolina.

It is H4046. Representative Jonathan Hill, thank you so much for joining us.

Well, thank you. I'm thrilled to be on with you guys. It's such an honor to speak with you, the man of courage in the state of South Carolina.

I want to just start this by saying, brother, that we have been praying for you for a very, very, very long time.

I want to thank you for having the courage to stand up for these little human beings, these image bearers of God.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you so much for what you're doing. Well, thank you for your prayers.

I do appreciate it, and it is needed. Well, Representative Hill, can you tell us, sir,

H4046, what is it and why is this important for you to put forth in the state of South Carolina?

Right. Well, the context of this is, you know, we have a two -year legislative session here in South Carolina, and last session, in the 2019 session, the heartbeat bill was brought up.

It was, you know, there's a whole history behind that, which I won't go into right now, but it was brought up.

It was passed out of the House. It went over to the Senate. It died in the Senate, and, of course, you know, with a little help from COVID, and then that was brought back up again this session, in the 2021 session, and it was pretty much fast -tracked, prioritized.

It's actually Senate Bill 1, which indicates it's the very first bill that was filed by any senator in the Senate for this session, and that bill was passed out of the

Senate with rape and incest exceptions, sent over to the House, and everyone from the pro -life establishment to the

SDGOP of the South Carolina Republican Party really put the screws to every Republican House member to pass the bill as is.

It just was almost more than I could take that all of these supposedly pro -life people were openly advocating for rape and incest exceptions to the bill, and they said this is the only way it would pass, and so as you might imagine, for someone in my shoes in the

State House, the month of February and March were quite eventful and quite depressing, actually, and so it put me on the path of, you know, really trying to think of, well, what is the proper way to address this issue?

And for South Carolina, I arrived at two simple answers to that. One, the obvious is we need to stop paying tax dollars for abortions and stop giving tax dollars to abortion providers, which has been an ongoing issue.

So we need to end abortion funding, and then we also need to end abortion itself, and I think the two...

Looks like we lost him there. There you go. You're back. That's a very long -term fight.

Yes. So tell us about H4046. What is it trying to establish?

What's the language? What is it trying to establish, and how is it different than the common industry -wide bills that are put forth in terms of, like, you know, you can kill your baby, but you can't kill your baby if it has

Down syndrome, you know, we want wider hallways. How is H4046 different?

Well, H4046 removes all exceptions or supersedes all exceptions in South Carolina law that would allow our state to, you know, kill or murder the unborn, and it literally defines abortion as murder, and, you know, there's a notification bit in there as well where we're saying we're going to enforce this regardless of what the

Supreme Court or any other federal court tribunal decides. So, you know, we reject out of hand the legitimacy of Roe v.

Wade and any of its judicial progeny, I think is the official term that's used in the bill, so any subsequent cases like KCP Planned Parenthood, the most recent

Russo decision, things like that would all be included in when we say Roe, and so, you know, and the reason it says that, quite honestly, is because I've become less and less confident over the last several years that we're going to see

Roe v. Wade overturned in our lifetime using the strategies that we've been employing, so this strategy of, well, we've got to put

Republicans in the U .S. Senate, and we've got to put a Republican in the White House, and we've got to get pro -life judges on the bench.

Well, we just got two, supposedly. That was supposed to give us the majority, and then the

Russo decision happened in Louisiana, and only one of this crop of judges that were supposed to be these big pro -life justices, only one openly said that Roe v.

Wade was flawed and needs to be overturned, and so it's really, you know, when

I look at the issue here in our state in South Carolina, thousands of babies are killed every day, or every year, and, you know, that really hasn't changed.

In fact, access to abortion is at an all -time high. It's growing in South Carolina, and that is something that should prick every one of our hearts.

We've got to, anytime, you know, we're fighting, we're fighting, we're fighting, we're not getting results, it's time to take a step back, reevaluate, try something else.

That's exactly what House Bill 4046 does. It tries something else. Well, I thank you,

Representative Hill, because it's one of the most courageous and consistent bills, and that I think you need to take some encouragement, and I really hope that you do.

As much as taking this path forward and being courageous like this is very, very difficult, it is the thing that is the most

God -honoring, and I want to just encourage you with this, consistent. In other words, those within the pro -life industry that resist this sort of a bill are denying fundamentally their own commitments.

The pro -life industry and the pro -life movement has stated from the beginning that what's in the womb is human from conception and should be protected.

And so when you have a bill like this in the state of South Carolina, you've also had it in Texas and Arizona and in Oklahoma, when you have a bill like this, it is that consistent bill that essentially says what pro -lifers often say, what we say when we say we're for life, is it's human from conception.

We want to protect all human beings. And so you are taking the courageous stand, you are taking the consistent stand, and so I truly do thank you for that, and I want to just encourage you with this specific thought.

Whenever there's any resistance towards this bill, I would point to that fundamental assertion.

This is human from conception. Now if we believe that, that it's human from conception, then the question is are we willing to actually offer equal protection to all humans, which is the issue.

And we're living in a climate and in a day where we're asking questions about whether lives matter, and that's within all of our wheelhouses right now.

Black lives matter, these lives matter. We hear all the cries for justice and we hear cries for equality and those sorts of things, and this is that kind of bill that highlights what is supposed to be the sentiment of the populace at the moment, and that is that we are all equal, no matter the color, no matter the size, no matter the social background.

If you're human, you deserve protection, and this bill is exactly precisely that.

It is that you deserve protection because you are human and you deserve protection at all points in your life, and so Representative Hill, I want to thank you so much for your courageous stand in doing what you're doing, and I want to offer you all the help that I possibly can, we possibly can, in getting this bill ultimately, hopefully through, and at the same time, we hope this bill offers some education to people to say this is what we should be doing to protect these innocent pre -born children.

Representative Hill, you have a rally happening on May the 4th in Columbia, South Carolina. Could you tell us about that?

Yes, yes. So, you know, as a state representative, I'm in my 7th year, and I have seen what happens when the people do not rally together and push an issue, and I've also likewise seen what happens when the people do stand up and make their voices and make themselves heard.

We still have government of the people, by the people, and for the people, whether the people act like that or not, and so I'm hoping that this rally on May 4th will be a starting point, will be a catalyst to mobilizing pro -lifers statewide, people who are willing to take a stand for equal justice, people who, like me, are tired of messing around the margins of the issue, who are, you know, tired of us undercutting our own message, our own stance, our own position on the issue by arbitrarily saying, well, we're only going to protect some babies, we're only going to protect babies with beating hearts, or maybe not even all of those, and things like that.

So, do ask anyone that happens to be listening to the show from South Carolina, please, please, please be there,

May 4th, 10 a .m., and realize it's a sacrifice to, you will need to get off work that day, don't plan on getting any other work done that day, it's a trek down to the statehouse, it'll be a little haul back, so, you know, today's going to be a wash,

I understand that. I don't ask people to come to Columbia often, in fact, this is probably the first time

I have ever done so in many, many years, but I'm doing it now because it's needed.

I need you there. That's right. We need a lot of people there, numbers do matter. Yes, they do.

Representative Hill, thank you so very much. Luke, did you want to add anything? Yeah, I was going to say, so other than people coming to the rally, is there anything else our listeners can do to help support your bill?

Is there someone, maybe that's another representative that you're fighting for this bill, or maybe there's someone, another rep that needs a little encouragement?

Like, what can our listeners do to help you guys out with this bill? Well, if you live in South Carolina and you're listening to this show, go to our statehouse website at the statehouse .gov.

First of all, find out who your state rep and senator are, and then just message them on there.

There's a contact form. Just contact them and say, hey, I want you to support House Bill 4046. I want you to establish equal justice for the unborn.

And we've got some reps that are certainly eyeing the bill. There's one state senator who may be interested in possibly filing a companion bill in the

Senate. We'll see. But, you know, it's still early to tell on that.

But the thing that will help most is for people to contact their own statehouse member and ask them to co -sponsor the bill.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Hill. Such a blessing to have you on today. And we'll be praying for you, and I will be there to walk alongside you and do everything we can to get people out to this rally.

Thank you so much, brother. I'm so looking forward to it. Thank you, Jeff. All right. God bless you, man. All right, everybody.

So there you go. Great opening to a show. Praise God. Look, I know we talk about this stuff a lot, and everyone's like, you know, get to the debate stuff.

But listen, we are in a moment right now for the church that is truly spectacular. It is such a gift from God to, after a generation, after a row, to be having a conversation of now, coming into May now, we've got four different states that had bills to criminalize abortion.

Not regulate it, not incrementalize it, but to criminalize it, to abolish it. This is just the beginning of 2021.

So praise God, first of all. And I want to highlight the fact that this particular movement in all these states, whether it's

Arizona, whether it's Oklahoma, Texas, or South Carolina, is coming from the church.

Get that. It's coming from the church of Jesus Christ. And I want to just highlight something. When you talk about the countless millions upon millions of dollars that have been given into the pro -life industry for 50 years during Roe v.

Wade globally, when you consider those millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars, staff costs, building costs, all that goes into these things, when you compare what they have done over the last 50 years with what has happened coming from the church in the last decade, there's no comparison.

We're talking about pennies on the dollar in comparison in terms of what it took to do this.

This is the work of God. It is a true blessing. And I just want to say to you, listen, thousands of people are going to watch this video right now.

So look, I'm going to look right into this camera. I hope Isaac has on this camera. Thousands of people are going to watch this video here.

And I want to just plead with you from the heart. Luke and I both do. If you believe that abortion is murder, if you want to see it ended, then we need you to join us at these rallies.

We need you to join us at these rallies. You've got to make the sacrifice. You've got to come. Is it worth it?

Absolutely, it's worth it. You heard Representative Hill express to you the fact that these numbers matter, showing up to these rallies.

They say something to the legislature. So we need you. We need you there. Please be in attendance.

Make it happen. Come to South Carolina. Come to Columbia, South Carolina. It isn't easy. Listen, it isn't easy for us either.

I can give you my word on this. Our lives as pastors of Apologia Church are extraordinarily busy.

Very, very busy. Making these commitments is actually a very difficult thing for us.

We really do have to plan these things, figure out how is it going to be made possible. It is a sacrifice for all of us,

I assure you. It's a sacrifice for our families. But we are fully committed to seeing this injustice ended on these pre -born children.

So please come join us. I know that for some of you it will be a major drive. Maybe some of you guys are living in Texas, and you're like,

I'd like to maybe be a part of this. Come drive out. Come to Columbia. Come put your hand in my hand, and let's do this together.

Some of you guys are in Florida. Come to South Carolina. Some of you guys are in Washington, D .C. Come to South Carolina. Drive or fly to Columbia, South Carolina to meet with me and Representative Jonathan Hill on May 4, 10 a .m.

Come and join us. We need you there. I know some of you guys are like, oh, somebody else has got that covered. Probably not.

It's probably you. You're necessary. You're as necessary as us.

We've got to have you there. We need this movement to speak to legislatures across the country.

We need this movement to actually shout to the pro -life industry, you've failed. You've failed to be fundamentally

Christian. You've failed to be consistent. And so this is going to be something we're doing as a church, and we're going to be consistent.

Just consider this one point. Representative Jonathan Hill brought up the kinds of bills that are put forth oftentimes from the pro -life industry that are totally inconsistent with their presuppositional commitments in terms of this is human life from conception.

So they'll say things like, well, like, for example, Kathy Harrod, bloody Kathy Harrod in Arizona, she puts forth a bill.

She fights against our bill for equal protection, and she puts forward a bill that says you can kill babies except the ones with Down syndrome.

So kill the babies, but you cannot do the ones with Down syndrome. And she actually fought to decriminalize abortion in the state of Arizona because abortion has been a crime in Arizona.

It has never been taken off the books. The assumption is Roe did something about that. It didn't. But Queen Harrod in Arizona actually worked to get abortion decriminalized.

That's the pro -life industry working for you. Why? Because they believe that mothers and fathers who kill their babies are themselves victims.

You'll never, ever, ever, ever end abortion like that. Stop pretending. Stop giving money to them.

But think about the indoctrination process over the last 50 years of Roe. Even the pro -life industry is susceptible to indoctrination to the degree that, watch, none of us,

I would say nobody in this country, well, except, of course, the criminals, would actually advocate for a bill in sex trafficking that says you can sex traffic over the age of 12.

Or, sorry, yes, which direction they do it. In abortion, they do it in terms of the older.

Yeah, you can't kill the older, but you can do the younger. Yeah, so imagine having a bill that says you can sex traffic the younger kids, not the older, more developed ones.

Or if they have downs, you can't sex traffic those ones. Don't sex traffic the kids that have handicaps.

Would you really think that anybody, any person with a moral fiber in their body would actually advocate for a bill like that?

Absolutely not. Or how about this? You can sex traffic, but the brothel has to actually be up to code.

That's exactly what they're— Look, we have got to take off the blinders as Christians and call it out, say this is inconsistent, it's immoral, it's wrong, this is not pleasing to God, this is evil.

And so that's what's taking place in the pro -life industry. And brothers and sisters, there is no way, there is no way to make that better.

I mean, you can try to do all the sophistry you want, and you can cover it up with the nicest language, but you're still advocating for and ultimately helping in the slaughter of the innocent.

And we need to actually speak to it with truth. And so anyway, meet us there, May 4th,

Columbia, South Carolina, 10 a .m., Representative Jonathan Hill. Pray for him. Pray, pray, pray, pray, pray.

I can tell you right now, when these courageous legislators, we know it, we've seen it, when these courageous legislators put these bills forth, they get nailed from their own side.

From their own side. The pro -life politicians that ask to be voted in because they are pro -life and everybody assumed that meant something, they come against these guys saying, no, man, it's too bold, it's too difficult, it's too controversial, don't do that.

We have seen that over and over and over again. You need to pray for Representative Jonathan Hill. Pray that God gives him peace.

Pray that God gives him strength. And before we start, Pastor Luke, do you want to add anything? I was just going to say, he's already been kicked out of the

Republican caucus in South Carolina because he's too conservative. So he's already used to that.

He's awesome. You weren't able to have dinner with him that one day he was here, but he's an awesome homeschool

Baptist boy, and he doesn't care what any of them think he wants to do is right. Well, praise

God for Jonathan Hill. Praise God for Jonathan Hill. All right. We ready to do this, everybody? Let's do it.

Okay, so I've got a couple things lined up here for you. We're going to do an epic Christian debate highlights today.

This is from Dr. Greg Bonson. We want to whet your appetite a little bit because if you like this, then you're going to love the training you're going to get at apologiastudios .com

with Bonson Yu. Again, if you're just joining us, Bonson Yu is up and it's live at apologiastudios .com.

You go there, set up a free account, you get access to all the Bonson University stuff, and it is all coming.

We had to get the site ready and live to handle all of this. So right now, it is a lot.

You have no idea. Just the last week of guys working around the clock to make sure everything was ready, all the stuff that has to go into the website, the coding and the uploading and all the stuff that has to happen.

So now that it's there, all we're doing now is the dump, okay? So right now, it's basic introduction to Christian apologetics and then advanced, and you're going to learn a lot from Dr.

Bonson. Today, I wanted to actually just play some parts of debates, popular parts of debates.

We have the debate with Stein, Gordon Stein. I'm going to play the most famous part of that debate.

We also had the debate with George Smith. George Smith was the guy, he is the guy, who wrote Atheism, the

Case Against God. It is in every atheist library. It is their favorite. It is their favorite,

George Smith. One guy said, you're going to hear it here. It's like the best book ever written on the subject. So George Smith, Atheism, Case Against God.

We're also going to play a clip, probably, if we get time, from Dr. Bonson and Tabish. It's in California somewhere.

And then I especially wanted to probably end on the debate because the theonomy discussion is so popular right now.

I'm going to end on the debate with Feinberg versus Bonson. It's about a two -hour debate, and man, it's good.

Oh, man. It is Bonson at his best. You will learn a lot from that debate.

I mean, a tremendous amount. I'm thinking that we have basic introduction, advanced, and I'm thinking that the next series is to drop.

There's something to do with the law of God. And then add the Feinberg debate as well. It'll really bless people. It's an entertaining debate, too, because they're good friends, so they're cracking jokes at each other.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're having fun with each other, and Feinberg wonders where the ground went underneath them.

So, okay, here we go, everybody. Be sure to share this episode, by the way, because I think it'll really bless people. Let's go to the first one.

Let's go to the famous one. This is the great debate, Does God Exist? This is Dr. Greg Bonson versus Gordon Stein.

This is the part of the debate where they do the cross -examination. This is first Bonson cross -examining

Stein, and then it's in reverse. This is just after both of their opening statements in the debate.

So this is the great debate, Does God Exist? This is Dr. Greg Bonson versus Gordon Stein. Thank you,

Dr. Stein. We will now move to our period of cross -examination. The first cross -examiner will be

Dr. Bonson, who will have an opportunity to cross -examine Dr. Stein. If I could please have silence, we would appreciate it.

Dr. Stein, do you have any sources that you can give to us very briefly that define atheism as one who finds the theistic truth inadequate rather than...

Yes, sir. George Smith's book, which you will find for sale in the back of the room upstairs later, called

Atheism, the Case Against God, which I think is the finest book ever written on the subject, makes this quite explicit.

I happen to have a copy right here. I can quote you the exact words if you'd like to see them. No, that won't be necessary. Okay. Do you have any other sources?

Do I have any other sources? Do you have any other sources? Sure. What would they be? Charles Bradlaugh, who

I will give them to you right now. Two hundred years ago,

Charles Bradlaugh made the comment in his plea for atheism.

He said... That'll be fine. Okay. Dr. Stein, did you hear

Dr. Bonson use the following argument? The Bible says that God exists and the

Bible is... You did not use that.

You just assumed that that was so because you were quoting from the Bible as if it... I didn't ask you what I assumed. I asked you if I used that argument.

No, you did not use the argument, but you used the results of the argument. Okay, Dr. Stein, you mentioned 11 basic proofs for the existence of God.

Did you mention the transcendence? No, I didn't mention it by name.

I think it is not a proof. I would not call it a proof. As I understand it from what you said...

You did not have a rebuttal on that point. In other words, you didn't deal with that particular one. Are all factual questions answered in the very same way?

No, they are not. They are answered by the use of certain methods, though, that are the same. Reason, logic, and presenting evidence.

I heard you mention logical binds and logical self -contradictions in your speech.

You did say that? I used that phrase, yes. Do you believe there are laws of logic, then?

Absolutely. Are they universal? They are agreed upon by human beings.

They aren't laws that exist out in nature. Are they simply conventions, then? They are conventions, but they are conventions that are self -verifying.

Are they sociological laws or laws of thought? They are laws of thought which are interpreted by men and promulgated by men.

Are they material in nature? How can a law be material? That's the question I'm going to ask you.

Thank you. In fact,

I may have an opportunity to cross -examine Dr. Bonson. Dr. Bonson, would you call God material or immaterial?

Immaterial. What is something that's immaterial? Something not extended in space.

Can you give me an example of anything other than God that's immaterial? Laws of logic. It's all going to get better.

For everyone who's new to this discussion, first of all, I just realized as we were listening to that that Gordon Stein also says that George Smith's book,

Atheism, A Case Against God, is the best book ever written. He also believed it as well. If you get a chance, listen to the debate between George Smith and Dr.

Bonson on the radio. It is absolutely revealing and amazing and encouraging.

It is fantastic. So, Dr. Bonson went against the best atheists of his day.

And according to all these atheists, they think that Smith wrote the best book ever of evidence against God's existence, and Bonson took him to school in the radio debate, for sure.

Quick thing, just to explain what happened there. When Bonson was challenging him, Bonson wants to refute every point of his opening statement.

Stein was making the point in his opening statement that an atheist is someone who finds the theistic proofs unconvincing.

But Bonson was showing that that's not in fact what the word means historically or classically. Atheism is a -theism,

God without God. And so, you're more of an agnostic. Like, we really can't know.

I just find it unconvincing. I don't really know. There could be a God. That's not atheism. Atheism classically is a -theism, without God.

Next, in Stein's opening statement, I don't think he knew what he walked into with Bonson.

If you listen to the debate, you're like, he did not know what he was coming into. He mentions 11 basic proofs for the existence of God, then he tries to refute those, but he never mentioned the transcendental proof of the existence of God.

So in his opening statement, he didn't even touch Bonson's position or argument. That was the point of him bringing that up.

Did you mention the transcendental argument in your opening statement? No, I didn't, because he didn't think it's a proof, that's silly.

But because he doesn't mention it, in other words, Bonson's proving you haven't started the debate yet tonight, because you're arguing against something

I'm not claiming. I'm not trying to argue these points. So Bonson was making a point. Nothing you're saying is actually connecting, not with the atheism, not with the argumentation you made against God's existence.

And next, he points out to Stein, do you believe in laws of logic? Yes. Do you believe that they're - what are they, the universal?

He says, no, they're not laws that exist out of nature. They're conventions of men. So in other words, people just invent these laws.

They just make them up. And they're self -verifying. Okay, that's interesting.

How does something that is conventional become self -verifying? That's a challenge all on its own.

And then it ends there with that moment, are these laws of logic material in nature? Why is that important, everybody?

Because if the atheist says, this exists, laws of logic, they have existence, these are real things.

Then he has to account for them. And if the atheist is a naturalistic materialist who believes that all that exists is matter, then the question is, how does this thing that you say is universal and exists, how does it exist if it's not made of matter?

You gotta account for it. Right. And the atheist can't. And that's why I think Stein really walked into it or stepped into it in that moment with Bonson, because he was totally unprepared.

And, of course, he can't account for these things in his worldview. Anyway, so that's the, of course, most famous moment.

And there's so much more. By the way, if all you remember from the great debate between Bonson and Stein is that moment,

I want to encourage you to listen to it about 10 more times. Because that was, of course, an epic moment, an important moment, and it's a very revealing moment.

But there is so much more delicious in the Stein -Bonson debate that you need to hear.

Wasn't it true that Stein never really recovered from that debate? He didn't. And he was very upset.

I have actually firsthand knowledge that he was very upset for a very, very, very long time.

I have something that I can't say what it is that I promise to keep my mouth shut about it.

Let me just say, he was mad, fuming mad for a very, very long time. And, okay.

So next, let's go ahead and take a listen to... Okay, so this is all going to be up at Bonson U, and again, remastered, so forgive the bad audio quality on these.

This is Greg Bonson versus George Smith. So I'm going to this because George Smith is the guy who wrote the book,

Atheism and the Case Against God. Everyone loves the book. If you're atheist, you're going to have that on your shelf. It's part of your...

It's the canon. It's the atheist canon. You've got to have Atheism and the Case Against God by George Smith.

I'm actually not even sure if he's alive anymore. George Smith? I don't think he is. Yeah, look that up.

So George Smith versus Greg Bonson. This is a radio show they did together, and this clip is not from Bonson and George Smith engaging with each other, which is amazing.

It's really, really, really, really excellent. But this is actually from a caller calling in, and he's trying to challenge

Dr. Bonson because Bonson says you have to start with the Christian God. He is the reference point, okay?

And so I'll let you hear it. Here it is. Okay, let's go back to the phones.

Max, the first time calling from Canoga Park, although I think I've heard from Max before. Max, you're on KKLA. Howdy -do. Okay. George.

Yes. I've got your book, and it's dog -geared and underlined and highlighted all over the place.

I think it's the best book that has ever been written on atheism. Thank you. But the title should really be

Atheism, the Case Against the Idea of God.

And that's what you meant. Yeah, there was a little dramatic license taken. That would have spoiled the symmetry of the title.

Right. So it is the case. It's the philosophical case against God, obviously. And as to this explaining thing, how does one explain existence?

To me, that is totally absurd. I agree. Existence is simply the causal primary.

In other words, if you ask for a causal explanation of something, that presupposes something that exists and acts as a causal agent.

Exactly. And all of the arguments for the existence of God presuppose the existence of God. It's question -begging.

There's no problem with that. From beginning to end. Hold on, Max. Let Greg Bonson respond to that. Good point. Yeah, I think that is one of the most common and silly arguments against the

Christian apologetic imaginable. Of course, arguments in favor of God presuppose the existence of God.

Just like arguments in favor of atheistic reason presuppose atheistic reason. Wait a minute, wait a minute, sir.

Wait a minute. Just one minute. There is no reason to presuppose reason. Reason exists naturally.

Oh, it does? Reason, we wouldn't be... Where did you... No, wait a minute. Where did you find reason growing naturally?

Show me where that is. Someplace in the United States? Reason? Reason is the human brain, sir.

Oh, it is. Well, then what you're talking about is electrochemical processes in the brain. Events that take place...

Is that not natural? Well, that certainly is natural, but that's not at all what you mean by reason, I assure you, when you talk about the use of the laws of logic, because your brain cells are not being controlled by anything like the laws of logic.

Well, what are my brain cells being controlled by? Well, I would argue they're being controlled by God, but that's not the answer you want.

The question that I have for you is, if you assume the laws of physics and biology and so forth,

I would think that you believe your brain cells are being controlled by those laws, in which case you're not really thinking and making free decisions when you say the things you do, even arguing against God.

You're simply the subject of biochemical responses. That is not what we have meant historically by the use of reason.

Sir, as to controlling things by natural laws, natural laws are nothing more than uniform occurrences that do happen with unvarying uniformity.

Natural laws? We can ignore those things. Have you ever seen a natural law? Pardon? Max, have you ever seen a natural law?

I beg your pardon? Max, have you ever seen a natural law? Have you ever tasted one, smelt one?

Of course not. The entire concept of a law is totally abstract. Exactly. We're talking about direct experience.

Now, can you explain to me how in an atheist universe there are such things as abstract entities? Come on!

Every idea, every thought is an abstraction. That's right. Every one of them is proof that you're wrong as an atheist, then.

How do you account for the existence of abstract ideas in an atheist universe? They don't grow on trees,

Max. You've already granted that. Oh, boy. Oh, boy. Well, now, look. Live by your own presuppositions.

That's all I'm calling you to do. Is God an abstraction, Grant? No. What is he? God is a personal, nonphysical being.

He's nonphysical. There you go. What could be more specific? I mean, you know, nonexistence is nonphysical as well.

So how do we distinguish God from nonexistence? I'm not hanging out, George. Make him explain God. I'm doing my best,

Max. So, there you go. That was, um... George Smith is alive still, by the way.

He is? He's only, like, 74. Okay, okay. I thought he was older than that. Yeah, me too, actually. Wow. So that was

George Bon... Sorry, George Bonson? Okay. Greg Bonson versus George Smith. That's during the call -in questions.

There was a very excited caller there. Hope you caught all that. Very, very important because it demonstrates something that we often miss when we're engaging people who are atheists, who have embraced unbelief, and they're propagating that kind of worldview, naturalistic materialism.

There is no God. All of this is... There's no purpose, no meaning behind it. There's no creator.

There's no goal to history. They have all these assumptions as image -bearers of God that they can't live without.

They can't live without universal, abstract, invariant, that's unchanging, laws of arithmetic.

Like, you kind of need those to fly planes and to land them. Right? You think about the days...

Maybe we've mentioned this before. We fly a lot. And so... Not as much as we used to.

No, because COVID. Yeah. But this is an interesting thought. I was having this conversation with Stellar the last time he flew with me.

He's like, Oh, this is crazy. This is a huge piece of machinery flying up 40 ,000 feet. He's like, Oh, this is crazy.

And I'm trying to encourage him. Tricking the air, as Andy Wilkins says. Yeah, tricking the air. I'm trying to bring him to a place of peace and just trust the

Lord and God's in full control and all that stuff. But I said to him, I said, You know, we're living in a time where these things almost fly themselves.

Yeah. No, seriously. They legitimately almost fly themselves. I mean, and there's so much computerized mathematics and everything that takes place.

They have so much help. Pilots today have so much help from the system. Yeah. Whereas, like I was thinking, like even in going to Kauai and for our church plant there, you know, that's a long trek across the ocean.

Only takes about six and a half hours to get there from here. Yeah. But you're going across the ocean to land on this little island in the middle of the ocean.

And it's all computerized now. And satellite and all the stuff they do. So like, it just kind of, just go where the system tells you to go.

Now you're going to freak out the AI people. Yeah. It's true. But I was thinking, like when we got to Kauai, when you're going north on the road towards Kapa 'a from the airport, to the left side, that really dilapidated, broke down building when you're pulling into Kapa 'a, it's to the left.

It's where the really crazy beach is where all the waves are nasty and everything. That was Elvis' favorite place to stay.

He used to come to the island all the time. And I was thinking to myself, when Elvis was coming to the island... Oh, they didn't have any of that?

No. Prop jet, like a big prop jet. And those pilots had to like make sure their math was right.

Yeah. Like, you know, what kind of angle do we turn just now? Like if they had to get above, to get above some turbulence or make turns, they had to like adjust constantly.

Like where did we go? Make sure we don't miss the island. Sort of a thing. You know, you got to land just in the right spot.

Mathematics is kind of important to flying planes. It's a little important. Yeah. And it's funny how the logical implications of the worldview that people have adopted today with evolution and naturalistic materialism, you've got people today saying maybe 2 plus 2 isn't 4.

Well, yeah. Now the woke crowd is saying it's white supremacist. Right. 2 plus 2 is 4 is racist.

Yeah. Good luck with that. Try building a bridge like that, you dummies. But anyways, you kind of have to assume these things to live in this world, to build bridges, you know, to count your money, you know, to go to the store.

Everyone assumes these universal laws of arithmetic that they all matter. Like, you don't go to the store and be like, your bill is $250 and you hand them $5.

They're like, where's the $245 other? No, you don't understand. These laws are not universal.

They're not unchanging. To me today, I identify this as $250. You know, you can't do that.

Not going to work. And, you know, so this caller, he calls in, he assumes the universal nature of the laws of arithmetic.

He assumes the unchanging nature of the laws of logic and the laws of arithmetic. He talks about natural law.

These things are, they do happen with in varying, what's he say? In varying occurrence or something like that.

Like, in other words, they don't change. They just keep happening, natural law. So he's appealing to induction that the future will be like the past.

He makes all these assumptions, but when Bonson just simply asks him, you ever seen one? Smelled one?

Tasted one? No, it's totally abstract. Oh, really? So how do you get that as an atheist? Because all that exists is matter in motion.

And if I have an abstraction, this guy says it's happening in our brains. So you're talking about biochemical responses, but we don't share the same brain.

So you've got stuff firing in your brain. I don't share your brain. I got a different one. Mine fired differently.

Right. So maybe the laws of arithmetic are different in my world than yours. Everyone knows that's counterintuitive.

Everyone... Sorry, not to mention the fact that everything's chaos in atheism too. Exactly. There's no hope that tomorrow's going to be like today.

Right. How do you know? I mean, everyone got out of bed today and had no second thought of like...

I always use this in my lectures on this. No one wakes up and thinks as they wake up, am I going to float away to the ceiling?

Are my feet going to be held down to the ground today? You know what I'm saying? When they squeeze a toothpaste tube, they expect it to spurt out a certain way unless, of course, something's jammed up or whatever.

Everyone walks their dogs assuming natural laws in the future be like the past, but you have to be able to account for those and atheism can't account for those.

It doesn't have anything to satisfy what's necessary for the foundations of those things and so there's what you're going to get.

Dr. Greg Bonson will bless your life, so go to apologiastudios .com, go to BonsonU, set up your account, more is coming, but start that basic introduction to apologetics class and...

How are we doing on time here? 12 minutes. Oh, I'd love to do Tabish. Tabish was fun.

He's fun. Kind of funny and he's kind of, he just felt like he's sort of like the, he's the firebrand atheist kind of just, you know, he hates

God, just says nasty things. Not very thoughtful though, but by the way, did you know he was, you probably remember this, he was at the

Reason Rally. I think I do remember that, yeah. We went to the Reason Rally, what was that, 2010? Oh my goodness.

Maybe, I don't even remember what year it was. Yeah, it's those black and white videos of Luke and I at the Reason Rally in Washington D .C. It's like when

Apologia Studios, or sorry, Apologia Church was just planted and you know, it was just such an amazing time and we got to go to the

Reason Rally, film some stuff, get in conversations and so it was like, who was there? Gosh, everybody was there.

It was Richard Dawkins, it was, I mean possibly George Smith was there and then

Edward, I couldn't believe it, Edward Tabish was there. What's his face that we had on the radio show? Dan Barker.

Dan Barker. Dan Barker was there. Yep. Who's Who of Atheists was there? It was, it was the

Reason Rally. It was actually a really good time, great memories. It was really small too. Good times, good times, good times.

I remember where they advertised it was going to be the largest gathering of atheists in the history of the world and there was like 10 ,000 maybe.

It was not that big, it was silly. Just a gathering of protoplasm making noise according to their worldview.

Alright, so here we go. This, you know, just because of time here today, everybody, I want to go up, because this is a little more lengthy and maybe we can make some commentary on this.

This is the Bonson -Feinberg debate and again, it will be available at apologiastudios .com.

I think what I'll do today is I'll tell our team that the next, the next batch that goes up hopefully very soon will be stuff on the law of God and then also the

Feinberg debate because I think it will really bless you in a big, big way. Spend time on it. I mean especially this

Feinberg debate, listen to it. Listen to it ten times. I mean do that. Listen to it ten times so you can hear both sides out.

Take notes. Like when you're listening to it, like this is how I do it. I study these debates. I'll take notes. Like these are his main arguments and these are his premises and so, like do those work?

Is it consistent? And then, you know, listen to both sides and just do it again and again and again and also you'll be able to see how these two guys handle the scriptures together.

And so, this is, I believe, from the first, there's like two, there's like two audio files.

This is the first audio file. It's about 46 minutes in. This is after they've both given their opening statements and now this is rebuttal.

This is Bonson rebutting Feinberg's main points against the theonomic position and so,

I'm going to play through it and probably stop a few times, make some comments, but I think this is really good to hear how he sort of unpacks what

Feinberg says. Paul and then I have those biblical problems at four places, but perhaps more importantly for those of us who like logic.

There's such few people today who like logic. Let's look at a couple of places where I think there's some tensions, which is a polite way of saying

I think there's some contradictions. Numbers one and four. Paul has said the moral laws of God are grounded in His nature and thus are universal in their application and eternal in their duration.

But premise four says the moral laws fulfilled and ended as an ethical obligation for the believer.

If you would have said the Mosaic Covenant has ended, I could understand that. Theologically, that is, you know, a way of speaking which has biblical support because of course we're not under the shadows of the

Mosaic Covenant. Our administration has changed to a new covenant administration. That could be understandable, but Paul makes it clear here that he means the

Mosaic Covenant as an ethical obligation. The ethical obligations of that covenant have ceased and he adds he or she has no obligation but premise one has said that God's laws are eternal in their duration.

How can I have a law that is eternal in its duration but I'm no longer obliged to obey it?

It's no longer a law at that point it seems to me. So that point there, and this is often said, it was actually said in something similar to this was said in the recent

TGC article against the economy where he has to confess that what's underneath the laws of God are essentially

God's character, His eternal nature. These are abiding. The moral parts of God's commands are all abiding today and that's what

Feinberg says. These are eternal in their duration was one of his first premises but then he says essentially the

Mosaic legislation has passed away. He just puts it in one big bag and says and that's over with and he says and the believer is no longer obligated to it.

So it's eternal in its duration but it's no longer and the believer because the Mosaic legislation has ended is no longer obliged to obey these things and so Bonson's pointing out there your two premises they collide with each other.

These are serious contradictions. If it's eternal in its duration, if it's a law from the mouth of God, if this is consistent with his character, if he's making the claim this is right and this is wrong, if that's eternal in its duration then you can't say that God has now thrown out the

Mosaic legislation. In other words, it has no meaning in the life of the New Covenant believer whatsoever.

You can't have those things working together. It's a massive failure in holding together the system and Bonson of course admits there and it's one thing that's often challenging to me when

I hear people trying to challenge some of these concepts. It's on that point.

They're like, so you believe we need to obey? Like we need to obey the Old Testament and it's like, so you're not eating pork and you're not eating shrimp for lunch.

It's like no Theonomist worth their salt has ever made that claim.

We condemn those things. The scriptures tell us in the New Testament we have revelation from God that tells us what those things are for and so when we say the

Mosaic legislation is passed away there's a way of saying that in a consistent way. Yeah, because now we're

But these laws of God that he calls good and eternal and abiding you know, something like should you have sex with animals?

Well, and you're going to hear in a moment Bonson really challenges them on that point. If this is all done away we have no obligation to it whatsoever so you'll hear that in a moment.

And then number four also that we have no obligation the Mosaic laws conflicts or the statement that the

Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled and ended as an ethical obligation so we have no obligation to the Mosaic covenant conflicts with the fifth premise which says the

Mosaic covenant has as one of its functions the revelation. So on the one hand you seem to give us freedom from the

Mosaic stipulations and on the other you seem to say the Mosaic covenant tells us what we're bound to do.

And that surreptitious taking away with what you've given with one and vice versa is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Alright, I'm coming to my end. I have a question a query for Paul. Why is it that the

New Testament writers indiscriminately and without apology appeal to the law of Moses the laws of Moses and indeed to the very particular cases of Moses as when

Paul supports the idea that he should be paid his salary by saying you remember you're not the muzzle of the ox when it treads when they cite laws about homosexuality incest the relationship of laborers to masters matters like personal revenge and they are quoting the

Mosaic law and never with an explanation that of course these things are passed away with the assumption of continuity is there and now the reductio finally

I was tempted to come up and only ask this question but Paul look at your premises read them over remember that we are not under obligation to the laws of Moses you have said we're under obligation to the whole scripture as Paul said every scripture inspired of God is profitable for that's a post cross reference by the way but you have said no we're not under Moses we are under Christ not under the specific legislation of Moses but under the specific legislation of Christ if that be so so that I do not appeal to Moses except what's reflected in the laws of Paul is it wrong to have sexual relations with animals today injunctions and well it it is a word that relates to all kinds immorality and sexual perversion well because that's what the word means

I would say from the study of the word as it's used both yeah

I want to change the subject too so if you don't know really what's going on there this is a popular thing today you can see it in forms of like New Covenant theology where they'll say things like the

Old Testament is abrogated that's all gone and so we don't make appeals to it unless the

New Testament mentions it and so the assumption is all of it's gone unless it just happens to be brought up in the

New Testament but you don't see that and that's what Bonson's point there was in talking to Feinberg that's not the pattern you see with the apostles they're quoting these things loosey -goosey it's not like now we all know that this is just gone and done away with but we're going to go ahead and keep this they just make the assumption you're supposed to know this and that's a good point too what

Bonson points out there and I think we often miss that in 2 Timothy 3 16 -17 all scripture is theonoustos is breathed out by God profitable for instruction righteousness all of that that the man of God may be equipped fully equipped for every good work what scriptures is he referring to there he's talking about the

Old Testament scriptures all of that breathed out by God in the New Covenant after the cross and resurrection profitable for instruction and righteousness that the man of God may be fully equipped because guess what they didn't have the

New Testament when Paul wrote that it wasn't finished it wasn't finished so he's talking to Timothy about the scriptures he knew that he was raised on and he says then after the resurrection and ascension but here's the point what

Bonson was pointing out was that you see the assumption of continuity in the New Testament down to things like a judicial law two or three witnesses animal husbandry laws don't muzzle the ox while it treads you have the quotation towards the children honor your father and your mother it's just thrown out like again

I don't want to be I hope that's not offending anybody when I say loosey -goosey it's just out there easy and so the point is is that Feinberg he doesn't want to make the appeal to the

Old Testament because he's set up a standard that this legislation is all done we have no obligation to it whatsoever so we're under the law of Christ and Bonson's like well of course we're under the law of Christ but since Jesus affirmed the goodness of the

Old Covenant law and he said that he didn't come to abrogate it then we have to say that that's the law that Christ loved and operated on the basis of but the point is is that Feinberg has to be able to maintain his commitment to we have no commitment to the

Old Testament legislation so then Bonson asks him a tough question an important one is it acceptable to have sex with animals under the

New Covenant? Now what Feinberg doesn't want to do because of his system is go to the Old Testament and say no

God's already spoken on that because guess what you say that and you've granted the quote unquote theonomist premise yep

God has spoken that's his revelation that's how God feels about it so if you want to know what righteousness is he's spoken on that if you want to know what justice is he's spoken on that so if somebody asks that question like how does

God feel about theft well he's spoken about it here here and here and what should we do with thieves? well he's spoken about that here here and here exactly and so that's the premise of the theonomist

God has spoken on that so what Feinberg doesn't want to do is he doesn't want to say now Greg God has already spoken on bestiality and the kind of abomination it is because he says the believer in the

New Covenant has no moral obligation to that whatsoever that was one of his premises now

Feinberg doesn't want to do that so what Feinberg does is he tries to maintain a consistent Christian position all the while I believe knowing

God's already spoken on this God's already spoken on this saying that well you know through a word like the word pornea the

Greek word pornea sexual morality well here's the problem that word pornea doesn't necessarily mean sex with animals is evil and immoral in Greek literature in Greek literature that's what

Bond's is saying how do you know that where do you get that from who says like you can't just say because pornea sexual morality well you know what guess what there's a lot of people today in our culture today that do all kinds of things sexually they have all kinds of sexual commitments they call it beautiful we would say it's sexually immoral they think it's beautiful but if you ask those same people that are doing things that are from our perspective sexually immoral if you ask them is sexual immorality a thing they would say yeah there are things that are sexually immoral and so if they define what they thought was sexually immoral it would be very different from what we define as sexual morality by what standard so exactly so you can't just simply say well here's a word sexual morality

I'm going to just lay it across all these things as a Christian let's be honest you will have an understanding of what

God deems sexually immoral because God has spoken in an older testament and a new one he's spoken in his revelation and so what

Bonson pushes Feinberg to is to just essentially embrace that point God has spoken that's how you know and that is brothers and sisters the by what standard question and that's the assertion of the theonomist

God has spoken this is his revelation if you want to know how God feels about it you look to his law it's not saying the law of God comes over into the new covenant in exactly the same way nobody here is avoiding bacon bacon is delicious praise

God for that nobody here is worried about any mixed fibers and all of that stuff no we are believers with the spirit of God law of God written in our hearts we are not under that old covenant administration like that we are under the new covenant however

God's revelation of what is righteousness hasn't passed away that's the assertion and so get ready for it guys get ready for it you want to add something it's just good stuff yeah and I know we don't have time to get to the rest of it but the

I think the last the last the second part which I think is only like 25 minutes that's like the most the best part that's where everything kind of comes together yeah and I didn't you appreciate what

I really appreciated from that particular part was the graciousness of Dr.

Bonson towards Feinberg through a lot of that debate yeah but I especially appreciated the fact that the debate ends on a good note where he essentially gets

Feinberg to grant exactly all of his basic presuppositions and he even says to him that's a theonomic position like when

Feinberg is push push push because he's a Christian right he knows this is God's revelation right and when he's pushing a debate he has to come back to the essential

Christian position God has spoken yes and this is his revelation and so that's where at the end of the debate

Bonson says we're ending on a good note because there's some unity there exactly they hash it out it's good stuff and it's a good debate it's two brothers going at it over the scriptures in a loving and respectful way to be honest

I wish that like now more Christians would have that same position you know what we disagree with theonomy but at least we're in unity but now it's just like theonomy is for Satan it's just like okay so many people are on the other side concerned right now over the questions and the conversations surrounding the law of God because so many believers today

I believe because of all the tyranny of the last year and all the all the evil being propagated in our cultures are asking questions does the

Christian world view have an answer to this and the answer is yes and so this is a popular conversation right now because believers are thinking critically about these questions people are saying social justice but is that social justice or is this justice people are asking questions how do

I respond to a government that is oppressing believers how does this work has

God spoken on this has he defined these things and the answer is yes so it's a good moment for us because we're asking important questions and we're doing important things and I want to remind everybody right now to go to apologiastudios .com

get your bring it on down to Bonsonville shirt that's from Pastor Luke by the way he was very excited about that I was very excited about that I shared it on the apologiastudios

Facebook page by the way you can go sorry the Trinity question did it come up again oh my goodness did it come up again it's happening anyways

I love that shirt thank you Rochelle Tyner by the way I was like hey

I have this idea when you do this shirt and she did it and it looks amazing it does look amazing so go get that shirt sorry the comments thank you guys for watching us live right now it never fails it's like everybody who's a part of the apologiast church and studios and you know you guys are supporters of the ministry you know that at some point during the during the show someone's going to point to the tricenter in the back and they're going to say what's the pagan symbol doing back there literally we just did a whole hour plus on something on things that have nothing to do with that and that's all that they can think about they're secretly cultists you could you could you could fight for the

Trinity justification by faith you can have a show against the cults and then somebody assumes that secretly though yeah secretly though we're into the occult right even though I've done like two hour messages on the occult and we have videos explaining fighting against the occult ancient symbol of the

Trinity and don't believe everything you read on the internet let's just say it that way and someone said what's it say it's a 666 symbol on a bohemian owl that's that's hilarious 666 not 666 666 and that's

Neron Kaiser Nero that'll that'll throw you for a loop right there yeah

Trinity love it yep yep and I love I love the

Christians in history who who made that and thought this is a good way to express conceptually one being of God three distinct persons and you know what if pagans wanted to adopt it and do and pervert it that isn't that doesn't hurt my you know loving something like this that expresses some important Christian thought bless you all thank you so much for watching apologiestudios .com

go start Bonson University sign up for all access partner with us and all that we're doing and I will see you

May 4th Columbia South Carolina 10 a .m. H4046 with representative