Todd White Discovers Spurgeon, Timothy Cho, Free Speech, TR-Onlyism

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. It is a Tuesday, I think, and we already did one program this week, and we'll do at least one more.

We might sneak in two, it all depends on—it's just going to be so hot in Phoenix this week.

I posted the forecast on Twitter this morning. And basically, as far out as the forecast goes, there's one day under 110, and there's at least two or three days at 116 for highs.

And so it's that time where you just sort of hope the lights don't go out and just hide inside.

People go, how do you survive that? You don't go outside. That's all there is to it. I do plan

Friday, the last day of July. I've got a little—Strava has these challenge things that you do, and I need to get to a

And so I am going to ride outside on Friday, which means I'll have two bottles, and one will be frozen, and it'll still be thawed fairly quickly.

And these are even insulated bottles, the best insulated bottles, plus a CamelBak, if you know what a

CamelBak is. And I'm only doing 50 miles. Some of you are going, only? Well, I did 70 -something last weekend, but it wasn't 116 degrees for the high that day either.

So yeah, it's the desert. Welcome to the desert. And like I said, the older I get, the less it bothers me.

It really just doesn't. I don't know why, but the cold, that just seems to make everything ache, and the warmth is just like, eh, well, you know.

I've lived here since 1974, so it's sort of like, if you ain't used to it now, you should have moved a long time ago.

That's for sure. So much to get to today. So many things going on. I guess

I'll go ahead and sort of look at the sort of feel -good story to start off with.

Last night, everything started blowing up on Twitter.

I started seeing something about Todd White. Now, I'll confess,

I know almost nothing about Todd White. And almost everything

I know about Todd White has been negative in the sense of, did you hear what he claimed about this, and he's associated with this group, and he's lengthening legs, and doing stuff like this.

And so, not met him. I knew that Michael Brown had met with him at one point, and so he had gotten attacked for meeting with Todd White and all the rest of the stuff.

So even though we have the same last name, I really didn't know anything about him. And so all of a sudden, I'm seeing all these people in my sphere of people saying, can you believe this?

What is going on? Let's hope this is real, and all the rest of the stuff. I'm like, so, and it is interesting that we live in a day where this type of thing can happen.

I mean, if someone had a major theological shift 50 years ago, people would not know about it 12 hours later.

And it wouldn't spread across the entire globe as this has.

But this is a video, and I would encourage you to listen to the whole thing. It was only 45 minutes.

It wasn't all that long. I listened to it. And it was pretty amazing to listen to what

Todd White was saying. Now Todd says, this is new. The Lord has been working with me, and I'm learning things that I've never ever understood before.

Okay. All right. All right. So here's just a section from last night.

Well, it wasn't last night, but. Even Jesus. Are you with me? The Bible also says that everyone has the law written in their hearts.

It's already there. So if I ask a good person if lying is wrong, they will tell me yes.

If I ask a bad person if lying is wrong, they will tell me yes. So lying, thieving, adultery is cheating on your wife.

But adultery, Jesus says, is committing it with your eyes and your heart. So like that makes the best of people, lying, adulterous thieves.

That's crazy. And that doesn't sound. Wait a minute. You're condemning. No, I'm not. You're already condemned.

All people are condemned, it says, by the law. It says in the Psalms, in Proverbs, it says the law converts the soul.

The soul is converted from the law. That doesn't mean that we preach it as legalists. That just means that if people don't know that they're sinners, they won't see their need for a

Savior. This is hard for people, huh? It's hard for me.

It's hard for me. Because I feel like I haven't preached the whole Gospel. And I repent.

I repent. You have no idea. I will not be responsible.

I believe that when I preach that the blood of people is on my hands. I believe that when I walk by a person and don't share a witness,

I believe that their soul is in my power. Not my power.

I can't save them. But it's my power with my words that I can say something that can. I'm convicted.

I'm convicted. It says to he who knows to do good and doesn't, it is. So what's your definition of doing good?

I'm allowing my definition of doing good to extend the fact of me reaching more people with the truth.

I need to, and it's so important for me. Now there was a whole lot more to it.

But at one point he says, I've been reading this guy, have you ever heard of this guy?

Charles Spurgeon. Wow. He's something else. This I mean, you guys ever heard

Charles Spurgeon? You got to read Charles Spurgeon. Yeah. Okay.

Go for it. And, and of course he's, he's, he's doing all the way of the master stuff.

He's, he's, he's reading from, from some of the way of the master presentations on evangelism and, and it was, it was amazing to listen to.

And what was so refreshing, you know, I said on Twitter, I said, okay, so some of you, your theology has, has been more consistent than Todd White's for a very, very long time.

But when was the last time you wept over the gospel and your own unworthiness?

Which he was doing, you know, sort of just to say, hey, um, there, there were, there, there are a lot of churches where the gospel would not be presented with near the level of clarity that Todd White presented it in this presentation.

Now, consistency over time is the proof of the pudding. I get it.

But I happen to know, and I'm not going to say why, I happen to know that there are a bunch of people reaching out right now to do whatever they can to be of, of assistance in this situation.

I, I'm just waiting for the first crusty, self -righteous

Calvinist to draw their Geneva robes around them and, and say, don't listen to him.

Look at his hair or something like that. Look, look at the people he's hung out with in the past.

So it's weird to be around people who say that God is sovereign over all things, but God can't,

God can't use that guy. He never, he never would have let him do the things that he let him do if he was ever, ever going to use them type thing.

So it was, I mean, listening to Ray, listening to Ray Comfort coming out of Todd White's mouth, listening to Spurgeon, quoting

Spurgeon and stuff like that. I'm just like, hey, it's 2020.

I'll take wild and crazy things for 2020. And, and it'll be the good things for 2020.

I, I, I won't have any problem with that at all. So more power to him and let's, let's hope and pray it's a, it continues right down, go on the right direction.

Cause hey, he's got the ears of a lot of folks. Of course, stay consistent with that kind of stuff.

And a lot of those invitations dry up and things change.

And yeah, yeah, that's, that's the reality. That's, that's how it works.

But, but for now that was, I mean, I think more

Calvinists listened to Todd White's sermon last night than ever, ever before.

And we're all sitting there going, yeah. But like I said, he himself is saying, this is all new to me.

You know, he's, he's seeing how it all comes together. And Hey, you know, this, you know, it's, it's one thing to talk about following Jesus, but when you actually listen to what he said, wow, it changes everything.

It's like ding, ding, ding, ding. There you go. Uh, it was, um, it was great. So, uh, yeah, uh, be very, very thankful for, uh, for that.

I think that's, um, that's wonderful. Um, I've, I've seen posts, not that I follow him, but a lot of people will, will post stuff from Timothy Isaiah Cho.

Now, um, he, I did not know. I, I'd looked at his stuff before and I'm like, okay,

CRT, every place, uh, critical race theory woke as woke can be.

Um, so it didn't surprise me when I saw him in essence, defending the

Black Lives Matter movement and their comments on the nuclear family. And of course he does so in a very scholarly way.

Uh, but when I looked at his Twitter account, I discovered he's a Westminster Seminary, California, Westminster, it used to be the, we used to call it

Westminster West, but now it's WS Cal Westminster Seminary, California graduate.

And I, I made reference to this on Twitter and had one guy, a graduate get all defensive.

Well, we're not all like that. You shouldn't be, that could be misunderstood. And it's like, well, the point is someone who says the things he does, for example, he presents just this amazingly.

And when, when I listen to union theological seminary professors twisting scripture into an unrecognizable pretzel,

I expect that. That's the, I'm reminded of, of when

I met John Dominic Cross and for our debate a number of years ago, and I had spent months and months and months listening to John Dominic Cross.

And I had listened to his autobiography. I'd listened to his books and his lectures. And, and of course he didn't have any earthy idea who in the world

I was. And he had no idea that there were people like me that actually existed. And that's normally how my encounters with people to the left go.

But we, we didn't have any problem talking with John Dominic Cross.

Because here was a guy who did not know we existed. It's not like he once knew and then abandoned that.

That's one of the reasons I had a, I had a different relationship between myself and John Dominic Cross than I had with Marcus Borg.

Because Marcus Borg was raised conservative. So here's a guy who knows our side and has rejected it.

That's different than someone who didn't even know we existed or didn't know that anyone who believed the things we believed, you know, could link two sentences together in a logical fashion.

Because they're, especially the people on the left are told we can't, that we're all just, just drooling

Neanderthals. And that's why they don't even bother to read our books or do things like that.

And so when someone has a background that should allow them to see the obvious twisting of scripture, that's the issue.

And that's why I said, this guy's, this guy's a graduate of Westminster. But then he went to Berkeley.

And look, you can graduate Westminster and go to Berkeley and actually come out Orthodox, but it's, you better know what in the world you're doing.

And you better know what challenges you're going to be facing. So when, well, for example, just one quotation here.

Unfortunately, this is a huge screen cap. So the font is like tiny. Further, evangelicals who know their

Bibles should recognize the church is intentionally meant to be an extended family structure that disrupts the nuclear family as an independent, self -sufficient unit.

Everything from the fact that Mary's pregnancy was side by side with her non -nuclear family member,

Elizabeth, to the fact that Jesus healed Peter's mother -in -law, to the fact that the early church stressed the structure of households, the idea that the church as a body is called a household and family of God should make us see it.

The Christian faith stands crosswise with late Western ideals about family. And I'm just left going, what?

What did you? Jesus healed Peter's mother -in -law.

You have to have some idea of what the family is to know what a mother -in -law is, right?

What does Mary and Elizabeth have to do with anything? What? You might as well argue the virgin birth was an argument against the nuclear family.

I mean, this is someone who has a biblical background and then uses that biblical background to create hash.

It's just, it's a total mess, which of course is what happens when you try to make the

Bible in any way amenable to critical race theory or any critical fill -in -the -blank theory.

You turn it into hash. And funny thing was, I saw an atheist respond to this thread and turn it into hash, appropriately so, recognizing the just wild inconsistency of a self -professed

Christian to be stumbling along in this kind of a presentation.

So that thread went all over the place. And like I said,

I had one Westminster alum upset with me because, hey, you know, there you go.

And I'm like, point is, he should know better. And then, interestingly enough,

I just in passing said, and I'm leaving the R2K stuff, the Radical Two Kingdom theology stuff, and Westminster on the side.

And his response was, well, that is definitional of Westminster. And I was like, definitional? I would think that there would be somebody at the

Escondido campus that does not hold to the Radical Two Kingdom theology perspective.

And his response was, well, yeah, yeah, there is freedom to, but the majority do. I was like, oh, okay, whatever.

So the same Timothy Isaiah Cho then decided to flex his

Reformed muscles. I'm just gonna bring this over here where I can see it. For Reformed folk, so he calls himself

Reformed, our confessions and catechisms explicitly say that sins forbidden by the

Sixth Commandment include, quote, the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life, end quote.

And the duties required of us include, quote, all careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices which tend to the unjust taking away of the life of any, end quote.

Quoting from catechisms and commentaries and so on and so forth. Think about this in the anti -mask arguments.

Isn't that necessarily neglecting the lawful preservation of life? So I just wanted to point out in response,

I had a, someone posted very kindly a, and again, this is,

I'm getting personally, I'm getting tired of the whole thing. I mean, other than the videos, which are just amazing to me of the

Karen cult, macing people, you know, spraying people in the face if they don't have a mask on, all the encounters.

I mean, this poor lady with two little kids runs into this Karen in a grocery store who tells the lady and her two kids, and the two kids are not supposed to be masked in the first place, by the way, but tells them that either they're going to die or they, she hopes they die there in the grocery store.

I'm just so sick of all this stuff. And I wish

I could not even see the people driving by with the masks on in their own car alone, because it freaks me out.

It really does. Aside from the articles I've read of people passing out and plowing into things with, because they've been wearing their mask all day, and so they can't drive anymore.

But all that stuff, I'm so tired of graphs that we don't really know.

We have people who are telling us that when they get their tests for the coronavirus, they are informed.

And this was the case with the documentation that was given to my wife. They are informed that a positive result does not necessarily mean that they have, or have had

COVID -19, but that there are other viruses like the one that causes the common cold that can provide a positive response.

So, and then, of course, you have lots of people are saying, I got a positive response that says

I'm positive, but I didn't take the test. Okay, that's great. So, we don't seem to have a truly accurate test for that or the antibodies.

And yet we're going into final phase testing of a vaccine. Anybody who claims to have current, and hence not providing lots of money for pharmaceutical companies, drugs that are effective in treating it are automatically shot out of a cannon into the next dimension.

That should make anybody, I don't care how pro -mask you are or anything else, it should make you go, hmm,

I wonder why there's such a response like that. That's strange, isn't it?

It is strange, and there is a reason for it. It's painfully obvious, but you can't even mention it.

Then, this morning, I see an article about the growing evidence of the effectiveness of masks.

And so I want to see this. I want to see this because I have been challenging people for a while now.

I have a certain set of URLs that I provide to people. To pre -COVID, they came out in May, but if you know anything about publishing, if you know anything about journals, anything about scholarship, articles published in a

May edition of a scholarly journal were submitted the year before or at the very latest earlier that year,

January, February, no later than that, because this is how it works. So I have two

URLs to two different medical journals, large studies, peer -reviewed, nobody had any questions with this stuff when there wasn't any reason to have questions about it.

In other words, when it wasn't politically expedient. I, one of the things

I said on Twitter this morning was politics ruins medicine and science. And that's what we're experiencing right now.

Because none of us knows what the actual numbers are. We can't. We can't. It's not possible. No one knows.

All the government knows. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. But these studies demonstrated not only one of the studies specifically compared true medical masks.

Now, even those are almost all made in China, which is a real problem.

It's a huge problem. The vast majority of you who are running around with those blue, look like surgical mask type things on.

Do you have any idea where they came from? Do you have any idea how sanitary they are?

Have they passed any testing at all? It's amazing to me. These Karens are running around wearing these things.

They've never even given a second thought as to what they might be breathing in, they might actually contain themselves or where they came from.

But they know all the rest of us are trying to kill them. Scary. It really is scary.

But it compared the N95 standard medical mask with cloth masks.

And that's what everyone's wearing normally under their nose. Which, of course, in case you're not up on your mask stuff is completely useless.

And found that the cloth masks had a 97 % virus penetration rate and actually increased the number of infections in the control group with cloth masks over against no masks at all.

In other words, they're bad for you. I have sent that URL to a number of people who were just going, well, you just need to love your neighbor, love your neighbor.

Here, read these. These are before. These studies were done before politics could give you a reason to mess with the data.

Never hear back from anybody. Never. I have not gotten a single response from anybody. Just like, oh, don't bother me with the facts.

Well, so I see this article that says, well, it's growing evidence. Ah, okay.

So post -COVID now. And it even said, because of COVID, now we're doing these studies, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And so I'm like, I want to see what these are. I don't trust them. It's post -COVID. It's politically influenced.

But let's see what the arguments are. It was the most vacuous. I mean, it was literally on the level of a used car salesman trying to sell me that 76

Coronado, okay, that I can tell is rusted out, but they've painted over it.

It was that bad. It was laughably bad. But people were promoting it because people want to believe.

They want to believe this stuff. So in this, with Timothy Isaiah Cho's thing, think about this in the anti -mask arguments.

So, okay, let's think about this in the anti -mask arguments. Let's look at what the catechism says. Neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life, which is to include all careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions and avoiding all occasions, temptations and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away of the life of any.

Remember, this was written by people who were still experiencing the plague coming in and out of cities.

None of more masks. These were people who risked their lives to enter into cities.

They would not have understood this application. What's more, of course, is the factual issue.

The question, what do you do with the studies that do demonstrate a lowering of the standard of life of certain individuals who should not be wearing masks?

They're bad for them. The way they're being worn, increasing other diseases.

Believe it or not, all other diseases were not wiped off the face of the planet in March of 2020.

You would think that's the case. Watching the news that the only thing left that has ever killed anybody is

COVID -19. And I'm just waiting for the next thing to come along.

What's going to be the new mutation? What's going to be COVID -20? What's going to be COVID -21? You've already got a huge portion of the population that's just hiding in fear.

So you have to keep stoking that fear over time. But is this a neglecting of the lawful preservation of life?

Here's the conversation. So you try to walk into Target to buy some milk or some apple cider vinegar.

No, it's not straight up. Are you kidding? It would kill me. But does clear the sinuses if you needed to.

And here comes Karen. And Karen wants to know why you're not wearing a mask.

And you say, well, you're actually not supposed to ask that question. A person might have a sound medical reason for not doing that, even though no one believes that anymore.

The law still says it. The statements of all the mayors and governors said it only a few weeks ago.

It was right there. Exceptions. These people need to be dealt with properly.

They need to be respected. There are people that can't do this. Now it's sort of like, no, the cult doesn't care anymore.

Everybody has to. So you are endangering me because I don't wear a mask to protect me.

I wear a mask to protect you. You've heard that one, right? There's a lot of people that's not the case at all. Think about it.

If you are a mask to not protect yourself, why do you have it on your car? Why do you have it on alone in the woods?

No, there are lots of people who think they're protecting themselves with a cloth mask, which the studies say have a 97 % penetration rate by any virus at all.

So, okay. So we go back to our conversation. So you don't care about me because you're not wearing a mask.

And so you're endangering me. And I go, well, wait a minute. The mask doesn't stop the virus, which is much smaller than the holes in the mask.

Well, but it stops the larger particles of the moisture that comes from sneezing and coughing.

I said, okay, so what if you're not sneezing or coughing?

What good does a mask do if you're not sneezing or coughing? Well, you could have asymptomatic transmission.

Okay. But if it's asymptomatic transmission, a mask's not going to stop it, right? Because you said it was the larger particles from sneezing and coughing, which are symptoms.

So if you are asymptomatic, what does the mask do for either one of us again? They have no answers because there are no answers to that.

It's just plain logic. It's just, it's just all the studies say the same thing. And this is why the medical people were saying what they were saying only a matter of weeks ago.

Because they knew the same, they know this. That's why Fauci doesn't care if he has his mask down. He knows he's, he's, he's not going to, he knows it.

He's well aware of this reality. That if you're, if you're symptomatic, you shouldn't be out anyways.

If you're coughing and sneezing all over everybody, that's a problem. That's why they said, if you're going to sneeze or cough, do what?

Into your arm, right? Because that's a symptom. But if you're asymptomatic, you're not expelling that stuff.

That's not, there's not sufficient viral load. And so a mask does nothing other than hurts you.

And gives somebody else a false sense of security. So if you're, if you're symptomatic, you stay home.

You don't cough on people. You don't sneeze on people. All right. So that type of a person should have a mask on.

If they go out, they shouldn't be going out in the first place. We've all found out how to get stuff delivered these days. The whole cottage industry, half the unemployed people are now delivering stuff to the other half of people who still have a job.

That's the only reason the economy hasn't just completely collapsed. But if you're asymptomatic, the cloth, the cloth face mask does nothing anyways.

So what are we doing? We're demonstrating our submission to the government, which is then going to come along.

And even if there is, and I don't, I'm, I'm not in hospitals. I can't tell you whether this

Zithromax zinc hydroxychloroquine cocktail works.

I have some hydroxychloroquine. How'd I get that?

I went to Zambia two years ago. And that's, it's an anti -malarial drug.

And so I was given a prescription. To go to Zambia and I talked to my

Zambian friends and I talked to others who had been there and they all said the same thing. It's going to make you feel horrible.

It's going to rip your lungs out. Well, not your lungs out your guts out. You know, if you want to feel horrible the whole time you're there, then go ahead.

But, and I chose not to take it. So I've still got it. But I chose not to take it.

I didn't get malaria in the process. I think Voti told me that he had been given it when he first went to Zambia and he has chosen never, he's never taken it the whole time he's been there and he's never gotten it.

So there you go. I think most mosquitoes would be very, very frightened to try to bite

Voti Baucom. I think just, oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah.

Just bounce right off. Yeah. Explode. So anyway, I don't know if that works or not.

All I know is if it does, there are already far too many powerful, powerful people far too invested in making sure this panic continues for it to ever be mentioned in a positive way by anybody.

That's the sad thing. That's the sad thing. We, we may have effective drugs right now.

I'm just absolutely convinced looking at what's going on in society that there are so, there are so many people that are so desperate to get one particular political result out of November that they're not only, they're willing to burn down cities, burn down court buildings, see, see there have been hundreds of Black lives lost since Floyd, hundreds by mainly

Black people because police are no longer on the streets. So they're willing to sacrifice

Black lives right, left, and center. Did y 'all see that horrific video of the shooting in Chicago over the weekend, right before the weekend?

I mean, there were only three deaths in Chicago. 58 shootings. You know why?

Because Trump sent feds in to Chicago and they, the gang members admitted they were hanging back to see what that was going to mean before they go back to their normal bloodshed.

But this horrific video of two guys, a woman and a baby and two guys in a car come up and shoot and all they hit's the woman.

And it's her hobbling away to hide behind a car and cover her baby up and she dies.

And one of the guys comes running back and the dude's got an Uzi. Okay, so this is gang related. This is gangs.

This is drugs. This was a high definition video of just a street.

Why do you think that was? Because they know it's a drug place. It's a, they're, they're, they're recording drug activity, drugs and gangs, all

Black on Black. There wasn't a white person to be seen anywhere. It was tragic. It was horrible to see that poor little baby staying there as they dragged the lifeless body of his or her mommy to throw it in a car to try to get to the hospital.

But it was too late. That kind of stuff. I trace straight back to the left saying we are, we are taking control in 2020 and that's it.

There'll, there'll never be a contested election again. We'll pack the courts.

We'll create a whole new voting class. We'll create a whole new way of voting that we'll always be able to control.

And that's it. That's the end. We, we win. And the new America is here.

No more having to worry about the constitution and stuff like that. We have all power.

That's what these people want. That's what they're going after. And one of the greatest tools they've ever had handed to them on a platter is

COVID -19. Trash the economy. Let's make sure it stays that way right at the time of the election.

That's, you want to tell me that that's impossible? You know, when we first started, when it first started suggesting itself to me, everybody was like,

Oh, how's that tinfoil hat of yours? Now it's just so obvious. I'm having to go, where's your tinfoil hat?

It's just, it's just so, it's staring you in the face. You, you literally have a candidate, one of the candidates who is not with us any longer, mentally speaking, which means we are, you're voting for who knows who, who's going to control him.

Who's going to provide the words for him to speak? You don't even, you don't even know.

And you don't even care. That's what's astonishing to me. That's what's astonishing to me.

So anyway, in response to Timothy Isaiah Cho, I would argue that in point of fact,

I could make the reverse argumentation here. I think that the deleterious effects of not only the mask wearing and the deleterious effects that has upon the human body, but the deleterious effect upon our society of dehumanizing us and the fact that that has allowed for a massive amount, massive amount, look at the, look at the riots.

What do they all have on? They don't care about a virus. They care about the video cameras and now they're anonymous and they can get away with it.

Look, last November, if you went walking down the street, looking for trouble, wearing a mask, everybody notices you.

Now you just look like everybody else. Hmm. Wonder what that's led to. Yeah.

There you go. So anyway, hopefully pretty soon, because I am going to have to travel soon and, uh, hopefully soon

I've, a friend of mine's wife made him a mask out of this stuff that honestly, well, it, it does what the rule says.

You got to have your nose and your mouth covered. This wouldn't slow down. A dust particle is four inches wide.

Okay. I mean, it looks like, it's not like you can just see straight through it, but it's sort of a gauze type stuff does not impact your breathing at all, at all.

So you look stupid like everybody else does. It's the, it's the bank robbers convention everywhere.

But since we're stupid enough to do this kind of stuff, well,

I'm just going to still be breathing by the time I get where I'm going. So that's, that's the important thing. So anyway, um,

Timothy, Isaiah Cho, there you go with a reformed thing. Uh, one quick thing here that should not really surprise us at all, but, um,

Lions defending freedom, uh, a couple of weeks ago posted an article and they've done some updating about a

Florida state university student, a Roman Catholic student who was, um, fell by the name of Jack Denton joined the

FSU flying high circus. Um, through the circus, he learned how to perform a high wire act.

Well, I guess I got credit for taking a golf class in college once.

So, and we didn't, we literally went out into an open field without grass and whacked golf balls around.

That was not really overly helpful. You didn't have to go and actually play. And I did, I think high, high, uh, high wire act is that's, are you kidding?

That is physical education. Uh, that's, uh, that would, you, you guys got to have good balance and core and everything else there.

Anyways, Jack assumed that performing a high wire act was the most dangerous activity that he would engage in while at FSU.

Unfortunately, Jack later learned that on today's college campus, there was an activity much more dangerous performing a high wire act, engaging in free speech.

In 2019, Jack was elected Senate president of the student government association, but he was only in that position for eight months before being removed.

So what happened? Well, Jack privately shared the beliefs of the Catholic church with other Catholic students.

That's dangerous. And apparently that is not allowed at Florida state alliance defending freedom is representing

Jack to protect his right. Da da da. So what happened is in a private group chat for members of the Catholic student union, participants were discussing the police shooting that caused the death of Tony McDade.

One student encouraged others to watch a video link to support organizations that receiving ad revenue from the video.

Those, these organizations include black lives matter .com reclaim the block and America, the ACLU.

There's trouble Jack. And he responded, quote, the various funds on that list are fine causes as far as I know, but everyone should be aware that those three organizations, quote, all advocate for things that are explicitly anti Catholic end quote.

When asked to explain, Jack said that quote, black lives matter .com defends transgenderism, which it does.

That happens to be a fact. Remember the huge, um, um, black trans lives matter rally, uh, that took place about a month ago in Chicago and reclaim the block quote, protects abortion facilities and sues states that restrict abortion.

End quote, the ACLU supports many positions inconsistent with the church's teaching as well.

When some of Jack's fellow students took offense at his comments, demonstrating that they are still children.

He wrote, if I stay silent while my brothers and sisters may be supporting an organization that promotes grave evils, I have sinned through my silence.

I love you all. And I want us all to be aware of the truth. End quote, should have been left at that. But instead, without Jack's knowledge or permission, one participant leaked the private chat to another student senator.

That student center took Jack's words out of context, claiming that Jack called LGBT LGBT people, grave evils.

I can see how they would pull a stunt like that and intend to hurt them emotionally and physically.

Other senators said Jack's comments made them feel ready, unsafe. And that is the new religion of safism.

Once again, if you want to be the victim today, you make me feel unsafe.

Once again, the complete redefinition of language, complete redefinition of language.

Because in any meaningful use of that phrase, you would say you are threatening me physically.

But that's not what it means anymore. Now you can simply claim to feel unsafe, which means you feel uncomfortable in the presence of ideas.

Ideas. No culture can survive that kind of infantile self -centeredness.

That's what three year olds do. And we now send three year olds to universities. And they run the universities.

That's the scary part. So here's a Roman Catholic kid. Who goes, you know, the

Roman Catholic Church teaches these things. And he's right. Amongst supposed to be fellow

Roman Catholics. Unsafe. Unsafe. You must realize.

When people start accepting this idea that it is up to you to protect someone else's childish, immature feelings of safety.

You're doomed. You can't do it. It's not possible. That's not that's irrational.

But that's where we are. That's where we are. That's where our university campuses are. There is no freedom whatsoever.

And of course, we can't turn around and say to the other side, well, you make us feel unsafe.

They don't care. That's fine. Because you're fascist. Right, right, right, right, right, right.

Okay. Now, over the past two weeks or so,

I've been having a conversation with, well, I'll just go ahead and say the fellow that put together the apologetics conversation, the one we had with the four people.

And he contacted me and said, would you be, well, first, the first contact was, would you and another person debate

Jeff Riddle and another person on the textual critical issue, critical text versus the

TR position? And I said, well, no, I don't see a reason to have four people involved with that.

I think especially on a topic like that, the more cooks you get in the kitchen, there's a danger in light of the fact that most people do not have a lot of background in manuscripts.

You have to use technical language. You have to talk about certain kinds of variations and things like that.

So I think, especially in that context, just having two people would be the way to go.

And I said, no, I wouldn't be interested in having anybody else, but I would certainly be willing to engage

Dr. Riddle on this subject. That's something we've talked about doing in the past.

And then, of course, after the exchanges of papers and things back in late

December, well, middle of December, all those guys just blocked me on Facebook and just disappeared from public view, basically.

And there really hasn't been much that's gone on since then. And so this poor guy in the middle has been going back and forth, and he comes back and says, well, he's fine with that.

I'm like, OK. But he'd like to do the long granting of Mark as the text.

Well, actually, I think the first thing was somewhere along the lines, I was like, I think it'd be better to either do one text or maybe two or three texts at most, but let's focus upon a particular text type thing.

I think that would help rather than being really general. But he came back with the long granting of Mark, and I was like, well, why?

And here's my reasoning. Here's my reasoning. You might say, well, isn't that something you all would disagree on?

Yes, but I could debate other people other than Dr.

Riddle on the longer ending of Mark or the various endings of Mark because there are different people who have different reasons.

A majority text advocates arguments for the long writing of Mark. James snaps ending arguments to the long writing of Mark.

Maurice Robinson's arguments to the long writing of Mark, they're going to be different because they're defending different positions.

If you're going to debate Jeffrey Riddle, who has made it very, very plain and clear, does not shy away from talking about the providentially preserved text, the

PPT, then why not debate the texts that are uniquely relevant to that claim?

The long writing of Mark isn't. The Percopaea Adulterae isn't. First John 5 -7 is.

Kamiohanium would be. Revelation 16 -5 would be. Ephesians 3 -9 would be.

Why? Because no one else will defend them. A majority text advocate will not defend the

TR reading in any of those places. A Byzantine priority advocate will not defend the TR reading in any of those three places.

So only a TR -only advocate will defend the

TR reading in Ephesians 3 -9, Revelation 16 -5, and the Kamiohanium, First John 5 -7. They're the only ones that'll do it.

That makes it an actual... Because what I was told is, well, this would be a debate between the critical theory and the

TR -only position. Okay, then we need to debate a topic that's actually between those two and those two only.

What makes this even more relevant is that there shouldn't be any hesitation.

Let me put it this way. My assertion is, if Dr. Riddle is consistent, he should have no more hesitation to defend the

TR reading of Ephesians 3 -9 than he does the long writing of Mark. The reason being...

I mean, if he wants to just simply say, well, I want to provide an internal critique of the critical text position, well, okay.

But the reality is that the reason you accept the reading in Ephesians 3 -9, and if you're wondering what in the world that would be...

Where did I put that thing? Oh, hmm, what would that be under?

I'm sitting here looking at the open programs going, what would that have appeared under?

And I had kept it up. I left it here. Oh, wait a minute, there it is. It's one of my

Chrome tabs. There it is. There it is.

So let me explain this by reading a portion of the paper that I wrote about Ephesians 3 -9 in response to Dr.

Riddle, which I was told someone produced a response to, but no one ever sent it to me, or it wasn't made publicly available.

So I guess there's a secret response. Anyway, I mentioned the fact that the probable singular manuscript that is the origin of the

TR reading has been identified, manuscript 2817. It's a

Katina manuscript. It's not a normal manuscript of just a running text manuscript, but a Katina manuscript where you've got sections rather than the whole thing.

This is what I wrote. It is very useful that 2817 was identified, but let us make sure we remember something at this point.

2817 is irrelevant to the TR -only position. The reading is not true because it's found in 2817.

All textual data is, in the final analysis, irrelevant to this position. The TR is the

PPT, Providentially Preserved Text, because it is the PPT, period.

History really has nothing to do with it. This can be clearly seen in the fact that if we were to take the time, and I said, and I am tempted to do so, but have far more pressing projects, though I would encourage someone less committed to traveling and debating and preaching, this was before all that stopped, and speaking to invest the time, we could, in all probability, find some reading in 2817, depending on its total content, that differs from the

TR. Will Dr. Riddle or Robert Truelove militate for a change in the

TR to match 2817? Well, of course not. Since the argument begins with the

TR, it will always end with the TR, since it is the PPT.

The arguments for any one reading in the TR, textually speaking, do not have to be consistent with the arguments for any other reading in the

TR, for one simple reason. The TR's establishment of the PPT is not based upon textual criticism, manuscripts, or history.

It is a theological assertion based upon, in my opinion, horribly errant theological assumptions.

So the identification of 2817 can provide cover, so to speak, but once you truly understand what is being promoted, it does not matter.

Hence, even when proponents engage in such arguments, inconsistently I would argue, they can use argument

X for text A, and non -argument X for text B, and argument opposite of X for text

C, and smile the whole time, because consistency of textual critical argumentation is irrelevant to TR -onlyism.

I have emphasized this reality for years and will continue to do so out of simple necessity. TR -onlyism is an anti -apologetic.

So what's strange is, if we were to see what would be illustrated in the

Kamiohonium and Revelation 16 .5, these are pretty much unique readings of the

TR. Now, this would allow

Dr. Riddle to lay out his case for the supremacy of the

TR as the PPT, and illustrate it in three places where, in his opinion, the

TR contains the apostolic reading, whereas the vast majority of all manuscripts known to mankind have lost it.

I would think that would be something you'd want to promote. You'd want to be able to say, hey, look, if you didn't have the

TR, you wouldn't have the proper readings in all these places. I would think that would be important, but here's the key.

And I'm still hoping that this will happen. I'm certainly willing to do it. But the arguments, if Dr.

Riddle deigns to provide textual arguments, to mention manuscripts, to mention translations, to mention sources that Erasmus would have had or whatever, the arguments that will underlie

Ephesians 3 .9, 1 John 5 .7, and Revelation 16 .5 will be completely contradictory to the others, be completely contradictory, because it's the

TR that determines the reading, not the manuscripts that were used to produce the TR. So 2817 for Ephesians 3 .9

doesn't really matter. Anything you find in Revelation 16 .5 really doesn't matter. Revelation 14 .1,

we can throw that one in for the fun of it. The historical basis for the rise of the comma

Johanim in 1 John 5 .7, coming from the Latin into the Greek, that's not how the reading in Ephesians 3 .9

did not originate in the Latin and come into the Greek. So you can have a different standard for Ephesians because it would prove the fundamental point that I've made from the beginning, and I do not believe that the

TR -only advocates have any way out of this. They've created their own trap here.

It's their ultimate authority, and they really should just be very straightforward and say, it is simply our ultimate authority.

We ground that upon a theological conclusion, upon the great things God did after the

Reformation with the use of this text, however you want to ground it. And therefore, we will not engage in these discussions of textual issues because they aren't why we – manuscript 28 –

Jeffrey Riddle did not know about manuscript 28, believed Koinonia is the proper reading in Ephesians 3 .9.

That's not why. Now he knows 28 .17, but that's still not why he believes it. And we could find 10 papyrus copies of Ephesians that date from the year 120 tomorrow that all say

Oikonomia, that say what all the other Greek manuscripts say, except for 28 .17.

And it still wouldn't change anything to the TR -only position. It can't, by definition.

And so I would love to see that laid out plainly in online debate if that's fine for me, but I wanted to explain why it is if we're going to do the

TR -only thing. Because see, we can have conversations. There are books that exist. There's already an excellent book that exists giving different views on the longer ending of Mark.

So if you want to read different scholars – but you see, they're all textual critical scholars dealing with textual critical information who actually think that the readings of the manuscript should determine what your final text should be.

That's not what TR -onlyism is. TR -onlyism is not a textual critical theory.

It's a theological conclusion. And I think that needs to be fully understood by everyone who is being told that by embracing this, you're somehow going to obtain some level of certainty as to the nature of the text.

And so I am more than happy to do –

I've still got my green screen, and I can – maybe

I could take a picture of my textual critical section and put that as the background for that.

I've got my green screen, and I've got my lights and my lavalier microphone to plug into my computer, and I'm ready to go.

But – and one other practical thing. Dr. Riddle and I wrote lengthy articles.

I think this one here was 27 pages long, and this was early

December. So you're talking, what, eight months ago? So I'm still up on this information, and I'm sure he is too.

And so we're ready to go. But let's do the debate on something that actually defines our positions and isn't hiding the central aspects of what our claims are.

I would like to be able to demonstrate that a Reformed person should have the same viewpoints that the

Reformed men who were involved in the King James Translation have, which would include comparison of the Greek Septuagint, other languages, multiple manuscripts.

They all accepted all of that, even if they were not doing a new critical edition of either the

Hebrew Old Testament or Greek New Testament. They didn't have time to. King James wanted a translation, and he wanted it relatively quickly.

You'd think seven years. Well, back then, yeah, we do things a lot faster now. You've got to realize collating a whole new edition of the

New Testament or Old Testament would have taken decades. So that just wasn't even a possibility. That's why they used already printed

Greek New Testaments. But I do not believe for a second that the translator's

King James Version would have accepted Jeffrey Riddle's theories. I don't believe it. I know

Erasmus didn't by any stretch of the imagination. But anyway,

I think it'd be really useful. I think it's important. Does it end up changing the nature of the

New Testament? I don't think it does. I don't think it does. But it's important in apologetics because these are issues that are being brought up by many of the people with whom we are speaking.

So I wanted to mention that. I wanted to get around to that. Now, on Thursday, I will put the time and stuff out there.

I'll just go ahead and make the announcement. He's already said he's going to do it. So on Thursday, I'm going to be joined by a friend of mine, a brother in the

Lord that I've gotten to know only over the past really number of weeks. We had communicated briefly,

I think, last year before the world went nuts. He had a video sort of go viral.

It was one of the many former

Christian singer artists that had come out and said,

I don't believe it anymore. I'm no longer a Christian. And he was interviewed,

I think by CBN, if I recall correctly, about that issue.

And he was just rock solid on what he had to say about the centrality of scripture and the church and sound theology and all the rest of this stuff.

And I think it was right around that time I reached out to him. And we exchanged some emails and I mentioned some debates

I had coming up and stuff like that. And so he started listening to the program.

So to make a long story short, we ended up getting in touch, started chatting on the phone, got to spend some time as I was driving down from Flagstaff a few weeks ago, talking theology on the phone and stuff like that.

And so we've struck up a relationship, maybe talking about a little project together in the future and things like that.

And I've just wanted to be an encouragement to someone who has a very different audience than I have and a very different way of reaching them.

But we love theology and have a lot in common because we're brothers in the

Lord. And so on Thursday, Lord willing, it's great to do it. It says it's a good week to do it.

It's just a matter of making sure we get all the schedules put together. But probably at this time,

I would assume on Thursday, I will be joined by John Cooper, the lead, currently the only still remaining original member of Skillet.

And some of you have never heard Skillet before, some of you have.

Some of you have gone absolutely bonkers excited that I've said, yeah,

I listen to Skillet, especially when I'm on the bike, because that'll keep your legs moving like nothing else will.

And then others are just like, oh, I just can't believe it. Everything has just gone crazy and nuts about it.

But anyways, John's going to join me and we're going to get to talk about all sorts of stuff, but especially

Skillet's music for a number of years now has been focused upon not giving up.

And I'll ask him the same question that I asked him on the phone about a month ago.

One of his songs was talking about faithfulness in the midst of trials and things like that.

And I said, do you ever write a song? And then stuff like what's happened over the past number of months happens, and you realize, man, if I'm going to have to sing this song,

I'm really going to have to believe it. Yeah, yeah, no kidding. Yeah, that's really the way it is.

So we're going to have John Cooper on and we're just going to have a good time chatting and talking and introducing you. And introducing you, he actually called it my song, so I'm going to go with that.

But he only did that because I like it so much. And it was just released on a radio version last week from their most current album called

Terrify the Dark. And we'll definitely be playing Terrify the Dark for you. Look it up, it's on YouTube, and check the words out.

There's some deep theology behind what's there, and especially right now as we look toward a very challenging future.

Terrify the Dark's sort of, I think, a good theme song along those lines. So check it out. So on Thursday, John Cooper will be joining us here on The Dividing Line, and I'm going to go here and see if there's...

So far... Oh, all right, all right.

I made the mistake of looking over at Twitter. And... Oh, I'll never find that file again.

But anyways... So Patrick Madrid posted this with the title

Social Commentary. Can you show that? Yeah, there you go.

Yeah, I don't know about you, but I ain't wearing that. Though it'd be sort of funny to wear that into a restaurant, then take it off to eat, and then start going, and watch everybody just run out.

Well, only people old enough to have seen Alien would do that.

But thanks to Patrick Madrid for that one. That's great.

What's that? Yeah, and then watch it scurry away. Yeah, that would be really, really bad.

Nightmares for some of us that... Oh, man, that was scary stuff for us. But that was before CGI, man.

You had to make everything dark and scary for stuff like that. But anyway,

I don't know how I got distracted by that. I was looking over to see if there was anyone who was saying, well, making any type of...

Well, look at that. Whoa, wait a minute. Don't start the music. Tucker Carlson will interview

John McArthur tonight, 5 p .m. Pacific Standard Time. Excellent.

The picture of Tucker is a bad picture of Tucker, but Tucker Carlson is going to interview

Johnny Mac. So that will be an opportunity. Pray that John will get his...

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, so I'm starting to see a few mentions here, but nothing about that.