You said statements either true or false.

I gave you a statement and you said it doesn't apply.

Not to theft.

It's not.

The only truth.

App statements would be either true or false.

So is it true that I'm talking to you?

Is it true that it's true?

Statement.

I'm talking to you, Is that true?

Yes.

Okay.

Is it true that babies exist?

Well, I mean, how babies exist.

Babies exist.

Babies exist.

Is that true or is it not the case that it's true?

I would, I mean, if you want.

To go down the, you know, if.

You want to be very strict about it, I would be skeptical about it.

Okay, we're done talking.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your.

Questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

We are live Apologetics Live here to answer your most challenging questions about God and the Bible.

We're here to teach and to illustrate, to instruct on how to do apologetics.

So if you have any difficult questions or any questions at all, in fact, you can go to apologetics live.com and you can just scroll down to the stream yard.

That's the duck icon.

Click on that.

Join the discussion.

If you're on YouTube, that's usually, I think YouTube and X will allow us to see your comments.

So you can put stuff there.

If you're there, we'll be able to see your comments, which would be so nice, and we will get those questions as well.

And so tonight we're going to be talking about a debate that happened on someone else's channel.

And the debate was titled does Christian Nationalism Help Society?

It was by Dead Man Walking, my friend, Greg Moore.

Well, we'll see if he admits that we're friends.

But, you know, I call him a friend, but hey, I live in fantasy land.

But he had a debate and with a guy, Tim Whitaker and Kenning, Ken Kenton, and I don't remember Kenton's last name, but he's here so he could tell us.

And it was a very interesting debate.

The link is in the show notes, even if you look on the video.

So I encourage people to look at the video before.

So you have, you know, so, you know, we're do what we're talking about.

So if we don't get all the links to, to play in.

But we're going to try to go through and discuss that because I think there's a lot to learn in.

It was really, I should have titled this Christian Nationalism debate with a progressive Christian.

Some of you remember when we had the other progressive Christian that came in, Anthony.

Well, we have another progressive Christian.

I don't know if he's going to come in.

Tim.

Tim Whitaker.

The weird thing with both of these young guys is both of them were in two different churches that I was part of.

I don't know what it is that.

The churches I've been part of go.

You get some guy that goes progressive.

I don't know, it's probably my fault.

Greg will blame me.

Let me bring in my CO host here, Mr.

A.m.

brewster, one of the speakers at Striving for Eternity.

Sir, welcome.

Oh, I see you got, you got your new book there.

Look at that.

I don't have the cool technology that you have, so I'm just holding it here.

You got to hold it there the whole time.

Why should we quit the whole time?

Quit?

You know, you got to quit, quit smoking, quit drinking, quit cussing.

Now this book is actually Quit how to Stop Family Struggle Rife For Good.

Okay, hold on, hold on.

I'm going to interrupt for a second just for timing's sake, because I want this just popped in.

Tim Whitaker says, Andrew, are you going to tell people I went to your church?

I already did.

Thank you.

You just did.

Continue.

In fact, Andrew blamed himself for the whole situation.

It's a, yeah, it's a, it's a book I just wrote called Quit how to Stop Family Strife for Good.

And it's, it's all about really stopping the strife.

But it's actually a facade.

Don't tell everyone this.

I don't say this on every interview show.

So if you people are listening to it here, you get the inside scoop.

Really what this is is it does appeal to people who have a lot of family strife, a lot of family conflict.

But the only way to really be able to deal with any sins and any big issues in the family is to really through discipleship, it's through your family coming to know the Lord and growing in him.

And that's really what this book is about.

And then specifically focuses in on the elements of strife.

So we talk about the consequences of strife, the creators, the causes, and then eventually we talk about the cure for strife.

But I'm not going to hold it here the whole time.

And it doesn't.

Calculus man says very seeker sensitive title.

So where can folks get that?

Well, you can go to evermindministries.com and you can see links there.

If you are on the Evermind app, you can get it in there.

There's a digital version that's exclusively on the Evermind app, but you can also order it on Amazon.

Just go to Amazon and put in quit and then my name am Brewster, Aaron Brewster.

Or put in how to Stop Family Strife.

Quit and Family Strife.

It'll all come up there on Amazon.

Well, the best is to go to Evermind Ministries, because there you get more money than Amazon.

Let me bring in maybe, maybe not.

I don't even know how that works anymore.

Let me bring in Greg Moore from Dead Man Walking.

Sir, how are you?

Hey, what's up, Aaron?

What's up?

So folks don't know Greg Moore.

If you don't listen to Dead Man Walking, I'll just say that I don't think you need to be following and listening to every episode of Dead Man Walking to get to heaven.

But why take the chance?

Just saying his new tagline.

Hey, I want to bring.

I'm going to bring Greg in.

Very secret, sensitive.

Yeah.

Hey, so what we usually do is we start with an.

In the news section before we get into the main topic.

And I'm going to.

I brought Greg in because I want to.

I want to.

In the news section here.

I'm going to string these long.

He's a politician, so that'll be good to.

With some of these.

That's a public servant.

I don't like that other P word, public servant.

Okay, so, and, and these are all going to tie together into, I think, what'll be the theme for tonight a bit.

So first I wanted to talk about if you guys hadn't seen there was a.

A national prayer that they do after a president is, you know, basically after they have the induction for a new president.

So that it's kind of a national prayer for the person who just became president.

And what you had was a woman who decided to take that opportunity where it was supposed to be being respectful, regardless of.

I mean, I don't care if that was Biden and someone did that.

I would still say it was very disrespectful what she did in, in taking the time that it's supposed to be a honoring of the person who is in the office to then just try to, you know, rip them apart.

But she took that.

She took that opportunity, which maybe many of you have seen that clip, but that's not the clip I actually want to talk about.

The clip I want to talk about is what the clip where she explained why she did it.

She said that the reason she called him out in church is because his presence there, he was making a political statement.

And she was not going to stand for someone making A political statement in.

The church now by making a political statement.

Thank you very much.

So she's the one that made the political statement.

He was there because he was just installed as president and it was kind of like his responsibility to be there.

But that's how that works.

That's how that works.

My, like, the three of us white dudes, right?

I mean, because you're, you're Jewish, so obviously you're a white dude, too.

So the three of us white guys, our very presence is triggering.

Our very presence is racist.

This, this is white.

This is white.

I am not white.

It's very close to my skin, though.

But then the people who would hate on us, the people who would yell and scream at us because our very presence is racist, they're, they're not like, that's, that is how it actually works.

That's right.

And so this is called projecting.

And I'm saying this because we're going to see a theme here.

What she's doing is projecting onto Donald Trump, which she actually did.

Did.

Right.

And like I said, I don't care who's there.

If, if the, if it is a national prayer breakfast for the president, you show respect to the, to the office and the person, the, the second one is, you know, is going to be a similar thing.

I don't know if you really, really.

Really quick, Andrew, can you just interject?

How about, how about respect, honor and glory to Christ the King, to God Almighty and political idea.

Yes.

Political ideology, instead of using it as a soapbox, actually being humbled before a holy God in prayer.

Well, see, and that's where I could agree with her argument to say when she's saying, well, we, you know, the church is not the place to be making political statements.

I might be able to agree with that to an extent.

You know, but if that's what you believe, then you shouldn't do it.

Right.

Because she, like, he sat there, he didn't by.

She's claiming by him sitting there, he's making a political statement.

So she's projecting her behavior onto him.

And then we have, we had some pardons.

I don't know if you, you heard about these pardons that were literally.

And I predicted this.

I was telling people watch Monday morning, we're going to see pardons.

What I didn't expect is that he actually was doing pardons while Trump was speaking.

So that they were just last minute.

He had no time.

He didn't know about it by the time that he got up to do his, his speeches.

So what Was the reason.

Are you talking about Biden last.

Biden last minute pardoning his family and, and others.

Now, what was the reason he gave for pardoning?

Now, it's interesting if we go back in time, there was all kinds of people were saying that Trump was going to pardon his children, his family, because they were so gu.

He came out and said, I'm not planning to pardon any of them.

They didn't do anything wrong.

You don't pardon a person that's innocent.

And so Joe Biden pardoned a whole bunch of people proactively, he said, because he wanted to do that, because he assumes Trump is going to attack these people and go after them and, and do it.

So he gave a part, by the way, pardons are purpose.

The purpose of a pardon is you have to actually be guilty.

There's only one pardon that we have in history before January 20th where you can make the argument that the, a pardon was for someone that wasn't charged as being guilty.

And that would be Nixon.

And even then Ford, there was debate over that.

And Ford actually is his, the reason he pardoned Nixon was he said that Nixon's public statements were admission of guilt and therefore he could use that to pardon him.

Right.

Really quickly, the whole point is whether guilty or innocent, there has to be some act that we're weighing the pardon on.

And this pardon is saying, oh, proactively pardoned without any evidence, one way or another.

I find it pretty atrocious.

I mean, could you imagine having that get out of jail free card to your Hunter Biden or one of these, Jill, or anyone.

No matter what you do, you got a presidential pardon.

That's not how pardon works.

It's in the, it's in the definition of the word.

And those pardons go back 10 years.

Admission of guilt, like he pardoned them.

And in so doing, he is admitting that he did all the things that we've been saying they did.

Yeah, well, he's, he's saying to protect them.

But here's the thing.

He's.

When it was, when it was Donald Trump in office, they said, oh, he's going to do this.

It's, that's illegal.

You can't do it.

And Biden even said, my administration would never do such a thing.

And now he does it.

Now here's the interesting thing.

What's the reason he's doing it?

And there's a, there's a point to all this.

He's projecting onto Donald Trump what he actually did to Donald Trump.

Right in with all these investigations Things like that.

Because we do know that the four cases, you know, it's public record to see who goes in and out of the White House.

All four of the prosecutors, all four of the cases, the day before that prosecution occurred against Donald Trump, they were visiting with Joe Biden.

So, so he projects onto them what he actually does.

And, and the point is with that is to notice these pardons go back 10 years.

I mean, before Donald Trump was in office.

So I'm surprised he didn't pardon every single person that worked at the White House.

Let's not forget this was an administration where coke, balloons, and cocaine were found in the White House, where there was two men having anal sex on the Capitol floor and recorded it and it got leaked.

I mean, the list goes on and on of the things that happened at this White House under Joe Biden and whoever was running the country for the last four years.

But if you want to see a fun video really quickly, go to real DMW podcast on my X account.

And there's a six minute mashup of everyone from MSNBC and CNN saying, in, in the late Trump presidency, oh, my gosh, why would you pardon anyone if you're, if you're not guilty?

And then at the end of it, of course, it shows the pardon of the entire Biden family.

Yeah.

So what do you have, you have a case where there's projection.

You, you put, you put onto the other person what you're gonna do, right?

So you say, oh, I'm doing this because that person's gonna do that.

But what you're actually doing is the very thing you're accusing the other person of.

So I bring that together.

And I know he's, he's backstage, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna say with a debate we're going to talk about, you got to see Tim Whitaker do the exact same thing he projects upon Kennington.

He's like, he's, he's cracking up back there.

He, he does the exact same thing.

He accuses Kennington of what he actually does.

So now that he's back there, we'll have a lot of fun discussing that.

Let me bring in Kenton Kendall.

What's your last name?

You'd have to unmute yourself, though.

That usually helps.

Yeah, Kenton Little.

Kenton Little.

All right, so you're not big.

All right.

My name matches my stature quite accurately.

Okay, well, you look taller on video.

Five, six.

Okay, well, Brewster is a Brewster, so.

Yeah, he's just, he's just like, you know, with five, five different black Belts and Tim Whitaker.

Sir, welcome.

Hello, Andrew.

It's been 10, what, 15, 20 years?

Yeah, so.

So, so I was.

So we talk about the projecting.

So I bring you in.

I'm going to read the exchange.

I want to read a text exchange I had this morning with Greg because, well, it was, it was kind of funny.

So I, and I will say for the, for audience, these guys both came in, they came in last minute.

Tim is, I believe, at a conference.

So the fact that he's in we appreciate because I will hang on as.

Long as I can.

Yeah.

Just can't hang on forever.

Although I do enjoy this, to be fair.

Yeah.

So I, you know, the, the point being is I did not give them.

I said to Greg like, like last night, like 24 hours ago.

I said, hey, you want to, you know, invite the other guys on?

And so to which he, he sent me a text that says from Tim in Kentington.

And he shows this text thing.

He says, Tim says you hate him.

Lol.

So this is what, what Tim said.

He said, haha, he hates me.

I went to his church as a kid.

Tell him to unblock me and talk to me like an adult.

Lol.

To which my, to my response.

And I don't know if you saw my response was.

So let me get this straight.

He will not come on the show to talk to me as an adult because I blocked him.

Please ask him to explain which one of us is acting like a little child and trying to get his way and refusing to talk.

To me publicly.

And you blocked me on all social media and talked to me privately, but here I am, I'm on your show.

Yeah.

Well, you know, blocking people on social media doesn't mean you know it.

There's plenty of ways to communicate.

So it's just.

I do have.

There went Greg.

What happened?

Greg?

He vanished.

I don't know.

He.

Poof.

He's gone.

There.

He's gone.

Can I ask you one question?

I was, I was curious.

It's a real question.

You, you mentioned that you just.

Did you want to ask me a second question?

Yeah.

Thank you.

You mentioned I'm a progressive Christian.

I'm just wondering for you, what does that mean?

Like, how am I a progressive Christian?

Well, it was a term you used in the debate.

So do you deny what you said in the debate?

I don't.

I'm just like, I'm assuming.

I haven't, I haven't.

Honestly, I haven't seen you in literally in 15 years.

That's the first time in a while.

Well, my, my condolences that you got to see this face again.

It's all good, man.

I'm assuming that you're not a fan of progressive Christians.

I'm just wondering like how you think about what it is that makes me progressive.

Well, I think, yeah, well, progressive Christians are those who, I would say, let culture interpret scripture and their, their not Christians, but we.

So let me, let me ask this.

Actually, it was a question that, that I, that I did have when I watched the debate.

So since you're here, I can ask you because I was, you know, because I know you may have to go.

So could, could you, and I think Kenton asked you this or mentioned it.

That's what got me to think about it.

Could you define what the gospel is, means?

Good news, good news of Christ.

But what is, what's the gospel message?

That ultimately Christ is reconciling the cosmos.

It's the good news.

What does that mean, what I just said?

That the crooked will be made straight at some point in the future.

That God has made a way for us to be reconciled and to partner with his good creation, bringing heaven on earth instead of hell on earth.

Well, what is, what is the way that we get that we.

Do you have reconciliation?

Like how do we get reconciled?

Well, I mean, do you want to ask how the Calvinist thinks that or how the Arminius thinks that?

Right.

I mean, the people debate this exact thing.

I believe it means having a radical allegiance to Jesus.

And I quote Matthew Bates, his book Radical Allegiance, where he argues that the word faith is better interpreted allegiance.

And that's those who have allegiance to the way of Jesus, that participate with Christ in his work on earth that are part of the plan to reconcile all things back to himself.

And that includes grace, that includes forgiveness, that includes understanding all that.

But I definitely have walked away from the framework that I grew up with that.

You know, if you prayed this prayer, you won't burn in hell one day, you'll go to heaven one day.

That idea, I think isn't really captured in the Gospels or ultimately what we're really talking about.

I mean, even N.T.

wright would argue it's about a new, a new earth, not really heaven.

So that's kind of how I think about it.

So you believe, do you believe, do you believe at, at birth that we are enemies of God?

Do we, Are we at a point before whatever you might call salvation, are we enemies of God?

No, I reject that framework.

I believe the choice every day to partner with God in his wisdom or to partner with our own desires that bring chaos on earth.

Okay.

I do reject a Calvinist total depravity framework.

Notice I haven't mentioned anything about Calvinism.

Yet, so I'm sure we're going to get there.

We don't have to.

Either.

My question is, we're not enemies of God.

Why do we need to be reconciled to Him?

Well, because we participate in sin all the time, Right.

We cause damage.

We cause separation from ourselves and from our Creator.

Absolutely.

It doesn't mean that we're naturally an enemy.

We can choose every day which way we want to go with that.

Okay, so, so when you say a Christian, how does someone become a Christian?

By giving allegiance to the Way, what does that mean?

You read.

Okay, so we look at the Beatitudes, we look at what Jesus says in Matthew, right?

Those do the will, the father, etc.

And we look at what he teach.

We become disciples of Christ, following in his footsteps, participating in the work of Christ that he's brought on to his disciples, that we continue on.

Okay, so is there a point in time when someone is not a Christian, becomes a Christian?

Because what you said is something that can come and go.

I mean, someone can give allegiance and not give allegiance and just so do they?

Become a Christian, lose it.

Become a Christian, lose it.

I think people can walk away from the faith.

I didn't say walk away from faith.

I think that people can stop being a Christian.

They can stop being a Christian.

Yes.

They can give their allegiance to Jesus.

They can revoke that allegiance to Jesus.

Okay, so is it about getting right with God.

As far as.

Are you talking about, like in like a spiritual sense of, like, I repent of my sins?

Well, in the sense of atonement, as we would see in Leviticus.

Yeah, I mean, I, I definitely reject penal substitutionary atonement.

I, I have more of a healing atonement theory at this point in my theological journey.

That Christ sacrifices is the antidote for sin.

The virus that's taking over what God called at one point, good.

But certainly we are agents at times of that sin.

Right?

I mean, we look around the world, there's tons of chaos.

Humans create that chaos.

We create damage all over the earth.

Birth and certainly repentance.

To turn and go the other way from that sin is key to the Christian faith.

Okay.

And I know I'm asking all the questions, but I have something I'm curious of while you're here.

And so do you believe.

Let me ask this.

Why did Christ have to die?

Why did Christ have to Die?

Yeah, well, I mean, like I said, I offer the healing atonement theory for this, that Christ, that Christ's sacrifice is the antidote for being able to heal the world of sin once and for all.

And that process was started with his death and of course resurrection, which I do affirm.

Okay, how does his death bring that healing?

Like what's special about his death that would bring the healing?

I'm trying to understand the resurrection, right?

There's the death in the course of resurrection that, that death doesn't have the final sing.

Then again, as, as Christians, right, we look forward to the day where, where we're resurrected again and that death does not have the final say in what God called good.

So I believe as a Christian, my call is to participate in that, in the here and now.

Hoping of course it's, it's that tension, right, of like the here, but not yet.

This idea like we want to be part of this kingdom of God that we're trying to realize on earth as Christ followers and also realizing that ultimately we're never going to fully accomplish that, but we look forward to the day when Christ comes back and reconciles the cosmos back to himself.

All the crooked sin of the world is made straight again and we're able to co.

To co.

Rule with God the way that it was made, intended to be a creation.

Okay, can I jump in here?

Because I'm confused a little bit, so I just want to.

Hey Tim, nice to see you again.

I was having all kinds of video and audio issues.

Yeah, hold on, I gotta, I gotta play this.

Since you said that here, here was a, you know, Kennington put this comment up.

Greg definitely raptured.

He, he was the only true Christian in the bunch.

He's back now, so I guess not.

Yeah, well, you know, you know where he'd look up the definition for rapture, he'd look it up on Wikipedia.

That makes probably at least three of us.

Wikipedia isn't a good theological source for a debate.

Andrew House at 3am Anyway, so I'm just, I, I want to see where you're coming from, Tim, because I, I know some guys like you and I know some guys who, and I don't know if you want me to label you was, you know, deconstructed, but in this vein of kind of come.

I heard kind of your story when we did the debate of coming out of, of a Christian home and kind of re.

Examining some things.

I think.

What did you say was in your 20s or was it early?

I came out of Christian Fundamentalism.

I, I renegotiated my faith.

Seriously, maybe a few years ago, but ever since 2016, I kind of been on that path.

Okay, so, so to kind of reiterate Andrew's question, because I'm very interested in this, is why is the resurrection important?

If, if, if sin doesn't automatically make us an enemy of God, which I, I find laughable.

If I had someone who was pillaging my house and raping my wife and beating my kids and stealing from me, I'd go, well, that's a pretty nice guy, but it's, it's just a virus.

He'll, he'll get over it.

I go, no, that guy's my enemy until I can.

Something can change.

So.

And it's not a Calvinist view.

I mean, we know original sin was talked about well before Calvin came or came around, but my point is, why is Christ resurrection important then?

What, what, what does that magical thing, that antidote that you're talking about do for sin?

That death doesn't have the final sin, right?

Sin gives birth to death.

Do we all agree on that?

Isn't that the problem of sin?

It gives birth to death.

That's what, that's what St.

Paul says in the Scriptures.

So the resurrection is the symbol that God conquers death.

And how does he do that?

Well, by giving into death.

Death, ironically, but.

And so as the Christian, the hope is that we one day will be able to be part of that world where death does not have the final sting, where sin does not reign over.

Right.

The human condition or the, or creation.

Etc.

So, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that I want to be charitable here, especially on your show.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, which I want to own, but I was under the impression that what you were saying is like, when you're born, you're born naturally, as in like a permanent stasis, an enemy of God.

And what I would say is that we have as humans the ability to do great good and great bad.

I mean, we can look at human civilization, civil civilization.

See, people have done really great things with their lives and have had good moments and I've had really bad moments that have caused a lot of damage.

So I don't think it's, it's a stasis of like, I'm, I'm all bad or I'm all good at any given time.

I mean, this is just today I can do good and bad.

Well, I can if I can jump in here real quick because I think.

And by the way, hey, Tim, my name is Aaron.

I watched your debate earlier, and I want to share with you at some point, maybe before you go, the text I sent to, to Andrew before, Before all this happened.

But anyway, so I, I still, I actually, I want to kind of be the third guy to kind of reiterate what Andrew has asked.

And now then Greg just asked, because if I'm hearing you correctly, you're suggesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Christ's death and resurrection was merely illustrative.

Like it was merely just a, A picture of a bigger reality.

When, when we would say that his, his death was efficacious.

His death and his resurrection did something like it accomplished something.

Am I hearing that you're saying it didn't accomplish something.

It was just a, it was just kind of like a picture, like a flannel graph kind of, kind of an idea.

Well, I, I, Well, I mean, I, I believe that Christ physically rose again from the dead.

To be clear.

I don't think it's.

Of course, yeah, I'll put that out there because progressive Christians, you know, I, People can think.

I think it's all.

I don't think that I believe in a physical resurrection.

What I'm saying is that my understanding, and I want to be clear, this isn't like a new understanding in my mind.

I think I've always believed this, even growing up in different spaces, is that the resurrection signifies again, that like death, this thing that is taking over does not have the final say in the believer's life, that one day we will live again.

So, but that word signifies.

Did I, did I get the right idea, though?

Like, you're saying it signifies it, images it.

It.

You believe that it happened, but it happened as, as kind of like a signpost and a neon light to the world, that this can happen to you too.

But it didn't accomplish anything more than just to signify, than just to image.

Well, I believe it.

Okay.

I think I understand what you're saying.

In my opinion, in my view, the resurrection signified that the rule of God is happening, that it is coming, that the kingdom is coming, but again, here, but not yet.

So that's how I kind of think about it.

Yeah.

Okay.

I guess I would just push back and I think, oh, I guess Andrew and Greg can, can tell me if they agree with me on this.

I think Kenton, too, I'm assuming probably as well.

We, Our, Our position would be that, you know, Christ's death and resurrection were a necessary.

Nobody could be saved had it not happened and therefore it actually accomplished something in the act of it, in the death and in the resurrection.

Yes, it signifies things.

Yes, it's illustrative of many things for sure.

But had it not happened, mankind could not be reconciled with God.

It was an efficacious work that he did.

So that's why I asked the question, to understand where you are, because it's.

It seems that you don't believe it accomplished anything much more than just a.

Hey, look at this.

This can be you too.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, to be clear.

No, I think that it was necessary.

Like that last part you just said I would agree with.

Okay, so I think that was the question.

If I, if I'm right, Andrew and Greg, I think that's a question that they were asking.

Why was it necessary?

Why did Jesus have to die and raise again?

Like what did it actually accomplish in the warp and woof of humanity to make it possible so we can be reconciled?

Well, it made a way for us to reconcile it back to our creator.

Right.

Is the whole point of it via.

And what.

And I'm not asking this, I don't want to be a jerk in any way, shape or form.

I just asking for clarification.

And what is that way?

Like how.

How does that happen?

I guess this may be the question.

How does someone participate in that?

Yeah, by giving allegiance to the way of the crucified Jesus that rose again.

I mean, that's back to.

I'm being honest, like you, you fought, you become a disciple, a follower of Jesus by giving your loyalty not to the empire, right, not to culture, but to the way of Jesus.

So I would start with the Gospel accounts, the Beatitudes, what did he actually teach?

And I would start there and then work outward.

That, that's, that couldn't, that couldn't happen if Christ hadn't died.

What do you mean that like someone couldn't be a follower of Jesus?

Yeah, if Jesus hadn't died and rose again.

Well, someone could have everything else had his ministry teach the attitudes, interpreted the law, did everything else, but didn't die and rise again.

Could we still give allegiance to a.

Well, yeah, we can give this just anyone, right?

People give allegiance to politicians.

That's a possibility.

I give a risen and a crucified and risen Messiah.

That's why I give my allegiance to.

And that's why we're asking was a.

Follower of Jesus and he had not died and risen again.

Would that allegiance to him reconcile them to God?

I, I I, I would imagine as well.

Obviously, it happens.

So the Christian believes that that's the case.

So it's a hypothetical that I can't answer because we know that it happened or we believe that it happened, and that's our answer to that question.

If, if, if he didn't, I'm sure there'd be a different religion that we'd probably be a part of that would claim a different thing.

But as a Christian, I affirm and believe that to be reconciled back to your creator, it goes through the crucified and risen Christ.

And I don't want to be, I don't want to be short.

I only have so much time.

If you want to ask Christian nationalist questions too, we can do that.

I just don't know how long you guys want to go on this.

Yeah, I'm happy to.

Well, and can I, can I share with him the text I sent to you?

Yeah, go for it.

Okay.

So right after finishing the video, I immediately texted him and I said, oh, man, we're gonna have.

It's just gonna be so much fun tonight.

I said, half of that debate was an absolute dumpster fire, and the other half I disagree with.

I wrote this to him, and I sent a smiley face along with it as well.

So that kind of puts both of you in the position of like, okay, well, which one, which half did he think was the dumpster fire?

And which half did he disagree with?

And what, and here's, and here's the thing I want you to know, Tim.

So you and I have, I mean, I would love to be in the same room with you because our, our relationship, I think, would be just so complex in so many beautiful ways.

A, I was brought up homeschooled in the fundamental, independent fundamentalism.

However, I still consider myself a fundamentalist.

I'm also not a covenant theologian.

Okay.

So that kind of puts me in an interesting position with some people here.

I, I completely.

Nothing wrong with dispensationalism.

So I completely agree with, with your argument against Christian nationalism.

I think that some of your arguments were spot on, but others of them, I was just like, oh, that, that was the dumpster fire for me, that you were bringing some of these arguments and saying some of these things within the context of the debate.

Kenton.

I, I'm not a Christian nationalist.

I, I, I, I, I don't agree with it, but I also really appreciate a lot of things that you said.

And I found myself back and forth the whole time, like, like applauding both of you, and at other times, Being like, oh, come on, why'd you have to.

So I mean, I mean, in so many ways, I honestly would love to get to know more you guys better just because I think that our trajectories have so much in common and yet are so disparate as we go along.

But I want Andrew to jump back in here because I've been taking a lot of time, but I guess, and I know you, you need to leave too.

So Andrew, consider if this is maybe something you want to talk about.

One of the things that really stuck out to me is you kept talking about the love of God, right?

The love of Jesus in particular.

And you kept saying that basically you can't be a Christian nationalist and claim to love God because you're attacking people and you have authority over these people and so on and so forth.

My question is though, how you defined Jesus's love was categorically different, as I understand love from the scriptures.

Jesus's love in particular, the love that he calls us to have, the love that we can have because he had it for us.

So I'm really, really, really interested in how you actually like, define love and how you can support that from the scriptures, that that is the definition of love.

My general argument in the debate with Kent, which by the way, Kent, it's good to see you again and I do appreciate, appreciate you talking to me on, on the debate.

A lot of Christian nationalists, and this is not a shot at Andrew because we already talked about it, but a lot of the people will block me and won't talk to me and it's very annoying because I'll talk to almost anyone point hopefully is here.

My, my general thesis is that Christian nationalism inherently goes against the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus says, blessed are the meek.

Christian nationalism says, blessed are the powerful.

Jesus says, love your enemy.

Christian nationalism says no, you should crucify your enemy, etc.

So my point, I don't think I said love of God or that you can't love God.

I don't think that.

I think that Christian nationalists are real Christians.

I think that they do think that they're loving God.

I think it's incompatible with the teachings of Jesus as laid out in the gospel account.

In particular, some of the most core teachings, the Sermon on the Mount in particular, I was kind of sight because those are the core teachings of Jesus.

And I am a little Christ.

I'm a follower of Christ.

So the examples that you brought up in particular about this was if a Christian nationalist were to take somebody like an atheist or Someone who had an abortion or homosexual.

I know Kenton does not prescribe to this, but take those people and then throw them into jail.

Right?

Yeah.

Stephen Wolf there wrote the book the Case for Christian Nationals, and that's his.

Yeah.

You said that would not be love.

Throw an atheist in prison for being an atheist.

That's correct.

Okay.

Would it be.

Would it be loving for throwing a drug dealer in jail for being a drug dealer?

For sure.

Because they're causing so much damage to their community.

I mean, I think, Andrew, you're an apologetic at.

That's a false equivocation.

Right.

My point, I'm going to be very clear about this.

Stephen Wolf, who wrote the book the Case for Christian Nationalism, says publicly that under his rule we enforce blasphemy laws, which by the way, does violate the First Amendment, but whatever.

And that the atheist is thrown in prison for being an atheist.

So that, that in particular, that what he said.

I'm not making that up.

That particular point to me does not benefit a society of people.

Yeah.

I just wouldn't.

There's like four different books out, but.

There'S drug dealer who is dealing drugs in his neighborhood or her neighborhood.

And hurting people, putting them in prison would actually benefit societies.

It would stop drugs from being delta.

Right.

So here's my logical conclusion, because I'm hearing what you're saying, and again, I'm not arguing Christian nationalism.

I don't.

I am not a Christian nationalist.

I don't agree with it.

Okay.

So I'm not arguing that.

But when I read the scriptures, and I want.

My answer is really, as a Christian speaking into this, to have to come from the Scripture.

Scriptures and not just come from the Constitution or, you know, our republic or whatever the case may be.

When I look at the scriptures, what I see is that God uses lots of different words to describe sin.

And the strongest words he uses to describe the strongest words he has for sin are used in particular of idolatry, which is sometimes called spiritual adultery, worshiping another God, so on and so forth.

So, yes, drugs and the orphan and.

The widow, that those are the other big things.

He has very strong language.

Exactly.

100.

Yeah.

Abomination, for sure.

Yeah.

Of course.

Talking about this.

Oh, yeah, of course.

But I'm a biblical counselor.

I work with addicts.

I see what drugs do in a society.

Right.

It's bad.

Yeah.

Biblically speaking, though, what we see is that idolatry is infinitely worse.

Idolatry is.

Is.

Is really at the root, at the core of every other sin.

When I'm worshiping self.

I am going to commit every sin in the book, right?

So it is the veritable sin from which all sins grow.

So to make the argument that an atheist, which, yes, I'm going to make some assumptions that that atheist is not a closet atheist, that there's teaching that there's, you know, he lives in an illustrative lifestyle and so on and so forth, actually is, biblically speaking, an exceptionally dangerous thing, because what it's doing is it's lying.

It's lying to the world.

It's leading people away from the truth.

It's encouraging people to be like him, which is an idolater.

And I would say that's really bad.

What do you think?

So a couple questions here.

Make sure I understand.

So the general argument that I hear you saying is that how you understand the Bible is that idolatry is the gravest, most intense sin one can possibly commit with the most amount of consequences.

All problems in the world are caused from idolatry of the self.

And therefore an atheist who would be preaching, I guess, about self is more dangerous than a drug dealer dealing heroin in his neighborhood and maybe should be put in prison for.

Because of.

Is that kind of the line?

Okay, before you answer, Aaron, just.

And we do this.

We do this, Tim.

So I want to stop and just for the audience to point out what Tim just did.

And you've seen it a couple times with different people, but because this is.

We're here to teach how to do apologetics.

What did Tim do?

Tim stopped.

Aaron, for clarifying questions.

This is very important to do when we do apologetics.

If you don't understand what the person you're talking to is saying, what they mean by the words, words that they're using, then you're going to talk past one another.

So what are you seeing?

Go on right here.

You're seeing that Tim is going.

Okay, let me clarify.

Gives what he's.

What did he do?

He rehearsed what he thinks he heard and then asks, is this what you're saying?

Very important to do things like this, folks, when you do apologetics.

Aaron, go ahead.

Which is exactly the reason that I wanted to get in and understand this idea of love, too.

It was really important because I think we can both all talk about love and be talking past each other because our definitions are so different.

To answer your point, though, I think I could agree with 99 of the way you worded it.

I would say that spiritually speaking, yes.

I mean, physically speaking, of course, one could argue that drugs, you know, they ravage people and so on and so forth and they destroy communities.

But spiritually speaking, the drug dealers first and foremost main issue is not the drugs.

The drugs are secondary tertiary quadratic things in his life.

The, the main thing that's going to have him end up and spend eternity in the lake of fire separated from God is the fact that he is not worshiping God.

And I also know Christians, I know Christians who struggle with, with, with drug addiction.

So, and I'm helping those people through that.

So I would say that a Christian who's in that sin.

Right.

That's also a unique thing to consider.

Is, is the Christian who's in, involved in drugs in the same spiritual desperate position that the atheist is?

I would argue no, he's not.

So does that, is that clarify, do you, do you think that you had the right understanding of what I was saying?

I believe that makes sense.

Can I ask a follow up question now?

Because I think I understand.

I don't misrepresent you.

So what I'm, I guess what I'm asking you ultimately is in society, like in American society, right.

That would be in this at this moment ruled by a constitution that has a very strong First Amendment.

Many people, especially right wing organizations, right.

They were all about the free speech thing.

So are you saying that, that you would advocate for saying, hey, if, if I was in charge of this American society, I would also be in favor of something that would also mitigate the atheists just for being an atheist.

Because my belief is those things.

Okay.

I just want to.

That's a Christian.

Yeah, that's a Christian.

I just want to understand the difference between like, hey, I have this view that I understand my view versus like now everyone else has to assimilate into said view, correct?

Yeah, no, I, I, yeah, I think it was mentioned on the show.

I think Greg actually may have said it on his show.

That or Kenton probably did too.

You can't force anybody.

You can't legislate true heart change.

Right?

Well that was tried once before in history by Constantine and that didn't go over so well.

We got the Catholic Church.

The reason I'm asking though is really again, Tim, I guess my interesting thing is like if I were to, when the times comes for Kenton and I to speak, you know, he and I are be talking from a very different perspective because I'm going to be talking about his views on Christian nationalism.

You, I agree with for the most part that Christian nationalism isn't a good thing.

However, I think my biggest struggle with Your, and I'm keeping this really limited to the, I heard my struggle with your, your, the way you, you went at that is that I believe that you were not being biblically accurate, spiritually accurate with the ideas when you, when you would say that a drug dealer, yes, the most loving thing we can do for him is to throw him into jail to keep him from having that effect on the community and to keep him from having that effect on himself, that's a good thing.

But to say that to do whatever is necessary to keep an atheist from having that spiritual influence on a community, well, that's okay because, well, we live in America and free speech.

Well, hold on.

Biblically speaking, I think it's very clear that we could argue from the scriptures that the, the atheists that the idolater is going to have a much more impactful spiritual influence on people than the drug dealer.

In theory.

Yeah.

This is the full circle moment where you know, we kind of get into like the never ending argument of what I'm going to say to that is of course is that we're all we.

Every Christian I know is debating what the Bible says and doesn't say.

And so I understand that term, this is biblical, but that dies to death by a thousand to one qualifications depending on the tradition you're in, who you're talking to, etc, and that was kind of my challenge for Kenton, that and you know, I don't want to bring Kent if you want to be great, but one of my questions to him and maybe Andrew, whoever wants to answer this is what are God's laws that we're talking about that like what's the list here?

And like how are we picking and choosing in the Bible which laws are being enacted and which ones aren't under Christian nationalism?

And I think if we ask that question to all five of us, all five of us would probably have a different answer about what we think is the biblical answer to that.

And so I just think ultimately this notion of biblical, just by observation, just by observation of even conservative evangelical Christianity, Leighton Flowers and James White is a great example of that.

Right.

They both argue that they had the biblical position and they go around, around, around trying to give the proof text and the proof is probably everyone's wrong and they're still trying to claim that they both are, are being more accurate than the other one.

It's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a never ending circle.

But see that's easy, that's easy to answer that out of the five of us.

Out of the five of us, I'm the one that's right.

That's what's the problem here, okay?

And I don't want to get you in the weeds, so forgive me.

And if I'm, if I'm overstepping my bounds answer, just let me know.

It's your show.

I'm gonna respect that.

But I hear I grew up in an environment that gave me this framework of saying the Bible is objectively true and here's how you interpret it, or.

Well, they wouldn't say it that way.

They would just say, this is the, this is what the Bible clearly teaches.

The Bible's objective truth.

Just do this.

You're saying objective truth.

And then what happened in my life, and this is early on, was I was attending a very conservative, more refined, Reformed Baptist church, and then I went to a more charismatic church that was like, no women can lead.

Oh, no, Tim, that's objectively true, too.

In the same, in the same Bible.

And here's our arguments for it.

And I realized very quickly that this claim that we're standing on the objective truth of God's word dies the death of a thousand qualifications, depending on what tradition of the Christian.

Of the Christian house you're in.

Yeah.

So let me, let me, let me, let me jump into that for a bit.

Just for a bit.

So the, the issue is, it comes down to our hermeneutic.

And, and they said for the audience, okay, it looks like this is four on one.

Okay.

Tim has no problem with this.

All right?

So I, I, I know something about him and his family.

I, I, he's, he's not gonna mind.

He, he likes the discussion.

So first, for that's first.

Second, I should, Andrew, very quickly, it's.

It'S three on two.

The beards versus the no beard.

We're winning.

I have a beard.

It is just very short right now.

Okay.

So short you can't see it.

Hey, you know, before Christmas, my beard was a bit longer than yours, so I had a more reformed beard.

But I was going to keep it for the February conference, but since it got canceled, I shaved.

So I was gonna go to that conference, be the.

You look like a Jewish Santa Claus.

Yeah, there you go.

Everyone said I look like Santa Claus, man.

So, so, and I should say for, for the record, for anyone watching the video, Tim put his name there, not me.

So when it says progressive heretic, Tim Whitaker, Progressive heretic, I just want, I, I put, I, I, I removed the banner so they would show up so people would See, I did not do that for the record.

Okay, so, so I, I'm saying that he can handle the discussion, even if it's four on one or three beards against one beard and, you know, the one Jewish guy who's.

Right.

But, so it comes down to hermeneutics.

It comes down to what are going to be your rules of interpretation.

All right, so we are going to have disagreements there.

Tim, I would argue, though, you know, something like, something like you brought, and maybe we could get a fuller discussion on that.

Is the women preaching.

When we look at grammar, which is how we understand language, there really is.

It's really clear because it's based in creation.

Now, I know you got to go shortly.

I wanted to say one thing about the debate, and we had a question that came up for you, and I figured, let me just say this.

So one of the things I saw in the debate with you is you did a lot, and I don't know if you realize it, I'd encourage you to go back and look, a lot of your argumentation was by example rather than by scripture.

And so in doing so, it creates an emotional.

And this is, I wanted to bring this up because, folks, when you watch debates, you will see people that will.

Leighton Flowers is a great example of this.

He'll take a parable and start explaining, expounding the parable in a meaning that it doesn't actually have.

We shouldn't do that.

It's an argument by example or illustration that it can create a very emotional response.

But we have to be able to put the emotion aside and say, is that a good response, a logical response, a biblical response in this case, since we're debating arguing what the Bible says.

So, you know, and, and I'll also say this very quick, very quickly.

I, I, you know, I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to defend Tim here a little bit, though, too.

When you talk about.

And I love you, Tim, I disagree with 95 of what you're saying, but I love you.

But also you're saying a parable in hermeneutic is so important because look at it goes to what Tim said.

I can read a parable and then read a Faucet and Brown commentary, a Matthew Hem.

Henry commentary.

Yeah.

A Guzik commentary.

And they all three will have a different meaning of what the parable was.

Correct.

So, so I do understand where he's coming from in that.

Yeah.

No, no, no.

Well, he wasn't doing the parables.

That was that.

I Use that example with Leighton.

But it's.

It like when it, when it's a parable.

The example is pretty close to a parable.

Yeah, Christ did a lot.

Yeah.

Because the parable is to support the main thing.

And what, when we start looking at, you know, well, the second son, me, it represents this and you know, and you start digging into it more than the main point, it becomes a problem.

Tim, you're going to say something.

Do you mind if I respond to that, Andrew?

Yeah, I can actually answer that.

There are two reasons why I didn't, I guess, quote a lot of scripture.

The first one was the thesis of the debate, is Christian nationalism good for society?

Christian nationalism is the word here.

Okay.

So I wanted to answer that question by giving examples of why I didn't think it was good for society.

But the other thing is, is that, you know, I mean, I would love to respond to this.

I really would.

There are, I can say, I mean, James 5.

Now listen, you rich people weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.

Your wealth has rotted and mops have eaten your clothes.

Your gold and silver are corroded.

Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.

You have hoarded wealth in the last days.

Look, the wages you failed to pay to the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you.

Etc.

I could quote that and be like, look, guys, the Bible doesn't really support the idea of billionaires because they're hoarding their wealth.

And usually you acquire, accumulate that money by not paying your people a fair wage.

And so I could, I could.

That would be a horrible hermeneutic, though, because you're taking one person.

It really wouldn't be.

Look at the whole stream of the Bible and what Proverbs says about riches and wealth and what James says about it and what Christ says about what his parable says about giving, giving workers the wage that you agreed to and not setting up.

You know, when Christ says that it's harder for a rich man head of.

The kingdom, it is for a camel.

To go through the eye of a needle.

I mean, this is the thing.

Yeah, but why.

Hold on, hold on.

Yeah, yeah, let him finish his thoughts.

And this is, this is the million dollar point.

I think it's just worth pointing out what you've done is you've given your.

You're playing by rules of hermeneutic rules that you have.

You're saying that because I read the Bible plainly and you're like, well, that doesn't Say what you think it says, and then you actually reinterpret some of those verses based on your hermeneutic and then tell me that I'm the one who's reading culture into the Bible.

No, see, I mean, I can give.

You 25 passages on why you shouldn't probably deport immigrants because the Bible says so.

Okay, this is my whole point.

It's like.

On, on Christ upholding the courts and upholding boundaries within a country.

Yeah, but then you would argue.

I bet, hold on.

I bet you would argue, though, that things like what happened during COVID when the courts upheld certain things that you disagree with would not be biblical.

I mean, I watched, I watch.

I have watched for almost a decade.

Evangelical Christians rewrite their own theology to support things that they would never have supported 15 years ago, like when Bill Clinton had the affair in the White House.

And Trump's brags about grabbing women, and they have a whole different way for how they justify why Trump's still good and Clinton still bad, so.

Well, yeah, no, there's, there is a big difference there because what, what, what Trump did was 40 years ago, 30 years ago, and what Clinton did was present day.

Oh, so, so, so, so when, When.

Wages of sin matters being on the time frame.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, because we believe in repentance.

We believe, we believe in repentance.

We believe in repentance.

When has Trump pretended for grabbing women?

Huh?

What?

Well, there's no evidence he actually did it.

And actually, when you see, when you watch the video, you watch his body language in the video, you see that he, he pushes the, the one male reporter between him and the woman.

So Trump was found liable by a.

Court of sexually assaulting a woman last.

No, no, no, no, it's nonsense.

Yeah, because, because when you, did you actually see the case and listen to the case?

So we should, we should talk about.

That because, Andrew, was the.

Let me ask you one more question.

I'll stop.

Was it, was the 2020 election stolen or not?

Was it a free and fair election?

No, it definitely wasn't a free and fair election.

There was, There was.

So, Andrew, I, I, so, so, so.

Okay, let me ask you this.

Was the 2016 election fair?

Was it, Was there Fair and corrupt?

Was it 2016?

Which.

Yeah, yeah, it was fair.

Really?

So there wasn't any Russian collusion?

Before you go that perhaps I am.

Blown away, Andrew, that you think that.

Yeah, I could give you, I could give you the reasons Kentington wants to talk.

Hold up.

I do have a Question for you, Tim, before you go.

Based on.

On.

On what you know of them, would you consider Andrew and Aaron Christian nationalists?

I.

Honestly, I don't.

I mean, Andrew, I really mean it.

I haven't talked to you, and it's been 15, maybe 16 years.

I don't know.

But we talked online.

What's up?

We talked online and then I had to block you because you were filling up my wall.

I don't know what Andrew would believe.

I mean, maybe we could talk about it again on the show.

Andrew, be happy to discuss about it.

Discuss it with you and talk.

Talk about the 2020 election.

Geez.

I mean, how would.

So, okay, so.

So I know you listen, I know you got to go, and I know we got the thing.

Let me ask you one question.

Why was Kamala Harris not.

Why was she in the DNC when she was going to be voted in as vice president and not in the.

In this Senate at the time that she was going to make history?

And why was there a bomb outside the dnc?

You know anything about that?

Can you read?

I'm sorry, ask the question again.

Why was.

Why was Hill Harris not in the Senate when she's about to be confirmed as Vice president?

The first black woman vice president?

Why.

Why was she at the DNC where there was a fake bomb there?

Do you know anything about that?

No.

Is that your evidence that January 6th was an inside job?

Oh, yeah, because it was.

Because they had it staged.

So let me get.

Well, I want to get to the question that.

Derailed.

Yeah.

So let me.

Let me.

I want to put this.

Hold on.

Yeah, so I'm gonna.

I'm gonna.

I'm gonna pause everyone there for a moment.

Here's a question from Calculus man.

And then I got one more question for Tim.

So a question for Tim.

He said, what about folks who are in other religions?

Do Muslims, Jews, Catholics, etcetera, need to follow Jesus?

Or are you saying they're okay to stay in their own religion system?

I love how Catholics is in there.

Well, Catholics would say that what we believe is anathema.

They would say that we're cursed to hell.

Then you would say the same thing.

And then you both point the spider man.

But see, that's not a problem.

I don't have a problem with saying that there.

My belief about, like the.

About like.

I mean, ultimately, I think that this question is asking also, like, when we die, what happens, right?

Like, do we go to heaven or hell?

That's kind of like what this all kind of boils down to.

I think that I'm still kind of actually asking myself these questions, what this means.

I kind of hold to an annihilation's perspective of I reject eternal conscious torment, universal reconciliation.

I'm attracted to, but I never want to share a, a hammock with Hitler.

I don't like that idea.

And so annihilationism is kind of like the in between for me of like, there's still a sense of justice and finality for people who really do so much damage.

And there's also the hope of reconciliation.

I don't know how it works with people in different faith religions and what happens when they die.

I do know that I have plenty of friends in all these traditions who do a lot of good in the world and I would argue find some ways follow the teachings of Jesus more closely than some of my own Christian friends when it comes to loving their, their neighbors and loving their enemies, etc, but I'm still working through it.

Yeah, but the question is, do they need to follow Jesus or are they okay in their own religion system?

Well, do they need to follow Jesus in order to what, to not burn in hell forever?

Like what, what for what, what would be the need?

Well, you were saying that we, we need to give allegiance to God.

So as a Christian, I give allegiance to the way of Jesus.

You said in order to have reconciliation with God, we need to follow the ways of Jesus.

Jesus.

I said all things go through Jesus.

He'll be reconciled.

That Jesus reconciles everything through the cosmos.

Yeah.

So I guess the question to follow.

The way of Jesus, to have reconciliation with God.

I think that you can.

My invested thing is I keep going back to the teachings of Jesus.

Can someone do that without actually claiming to be a Christ follower?

I don't know.

Jesus didn't say that was his teaching.

I'm the way, the truth and the life.

No one comes.

He wasn't talking about eternal conscious torment.

That's, that's a bad hermit, wildly debunked.

But we talked about reconciliation, which is what it is about conciliation.

I'm talking about reconciliation.

You said you need to show allegiance to Christ, have reconciliation to God, and Jesus says to have reconciliation.

No man comes to the Father except through me, through allegiance to me.

And now when someone asks you do Muslims and Jews and people of religions need to leave that, you go, well, I'm kind of up in the air on that.

I respect that.

But then you can't claim allegiance to Christ and his teachings if you then say, I'm up in the air on.

Some of the things he says, that's not true because.

Hold on, hold on.

One at a time, one at a time, one at a time.

Let Tim, let Tim respond to Greg and response.

It's something I'm still working through.

Okay.

For a long time, I don't know.

But actually the point I wanted to bring up and the question I wanted to ask was actually to help you formulate the answer to Greg, when the show opened, Andrew was talking about projection.

Right.

And there have been a couple times in this talk that you have specifically, specifically said, you guys, when you were talking about hermeneutic and how we interpret the scriptures and things like that, and you were like, you, you guys, you read the Bible and you say this, and you say this and you say this.

You exempted yourself from that category.

Like somehow when you read the Bible, you're not doing whatever it is that you're claiming that we're doing when you said that.

And, and let me, and let me emphasize also, Aaron, he doesn't, he doesn't know what our positions are.

Well, yeah, I would admit, though, I would admit that, that, that my culture, my historical context does affect how I understand and read the Bible.

Like, I had no problem saying that.

I said it many times.

So I also make the observation as well that you keep saying, I don't know what I believe about that.

I don't know what I think about that.

I don't.

And so, so actually what I think is really interesting is that you've got guys who are taking the scriptures and who I think, for the most part, we agree.

And I maybe know this because I know them a little bit better.

I could assume, assume that Kenton would say this as well, that we want the scriptures to interpret the scriptures.

We say that you push back.

Yeah, well, you guys just read and find out.

And if five of you all have different.

Five different.

Okay.

But at least what we're doing is we're trying to take the scriptures and making certain that the scriptures are agreeing with scriptures so that when we're talking about the rich man, we're looking at a biblical understanding of riches across the spectrum.

Whereas you seem to come back to your own own understanding, your own ability to figure it out, your own what seems good to you, what kind of seems like something that you might like to be the truth.

And I'm just interesting that you project onto us that we're ripping things out of context as we read the scriptures.

But I'm not hearing you do anything different.

In fact, what I'm Hearing you do is even more so because you're not allowing scripture to interpret scripture.

Yeah, yeah, well, that's exactly my point is that, and I said this to Ken, I think in our debate is that, that all of us, whether we realize it or not, do have some kind of bias that we bring to anything that we read, including the Scriptures.

Right.

We're a product of Modern America in 2024.

We are in a capitalist society.

We are individualists.

And the, the Bible was not written in that context.

And.

But do you believe the Bible only has one understanding?

What?

No, I think it's multiplicity of understandings.

You think when God wrote it, He.

He wrote the Bible, then we assigned that value.

Well, that's an important distinction though, because God did not magically write the Bible.

Right, people?

When he inspired the Bible.

Well, yeah, well, so when he, when he inspired it.

When he breathed it.

Okay, when he breathed an assumption, you put onto the text, which you can do.

But it's not, it's not, it's not inherent to the text.

Actually.

It is.

It is.

No, guys, we all know, we all know that the New Testament wasn't canonized when Paul.

Well, you think Paul wrote that part of the scripture?

Actually, no.

See, yeah, that was something you said in the debate.

That's so wrong because.

No, it is not.

So why did, why did all the Jewish people know that Genesis was Scripture?

Why could Peter, Why could Peter refer to what Paul writes as scripture?

Why is it that, that Andrew Luke can refer, refer to something in the Old Testament and in the New and call it Scripture?

Andrew, we all know that what you.

That passage about in first Timothy, I think it is right where it says all scriptures, God breathe.

First off, it doesn't say God inerrant.

I, But I digress.

God, that when that was written, the New Testament was not written yet entirely and it wasn't canonized yet.

And even if you take what Peter says about Paul's letters, there are other books in the Bible that Paul didn't write that we still canonize.

And then you have the problem of the Catholic Scriptures.

These, in orthodox scriptures.

This is a huge discussion and debate.

You are more than welcome to assign whatever value you want to the Protestant English Bible and call it inerrant or God breathed.

That doesn't mean that it actually is.

Okay, so for folks, for folks watching, just so we can, we can illustrate.

Notice.

I want you guys to notice what Tim is doing there.

He's saying we all know and then says something that three of us just kind of Said, no, we don't agree with.

Right.

We don't all know because we don't agree with it.

We don't argue that.

We argue that the scripture that was written, it was clear at the time that it was scripture.

So when Paul writes for second Timothy, he is using.

He creates a word, actually, that never existed before.

Okay.

And so he says all scripture is God breathed, inspired by God.

It's a word, as far as we know, he created because we don't see it in history.

So he is referring to the word of scripture when he says in.

When God says in Peter that it's not from the words of men, it's the word of God.

That's where we get this from.

So.

Yeah, yeah.

And I know you.

I know you got to go.

And I do have one last question.

No, no, it's okay.

I just want to respect your time.

I just, I.

As you can tell, I enjoy debating.

It's a lot.

I know you do, which is why you should be here.

Is what you're saying.

And again, I do want to reset it back.

So I'm trying to misunderstand.

So what you're saying is that when Paul wrote that he had the modern English Protestant Bible in mind and not his own Hebrew scriptures, when he wrote that all scripture is God breathed.

When he said Scripture, is he referring to the Bible we have today or to the Jewish Bible?

He's.

He's referring to the Jewish Bible that was written and the Greek parts that had already been written.

I do, too, because he's referring to that which has been that which is.

Breathed out by God, which would be anything that was written to that point.

So, I mean, Peter.

Peter can recognize that what Paul wrote is scripture.

At the time that Peter's writing, he didn't need a church or anything else.

The scriptures were immediately known to be scripture by folks.

Let's not forget the New Testament.

40% of it is just re.

Quoting the Old Testament as well.

That's a fun little fact.

I'm gonna have to check that.

If it's.

There's not.

Probably not quotes, but allusions and things, then I might.

Yeah.

Necessarily word for word.

But.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, that's where you get quotes.

Illusions.

Yeah.

So.

So.

All right, Tim, I.

You know, one thing I don't.

Let me just double check, make sure there's no other questions for folks here.

And.

And so you.

I think it would be fun to, you know, I.

I don't want to debate politics here.

We could have a lot of fun with that.

Privately.

But time, yeah, because yeah, it be a bunch of things.

You just don't know watching the, the mainstream media.

But you know, I go to right wing events.

Right.

I go to America Fest every year.

I know Charlie Kirk personally.

So I, I, I keep track of what's going on.

Really quick, can I, if we're putting an end a bookends on this for Tim jumping out here, can I go back to the very first thing we talked about and just ask him how he looks at Psalm 51:5.

Surely I was sinful at birth.

Sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Not when I was born, but when I was conceived.

I'm just, I'm not going to argue with you and I'm just like, how do you interpret that in when you read something like that?

What does that mean?

I'll use the same framework that I hear people say whenever I talk about the rich man who can't enter the kingdom.

He's talking about himself there.

He's not making a blanket statement for all of humanity.

It's a hard issue.

It's an individual statement about him.

So he, so he's saying surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time that I was conceived.

Just me.

Well, he's saying I, not we.

The Bible is clear.

Okay, so every, every person has a different level of sin they're born with then either 0 to 100, let's say.

Well, I mean that's a different question.

You asked me about Psalm 50 birth.

So he's obviously lamenting.

It's obviously poetry.

We know Psalms is, is songs and poetry.

So I don't think that that is an answer for all humans are born sinful at birth.

That's my answer.

I really do have that approach.

Yeah, you have to go.

Okay, he's got to go.

So, so, so let me just do this.

I, I want to just.

Because while you're here, one last thing and I do, I do think we should have you come back.

Well, let's talk about the first, first Timothy pass preaching.

All right, so describe, I want to see if I get this right.

You described in the debate that you grew up in a church that was a MacArthur like church.

Very Calvinistic.

Yes.

Do you hold to that?

To what, to those views?

No, to that, that's that description of the church you grew up in, the.

One I think we both went to, the one in Freehold Howell area in New Jersey.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

That was my understanding.

So, so let me, I'm gonna, I'm gonna put Greg on The spot, to be fair.

But yeah.

Yeah.

So you, and you would, you would say that you.

It was a very conservative church.

Right when I was there.

There, there was a piano and hymns only.

Yeah.

Okay.

I was the first Drummer.

I was 11.

So.

So Greg, I'm gonna, I'm gonna put you on the spot.

Oh, great.

I'm gonna ask you if you think this church is conservative or Calvinistic.

Ready?

The pastor of the church was on the board of Holy Yoga.

Would they be conservative?

I would tend to say no.

If they're involved in yoga in any way.

The pastor of the church had a view of the election, of corporate election.

Would they be Calvinistic?

No.

So you shouldn't describe the church that way.

There's no pastor that I know from, From Paul to Jeff to Joe, who's there now.

None of them were Calvinist.

They would, they would have fought that.

I'm not sure what to tell you, man.

I mean I grew up in a tradition that taught me the tool of theology.

Maybe it was a youth group leader.

Well, no, it could be more your dad, who is.

Hold on.

I love that, that, that picture though.

There's just some rogue Youth Group.

22 year old out there teaching Teach a tulip to a bunch of.

My man.

Yeah, pretty early.

I'm in my cage stage.

We're going through.

What'S a young wrestlers and reform stage.

You know, I was right around there anyway, so.

Yeah, no, the, the.

The church was not conservative.

I mean, maybe under Paul.

Paul Juris.

I would say yes.

It probably was liberal.

Huh?

You think it was liberal?

It got more and more liberal from Paul to Jeff to, to Joe.

Yeah, well, I wasn't there.

I.

I never met Joe.

We left.

Oh, you left before Joe.

Okay, so that's why the.

Look, I thought you were still there under Joe.

So Joe was the, was on the board of Holy Yoga.

So.

Yeah, no, but, but no, Jeff, Jeff was definitely, you know, he was not concerned.

He.

He fancied himself as a MacArthurite type, following after MacArthur.

But Jeff, you know, Jeff didn't even.

He plagiarized all his sermons.

That's when, you know, when you say.

Conserve, do you mean like political or theology?

Theological.

Oh, got it.

Okay.

Hey, I know I said I gotta go.

I really do.

Hey, Andrew, for what it's worth, it is good seeing you.

Please unblock me.

We can keep talking.

Well, we can keep talking here because this is where.

Look, this show is open to anyone, anytime, right?

So.

Yeah, you're a bold man for doing the.

The.

Greg.

Greg says it's like his.

He doesn't add for it and I forget how he worded it.

Just like, yeah, it's fun.

Just watch Andrew.

I never know that I'm going to have a debate.

Sometimes people come in if we have a guest and have a.

Like, if you come in, we'll give you the first hour, but then we try to answer questions on the second hour.

And if people don't ask questions, we just go for the full two hours.

So I think it'd be fun to do a.

To a discussion, work our way through second Timothy two.

That could be a lot of fun.

So really quick, while they're both on here, just once again, I want to say to Kenton and Tim, thank you so much for coming on and doing that.

And Tim obviously coming into, you know, even like a live stream like this where you're going to disagree probably on most things with most of the guys on here.

I appreciate you doing that.

I find it fun.

I'd love to have you back on the podcast.

And we just hash it up for about 2, 3 hours and yell at each other and then find out what we're going to meet up for.

Bourbon.

I'm all about it.

And Ken, I'm sorry I hog so much of the time.

You barely even talk.

Well, he's got, he's got the next, he's got the next 45 minutes.

So.

So real quick, if you.

Oh, he left.

I was going to say if you, if he wants to get a hold of me, there's the contact information info at driving for attorney.com.

so maybe you could send that.

I think I have, I probably have his dad's number, but you could send Andrew.

I, I'll, I'll, I'll give you a little hint too, on X.

What you do is you don't necessarily have to block.

You just mute them.

Mute them.

Yeah, you mute them that way.

Still check in, see if everything's going okay.

But you don't have to get the 500 posts where you go, I'm just kind of fed up with it.

I have a few of those.

I can see how Tim could get to that too.

I've.

Some of his stuff comes through and I'm like, oh my gosh, I don't want to get in a four hour argument today.

So, yeah, you know, so you can mute.

Just mute.

Yeah, I just, I'm not, I'm not.

You don't, you don't strike me as the blocking type.

You'll talk to anyone anywhere.

When he said, oh, yeah, you blocked him?

I went, that doesn't seem like Andrew.

No, I do.

I, I'll block his lines.

I'll block people.

Well, see on Facebook.

What did you say, Aaron?

Line in the sand.

Huh?

Okay.

Yeah, no, the, the.

On what?

I think if I block people on Facebook it's generally because they're, they're going to my wall.

Wall or just commenting on things and you can't, there's no way.

Like I don't want to just keep deleting stuff and I can't and I see it.

Right.

And I mean either, I mean it's on my wall.

I feel I have to respond to it.

And so yeah, so I block people there on Twitter.

I didn't know you could do the muting.

I guess I'm not as familiar with X, but I started switching over there.

So I, I'll do that because man, when I.

With a full preterist.

We're in full gear.

We'll talk about that in an upcoming episode.

I did want to get into the A question for him, but we didn't get, you know, you guys Talked about Psalm 110 in the debate and I don't know it, you know, I don't know Kennington if you're going to be able to make an argument for Tim because he, he did.

I wanted to ask him about that too because that's one of the things when I looked back on and, and watched again, I was like, I should have jumped all over that.

Yeah.

I don't know what he was saying when he said my interpretation was objectively wrong.

Well and okay, so the thing he did, the same thing that I called him out for here was that he goes, everyone knows it's objectively wrong.

Yeah.

And, and so that is a style and some people do it without logical.

Fallacy in and of itself.

Yeah, it is.

Everyone knows.

Right.

I can't remember the formal name for it, but yeah, yeah.

And, and you know folks, more important than knowing all the names of fallacies.

And you can go if you go on Striving Fraternity's YouTube channel.

I have my eight week class on debate and logic.

So you know, teaching how to do debates.

And when we get into the logic, I explain it's.

It's better to know what makes a statement invalid rather than going, oh, I know all the names because most people, people get the names wrong.

Speaking of logic though, Jesse's asking, is that appeal to masses and it, it could be.

I think it's only logical now that the three of us gang up On Kenton.

I mean, I just.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

It would be fair.

It'd be fair.

Melissa.

Melissa had said, tim, thank you for taking the time to come on tonight.

And yeah, look, as, as you know, Greg said it, it takes a certain type of person who could come in and, you know, take on several people that he knows he would be, I mean, you know, you clearly know he knew that he was going to be disagreed with because he put his, his handle there under his name, you know, as progressive heretic.

So the, the only problem is.

Yeah, it does, but we never really got any answers.

It's a lot of.

Well, I interpret it this way.

I think I'm working on that.

You know, I really would have liked to got you.

When he's talking about Beatitudes, just say, you know, in 5, 22, and when Christ says, but I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.

And then right after that says, raqqa shall be before the Sanhedrin.

So you see Christ in his Beatitudes, bringing the court system, a justice system in and a religious sect in saying, you those have.

Those spheres have authority.

Authority in your life brings in eternal judgment.

Right.

The fire of hell.

So, and I'm not, and that's not that I'm saying I'm advocating for, you know, we're going to behead all atheists under Christian nationalism.

Like I told Kenton too.

I'm probably, you know, I might be 80 of the way there, but I'm a, I'm a general equity theonomist.

I'm a Reformed Presbyterian.

I hold to the Westminster, I believe from 1782 to about 1820 in this country, we got really darn close to a nice style of Christian nationalism where we took the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, and we took the general equity from them and made laws from that starting in about 1910 to 1920.

That's where things really started to get skewed with the federal government, income taxes, private, you know, central banking, all that kind of stuff.

And now we're way far off base.

So I think we did.

We probably got it 75 of the way there in the founding of this country of what a Christian nation should look like.

I don't think we went quite far enough.

And I think I don't go as far as, say, a Stephen Wolf on something.

So it's interesting you say that and you, you give the year because what changed around that time?

And what changed was so you had, you had what, what People were seeing was the, the modernism coming in, right?

And this, so this is the history of the fundamentalist movement.

They're responding to that.

And I, I really see and for, you know, Kenton is going to hate this.

I, I, at least I admit it up front.

I, I really see a lot of what the fundamentalists were doing is what some of the Christian nationalists are doing today is in a response to the culture.

They're fighting the modernism.

And really the, what was the chain, the big changing point?

Scopes Monkey trial.

And when Scopes Monkey trial occurred, the fundamentals said, that's it, we're pulling out of society.

And they did, they pulled out and just created a vacuum.

But I think the reason so much that happened was because they were fighting, trying to push a social agenda or political agenda.

And when they felt that they lost credibility on that, they just pulled away altogether.

I think that's and, and Kenting you might disagree.

I think a lot of what's going on with Christian nationalism is pushing a political social agenda rather than a biblical one.

I, I have so I personally, my view of Christian nationalism, and you could agree or disagree, and I haven't read Stephen Wolf's book or any of the other books because like, when everyone's looking, I want to say to Tim, there's like four different books out there on Christian nationalism that say that they're, you know, the, the definition of it.

So it's like, yeah, so it's clearly not something that's, that's so clear.

But the real issue I have with the terminology at least, is that it started from the left and the Marxists, you know, have that term to basically be able to go after all Christians and say, oh, see, all the Christians are trying to change the government.

And therefore I think what it was was it was going to be had Harris won, in my opinion, that had they gone that way, they would have been able to use that Christian nationalism to start calling Christians insurrectionists, terrorists.

Terrorists and using that as a ploy to, to arrest them.

And so Christians taking that on and then arguing for that, I think just plays right into their hands.

Fortunately, we had a different election.

But yeah, I think the framing coming from the left, certainly it started with them.

But if it's an accurate label, like I, I take the label because I'm a Christian and I'm a nationalist.

I believe that a nation should work together for its own collective good.

I think every American should think that American is the best nation in the world and think that Cuba is the best nation in the World.

Right.

So I'm a Christian and I'm a nationalist, and the marriage of those two things isn't a label that I would outright reject.

And so I'm, you know, in the same boat.

I haven't read Stephen Wolf's book either.

And in terms of what is a Christian nationalist, I'd probably be a lot closer to.

So the only, probably the only guy who read Stephen Wolf's book on Christian nationalism here on this program tonight was the guy who vehemently disagrees with all of it.

Tim.

It's on my reading list, but my reading list is long.

Yeah.

So.

But yeah, I, I think it's a good label to take because it's, it's accurate too.

I, I am a Christian and I'm a nationalist and I think that the marriage of those two things works for society's good.

I think that our nation, our government adopting the principles and edicts from scripture would make us into a great nation again.

I think, I think what Tim did was he obviously painted the worst possible self professing Christian nationalist.

Because in many ways, I mean, what you just how you describe yourself, a Christian who's also a nationalist, I mean that is, that, that could be understood in such a completely vague and almost blase type of very neutered way.

Like I, I could consider not considering myself a Christian nationalist.

I could say of myself, and I'm a Christian, but I'm also a patriotic American and quote unquote nationalist.

Right.

So the real, the real thing that I'm interested to hear from you is what makes you being a Christian nationalist any different than me being a Christian nationalist?

Like what?

What?

Like what to what?

What do you subscribe to?

And not, not so much what you don't subscribe to.

That would be difficult for me to answer because I don't know you very well.

Hi, I'm Kenton.

It's great to meet you.

That part was a little unfair.

That's true, I guess.

Just more specifically, like lives.

Yeah, I know, exactly.

We said hi beforehand.

And I prophesied beforehand that Andrew was going to do what Andrew was gonna call you.

Three.

Eight different things.

I don't remember three.

Have you been keeping count?

Yeah.

Because I think I only called him Ken.

I haven't gotten two.

He hasn't gotten the third one yet.

So I'm really hoping.

So you won't call me a liar.

No.

Yeah, you're right.

The comparison is probably unfair.

But I am curious, with all the other Christian nationalists out there, would it be, would you agree now I'm not gonna say that everyone agrees, but would you agree that it's hard to find other Christian nationalists who think exactly like you do about it and that there's a lot of different thoughts out there, or do you find that there's a big group of people who are right where you are?

I think it's a very poorly defined term.

I think there's a lot of different definitions for it.

A lot of people will take it to mean a lot of different things.

You know, you're gonna use the term differently than your Pete Hexan, your Joel Webbing.

That's the whole reason I say that we need to avoid the term.

I think James White, I forget the term he had, but he came up with a different term.

First off, the one who.

Fine with the term, let's redeem it.

Well, see, they don't get to make up words and then take them from us and redefine them.

Let's see.

But they.

They created the term.

We're the ones that are changing it.

No, no, but I think with the most broad definition, the definition that I gave at the beginning of the debate, that a Christian nationalist is someone who believes that a nation should be governed by the laws and culture of that is put forth by Scripture.

I think all of those people could fall under that banner.

But it's which ones that you're enforcing and which ones you aren't.

The particulars, the minutia.

That's my point too, is you got to realize, like Wolf is the.

Took so much heat from that book because he really was the first one two years ago to go, okay, let's.

Let's get into minutia.

This is what I would do with X, Y and Z.

And this is what the right.

And everyone went, oh, my gosh, what are you doing?

Well, you.

You have to take that stand at some point.

You know, it's kind of.

It's kind of lazy for me to say, oh, but general equity theonomist.

Well, what's the general equity of.

Of.

Of dual woven fabrics?

Right?

Now, that's ceremonial law.

That's not civil law.

But even if we take a civil law, you know, pair of around the roof, you know, and we can take building codes out of that.

Well, even that has to have some type of interpretation, right?

Does the pyramid around the roof just mean building codes, or does it also fully extend out to thou shall not murder, and you need to take care of your brother and your enemy and your other human that's living next to you and not do Things that put them in danger.

So, like, there's all these little webs within Christian nationalism that need to be hashed out.

I've, like I said, I probably land more historically on what the Westminster and London Baptists fall upon when they say general equity thereof, meaning we look at the civil law that was given to the Israelites, we look at the Ten Commandments, we go, what general equity can we pull out of that?

And I would probably 75, 80% of what could be pulled out of that.

I.

Most people that have presented things I would agree with and say.

I would even say we were, like I said, 75, 80 of the way there for the first 40 years of this nation to where we took the general equity of that and said, this can be done and this can't be done, even though it wasn't specifically stated in the Bible.

We took the equity of what God was saying and said, let's apply that for 1795 or 1820.

Yeah, you didn't say anything that I would disagree with.

So let me put some comments up that we had.

No.

So also too really quick and just if you guys want to go look this up in 19, in the 19 teens, like 1910 to, like, 1920 was really where we stopped enforcing blasphemy laws.

They were still on the books, but publicly we stopped endorsing those.

In 1965, Congress passed something, I think, trying to state that Muslims, Jews, Christian and Catholic, those four or five couldn't be blasphemed against.

They got it passed, but still didn't enforce it.

And then in 2008, we just removed all blasphemy laws altogether in this country.

So to Aaron's point, before talking about idol and blasphemy, I really see, really, the turn of the early last century.

Turn of the last century was really where things started to go off the rails when you get rid of blasphemy.

And I would really be interested to see, thinking through what you.

With what you just said, how Tim would respond to the blasphemy laws that he's against in Christian nationalism, in Sharia, you know, in Muslim law.

Is he against.

Is he against the fact that in Muslim law they could kill anybody who is from a Muslim faith and converts to any other?

That's.

That's punishable by death.

Would.

Would he have an issue with that because he supports the Muslims so much?

Well, yeah, that was one of the things he asked me.

Kenton, would you.

If, say, a Muslim was a Muslim nationalist, would you be fine living in their nation and I.

I didn't really understand what his point was because of course not.

I'm a Christian.

I think Islam is.

Is a false religion.

The.

The point that I was making is that Christianity is objectively a superior worldview to any other religion.

And that's why.

That's the basis.

That's the foundation for what we should write our laws and culture off of.

Okay, so here was a question.

Jesse asked, do we as Christians separate our faith from the secular world?

And then he said, God forbid.

So he kind of answers in his view, but nailed it.

You know, do.

But should we.

Should we be separating those.

What do you mean by secular?

I want to know what he means by secular world.

Okay, so does that word secular mean.

Jesse, maybe you could put that in.

He also said this.

He said, Christian nationalists start from the bottom up and not top down.

Evangelizing the nations.

I.

I don't know that I'd agree with that with all Christian nationalists, because.

Where I would land, at least with that, is you got to have both.

You have to have people in churches going out into their communities, spreading the gospel, Grassroots.

Right.

People working in local elections and things like that.

But you also have to have big wins, like a member of the CREC being the Secretary of Defense.

And so it works from both directions.

And it's not clean cut, bottom to top.

Shout out.

Pete Hegseth.

Right?

Yeah, exactly.

Oh, is that.

I didn't.

I didn't know he was.

He was a member of that.

He's coming on the podcast pretty soon.

He's friends with.

Yeah.

So really quick, though, I would go back to.

I know I keep belaboring this point, but you're saying evangelize, disciple the nations.

Yes.

You know, start from the bottom up and the top down.

It can be.

Yes.

And.

But look at the United States in its early foundings.

I think it was probably the closest to the model of a Christian nation that you could have, maybe outside the first 10 years of Rome in 300, if we.

We made, you know, by definition, making it a Christian nation.

But they weren't practicing the Mosaic Law from a federal government standpoint.

You had, you know, I mean, the king called it the Presbyterian revolt, the revolution.

I mean, the 13 colonies, every one of them was attached to either a Baptist, Presbyterian, or Anglican denomination.

I mean, you have the guys founding the country, basing everything on the Mosaic law in the Christian religion.

So you.

You did.

But how did we get that?

We got that by them being evangelized at some point in their lives and converting to Christ So, so it is kind of both.

Well, there was a lot.

So I think that you had a lot of Christian influence.

You, you clearly had even guys like, you know, Franklin and Jefferson who are deists, they're not Christian.

But you listen to them speak in their, in their speech or their writings, and they're speaking more Christian language than most Christians today.

Right.

So you're saying they're not Christian because they're deists.

But their deism was, was a minor part, if you read their letters, a very minor part.

They really just honestly believe they had to have that worldview because they're like, hey, I'm creating a country.

God's outside of this.

He's just coming of watching us do this.

We need to take the reins.

That's where their DSM came.

Well, with Franklin and obeying the Mosaic Law.

And you look at Madison, you look at Jefferson.

Yeah, go read Modern Government by Gary Demar.

Don't agree with him on his end time stuff, but his God and government book on, on how this country was established will blow your mind when you look into the personal letters he's founding.

Oh, yeah.

No back and forth.

But when you, when you look at.

I'm sorry, but if you look at Franklin's lifestyle, you're not going to say he's a Christian.

He was a womanizer up until people.

Want to call Trump a Christian.

He's a womanizer.

Yeah.

You know, third, fourth marriage, you know, affairs, all this stuff.

So what do we say there?

I do, I do see where Greg's coming from because my sins don't define my relationship with God.

If they did, then we very.

We fall into the latent flowers, travel.

Yeah, but.

But there is a difference.

When someone doesn't recognize.

Recognize it's a sin.

Like he.

Like he.

Yeah.

So I would say really his beliefs are what would define.

Does he believe that the only way that you can be reconciled with God, a.

That you need to be reconciled with God, that he wants to be reconciled with God.

The only way you can be reconciled with God is through the blood and of Jesus Christ.

If he's believing that and communicating along those lines, then we would be safe to say that, you know, he's a Christian, at least from our limited perspective.

The problem is that we don't know a lot about those guys and, and what they actually believed.

We know what limited things they wrote.

We know the terrible choices that they made.

But I'd be fair that people just judged me by the terrible choices I made and didn't listen to What I said about the scriptures, they might come to the conclusion that I'm not a Christian.

Well, hence David is asking, David is asking, do you sin?

Do you sin, Brewster?

Yeah, I do.

David and I are having a great conversation in the comments.

If you guys, if you guys ever have a chance to like, this is a, this is a multi dimensional show.

What you need to do is you need to come in for the, at the very first time when it's live and you just need to focus on the comments and just have a great time in there.

And then you just go back and you watch the show and only focus on the show.

It's two completely different people.

People don't realize how difficult it is to, to host the show, especially if I don't have a co host that can control the comments because I'm trying to look at comments and questions and things like that and you know, you see, have a total separate conversation going on in chat than we end up having.

And for folks who may be wondering, you're seeing, you know, Aaron Brewster doesn't know how to chat here because he's, he's actually responding to the YouTube and SP and spitting out to three different YouTube channels.

So there's probably some people going, what's Aaron saying?

Because wherever David is, that's the only channel where they're getting the full, full thing.

So I would say Andrew really quick too.

I'll just throw this out there for me.

Going from reformed theology, my 20s and really cage stage for probably eight or 10 years, and then really having my eyes open to understanding why other people believe other things.

When you start looking through church history and then really having the Holy Spirit convict you and go, you know, we all believe we are the sweet spot of righteousness.

We look at the man that has the crappy car and we go, if he just worked a little harder, like God said, hard work, work, he could get what he wants.

And we look at the guy with the car that's nicer than us and we go, oh, that rich snob.

He's just so into his physical, you know, material things.

We have determined we are the sweet spot of righteousness.

And compared to an all holy, all righteous, all glorify God, we are actually like menstrual rags in his sight.

We are depraved, we are sinful.

That's where we are compared to holy and sovereign God.

So as I've gotten older too, I've also said, you know, oh, he did this and that guy did that and he.

And God says, how About I open up the Internet tabs, history on everyone, because that's how he sees us.

We only look at everyone and go, what we can see, they did publicly.

And God says, I can see what you did privately.

I can see what you thought.

Like Christ said, if you think about adultery, if you think about murder, in your heart, you've committed it.

And I found as I've gotten older, too, not to.

Not to renege on my principles, not to renege on the holiness and sovereignty of God, but also look and say, just like the, the borrower, right?

God has forgiven me of so much because I know the sinner I am.

I have to give some grace to those as well.

I can't go say, hey, I've been forgiven a million dollars from the king and then throw my brother in prison for $10.

You know?

Yeah, I, I will give a, a comment here to say that Aaron, the guy, David, you're responding to who's on Dead Man Walking YouTube channel, he says, no, I cannot sin.

I'm freed from it.

It would be fun to have him come in here and let's talk.

If you're sinless perfectionist, which sounds like you're.

You're arguing for two hours of paper grace.

Yeah, so.

And folks, this is what we do.

I just asked him some questions.

I asked him.

So you don't lust, you don't manipulate, you don't get impatient.

And then he says, why are you trying to put me under the law?

I'm not trying to put you on the law, David.

I need.

Just ask the question.

Do you.

Are you ever.

If you were on the show with us, would you be tempted to anger?

Would you get frustrated?

Would you get, you know, would you be impatient?

I mean, are those things not sins?

Are those things not sins when you do it, but they're sins when someone else does it?

Like, I'm just.

I.

Obviously, I can't put all that in the comment.

And he just says, laws, laws, laws.

Well, yeah, because the Bible says those things are sin.

You know, I mean, respectfully, anyone who says they don't sin, they just sin.

Because that's a lie.

Yeah, it's a lie.

And, and first, John has something really significant to say about that.

Just, I mean, this is for John, this is for David.

But obviously it's a good thing for all of us to remember, because I found as a biblical counselor, one of the hardest things is to do What James, Chapter 5 tells us to do and confess our sins one to another, to be open and honest enough to and to say to be humble enough to say I am a sinner and this is how I sin.

I was sitting across from my pastor recently and we were having this conversation.

But in First John, it specifically says that if we say that we have no sin, we're a liar.

So.

So, David, I'm not calling you a liar, but this, I mean, I am calling you.

No, the Bible is above and beyond that.

John, on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is saying that you're a liar if you say that you have.

So.

Those would make that argument, say that, believe that and like kind of hyper grace and what you called earlier, Andrew, Sinless perfectionism.

Yeah, sinless perfectionism.

They would say John is talking about before coming to correct, being filled with Holy Spirit.

So that's their argument.

One of the things is.

And, and they, they.

A lot of it is they focus on First John and there's a reason for that First John, we have to understand.

So this is part of hermeneutics.

Right?

The, the context would.

First John, what he's trying to write about is the issue of Gnosticism as it's coming in the church and arguing that anything physical is bad, but anything spiritual is good.

So they would have actually, the Gnostics would eventually deny the humanity of Christ but accept the deity of Christ.

And so these people are people that would go and sleep with a proselyte prostitute and say it's okay that there's no problem sleeping with a prostitute because you're, you have faith.

In fact, let me, Let me just play for, for those who haven't been.

Haven't heard this show before, we had a guy who came in and, and made that exact argument.

I was.

But here we'll, we'll just play this clip from a previous show.

Are you saying that someone, a believer can go sleep with a prostitute and it wouldn't be right or wrong because he's not under the law anymore?

So if he, if he sleeps with a prostitute but has faith in doing it, then it's okay.

Yeah, it's okay.

Okay, I'm gonna ask this again because I want to make sure that I heard you correctly.

Yeah, it's okay.

It would be.

As long as you have faith, he can do that.

Faith.

Wow.

Okay, you're saying that as long as we have faith, whatever we do in faith is not sin.

Yes.

So.

So it's.

This is.

That is big.

Like I was really trying to be clear.

So this is the argument that.

This is the type of thinking John's dealing with.

So, yes, John is very black and white in First John.

It's like it's light or it's darkness.

There's no in between.

There's no gray.

And he's doing that because of who he's responding to.

And if you, if you ignore that, then you have trouble with that book because you're going to start reading into it, as many sinless perfectionists do, is saying, well, no, we can't have any sin.

Well, is that the sin that you're thinking of, you know, lying, stealing?

Is that the sin that he's talking about in that culture in that time to those people?

No, he's talking.

He's talking to people that say they're believers and they can, as that guy just said, they can even sleep with a prostitute and it wouldn't be sin.

That's what he's addressing.

So, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Very quickly, too.

It's like once you latch on to understanding a good hermeneutic, it is so, so, so such a blessing when you start reading through the Bible and you go, oh, there's things where scripture interprets scripture and the context of things.

And why was that person, why were they writing to them?

What was the culture at the time?

What did the Jews believe at the time?

You know, I was just going through a study with someone telling me, I'll tell you a really quick story and you'll find this funny.

Someone said, oh, my.

Send in a group message, oh, my gosh, Trump forgot to swear and put his hand on the Bible.

And another one of my friends said, well, that's good, because Jesus said, never swear an oath.

And I actually think it's better.

And the fact that he didn't do that, now, he's not biblical, so I go into this deep dive with him and I go, do you understand who Christ was talking to when he's talking about swearing a promissory transactional oath when he's telling people, you Jewish people have heard it said, swear an oath to God.

And then you would have these convoluted promissory oaths to where you would technically be able to get out of doing what you said you were going to do, but you didn't technically, you know, you know, go against the, the wording of the oath that you made.

These were these transactional, weird, almost like, you know what I mean, like two attorneys battling in their contracts back and forth, and Christ said, no, don't swear an oath like that.

Don't swear to God because God's God, and don't swear it on Earth, because that's his footstool and that belongs to him.

Just let your yes be your yes and your no be or no, the character of not breaking the ninth commandment, let that be your oath.

Right?

And he went, oh, I've never heard anyone say it that way.

And I go, well, that's because there's.

There's so much context behind that.

Right?

Like you're Jewish, Andrew, you understand, he's talking to Jewish people, understanding what an oath was, how they used it in business, how they use it in daily life, what.

When he says that, what he's.

What he's meaning by it.

But we as American Christians and English speakers, we just kind of read that really quick.

Kind of what, Like Tim did about rich people, right?

This context of, oh, all rich people are bad because he said something about being rich is horrible.

And then you go, well, what about the 15 to 20 other verses about wise men leaving wealth to their children and their children's children and, and God talking about, well, yes, wealth is, is not inherently evil.

Right.

Having billions of dollars.

But I digress.

My whole point was it's a beautiful thing to understand.

Contact.

Well, yeah, one of the things is, you know, so Tim, Tim did this.

You.

You ended up, you know, pointing this out.

It's the, the.

The thing is what you have people do is.

And Tim explained this when we first started the show and we talked about progressive Christian.

And it's, it's.

He.

And he said this later is his hermeneutic is to.

His culture is going to read in.

He uses culture to understand the scripture.

That's the problem with his hermeneutic.

So he gives the, the.

He gives the scripture.

And this is, you know, Aaron, I think you asked the question of, you know, to him saying, you know, are there mult.

You know, is there one interpretation?

Is what you're trying to get to.

There's one interpretation.

Many applications to scripture.

But see, he's going to say that it changes over time and, and culture is what defines it.

That's not how you read things.

Yeah.

Using culture to the Bible is like straining your water through a dirty diaper.

It's like, what are you doing?

That's.

You got it the wrong way around.

Yeah, I mean, well, it's.

Here's the thing.

If you're.

When you do that, you're then giving it new meanings.

I mean, this is.

But remember where he's at with his liberalism, right?

I mean, that's what they want to do with the Constitution.

They want, they want judges that call it a living document.

So they.

They want to reinterpret it with today's culture rather than say, what did it mean at the time?

This is what they end up doing.

So you're.

You're effectively changing the meaning by giving it new definitions and new meanings with the current culture ignoring the context in which it was written.

That's the wrong way to do any kind of interpretation.

Exactly.

And progressives do that all the time.

And the fundamental understanding that's baked into that is we're better and smarter and more evolved than they are.

Yeah, they were.

And so if we look at the First Amendment and we can't ask ourselves the question, how did the founders justify having the First Amendment, but at the same time having blasphemy laws instead of that?

We interpret the First Amendment under our own understanding in 2025America instead of going back and seeing what was the intention of the founders when writing these things.

Yeah, and I know that that gets.

Us into a lot of hot water.

Let me do this.

And for folks who may be new here, I mean, what we do on Apologetics Live is, as you saw, we try to.

We do apologetics.

You saw that with our discussion with Tim.

We try to explain.

Apologize.

As you saw when I'd stop and explain why, you know, we do that, I.

And it's.

It is kind of fun when I get someone that I'm debating, and they come in, start discussing something, and I'll explain exactly what they're going to do, as I did in the beginning where I said, he's good.

You know, he uses the projection.

And then.

And then Aaron's pointing out how he was doing exactly that.

Right.

And so we do this so you guys can spot the behavior so you could see.

So when you are using Apologetics, you can.

You can spot things.

I want to play a clip from the.

From the debate, because.

Ken, Ken, you did this to him in the debate.

Let me remove the banner so we could see your face, though.

So I want to play.

And I don't know if I have it exactly right, but in the debate, you.

You called him out for his behavior, for something he did in the.

So let's listen.

Cease to be Christian.

And what was the reason for that?

Oh, wait, hold on.

I should slow it down because I listen at the fastest speed possible, and most people can't handle that.

All right, here we go.

It's interesting how you.

You take the.

Let me back this up.

We are no longer.

So we get his comments.

Could you give me back then what made America a Christian nation?

Was it when we had race based chattel slavery?

Was it when we had Jim Crow laws?

And then what was the moment or time in American history where we ceased to be Christian and what was the reason for that?

So I think it's interesting how you, you take the, what is perceived as the worst parts of our history and you impose that, that on the entire thing.

But I would say that every or almost every founder of this nation subscribed to Christian beliefs.

King George even called the American Revolution one time the press.

So I mean, no offense, your answer wasn't the important part of this.

But so I, I just want to point out, you see how, how Kennington recognized in, in the debate in his response, what's he doing?

He's pointing out exactly the behavior that he saw Tim doing.

Right?

Tim's, Tim's.

In his question, did you see how his question was a setup?

At what point was this a Christian nation where the slavery, the cattle slavery, all the things that are perceived to be the worst things.

And it's kind of interesting because, you know, he argues for that and, and maybe he'll come back in and we could discuss slavery and we'll see how little he knows about the Christian or the biblical view of slavery because most people think of it as the same as cattle slavery and it's not.

But I think, I think he did a good job there.

And that's something I wanted, I, I at least wanted to get to that one part of the debate.

Because Kenton, what you did there is something that people should do, especially when they're having a formal debate.

Well, you guys, it was not really formal.

It's a little less formal, more discussion.

But you, you didn't fall for the bait.

Look, if you're watching and the clip I wanted to get, and I'll just say there's a, there's a Canadian running for prime minister right now, a candidate for prime minister.

Just go and look at the video where he is, he is being challenged with gender.

The reporter says, you know, do you believe, you know, would you support, you know, Donald Trump just said there's only male and female genders.

If you, if you're elected, would you, would you agree with making a same rule?

And the guy, what is that question?

That question is the same as what Tim did to you, Kenton.

It's, it's baiting you, right?

It's a setup question where any answer you give is, is a problem.

And so what did he do?

He, the prime.

The candidate had then challenged his correct question.

That's what I was going to say.

Well, how many.

How many genders are there then?

Yeah, you're the one bringing up the two genders.

Then I'm a challenge the premise you're making, that there's more than two.

How many are there?

Yeah, and that's.

And that's what I want to point out that Kenton did that we need to learn to do.

Don't give into it.

What the.

The guy says, well, the.

There's other genders.

He says, well, name them.

I only know of two.

I know, male and female.

What other genders are you talking about?

And the guy just goes, well.

Well, I identify as a male.

He's like, that doesn't matter.

You mentioned other genders.

What are they?

Tell me what they are.

And I could respond to them.

And, you know, and this is the same guy, by the way.

If you've ever seen the video of the guy that's chewing the apples, they're like, you know, people say you're this horrible guy.

He's like, what people?

He just keeps eating the apple, which is the classic part.

But.

But what Kenton did there was not take the bait.

He called out the behavior.

I notice how you're trying to make it the worst possible thing.

And then he just goes on to make the comment, learn from what he did.

Right.

So we don't fall in.

Don't take the bait.

When people do that, when they give you these setup questions like that, because that is designed.

And I don't know if Tim really, like, there's some people who do that behavior on purpose for debate tactics.

I don't know if Tim is doing it for that reason.

Okay, just for the record.

Well, also, knowing.

Knowing what I know now about what Tim thinks about sin, nature, and depravity, I would have said, well, what do you mean ever?

No one's born into sin.

It's individual.

We're not enemies of God.

Right.

Yeah, exactly.

Why is everyone.

Why is there slavery?

Why is there child sacrifice?

Why is there any of this stuff then?

Well, see, and that's why I wanted to start with that from.

On this show when he did come in, because I.

I really think, you know, Kenton asked something about it, and this.

That right there is.

What is this?

The big difference between.

In that debate that you guys had because you have a regenerate person and an unregenerate person.

The reason why I would say that is because one person's understanding the gospel and one's redefining the gospel.

I mean, if you can show me where Jesus said, you know, give allegiance to me.

Because I think what he said is repent and believe.

I think that was the wording that he used.

And, you know, it was really clear.

But, you know, there were, There were a couple things that.

Greg, I know you.

You had.

I mean, I know you.

I don't know if with a little bit of time that we've left, I know we.

I had the clip that I want to play of where he says loving your enemies is not putting them in prison.

And we talked about that a bit tonight.

Is that really true?

No, I just have a real problem with the redefinition of love over the last 50 to 60 years in West.

In the Western world.

I mean, we've convoluted it and diluted it so much that we don't even understand what love is.

Right.

Love isn't letting someone do whatever they want.

Love includes justice being served love.

Love includes discipline, punishment, all those different things.

And unfortunately, we have this blanket, blanket term of love.

I'm not saying anything new here.

We've been talking about this for a long time, but unfortunately that was Tim.

What Tim was doing in the Christian national argument is using this blanket term of love, meaning nice.

Right?

Like what?

You don't want to be nice to people?

Well, God never calls us to be nice and he doesn't call us to be fair.

He calls us to love and he calls us to justice and be just with people.

And those are two totally different things.

Biblical justice and biblical love are not what is espoused within.

You can call it liberal, progressive, leftist kind of Christianity, and it's very detrimental.

Anyone who's a parent or has any type of authority over another person in any way, shape or form understands the term tough love.

Right?

Yeah.

It's not necessarily what your flesh wants to do.

It's the thing that is right to do.

And justice being served under Christian nationalism would be just that.

It would be a form of love.

It's justice.

We have it now.

We have a justice system that says if you commit a crime, we.

There's going to be things that happen to you.

And in some states it is death if the crime is heinous enough.

Right.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with the death penalty, biblically or not, you can argue that.

But I'm saying, as we've all agreed as a society under already this big Christian principle rule that there are consequences for actions.

Right.

And also I would, I would like to point out the Mosaic Law of the punishment fitting the Crime.

When, you know, when the Jews came out of the desert and they went in the civilized world, looked around and said, wait, what are you talking about?

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

And they said, oh, the punishment has to fit the crime.

Meaning you steal a piece of bread, I don't cut off your arm, you steal a piece of bread, you pay the man for a day of his wages.

Right?

God's Mosaic Law, when the Jews came out of the desert was so radical to the ancient world of, wait a minute, so you're telling me that there's mercy even in the punishment?

There's mercy in God's law when he says, no, no, no, don't over punish, don't over discipline.

It's eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Meaning let the cr.

Let the punishment meet the crime and the crime meet the punishment.

I think that we, we've carried that over in the United States in our justice system, right?

We have different levels of murder, we have different levels of homicide and killing just because of that.

So I don't know, I'm taking up too much time here.

But justice being served as a form of love.

And I also don't like that we just kind of look at the ten Commandments and, and just we don't get into the nuance of, of how revolutionary the Mosaic Law was in the Old Testament 6,000 years ago.

There was nothing like it before or after.

And we've based civilizations on it for the last 6,000 years.

I was just on a podcast and talking about some of what you were just saying because the person was asking about how responding to homosexuals.

And it was interesting because I refer to this as a cult or a false gospel of God is love.

And I really fault the gospel tract that, you know, says God has a wonderful plan for your life, he loves you.

It's like God has a human shaped hole in his heart, you know, and just you are to fill it.

And people define love is God should give me everything I want.

God should spoil me.

Well, would, would you be a good parent if you let your kids just eat whatever they want?

No, because your kids are going to eat a bunch of junk food and then have health problems, rest their life.

You'd call that abuse.

And so, yeah, that's not good.

So let's, let's go around, let folks know where they could get to know more about you.

Kenton, how could folks get a hold of you if they want to talk Christian nationalism and maybe have you on a show or debate you on it?

Hopefully someone that's not progressive.

The quickest place is going to be X.

Kenton Little, 7 I think is my tag.

I'm on YouTube as well under Monarch Ministries, but I'm not super active on there.

And then if you DM me on.

On X, I'll send you a link to the Monarch Ministries Discord channel, which is.

We do Bible studies there.

Sometimes I post a question of the day.

It's a good community there if you want to join up there.

All right, Greg.

Dead Man Walking podcast.

You know, you notice it's two hours later.

He never admitted whether he.

He's actually a friend.

Just saying.

Yeah.

I was saving it for the very last minute.

Of course, Andrew, you are both good friends.

First of all, I have to say I love the dynamic of you two hosting, hosting and co hosting this apologetics live.

It's very cool.

I think you guys should keep doing it.

I think you two hooking up and kind of your cross pollinization of your ministries and stuff too is.

Is pretty cool to see.

And I think you guys both bring something unique and different to it.

Striving for eternity dot org.

Absolutely.

Absolutely love that organization and everything you're doing over there.

Andrew, you got the book up there too.

What Do We Believe?

Hey, is my code still good?

Can they still buy that?

If they.

If they get.

If they want, what Do We Believe?

And they use your code, which is.

Dead Men Walking DMW put it in free shipping.

There you go.

Shipping's on me.

So go pick up that book because that's an awesome book.

That.

Where did I put it?

I have around here somewhere.

Oh, man, I should have had it with me.

But anyway, you should because I think.

I think you're one of the very.

You got a hard copy, didn't you?

A hardcover?

Yeah, like one of only 25 that we ever made.

Signed.

It's signed.

It's gonna be money one day when.

When Andrew gets assassinated or something for.

For saying some crazy stuff in a street corner open air or something.

Oh, sorry.

That was.

That was really dark at the end.

But really quick.

DMW Podcast.com is where you can find out more about me.

Real DMW podcast for X and then Deadman Walking podcast everywhere else.

That's the only one.

X wouldn't let me have that one.

But Deadman walking podcast, Ephesians 2 Dead in Our Trespasses Now Live in Christ.

Come check us out weekly podcast.

Have all kinds of fun guests on.

And we will be live podcasting from the Dangerous Friends.

Com Conference In Monclova, Ohio, where Kelvin Robinson just got kicked out.

Oh, did he talking anymore?

But we will have Steve Dace, we will have Seth Gruber, we sub Jamie Bramback.

He's coming in from Ireland.

We're gonna have a lot of Rosaria Butterfield that James White and Andrew knows very well.

We're gonna have those guys speaking.

So come see me if you're in the Midwest.

March 13th and 14th there.

Thanks.

So Dead Man Walking is a great podcast to be listening to.

You should actually see.

Why didn't they let you have that.

That on X when it was Twitter?

Someone already had it.

Okay.

So I don't know.

I.

I can't.

You can't because they, they want.

But when you type it in at Deadman Walking podcast, it's not, it's not there.

So I don't know.

Okay, that was before Elon took over.

So maybe that's what I'm thinking.

Maybe you can keyboard there.

Hey, Elon.

Yeah, well, Aaron knows him, so maybe Aaron could talk to him.

He's too busy throwing up Nazi symbols.

Oh, wait, Aaron or Elon.

I mean, I.

Oh, geez.

Probably everyone.

I mean, I mean, did you see.

I mean, Hillary Clinton did it.

Barack Obama did it.

Yeah, I got in trouble with my family about that.

It's actually kind of funny.

So my daughter, we are, we're.

My family is very Caucasian.

Exceptionally roof in July.

Okay.

Yeah, exactly.

Because we, my wife and I were certain that we would give birth to vampires with transparent skin.

But my wife, my daughter just decided to learn German, which I studied in college.

So the two of us walking around speaking German sometimes I'm like, maybe this is a bad idea.

I don't know.

Okay, okay, so.

All right.

Fun story.

But you.

So, So I had my now son in law before they were.

My daughter got married, was living in our house for, for the summer.

And we're sitting there and over dinner one day I, I realized that if she marries this guy, I just.

We're at dinner and I went, oh no.

And everyone looked at me and they're like, what?

I said, I just realized something.

Like what I said, if you guys actually get married, you're marrying a German.

And he's like, yeah.

And I said, and even worse, your initials are going to be SS.

Nice.

Like, I can't.

Sorry.

That's it.

The wedding's off.

Yeah.

Well, you know, by the way, that was very kind words of you to, to.

To say there about the, the dynamic that we have.

I really, I want you to know before you signed off that.

I really appreciate that.

That was very kind.

Thank you.

So it's good stuff.

I mean it.

Hey, can Aaron give a shot?

Aaron, how can folks get a hold of you?

Yeah, I said earlier on the show go to evermindministries.com and there you can see all of the various ministries that are part of that Truth, Love, Family, the year long celebration of God.

My speaking schedules are there and things like that.

You can get my new book Quit, which isn't as cool as the digital one that, that Andrew's got there.

I just hold mine up like this.

Quit as a book all about how to stop family strife for good conflict in your family.

I'm going to be speaking actually in two upcoming homeschool conferences.

I'm actually really excited about that.

I'm gonna be speaking at the Thrive Conference in Winston Salem, North Carolina.

I'm also going to be speaking at the great homeschool convention or conference.

I can't remember which one.

That is GHC down in Greenville, South Carolina.

So I'm really looking forward to that.

I'll be doing that GHC in March and the great, the Thrive Conference in, in Winston Salem.

That one's gonna be happening in May.

And I'll just say too that the Thrive one, if you guys are in anywhere near that area, get there.

Because a friend of mine, Renton Rathbun, who's, who's head over the World View program at Bob Jones University, the Worldview center, he does such an amazing, amazing job.

I might just not do my session so I can go listen to whatever it is he's saying.

So if you guys are in that area, definitely make it a point to come out there especially if you're homeschoolers.

And just before, since Aaron, we're still focusing on Aaron.

I'm just going to put this up here and remind folks that they can support the brewsters@givesendgo.com SFP SFE stands for Striving Fraternity for folks who don't know.

Maybe it's your first time here listening but Aaron was affected by the hurricane there in North Carolina.

I know no one cares about that because there's, you know, Hollywood types are losing million dollar homes and you know, they're insured.

So you know, that's all that matters is that you know, but, but Aaron had a, a lot of loss.

We ended up through this through those who had supported.

We were able to replace his H VAC system.

We have been able to raise a little bit more money to help with the Basically a guy get rid of all the mold and, and all the water damage that is going to cost a lot of money.

And then there's vehicles, the RV where his son lived is gone and cars and things like that.

So if you can help support a fellow Christian who is devoted himself to, to the Christian ministry to the point that he moved in with his parents so he could be full time counseling and, and serving God through the different ministries he's involved in.

He's made that sacrifice which means he doesn't have the money to since they weren't insured for the hurricane.

This is all the only real means he's got to, to repay all this.

So if you guys can help him out, it's give send that will get you there.

So I want to just encourage that you guys might consider doing that also.

I'm hoping that I'll put this out and put Greg on the, on the spot here.

I think that, I think that, I really think Greg since he's got the, he's going to be around since the other conference that we were supposed to be at got canceled.

He should come to the, the Build to Conquer conference.

I, I, I really think, hey look I, I could talk to Caleb and get you as the mc I'm sure because that would be really good.

But it, it's looking like it's going to be a great conference.

It is in Bartsville, Oklahoma.

Some great speakers and, and you go oh, I may not know these names.

Well you may not but I, I'll tell you some of these that I have preached alongside Michael Stanton.

There's also there Brett Baggott who I've, I've preached with who's great Gabe.

I've never heard preach but he's, he is a wonderful guy.

I got to speak with him a lot.

But I would argue you want to come for Brandon Scalf and if you've never heard Brandon preacher.

Brandon is an outstanding preacher.

He is one of my top 10 favorite preachers.

So I put him up on a high up there.

If you've never heard him preach this would be a great way to get to come and get some great preaching.

So the website is part of the Caleb Gordon Show.

He's very creative with his name names the, the Caleb Gordon Show.

So his website is caleb gordon.org he's as bad as my friend Justin Peters who is Justin Peters ministry and go.

To gross to peters.org I like that joke so much.

It's late.

It's been a long day.

It's late yeah, hit me.

It's very creative.

So if you guys could get to the, the Build to Conquer conference.

I'm trying to see if I could talk dead men walking here, Greg, more into coming to it.

But here's the incentive, Greg, if you come, you will get to see.

We're, we're planning.

Caleb Gordon said that if I get a cold plunge down there, he will get in a cold plunge.

And Tom Shepard is planning to go and he says he will do a cold plunge, but, but only if Brandon Scalf will.

So now I got to convince Brandon to get into a cold plunge.

So we are, I am thinking like, let's see if, if these guys can handle five minutes in 40 degree water.

If I can come down there.

Let's talk offline about that.

I see the dates down there.

I got to check my calendar, but I can get over there and you can get those two in a cold plunge, then I'll do a cold plunge.

There we go.

All right.

Cold plunge challenge.

So that is shaping up.

I think that's going to be a great conference.

It's a one day conference.

So especially if you're local to Oklahoma there, to Bartsville, Oklahoma, within a day's drive.

Great price, great, great event.

Looking to that.

It's shaping up.

So I hope that you would come out for that with that.

I want, I want to thank Kenton.

If you want to come out any other time, have any discussion, the show is always open to anyone to come in.

I mean that's what we do here every week.

We're here to answer questions whether it's in chat or live.

And it's always fun.

As you see tonight where Tim came in.

I actually didn't think Tim was going to come in based on the Twitter exchange or the, the, I was a.

Little surprised that he showed up.

Yeah, I, I wasn't, I wasn't, I think I, he likes to debate and I, I, I know that but so, yeah, he's, he, he's a really nice guy.

Okay.

Even though we, we would disagree very much, you know, and, and I think he's going to be in hell for eternity if he doesn't repent.

He would disagree, but it's being nice.

It's nice to warn someone of something like that.

But next week I, I mentioned earlier, you know, if I knew about the, the muting.

Greg, I posted a thing on X.

Just a poll.

It was just a poll poll.

A simple poll asking what people believe.

All millennialism, post millennialism, pre millennialism and boy, the full preterist went nuts.

Hey, we're all over it.

And so we, we said that, you know what, would you be willing to debate the topic?

And, well, you know, as typical, a bunch of people said they'll debate it, and then one by one, they backed out.

But they all called another guy in, some guy, Michael Sullivan to come and do a debate.

And I said, good.

I got Sam Frost.

And they were like, oh, he's a coward.

He's running from me.

I'm not going to do it with him because he's running from a debate for me.

Wait, here's, here's the opportunity.

It's kind of back to that text exchange with, with Tim.

Right, right.

Have.

Have an adult conversation.

No, they backed out.

And so I ended up.

Once they backed out and said they weren't going to do it, Sam Frost.

Didn'T back out, did he?

Oh, no.

Sam said, do it.

Sam, actually.

Sam actually.

When I told him, he went on to the, the thing just to say, I'm.

I've never backed out of a debate with Michael, and I'm here to debate.

Let's do it.

So, you know, but you kind of know the quality.

I kind of realized the quality when this guy, Michael, Michael, who was their big debater, wanted me to.

And Greg, you'll laugh at this, he wanted me to defend millennialism.

And I said, why should I defend amillennialism?

Well, you made the claim you should defend your view.

Did I start laughing putting a poll out there?

Well, even he thinks you're amillennial.

Thank you very much.

He thinks I'm all millennial.

And I'm like, why would I defend a position I don't hold to?

He's like, well, you put the poll out, and the poll doesn't take a position, nor does it make a claim.

So he's.

So then someone.

This was classic some woman who.

She wanted to debate me, but in writing.

And I, you know, and I'm like, yeah, I don't, I don't debate women because you shouldn't be teaching the Bible in the first place to men.

So just get over that.

But she actually goes to our website.

It's strivingforattorney.org she pulls up the link for what we believe our doctrinal statement, posts it, and then says that I'm not a mill, I'm post mill.

You're like, you got.

You had three chances and you already had two strikes.

And even worse, she's saying she read my doctoral statement that says I'm premill.

You need to clarify your doctrinal statement there.

Obviously.

It's obviously Andrew's fault.

I mean, Andrew, Yeah.

Carefully consider how you communicate.

It's not.

Well, I mean, if different people interpret the doctrinal statement differently, doesn't that mean that the doctrinal statement is wrong?

Yeah, well, we can't.

Tim would say so for sure.

I mean, I think I just need to read his doctoral statement and really think about what I feel and believe about it.

That's right.

I think Andrew wrote it at all.

Yeah, actually.

Well, you got to love keyboard cowboys.

They're all out there.

I actually had a woman who, who contacted the ministry and told me what I believed, and I'm like, I don't believe that.

And I.

I directed her to the doctrinal statement, and she actually said, you're hiding your real beliefs.

I know you.

And I'm like, we've never met.

We've never talked.

Like, okay, you.

You know what I believe better than me.

Okay, yeah, you're not nuts.

But we are going to have Sam Frost and Jeremiah.

Oh, I just drew a blank on his last name.

Yes.

From.

From.

Yeah, from the apologetic dog.

And so they're gonna come on, we're going to talk full preterism, and hopefully the others will come in.

Maybe now that you've told me I can mute people.

I'll unblock them so I could tell them that they could show up, and then I'll mute them so I don't have to see anymore to be there with popcorn.

I'll.

I'll come in and just.

Yeah, you know, just.

Well, that will be next Thursday night, so we will do that.

That's the show for next Thursday, folks.

If you liked having Greg in here, let us know.

Maybe we could bring him in.

We, Me, we could, you know, coax them in more often.

You know, he.

He likes.

He likes watching us get into the debate and standing back and just.

Yeah, that's my fan base.

Well, I will say one last thing, and that is over Greg's right shoulder is something very special here that we would have your right shoulder.

Well, you're right.

I'm saying your right shoulder.

Your right shoulder.

And if he goes down, you will see that he's got some Squirrely Joe's coffee there.

That bag of coffee that.

He's got two of them right there.

And so Squirrelly Joe's Coffee is one of the sponsors here.

If you want to get some great coffee, I suggest you go to striving for eternity.org Coffee and you can get what?

The purple one.

I don't.

Not sure what that is.

Which one is that?

This one's the gula bean.

Ah.

What is it called, though?

This one is.

Because they all have a name.

Yeah, it says it right up front.

I.

I forget which ones.

That one is big lettering.

Wisdom.

Yeah, it's the biggest words there, other than Scrolly Joe's, maybe.

And so the is the other looks like it could be compassion there, which you could see that Greg hasn't drank any compassion, and so that's why he's.

Like, I keep this one full because I like to be a real jerk.

So Squirrelly Joe's is not only a great coffee, but you're supporting a Christian family.

So go to strivingforternity.org Coffee.

Use the promo code SFE.

I don't know.

They either it's either 20 off or your first of your first purchase or you're getting a free bag of coffee with your first purchase.

Don't remember which one because I think he changed it on us, but it's one of those.

So go check that out and.

And do us a favor.

Every time you reorder, just go to striving for attorney.org coffee so that Joe knows you heard about it.

Hear from us.

So I hope you guys enjoy the show.

A lot of fun fireworks.

I love.

I know this is messed up, but I love when guys like Tim come in and we just have those kind of, you know, somewhat heated.

Not really heated, but.

But good discussions where we could disagree.

Passionate.

That'd be a great word for it.

We can.

We can have those kind of discussions.

Those are good and healthy to do, as long as you're not getting, you know, into name calling and all that.

But that's what we're here to do.

That's what we try to do each week, is to educate you guys, give you guys some different ways to help you in your apologetics.

Hope that you got some value out of that.

And just remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

And we'll see you next time.

Bye now.