Zach Conover (3:42)

What up though?

Jeff Durbin (3:43)

I'm Jeff the Coleman of NINJA and that Zach Conover.

Luke the Bear (3:45)

Hey everyone.

Jeff Durbin (3:46)

Director of communications with End Abortion. Now just quick thing before we get into the episode today. Want to point everybody to what's happening next Monday in Atlanta, Georgia. So very important for to to pray about this and if you are in Georgia we need you to actually do this with us. And so we have a bill of abolition, a bill of equal protection. It's the criminalization and outlawing of abortion. Basically the substances murdering anybody should be legal for everybody and it gives the status of fully human from fertilization to everyone in the state of Georgia. And it says equal protection under law for every human being in the state of Georgia. So it's an abolition bill. It's doing well. I want to just get everyone very excited about this. God's been doing amazing things in the last 10 years through the church, specifically getting bills of equal protection and abolition across the country. They are happening right now in states all across the union and it's, it's, it's going really well. But Georgia in particular, we have more churches, more organizations, more support and right now more co sponsors on the bill of abolition than in any bill in abolitionist history since Roe versus Wade where we're at today, over 20% of the house in Georgia is a co sponsor on the bill itself. That's never happened before. God's doing amazing things to bless what's going on there. Emory Donahue is the representative. We have great man of God, loves the Lord and loves his children. And so the bill is waiting for its schedule on the hearing, which we're told could happen at any moment. And so we're thinking probably Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, it's going to hopefully get a hearing. But we are working together with Georgia right to Life and G3, Josh Bice. We're going to hold a rally at the state Capitol this coming Monday. What date is that?

Luke the Bear (5:39)

I'm sorry guys, it's March 3rd, I.

Zach Conover (5:42)

Think 2nd or 3rd.

Jeff Durbin (5:43)

Okay, so this, this coming Monday, 11am in Atlanta. Georg at the Capitol. If you're in Georgia, come and join us. Your present there presence there will mean a lot in terms of making sure that the legislators there know that the church wants this, Christians want this and that we will support them. And so I'm going to be in Georgia Monday, 11am Josh Bice again is working March 3. Josh Bice is working together with us to put that rally on and also be in prayer, if you would, to that this bill would get its schedule on the hearing. Uh, I'm supposed to be testifying alongside Emma Emory Dunohoo and Bradley Pierce on behalf of the bill before the the Georgia Legislature. And so. Interesting way to actually segue into this conversation. Yeah. Because somehow, and I don't understand how anybody who has read a book on theonomy or revelational epistemology would think that somehow theonomists are opposed to politics and not engaging in politics.

Zach Conover (6:41)

Certainly would never have listened to anything we have said.

Jeff Durbin (6:43)

Yeah. Or read a single book on it. I'm convinced of that. So we are doing what we're doing across the country at the legislature and outside of abortion mills, specifically because of what we believe about Jesus, what we believe about the world, what we believe about us, what we believe about human beings, what we believe about the law of God. And so why are we doing what we're doing? Why, God willing, will I be testifying before the Georgia State Legislature next week, hopefully by Tuesday. Why am I doing that? I'm doing it because of what I believe about Jesus. That's what's underneath the fight. Okay. And there is a distinction. There is a. There is a distinction. It goes very well with this conversation between when the church got involved in this in terms of going to the Legislature with the messages of the gospel, the word of God, the law of God, and bringing that to the legislature and how the pro life establishment has done it, you know, over the last five decades, Roe versus Wade, Pro life establishment establishment says, we're not going to do this because Jesus says, we're not going to do this on the word of God. We're not going to make this about the gospel and call people to repentance. But we're going to do this based upon biology. Really, what we see in general revelation.

Luke the Bear (7:57)

Something we can all agree on.

Jeff Durbin (7:58)

Right. What's in the womb is a human being, a distinct human being from fertilization. All they'll say all life is sacred. All life deserves and is worthy of protection. And so they'll say, if we could just get our culture to see that what's in the womb is human, then they will know, oh, we ought not kill that thing. Now, how has that fallen off for the pro life establishment is they're saying that to a culture that does not give a damn about human beings in the womb. Right, okay. And when I say, I mean, I'm meaning that in the most classical sense, they damn them to hell, damn them to death, damn them to hell, I don't care. And so they don't. They don't care about these human beings and they believe that they have the moral right, the moral ought I ought to be able to take the life of my child in the womb. They don't care that it has a heartbeat. They don't care that it feels pain. They don't care that it's human being and part of our species. Right. And so those who would hold to the perspective of, you know, general revelation will give them all of this. And because of natural law, we just need to convince them that it's human and then we're going to be good to go. They haven't been on a college campus. They haven't been on a college campus where today you speak to those in the college. I was just in Texas, Texas University. I was just there with college students at Texas University, going in and out and having conversations with him. And they didn't care that what was in the womb was fully human. Saw that they did not care. We have all kinds of footage coming, by the way. We got like hours of footage. So it's gonna be great.

Luke the Bear (9:30)

We need to do that more often.

Jeff Durbin (9:31)

We do.

Luke the Bear (9:31)

Those are wonderful.

Jeff Durbin (9:32)

They are really great.

Luke the Bear (9:33)

It's got a Charlie Kirk vibe, but it's like, okay, now we're applying it to this Specific area. I love it.

Jeff Durbin (9:38)

Yeah.

Zach Conover (9:39)

Theology.

Jeff Durbin (9:40)

Yeah. Yeah. Well, it just. More, more overt. This is the Christian faith, this is what we believe. So go to the abortion mill, go to the college campuses and say we have, we have content for days on this at college campuses, at the mill where we are saying it's, it's a human being. And what do they say? I don't care. I have the right, they will say, to murder my child. Right. And so the pro life establishment has fought this fight saying if we could just convince people biologically that it's part of our species, then they'll agree with us.

Luke the Bear (10:12)

Right.

Jeff Durbin (10:13)

And the problem is, is that it goes beyond that. The issue is an issue of sin and rebellion against God. Those who hate me love death. And so there is a very, there's a large difference, a huge difference between how the church engages this with the word of God at our feet, holding to the principles at the heart of sola scriptura that the word of God is the foundation of knowledge and certainty. Here's how I know what we're doing is wrong and here is how I know what God wants us to do in terms of justice for the preborn children. The church says, the word of God says. And so they fight the fight this way. And because of that, over the last 10 years, more bills of abolition have come from the church and the church and church organizations doing this than the whole history of the pro life establishment. In Roe vs Wade, they are not trying to ultimately abolish abortion. And everyone's wondering. They're like, Jeff, I've heard you say this a thousand times. That's we are always talking about. But it has everything to do with this conversation. We're going to be engaging a bit with a man named Stephen Wolf and some of the things he said. It's just more of a surface level thing today just to start the conversation. And it has everything to do with the conversation. How do we engage this and why am I and others like me sitting before legislatures fighting for bills of abolition? And I would call that politics. Right. Wolf makes the claim like, I don't these theonomists. He'll say it various different ways. He'll make the claim about theonomists like, you know, not engaging in politics and, and, and we're going to get into other claims he makes about Christian worldview and his. And I have to say this was with as much respect as I can muster up to the man. His understanding of theonomy is, is abysmal.

Zach Conover (11:54)

I was literally going to Say the.

Jeff Durbin (11:55)

Same word, it's abysmal. I'll. Let me start this conversation this way in terms of at least talking about. We are going to engage with his and refute, clearly refute his video. I think it's about an hour long on theonomy versus natural law. I want to say it's, it was an embarrassment, but because I don't, I don't see him as a schlub. I don't see him as an, a man who's not intellectual, I think is a very smart guy. But his video on theonomy versus natural law was an embarrassment to himself because every person who's read a book on theonomy, even, even bottom shelf stuff, listens to this and goes, tell me that you've never read a book on theonomy without telling me you haven't read a book on the enemy. He clearly displays that an abject ignorance on the issue of theonomy and the questions has. Mostly animists are going, as they watch this, they're going, I, I don't think he's ever read anything on theonomy or listen or, or listen to a lecture maybe from say, Bonson or anybody on this subject. And, but he decided to do a video about it. And so we will engage with it and refute it. It's not difficult to do. But one of the claims that Wolf makes is that like theonomists, they can't engage in the area of politics because, you know, there's, there's a realm of politics that asks questions and engages in arenas that have nothing to do with theonomy. And how's the theonomist do that? And so we'll engage with that. But I think it's a, it's a good segue because it's a perfect, it's a perfect contrast.

Luke the Bear (13:23)

Yeah.

Jeff Durbin (13:24)

When.

Luke the Bear (13:24)

Good example.

Jeff Durbin (13:25)

When we sit before a legislature to fight for the lives of these preborn children, it's because specifically of Christian presuppositions based upon the word of God. It is because of the Christian worldview and what we believe about God and himself, his character, his law and his word is the reference point. Yeah.

Luke the Bear (13:42)

What are we pointing to? What are we standing on?

Jeff Durbin (13:44)

Right. So when, when we, you can watch any of the videos that we have or we speak before legislature, the difference between how we go before the legislature and say the pro life establishment is number one, they don't go for justice. They have unequal weights and measures. They believe that you should have a protected class of killers. The mom that is not guilty herself. She's a victim herself who shouldn't be prosecuted for the murder of her child, the willful murder of her child. So they violate formal principles that we find in Scripture regarding God's law and justice and the fatherless. But they also aren't going before the legislature saying because Jesus says, because God says, and we need to repent and we need to turn to God. They don't do that. It's not about the gospel. But when we go before the legislature and we get these bills of abolition and equal protection, we're saying things like, it's in the image of God, it deserves equal protection and it should be criminalized. Anybody who's engaging in it is guilty. How do I know that? Because God's law teaches me that the principles in God's law and we go with a call to repentance and faith. When you see us before the legislature, we're calling the legislature to repentance, telling them to come to Christ and to establish justice and.

Luke the Bear (14:52)

Yeah, appealing to Scripture is the principal starting point.

Jeff Durbin (14:55)

Yes.

Luke the Bear (14:56)

So where does, where do we begin? What do we point to? I think the abortion example is good because this is something that should be common experience. Right. If we're appealing to what's common knowledge, all of us have common knowledge that what's in the womb is human from fertilization. Biology tells us that, science tells us that. So why isn't that enough? Because of the suppression of truth, because of the human heart, that is taking that knowledge that is common and holding it down in unrighteousness. And that's why the reference to God's Word as the core theological commitment, which is really what this discussion is all about when we talk about, I'll use the word worldview. The reason it's a war of worldview systems is because everybody has a theological starting point. They have an ultimate commitment that they are unwilling to surrender. A network of assumptions, if you will, that color the way they approach every single question of life. And we're attempting to be self conscious of our own and saying this is what we must stand on in order to engage that not just enter into this realm and in which we can all apparently agree on these principles, because obviously we can't. There are numerous examples of testifying before the legislatures where there's men dressed up as women.

Jeff Durbin (16:12)

Yeah.

Luke the Bear (16:13)

Again, common knowledge. Boys aren't girls and girls aren't boys. Right? Not so much.

Jeff Durbin (16:19)

You would think general revelation would give them that.

Luke the Bear (16:21)

Right.

Jeff Durbin (16:21)

So a good example, that's a perfect example is that when I was in Colorado testifying on behalf of our Bella in Colorado. There's a person with a beard and a dress staring back at me. Well, I thought general revelation gets through. And the answer is, it does. Scripture says that general revelation is so clear, it gets through so clearly that people know God and he has shown it to them. Romans, chapter one. So what's the problem? Why is the guy wearing a dress? I thought general revelation gets through. And everyone Reformed says, absolutely. You've got two books, both written by God. Yeah. One is the book of General revelation and one is the book of Special Revelation.

Luke the Bear (16:58)

Nature and Scripture, same God gave both books.

Jeff Durbin (17:02)

And I think a lot of the guys that are big into natural law, natural theology, general revelation conversations forget that the Reformed person says that God wrote both books, and so one is not going to contradict the other. Now, general revelation gets through to the degree that Paul says that they are left unapologetus, they're left without a defense, without an argument before God. And then it says they know. It even says what they know. They know God, but they don't want him in their knowledge. And so they do what they know they shouldn't do. And that's men with men, women with women. It's all there in Romans, chapter one. So you go, wait a second. Now. This conversation about, like, what people know and general revelation, special revelation, how's all this come together? How did the reform solve this? Well, we, We've, We've been clear, I thought, in Reformed history in terms of what we believe about this. Both books written by God, general revelation, special revelation, they don't contradict each other. But we recognize in Reformation, Reformational theology is we recognize the noetic effects of sin, that sin has the effect in the fallen of causing them to suppress truth, to refuse to recognize what is obvious to all of us, or even to war against it with a high hand and say, I know and I don't want to know. And so I'll exchange the true God for something that looks like me, like something else, and I'll do what I know I ought not to do. It even says in Romans 1, they know that those who practice such things deserve to die. They know it, but they not only do them, but they give hearty approval. So what's the problem is that general revelations, written by God, it gets through, but it is immediately met with the wall of the rebellious heart. And so that knowledge gets through, but it's suppressed by the rebel, and they war against it sinfully. And so again, you can be before a Legislature that's dealing in politics and issues of justice and morality. That's what's happening there. Politics is about the imposition of morality. You're saying, you ought to do this, you ought not to do that. Now, I don't know how you get to ought, apart from the Christian God, but that's a separate discussion. So we're before the legislature, and this dude's looking back at me wearing a dress. You go, I thought general revelation gets through. I thought natural theology and all, like, he knows the right thing, the moral thing to do. But here's a dude wearing a dress that ought to know according to God's word, general revelation is shouting to him through what's between his legs. It's right there. And he's not only violating that, but he's also saying, I don't care about these children, Kill them. But I thought natural law tells us that we ought not to murder another human being. You see the problem? Natural law is supposed to tell us we can't kill other human beings. That's written in our hearts. And the dude is sitting there on the legislature with general revelation getting through to him, saying, I don't care what's between my legs. I don't care what you see before me. This is what I really feel like. I'm a lady. And you know what? Off with their heads. Off with their heads. So how do we solve that problem? We solve that problem. At least the reformed have said it's the gospel. That's the power of God for salvation. It's the word of God that is, that gets through to the sinner by the grace and the sovereign will of God to open their eyes, to change their hearts, to turn them away from their sin to the living God, to turn them to God, the one they already knew. Yeah, that they were rebelling against.

Luke the Bear (20:31)

The census. Divinitus is already present.

Jeff Durbin (20:33)

It's already present.

Luke the Bear (20:33)

They have sense. But the problem, as you pointed out, is suppression. But in the public realm like that, that gives us a concrete way of applying our theology, which we're making public. This is our belief system based on God's revelation. And now that has become visibly manifest in the laws that we publish. So the very theology that we hold as our commitment is now applied in the public realm in the form of legislation. And that's appealing directly to the specifics. Right. Image of God, you shall not murder, justice. How do we define those things apart from the starting point?

Zach Conover (21:11)

Right, right. And Joe Buddha said that politics is nothing more than legislative morality. And so it's not a question of are we going to legislate morality, but whose morality are we going to legislate? And we don't. We can't come to that conclusion without an objective source of morality. And when we get into law, standards for law and justice, and just before we get into. I was going to say to bring it back to the abortion conversation. I mean, I'm not going to speak for everyone that we work with, but we all would agree that the majority of the people that we are working with across the country to end abortion all have a very similar and cohesive view of the law of God. Even if they don't call themselves the Anonymous, they all love and respect the law of God and they're using that as their sense of authority for law and justice.

Jeff Durbin (21:59)

There's an interesting comment here made by Vlad. Vlad, thank you for the comment. Actually, it makes a good point. No natural law advocate says all the proper conclusions one can take from natural law won't ever be denied by a sinful nature. This is straw man. Well, it would be, Vlad, because I didn't say that. So, Vlad, I would encourage you to listen more closely. What I'm pointing out is the problem of sin and natural law, it gets through. It's there. The problem is that it is resisted by the sinful. So it's a question of how do you actually now engage in this conversation meaningfully, with certainty and with a grounding for knowledge. And a grounding for knowledge. Because if you say the word of God is not the grounding, if it's not the central reference point for knowledge, certainty and truth, and you want to say, no, we can just do this without the Bible, without Christian presuppositions, we can, we can come to accurate and certain conclusions apart from scripture and special revelation with just natural law. My point is, is that you are dealing now most obviously with a culture that apparently has all the light of natural law and general revelation, but doesn't care, they resist it. So how do you engage meaningfully in a nation like ours that you can say has lost so much of its Christian heritage and blessings? How do you engage just by continuing to appeal to natural law? Like you're supposed to know this? How do you know, supposed to know that? Like, how do you, how do you avoid the obvious that you have to eventually get to the point of saying, thus saith the Lord, it's God as the reference point? God has spoken. Because we all agree that natural law is there. We agree that general revelation gets through. But what do you do when you have people who are hostile to it. You can't just keep engaging in the realm of natural law without Christian presuppositions and the word of God. Eventually you have to get to the point where you say things like Jesus, have you not read what was spoken to you by God? This is the very speech of God. Special revelation is just that, special. It's very special and it gives you the ability to cut through all of the fog caused by the rebellious heart of the sinful. In the area of natural law and general revelation. These are the words of God. Here is your grounding uncertainty. So when we go to the listen, when we go to the legislature, do we point to the obvious fact that what's in the womb is human from fertilization? Yes, we are appealing to their sense of the law of God, which is in nature, that is a human being in the womb, obviously from fertilization. But we come behind that with and God says, you shall not murder. And God says unequal weights and measures are an abomination to God. And God says, you shall show no partiality in judgment. Thus saith the Lord. These are the words of God. How do you, pray tell, go before an all atheist legislature and say anything meaningful at all or ultimate? Let me say this better ultimate at all, because you could say to the legislature, you know, this is the way that we see biology. Biology shows we're all part of the same human family. And biology says from fertilization you are human. And we think that you should show no partiality and that all humans should be seen as equal. The atheist firms up their commitments to their atheism and their materialism and says, yeah, doesn't really matter. All of us are just the result of random mutations, natural processes and a universe.

Luke the Bear (25:40)

They're not vocalizing those things. They are pre commitment assumptions that they bring to the discussion with them. Those are the baggage that gets brought to the discussion that colors the way that they view the evidence. That's the point. And to steel man that a little bit. Yeah, we're not saying that there aren't moments of crossover in which unbelievers occasionally get it right. Common ground that's owing to God's restraining hand of grace.

Jeff Durbin (26:08)

It's one of the things that's emphasized often in the discussion of presuppositional apologetics given to us by Van Til and Bonson and Frame and others in history is that there is common ground between the believer and the unbeliever. And the reason that there's common ground is because it's all God's ground.

Luke the Bear (26:26)

There are some people who don't share our convictions that believe that preserving the sanctity of human life is a right and moral thing to do.

Jeff Durbin (26:32)

Yeah.

Luke the Bear (26:32)

And I'm thankful for that.

Jeff Durbin (26:33)

Yeah.

Luke the Bear (26:34)

However, it is not enough.

Jeff Durbin (26:36)

Yeah, we were, we were at. Were you with, Were you with me? Went to DC for the After Dobbs thing? No, it was the one where the, the atheist pro life group was there as a bunch of atheists. Pro life group. Yeah.

Luke the Bear (26:53)

Maybe Secular Right to Life or one.

Jeff Durbin (26:54)

Of the other atheist agnostics for life. Fascinating. Fascinating. Yeah.

Luke the Bear (27:00)

But killing innocent humans is wrong.

Jeff Durbin (27:02)

But they couldn't ground it either.

Luke the Bear (27:04)

Why?

Jeff Durbin (27:04)

Yeah, there you go. So when they're trying to convince the pro choicers as humanists and atheists and agnostics and secularists, they're saying we, we ought not be able to kill these babies in the womb. They're running into a wall because how are you, how are either of you grounding any ought to whatsoever? Any ought whatsoever? It's like Doug has said before, you know, why don't you say to the atheists, you know, you're saying that we should, you know, care for creation and the world and the human beings, because the atheist knows in the heart of hearts that's what we ought to be doing because they're made in the image of God. But the atheist can just say back to you, like, why don't we just kerosene the whole anthill, burn the whole thing down. Right. And if you don't have Christian presuppositions and a Christian worldview, how do you engage in that meaningfully? And these are things I don't think that Brother Wolf has, has thought of.

Zach Conover (28:00)

I know we haven't even got to Stephen Wolf yet, but his apologists in the group is raising some good questions. I don't know if we want to answer now or later.

Jeff Durbin (28:10)

Let me get to him after I try to at least.

Zach Conover (28:11)

Yeah, I know. We'll probably get to these questions.

Jeff Durbin (28:14)

And just so you know, we want to show as much honor and respect, respect as we can to Stephen Wolf. We have very serious disagreements with him on a number of issues, whether it's epistemology, whether it's issues of the law of God and standards of justice, or apologetics. He's a Thomist, which I think will lead a lot people, A lot of people write back to Rome. And I think he's inconsistent. I think he demonstrates a number of times that he's never, he hasn't spent a lot of time in these fields. He obviously is a very bright man, intelligent man. He spent a lot of time in other fields, but these fields he has not. And it's obvious, it's abundantly obvious that he hasn't. So we're today just starting the conversation. We are going to get into more meaningful and comprehensive critiques over the things that he said in the, in the future. But for today's just an opener of some important parts of the conversation. So this one was interesting. I'll go to this one first. Stephen Wolf on X said, in my judgment, the claims of climate change are exaggerated and the policies proposed to fix it are absurd. But we Protestants must stop applying biblical theology to questions that can only be understood fundamentally in their own domains. Climate change is not a theological question. Now I'm tempted to stop there, but I want to read the rest of it. Do carbon emissions warm the earth or cause more catastrophic weather events is not a, it's, it's not a theological question. It's a question of science answered through scientific investigation. Thinking that we can dismiss such questions by appealing to theology has frankly made us dumb and also unwilling to enter these fields. Not every question can be answered by simply having the right quote worldview now that he said more elsewhere, but we can at least start the conversation here. This was in response to a book with Virgil Walker and Darryl comparison on, sorry, I want to get a biblical.

Luke the Bear (30:13)

Theology of climate change.

Jeff Durbin (30:14)

Yeah, it's a bit like a biblical theology of climate change, something like that. That's what, that's what Wolf was responding to. So let's, let's start asking questions. Wolf is a big natural law guy. Wolf is a Thomist. Wolf does not believe in a revelational epistemology, that the word of God is the principium, the, the reference point, the starting point for how you can know or have certainty. And we'll get into those conversations later. He actually believes that this question of climate change is not. Let me just emphasize this. Climate change is not a theological question. Now I want everyone just stop for a second, no matter what side of this conversation that you're on, and think about that. Honestly.

Luke the Bear (31:00)

Yeah. As a Christian, as a standalone statement.

Jeff Durbin (31:02)

Yeah. Climate change is not a theological question. Okay, Stephen, I'll bite. Climate change is not a theological question. I thought that we have the revelation of God that tells us about the created order. I thought that we had the revelation of God that tells about God's creation, decrees, what he called mankind to do in the world. I thought that we had the revelation of God Where God says in the beginning that he calls it good. And I thought that we had something in Scripture in terms of a mandate where Adam and Eve are told to go forth, be fruitful, to tend the garden, and they're also to take dominion.

Luke the Bear (31:43)

Over the earth, care for creation, cultivate creation, dress it, keep it.

Jeff Durbin (31:48)

I thought that actually gave us a grounding to look at creation around us as something that is actually objectively beautiful, that is good, that is meaningful, and that we ought to actually protect, curate, and take dominion over.

Luke the Bear (32:00)

And that gives us the basis of knowing that it operates according to certain patterns, normativity, seasonal changes, and all the rest that answers the why and how we're able to make the observations that we are in terms of scientific inquiry.

Jeff Durbin (32:16)

Yeah, it's just. I'm sorry, this is just a very, very poor perspective from a Christian perspective, particularly from a reformed perspective. For somebody who says they're reformed and believes in sola scriptura, this is the very speech of God. Climate change is not a theological question. Really? So if it's not a theological question, then I can approach the issue of climate change as an atheist. Right. I'll approach it as an atheist. Now, what do I believe about the world around me and the universe? Well, it's just a cosmic accident. From nothing, something came. This is an unguided, unpurposed universe. Human beings are just the random results of evolutionary processes. Human beings are no different in terms of this universe and this stuff, this material around us. No different than rocks, dirt, ants, snails.

Luke the Bear (33:08)

Yeah, no creator creature distinction.

Jeff Durbin (33:10)

Pond scum. Human beings are the random evolutionary results of processes that didn't have them in mind. So climate change is not a theological questions. A question. Okay. As an atheist, though, I have a question as an atheist with an atheist worldview that believes that all of us are cosmic accidents and that our ancestors were bacteria and then into fish and then to African apes into where we are now. I have a question. Why should humans care?

Zach Conover (33:36)

Right.

Jeff Durbin (33:37)

Not a theological question, really. Not a theological question. So get me climate change as a problem, something we need to solve, Right. We need to actually engage with it and think through it scientifically. Use our reason and those things. Get me to a place as an atheist using atheistic presuppositions and an atheist perspective of metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and ethics. Get me to a place where I believe I ought to care about the impact of climate change upon all of creation or human beings in general. Why ought I to care if it's not a theological question? Because I've Read a lot of atheists, a ton of atheist writings and content, atheist ethicists talking about morality and arts and you know what they say. And you know, everyone knows. This is my favorite quote because it's from the modern atheist. There's way better ones than this that are way worse than this. But it's a snappy one. I'll get to it. Richard Dawkins, river out of Eden. He says, there is no good, there is no evil, only blind and pitiless indifference. Give me now the need to care about climate change and its impact upon creation and other human beings. With that, there is no good, there is no evil, only blind and pitiless indifference. Not a theological question. I'm sorry, Stephen, you haven't thought this through. You just haven't. Because I think that having special revelation that says that this is good, human beings are made in the imago dei. God has created this with a special love and care and providence. He has a plan for humanity, a plan for creation. We can say that this is beautiful. This is lovely. We ought to care for the world that God made. We ought to actually, actually, as Christians, we ought to care about the kind of things that we're doing to creation. You made a good point before we went on the show today that in the law of God, God specifically even tells Israel in terms of the land itself, how they are tending the land and, and growing food from the land. He gives them rules about giving the land rest, right? This is a rule now from God.

Luke the Bear (35:40)

Work it. Don't over. Don't overwork it without giving it rest.

Jeff Durbin (35:42)

Give the land rest. And by the way, we're feeling the impact of that today. I mean, you can look and say, okay, God gives us standards about the land and how to actually, you know, grow food and give the land rest. I mean, he made the world. He kind of knows how it works. And this is the word. These are the words of God. And look, you don't have to listen to a Christian in terms of the data. Now, the meaningfulness of the data, I think, can only come with Christian presuppositions. But the data itself, showing you the fruit that we have today, the vegetables we have today, we are losing so much of their value, the nutritional value, because we just overwork the land, don't care for the creation itself, and we are just mass producing stuff in such a way that we're not getting the magnesium that we need in our diets anymore. And the fruit and vegetables that we have today are, are far less nutritious than they were a hundred years ago, 100 years ago. And so I. I think it does matter to actually say that this is a theological question. Now, he goes on to say, do carbon emissions warm the earth or cause more catastrophic weather events? He said. I think he meant to say it is not. It is not a theological question. It's a question of science answered through scientific investigation. Great. Okay, let's do this. I'll bite. It's. It's not a theological question. It's. It's answered through scientific investigation. Well, I think we've already adequately refuted the fact that the claim that it's not a theological question, because how do you get to any meaning or caring about humans or taking care of creation? See, here's the thing. Stephen Wolf and guys like him, when they say things like this, they're not able to shake their Christianity loose, so they're thinking through this as Christians deep down, right? Created order. God made this. Human beings matter. We should care about the future of humanity. He has Christian presuppositions that he can't shake loose. But I don't think that Stephen spent enough time standing in front of atheists in public debate or at the campus or maybe even reading their writings to understand that, yeah, it kind of matters what presuppositions you bring to this discussion. But he asked the question, or he says, you know, it's a question of science answered through scientific investigation. Again, I'll bite. How do we get to scientific investigation as meaningful at all without Christian presuppositions? If I don't have the word of God as the standard and God's wisdom at my feet when I'm answering these questions, then how do we get to science as a meaningful enterprise to engage in? Because you know it, and I've said, we've said this a thousand times. It's as old as the hills with apology or radio at this point. The great scientific institutions over the last couple hundred years, where did they get their genesis? Where'd they come from, really? Where'd they come from?

Luke the Bear (38:32)

Christian minds.

Jeff Durbin (38:32)

Christian minds. Christian scientists, Christian scholars.

Zach Conover (38:36)

Exactly.

Jeff Durbin (38:36)

Christian institutions made for the glory of God and the Gospel itself. Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, Brown University, the list goes on. Christian institutions built upon Christian presuppositions upon the word of God by Christians for the glory of Christ. The. That's what gave rise to this stuff, right? It produced the thinking, the worldview, the view of human beings in the future to be able to do these things. Right. Like, for example, someone says, it's answered by science, okay? Explain to me, apart from Christian presuppositions and the theological questions, how we can encourage people ultimately in a meaningful way to engage in science where we have things like a hypotheses and we talk about testing and we get all the way down to these conclusions. How do we get to that place if human beings are just the result of blind evolutionary forces and what's going on inside their brains right now are just the results of biochemical responses that are random? I mean, you have. Look, you don't need to listen to Jeff Durbin on this. You can listen to Dr. Will Provine, the professor of biology at Cornell. He's dead now. Definitely a creationist now. Hardcore atheist. He says, based upon an atheist perspective, a naturalistic view of origins. He says there is no life after death, no meaning, no morality. And he says, and there's no free will either. What's he mean by that? Well, he's a scientist and he's saying, based upon him rejecting the Christian worldview and adopting atheism and atheistic presuppositions. He says what? There's no free will for humans. Now, he doesn't mean, by the way, what Christians tend to mean in the discussion of free will. He means that human beings, because they are just meat, bone, protoplasm, and what's going on in their head is just biochemical responses and a universe that doesn't care about them, that they're not actually driving the body and the thought they are just the result of chemical processes, they couldn't help being otherwise. Okay, if that's the case, how do we get to a universe that is uniform, that can be tested? How do we get the principle of induction that the future will be like the past, which is at the bottom, the very thing necessary to do science. How do we get to reason and laws of logic as meaningful, universal and unchanging laws that are abstractions, but they are laws that are valid in Greenland, Iceland, China, South America, North America, Africa. They're valid everywhere and we ought to hold to them. So this whole question of scientific investigation, okay, it's not theological, it's just scientific. Okay, great. Justify, give me justification, give me warrant to be able to do science apart from the Christian worldview in a meaningful way. Now here's the thing. Do atheist do science? Did they engage in science? Yeah, every day. But guess what? They can't justify their appeal to it and their use of it because they come smack dab, like right in the face of Bertrand Russell, famous atheist philosopher. You don't have to Debate with Jeff Durbin on this doesn't matter. They're going to come smack dab with Bertrand Russell, who's going to say in his book on problems in philosophy, he'll go, all right, have him basically say, have a seat, I'm going to talk to you now. All right, let's get real with this. This is me paraphrasing Bertrand Russell, okay? This is him, like, let's get real with this, okay? We're living in a world right now where we're all about science and we're all about uniformity and all these different things and we do scientific discovery. He's like, but I got a challenge for you again. He's an atheist, not a Christian, one of their best. He's a prophet of their own. He says, I want to know because everything depends on this, Everything. I want to know how we know that the future is going to be like the past, okay? Because listen, laws of logic dependent upon induction, scientific discovery, scientific pursuits, induction, future has to be like the past. So Bertrand Russell, again, not a Christian, he says, I want to know, give me a justification now that the future is going to be like the past because everything depends on it. And then if you say to me, Bertrand Russell says, well, it always has been that way. He says, not going to cut it. You can't say, well, it always has been the case. Because that begs the very question. I didn't ask you what was the case. I asked you how I know the future is going to be like the past. Because all scientific and rational discovery, everything depends upon the future being like the past. And so Bertrand Russell would say to Wolf. Pause for a second, Mr. Wolf, because scientific investigation has certain things that is dependent upon, like induction. So, ready? I'd like to see an answer from Wolf apart from special revelation about how we know that the future will be like the past because all science depends upon it. So not. Not a theological question. It absolutely is.

Luke the Bear (43:42)

Even on the other side of the, you know, let's say we're not talking about an atheist. What about the pagan environmentalists? The ones that think that worship that, that nature is divine, they still can't shed their religious commitments. Nobody can. And I think that's the point of what we're saying, is that nobody can drop the assumptions that they are bringing to this discussion because it's all theological. Whether we're talking about the atheist who says that we should care for creation or the pagan environmentalist who says, no, we should care because it's Mother Earth and she's mad at us. And we need to satisfy her justice in order for her to have mercy upon us so that she doesn't cast us out.

Jeff Durbin (44:19)

Right. You bring up a phenomenal point though. Right? Like how have you heard these? Of course you all have. You've. At least at some point, you've seen where you have.

Luke the Bear (44:27)

They're the guys in the middle of the street blocking traffic.

Jeff Durbin (44:29)

Right?

Luke the Bear (44:29)

Right. They're the ones going into art museums, desecrating works of, throwing paint on everything.

Jeff Durbin (44:34)

Right.

Zach Conover (44:34)

Literal tree huggers.

Jeff Durbin (44:36)

And you've heard them. You've both heard them. I think everybody probably listening to this at some point. If you've been, you've engaged in social media, you've seen this kind of stuff on climate change. And the radicals who are, like you said, pagans, unbelievers, they worship the earth, they worship the creation itself. They'll even say things like, it would be right, considering what we're doing to the earth right now, that we had less human beings. Yeah. And they'll say, like, it, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I've even heard comedians joking about it, like talking about things like, you know, ending the lives of, of a large portion of humanity because we are just overpopulated now and destroying the earth.

Luke the Bear (45:16)

That's what we need to enhance the common good.

Jeff Durbin (45:18)

Common good would be to eliminate much of the human population. Right now there's. That's been said a number of times. A lot of people are radicals that say this sort of thing. So if it's not a theological question, then how do we engage with them? Right. Because they're, they're coming to different conclusions based upon quote, unquote, the data.

Luke the Bear (45:36)

More fundamentally, even down to the bottom, are people a good thing?

Jeff Durbin (45:41)

That's a theological question.

Luke the Bear (45:42)

Is more people having more people around a good thing or less? Well, how do we know?

Zach Conover (45:47)

Yeah, so I'm seeing a bunch of people in the chat that maybe are having questions, maybe take a second to just define the terms theonomy, natural law, tomism. Because I think people are like, I don't even understand what the conversation is.

Luke the Bear (46:00)

And I think too, because I don't want to misrepresent these people that hold to this perspective. I think to be absolutely fair, we have to ask and be able to respond to the questions such as, okay, but God's word doesn't expressly speak to this specific situation. So because it is not exhaustive in its knowledge, which it's not meant to be. Right. It's not meant to provide the list of steps you need to Follow in order to change the oil on your.

Jeff Durbin (46:28)

Car or to tell you how to build a hydrogen engine.

Luke the Bear (46:31)

Exactly when the baby was brought before Solomon with the two women is an example I often hear use.

Zach Conover (46:39)

Like that was in the chat.

Luke the Bear (46:41)

Oh, well, there you go. Like, how did he know that doing this process would actually draw out the true mother who would then want to sacrifice her life and lay her life down for her child? Like, you have to be able to look at the way the world works, the way that God made the world, and use wisdom is what they'll say in order to know this. And again, it's. It goes back to the. By what standard question? Wisdom, of course.

Jeff Durbin (47:05)

What is wisdom?

Luke the Bear (47:06)

I think we have to be able to steel man that a bit and address the reality of, okay, Scripture does not speak to every specific situation. So then what are we to do with the reality? Okay, we should be acquainted with the way God made the world and have knowledge enough to understand how that works and be able to apply God's truth in the principal way to this concrete situation. So how do we do that?

Jeff Durbin (47:28)

And so this is often a problem is when men like Stephen Wolf, who I think display pretty regularly to be woefully ignorant in some of these areas. And I don't. I don't mean that to make the man look like he's not intelligent. He is intelligent. He's a very sharp man, but not in these fields. When he talks about post millennialism or presuppositionalism or theonomy, I think the reason he takes so much heat from theonomists and presuppositionalists is because we're looking him with skin at him with squinty eyes going, I don't think that you've read the starter works on this, because nobody who has would make the mistakes that you are. And so I think that he's brilliant in many ways, but not in these fields. And so I think that's where we see it fall off now, just, just quickly, because I want to make sure I get to this other stuff. We're gonna do more guys in the future on this. I, I assure you, Lord willing, of course. But I want to make that promise that we're committed to it. The question of theonomy, when we talk, someone says, we're new to this. What's the issue of theonomy? Theos namas is where the word comes from. We're talking about God's law. And so a theonomist would. Would say, essentially the word of God is the standard it's the reference point, special revelation, manners matters. God's God has given to us His, his, his word about what we ought to do in in particular cases of conflict in humanity. So if it's an issue of justice, God has said, if it's an issue of what's true, we say, well, God has said. And so theonomy is essentially God's law. The theonomist says that we look to God's law as the standard of what is right, true, lovely, beautiful, just in the world. And so we say God has given standards. I read at the beginning of the broadcast today, I read Deuteronomy chapter 4. God says that these statues are righteous. That these statues were supposed to call the cause of nations around Israel, to look inside of it and say these are some righteous statutes. Look at this God so near to them. And it's supposed to be a blessing to the world. The law of God is a blessing to the world. God's law has spoken to many issues. It's spoken to issues of murder, rape, enslavement. It's spoken to issues of how you're supposed to adjudicate particular things. It's spoken to things like when you have a justice system, you're supposed to have witnesses, cross examination, you have to have numerous levels of independent witness and evidence before you can actually receive an accusation against a person. God has standards in law in terms of no partiality. You can't show partiality to the, to the, to the rich over the poor. You shall show no partiality in judgment. You can have, you can't have unequal weights and measures. You are not supposed to show pity in the, in the, in the court. And when it comes to the issue of justice, it must be eye for eye, tooth for tooth in terms of equal justice delivered. We think that that matters. And so a theonymous would say, you look to the scenario and you say, has God spoken to this? Or is there a general principle that we apply here to this situation? Has God spoken to it? Now the other question that you raised or the issue you raised, oftentimes the people who are not familiar with presuppositionalism or theonomy will also say silly things like, well, the Bible doesn't even speak to all these things to which the theonomist and pre supper goes, yeah, we know, we know we're not saying that because God's word is the reference point and the standard for certainty that the Bible tells you how to build, like I said, an hydrogen engine. However, without the word of God, special Revelation, you cannot meaningfully justify or provide. Provide warrant for the pursuit or the ability to create hydrogen engines. There are certain things that are necessary in the created order that you have to know and understand and believe to be able to meaningfully create hydrogen engines. Right. And those you don't get from atheistic presuppositions, you just don't get them in a coherent or meaningful way. And so, you know, for example, my own personal experience, like, you know, the Bible is the reference point. It's. That's the, the ground of certainty and knowledge. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. But the Bible doesn't actually tell me how to win a martial arts tournament. Yeah, it doesn't tell like my, my own field, you know, in my life. It doesn't tell me how to throw the proper jab or cross or hook punch. It doesn't tell me how to thr. Throw the Muay Thai round kick and which part of the leg to throw it on. It doesn't do that. But it does give me the grounding about the issue of self defense, justice, preservation of life and actually understanding, well, God created the body. It's not just a random result of evolutionary processes. This is how the body was designed. And here's how we could turn the body in on itself. And so I have a whole worldview that can make sense of the pursuit of even say, martial science. How do I fight? And so we could do more on that. But the issue. Go ahead.

Luke the Bear (52:13)

Maybe just to. I know that one of the questions was defined Thomism. Yes. And in contrast to the view that you stated, which is our view is that Scripture is the starting point. God's revelation. And Thomism, there's a starting point of man's reason.

Jeff Durbin (52:28)

Yeah.

Luke the Bear (52:29)

Rather than God's revelation. And Scripture is seen as something that, you know, shall we say, applies for unbelievers in eternal matters. But in regards to things that govern this life, the earthly realm, we have man's reason for that.

Jeff Durbin (52:44)

We should do a whole episode on Thomism and Thomas Aquinas because it's a lot. But it's at least easy enough just defining a term. It's just easy enough to say that Thomas Aquinas is revered and loved in Roman Catholicism. He's one of their giants. And he. And in terms of the issue of like, reason and epistemology and apologetics, many have appealed to Thomas Aquinas, even the Reformed. Many Reformed have loved Aquinas. And some of his reasoning in Some areas, I personally think that the man. There's people that have said things that are true, like him, much better. I think Thomas is. Is. I'm not trying to be nasty to the man. I just think that, like, when you really try to get into Thomas, it's. It's very difficult, very dry at points. And also there are people who have just done a much better job of trying to express the same things that he did. There's a lot in Thomas that is true, but also a lot that. Is it completely contradictory to Reformation theology? That's the key issue here, that it does boggle my mind at times that people who have Reformed commitments because of what the Bible says would fall so in love with Thomas Aquinas and. And promote his stuff because it's like, don't you notice as you're reading Thomas that so much of what he says is in conflict with what we actually believe is Reformed theologians or Reformed Christians. And so Thomas was big on natural law, human reason, which, of course, as presuppositionalists, we are not opposed to those things whatsoever. We're saying that they're limited in their abilities because of sin, and. And they're. They're tools.

Luke the Bear (54:23)

They don't operate independently.

Jeff Durbin (54:24)

Exactly. That. You can't. You have to have a grounding and justification for these things, a meaningful justification to these things that can make sense of this whole thing. Holistically, we're saying human reason, rationality, laws of logic are absolutely, undeniably necessary. But why? How can you answer that question apart from a Christian worldview?

Zach Conover (54:45)

Right.

Jeff Durbin (54:46)

How can you. How can you do that? So what we're saying is it's an epistemological question. Where I think Thomas falls off is epistemologically, where's the grounding for truth and knowledge?

Luke the Bear (54:56)

I think you're getting some of that theology coming through with a tweet like what we were interacting with, where it says that this is not a theological issue because it's dealing with something in the temporal earthly realm rather than the heavenly matter, which is for Scripture, special revelation and the Church. So that would be the issue, I think, ultimately that we would have with Thomism is that it seems to drive that artificial wedge between heavenly and earthly. Right? So that the dualism aspect that we would reject due to our belief that all of Christ for all of life, right? God's word applies everywhere. And that's. I think, if you guys can jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, but when you hear a statement like that or you read a Statement. This is not a theological issue.

Jeff Durbin (55:42)

Yeah.

Luke the Bear (55:43)

Like, effectively, what we're saying is the Bible doesn't apply here.

Jeff Durbin (55:47)

Sure. And that's why we. That's why I.

Luke the Bear (55:49)

Right or wrong? I mean.

Jeff Durbin (55:50)

Right. Well, that's why I titled the broadcast today. Do we even need the Bible? Because what you'll tend to see happen in. In this area of thinking with guys like Wolf and others like him is they will actually create distinctions and spheres that I do not believe are biblical or coherent. So people will say things like, well, that's a secular versus sacred divide. I think that that is. Is according to a Christian worldview, total nonsense. Secular versus sacred. The Bible makes it very clear that Christ has authority over all things, that Christ is the very foundation of knowledge. In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Luke the Bear (56:32)

All things hold together.

Jeff Durbin (56:33)

All things hold together in him.

Zach Conover (56:34)

Came to reconcile all things.

Jeff Durbin (56:35)

Yeah. The fear of the Lord is the very good. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. The fool says in his heart there is no God. And so there's an indictment in Scripture, even upon the thinking of the person who rejects God. Your thinking is sinful. Your thinking is not just wrong, it is sinful.

Luke the Bear (56:52)

That's why there's a call to take every thought captive, every thought.

Jeff Durbin (56:56)

And so what we would say is like these. These distinctions and categories that are placed in by Wolf. And others will say, well, that this is not something that the Bible has really anything to say about or anything meaningful to do with. This can be all essentially secular or apart from Christ and just use human reason and everything else. We would say that's impossible and incoherent. Yeah, because actually God is the sovereign over all things in this world. And even the question, and this is important, even the question, we get to things like government. I mean, it's like we leap past in this conversation. They go, well, let's just get into politics and say, like, we just. We can engage that without Jesus. I'm gonna say, well, wait, wait, wait, wait. Who said we need a government? Who's. Who said. Who said that government is something that is necessary? And someone says, well, we've just discovered, like, in order to have human flourishing and to deal with issues of, like, justice that are necessary in society, we have to have a government. I go, okay, now give me that without Jesus, Give me human flourishing. Give me justice and the need for justice and preservation of life apart from the Christian worldview. Try to justify it apart from Jesus, and it'll start to sound like scripture is right when it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, because you can't really know something or have true wisdom apart from reverence, submission, and awe before God. And it makes actually a lot of sense when people try to justify these things apart from Christ, to look at Paul and go, no, Paul was right when he said, in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Because, yeah, you can't actually make any sense of creating a. A political form of. A form of government over a people. You can't make much sense of that in terms of. With certainty and. And it being coherent at all apart from Jesus. Because, like, if you have two. Look, let me just say it this way and I'll leave it to you guys because I have to actually use the bathroom, okay? And it's my birthday, so don't make fun of me. Guys. It's my birthday. Be nice.

Zach Conover (58:55)

He's old. It's got. Well, you've always had a small butter.

Jeff Durbin (58:58)

Yeah, I always have. And you too, though.

Zach Conover (58:59)

It's.

Jeff Durbin (59:00)

I love our driving. When we're driving, like, you and I are like, we'll stop every 15 minutes and we don't get mad at each other.

Zach Conover (59:05)

I got like, fix my prostate issues. I'm doing a lot better.

Jeff Durbin (59:07)

Okay?

Luke the Bear (59:08)

Tmi.

Jeff Durbin (59:11)

Just so you all know.

Zach Conover (59:12)

Just so you all know, we have nothing to hide here.

Jeff Durbin (59:14)

Nope. Nope. Okay, so let's get back to it.

Luke the Bear (59:17)

Again, back to the discussion at hand.

Jeff Durbin (59:19)

Christian nation, atheist nation, okay? Both because they're in the image of God, both create governments. Now, do you think that a Christian nation that uses the word of God to develop their political processes and their standards of justice, do you think that it will look different than an atheistic nation? Ready? Hold on. You gotta be very careful with this, all right? Because we don't have this right now. An atheistic nation that was not influenced by Christianity. All right? So we got to give this as a real. A real contrast.

Luke the Bear (59:54)

Not a result of 2000 years of evangelization.

Jeff Durbin (59:58)

Not a. Richard Dawkins, president of the Atheist Nation. Because Richard Dawkins is like, I'm a cultural Christian. Like, Christianity is like, I love Christmas and the message of Jesus and all these things. It's all been good for the world. Dawkins essentially said that. So you got to take this question out of, like, I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. These guys are inheriting Christianity and the goodness of Christianity. I mean, a real atheist nation with atheist presuppositions, atheist view of Humanity and all that stuff. Would their governments look different? Would their laws look different?

Zach Conover (60:35)

Yeah.

Jeff Durbin (60:35)

Yes, they'd have to, by necessity, philosophically, theologically, they would look different. And watch this. The Christian nation can justify going, saying things like this. You know, men are not angels, they're sinful, they tend towards evil. And so we need to have, like, branches of government that keep one another in check to stop people because of sin from becoming tyrannical. And we need to have a justice system that exists to interpret laws, to say, is that just? Is that consistent? You know, like John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice, when he was actually creating the case law system for this nation, he was quoting copiously from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus. Isn't that interesting? But it's not a theological question. It's all political question. John Jay wouldn't agree. But we had a system of governing America where you go checks and balances. You can't have one person as a tyrant in full control. We've seen that before. Humans are sinful. We need to use just standards. The word of God, all human beings are equal, created by God. Listen, they can answer the questions of government, chambers of government, checks and balances, because they have a fundamentally Christian worldview and theological presuppositions. The atheist government will look very different and it cannot justify what it's doing. And by the way, I think you can identify that quite easily in terms of, like, all this stuff is theological in nature because, well, who do you want to pick? Last hundred years? Stalin? How many people did he kill? That's. That's an atheist regime. Right. He did what he did. And do you think what he did was political? Yeah. Do you think it was also theological? Yeah. Did it engage in the arena of morality? Yeah. Do Christians have something to say about that? Yes. It all matters and it's all theological.

Luke the Bear (62:32)

If I may, if I may, I want to challenge that and then provide a response within the context of what we're saying here. Because I think the retort to something like what Jeff is saying is, now, now, now, now, hang on a second. Most nations that have arisen over time all agree that things like murdering people is wrong. They all have this kind of common understanding of morality that we're not supposed to kill each other. Right. We don't need God's revelation for that, because all of us understand inherently that we shouldn't be doing this. And if we do do that to someone else, then our gut reaction is to say, okay, you kill me, I'm gonna kill you back. Therefore, because of that. Not sure that's how that works, but natural inclination. That's why we all have a desire and, you know, a desire to formulate human government in order to protect life. Right? We all get that. That's common knowledge and we don't need special revelation for that. So again, I'm just thinking in terms of like, what would the response be to these things and trying to steal me on those who have these beliefs. My response to that challenge would just be to simply say, okay, I think you're right in a sense. I think everybody has that desire, that instinct, that natural response within us to want to get someone back right when they kill. But the question is, I think without God's revelation, without special revelation, how do we know, as far as a question of government, who God authorizes to do that to take life, and what sanctions or punishments should be instituted in order to preserve human life? So again, we're back to the question of God's word, right?

Zach Conover (64:31)

So like, just having an objective standard.

Luke the Bear (64:33)

The example I gave was, you know, we all know, most nations know, you know, if you kill me, my desire is to kill you back. That's why we need human government. We don't need God's word for that, because we know that through experience and common understanding. To which my reply would be, well, how do we know who's authorized to issue those punishments and what sanctions should they be? How far is too far?

Jeff Durbin (64:56)

Why not mob justice?

Luke the Bear (64:57)

What's the limiting principle? And should it be carried out by a mob? Should it just be personal retaliation? Oh, it should actually be someone that is fit for that office. Where do we get that idea that there needs to be an office bearing sword bearer who is commissioned by God to mete out these punishments? Again, the question of God's word comes in again. It's unavoidable.

Jeff Durbin (65:20)

Completely. Okay, more. I'm going to play a clip. I know I'm going far. I'm going to read through this real fast just to make some observations and butchers the point we're already making about Wolf and what he claims. And okay, here it is. Another. This is another. I can't get over saying tweet. What do you call it?

Zach Conover (65:37)

I call it tweet Post.

Jeff Durbin (65:38)

This is an exit.

Luke the Bear (65:39)

Post X post.

Jeff Durbin (65:40)

Okay, just say tweet. All right. Seriously, Never gonna be able to get past it. Right. Okay, so what you want? Well, thank you. Wolf says worldview is a reactionary word. Evangelicals found themselves. Oops, sorry. Evangelicals found themselves embattled with innumerable, well, Accepted ideas and complex fields requiring specialization that seemed to oppose conservative of Christianity. The average person lacks the expertise in these fields to challenge them on their own terms and by their own methodology. Yet they need to be challenged because modern life strongly imposes them on everybody. Worldview was introduced to neutralize those these ideas for the average person not by analyzing data, refuting propositions, showing invalidity, criticizing methodology, knowing the actual facts on the ground, etc, but by blaming them on presuppositions. And worldview explained social phenomena with exclusively Christian explanations. These explanations are typically simplistic and don't explain much. Again, I, I do not get the impression at all that Wolf has read Goodness. Pick, pick your one Bonson frame. Schaefer has he simplistic? I mean we call Schaeffer simplistic. Have you read Schaeffer Bonson in terms of like the complexities here? And by the way, anybody who, who has engaged in presuppositional apologetics and talks about the worldview stuff, anybody in the most basic level, like bottom shelf starter work, say Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bonson or Always Ready by Greg Monson, understands that actually Bonson argues that we are supposed to argue on their grounds using their methodologies. We are supposed to because the principle from Proverbs says don't answer the fool according to their folly, lest you be like unto them. And then it says to answer the fool according to their folly, lest they be wise in their own conceit. You're supposed to reason in both a commitment to Christ and God's authority, his word as the starting point. But also you're supposed to argue on their own ground and show that you show them their own inconsistencies using their own methodology. So somebody looks at this from, from Wolf and goes, have you not read Always Ready? It's been around for a while. Have you read Christian Apologetics by Greg Bonson or Presuppositional Apologetics by Greg Bonson? Have you not read those things? Have you not listened to a single lecture from Bonson on these worldview issues and methodology and all of that? Then he goes on to say these explanations are typically simplistic and don't explain much further. In effect, no evangelical season need to know anything about these fields, really. Is that how we got Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Brown University? These universities given to the world by Christians based upon Christian presuppositions and a Christian worldview? How they saw all of life? Is that how we got those institutions? I just don't think that he's Thinking through this, he said they only need to know a universal method of worldview analysis. It is a general skill for everything, no specialization required. In one sense, yes. Yes. In terms of what Bonson would say. What Bonson would say is, he would say, and he, if you've listened to Bonson, you know that he would answer this the same way. He'd say if you use the word of God and have Christ honored as Lord, as Yahweh in your hearts, always being ready to give an apologia to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that's within you, he would say, if you have the word of God as the ground of knowledge and certainty and this is where your commitments are, then yes. Christian apologetics can be done by Sophie.

Luke the Bear (69:24)

The washwoman, butcher, baker, candlestick maker, and.

Jeff Durbin (69:27)

The highest level of philosophical debate and discussion in academia.

Luke the Bear (69:31)

And in that sense it is a reformational defense of the faith. Yeah, because if the Reformation was in part about the recovery of the priesthood of all believers and the dissemination of the Word of God to all classes of people, then all classes of people obey 1st Peter 3:15 and they can defend the faith knowing how to analyze the assumptions of their opponent and apply the Christian worldview to unbelief in a systematic fashion.

Jeff Durbin (70:03)

So he says. This is why I think some evangelicals convert out of Protestantism. They find that there are conservative professors who actually know the field of study well, are often Roman Catholics or maybe Anglicans. And they find among them an intellectual ecosystem that favors inquiry and critical thought without importing these worldview lenses to explain things away. I don't know, I, I, I had to try to be maybe gracious to Wolf here. I think that he's not, I don't know, maybe he wants to be saying he's going after guys like us that think we think about presuppositionalism and things like that. But I think he's more generally engaging with wishy washy conservative evangelism of today. That really isn't thinking like we're thinking. It's just they're not caring about thinking big thoughts of an overarching perspective of life. They're not caring about thinking about these deep things of life, deep philosophical issues. They're sort of numb to those things and not trying to ask the big questions or engage in the apologetic issues. I just, I just don't get the feeling at all that Wolf has picked up a book from Frame or Bonson or Van Til. I just, I do not get it, don't believe it, or listening to men like Kuyper.

Luke the Bear (71:13)

That's what I was just thinking. Like, I'm willing to entertain that the word worldview, okay, Even if that's conceded that it's a reactionary term. And evangelicals needed to recover how to think Christianly about every area of life because they had imbibed that public, private, secular, sacred split. And so therefore they. Okay, how do I need to think like a Christian in this field? Like, if that's what you mean, then sure. But to dismiss the usage of the term altogether, like, I think it's a valuable term. I don't see any reason to discard it.

Jeff Durbin (71:50)

Well, and we'll end on this because we do have to finish the show today. It's been a long one. He says we would become much smarter if we dropped worldview entirely. You know, this word worldview, this concept of worldview is not something that, you know, Christians invented in the 1980s. The word itself has a pretty long history and pedigree and understanding. It's used outside of Christian context in the area of philosophy. Listen, when people talk about the issue of worldview, they are. They are talking about things in terms of metaphysics, ontology, the doctrine of being, what. What is the nature of reality? Those sorts of things. They're also asking questions about epistemology. How do I know that's a worldview question? How do you know that? And they're asking questions regarding ethics. And so the. The word worldview just has to do with how does somebody view this? Human beings, human experience, ethics, justice, the world around me, origins, what's real? I mean, are we even really here right now? Are we a brain in a vat or, you know, sort of questions like, those are worldview questions. And what's the nature of a human being? Do human beings matter? It's. So those are worldview questions. And I think it's silly to even suggest that we drop it. Like. Like Christians shouldn't actually have commitments to the way that God sees human beings, or the way that God sees ethical obligations, or the way that God sees justice, or the way that God says something is good or not good. Like, Christians just should drop that. We shouldn't have. We shouldn't carry those presuppositions and beliefs into our engagement with the world. I think it matters. I think it matters a great deal. I think it matters a lot. I think it matters in terms of, you know, let's just do it in a fun way here. He says. He says these explanations are typically simplistic and don't explain Much further in effect, no evangelical season need to know anything about these fields. They only need to know a universal method of worldview analysis, a general skill for everything. No specialization is required. He says worldview was introduced to neutralize these ideas for the average person, not by analyzing data, refuting propositions, showing invalidity, criticizing methodology, methodology, knowing the actual facts on the ground, etc, but by blaming them on presuppositions. And worldview explained social phenomena with exclusively Christian explanations. Okay, why can't in. In all these fields, right? You've got a Christian in a field and then, you know, non Christian in a field. Why can't we settle a dispute over methodology and data and those things by one person pulling out a gun and shooting the other person, like to. To win the discussion. Why can't we. Why can't we beat a person? You know, put it more precise in terms of historical, historical way of looking at this. Why isn't might for right the way to go here in how we analyze data, have debates, criticize methodology? Why not use might for right? Why not do that? Do you think that's a theological question and it comes with Christian presuppositions necessary to engage that question? Like why don't we just beat our opponents into submission? Right. I mean, I think all of that matters when we're having these conversations. Now, quickly, how long have we been going here?

Zach Conover (75:25)

We're well over an hour here.

Jeff Durbin (75:26)

Okay. Okay, let's do. Can I do one last thing? It's a few minutes or should we hold this off the next.

Zach Conover (75:33)

Yeah, I was gonna say. That's funny. I'm. Okay, I was just gonna say because I know a lot of this conversation we've had comes from this longer video, which we're going to play a clip of.

Jeff Durbin (75:43)

Yeah.

Zach Conover (75:43)

So some of the stuff that he said in there is what we're responding to, which I think people are confused about. But. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, no, sorry. I was gonna say that.

Jeff Durbin (75:52)

Sorry, go ahead.

Zach Conover (75:53)

I was reading some of the comments because conversations that matter jumped in the chat here. I mean, yeah, Worldview literally is. It's, you know, it is what. It is what. It is what the word says. It's how we view the world. Right. It's this lens that we view the world through everything. And I think it, I think it brings us back to the concern that Zach brought up earlier is it seems as if our concern is that it appears that Wolf is a viewing different parts of the world through different lenses. And so when you say we should reject, when he says we should reject that term altogether. It's like. It's like, is that so that you can view things in the world not through a biblical lens? And I think that's the concern, the underlying concern we have.

Jeff Durbin (76:35)

So, yeah. All right, so we're trying to do this part as quickly as possible. Again, guys, we want to do more on this because we think it's actually good for the church and it's a good discussion to have. It's important. This is from wolf's video, Theonomy vs. Natural Law. It's about 35 minutes in. We'll just try to do a few minutes of this just to start an engagement on this, and you'll. Hopefully, you're going to see that all this stuff intersects. Right? It all connects together. So the question of how we know something to be true, what's the grounding for knowledge? How do we justify something? How do we provide warrant for something, a belief, a methodology? You'll see it starts to intersect this question of, like, natural law versus, like, revelational epistemology, the question of presuppositional apologetics versus, like, like evidentialism or a classical approach, or talking about things like Thomism. They all start to intersect. The question of theonomy, the law of God, how do we actually know in political issues what's the standard? And then even eschatology starts to get weaved into here as well. It all starts to intersect. I think. I think Wolf has noticed that himself, and that's why he's going for these different areas, because I think he notices that there's all intersection between those things. But here we go. This is Wolf. Quick conversation.

Stephen Wolf (77:53)

How long is he in office? How do you remove him? If he's bad, what do you do? It just the problems go on and on and on. If you don't. If you escape from politics entirely, you can't deal with reality, you can't deal with the way things are in the world.

Jeff Durbin (78:11)

So I know we're kind of just jumping into the conversation there, but he basically is accusing Theonomous as escaping politics and not engaging with politics in a meaningful or coherent way. He creates a dichotomy in terms of his view versus theonomist, which displays that he hasn't spent a lot of time actually engaging in this field. And I would strongly. I do not mean this in any way to insult the man. I want to uphold his dignity, respect him and honor him as a brother in Christ. I think he's a very intelligent man, but. But I do want to encourage him to read Some books and listen to some lectures on these subjects before you produce videos like this where you. You leave a record of public ignorance about your opponents. And. And I think anytime I would do that, I would want to repent of that and say, I don't want to do that anymore. But some of the questions that you ask here, every theonymous watching this same reaction goes, I don't think he understands the theonomy or that he's actually engaged with a theonomist in a meaningful way. I did hear he recently sat down with Doug Wilson, which I'm glad to hear. But this, this video, I'm not sure when it was done was a couple months ago.

Zach Conover (79:22)

Oh, this is back in like October, maybe.

Jeff Durbin (79:26)

Yeah, it's been. It's been a while. It's been a while. Five months maybe or so, at least. When he did this video, I don't think he'd actually read much on the issue of theon.

Zach Conover (79:35)

Well, I was gonna say, I mean, just in regards to that last statement he just made, like how. I mean, I'm about to get on. As soon as we end this, I'm getting on the phone with the politician. How much time have you spent in the last month talking to politicians? A lot. So to say that we're disengaging from politics.

Jeff Durbin (79:54)

I don't mean this as an insult to the brother Stephen brother. I don't mean this as an insult, but I would be willing to bet everything that I own that between Luke and I and our team, we've spent more time behind closed doors and at dinner with politicians around this nation than you probably ever will. And. And that's just something that God's given to us by his grace. It's just where he has us. And so when you say things like theonomous disengaging from politics and those things, we just look at each other all squinty eyed going, what is he talking about?

Zach Conover (80:29)

Hold on. This politician's calling me.

Jeff Durbin (80:31)

Yeah, real, real fast. I just spent. What day is today? Two days ago. Two days ago I was in the Kentucky legislature talking to legislators who are legislating morality and dealing with politics. As a Christian minister of the gospel on Monday, I'm going to be in front of the capitol. Tuesday, Lord willing, I'll be testifying to the legislature in the state of Georgia. So this whole question of, like, theonomy and separating from politics, it's just meaningless to us.

Stephen Wolf (80:58)

You can't have international relations. And also it means you can't even have treaties because a treaty itself A treaty itself functions as law for you. It's not just the law between nations, it functions as a law for the nation itself. That is why in our U.S. constitution, the President can negotiate treaties. He can agree to treaties himself, but only becomes an established treaty after the Senate approves it. And there's a good reason for that, because it functions in a way as a law.

Jeff Durbin (81:35)

Yeah, it functions as a commitment and promise. Now how do you get a meaningful appeal to treaties as obligations, as moral obligations, as in you made a promise as a government and as a nation to do A or B, that was the promise you made. How do you get to that as a moral obligation apart from the revelation of God where God says you shall not lie, that you have to be like God who cannot lie, that's God's character. And so see my point here. This question of theonomy is like God's law is the standard, it's the place of certainty, it's the reference point. And so when Stephen's bringing these questions about treaties, international things, how does the theonomist answer that? The answers it by going by appealing to God's lawward that God said you should not lie. And so if you make a commitment, you make a treaty, you make a covenant within the nation, you ought to keep that promise. Now how does an atheist regime make the same appeal? They're all just matter in motion, right? They form this collection as random results of evolutionary processes. Yeah, they made a commitment, but I mean, you know, there's no good, no evil, only blind and pitiless indifference. And so do you see the point? Theonomy matters here in this question of treaties and obligations and covenants. It's a matter of being like God. God says you make a promise, you keep your promise. So in a theonomic nation, the nation would say, nope, we made a promise, we're going to be like God. God cannot lie, we keep our promises. How do you do that in a non theonomic nation without those presuppositions? Do it in a meaningful way, in a coherent way. Do it with an atheist nation apart from Christian influence and you just can't get it. So does theonomy matter in the question of international relations and covenants and treaties? Yeah. Why? Because the character of God and you shall not lie.

Luke the Bear (83:29)

That was going to be my question was how do you derive that truth from creation when it comes to a treaty, that people should have integrity, keep their word, honor the terms of that commitment. Still, according to that system, you're presupposing these Things to be the case.

Jeff Durbin (83:45)

Yeah, sometimes the way we ought to function sometimes. Unfortunately, you have politicians and legislators who wear dresses with beards and who say off with their heads. Now they have the same general revelation and are part of the same natural law as all of us, but they don't care about the moral obligation to keep promises or preserve innocent human life. How do you deal with that? Apart from thus saith the lord, you can't. Not in a meaningful way, not in a justifiable way, not in a grounding of knowledge kind of way.

Stephen Wolf (84:14)

So you limit. This is one of the ways. Like people criticize Obama and others for trying to enact environmental regulations through treaty. So, so anyway, that's the different thing. But yeah. So you can't even, you can't even make treaties or if you can make treaties. Well, no, because let's say you, you have a. Your treaty is an alliance and it's a, a defense alliance. So you know, we get a defense alliance with say, say Canada. And defense alliance means that if you, if Canada, if Canada is attacked, then it functions as if they're attacking us. Okay, they're not attacking us, but the effect is they're attacking all of us. You attack one, you attack all. Can, can theonomists go into a treaty like that? Because you're establishing a U. S. Law. Law that says that if Canada is attacked, the U. S. Then will is bound by treaty slash law to act as if they were the ones attacked.

Jeff Durbin (85:19)

Yep. A theonomist would have justification to, to answer those questions and provide a moral grounding for why they would engage in a covenant or a treaty like that and keep a promise. But it would also, because we have the law of God and his principles in his revelation. It would also provide boundaries and borders around such a covenant or treaty because it would say things like you would ask questions as a theonomic government. You would say, is it in the best interest of the people that God has called us to protect, to punish evil and protect the righteous right to have the sword of justice? Is it in the best interest of the people of our nation to engage in a covenant or treaty with a nation at our border where if they're attacked, we are going to make sure we come to their defense? Will we make a promise that we are obligated to God to keep that will actually be for the benefit of the people under our care and protection? The theonomist can say, yes, we can ask those questions, and yes, those are meaningful questions, but it provides a boundary for a government like Ours, where we would say things like, it is not in your duty or in your sphere to make a commitment to take American taxpayer dollars by coercion, which is immoral, which is much of our taxation system, which that's another thing to address. To take American taxpayer dollars and to say, we've decided to make a covenant in a treaty to treat the attack of Joseph in that nation that is on the other side of the globe. If you attack him, you're attacking us. It is right for the American people, based upon principles in God's word, to say, how is it moral for you to take our money? To promise to protect a guy that has nothing to do with us and has no consequence to us, to take our children's fortune and to say that we will engage in a fight with another nation that maybe has nothing to do with us, there's no consequence to us, that's immoral. It would be according to the law of God and God's principles. It is outside your sphere of duties as a government of this nation. And it is also immoral for you to take funds from our nation to promise protection and defense to a person in a fight that has nothing to do with us. Because actually, guess what, Stephen, I know you know this. You're an intelligent man. It was the Christian church that developed something called. And you know this, just war theory. Where's that come from? It comes from Christian minds using Christian presuppositions. You don't get just war theory from atheism. Christians develop just war theory through reading the word of God and looking at principles in the word of God and talking about engaging in warfare in a just way that honors God. Just war theory did not come from atheism. That's a Christian conversation. And praise God, it's blessed the world in many ways. Just war theory is a Christian conception based upon God's word. So, yes, the theonomist can say this provides boundaries. Creating treaties about promising to fight creates boundaries. Because a Christian theonomist can say, God has spoken in his word about how we're to engage in these kind of things. And it would not be just to go to war in a fight where it is nothing to do with us, no consequence. And so, yeah, theonomy has an answer for that, Stephen.

Stephen Wolf (88:56)

But they weren't attacked. So can theonomists have basic treaties, collective defense treaties? I just don't know how. I frankly don't. It makes me think like that A lot of theonomists, they haven't studied, They've studied the Bible I'm not doubting that they love the Bible, but have they considered the full array of politics?

Jeff Durbin (89:29)

I'm going to say this is with as much respect as I can to the man, because I do respect him. He is a very, very intelligent man. Stephen, it is so clear when you ask something like that. It is so clear that you have not spent time reading theonomists or engaging with them. Because everybody who heard you say that, who has read Rush Dooney or North or Bonson, would say, stephen, don't you know that we've been having this conversation and there are entire tomes written about these things. Like, for example, I do not think at all that Stephen Wolf has maybe spent any time looking at Calcedon's website and gone through the thousands of pages written by RushDooney on these specific details. I would actually say this to everyone watching right now. If you're like, I don't really know what's going on here in regard to that last claim, I would just say this. When this show is over, go to Chalcedon's website. I think it's chalcedon.org I believe so. So go there and just.

Zach Conover (90:31)

You should spell that for you.

Jeff Durbin (90:32)

C H A, L C E D, O, N. Did I just say it right? Hold on. Go to Caledon's website and just peruse. Just look around at some of the books there written by Rush Dooney, who was here long before Stephen Wolf was, and just look at some of the detailed books written specifically in different categories of political thought, Socialism, the Law of God, questions in vivid detail. Some of the stuff from Rush Duni is overwhelming. The detail of exegesis and application to modern, difficult political things. Anybody that he says, I don't know how they don't. I think they read the Bible. I just don't think that they actually engage with like, the political realm like this. I'd say famous saying, read Rush Dooney, Stephen, read Rush. Juni, pick up some of Gary North's work and, and take a look at that. And, and. And then get back with. I don. Theonomists have engaged in the political thing. Most the honest. When they hear you saying something like, Stephen, just, just honestly don't have any respect for what you have to say in this realm because it's just clear to us that you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't spent any time in this field, but you're spending a lot of time pontificating, believing or acting like you do. And that's. I think that's the challenging thing and listening to you talk about this is that it's clear that you haven't done the work. And so, so let me go back to it. Here we go.

Stephen Wolf (91:58)

Have they considered the full. The comprehensive nature of politics, not only the various domestic issues, which is enough, I think, to defeat the idea, but the international issues? I don't know how, frankly, I don't know how. I don't know how you do it. I don't know how. I don't know how. I would love to hear, like you.

Jeff Durbin (92:19)

Would, if you had read Theonomous, Stephen, before you did this video, you, you would. Again, I mean this with all due respect. This, this is embarrassingly bad to engage in a field that you clearly have not spent time in and you don't know and to spend time talking about it like this because all of them using. And the talking right now is only displaying that you haven't read Theonomy and Christian Ethics, you haven't read any of Rushduni, you haven't engaged with historically how Christians have applied theonomy to politics and government. And look, go to Blackstone, Reed, Rutherford, Lex, Rex. I mean the Covenanters. The Covenanters applying God's law to all of life, the principles of God's law, British Common law, like, none of that had anything to do with God's law. I mean, seriously, none of that had anything to do with God's law. So when John Jay is creating the case law system for our nation, he's quoting copiously as he's doing it. He's quoting copiously from the law of God, giving quotes from the Old Testament scripture. Like, theonomists just don't ask these questions. They just don't understand this. They're not thinking through these things. I'm sorry, Stephen, I really think that, I mean, and I don't mean this in an insulting way, I genuinely mean this as a gift from us. Just say the word and we will send you a bunch of books from a bunch of different authors that answer these questions in many ways. And we'll do it as a gift to you out of love for you and respect for you as a brother. We'll send you a number of works to say these are the things that you should have engaged with and gotten to before you did your video and ask questions that no one would ask who has read anything like this.

Zach Conover (94:05)

You can even get a free bons on you account and listen to it.

Jeff Durbin (94:08)

It. Yes, and, and I don't mean that in an insulting way. I genuinely want People to hear that from me. I do not mean that to insult a man. I mean that genuinely. Every theonomist that has been listening to that and listening to what I'm saying right now agrees. I'm sure that, yeah, it would do. It would do you very well, Stephen, to read some standard works and even some specialized works, and particularly in different areas of political theory and philosophy written by theonomists.

Stephen Wolf (94:33)

A theonomist give an account of international relations in a phenomic state. Now, what I suspect people could do then, in response, and I think someone like James White would do this, is that they would. They would do a form of a Jesus juke. But let's put putting that aside, what they would do is say, okay, yeah, fine, Wolf. Yeah, those all sound like problems.

Jeff Durbin (95:02)

But.

Stephen Wolf (95:03)

But what we're talking about is the post millennial hope. We're talking about the post millennial hope. As the nations Christianize, everything becomes better in a way. Human nature becomes better because everyone's Christian and we're all being sanctified. And so all those problems, Wolf, that you're identifying, they'll just go away. There won't be problems anymore. You won't need defense alliances anyway.

Jeff Durbin (95:33)

That was bad. Nope, nope, no, James would not say that at all. That's just. That is what's classically known as a straw man. No. And Stephen, again, the only way that you would come to that kind of a conclusion is if you haven't actually spent the time reading theonomists, engaging with theonomy, meaningfully reading some of the standard work. No, a theonymist would not say no. All those political questions and things about treaties and law and justice and fishing rights and things you bring up in this video, you know, all those just go away because of post millennialism. No, actually, no. But it is true that as Christ puts all of his enemies under his feet first, Corinthians 15, before he defeats death, that when you have a world that is Christian that honors Christ as Lord and loves his law, which is what happens to Christians, change of heart, God writes his law within us. All that stuff from the New Covenant, when you have that happening, it blesses the world because it actually has the law of God begin to be established round about them. I'll give you some examples from scripture. I hope this would be meaningful for you, Stephen. When you have examples in scripture like Isaiah, chapter two, about what's going to happen with the coming Messiah, the nations are going to be drawn up to God's mountain and it says that the law The Torah goes forth from Zion, so the law goes forth from the people of God as a result of what Messiah does in the world. And when God draws nations up to his mountain, and so you see there that the Torah is a constituent element, God's instruction, God's law. And that's the word. The Torah is a constituent element of what God is going to do in the world through Messiah. The law of God is going to bless the world. The law of God, Isaiah chapter 42. And we'll end the show on this today. Isaiah chapter 42 talks about God's servant who's going to come into the world. It says that he will not go faint or weary until he's established justice in the earth. And it says this, the coastlands wait for his Torah. Isaiah 42. A constituent element of what God is going to do to bless the world through Messiah and his kingdom is that the Messiah himself is going to establish justice in the earth. And it says that the coastlands are waiting for his Torah, his law. So we would say that as the world becomes Christian, as evangelized as. As even as people are evangelized around the world and they. Their eyes are open, their hearts are changed, they're filled. The Spirit of God, they love the law of God. And a constituent element of blessing to the world through Messiah's kingdom is he establishes justice in the earth. And it says the coastlands wait for his law. The law goes forth from Zion, from the people of God. So the law itself is a part of Messiah's kingdom kingdom as he saves the world and puts all of his enemies under his feet. The law, the Torah itself is something that's going to bless the world. How do you argue with that? I don't think you can. In a coherent Christian way, in a meaningful, exegetical way. I don't think you can. So that's the start of the conversation. I know there's much more to be said and we will be saying more and, and we'll. We'll end today's show telling everyone, thank you for your support, for your love for us. Encourage you again to go to Apologia Studios and ApologieStudios.com Sign up for all access. When you do, you guys become a part of this ministry with us. Don't forget the app is coming soon. And thank you to everybody who has done the super chats today. I gotta go through. I can't greeting brothers. Can you please explain the postmill timeline? I would encourage you just. I would encourage you to read first. Corinthians 15 First Corinthians 15 Christ is reigning now all of his enemies are placed under his feet as a footstool for his feet. And then death is defeated after enemy is placed under every enemy is under his feet feet. Also if you would just type in Jeff Durbin and post Millennialism in the search bar, tons of stuff would come up. Would love a two hour conversation between Durbin and Wolf, ideally in public because the Internet is impersonal, but a live stream will do. Thanks. This dude rocks. So just a quick thing on that. I would be very open to a conversation, a meaningful conversation on with Wolf on some of these subjects. I'm not opposed to it in any way. I will I guess this be a good time to go ahead and address something. Just briefly. I was scheduled to go to a conference. It was the Right Response Ministries conference. I think it's called Trash World. That's the name of the conference, right? Trash World. I was scheduled to go there. A number of people that I love are on, are on the ticket for that. And when I heard that Wolf was going to be in attendance as well. I believe that Wolf himself is destructive in many ways to Christian thought. What he believes about some of these issues are destructive to Christian thought, the mission of the church. And, and so I think that that was weird to have him come in in that sense. And I also, I did have a problem with how Wolf was extremely abusive in his interaction with not only my fellow elder, James White, but others. He's just said some, some very nasty things and I thought very foolish and unwise behavior. Anytime, by the way I've ever engaged in that, I want to be repentant and ask for forgiveness for that. So please don't think I'm standing above Wolf. I'm not. But given he was being rather abusive to my fellow elder, I didn't feel comfortable sharing a stage with them. And so I very quietly tried to bow out. I sent a private message to Joel Webbin, someone that I considered a friend, and I sent a private letter just telling how much him, how much I respected him, how much I loved him, how much I valued him, and that I had the reason to bow to the conference as the main reason. There were other issues as well I was concerned with, but the main reason was that I was bowing out because of essentially how Wolf was treating other believers. And I didn't want to share a stage with him in that context. I tried to do it privately. I try to do it without controversy. I hate schism. I hate disunity. I want to fight against that with all of my might. Sometimes there is separation necessary, but I always want to avoid being a schismatic and. And I want to avoid disunity. So I tried very, very intentionally to bow out of the conference quietly without controversy. Unfortunately, I sent the letter to Joel to bow out quietly. I did not publicize it. I did not talk about it publicly at all. And I actually think this is probably the first time I have. Is this the first time I talk about. I think this is the first time I've spoken of it publicly. I tried to do without disunity or creating any conflict. And unfortunately, somebody decided to do a podcast episode and read the letter that I privately sent to Joel and made it into a controversy. So unfortunately, it became a controversy. Not because I tried to make it one. I didn't even speak on it publicly. I just wanted to bow out privately and no controversy. But unfortunately, I think it was 80. It was, yeah. AD is the one who did a show and read the letter publicly. And that's where the controversy came from. I didn't want that to take place. But anyways, there was no debate scheduled between Wolf and I at all. Nothing like that. I just bowed out because I didn't want to share a stage with the man in that context. And that's why I did it. I tried to do it privately, but it unfortunately was not allowed to be private. Would I have a conversation with Wolf? Yeah, I'd be open to it right now. It would be impossible. So I'd like to say, yeah, any other time, let's do it two weeks from now and. And we'll set the whole thing up, do it publicly and everything else. Right now I'm traveling around the country trying to stop the murder of children. We are overwhelmed right now. Overwhelmed right now with states across the country. And my obligation, first and foremost is to my family. I've got new twins. One has. One is very medically fragile and has special needs, cerebral palsy. And so I have to focus on my family and ending abortion and of course, the church that I'm a pastor over, which is also a full time job, more than full time job. And so if it's possible somehow to do something in the future, I'd be very open to it, for sure. Thanks for the happy birthday blessing, Jordan. All right, final words here, man. This is going on forever. So listen, it's my birthday. My family's waiting for me at home. So if you would just be merciful to me. No after show for today, okay? Please forgive me. I would have loved to have done one. Want to encourage everyone to go to ion layer.com I n ion layer.com you've heard me say this before. It's what this patch is right here. Take a look on Google, type in NAD benefits and just do all the research, clinical trials and studies and all the rest. Nad, you have an abundance when you're young. It's nicknamed the, the fountain of youth. You lose a ton of it as you get older. NAD treatments are done many times through IV and they're very expensive. And it's also extremely painful. Not just because the sticking in your arm, but the NAD treatment through IV is actually very painful. It's difficult to work through. Ionlayer.com got a way to get 500? Is it milligrams? I get that, right?

Zach Conover (104:42)

I believe so.

Jeff Durbin (104:42)

Of NAD freshly made together into your system over 14 hours. You make it as you, you literally make it. You, you put, you mix it up fresh. So there's no. It doesn't degrade as it often does when you get iv. That stuff's been sitting there for a while. There's, there's some degradation that happens, but you make it fresh. And so you get a high dose of NAD treatment through a medical patch. It goes into your system over like 14 hours. No pain. So if you want to get into no pain. No pain. No pain.

Luke the Bear (105:14)

Stallion, come on.

Jeff Durbin (105:14)

Come on, stallion. No pain. So if you want to get into focusing on your health and longevity, go to ionlayer.com you guys can type in apologia and all caps in the coupon code. You're going to get a discount. And they're going to support the ministry and work of apology at church. They also have glutathione patches now, which is awesome. Look up health benefits at glutathione. That's the master antioxidant. So if you're concerned with health, wellness and longevity, you can do what I'm doing. I'm doing it whether I'm talking about it with you or not. I was doing it before that. And so ionlayer.com get started with it. I think it'll bless your life.

Zach Conover (105:50)

Of course, you can also go to amtechblades.com get one of these sweet battle axes or an amazing blade from Bill Rapier, former Navy SEAL dev group operator. Great brother. You can go to put apology in the coupon code again@amtechblades.com get 5% off your order and he will match 5% to help us and our political efforts to end Abortion in our nation. And then, of course, we had Bradley Pierce on last week. Love him. He manages. There's one of the founders of Heritage Defense. If you are homeschooling your children, Please go to heritagedefense.org Sign up today, put apologetic coupon code, get your first month free. And then I mentioned I've been mentioning our new partnership with page 50. I actually talked to. It's funny, I don't know if I. You saw Gunter this week? I don't know if you talk, if he told you this, but Brian Gunter called me on his way to see you in Kentucky. And I was like, hey, we're doing stuff with Stuart from page 50. He's like, oh, I love Stuart. I help him get the women's center started where he's at, which is really cool. And Brian said every time we mention his name, he gets like, visitors at his church.

Jeff Durbin (106:58)

Yeah, really?

Zach Conover (106:58)

It's First Baptist Livingston, right?

Jeff Durbin (107:00)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Zach Conover (107:01)

So I mentioned Brian Gunther's name again. So, Brian, you're probably gonna get a visitor this week, so.

Jeff Durbin (107:05)

But I love that man.

Zach Conover (107:07)

Page 50 is a full service marketing and media production company that wants to help Christians recapture the economic and civil spheres. Operating for the last 10 years, page 50 has helped numerous businesses build their books and brands, and they want to help you build yours. Websites, SEO, video production, brand building, and a lot more. You go to page50.com check them out, then you'll be at Reform Con. You can come meet Stuart as well. He's a good dude. And then lastly, go to shop.apacheStudios.com and buy some swag, some coffee, some tracks.

Jeff Durbin (107:36)

Get some track.

Zach Conover (107:37)

Get some track.

Jeff Durbin (107:38)

Come get some track. All right, everybody, I gotta go home. It's my birthday. I turned 38.

Zach Conover (107:45)

38.

Jeff Durbin (107:48)

Just kidding.

Luke the Bear (107:48)

No comment.

Jeff Durbin (107:49)

I'm in better shape today than I than I was through my 30s and early 40s because of ministry. I'm actually working out and training and doing, getting my nad on my nad patches.

Luke the Bear (107:59)

Nutrients all day.

Jeff Durbin (108:00)

Nutrients all day, baby. I'm doing better now than everybody before. That's Luke the Bear. I'm Jeff the Coleman and ninja. That's Zach Conover. Hey, everyone, come to Georgia and meet us there. 11am at the Capitol next week for that bill. We'll see you next week.