547. Debating Doug Wilson

Summary

Apologia Radio Ep. 547: "Debating Doug Wilson"

Host: Jeff Durbin (with Bradley Pierce & Luke McElroy)
Date: October 30, 2025
Main Theme: A review of Jeff Durbin and Bradley Pierce's recent debate with Douglas Wilson and Toby Sumpter on "smash mouth incrementalism" vs. abolitionism in anti-abortion legislative strategy—examining the biblical, theological, and practical ramifications.

---

Episode Overview

This episode provides an in-depth analysis and internal critique of the debate between abolitionism/immediatism and Doug Wilson’s "smash mouth incrementalism" approach to abolishing abortion. Jeff Durbin, Bradley Pierce, and Luke McElroy break down what happened during the debate in Moscow, Idaho, reflect on their arguments, and scrutinize the biblical consistency of incremental legislation in moral issues such as abortion.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Debate Dynamics

• Jeff Durbin reflects on the unusual difficulty of debating close friends and theological allies like Doug Wilson and Toby Sumpter, leading to slightly blurred formal debate boundaries due to their camaraderie.

  “We're so close...we kept slipping into just like regular conversation. That was really challenging...” (09:24)

• Praise for Doug Wilson’s debate prowess and kind character, highlighting his famous encounters with Christopher Hitchens and Dan Barker.

  “Doug annihilated Christopher...he was not arrogant, was not mean spirited towards him and just really loved him.” (09:47)

2. Defining the Theological Conflict: Smash Mouth Incrementalism vs. Abolitionism

• Abolitionist Position: Christians must advocate only for God’s standard of justice in legislation—no compromise or promotion of "unjust" laws (e.g., heartbeat bills, 12-week bans) even if these make incremental progress against abortion.

  “You can't put forward legislation that God hates...Smash mouth incrementalism says...we can compromise.” (13:14)

• Smash Mouth Incrementalism: Coined by Doug Wilson, this approach contends that even if incremental laws are partially unjust, they’re permissible (and to be celebrated) if they reduce abortions en route to full abolition.

  “Smash mouth means...we’re not going to stop there, we’re going to keep going towards abolition. Along the way we can compromise…” (14:10)

3. Biblical and Philosophical Principles at Stake

• The abolitionists argue from principle, emphasizing God’s command: “Justice, and only justice, shall you do.” (Deut. 16:20, referenced at 21:45)

• Presuppositional apologetics: Durbin points out that compromise in lawmaking is akin to abandoning Christian distinctives in apologetics—“no neutrality, no concessions, no compromise...” (27:08)

  "You cannot convince people to love God's standards of justice by approving of and celebrating injustice." (21:45)

• Critique of pro-life bills:

  • Highlighted as showing partiality ("allowing the murder of certain babies without heartbeats or who can’t feel pain"), acquitting the guilty (exempting women from penalty), and thereby institutionalizing injustice.

• Pragmatism vs. Principle: The hosts reject the pragmatic argument ("stop the bleeding with partial measures"), comparing it to running fouled plays in a game:

  “What would we say about a coach that told his team to run plays that are against the very rules of the game?” (31:08)

4. Incrementalism: Righteous Vs. Compromised

• Jeff and Bradley note that Doug Wilson once advocated for “righteous incrementalism”—winning in pieces without “slow surrenders” (Doug’s 2005 article).

  “If I am engaged in worshiping false gods, a righteous incrementalism does not mean tapering off from six idolatrous events a year down to two... Incrementalism means keeping ourselves from idols entirely.” (41:38)

• The critique: Doug’s "smash mouth incrementalism" is seen as a “slow surrender” (allowing some injustice while moving toward justice), opposed to his past advocacy for no-compromise incremental progress.
• Language sensibilities: Hosts highlight the sometimes overblown abolitionist aversion to the term “incrementalism,” clarifying that "righteous increments" (pieces consistent with God’s justice) are not the same as unjust compromise.

5. Addressing Doug & Toby's Defenses

• Partial but Praised Kings (Asa, others): Doug and Toby argue that Scripture praises kings who didn’t accomplish all desired reforms (e.g., didn’t remove the high places), yet who were still labeled “good.” Durbin and Pierce respond:

  “That’s not an example of a king actually building new high places... [Smash mouth incrementalism] is saying you can build new high places to get to no high places.” (56:47)

• Laws on Divorce, Slavery, Polygamy, Blood Avenger: Doug/Toby offer these as biblical precedents for God allowing or regulating injustice due to human hard-heartedness.

  • Durbin rebuts: In all cases, God’s biblical legislation mitigates injustice within fallen systems, protecting victims rather than establishing new injustice.

    “In none of those instances does God actually give a bill or a decree of injustice... He is making sure that justice is given in those instances, no injustice.” (70:29-73:59)

6. Faithfulness Versus Winning: The Prophetic Call

• Jeff presses Doug on his own well-known exhortations to courage over mere caution:

  “Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.” (47:47 & 65:07)

• Doug distinguishes courage from recklessness but concedes:

  “If God wants you to do it, then that’s what you do...if God wants you to go up against insurmountable odds, that's what you do.” (69:04)

• The hosts frame uncompromising abolitionism as the true exercise of faith—charging “hell with a bucket of water,” in Doug’s own words—trusting God even when total success seems unlikely.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Jeff Durbin (on principle over pragmatism):

  “You cannot get people to adopt particular elements of the Christian worldview by abandoning the Christian worldview along the way.” (21:45)

• Bradley Pierce (calling out the contradiction):

  “We can compromise on these clear issues of justice all the way there. We can support clearly agreed upon injustice and even praise it. Put bluntly, do evil so that good may eventually come.” (31:08)

• Doug Wilson (admitting the logic breaks down):

  "If you refuse to do what was within your power to do, then I think that's just rebellion against God. So consequently, if I'm a governor and an abolition bill makes it through...it would be wickedness for me to refuse to sign it." (61:44)

• Luke McElroy (addressing Doug & Toby’s real-world inaction):

  “When you have an opportunity, something tangible...and you didn’t support it, that’s where we get frustrated.” (68:37)

---

Important Timestamps and Topics

| Timestamp | Segment / Topic | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 05:52 | Explanation of the debate topic (smash mouth incrementalism vs. abolitionism) | | 13:14 | Foundational argument: Only advocate for God’s justice; abolitionist thesis articulated | | 21:45 | “Justice and only justice shall you do”—discussion of whether partial laws are biblically permissible | | 27:07 | Presuppositional apologetics analogy—do not abandon Christian ground for progress | | 31:08 | “Run all the plays”—debunking the playbook analogy; principle over expediency | | 39:16 | Defining increments: “Are they righteous increments?”; abolishing confusion over terminology | | 41:38 | Quoting Doug’s 2005 defense of “righteous incrementalism” vs. “slow surrenders” | | 50:17 | Cross-examination: Are abortion bills without full justice actually justice? | | 56:45 | Critique of “good kings who fail”—difference between omission vs. enacting unjust laws | | 70:29 | Addressing biblical examples: divorce, slavery, polygamy, and city of refuge; God’s law always seeks justice | | 65:07 | Doug’s famous quote on faithfulness and courage vs. cautiousness | | 68:37 | Real-world application: Frustration with inaction by smash mouth incrementalists in the face of actual bills |

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• The debate exposes a crucial fault line among theonomists/postmillennialists: is it legitimate (biblically, morally, strategically) to advocate for and praise partial or compromised pro-life legislation, or must Christian political engagement always be uncompromisingly principled?
• Jeff Durbin and team argue that any legal concession to injustice constitutes a betrayal of both God’s law and the fundamentals of presuppositional apologetics.
• Doug Wilson and Toby Sumpter’s position is critiqued as inconsistent with both their past writings and with their own high standards of Christian courage.
• The hosts call for principled persistence and prophetic clarity—advancing righteous laws, even if victory seems unlikely, trusting God with the outcomes.
• The episode’s tone is charitable yet direct, maintaining respect for Doug and Toby while sharply disagreeing with their tactical approach.

---

For Listeners:
If you want to better understand the theological divisions within the Christian pro-life movement, the logic and biblical arguments for abolitionism, and hear substantive, respectful critique of influential Christian leaders like Doug Wilson, this is a must-listen. The episode dives deep—providing clear, real-world application, internal critique, and lots of candor.

---

Key Quote for Reflection

“Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.”
- Douglas Wilson (47:47 & 65:07), invoked by Jeff Durbin in critique of ‘smash mouth’ incremental compromise.

---

[End of Summary]

Transcript

[Josiah Stowe]

For most people, their finances aren't one big problem. It's a hundred small ones. A retirement account from a job five years ago. A budget that lives in your head but never on paper. Life insurance that you meant to look into. A will half finished or not even started. And the longer you leave those loose ends untied, the harder it becomes to move forward with peace of mind. At Dominion wealth, we walk with you step by step to help you tie it all together. We meet you where you are. We listen. We get your financial picture out of your head and into practice. Then we build a strategy to meet your needs. Now, prepare for your future and bless the next generation. We don't pressure you. We give biblical, honest guidance. Let the strategy follow your values and help find the right solutions. If your financial path feels uncertain, let's get together one on one and get you on the right track. Book a free consultation today. We are here to help you get your finances in order so you can feel confident about the future. From baptism to burial, Dominion's got you covered. You can find us at Reform Money.

[Jeff Durbin]

Non Rockabotus must stop. I don't want to rock the boat. I want to sink it. Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite? Delusional. Yeah, delusional is okay. In your worldview, I'm an animal. You don't chastise chickens for being delusional. You don't chastise pigs for being you. Calling me delusional using your worldview is perfectly okay.

[Bradley Pierce]

It doesn't really hurt.

[Jeff Durbin]

She hung up on me. What? What?

[Douglas Wilson]

Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.

[Luke McElroy]

Go into all the world and make disciples.

[Douglas Wilson]

Not go into the world to make.

[Luke McElroy]

Buddies, not to make corrosives. Don't go into the world and make ponies. Discip.

[Jeff Durbin]

I got a bit of a jiggle neck. That's a joke, Master.

[Bradley Pierce]

When we have the real message of.

[Jeff Durbin]

Truth, we cannot let somebody say they're.

[Bradley Pierce]

Speaking truth when they're not.

[Jeff Durbin]

Take an amazing journey to a place that will blow your mind and move.

[Bradley Pierce]

Your heart so you will never be the same again.

[Jeff Durbin]

Oh, how I love your law.

[Bradley Pierce]

It is my meditation all the day. Your commandment makes me wiser than my.

[Jeff Durbin]

Enemies, for it is ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers. For your testimonies or my meditation. I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts. I hold back my feet from every evil way in order to keep your word. I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me how sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth. Through your precepts I get understanding. Therefore I hate every false way that Psalm 11997 through 104 what's up everybody? Welcome back to the gospel heard around the world. This is Apologia Radio. You can get more at apologiastudios.com that's a P O L O G I a apologiastudios.com go there, get all the past episodes of Apologia Radio provoked Cheologians, cultists, all there for your listening pleasure. Don't forget to also sign up for all access. When you do, you become a partner with us in all this ministry that is happening here at Apologia. So many millions upon millions upon millions of people globally have been impacted through the teaching ministry, the evangelism and outreach and debates happening here in Apologia Studios. Grateful to God for all the people coming to Christ out of atheism, secularism, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the Watchtower. It is truly, truly a humbling thing to see. And also grateful to God for all of you who are part of all accessible, even all the stuff we put out here, the content for end abortion. Now people are seeing that hearts are being changed, minds are being changed, babies are being saved. Tens of thousands of babies have been saved. So thank you for your partnership with us. Don't forget to sign for all Access when you do get all the additional content. And most importantly, you're part of this ministry with us. The app. I know we've been saying for a long time that the app is coming. I know, I know. And we, I guess we had some snags, some technical snags and we. It's coming. It's coming very, very soon, I assure you, very soon. And so I'm just thankful for all of you guys who've been a part this ministry with us since the very beginning. And don't forget, also don't forget if you haven't done this yet, you've got to got to do it. You're. You're seriously missing out if you haven't done it. You heard me saying it a million times and you just haven't done it yet. You got to do it. You got to sign up for Bonson. You. It is free at apologiastudios.com Dr. Greg Bonson, one of my heroes, greatest heroes of Christian history, I think the greatest Christian philosopher and Christian apologist, a mind in the history of the Christian church there is there no one. I think just the gift is like a, like One guy in 2000 years has that kind of mind. Anyway, we have as a gift from the Bonson family through us to you his entire teaching ministry, whether it's seminar seminars, seminary lectures, his teaching at church, all that stuff. So if you want to learn top tier theological education, get it from Dr. Greg Bonson at Bondsenu for free. And as always, wanted to say thank you to everybody who has all access because even though Bonsign U is free, it's not really free. Every time you guys are watching or listening to something from Bonson, you we're actually paying for it. And Apologia Studios, all access partners, you're actually making that possible as well. And so you make all of it possible. So thank you to everyone. I'm Jeff the com ninja. That's Luke the Bear.

[Luke McElroy]

What up?

[Bradley Pierce]

Got a good show for you guys today.

[Jeff Durbin]

Excited about today's show. If you haven't seen it yet, after the show today, go check it out. Got to go to Moscow, Idaho and spend some time with my friend and brother, Bradley Pierce. And of course our team here, Isaac and Carmen, and then all the team from Abolish Abortion Texas. They were there and foundation to Abolish Abortion. Just, just a great time of fellowship. And, and, and at the same time got to do a debate with my very good friends, men that I admire so much, Toby Sumter, Pastor Toby Sumter and Pastor Douglas Wilson in Moscow, Idaho. It was last week and the whole thing is up available for you guys to watch here on Apologia Studio. So after the show today, go check that out. And so what we were debating was smash mouth incrementalism. That is, and that's terminology that Pastor Doug coined. Smash mouth incrementalism versus abolitionism or immediateism. That was the debate. And so we're going to review just a few parts of it. It. I think the debate's like over two hours. I maybe.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah, that's close to that.

[Jeff Durbin]

So I think. Let's look here. Let's see. It is, yeah, about 2 hours and 15 minutes on the clock here. So we're not going to be able to go through everything. I'd love to do that, but I'll leave it to you to go check it out. I thought it was such a great opportunity to have a discussion with men that I admire, truly admire and love. And here was. I'll just go ahead and announce Ahead of time. I've done a number of public debates against atheism mostly, and secularism, and hopefully get a chance to see those as well. My. My favorite one was the one that we fairly recently did at the University of Utah on ethics. Can you have ethics apart from God with two basically atheists? And so I've done those and. And Dr. White's, I think, at 200 now or no, going over 200.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah.

[Jeff Durbin]

Public, moderated debates. And so, you know, here's the thing. I know the rules of debate and try very vigorously and rigorously to follow the rules. The challenge with this debate, I will tell you, the first challenge is that I'm so close to Doug and Toby and respect and admire them so much. And we're friends. I mean, we've. I mean, we've eaten together more times than I can remember. I've been in their houses with my family. We've shared fellowship and meals together. We worshiped together. We've been across the country, different states, defending the gospel, preaching the gospel together. And so I will say up front, this was very challenging for me because of that and not that. I mean, it was hard to say things to them. What I mean was it was hard to not slip into just sort of a regular conversation. And so, like in cross examination, I think this went both ways. In cross examination, the rule is the person doing the cross examination is supposed to only ask questions, and the person who's hearing the question can only answer and not ask questions. But because we're so close, we kept slipping into just like regular conversation. And that was really challenging to sit next to them and just be sitting down at a table and. And just slip into just talking to each other. And so I will say that that was the hardest part of this debate, was just that point. It was just. It'd be like if Luke and I did a formal moderated debate on. On, you know, something, I don't know, basketball or football or something, I don't know, what would we debate?

[Luke McElroy]

I would win.

[Jeff Durbin]

What would we debate about? But if it was like, best donut.

[Luke McElroy]

If it was like karate, you would smash me.

[Jeff Durbin]

But, like, if we started, if we were doing a public debate, it would be really hard. Like, Luke and I would just, in the cross section, start slipping into having a conversation with each other. And so I guess I didn't really anticipate that.

[Bradley Pierce]

And.

[Jeff Durbin]

And I know the rules of debate, but I completely blew it. And I confess that. And we sort of slipped into regular conversation the next thing. And it just needs to be acknowledged up front is that Douglas Wilson is actually one of my very favorite debaters, Christian debaters.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah.

[Jeff Durbin]

The man is fun. The man is a formidable opponent and so quick on his feet and so good at what he does. And I'll just point you to this, to this. If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch like the full length debates where Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens went on a debate tour together. And there is a film, if you haven't seen it, it is on YouTube. It's collision with Douglas Wilson, Christopher Hitchens. And it was the first time and I've watched, I think probably virtually every debate Christopher Hitchens has had with a Christian. And I will say this, it's true. Christopher Hitchens was so eloquent, so good, so quick, so sharp that I'd say that many of the Christians that he debated, he, he probably won 75 of the debates, like smashed them just because he was such a great debater. But he absolutely annihilated or Doug annihilated Christopher. Now I think that's why Christopher Hitchens really liked Douglas so much, is that Douglas was so loving to him, not arrogant, kind to him and just took him to the woodshed and, and I think that's probably why Christopher Hitchens really liked him, was that he found a man that was on par with him intellectually and, and was not arrogant, was not mean spirited towards him and just really loved him. So if you haven't seen it, go watch Collision. That debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson has made him do a documentary film. Also some great debates. If you haven't heard him yet with Doug is Douglas Wilson versus Dan Barker. Oh man, those are so much fun because Dan Barker is arrogant. He is such an arrogant man. He's so, so arrogant. And, and you know, he, he, you know, when he debates Christians it's, it's tough to pin him down and I mean he loses a lot of debates but it's tough to pin him down. Douglas Wilson's debate with Dan Barker felt like it was an adult playing with like a 10 year old, a 10 year old scoffer. And, and so they're just so much fun to listen to. So if you get a chance, listen to Doug debate Christopher Hitchens and Dan Barker. Doug is actually one of my favorite people to listen to who do debates. He is an amazing opponent and so, so that's another factor here. So I truly enjoyed my time with them. I have to just say, and I want to make sure it's so clear, I love Those men so, so much. And we are, we are so unified on so many things. For example, even some kind of weird things in evangelicalism, like Doug and Toby are post millennial. So are we. Doug and Toby are presuppositional. So are we. Doug and Toby are theonomists. So are we. And we're kind of a rare breed. Are those things growing? Absolutely growing. But you know, we're oddballs. And so we agree on so much of the gospels, so much, so many of the essential issues, but also on some particular areas of theology that are just foreign to some people. And we're on exactly the same page. So now we get to sit and have this debate about smash mouth incrementalism versus immediateism. And let me just do this to set the whole thing up today. I'm just going to play through my opening statement just to try to explain some foundational things because I do want to interact with a few of them.

[Bradley Pierce]

Really.

[Jeff Durbin]

The main arguments of, of Doug and Toby for smash mouth incrementalism. And if you don't know what that means and you're just getting into this right now, we would say that we have to be faithful and consistent. When we go to the legislature, we have to press the crown rights of Christ his authority. And we have to also bring to the legislature God's standards or rules of justice. So whatever God's statutes are revealed in scripture, that's what we bring to the legislature, because that is true justice. And so that also comes with our post millennialism, by the way, because in post millennialism you believe that Christ is reigning and ruling now. And Isaiah 42 says that the Messiah is going to establish justice on the earth and he will not grow faint or weary till he's done so. And the coastlands are waiting for his Torah, for his law. And so we believe that is happening right now. So if we're going to be a part of that servant of the Lord establishing justice in the earth, we need to make sure that it actually has justice. So that's our position. And so whatever category you're working in, whatever it is, is it the fatherless, is it widows, is it taxation, is it the court system? Whatever it is, whatever category you're working in, you have to be faithful, consistent, and bring to them God's word. You can't put forward legislation that God hates. That's as simple. As simple as that. Smash mouth incrementalism says the goal is ultimately abolition. But on the way to abolition, we can compromise. We can actually praise and do things that God expressly says are unjust in an effort to get our way to abolition. And so what does that look like in the area of abortion? We can promote and praise heartbeat bills. We can promote and praise 12 week bans. We can promote and praise other different legislative moves that, that Doug and Toby would agree. These are unrighteous. This is unjust. However smash mouth means, we're not going to stop there. We're going to keep going, we're going to keep going towards abolition. Along the way we can compromise and do things that are expressly called injustice in scripture. That's Doug and Toby's smash mouth incrementalism. And, and I, I would say they heard me say this. It is, is very much pragmatism over against principle and pragmatic because hey, if we can save some with this 10 week ban, then we ought to be doing that. And so there you go. But I'm going to go ahead and play the opening statement just to sort of lay the groundwork for everybody here, interact with it a little bit and then get into the Q and A or sorry, not the Q and A, the cross examination between us and Doug and Toby. So let's see here. This is wrong video. Okay, let me pull it over here. Yes, there it is. Okay, here is the opening statement. Thank you.

[Bradley Pierce]

Good to see you. All right, let's get started. I want to express my deepest gratitude for the opportunity to have this vitally important debate with my very good friends. Toby is one of my very favorite pastors. That's the truth. And Doug is truly one of my most admired Christians of the last couple hundred years. I've been shaped by Doug's teachings over decades.

[Jeff Durbin]

God has used his messages to sanctify.

[Bradley Pierce]

Me and my wife. Doug has counseled me as a pastor. He's always made himself available to me during times difficulty and crisis in pastoral ministry. Often into the late hours of the night, I fellowshiped with these brothers, shared more meals than I can remember, been in their homes with my family and shared platforms in different states fighting for the truth of the gospel. I say all this because I'm probably going to say some things that are hard tonight and at some point, and I don't want to give this wonderful audience the impression that we aren't essentially unified as brothers. And Doug, given the fact that I've been molded by you and your teachings, please try and remember tonight that it's.

[Jeff Durbin]

Your fault that I'm this way.

[Bradley Pierce]

Which is to say that I believe our position this evening is actually the logical and biblical Conclusion of all the years of Doug and Toby's faithful teaching on the law of God, God's standards of justice, and the need to confront the world with courage and faith as the people of God, without compromise. That's what they're known for. Now we are actually starting this debate on some really good ground. Doug and Toby are theonomists, as are we. There's no debate between us as to the abiding validity of the law of God. We all affirm that God's revelation, his standards of justice in both the Old and New Testaments are the current rule and standard that we are morally obligated to apply today. So there's no squishy evangelicals arguing with each other tonight about whether or not God cares about his own word being the standard for, for the sphere of civil rulers. And that's what our debate is about. Here's the Civil magistrates should reject regulatory pro life legislative strategies as biblically forbidden, morally compromised, and practically counterproductive.

[Jeff Durbin]

So quickly, that was the debate thesis and the only one thing I would say, and I wasn't really involved in a lot of the process of, I mean, some of it of doing this. And I, and I just, I think I just missed it. The word should, there should be ought. That was what. That really is what we should have. And someone might say, like what what is? What's the difference? Well, odd is a moral responsibility. There's the difference between you should do something and you ought to do something. Odd is a moral responsibility. So that's what we're arguing. What is the, what is the ought, the moral responsibility responsibility of a civil ruler. What ought they to do before God? What's their obligation before God because of his prescriptive will? And what he said in Scripture about what his law is. And that is an important distinction to make. It's. It's not what we think. Should you, you know, it's, it's not, you know, based upon your. My opinion, you know, I think, and I think this is workable. It's a question of ought, moral obligation. And the only way you can really get to those oughts is from, is if you have a certain word from God. And that really is the issue. And what is the obligation of the legislature? That's what we're arguing. So when we're telling the legislature what to do, we should be bringing to them the words of God. These are the words of God. These are his standards. And so it's important to say that Romans 13.

[Bradley Pierce]

God says that governing authorities have been instituted by God. And they are God's own servants, not the servant of some other God, God's servant. They're to be obedient to him and his word. He's not to bear the sword of justice in vain. Note that key point. In vain. He is to be an avenger who carries out God's wrath upon the evildoer and criminal. Which is to say, the duty of the people of God and ministers of the Gospel is to call the governing authorities to be obedient to the true God that they have been instituted to serve. We are to be prophetic to them, bringing them the actual words of God, his standards, and even calling them to repentance when they are sinning against the God they have been ordained to serve. They bear the sword of justice. We are obligated to make sure they are doing it in a way that is obedient and pleasing to God. Doug and Toby agree with us on this point. So where's the debate? Here's where it gets muddy. Doug and Toby believe that abortion is murder. Doug and Toby believe that unequal weights and measures are an abomination. Proverbs 20:23. Doug and Toby agree that acquitting the guilty is an abomination. Proverbs 17:15. Doug and Toby agree that we are to show no partiality and judgment. Deuteronomy 1:17 Doug and Toby agree that we are to, quote, pursue justice and justice alone, so that you will live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you. Deuteronomy 16:20 and yet smash mouth incrementalism teaches that civil magistrates can morally put forward and codify into law bills that explicitly do show partiality, allowing the murder of certain babies without heartbeats or that can't feel pain. That we can pass bills that exempt a woman from any punishment for murdering her child, the abomination of acquitting the guilty, literally allowing women to sacrifice their children with impunity and immunity. Doug and Toby will agree that these pro life bills are riddled with injustice and that God detests and hates the injustices written in them. However, smash mouth incrementalism teaches that we can in fact do evil so that good may come. God forbids these injustices in our private lives and in the courts, but we can support these bills and encourage legislators to codify these injustices into law.

[Jeff Durbin]

Now, it's important to note here that this is not a misrepresentation of Toby and Doug. And I know some of it sounds just crazy because Doug and Toby are such solid ministers and such Solid and consistent men. And so that's a very important point. I hope you caught it. And it was not really addressed in the debate. Justice and only justice shall you do. Justice and only justice shall you do. It was not addressed. That's a key point. That's in the opening statement. And so you're supposed to do your best to make sure you're interacting in a debate with your opponent's opening statements, right? Not bringing things that are unrelated or off topic or outside of the scope of the debate. Elsewhere, you're trying to interact with the opponent's opening statement. And there really wasn't a lot of that from Doug and Toby directly. So, for example, the explicit command is justice and only justice shall you do. Okay? But then they argue with smash mouth incrementalism. And that's, that's what I was trying to do here, by the way, in terms of a debate strategy, is I was trying to demonstrate that Doug and Toby's teachings, their ministry, is in opposition to the system that they are promoting. So I wanted to put Doug and Toby and their commitments as ministers of the gospel and theonomists and presuppositionalists and post millennialists against their smash mouth incrementalism system. And so justice and only justice shall you do. And then you press the smash mouth incremental system, incrementalist system, and you say, well, justice and only justice shall you do. But you're saying injustice can you do, you can do. Injustice you can do. And how does that work with that explicit command from God? You want to live long in the land. You want to experience the blessing of God on your culture and your people. Well, justice and only justice shall you do. And so our contention is this very simply. You cannot convince people to love God's standards of justice by approving of and celebrating injustice. Right? You cannot get people to adopt particular elements of the Christian worldview by abandoning the Christian worldview along the way. I hope you hear that right. So we want to get to the goal of justice and having everyone love God's standards of justice. Okay? So in order to get there, do we promote that justice or do we actually concede and start compromising and promoting injustice? You see what I'm saying? See the complicated nature of it? Smash mouth incrementalism doesn't ultimately work. It thinks in terms of pragmatism, but it's actually not workable. Pragmatism is what works. Does it work to say that I want to get to this standard of justice. So in order to get there I will actually do injustice along the way to get somebody to the place where they want that. Or like I want to convince people of the Christian worldview and particular elements of the Christian worldview would say, like what makes somebody human and valuable and have dignity? Well, do I get them to accept those parts of the Christian worldview by abandoning the Christian worldview to get there? And what I mean by abandoning the Christian worldview is not the dug and Toby or becoming heretics and abandoning the Christian worldview or abandon the gospel. I mean, if you do not believe, this is important. If you do not believe that what makes a person imago DEI or image of God is a working heartbeat or a nervous system, that it can feel painful, if you do not believe that that's what makes you imago DEI and human, then you shouldn't promote those things. You should stick to what scripture teaches about the imago DEI and about what makes a person human. And the fact that human humanity begins in the womb at the moment of fertilization. And then what makes you human is that you are in the imago DEI and you are in fact human from fertilization. That's. Watch this. From fertilization means before heartbeat, before a working nervous system, before you can feel pain, all of that before you have all your digits before your eyes form, before everything. So we are arguing from a Christian perspective and nugget Toby, believe this, they believe this, that you are a mago dei, you are planned by God, formed by God in the womb of your mother from the moment of fertilization. And that all those different degrees of development that happen for a human being, whether it's in the womb or outside the womb, we all go through degrees all the way through becoming elderly. There's different degrees of humanity. You change and you, you form differently and all that all the way there. We don't argue as Christians at any point. Okay, now you're fully human because you're 19 years old. Or no, wait, what is it now when you, when your brain actually is fully formed and done towards 25. 25. 25 was 25. That's when it's like, there you go. It's, it's secure and it's, you've, you've, you've gone through all the phases and now we have it working and, and settled and 25 years old. We don't argue that way. What do we say as Christians? No imago de. God uniquely creates you, forms you in the womb of your mother, and it is at fertilization and it is before any of those components. Here's the point. How do I get people to adopt the Christian worldview? Do I abandon the Christian worldview to do it? No. Right.

[Bradley Pierce]

And, and watch.

[Jeff Durbin]

This is what I meant by presuppositionalism. Presuppositional apologetics teaches that you don't concede. You don't actually go where the unbeliever is going to. You don't pretend neutrality. You don't abandon Christian commitments to get the person to accept Christian commitments. Now, I know that Doug and Toby teach that. They're presuppositionalists. They do believe that. And it is fundamental in presuppositionalism. It's like in the first 10 lessons you're going to teach no neutrality. You do not give way and give up Christian ground to get the unbeliever to get on Christian ground. Right. Take no prisoners, no neutrality, no concessions, no compromises. Your allegiance is to Christ and your philosophy and apologetics. Right. And so you do not. What, what, what's the, what's the old thing that Bonson used to say? If you get on the unbeliever's train, it doesn't matter if while that train is running that direction that you start running on the train the opposite direction. If you get on the unbelievers train, you are going to his destination. That's presuppositional apologetic methodology. And so what I'm. What I was making the point that I'm making to Doug and Toby and I hope they do get a chance to hear this and they know that I love them and they can interact with this in their shows too. Doug's probably already preparing something. But that's the challenge I'm saying to you, Doug and Toby, is that point is we know what we teach as presuppositional apologists. And what I'm saying is that you're abandoning that methodology with smash mouth incrementalism. Luke, you want to say something?

[Luke McElroy]

We actually need to go to our first sponsor and then. Good, say something.

[Jeff Durbin]

All right, so on the way back, Pastor Luke will say something. Quick commercial break. Come right back. Play some more of the opening. They get into the cross examination, so be right back. This episode's brought to you by ion [e-mail] Go and check out the health benefits, the wellness benefits and longevity benefits of NAD treatments. NAD is nicknamed the Fountain of Youth for a reason. You have an abundance of this in your system when you're young. As you get older, it drops off. And now we found a way to get NAD into our systems. They do it through IV treatments but they're very expensive and it's also extremely painful and difficult. However, Ion Layer found a way to get a high dose of NAD into your system through a medical patch you.

[Bradley Pierce]

Wear on your arm.

[Jeff Durbin]

You wear it for about 14 hours, you get a high dose of NAD treatment into your system and no pain at all. And it is a fraction of the cost of what you would pay through for an IV treatment. In the coupon code, type in Apologia in all caps. They're going to hook you up with a great discount for an already amazingly cost effective product. And they bless Apologia studios and help us to stay on the air and do all these programs with you.

[Bradley Pierce]

Don't forget.

[Jeff Durbin]

Also, Ion Layer has added a glutathione patch as well. Glutathione, the master antioxidant. Go check out the health benefits of glutathione. I'm doing this stuff anyways. It's blessed my life in tremendous ways. And so if you want to focus on your health, wellness and longevity, nothing better in my mind than ionlayer.com for your NAD and Glutathione treatments. Ionlayer.com don't forget to put Apologia in all caps in the coupon code. Psalm 119:113 says, I hate the double minded, but I love your law. Psalm 119 powerful section of scripture. Hope you guys get to know it. And so I hope that that brings a lot of clarity in terms of the other questions that Doug and Toby were asking. In terms of what? The house is on fire and you can only save some. It's just a common really emotional, emotion driven argument that people put here into this conversation. But what we want to say is we, even with those emotional arguments, we stay committed to principle. We don't abandon our Christian commitments to handle those emotions, the emotional weight of those of those instances. And so okay, let's play some more because there's a lot to get through here.

[Bradley Pierce]

What I'm arguing is that Doug and Toby are truly faithful and consistent men when it comes to the issues of the duty and role of civil magistrates and God's standards of justice. When speaking as exegetes and theonomists, they nail it always and they do it faithfully. However, the system they promote and defend argues that though the civil magistrate is obligated to obey God and not wield the sword in vain, and make no mistake, bills that are unjust according to God's word are certainly in vain and Though God's standards forbid what is written in these pro life bills, we can accept these bills, promote these bills, and even praise these bills in an effort to hopefully one day convince the magistrates to finally fully obey God and establish the justice they were supposed to do all along. In other words, we can compromise on these clear issues of justice all the way there. We can support clearly agreed upon injustice and even praise it. Put bluntly, do evil so that good may eventually come. Smash mouth incrementalists regularly say, run all the plays at the legislature. Run all the plays, even the sinful ones, even the unjust ones, even the plays that God calls detestable and loathsome. I'm arguing that it isn't even a good analogy. What would we say about a coach that told his team to run plays that are against the very rules of the game? That's what we're talking about. God created the game. He supervises the game. He calls the fouls and punishes the participants. He sets the rules of the game and clearly defined them. No, we don't run the plays that are a violation of the clearly stipulated rules of the game. That's how you get disqualified. And considering the fact that Psalm 2 explicitly calls rulers to obey the Son, obedience would mean that we don't coach them to disobey his rules.

[Jeff Durbin]

Are you proud of me?

[Luke McElroy]

I am. I was just going to say good job on that.

[Jeff Durbin]

Do you know who helped me with that?

[Luke McElroy]

Isaac.

[Jeff Durbin]

I had it in my head. Yeah, I was, I wrote it down. Then Isaac, he's like, you use the word disqualified. He was like, because I. I wrote something else. I was like, you know, I was like, I know I'm. I know I'm in the right ballpark with this. And he was like, let me do a good job. Let me help you with this, Isaac. Isaac gave me some support, so very good. Thank you. I asked a professional.

[Bradley Pierce]

The good news this evening is that as brothers, in principle, we believe and teach the same things about what God standards are. That's why most people hate us. However, their system of smash mouth incrementalism teaches that we can accept what is unbiblical, immoral and unjust. In an effort to, quote, be heard in difficult states like California and New York, where God says justice and only justice shall you do. The smash mouth system says justice and sometimes injustice can you do. Depending on when and where you're working, it becomes pragmatism over clearly defined biblical principle. As a side note, we didn't have to abandon our worldview or principles for pragmatism when getting our bill of abolition into Colorado. I've sat before the Colorado legislature more than once with a courageous and consistent lawmaker by my side. Staring back at me were numerous scowling leftist eyes over silly little face masks with one of those sets of eyes hovering above a dress hiding a pair of testicles. Let's just say I wasn't in good company. But we didn't have to deny our worldview and principles in order to get a hearing and call them to repentance and their duty before God, their system. What I'm saying is this is not an agreement with them. That's what we want to impress upon our brothers and sisters this evening. And when we're.

[Jeff Durbin]

And by the way, I, when I said, quote, to get, get a hearing or get be heard, that is directly from a debate that Doug had, one of the, one of the two debates that I saw that he had on this issue of abolitionism. And that came up and that's what was stated. You know, if we're in California or New York and it's hard there and maybe we can promote something that is unjust, we can do it so that we could just get a hearing. And my point is, is, is that, you know, abolitionists are getting bills of abolition across the country without having to compromise. And so that's the point. I mean, you know, we've, we've gotten them in Pennsylvania, we've got them in Colorado. And I mean, what everyone say to us at the beginning, Luke, is like, you're never going to get these bills. No one's going to do it. But it's happening. God is blessing with it. And we don't have to promote bills that we know that God hates and he detests and he calls loathsome in order to get a hearing.

[Bradley Pierce]

We're asking all of you to hear and consider now one final word here. Much dispute has been had over so called incrementalism versus immediateism. Do we end all abortion in small increments or immediately? I would argue that people who frame it like that display a lack of understanding of the reality dispute. There's no question that we have to win this fight like a mustard seed growing into a tree or like leaven and dough. We don't argue that all justice will happen all at once everywhere. We are arguing that we are morally forbidden to put forward bills at the legislature that are unjust and unrighteous increments, increments that God detests and condemns wherever we are working in whatever Category, it must be pleasing to God and it must be a righteous increment.

[Jeff Durbin]

Now this is key because this was my opening statement. So I laid down a foundation for the, our brothers to shoot at. This is the real dispute. This is what I'm arguing as a, quote, immediateist, that whatever category you're working in, you have to make sure that what you're doing, whatever you're putting forth, is something that God doesn't detest, he doesn't hate. It's pleasing to God, whatever category. And it was, I said it in my debate and I didn't mean it to be offensive to them because they are brilliant. Doug is much, much, much more brilliant than I am. But I'm just saying that they're missing it. They don't understand what we're saying because they're repeatedly throughout this discussion, Toby, I think mostly was bringing up other issues like what about the prison system, what about taxation? And those things were coming up and, and that was just, I think again, it just betrayed any understanding of what we're saying. We're saying whatever category you're working, you have to say, is this pleasing to God? So, for example, do I think the prison system is horrific and abominable? Yes. Locking up and caging image bearers of God behind bars for, you know, dozens of years or for, for life is inhumane, ungodly, unrighteous. You will not find a prison system inside the, the word of God. And you're dealing with the same crimes, kidnapping, assault, murder, you're dealing with theft, you're dealing with rape. All that stuff is, is there and God addresses it specifically. And guess what? No long term prison system. However, what I would, at one point in the debate, I even say when, when Toby brings up the prison system is I, I say, well, yeah, that's a problem. But God does not hate my bill that says equal justice for every human from fertilization. He does not hate that bill. Right. Like that category in whatever state we're working on from fertilization, equal protection for every human being from fertilization. God does not hate that. Now there are things that come afterwards with the court system and prison systems and penalty and all that stuff that all needs to be addressed. But the issue is, is that when we get to those issues, we can't, while dealing with those issues, promote injustice. In those categories. We are saying if you're dealing with the fatherless, you're dealing with the issue of abortion. You have to make sure that what you're doing is something that is honoring and Pleasing to God. It's consistent with his word, his law word. And I can tell you for sure that bills of equal protection for every human in whatever state are not something that God detests. What does he detest? Bills of partiality.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah.

[Jeff Durbin]

Unequal weights and measures, for sure. Acquitting the guilty. He hates those. And that's what we're saying. And that's why I thought it was important to lay that down. And it was again, something that I don't believe at this point that Doug and Toby fully understood.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah, I agree. I mean, we've been saying this for a while, but their whole argument was, well, God works in increments. We're like, yep, that's what we've been saying. So, like, you're just saying it's not a matter of, are there, are there increments to getting this done? It's. Are they just increments? Like you're just saying that, but you're. I was going to say the exact same thing. Like they're not. It's like they're not getting. And I, and to reiterate, I love Doug and Toby so much. They're such great friends and brothers and have been so, so vital to us. But that's what's frustrating is it's like, guys, are you not understanding this or what? What's, where's the disconnect here? And, and I want to say this too, because they're not our enemies in this, this fight. They. They're not against our bills. They're not the pro life industry who would are actively fighting against our bills, like they say, run all the place. So they'd be in support of our bills. Although I would like to see them be more supportive, which we'll get into. But, but like, they're not our enemies in this. And so I want to say that off the top because I've seen too many people that are in our camp treat them like enemies when in fact we should be trying to win them over and not drive them away.

[Jeff Durbin]

That's right. War.

[Bradley Pierce]

The interesting thing here is that this position of, quote, righteous incrementalism without compromise is actually explained best by Pastor Doug in an article he wrote in 2005. He writes so much, he explains that righteous incrementalism is opposed to slow surrenders. Exactly. And this is the problem of smash Mouse incrementalism. Over against Doug's older commitment to righteous incrementalism, Doug writes this quote. I'm not saying this because I'm opposed to incrementalism. I'M not opposed to slow victories at all. It is God's ordained way. I am opposed to slow surrenders. And so I'll say it again. Any Christian leader who participates as and attends any interfaith worship event, from prayer breakfasts to national cathedral services as distinct from interdenominational events, is guilty of idolatry and is guilty of leading the people of God into idolatry. Voting for President Bush is not idolatry. Reasonable Christians can differ on this, and I understand why they do. But having your vote for the president becomes so important that you're willing to overlook or even defend the deliberate blurring of the difference between Allah and the father of Jesus Christ is idolatry. It is also incrementalism, but not an incrementalism that is going in the right direction. Here's more of Doug. If I am engaged in worshipping false gods, a righteous incrementalism does not mean tapering off from six idolatrous events a year down to two if I'm engaged in reform. Incrementalism means keeping ourselves from idols entirely.

[Jeff Durbin]

So that was an article from Doug in 2005, obviously, about the election and voting for George Bush and dealing with the issue of idolatry. And he uses the terminology righteous incrementalism, which I was saying, okay, internal critique. Let's use this terminology of righteous incrementalism and let's allow Doug, brother Doug to define it. And when he starts defining it in that letter, I think he does an excellent job because he says he's opposed not to increments. None of us are. He's opposed to slow surrenders. And what we were arguing there is, okay, 2005, Doug. That's fantastic. Let's. Let's win in places and parts, right? And let's not slowly surrender to move forward. So we can't surrender to move forward. We don't taper down from six idolatrous events a year down to two. We keep ourselves from idolatry entirely. And then we're saying, okay, now flip the script now and put it in the area of not idolatry, but specifically. But let's put in the area of abortion. Do we taper down from a million abortions a year to 200,000? Or do we fight to keep ourselves from it entirely? Do we slowly surrender all the way, trying to establish justice? And that was the point being made there. And that's Doug's system of. He calls it righteous incrementalism. And, you know, it's funny. I gotta address this. We're abolitionists so we're in that camp. But it's interesting. There seems to be this, this. I don't want to use the wrong word here because I don't want to be, in a way, be abusive. There seems to be this obsession over language in, in a way that, for example, like, let's do it in the reformed world for a second. You got the five points of Calvin, Calvinism, right? Total depravity all the way down. Limited atonement and all that. Well, somebody gets into Calvinism and they go, hey, the doctrines of grace are true. Those are from the Bible. That's real. O. And then they learn it with the old terminology. Total inability, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. And then along comes a new book where somebody is arguing for the five points, but they're saying, you know what, though? The terminology limited atonement doesn't quite communicate today what we were. What they were trying to say then. What they were trying to aim at was it's definite, right? It was like a real atonement that actually paid for sin. It was definite atonement, a definite redemption. And then along comes this old guy that goes, no, wait a minute now. When I was brought into this, it was limited atonement. We can't change the terminology. I don't want to use any other language than that. It's like, okay, look, you can get at the main point by using different terminology. And so when I was using the internal critique with Doug and I was adopting through the debate this idea of righteous incrementalism, saying, actually, hey, that's kind of our position, Doug, you're arguing for us when you say this. And it's different than your smash mouth incrementalism. I know that there were abolitionists that were like, dude, you use the word incrementalism. We can't do that. We can't even use righteous incrementalism, right? And I was like, guys, right, guys, it's an internal critique. And there's nothing wrong with an internal critique that actually says, you know what? That language you use is actually what we're kind of saying.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah.

[Jeff Durbin]

And so there's nothing wrong with that language. And it seems like, Doug, you don't agree with your past self and how you were articulating this. It just seems to be this obsession over language and tenants and we have to use it exactly the same way. And it's like, guys, guys, guys, we're all on the same team here. We're actually agreeing and Fighting for the same things, like, don't be afraid of the word increment. Like, it becomes like the abominable word increment. It can never come off the lips of an abolitionist. And it's like, well, we all agree, guys, as abolitionists, it's going to take place in spaces and different times.

[Luke McElroy]

Well, even like as they bring up later in one of the cross X, I think cross ex, you know, they're like, well, this bill you guys supported didn't have a just penalty, so therefore you're inconsistent. And we're like, okay, this is where, this is where there's, there's righteous increments. Because what they're not understanding is most of the time these bills are just establishing, establishing equal protection. Abortion is murder. Right. There's usually a separate process or a separate bill that has to be challenged and changed separately to then make it a just penalty for that crime of murder. But until you establish it as murder, you can't change the penalty. And that's what they're not missing. We're like, yeah, we agree, but that's where there would be an increment. But that's not the way our system works. And so we have to operate within the system that we have. And, and so anyway, that's just an example of, of where they're, where they're not understanding how these things work.

[Jeff Durbin]

Yeah. And we have to just make note of the fact that if you're talking about penalty and punishment and just penalties, that's a, that's a different realm than the question of definition.

[Luke McElroy]

Right.

[Jeff Durbin]

Of what's in the womb is human from fertilization deserves to be equally protected. That's a different realm and category, and that needs to be worked on as well. I am passionate about that as well. I only have so much bandwidth and I only have so much time. I only have so much I can do. I'm only. We are only a small team. And so I'd like to, I'd like to have success and victory in a particular area and then go, okay, Lord, what's next? What's the next thing we got to work on to establish justice? Is it in the area of penology? Is it in the court system with witnesses and even punishments for false witnesses? What's, what's the next step? Because there's a lot to be done, no question. And it has to be done. I'm sorry, abolitionist brothers and sisters, the word is not dirty increments. Okay? We all know the problem with incrementalism. When people are saying you can perpetrate injustice in increments. Nobody's arguing that by saying righteous incrementalism. And again, it was an internal critique using Doug's own language. So just an important conversation there and.

[Bradley Pierce]

Being patient while God brings about the slow and incremental transformation of the culture around us. So tonight, in a very real sense, this dispute is between Doug's own past version of righteous incrementalism with no slow surrenders and the current smash mouth incrementalism with slow surrenders and compromise, unfortunately, all the way down to the womb.

[Jeff Durbin]

Thank you. All right, so we are going to go to another just short commercial break and then we come back. We're going to play the cross examination section and I'm going to try to deal just very briefly and in a very pointed, straightforward way with the major argumentation that Doug and Toby bring up. And they talk about slavery, they talk about polygamy, they talk about the blood Avenger, they talk about the issue of divorce. I want to try to approach that as quickly and hopefully as devastatingly as possible to show that it is not a working argument in this discussion. And so we're going to go ahead and go to that commercial break right now. Gabe, stay with us, guys. Be right back.

[Luke McElroy]

This video is brought to you by AMTEC Blades. We are very excited to be partnering with Amtec. Bill Rapier, longtime Navy SEAL, DevGur operator, amazing brother and friend looking for a battle axe to carry on your person to chop some wood. They've got you covered. Looking for a blade to carry on you every day. Also got you covered. Look at this. I got to check my mail. What do we got going on here? Oh, look how sharp that is. What is this? Oh, 5% off. You can go to amtechblades.com, put apology in the coupon code, get 5% off your order and he will match that and give 5% to end abortion. Now again, amtechblades.com we're grateful for them. Check them out.

[Jeff Durbin]

Welcome back everybody. Welcome back. All right, so we're gonna go right into the cross examination here. This was our portion kind of, I think this is going to blended with air portion, our portion. But here we go. Let's go quickly into the cross examination.

[Douglas Wilson]

The penalty are a unit.

[Jeff Durbin]

Yeah.

[Toby Sumpter]

And isn't that part of justice?

[Jeff Durbin]

So what I would say to that is that when we are doing bills of equal protection and abolition, we're doing bills of definition. This is human life from fertilization worthy of equal protection. It will be treated as all the lives in the State of Idaho or Arizona. And so there are bills of definition and protection, but we know that there's.

[Bradley Pierce]

10 other steps behind that in terms.

[Jeff Durbin]

Of all kinds of injustices elsewhere. What we're saying is this is. Whatever bill we're working in, whatever category we're working in, we have to. To say, does God hate what I'm doing here?

[Toby Sumpter]

Does he hate prisons?

[Bradley Pierce]

Yeah, that's.

[Jeff Durbin]

But that's. He doesn't. See, he didn't get it. He didn't get it.

[Bradley Pierce]

And.

[Jeff Durbin]

And it'd be helpful if, when Toby and Doug do start interacting with this, because it would bring it. Bring the debate to a good place. We'd actually really start debating over the main issue. So I just brought clarity there and said, okay, we're defining and giving you equal protection here. And I said, There's 10 other steps behind that that we need to deal with. But God doesn't hate when I say that every human being is a human from fertilization deserves equal protection. He doesn't hate that bill whatsoever. And then Toby said, but what about the prison system? And I'm like, okay, of course that's a problem, but we have to get to that. But we're doing this, and God doesn't hate this. What does God hate, for sure, without question, undeniably, that he detests, is that when we put forward legislation that is unequal weights and measures, shows partiality in judgment, and acquits the guilty. He hates that. That's the point. And so they're arguing you can do that. And we're arguing, where does Scripture give you permission to do that? You do not have any biblical examples of permission to promote and approve of injustice. You do not have any example of that. Hate when I say that all human life deserves equal protection. He does not hate that. That'll be celebrated in heaven if I put forward a bill that says you can kill the children without heartbeats. He hates that bill. He detests that bill. So that's. That's what we're saying. All right, very good, Very good. All right, we'll switch it up now. Well done. Now you guys get to ask the questions. You guys, don't make me come back. Okay? All right. Do we get a bathroom break at any point here? Or is this.

[Bradley Pierce]

Do you want to go first?

[Douglas Wilson]

I'll go first. How many children were aborted in Idaho last year, to your knowledge.

[Jeff Durbin]

Post.

[Douglas Wilson]

Post the heartbeat bill? I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but it. Idaho was one of the states in which the abortions plummeted but that's not counting drug induced abortions, drugs that are male. You know, there's a, there's an area there where we'd have to say we don't know. But in terms of the, the record keeping of what you might call the abortions that the statisticians keep track of, abortions plummeted to near zero. You would agree that the number, the, one of the fundamental like basis for the smash mouth incrementalism position is that it works, right?

[Jeff Durbin]

We can save babies and then save.

[Douglas Wilson]

More babies and save more babies and save more babies. No, I'm very aware that Oregon and Washington, very liberal states, are right next to us. Right? I'm very aware of that. And it's quite possible that everyone who is going to get an abortion in Idaho went over and got one in Washington or Oregon, where. And so in that sense, in terms of saving lives, it didn't work. What worked was Idaho's testimony saying this is evil, that's what works. And the same, I think the same thing would happen with an abolition bill in Idaho. I think there would be a surge of abortions in Washington and Oregon as well. And it would not work that way in terms of saving total number of lives, but it would work in making a testimony that says we believe this practice is wicked.

[Jeff Durbin]

All right, brothers, do you agree that these. Are you in agreement that these incremental bills put in by the pro life establishment would be described by God as injustice? In terms of quitting the mother heartbeat bills, 10 week things, many of them.

[Douglas Wilson]

Have all kinds of injustice woven through them.

[Jeff Durbin]

Yes. So the bill of heartbeat bill that you would celebrate and be thankful for and I think you have tweeted on that, would that be described by God as injustice?

[Toby Sumpter]

I would say again, everything depends on what direction are we going. So I would point you back again to the kings that Pastor Wilson referred to earlier. The kings that weren't able to remove all the high places were praised by God as doing right, what was right in the eyes of the Lord.

[Jeff Durbin]

So I want everyone to pay close attention to this. This is really important. I'm asking the question because I know they believe this. Are these bills our partiality? Are they unequal weights and measures acquitting the guilty, is that an abomination? I know Doug and Toby believe they have to believe that that is sin, it is wrong, it is attestable to God. And so what I'm arguing here is that if you put forward a bill that is partiality, does God hate that bill? Right. You're putting it forward, you're praising it, you're tweeting about the goodness of it. But does God actually call that bill wicked? Is the question that's being asked. What Toby and Doug do is they shift to an example in scripture of a person that's called a good king who failed to remove all the high places. Now, I want everyone to think about this. This is really important. This is really the heart of the whole issue here. Their arguments, whether it is about the kings who didn't remove all the high places and their argument over divorce, their argument over the Blood Avenger, all that. Those examples are not actually examples of kings or judges or God instituting injustice. Right? So just think about it. Now just stay with me here. The example of a king in response who was a good king that failed.

[Bradley Pierce]

To do all that he could do.

[Jeff Durbin]

To remove all the high places is not an example of a king actually building new high places. Do you get that? Because what I'm arguing is that smash mouth incrementalism is saying you can build new high places, you can actually build legislation that is detestable to God. Does everyone hear that? Like, that's the debate is can you as a legislature, as a legislator or a king or a prince or a ruler, can you actually promote and put in injustice? They're saying, yeah, but this king was good and he failed to remove all the high places. I'm like, that's right, he did. And David was a man after God's own heart who committed adultery. We don't promote and emulate his failure. And Doug would say, no, I don't think we should. But their system is actually saying, because these kings failed in this way, we can too. But those kings didn't fail in this way. That smash mouth incrementalism is actually saying negotiating with injustice. They didn't. They actually were good kings. They failed to take down all the high places. But actually what's being argued with the smash mouth incrementalism is that a good king can actually establish new high places in order to get to know high places. Do you get it? It doesn't make any sense. The argument doesn't work. It's an example of a failure of a king. And I bring this up like we shouldn't emulate the failure of the king. He should have taken down all the high places. And what's being debated here in this debate is what ought, morally ought the legislator to do before God. And that is what, in the example of Asa in the high places, what ought he to have done? What was his moral? Ought to take down all the high places. So if we can go back and talk to Asa, what would we say to him? That's no problem. You kept him up. We'd say, Asa, you ought to. Ought to take down all the high places. And that's the abolitionist position is what morally are you obligated to do? And the example there by Toby is not a good example of what smash mouth incrementalism is arguing to do. And that's actually what legislate for some more high places so that there are no more high places. I hope everybody sees that because it is vitally important to get that point.

[Toby Sumpter]

And so. But Solomon was taking people in the wrong direction. So I would say everything depends on where you are and what's the situation. And so and again back to the laws of divorce and polygamy and the old.

[Jeff Durbin]

And that was the admission right there. Did everyone hear it? I'm sorry, I wasn't fast enough of my feet that night. Solomon went in the wrong direction. How? How? By doing more sinful things and adding more high places. Do you get the point? But their argument is, is that you can do these unjust things to get to the justice. So do you see that their own example works against the system that they are promoting? And that's what's important to see. I hope they see it Old Testament.

[Toby Sumpter]

Those were technically speaking, laws that God gave that were not perfect, that God blessed.

[Jeff Durbin]

I want to get to that.

[Toby Sumpter]

They were. And they weren't perfect. So I'm so unjust in the sense of not matching God's perfect justice. Yes. And I think.

[Jeff Durbin]

Would it be partiality? A Harvey bill is partiality.

[Douglas Wilson]

Not necessarily. So it might be a situation. For example, those six kings that didn't remove the high places, some of them might have failed morally in not removing them. They should have removed them and they had the resources to remove them, but they chickened out. And in that case, God said that was sin. But nevertheless, you're a good king overall. Or it could have been the king just didn't have the horsepower to get rid of like David and Joab. David wanted to get rid of Joab and didn't have the resources, so he told Solomon to get rid of Joab. So it could have been one or the other. But in both cases those six kings are praised. So it's possible to say, God, I don't think that you're pleased with that bill I just signed today. I don't think you're pleased with it because innocent life is still being taken. But I do think you're pleased with me.

[Jeff Durbin]

Thank you. So it's a great opportunity to, I think, speak to that particular point, because I think when you bring up the example of Asa and not taking down high places and that you're bringing up a good example of, say something like, David King, David, man after God's own heart. He wrote so much of scripture, praise the Lord for David. He's, you know, the father of Jesus in that line of Jesus. But we. I would say we shouldn't give those examples in terms of good king, but let's emulate his failure. And that's what.

[Douglas Wilson]

I agree with you there.

[Jeff Durbin]

I'm not praising the failure, but it sounds like when you've defended this, Pastor Doug, you've defended, you know, Asa not taking on high places as. Because he did that, we can all see put in these bills of injustice. So it's almost as though you are encouraging people to say, look, you can still be a good king and do sinful things as ought to have taken down the high places.

[Douglas Wilson]

I don't think you can be a good king and have the opportunity to take down the high places and refuse.

[Jeff Durbin]

Now, note that important point. Note that important point. I don't think you could be a good king and have the opportunity to take down the high places like you have. In that case, you have to do it. It'd be sinful not to. I want you to mark that down because that's Doug's position, because Doug is a solid man, and he knows that that's the case. We all would argue for that. Right? If you're a good king and you have the opportunity to take down the high places, you are morally obligated to do it at that point. Just note that if.

[Douglas Wilson]

If you refuse to do what you was within your power to do, then I think that's just rebellion against God. So consequently, if I'm a governor and an abolition bill makes it through the legislature, the house of representatives, and the senate, and by some miracle lands on my desk, it would be wickedness for me to refuse to sign it.

[Jeff Durbin]

Okay, you brought this up, Pastor Doug. You said that you'd sign a heartbeat bill, and you said that you would deal with Thanksgiving.

[Bradley Pierce]

And I would ask this, but as governor, couldn't you also, instead of signing.

[Jeff Durbin]

The heartbeat bill in your example, couldn't you rally the state against the heartbeat.

[Bradley Pierce]

Bill, speak prophetically against it and condemn.

[Jeff Durbin]

It, and couldn't you speak to its inconsistencies? Wouldn't that be better in terms of a Christian witness brother of having that.

[Douglas Wilson]

It would if I won.

[Jeff Durbin]

If you won.

[Douglas Wilson]

If I won.

[Jeff Durbin]

If you won.

[Douglas Wilson]

What if I won that battle and we got the abolition bill? If I could rally the troops and get an abolition bill instead of the heartbeat bill, yeah, that'd be way better. It'd be way better. But what if I lose?

[Jeff Durbin]

So key. Right. That was the point I was making. A good king. You can't be a good king and have the opportunity to do this and then fail to do it. But we're talking now about a governor who has the opportunity to do something and then fails to do it. Right? That's. That's the point that I'm making, is that by the standards you're setting, the governor fails because he's worried about losing. And so this is where abolitionists would say to Pastor Doug, doug, you have taught us all so well on being principled, being consistent, and being courageous. Doug does a great job with that, a phenomenal job. He's been such an inspiration to me. But now you have a moment where smash month incrementalism says, yeah, but you know, what if we lose? Lose? God hates child sacrifice. God calls it murder. God wants it to end. That's his prescriptive will. We know what he says about this, and we also know that God uses his church to do it. And so you're worried. That's where we say, as abolitionists, isn't this, Pastor Doug, a matter of faith and courage? It's a matter of faith and courage not being worried about losing. Here we go. There's a famous portion, brother, that's been a part of Apologia Radio since its inception. You were actually one of my very first guests. Before it was Apologia Radio, it was Redemption Radio, and then Apologia Radio. And your voice has been at the front of Apologia Radio since the beginning, its inception. And here's what you say. You say, desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their customers. Courage. Can you please comment on that?

[Douglas Wilson]

Thank you for this opportunity. I would expand the quote and say that there's a difference between courage and recklessness. Okay, so you want courage. You want a courageous man should be willing to charge hell with a bucket of water?

[Jeff Durbin]

I love it. Doug always does a great job of explaining things like that. Charge hell with a bucket of water. I absolutely love that. But think about what we're describing. We're talking about the slaughter of innocent Human beings in the womb, over a million plus a year are being slaughtered. And we know that God hates it. And we know that God says that he wants us to establish justice in the earth. He wants us to correct injustice. He wants to uphold justice. And so hasn't God told us in the area of child sacrifice to charge hell with a bucket of water? Isn't that what we're talking about? Like, we don't have any confusion about what God tells us we ought to do. We don't have any confusion about how God feels about child sacrifice. We don't have any confusion about God calling us to rescue those who are being led away to death and hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. There's no confusion there. Right. So don't we have the explicit call from God, command to charge hell with a bucket of water? And aren't the abortion mills the gates of hell? I mean, isn't the legislature feeding this?

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah, I'll just say, because we're getting low on time here. I think it's at the end of this cross ex. My only critique of this and Jeff and I talked about it was there's one point that I really was hoping would be made and ran out of time because I think it was right at the end of this. And then it was like time was up. But like Doug and Toby, they talk too much in hypotheticals. And this is what we've been trying to do. That's why we push hard to get a bill in Idaho, which we've had this last year, so that we would force their hands a little bit and say, here you have an abolition bill in Idaho. How are you going to handle this? And no longer hypotheticals. Right. And so Doug brought up the heartbeat bill that he supported. Right. As if, like, well, I did support this. Yes. I think it was right at the end of this. And it was. Time was up. It's like, well, we had an abolition bill here in Idaho last year and you actually talked. Talked badly about it and didn't support it. And it was a little bit out of ignorance. And I say that as lovingly and graciously as I can, you know, and Toby sits on the Idaho Family Council or whatever, something like that. And they openly, they were. They openly told people not to vote for. For our bill. And Toby didn't say anything. They had an opportunity to come down to the pastors meeting. We had an Idaho and Boise. Boise, as they say. And they didn't come. They didn't offer any support, you know, and so the Toby's credit. They had, they had Shipley, they had our, our rep on crosspolitik, which I was grateful for. But my point is like they're in hypotheticals is like, well, this king here did this and this king did that. And what if this. And what if the bill goes to the, you know, California and it's like, yeah, we can talk in hypotheticals all day long, but when you have an opportunity, something tangible in front of you on your desk and you didn't act and you didn't support it and that's where, that's where we get frustrated.

[Jeff Durbin]

Well, at that point it's the, the loving nudge and critique to our brothers. Is that smash mouth incrementalism in a moment, like Idaho Ye. Yeah, it seemed more like whisper lips, right? Not smash mouth, more like whisper lips. And so, and that's what we're asking, like what is actually workable too? Like what works. And it, it doesn't seem to actually work the way that, the way that they say.

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

[Jeff Durbin]

And so let's finish this up.

[Douglas Wilson]

Yeah, if, if God wants you to do it, then that's, that's what you do. And if God wants you to go up against insurmountable odds, that's what you do.

[Jeff Durbin]

And if God, which would define perfectly the issue of child sacrifice and the role of the church, insurmountable odds does not look like it'll work. Yeah, New York and California, it's insurmountable. It just won't work. But we know how God feels about child sacrifice and what the witness of the church should be here. And so that's abolitionism, consistency, no compromise. Speak the truth, preach the truth and establish justice. That's the goal.

[Luke McElroy]

Well, yeah, just real quick, I explained. I'm glad you reminded me of this point. Somewhere in here they said, well, the only way we're going to do this is through the gospel. And we're like, yes and amen. We're all post mill, we all agree and that's why we're in a position we're in because it goes back to where there's no prophetic vision that people cast off restraint. And we're like, that's what we're saying. So we're given that prophetic vision and with that comes the gospel and a call to repentance. And if with smash mouth that's not happening, it's not calling sin sin, it's not calling murder murder, and there is not that prophetic vision with it. And so yes, and amen to it has to start come from the church and it has to be through the gospel. But it can only do that if you're being honest and truthful with what we're dealing with.

[Jeff Durbin]

Exactly. So I'm going to do this quickly. You guys ready for this? Quickly. I already dealt a bit with the kings and not taking them to high places thing that comes up often. But, and, and we can't go into all the text today, but numbers 35, the Blood Avenger, came up in the debate. Hopefully my response to that will be helpful to you guys. Also, the issue of slavery comes up in their discussions. The issue of polygamy comes up in their discussions, and the issue of divorce comes up in their discussions. Here's what I want everyone to take note of. It's vitally important to get this point. In none of those instances or examples does God actually give a bill or a decree of injustice. So let's talk about divorce for a second. Now this came up with Rigney, it came up with Toby in another debate, and it came up in our debate. Is divorce something that God had known was going to happen in human history? Of course. But was it a part of his original order? Right. When God creates the world in perfection and there's no sin, and Adam and Eve are upright, they haven't sinned yet, was divorce supposed to be part of the normative experience in that realm? The answer is no. However, when because of the hardness of human hearts, because of sin, as Jesus says in Matthew 19, because of sin and hardness of human hearts, divorce is permissible. But what's interesting here is that they will bring this issue up if it works against them. Here's what I mean by that. When God actually legislates on divorce, he doesn't legislate with injustice. It's always with an eye to justice for the victim in the divorce. Right. Because it's a fallen world and people cheat on their spouses, people beat their spouses, people abandon their spouses, and people neglect marital love with their spouses. And so what does God do in his law? Well, in Exodus 21, verse 10, there's an example of, of responsibilities in the covenant. Let me just read it to you real fast. It's actually about polygamy as well. But the standard here is the standard for marriage and covenant. And so this will answer both things. Divorce. And what does God do? Does he actually give legislation of injustice or polygamy? Does he give legislation of injustice? No, in both those cases. Take polygamy for example. Was polygamy a part of God's normative practice for humanity. His call for humanity to be polygamous. No matter of fact, in the creative order, man, woman, single couple, and one flesh, right? And in Deuteronomy 17:17, God explicitly calls the Kings not to multiply wives. He actually specifically speaks against polygamy in Deuteronomy 17:17. That's in the law of God. God speaks against polygamy. Jesus goes back to the normative creative order and the the purpose of marriage. Man and woman leave. Mother, father. There's another unit there of single male, single female. And so Jesus is defining it as God. We know what it's, what it ought to be. However, isn't this powerful? Isn't this powerful? And this goes against their entire argument. When polygamy was being practiced by people in Israel, like the surrounding nations, what does God do? He says, all right, you made a public covenant, you made a promise, and you made it to create another family with another woman. So what does God do? And this is what it does in his law, Exodus, chapter 21, verse 10, he doesn't say, in that case of their sinfully getting into another covenant. He doesn't say, blow up and destroy all these families. What does he say? He says this. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. So you have provision, protection, and marital love that is required in the covenant. And that, by the way, runs through the New Testament. That's what Paul refers to. That's what Jesus is referring to. You can only divorce on biblical grounds. So my point is this is they'll say, hey, look, Jesus, he shows that God legislated for divorce. And that's not what God wanted, was divorce. And so you have a sinful institution. And God, you know, allowed for divorce, right, because of human sin. God is concerned for the victims. So what does he do? He says, you will not, if you enter into polygamy, you will not deprive your second wife of her provision, protection, and marital love. You will be faithful. You will not be unjust. Is that an instance of sinful legislation? No, that's an instance of legislation in a sinful enterprise that establishes justice and protection for the victim. And in the instance of Matthew 19, it's actually Jesus arguing against sinful regulations in divorce. Because in Matthew 19, Jesus is actually engaging with a very popular view of divorce legislation in the first century. And it's about Rabbi Hillel, the Hillelite marriage clause. Did you guys notice when you read Matthew 19, it says, can A man divorce his wife for. And here it is. Any cause, Any cause. Because there was legislation over divorce that says, hey, as long as you give a certificate of divorce, it could be for any reason. Just, she's not pretty anymore. I don't like the way she cooks. I'm tired of her. She argues too much. Whatever the case may be, you can divorce for any cause. And Jesus demonstrates that. He rejects that sinful legislation over divorce and says, no, it must only be on biblical grounds for the purposes of fornication. Which, by the way, we don't have time to go into this today. It's a very technical term that referred to also covenantal unfaithfulness. So Jesus is siding with Rabbi Shemai's school, the Shemaite view. It has to only be biblical. You can't do injustice in divorce. Jesus is saying, it must only be just. And what does God define as just? Here's an example. Provision, protection and marital love. That's what you have to give in the covenant of marriage. So is that God legislating injustice, which is what Doug and Toby are arguing for? That's the argument. Doug and Toby are arguing that in a sinful enterprise, you can actually insert sinful and unjust legislation and regulation. But in no example that they give when they bring this up is God inserting injustice into the sinful enterprise. He actually, for the slave issue, he's making sure that justice is given to all the slaves, no injustice. On the Blood Avenger, he's actually calling the Blood Avenger and the person who's guilty of the killing to make sure that there is a place where there are rules of justice and due process. So, yeah, sinful practice, there's a tribal way. They dealt with this before with a Blood Avenger. That was part of the history. And God goes into this and says, actually, no, if there's a killing, you need to flee to this city of refuge, where in that city of refuge, there will be due process, there will be evidence, there will be cross examination, and the Blood Avenger is not allowed to interrupt due process. And of course, Doug and Toby go, but yeah, but, yeah, but what if the guy's out, you know, just doing a jog around that city of Refuge one day and the Blood Avenger catches him. It's like, that's not the point of case law. The case law example is trying to make the point that you need to flee to the city of Refuge for due process, process. And the Blood Avenger needs to respect that. That's the point. So what is God doing. He's not arguing for injustice. He's not arguing for the Blood Avenger to be unjust. He's arguing for the Blood Avenger to actually establish the need for due process himself. So in every example that they give, you have no example of injustice being inserted into the sinful enterprise. You actually have a sinful enterprise that God is saying in the middle of that sinful enterprise, there must be justice. Like polygamy is a sticky one. That's a really sticky one. Y' all aren't supposed to be doing this. But if you're going to make all these covenants and you get all these brides and wives and you start having kids, you will not deprive your second wife of her protection provision and marital love. You will not do that. You will be just in those instances. And by the way, also, those are the standards for divorce. Paul says that as well in the New Testament. He says if a person is abandoned right then, then the spouse is free. If you're abandoned, then you're free. Well, wait a minute. There's no physical sex going on there, no adultery. How are you free? Because fornication is also a technical term for covenantal unfaithfulness. And how are you covenantally unfaithful to the marriage? By abandoning it, you have now neglected what, food, clothing, protection provision, and by the way, marital love, because you've disappeared. So you violated and abandoned the covenant. And Paul knows the law of God. He's like, if you get abandoned, that's a violation of Exodus 21, verse 10. You're free. So my point is, is that the examples that Doug and Toby give to support smash mouth incrementalism from Scripture are not actually cases where God is doing what they say we can do. Not at all. And so I hope this has been very helpful to everybody. Luke, do we have anything else we need to share?

[Luke McElroy]

Yeah, I just want to mention. Well, first, shout out to Josiah Stowe from Dominion wealth, you heard us add at the beginning. They are partners with us and he's been in the chat today saying some awesome stuff. So, Josiah, we love you, man. Appreciate you. Check out Reform money. And then of course, Heritage Defense, Bradley Pierce, who was in the debate with Jeff on his side, who writes all of our bills, is a partner there. And so if you homeschool your kids, please go sign up heritage fence.org you can put apologia in the coupon code and get your first month free. And, you know, like I said, Christmas is coming up very quickly. We're. We're less than two months away now, which is amazing. And we got lots [e-mail] we got swag and tracks and coffee and all kinds of good stuff. So I'm hoping to put some more up and we will have a Black Friday sale, so be looking for that.

[Jeff Durbin]

Also, everybody want to encourage you guys to stay tuned for the app as well. Very excited about that and I want to encourage you to stay tuned for what's coming in the next couple months of Apologia Studios. We've had a rough and busy last season here at Apologia Studios and so wanted to let you guys know that we have some exciting things planned for Apologia Studios and an abortion now. And for those of you guys that are part of Apologia Studios, All Access the after shows. We're going to make sure there's a commitment to doing those on a regular basis for you guys and that they're done in a way that really blesses you and just is fun to be a part of. And of course, the Ask Me Anythings that'll be starting very soon. So no after show for today, but I would say in November. Be ready for the regular Ask Me Anythings for the after shows and also for some new stuff. We have a lot of really cool stuff planned we're working on right now and so 2026 we're very excited about. I want to thank you very much from the bottom of my heart, all of you guys who've been part of All Access for such a long time. We are going some really cool places and you're part of this mission with us. So we want to thank you. I'm Jeff the Coleman Ninja. That's Luke the Bear.

[Luke McElroy]

Peace out.

[Jeff Durbin]

We'll catch you next week right here on Apology Radio.