← Apologia Radio
Apologia Radio
573. Refuting Weak And Unbiblical Arguments
01:05:40
Join us for the newest episode of Apologia Radio in which we continue to engage with Scott Klussendorf's argumentation against abolitionist approaches to the preservation of life in the womb. Tell someone about it!
Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:00]
Dominion Wealth Representative
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
- [01:15]
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 so. You calling me delusional Using your worldview is perfectly okay. It doesn't really hurt. She hung up on me.
- [01:47]
Micah Kunkel
Desperate times call for faithful men and
- [01:51]
Jeff Durbin
not for careful men.
- [01:53]
Micah Kunkel
The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding
- [01:57]
Jeff Durbin
them for their courage.
- [02:00]
Luke Bear
Go into all the world and make disciples. Not go into the world and make buddies. Not to make brosephs. Don't go into the world and make homies. Disciples.
- [02:09]
Jeff Durbin
I got a bit of a jiggle neck. That's a joke, Pastor. When we have the real message of
- [02:16]
Scott Klusendorf
truth, we cannot let somebody say they're
- [02:19]
Jeff Durbin
speaking truth when they're not. Take an amazing journey to a place that will blow your mind and move your mind so you will never be the same again. You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or deferred to the great. But in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. That is Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 15. Everyone. Welcome back to the gospel heard around the world. This is Apologia Radio. I'm Jeff the Callman and ninja. That's Luke the Bear right there. You can get more at apologiastudios.com that's a P O L O G I a apologiastudios.com Go there. If you haven't been there before, go check it out. There's tons of resources there. Lots of things for you guys to be listening to. To get engaged with apologiastudios.com, go there. Apologia Radio provoked theologians, cultists, all the past episodes are there and you can go to apologiastudios.com and sign up for your free free free Bonson U account. It is the library of teaching from seminary classes, college courses, church, all of the life and ministry and the teachings of Dr. Greg Bonson are there. Ed Bonson U for you. It's top tier theological education completely for you as a gift to you from Apologia All Access Partners and Apologia Studios making all that available for you also if you would sign up for Apologia All Access. When you sign up for All Access, you get all kinds of additional content. You get the Academy, the full episodes of Collision, you get the after shows and more and more is coming now. We're working on that now for you guys. Big plans for the next year for Apologia Studios which brings me to a big thank you, thank you to everybody who has given so far to the fundraising we're doing. We are breaking out with Apologia Studio. It's the first fundraiser we've done since starting Apologia Studios in 2015 and we are upgrading everything. We're adding new content, new things, new tools to everything at all Access, the apps are coming. All of that is happening. We have raised about $30,000 already and so we're very thankful to all of you guys. Help us to get to our goal, get to our goal so we can start production. All these things, more conflict driven media as well, more debates, all that stuff is coming. And so go to Apolog. Give and give there. Help us to get to our goal. Encouraging word for everybody who's a part of this ministry with us. And if you're All Access, you're part of this ministry with us. I was. We went to Salt Lake City last couple of days to do some stuff with our church plant out there, Apologia Utah. And it was very encouraging. The entire time that I left from the airport here, got into Salt Lake at the airport there, going to random places, was getting stopped repeatedly by people who have either come to Christ as a result of watching this content or their lives have been blessed and transformed as a result of Apologia Studios and what they get here on this channel. And so it's a huge blessing. I was actually at the gym Monday morning, I believe, and this teenage girl walked up to me and she introduced herself and she said that she was a Christian living in Salt Lake. And she said that she watches the evangelism videos of us engaging with Latter Day Saints. She takes copious notes, and then she uses that to go and witness to her Mormon friends. And so that was just such a blessing to hear that. And so if you are part of All Access, I wanted to say thank you. That testimony is all to the glory of God, but the means of those sorts of things happening is us all working together for the ministry of the gospel here at Apologia Studios. And so sign up for All Access and if you would, go to apologiastudios.com give help us to get to our goal so we can basically can break out with all new things for everybody here. It's just, we're very excited about it. So we have been spending some time in the last episode and we're going to do it today, engaging with Scott Klusendorf's argumentation. And we want to. It's very important. Here's why. Listen, this is why. This, this issue is a life and death issue. All right? That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about literally life and death issue. I know, and I feel it. Luke feels it. We feel it. That this situation with the issue of abortion is overwhelming and it's not something you want to hear about all the time, right? I mean, who wants to think about this all the time? I don't. There are so many other ministries and things that I would really love to be doing. But what we're talking about with the issue of abortion is we're talking about literal life and death. And so if you guys have been watching us for some time, you know that we have been engaged in this battle to save lives literally outside the abortion mills. And so we've gone out, we've tried to speak the truth and the gospel in that context. And God has saved tens of thousands of babies as a result of end abortion now. And the churches we've raised up and equipped to do the same. But we've also been going to legislatures across the country and we've been able to get bills in of equal protection and abolition across the country, as well as back up our ministry partners and other Christians and pastors across the country that have gotten their own bills of abolition and equal protection in. And so everyone knows we've been involved in this. We talk about it regularly because we want to update you. Many of you guys give@endabortionnow.com we want you to know that we're being faithful and we're working hard. We're going to end this thing so we can just move on to the next thing and just put this behind us. And so for those of you guys that have been giving faithfully@end abortionnow.com thank you for that. And we want to keep you updated. That's why we regularly talk about it, is to let you know what's going on and how this is all advancing. And I'll just say this, why is this such a big deal to keep talking about this? And why engage with someone like Scott Klusendorf who's a really sharp believer? He's very sharp. He knows his stuff. He's done some amazing work on defending the issue of life. And we can all learn a lot from Scott. And I genuinely mean that. He is a very, very sharp man, very brilliant and has given the church some great treasures. Okay, but why engage with something like this? Here's why. Because as a result of the movement forward towards true justice for these children and real abolition. I'm talking about true abolition. As a result of the advancement and the bills happening across the country, the pro life establishment has had to dig their heels and come out very clearly against these bills of equal protection. Now I know if you're new right now, you're wondering what in the world am I talking about? The pro life establishment stopping the abolition of abortion? Yes. If you want to know why, go watch the little mini documentary we did called the Fatal Flaw. Just type in Apologia Studios Fatal Flaw. You'll see the short documentary we did addressing this issue. But yes, it's true. The pro life establishment is the greatest enemy of the abolition of abortion in our nation. And I've said this a million times. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that. I'm being as honest as I can be. Every state that we've gone into and even the states where we've had the approval of the legislators before the bill gets to the hearing or the floor, whatever it gets, stopped, blocked and killed by the leaders of the pro life establishment in that state or national leaders, they will stop the abolition of abortion. And so why keep talking about this? Because it's life and death. Why keep talking about this because the pro life establishment now has been forced, their hand has been forced to come out very clearly, very clearly with their position that a woman who willfully, with malice aforethought, takes the life of her child in the womb is herself a second victim and should never be punished. And so they believe that woman should have impunity and immunity to kill her child in the womb. Just like the pro choicers, same legislative position in the womb, immunity, impunity to kill your child. The pro life establishment agrees and they write it into their legislation. Like when they, even when they criminally ban abortion, in some sense they'll say, but this shall not apply to the mother or to the woman. And so they're coming out with it. They have to. Now, Scott Klusendorf is not exactly there, okay? He's not exactly there with the pro life establishment and what they say. As a matter of fact, in this video that we're going to examine here in a minute, he even says that he did not sign on to a letter that he was asked to sign on where it states that, you know, the woman should not be punished. We don't want women to be punished because he actually says there should be some consistency here, would say there has to be some punishment for it. So Scott Klusendorf is not in the same camp. So when I say it's, it's interesting when I say pro life establishment, I'm talking about the general overarching industry, the pro life establishment, national right to life types, you know, Louisiana right to life types, that kind of stuff. But then you have men like Klusendorf, who's a brother, he loves the Lord, loves Jesus, he's been a great benefit to the church in many respects. But it's interesting because he's still arguing against the abolitionist and equal protection. And his position is more sort of a, let's call it a middle position between abolitionism and consistent abolitionism and the pro life establishment. And, but he's still arguing against equal protection bills and everything else, saying it's, you know, things like, you know, we just don't have the support that we need, it's not going to happen. It's unrealistic, things like that. So I want to engage with Scott Klusendorf, I think first and foremost because I respect him, I respect the man. I'm thankful for a lot of the work that he's done. I'm not thankful for his inconsistencies and what I would like to see happen. Scott, if you see this, what I'D like to see happen is for you to be the consistent man that you generally are in this area because you're inconsistent here and you actually make some arguments that are just bad arguments. And I know you're not the kind of man likes to make bad arguments. And you don't like logical fallacies and to say things that are fallacious. You don't like to do that. You don't want to do that. You've even admitted I could be wrong on this. And, and you've been open to correction on this. And so I'm not doing this. Luke and I are not doing this because we want to berate Scott Klusendorf. We want to turn him into a villain. We don't. But I, we do have to also be straight, speak straight and not crooked, and we're speaking straight and not crooked, which is a command, by the way, because the issue is the issue of justice, which God commands. And it's an issue that leads to life and death. And so that's why we're doing this. And so there would be things we say in here that we're going to be very direct and very straightforward. But it's also because we respect Scott so much. But we would hope that Scott would ultimately change his position. Because if Scott changes his position to be the consistent, like the man he normally is, then we would have an amazing opportunity to influence more people to abandon their inconsistencies and their fallacious forms of argumentation and once and for all support these bills of equal protection. Listen, that would pass. They would pass. We have evidence of that. Because they would pass. Because there wouldn't be the resistance of the pro life leaders in the establishment saying don't pass that bill because that's what stopped these bills in all the states that we've gone to. And so here's the thing. We need you, Scott. We need you to be consistent and to support this legislation which you know is right. And let's establish justice once and for all. Because it is literally that life and death.
- [14:10]
Luke Bear
Yeah, I mean, and the thing that I, I think we addressed this a little bit last week and besides the consistency conversation, which we'll get into today, like it just, you know, when he says things that just aren't factually true and you're corrected on those things, like you should correct those things.
- [14:29]
Jeff Durbin
Stop saying, saying them.
- [14:30]
Luke Bear
Yeah, like, like saying that there's been no equal protection bill made out of committee. We've addressed that, but completely false, you know, but that when you're telling that to the, the masses, the pro life masses. That's what they think.
- [14:43]
Jeff Durbin
Right.
- [14:43]
Luke Bear
And they repeat that and it's just not true.
- [14:45]
Jeff Durbin
Yeah. And also the, the, the, the, the very fallacious forms, attempts at biblical argumentation to refute abolition. The concept of abolitionism and consistency and courageous consistency are not helpful at all. We're just delivering bad forms of biblical argumentation to the masses and they're also just not true. And again, Scott's not the kind of man that wants to live like that. I believe that about the brother and he doesn't want to be inconsistent. And so I, I hope to be winsome to this brother that he would, he would come to a place of consistency because we all didn't start with consistency on this issue. Many of us were sort of like kind of coasting and not even thinking about all these details. But now we're here, we're at a massive turning point right now on this issue where I do believe with all my heart, if we had the support of men like Scott Klusendorf and some of these massive pro life organizations would repent and be consistent, we would pass a bill next session, honestly, with almost no problem. In some states we would get through with no problem. We would have the overwhelming support of the legislature and the legislators would be encouraged by the establishment to do it. Do what's right before God. And so let's move right to it. So this is from a live Q A with Scott Klusendorf. It is the quite the title of the video is Should Mothers be Prosecuted for Abortion? Should Mothers be Prosecuted for Abortion? It is with Micah Kunkel and Scott Klusendorf. It's broken up in sections here. It's pretty long. So we're not going to do all of it. But I'm going to start at the section that is, is titled here at the bottom. What Scott is not saying. We're going to play through this, get into some other forms of argumentation that he makes.
- [16:32]
Scott Klusendorf
I want to clarify your view here because I think some people will misunderstand exactly what you're saying. You're not saying that this should never be something we should consider, that it's, that it's not even a matter of justice like that. You know, justice does require that everyone gets their due and that women, and some women do have responsibility for what they did. I don't think you're disagreeing with that. I think what you're disagreeing with is as far as our strategy goes now,
- [17:09]
Jeff Durbin
winning back the culture, let's say, let's say at this point here, I think it's important for everyone to recognize how unique this is and how important this moment is here. Scott's shaking his head to that. He's, he's like, he's like, I'm not saying that women shouldn't see any penalties for murdering their children. He's not saying that. That puts Scott in actually a pretty unique position in the pro life establishment generally, because their doctrine, their dogma, their creed is that the woman is the second victim and the woman is not to be punished. When they have literally written together to our legislators, don't pass this bill, they've said, because they do not want to see a woman ever punished for murdering her child. And Scott's not there. He says, he says he's not there. So that's very unique and I'm glad to hear that. I have questions. A lot of those questions weren't answered by listening to this. But I do have questions about that. And I'd like to see, I'd like to see Scott expatiate upon that. I really would like him to explain more on the, on this particular point. If you say that, that justice is due and justice must be upheld, I would say, okay, expand upon that. What do you mean by that? Explain that in detail. What exactly do you mean? Because he is departing from the pro life establishment generally by even saying that. That's a very big deal. And I definitely want to commend Scott for being courageous enough to say something like that, considering the people that he has networked with. It's. It takes a great amount of courage to say that. So, Scott, thank you for the courage to say that. I do, I do have questions, though,
- [18:45]
Scott Klusendorf
and actually producing legislation that passes. Am I correct? There you are.
- [18:51]
Micah Kunkel
I have not said that women should never have consequences for intentionally killing an innocent human being. In fact, there was a petition that went out that I was asked to sign and declined saying that in principle, a woman should never be prosecuted for having an abortion. A bunch of pro life leaders.
- [19:11]
Jeff Durbin
Now, I need to address this real fast because a little further on this, this show, Scott says that he is an abolitionist and he actually, actually argues also that the, you know, people in the pro life establishment also are abolitionists. They want to see abortion abolished. I, I want to say something very important here. He makes the point right here. Now get this, okay? He makes the point right here that the establishment types are saying in principle she should never be punished, and Scott disagrees with them. So they're saying in their principle she should never be punished for killing her child. Scott saying, I don't agree with that, that's inconsistent. Which again, thank you for that. But Scott, when you say that they're abolitionists too, that they want to see abortion abolished, that's just not true.
- [20:02]
Luke Bear
Right?
- [20:03]
Jeff Durbin
Because you just admitted that in principle they say she should never be punished, which means they don't want to abolish it and criminalize it for everybody. Do you get that point, Scott? I, I, I, I hope you really think through that. And I mean that to you humbly. You just admitted that they think in principle she should never be punished, which therefore they could never be called abolitionists because they are not actually wanting to abolish it. Because in order to abolish it you have to have law that opposes it, law that protects the children. And what they're saying is that no, no, no, she should continue in principle to never be punished for taking the life of her child. Scott disagrees with them. I'm so thankful for that. But you can't call them abolitionists. You can't say, well, they also want to abolish abortion because they do not, because there's a difference. And Scott, you know this. There's a difference between saying I want to abolish abortion and criminalize it for everybody and a person over here saying I in principle do not think that this class, this woman should ever see penalties. But of course I want abortion to end. End. That's not abolition, like being uncomfortable with abortion saying, I think it's horrible and, and, and monstrous and heinous. And I, and I, I want it to ultimately end. That's okay, good, that's the start. We all want to feel that first and believe that first. But if a person says that, it's, it's this monstrosity, it's evil, it's this modern day holocaust, right? And it's a heinous practice and I want it to stop. But I don't want this person who does it to ever see penalties. That's not abolishing, right? Scott, do you see the point? So you can't say that they also want to abolish it because it's not true. Kristen Hawkins, for example, she uses the word abolition on her website now. But she does not want to abolish abortion. She doesn't want abortion to happen. She doesn't want people to kill their children. I'm not saying she doesn't. I'm saying that she doesn't want to abolish it because she actually does not in law want the woman to see penalties or any punitive, anything, and she thinks that she's a victim as well. And so Kristen Hawkins does not want to abolish abortion by law criminally for everybody, because she wants a protected class of killers. Do you see the point, Scott? What we're saying here is that there's a difference between not wanting it to happen and then also wanting to criminalize it. Those are two camps, right? There's. There's important distinctions there, and differences that really, truly matter, matter. Luke, you feel free to jump in anytime.
- [22:39]
Luke Bear
No, I'm good.
- [22:39]
Jeff Durbin
Okay.
- [22:40]
Micah Kunkel
That I declined because in principle, I understand this. All I'm arguing is that when it comes to the consequences for having an abortion, there is room for prudence. As we discuss penalties, we can be.
- [22:55]
Jeff Durbin
Okay, so we addressed this last week. This is really important. And Scott, if you missed it, and you happen to see this one, prudence, the word prudent means wise, right? So when we say prudence, wisdom, it's very important that we actually go to the foundation and say, what are we even talking about? Because atheists claim something is wise or not wise, but on what basis are they saying something is wise or not wise? They don't have a worldview where there's anything above us. There's no justice ahead of us, there's no justice above us, there's no ultimate right and wrong. And so when the atheist says, well, that's not proof prudent, or that's not wise, it is right to say, well, what do you mean? By what standard are you calling something wise or prudent? And so, Scott, you're a believer, you love Jesus, you believe the word of God, and you keep using the word prudent. This is not prudent. It wouldn't be prudent. I wanted to make sure it's prudent. To which we would say we do, too.
- [23:53]
Luke Bear
By what standard?
- [23:54]
Jeff Durbin
And by what standard are you calling something prudent? Because there's a book here, and it's filled with the law of God, which is good and pure, and, and, and, and, and God gives to his people and he gives of justice, and he also gives to them a book of wisdom, a book of prudence, right? It's divine prudence, divine wisdom. And in that book of wisdom, it says things like, numerous times it says things like unequal weights and measures are to. It is an abomination to God, it's loathsome to God and detestable to God to have unequal weights and measures. And so if you're saying let's be prudent about this, I want to say, then let's go to God, God's book of prudence, his book of wisdom, and say what does it say about how to approach this? And in the book of wisdom, you'll never see the compromise that you're suggesting, Scott. You'll actually see this issue of justice spoken about. And what it says is no unequal weights and measures. It says things like show no partiality in injustice. Show no partiality. And so if you want to say let's be prudent, let's be wise, I'm going to say amen, Yay and amen, Hallelujah to that. But the book says no unequal weights and measures. They must be equal. And that's prudent. That's wisdom. It says show no partiality. That's the law of God. That's justice. It says that the one who acquits the guilty and condemns the righteous are both alike, an abomination to the Lord toevah. So if you want to say, well, what's wise and what's prudent? The book says you don't acquit the guilty. Right. So in no law we push forward with legislators should there be any partiality, unequal weights in measures, and we should not be acquitting the guilty at all. Because that wouldn't be prudent. It wouldn't be wise because the word of God is the standard as to what is wise, what is prudent and what is true and what is righteous.
- [25:53]
Micah Kunkel
Abolitionists and equal protection advocates in principle, but we can be incrementalists in practice as we live in a fallen world where we can't just wave a magic wand and make it happen.
- [26:07]
Jeff Durbin
Do you want to speak to that first? Yeah.
- [26:09]
Luke Bear
One that's just called being inconsistent. But this is what's, what's frustrating me. That might be true if the, if what he's saying is accurate. Meaning one, there, there has been a, a magic wand available and there's been several legislators, such legislatures that have had that wand and were ready to wave it and it was the pro life industry that removed the wand and shut it down. So he, he sets us up as, as if the premise is, well, it's impossible, it can never happen happen. The culture isn't ready. But it's like, no, actually we've had, had that in states where they were ready to do it and it was the legislators, the legislators were ready and it was the establishment that shut it down. So like it's Just a false premise to begin with. And as far as, I'm just gonna say this quick, as far as like the prudence conversation, it's, he's made it clear that the way he defines prudence is it's very pragmatic and you know, he defines about, well, the culture's not ready and that's just not biblical anyways. Go ahead.
- [27:18]
Jeff Durbin
Well, also he says, he says, you know, equal protection. Yes. You know, I'm in agreement with that in principle. And he talks about, but we can do it incrementally. I have questions, I have questions. How can you be in agreement with the principles of equal protection and say we can go about it incrementally in opposition to the principles of equal protection because that's what you're arguing for. So this keeps coming up over and over and over again and it doesn't seem like, Scott, if you hear this, it doesn't seem like you understand the real issue between so called incrementalism and so called immediateism because you do bring it up here in terms of like, hey, even they have to do it in like state by state. That's incremental. When you say that, Scott, you betray any understanding of the real issue between incrementalism and immediateism. And I would encourage you, and I mean it's humbly to you to actually really look into this and listen to what's being said because you're arguing against a straw man when you say, look, they're doing it incrementally in one state, not all states. That is not an argument, that's not an argument against abolitionism. It's not an argument against so called immediateism at all.
- [28:24]
Luke Bear
It's a righteous increment.
- [28:25]
Jeff Durbin
Yeah, it's righteous increments. In other words, no unrighteous increments, no unjust increments. Of course we recognize that we can't stop legislatively, abortion, globally at one time. It's going to happen like a mustard seed in particular points. We get all that. But here's the issue. You can't say I agree in principle with equal protection, but we can actually do this incrementally. Because then I go, well, wait a minute. That's what I'm trying to do. Like I'm doing, I'm doing it in, in, in, in small corners, right? Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia. And so I'm going, but that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to do the bill I got in Georgia was, you know, Georgia's bill. It wasn't Florida's. Bill, but it was a bill of equal protection. Like that's, that's an increment. I guess I'm trying to, to do it incrementally in a spot. But that's not what Scott means when he says we can do it incrementally. What he means is our ultimate goal is, is. Is abolition and criminalization across the board. Scott's saying, that's my ultimate goal. But what Scott is arguing for is that along the way towards what we ought to be doing anyways and ought to have anyways, we can compromise and do injustice all the way. And what we're saying is incrementalism really is a suggestion that we can oppose our own commitments, our own professions. We can oppose our own worldview. We can compromise with the enemy. And we could, we can say, okay, yes, you can kill these babies, but not these babies. All to get people convinced about the ultimate value of human life and the need for justice for the human being. Scott is saying, when he says incrementally, he's saying that we can do injustice along the way. We can oppose our own profession about these human beings. We could, as pro life legislators, write injustice that maybe save some right. You know, for example, the bill in Arizona that replaced our bill, we had a bill of equal protection. Super simple. Every child in, and every, every human being in Arizona deserves equal protection. You're human from fertilization, as simple as that. That was killed by Kathy Herrod, the leader of the pro life establishment in Arizona. She said to the legislators who were really behind our bill, by the way, she said to them, don't pass that because it would mean the woman would be punished. Pass my bill. And Kathy Herrod's bill, they replaced our bill, said that you can, you can kill the children in the womb in Arizona, but you can't kill them because they have like, down syndrome. Like, you can't kill them because they have down syndrome, but you can kill all the healthy babies, all the normal babies. She said, you can kill the babies in Arizona in the womb, but you have to give them a proper burial, stuff like that. Now, Clorf apparently would be totally behind that, totally behind a bill like that. And he calls that incrementalism. We call it injustice. We don't call it a righteous increment. We say it's injustice. And God hates that. Here's the point, Scott. On the last day. Ready? This is it, Scott. God on the last day before the throne of God, you've got a bill of equal protection. And then you got A bill over here that says you can kill the babies but give them a proper burial. Which bill on the last day will God condemn and judge because he says in his word show no partiality in just, in, in justice, you shall show no partiality. He says unequal weights and measures are to do we think on the last day that he's going to have a bill before him that is toe va according to his own word and approve of it and praise it. No, what we're saying is that the bill as you, whatever you're doing, whatever you're doing has to be pleasing to God, has to be glorifying to God, and it has to be just. Has to be just. So this is the real dispute. It's not really between so called incrementalism and so called immediateism. It's really, really, it's really about justice versus injustice, right? Can you do a bill of injustice? Is God pleased with that? Will God bless a bill? Will God bless a bill that literally opposes his word at all points, about the human being in the womb, about partiality, about unequal weights and measures, about God's standards of justice? I mean, that's what we're really talking about here is what does the word of God say about this and what is the duty of Christians? What ought we to be doing? So let's hear more from Scott on this point.
- [33:01]
Micah Kunkel
The examples we see from history, with Wilberforce, with Lincoln, you know, that's pretty good. Now, even biblically, you can think about this. Remember when God gave Israel the charge to go into the promised land, he told them they would take it little by little. It wasn't an overnight success. They had battles to fight to claim that.
- [33:22]
Jeff Durbin
The fact that you've employed this form of argumentation, Scott, shows that you've, you, you don't know, you don't know this particular area because the fact that you talked about Israelites going and taking land piece by piece and not overnight, and you compared that to what we're saying in terms of justice and God's standards in the court, what he specifically says to legislators and to magistrates in his word, the fact that you compared the two and said it's not overnight, it was piece by piece and happened over time, shows, Scott, that, that you don't, you don't, you don't know this area because you're arguing against a straw man, period. And so I would encourage you, Scott, I mean, just humbly to you as a brother, don't use that form of argumentation anymore because that's not Getting us anywhere because that's not, that's not arguing against the abolitionist. We're all looking at it a little squinty eyed going what, what are you talking about? Piece by piece. Not overnight. We're not saying it's going to happen overnight. We're saying that where we work, we have to be faithful. We have to be faithful. We have to obey God, we have to keep his commandments, we have to do no injustice. I mean if God says justice and only justice shall you do. And the abolitionists are saying that's his word, that's his law, that's how we do this. And you're saying, well, justice and sometimes injustice can you do. Do you see the point where, where we're arguing against that position? Not that it takes place over time, at points in a state at a time or something like that. And so Scott, I would encourage you just to not use these forms of argumentation anymore against abolitionism because they're just not good arguments. You're not, let me say this, you're not arguing against me with these at all.
- [35:07]
Luke Bear
Yeah, real quick. We should probably go to break in a second, but I just want to say this. We're not going to get to it today. And he's, we kind of skipped over where he addressed us at length, but he just mentioned it briefly. I actually had forgotten until I just heard it. He talks about Lincoln and abolishing slavery and the. In the. And I just lost the name. The. Anyways, Wilberforce. Wilberforce.
- [35:34]
Jeff Durbin
Thank you.
- [35:34]
Luke Bear
I completely blinked. Anyways, he talks about. I'm not an expert on history but I will say this.
- [35:38]
Jeff Durbin
This.
- [35:40]
Luke Bear
He, he went at length on the history of Wilberforce and Lincoln and it's not very accurate. There was definitely some rewriting of history to make his point. And so I would like to actually have someone on that's an expert in that field to demonstrate that.
- [35:54]
Jeff Durbin
But yeah, and here's. And just. We'll go to a commercial break right after this. This comment. You can bring up Wilberforce and you can bring up Lincoln. I would not use Lincoln, by the way, as a prime example of, of faithfulness in this area and just listen to his debate. Anyway, so you can point to people in history who have, have, have done certain things, but every one of us in history has to be weighed by the word of God in terms of faithfulness and consistency. What does God actually call us to? And so I think you're wrong about Wilberforce and in Lincoln. Lincoln in many ways. Ways. But we're not saying that Wilberforce and Lincoln are the standards here. So here's one of my favorite Christians in history was Cornelius Van Till. And Van Till said that God strikes straight blows with crooked sticks. Okay? God does that. He works regardless of our unfaithfulness at times, God blesses us at times when we don't deserve it. And oftentimes we say the wrong thing, we do the wrong thing. And God still is merciful and gracious and God has his way. And that's what the scriptures say about God. Our God is in the heavens. He does all that he pleases. That's what he's. He's the all powerful God anyway. No human beings, no human being is going to thwart God's purposes. But just because God strikes straight blows with crooked sticks doesn't mean we should go around looking for crooked sticks to hit things with. We should look for straight sticks. We should be doing things, honoring and glorifying to God. And yeah, you can find blessings of God and mercy from God at points in history when God's people even were inconsistent. It doesn't mean that we should be now employing their inconsistencies because the word of God stands. The word of God gives us the direction and the law of God and the wisdom of God as to how we're supposed to move forward. And so let's do a quick commercial break, everybody. Be right back after this. Do all the things that YouTube likes, everybody the likes, the shares, the subscribes that'll bless and help this ministry, make sure that this content gets in front of as many people as possible. And so we'll be right back after this. Quick commercial break.
- [38:01]
Luke Bear
What?
- [38:01]
Jeff Durbin
What's that? Okay. Oh, okay. Right on. We got maybe a little technical issue with Gabe. So let me do this while Gabe's figure and then I'll go and play
- [38:11]
Micah Kunkel
a little more from this and make it their own. And there was all kinds of evil going on in those lands. Child sacrifice, you know, homosexuality, sexual immorality to the max. And God gave his people the charge of taking that land little by little.
- [38:26]
Luke Bear
Little.
- [38:26]
Micah Kunkel
And I would also point out there's a biblical example I can think of of somebody not acting with prudence. Think of King Josiah. He was responsible for bringing revival to the nation of Israel. He got them back worshiping the true God. He tore down idols. He helped the people reform morally. This was a good king who was doing God's work. Right. Well, the, the Egyptians are passing through his land on their way to attack the Assyrians. And Josiah isn't happy about it. His reasoning must have been something like this. Well, they're passing through our territory that God gave us. We cannot tolerate this. So he very imprudently goes out to meet them and forms a battle line, and he gets wiped out and killed. God does not bail him out for his lack of prudence.
- [39:19]
Jeff Durbin
And the difference is, I'm putting you this way straight. Did God command Josiah with his own word in his own mouth? Did God command Josiah to go and do that? The answer is no. And so God didn't bail him out because God didn't command it. Does God command in his law to show no partiality in judgment? Does God command in his law to not have unequal weights and measures? Does God command in his law not to acquit the guilty? Do you see the difference? We're saying God actually commands these things. God has given to us his law and his word in this area. And so God has spoken. And that's why we're acting in the way that we are and we're doing what we're doing. And you just. Scott, you brought up an example of somebody who was not told by God to do something. And you said, see, God didn't bail him out. It's like, well, yeah, God didn't tell him to do it. Scott, what are you doing? I mean that with respect to you. What are you doing with that example? Example that is misusing the Bible to make your point. Scott, please think about what I just said. You brought up that example of Josiah not being commanded by God, not given a word by God, and you compared that to the abolitionist position where we do have a word from God and we are commanded by God. And you try to compare the two. That's category error, Scott, and you know that. And also, you just abused the Bible. And I don't mean that to be offensive to you or to villainize you. You abused a biblical text in the biblical story to make your point. But it's a complete category error. It's not the same thing. On the one hand, God didn't speak. On the other hand, this case, he does speak, and he has given his word consistently. And so to not listen would be disobedience. To work contrary to that would be disobedience and unfaithfulness. Do you see the point? I hope you do, Scott. All right, everyone, quick commercial break. It works now. We'll be right back. This episode's brought to you by ion layer@ionlayer.com 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 system. 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 wear on your arm. 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 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. Don't forget. 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 company, 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. Welcome back everybody. Thank you for joining us right here on Apologia Radio at Apologia Studios. Don't forget to go to apologiastudios.com join the All Access partner with us in this ministry. Go to apologiastudios.com give help us to get to our goal so we can get all new content to you. New programming, new tools to equip you to know what you believe, why you believe it and be able to articulate those truths to the world. World apologudios.com give I want to thank and this is so I want to thank at Junior LG7FD okay. Thank you so much for the super chat. Equal protection is the most important activism of our time. Thank you. J7 yeah. Thank you. Seriously, thank you so much. We appreciate the blessing.
- [43:37]
Luke Bear
That's funny. Also our butler R7U. Thank you. Thank you. He says always an honor and blessing. Mr. Durham, please continue. Thank you Art. I see you in the chat in there.
- [43:44]
Jeff Durbin
Thank you so much for that blessing. Let's get right back to it, everybody. More with brother Scott Klusendorf and Micah Kunle.
- [43:52]
Scott Klusendorf
Wow, that's a great example. And actually, I think let's go ahead and, and get to some of the comments here because we have a lot of comments talking about how you're going against, you know, biblical principles and so that, and that the Bible says that we should be for justice and that we should, you know, always pursue it. What is kind of your response to that? And are there any other biblical examples you have of incrementally sort of introducing justice into society?
- [44:30]
Micah Kunkel
Well, I think we would all agree that the Bible condemns prostitution. But, you know, it's kind of funny when you look at the Mosaic Law. It forbid Israelites from making Jewish women prostitutes, but they were not forbidden from making foreigners prostitutes.
- [44:48]
Jeff Durbin
This was, this was bad. This, Scott, this, this was. Of all the arguments you make here coming up, this is, this was one the, of, of just takes the cake. This was one of the worst. Honestly, I truly, I truly hope that you do not continue to make this argument to, to make your case about doing legislation that is unjust and that we have permission to do that somehow before God, which we don't. We have the opposite. We have commands against doing what you're suggesting. But the Bible clearly, clearly forbids prostitution, period. Right. It just, it, you, you can look throughout from the beginning of the Bible all the way through. But let's talk about the law of God itself. There you have explicit commands against adultery in the Decalogue, in the Ten Commandments, explicit command against sexual immorality, like adultery. Do you, do you think that God supports the prostitution in his law of foreign women when he says in his law, no sexual immorality? He even classifies different kinds of examples of sexual immorality, like sleeping with a family member, sleeping with your father's wife, all those things. But he condemns adultery and sexual immorality wholesale, completely. And so if scripture, I'd like to know also, which Bible verse are you referring to? If scripture explicitly says for Jewish women, no prostitution, are you talking about an argument from silence about foreign women? Do you think that God and His law would say, yes, don't prostitute Jewish women, but you can prostitute the foreign women? No, that is not in the Bible. And to suggest so is just fiction. Scott, it is fiction to suggest that God would condone or allow the prostitution of evil, even foreign women, that the Jewish men were allowed to have sex with foreign prostitutes. God forbid sexual immorality. He forbids adultery. He actually calls it A capital crime. And there's prohibitions like Leviticus 19:29, where people are commanded not to prostitute their own daughters. There's no allowance in Deuteronomy 23:17 for things like temple prostitution. In Deuteronomy 23, verse 18, the. You're not allowed to take the wages of a prostitute and bring them into the house of God to pay any vows or anything like that at all. Even that money was seen as unclean prostitutes. Money was seen as unclean. And so I don't know what you were getting at here, Scott, when you're suggesting something like this, this is just a fallacious form of argumentation. It really is. Are you really suggesting that God in his law, in his perfect law, made allowances for people to have sex with prostitutes just so long as they weren't Jewish prostitutes? Are you really suggesting that? I. I just found this form of argumentation to just be stunning. And of course, Scott doesn't give any references as to what he's even referring to.
- [48:01]
Luke Bear
And even if that was true, that the. Doesn't has no bearing on this conversation.
- [48:07]
Jeff Durbin
It's just, It's a strange form of argumentation. I don't know why you make it. Scott. And so we'll, we'll go on here, because there's, there's more errors here.
- [48:15]
Micah Kunkel
Seems incremental to me. If you look at other things that were in the Mosaic Law, things that were condemned slavery, for example, we would all agree slavery is a moral issue, but it was not illegal in the Mosaic context text for Hebrews to have foreign slaves, but it was illegal for them to have Jewish ones. Again, that seems like an incremental step to me. And then you see examples even in the deliverance of.
- [48:41]
Jeff Durbin
Okay, again, boy. And here's the challenge. When you hear the word slavery coming out of Scott's mouth today, with chattel slavery behind us in our past that we've abolished, the kind of slavery that we abolish was the kind of slavery that God explicitly forbids, period. Like kidnapping and enslaving us a person, man stealing and enslaving a person. God calls that a capital crime. And so this is a challenge, listening to Scott in this point when he says it permits slavery in this context, but not that context. Yes, the Bible actually does allow for a type of slavery bond, servanthood in particular context, to literally save the poor from death. There's no bankruptcy laws. And so there's a. As a means to protect the poor from death. And people who had a catastrophic financial issue happen in their Lives, life. There was a means to protect and allow for the preservation of their own life and livelihood through a biblical form of servitude, slavery, bond, servanthood. And it's not the same kind of slavery that we're talking about that literally is condemned in Scripture. Man stealing and enslavement, capital crime. That was. And so when Scott says, well, it allows for, you know, slavery in this context, but not with. With Jewish people in this way that, yeah, God puts borders around how you're allowed to do this sort of servitude and bond, servanthood and slavery in the Old Testament. But it's not. We're not talking about chattel slavery, man stealing and enslaving people. God's law protects the poor from death by allowing a type of slavery, of debt, slavery, all that stuff.
- [50:21]
Luke Bear
It's a gift of benevolence.
- [50:22]
Jeff Durbin
Yeah. So what are we talking about? Like, how are you comparing the issue of the unjustified taking of human life to God's rules and regulations around a practice that was, that was literally meant to protect the poor from death? How are you comparing the two? This is again another example, I'll say it for the second time, category error. It is a category error that you are using now and you're abusing the Bible to do so to support what you're suggesting, Scott, that we can move forward in an attempt to preserve human life by literally opposing God and his word and his standards of justice. He's been explicit at these points, Scott. He's been explicit. He's told us what we can do and what we can't do. And you're saying no, we could ignore those verses that are explicit commands, by the way, and we could do so because slavery in the Old Testament, how I don't understand this form of argumentation makes no sense to me because it doesn't connect to the actual argumentation that we're making king real itself.
- [51:30]
Micah Kunkel
Remember what God told Moses to go request of Pharaoh. It wasn't immediate. Abolition of slavery and let my people go. What was it? 3 days journey into the wilderness to worship me. So God's asking Moses to request an incremental step. Now look, I want to
- [51:50]
Jeff Durbin
this one so bad. Here's why. Here's what I suggest everyone do. Just do that. This. Go read Exodus chapters 8 through 10. Go read Exodus chapters 8, 10 and read it. And then listen to what Scott just said. Because actually, if you read Exodus chapters 8, 10, what do you see actually happening in the text? It ain't the incrementalism that Scott's arguing for. You actually see Pharaoh trying to negotiate. Trying to negotiate with Moses. And Moses rejects, rejects, rejects, rejects. Four suggestions. Well, what if it. What if it's. What if it's just these ones? Okay, all right, all right, okay. It's not gonna work. All right, so what if I. What if I just say it's just the men? What if it's just the men? Okay, all right, okay. Every. Everybody. Everybody can go. Fine. But, like, leave behind the. The livestock. Right? And what does Moses do every time God says, let my people go? God says, let my people go. Moses doesn't negotiate with Pharaoh. What are you talking about? Like, as a matter of fact, everybody just do it. Go read Exodus chapters 8 through 10. I think I'm getting that right. 8 through 10. And you look at the showdown between Moses and Pharaoh and see if it's anything other than no compromise. Let my people go. What do we think the plagues were about? The plagues were literally about. God's not negotiating here. Everybody must go. And when Pharaoh's trying to negotiate, Moses is saying, no reject. No reject. No reject. I don't understand how you could take that case between Pharaoh and Moses and turn, literally distort the story and turn it into an argument for unjust incrementalism. Because that story tells the opposite story. As a matter of fact, it's one of those examples that we as abolitionists would be using. It's literally a case example that we use to say, here's an example in history where God's people, despite all of the circumstances and everything they had opposing them and the power above them, God's people were faithful. And specifically in Moses. And the answer is no. No. The answer is no. No compromise. Let my people go. And what we're saying is, abolitionists, it's the same thing. Let these children go. No compromise. We aren't compromising or negotiating with Egypt. Let these children go. And so isn't it amazing, because this has been like standard fare for abolitionists. We use the story in Exodus to demonstrate that in his God blesses faithfulness and not compromise. That's what we say. Faithfulness, not compromise. And Moses's example is the exact opposite example. It's the opposite of what you're suggesting. You're suggesting, Scott, and so are people like you. Compromise. You know, you just can't get it. I mean, there's just too much opposing. I mean, look at the circumstances. I mean, seriously, you don't have. You don't have the support of the culture around you. You don't have the support of the legislature. Big question here in Moses time, did he have the support of the Egyptians? Did he have the support of Pharaoh himself? No. It's literally the same scenario you're suggesting we can't overcome. In Moses's day, he has nothing but opposition. His circumstances are not helping him. He doesn't have like 56% of the Egyptian vote and Pharaoh like in a sign off and not veto it. It's nothing like that. It's just a power, powerful tyrant. The culture opposing not wanting to let the slaves go. And then God's people being called by God to do something. And then Moses, courageous in that moment, says non negotiable, no negotiating, not going to do it. Let my people go. And then what happens? God shows the victory. He blesses faithfulness and not compromise. And Scott, brother, I just cannot believe you would actually use that biblical story which says the opposite of what you're saying. Again, I would just challenge every listener. Just, it's not going to take you long. Go to Exodus. Read chapters 8 through 10 and compare what you read in the text with what Scott just suggested to us all.
- [56:12]
Luke Bear
Yeah, I was going to say, I bet the culture, the Egyptian culture wasn't ready. No, I'm sure they loved their slaves.
- [56:18]
Jeff Durbin
Yeah, it was nice to have them.
- [56:19]
Luke Bear
They weren't ready to let them go.
- [56:22]
Jeff Durbin
Exactly. They didn't have, let's just say it this way, they didn't have the votes they needed. The Jews did not have the votes that they needed. And they did not have, they did not have the, the support of the governor. All right, they didn't have the votes they needed. And they didn't have the support of the legislature. And what did God do? He blessed it. Because God's word went forth. They obeyed that. They did what they were told. Moses didn't yield. Moses resisted all the attempts of negotiation. And it is, it is just such a, and abuse of the text to suggest your form of incrementalism by looking at the story of the Exodus with Pharaoh and Moses. It's the opposite, Scott, of what you're suggesting. Such an important conversation distinction here that
- [57:08]
Micah Kunkel
some of our viewers may not understand. I totally agree that pragmatism can be evil. For example, example, let's say that I'm a governor of a state, that I have the votes to ban spousal abuse. But I won't do it because I think to myself, you know what? Boys will be boys. Men are going to get angry, you know, if their wives burn the supper or don't have the kids ready for school on time, or maybe they withhold sex. Whatever. I can see how guys are going to be guys. So I think we need to be more pragmatic here and not ban spousal abuse. Okay, that would be evil pragmatic. But let's imagine a different governor. Let's say you're the governor of a state, Micah, and you're in. You're in power. But here's the issue. Your state overwhelmingly has a history of supporting spousal abuse. You don't have the votes to ban it outright. You don't have the ability to protect all women, in this case, from spousal abuse. But you do have the votes to, for example, make sure no federal or state money goes to the practice. You also have the votes to protect women who work within the state government. And you also have the votes to pass legislation saying that you cannot hit a woman with a blunt object and you sign those into law. Are you being an evil pragmatist or are you limiting the evil done to the extent you can, given the political realities you were forced to live in?
- [58:38]
Jeff Durbin
Yes, you are being an evil pragmatist in that case. Because if you are a Christian governor in that circumstance, your job is to speak the truth. Speak the truth. Your job is to uphold God's standards of justice. Your job is to teach the culture what God requires of us, and that's what you should be doing. And let's say that as the governor, you weren't able to get the support you needed in year one. Right. But what you can do in year one is testify against it. You can condemn it publicly. You can speak God's word against it. And by the way, another issue, again, where you. Where you're conflating things and you're confusing things. You mentioned what you can't. What the governor could do is he can deny, you know, government funding that goes to this practice. Don't you see that it would actually be just to deny government or tax funding of a particular heinous practice? We're saying that would be just. That would be a good thing. Like if somebody wanted to do a bill, and maybe some abolitionists might disagree with this, but. But they're allowed to be wrong. So categories. Thinking in categories. If, If. If taxpayer money is going to fund the abortion mills and the abortion industry, it would be just for a legislator to go, what's that? We have money going from our citizens to fund this evil practice. This is taxpayer money going to fund an evil practice? Yeah. Let's, let's completely legislate against that. You can't take taxpayer fund funds. This is money from the public to pay for death. That would be a just bill to write. That's both and not either or that's pleasing to God.
- [60:13]
Luke Bear
Yeah.
- [60:13]
Jeff Durbin
Put both bills in one's equal protection and one's. By the way, you can't take taxpayer money and fund death. Right. And so you'd say let's do both those things. Right. Because both are just. And on the last day, listen, on the last day, put the bill that says defund Planned Parenthood, stop using taxpayer dollars to pay for debt death. Put that bill before God. Is God honored and glorified by the bill?
- [60:36]
Scott Klusendorf
Yep.
- [60:38]
Jeff Durbin
Because is it unjust and immoral to take taxpayer funds and pay for death? Yep. Is God pleased with the cutting off of that funding and taking away people's funds and, and not allowing people to be. Take, have taxes taken from them to pay for death? Is God glorified by that? I'd say yes. That's just, that's, that's a, just, just circle. There's a little category there right there of taxpayer funding for whatever. And you say, well, that's not just to use that money for those sorts of things. Cut that off, that's fine. So again, you're, you're, you threw that in the conversation, Scott. But, but that, that doesn't really work because we're arguing that it, it's justice and only justice shall you do. And it's unjust to take money from me tax wise and then pay for death, which I do not support. You're not, you shouldn't be allowed to do that. It's unjust to do that to the, the population. And so I just. You thr. I think that confuses things. I think it's a category error again. And so.
- [61:37]
Luke Bear
Well, yeah, it's. He really likes to use bad hypotheticals as arguments.
- [61:43]
Jeff Durbin
Right.
- [61:43]
Luke Bear
So one, this hypothetical is not even realistic because this isn't how things work. Right. You don't have governors just being like, oh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna end abortion by pushing this button. No, they have to go through the legislature. They have to be voted. And here's what he's ignoring that we keep saying. He's ignoring this fact. We've had states where the legislators, we had the votes to pass it to get it to the governor's desk so that he then had the option to sign it into law and it was stopped by the pro life establishment. He keeps ignoring that and acting like that doesn't, that hasn't happened, like that's not reality, but it is reality and it's happened multiple times. And it's going to continue to happen until we have bold and courageous legislators that say, no, I'm going to stand, stand up for what's true.
- [62:30]
Jeff Durbin
Amen. All right, so I think that's good for today. We've, I think we've done enough of that. Just to show some more examples, we did last week's episode examining some of Scott's argumentation. And this week, and I think you're, you're going to hear much of the same. And in everything that Scott says about this, there's a lot of repetition here, but hopefully you guys will be able to see the inconsistencies here. And, and I hope Scott sees them as well. And so next week, very, I'm, by the way, very excited. I'm telling you about next week's episode. Episode. Next week's episode, we're going to have on some of our close friends, fellow pastors Wes Fuller and Brian Gunter. They're coming in town for, to visit for a week with us and do some planning and some fellowship and those sorts of things. We're going to have them in the studio with us. And I want to talk to Pastor Brian about his recent debate on hell and annihilationism. And so it's going to be a program defending, defending hell, which sounds weird. Defending a, a what the Bible talks about, how the Bible speaks about hell. So we're going to be talking about next week, annihilation, annihilationism with Pastor Brian Gunter. And I hope you guys don't miss that because it is an important conversation to have. And so I want to encourage Everybody, go to apologiastudios.com, go to the store, get some shirts, get some mugs, get some things, support the ministry here at Apologia Studios. Get some tracks. There's tracks that are basic gospel tracts you can hand out to friends and family or in the public square. We have the Gospel for Mormons track. God has used that all around the world to lead Mormons to Christ. There's also some tracks you can go to the abortion mill with all kinds of stuff is there for you and go check it out@ apologiastudios.com of course,
- [64:08]
Luke Bear
we want to thank our dear brother bill rapier at amtec blades for partnering with us. You can go to amtechblades.com put apologia and the coupon code, get 5% off any he will match that 5% donation and abortion that would help us save babies so you can protect the lives of your loved ones and also save the lives of babies. And of course I want to mention Dominion wealth. You saw the ad at the beginning. Love those guys. Super grateful for them. You can go to Reformed Money and get a free consultation with them. And lastly HeritageDefense.org if you homeschooling your kids, please please please sign up@heritagedefense.org you have protection 247 from three letter agencies. Put apology in the coupon code. Gets first month free.
- [64:52]
Jeff Durbin
Thank you everybody. Blessed to have you doing this ministry with us. Go to apologiastudios.com Sign up for all access. More is coming very very soon. Big thank you again to everybody who's been giving towards the fundraiser to break out of the old Apologia studios and give you something brand new. And so we've raised almost $30,000 already. So big thank you to everybody who's doing that with us. I'm so grateful. We're so grateful. You can give more@apologiastudios.com give help us to get to our goal so we can start production on all of these different things and give you guys all the new tools at the website. So much is coming and so help us to get to that goal so we can get to work on it. Everybody. We will catch you next week right here on Apologia Radio. Don't forget to miss that. Don't miss that episode with Pastor Brian on Hell, it's coming next week. We right back next week.