We were live from Moscow, Idaho today on a Road Trip Dividing Line. Talked a bit about what's going on up here, talked a bit about the lifting of mask mandates on US flights, and the reality that honestly, folks, the tyrants who mandated them have not gone anywhere, they are just gearing up for the next round. Then we started looking at statements being made by Reformed Baptists concerning the relationship of philosophical constructs and the inspired Scriptures. Some really troubling material to cover today. As I said on the program, the straw-men will be coming thick and heavy on this one, and as Rich as read me some of the memes already posted, I was correct. It is like there are many who simply have no ears to hear. In any case, important considerations today.

After we spent a little time on some positive reports of God's grace, and then a few minutes on some negative developments of more rebellion and insanity coming out of Disney, we dove into a fully discussion of tradition, the canon, and finally looking at a series of Tweets by Steve Meister on the table of contents of your Bible as a form of -inescapable tradition.- Over 90 minutes today.

Today we dove into a section of John 10 -with a few interruptions for commentary on the weather outside my unit- and then looked at some elements of Aquinas' commentary on the same text. Then we read an article that contained hagiography concerning Thomas and considered the kind of thinking that lies behind such perspectives.

This morning Dr. Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org posted a short video clip from one of his many public speaking engagements. You have to give Frank credit, he goes out there and takes the questions. That is appreciated. But the inconsistencies in the answers are why we have often had to comment on what is being said. In this video he responds to an audience question -which itself contained errors of fact and thought- by stating what we might call the -standard- synergistic objections to Reformed theology. So we provided a rebuttal, along with a reiteration of the fact that we would be happy to -cross examine- Frank, and be cross examined by him, in formal, public debate. Many people who saw a tweet I posted suggesting such a debate said they would really like to see that happen. I am doubtful, but, you never know-