Bradley Pierce and Joel Webbin dissect the "Abortion Free" docuseries, revealing 55,000 annual abortions via mail orders and out-of-state travel despite Roe v. Wade's overturning. They debate abolitionist tenets rejecting the "second victim narrative" while contrasting Civil War secession rights with modern urgency. The discussion pivots to a theological clash over voting for Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris, weighing Exodus 18's standards against minimizing harm, ultimately questioning if Christians can incite war or must accept lesser evils to protect unborn children. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Abortion Bills and Equal Protection00:09:49
All right, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.
I am your host, Pastor Joel Webbin with Right Response Ministries.
And in this episode, I was privileged to welcome to the show Bradley Pierce.
Bradley Pierce is a local guy here in our great state of Texas, central Texas, around the capital area outside of Austin, praise God.
But he is actively involved as a lawyer and lobbying and leading abolitionist organizations to see the full Abolishing of abortion in the state of Texas and Lord willing, in these United States as a whole at the federal level.
And so I've had him come on the show to talk about a brand new project that he's been involved with in abolishing abortion that all of you need to be aware of.
And then also to have a little bit of brotherly debate on what, you know, how is the abolitionist position consistently applied when it comes particularly to the issue of voting in a general presidential election?
National election?
Can an abolitionist, not just a Christian, but an abolitionist, vote for someone who is not pro life, namely Donald J. Trump?
All right, tune in now.
Applying God's Word to every aspect of life.
This is Theology Applied.
All right, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.
I am your host, Pastor Joel Webbin with Right Response Ministries, and today I'm privileged to welcome onto the show Bradley Pierce.
Bradley, thanks for coming on.
Hey, thanks for having me, Joel.
It's good to be here.
All right.
So, you have a brand new project in the works.
It's a docu series on the cause of abolishing abortion, exposing some of the pro life inc lies that essentially want to say, hey, now that Roe's been overturned, we have half of the country that doesn't do abortion anymore.
Is that true?
Can you tell us a little bit about this project?
Well, it's true that I'm working on a project, it's not true that half the country is abortion free.
So, The project is, it's actually abortionfree.com.
It's a six part docuseries that actually the last episode is dropping within hours of us recording this.
And people can go watch that at abortionfree.com or go to the YouTube channel for the Foundation to Abolish Abortion.
And it's looking at that.
You know, there's a lot of pro life organizations that are saying, hey, Dobbs overturned Roe versus Wade.
That's what we were trying to do for 49 years.
And now these states that have these trigger.
Trigger laws in place that went into effect immediately upon Dobbs overturning Roe.
Now, hey, all the clinics are out of the states.
And so now those states, many pro life organizations are saying that they're abortion free.
So this docuseries follows Megan Gibson as she goes and interviews people on the pro life side, on the abolition side to figure out are these states really abortion free?
You know, and what's really going on here?
So tell the listener what's actually going on because we've heard it said by several.
Individuals, and some of them are, you know, intentionally deceitful and lying and may not even be Christians.
And then there are others who, you know, we would say, no, this is a Christian brother in Christ who apparently is ignorant on this particular topic.
But I have heard from a variety of voices statements such as, you know, there's only five children that were killed, you know, in the womb last year in a state like Idaho or Oklahoma.
How is that not true?
Explain what's really going on.
Yeah, I wish that were true.
And I think we all want to believe that it's true that that's where abortion numbers are.
But it's kind of like the Democrats, you know, when they claim now that, you know, crime has gone down, well, it's because they stopped prosecuting criminals and they stopped counting the number of crimes that are actually occurring.
A lot of the same thing is really what's happening here that, yes, the numbers that are reported by the departments of health in 14 states around the country show that abortion numbers are down in those states to, you know, close to zero.
But the issue is that.
That's the abortions that were required to be reported.
And that was the abortions performed by Planned Parenthood, by abortion clinics, that now those abortions are gone.
And so the only abortions that are happening that, you know, they see like five in a state is those that are happening, you know, kind of life of the mother situations at hospitals, which, you know, aren't even actually abortions.
No one really, you know, no one wants to kill that baby.
It's just sometimes as a result of certain things.
But so that's, those numbers are not actually reflecting what's happening because, What the abortions are still happening, and we have just to use Texas as an example before the heartbeat bill, before Dobbs overturned Roe versus Wade, we had around 55,000 abortions a year happening in Texas.
And today, the latest numbers that we have seen show that there are 35,000 babies that are being taken out of state by their mothers, by Texas women taking Texas babies out of the state and having them aborted in other states.
And then here on Texas soil, we see about 20,600 abortions are happening per year right here on Texas soil by women ordering the abortion pills and then taking them here.
They get delivered to their mailbox and then they just take them right here.
And that's happening right here in Texas.
So that number is basically 55,000.
It's basically what it was before.
Once you put together 35 out of state, 20 in state, we're kind of right back where we were, except that now there's a whole lot of.
You know, well meaning, good pro life people, pro life voters here in Texas that think that Texas is abortion free.
And this isn't just Texas.
It's, you know, Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Mississippi.
You know, there's 14 of these states that way where the average pro life person thinks that the job is done.
We can declare victory.
We can go home.
We can just work on those, you know, God forsaken blue states now.
But at least right here in my state, you know, we're abortion free.
So tell us about what was it?
Right to Life, Louisiana.
Tell us a lot of our listeners may not be familiar with what happened when abolitionists were trying to put forward equal weights, equal measures, a just bill.
It wasn't a lot of times, you know, this, you know, but not every Christian does.
They think that, you know, the only opponent that the Christian is facing is the blue haired, you know, Kamala voting progressive.
They don't realize that the pro life industry needs, it actually needs abortion to continue.
Yeah, and you can watch in episode four called Killing Bills of the docuseries that the pro life movement is not just, you know, like accepting of abolition or accepting of equal protection, like, hey, we don't support that, but, you know, you guys do you and we'll do us and we'll all, you know, we're all fighting for abortion, against abortion, right?
No, but they're actually actively opposing bills that would provide equal protection.
And all equal protection is, is.
You know, it doesn't really create new laws.
There are already laws on the books that protect people from being murdered, right?
We already have homicide laws on the books, you know, for thousands of years of civilization here.
And so, all with equal protection is it just says, hey, those laws that prohibit committing homicide, those laws that apply to protect born people, they should protect unborn people, preborn people too, in the exact same way equal protection.
It's just like the Supreme Court above the Supreme Court, it says equal justice under law.
That's really all we're talking about is that the same laws that protect you and me also protect preborn children.
And so, what ended up happening in Louisiana, that was one of the states, one of many states.
Where pro life organizations have opposed equal protection.
There we have a bill that passed through a committee, pro life politicians voting for that bill.
And then, whenever it was about to get voted on on the House floor in Louisiana, 77 pro life organizations came out with a letter opposing equal protection, saying that, oh, well, that criminalizes women.
Well, no, no, it just makes it criminal for women to abort their children, just like it should be for everyone.
And all our bill does is it It makes it where it is illegal for everyone.
It doesn't single out women.
But they came out and they opposed that bill.
And although we had the votes, we had counted heads.
Brian Gunter on the ground there had talked to every office and we had the votes to get the bill passed through the House.
Because of the pro life movement coming out against it, it just killed it.
So, what are the main tenets when you say, I am an abolitionist?
What makes someone an abolitionist?
What are the primary tenets, the core convictions or elements that make up that?
Abolitionist position.
Yeah, well, there are many that talk about like the five tenets of abolition.
A lot of good folks talk about that.
I kind of sum it up really in three different things that kind of sum up those.
Why Christians Oppose Partiality00:12:42
And that is, first of all, it's approaching this by following the higher law, right?
What is the highest law?
Obviously, God's law is the highest law.
And how do we approach this?
We approach it as Christians.
We're not approaching this, you know, Leaving our Bibles at home, checking our sword at the gates.
No, we bring our sword into the gates and we say, Thus says the Lord.
This is what he says to do.
This is what we should do.
God has spoken to this issue as much as any other issue in civil government the issue of protecting innocent life by bearing the sword and not in vain.
And so we shouldn't be afraid to leave our Bibles at home when we talk about that and to build upon the rock of what God has said.
So that's the first.
First aspect of what I believe it means to be an abolitionist is we start with what God says.
We build on the rock.
He's our foundation.
We're not ashamed of the gospel.
We use it.
And in fact, that's what it's all about, right?
It's all about proclaiming Christ as Lord over every area of life, including civil government, including the protection of our neighbors.
And that's how we love our neighbors.
So to me, that's the first aspect.
You know, he's summing it up as saying, Christ is Lord over this area like every other.
You know, secondly, I would say it's okay, well, then what does Christ say?
What does God then say?
He says, love your neighbor as yourself.
He says, do justice.
He says, do justice to the fatherless.
But he gets even more specific than that.
He says, you should not have unequal weights and measures.
He says, you know, he who condemns the innocent and acquits the guilty is an abomination to God.
And he says, you know, even in Exodus, we see an example where we have two men struggling and they harm a woman who is pregnant.
The baby comes out and says, if there's harm, then what is the remedy?
Well, we see that that's where we get Lex Talionis eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life.
Well, wait, is it harm to the mother or is it harm to the baby?
As to what kind?
Well, no, it doesn't specify because it's the same.
Whether the harm is done to the mother or the harm is done to the child, it's still eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, because both of their lives are equally valuable, even though that baby's life was in the womb just a few moments before.
So we see equal justice, equal value there.
And then we see God saying that we're not to show partiality in judgment.
He says this repeatedly over and over and over you are not to show partiality in judgment.
And the Hebrew there is talking about.
We're not to regard faces.
We're not to say, okay, all right, we're here to decide this case, but before we decide what's justice here, who's the defendant?
Oh, is it the mom or is it the dad?
Oh, wait, who's the victim?
Was this person born or are they not yet born?
When we do that, we're showing partiality, and God says he hates that.
He forbids that.
And so that's why, kind of, the second aspect of what I think, what I describe as abolitionists is we support equal protection.
Equal justice, because that's what God commands.
And then the third one that I would sum up is to say and we oppose bills, first of all, of partiality, right?
Bills that God forbids, bills of partiality, we oppose those.
And we also oppose legislation that is merely a substitute for what God says to do.
It's merely a way to keep from doing what God says to do.
And ends up giving cover to people who don't want to abolish abortion and they don't want to do what God says.
And so they end up submitting these bills that are mere substitutes and end up delaying abolition and giving cover to people and making people think that we're abortion free.
And that's the issue that we have here in Texas.
They passed this trigger bill, and now we have a huge uphill battle to educate people because they've been defrauded.
By this false sense of victory.
And so that's the kind of bills that we oppose that just regulate abortion instead of actually abolishing it as God's told us to.
So, can I give you my thoughts of the abolitionist position that I hold?
And if I'm off anywhere, I'd love to hear it.
So, can I run my thoughts by you and then you tell me where you would agree or disagree?
Sounds great.
Okay.
So, the way I've thought about it is one, Equal protection.
And the way that I vocalize that to our listeners, and then as a local pastor to parishioners, as I say, equal protection means you have to, it's basically three points.
It's a direct correlation, three lines of logic that are all cohering with one another.
And so if we believe that the unborn child has equal dignity, then they must be equally protected.
And if they're going to be equally protected, that protection would be equal penalties for the one who threatens or destroys that life.
And so, when we say that the unborn child is an image bearer of the living God, that they are a human being, there's no way to articulate that truthfully without, in some way, minimizing their dignity, their innate value and worth, if we provide.
One set of protections for those who have already been born, and then a lesser set of protections for those who are unborn.
If we did that with any other class of people, there would be outrage.
If we said, you know what, you need to love all of your neighbors as yourself, except for one particular class of neighbors.
And when it comes to your black neighbor, there's certain things that you can do to him that you can't do to your white neighbor.
But then you've essentially, it's like you've just declared open season hunting.
Particularly, the class of people.
And there's no way of holding that position without saying that that particular class of people is a lower class.
They're not really people.
They're partially people, kind of people, you know, but they're not really, they're not full image bearers of the living God with full dignity.
And so, to me, that's the line of logic is just kind of three points.
If I truly believe the Christian position, which is from conception, conception being a fertilization, not implantation, but from the moment of fertilization.
When a human being is conceived, it is a full human being.
So when Jesus was in the womb, he wasn't fully God and part man, but from his conception, he was fully God and fully man.
And so if I believe that, then there's full dignity for the unborn.
And in order to put my money where my mouth is, if I really say that the unborn is fully dignified as a human being, then I can't say, hey, human beings have a certain set of protections because we value.
Human beings, except for the unborn.
It's open season, hunting season for this particular class.
So, equal dignity means equal protection.
And the way that we ensure equal protection is equal penalties.
If somebody took a two year old child into a dark alley and killed them in cold blood, whatever the full weight of the law would do to that criminal, those are the same sanctions, the same penalties.
Penalties that would befall not only the mother, but if there's a father or grandparent or anybody else who's involved in that decision, that coercion, and of course also the abortion doctor who would be, who is a certified hitman.
He is a serial killer.
But it differs, the abolitionist position, it differs from the pro life position that wants to, that really only wants to go after the abortion doctor.
And even with him, we want a firm slap on the wrist, you know, and we're going to give you a fine.
And then, and then would say of everyone else involved in that decision that there's absolutely no penalty at all.
So, equal dignity, equal protection, equal penalties that includes the mother, and for that matter, the father, or anybody else who's involved in coercing that mother to make that decision.
So, that's where I would start.
And then, second, I would say, in you know, that last point leads into the next point, which is that the second victim narrative is a lie, a satanic lie from the pit of hell that women.
Who also, in the same way that the unborn child has full dignity as a human being, so do women.
Women are co heirs in grace.
Men and women are created by God differently and tasked with different roles.
But women are not a lesser class than men, and therefore they should be treated with dignity.
And part of that dignity includes not treating women as though they are mentally disabled.
But that is how Christians treat women on this issue.
They are feminist all day long.
But then when it comes to this issue, they say, well, women, they don't have actual moral culpability like a real human being, like a man.
You know, you can't possibly assume that a woman, you know, would be an adult human being with rationale and logic.
You know, that like, I mean, it's so funny that the biggest flaming feminist in the world all of a sudden become the most chauvinistic, misogynist people that make me look like a liberal.
And I'm patriarchal when it comes to this issue.
All of a sudden, the woman is incapable of making an immoral, reprehensible decision because she doesn't have.
Cognitive faculties and she doesn't have morality and she doesn't have ethics and she doesn't, you know.
And so I would say that for me is the second.
So, first, the equal protection.
Then, second, the, you know, tenant in the way that I describe this is that the second victim narrative that, oh, a baby is a victim and that victim died.
But there's also the victim of the woman.
And how was she victimized?
Well, she was victimized by getting to murder her child with impunity.
Like, no, no.
No, she's not being victimized at all.
In fact, if there's any victimization, it's robbing her of the opportunity for the free grace and forgiveness that comes through Christ Jesus, which only that diamond brilliance of the gospel and the free grace and forgiveness of sins is only visible.
It only shines so brilliantly on the backdrop of the law of God that actually.
Addresses sin.
The woman, you can't be forgiven of a sin that you never committed, you know, and you're not going to pursue forgiveness in Christ Jesus of a sin that you have committed if you've convinced yourself that you've done no wrong.
And so the second victim narrative hurts babies because women get to murder them with impunity, but it also hurts women.
It robs babies of physical life and robs women of eternal life.
And then the last thing that I would say is that when it comes to bills, legislation, you must have equal weights and measures.
You cannot present unjust bills like what you said.
You can't present a bill that says you can murder on Wednesday, but not on Thursday.
So these need to be bills that not just merely heartbeat bills, but bills that actually you could hold your bill, not just in a court of law, human court here on earth, but you could hold that bill in a court of heaven, stand before God.
And not be ashamed.
Defending Justice with Coffee Deals00:04:05
That it is a bill that pleases the Lord based off of his immutable standards of righteousness.
And then, with that, I would draw a hard line on the legislation.
And then, I would also say, in terms of legislators, elected officials, that in local elections, especially, but I would probably even apply this to federal elections, but certainly local elections, and then whether it be local or federal, especially in the primaries.
That as Christians, we can only present legislation bills that are just, and we can also only present candidates, legislators, elected officials in primaries, which that's how our system works.
That's where we get to bring someone to the table and say, This man we believe is a good man fit for the office.
That we have to, in the same way the bills have to meet God's standards for righteousness on the issue of life that we find in Scripture, so too the man that we present when it comes to candidates for elected officials, he too must meet the standards that we find in Scripture.
And I think there's multiple places, but one of the premier places in Scripture would be Exodus chapter 18 that he must hate bribes and that he has to be someone who is ethical, that cares for the oppressed, that cares for.
A defender of justice, a defender of life.
And so, to me, that's when I think of abolition, that's what the position that I've held for, by God's grace, for a while now, and what I've articulated to others.
And so, I'm curious, and then we can go beyond this in just a moment and talk about a general election, and especially a general presidential election, as we're coming up upon shortly here with America.
But first, before we get there, because I think that's where we will probably differ.
But everything I've said thus far, I'm curious if there's anything along the way as we're building the foundation, if I'm off so far.
Right Response Ministries 2025 conference is a go.
This is a three day full, jam packed conference with eight main sessions, three to four hour and a half long panels, and an all star super based lineup of speakers 15 speakers in all.
Who are they?
Steve Dace, Jeff Durbin.
Again, this is April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2025, and the early registration is open right now.
This is the longest conference with the most speakers we've ever offered, and yet it is our all-time lowest.
Price.
The early registration available today is only $140 for an adult.
So go to rightresponseconference.com.
Again, that is rightresponseconference.com to register right now because the early registration will not last long.
Are you a Christian struggling to find companies that align with your values and beliefs?
Well, then Squirrelly Joe's has you covered for all your coffee needs.
All of their coffee is hand selected and roasted fresh every day by a family of fellow believers.
Try them out and you'll savor exceptional coffee while knowing that your investment supports a company committed to following God's teachings and upholding truth and righteousness, ensuring that your hard earned money contributes to the growth of God's kingdom.
Stop giving your hard earned dollars to pagans who support evil.
Right Response listeners have access to an exclusive deal.
Your first bag of coffee is free.
All you have to do is cover the shipping.
So head on over to squirrelyjoe's.com forward slash right response.
Again, that's squirrelyjoes.com forward slash right response to claim your first free bag of coffee today.
Legal Terms for Infants00:15:22
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God and not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though they're commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses.
And use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
Reese Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
No, I think that all sounds, that's basically just a reiteration of what I was just saying as well and what abolitionists stand for.
And then the, you know, I think you mentioned, yeah, the second victim narrative.
In episode five of the docuseries, the title of the episode is Infantilizing Women, because that's what the second victim narrative does it treats women as if they are too weak.
And too stupid to know what they're doing.
So, we have to give all women absolute immunity when it comes to the murder of their own children.
And that term, infantilizing women, it's actually illegal.
That's actually a legal term because we treat someone legally, someone who is not yet old enough to be responsible for their own actions.
We call them legally, or in the common law, we call them their infants.
They are legally infants.
And that's what we've basically done with women when it comes to abortion.
We've legally, we now call them infants, right?
They don't really know what they're doing.
And so we treat them that way by giving them complete immunity, just like you would if a two year old did something.
Well, no, they didn't know what they're doing.
Well, that's how we're treating women as well.
And so a lot of what you just said is right there in that episode.
So I like what you said there.
And then on the dignity point, They reminded me of here in Texas, we actually, back before slavery was abolished here, we actually had in our penal code, we actually had an entire part of our penal code that was, it said, this is the penal code for slaves and free persons of color, is what it said.
And then it started off by saying slaves and free persons of color are persons.
I'll send it to you later.
It's very interesting.
It says that they are persons, but because of their peculiar position in society, they get a different system of justice.
So, for example, a slave or free person of color, as it said, could get branded with the letter C on their face for committing certain crimes, but a free white person could not get branded for crimes, right?
There were different punishments, but you could not brand on the face a free white person.
So, anyways, but it's kind of one of those things like, Even though the law said, well, yes, slaves and free persons of color are persons, it didn't treat them that way, right?
Like you were saying, if we treated other classes of people the way that we treat preborn children, the way the pro life movement even treats preborn children, right, people would be up in arms.
And we should be.
Christians should be up in arms, lawfully, peacefully.
But we should be calling our civil officials to be up in arms.
You know, for the protection of innocent life.
So I really appreciate the way you describe that.
Thanks, brother.
Speaking of up in arms, I know you already specified, you gave the disclaimer peacefully and lawfully.
But to go there just for a moment, to go there carefully, being up in literal arms, what is your position on the Civil War?
Do you think that that was a just war here in America?
Well, it's, I mean, it's complicated.
I am a Texan and I do believe that, and I'm also, I believe that the Constitution was a, you know, was like a contract, right?
And there was no, there's nothing that prohibits leaving the contract.
And there's nothing that, if you believe the other party is breaching it, then you're free to leave the contract as well.
So I believe that states do have a right to secede.
And I think that Texas and the South did have a right to secede.
I think their reasons for doing so, as stated in many of their secession proclamations, there were other reasons, but certainly number one was the issue of slavery.
I think their reason for doing so, their number one reason, was a bad reason.
I think that they were wrong in protecting the chattel slavery that was going on and the generational slavery that was going on.
You know, so I don't think that they should have seceded over that issue, but did they have a right to do so?
Yes, I do believe that they did.
And the North did not have the right, I believe, to force them by arms back into the Union.
So that's my position.
Again, I don't think that either side was necessarily morally in the right, but I think from a legal perspective, I think that, you know, the states did have a right to secede.
But that said, I do think that, you know, I do think that.
The Civil War was a justice or was a judgment upon our country because of our refusal to abolish slavery.
Right.
What do you think?
What do you think about that?
Okay.
Well, so no, I don't think it was a just war.
I'm absolutely willing to say what you said there at the end.
I agree with much of what you said that states absolutely had the right to succeed.
And I think they still do, for that matter.
You and I are both in Texas.
And.
Do it, Lord.
You know, let's succeed.
You know, one day, still pray and still hope it.
But so, yes, I agree with, you know, states' rights and that they were being thwarted by Abraham Lincoln.
It's funny, you know, liberals recently came out and said, you know, Abraham Lincoln turns out evidence, you know, has surfaced that he may have been gay.
And I was like, you know, one of the few times me and liberals agree, you know, here I am, I've always thought Lincoln was gay, never liked him, you know, so.
So we're on the same team, you know.
All of a sudden, progressives and, you know, progressives, they progress so far that every now and then they come full circle and they match up some of their views with some of the conservatives, you know.
But so I've never been a fan of Abraham Lincoln.
And my position in a nutshell is just that if it was just to go to war over it, so that none of this is, you know, being a slavery apologist.
But what we're talking about is 600, you know, they say 600 to 750,000 lives, sons, fathers bleeding out and dying.
Because I think that the Civil War was a judgment for slavery, but I also think that a lot of what we're experiencing now as a country with a neo Marxism that focuses not so much on class warfare and economics, but on race, racism.
I think a lot of what we're experiencing now actually is a judgment for the Civil War, for trying to abolish abortion unjustly.
And so I think that logically, to be consistent, if you say that that issue, Of slavery merited the lives of 650, you know, 700,000 of our sons and fathers to die.
And the Civil War really was just because we had to do it now.
Has to be now.
It doesn't matter how many die.
It doesn't matter if we go to war.
It doesn't matter that the North, you know, arguably could have actually just bought all the slaves in the South and the money that they spent on the war.
They could have just freed all the slaves by buying them and purchasing them from all these, you know, plantations of people in the South.
It doesn't matter.
All that matters is slavery's got to end and it's got to end now.
And so we'll go to war and we'll bleed out and die and kill our sons and fathers.
If you believe that, that it was just, then I just don't see how, as a Christian, you're not taking up arms and storming the White House today over abortion.
Abortion, I mean, we're talking 70 million in half of a century babies slaughtered.
And that's just what we have numbers of.
It's probably far higher than that.
But 70 million murders compared to slavery.
It's not even just that abortion is, oh, abortion might be just as bad as slavery.
No, abortion is exponentially worse, exponentially worse.
And so I feel like for any Christian who says, yeah, the Civil War, that's whatever it takes, no matter the costs.
It's got to end.
We will not wait a month.
We will not wait a year.
We will not wait two years.
I got to do it today.
Grab your rifle.
Get it done.
And the Civil War was precisely that.
It was Gabriel Hamlin doing the just thing.
If that's your position, then you got to go to war today over abortion to be consistent.
That's my position.
So I think the Civil War was atrocious and wrong and unjust.
It should not have happened, which is why I can sleep at night and don't feel like a hypocrite for the fact that I'm not going to war over abortion.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I think it was the North unlawfully invading the South.
And, you know, they may have at least claimed to have pure motives.
And certainly I'm glad that, you know, slavery was abolished because of it, but it was still a, they did not have the jurisdiction to do what they do.
And I think that God does care about jurisdiction.
But God also uses people violating jurisdiction to bring judgment upon those who refuse to do justice.
And I think that's what happened there.
Right.
Yeah, no, I'm perfectly comfortable with what you said in terms of like God, you know, in the providential sense, in the ultimate sense, God ordains all things, you know, which come to pass.
And so the Civil War may not have been according to God's revealed will in Scripture, his moral will, that course of action in abolishing slavery, but it certainly was according to his hidden will or his sovereign will.
It's certainly something that he ordained.
And he did it, I think, for two reasons.
One, to end slavery.
But two, because slavery was unjust, and two, as a judgment for those who would not in slavery, who could have done it voluntarily.
And so it's weird.
It's kind of like a, you know, like I really do think you're right that the Civil War was a judgment of God for the sin of slavery.
And then I also think that a lot of what we're experiencing in the division in the nation today over race issues is a judgment of God over the sin of slavery.
Of the Civil War.
You know, so I feel like there's, it's both.
And yeah, and slavery, it's tough, you know, because it's tough because there are throughout history individual slave owners who I don't believe were, who I don't believe were sinning.
And yet, chattel slavery that's race based, lifelong, children being born into slavery, and then especially thinking of scripture.
Man stealing, kidnapping.
All these things are things that the Bible strictly prohibits and condemns.
And all these things were very present and really key characteristics and markers of the African slave trade.
And I think that's what made it wrong.
And yet, at the same time, it's hard.
I know he's controversial, but I like Dabney.
I don't know if you've read any of Dabney and some of the things he says regarding this issue of slavery.
I certainly like Edwards or George Whitefield.
And these are men who own slaves.
And I don't think, you know, going back to the second victim narrative of women, you know, and just, well, they're just, you know, they're just not fit for, you know, they can't help it.
They just, they're not mature enough or developed enough to be aware that they're doing something wrong.
I think it's atrocious to take that position of women.
And I also think it's atrocious to take that position towards George Whitefield or Jonathan Edwards.
I think that's kind of the common rhetoric that I always heard, you know, within the reformed camp, you know, as I was.
You know, growing up and coming into reform convictions is like, well, Jonathan Edwards is a hero in the faith.
He's stalwart, but, you know, every generation and culture has its blind spots.
And I just, I don't think so.
The dude would just ride on horseback all day long with different color threads to remember thoughts that he had.
He would literally just, what he did, he was the greatest, arguably the greatest American mind since the founding of our nation.
He just thought all day for a living.
That's all he did.
And if he ever got too preoccupied with his duties, like pastoring, well, then in the province of God, his congregation was filled with dimwits who fired Jonathan Edwards.
Can you imagine?
I mean, and I think a lot of them were probably Christians.
They have to live with that for eternity.
You know, we fired Jonathan Edwards.
Oh my goodness.
How stupid could you possibly be?
You know, but it freed up his time.
That's where he writes some of his greatest works.
He goes into indigenous people here in America as a missionary, but he has some more time.
And that's where we get, you know, some of his greatest works.
So here's a guy who just thinks.
That's just what he does.
He just thinks all day long.
And I don't think that slavery was a blind spot.
I think he had a defense and he was either wrong or he was right.
And in general, maybe he's wrong, but in general, this is where I've gotten, Bradley, as I've gotten older.
I think that we, I don't, if I'm going to bet on a generation, it's not going to be my own.
I feel like when I look around, like these are fathers that we are.
All too quick to condemn as being racist and slavers and this, that, and the other.
If they knew we were murdering babies and chopping off the genitals of kids, they would be horrified.
So I just don't feel like we're in a position.
We talk about blind spots.
If any generation has some gaping blind spots, it's ours.
And so Dabney, as he talks about his defense of slavery, not every form of slavery, there really is sin.
Biblical Standards Over Blind Spots00:15:18
Involved in that, and Exodus speaks to this.
But he just, one of the issues that he talks about is degrees of separation.
So, thinking even of like kings and rulers and empires, like I think there was some funny business in 2020 with the election.
But there's a certain point where even if a king comes in unethically, whether it be a coup or whether it be conquering another nation, but the war that started initially in the first place didn't actually meet the qualifications of just war theory.
But there's still, like, there's a certain point where I don't know how this guy got into power.
I don't know how this was established.
Or maybe I do know, and I know it was unethical.
It didn't meet God's standards.
But then at a certain point, two years down the line, 20 years down the line, it's like, okay, but homeboy is king.
One way or another, he's now king.
And so scriptures that say, you know, honor the emperor apply to Caesar crossing the Rubicon, or it applies to, you know, like in God's sovereignty, this has come to pass.
And I don't think it should have.
And so I would apply that to our own system.
I think at minimum, if not an outright stealing, I think I absolutely can argue from facts and logic that we had an election rigging.
If not a theft, we had an election rigging.
But any way you slice it, for these past few years, Joe Biden has been our president.
And that doesn't mean we have to agree with him.
And we certainly have the freedom and not only freedom, but moral obligation to call him to repentance and to hold him in check as Christians when he perverts justice and the law of God.
But we do still have that moral obligation to honor him as.
The president of these United States, even if he didn't get there correctly.
And so, my point is in terms of going back to man stealing and slavery, Dabney talks about degrees of separation.
And what do you do if there's two tribes in Africa and it's not a bunch of Europeans going in and rounding up black people in the bush and then capturing them and putting them on ships and then taking them across the ocean and selling them?
But that there's two black tribes and they're at war and it's an unjust war.
And let's say that one tribe was actually the antagonist.
The perpetrator, and they did so wrongly.
But the other tribe that's really just defending itself in the grace of God and his sovereignty is actually able to overpower the perpetrator.
And they, in this war, kill many of their opponents.
And those that they don't kill, they capture and they line them up on the sands.
And white Europeans come over on a ship and they sell them.
And then those white Europeans sell them.
And a few years later, they sell them.
And at some point, you know, and then you find this guy, Jonathan Edwards, you know.
13 degrees of separation down the line, is he objectively in sin?
If he's treating his slaves fairly, if he's not separating husbands and wives, it's hard.
So, was Edwards awesome, but he had this blind spot?
Or was Edwards awesome, period, full stop?
And the reason why we think he had a blind spot is because our generation is the dumbest generation of all of human history and we have blind spots.
Thoughts?
Well, you said a lot there.
I mean, you know.
I know.
I know.
It's obviously, obviously, we have blind spots, and obviously, Edward has blind spots, and obviously, Calvin had blind spots, and obviously, Huss had blind spots, and obviously, you know, Peter had blind spots.
And I'm not saying what he wrote, he had any blind spots.
That's inspired by God.
But I mean, every man has had.
You know, sins that they ask God, like David, Lord, reveal to me, you know, where my sins that I'm not even aware of.
And so, you know, I think we should, I very much am grateful for those you mentioned, George Whitfield and for Jonathan Edwards.
And, you know, I mean, I'm very, very grateful for them and for many of our founding fathers and, you know, Patrick Henry and many great men, many great Christian men, you know, who own slaves.
And many of them who wrestled with that.
And even I think it's, you know, tried to do the best that they thought that they could at the time with it.
You know, like, well, hey, I'm going to treat my slaves well.
And if I turn them loose, then other people could capture them and claim them as their own, and that wouldn't be good.
And I think they were well meaning.
I think that there are Christians throughout history that are well meaning, but they get away from the actual standard.
And here I think, you know, although there may be a form of slavery that is biblical and lawful, and we like, like we see, even our own constitution now says in the 13th Amendment, it basically says, You know, no slavery except prisons, basically, is what it says.
And, you know, and I would argue actually prisons is not a, that's not a, depending on how we're using them, right?
It's not a biblical form of punishment.
But, you know, are debt prisons, is that something that could be biblical?
That, you know, you become indebted, you're not able to pay it.
So now you become the servant or slave of someone until you pay it off.
And if they don't want to hire you directly, then they, Send you to a, you know, there's a workhouse where they put all these people together and they all work off.
Right.
I think all that could be well and good.
And I think that, you know, us getting far away from that has actually been bad for society.
And, you know, if we want to call that slavery, then yeah, I think that there are biblical forms of that.
But, you know, I don't think what was going on by and large, you know, in the country at the time was that.
And, you know, I think it's, but at the same time, I have a lot of sympathy.
You know, for those men who I think a lot of them made the wrong decision, but they did genuinely wrestle with it.
Shifting from America, so you're saying I just don't know if that was what was going on, indentured servanthood based off of debt.
I think you're right.
It wasn't indentured servanthood based off of debt.
It's not a bunch of African people who couldn't pay off their debts.
And so they were shipped to America for six years and then set free.
Like, certainly that's not what happened.
Or even POWs, right?
For prisoners of war, you know, kind of situations, you know, right, that would be different as well.
But, you know, whenever we're talking about them and their children and their children's children, you know, that's, we start to get away from that.
You're right.
You're absolutely right.
Yeah, you get away from it.
I think initially that is what a lot was going on.
They were prisoners of war and there was constantly war in Africa because tribalism, tribalism tends towards unceasing conflict.
But to pan out from America to Israel for a moment, That's one of the things that got me thinking.
A few years back, I was thinking, can I argue biblically that 100% of the slaves owned by members of Israel were all initially enslaved because of financial issues, that they were all debtors?
Or did Israel own any slaves that were sold as slaves by one foreign nation sold as slaves by another foreign nation that defeated them in war?
And would Israel be, would Exodus apply to Israel?
Would Israel be in sin?
And would the fool, you know, because it's not just the enslaver, the man stealer that's punishable by death, according to Scripture, but the one found in possession.
And all Scripture is God breathed, and therefore it's infallibly true.
But I do wonder the one found in possession, is there an argument to be made for degrees of separation?
The one initially found in possession who knew.
He saw it happen.
He saw this person literally rob a child from his mother, you know, and steal him away.
And then he sold him to this first buyer.
And now the first buyer is in possession.
He knows precisely how he came by this slave, this person who was stolen, kidnapped.
Then I'm like, yeah, okay, yeah.
Death for the stealer, death for the buyer.
But what about 13 separations down the line where you have no clue?
You just went to the auction that day.
There were 13 slaves for sale.
You bought one, you brought them home.
You treated them fairly.
Did that happen in Israel?
Did Israel ever buy us?
I don't know.
Reading guys like Dabney, reading other reformers, there are serious questions.
We want to make it so simple, is my point, but it's not that simple.
Fortunately, by the grace of God, abortion is.
Because even some of the rhetoric that you were using, you're like, you know, some of these guys, they were well meaning and they wrestled with it.
And I think they were wrong.
It was your position.
I think they were wrong, but they wrestled with it.
They were well meaning.
And these were good Christian men.
I've got a hunch, if I had to guess, Bradley, that you would not use that same rhetoric about abortion.
You would say, you know, this guy, he's killed a few babies, but he wrestled with it.
And, you know, but, you know, he's a good Christian man.
He's well meaning.
You know what I mean?
Like, I think we have to admit that.
Right.
Slavery and abortion are not the same.
And so, if anything, my whole point in arguing this is an argument from the greater to the lesser, just to say that if a civil war was justified for slavery, then surely we should be doing more, not less, more about abortion, even more of an immediate approach.
And why stop with lawful and peaceful?
Why not ramp it up?
But, I would say the reason we don't is because there's constantly, all of us, abolitionist or not, there's a cost benefit analysis.
That if I saw somebody, if they took my kid, my kid, and I see my kid in the back of their car and they're driving to a chop house where they're going to pay a hitman to put my kid down, I'm not going to hold a sign and preach the gospel.
Right.
I'm going to shoot out the tires, run up to the car, yank them out, maybe kill them and save my kid.
And because it's my kid.
But when it comes to saving somebody else's kid, because I have kids of my own who need a father and not a father who is in prison for the rest of his life, I follow a different set of standards.
Is that compromise?
I don't think so.
No, I mean, again, I think what jurisdiction do we have?
First of all, I think it's the first question.
And do we have the jurisdiction to go incite a war of aggression against other states that are not abolishing abortion?
I don't think we have that jurisdiction.
Do I have jurisdiction to use lethal force to stop someone from kidnapping and killing my child?
Absolutely, I do.
Not only jurisdiction, I believe I have a duty to do what I can to stop that.
And so I think jurisdiction is a very important factor, it has to factor into it.
It's a big factor in how we decide what we can lawfully do or what we must lawfully do.
And that's where we have our civil leaders in our state today, they do have a jurisdiction.
To do, you know, within the jurisdiction that they're given, right?
They don't have absolute jurisdiction, but within the jurisdiction that they're given, they do have the duty to exercise that and not bear the sword in vain, right?
Because they are God's ministers of justice to exercise wrath upon those who do evil.
And if they're not doing that, then they're not upholding their oath, first of all, because even the Constitution requires equal protection of the laws.
And they're not fulfilling that.
And they're certainly not fulfilling their God given duty.
We see the God given, where God first, I believe, delegated civil authority to man in Genesis 9, this was the area.
He said, Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Right before that point, God had not delegated that.
You know, whenever Cain killed Abel, God hadn't delegated that.
He says, I'll deal with him.
But in Genesis 9, he does delegate that.
And the first place he delegates that is the justice for those who destroy innocent life.
And so civil leaders have an absolute God given duty to exercise justice there.
Are you desiring to change your financial trajectory and build multi generational wealth for your children and grandchildren?
Our sponsor, Private Family Banking Partners, invites you to join a growing number of like minded individuals, families, and entrepreneurs who are working together to form a unique part of the parallel economy.
With Private Family Banking, you will learn how to establish a privatized banking system that will increase the value of the money and savings that you already have flowing through your life.
Join this growing community today as a part of putting post mill talk into post mill action.
By contacting a private family banking partner today by emailing them at bankingprivatefamilybanking.com.
Also, see the show notes below to schedule a discovery call and get a free copy of the e book Protect Your Money Now How to Build Multi Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown.
Our beef supply is under attack.
More than ever, the industry for fake industrial produced meat. Is underway.
As Reformed Post Mill Christians, the founders of Dominion Ranch seek to honor Christ's rule and continue building his kingdom on earth by supplying Christians with high quality beef for the journey.
We believe in excellence, and that is why Dominion Ranch works as a collective with multi generational ranchers across Texas to bring you the best in great tasting and nutritious beef.
Our motto is that kingdoms were never built on salads alone.
Eat beef and subdue the earth.
And one more thing don't forget to enter the Dominion Ranch Super Summer Giveaway for some delicious Wagyu beef, a mouth watering addition to your freezer.
Exodus 18 as Voting Standard00:15:12
Click the link in the description and enter to win.
Visit thewordsoap.com today.
Again, that's thewordsoap.com.
Everyone needs soap, so wash yourself in the Word.
Amen.
So, I, you know, The reason I'm getting all these thoughts out is because I've been thinking about it.
It's all over.
It's the hot topic right now that a lot of guys who, like me, so I'm full disclosure and being honest here.
A lot of guys like me, we're like, yeah, abolitionism, that's the biblical position.
It's got to be.
We looked into it, we investigated it, and everything seemed fine until it was time for a presidential election.
And then all of a sudden, you know, it's like, well, but wait a second.
I think I'm an abolitionist.
I want to be an abolitionist, but good, good night.
You know, like, I don't, I think the 19th Amendment should be repealed.
But you know what's going to happen on November 5th?
Me and my wife will be voting for Donald J. Trump.
Noses unplugged, sleeping like babies in the providence and sovereignty of God the night after.
And hopefully he'll be elected.
And that's my position.
And yet, now some guys have just gone from, I was an abolitionist 15 minutes ago, to just full rank pagan pragmatism.
Not even a wish of principles left.
And I still, I'm trying to hold on to my principles and the immutable standards of the word of God as much as I can.
And so I have.
I have a way of biblically arguing this, but I'll let you speak first.
But I still would absolutely describe myself as an abolitionist.
And I think that it's the correct position.
Everything that you and I articulated earlier, and that's why we started the episode with square one.
What are the foundational tenets and what is the position?
But I just think that in a general election, when the primaries were done, Ron DeSantis, he didn't make it.
I think he's a better man than Trump.
But he didn't make it.
And I appreciate, you know, Steve Dace is a friend and I think he's done this well.
I mean, he's a human being like me and you.
And so, you know, the fact that Steve Dace does something doesn't make it, you know, infallibly true.
But the position that he's taken is everybody knows, you know, that Steve Dace was very much, to say the least, very much on the DeSantis train.
You know, some of my friends are like, good grief.
I, you know, I had to stop listening to him for nine months.
He just became insufferable, you know.
But, But I get it.
I get why Steve Dace was pushing DeSantis as hard as he did because everything that people loved about Trump 2016 to 2020, DeSantis was all that and more.
He was better.
Trump's got Paula White as his counselor and Kenneth Copeland doing prayers.
And then you've got DeSantis with Tom Askell.
Are you kidding me?
Beautiful.
Wonderful.
I mean, and so, anyway, so all that being said, and I think DeSantis, whether or not he's regenerate, and I think there's a good argument to be made that he is actually a brother in Christ, but let's say he's not.
Let's say, you know, that he really has missed the gospel.
Common Roman Catholic L right there.
But let's say that he has missed the gospel and he's not truly regenerate.
I think he still would meet the standards of Exodus 18, which actually is a really reasonable standard that God in his mercy sets forth.
It doesn't require Regeneration.
You don't actually have to be a Christian to fit the bill.
And I think you would agree with everything I'm saying thus far.
But then, my point back to Steve Days is that when the final, you know, when the verdict came back in and DeSantis is out, you know, God bless him, but it's not going to happen.
Better luck next time.
And it is Donald J. Trump.
Love him, hate him, but it's Trump.
And you've got two choices an administration.
That will seek to import 10 to 20 million more pro abortion voters because that's what the Democrats will do.
It's not just abortion, they will import 10 to 20 million more pro abortion voters.
It's like, yeah, but they won't be citizens.
They don't get a vote.
Yeah, right.
Have you seen the legislation that cities are passing and have been for the past three years to allow non citizens to vote in our national elections?
They will vote.
And then the alternative is Donald J. Trump, who.
And I'm willing to be perfectly honest.
The man is not pro life.
He's not.
He is not an advocate for the unborn.
I wish he was, but he's not.
And in terms of brass tacks, raw numbers, the difference between babies murdered during the four years of a Trump administration versus the babies murdered under four years of a Kamala Harris administration, the difference, if any, would be negligible.
It would.
And I'm willing to admit all that and yet say, but by immigration alone, if Donald Trump isn't going to be worse on the issue of life, and for the record, I think the issue of life is bigger than immigration.
But if he's not going to be worse on the issue of life, then the immigration issue is big enough for me as it pertains to my born children that I'm morally obligated to.
And as immigration will down the road affect the unborn child in future elections, I'm willing to say, as a Christian, according to God's standard, Exodus 18, I could not have primaried Donald Trump and said, Here's my guy and bring him to the American people and say, This is the guy that I'm bringing forward.
I couldn't do that.
You'd have to primary somebody else.
And then in the primary, as a Christian, you would have needed to get behind that somebody else who actually meets God's standard.
But if and when that somebody else ultimately fails in the providence of God, if that's how he sees fit, and you're left with two other choices, neither of them meet Exodus 18, but one of them is a less heinous evil, then I think the Christian, and not just the Christian, but even the abolitionist Christian, Has a freedom of conscience to vote for that lesser evil and that he doesn't necessarily have to turn in his abolitionist cart.
But I think there are some within the abolitionist camp who are saying, You vote for Trump, you're out, buddy.
You are a pro life, split the penny a million ways, pragmatic, incremental loser.
And I'm like, Really?
So we agree on A, B, C, D, E, and then on Z.
It's like the running joke, you know, where it's like, are you Baptist or Presbyterian?
You agree on it.
Oh, Baptist?
So am I. 1689?
Or are you the Savoy Tech?
Oh, so am I.
So am I.
And then you get all the way down to the, you know, it's like, but what do you think about Article 17 of chapter?
And it's like, yeah, heretic.
And that's how it feels right now with the abolition issue and voting for Trump.
And so, anyways, thoughts?
Where are you at?
Well, I've got quite a few.
I got quite a few thoughts.
I'm sure you do.
First of all, I'll probably make everybody mad with some of my first thoughts here.
And that is, I think that you, you know, they're kind of using the well meaning, right?
I think there are Christian brothers, you know, who will vote for Trump and they're still Christians.
There are abolitionist brothers who will vote for Trump and they're still abolitionists.
I don't think that it is a, you know, voting for Trump is a litmus test of whether or not you are an abolitionist or whether or not you are a Christian.
So I'll just start with that and I'll make some folks mad on my side.
Of the wager here.
You definitely just made a few folks think.
You know, that said, I do think that, I mean, I'm not planning to vote for Trump unless, you know, unless something seriously changes there.
But it's not just, for me, it's not just the issue of abolition, right?
That is a huge factor in deciding how I exercise my vote in the presidential race.
But I do start with Exodus 18, and I don't think that he meets that.
You know, 2 Samuel 23, 3 is.
Reiterates the first part of Exodus 18 that he who rules must rule in the fear of God.
And so I do believe that whoever I vote for must be someone who fears God.
Now, we can make that a very, very low standard, but I would say that even I believe that President Trump doesn't even meet that standard and the other standards of Exodus 18.
So that's kind of where I start and end before I even get to the issue of abolition.
And I know you've already discussed that quite a bit, so I don't want to spend a ton of time on the Exodus 18, but that's really where I'm like, I can't vote for him because he doesn't meet this minimum standard, so I'm not.
And you think.
The Exodus 18, because I'm with you, I just think it's the wrong application to apply the Exodus 18 standard to a general election.
So, all I would say, as not just an abolitionist, but as a general equity theonomist, is I would say Exodus 18 is the immutable standard of God that is applied within our system, right?
Because there are different governments, there are monarchies, there are, you know, there's, but in our system, the way that Exodus 18, the general equity, is applied practically on the ground in our current system.
American system is for the Christian, Exodus 18 means this is the standard for any man you set forth, aka primaries.
But once it comes to a general election, if your man doesn't make the general election, then I believe the Christian is free to say, okay, our nation is so wicked that it has rejected God's standard and the good men set forth by Christians who met God's standard, and they've said, we want wicked or wickeder.
And we will not have righteousness.
We will only have wicked or wickeder.
And I think that in that scenario, now Exodus 18 no longer applies.
And the Christian is free.
That's the one difference my application of Exodus 18.
Right.
And I respect, you know, I respect folks who have that distinction.
I don't see that.
I don't see that distinction there.
And I would say, then what is the standard, right?
Or is the standard simply.
Vote for the, you know, once we get beyond the primary, is it just vote for the best candidate, period?
Is there no objective standard other than just vote for the best candidate?
But kind of beyond that, let's say we're, let's move them beyond that, right?
Let's say we are moving, like put, put XS 18 to the side.
The way that I look at it is, you know, even beyond that is, you know, I do think that, you know, the three biggest, obviously our country's under judgment.
I think we all agree with that.
I think, you know, All abolitionists and most Christians would agree with that that our nation is under judgment, and we are even symptoms of that judgment are an invasion.
We have an invasion in our country right now.
We have wokeism and insanity, the debasing of our own minds as a result of that.
We have the deep state, the huge bureaucracy that it doesn't matter who's president, they're the ones really running the country.
I think all of these things and many, many more things, but just in the civil realm, right?
These are.
Evidences of God's judgment upon a land.
We see this throughout scripture.
We see God brings invasions as judgment.
God brings, you know, because of the transgression of the land, many are its princes, right?
God brings the deep state as a judgment, and God brings the debasing of our minds.
Romans 1, you know, the turning ourselves over into insanity, wokeism, you know, that's what we call that today.
You know, those are all signs of God's judgment.
And then I look at scripturally, what are the primary causes of God's judgment?
Obviously, idolatry is number one.
We even look at scripture and see why did God drive out, not this chosen people, but why did God drive out the Canaanites out of the land?
And, you know, there's three different times where God says, here's kind of the list of reasons why he does that.
And we have one list that's a list of a bunch of sexual deviancy, you know, that ultimately we see sodomy and then we see bestiality.
And then we see child sacrifice mentioned in that list.
Then we have another list where we see all this divination and necromancy and all this stuff, witchcraft.
And then we also see child sacrifice mentioned again.
And then the third time we see God just meant to child sacrifice.
So, You know, obviously, idolatry is a reason why God drives out a people.
Sexual deviancy, sodomy, you know, is a reason why God judges a people.
And then obviously, child sacrifice is a reason why God judges a nation.
And God says that when it comes to the shedding of innocent blood, right, the only atonement, the only temporal atonement, right, Christ's blood atones for individuals.
But as far as temporally for us as a people, as a nation, as a state, the only temporal atonement for the shedding of innocent blood.
Is the justice, is the death of the murderer.
And so until that happens, that blood cries out for God's justice.
And that's what we have in our country.
And that's why God's judgment comes.
And God even says, those who sacrifice their children to Molech, if the people of the land close their eyes and don't provide justice upon the one doing it, God says, he'll bring justice upon the one doing it and upon the people of the land.
So all these reasons why I think that we see judgment, and many others, but I think these are the top reasons why we see God's judgment.
Upon this country.
And when I look at the two viable candidates here, I look at Harris and Trump, I see both of them are going to invite more judgment.
Trump may deal with the symptoms, and I think he will deal with the symptoms of judgment better, right?
He'll deal with the invasion, with the deep state, with the wokeism better than Harris will.
But I think he will make the disease even worse.
He will invite God's judgment even more.
We already know that he's.
Anti-Federal Sentiment in Texas00:08:07
Declared himself to be the most pro LGBT president.
When he was president, we saw lots of that.
He celebrated Pride and official declaration from the White House and moved the embassy to Jerusalem, but then it had rainbow flags.
And so, anyways, everybody already knows this very, very pro sodomite president.
And the law cabinet Republicans are celebrating what he just did.
To the party platform.
And then on the issue of idolatry, you know, he, you know, his team with his blessing is his own daughter in law or whoever it was that, you know, just put someone up on the platform to declare the one true God as someone other than the one true God, you know, and prayed to a false God and idolatry.
And then we see the issue of child sacrifice where Trump, his administration, he said that he opposes a federal ban on abortion.
And he opposes state bans on abortion.
He says leave it to the states, but then we see Arizona.
They have this, they resurrect their pre-row law, and he says that's too far, that's too extreme.
They're going to take care of that there.
And that then gave cover to a couple of Republicans who voted to repeal that.
And so he opposes actually any actual bans on abortion.
So I think the actual inviting of God's judgment.
Trump is going to make the disease worse.
Yes, he may deal with the symptoms better.
I think he will deal with the symptoms better, but he's going to make it worse.
Worse than because earlier you said that he would invite even more of God's judgment, more than not more than Herod.
Ask a clarifying question, but more than we have.
I think both of them will invite more than we have today.
Yes, right, right.
I'm with you.
So, okay, I just wanted to clarify that because I agree with you.
I think that the path that we're heading, even if it's the Trump path, will invite four years of Trump based off of what he said.
Now, here's the one silver lining that we can't.
We can't put our stock in it, but I'm hoping, I'm praying.
You can't say, well, this is what he's doing because you don't know.
We're not omniscient.
But I have it on good authority, Mr. Pierce.
Sometimes politicians lie.
Did you know that?
So it is possible that Trump actually governs to the right of how he's been speaking.
I don't think that's likely.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that, but that is possible.
But my point is if he governs anywhere close to To what he's been saying, I love sodomy.
I love, oh, we don't want to be extreme.
We don't want to actually save the lives of the unborn.
We don't want to, if he governs anywhere near his rhetoric and how he's been campaigning, then I'm with you 100%.
That any way you slice it, you go Kamala, you go Trump, you will be inviting more of God's judgment than we currently have right now.
But Trump would still be inviting less future judgment in terms of future judgment than Kamala.
And you agree with that?
Yeah, I think so.
Yeah, I think so, at least.
Yeah.
Now, it is different for the Democrats to act like Democrats, you know, than, you know, it is different when one person, you know, when you have the party that's supposed to be the party of Christians and morals and things like that now doing the wicked things.
That is different.
But yes, as far as just, you know, will Harris be more pro sodomy, pro baby murder, you know, pro idolatry?
Yes.
I think.
I don't think anybody disputes that.
I think there is something that you said recently online that I appreciate, you know, and I agree with, but I have a different application or I have a different, you know, yeah, different application of it.
You know, you said something like, I love my own children more than I love my enemy's children, or something like this.
Am I quoting that right?
Or my enemy's pre-born children?
I love my own born children more than I love my enemy's unborn children.
Right.
That's right.
And I think, again, You know, properly understood.
Go for it.
Yeah.
Feel free to criticize it.
No, I'm not.
I don't criticize.
I agree with that.
I mean, God gives us different levels of affinity and affection, you know, and duties, you know, for how we love.
Yes, we are to love our families.
We're to love our neighbors.
We're to love our enemies.
We are to love all of them.
But yes, I do have a higher duty and I love my wife more than I love, you know, other women.
And so, you know, I love my enemies.
So, That there is, yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with what you said there.
I think my own application of it though, again, kind of if Exodus 18 is not the standard, right?
And if voting for, if it's okay to vote for judgment, if it's just less judgment, even getting to kind of down the line, like, all right, I'm just voting for what I think is best for my posterity,
even that, I mean, I'm not saying I would vote for Harris, but what I've seen in my experience here in Texas is that things are better under.
Democrat federal administrations.
And here's what I mean by that.
I think one of the things, and this kind of comes back to full circle here, back to the Civil War.
I think something that is good for Texas is a growing anti federal government sentiment.
And I think being anti federal government is a good thing.
And I love when I see Texas standing up against the federal government.
What I saw under the Obama administration was a huge growth in that, huge growth in what was at the time called the Tea Party, standing up to the feds, resisting the feds.
I thought that was really good.
But the moment Trump got elected, that basically died instantly.
And we saw under the Trump administration not a lot of resistance to the feds.
And even here in Texas, I mean, just think about COVID.
You know, if Hillary had been president, you know, God forbid, not that I would want that, but if she had been, you know, would we have been putting on the masks and shutting things down and locking ourselves up as quickly?
Or would we have resisted that?
Or maybe just done that for two or three weeks and then said, you know, forget this?
I think the likelihood that we would have resisted way more would have happened, you know, if a Democrat had been in the White House than if it had been a Republican.
And I think about like Greg Abbott.
Greg Abbott is our governor here.
The Greg Abbott under the Biden administration has been way better than the Greg Abbott under the Trump administration.
And so I think just what do I think is best for Texas?
Because I'm a Texas first guy.
I know Trump says America first.
I'm a Texas first.
America second is where I'm at.
And I think, although I think Harris will bring lots of bad things and Biden has brought lots of bad things on Texas.
I think a resistance to the federal government is good for Texas.
And we see way more of that whenever it's not our guy who still exercises federal tyranny over our state.
You know, it's better when it's not our guy.
That's, yeah, I think that's a great point.
Another point that I've heard, you know, some of my brothers make that I think is another good point is saying, okay, Joel, you love, you know, natural affections.
Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils00:11:50
You love your kids more than you love your enemy's kids.
I get it.
And because I love my kids too.
I want, you know, one of the biggest things that I'm afraid is not just an invasion of military aged men across the border, criminals who are raping women and murdering people.
That's a threat to my kids.
But the biggest threat to my kids is the judgment of God.
And so the best thing I can do to protect my children is to take part, no part, to take no part in wickedness and like, you know, to be like righteous Lot.
If we must live in Sodom, if we have nowhere else to go, then I just want to make sure that as federal head of my family, my children, I don't want to have my hand in any part of the wickedness going on around me and to spare my children that so that God would take note of righteous lot, take note of our household.
As for me and our house, we will serve the Lord and that maybe in his kindness, that.
There would be kind of like a Passover, passing it over, you know, the blood on the mantle of our door, so that as his judgment comes and the wicked perish, that as we've sought to fear God and to not offend him, further offend him, that maybe he would be so kind as to spare of him.
I think that's a good argument, too.
I get that.
I like that because it's in this natural affections, you know.
The reason I brought that up was just to say, and for the record, my post was not to say in any context, any scenario, zero disclaimers.
No, I would not vote.
So let's say you've got a guy who's pro abortion, but he's going to, well, my kids aren't in danger of being aborted because I'm not a wicked degenerate.
I'm not a murderer, praise God.
Such were some of you.
I would have been, but God saved me.
So all glory goes to him.
I'm not a murderer.
So my children aren't in danger of being murdered.
So let's say you got a pro abortion candidate who doesn't threaten my children because their dad is not a murderer by the grace of God.
But this guy's really great on taxes and he's going to bring jobs back to America first.
You know, he's good for the economy.
And there was some abolitionist, I think, that read my post and explicitly read it intentionally and the least charitable light you could possibly imagine.
And they're like, he's talking about he loves his children, he means economically.
At the cost of other children in terms of their physical preservation.
And I was like, no, no, no.
I'm going to vote for Trump.
And here's, I didn't think it needed to be said out loud.
I thought it was assumed, but I'm going to vote for Trump in this election.
I didn't say I'm going to vote for Trump in all times, in all places, that if Trump was running against Dusty Devers, I'd still vote Trump.
No, I was saying I'm going to vote for Trump in 2024, in this election against the alternative.
I wasn't talking about a hypothetical.
I was talking about real life.
And so that's what I meant.
So, my point is with natural affections, I just want to clarify that as a father, you do what's best for your family.
But that doesn't mean that it's not you do what's best for your family, period, without any.
No, there might be someone who is better for your kids economically or some other aspect.
But they're a murderer.
And then somebody else over here might not be as best for your kids.
Your kids may not be able to have a down payment for their home when they're 25 if you vote for this guy.
But this guy's going to save babies.
Well, then I would have to vote for that guy over and against the economic and financial ease of my own children because the issue of life is that big.
So I just wanted to throw that out there publicly on air.
When I said I'll vote for Trump for natural affection reasons, that was not to say that I would vote for Trump.
In any election against any alternative, because natural affections always supersede any other issue.
There are exceptions.
But in this election, it's I could vote for Trump.
And the alternative is someone who is even more murderous, who is even more inclined to let my enemies murder their own children and bad for the economy and the border and this and that.
And so that's the argument that I was making.
Whereas I feel like others would say, no, I could maybe potentially ward off.
Some of the symptoms of God's judgment in the short run by voting Trump, but I won't because he doesn't meet the standard and I can't do it.
And I understand that.
I don't think that my abolitionist brothers, such as yourself, are.
I certainly don't think that that's a sinful position to say I cannot vote for either candidate in this election.
But yeah, I think that.
It's tough because I probably would have said, I think a lot of guys would have said years ago that we're one issue voters.
It's just the issue of life.
And now it really has caused me to question in a general election what is the standard?
You brought it up earlier.
You said, So is there a standard or is it just always the lesser of two evils into perpetuity forever?
Now it's the year of our Lord, 2050.
Uh, one guy is going to kill you know four million, you know, zillion trillion, and the other guy's going to kill you know one less.
Like, does that guy get your vote too?
You know, and it's it's caused me to think about you know what is the standard for voting in a general election because if it's not Exodus 18, then um, there is no other standard biblically besides Exodus, so you can't say, well, it's actually this other verse that says uh, you can murder some, you know, that there is no such verse.
And so I think it really is.
If it's not Exodus 18, then it really is voting for the least destruction for your people.
I'm trying to ward off as much destruction as I possibly can.
That inevitably becomes the standard.
And I think that's where I'm at, honestly.
And I'm willing to say that publicly.
I think as a Christian, when it comes to a federal general election in the primaries, no, no, no.
You go by Exodus 18, you can't present a guy.
When you're presenting a bill, Just bill, presenting a candidate, just candidate at every level.
But once your country comes back to you and says, we are completely degenerate, we hate your God, we hate your family, we hate your children, and we will have wickedness or even greater wickedness, then I do think the Christian is free to say, yeah, at that point, then the lesser of two evils does become the standard in a general federal election.
And I know that you would vehemently disagree with that, but I think that is.
And I've been thinking about it a lot, but as I'm theologically wrestling with it, if it's not Exodus 18, then it is the lesser of two evils.
That's your standard.
That is your standard.
And so I'm willing to at least be honest enough, much to the chagrin of probably a lot of my abolitionist brothers, but I'm willing to say out loud that yes, that is the standard.
The lesser of two evils, it is using whatever little bit of civil power God has providentially given me to ward off is much.
And harm towards my people as I possibly can.
That's my standard.
And I think that that is permissible in a general election when there is no other option.
Well, and again, I think it's something that brothers can disagree on.
I don't think it is something that, you know, that Exodus 18 is, you know, again, we can be as dogmatic as Scripture is.
And there, I think it's clear, but I'm not going to go so far as to say I believe it's an issue of orthodoxy that you have to agree that that's a standard in the general election.
You know, I do think that it is, you know, okay, as far as voting for God's judgment, you know, Again, we can throw out scriptures, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
And I think that the question then is okay, well, is voting for Trump having fellowship with those fruits?
And again, my conscience is that it is bound by Exodus 18 and it is bound to vote against the things that, to vote against someone who says and has supported the things that are the most abominable to God for civil leaders to support.
That, yeah, I'm just not, I don't believe I'm free to vote for that.
But that said, I do, you know, reasonable brothers can disagree on this.
And I do agree with that.
And something else that I also think is that, you know, Christians and abolitionists, that we have a lot of work to do and a lot of organizing to do to be stronger politically.
And that's something that we really try to do with Abolish Abortion Texas here in Texas is that we're not just.
We are being prophetic and preaching and bringing the gospel.
And here's what God says to do during the legislative session.
But then we also have to be active during the election season and not just cursing the darkness, right?
But actually bringing light and bringing heat where it's needed and where it's felt.
And we've seen a lot of good fruit here in Texas.
And I'd like to at some point see that nationally.
And I hope that there will be more organization toward that end.
Amen.
Well, on that note, how can our listeners support what you guys are doing?
Anything that they can do to get involved or even donations, giving, whatever it may be?
I mean, we'd love, I mean, we're a 501c3, the foundation to abolish abortion.
People can go to faa.life and support us there.
Or if you're in Texas, we're a 501c4, so that way we can lobby.
So you can't get a tax deduction, but you can support us, abolishabortiontx.org.
But really, the main thing right now, the action item that we're asking people to do is to support, is to go watch the docuseries, abortionfree.com.
Or at our Foundation Abolish Abortion YouTube channel.
Watch that, share that with your pro life friends.
We need people to become aware of what's really going on.
Otherwise, people are still going to be walking around with this false sense of victory in these states.
And that's, you know, we've got to overcome that.
So please help us get that out and share that with as many people as you can.
Amen.
Okay.
Thank you, Bradley, for all your work and, yeah, your faithfulness.
And thanks for being willing to come on the show.
Knowing you knew ahead of time that we would disagree on the Trump issue, and yet you still came on.