Joel Webbin of NXR Studios argues that while interracial marriage is biblically permissible in individual cases like Ruth and Boaz, it contradicts God's normative plan for nations at a macro scale. He critiques "biblicism," insisting instead on natural law and prudential wisdom to address white replacement theory and mass immigration. The discussion clarifies that homosexuality remains invalid, whereas polygamy is non-normative but potentially tolerable in non-Western contexts, contrasting this with slavery's historical complexity. Ultimately, the segment asserts that nations will remain distinct in the eschaton, challenging modern egalitarianism while seeking financial support for their ministry. [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
Final Word on Interracial Marriage00:03:56
Radical Christian nationalist pastor, Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin.
I'm gonna talk about Joel Webbin.
Well, we learned a lot.
Interracial marriage, at the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference.
JK, JK, we do not concede it is God's normative plan.
The prompt, the thesis for the debate, we still hold that that is true, which is interracial marriage, while biblically permissible, generally, not in the micro, each and every individual case, but generally in the macro at scale, goes against God's normative or ordinary.
Design or plan for peoples, cultures, and nations.
This is undeniably true.
Now, what this really came down to, and this is what we're going to get into when we do kind of our analysis, post analysis of the debate.
And this is going to be our final word on the subject.
We'll move on because there are other things to do.
Here's the deal I don't want to get pigeonholed, and this guy's just, he's against interracial marriage.
There are so many other good qualities that NXR has to offer, right?
Like our sexism, right?
Our views on Israel and the Jews.
You know, I mean, there's so many things to cherish, to appreciate about in XR Studio.
So, we don't want to get pigeonholed on this one issue.
So, this is going to be kind of our final word on this subject of interracial marriage, but it merits a word.
We think that it merits a word.
Ruslan and Avery gave their responses.
I haven't watched it, but I saw some of the clips.
And we feel like that's pretty normal.
Guys, they do a debate and then they give their post analysis.
So, today is going to be that.
And then we're going to move on because we've got a lot of other topics to get to.
We probably would have done like Friday, the day after, but we had Casey from Ohio running for a governor race.
Incredibly important.
And that's what NXR Studios wants to do.
As much as these topics push the ball forward and we're talking about things that are still kind of outside of the Overton window that the general public may not yet be ready to talk about, that's a big part of what we do.
But that's not the only thing we do.
We're trying to get candidates across the threshold to change the political landscape of our country.
Christ is King, Christian nationalism.
Actually, happening on the ground politically with governor races.
So, we had James Fish back this last Monday.
And then we had Casey scheduled on Friday, the day after the debate.
And then we already had Timothy Gordon, which was phenomenal.
If you guys haven't got to see that, tune in.
Our Monday episode was Timothy Gordon.
He was live in the studio.
He happened to be in town.
And so, we did not want to miss that opportunity.
We got to talk about his documentary, which is not What is a Woman?
That's Matt Walsh, right?
What is a Woman?
I think that question, you know, it's.
It was answered pretty clearly.
A woman is an adult female human being.
But Timothy Gordon, his documentary is What a Woman Is.
Instead of what is a woman, it's why is a woman?
What is her telos?
What is her purpose?
What is the end of a woman?
So that's what we did on Monday.
So we just haven't had the chance.
Then we had our Nick schedule.
You know, that's a strict schedule that we're keeping on Wednesday with the NXR special.
So this is our first chance to be able to actually give our analysis.
About the debate.
And so we're going to do that now.
This is kind of our final word on the subject.
And then we have a bunch of other topics to get to, but also we've got guys that we'll be interviewing, guys who are coming into the studio.
We've got a lot of things to cover.
So this is our chance.
We're going to do our very best.
Dangers of Biblical Fundamentalism00:08:18
I've written a couple things that I do want to read.
But the first thing that I want to get to is this, and we'll talk about it.
But part of the problem, and this really, we just, I don't know, we just weren't quite able to.
Nailed down on this for whatever reason.
Part of it, you know, our team, me, Antonio, Wes, I'm sure we could have done a better job.
You know, re watching it afterwards, like I'm not sitting there saying, oh yeah, that was perfect.
You know, there was absolutely nothing that we could have done better.
Of course, there were things that we could have done better.
But part of it also is just the nature of a live discussion.
And sometimes you just, there's something that you want to get to, but you just, you don't.
It never really lands the way that you want it to land.
And one of the big issues that we were hoping to be able to focus on more, we tried to get there when we were talking about ages.
You know, like, and Antonio, you did a great job of saying, you know, the hypothetical of a 60 year old man marrying, you know, not just, you know, a five year old woman that's more extreme, you know, but.
You said, but what if she's 14?
What if she's 16?
What if she's 17?
And Avery, you know, he was being honest.
I appreciate his honesty.
And he was saying, well, no.
And he tried, you know, God bless him.
He was able to put it together, put two and two together.
He understood what was going on.
So he tried to root it in a clear biblical command because that's what his side had to do.
And so my point is one of the things we wanted to get to that we didn't is the dangers of biblicism.
Okay.
We are Bible guys, we're Christians.
We love the Bible, but biblicism.
Is a specific term.
It's the incessant insistence upon chapter and verse, chapter and verse, right?
Like right after this, when you finish listening to the show, we're all going to go and we're going to drink a full glass of water out of the toilet, right?
There's nothing in the Bible that says we shouldn't.
Nothing in the Bible that explicitly prohibits or condemns.
No, none of us are going to do that because none of us are stupid, right?
And we don't need a chapter and verse to tell us not explicitly to condemn or prohibit.
The drinking of a full glass of water from the toilet.
We don't need that because the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us how to do engineering.
There's plenty of things that the Bible does not explicitly, chapter and verse, verbatim speak to.
And as we see in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as we see the LBC, London Baptist Confession of Faith copying the Westminster, of course, same kind of language.
I believe it's chapter one, article six.
There are certain things derived by good and necessary consequence.
By good and necessary consequence.
So when Antonio threw up this Hypothetical to Avery, well, what about a six year old man and, you know, a 16 year old girl?
Avery tried his instinct, we get it, we're sympathetic.
He tried to kind of root that in some kind of explicit biblical command.
No, that marriage is bad because of chapter and verse.
But the problem was that there wasn't a chapter and verse.
And he tried, I remember the three things that he said, I believe it was, he tried to root it in some kind of biblical prohibition regarding maturity.
And he broke it into three subcategories.
I believe it was physical.
Mental and spiritual.
That's what I remember.
And so he was like, you know, well, she just wouldn't bear the spiritual, mental, and physical maturity.
And we went up to the age 16, I believe, if my memory serves me, 16.
And he was still saying, well, no, six year old man, 16 year old girl, that would still not be good.
I would not be for that.
I would be generally against that.
Oh, really?
Generally against?
What crazy language did you use?
Very interesting.
And there was a certain point where, like, well, wisdom.
We're like, oh, wisdom.
Oh, wisdom issue.
And so he's trying to root it in some kind of biblical man, but it doesn't work.
And I pointed out Mary, most biblical scholars say that Mary was between the ages of 14 and 16.
Very few people say that she was any older than 16 years of age.
And yet the Godhead saw fit that she did have the maturity.
She certainly had the physical maturity, right?
She was able to ovulate.
She was a mature adult woman able to conceive and give birth and breastfeed and all those kinds of things on the physical side of the equation.
But in addition to that, she was most favored among women.
Protestants, you know, we don't venerate Mary as our Catholic friends do, which we disagree with, but we do honor Mary.
We should.
We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Mary is a wonderful woman of God, worthy of honor, the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And she was so, not just when she was 36 years old, but when she was 14 to 16 years old, when the Lord selected her and chose her to be the mother of Jesus Christ.
And so, but then the issue comes down to okay, well, what if you have a particularly mature young girl?
By the grace of God, my daughters, right?
My oldest right now is eight years old, but by the grace of God, they already have memorized my eight year old, my six year old, and even my five year old daughter.
Daughters, I have five kids.
Those three, eight and six and five, already have about, it's about 100 scripture verses memorized, about 120 catechisms memorized.
By the time they're 14 to 16 years old, they will, by the grace of God, have the spiritual maturity, the mental maturity, and biologically, we know by age 15, 16, they'll certainly have the physical maturity.
They will be adult women.
They will.
They will have their period.
They will have, you know, those kinds of things.
And so, then by that, if you're trying to root in a biblical command and you're making up this command of the mental, spiritual, and physical maturity threshold, then they're ready for marriage.
And I want to say publicly right now at 14, 15 years old, no one is marrying my daughters.
No one.
Even recognizing scripturally, it happened in the past, it was legitimate.
I mean, God chose to do it of all people.
God did it with time and place.
Wonderful.
I'm not going to sit here and say, God, that was rash.
God, I don't think that that was wise.
No, God.
You should have waited a couple of years there, sir.
And that was perfectly wonderful in God's sovereign plan of redemption, what he did in the case of Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And yet, I'm going to say, without a Bible verse, see, this is the difference between the two sides.
I'm going to actually give the same answer that Avery did.
I'm going to say, no, when my daughters are 15, they're not going to get married.
Same answer Avery did.
But I'm going to do it with more honesty.
I'm going to say there is no explicit condemnation or prohibition in scripture.
And yet, it would be permissible.
It was permissible in the case of Mary, but not just Mary.
There are certain pockets, seasons, cultures, places throughout Christendom where that was somewhat normative, where it was somewhat normative young women getting married at 15, 16 years old.
We know that historically.
And yet, I'm still going to say, in our time and place, in our culture today, Part of this is providential.
There are timeless truths.
There are timely truths.
And I'm going to say, given the lay of the land, given our cultural setting, given this, that, and the other, our context, God's providence here and now, as her father, I'm going to say that none of my 15 year old daughters, no matter how spiritually mature they are, I am not going to give them in marriage.
And yet, I'm going to have the intellectual integrity and honesty to also say, the Bible doesn't prohibit it.
I still don't think it's wise, though.
The Bible does not explicitly prohibit it.
But I generally think that it goes against prudence, contextual prudence for this time.
And that's what this really comes down to permissibility does not negate prudence.
Monoethnic but Not Monoracial00:06:26
I'll say that again.
Permissibility does not negate prudence.
So, simply being able to argue from the scripture for permissibility does not eradicate prudential wisdom.
Prudential wisdom in the macro overall, looking at humanity overall throughout human history, and especially prudential wisdom, even though there's permissibility in not just timeless ways, but timely ways.
In our context today, what's going on?
And, you know, I read some of that from my opening statement, and sadly, I just felt like that was completely, absolutely, and completely overlooked.
And so, you know, one of the things that we talked about was in my opening statement, I'll read it now, and then I want to read one more thing, and then I'll hand it to Wes and Antonio to help us, you know, really kick off this discussion.
But I talked about white genocide, it, you know, slow, nefarious.
Very subtle in ways, deceitful, I would argue.
But nonetheless, I really do believe that white replacement is real.
And so this is something that I tweeted out a couple days ago, but it's verbatim, word for word, from my opening statement that was immediately passed over.
And unfortunately, there were a couple points where, in one case, Avery, you know, when we said, we think that we don't believe in mono racial America, but we'd like it to be mono ethnic, and we were very clear with our terms.
Speaking of ethnicity in a more classic and overarching definition, it's a very technical definition, speaking to much more than race, like religion, language, liturgy, loves, traditions, those kinds of things.
We brought up Vodi Bakum, you know, said like Vodi Bakum and I would be virtually, right, not exact, but virtually, you know, that's a very similar ethnicity if we're using ethnicity to be an all encompassing, you know, like they speak English.
They have the same traditions, they have the same patriotic instinct, the same national allegiance, the same liturgy, the same doctrine, theology, religion, these kinds of things.
And so we said, yeah, mono ethnic in that regard, but not mono racial.
But then, you know, I just added one disclaimer and said, but we do think that it's both historically appropriate and right.
And even currently, right now, we still have a white majority.
It's certainly less than it was, but 59% of the country is white.
And so we think, in keeping with the heritage and history of America, as well as keeping with the current demographics and not wanting total erasure, we would want a mono ethnic, Christian, English, Western American ethnicity, mono ethnic, but not mono racial, and yet in the racial category, still not mono racial, but still predominantly white, majority white, to which Avery immediately responded and said, that sounds boring.
Which does reveal, I just want to say, Avery was so respectful, enjoyed that young man, and he's doing great work for the Lord.
He was kind.
We talked briefly before they had to head to the airport, you know, after the debate, and he was willing to, you know, to say, you know, I didn't know exactly what is coming into.
I didn't know if you guys were even Christians.
I do recognize that you guys are Christians, although I think you're wrong.
I strongly believe that.
So Avery was a respectful young man who's, from what I hear, I haven't seen a lot of his content, but is doing good work for the Lord.
But I would say that that moment did reveal.
This doesn't mean he's not a Christian, doesn't mean he's not doing good work.
But that moment did reveal, I would say, some measure of white antipathy, some measure of an anti white discrimination and a white hatred.
That sounds boring.
And I said, and this was missed, you know, people missed this in the debate, but I immediately said, you know, the camera, I don't even think was on me at this moment.
I don't know if my mic really picked it up, but I was like, is Japan boring?
Right?
Is Uganda boring?
Is Kenya boring?
Is Tanzania boring?
These are all places that have a very majority.
Majority race.
But these aren't boring places.
And West did a great job.
He immediately, you know, shot back respectfully, but passionately and said, Wait, you're talking about our people.
These are the people, these are our fathers.
These are our Christian fathers in the case of America's history.
These are the people who built the country and bled and sweat and died to produce what you are now, Avery, enjoying.
And you're saying that if America remained not monoracial, we already established that, but just simply predominant majority white.
Just being majority white would be boring.
And that was disheartening to hear.
And then Rousseau, there was another person.
I was going to say, and Avery too, you're talking about a Christian man.
You're talking about someone very versed in American.
So he speaks English as a first language.
He's versed.
He's a Christian apologist against Islam.
So he's very versed with the ins and outs of Christianity.
Born here in America, from everything I understand, lives here in America.
Everything about him is Americanized.
And still, underneath, even in a public forum, when it got down to it, there was a little bit of like, These white people, their food's boring, their culture's boring, their music's boring.
I don't appreciate it.
And he's the best of them, I would say, as a credit to him, a Christian, someone who speaks English, someone who has in many ways assimilated to America, but still, underneath, yeah, it's not my cup of tea.
Right.
It's not really my thing.
And we can point to this statistically.
We can look at the FBI statistics.
It's like, so less rape is boring.
I get, I mean, technically, yeah, less murder is boring.
Technically, less violent crime is boring.
Boring, you know, more high trust society is like technically, I guess you're right, but in that case, you know, I tweeted out like the day, make America boring again.
By the grace of God, make America boring again.
If that's what boring means, right?
Because as we've invited, you know, our greatest strength, diversity, we have seen that the effects of that, it may be that it's less boring.
It's also less safe.
There's also less trust.
There's less cohesion.
There's less unity.
There's, and so, That was really disheartening.
White Erasure in Europe00:02:36
There was another point where Ruslan, we were talking about white erasure and talking about that happening in European countries with mass invasion and immigration, especially from Muslim countries, and talking about how in some smaller towns in England, and this is proven, there are some smaller towns in England where it's upwards of one in four native citizens, native English women, young women, have been raped.
Have been raped and sexually assaulted by an immigrant.
And you look at that, and you know, Wes, there was a point where he was saying that and saying, look, part of our argument is not just timeless normative design for all peoples in all places and all time, but especially providential prudence, prudential wisdom, timely within providence, and looking at the larger landscape of the global white population going from about 33 to 36 percent around 100 to 120 years ago.
To now sitting at anywhere, depending who you ask and what metrics you look at, anywhere from 8 to 12 percent, right?
100 to 120 years later.
So a loss of 62 thirds of the white population going down.
Looking at that, looking at what's happening in America, looking at even starker examples happening in Europe, and Wes mentioned, you know, rape being one of those things.
Um, and Ruslan was well, rape as the sharp edge to the sword, interracial marriage, and the mixing with the peoples and intermarrying to immigrants that come from these third world countries that's the slow pot boiling.
And when it boils over, the violent energy of that is just straight up on its face the rape of white women and white girls in these countries.
But that all rests upon a foundation of it's okay to congregate these people, marry with them, have daily life with them.
It all goes because we're saying.
They're not assimilable.
They're not able to come into these cultures coming from third world countries.
I mean, think about India.
Cousin marriage and arranged marriage is very common.
Why do you have them coming in and perpetrating themselves on white people?
Because courtship, winning, wooing someone's heart, that's actually not a thing in those cultures.
You're given the daughter of another man who you sold a cow to, and she's yours.
It's barbaric, it's primitive, it's simple.
That's how they do things.
So then they come to our countries like ours, they have very little concept of consent, very little concept of winning someone's heart.
I want and I take.
And we've seen those cases.
We've seen the court cases where a judge, a wicked judge, a liberal progressive judge in a Western country will pardon some man after committing sexual assault.
Biblicists Outside the Faith00:14:19
And his plea will be, oh, I didn't know that was wrong.
And the judge will say, oh, he didn't know.
And here's the sad thing.
I think what you're arguing is we're not even saying that that young man, who is a monster, we're not even calling him a liar.
We're saying, no, he's not a liar.
He's just a monster.
I believe him.
I believe that he is so debased, so incompatible with Christian culture, with Western culture, that he actually did not know, which is precisely why he shouldn't be here.
He shouldn't be here.
And so these kinds of things.
So, my point is the argument comes down ultimately to Biblicism.
Do we believe as Christians, in line with a longer Catholic tradition, Eastern Orthodox tradition, and also traditional historic Reformed tradition?
The authors of the Westminster Confession, the authors of the Second London Baptist Confession, that we derive things from scripture and also good and necessary consequence.
And if so, then are we able, as Christians with wisdom and a full orbed biblical theology, to say that permissibility does not negate the use of providential wisdom, that permissibility does not negate prudence, prudence, not providential, but prudential wisdom.
And if it doesn't, then all the more.
Prudential wisdom, prudence, even in the context of permissibility, in the timely category.
It can be held and should be, when appropriate, in the timeless category, all peoples, all places, but also, especially, in the providential, timely category.
So, this was part of my opening statement.
It seemed to be just to fall on deaf ears, but I'm going to read it again now.
The tragedy of white genocide.
A further distinction must be made between permissibility and engineering.
Something may be morally permissible in isolation while still being promoted systematically.
For destructive ends.
In the modern West, interracial marriage, particularly for white Europeans, has been relentlessly promoted through media, advertising, and institutional messaging.
The pattern is not an organic representation of demographic reality, rather, it is asymmetrical and strategically targeted.
White heterosexual couples, the only biological arrangement which produces white children, are conspicuously minimized.
Against that backdrop and the backdrop of abortion access on demand, mass immigration, and the normalization of gay marriage, the promotion of interracial marriage functions not merely as representation but as demographic strategy.
One need not believe in conspiracies to observe incentives, patterns, and outcomes.
In this context, it is reasonable to say.
That interracial marriage, while morally permissible in individual cases, is being used instrumentally at the macro level to accelerate the dissolution of a particular people, namely white people.
To deny this is not charity, it is willful blindness.
And so that was part of the argument saying number one, permissibility does not negate prudence.
Number two, we are not biblicists, we love the Bible.
But we are not biblicists.
And there is a distinction between the two.
We believe that we can arrive at good conclusions by good and necessary consequence, by reason, rationale, and the light of nature, aside from only the scripture.
Number three, we do believe that the whole biblical narrative points towards this being not that it's impermissible in a racial marriage, but being God's norm, that it is God's norm for peoples, cultures, and places.
We believe that in nations.
As the thesis stated, that it generally, not micro level, each and every individual case, but on the macro, in the whole, that interracial marriage generally goes against God's normative plan, ordinary plan for peoples, cultures, and nations, while acknowledging fully that interracial marriage is permissible.
And I think one of the things that Avery and Ruslan struggled with is they struggled with you, Antonio, being there, being on our side as someone who is.
The son of an interracial marriage.
They don't know this, and we're not going to sit there and brag about it.
It becomes insufferable when guys are like, I'm allowed to have this view because I have seven black friends, or I'm allowed to have this view about women because I have this many daughters, or I'm allowed to have.
But the reality is that we have multiple interracial couples in our church.
They all watched the debate, they all agreed with our side, they all thought that Avery and Rousselon at times were good Christian men, but unfair.
In their tactics, in the way that they argued.
It was funny, like the Sunday before we had this debate, we had it on last Thursday.
The Sunday before, we had one of our deacons, a Mexican man, preaching on the Lord's Day.
JD Hall, you know, he was laughing, you know, because he was in town that weekend with his wife.
And so he was there, and that deacon in our church preached a wonderful message.
He's married to a white woman.
He's in, you know, Mexican man married to a white woman with children, deacon in our church.
So JD Hall's like, what's going on?
Like, what is going on?
Like, You've got a Mexican married to a white woman preaching on Sunday.
You've got Antonio sitting there in the debate on your side.
I was just there last week in your church and saw multiple other interracial marriages.
Joel, have you ever officiated an interracial?
Guilty as charged, I have.
So people can disagree and say, I think you're wrong.
But that's not the reaction from this debate.
And you guys need to know that.
That's the last thing I'll say.
The reaction from this debate from many people, many people, is not we disagree or we don't think that that's biblically accurate or we see, you know, because we disagree, we.
You know, ideas have consequences.
And so, because we think you have the wrong view, naturally there are implications of having a wrong view.
There are negative effects.
And we do think that's concerning and it's worth raising.
That's not the response.
The response was guys like Chris Rosenborough or Roseborough, yeah.
Roseborough, like full fledged attack.
I'm going to drag up, you know, 13 year old sin from Joel's past.
Like, I've got to make everyone in the world believe he's a heretic.
This is, we don't just disagree.
This is heresy.
It's a denial of the gospel.
And some of the scriptures that Rousseau, you know, that in his flesh, he broke down the walls of hostility and made one new man.
It's like, Brother, what are you talking about?
Nobody here disagrees with that.
Right.
You think that we disagree that the church.
I've never read that verse in the Bible.
That's not the debate.
You think our argument is against the church, Jesus saving and reconciling by his blood every tribe, tongue, and nation?
You think that we're arguing for a white only eternal salvation?
You know that's not the argument.
And yet, so many people, their reactions to the debate, they couldn't help themselves.
They don't have any category to say, Hey, this is a secondary or tertiary issue.
I disagree.
I do think that it matters.
I think you're wrong and I think there's negative implications.
No, it's heretic, denial of the gospel, outside the Christian faith, outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
And that is what we're talking about.
That gets down beyond just interracial marriage in that particular topic.
That gets down to something far deeper.
It gets down to the issue of the right to dissent, as we've talked about.
It gets down to the issue of what really is the faith.
The historic Christian faith once and for all passed down to the saints.
Tell me, sir, how many million must I profess that died in the Holocaust to be saved?
At that point, you are talking actually.
The irony is that's another gospel.
That is adding to the faith.
That is to preach something that is Christ plus gospel plus scripture plus.
We did not come into this and say, hey, you know what?
If you disagree with us, then you're outside the faith.
But many watching, Many watching, Avery and Rousseau never explicitly said that.
There were a couple moments where the scriptures they use, they know we agree with, and I thought it was slimy.
I'm going to say it.
I thought it was slimy, and it implied that.
They did not explicitly say it, but insinuated that we had some of the gospel, something heretical.
But they did not explicitly say it themselves.
But many of the onlookers in their responses post debate said it.
Avery and Rousseau, they never explicitly said it, but others, they said it.
Rosenberg, I don't know.
To me, I don't know.
All I know is he's the Lutheran guy who had to record like a 20 minute intro to somehow preempt people before his debate with Corey Mahler because he got destroyed so, so unbelievably bad.
So for me, that's all I know about him.
He's the guy who tried the platitudes, tried the cliches.
Tried the sliminess and got wrecked.
But that guy, the point is, he's now doing that with me.
He's now doing that with you and many others.
He's one of the more notable, but many others are doing that too.
And part of what we wanted to accomplish in the debate, and I'm not convinced we did, unfortunately.
I'm not convinced we did.
But what we tried to, and we could have done better, we're fallible men, is simply to say, look, guys, Biblicism is a hell of a drug.
Be careful.
Be careful with this insistence of must be chapter and verse, must be chapter and verse.
No room for natural law, no room for reason, no room for prudence, no room for good and necessary consequence.
So, number one, be careful of biblicism.
Beware of biblicism.
Hell of a drug.
Number two, beware of adding extra requirements to salvation.
To expand the faith once and for all, hand it down to the saints and say that it requires this, plus a profession in the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ and certain holocausts.
Views and X, Y, and Z. That's part of what we were trying to do.
We felt like we knew in the general public optic that the majority, we knew going in, that the majority of people would say they lost the debate for a number of reasons.
One, because it is simply outside the Overton window.
We're just not there yet.
White people are incredibly, incredibly self conscious about even coming close to being racist.
So that's one.
We just knew the general public.
The general Christian normie, God bless them, they are Christians.
We're not doubting their salvation, but the general Christian normie, this is beyond the pale.
So we knew that the odds were already against us in that regard.
Second, the odds were against us in the sense that Avery and Ruslan have probably about, I think I looked a couple days ago, about 10 times the followers.
So you're going into something debating two guys that just their YouTube followers and other channels, they're about 10 times the size.
So they already have, you know, it's a 10 to 1 ratio of how many people are rooting for them.
Versus people who are rooting for us.
And then, number three, we knew that our argument is resting on a whole biblical narrative coupled with a providential historic narrative, coupled with good and necessary consequence and prudence and natural law.
Which, let's just be honest, and you kind of saw that.
I don't want to be rude, but it's true.
I'm going to say it.
You kind of saw that in the reaction of people's takeaway and who they thought won the debate.
I would say, Out of 10 people, nine people who thought we lost the debate.
If you follow their accounts and you know who those people are, probably about a 90 to 110 IQ.
And then one out of 10 who thought that we won the debate also coincidentally happened to be guys with 130 IQ plus.
That's not a coincidence, actually, because there's a certain individual who understands the argument, who actually caught the opening statements.
I see.
Yes.
Okay.
Whereas for your average person, one, this being outside the Overton window, two, Ruslan and Avery having 10 times the fans that we do currently.
We'll see.
Give us time to cook.
We'll see.
And then three, simply just, well, I've got the Bible.
She can marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord.
Great, great point.
Okay.
So then that's when Antonio brought up six year old man, 16 year old girl.
No.
Well, but you're the guy who just quoted the scripture.
Anyone she wishes.
And you're now saying no.
So you're actually admitting that that verse doesn't mean what you're trying to use it to mean.
There are some common sense limitations.
There are common sense.
Interesting.
Interesting.
But let's just be honest about one out of 10 people are able to pick that up.
Because the average person, one, the topic is outside the Overton window.
Two, their following is 10 times the size of ours.
And three, most people are lower IQ.
So those are my thoughts.
Let's go real quick to our only commercial break for today, and then we're going to come back and we're going to deal with a lot more, and then we'll also take some super chats.
Okay, here we go.
Silver Surges Over 144 Percent00:02:43
Here in the United States of America, we believe that we're blessed in this nation with an abundance of resources, and that it's our God given duty to exercise wise stewardship over them for the flourishing of our people, but also the security of our homeland.
See, some of our viewers, you might remember when we first featured a sponsor called Saga Medals, and since that spotlight, shares for Saga have surged by over 130%.
Now, the results are in, and they're the strongest to date.
On January 2nd, Saga released drill results from their flagship Radar Titanium Project.
The market reacted immediately, sending the stock flying up over 17% in a single day.
Saga Metals is publicly traded here in the U.S. under the ticker SAGMF, and if you're in Canada, it trades under the ticker SAGA.
Multiple high potential projects, and a team pushing forward relentlessly through the winter, Saga Metals is now moving full steam ahead.
If you want to learn more about this critical mineral story, then you can check out the link in our description below.
A special thanks to Saga Metals for making today's video possible.
See, when a nation rejects God, scripture is plain in telling us what we should expect to follow confusion, disorder, judgment, and one of the first things in a society to be corrupted is our money.
The markets actually exposed this back in 2025.
The SP 500 was up about 16%.
Meanwhile, gold rose more than 65%, and silver, believe it or not, actually surged well over 144%.
And so, this is why I trust my friends at Golden Crest Metals.
They're a five star rated company trusted by thousands of Americans nationwide.
And right now, Golden Crest is offering a free information kit that explains how to own physical gold and silver directly.
As well as how to add physical gold or silver to an IRA or your 401k, tax and penalty free.
And for a limited time, qualified purchases may also include up to $25,000 in free silver, plus free shipping or secure storage.
So, if you would like to understand better your options and act with prudence and wisdom while you still have the chance, then go to GoldenCrestMetals.com.
Again, that's GoldenCrestMetals.com.
Or you can call 8850. 891 3916 to get a free information kit and speak with someone directly today.
Scripture Is Sufficient for Christians00:14:34
All right, we're back.
Yeah, so I thought that was a good summary, Joel, of the debate.
I think one thing that just top of mind, even as we think about, okay, there was the distinction between their sort of methodology, if you will, which is this sort of chapter and verse approach, and our methodology, which was an argument from scripture via sort of scripture's authoritative interpretation of natural revelation or natural law to sort of get to our point.
And I want to remind the listeners too, in the thesis of the debate or the premise of the debate, nowhere did we specifically specify that we would demonstrate from Scripture a specific verse.
Right, that was not the thesis.
To say that this is sin, no, to say that this is not even God's normative design.
And so, and I think as I sort of reflect on the debate, that is something that as I.
The only thing in the original prompt, the thesis that included Scripture at all, was to say, although biblically permissible.
So that's the only thing that actually cites.
So it was scripture says that interracial marriage generally goes against, nope, that's not the thesis.
Interracial marriage, although biblically permissible.
The only scriptural use was to insist and acknowledge that scripture does explicitly say it's permissible.
Right.
So, in that sense, we were actually kind of demonstrating from scripture to say it's permissible, and we were like in total agreement.
We agree.
Yeah, we're not going to demonstrate that it's a sin from scripture.
And so, yeah, this was sort of one of the things I think in terms of the framing of the debate that we ought to have pushed back, just reflecting on it, that we ought to have pushed back and sort of honed in on a little bit sooner.
Which is, I think we eventually got to with the conversation around sort of age of, or for marriage and, or age of consent or those sorts of things.
But I just want to point out, I mean, there were so many different ways that we could have taken that.
We could have said, what is the voting age, for example?
What is the preferred voting age?
What is the.
With Rousseau being there, I should have brought up the 19th Amendment.
What about women voting?
Right.
Yep.
Because he would have strongly argued for women voting.
That's a great point.
Yep.
Well, the Bible says that in 2nd Opinions 516.
Oh, wait.
Well, that's the irony.
The biggest thing he disagreed with me on when he had me out, Almost three years ago, two and a half years ago or so, which was very gracious and I appreciate it.
But when he had me out on his channel in his studio, it was to talk about general equity theonomy and post millennial eschatology.
And then towards the end, he did like a rapid fire, asked me, you know, some questions, knowing that I had, you know, the questions that he knew I would have more of controversial views with.
And so then he, you know, gave his disclaimer saying, I don't agree with that.
Oh, that's wild.
Or man, that's extreme.
Or that's, you know, sounds kind of sexist.
And I think that's literally what he said.
Sounds kind of sexist.
And he said that right after asking me, should women be able to vote?
And I said, of course not.
And he's like, sounds kind of sexist.
So he was basically saying, hey, I see some merit, some general merit to your eschatology and to this general equity theonomy.
But then, you know, the very end of the show, you know, he was like, stood strongly against me on that topic.
But that would have been a great one that I didn't think of.
But knowing Roussel and knowing his position to say, like, okay, women voting, give me the Bible.
Mm hmm.
For why a woman must, because they feel very strongly that women should.
So, chapter and verse.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And there's a host of other, you know, and, you know, as you think about it, there's a host of other categories.
Like, for example, when do I want to educate my child?
Some father out there might say, I don't want to start educating my children until they're 14 years old.
And I just prefer that.
And you would say, no, no, no, that's not right.
You should educate your children younger than that.
Okay, one year old?
Okay, maybe not one year old.
And so you get into this conversation of, okay, there's a clear prescription.
Scripture to educate your children, to raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
But this conversation about when it's appropriate is a prudential, it's a question of prudential matters.
And so, sort of brings me to one of my next takeaways, which I found slightly frustrating, was this idea of preferences, as if all preferences are subjective.
And I kind of pointed this out to Avery at some point, but we all have to recognize that there is a subjective preferential category that is truly like, do you like apples or oranges?
Do you like your tea hot or cold or lukewarm?
But then there's lukewarm is a moral category.
You like lukewarm tea.
No, no, no.
Be neither lukewarm, hot or cold.
Come on.
Yeah.
Do you prefer that, though?
But yeah, so, but there's this whole other category of preferences that we all have to admit rely on a higher norm.
For example, if I were to say, I prefer candy and not steak for dinner, there is an underlying justification that you can appeal to to say, Hey, no, that's not right.
That is something you ought not prefer versus something you ought to prefer.
And I prefer to be healthy versus preferring not to be healthy.
I mean, there are preferences at the individual level that rely on a higher norm, a norm of sort of good or bad or right or wrong or better or worse.
And I think specifically when it comes to the concept of marriage and compatibility within marriage, all things ought not be preferences.
I pointed this out to Avery at some point, which was we're Christians and we ought to think like Christians in sort of all walks of life, which is to say we ought not be arbitrary.
We should consider sort of, hey, what are the implications of this thing for myself, for my health, for my children, for my family, even if there aren't clear sort of negative or positive prescriptions in scripture.
And so.
That was sort of one of the key things.
And I would just summarize it all by saying something that we didn't say out loud, but was evident, I think, both in the audience as they listened to it and sort of interpreted it, which is we're coming from two different traditions.
I think anyone who's reformed or reformed scholastic would have tended to agree with us.
They would have said, oh, yeah, we recognize this category.
We recognize the methodology and approach in the argument you're trying to make.
We do that.
We recognize that because we can look back in church history and church tradition and see those kinds of same sort of methodologies and approaches being taken.
Whereas you have sort of this more I would call it normy or popular evangelical sort of approach, which is, hey, let's demonstrate things from Scripture.
And it's like, on one hand, hey, I love that.
That's better than sort of making things up out of thin air, fair enough.
But to say that in all facets of life, that that is the only approach is something that I think we all innately know is just not what we do.
Well, and part of it is because Scripture is not exhaustive.
So it's not that we don't want to make arguments from Scripture.
I think that we should, everything that can be argued from Scripture should be argued from Scripture.
So, we should be able to argue from natural law and reason.
We should be able to argue that homosexuality is wrong.
But because we do have chapter and verse on that particular topic, we should use it.
So, we should use not only natural law, but we should absolutely lean on the scripture and say, God wrote a book.
The problem is that the book that God wrote is incredible.
It is absolutely so.
When we talk about biblical sufficiency, right, this gets into another topic, right?
The sufficiency of scripture.
The question that that immediately raises, or it should raise in the minds of thoughtful Christians, is okay, we hold to not just biblical inerrancy, but we hold to biblical sufficiency.
Sufficient for what?
Sufficient for what?
And even our Reformed Confessions say life and godliness.
The Bible is perfectly sufficient for instructing us in all things pertaining to salvation.
The Bible is perfectly sufficient in getting us to heaven, a sinner to heaven.
The Bible is sufficient for many things in many ways.
But we hold, while holding to the sufficiency of Scripture, we do not hold to Scripture being exhaustive.
We've never asserted, no one, and neither would Rousseau or Avery, no one has asserted that the Bible is sufficient for engineering.
So the Bible is not sufficient, actually, for everything, but the Bible gives and provides for us the basic building blocks for the biggest things, particularly eternal things.
Things, heavenly things, spiritual things.
And so that's so, yes, we do want to argue from Scripture if Scripture explicitly addresses something.
But we also want to be able to argue beyond Scripture, not in a contradictory fashion, when I say beyond, but those things where Scripture doesn't speak to, but still matter in the temporal realm, that still have implications, that still carry weight.
Scripture doesn't explicitly address this.
It doesn't mean that Scripture, therefore, is insufficient.
Scripture is sufficient, but the question that that raises immediately is sufficient for what?
For heavenly things, for spiritual things, things pertaining to salvation, for life, and for godliness.
But scripture never claims to be exhaustively sufficient on every single topic.
And so, as we get to some of these other topics that are further beyond the bounds of scripture, then it either really doesn't matter.
That's one option.
And I think that's what they were asserting.
It's just a random, arbitrary preference.
Or we can say, no, underlining our preference, not all preference, apples and oranges, but in certain matters of preference.
If we're honest, our preference reveals some kind of underlining moral implication that's not expressly stated in Scripture, but is using a whole biblical theology in the light of nature, something that is still obvious, true, and good.
Natural theology, natural revelation never contradicts Scripture either.
So you'll never observe one thing in Scripture and then go to the Bible and be like, this doesn't seem to make sense.
And so there are these things that Scripture speaks to so plainly.
I think of the divinity of Jesus.
That is not revealed to us in natural law.
There is no natural law argument for the divinity of Jesus from Josephus' writings or something like that.
Purely revealed to us in special revelation.
There are things barely spoken about at all in special revelation, but spoken very clearly about in natural revelation.
I think a great example of this would be exercise.
The Bible just doesn't say a lot about exercise.
It says some things in the Proverbs about not being fat, but we see overwhelmingly when we poll people, when we do studies, when we do clinical trials, if you are overweight, if you don't take care of your body, You will not live as long.
You will be more depressed.
You will be more anxious.
You will be sicker.
You will be less productive at work.
You will not enjoy life very much.
And so, even though scripture doesn't really say anything about it, natural revelation reveals to us conclusively men and women should not be fat ordinarily.
And of course, we understand there's a quadriplegic in the wheelchair.
The exception doesn't disprove the norm.
But a lot of topics, there's some level of scripture to it and a decent amount of natural revelation.
And I think of homosexuality.
It's so clear and it's so important that a society not embrace it that scripture reveals to us that homosexuality is an abomination.
And then natural revelation too also comes in and says, oh, men who are homosexual in the United States, not even counting AIDS, typically die at 45 years old.
Nature, the way God made the world, men who defile themselves in that way live 30 years shorter.
They don't live as long.
Nature revealing the same thing that scripture comes in and reveals.
And so our argument, again, the Thesis was not scripture teaches that interracial marriage is normatively against God's design, biblically permissible in some cases, but against God's normative design.
We didn't argue that scripture alone revealed that to us.
We argued on the dual basis God's two forms of revelation.
In special revelation, He made nations, languages.
When they tried to come together, He forced them to spread out.
We think of Abraham, who wanted his son to marry someone from among His people.
Because the Israelites, in the case of Abraham, His people, the reason why Abraham had this preference.
Was you know for Isaac, right?
Abraham sent one of his own servants to go back to Abraham's own native people, his own kin, and he sent his servant to go back in order to find a suitable spouse for his son Isaac.
But he did this, right?
Let's be honest, he did this because Abraham's kin, his people, were Christian and everybody else was pagan, right?
Right, it was a religion.
Oh, no, uh, because God started the covenant with Abraham and pulled him out of a pagan society, so the people, his kin, and his native people that he was from actually weren't Christian, they were pagan, just like the surrounding nations, and yet.
Abraham still had a very strong preference, and it was not just Abraham's preference, but it was actually carried out and fulfilled by God supernaturally, right?
God spoke.
So Abraham speaks to his servant and expresses his preference, not based on spirituality, not based on saying, go back from among my own kin to find a wife for my son Isaac.
No, he says, go back and do this.
And then what Abraham says to his servant is echoed then by God.
God then instructs and directs and guides Abraham's servant once he arrives among Abraham's non Christian pagan kin.
God gives the word to Abraham's servant and says, Go and seek water from your long journey for you and your camels.
And the first woman at the well who offers, makes the generous, hospitable offer to provide water for you and your camels also, that is the woman that your master selected by just mere arbitrary preference.
No, that I have selected for Isaac.
So God confirms it also.
So it's not mere arbitrary preference, and it's echoed by God, it's his directive.
And so God is agreeing with Abraham yes, Isaac's wife is here.
And it's not because Abraham's family and extended kin back home are Christian, because God pulled Abraham out.
He's the beginning.
The covenant starts with him.
They're just as pagan as everybody else.
And yet, God echoes and affirms Abraham's preference to do this thing.
So, whether it's Babel, God, no, you're not going to congregate.
You are going to spread out and fill the earth, and you're going to be different peoples with different languages.
Whether it's God at Babel, Or whether it's God through Abraham and then giving a word to his servant and finding a wife for Isaac, there are many instances from the scripture that we can argue this.
A Timely Providential Moment00:02:36
But beyond that, we would also say, in light of nature, in light of reason, that it is a tragedy.
It is a tragedy for an entire people to be blotted out from the face of the earth.
And interracial marriage is not exclusively what does that.
But what we're saying is that this is one component.
Although absolutely biblically permissible, this component, especially not just timeless, but timely, providential, in our moment, as it comes to those of European descent in European countries and these United States, in our providential moment, timely, not timeless, you have the absolute full assault of the LGBT mafia.
You have a full assault of on demand abortion access, a million babies murdered in the womb in these United States of America every single year.
You have mass immigration, H 1B visas, the replacing of jobs and the ability to have a livelihood of heritage Americans, and then also interracial marriage, but not just interracial marriage being on the table, all things being equal, the same as everything else, but driven down your throat through media, through academia, through politicians.
You're hard pressed to watch television and see a commercial on television that's not either a brown couple, a black couple, a white individual, but with somebody who's minority race.
Biracial couple or a gay couple.
What you're hard pressed to find is white man, white woman.
Coincidentally, the only biological arrangement that's able to produce white children.
And this is not out of desire to simply show in media, in commercials, in television shows, representation.
If it was to show representation, then we would see about 59% of our commercials would have a white mom and a white dad.
It is not over half of the commercials.
It is well under half, meaning that it's.
The reality as we see it currently and the demographic makeup of our nation, the current demographics are not represented in our media.
White couples, both mom and dad being white, are drastically underrepresented.
And what we want to say is that is engineered, that is intentional, and it betrays a white antipathy.
And that coupled with the fact that we've gone from 30 to 36 percent global white population about 100 to 120 years ago now to 8 to 12 percent.
Disappearing Global White Population00:10:28
So, that coupled with two thirds of the white global population being disappeared, erased, and with mass abortion on demand in the West and the LGBT mafia and mass immigration, that all these things together, we can look at a timely providential moment and say, all the more in light of nature and with good and necessary consequence, we can argue both from the scripture and from reason that it is a great tragedy.
For an entire people to be blotted out from the face of the earth.
And maybe it's worth noting.
Maybe it's worth speaking to her.
And let me give even a couple more examples from scripture.
The Israelites commanded not to intermarry Ezra with the wives that come back from exile.
And some of them have married foreign wives and they have to send them away.
And I know there's a religious aspect to that.
But if you have all of those from Abraham for the Israelites to Ezra, you have a bunch of examples where bringing those people in was not a good thing.
And then the examples you cite, they didn't rely on it, so it didn't come up.
But in Numbers chapter 12, for example, it's mentioned over and over again.
I can even see it in the comments there.
Well, Moses married, it says that Miriam and Aaron railed against him because he married the Cushite woman.
Now, most scholars, it's debated what's said there because nowhere else in the Bible do we see that Moses had a second wife.
We only see Zipporah in Exodus.
And so we don't know if there's a second wife.
And some have said, so Cush is one of the descendants of Ham.
Possibly what's being said there is Zipporah, his wife, is darker in her skin tone.
And what's even being gotten at there, it's not that she's a foreigner or that he married her.
They use that as a backdoor to challenge Moses's authority.
And so the narrative of Numbers chapter 12.
For one, it could just be the woman that was already of the people that the Israelites lived within, the Egyptians.
It could just be his Egyptian wife that was dark in skin.
That is the majority view.
Newer scholarship, maybe it is a second woman.
He took a second wife.
But even in there, nowhere do we see disapproval, certainly, or approval.
And the narrative is about authority.
We talked about Ruth and Boaz during the debate.
Practically speaking, for one, she's leaving her people because they worship false gods.
Also, the geographical area that she leaves and travels to in Israel.
Is the size of New Jersey.
So we've got lots of examples and precepts and commands.
Hey, beware of marrying foreigners.
And what stories do we have?
What examples, what commands do we have prescribing it?
I would argue you don't even have prescriptions.
We simply have a couple examples and they're just left as morally neutral.
Rahab marries in, Ruth marries in, a couple other ones here and there.
And so if scripture, we could even, let's be generous, we could say it's 50 50.
All right, we have some good examples.
We have some commands against it, especially when religion is on the line, although not only.
So, if that's 50 50, and then we go to natural revelation, you say, well, at scale, this was normative.
This would result in the eradication and the erasures of whole different peoples.
Hey, you see these problems sometimes when children from parents of two very different backgrounds struggle with identity.
They don't know what side to identify with.
There's some medical concerns.
So then we can say, okay, we're looking at these two things.
Scripture seems somewhat bent against it, natural revelation seems somewhat bent against it.
We can't go too far, declare it off limit, because neither natural revelation nor special revelation so clearly state that.
But we can absolutely make a normative argument.
Okay, both of these things are telling us, as well as observing human patterns, 80, 90 to 99% of people generally marry endogamously.
They marry within their people group.
And so we can assume from all of the evidence that, generally speaking, as a pattern, as a normative thing, that would go against God's design.
But notice I've weaved natural revelation, what God reveals to us in the world, alongside the biblical narrative to argue they're both making the same point.
So it's not as though the Bible approves of it.
I'm trying to use sociology and race science and over here to kind of try to go against the narrative.
Scripture gives some warnings.
Scripture gives some commendations.
They're brought into Jesus' line.
Okay, natural revelation.
Sometimes it really is, there are no conflicts.
Like, it just works.
There are people that could report that.
And then there's lots of people, and you guys don't see them because they don't talk to you.
And this topic is taboo, but they come up and they say, I wish someone had told me this 20 years ago before I married this woman and my marriage dissolved.
Rush Dooney, one of the reasons that he wrote against it when he did in the 70s, a lot of GIs brought back Japanese or Asian women from the World War front.
So they maybe stayed there longer or they brought a woman back.
And it was disastrous.
And so he's a pastor.
He was on an Indian reservation for a while, and he pastored in California, where a lot of Pacific Islanders have gone.
And he was witnessing firsthand the difficulty of communication, the difficulty of assimilation.
And he's looking also at scripture, which says generally you should not mix together.
And the principle Paul takes and he applies it and says, hey, here's a general equity principle.
So he's using scripture, he's using observation, and then he himself, same thing, doesn't go so far as to say, and it cannot be done.
He says, there is a caution.
She used to be bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh.
There should be.
A similarity there that she could be, that she can be his help me.
And when I lay it out like that, and you're free to disagree, when I lay it out though like that, that seems very reasonable, weaving together scripture and natural revelation to come to an ordinary, generally true principle.
Well said, yeah.
And I just want to point out one other thing with respect to the people who are sort of have their scorecards, they're watching the debate at home, and every time a verse is pulled out, they're sort of like giving a point to Rousseau and Athen.
That there isn't, there is a sense in which, you know, the references to scripture.
They imply an interpretive methodology.
For example, I think there was a reference to Galatians 3 28.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, or maybe it's 29.
I told you before the debate, I said, take your stopwatch out, set a timer, because Galatians 3 28, it is not if, but it is when that verse comes up.
Right.
And it was 25 minutes in.
Yeah.
So, and the important thing to note is just even when you're taking the approach, this methodology of I want to demonstrate something from scripture, that there is sort of an implied mutual agreement or understanding that actually has to occur.
In a conversation over the text itself.
And so, of course, in Galatians 3, like we don't agree that when you say there's neither Jew nor Greek, that there shouldn't be national borders, for example.
We believe that that's a category error.
We believe that that is specifically within the spiritual realm, that within the church, there is no, before God, God shows no partiality, there is neither Jew nor Greek.
And so, another example, you can imagine in the conversation, Avery having said something like, well, a 12 year old shouldn't marry a 30 year old because, you know, 1 Peter 3 says you are to live with your wife in an understanding way.
And You can't understand a 12 year old when you're 30, right?
Like, we would all recognize, okay, yeah, you pulled out scripture, but that wasn't an appropriate, correct interpretation or application of scripture in that given instance.
And so, yes, we heard a lot of scripture, but we also heard a lot of scripture that we felt wasn't actually getting to the heart of the argument, was actually either being used in sort of an erroneous way or category error, or scripture that actually wasn't getting the heart of the argument, scripture that we would, in one context, affirm.
But deny the use and application in this particular sort of refutation that they were offering.
And so that's another trap I think people can fall into, sort of the broader evangelical campus.
Like, well, I can pull out a scripture, and it's like, well, who interprets the scripture?
Is it your interpretation of the scripture, your exegesis of the scripture that's correct?
And of course, in a two hour debate, you don't have time to actually dig in and say, okay, actually, I think you're, in Galatians 3, you're misapplying that scripture.
That's not what it's referring to.
But yeah, so that's just one of the other traps you'll see.
We certainly saw in the debate that people, as they think about biblicism, they should be conscious of because, yeah.
Because interpretation and hermeneutic with respect to scripture is just as important as actually referencing scripture itself.
There's that old saying, you know, you guys aren't ready for that yet, but your kids will love it.
And probably about eight years, I would have, I don't know what I would have said about this topic particularly, but I most certainly would have been a chapter and verse type of guy, chapter and verse type of guy.
And it was conversations like these that made me realize God has written two books.
He's given us special revelation, and then He gave us the world, and He gave us a brain, and He gave us ears, and He gave us eyes, and the ability to exert and pull patterns out of it.
And I came to realize, like, oh, nature has a lot to say about God's design.
And so, what I would lovingly submit to you you're in the chat, you're like, I can't believe this reasoning, or I just think that you got demolished, and where was your scripture?
Just take it slow, but realize that God has made this beautiful world with all sorts of things in it, with knowledge that it's the glory of kings to dig out.
And like topics like these, what are patterns?
What's generally good?
I think of politics.
How many volumes have been written on politics?
All of them mining the depths of what God's put in the human soul.
And how it is that we are to rule well.
God has put a lot there, and kings and wise men and philosophers dig it out and they pull it out.
And if you stay at the level of chapter and verse, you're going to stunt yourself, and you're going to stunt yourself, maybe not necessarily as a theologian or a Bible teacher, you're going to stunt yourself as a man.
You're going to stunt your mind.
You're just not going to be taken seriously.
You should know history, you should know philosophy, you should know normative arguments, fallacies, all of these different things as a support and a buttress all around.
The core revelation of truth that we have, the Bible, that is also supported by all of these things that hold it up and sustain it and help us to order the world as the Bible sees it.
Well said.
Yeah.
One of the reasons I used that example of the 18 year old and the 60 year old is because that was one, that's something that I actually was asked.
I was very much a chapter and verse, and that was one I wrestled with.
And I'd encourage people listening and who watch the debate wrestle with that one.
Try to figure that one out.
Try to justify age of consent, for example, that's age appropriate for marriage.
You can't do it.
You have, you actually have to say, All right, I know that there is a better answer and a worse answer.
And scripture doesn't make, isn't incredibly clear on what is best and what is worst.
And so I have to actually use reason.
And this is important.
Like you read in Hebrews, like the world that God made, like Wes, just to reaffirm what you said, the world God made isn't in contradiction with scripture.
He actually, the reason we can do science, for example, is because we have the law of induction, because Christ upholds the world by the word of his power.
Drawing Lines on Race and Age00:06:18
And so all of these things are connected.
Our rationality, our reason, The things, by the way, we would agree, and Calvin said this Scripture does illuminate the natural world.
Scripture helps illuminate our rationality and our reason and how we can construct an argument, how we can see things are contradictions, how we can see things are fallacies.
And so it's nothing less than Scripture.
But we have to be able to move in appropriate categories from Scripture, letting Scripture have its authoritative interpretation or illumination of the natural facts of the natural world.
And this is something I think.
There's so many examples of it, and people should look these up.
I mean, we've talked about a few of them.
We talked about slavery, for example.
We talked about age of consent.
We can talk about voting.
We can talk about military service.
Should a six year old be in the military?
Should a 12 year old?
At what point does it become better or worse?
What is more for real?
Of course, not a six year old.
But okay, then give me chapter and verse for drawing the line between 17, hard no, 18, hard yes.
Right.
Right.
At some point, there is the line.
And you made a great point about this just in regards to race.
Like the Amazon rainforest, right?
It splatters patterns of dots.
And so, like, you might be.
In a particular geographic region where your map, you pull up your map and it says you're outside of the Amazon rainforest, and yet you're still finding certain species and plants and wildlife that is native to the Amazon rainforest.
And so it's hard to draw that strong line of where it begins and where it ends.
And yet it's absurd to say, because it's debatable where the line exactly is, right?
Because at some point there is a line.
It's literally like imagine yourself walking.
And taking one step.
Like, if you really, if you bring it down, you're on Google Maps or something like that, and you're using, you're using, you know, charts and graphs and all that, because there is actually a point.
There has to be a point.
There is a point where if I take one step further, I'm further from the Shire than I've ever been.
No, but like, if I take one step further, I'm outside the Amazon rainforest.
And if I take one step back, I'm inside the Amazon.
And it may feel arbitrary, right?
But we all know take the boundaries, the determinative edges.
Aside for a moment, we all know that the Amazon rainforest does exist, that it does exist.
There is such a thing as Amazon rainforest, and there is such a place as not the Amazon rainforest.
And we can debate till we're blue in the face about exactly where those lines down to the inch should be drawn.
And those are fair and reasonable debates.
But to say because we can't exactly agree, or in some cases, it feels at least partially arbitrary when it comes to drawing the exact Boundaries and the lines down to the inch, therefore, the Amazon rainforest doesn't exist.
That's silly.
And that's kind of that goes back to the race.
Like, well, race is a social construct.
Race doesn't exist.
It doesn't even exist because I know people who are white, you know, or Asian or Hispanic that have some of these characteristics, you know.
And it's guys, what are we doing?
What are we doing here?
We know that Asians exist, white people exist, we know that black people exist.
There was a study just to interrupt, and it took AI.
And it blurred some 95 to 100% of the images.
And even with 98% of the image pixelated, AI could still pull out from the bone structure the general racial category that x rays belong to.
No skin, no facial features, no language, no nothing.
Just the bone structure itself are so distinct that you can blur 95% of the images.
I've seen them in the study.
They're gray panels, gray images.
And AI still, from pattern recognition, can say, hey, these people generally share this common descent.
And these people share this common descent.
It is a biological reality that you can't deny.
What you do with it is a question.
We have someone in the chat who said, race does not exist.
And I felt silly as I was making the Amazon rainforest analogy.
And I was halfway through and I was like, why am I doing this?
Nobody needs this.
But then I reminded myself halfway through, it's like, no, but most people are retarded.
There is a YouTube comment section.
Yeah, we've got one in the chat right now.
Go ahead.
No, I would say it's probably the more popular view that race is not real.
Race is not a legitimate category.
And of course, Ruslan and Avery didn't necessarily make that point in the debate, but I do think that there is some extent to which that is sort of carrying over.
I think at one point I'd sort of constructed the syllogism of, like, yeah, race is a real thing and it's part of our identity, and he seemed to assent to that.
But again, the dismissal of race as a key element or characteristic of your identity, I think, is basically carrying over from this idea that race isn't that important, that it's not real, that it's a pseudoscience, that it's arbitrary.
And so it is actually important that we say, no, it's a real thing.
Other races recognize it's a real thing.
It's funny, at some point, I think someone in the comments or maybe someone on X had said, Oh man, that debate was really racist, talking about black people using their hands.
And of course, it was me who used that example.
And I'm like, Oh, that was racist.
That's interesting because Avery looked at me and nodded.
Like he knew, he recognized that that was a real thing.
Right.
So, yeah.
So, of course, the black community thoroughly understands that race is a key element of your identity.
They refer to each other all the time.
And obviously, there are distinctions.
And Ruslan pointed this out.
Yes, there are.
Africans who are from Nigeria, you know, for Nigeria or East Africa, and they come to the United States, and maybe they don't feel quote unquote black in the sense of being a black American, but certainly at the phenotypical level, you go to a university, right, and you're going to go to the Black Student Coalition, and you're going to see foreign students from Nigeria.
And because there is still this phenotypic trait by which all people in the black community here in America.
There are subconscious tells as far as you can't measure them by looking at someone's face, but they've done this in studies.
Where, when you're shown images or arrangements of people that don't look like you, there are subtle physiological stress triggers that come out as far as just your brow, sweat, autonomic arousal.
Dog Subspecies and Biblical Kind00:15:39
And again, looking at nature, I don't think that's an accident or God didn't know that that would happen.
Generally, we prefer people that are like us.
They look like us.
They talk like us.
They act like us.
That's been built into the human psyche.
None of that requires being cruel or mean to other people, but we just have to recognize, on average, and especially prior to 60 years ago, for thousands of years, everybody generally knew, assumed, and acted on the premise.
People like people that are like them.
That's who they would prefer to hang out with.
That's what they share the most in common with.
And we see at a physiological level, unconscious, generally people feel more comfortable, less comfortable with people that are less like them, and more comfortable with people that are like them.
And I'm not going to sit here and condemn that.
Oh, that's so evil.
No, I think that's how God made people.
Yeah.
Another part of the debate that I feel like was just quickly passed over and missed, but I want to espouse it once more because it's important for people to get.
Again, we agree the thesis was set forward by us.
So, we obviously agree with it.
Our position was to affirm that thesis, and we affirm it.
So, interracial marriage is biblically permissible.
We agree with that.
That said, when we're looking at the scripture, this is important to note two big factors here.
One is proximity, the other is time.
One is proximity, the other is time.
So, when you have, for instance, a Moabite, Moabitess, Ruth, marrying into an Israelite family with Boaz, you have Two distinct peoples, certainly very distinct and directly contradicting religions, right?
But when you think of those distinctions in terms of the argument of proximity, the distance of Boaz, geographic distance of Boaz marrying Ruth, would be like someone from Kentucky marrying someone in Tennessee.
That's the equivalent.
What we are experiencing today, guys, you have to recognize that this is novel.
When the Bible speaks about the allowance for interracial marriage when someone converts to Christianity, they convert and begin to worship the triune God of Israel, the Bible does allow for it.
But in all these instances, in biblical descriptive, not prescriptive, but descriptive passages that we have, you are talking about the equivalent of someone in France marrying someone in England, someone in Kentucky marrying someone in Tennessee.
That's.
That's what someone in Kenya marrying someone in Tanzania.
That's the equivalent of what you're looking at.
What you don't have is you don't have our very novel situation today.
One, through wicked policies and ideologies, and two, just through the reality of technological innovations and inventions and devices, planes, trains, and automobiles.
We have made the world, relatively speaking, small.
The world is a much smaller place because I can get on a plane and tomorrow I could go to a meeting in Japan.
Which is an incredible thing, but a very novel, very new thing.
So, one proximity, the inter ethnic or inter racial marriages that we would see in the Old Testament as descriptive text examples are most of them would be certainly inter ethnic, they would have been inter religious if there wasn't conversion, right, from a pagan ideology and religion to the true religion.
But they're not.
Very few of them could you actually argue from the text.
Are they actually interracial?
I'm going to say that.
This would be a little bit controversial.
Very few of them, I'll say it again, could you argue are interracial?
Like two very distinct races Ruth and Boaz.
That's hard to argue.
Moses in the Cushite woman would be a little bit more to argue there.
But even there, you could say Shem to Ham, but most scholars have thought that was already the wife he already married, which would have been Semitic.
Right.
And so here's the point.
So, one is proximity.
What we have today is we are importing in the West, in European countries and these United States, people not just from next door, but people from literally 6,000 miles away, people from the opposite ends of the earth.
So, one argument is proximity.
The intermarriages that we see in the Old Testament and also in the New Testament, Jew or Greek, these are distinct peoples in some regard, but the distinctions are not nearly as distant.
As a Haitian and a Swede.
Okay, that is different.
Proximity is an element, it is a factor.
Second, I mentioned two factors.
The second is time.
So, proximity and time.
Our argument for race is not a Darwinian argument.
We reject every false ideology that would seek to assert itself against the knowledge of Christ.
We take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ.
We reject Darwin.
Insofar as Darwin sought to wage war ultimately against the Christian faith.
So, macroevolution, the idea that from the primordial soup eventually come fish and then tadpoles and then frogs and they develop into lizards and they develop eventually into a porcupine that turns into a warthog that turns into a horse, eventually, it turns back into a whale and then turns into a dog and then turns into a monkey and then a gorilla and then eventually a man.
Nonsense.
Absurdity.
Heresy.
Heresy.
So we reject that.
We do not reject, however, microevolution.
I would accept that in a technical sense, but better stated, adaption, simply adaption over time.
We believe that one species of birds could develop many other subspecies in accordance, as the scripture says, in accordance with its kind, right?
So that's the whole, and I tried to argue that.
And again, this was missed as well.
The whole, like, evangelicals like Ken Ham, the creation guy, you know, the Ark Encounter.
I brought my kids.
We love it.
Like, the Ark Encounter, he's our guy, you know, argued.
He did his debate against Bill Nye, you know, and everybody, you know, all the people who were saying we're racist and disagree with us in this debate against Ruslan and Avery, all of them were arguing on, you know, watching the debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham, and they were on the side of Ken Ham.
Well, here's the irony.
The irony is that one of the big gotchas from the atheist, The Darwinist is, well, there are this many thousands or millions of species alive on the earth today, and how in the world, right?
The Bible doesn't just say an ark, but it gives the exact dimensions.
We know the size of it, the scope of it.
How in the world did Noah get all these species that we see today on the ark?
And the answer that Ken Ham has provided and others that we all agree with, right, is well, Ken Ham didn't have to bring a thousand different subspecies of dogs.
He just had to bring two, two canines, right?
One female and one male.
According to their kind, and they would actually over time adapt.
And from two canines, you would get all the way up to Great Danes and all the way down to Chihuahuas, right?
Which are some pretty meaningful differences.
Pretty meaningful difference.
From two dogs about three, 4,000 years ago, we now have the tiniest little rats in the world and massive Great Danes.
Now, dogs have a quicker cycle, so you're able to have generations of them faster.
Correct.
But you see a wide difference, and there are wide differences between, you know, undiscovered pygmy tribes in Africa and the tall, corn fed guy in Iowa.
Right.
That's what we would expect to see.
Some variety.
Yes.
And so the point is, you know, two canines, not every subspecies of dog, but each according to its kind.
So subspecies would still fall within the category scientifically of kind.
Dogs do not beget monkeys and certainly don't become men, but dogs do produce other types of dogs.
And we all agree with this.
So my point is one is proximity.
Well, interracial marriage is permissible in the Bible.
And we see this positive example of Ruth and Boaz.
And so we can take somebody from 6,000 miles from the, you know, From Uganda and all the way up to Norway, and it's the same thing.
Well, no, you're talking about a 60 mile distance in the case of Ruth and Boaz, proximity geographically, 60 mile difference, Kentucky and Tennessee, versus what we're doing today with globalism and innovation and mass immigration from every single place in the world.
That's one argument.
The second is time.
So Over time, two dogs, two canines, could produce different types of dogs.
Two dogs eventually become many different subspecies of dogs, still within the category of kind Great Dane all the way down to Chihuahua, and just repeat the cycle with different kinds of animals.
You can do the same with felines.
You can do the same with this and the same with that.
In terms of people, time actually is a factor.
When we find Old Testament examples of intermarriage, Consider 60 mile difference versus 6,000 proximity.
Second, consider time.
How far removed in terms of time, centuries, years, is, for instance, Ruth and Boaz and their marriage versus an interracial marriage today?
What is the scope of time, the difference from, and in the starting place, to specify that, again, the ark, Noah, his three sons, Japheth, Shem, and Ham.
By the time you get to Ruth and Boaz, there has been time.
But by the time you get to the year of our Lord 2026, today, for us, it is.
If one of you could do just a quick AI search, because I don't want to misspeak, I want to make sure that I'm accurate here.
But I believe that the difference of the time of Noah and the time of Ruth and Boaz, right?
So they're four generations.
A fourth generation would have been David.
David's the second king in Israel.
You have multiple kings leading up all the way eventually until capture and those kinds of things under the Roman Empire.
Then comes Jesus, and we're 2,000 years removed from Christ.
So, I believe that like Ruth and Boaz and the time removed from Noah would probably be 1,000 to 1,500 years.
1100 to 1,300.
There you go.
And so then Boaz and Ruth to us about 1100 BC.
So, 1100 plus 2,000.
So, 3,100 removed far back from us.
So, we're about 4,500 years removed from Noah, Ham and Shem and Japheth.
Ruth and Boaz and their marriage, their intermarriage, right?
Case closed.
Final nail in the closet.
Jesus' lineage.
We got it.
We got them.
Bible, chapter and verse.
Their marriage was approximately 1,100 to 1,300 years removed from these three sons of Noah from which all the peoples of the earth descend.
So they're about, we'll split the difference, 11 to 1,300.
We'll call it 12.
Okay.
1,200 years removed.
So that's the time factor.
1,200 years removed.
And when you have Ruth and Boaz married, it's not Ruth from 6,000 miles away, it's Ruth.
From 60, approximately 60 miles away, proximity.
Okay?
For us today, instead of Ruth and Boaz, this is what I'm trying to say Ruth and Boaz is a marriage 1,200 years removed from Noah and peoples adapting, because the point is those distinctions become greater, not less.
Greater over time.
Just like dogs.
If we're 1,000 years removed from the ark and Noah only brought two canines on the ark, how many subspecies of dogs would you have 1,000 years after the flood?
You'd have several.
You would.
Would you have several more, though, 4,500 years after the ark?
You would have more.
And between more subspecies, you'd also see greater distinctions from Great Danes all the way down to Chihuahuas.
I'm willing to bet, I wasn't there, I don't have a time machine, but from good and necessary consequences, using reason and logic that God has provided, I'm willing to bet that about 1,200 years, right, Ruth and Boaz from the ark, about 1,200 years removed from the ark, you would have had.
Maybe a third of the number of subspecies of dogs as we have today, or maybe a quarter.
And the distinctions probably would not have been as stark as Chihuahua to Great Dane.
You know, it would be more like Golden Retriever to Rottweiler, you know, or something like that.
I'm trying to illustrate the point.
So, two big factors proximity, time, proximity, time.
And to say it as simply as possible, in the case of Ruth and Boaz, you have 60 miles in the proximity category.
And you have 1,200 years in the time category.
For today, you have 6,000 miles in the proximity category and 4,500 years in the time category.
So you're literally looking, you're literally looking at a hundred times the difference, a distance, a hundred times the distance, proximity, and you're looking at approximately four times the length of time.
Meaning, and the longer the time goes, the more variations and the wider distance within those variations you get if the guy that everybody agrees with can ham.
Is right.
And I'm just sitting here as just a sweet normie evangelical saying, I agree with Ken Ham.
I agree with him.
And so I find it preposterous and absurd and likely ignorant, but possibly in some cases simply intellectually dishonest that you would have, because I know that probably nine out of 10 guys dunking on us and saying, Oh, you got your clock clinged by the two rappers, Avery and Ruslan.
I guarantee nine out of 10 guys who would say that probably, probably either watched or at least knew, heard about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye and would say Ken Ham was right and I'm rooting for him in that debate.
And we're sitting here with his position simply and saying we think he's right.
The way that we have so many species today and there's no way that all of them could have fit on the arc is because Darwin is wrong, we're Christians, but microevolution, at least as it pertains to adaption, Adaptions within kinds do actually exist and is perfectly biblical.
And adaption, variance within kinds, subspecies, takes time.
And the longer the time goes by, the more variations and the greater distance between subspecies you can actually have.
And they would be fruitful, multiply, and go out, spread out, and fill the earth.
Valid Marriages Beyond the Norm00:15:02
So today it's quite different.
Ruth and Boaz.
Right, the French and the English 60 miles away, um, 1200 years removed in terms of the time of adaptations taking place, 1200 years removed from the ark versus today, 4,500 years and 6,000 miles away.
And so, when you point to these examples, um, we are saying still our position still remains the same, despite it being much more significant differences today between different peoples.
We're still saying, in accordance with what we believe to be scriptural.
That interracial marriage, so long as both individuals are Christian, is biblically permissible.
And in the micro, it can be good and even ideal.
Even ideal.
In the macro, it generally goes against God's normative, not a prohibition, explicit, not something like that, but generally goes against God's normative, ordinary design for people's cultures and nations.
And we would say, as time goes by, The closer we get to the return of Christ, the further removed from the ark and the original three sons of Japheth and Shem and Ham, and the further the distance, proximity, right?
It's a little bit different, America to Canada, or even America to Mexico versus America to Haiti, that those distinctions become greater, even more visible, discernible, and it requires even more prudence.
More wisdom, and this is a perfectly reasonable position for Christians to take.
I just wanted to include that.
Well said.
Okay.
Title of this episode.
Title of this episode is Homosexuality, Polygamy, and Interracial Marriage.
We don't have to spend a whole lot of time.
I was going to say, we just got through the introduction.
Let's get into it.
No, I just, we'll do this shortly, quickly.
But I just wanted to, so I posted this as a clarification.
I want to make this clarification.
When you say something that lacks clarity or you're off on a certain point, you know, or you just kind of missed it, you know, even if you didn't mean to, even if it was a lack of communication, a lack of clarity, it just matters for Christian leaders to own it.
And so, I want to offer a clarification for a portion of the debate where I brought up polygamy, and I think that I was unhelpful in a way that.
And so, I just want to read this because I posted it out, but not everybody reads my tweet.
So, I want it to be both in written form on X, but then also in spoken form for those who watch on YouTube and things like that.
Because I just, credibility matters.
And for me, when it comes to guys that I look up to and guys that I'm willing to learn from, guys that I trust, I don't need perfect records, but what I do need to see is humility.
I need to see guys who are willing to admit when they're wrong.
And so I want to make this clear.
So I wrote a clarification regarding polygamy.
I'm sure that I could have spoken more clearly on this point in the debate that we recently had.
I apologize for any confusion that I caused.
My point in bringing up polygamy as an example was to say that chapter and verse biblicism is simply wrongheaded.
We can and should, from good and necessary consequence, conclude that certain things.
Are either not the normslash ideal, parentheses prudent, or in some cases even inherently immoral, parentheses sin, without requiring, necessitating an explicit condemnation or prohibition in Scripture.
For the record, I would agree with both the Westminster and the London Baptist Confession of Faith regarding the topic of polygamy.
That said, if a man were already married to more than one wife and we were in, for instance, a Muslim nation, In a different context than the West.
And that's a key point.
I would recognize if a man came, a Muslim man converts to Christ and his whole household, his wives and children also, and he has four wives rather than one, and we're in some Middle Eastern nation, an Islamic nation, and I'm a Christian missionary there, and he wants to come and join the church and be baptized and his family, his household.
If a man were already married, not saying, hey, Pastor, I want to seek out a second wife, are you for or against?
No, he's already married.
And we're not in a Western context where we have laws against it and we have precedent and we have history and those kinds of things.
In that context, if a man were already married to more than one wife, I would recognize his multiple marriages as valid.
Not ideal, not the norm, but still not illegitimate.
I would recognize them as valid.
Even John Calvin, I put in parentheses here, he argued for a temporary tolerance when it came to polygamy.
Not the tolerance that says, hey, you just want more sex, young man.
And so you're chomping at the bit to take on a second and third wife.
Well, we'll tolerate that.
No, no, not tolerance for the pursuit of multiple wives, but tolerance in the case of a man who converts to Christ along with his wives and he's already married to multiple wives.
In short, homosexuality, a homosexual marriage, we would say, is not a valid marriage.
So I put marriage there in quotation marks because it's not even a marriage.
Homosexual marriage, not a valid marriage.
It therefore should be immediately annulled and separated.
A polygamous marriage would equal a valid marriage if already established, but no one should pursue it.
And then, number three, an interracial marriage equals a valid marriage.
It is permissible to pursue, not only to maintain, but to pursue, and even can be ideal in the micro, parentheses, individual cases, but in the macro, parentheses, at scale, it would ultimately serve to erode.
National slash racial distinctions and therefore is not the norm.
That's my position.
So, in bringing up polygamy, what I was trying to do, and it wasn't helpful, it was a bad example.
But what I was trying to do, slavery, I brought up, I actually, I kind of shotgun, did a shotgun strategy.
I think I brought up like three different things, and polygamy and slavery were two of them.
Slavery was much better.
I wish I had just said that.
I said polygamy, and so then we got pigeonholed with that.
And spend a lot more time on that, and slavery would have been the better example.
But what I was trying to do is say there are certain things that we all agree are not the norm, but we also agree that there's not an explicit scriptural prohibition or condemnation of it.
And I would say that polygamy is an example of that, but the reason why it was unhelpful is because polygamy and interracial marriage are not a one to one ratio.
Polygamy, we can't say it's not the norm.
We can absolutely say that scripturally, historically, it's not the norm.
But we would say more than that.
And that's why it wasn't helpful.
We would say, we wouldn't just say, it's not the norm.
But it's permissible not only to maintain, also permissible to pursue.
And in many cases, it could be really good.
We actually wouldn't go that far.
We would agree with the Westminster divines and the Reformed tradition and say, no, we feel stronger, much more strongly.
Like the prompt that we wrote, the thesis, interracial marriage, although biblically.
We would not just plug and play and have that same thesis if it was polygamy.
We wouldn't.
And so, by me bringing it up as another example, it just didn't serve the purpose.
It was unhelpful.
And so, I apologize for that failure and lack of clarity and confusion that I introduced.
But the point that I was trying to make, just to be clear, is I was trying to cite there are other examples of things that are not expressly, explicitly forbidden or condemned.
In scripture, there's not chapter and verse biblicism argument against it, and yet we still all agree that it should not be normative.
Polygamy was not a good example, slavery, I think, is the best example.
Is what Antonio brought up, and I'm so glad you did when we got to age gaps.
That was really helpful.
That was a great example, not explicitly prohibited or condemned in scripture, and actually would be permissible.
There actually have been times in the Christian West, historically throughout Christendom, where a 35 year old man marries a 16 year old girl.
And has a God honoring marriage, and the Lord approves of it.
And yet, we still would say not the norm, and certainly in a timely sense, not timeless, but timely sense in our context today, less than ideal, and yet not expressly forbidden.
Slavery would be a little bit different, but would be closer to being a good example, like the age gap thing, with relating it to the topic of interracial marriage than polygamy.
And the reason why, slavery, we would say, I know that.
Rousson brought up the example of Paul's letter to Philemon to release.
I don't feel like he pronounced Philemon correctly, but Philemon.
That happened, and I was like, Oh, yeah, no take backs on that one.
But yeah, we weren't going to correct them right there and be inhospitable.
We're grateful that they came out, and that was kind of them.
But in the example of Paul's letter to Philemon, he's talking about a particular slave who is a good brother in the Lord, who has done Paul personal good, who has come to Paul's aid, and he's saying, Whatever his debts, count them against me.
Like he's saying, He's basically saying, Hey, bro.
It'd be really nice if you did me a solid and just let them go for free.
But if you have to charge, still let them go and charge my account.
But notice this is the same Apostle Paul who wrote the letter to Philemon in the case of one slave.
He's not talking about all slaves, one slave who did him good.
It's the same Apostle Paul who also wrote the book of Ephesians.
It says, Masters, treat your slaves like this.
And slaves, he literally says to slaves, do your work heartily.
For your masters unto the Lord, not man pleasing, not merely for eye service, only working hard when your master is there watching, but even when your master is not present.
Work hard as unto the Lord.
So the Apostle Paul, there is, the point is this there is no chapter and verse biblicism.
There is no express, explicit condemnation or prohibition in the scripture, both Old or New Testament, that says, Masters, release your slaves.
And so slavery is permissible.
This is what R.L. Dabney, this is what George Washington, right?
This is what John Adams, many different good Christian, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, right?
I mean, the list goes on and on and on, whether it's American political founders and fathers or whether it's theological, spiritual fathers in the Reformed tradition, fathers in the faith.
Many of them made these arguments in defending the institution of slavery while, let the record state clearly, while even in the case of R.L. Dabney, who has been slandered as some terrible, immoral man, he was profusely, vehemently against the transatlantic slave trade.
He believed that the slave trade, which involved man stealing, which Leviticus speaks of, Exodus, I believe, chapter 21 speaks, he was vehemently and passionately against it.
He believed that the slave trade must be abolished.
But the question for Dabney was what do we do with all the slaves who are already here?
Especially those, in his case, what he had on the forefront of his mind was second and third generation slaves.
They don't, they've only ever spoken English.
They speak English.
They speak English good.
They speak English well.
They speak just as their fluent first language.
They've also grown up in Christian churches in the South.
They've been catechized.
They've been taught to memorize the scripture.
They share with their white masters and the white masters' children at the same Lord's table when it comes to taking the supper.
What are we going to do?
We're going to drop them off in the bush, likely.
A thousand miles either up or down the coast from where they actually came from.
And even if we find the exact spot, they're two, three generations removed.
There's not a single person there that they know.
They wouldn't even be able to speak the language.
They'd probably immediately after dropping them off within 15 minutes, they'd be captured and lined up on the coast to be sold again.
So, what his argument was how many shades of separation, degrees of separation that we know that the one who man steals was punishable by death and the one found in possession.
Exodus 21 goes further.
The one found in possession also merits the death penalty.
So it's not just the one who stole, but if one stole and then the one who buys purchases, that's one degree separation now, purchases, but they purchase this individual knowing that he had been wrongfully captured and stolen, man stealing, then this guy also was doing a great evil.
Okay, but what do you do if 100 years go by?
And it's not the original person who was stolen and captured and sold to the first purchaser, but now it's like, The fifth, sixth, seventh purchaser, and it's not him, the slave, it's his great grandson.
And you see what I'm saying?
At what point, with degrees of separation, does it no longer fall into the Leviticus or Exodus chapter 21 framework of a crime in biblical terms?
It's especially a capital crime, punishable by death.
And what, therefore, is the solution when there's nothing to go back to?
And so, my point is this.
Slavery being permissible and the fact that there's no biblicist chapter and verse express condemnation or prohibition in the scripture for it is the very argument all things permissible but not all things ideal or beneficial.
1 Corinthians 10 argues that, 1 Corinthians 6 that's the very argument that the Reformed fathers made, that our American founding fathers made in the case of slavery.
Slavery Permissible but Not Ideal00:09:01
While vehemently disagreeing with the slave trade and seeing it as wicked, the continual ongoing Man stealing and capturing and these kinds of things.
And yet, what do we do in this case when we're 17 degrees of separation removed from the original thing that was a sin and was immoral and was a crime?
And they would have used that kind of natural law, reason, rational argumentation to be able to say, some of them, the slaves must be released.
Others, no, we believe it is permissible under God.
And what should be done is simply what Scripture says.
Ephesians chapter six, masters, rule over your slaves in this regard.
Slaves, regard your masters in this manner.
So, not the norm, right?
We're not pro slavery, none of us.
We're certainly against slave trade, certainly against transatlantic slave trade.
But even in a general sense, we would say our ideal, because we believe it's God's ideal, is that every man would be a free man in every nation on earth.
Every tribe, tongue, and nation, that every man would be a free man.
So we are generally against slavery.
And we believe the whole of scripture, the whole biblical theology, and the light of nature and the will of God is generally against slavery because we believe that slavery generally goes against God's normative, ordinary design for peoples, nations, and cultures.
And yet, we would say, as our fathers, both spiritual and historical, political in the West and within the Reformed faith argued, we say, and yet it is.
Biblically permissible.
That's what I was trying to do.
Slavery was a good example.
Age gap was a good example.
Polygamy was not so much a good example.
And I apologize.
All right.
Any final thoughts before we go to super chats?
There was one comment.
Someone commented on the video.
That's what I wanted to mention.
Someone commented on the video, and it was the top comment for a while.
So most people liked it.
And by liking it, it was the top comment shown to people that started it.
And they said, people need to realize that Ruslan's framing.
And obviously, Avery's to some extent as well.
That framing, well, it doesn't matter, we're all one in Christ.
That message to some level is actually driving young men away from Christianity.
If you use Christianity as a cudgel to destroy your people, to destroy your race, to say, well, the Christian gospel doesn't say anything about it, you can throw up your hands, who cares if white people go extinct?
If that is your message, you will turn young men away from Christianity.
Now, I'm not saying the good and true things about Christianity.
There is a truth, it's overused.
Galatians 3 28.
There is a real truth that no matter where you are born, male or female, that before God, what you are appealing to, Is not who you were born to, the fact that you're a man, the fact that you did this.
You're appealing to the blood of Jesus to save you.
But when you use that as a weapon to demolish and level the natural order, you destroy young men's desire, young men's interest in Christianity because they look at it and they say, it seems like all Christianity does is tear down the hierarchies and the orders and the framework of the world.
I don't want any part of that.
Correct.
And it's unfortunate.
You have to recognize that's your message.
Race isn't real.
Interracial marriage, it's great.
Who cares if we all are the same shade of brown?
Well, you're going to turn off young men.
You're going to turn off people that would be interested in Christianity, but they're not interested in a Christianity that destroys the natural world.
They see their home and their fathers and their heritage being destroyed.
Right.
And that is the sad truth.
Dude, I get dozens and dozens of these emails.
I'm glad you brought that up.
I forgot about that comment.
I get dozens of these emails, probably hundreds of these DMs on X, of young men saying, Joel, I want to trust in Jesus.
I want to believe in Jesus.
The biggest hurdle for me is how can I believe Christianity is true when it seems as though the central message of Christianity, as it's being presented by modern Christians today, is the very mechanism for the destruction of my heritage, my fathers, and my home?
That is so sad.
That is so sad that reformed ministers, modern reformed ministers today, are actually.
Expousing that message, a message that perverts true historic Christianity, the faith once and for all passed down to the saints, and makes it nothing,
little more than a bludgeon for egalitarianism, functional egalitarianism, racial egalitarianism, soft feminism, thinly veiled feminism.
And that's how a lot of young men see it.
They're like, I want to believe in Jesus.
But it seems as though a dichotomy has been presented to me by Christian ministers that I have only two options, two options, and only two options.
I can save the West or I can trust in Jesus.
That's so sad.
They literally see these as being directly at odds because individuals like Ruslan, that's exactly what they're saying.
What Roussan is saying is that what it means to be Christian is the very things that, at scale, logically followed to their reasonable end, will mean inevitably the complete destruction and erosion of European Christendom, of our great heritage.
And young men are looking at that, and here's the reality I think Roussan does a lot of good.
I believe he's a brother in Christ.
He's within the bounds of orthodoxy.
But here's the reality.
For every one person who listens to us, 10 are listening to Ruslan and Avery.
They have 10 times the following.
And so when it comes to all these young men who need Jesus, who aren't Christian, and are considering Christianity, but then when they investigate, 10 to 1 ratio, when they investigate, they're going to hear Ruslan.
They're going to hear James White.
They're going to hear Joe Boot.
They're going to hear, and these are some of the better guys, right?
I mean, they'll probably hear Stephen Ferdinand or Joel Osteen.
In those cases, it'll be egalitarian liberalism that destroys the West, plus heresy, actual heresies of prosperity gospel and those kinds.
But just the fact remains this is what we have to realize we're up against.
There are many young men that look to the fields, they are white with the harvest, Jesus says.
There is a plentiful harvest right now with young heritage American men.
On the right wing.
And yet, every single one of them who really is open, when they investigate Christianity and they hear from someone today, they have about a 10 to 1 chance of hearing, being immediately confronted with, here's the Christian faith, here's the Christian gospel, and if you choose it, you lose your home.
That's what they're hearing.
And so that's why, like, we're not saying that we're the best.
We're not saying, like, there are other guys who are smarter than us.
Other guys who are more faithful than us.
But the fact still remains not trying, you know, you must humor me with a little fool's talk.
The fact remains that we are not the only ones, but it is few and far between.
Ministries like ours that have sound doctrine and theology, strong morals, right?
We're not going to nightclubs and live streaming it, strong morals.
Strong biblical traditional doctrine, and also a little bit of common sense and a strong affection and love for the Christian West and our homeland and our fathers.
They're just, as far as I know, maybe I'm wrong, but there aren't a whole lot of voices out there like that.
There aren't a lot of ministries out there like that.
There aren't many people who would be willing to do that.
There are other people who hold our view, but wouldn't necessarily be willing to take that debate.
Because they know it's outside of where the Overton window currently is.
Dragged by Sound Doctrine00:02:32
They know they're going to get dragged in the comments.
They know they're going to get slaughtered.
We're getting dragged right now.
People, you know, still like, oh, where does it say in the Bible?
You know, that's where we are right now.
The lay of the land is not looking great.
But we're willing to take on this fight, knowing that it's going to come at great cost, that we're going to be ridiculed, we're going to be slandered, we're going to be mocked.
And so, right here at the very end, I, you know, If you will humor me, I don't mean to be intrusive.
I don't mean to inconvenience you.
If you're unable to do it, that's fine.
But for those of you who are able and may feel led, I'm humbly requesting that you help keep us in the fight.
Would you prayerfully consider supporting our sister organization, which is a 501c3 Christian ministry, offering tax receipts for every charitable donation?
Would you consider making a donation to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate?
Rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate.
Or if you want to support us financially on a monthly basis and you'd like to do it directly with NXR, which is an LLC, and be able to receive content in return and certain tangible value that we're creating and providing, we are, our Patreon was canceled because we were willing to platform Nick.
And also because we did this, I don't think it's a coincidence.
We did the interracial debate on Thursday.
We were canceled Friday morning.
Patreon, no warning, shut down.
And so we have worked all weekend long because it happened on a Friday without warning to build a new platform where we, Lord willing, will not be canceled and doubling down and offering even more content than we've offered thus far.
To our NXR subscribers.
And so we humbly request that you consider making a donation through rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate or supporting us as a monthly supporter, getting exclusive content with NXR.
And we will tell you we're going to launch, officially launch, and unveil that platform, our new platform.
And it's awesome tomorrow.
So please be on the lookout for that.
Pentecost Reverses Babel00:15:17
But the point is, there aren't a lot of guys who are saying the things we're saying.
And And we need you to help us in that regard.
We need your support.
There are guys who are right wing and they understand the heritage piece.
They understand race.
They understand history.
They understand some of those things the geopolitics, the cultural pieces.
But they're on the Christian side, they're either not Christian or they're Christian light.
And then there are guys who are Christian heavy.
They've got some really good, sound doctrine and this and that.
But they don't care.
They don't care if white people go extinct.
They don't care about.
They're lacking the light of nature and reason and good and necessary consequence.
There's not very many guys who are trying to encompass both, the best of both worlds.
And that's what we're trying to do.
And we need your help.
You can do it by giving charitable donations to Right Response Ministries, or you can do it by becoming one of our club members with NXR.
And if you'd like to do that, we're going to unveil and announce our new platform and new content tomorrow afternoon.
All right, let's finish up the show now by going to our super chats.
We just got a couple of them.
Wes, would you go ahead and start?
All right, we'll start off with this.
Dude Rocks, frequent supporter.
We really appreciate you.
He said, This could God want a more mixed society post resurrection as a way of showing how Christianity overcomes all barriers, including walls such as race slash culture?
Good to see, good faith discussion.
Some people have also posed, for example, Pentecost is the reversal of Babel.
So if you had the curse of the peoples being scattered and their languages being confused, well, we actually have a corollary to that in the New Testament.
Pentecost, Peter is speaking and the Holy Spirit is translating.
So every person in their own language is able to hear.
And I think that argument would have more validity if what we saw after Pentecost was those people that were all from these different nations stayed in Jerusalem, that they'd now been given this one language, they understood one another, they lived happily ever after in a little communal enclave in Jerusalem for the next 80 years.
No, they went back to their home country and because they'd heard the gospel in their language and understood it, the gospel could quickly disperse from Jerusalem, which was just decades away from being destroyed.
And so Christianity wasn't limited.
Those speaking Aramaic, those speaking Greek in a geographical location, Jerusalem.
But because of Pentecost and all these people not staying there, but going out with the gospel in their own language to Ethiopia, and then Paul as a missionary to the Gentiles, the gospel was able to survive the destruction of the temple.
And so I think there are different pieces of the biblical narrative that even post resurrection, God still intended for there to be nations, them to have their own spaces and their own places, and that we will be united.
But even still, when we're united all together at the throne of God, that we would be unique.
We do see nations, tribes, which I didn't hear a response from them on that.
The only way there are nations in the eschaton is if they remain nations, individual, distinct peoples here on earth.
Right.
You don't get eternal, you don't get diversity in heaven eternally if you eradicate it here on earth temporally.
But that's a great point.
I've heard that preached several times.
Pentecost is a reversal of Babel.
In the case of Babel, God confused their languages not momentarily, He did it permanently.
He confused their languages, not for a moment, but.
Indefinitely, so that they would split up and spread out and become distinct peoples.
In the case of Pentecost, you have everyone gathered in one place again, just like Babel, they were congregating.
You have everyone from different tribes, tongues, and nations congregating again in Jerusalem.
But in that instance, this is God that we're speaking of.
He did it once in Babel, he could do the reverse in Pentecost, but it's not the reverse.
The reverse would be if all of a sudden he supernaturally empowered everyone to hear and understand and speak the same tongue indefinitely.
But it wasn't, it was momentary for a moment.
Supernaturally, God empowered all these different peoples from different tribes and different tongues and different nations to hear the preaching of the gospel in their native tongue so that they might have understanding and comprehension.
And then the supernatural gift of tongues it was it stopped in that moment, and they went right back to speaking their own native languages.
The festival that they were gathered for ended.
And they all went back home.
So, the point of Pentecost was not to reverse Babel.
The point of Pentecost was as a catalyst to kickstart the expansion of the gospel into every tribe, tongue, and nation.
The point of Pentecost was not to bring every tribe, tongue, and nation to one place to become one tribe, one tongue, one nation, but to instill the gospel into every tribe, tongue, and nation in one place for them to immediately go back, for the gospel to spread.
So, Pentecost is not a reversal of Babel.
I think that's wrongheaded, that's a misapplication of scripture.
And this was about bringing every tribe, tongue, and nation into the one spiritual race of Christians, the people of God, but not in a temporal earthly sense making one nation or one people.
The distinction still persists.
Okay, Antonio.
Yep.
Julian Stevenson sent $5.
We appreciate that and says Instead of saying interracial marriage isn't part of God's normative design, say God's design is that interracial marriage isn't normative.
I actually think that's a fair point, actually, in the sense of God's design actually being normative in isolation from interracial marriage.
I think the second sentence is a little bit more clear logically that that's what we're saying, which is God has a normative design of which interracial marriage isn't normative in or it isn't a part of it, versus saying this is a fundamental tenet without this interracial marriage being absent, God does have no normative design.
So it's kind of tricky to understand, but I do see the difference, the distinctions in the.
Phraseology, and I do think it would be a more clear way to say it.
Okay.
P.O. Andrew, he said, Honor thy father and thy mother.
Honor your bloodline and roots and homeland.
Thank you for speaking up about this.
You're welcome.
We do think that that is one of the further reaching applications of the fifth commandment.
We do think that the fifth commandment speaks to this issue.
Again, we believe that interracial marriage is biblically permissible.
So we don't believe that the fifth commandment directly applies to the extent to where it renders interracial marriage as permissible.
Inherently immoral.
We don't go that far.
But at the same time, we're not taking the position that there's no application of the fifth commandment into this topic whatsoever.
There is.
We do think that that is one of the natural and further reaching implications of the fifth commandment to honor thy fathers is that you seek to maintain and further the lineage, the culture, The heritage of your fathers.
And we think that that's something that most people throughout most of history didn't need to be taught, didn't really need to be said.
People instinctively understood that.
And we're convinced that the reason why there's such an aversion to this idea, that is a very normal idea in our day and age, in our particular time and place here in the West and in America more particularly, is because we have.
We have been propagandized.
This is what people used to think.
Wes, you even have a chart that I think would be really helpful.
I just realized we were supposed to show this chart.
I texted Nathan.
Maybe we'll be able to overlay it on screen.
When you say it about being normative, and maybe this can be the last word on it, the U.S. approval of marriage between black and white people specifically, so this is not interracial marriage as a whole, but between whites and blacks, the approval of it in 1958, the year that they started polling it, was 4%.
And it got all the way up to in 2022.
94%.
So you can take that, and that's about 60 years or so.
You've had a complete public reversal on the topic as far as societal acceptance goes.
The vast majority, 96%, disapproved of it in 1958.
The vast majority today, 94%, approve of it.
Now, popular consensus does not necessarily make something moral, but it's worth stating and it's worth remembering and calling attention to that at the time, I have this chart in front of me here as well.
You just have to take my word for it, but you can look it up.
1950, 1955, and 1960, America was reliably 95%.
92 to 95% Christian.
So, a vast overwhelmingly, and that's because America, it fluctuates in the 80s.
It was never quite 95 to 100.
America's reliably been about 85 to 90% white.
So, America was 85 to 90% white, 90 to 95% Christian, 1950s, 1960s.
And your Christian grandparents, your Christian great grandparents in the 1950s and 1960s, statistically overwhelmingly disagreed with it.
They didn't approve of it.
And one part of honoring your father and mother is I think not saying, hey, this view that my good Christian parents held, maybe they held it ignorantly and maybe it wasn't rooted in scripture, but this view is damnable.
This view takes people to hell.
You can still disagree.
Mama and Papa, they're not always right.
They were fallible.
But it's worth saying, hey, I recognize that the overwhelming majority of my Christian ancestors, not that long ago, two generations here in the United States, they thought this.
And I don't think they were terrible people.
I don't think they were evil.
I don't think they had sinful partiality.
There were different reasons that they thought this.
Maybe I still agree now.
Maybe I don't agree, but we should have a level of respect and deference to them.
And these statistics shouldn't surprise you.
You should be aware of it.
Okay, we're talking about this topic.
Yeah, I recognize that it's only very recently that public opinion on this has shifted.
That shouldn't harm your worldview.
That shouldn't be a shock to you.
Yep, it shifted very much so.
And if you have a reason that you're for it, you need to make a good one.
And if you look down on it, there's a way to go about that respectfully that doesn't condemn your grandparents to hell.
Yes.
I mean, that is, it's not infallible, right?
This is not scripture.
But it shouldn't be cast away lightly.
It shouldn't be trivialized.
The point is prescient that over the last 60 years, you went from 94% disapproval, 94% disapproval of interracial marriage in the case of a white person and a black person.
And 60 years later, you have 96% approval.
And yet, in that same time period, the last 60 years, The question, right?
Because people say, yeah, well, you know, I guess previous generations, they were all just racist, right?
That's been the answer.
Because everybody knows historically, like, there was slavery, there was this, there was that.
And the main answer that people would give, modern people would give today, is, yeah, and they were wrong.
But it really should be, you know, it shouldn't be that easy to just trivialize and sweep under the rug.
It really should be a challenge for us to try to reconcile this basic fact your great grandfather.
There's about a 94% chance he disapproved of interracial marriage between a black person and a white person.
And at the same time, that's not the end of the argument.
The second half is, and in his day, far more people went to church on a weekly basis, far more people identified as being Christian, far more people held to the Trinity, held to the incarnation, held to a bodily resurrection.
So, you don't just have one thing happening over the last 60 years.
You have two things happening simultaneously.
And we could come away and say, no correlation whatsoever.
But you just, you got to sit with it, though.
You do have to sit with it.
That may be your final conclusion no correlation whatsoever.
However, it is still somewhat profound to just at least say out loud and acknowledge in the last 60 years, America has become far less Christian and simultaneously.
Precisely as we became less Christian, we also became more approving of interracial marriage.
Correlation guarantee?
No.
But should we pause, think about it, consider that?
Because we would say, yeah, we recognize that prior generations thought that way.
We know what the historic record is.
We're not going to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Our answer is simply to say that they were all wrong.
The hard part about that final piece is to just say, well, there's an easy answer they're wrong.
The hard part about that final piece is that in every other category, they were actually more right, not more wrong.
They were more Christian, more God fearing, less divorce, less abortion.
In every single metric, they were better.
And so we can sit there and we say, yeah, we are the lesser sons of former sires, and our forefathers were better than us in every regard, except they had one glaring blind spot.
And that's what most people have concluded.
Most monochristians, that's how they would articulate it.
Yeah, you know, Jonathan Edwards and this person and that person, they were all better than us.
George Whitefield, they were all better than us across the board by every conceivable metric except this one.
The question, though, that that raises, or at least it should raise, is the generation of people who were morally, religiously, and doctrinally superior by every conceivable metric, did they have, is there a higher chance of that generation?
Being wrong on this issue, or today's generation that is less doctrinally savvy, less identifying, professing Christianity, less church attendance, more divorce, more abortion, more sodomy like, which generation has a higher likelihood of being right, of being able to see clearly, of having a good answer?
On this topic.
And I just think that that should at least be considered.
So, were you able to put the chart up there?
Subscribe for Next Week's Debate00:03:29
Nathan, did we show it?
Here's the chart right here at the end.
I can see it on the screen.
There we go.
So, this is the chart.
Again, that's 1958 is when it begins about 4% approval for interracial marriage in America, particularly between black and white people.
And then when we get to about 2022, so approximately, what would that be?
It's about 62 years later, or so you have a 94% approval.
So 4% approval, then 94% approval.
And the question remains again, you know, it's like, okay, well, somebody here is wrong, right?
Because it's, I mean, that's pretty stark, that divide.
So it's basically, you know, 96% disapprove, and then all of a sudden, you know, 94% do approve.
So, you know, the question is who was right?
And that's where I think it's helpful to pan out and to look at other metrics and say, okay, well, in other topics, in other arenas, which generation, the generation from 1958 or the generation from 2022, which generation is more biblical in other arenas, more God fearing in other areas?
And I think we know that answer.
I think we know.
So, food for thought, food for thought.
Thanks again for tuning in.
Make sure here at the very end, subscribe.
Make sure to subscribe on YouTube.
Click the bell so that you'll be notified with all our content that we continue to produce.
Make sure to subscribe on Rumble.
We are on Rumble with every single one of our live streams, all our broadcasts, and click the bell there as well.
Also, make sure to follow us on X.
We are posting live all of our video content from my X account.
The handle is at Joel Webbin, at Joel Webbin.
So make sure to follow on X. Click the bell there as well so that you'll be notified.
And if you want to, you can also follow us on Apple and Spotify.
We don't broadcast live on the podcast platforms.
But usually within an hour or two of finishing the stream, then it goes up on Apple and Spotify so you can listen in podcast form, audio only, if that's your preference.
If you are following us with Apple and Spotify, do us a favor and leave us a five star review.
It makes a big difference, triggers the algorithm, and gets this content out to more people.
We really appreciate it.
It is Tuesday, so we will see you on Wednesday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time with our episode four.
With the Nick series, myself and Nick Fuentes.
And so that's coming out tomorrow at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
And then we will, the three of us, Wes and Antonio and myself, will see you with our final live stream for this week, which will be on Friday, again at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
I think we did get, what, one more super chat?
Two more super chats.
Go first.
Michael Sayin said, Ruslan is a good friend of my brother.
Can't wait to hear what was said about polygamy.
So he didn't watch the debate yet.
Any defenders?
Short answer, no.
No one's explicitly defending polygamy.
Sparty Buck sent $2 and says, It is my preference in quotations equals thought terminating cliche.
That's very true.
That's a good point.
It's very hard to investigate intellectually someone's idea when they refer to it as a preference.
Right.
Good point.
All right.
Thank you guys so much for tuning in, and we'll see you tomorrow.