I'll see you guys in the next video!
I'll see you in the next video!
See you guys in the next video!
Well I think that's a fair analysis of the book.
To me, the biggest problem I have with the book is
it doesn't focus on, in my opinion, the most important aspect
to actually having a Christian nation
and that is preaching the gospel
and getting people saved.
It really leaves me wondering if Torba or this other pastor
or the individuals that kind of have this ideology
if they're even saved.
They're talking about repenting of your sins.
They kind of talk about making disciples or discipling people.
They emphasize works a lot.
And, you know, a lot of that they talk about
I still agree with, but given the context, it almost seems like
they're ignoring the fact that people need to be saved first
or that we need to be focusing on the gospel specifically
before we're going to have major cultural change.
It almost seems like, for them, it's about building businesses
that would change the culture as opposed to getting people saved.
And they don't really have a method for getting people saved
that they bring up.
And so, I think it's kind of
it's got a lot of stuff that I think you could extract from it
and still benefit, but by and large, I feel like I kind of just disagree with the book.
Well, I think there's some doctrinal issues there.
And for me, the biggest one, you brought up salvation.
That's obviously an enormous deal.
But also, his views on end times Bible prophecy are wrong
because in his rejection of the pre-tribulation rapture,
he essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater
and just goes like full preterist, seemingly,
and tries to teach that all of the prophetic books of the Bible
or rather Bible prophecy that is clearly dealing with future end times prophecy
and things that are yet to be fulfilled,
that all of that has already been fulfilled
in his zeal for wanting to debunk the pre-tribulation rapture.
Because he recognizes, to his credit, Pastor Shelley,
that the pre-tribulation rapture breeds laziness.
Apathy.
That's the words that slipped my mind.
It breeds apathy, Pastor Shelley.
So he recognizes that, but the problem is,
he then goes to the other extreme to say,
well, everything dealing with Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled,
and I would disagree with that conclusion 100%.
Yeah, he kind of rejects the idea that an antichrist will come.
He rejects the idea that the devil has any kind of authority even in this world
or that his minions are going to rise to positions of power.
And it's kind of like a conquer the world.
It almost reminds me of what you would anticipate the Holy Crusades
as kind of starting out to be like.
Yeah.
He doesn't say that you need to force people to believe,
but at the same time, that's kind of maybe the mentality that they have.
And I think it's good to still talk about some of the excerpts here
and also just understand, I mean, I like Andrew Torbo a lot, honestly.
And I would wish for him to be saved if he's not.
I kind of genuinely don't think that he is.
But he does seem to be right about a lot of things.
And that's good. That's a good basis.
But he's definitely yoked up with a lot of people that are not saved for sure.
It seems like he's very sympathetic towards Catholics,
towards a lot of other fake religions.
And in fact, in this book, it kind of starts out with a section
dedicated to a guy named Shane Schatzel.
I don't know if you can see that on the screen or not.
The Christian Nationalist Declaration.
And I want to read an excerpt here because he's going to define
Christian nationalism by a man named Shane Schatzel.
It says, Therefore Christian nationalism cannot be limited to any race,
ethnicity, or culture.
And so he wants to make it clear that Christian nationalism
is simply just being Christian and making your nation Christian,
but it's not limited to a particular race, ethnicity, or culture.
But I want to have some skepticism to that statement
because I do agree that it's not limited to a race or an ethnicity
because first of all, I don't believe race exists.
That's a man-made construct.
Ethnicity is a pretty broad category as well.
Very difficult to probably identify.
But when it comes to culture, there are some cultures that I believe
are just sinful, very anti-Christian.
So there's no way to reconcile every culture with Christianity
or with a Christian nation.
That doesn't mean that you couldn't necessarily import
some aspects of various cultures,
but there's going to be some cultures that just need to be
wholesale rejected because they just by and large
are just antithetical to the Bible, to Christianity, and to truth.
And so I don't really like this statement,
and it seems like it's one of those just please don't sue me
or please don't give me a hard time type statements.
I'm going to slightly disagree, and here's why.
I feel like it's important to make that point because
we're constantly smeared as Bible-believing Christians.
They think that we're racist.
CNN defines Christian nationalism this way.
They say that it uses Christian language to cloak sexism
and hostility to black people and non-white immigrants
in its quest to create a white Christian America.
That's not the point of the book.
Torba never says that he wants to create a white America.
He's not concerned with skin color.
So when he puts a statement out like that to me,
he's clearly defining this isn't about race, this isn't about skin color,
and so he's repudiating this railing accusation
that left this levy toward him 24 hours a day.
Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with the race
or the ethnicity aspect.
I'm saying that I disagree with the culture aspect.
That I would agree with. Yeah, I would agree with you on that.
And again, this is not Andrew Torba.
This is the Shane guy, the preface to the book itself.
But obviously he wouldn't put it in his book
if he didn't agree with it in general.
And another statement here is it's talking about
the practicalities of implementing Christian nationalism
from this person's perspective.
And he says that he doesn't want to force anybody to be Christian in the nation.
And then he makes this statement.
This is why non-Christians can freely live in a Christian state.
They can operate their own places of worship,
synagogues, mosques, or temples without fear of government persecution or harassment.
So Shane Schatzel's perspective of having this Christian national
state would be allowing Jews, those who practice Islam.
Is there a difference between temples and synagogues?
Seems the same to me.
Jews, Muslims, and Jews.
But I want to contrast that with something for a second
because they do bring up a lot of history in this book.
And I have with me an exact reprint.
It's the Laws of Connecticut, an exact reprint of the original edition
of 1673.
So whenever America was first being colonized,
they were able to pass their own laws.
And it's kind of broken up alphabetically,
but they have a particular quote here,
or they have a particular section called Capital Laws.
And this isn't something that I necessarily have a screenshot of.
I wish I did.
But I just want to read for you just their first capital law, Connecticut Colony.
If any man or woman after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god,
but the Lord God, he shall be put to death.
And then they quote Deuteronomy 13, 6, 17, 21, and Exodus 22, 2.
So according to the laws of Connecticut in 1673,
if you were a Jew or a Muslim, you would have been put to death.
Yet he's saying, I want to create a Christian state in which Jews and Muslims
can live without fear of government persecution in their little temple or synagogue.
That's just not the same as how our nation was actually founded.
Seems to be incompatible, and I'm on board with you there.
What was the reference? Was it Deuteronomy 13, 6?
6, 17, 21, and then also Exodus 22, 2.
I'll just read from Deuteronomy 13 just for the viewer
so that they can know exactly what we're talking about here.
The Bible says, If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,
or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,
entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods which thou hast not known,
thou nor thy fathers, namely of the gods of the people which are round about you,
nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth,
thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him,
neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him.
Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
That's what God thinks about ecumenicalism.
Well, and of course, you know, if you have any questions about Christian nationalism,
we'd love for you to call in 231 Baptist. We'll take some calls tonight.
And again, it's mostly just if you have a question for us, we'd like to talk about it.
But here's what I like about our show, and this is what I want to do with our show,
is simply put forth what we believe Christian nationalism should be,
because I don't want it to get defined by people like Andrew Torba or these other individuals
when I don't even agree with their viewpoint of what Christian nationalism should actually be.
Someone should get up there and say what it should be and lay out a really clear game plan
so as to actually positively influence the culture.
Maybe preach a sermon about it.
Yeah, but I mean, their view is really ecumenical, and they even say that.
I mean, they make the statement really plainly in one of the portions of the book
where they simply just say that they want to join hands with Catholics and other groups.
If you look up the definition of ecumenical, if you just Google it,
it says representing a number of different Christian churches is one option.
It also says promoting or relating to unity among the world's Christian churches.
But in that context, they're going to be talking about Catholic.
They're going to be Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox.
I mean, just all of the different options that are out there, and here's the reality.
America was not set up to be this ecumenical, anything-goes style nation,
but rather the colonists were fleeing from religious persecution.
They had a state church, which was the Catholic church from many of the areas of Europe and England,
or perhaps Anglican, depending on what part of the country they're from,
and they were sick and tired of being told that they have to be a particular religion
when it didn't line up with the Bible.
And so they were fleeing religious persecution, taking the Bible with them,
trying to establish churches that they believe were in accordance to the scripture.
And later in time, we ended up forming governments that had a distinction from the church
and from the government, where it's not the same person.
It's not like the pastors, the president or the king of the particular country,
but rather there's a little bit of a distinction there so as to prevent as much corruption.
Because if you only have one unit, it's easier to corrupt that.
The more you kind of have this diverse system, it takes longer to corrupt,
or it's more difficult, and they can kind of do their duties differently.
And I think that that's a good system.
I think that what some people don't realize is how America was established, in my opinion,
is about as close as you're going to get to a perfect system apart from Christ himself.
Because it is based on biblical ideals.
Of course, what system did God implement?
A system of judges with the law being the supreme law of the land.
And if you look at America, that's how we were set up.
We have the highest law of the land is supposed to be the Bible, and it used to be.
You'd put your hand on a Bible to get sworn into the presidency.
Whenever they would have court decisions, the Bible was a piece of literature that would be used
in reference to court cases specifically.
And even the laws in these colonies and these states were based on the Bible.
And we have the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the highest authority in the land,
interpreting the law, giving guidance, giving precedent, so as to help with the practicalities.
But really, the problem with America is not so much the system in place, but rather the people in the system.
If we had a righteous culture, if we had righteous judges, if we had righteous leadership,
then there's nothing wrong with the system. It obviously worked for several hundred years.
It's, in my estimation, it's not necessarily so much a flawed system.
It is that our nation is flawed, humanly speaking, culturally speaking,
and that Christianity has become very apostate.
And so to fix this, we need to revive Christianity.
We need to get people saved, and we need to thunder forth the right ideals and be based.
You know, I don't want to join hands with the Catholics.
I mean, the Catholics killed Christians. The Catholics killed William Tyndale for believing in faith alone.
How is that guy less of an enemy than the left woke, the wokesters, or the Democrats?
You know, do I really want to let them get into power and control again, where they're killing people who believe in faith alone?
I mean, what is, you know, from your perspective in reading this book, does it seem like there's any hesitation to befriend Catholics?
No, not at all. I think that it's much less inclined to point people toward a spiritual solution.
It seems more inclined to point people toward a carnal or political solution.
And I even get some bringing-in-the-kingdom vibes.
Like, if we can make our planet righteous enough, Jesus will come back and sort of just, again,
a denial of quote-unquote futurism, or the idea that there is a seven-year, Daniel 70th week coming in the future,
consisting of three and a half years of tribulation, three and a half years of God's wrath, et cetera.
But one thing I wanted to mention there is, really, when you talk about our system,
and you talk about the fact it really does not need to be completely torn down and built back up from the ashes again,
I think, in reality, it's a cultural problem, and what's going to fix that cultural problem? Christianity.
And if Christianity would stop being so dead, if Christianity would actually care about the things of God again,
and care about soul-winning and doctrine and church and things of that nature,
you will see a cultural change, and politics is downstream from culture, if you truly want political change,
if you truly want a change in leadership, it has to start from the culture, and if the culture would be Christian again,
then I think you would see radical change, real change, from the top down.
Well, and of course, if you're not saved, you're going to have a skewed view on life.
Additionally, if you have eschatology off, that's going to alter your reality as well.
And of course, he brings this up that the pre-trib rapture is causing a lot of apathy in America, and I wholeheartedly agree.
I despise the pre-trib rapture. It's certainly not true.
The Bible tells us in Matthew 24, immediately after the tribulation is when Christ is going to return.
So to claim that it's pre-trib is really just to deny clear scripture.
If you read 1 Thessalonians 4, which is a very clear passage on the rapture, the whole book is dedicated to tribulation,
so it's kind of bizarre to think that that particular book is going to preach pre-trib when the whole book is dedicated to tribulation.
And the attributes of the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 match what is going on in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.
Yeah, and of course, you have Revelation 6 at the end, giving the same kind of events about the sun being darkened,
and the moon's not giving its light, and so it's going to be very obvious to someone that looks at all these passages together.
They're talking about the same event, and that the rapture is not going to happen just randomly.
It's not this pre-trib rapture.
But when you talk about Torba's view, they kind of have a preterist view, and for those that don't know what preterism is,
preterism suggests that everything that we read in our Bible has already happened.
So that's probably the easiest way to explain that.
And of course, a large section, if not almost all of the Bible, has already been accomplished,
and I agree that a lot of these things that the Bible talks about have happened.
When we look at in Matthew 24, it talks about the destruction of Jerusalem, and of course that happened in 70 AD.
No one's going to really deny that that happened that has any basis in reality.
Parts of Revelation have happened.
Of course, the first few chapters are talking about events that are going to happen in the relative future,
soon future to John writing that epistle.
It's talking about seven churches which are in Asia.
They're no longer here anymore, so of course that already happened.
But what's bizarre to me is how people are going to suggest that Christ has already returned,
there's been a battle of Armageddon, there's been a battle of Gog and Magog.
I mean, like, the Great White Throne judgment.
I mean, how far are we taking this, and how are they even pointing to any kind of event in history or timeline where that's coherent?
Do you have any idea of how they argue some of these events like the Great White Throne judgment or the battle of Gog and Magog?
I mean, do you know?
I've heard some people argue, and I've only seen this online,
but they've even argued with me saying that Jesus actually did come back in 70 AD.
Like, they'll go that far and say that already happened, all of that.
And, of course, what they could do with Gog and Magog and Armageddon and some of these other events is just allegorize them.
Well, those are just allegories. They're not made to be taken literally.
This is where you get your amillennialists who deny that Jesus will rule and reign for a thousand years.
Oh, that's just supposed to be symbolic.
When in reality, when you read you brought up some aspects of Matthew 24 have been fulfilled,
you can read Daniel 9, verse 27, which talks about how 70 weeks are determined
and how in the midst of the week the sacrifices will cease, etc.
And you have to interpret those scriptures with the principle of dual fulfillment,
and that's what a lot of preterists do not understand is the principle of dual fulfillment,
that there are going to be certain eschatological passages or passages dealing with end times prophecy
that have a shadow fulfillment and that also have an end times fulfillment as well.
And I think that the Roman siege of Jerusalem is a perfect example of this,
a shadow fulfillment of what is going to happen during end times,
during Daniel's 70th week, I should say, when the Antichrist rises to power.
Well, if we look at his book, the latter section is saying that he kind of despises those
who have this apathetic view that anything we do is just in vain
and that essentially Christ is going to come in any minute,
so there's no point in actually looking towards the future.
And I agree with the viewpoint that that's a bad attitude.
I don't think, even if Christ were to come soon, we should still live our lives to the fullest,
we should still care about our children, our grandchildren, and making decisions for the long term.
But that doesn't mean that you can't also be anticipating the coming Antichrist.
The Bible very clearly tells us to watch, and I don't know when that's going to happen,
so even though I do believe the Antichrist is going to come first,
and I do believe this is going to be a great falling away,
and I believe that inevitably the Antichrist is going to come to power
no matter how much I try to influence my nation or state,
that doesn't stop me from wanting to influence my nation or state.
In fact, our whole church, at least a large section of the men of our church, went to city council meetings.
We're trying to make positive change.
We celebrated the idea that Roe v. Wade was given back to the states
so that states could potentially enact better laws and reduce the amount of abortion.
I still don't even think they took it far enough,
so I would hope that we go even closer to what the Bible actually says in this subject,
and those who would murder children would get the death penalty, as the Bible clearly teaches.
And we're going to be going to rumble only here in a little bit
so we can actually talk about a lot of these laws, but the Bible is very based.
The founders of America were very based.
They didn't care what other people thought. They believed the Bible.
And what's crazy is that many people don't realize that in Europe,
a lot of the countries and areas had dozens, if not hundreds, of capital punishment laws.
And so when the American settlers came to America, they reduced it greatly
down to around a dozen or so, which is what the Bible actually has.
And so it was actually a reduction of capital punishment, and that was a good thing.
But at the same time, they still believed in those few dozen.
Our country has gotten to the point where it's almost impossible to get the death penalty anymore,
and what that creates is a lot of people walking around that have no fear
to commit the most heinous crimes and evil in our civilization and society.
And so we have so many people that should have been put to death,
rapists and murderers and all kinds of crazy things,
that are able to just continue walking the streets and continuing to hurt and harm our society.
And through the prison industrial complex, not what we're talking about tonight,
but another subject, I mean, of course they don't want to put these people to death
because then they're still profiting on them like slaves.
But, you know, I know that you've read this and you've got a couple quotes.
Is there something you wanted to point out from the book that kind of stuck out to you,
just maybe another excerpt that you had?
Yeah, there's several portions I agree with.
And like I said, there's some good talking points here.
The Bible obviously teaches that God's law should have dominion over the land,
and that appears to be what Torba is advocating for in the book.
And to that extent, in so much as Christian nationalism is going to promote the idea of bringing God's law back into government,
that I'm all for it, if that's how you want to define it.
And something interesting that he said in the book, which seems to contradict what he said towards the beginning of the book,
in the sense that, you know, we were kind of critiquing him for being a little ecumenical there with Catholics and things like that.
But he goes on to say in his book, if we're going to build a Christian movement, it must be exclusively Christian.
And we can't be afraid to say that out loud.
We are all sinners saved by grace, but if you do not repent and believe in Jesus Christ,
which again, I'm not quite sure what he means by repentance there.
Just because someone uses the word repent doesn't always mean that they're a horrible heretic.
They could mean, they could define that as turning from unbelief to belief. I don't know.
But regardless, it says, but if you do not repent and believe in Jesus Christ,
then you do not share our biblical worldview and cannot participate in any meaningful position of authority in the movement.
It's just that simple.
We recognize that many non-believers will be sympathetic to our movement to support our efforts to preserve and grow a Christian culture in a Christian country.
That's great. We welcome their support,
but leadership and influential positions must be reserved exclusively for those who call Jesus Christ King.
I like that. What he's saying here is those who are in authority should be Christians, should be those who believe in Christ.
And that would go a long way in fixing the current state of America and our trajectory to the depths of hell that we find ourselves in as a nation right now.
And I appreciated that. He later goes on to talk about how we need to reclaim every area of life as Christians, including politics.
But he talks about how every individual man, quote, must take dominion over his home, over his wife and children, over himself.
Victory with this approach is inevitable. He talks about, he says, our children will be homeschooled.
Our children will not be attending drag shows, which is pedophile filth. Our children will not be watching Netflix filth.
They will not be tuning into Fox News or CNN. They'll not be on Facebook. Our children's children must be our focus.
So I appreciate his focus on the family. I like that. He's talking about homeschooling. He's talking about protecting our children from degeneracy.
So there are a lot of different things that he says that I agree with. And really, you kind of have to chew the meat and spit out the bones, I guess.
But there's a lot of good stuff here.
Yeah. And I, you know, I'm glad you, one of the quotes you had, you brought up the repent.
And some people are skeptical of why I would even say Andrew Torb was not saved.
But when you read through these books and similar just messaging from people that are like him,
they always mention repent and sometimes even turn from sin or repent of your sin.
And it makes it seem like they don't actually believe in faith alone.
Now, of course, if Andrew Torb believes in faith alone, then he's saved.
I just don't, I don't know that I've heard a clear testimony of what he believes.
And it seems like he's maybe yoked up with people that believe in the fact that you could lose your salvation, repenting of sins, kind of a workspace salvation.
And so, you know, there's a lot of fake Christians out there that would suck very genuine people out there into their trap and that they just still wouldn't be saved.
And I think that Andrew Torb was genuine, a sincere person. He seems like a good guy. I like him.
But I just, I'm skeptical that he actually believes in faith alone and once saved, always saved.
And of course, you have to if you want to be saved.
This person in the chat room says, when most people say repent, they mean repent of sins, which is heresy.
Yeah.
Do you agree with that?
Well, again, obviously repenting of sin is a biblical concept, but not in context of salvation.
So, you know, if we're bringing it up in context of salvation, usually people say that to mean something different.
And so, or they're kind of giving lip service to that crowd, maybe in best case scenario.
Obviously, Christ did say repent and believe the gospel, so even Christ brought that up in context of salvation.
It's just, let's define what repent means.
It means to change your mind, stop trusting in yourself and believe only in Jesus Christ to be saved.
Whereas the Jews, they were, as the Bible describes them, willing to justify themselves.
They thought they were righteous because they kept the law, but no one's righteous by keeping the law.
Even the apostle Paul, who said he was, in consideration of the law, blameless.
But yet, he had to count that all but dung and put 100% faith in Christ, and that's what saved him.
It's not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but by his mercy he saved us.
So, you know, the book, for me, I didn't have a lot of good things to say in general,
but there's a couple quotes in here that I really liked, and I wanted to read one that I thought was kind of funny.
Can we talk about Jews a little bit?
Yeah, he does, but it's pretty soft.
It's soft?
Yeah, but he has one that says, total victory is inevitable.
It's chapter 10, and, you know, it was kind of funny to me, what he's talking about liberal churches a little bit,
but I want to read an excerpt here, and it made me laugh out loud when I was reading it,
but it says, our victory is inevitable if we plan, build, and play the long game.
Our victory is inevitable because the war was already won on the cross.
We must accept that this is simply another battle, the great battle of our age,
and we will be victorious as so many of our brothers and sisters that came before us were in their own respective battles.
It is our sacred duty to rise to the great challenge of our age as so many have done before us.
We stand on the shoulders of giants who stand on the shoulders of Christ our King.
Now, that just kind of gives you a little bit of context of the quote that I wanted to read here,
but he brings up something funny, I think, about music, and it says, let me start here.
When was the last time you heard this sung in church or worship music even remotely like this?
And he's talking about Jesus of Psalms, and he's talking about how Psalms are really powerful,
and he says, but this is the worship music that Jesus sang, talking about the Psalms.
If you want to know what the Jesus of the Gospels was like, sing His music.
There is a direct correlation between the church refusing to include all 150 of God's war songs
in its worship music and the sad, wimpy, ineffectual state of evangelical cultural engagement.
And I kind of laugh because I was just thinking, yes, the songs of God and the Psalms are war songs.
I love that. And the music that you hear, these effeminate, queer-like, non-evangelical churches is what I call them.
It's pathetic. It's pathetic that you have these queer, effeminate guys getting up there and whining on stage
and just like, I surrender.
Your love never fails, never gives up, never runs out of me.
Our God is an awesome God.
It's like, that's not the Bible.
Where you go, I'll go.
You know, they need some Psalm 139. They need some war songs like that.
That would make their heads explode.
Do not, I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee.
Now, to finish that, we've got to be on Rumble Only.
But hey, Psalm 139, check it out. It's a great one.
I mean, that's the kind of music that is Jesus.
You know, Jesus is the Bible.
And so I really liked that point.
It made me laugh kind of out loud when I was thinking about how terrible the music is that's out there.
And there's good stuff in the book.
I mean, I'm probably a little more positive on it than you.
I do disagree, don't get me wrong, on a number of points that he makes.
But I think there's some good talking points in there.
And you could tell that he genuinely does really badly want to see America restored to its Christian foundation,
which we'll be talking about a little bit later on.
But something he says, and I wanted to get your thoughts on this, pastor, and see if you agree or disagree.
He says that, let's see, one second here. I apologize. Here we go.
He says, the Great Commission means that if you're a Christian, you are axiomatically a Christian nationalist.
If you say you're a Christian and you reject Christian nationalism, you are just a disobedient Christian.
Agree? Disagree? Do you consider yourself a Christian nationalist?
Well, you know, at the end of the day, I don't think that that's a fair statement.
Just because, depending on what part of the world you live in and what timing and situation,
nationalism is kind of not necessarily something that you have to believe in.
I think that in Hebrews chapter 11, it's clear that those individuals plainly declare that they're seeking a heavenly nation.
So they're not really concerned with the politics of their particular area.
In fact, sometimes you need to leave your area. So I think you could be in a nation where you just look at it and you say,
this place is wicked. I'm not going to have an influence on this particular nation. I'm going to leave and go somewhere else.
So I don't think that you have to just dominate every nation with Christianity.
In some cases, if people won't receive you, as Jesus said, you know, shake the dust off your feet or flee into another one.
I don't think that Christian nationalism is always just an automatic given, depending on the circumstance.
Now, of course, if you live in a nation where you have the opportunity to influence the culture, politics or create a new nation,
sure, it should be a Christian nation. And I think that's what America was founded as.
And that's one thing I like about the book, is the book shows a lot of quotes from previous charters, laws,
what the colonies, why the colonies were set up, what their beliefs were. And I learned some things from that.
But at the end of the day, you know, we fight a spiritual battle. So we don't want to lose sight of that.
You know, I think that he's getting a little too carnal. I agree. And again, that's going to come from if someone's not saved,
they're going to be carnal. That's right. If someone has the wrong eschatology, they may also look at things in a more carnal lens.
And I think that's one thing that I don't like. He makes it seem as if pre-tribbers are just these terrible people.
But, you know, a lot of pre-tribbers are working really hard to get people saved and preach the gospel and doing spiritual works.
And they're just saying, yeah, this nation is doomed. So but I know pre-tribbers that are very adamant
and trying to make influence in our particular government and in our culture, even though they're a pre-tribber.
So I don't think that that's even fair to just broad brush. And I'll give you an example.
And this is someone I don't even like necessarily anymore. I did at one point.
But Stacey Shiflett is someone who definitely has put a lot of pressure on his local government and in the government to make certain changes,
has stood up to them, has made his intentions clear, has tried to influence the culture as being more Christian.
But, you know, at the same time, he is still a pre-tribber. He's not I mean, he's not like having a different eschatology.
He believes that Christ could come at any minute, but then he's still trying to influence the culture to the best of his ability.
So I think it's not fair to just broad brush, say every pre-tribber doesn't even care about our country, our state or having biblical laws.
I think that plenty of them care very much about their culture vote. I mean, in fact, I would argue the pre-tribbers are strong voters.
They might be more politically involved than we think.
Oh, yeah, I think that they vote a lot. And so, you know, I don't really think that that's fair.
I think that Torba, you know, since he's kind of new to Christianity, I think he's only been a Christian for five, six years or something like that.
I could be wrong on the date, but I don't think he's been a Christian for very long.
I think that he has a warped view of Christianity as a whole because he's only been kind of fed a particular diet and worldview.
And so then he kind of has the wrong perspective.
That's also caught in a few other areas because he says that pre-trib or no, I'm not sorry, pre-trib, premillennialism.
Premillennialism is kind of like only through John Nelson Darby and through Schofield.
And that's where it originated. But that's not true because there are early church fathers,
Irenaeus of Lyon and others from the second century and around that time that did believe in a premillennialist view.
So he kind of pretends like, oh, there's everybody was preterist all the way up until the late 1800s.
And then, you know, all this false doctrine came in with pre-trib, which I agree a lot of false doctrine came with pre-trib.
But it's false to then also say anybody that's premillennialist and what a premillennialist is,
is someone who believes that Christ is going to return before the thousand year reign and that that hasn't happened yet.
It's kind of what a futurist view.
And to my knowledge, most Christians, at least of the evangelical genre, are all premillenniest.
I mean, is that not, you know, from your perspective, kind of what you...
It seems to be the majority position. Yeah, I haven't really seen too many churches that would deny.
And Catholics are different. I'm just saying like of Christian and evangelicals, premillenniest is the broad view.
But, you know, we're premillenniest, but we're post-trib pre-wrath.
And, you know, I haven't changed on that.
I know some people have come to our position and then gone back to preterism or partial preterism.
And I would love to talk about that at some point, but probably not this broadcast.
I mean, we could do it if you want to go six hours. Yeah, six hours.
You, me, and one other person will be watching, so I might even fall asleep.
But, you know, like I said, I don't like Stacey Shifflett because I think he preaches repent of your sins and I don't even think he's saved.
Or if even he is, he's very mixed up and I wouldn't want anything to do with that.
But at the same time, he's at least an example of someone who's very active in the government and is a pre-tribber.
And I think that just kind of debunks some of the narrative that Torben brings up in his book.
Pastor Aaron Thompson says in the chatroom,
pre-tribbers just want to leave us with the right Republican before they are whisked away on their feathered pillows.
Well, they can't suffer any tribulation.
So, of course, they're going to also have their 401K still and, you know, make sure that it's really comfortable.
Maybe some grapes to eat while they're floating up, carried up to heaven.
How does that work exactly?
I'm not quite sure. We'll have to ask one of them.
He asks if Gab allows live streaming. Do you know if that's true?
I don't know.
Gab TV.
We could look into it.
Again, my biggest complaint with Gab TV, though, is it's like you can't search, it seems like.
Or when I've tried to go on there, I've had a hard time looking information up.
And so I don't really, I'll do it because we stream anywhere and everywhere.
You know, Pastor Thompson should call in. Why don't you call in and join us for the chat real quick.
I see we have someone in the queue there.
I think he likes Torba too.
But also we, I want to go to Rumble here exclusively so we can talk about some of these other things.
So if you're in YouTube land only, you're going to have to switch over.
I've tried to share the link before in the chat, but sometimes it like blocks it, I guess.
I want to follow up on something you said, though, which is with regard to whether you consider yourself to be a Christian nationalist.
Sure.
And I think it really just all hinges on how you define the term.
And, you know, some people when they call themselves this, what they mean is they want to be super involved in the political fight.
And, you know, apparently if you're Andrew Torba, you don't believe that Bible prophecy is really going to actually come to pass in the future and things like that.
But the way I look at it, and this is how I would define it, is you just wish that the government would adopt the biblical laws.
And we believe that.
Leviticus 2013, we would like to see enacted into law.
And so if that makes us Christian nationalists, then I would say that unashamedly.
Yeah.
And I mean, I would consider myself a Christian nationalist, but probably by my own definition, not necessarily.
Yeah, not exactly right.
And I think, you know, when we were going to go off YouTube here, you got less than 60 seconds.
I'm going to describe that a lot better.
So if you're on YouTube, go join us on Rumble.
I tried to share it in the chat.
I don't know if you can see it or not.
You can just go to rumble.com, type in Baptist bias in the search.
It should pop up really quickly.
And you can also call in if you'd like.
231-227-8478.
And also we will be potentially taking a few calls.
So if you have a question for us related to Christian nationalism, we'd like to hear a question.
But I think we should define it ourselves.
So this is going to be in the rope for you, YouTube.
You know, YouTube, it got AIDS and it's an incurable disease.
And so the only option for YouTube is just to go to hell.
So go to hell, YouTube.
All right.
That's going to get us on Rumble.
How do you really feel about that?
That's exactly how I feel.
Anything that has AIDS should be thrown in the fire.
231-227-8478 is the number.
Now, in this book, he brings up the Mayflower Compact of 1620.
And he puts in just a small segment here.
But one of the aspects is to show how Christian our government was and how these colonists were.
It starts out, it says, in the name of God, amen.
That's how it starts.
Just in the name of God.
And then it also brings up...