Friday Night Live [NEW TIME!] ***Q&A with Mr&Mrs Your Calvinnist***

Podcast Sponsors and Show Announcements

Hey guys, me and the other denominations want to take an opportunity to tell you about our awesome podcast partners. Like our longest-running partner, Tiny Bibles. This is the smallest printed Bible on the market.

It can be taken anywhere, hidden anywhere, given as a gift, or handed down as a family heirloom. It's available in the King James, New King James, and very soon in the New American Standard Bible. Hey, can you really read that thing?

Superior theology comes with superior eyesight, so I do just fine. But if you do need help, they send a handy magnifier with every copy. Well, superior theology is good for a strong mind, but it's also good to have a strong body, too.

So be sure to check out High Calling Fitness, as they provide health, strength, and nutrition coaching, all delivered online from confessionally reformed bodybuilders and strength athletes. I mean, this is the head of the company.

He's a beast. Hey, do you think he can help me lift heavy things like that? They can work with anyone, and they meet you where you are. And hey, if you love Jesus,.

You're gonna lift heavy things.

Also, to have superior theology, you've got to know truth and doctrine. So don't forget to get your copy of What Do We Believe? from Striving for Eternity Ministries. We live in a time where a lot of people just have bad theology.

Many of them don't think it matters. But often, as our theology deepens, so does our love for God. And this book is a great resource. Also, while you're reading or after your workout, don't forget to get yourself a cup of Squirrelly Joe's coffee.

I usually fill my coffee with cream and sugar, but with Squirrelly Joe's, I don't have to add anything. It's delicious. And they have a variety of blends for you to choose from. And you can even get a free bag just for watching this show.

Later in this episode, we're gonna have an ad for private family banking and Dominion Wealth Strategists. So be on the lookout as you consider not only your spiritual and health, but also your financial goals as well.

And don't forget 1689 Cigars, the official cigar of your Calvinist podcast. Thanks for listening. Now, let's get back to the podcast. Live from the Theo Shed in beautiful Callaghan, Florida, it's Friday Night!

Your Calvinist Podcast is filmed before a live studio audience. And welcome to Friday Night Live with Mr. and Mrs. Your Calvinist. Hey, everybody. It's good to see you tonight. We are excited to be...

Mary, it's good to see you back with us, Mary.

Yes, very much. And we're excited that we are starting now at a new time. We're doing this a little bit differently. We asked you guys a couple of weeks ago if you thought the time change would be a good thing.

And some of you said yes. And we see some of you have even changed your mind and mentioned, like Crystal, that it's better. It allows you to watch it live instead of having to watch the recording. So yes, you are, NutriCoach, you are the live studio audience.

So thank you for joining us tonight. And before we even started, there were some great questions that came in. Jim Chatfield asked this question. Have you ever done a segment on deconstruction? Now, on the history of this show, before it was your Calvinist podcast, we used to have conversations with a Calvinist.

And I did an episode of conversations with a Calvinist with a friend of mine who is a former atheist turned Christian missionary, local missionary. He's in Georgia. He does like local missions and evangelism.

And his name, oh, goodness, I know his name, and it just ran out of my head. But anyway, Rich Suplita, thank you. He's a University of Georgia professor. He was an atheist, became a Christian. He and I did a show on deconstruction.

And Jennifer, would you mind making a note? I'll put a link to that in the description. But that's been a while back. I may redo that. I may come back around and talk about that again. So if you have a specific question about deconstruction, please send that to me.

It sounds like a good golf cart episode.

Yeah. Yeah. That might be a good golf cart episode just to get out there on the ride and talk about deconstruction. That would be fun. Also got another question. Slice of Bread asked me, which is better, alien or predator?

This is not even a question, my friend. Predator is the superior film. Predator is 80s machismo to the max. It is awesome. You've got Jesse, the body Ventura. Notice I mentioned him before I mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger.

You've got Apollo Creed in the movie. Carl Weathers. You've got all of these awesome guys. The guy who played Billy, I forget his name, but he's an awesome actor. In fact, he was in Best of the Best Part Two as Philip Rhee's brother.

It's just an awesome movie. So yeah, Predator is the better film. Jennifer, what do you think?

I was going to say Predator, but I don't think I've seen Alien.

Oh, okay. So the only thing I would say about Alien, Sigourney Weaver is awesome. Yeah. Okay. Which reminds me of a funny joke.

That's what I thought of too.

Okay. So years ago, Jeff Foxworthy had this great joke where he said, you have to be careful what you say to your wife, like you don't leave a movie and say, man, that's Sigourney Weaver's an attractive woman.

Because later you'll be eating meatloaf and you say, honey,.

This meatloaf is a little dry. Maybe Sigourney Weaver can make it for you.

Yeah. Maybe Sigourney Weaver make you a meatloaf. So now every time Jennifer and I are kind of joking with each other, and if she wants to get a little snarky, she'll say something like, well, maybe Sigourney Weaver can clean your socks or something.

Or be your co-host on your Calvinist show.

Yeah. Maybe Sigourney Weaver will be your co-host on this show, which is totally dumb, but it's funny that that's where it comes from. It comes from a Jeff Foxworthy bit. We've always loved comedy and we've always loved joking together.

And so don't take it too seriously. We don't. Jennifer, better Kirk or Picard?

I don't have an opinion on this because I've never watched Star Trek.

I'll be honest with you. I'm not a Trekkie. I'm a Star Wars, not a Star Trek guy. So I will simply say this. Picard is a statesman, but Kirk is the OG. So Kirk is the OG. So that's my answer. All right.

Okay. So cool. Boy, we just getting right into it tonight, right into the silliness. Okay. Very quickly, a couple of announcements I have on my handy sheet.

Here. Always looking forward to Friday Night Live.

Oh, thank you. His mercy is more. It's good to see you tonight. More of a space balls fan. Absolutely. Space balls the best. Yes, absolutely. So don't forget our Bible reading plan is available on KeithFoskey .com.

I'm going to keep mentioning that tonight. We read our Bible reading with the kids, which was Mark chapter two. No. Yeah, it was Mark chapter two tonight. And we enjoyed that. And that was a good time.

So I want to encourage you, if you're not reading the scripture regularly, go to my website, download that and take a walk through the gospels with Jesus in 2025.

I think it would be an encouragement to you. And also go online, go on YouTube sometimes and look up the narrated and have it read to you in a different... I like to do that.

Too. Yeah. Maybe a translation you don't normally read or listen to it might give you some ideas of things you haven't thought of before or tell it to you in a way that you haven't thought of it before.

And sometimes we'll listen to the dramatized version with the kids. So those are those are interesting. Yeah. So definitely, definitely check that out. Don't forget also that the Dangerous Friends Conference is being hosted in Monclova, Ohio by Clear Truth.

And I'm going to be there March 14th and 15th. I won't be speaking, but I will be doing podcasting there. The speakers are Michael Foster, Rosario Butterfield, Jamie Bambrick, Stephen Whitlow, Steve Deese, several others.

There's even a talk of a pretty big extra guy coming. I don't want to mention his name yet because we don't know for sure. But if you're interested in coming, use the promo code YourCalvinist25. YourCalvinist25.

Calvinism, Provisionism, and Marriage

All right. A question keeps coming up about Leighton Flowers and provisionism. Okay. I'm going to answer it. Prepped for Eternity is asking this question. As many of you know, I have a good relationship with Leighton Flowers.

He's been on the show several times and I do count Leighton as a brother. I do think he is very wrong on the subject of Calvinism. I think some of the things that he believes about Calvinism are inaccurate.

And I do think his view of original sin is absolutely wrong. He's obviously not Augustinian. He obviously does not agree with the Augustinian view of original sin, which some people would say places him in the position of Pelagian.

And he and I've actually had that. We had that conversation in a parking lot outside of a Japanese restaurant in, actually no, yeah, it was Japanese. We had sushi. So it was outside of a Japanese restaurant in Tullahoma, Tennessee.

And we talked about that very thing. And again, I affirm Leighton as a brother, though I think he has some ideas that could lead him into some very, very bad directions and some very dangerous places.

So I've talked to him about those things. I've disagreed with him and he disagrees with me. But at this point, he still believes that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

And the things that I think are dangerous, I don't think he has stepped over the line, but I do think he's up against the line in many areas. So that's my answer.

Cheryl Kane-Piasecki.

Can you pull that comment in crystal right there? Because that's what we were joking about today.

Leighton needs to spend more time with toddler. Absolutely. Crystal, you are not wrong. I posted a video today with Sarah McLachlan singing, we are born innocent. I said, that's the provisionist whole anthropology right there is they believe men are born innocent.

And that is not what the Bible teaches. You can jump in anytime. I'm glad that you're being more like you're wanting to jump in more. You guys encourage her because she's feeling. Yeah. Yeah. It's an hour earlier.

So like, jump in, lady.

Cheryl Kane-Piasecki.

Well, one of the questions we got, we were going to talk about later kind of goes with this. Someone wrote in and said, should a Calvinist man pursue a provisionist woman with the intent of beginning a relationship that may hopefully lead to marriage?

Oh, well, so we're going to jump to the last question first. Where are we at? 11 minutes and 51 seconds. I like to keep the timestamps because that helps me later. Should a Calvinist man pursue a provisionist woman?

Man, that's a great question. Let me say this. I have said, and I continue to say that where you stand on the doctrine of predestination, where you stand on many of the doctrines that relate to Calvinism, particularly the five points of Calvinism, they are not absolutely essential for understanding the gospel that you are a sinner, that there is only one Savior, that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and that you only are saved by grace alone through faith alone in him alone.

So a person can be wrong about Calvinism and still be saved. So let me be clear about that. So I do not believe if a Calvinist married a provisionist that they would in that be marrying an unbeliever.

That's where I cannot do a wedding between a believer and an unbeliever. I don't believe that it is within the right. I don't believe it's right to do. I'll marry two unbelievers because I believe it falls under the category of common grace, but I won't marry a believer to an unbeliever.

So I'll marry two believers. I'll marry two unbelievers, which I have done both, but I will not marry a believer to an unbeliever. But if a couple disagreed on Calvinism, but they both affirmed Christ as their Lord and Savior, I wouldn't say they were at that point in a condition of a believer marrying an unbeliever, but I would counsel them very cautiously to understand this.

There have been several times in our church where there have been situations where I have seen disagreements over this theology, and obviously I'm not going to mention names that you know, probably some people that I'm thinking about, where this theology has created tension in marriages.

I can think of four right off the top of my head, where either the husband was convinced of Calvinism and the wife rejected it, or the wife accepted it and then the husband rejected it. And it can be a divisive topic in a marriage.

And so I would want to counsel this couple to not necessarily to make her a Calvinist or not, but to help them understand where the differences are. And the biggest thing is they need to be able to worship together.

I don't think it's healthy when a husband goes to one church and a wife goes to another church. I always counsel against that. And I counsel, don't get upset ladies, but I counsel that a woman is to follow her husband.

And if he's leading, especially if he's leading to church and taking you to church, you should go with him, follow his lead and submit to his leadership. That is not to say you can't have an opinion on the subject, but as far as you don't make his life miserable if you disagree with him.

I just finished premarital counseling with my daughter. This is my oldest daughter, the first daughter I'm giving away in marriage. And we just finished, I'm doing the ceremony. They asked me to do the counseling.

I did premarital counseling and I sat down with her and my future son-in-law. And I said, the Bible says that you're to submit to him and everything. Are you ready to do that? Do you trust him enough to do that?

Do you trust him enough to submit to him? And if you don't, you're not ready to get married. If you don't trust him to lead you and to lead you well, then you're not ready to get married. I said that to my own daughter.

So I would say that to this person as well. So there you go. That's my answer to the question. And thank you for reminding me that that was actually, that jumps right into that. Okay. Before I get to more questions and thank you, Scott, for mentioning that.

Congratulations. We're, we're, we're very excited. Our, our, our new son-in-law's name is Rhett Butler. So our daughter is going to be Ashley Butler. He is so awesome. Yes, he is. He was out until 10 o 'clock last night working on her car because she's having difficulty in her car and he's a handyman.

So, so praise the Lord for that. The wedding is February 28th. So we won't do a live that night. Obviously we won't be doing a live on February 28th. That's a Friday night. We will not be doing a live show on February 28th.

Be praying for us as we prepare for that. All right. I want to talk about something that's not a question. We, we've got plenty of questions to get to, but I want to talk about something that's not a question.

Something that was happening over on X the last few days, there was a video that went out from our intrepid vice president, J .D. Vance. And this, this video caused quite a stir on X and caused quite a few differences of opinion.

And, and I, I opined on X and got some, got some folks interested, got some folks riled up. But I want to, I want to share the video. I want to then share the comments that I saw and I want to make a few comments about this video.

So here, here's the video from vice president J .D. Vance.

Old school. And I think it's a very Christian concept by the way, that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community. And then you love your fellow citizens in your own country.

And then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that they seem to hate the citizens of their own country and care more about people outside their own borders.

That is no way to run.

A society. Okay. So Vance said that. And immediately people started to lose their mind and said, Nope, that's not Christian. It's not Christian to say, to love your family first. It's not Christian to say to love your community first.

It's not Christian to put categories like that. And, and, and so I was on, um, I was on X and I saw this man who I do not know. Um, and he, well, there was actually two posts. I'm going to put them both on the screen.

The first post was a guy who said, wait, in Christian thought, if your child is in one hand and a stranger's in the other, what are you supposed to do? Meaning which one do you prioritize? And this man named Joe Ash Thomas, who described himself as having attended the, or one of the premier conservative evangelical schools or evangelical seminaries in the United States.

Like he really built up his own stock. Uh, Joe Ash Thomas said in a Christian, in a Christianity that looks like Jesus of Nazareth, you would love the stranger first that you would love the stranger before your own child.

And then he goes on to say, if you don't like that, that's okay. Just be honest that you're not ready to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus. Okay. Joe Ash Thomas. I want to, I want to explain something to you.

There's a Greek word for what you've just said baloney because that's what it is. What you just said is absolute bupkis. It's baloney. It's garbage. It's, it's, it's, it's liberal slop. The idea that I don't, I'm not able to prioritize my own love.

God prioritizes his own love. He says of Israel in the old Testament, I always point this, this verse out to people. In Amos chapter three, it says when God is speaking to Israel, he says, you have, I known of all the nations of the earth, meaning the word know there means to love.

It means to prioritize in regard to how he loves the nations. He says, I have put Israel first. In fact, the first question of tonight, I'm just going to jump to this right ahead because the first question of tonight is the idea of God not having partiality.

This is what the question, well, you read the question, you do that. If someone were to charge God with partiality regarding his distribution of grace or favor, since he gives it to some and not others, what would you say?

Is it of the domain of God's good nature and free will? How does the gift of grace work without causing God to be partial in judgment? Okay, right there. They're.

Asking the question, how is it that God can say that he's not partial if in fact he demonstrates grace and love to some, and he doesn't demonstrate that same grace and love to say the unbeliever. Let's leave Calvinism off the table for a moment.

We know that those who believe are the objects of God's mercy and grace. Those who do not believe are the objects of God's divine wrath, which is an eternal wrath, leaving Calvinism off the table completely.

Just considering that truth that I just said that I think all Christians would agree with. And the question is, well, how can God be partial if he says he's not partial? God is not partial in the sense that God is not unjust in his choosing.

He tells Israel this. He says, I didn't choose you because you were big. I didn't choose you because you were powerful. I set my affection upon you for no other reason than I chose you out of the nations.

And that is God's prerogative to do that. Romans 9, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. I'll have compassion on whom I have compassion. God has the ability to do that without being unjust, without being partial to somebody because of their position or because of their familial line or because of their family or because of their stock or because of their abilities.

God chooses based upon his internal counsel and divine nature, not because of who we are or what we have done. And so all of that, all of that is to say that God does have a priority. He prioritizes his people.

He tells us that. It's very clear. So when J .D. Vance is saying this, he's saying, yes, there is actually a priority. And there's a phrase that's gone out today. I know Doug Wilson said it. Maybe you saw it.

But the phrase is ordo amoris, or excuse me, ordo amoris from the word amoris meaning love, the order of love. And you think about like the ordo salutis is the order of salvation. And then we have like the order of God's decrees and things like that, which is like superlapsarianism and infralapsarianism, those arguments in what order did God do his decrees?

Well, the order amoris is the idea that that there is actually a priority of love. And we would say that. I would say that I love her more than I love you. And if you can't get that, then you're a knucklehead.

I mean, really? You know, you can't get the fact that I love my wife more than I love you. Even if you're a Christian, I love my wife more than I love you. There's an order to that. There's actually a priority in this.

And now there's another side to this where someone would say, and I know there's the argument, well, I'm in a different relationship with Christians than I am with non-Christians. And I have non-Christians in my family, and I have Christians that are not in my family.

And I've said this to my church. Like I've said to my church, yes, there's a sense in which I have a stronger bond with my Christian brothers in my church than I do with my family that's not in Christ, my extended family.

We have a blood relationship with them, but we have a blood in Christ relationship with those in the church. So there are distinctions that are to be made, but there's still an order of priority. And my primary priority is the priority of my family.

And I think that's what J .D. Vance was trying to say. Now one could argue that can be pushed too far where we absolutely ignore people outside of our family, but that's not what he was saying. And that's not what I'm saying.

In fact, I made this post and some people saw it, some people agreed, some people disagreed, but this was the post that I put in regard to this whole subject. I said this, I said, a man making the members of his home a priority is in the very qualifications for an elder.

If he doesn't care for his home, how can he care for the members of his church? That's what the scripture says. This proves there's a priority for a godly man that begins in the home. What is the qualification for an elder?

He must manage his home well, because if he doesn't manage his home well, he can't manage the church. There's a priority for the man of God that he actually prioritizes his family first before he can go and prioritize the church.

So these are just, again, I wanted to throw these thoughts out there because it was a big deal on X the last few days. And I don't go around just commenting on everything, but on this particular subject, I think to say, well, what J .D. Vance said is unchristian.

No, what J .D. Vance said is simply talking in the categories of priority. And my priority is number one, and my kids know that too, by the way. How many times have I told our kids, I love you, but your mom comes first.

And by the way, if your kids come first in your marriage and your spouse comes second, then your marriage is out of order. Because guess... And I tell them the same thing. That's right. She's first for me.

I'm first for her. The kids are valuable and lovable, and we love them. But one day my boys are going to leave their father and mother, they're going to cleave under their wife, and they're going to become one flesh with their wife, and they're going to create this.

And I want to model for them what that's supposed to look like. And that means she's my priority. And if that doesn't make sense to people, I don't understand why not. That's the very thing God told me to do.

He said to love her like Christ loves the church, and that she is to respect me as the church submits to Christ, she's to submit unto me. That mutual relationship of love and respect is supposed to be the picture of the gospel, the husband representing Christ, laying his life down for his wife, giving himself up for her, washing her with the water of the word, sanctifying her and all those things, and the wife submitting to the husband as the church submits unto Christ.

This is all a picture of the gospel. And so the idea of, well, I'm supposed to love a stranger more than I love my children. No, that's kooky talk, and we need to recognize it for what it is. But going back to answer the question again about partiality, God does not show unjust partiality.

That's the answer to the question. And even in Calvinism, it's even less. Calvinism, if we add that back into the conversation, God does not choose us based on anything we do. God chooses us based according to the counsel of his own will.

Therefore, it's not partiality. He's not choosing us based on something we do. He's choosing us based upon his will, and that's not the same, or that's not unjust or partial. All right. Now, I kind of got a little talked a lot there.

I like when you get fired up.

Yeah, a little bit, a little bit. All right. Okay.

The Restoration Movement and Baptism for the Remission of Sins

Okay. So next question. Okay. Would you be willing to share a brief summary of the Restoration Movement churches and where you assess them being in error? And related, I also discovered that the particular church that prompted this question doesn't consider Deacon to be a biblical office, so they refused to appoint men to that role.

We've only got elders,.

So input on that too. Okay. All right. So I'm really glad this question came in because it gives me the opportunity to talk about history, which is one of my favorite subjects, but also to address a movement that I haven't really dealt with.

I very seldom put them in my denominational videos. I very seldom bring them up on my show. If you don't know what the Restoration Movement is, the Restoration Movement is the movement out of which spawned the churches of Christ.

And if you're not familiar with the churches of Christ, there are some very specific markers for the churches of Christ. Number one, historically, traditional churches of Christ have focused on non-instrumental music and worship, so a cappella worship.

Now that's not everywhere, and some have gone away from that. So I'm saying traditionally and long-held beliefs, but not something that you're going to find in all of them. But also, and this is the big one, a priority on baptism for the remission of sins, and it's very specifically worded, baptism for the remission of sins, and they call that baptismal remission, which oftentimes is confused with what we might refer to as baptismal regeneration.

Baptismal regeneration is that you are born again in the water of baptism. That is where you are born again in the labor of baptism. Theirs is not so much a focus on that, but rather a focus on the fact that when you are in the water, you are going in and coming out with your sins forgiven.

That is the washing away of your sins, and that's where the remission takes place. And they base this, of course, on Acts 2 .38, which says, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is the key verse in the passage or in the movement.

Now, let's go back in history. Where does the movement come from? Barton Stone, Alexander and Thomas Campbell, and Walter Scott, not Willard Scott. I used to get the joke, you're 104 years old today, not Willard Scott.

You have those men who all came from different backgrounds. I think some out of the Presbyterian church, some out of the Baptist church, but they came together, and they believed that they were restoring the ancient gospel.

That's a phrase that was used. They were restoring the ancient gospel, which was a baptism for the remission of sins. That is, according to them, the restoration of the ancient gospel. What was missing in Presbyterian churches, according to them, what was missing in Baptist churches, according to them, was a baptism for the remission of sins.

That becomes known as the Restoration Movement. Now, let me see. I see somebody just jumped in. John, he says, Pastor and Restoration Movement, the other main mark is autonomous polity within the church.

John, I'm assuming he's saying he's a pastor. Are you reading that the same way? John, I'm glad you're here, because I want to make sure I'm right and not wrong about this. Pastor and Restoration Movement Church, the other mark, I would say, is autonomous polity within the church.

We're a denomination that doesn't like to call ourselves a denomination. I was actually getting there, John. Thank you for jumping on. I appreciate you speaking in. Hopefully, everything I've said so far has been correct.

Yes, the autonomy of the church is very important and a tendency towards an opposition to creeds and confessions. One of the things that I've heard from those movements are things like, we don't want any creeds, no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, that kind of a teaching.

You have the polity, which was just mentioned by John, the governance of the church, the autonomy of the church. Then you have the view of baptism. Going back to the Stonite Campbellite movement, there were different streams that came out of that.

I know more about the one stream because our church used to be part of the Disciples of Christ. The Disciples of Christ is the far liberal side of the Restoration Movement but still part of the Restoration Movement heritage.

The Disciples of Christ are to the Churches of Christ what the PCUSA is to the PCA. They're the far left, the very liberal side. That's the difference. There's also the independent Christian church, which is, I've always described it as in the middle of the road because you have the Churches of Christ, which tend to be more conservative.

The Disciples of Christ tend to be more liberal. Then you have the independent Christian church. If you're in a town and you see Main Street Christian Church or Jacksonville Christian Church or Arlington Christian Church, anytime you see Christian Church, it's usually associated with the Restoration Movement.

Where would we disagree? We would disagree specifically on the doctrine of baptism. I'll tell you a quick story. You'll remember this. There was a friend of mine who was very strongly committed to the Restoration Movement.

He was going to Johnson Bible College, which teaches Restoration Movement theology. He came back from college. He came back on a visit. He was visiting the church. He and I were just talking. I had a bracelet, and my bracelet said, EPH 238, which was Ephesians 2 .8 -10.

It was EPH 2 .8 -10. It was, For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourself. It is the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast. That was what I had on my arm. He looked at my arm, and he said, Well, if I had one of those, it would say, Acts 2 .38.

Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That led into a conversation between the two of us about the question of how baptism functions. Does baptism function as a work that we must do to accomplish our salvation?

Is that what baptism is, or is baptism the response of a heart that has already believed on the gospel and been saved? Of course, I would take the second position that baptism is a response of a heart that has been saved, not the cause of salvation.

John's jumped in. I want to see what he says here. Yeah, good summary of the history. Definitely lends itself to a ton of variety, church to church, often hard to nail down the common threads of the Restoration Movement, aside from baptism and informal creedal positions.

Great. Okay, well, I feel like I did good if we got an expert. I want to be fair. Yeah, obviously, we would disagree on some things. John, as a pastor from that movement, maybe one day we could talk about a bowtie dialogue because seemed like a reasonable guy.

I'm always up to try to interact with folks with whom I may disagree, just so that I can learn more and make sure that I don't misrepresent folks. So, thank you. Thanks for jumping on tonight. I really appreciate that.

All right, that is number two. I forgot to write down the time. I did. You got it? You're awesome. You're the best. Okay. All right, well, let's move on. We're.

Getting through these. Let's go. Okay. Well, this next one is long, so I won't read the whole question. But what this viewer or listener was talking about is that the original church that she had came from, they believe in the five-fold ministry and spoke in tongues with no interpretation, believes in deliverance, and the pastor's wife is also a pastor.

So, she came from a train wreck.

And then she left that church. She came from a train wreck, y 'all. I agree 100%, but that just tickled me. She was in a bad church. Hot garbage. Yeah, where she was was hot garbage. I agree.

She left after a few months to attend a non-denominational church, but the pastor of that church took her by surprise because he went to preach at the former church that doesn't hold.

Good doctrine. Okay. So, she saw her current pastor go back to the old church that she was at,.