DR. VISHAL MANGALWADI | Made in God's Image: How the Bible Shaped the Modern World

Hello, my name is Will Spencer and thanks for joining me for the first episode of the Will Spencer podcast. This is a weekly interview show featuring extended discussions with authors, leaders, and influencers who can help us make sense of our changing world. Today, I release new episodes every week. On Friday, and if you're looking for the renaissance of men podcast, you've come to the right place. This podcast replaces that one, though hopefully you've heard a message or two about that by now.

My guest this week is Doctor Vishal Mangalwadi and he's India's foremost christian philosopher. He's also the author of 30 books, including two about the Bible, the book that made your world, and this book changed everything. Doctor Mangalwadi has also written extensively about eastern religion in when the new age gets old and his classic the world of gurus.

And two years ago he appeared on Doctor Jordan Peterson's podcast for a fascinating two hour discussion to introduce Doctor Mangalwadi, his work, and this new podcast. I'd like to begin with a story to help you see what the Will Spencer podcast is about and why. Doctor Mangalwadi is a blessing of a first guest. So if you'll indulge me. When I was a boy, I had two kinds of posters on my wall. First athletes. But those posters werent of action shots on the field or court.

I preferred portraits that showed what the men were about. Im thinking of the famous wings Nike ad of Michael Jordan, which, if you havent seen it, was a classic back when Nikes advertising was still good. I wasnt a particularly athletic kid, except for two all star seasons in little league baseball when I was 13 and 14 years old. That hold some of my most treasured memories, including one bases loaded, two out. Walk off home run. Every little boys dream.

Otherwise I did better in school than in sports. So looking back today, I think the athletes on my wall were mirroring something back to me about what it means to be a man, which isnt unusual for a boy. The other kinds of posters I had on my wall I still remember today. They were landscape photography, including Ansel Adams and more. Now, I grew up an indoor kid in the middle of a major american city. My family didn't travel, nor did I really notice or care about that fact.

And I didn't get into photography until my sophomore year in high school. But long before that I was decorating my room with epic mountains, rivers, and valleys. Why? What were those posters mirroring to me?

Looking back, I think they were a reflection of some part of myself that I was yet to discover, because the very night the calendar ticked over to a new millennium, the year 2000, or y two k, I realized I had a desire to travel the world, which I nurtured and protected for 16 years until it finally became possible. And man, was it a fight to get there. But I don't believe that desire just appeared in me one day. I believe it was always a part of me expressing itself in the posters in my room.

So it's very possible that in some sense, I've always been a traveler. Or, if you prefer, an explorer. And so I ask, what does an explorer do? The first thing an explorer does is move from one place to the next, not out of restlessness or an addiction to novelty, rather curiosity to see what's there. I wasn't driven by a desire for novel stimuli any more than you turn the page in a book because you're bored with the page you're reading.

You turn the page because you've reached the end of it, and it's time for the next one. I did the same with the places I visited. The second thing an explorer does, if he's smart, is travel light, which is to say, he knows what's essential to bring along. I traveled with a carry on size backpack, just 40 liters.

And in that bag I had clothes for four seasons, including the beach and below freezing cold, plus a tire for trekking the countryside and dining in the city in a way that didn't make me look like I'd just come from the countryside. Oh, and I also had two weeks worth of underwear. No scuba gear, no surfboard, no night vision goggles, just the essentials so I could pack up and move fast as the moment asked, or sometimes demanded. The third thing an explorer does is look closely.

In the traveling community, there's an argument between tourists and travelers, with the latter greatly disrespecting the former, which I never did. If an elderly person or midwesterner can only get themselves out of the United States by being shepherded on a tour bus, hallelujah, they did it. They busted out of their comfort zone. So I honored those brave souls for their courage. But as for me, the appeal of being a solo traveler was that I could linger if I wanted to.

This enabled me to be invited backstage into the lives of locals. Because travel is a lot like theater. The things you see on stage are true, but not the whole truth. In many countries, the tourist bubble is a form of illusion that protects both you and the residents from encountering each other. In view of the less tidy aspects of a country. But me being the man I am and traveling for as long as I did, I learned to see through the bubble almost right away.

The locals could feel that I didn't have an agenda. I just wanted to understand. So many were very gracious to help me do so. Which leads to the fourth thing a good traveler does, which is also the most challenging. Bring people along. Yes, some explorers travel for themselves, seeking a private experience, and that's fine.

But shortly into my own journey, I recognized the immense privilege I had being able to travel the world the way I did and being the sort of man who seemed to be purpose built to do it right down to my hair, or lack thereof. Laugh at my bald head all you want, but it sure was easy to wash my hair on the road. My showers often lasted less than 60 seconds and I could even give myself a haircut for free in the dark.

So there anyway, not long into my adventure, I recognized that the number of people in all of human history with the means, motivation, and opportunity to see the world the way that I did probably numbers in the thousands total, if that. I also knew that even if most people could do it, the vast majority wouldn't, as in hand them a packed bag and a one way plane ticket to anywhere and they'd say thanks, but no thanks.

Meanwhile, that's all I dreamt of for 16 years, and when I finally achieved it, I wanted to share it. In fact, I felt a responsibility to. That's why I started my travel blog and instagram, to give people a window into what I was experiencing in a way that hopefully offered escape, entertainment and inspiration for those who'd never dream of leaving the Shire. Except now that phase of my life is over. It ended in 2020, never to return.

But if I was an explorer when I was a boy, am I not an explorer now? It turns out I still am. And that is the purpose of the Will Spencer podcast. I'm going on an adventure and I'm bringing you along. Because if the renaissance of men was the product of my 23 year long journey through masculinity and into faith in Christ, then the Will Spencer podcast is me taking my essential values on the next road to see what and who is out there.

To see what I mean, take a moment and get out your phone or laptop. The new podcast cover and logo was designed by my good friends over at Tigrit Agency, who also edited my documentary materials, designed my old rent of men website, the new Will Spencer website, and also did my photography way back when Brandon Tigret and his team are the unsung heroes of the most elite stuff I do. The bird shaped logo is an albatross, one of God's creatures that's inspired me for a decade.

It's one of the largest birds on earth with a wingspan of up to 12ft. It hatches in the South Pacific, many in New Zealand, and when it comes of age it sets off on a trip around the world. It flies over the oceans before returning home to mate with one partner for life. You can probably see why I found that bird so inspiring. Brandon and his team took that idea and wove it into a logo that also features my initials, WS, and I'm thrilled with their work.

I've always wanted an Easter egg style logo that reveals a secret if you look and they delivered. Thanks guys, that albatross represents the adventure I want to take us on with the Will Spencer podcast, talking to men and women, shaping the world with their thoughts, words and actions, and with a broader format that's no longer focused on just masculinity, Christianity and the family.

I can introduce you to some of my other interests, including filmmakers, chess masters, photographers, fiction authors, historians, businessmen, travelers and more. Im not ashamed to say I aspire to be a christian alternative to Joe Rogan, hosting just as in depth discussions but through a different worldview lens.

To that end, not all of my guests will be christian, but theyll know that I am and maybe that means some of them will say no. Though with your help perhaps we can grow the show so big they wont be able to because I believe its vital that reformed Protestants who are able to should begin bravely re engaging with the public square rather than remaining in their corner of cultural and theological familiarity.

That's why my new podcast is about a journey I hope to be an example of what I'd like to see because I've always been an explorer. Thus it's time once again for me to leave home to see what and who is out there and bring you along. No backpack required. And my first guess sets the tone in a glorious way. His name is Doctor Vishal Mangalwadi and as I mentioned earlier, hes Indias foremost christian philosopher.

Hes traveled to more than 50 countries around the world sharing his insights and hes even been imprisoned multiple times in India due to his social reform efforts among indias impoverished peoples. Doctor Mangalwadi has also written 30 books, but the one that brought him to my attention is called the book that made your world and its about the massive impact that the Bible has had on world history friends, the book that made your world is glorious.

It brought me more joy to read than anything since CS Lewis Perlandra yes, I left my heart on Perilandra and it's still there. But it vacations in the book that made your world back here on Thulcandra. Because as Doctor Mangawati and I discuss in our interview, christians this past century have lost their nerve. In fact, Vichal calls Protestant Christianity a defeated religion.

It seems our fathers bought the lie that Christianity was a religion of patriarchal, colonizing oppressors, when in fact Christianity and more specifically the Bible, brought social, political, cultural and theological liberation to the world, including to women and children. The thing is, ive seen this firsthand in my travels through India.

My most popular tweets, one of which has 23 million views, was about how the christian worldview built the west in a way that India has rejected, and how those differences are obvious to anyone who actually travels between the two countries. But it wasn't always so, as Doctor Mangawadi demonstrated in his book. He helped me see that while the British were far from perfect, many of the early missionaries were determined to make India into a self governing christian state.

Christian nationalism in India, someone called Doug Wilson and Stephen Wolf. But the book that made your world is about much more than just India. Its also about how the Bible built the soul of western civilization and how scriptures distinctive imprint can be found in everything from our politics to science to the arts. Doctor Mangalwadis book also shows that without the Bible as our foundation, our western soul is withering.

We can see it daily in the decay of the family, of course, but that decay was even evident back in the early 1990s in the music and message of Kurt Cobain's nirvana. That's why Doctor Mangelwaddy's the book that made your world was such a joy to read. He surfaces and celebrates the buried foundations of our world in a way that will inspire believers and make non believers take notice. Which is why Doctor Mangaladi was interviewed by both Jordan Peterson and Eric Metaxas as well.

So as I begin this new adventure with the Will Spencer podcast, I hope you can see why Doctor Mangawatti is the perfect guest to start this journey in the same way that rich Lusk was the perfect guest to conclude the renaissance of men. Doctor Mangawadi ties together my trip around the world into and through eastern religions, finally arriving in Christ and along the way witnessing, without knowing it, just how much the world was shaped by the Bible, which im thrilled to help you discover too.

If you enjoy the will Spencer podcast. Thank you. Please leave us a five star rating on Spotify, plus a five star rating and review on Apple Podcasts. And if you really want to help this show grow, share this episode or another one of your favorites with a friend. If youd like to support the show financially, there are some easy ways to do that. First, head to willspence.com and become a paid subscriber.

You'll get access to ad free interviews every week, plus other perks as the page grows, or you can buy me. A coffee in the show notes. But the most important thing you can do is support our advertisers because purchasing their products and services brings multi generational wealth back to the christian community so we can rebuild a christian foundation to the west.

And please welcome the first guest on the Will Spencer podcast to help me kick off my next grand adventure, which you are hereby invited on a three hour conversation with India's foremost christian philosopher and the author of the book that made your world, Doctor Vishal Mangalwadi. Doctor Mangawati, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast today. Well, thank you for having me, and congratulations on completing four years of this very important ministry. Thank you so much, sir.

I'm honored by that. And I've been greatly blessed by your book, the book that made your world. This had been strongly recommended to me a while back and I read it and it was worth all of the recommendation and then some, sir. So thank you so much for your blessing and for your work as well. Well, thank you. And I appreciate you taking the time to promote the book. I mean, I couldn't help it. I mean, I genuinely found, and I think I may have written this to you.

This book was a joyous, it was a genuine joy to read it. It brought joy to my heart and especially to feel in your words and in the depth of research, just how influential the Bible has been on western civilization in ways that I think maybe the west has completely forgotten. And to read that, that everything that we care about as Americans, as Europeans, as westerners, is a gift of the Bible was. It was an enormous blessing to read. Yes. So can I have a sequel to that book?

Are you familiar with this book? Changed everything. That's a sequel? I've heard of it. I heard Doctor Peterson mention it in your interview with him. Yes. So some people like this one more, but I think the one you read is the starting point. And I'm now, right now doing a prequel to both of these books, and it's called my journey from philosophy to revelation. But some stage we can talk about it, and I hope that we will also be able to turn it into a documentary.

Your new book or the series of three. Well, initially the new book, but then we will need many documentaries on how the Bible created the modern world. But if we succeed with the first documentary, then we can follow it up with many more, because, as you say, that the west has forgotten, because the church abandoned the university, the secular historians, sociologists, they have no reason to give credit to God's word for the blessings that they enjoy. Yes, that process.

I was stunned to learn that John Harvard, the man who Harvard University is named after, was a reverend or a minister of some sort, when Harvard University today could not be further away than the founding principles of the university. I did not know that. Well, this weekend, last weekend, my wife and I were in the University of California in Berkeley. Now, Berkeley University's motto is, let there be light. What? And let there be light. And it was.

Yes, it was created by Henry Durant because the trinitarian congregationalists lost Harvard. Harvard was a puritan Congregationalist university. In 1805, that university was lost. The Unitarians captured the political power in the board, so trinitarian theologians left Harvard, created an endover theological seminary, and which merged into Yale. And out of that frustration of having lost Harvard University to Unitarianism, which is deism, that, yes, God is there, but he hasn't spoken to us.

The University of Berkeley was created. It began as a California college in Oakland before it became a university. So a congregational minister, Henry Durant, was the founder, president, and the university has 22 Nobel laureates. But the protestant biblical Christianity lost that as well. So I was there just until Sunday. Yeah, I used to live in the Bay Area. And to say that Berkeley has lost protestant tradition, I think, is probably, perhaps putting it mildly.

It's not even in the same zip code anymore. Yeah. Well, surprisingly, the university made a donation for our conference, which was about how to revive and strengthen mission hospitals in rural India. So it was very good. Some of the faculty members were chairing, moderating, leading the conference, and the university made a significant contribution. We stayed in the faculty club of the university.

So how were the members, the students, the faculty members, were they receptive to your ideas about the influence of the Bible, or did they like the work but not the foundation? No, it was a by invitation only conference. So most of the students and faculty were not there? Only those who had been invited by some of the faculty members who were hosting it.

But it was mostly a conference for christian doctors who had been successful and retired from would retired from their surgical practices, but still want to support the medical missions in rural India where people are too poor to pay for expensive procedures. So this was a conference, how to strengthen the mission hospitals. So I've actually traveled extensively in India, six months backpacking through late 2018 and early 2019. I've actually been to Allahabad. I was at the 2019 Kumbh Mela.

And so as you were writing in the book, it's like, oh, I've been to many of these places. So I've traveled through rural India, and so I know a little bit. I was able to picture some of the things that you were discussing in the book that made your world, and maybe to paint a picture for those listening who haven't been able to travel through rural India.

Maybe you can start by sharing the anecdote about the little girl who was ill to kind of get a sense about this is how rural India kind of thinks about, or perhaps at the time, anyway, I think this was in the seventies, thinks about medical care or doesn't think about it at all. Yes, sure. My wife and I were married since 1975. And at that time, I was researching and writing a book called the World of gurus, which is study of hindu gurus.

And the Lord had laid upon our hearts to serve the rural poor. So we did not know what poverty is and what to do about it. But my family, my father had bought a plot of land when I was born, so we decided to go there because my brother was working on that lot of land and lived there. I will continue to research and write, and this was basically in the middle of nowhere. We had no table and chair. We had no money.

We had put a plank into the wall, and I would sit on a stool, right, with my hand, and my wife sat on the other side of the bed on another plank of wood. We had a little typewriter where she will edit and type my manuscript. It became a best seller instantly in India and is still used in many universities as a study of hindu gurus, the contemporary, the Hinduism of the 1970s and eighties, sixties, seventies, largely. The book was published in 77.

So while I did not have enough work for my wife for editing and typing, she would pick up her bicycle and go into the village. And she was surveying every family, trying to get to know every family, how many children are there, how many are studying, who is not studying? Why not? What can be done to help them, etcetera. She ran into a 1012 year old girl, Nalta, and asked her how many brothers and sisters do you have? Lalta said, three, maybe four. So Ruth was curious.

Do you have three or do you have four siblings? Three and a half, she said, well, three. The fourth is almost dead. So Ruth said, can I come and see this fourth child? And so she took her hometa. Took Ruth home. These are one room huts. They have no kitchen or bathroom or anything. Only one room. And in the middle of the room there was a string cot with no mattress, no mat. And this 18 month old girl, Sheila, was lying in the middle of that string cotenne.

You couldn't see her face because flies had covered her completely. Puss was oozing out of her head, and she didn't have the strength to chase the flies away. She couldn't cry. When she tried to cry, she only sighed. So when my wife looked at this girl, Ruth started crying and asked the mother, what's wrong with it? The mother said, oh, she doesn't eat anything. Whatever we give her, she vomits. So have you taken her to the hospital? How can we go to the hospital? We don't have any money.

But the civil hospital is free. Yeah, but I can't negotiate my way through the city. So we can't go to the city. Take the baby to the city. But what about your husband? Why can't you take him to help you? Well, where does he have the time? So Ruth said, well, your daughter is dying. You don't have the time to take her to the hospital. Okay, I will come with you. So the mother tried to get rid of Ruth by saying, okay, I'll discuss it with my husband when he returns in the evening.

So Ruth came home, began to ask me to go and talk to the husband. When I went there, they had decided that they were not taking the baby to the hospital. Why not? We don't have any money. But my wife told you that she will give you the money. She will take the baby. No, we don't want to get into debt. No, this is not a loan. This is a gift from us. We'll write it that we are never going to ask for this money back. But where is the time? We don't have the time.

But my wife told you that you can hire a laborer to look after your cattle and your farm for a day, and she will pay for it. So the husband got angry at me. This is our daughter. Why are you bothered? I didn't know how to understand how to respond to that. So I pretended to get angry and say, are you killing this girl? If you're killing her, why don't you pick up a knife and stab her to death? Why are you torturing her in this low starvation death?

Look if you don't take her to the hospital tomorrow I will go and bring the police here that you are murdering this child. This conversation was happening outside the house. The crowd had gathered and one older man said to the father that look this young fellow is crazy, he might actually bring the police here. And if the police comes and takes the doctor to the hospital then you will have to pay. Right now they are offering to pay so you do it.

So next year my wife took the child to the hospital but instead of going to the free civil hospital she went to the mission hospital which was part of the group that we were helping last weekend. How to strengthen these mission hospitals in rural areas where you can earn a lot of money because the people are poor. So the doctor was a wonderful christian man, doctor Martin Alcar.

He admitted the child but you couldn't give her any medicine because she was so weak so you had to feed her through intravenously. And after she gained a little strength then he began to give medication. And then once she was strong enough to take some fluid through her nose, they put some tubes to begin to feed her fluid. And after a few weeks doctor Matikankar said that look the hospital bill is getting too high. You take the baby to your home, you look after the baby. I'll explain to.

We'll explain to you what to do and I will come there personally every 2nd, 3rd day to look after her. So we did that and the baby began to thrive. Our big joy was when she would in our arms smile because there was no disposable napkins, we had no experience of how to raise a child but she just began to thrive. And then a few weeks later the mother came and began fighting that our caste is threatening to excommunicate us because we have given our child to you and you guys are christians.

So Ruth said that we have no intention of keeping your daughter. You take her, I will give you some clothes for her and I will give you milk to buy. To buy. I will give you money to buy the milk. Well in few weeks the child was back to square one because the milk was being fed to the boys. She had two boys, twin brothers, two brothers, older brothers. And she was reduced to the early stage so the whole process had to be repeated.

Ruthenhouse fought with the mother, I fought with the father, took the child to the hospital. She was there for several weeks, then came to her home she was there for several weeks, again, again, joyful, thriving, recovering. And mother came and fought. And Ruth said that, sure, we want you to look after your own child, I will. But this time I will not give you the money for the milk. I will pay directly to the milkman. But the mother took the child and in two days the child was dead.

I was convinced that the parents wanted to kill the baby. Ruth didn't believe that any parent could kill their own baby. It took three more deaths like this before Ruth began to believe that infanticide, particularly female infanticide, is a common practice. This was a conflict of two cultures, the culture of death and culture of life. We believed that the child is valuable gift of God, and if we invest in her, she can be a blessing.

The family believed, the caste believed that the girl's life was misery. As the Buddha, Gautam Buddha had said, that life is misery, life is suffering. Her mother's life was suffering. Her grandmother's life was suffering. And this cannot be eradicated. We look after her for 1012 years and then get her married, but her family tortures her. She comes back to her parents home to extract more money. Then she gets pregnant.

She comes home to her mother's home, and they have to bear all the expenses of the delivery. So life is misery. It's most compassionate to end this misery. So that's how the parents are working. But we believe that this child can actually deliver the whole family from poverty. She can deliver the village from poverty. She can deliver the state from poverty if we invest in her.

But we lost because we didn't really understand the culture and we didn't understand that it was a clash of two worldviews. This was not just about a single child. And then, as a response, Ruth began. Sheela Balwarthika, that is her name was Sheila. Sheila Children's Garden, a non formal educational program where after school, we would educate all the children. And that program grew into 13 villages.

But if the parents had a lawyer, the lawyer would say that, look, we are not doing anything which so many Americans don't do. When they don't want a baby, they abort the baby. We have no facilities for abortion here. We have no ultrasound is illegal. We don't know whether this is a boy or a girl. Most parents who don't want the second girl because one girl is enough to look after their siblings in the home. Second girl is a liability.

So most parents get rid of the second girl the day she's born. We waited for 18 hours because we are 18 months, because we did not want to kill the baby. It was a very painful decision to get rid of this baby. And killing the baby shows our compassion and our goodness that we took that long. But basically what we have done of killing the baby outside the womb is no different than what Americans do with killing the baby in the womb.

Yeah, that's a scathing indictment of the west and of America today, and only made possible by the fact that there was a point in time where the notion of killing a baby in the womb would have been unthinkable because of the foundations of our civilization, which weve now abandoned, and that other nations and other rural parts of India are accusing us of the abandonment of our own principles and holding themselves to the low moral standards that weve now held ourselves to.

Thats a pretty devastating indictment of where the United States is at with regard to the foundations of our nation. Yes, of course. Killing of infants, newborn babies, was a common practice in the roman empire because Europe did not have any more respect for human beings. That's right. Than India. What changed Europe was the discovery of the dignity of man, that a human being is different than other animals.

You can kill chicken, you can kill cows, you can kill animals, but you cannot kill a human being, because a human being is made in God's image to be God's child. So a child is a trust given to parents to nurture, to build up.

So the value of every human being in western civilization, the whole concept of the dignity of man came from not only the idea that the teaching that Adam and Eve were created in God's image, and God breathed his own breath into Adam, which made him a creative creature, a godlike creature who creates culture, but also the value of human life was determined by the blood that was shed on the cross on Calvary.

If human being is so important that God would come to this earth and would shed his blood to reconcile his enemies, rebels back to himself, adopt them as his children, adopt us, embrace us as his bride. That's the blood of Jesus Christ defines the value of the child. That's how we were looking at this baby. The parents and the village and the caste that were for murdering the baby, they saw the baby as a liability. A girl, particularly the second girl, was a liability.

We saw her as a valuable person who can bless her parents, bless her caste and community if we invested in her. So this was as the west is now freely championing politicians and rulers are championing abortion and the culture of death and the destruction of marriage itself. And the whole idea that a man who brings a baby into the womb or outside the womb has no responsibility to care for that baby or for that baby's mother.

So this is indeed secularization of the west, which is like the west, is still a beautiful bouquet of flowers, but these flowers have been cut off from the roots. The root is the worldview, the belief of the value and dignity and preciousness of every individual. So as the western educational system has cut off the beautiful flowers from their roots, the flowers are withering, the family is dying, and the children. The demography is being reduced.

The caucasian population in the United States and the population in most european countries has already reached below the level of perpetuating itself. So Europe will become slave. It will be enslaved. Right now there's tremendous anti immigration movement growing in many of the european countries and in Canada. But if you're not going to have your own babies, and if you're not going to nurture your babies, then who looks after you in your old age? Who pays into the Social Security?

So you have to accept immigrants. But then those immigrants, because they don't share your values, the value of life, they will command that you shall not commit adultery, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, but you shall love your own wife, et cetera. So you give up the roots that created the modern west, which is what I'm discussing in these books, how the Bible created the modern western civilization, which was beautiful.

It is still beautiful, but it is a civilization which is withering, wilting, because it is no longer connected to its roots, which is the word of God. Amen. Thank you for saying all of that. Because when I traveled, when I was in India, I'd previously been to China and Latin America as well. I wasn't a Christian at the time, but I could not. But still, I was an American, and I had been raised in a largely christian kind of culture still at the time. That is what America still is.

It has the remnants of that. And traveling through many of these nations, India, China, etcetera, I observed what you were describing. I was also in the new age. And so I have your book when the new age gets old, and I'm looking forward to reading that one as well. But some of the same themes are woven through the book that made your world. And so I was like, yes, I. Was having those exact same problems because. I was observing around me, and I struggled with this inside myself.

Clearly, in these nations, there is a very different evaluation of the sanctity of human life. I could not escape that conclusion, but my own internal want to avoid any perception of bias, I'm like, no, I'm reading this wrong. There must be something wrong with me seeing these trends. But I couldn't escape that feeling that there was a very different sense in these nations, that we don't value human life the same way.

And to an extent, when I became Christian, it made sense in many ways, because if your worldview, your theology, is based on karma, if it's based on slow, incremental improvements over potentially thousands of lifetimes, your expectations for what you can. Accomplish in this life are going to be quite small. I'll get them next time. Right? But in the christian worldview, which is linear, which has a progress towards God's kingdom spreading across the earth, that percolates.

Down into the way an individual human. Evaluates his or her own life and what is possible in his existence. And so then these pieces clicked into place, and they understood the difference between east and west. But then that's when I discovered there was a real resistance in the United States to saying, clearly, there are very different worldviews between these two halves of the world.

There's a fear of saying that for perhaps fear of hurting feelings, but really not valuing properly the heritage of our nation, of our culture, that has blessings to give to people who are lost in darkness. There's an unwillingness to say that, and it's a great tragedy for the reasons that you say. We've lost our own heritage, and now we're withering, which is not making us any better.

It's not any better to be like the rest of the world, which is still lost in darkness to the point where an 18 month old girl would be allowed to die. Yeah, well, actually be staffed to death deliberately by her own parents with the support of her caste and community.

But the problem of the west is that, on the one hand, the influx of immigration, this is currently a very big issue in Europe, in Australia, and in Canada, also in America, it's an election issue, that immigration proves that the west is still beautiful. People want to come here, but the problem is immigration without integration, as when they come here, they bring their own belief system.

And it was the foolishness of secular humanists, liberals, that all religions are the same, all people have the same values. Without realizing that your values were unique, that came from the Bible, which is what I'm discussing in these books, how the Bible created the soul of western civilization, the ideas that held the west together. So there is immigration, which points to the fact that the west is still beautiful.

Everybody wants to come here, but it is an immigration without integration because the west has rejected its own soul. There's amputation of the soul, the people. When the press, the school, the university, the politicians are ridiculing the very ideas that created the modern west, then what is an immigrant supposed to relate to? You have nothing to offer. Your intellectuals have nothing to offer.

And therefore those people have no option but to go back to their own traditional belief system and worldview. So there are a lot more radical Muslims, for example, or radical Hindus. Much of the current Hindutva movement in India is funded by non resident Indians who are in the Silicon Valley, Wall street. So the Hindus in America are funding militant Hinduism because the west is ridiculing its own roots.

The very source, the Bible that built the modern west, because our Bible seminaries do not teach what you read in the book. I was giving few lectures on that theme somewhere in Minnesota, I guess, and there were three young men who had graduated from Wheaton College. They came, they were very angry. They hurt me for three nights. They were very angry. And they said that we have come out of Wheaton with debts of 50, 60, 70, $80,000.

No one taught us one thing that we are hearing from you, and you are obviously right, but our professors don't teach this, because most of those professors who have studied history, et cetera, in these evangelical colleges, they studied their history in secular universities, and secular universities don't tell them how the west became what it became, the role the word of God played, the role the pulpit played.

So therefore, the seminary graduates who are pastoring churches, they have no idea of the significance and value of the word of God, of what the Bible has done. In fact, I have a number of books on how the Bible created the modern world. One of them is the father of modern India, William Carey. That's this book. The father of modern India. William Carey. No one ever told us that William Kerry is the father of modern India.

The secular historians, hindu historians, leftist historians, aren't going to admit that part of indian history, it is the responsibility of the church. But our seminary professors who are teaching church history, they can only think of William Kerry as the father of modern missions, not as the father of modern India, because that's what Kerry's biographers described him as, the father of modern missions.

They couldn't call him the father of modern India because to make that claim, you have to be familiar with indian history. And the church historians are not familiar with indian history. Therefore, they can't put the fact that William Kerry is the father of modern India, and that modern India was also created by the same biblical ideas that created the west. So you're reminding me of when I was in. I was in.

I was in India, and I would meet business owners and I would get to know them, engage in them with conversations, stay in their hostels or their guest houses for a while. And the number of times that I heard various men, business owners, husbands, fathers, say to me, after we had built some trust, they would say things to me like, the worst thing the British ever did to India was leave. And I heard that repeated so many times.

And that was a surprise to me, coming from the west, because I had always heard about the oppressive hand of the british rulers and how Gandhi was a hero who cast out the british and liberated India. And, of course, as I was traveling through the country, I. I couldn't help but see for myself that, well, the railroads and the medical system and the post office and all of these infrastructures that bound the country together and this great architecture in Delhi that bound the country together.

This wasn't created by Indians for themselves. This was a gift from the British, in a sense, to teach the Indians how to have their own independence. And so I think it was a quote from. Was it Macaulay who? They brought the Bible in the hopes. That it would teach the Indians to be independent, based on the principles of God's word. And you put that quote a couple times in your book, and that blew me away. I was like, oh, my goodness. I had never heard that history myself.

Yeah, well, I have actually three books, four books published on that. One of my books is called India the Grand Experiment, which American Spectator and Christianity today reviewed in 1998. And that's when they called me India's foremost christian intellectual. I have now, some time ago, recorded five master classes in Oxford on how the Bible created modern India.

But for last three years, a group of us have been meeting on Thursday evenings, India time evenings, and we have created about 30, 40 chapters that are yet to be published as booked probably three volumes on how the Bible created modern India. So the very concept of India as a nation came from the Bible. India never had the. The name India came from the book of Esther. Really? Esther names India as the last province of the persian empire, which referred to the region around Sindh river.

So India, Hindu, Hinduism. These are western names. Hindus never call themselves Hindus. That's right. So our first home minister, Vallabh Bhai Patel, described the civil services, indian civil services, as the steel frame of India, the steel frame that holds the nation together.

Now, this was created by the british evangelicals, descendants of Simeon, particularly Claudius Buchanan, that if we love India, if we love our neighbors as ourselves, we must give to India a government as good as we won for ourselves. So the whole movement to train civil servants began. William Carey himself, who was a cobbler in England, came to India as a Bible translators. Three days a week, he was teaching indian civil servants.

These are british civil servants who have come to govern India. So all the teachers were missionaries, reverends, and most of the bibles that William Carey published in Sirampur Baptist Mission Press. They were actually translated in this college created to train civil servants, because as civil servants are going to different parts of India, Gujarat or Andra or Tamil Nadu, Malayalam or Kashmir, they have to know the local language in order to administer justice.

Collective taxes, sort out disputes, judge. But most of these indian vernacular languages had no grammar, had no literature, had no vocabulary. For how does an english young man, 2022 year old, learn a language? So that's why the Bible was translated into those languages, so that they already know English Bible. By reading the vernacular Bible, they can learn the local language, but at the same time also learn how to govern a nation.

These were young men who had to learn what is justice, how to deliver justice, how to govern. And Lord Macaulay, whom you mentioned, he was the one who came to give us our indian penal code. There was no law in India. The decisions were made by whims and fancies of people. But there should be. If India has to become a civilized nation, there has to be rule of law.

And this law has to be written down as God himself wrote the ten Commandments for Israel to govern itself, so that there has to be a written law, there is an objective reference point which we can then discuss, debate, apply, etcetera. So the modern nation of India is creation of the Bible. Yes, we were told the mythology that Mahatma Gandhi kicked the British out and liberated us. But what nobody told us was that India became free from colonialism as a nation because of Franklin Roosevelt.

It was Roosevelt who, during the beginning of World War One, World War Two, in 1941, Churchill was putting a lot of pressure on Roosevelt that America must join Britain and fight against Hitler, Germany and Japan. And Roosevelt was refusing that. During the first World War, we shed a lot of our blood, a lot of our money made many of our young women widows. You fellows keep fighting. Why should we support you?

If we do support you and beat the British, beat the Germans and beat the Japanese, what will happen? Will you colonize Germany? Will you colonize Japan? If you do, you will create problems for us because we want to buy something from China, something from India. We have to pay you tax just because you have colonized these nations. So by helping you to win, we're going to create problems for ourselves. What is the difference between you british and Hitler?

Hitler has just started colonizing his neighbors. You have been colonizing a third of the world for 150 years. If you want our support, you have to promise to decolonize, set every colony free. And India was specifically discussed between Roosevelt and Churchill. And Churchill was an imperial prime minister because British was a confused protestant nation, which was a nation as well as an empire. And America was forcing British Britain to give up imperialism and be a nation.

Help build Germany and Japan and other nations that have been devastated by World War two. So this part of history, Roosevelt's son. Between Roosevelt and Churchill, there were eleven meetings that happened during world War two, and his son attended nine of them, took copious notes. Out of that, he created a book on the atlantic charter. And Churchill's daughter was present in the first meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt.

And she made a video of their Sunday service, which is there on YouTube. So this part of the history of how India became free was never taught to us that it was the Bible's idea of nation. Nation is a peculiar jewish idea which was not part of the roman catholic tradition. It was not part of the orthodox tradition. It was St. Paul. When he goes to Athens in acts 17, he introduces the jewish concept of nation to Greece. Because Greece was never a nation.

Greece was city states, which Alexander the Great turned it into an empire. So it jumped from city states into imperialism. And imperialism was the only political idea that Greece ever exported. Greece never exported democracy. It exported imperialism. And it was because of Greece that Rome and roman empire, spanish, portuguese, french, british, swedish, russian, austrian, Hungarian.

Imperialism was the only political idea that Europe had until the reformation, when they began to study the Bible that God destroyed the imperial city of Babel to create nations. An empire covets its neighbor's real state in nation. You love your land, you fight for your land, you die for your land, you build your land into a land flowing with milk and honey, but you don't covet your neighbor's land. That's why USA and Canada don't need a wall.

But USA and Mexico need a wall, because Mexico doesn't share the protestant, jewish protestant idea of nation, but Canada and the USA share the jewish protestant idea. Now, this is not taught in any seminary. No, but that's because of the bankruptcy of evangelical Christianity that abandoned universities. So what is a nation? Is a very confusing situation in America that you have american seminaries starting from fuller seminary saying that, oh, the greek word for nation is ethnos.

Go and disciple all the ethnos. And ethnae. Or ethnos means people group. It doesn't mean political states, geopolitical state. It means people groups. Now, that is, these scholars in American Bible seminaries who know Greek, who know Hebrew, but they don't know theology. It is true that ethnos means people group because Greek never had the concept of nation.

But when you're translating the Bible into another language, let's say you're translating the Bible into Arabic or Urdu or Pashto, any other language spoken by Muslims for God, you might use the word Allah. Now, Allah means the divine being whose prophet is Muhammad, who has no son. Is that what the Bible translator means when he uses the word Allah?

No, he is using a word which the audience understands something, but he is putting into it biblical idea that Allah is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the father of Jesus Christ, the Triune God. So you have to put your theological content into the word. So, yes, Matthew, writing in Greek, the great commission, he uses the word nation in the greek word for nation, which did mean people group. But etymology is not theology.

And that's what american great scholars of greek and Hebrew and missiology, they have confused what does nation mean? So when I say that the Bible created India as a modern nation state, first the concept of geography of a nation came from the Bible, but also the idea of India as a modern political nation state came from the Bible. Because the first nations in Europe were Holland and Switzerland in 1648, after the 30 year war.

In the peace of Westphalia, Holland had fought for 80 years against the spanish empire through France as the proxy. And so when the peace of Westphalia was being negotiated, Holland was asking for sovereignty, independence from what was called Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy nor romande. It was spanish emperor. And it was given that at the same time, the swiss confederacy sent the mayor of Basel to Westphalia to negotiate independence to Switzerland. The Sudan.

Sudan should be a sovereign nation, not part of the spanish holy Roman Empire. America, the USA was the third western nation which accepted the biblical idea of nation, which none of the Bible seminaries and missiology departments in America understand why America became a nation and not an empire. America could have become an empire, colonizing Mexico, colonizing Canada.

But it became a nation that, after winning world War two, help rebuild nations through the Marshall plan that we are here to bless nations, not to colonize nation. This was never perfectly done in Philippines. The USA did behave as an imperial power. But the fact is that the Bible did not just simply teach the value of individual life like that little girl or whose parents were being killed in India.

But the India's ideas of India as a nation, a sovereign nation, came from the Bible, and it came from the Bible through the british evangelicals, the victorian evangelicals, and ultimately it became a political reality through the atlantic charter, which was negotiated between Roosevelt and Churchill. So the Bible has impacted profoundly, although hardly any seminary in America is teaching these things to the pastors.

That might have been my favorite moment in this entire podcast I've been doing. That was incredible, sir. Thank you so much for that. To understand the difference between empire and nation here in America, of course we hear about the american empire, but we understand that it's not the same as the roman empire or that it's not the same as other empires throughout history.

And so to be able to see the difference between America as a nation that has behaved in imperialistic ways in many ways, but we are not an empire. And that in terms of us colonizing other regions with our government, with our culture, we're setting up these independent nations, is a crucial distinction that I've never heard before.

But then also to understand the difference between nation and ethnicity, because in the political conversations that I'm engrossed in, and many are, there's confusion between nation and ethnicity. And people make the same point that you do that. Well, the greek word is ethnos, and so it means the same thing. But you're saying that there's actually a difference between these concepts as well.

And I think that's where America in particular is stuck right now, is trying to understand what is the difference between a nation state and an ethno nation state. And a lot of guys, a lot of men I know are very stuck in that distinction. So maybe we can take that apart as well. I've got tons of questions about India, but I think this is probably the most relevant question we can address right now.

Sure. Alexander, 300 years before Christ unites city states into an imperial force, invades Persia, Babylon goes all the way to India, comes back, dies in Babylon. But he established the first european empire, and it's the only thing Europe exported. Only political idea that Europe exported was imperialism. Not even ethno as a nation, a people group as a political idea.

This is what was taken over by first by Rome, then by all the other imperial powers in Europe, until Holland in the Netherlands began to study the Bible and after the Reformation. So reformation begins in 1517. It climaxes in 1648. So in the last phase of this fight against the what was called Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire. So Germany is part of Holy Roman Empire. Holland becomes the first modern nation state in Europe, which is accepting understanding.

Genesis eleven, acts 17, verses 17 1826 27. Let's go to Genesis eleven. All the people living in Babel are descendants of Noah. They are one people group. They are speaking one language. A city is, as Jacques Ylun points out in his book, meaning of the city. A city is an exploitative system, social organization, because it cannot grow enough food for itself. It cannot produce enough milk for itself. It is taking after harvest time from all the producers, primary producers in the countryside.

If you building a tower in Babel, how do you finance it? How do you feed those people? You have to collect food from all the countryside. So a city is a exploitative. In most periods of history, in most of the world, a city is an exploitative social organization. It becomes an empire. It colonizes the countryside, that you work hard, you produce food, food, and we will enjoy it. So God destroys, like Rome is a city, but Rome is an empire. So empires begin as cities. And God destroys.

Babel, the tower of Babel, the city of Babel, and divides the people by confusing their language. So the different linguistic groups become different nations. It's not because of ethnicity that they are divided. They are one ethnic in Babel. And this is where all of the missiological departments in the USA have been misleading the evangelical movement, and they have misled global Christianity.

Babel, Genesis eleven is not about different ethnicities becoming different nation groups, different nations, but one people group, one ethnicity becoming different nations, because confusion of the language. Language is the boundary between Mexico and the USA, Spanish or English or Portuguese and English or Spanish. So language divides us into different nations. But each language speaking group is a people governing themselves in their own territory, in their own language. That's a nation.

Territory and governance are as important as language. So this is the jewish idea of nation that Paul brings to Greece in acts 17, when he says that from one man, God created all the nations. He set their borders and their times. So a nation is not a people group. That's an evangelical foolishness of in the USA, a nation is not a people group.

A nation is a people governing themselves in their own language, in their own territory, without governance, without territory, there is no nation, in the biblical sense, jewish sense of the word. This is what the people in Holland, they began as 17 different provinces after the treaty of Utrecht, Etcetera. They became eight provinces that here we are, one people speaking one language, different dialects, but we all share one Bible. Why are we being ruled by Spain?

So the Reformation, by returning to the jewish Bible, brings the jewish idea of nation, not the greek idea of nation, even if it is using the greek word ethnic, it's bringing jewish idea of nation to Europe, which creates the first two nations, which is Holland and Switzerland, Netherlands and Switzerland. The USA becomes the third nation. And out of the USA, then the modern concept of nation spreads, and you have the United nations being born. You have the World Trade Organization being born.

That if after World War two, will Britain as victorious colonizer empire, will Britain control the world trade? Or will the world trade be set with determine how the principles, policies of world trade will be just and fair? Now, at that time, because there was an eschatological movement in the USA of dispensational pre millennialism, expecting Jesus to come back any day within our lifetime. This movement saw the United nations as the beast, later EU as the beast.

So this was the foolishness of american eschatology, which instead of seeing that UN is in fact God's instruments of liberating the enslaves to live according to rule of law, according to justice and according to righteousness and trade, according to freedom and justice and righteousness. So here, american eschatology became a major problem, which closed the eyes of american christian leaders to what God was doing in history.

Most Americans don't know that EU was created because of the work of an american evangelist who had gone into Oxford, begun Oxford movement, and he was discipling leaders. George Buchanan, or whatever his name was, he was. Out of that came the moral rearmament movement. He was discipling the French and the Italian and the Germans. And he brought the French and Germans had fought three wars by the time of second world war. They fought three wars over the previous 70 years.

He brought these leaders together to live in harmony, to live in peace. But american eschatology saw EU as the well, now the Antichrist has come, and second coming is around the corner. So what God was doing through an american evangelist who is reconciling enemies, France and Germany and Italy, to become the core of how to live as civilized nations. So american eschatology has been a major problem, where Jesus says, the blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of goddess.

Instead of american church being peacemakers, it became a force that want wars and rumors of wars, because Matthew 24 says that before the end comes, there will be wars and rumors of wars. So we would encourage wars in America.

If President Bush is launching an unjust invasion of Iraq, the evangelical movements will justify it with all the talking points that the neocons put up in the media, american media, because what we are looking for is wars and rumors of wars, because thats necessary to bring the end, to bring the Antichrist, to bring tribulation, to bring rapture. So the american eschatology has prevented the church from becoming God's children, who are peacemakers.

But EU and UN were forces that came out of original biblical Protestant Christianity, where nations should not invade other nations, but should help build other nations. We should be good neighbors, etcetera. So now, these are some of the issues that I discuss in these books of this history that I briefly recounted is of EU, for example, isn't this, which also has a section on United nations in this book. So. But I've spoken too much. This is just showing.

I mean, my point is that biblical Christianity was not simply about the dignity of individual or depravity of every sinner, but it had a vision, which Isaiah two, Micah four present, that in the end days, nations will stream to the mountain of the Lord to learn his law, so that they may beat their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning hooks, not learn war anymore, but develop instruments of agriculture, economic development, transformation.

So that because the mission of the Messiah is not to reach the last unreached people group with the gospel story, that's how the american missions interpret it. But Jesus said, the spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, to break every chain, break every yoke, set the oppressed free. A bruised reed he will not break. A flickering flame he will not quench. That's what we were doing with that young girl, 18 month old girl.

She was a bruised reed, flickering flame that her own parents have cast her village wants to extinguish. But a bruised reed he will not break. He will nurture these captives, the prisoners of the philosophies of death, back to life. And the earth will be filled with the knowledge of goddess as the waters cover the sea. So if Christianity has lost the west, it is the fault of the christian theology. Why Christianity lost the west is a topic that I love to discuss, but it will take several hours.

I got all day. We should probably. I have one lecture called why Christianity lost America, which is 2 hours and 47 minutes or so, but I need a context to do. It is ten different lectures on ten reasons why Christianity lost the west. And this is necessary diagnosis for a new reformation. Amazing.

New reformation is needed, but it requires the mistakes that christian leadership has made in America, has made in Canada, made in Europe, because of which Christianity, the evangelical Christianity in America, is America's most pessimistic, escapist, religious idea. You mentioned my book on the new age. The new age movement in the 20th century was the only optimistic movement born in the US. Oh, wow. Okay, please. This I'm interested in. Please.

I mean, I've been interested in all of it, but this is very interesting to me. The new asias in the 1980s, this was a post guru phenomenon. They were hoping that the ets will come and bring salvation. Yes, they were. So that was Spielberg. They were very interested in year frozen aetis. They were hoping that spirits will enlighten them. So Shirley Maclean is calling up a higher inner self, seeking spirit possession, communication from the spirit.

So their faith was in stones, crystals, the Jedi and the Sith. Their swords are power of the crystal stone, which they develop through yoga, through meditation, those powers. So it was an optimistic movement that utopia is coming. It'll come in y two k. The flying saucers will come, the spirits will come, man will become God through transcendental meditation, etcetera. So this was an optimistic movement.

But instead of putting their faith in God, they put their faith in themselves, that we are God and we need to become God. So Fritz Kapra's book, the Dao of Physics, he was a physicist who became a mystic, and he's advocating tantric sexuality. Was he really okay? Oh, yes. It's a very serious, serious book. He's a proper physicist from Berkeley, actually. A proper physicist who became a mystic out of a mystic experience. And is seeing tantric sexuality as the escape route for the west.

So the faith was in stones, stars, spirits, sex. These things will bring the utopia that was the new age movement, but not repentance. And turning back to goddess. That's right. Because evangelists had no interest in transforming nations, discipling nations. American gospel had no interest in discipling nations. It was interested in saving individuals souls. Until people like Donald McGovern and Ralph Winter began to point out that individuals don't make big decisions.

In India, individuals don't even decide who they are going to marry. Those are decisions made by families and caste and the astrologers, by horoscopes. Then who you will marry. So we must reach people, group, instead of just individual souls, which Billy Graham was doing through his crusades.

So that was heart of Lausanne 74 that you had an individualistic evangelism that the gospel is for an individual to repent and pray the sinner's prayer or the emphasis that came from Fuller and the US center for World Mission which came later but was taking that idea that no, no, no. Reaching unreached people will discipling all nations is to reach unreached people groups. So these but why are we reaching unreached people groups?

Not to fill the earth with the knowledge and wisdom of God to cover the earth with the knowledge of God but to hasten the coming of the antichrist, tribulation, rapture which is escape from this world and the second coming. Because what happened to american theology during the last hundred years after Dil Moody was the church began to see itself as the useless body of Christ. Yes, we are the body of Christ, but we are the useless body of Christ.

His useful body is sitting on a throne in heaven and until that body comes the world will go from bad to worse. We are the light of the world but we are the useless light of the world. We cannot fight and remove darkness. The true light of the world is sitting up in heaven. Unless that light returns the darkness will keep growing. So american christian leaders, including great people like Bill Bright, they're saying, you give us your billion dollars we will take the light to all the world.

But be sure as we spread the light the darkness will keep growing. World will go from back to worse because that's what Paul says in two Timothy three or in Jesus asked in Matthew 18, will the son of man see find faith when he returns, etcetera. So these selective verses are taken out of their context with there will be wars and rumors of wars, things will go from bad to worse.

And this turned the protestant movement which was the greatest reforming movement during the last 1000 years of western history, european history, american evangelicalism turned Protestantism into the world's most pessimistic paralyzed, escapist worldview that we are the useless body of Christ, we are the useless light of this world, the useful light is sitting up there. And in this context of Christianity became a pessimistic escapist religion in America.

The new age movement was born giving hope. That hope was put in the wrong place. That Uophos will come, et's will come or age of Aquarius will come and it's the age of Aquarius which will bring peace and harmony and matriarchy to the world. But that hope disappeared on 911 2001. Excuse me. Yeah, please go ahead.

That hope disappeared with the twin towers and crumbling down in the age of war, restarting with invasion of Afghanistan, which was just invasion of Iraq, which was unjust, invasion of Libya, which was Obama yielded to the pressure from Tony Blair and the British to invade Libya. Gaddafi is a dictator, etcetera, but made things much worse. And those problems continue today. But american church was not the peacemakers.

Billy Graham was present in the White House when senior George Bush's invasion of awe and shock invasion of Kuwait Iraq began to end the Kuwait war. So this was a whole eschatology that wanted wars and rumors of wars, because it misunderstood that Matthew 24, the end that Matthew 24 is, and the coming of Jesus that is talking about is coming of Jesus in judgment upon Jerusalem. In the Gospels, Jesus comes at least seven times when he is coming into Jerusalem.

He is coming as the king son of David riding on a donkey. That is his coming. But he said to the twelve disciples that you go and preach in all the towns and villages of Israel, but before you are done going through all the towns and villages, the son of man will come in his kingdom. That is the coming on Palm Sunday. His coming on the cross is coming in his kingdom in his glory, which american exegesis cannot see. That cross is Christ's coming in his glory.

So he comes many times, ad 70, coming in destruction of Jerusalem, coming as judgment upon Jerusalem. That's his coming, which is described in Matthew 24, mark 13, Luke 21. But we tend to lump all of this together into 1 second coming. So when Jesus says, behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in. What coming is he talking about? Is it first coming or second coming?

In the book of Revelation, Jesus comes at least seven times, for example, in chapter 14 of Revelation. In that one chapter, Jesus comes twice. In verse one, John says, I saw the lamb on mount of olives with Mount Zion, with 144,000 of his faithful followers with him. And in verse 14 of chapter 14, he saw, I saw the son of man coming on a cloud with a crown on his head, a sickle on his hand. So Jesus comes at least seven times in the book of Revelation.

There is no second coming in the book of Revelation. Thats why the Apostles Creek doesnt talk about the second coming. It talks about a final coming. Jesus came, died, was buried, resurrected, rose again, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead. Thats his final coming. But the apostles Creed doesnt talk about second coming, which is such an important part of american eschatology that every time the word coming is used.

He's saying in Matthew 24, in Matthew 16, that some of you who are standing here will not taste death until they have seen the son of man coming in his kingdom, in his glory, in his power, etcetera. So american theology has become very confused, and it has become one of the most pessimistic, escapist idea. And a new reformation is necessary to change the world. This morning I just posted a meme on my facebook that the antidote to divorce is to love a sinner.

Instead of divorcing a sinner, you should love a sinner. And that has triggered a lot of very interesting conversation on Facebook. I bet. Some of the. Adultery is not a crime in America. It's not a sin in America. Right. For the last 30 years, although it damages families, at least two families are damaged by adultery. That's right. Women can no longer trust the men they love, and therefore they don't want to be married.

Why get into a bondage when you know that you cannot really trust the guy that you love? You want sex, but you don't really want marriage. What's the future of those children and the grandchildren? So you hear you have a whole civilization destroying itself. How did this happen? This happened. There's only one problem I mentioned.

We began this conversation by saying, not just Harvard was started by puritans, by congregationalists, but UC Berkeley was started by congregational minister Henry Durant as a response to Harvard, by Trinitarians. But Christianity in America has lost education. Christianity in America has lost healthcare. Our conference in UC Berkeley was held because in 1947, when India became independent, there were 800 mission hospitals. Now there are about 200 mission hospitals. The rest have been sold.

Oh, wow. Out of those 200, at least 100 of them are on ICU. They are struggling for survival day by day, month by month, year by year. The indian church is incapable of running the hospitals that it received. But this is a problem that actually began in America 50 years ago. Out of four hospitals in twin cities of St. Paul, Minnesota, three hospitals were owned by protestant churches. Protestant Christianity owned three out of four hospitals in twin cities in Minnesota.

Today, there's not one protestant hospital in Minnesota. There are still two or three roman catholic hospitals. Praise the Lord. There's not one protestant medical university in America. The last one was oral Roberts that was sold to Loma Linda, which is a seven day Adventist. University praised the Lord for the Roman Catholics and seven day Adventist, but that shows that protestant Christianity is a defeated religion in America. One of the areas that Christianity lost is marriage.

The domain of marriage has been handed over to the state. And state doesn't know what is gender, what is sex, what is love, what is marriage, what is faithfulness, whether adultery is wrong or the appropriate behavior for animals that evolved into human beings. Monkeys don't marry, they mate. And we are monkeys. We should be mating in the universities and outside. Marriage is a religious ideas which priests imposed upon people. God didn't create marriage.

Church created marriage to restrain our animal nature. That's a secular outlook. So marriage is not. I mean, adultery is not a crime, it's not a sin, it should not be punished, it should not even be discussed. And the church has handed over the domain of marriage to the state, which doesn't know what is right, what is wrong, what is true, what is false, what is good, what is evil. A new reformation has to take these things back, these domains back from the state.

Can the declaration of the word of God, preaching of the word of God, reform the west once again? No, no, no. It happened 500 years ago with the reformers. But we are the useless body of Christ. The word of God must come himself, and with the sword of his mouth, slay the Antichrist and slay the wicked word of God from our mouths, is incapable of reforming. That's the mindset that american evangelical Christianity has created, that we are the useless preachers of the word of God.

We cannot reform anything because the word of God that can reform is actually sitting on a throne in heaven. So in the midst of this pessimism of american evangelical Christianity, the new age movement arose as an optimistic movement. But because it believed in idols, false gods, it created bigger mess and ruined too many lives. But that's what my book is about. When the new age gets old. Yeah. It has a british title by Hodling and Stoughton called in search of self beyond the new Age.

The american title, published by Intravasti Press, is called when the New Age gets old. Looking for a greater spirituality. Someone is selling a pirated edition online on Amazon. I haven't had the time to check it, but you can buy a pirated edition on Amazon as an e book. So it was my own journey through the new age and discovering many of the things that you've talked about that ultimately did lead me to Christ, because I found through India and these other countries.

And the great irony of what you're saying is that so many westerners, as I'm sure you know, travel to India looking for answers, right? It's their great pilgrimage, and they often get far more than they bargained for, because they discover that India is not a spiritual paradise by any stretch of the imagination. And many of them go home quite disillusioned. But the rest of them try to.

Find their way into ashrams or gurus or whatever, looking for escapism in a nation that was built by the Bible that you talk about. And so they're ultimately being led nowhere or coming back to themselves. True that. The. I went and lived in the hindu ashrams when I was researching for my book, the world of gurus. That's this book. This was my first book. It is a textbook in many universities, the study of these gurus.

So after the hippies and the western and explorers saw the evil of many of these gurus, then that movement morphed into the new age movement, which went in some ways beyond Hinduism to Zen Buddhism and shaman and occult voodoo. And the grandfather of it all was Carl Jung. Amen. And Carl Jung. And mythology became very important through, particularly through Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. So we cannot find truth through human reaSon. Rationalism and empiricism have failed to.

LEt's explore mythology, know the truth through stories. So if you abide in my word, you will know the story, and the story will set you free. So that's the new worldview in AmERIca, which is championed by christians. It began with Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, but it's championed by evangelical theologians in AmERIca.

Now that you should stand in a court as a witness and say, I swear that I will tell nothing but the story, the whole story, and only story, because story is the only way to know the truth. I'd love to discuss the epistemology. The fundamental reason for the decline of Christianity is epistemology, whether human beings can know truth. Unpack that a little bit. I agree with you.

These are many of the themes that I've been speaking about, that my guests have been speaking about, understanding that we have the truth right here. We can know the truth in God's word and rediscovering the confidence in God's word and the liberating power of God's word. This is not an enslaving. We'll call it technology. This is a liberating technology. But Americans don't hear that. They hear that this book is the. Root of all oppression around the world.

Okay, so America's intellectual fall began on July 4, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written. Okay. Oh, no. Jefferson wrote in the original draft, we hold these truths to be sacred, that all men are created equal. Benjamin Franklin put pressure on Jefferson to change the world. We hold these truths to be sacred, because we owe these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. American theologians began to defend the Declaration of Independence.

This is a semantic change. It was not semantic. This was philosophical change. Epistemological change. We hold these truths to be self evident, mean that they are derived from human common sense. But was it self evident to average american in 1776 that slaves and slave owners are equal? It wasn't. Was it self evident to average american in 1776 that male and female are equal? It wasn't. Is it self evident to average american student today that all men are created equal? No. Nobody is created.

We've all evolved. So did we all evolve equal? No, no, no. Evolution is about and is an explanation of self evident inequality. But american theologians and George Marston in his book Fundamentalism and American Culture, and Mark Noel in his book on the scandal of the American Mind, evangelical Mind, they give a list of american theologians who defended the nonsense of the Declaration of Independence that these are self evident truths.

And the argument that human equality and human rights are self evident truths was grounded in romans one and two that, look, Paul is saying that the law of God is written in the heart and mind of everybody, jews and pagans. Is that what Paul's saying? Was it self evident to Peter and James that jews and gentiles are equal? No. Jesus had to rebuke Peter three times in acts nine that you better go to Cornelius's home, eat with him. Dont call him unclean. What I have made clean.

And even after three times, Jesus has rebuked. And Peter has seen that actually Jesus accepts a gentile seeker of truth. Cornelius. Paul has to fight Peter against his cultural prejudice, which says that jews and gentiles are unequal. So Paul knew perfectly fell when writing romans one and two, that human equality is not self evident. Inequality is self evident. Inequality of male and female is self evident. In Indian India. That's why that girl was being killed.

Equality is a revealed sense, a revealed truth. For the first time in Europe class ridden society, it was german reformer Martin Luther, as he was studying the New Testament, who realized that all believers are priests and kings. That's what makes us all equal. That idea of equality, which he derived from the priesthood and kingship of all believers, was a radical idea because it meant that every child must be educated.

So modern universal education came from Luther's discovery of priesthood and kingship of all believers. Now he downplayed kingship, which we don't need to go into. You focused on the priesthood of all believers. But it was revelation that when a prodigal child returns, he begins to serve his father as his priest and manage his father's kingdom as the governor of his father's estate, as the owner of his father's state. So this had all sorts of implications.

One of them was that if all our priests, then singing should not be in Latin, it should be in German. Everybody should be able to sing. If all our priests, everyone should get the bread and the wine. 500 years ago, average Christian got only the bread. Wine was with the priests. Should everyone get the bread and the wine? This created wars in cities. So because Europe was serfdom, most christians were serfs. They were not equal.

That's what began the farmers wars, peasants wars of 1524. 25 fight for equality. So human equality was a revealed truth, which Luther found in the doctrine of priesthood and kingship of all believers. And George Whitefield brought it to the USA. Whitfield was the first Mandev who began to baptize. Preach to the blacks and baptize the blacks. The white slave owners got very angry with him. He was himself a slave owner, and white slave owners got very angry with him. What are you doing?

Do you want our slaves to sit with us on the same pews in the church and take holy communion from the same cup? Yes, I do. Whitefield was an itinerant evangelist. He went 13 times to cross the Atlantic to support John Wesley. He needed money. The blacks had no money to give him. The whites had the money to give him. Slave owners, and they were mad at him. But he didnt back out. From 1740, Whitefield began to expand.

Found the Bible, that all men are created because all are made in God's image, male and female. All are equal because all of us are brothers and sisters. In Eve. She is the mother of all the living. All are equal because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All are equal because God so loved the world. Etcetera, etcetera. He went on and on and on. 1740, he began teaching the Bible teaches all men are equal.

He died in 1770. The revolutionary war began in 75 76 is when the declaration of independence is being crafted and written. So american intellectual, political elite, religious elite, has learned that all men are created equal from the Bible. But Whitefield is dead. There is a new kid on the block, Thomas Paine, who doesn't believe that the Bible is God's word. He follows scottish philosopher Thomas Reid's epistemology of common sense.

And hes the one who puts pressure, its his intellectual pressure on Benjamin Franklin, to which Jefferson yields to teach the falsehood to the USA that this is a self evident truth, that all men are created equal. Now, it was because of this epistemological mistake take of Jefferson and Franklin that Harvard University was lost within a generation. So this is 1770, 618, oh five is when Harvard was lost.

What happened specifically was there was at that point only one, a chair in whole of the USA, which was an endowed chair. And a unitarian minister, Henry Ware, was appointed first to a lower position in 1770, in 1804, and there was a lot of reaction against it. But 1805, the Harvard board appointed him to this chair, which means that he was basically the dean of Harvard University. So a university established by trinitarian puritans was captured by unitarian theists.

Now, why did they accept him? He was a good man, good scholar, pious men followed Jesus. And his argument was that, look, it is not common sense that there is one father, one son, one holy spirit, and there is only one God. One. One is not one God. So I love Jesus, I love the Bible, but I cannot say that I believe in Trinity because it's not common sense. Then one plus one plus one is one, right? So the board, Harvard board, accepted him. His argument. The trinitarian theologians got very upset.

They left Harvard, created Andover Bible school, which eventually merged into Yale, out of which came Henry Durant, who established the UC Berkeley. But it was because american theologians were defending the nonsense of common sense that all men are created equal. This is self evident, and that all men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. So these were revealed ideas. But revelation was not honored. Revelation was not acknowledged.

Common sense, human reason, human wisdom was acknowledged, and human wisdom could not sustain any of this. And therefore, for a while, the Trinitarians fought against the unitarian takeover of these universities. The revelation was replaced by rationalism, common sense, etcetera. So the battle continued for a while, until DL Moody's time, which is 1880s.

By 1880s, the trinitarian Christianity in America realized that instead of winning back the universities that we started, we are losing more and more of the universities and colleges. Therefore, we should. Instead of blaming the faulty epistemology of the Declaration of Independence, which put faith in common sense, they decided to give up reason itself. So by the time of Dil Modi, they said that we should have our children go to study k through twelve, but don't send them to the university.

Especially don't let our children study science because they will lose their faith. So if any student wants to study beyond 12th grade, he should go to Moody Bible Institute or Wheaton College, or Biola or Dallas or Fuller. So evangelical movement in America became anti intellectual. Instead of fighting for revelation, rejecting rationalism, which is barren, which cannot lead us to truth, it cannot even define what is male or what is female.

So instead of cultivating the mind, the Bible seminary became an anti intellectual movement. Sola scriptura began to be misunderstood in the USA that Sola scripture means study only the scriptures. Don't study philosophy, don't study literature, don't study science, etcetera. So, so low scriptura. Yes, yes, solo scriptura. Sola scriptura became solo scriptura. That's a good one. It's not mine. I wish it was mine. But as a result, evangelical Christianity in America became a defeated religion.

Think of all of the student ministries, intervasti, christian fellowship, campus crusade, navigators. All of these ministries that are trying to reach university students begin by accepting defeat. We have lost our congregational, presbyterian, Methodist universities, Ivy League colleges. We cannot win these universities back. Let's go into these universities to save souls. If we can establish a Bible study cell, a prayer cell, we've done very well.

So all of the university movements in the USA are expression of a defeated Christianity. And all of the Bible seminary movement in the USA is an anti intellectual movement which is retreating from the universities. So it was only after George Masden's books came out that Biola, which was Bible Institute of Los Angeles, decided to become Biola University, which was a good thing. It was a good move. But Wheaton never decided to become a university. Or Dallas or fuller or Moody Bible Institute.

Moody Bible Institute made some good films on science. Moody science films. But essentially, what I'm painting to you is a picture of a defeated Christianity in India, in America, which has impacted global Christianity. So during the last 70, 75 years, american missions have had phenomenal evangelistic successes. Latin America, but not one american mission in any of the latin american countries has started one respectable university. There are a few good universities in Brazil.

All of them began out, came out of Europe, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etcetera. Now, in November, a few of us are going to meet with 15,000 or so young people in so Paulo to launch a university which has just been started between so Paulo and Curuchima. But the number of things this anti intellectualism, defeated version of Christianity, imminent second coming, etcetera.

These ideas have come together to rob biblical Christianity of its power, to transform nations, to disciple nations, to bring nations under the discipline of Jesus. That's a long answer, but. But I hope it makes sense. Some people will have to hear it two or three times. Im right there with you. Because one of the things thats been so I have a degree from Stanford University, and so ive come into protestant Christianity, reformed theology, presbyterianism.

And I have also noticed, and ive spoken about it before on my podcast, a distinct anti intellectual tradition that seems to be running through Protestantism that doesn't have a basis in history. Like, you can go back a couple hundred years and you can see the exact opposite, but in american Christianity today, there's a mistrust of religion. Not religion education. There's a mistrust of the university system. There's a mistrust of basically everything.

And I've picked up on it, but I haven't been able to. If the family is in a mess, it's because the church, and this is where the mistake goes to Luther himself, that he doesn't see family, marriage as a sacrament. Is marriage a sacred relationship where you have dedicated your sex life, your relationship to God. So once the protestant tradition said marriage is not a sacrament, then there is no reason why state should not take over marriage.

And state doesn't even know what is marriage, what is sex. And so I've seen all this, but I haven't understood the roots of it. It gets kind of murky to me going back 100, 150 years, but I can see clearly now that some very subtle changes in language, the Declaration of Independence, because you're right, we hold these. Truths to be self evident. Like, are they really self evident, that all men are created equal? No other time in human history have.

These things ever been considered self evident. However, if you grew up in a deeply protestant tradition, yeah, it'll be self evident. But if you were to go to India, if you were to go to China, if you were to go to Africa, these things would not be self evident at all. But it's amazing how just a little tiny change of language was the doorway. Well, in service of an atheist, frankly, was the doorway through which so much flowed. So much.

I mean, I think I could probably say evil, but apostasy certainly flowed through that little tiny change in language. That's mind boggling to me, and it makes too much sense. Yes, most people don't even know that all of european languages, with possible exception of Portuguese, are creation of Bible translators. English language. Chaucer's English is Wycliffe's English. Chaucer's parson in the Canterbury tales is Wycliffe's parcel.

All the other english writers, their English comes from Tyndale's Bible. It may come via the Geneva Bible. So Shakespeare's English is Geneva Bible, which is Tyndale, with other books added, which Tyndale could not translate. But so Shakespeare, the king James Bible, in 1611 came just three or four years before Shakespeare's death. He never read King James Bible. He read Geneva Bible.

So Milton, Bunyan, Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, Shakespeare, all of this English is biblical language because language is the software in which you think and talk. And what american evangelicalism has done is surrendered language, which was created by Bible translator all of the indian languages. 200 years ago, India had three classical languages. Persian was the court language of the mughal empire. In India.

Arabic was the religious language of the mosque, and Sanskrit was the religious language of the Brahmins, which never became the mother tongue of the Brahmans because Brahman women didn't know Sanskrit, mothers didn't know Sanskrit, so they could not teach talk to their children in Sanskrit. So every 10 miles, there was a different dialect in India. There was three classical languages. None of the indian languages were developed.

All of the modern indian languages were created by Bible translators because ideas and truth is communicated in words. And the Bible translators were creating all of the indian languages, all of the african languages, all of european languages. And therefore, the church was culture creating force. It was by creating and controlling language, it was shaping the worldview and the mindset which has been lost by contemporary evangelical movement.

So it's very difficult to hear a preacher, a theologian in America, talk about truth. Everyone is talking about stories. For the last 1015 years, the Bible is a story. Jesus is a storyteller. Now, if you look into the standard english Bibles, how often does the word story appear? I don't know. Three times in Matthew 28, when the guards say that we were sleeping, disciples came, stole the body. That story has circulated amongst the Jews ever since.

Potiphars wife in the Old Testament, when Potiphar returns, she tells the story of Joseph attempting to rape her. That's when the word story appears. The word story also appears in acts when so and so fell from the third story. So slightly different. Jesus is never described as a storyteller. He is. He tells parables. But american theologians today cannot make a distinction between story and parable. They routinely paint Jesus as a storyteller.

And this is what's happening with Jordan Peterson and the whole ark movement. That is Christianity. True? No. Christianity is better story. He often is compelled to use the word truth. But Christianity is better story, which is like saying Jesus is a better idol. Don't say that. Yeah. So Christianity has lost the culture. Christianity is a defeated religion means, first of all, that Christianity has lost control of the language that it created.

Christianity has lost the control of the educational system that it created. Christianity has lost control over marriage, which was its domain, that God created marriage. It's a sacred relationship. But we're not interested in God's kingdom coming here, because I keep hearing pastors who are saying that when Jesus came the first time, he did not come as king. He came as savior from sin. It's only when he comes riding on a white horse is that breed good white horses in heaven.

When he comes on a white horse, then he will come as a king. But first time he came as a savior, not as a king. This is imposing american sociology upon the gospel. Because in american sociology, king cannot be priest, priest cannot be king. There's separation of church and state, because we have a separation of church and state. The idea of priest and king, when he is the high priest and he is the king of kings, the lord of lords. This doesn't make sense to a mind shaped by american sociology.

So I found myself thinking, as you're saying all this, that american culture, western culture, is now very much the prodigal son. We've utterly squandered our inheritance in more ways than I think people have recognized. I think people think in terms of maybe a political inheritance or sociopolitical inheritance or cultural capital or something like that. But you're saying that we've squandered down to our very language.

And that you had said earlier that language is the foundation of a nation, that a nation isn't described by an ethnicity. A nation is bounded by shared laws and customs and a shared, shared language. And so now I live in Arizona, and everything is bilingual in Arizona with English and Spanish, for the most part. And so you would say then, that one of the keys to reclaiming America as a nation is an assertion of a shared language. Would you say that?

Because I can see that if English came from the Bible, biblical English, we need to get back biblical English before we even think about having a biblically founded nation. Yeah, well, even Spanish came from the Bible, modern Spanish, because before the Reformation, they all spoke Latin. The elite spoke Latin, and every 1015 miles there will be different dialect. So it was the translation of the Bible into Spanish.

I forget who did that translation, but the reformers were strongly in Spain until they were persecuted. The Reformation was persecuted in Spain, but so. But that's true, that losing culture begins with losing the language and the shift we hold these truths to be sacred, revealed in sacred scriptures, or we hold these truths to be self evident, derived from common sense. This was a gigantic philosophical shift from revelation to rationalism.

Europe never accepted Thomas Reed's philosophy of common sense, but common sense was America's default epistemology. Yes. 2025 years pain. He wrote a book, common sense, and that book made him a hero because it was a tract defending the revolution. And as you read his book, common sense, you find that he's quoting the Bible left, right and center. He's firmly rooted in the Bible of why american revolution is necessary.

But he calls it common sense because he's a deist, a very strong believer in God, but not in a God who speaks the God doesn't know how to talk, God has not revealed his word. This is all common sense, which was a problem created by an apologist, Thomas Reed, who created the epistemology of common sense in Scotland. Reed was trying to save God from the attack of David Hugh. How interesting.

David Hume had rejected Descartes rationalism, and actually Hume had been great, the first european philosophers to be impacted by Buddhism. And, whoa, I did not see that coming. Yes. Yeah. When I studied philosophy, nobody told us in India that Hume. What happened was that when Hume was traveling in Europe, he went to a roman catholic monastery in France. A roman catholic priest had returned from Tibet.

He was in Tibet living in a buddhist monastery to teach the gospel and to translate, to write a book on Buddhism. He was learning Buddhism and he was teaching Christianity, and he wrote a manuscript, he brought it to France and he asked for the permission from Abbot to publish his book on Buddhism, which was not given to him. So his manuscript was never published.

But Hume happens to visit that monastery, and there were some brothers who had read that manuscript and they told Hume about this manuscript, which he then read. And so his attack that logic, reason can prove God, prove the existence of soul, because Descartes begins by proving I exist as a soul. I think, therefore I am. I doubt, therefore I am, that. No, no. All that you have proven, Mister Descartes, is that thinking exists, doubting exists. You have not proven that you.

The thinker exists, the doubter exists, the self exists. So Buddhism, heart of Buddhism, was a rejection of the existence of soul. So Hinduism and Buddhism, the main difference is that Hinduism believe in the existence of self and Buddhism did not believe in the existence of self. So Hume's argument against Descartes and existence of self, I exist, my soul exists, or I exist as a thinking, subjective self, was Descartes basis for the exist, proving existence of God.

But from that, Hume went on to say that human reason cannot prove that God exists. Human reason cannot prove that self exists, soul exists. That was the buddhist argument, although nobody in Europe knew that at that time only. In fact, it was a professor at Berkeley who, a lesbian who did an extensive study of Hume, who pointed out this background, which our textbooks never talked about. But anyway, that's not relevant to our discussion right now.

The relevant point is that the failure of common sense, yes, it was a commonly shared idea that all men are created equal in 1776, but that idea was not a product of human common sense. It was a product of George Whitfield's exposition of the Bible, which had gone on for 30 years, from 1740 to 1770.

So it was that first great awakening which had created a shared worldview, shared mindset, that all men are created equal, even though we practice slavery and we believe that all men are endowed by inalienable right to liberty, even though we keep so many of our people in slaves. Slavery. Right. So to track the trajectory of ideas, a buddhist teaching flows into a monk, and from there it goes to. Or a roman catholic priest, and from there it makes its way into David Hume.

David Hume returns to the United Kingdom and starts attempting to refute Descartes using crypto buddhist kind of theology. And then Thomas Reid comes along, and in an attempt to refute Hume, he makes certain concessions to Hume, to Hume's position that then Thomas Paine picks up on. And Thomas Paine puts pressure on Benjamin Franklin to have Thomas Jefferson make a change from sacred to self evident. Do I have that right? Correct. You got it absolutely right. So from revelation to common sense.

And. Epistemological shift, that knowledge of truth comes not from revelation, but from our own reason. So eastern theology traveled out of the east and into the west and impacted our declaration of independence. Yes. With tragic consequences. Because of. Yes. Because of that, universities such as Harvard were lost. Because Trinity is not common sense. It's a revealed sense. Yes. John says that in revelation four that I saw God sitting on the throne being worshiped.

In chapter five, the lamb is brought into the throne room, and everybody in heaven in God's presence begins to worship the lamb. How can Jews worship a lamb unless the lamb is God? Then John makes cryptic statements, repeats it, that I saw the lamb seated in the center of the throne. This is God's throne. Why is lamb seated in the center of the throne? That's right. Unless Jesus was right that the father and I are one. So this is revelation, which is being formulated as the doctrine of Trinity.

But the knowledge that father and son are one comes from revelation, not common sense. Right, right. These ideas, I mean, the Bible is not. It's special revelation. It's not general revelation. It's not just what's out there. The heavens declare the glory of God. It's special revelation. There's no way that we can know that God is Trinity unless he reveals himself to us. Right. And we in that know that all human beings are equal unless it is revealed to us. So Peter didn't.

Jews and gentiles are equal. That's right. That's right. And so as a concession to a form of rationalism. Now, okay, quick question about Thomas Jefferson, though. Didn't Thomas Jefferson have a bible that. He cut out all of the miracles? Do I have that right? Like, Thomas Jefferson's theology might not have been totally squared away either. No, Jefferson was actually amplifier of Whitefield. The hero worshiped Whitefield. He amplified Whitefield.

But it was only after Whitefield's death that he gets that when the deistic ideas begin to come powerfully in the US, that he begins to waver. And nobody thought. The consequences of shifting the revolutionary war has begun in 1775. In the middle of the war, you're writing a declaration, and some compromises on language are understandable, that, okay, this is not the time to fight over this word or that word. So people go along.

But the problem came that after the war is over, when christian universities, christian schools, are defending the nonsense that we hold these truths to be self evident by quoting romans one and two, which is. So you're putting in Paul's mouth what he's not saying. The right to liberty, for example, which is essence of american freedom, has a long theological battle. Luther writes a book, bondage of the will.

You already have the concept of human dignity coming from 70 years earlier, from Pico della Mirandola, when Luther realizes that, yes, man has unique dignity, which means freedom, but there is bondage of the will. Wherever slaves of Satan, he controls us. Erasmus, who is still a roman catholic enlightenment thinker and a renaissance thinker, the last of the giants, he refutes Luther with freedom of the will. So you have bondage of the will. Freedom of the will.

Luther responds to him in detail, and then Erasmus responds in detail. But that is so detailed that people get lost. Nobody reads that debate anymore. So the question whether there is free will or not becomes inconclusive in Europe. That's where Jonathan Edwards, he writes the book on freedom of the will. So it is Jonathan Edwards, the first american philosopher who picks up an inconclusive debate from Europe and teaches it. Now, Edwards is not easy to read either.

The freedom of the will, it's a complex argument, but Whitefield is teaching it at a popular level. And so this ideas, your program is called the Renaissance of man. So you have the idea of human dignity and human depravity, which is both coming from the Bible and salvation, is bringing us out of our depravity into the liberty of Christ.

So liberty, that is Luther's third book in 1520, a treatise on christian liberty, which is for the first time that a european thinker is thinking of politics inside the church, outside the church, as pursuit of liberty. So if you go to a university today to study modern political thought, you will begin with Machiavelli the prince. Now, Machiavelli is older than Luther, but Machiavelli's book the Prince is published in 1532. Luther's Freedom of the Will is published in 1520.

So twelve years before Machiavelli, Machiavelli sees politics as pursuit of power. Luther sees politics as pursuit of liberty, because when Luther writes this in 1520, he's teaching Galatians in Wittenberg. Galatians is Paul's fight for freedom. Galatians five one, that for freedom, Christ has set you free.

Don't allow anyone to enslave you, not even the followers of James who are coming from the Jerusalem church, the Judaizers, they should not make you slaves again, because Christ has come to set us free. So Luther is the father of european idea of politics as pursuit of freedom, which is what through the first great awakening and Wesley through Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards here. So Wesley comes later as a result of Whitfield.

So Whitfield goes to England and launches Wesley into the wesleyan revival. But Jonathan Edwards, who died young, he is dealing with this issue of the freedom of man. And that is very important because in the sixties, bf Skinner from Stanford, from your university, he writes beyond freedom and dignity, which becomes a best seller, because on the basis of materialistic worldview, that human brain being, chemistry, you cannot have freedom. It has to be determinism. Freedom is an illusion.

So that's the thing that is picked up in the new atheism. But Daniel Dennett, who is in the Bay Area, in the University of East coast, Massachusetts, he writes, so there was four main atheists, and he writes as a neurosurgeon, neuroscientist, a neurologist, whatever, that freedom, free will is an illusion, because freedom presupposes that human being is not matter. But there is spirit, which is not bound by material. Chemistry has to be deterministic. That human brain is more than chemistry.

This is the theme that is continuing the issue of whether human beings have free will. It's a new atheism which Jordan Peterson is fighting most strongly, because all our concept of individual responsibility, conscience, etcetera, rests upon the freedom human being. But freedom is a uniquely biblical idea that, yes, we are spiritual beings. We are not just chemistry. Our thinking is not a product of, I mean, the obviously chemical basis thought. But consciousness goes beyond chemistry.

It is spirit, which is what Genesis is saying, that God created man from chemistry, from the dust, but he breathed into him the breath of life, and Adam became a living soul. So, yes, we are material, we are chemical beings, but there is a spiritual, non material dimension to us, which is the essence of freedom.

So when the declaration of independence declares that we are created equal and by our creator endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that's a biblical worldview that has been shaped in Europe by Pico della Mirandola, Luther, Erasmus, John Calvin in America by Jonathan Edwards. When I think back to the education that I got about the ideas and men that formed american political theory, I never hear about Whitefield or Edwards or Luther. Right?

These are not part of the american tradition in terms of what students are taught in the government, schools, or even high level universities, about just how important Protestantism specifically is informing the worldview that constituted our Constitution and Bill of rights. This history is left out. And with this, with this piece in the puzzle now, it's so much easier to understand why? Because people today are talking about, when did America start going wrong?

The guys that I know are talking about the post war consensus, the post world War two geopolitical consensus, the UN, EU. We can talk about that separately, but from what I'm hearing, it's that change in language which is reflective of other ideas, from sacred to self evident, that that was the beginning of us as Americans, spending our theological inheritance, spending down our inheritance to the point where we are today, where it's almost been exhausted.

There never was a time when America as a nation was fully trading on the biblical worldview that we had been gifted. We'd been spending it down from the very beginning. Yes. Wow. If you go on YouTube, there is a debate I have with Tom Holland, the author of Dominion. Tom Holland is a professional historian. I am amateur. He's a professional historian, and he and I debate whether freedom came from Greece, from greek democracy, or whether freedom came from the Bible. Out of Scotland.

So you would find that 1 hour debate very interesting, because Tom Holland concedes three times in that 60 minutes that he had never studied the history of freedom. He is a historian who had just assumed what the university told him, that freedom and democracy came from Greece. So I corrected him in that debate. There is another YouTube video in which I have a more than 1 hour discussion with Greg. From Plato to NATO, David Gress.

David Gress is in Copenhagen, a danish american historian, also a professional historian. His book, from Plato to NATO debunks what american universities have been doing since 1910 in teaching that modern freedoms come from Greece, democracy come from Greece. So it was David Grass grew up a Roman Catholic. He's a nominal Roman Catholic. He's not a devout Roman Catholic.

But his book from Plato to NATO, and I have both the books here, which I can show, he debunks the mythology that modern secular universities began in New York, Columbia, and continued from Chicago, and has spread. Now, this foolishness that american universities have taught, the mythology that they have taught that freedom came to us from Greece, from democracy, greek democracy, that has never been countered by our seminaries.

And this is the problem of american christian leadership being shaped by the seminary movement, which is essentially solo scriptural. They don't study the history of freedom. So the most important macro historian or meta historian, two names that I'll give you, and I can show you the books. One is Eugene Rojinstok Hussein. His book was. He taught at Harvard University and Dartmouth University. He fought in World War one and then came to America and became a historian.

His book, out of revolution. Out of revolution by Eugene Rosenstock Hussein. He shows that the modern world was created by five major universities revolutions. The last one was 1970, the communist revolution in Russia. Before that, the French Revolution. Before that, the American Revolution. Before that, the british english civil war of the 16th forties. And before that, the protest german revolution, which we call reformation. He calls it revolution.

And he says that the german protestant revolution was the greatest force that created the modern world and the english civil war and american revolutionary world, where after shocks of what had happened in german reformation. And it's Eugene Rosenstock Hussy, who points out that Luther is the first european thinker to talk about freedom politics as pursuit of freedom. Luther's ideas began to be secularized by a french roman catholic historian, Jean Bodin.

Jean Bodin began to secularize 70 years after Luther. The Luther books comes out in 1520 and in late 1570s or eighties, is when Jean Bodin, he's responding to the Huguenots in France. And he takes Luther's idea of freedom and begins to secularize it, which then 100 years later, Rousseau is in Geneva. Please, Geneva. Rousseau then takes the biblical idea of liberty in his and secularizes a social contract. The mythology.

So american, you're right that american universities, as they're discussing intellectual history, history of freedom, they will talk about Rousseau, they will talk about Jean Bodine, they will talk about Machiavelli, they will never tell you the truth. That the first historian, the first thinker, public thinker, intellectual, who says that politics should be about freedom, organization should be about freedom, is Luther. And he does it because of his study of the epistle to Galatians.

Now, the second historian that I might mention is Jacques Barjune. His book from dawn to decadence. So Barjan is covering 500 years of european history, western history from 1500 until 2000. Eugene Rajenstok says, covering 1200 years of western history, from peace of God, truth of God movements in the 11th, 12th century up to the First World War.

So Eugene, who says covering 7800 years of western history, and Jacques Bargain is covering 500 years, and both are saying these are macro historians, meta historians. Both are saying that modern freedoms originate with Protestant Reformation, from the Bible. The Bible is a book about liberty. It begins to be written when God sends Moses to a bunch of slaves to liberate them, to transform them into a great nation. They repeatedly go into slavery. How do you prevent jewish pharaohs?

Who will enslave you? How do you remain free? And the vision then of freedom culminates with the vision of Messiah, who will break every chain, break every yoke, set the captives free, which is what Paul is fighting for in the epistle to Galatians. So the Bible is the book about freedom. America became free because of the Bible. American universities have deceived american.

And american seminaries have not been able to counter that deception because they were teaching church history, mission history, they were not teaching american history or intellectual history of the west. So what do we as individual men and women begin to do about this? What would be. Please go ahead. A new reformation means the church taking education back from the devil. The church handed education to the state, church has to take education back from the state. The solution is very simple.

If you go to Calvary Chapel, old Bridge, New Jersey, students who have done graduated from high school for their college classes. They go to the Calgary chapel Monday to Friday. They are enrolled in Crown University in Minnesota, but they study every day in their local church. Some of the courses are taught with local resource people, and some of the courses come online. So in two weeks from now we are meeting in South Korea.

After Lausanne we have a time for a gathering where we will create a virtual wisdom village where the world's best content creator will create a curriculum that kindergarten to 12th grade k twelve curriculum we will give away for free to everyone all over the world. So no homeschooling student, no private student, no christian school has to spend any money in curriculum. If they want to, they can keep spending. But if we create the best curriculum, give it away for free.

Now in USA and Canada there are 4 million homeschooling parents. So we offer them this curriculum for free. Plus we invite those parents to acquire a university degree in education and applied theology. A homeschooling parent already studies a lot to teach. But for what you are already doing, teaching third grade of 7th grade or 11th grade, you get a BA or an MA in education and applied theology in which you learn how to assess each child, what is the best learning methods for each child?

And you tailor make this study. So if you're teaching for 10 hours a week, that's part of your practical that you're doing for you towards your BA or an MA degree. But you're not simply teaching math and chemistry and statistics and history, you're also shaping character of your children. So you have to also study truth and theology. So integrating into education truth and character, virtues and veritas.

So what we will do, and this is my proposal which may be vetoed or overwritten, we will offer BA and Ma degree to every homeschooling parent or anybody who wants it for $1,000 a year. At the moment, the cheapest curriculum for undergraduate studies is from Grand Canyon University, $10,000 a year. We bring it down to $1,000 a year.

So a homeschooling parent gets a free curriculum for the kids and he or she pays $1,000 a year to get a university degree in how to teach using the new technology and how to study the Bible and teach theology. So the kind of things that you've been reading in my book, this will be taught.

Now, if we succeed in getting a million parents and teachers and other individuals to pay $1,000 a year to get a BA or MA degree, we make a billion dollars, which is what Grand Kenyan University is earning right now. We make a billion dollars and that will allow us to create all the curriculum and post it, make it available into every home. So turn every church into a, either a k through twelve high school students.

Maybe there's ten or 15 students because you're not hiring teachers or it could be a college classroom. So right now in Calvary Chapel, Old Bridge, New Jersey, you have about 25 students who are attending two different year one and year twos, 13th and 14th year to get in. So AAEH, or as associate of science degrees. Plus we're creating an encyclopedia, an alternative to Wikipedia, in which all the curriculum will be available.

And this AI based encyclopedia will any teacher, any parent will be able to use this AI based encyclopedia to assess each child. So a child who is studying 9th grade mathematics may actually be capable of studying 11th grade English. Why should he be kept in 9th grade?

You can have a personalized curriculum for each child and the AI based encyclopedia will have, you can ask for a specific lesson for this encyclopedia to create for this child for today or for these next five days or for the next month. So a personalized curriculum which is based on where the child is today and where the parent is today. So this will be part of the teacher's training of how do you create a personalized curriculum for each child and where you are not able to help?

How do you get the help from the community or from webinars and seminars, etcetera. So this is called the third education revolution, which is the main thing that we are doing. And we are meeting in South Korea in two weeks to launch this. And we are looking for potential investors who would come behind this to invest in this and help manage the whole revolutions. So this would be a third education revolution in western history.

The first education revolution began with Charlemagne, Emperor Charlemagne, in what is called a carolingian renaissance. The second education revolution began with Martin Luther in 1520. That education revolution is what America is using with the whole world is still using universal education that every child should study. But that has the church abandoned it in Europe, we abandoned it in 1832 after Napoleon.

And in America, the Christian, the church began to abandon the ministry of education handed over to the church, beginning with Horace Mann in 1840s, fifties, and then with John Dewey in Chicago after World War one. So american church has done a lot of damage to America, to Christianity, a global Christianity, by handing over the ministry of Education to the state.

And this education revolution is equipping every local church and every parent to take the ministry back, to take the ministry of education back as a means of discipling nations where every sphere of life comes under the authority of Christ. What a beautiful vision. What I appreciate about that is the idea that we can win back our culture in the world by changing minds and hearts, not by the sword or by conquest.

The idea that by transforming the inner man, we transform the outer world, which I think is a spirit that, I mean, we've been talking about it, that Protestantism has lost. You say the sinner's prayer and Jesus is coming back soon, so we don't really got to worry about much else. But instead, the idea is to regenerate beings, to regenerate humans, to regenerate the world.

I mean, that approach through education, through using the best of the western tradition, through using the Bible, through telling our true biblical history. I believe that that's the best proposal I've ever heard for making real progress. Yes, of course, the biggest problem is the church. Today, the average pastor believes that we are the body of Christ, but we are the useless body of Christ.

God cannot use this body to crush the serpent under our feet, the body which is sitting in heaven, Christ body, that body has to return before Antichrist can be slain. So the whole outlook of the damage. I have a long lecture, as I said, about why Christianity lost America. And I'd like to. That was given in 2014, out of which came the virtues campus, which is trying to encourage american churches to take ministry of Education back. But I believe that it will happen, we will succeed.

Because the simple truth is that if you disciple, if you don't disciple the nation, it becomes you make it very hard for yourself to disciple your own children. That's right. Children who are born and grow up in christian homes, who go to christian schools, christian high school, once they go to college, within a year, you lose them.

Because most of your teachers in christian schools are trained in secular universities, they cannot prepare you, the children, to withstand the pressure of secular university. So k through twelve education is incapable of fighting university. It's like going with a sword on a horse against drones and tanks, right? You can't do that. So a revolution is needed. It will be financially very good for the churches.

Let's say, for example, just theoretically, if a church takes 15 students who are paying 10,000 a year for a BA degree, that's $150,000 a year. If 75,000 goes into running that, what we call virtue scams in the church, you pay 50,000 to the teacher, 25,000 to a part time assistant, 75,000 is going, 75,000 is shared with the university and I, which is giving the curriculum and the degree.

The church has money for, its utilities, for its church has young people in the church every day, which helps build your music, your worship, your photography, your camera, those young people fall in love, get married in the church. So the just the economic benefit of having these young people in the church every day. If 100,000 churches in America took 15 students a year, there's 1.5 million students in the church every day.

In second year program, you have 3 million students in the church every day. In a four year program, you can. American church can be discipling four to 6 million young people, college level young people, every day, and the church becomes the biggest socio political moral force in the USA. This doesn't fit the american concept of what is the church? What does it mean to disciple nations? Are we supposed to bring all these spheres, the seven mountains under the lordship of Christ?

Or are we supposed to share the gospel story with the last unreached people group so that Jesus might come back? You have very different perspectives which will need to be honestly discussed and debated for the church to accept that, yes, we have been commissioned to disciple nations. And USA is a nation that needs to be discipled in the biblical sense. In greek sense of ethnos, it may not be a nation because Greece was never a nation. Therefore, greek language had no concept for nation.

Yes, the New Testament used the greek word which came closest, but etymology is not theology. You have to put the jewish context, content of meaning and definitions in a greek word that is being used. So how can.

So I see the vision, and I think that beginning with education and beginning inside the church and a reconstitution of what the church is, as opposed to just the place that you go on Sunday or the center of your social life, it actually must be far more in an era when all of our institutions have been captured by secularism, paganism, etcetera, unavoidable. And so to bring everything back under the umbrella of the church, I think, is a vital step in providing tools for that.

How can christians rediscover the spirit to do this? Because I think you identify correctly that the dispensational pre millennial attitude of, well, Jesus is coming back soon. So my responsibility here is over, is a very powerful force in american christian culture today. I don't share that view. I came right into a post millennial church, and so having to understand premillennial dispensational eschatology has been a journey that I've been on. It could not be further outside of my worldview.

And there are people for whom the idea of what you're talking about could not be further outside of their worldview. They can't conceive of, oh, we need to go disciple the nations and spread the gospel. It's not just the second comings in a few minutes. So what can individual christian believers who are listening to this do in their communities, in their churches, the people that they know to try and well have a discover a sense of spine to conduct this war, let's say, or this battle?

But then how can they be evangelistic in their efforts towards painting this picture? Well, let's begin with the last point. I refer to this meeting in South Korea, which is Lausanne is happening first. Then our conference, Switzerland, Lausanne. It began in Switzerland, Lausanne. Now Lausanne four is happening in Seoul, Korea a week. And following that is our conference, which is called billion Souls Harvest. Billion souls harvest was started by Bill Bright, but now it's being led by Koreans.

Within that billion souls harvest, we have this conference on Global Education forum, which is trying to relate mass evangelism, billion souls harvest with higher education. Countries such as India, most of Asia, most of Africa, most of South America, 50% of India can become christian today if the church begins to give high quality university education to young people. So how are the two related?

We don't have enough time, but certainly the reformation and the founders of the USA, the pilgrims, come in 1620, 1636, they have established Harvard. Within 16 years, they've established Harvard. So the reformers understood the necessity of discipling nations through education. And I can expand on it, but let me remain practical. I would suggest to your students, your listeners, to go online, www.

Third educationrevolution.com third educationrevolution.com to understand this whole vision of the third education revolution. And we have this book which people can buy, and they. There is a little problem with Amazon right now, because originally we had, we were selling it in Amazon through from an indian account, and we don't want to do that. We have to resell it from american account. But suddenly they can write to me and we'll send a copy of the third Education revolution.

Third thing is that every Wednesday we have a Zoom prayer meeting, 11:00 which is tomorrow, 11:00 central time. It's led by Doctor David Glessney. Every 11:00 central time they zoom prayer meeting. There are prayer meetings happening in Canada, in Nordic Europe, in central Europe, there are ten prayer meetings happening in India. So many different prayer meetings happening about this movement.

So this is a very prayer centered education movement where we humble ourselves before God and seek his grace for a new reformation, which has to be the work of the spirit and not the work of apologists. So the first thing go online www.educationrevolution.com buy the copy of this book. Third, join the Wednesday Prayer meeting.

And then if people who are interested in considering their church becoming a center for education, David Leslie, who leads the Wednesday prayer meeting, he is the one who will make sure that somebody goes to the church and takes the church leaders to see what other churches are already doing.

And then there are at least five universities in America, christian universities that have signed mous with us, that they will welcome students to study in their own churches but get enrolment in the university. So once they're enrolled in an accredited university, they qualify for bank loans and they get transferable credits. David Glesni will help with that process, but it will still take a few months for us to come to a point where we can start giving free curriculum to homeschool us.

So homeschooler schooling movement in North America is the most revolutionary force today because these are the parents who have refused to give their children, hand over their children to the state. They're taking responsibility to nurture their own children. But you can't fight university with k through twelve education, as I mentioned. So homeschooling movement has to become church schooling, church college movement. That's what we are seeking to do.

And we, the advantage of this approach is that we can have the best teachers from all over the world. Someone who is already teaching in UC Berkeley, in the business school, he can help create business curriculum both for high school and for college level, which we will supply to the students all over the world. So you get the best scientists, the best musicians and mathematicians wherever they are teaching to create the curriculum.

It's like Khan Academy where bitcoin, Gates and others were funding to help students study math for free. Oh, Khan Academy. Khan Academy, yeah. So to repeat practically begin with a visit to our website. We've not been maintaining it too well. My own website is called revelationmovement.com. revelationmovement.com but the educational website is called the third educationrevolution.com. not delete the article. The just third educationrevolution.com dot third thing.

Join the prayer meeting on Wednesday morning. And fourth, let's begin to correspond. If you have a church which you would be willing to consider hosting, educating college level students, seven to 15 to 20 students under one academic pastor. Church will make money with this. It will not lose any money and it will get staff and young people every day in the church. So David Glesni will help organize that. I just might know the church praise the Lord.

Praise the Lord. Sir, you've been profoundly generous with your time. Thank you so much. I would like to ask you just one more question, if that would be okay. Sure. So, just to change gears for a moment, you didn't grow up a Christian? No. You became a Christian? No, my parents were Christian. Please go ahead. My parents were christian, but I studied Hinduism academically. I lived in hindu ashrams.

I studied Hinduism from the best exponent of Hindus, and I became an expert on Hinduism through my book. So, because philosophy was my academics discipline, and my. And I published a book which is taught at the university level in many universities around the world. That's why I'm called a christian philosopher, an indian christian philosopher.

You had the gospel change your life, too, and I was wondering if you could share that, because you're painting this picture of global transformation, which is a beautiful picture, and I've certainly had my own picture of transformation. I wondered, just to make it personal, if you could share how the gospel changed your life as well. Well, I came to Christ as a teenager in a moral struggle with the habits of stealing and lying. I tried to control my tongue.

I failed repeatedly until someone explained to me that I was trying to increase my willpower to control my tongue. That lack of willpower is not your problem. You are a very stubborn young man. Your problem is a disease, and it's called sin. And the good news is that there is a savior who came to deliver you from your sin. And if you ask him to save you, he will. So I did, and he did save me.

But once I went to college and started studying philosophy, then I found that I can't really believe the Bible to be God's word because my teachers were better educated than my pastors, and I thought that anyone who is better read, is smarter and is wiser. It was much later I discovered that you can be very learned and quite foolish. But at that time, yes, you can. At that time, I thought that if professors don't believe the Bible, why should I? Doubting the Bible was very easy.

The difficult question was, what then do you believe? And I decided at the age of 20 that I will believe what the best philosophers and scientists believe to be true. So what do they believe is the truth? And that I began the journey which led me to see that actually, my professors knew that philosophers and scientists know that they don't know, and they know that they cannot know the truth.

We are like the five blind men who are trying to understand an elephant, and we are fighting with each other. The elephant is like a pillar or like a wall or like a rope, because we are experiencing different parts of the elephant, so we cannot know the truth because we are blind. Is it possible there is someone who is not blind, who can see the elephant?

And who can tell me that you are fighting with your brother because you are holding the leg and you think elephant is like a tree trunk or a pillar? If you move 4ft up, you can feel what he says is wall. It's actually the stomach of the elephant. And you move 5ft behind and you can feel what she thinks is a rope. Elephant is like a rope. It's actually the tail, etcetera. So is it possible there is someone who is not blind, who sees?

Will the concept of blindness exist only if the concept of sight exists or the reality of sight exists. So to say that we don't know, therefore God cannot know, is an assumption. Maybe there is someone who knows. So is there a God? Has he spoken? That became my quest. And it took six months to come to realize that the Bible is actually God's word. And it was through the historical books of Samuel King's chronicles that within a period of two months, I read them four or five times each.

And that's a long story to realize that actually, this is God's word God has spoken, and this is the word for liberty in life, that if you reject God's word, you destroy yourself as a nation. But through obedience and faith, you receive abundant life. So I've discussed that in several of my books, my journey. But that's also the theme of my new book, this prequel, my journey from philosophy to revelation.

How I came to believe that the Bible is God's word and that we can know the truth because God has revealed it. That's the one I would first like to turn into a documentary. And so thank you for asking. It's a brief question, but a long story. When can we expect your new book? Well, the book is actually. One version of it is complete. It's right here. But it needs two, three revisions and good criticism of different people.

But we began already negotiating a documentary version of it, got clarity of how we would structure the rocky memory. Originally, we were thinking of it as debating dead philosophers, and that using animation, we will actually debate the philosophers who undermine faith in the gospel in the west.

But now we've decided to actually discuss with living celebrities, such as Elon Musk and Tom Holland and Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson, and in discussions with them, things that are important to them and important to people. That they are influencing. Go back to see how the west turned from truth and character to the present mess. So the dead philosophers will come through animation in the documentary, but the context we'll be discussing with living celebrities.

That sounds amazing, frankly. But we need financial sponsors. So we need people who would help sponsor that documentary project. So if Afsoma knew of someone who was interested in funding the documentary or the third education revolution, they can get in touch with you through your website. Or is there some at the moment? Revelationmovement.com is where people can donate revelationmovement.com dot wonderful. So we have two dbas.

One is revelation movement, which is seeking to make the Bible the book of the 21st century. The Bible was the second Milan last thousand years. Making it the book of the 21st century is our mission. Second is called the third Education Revolution. And the mission there is to restore education back to the church as its ministry of discipling nations. I can think of quite a few people that will be very excited to hear about both of those missions. Thank you. I'll be happy to write to you.

Thank you, sir. And I look forward to reading your book. This book changed everything, and perhaps we can have another discussion about that book as well. Sure. Lord bless you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. God bless you and God bless your audience. Thank you, sir. Bye.