Anthony, I know you asked Pilgrim not me for his take on the video. However, I hope you do not mind me saying a few things.

I found the broadcast ‘The New Fault Lines’ to be done quite well.

I like Dr.Voddie Baucham and some of the people they mentioned as being faithful.
Before all these controversies such as Cultural Marxism and its ugly stepsisters started gaining prominence, Voddie Baucham was speaking on them. I have watched about 5 of his sermons on the issues and read a few of his books, such as Fault Lines and I am thankful to the Lord that I did.
Cultural Marxism starting to rear its ugly head before Covid-19; which I believe the WEF is using to further their global cause/s.

I have my differences with John MacArthur; but I certainly appreciate his stand and support for pastors up here in Canada, who were jailed for keeping their Churches open.

Dr. RC Sproul, was actually my favourite theologian and I believe they correctly showed what he would be saying if he was still around.

I agree with their take on Tim Keller and I could add even more concerns.

When they described John Piper as naive; that is something I have been thinking about him for many years now. At one time Piper was a favourite of mine and that was for good reason. When he is on, his messages were really good. However, that has been a number of years now and I don’t bother listening to him anymore.

They spoke very highly of Doug Wilson and in a few issues, I can see why. He is not afraid to call it like it is and although I do not listen to him personally. I am told he says some of the same things on the issues of our day that someone like Voddie Baucham would say.
Let me say however, the interviewer said he is a Post-Millennial and although I am Amil, I have friends who are and we are in agreement on most things. However, Doug Wilson is not only Post-Mill, unless I am mistaken he is also a Theonomist. Perhaps the interviewer is also a Theonomist?

Theonomy by the way has become a rather nuanced term is recent years. Some call themselves Theonomists simply because they believe in the “Law of God” and that is how they explain themselves. When you tell them the way they are using the term, is confusing because it makes a others think they are “Reconstructionists” in the line of Rushdoony. To which they state (rather defensively), that it is I that doesn’t understand Theonomy; because all Reformed Christians believe in the ‘Law of God’. That particularly discussion quickly becomes fruitless.

Others, take many of the things that Rushdoony and Bahnsen said concerning Theonomy and put their own spin on them. Then when you point them to an article written by Sam Waldron, about his concerns with ‘Theonomy’. They get a bit mad and state that, Waldron is addressing something that is for the most part no longer an issue.

As I mentioned before I think I lean towards the same views that Sam Waldron believes. He holds to the same kind of Two Kingdom Theology that John Calvin held to.

The interviewer, never mentioned this kind of Two Kingdom Theology. Rather he mentioned what is commonly referred to as Radical Two Kingdom Theology; which he attributed to Dr. Michael Horton and someone by the name of David VanDrunen.

The problem I am having is most people seem to believe Calvin’s Two Kingdom Theology and Radical Two Kingdom Theology are one and the same.

Tom