ris3n's Apologetics Codex

Source

I Threw EVERY Religious Argument At GodLogic (Lecrae 2026)

A 74-minute interview on The Deep End with Lecrae (published 2026-05-07) in which Lecrae role-plays representatives of every major religious or philosophical position Avery Austin, known online as "God Logic", typically encounters in street debate, and presses each objection live. The result is a compact and densely deployable apologetic playbook: nine objection-defeater pairs from a working street apologist who has refined them in tens of thousands of live encounters. Each defeater is doctrinally derivative (the underlying arguments are familiar, Athanasius's prōtotokos defense, Qureshi-style Quranic-dilemma moves, Van Til-style transcendental presuppositionalism), but the packaging is novel: the moves are tightened for a 60-second live-debate envelope with built-in force-commit questions, exact verses, and tonal handling. This page maps each move to the existing codex hub, lifts the deployable live-cite quotes, and surfaces the secondary content (methodology, pastoral framing, comparative-religion clinic across Oneness / Catholic / Mormon / atheist / JW / Hebrew Israelite / Muslim).

Executive summary

There are ads on our codex that pay for hosting and keep the codex free. If you can, please consider whitelisting ris3n.com or allowing scripts to support the work.

Sponsored

What the source is. A wide-ranging interview between Christian rapper Lecrae and street apologist Avery Austin ("God Logic"). Lecrae plays the foil, first as a college student exploring religious options, then as a Muslim, then as a Hebrew Israelite, then as an atheist, and Austin responds in real time. The closing third covers Austin's methodology, pastoral framing, and reflections on Tik Tok / social-media apologetics. Austin's YouTube ministry (~542,000 subscribers at recording date) is one of the largest in the African-American Christian apologetics space; this interview is the most accessible 60-minute introduction to his repertoire.

Why it matters for the codex. Almost every doctrinal move Austin makes already has a dedicated hub. The interview's value is deployment packaging, the live-debate phrasings, the force-commit questions, the tonal corrections (Austin explicitly repents of an early arrogant "Qatar infidel-handshake" provocation). It functions for the codex as a live-cite source that strengthens existing apologetic hubs without contributing new doctrine. The interview also makes visible the style-distinct form of Black evangelical street apologetics, complementing the codex's existing coverage of analytic apologetics (William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga) and the more confrontational debate-circuit Islam-engagement (Quranic Corruption and Preservation / Qureshi-Wood-Shamoun lineage).

Key claims

  • Trinity precedes the 4th century. Five Old Testament texts demonstrate triune divine plurality before the New Testament: Gen 1:26 plural verbs ("let us make"); Gen 18-19 two YHWHs (one on earth with Abraham, one raining sulfur from heaven); Isaiah 48:16 (YHWH says YHWH has sent him and his Spirit); Ps 33:6 (the LORD's word + breath/Spirit creating); Matt 28:19 baptismal name. (~33:00-37:00 in source)
  • "Firstborn" in Col 1:15 means preeminence, not chronological birth-order. Anchor: Psalm 89:27, God makes David his "firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth," though David was Jesse's youngest son and was not the first king of Israel. Then Col 1:16 explicitly excludes Christ from creation as its agent. (~5:00-7:00, the founding story of God Logic ministry)
  • The Islamic Dilemma (street form). Q 3:3 says Allah revealed the Torah and Gospel; Q 5:46-48 says the Quran came confirming what is with you (ma'akum, present tense, books in Jews' and Christians' actual hands). Q 2:41 directly addresses the Jews of Muhammad's day: "Believe in what I have sent down, confirming what is with you." If those books were already corrupt when Muhammad commended them, Allah is either ignorant or deceitful. Cross-amplification: "Show me the un-corrupted Torah/Injil today", Muslim cannot produce. (~37:00-43:00)
  • The "Jesus never said 'I am God'" defeater hinges on speech-act parity. Does the Quran ever record Jesus saying "I am the Messiah" in those exact words? No. But the Quran calls him the Messiah. So speech-act formula is not required for ontological claim. Then deploy Rev 22:13 (Jesus: "I am the first and the last") matched to Quran 57:3 (Allah is the first and the last), same title both books reserve uniquely for God. Christological by the Muslim's own canonical standards. (~43:00-48:00)
  • Hebrew Israelite "Jesus only for Israel" (Matt 15:24) is defeated by John 17:14. If "world" = Israel, then Jesus and his disciples being "not of the world" makes Jesus a non-Israelite, absurd. Plus Matt 15 in context: Jesus is addressing a Canaanite Gentile woman; the "dogs eat crumbs from the master's table" exchange ends with Jesus commending her faith. Then Matt 28 universalizes the mission. Salvation-historical sequence: Israel first, Gentiles second. (~57:00-62:00)
  • TAG / Stealing-from-God works live. Lecrae plays an atheist on the Problem of Evil; Austin presses the "What is your objective standard?" question repeatedly until atheist concedes "it's a feeling." Then: "If a different collective says chaos is good, are they wrong?", atheist trapped. Closes with "You're stealing from my worldview while arguing against it." (~63:00-68:00)
  • Problem of Evil, two moves. (a) "Not all suffering is bad, without pain on the stove, you don't know your hand is burning." Some-goods-knowable-from-suffering defense. (b) Practical pivot: "If you really believe you have no inherent worth, let me slap you and watch yourself feel offended. You can't live your atheism." Cross-pressure: opponent's lived behavior contradicts professed worldview. (~67:00-70:00)
  • "Missing books" objection defeated by inspiration-vs-citation distinction. Old Testament references Book of Jasher, Wars of the LORD, Nathan the Seer, none preserved. Objector claims this impeaches divine preservation. Austin: "Who said those were inspired? Paul quotes pagan poets too, citation ≠ endorsement of inspiration." Plus reverse-throw on the Quran: same logic would invalidate the Quran for confirming a (corrupted) Torah/Gospel. (~32:00)
  • "Christian apologists are ill-equipped" meta-smear is unmasked as conversation-avoidance. A clip plays of an unnamed public theologian (Lecrae attributes to "Christian Smith" but flags a brain-fart on the name) claiming Christian apologists are "rooted in certainty, not curiosity" and refusing to debate them. Austin: "You won't debate apologists because you know your arguments can't hold up. The 'I defend humanity, not Christianity' framing is rhetorical sleight. If you were truly curious, you'd dialogue with people equipped to engage you." (~25:00-28:00)
  • Methodology: "Win the soul, not the argument." Austin's evolution from an arrogant early apologist (the Qatar infidel-handshake provocation he now regrets) to a question-led, image-of-God-respecting style. "Jesus didn't walk up to Pharisees to poke them. He taught them, even his enemies. The only Jesus they may see is you." Pedagogical operating principle: hyper-focus on one point, don't move on until that point is solidified; then build outward. (~46:00-55:00)

Arguments made, mapped to existing codex hubs

1. Colossians 1:15 / "firstborn" defeater (the founding move)

  • Substance. Prōtotokos (firstborn) in biblical idiom is a title of preeminence or rank, not chronological birth-order. Psalm 89:27 LXX uses prōtotokon of David, "the highest of the kings of the earth", though David was Jesse's youngest son. Col 1:16's "for by him all things were created" excludes Christ from the category of created things.
  • Hub: Colossians 1.15 (rich hub, already enriched) and Colossians 1.15-17 (rich hub) and Colossians 1.15-20 (newly promoted to rich hub on 2026-05-12 in partial response to this source, the 18-20 portion was the unfilled half).
  • Wider concept: Arianism for the broader Christological framework; the Watchtower New World Translation's "[other]" insertion in v. 16 is covered in Colossians 1.15 (Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesses section).
  • GL's live deployment (this source): Open with "What does firstborn mean in v. 15?", let the JW commit to chronological reading, then read v. 16 ("for by him all things were created") and ask "If Jesus is created, did he create himself?" Force-commit: ask the JW to explain why the NWT inserts "[other]" in v. 16 if the Greek text supports the Arian reading.

2. Trinity OT stack (against "4th-century invention")

  • Substance. Five Old Testament texts where divine plurality is named, sent, or acts:
  1. Gen 1:26, na'aseh adam ("let us make man"). The verb is plural; Hebrew has no plural-of-majesty in verbs (it appears only in nouns, and even there only rarely; cf. Joüon-Muraoka §114e).
  2. Gen 18-19, Two YHWHs. In Gen 18, YHWH visits Abraham at the oaks of Mamre with two angels. In Gen 19:24, "the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." Moses writes one YHWH on earth, one YHWH in heaven, acting jointly.
  3. Isaiah 48:16, "And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit." The speaker is YHWH; YHWH is sent; the Spirit accompanies the sending. Three references in one verse.
  4. Psalm 33:6, "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host." Word and Spirit as agents of creation alongside YHWH.
  5. Matt 28:19 (NT bookend), Baptismal name (singular, eis to onoma) of three: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Austin's Islamic-parity move: "Would you pray salat in the name of Allah, Jibreel, and Muhammad? No, that's shirk. Jesus is doing what would be shirk if he were not himself God."
  • Hub: Trinity, has a brief OT-hints section in the "Biblical foundation" block; the GL street-deployment stack is added there as a focused subsection on 2026-05-12.
  • Wider: Trinity Invented at Nicaea Objection Defeater (the structured five-prong defeater against the "Constantine invented the Trinity" claim, of which the Islamic "4th-century invention" claim is a variant).
  • Genesis 18 / Angel of the LORD lineage: the "two YHWHs" reading goes back to Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56-62 (c. AD 155), pre-Nicene. See Angel of the LORD for the canonical patristic exegesis.

3. Islamic Dilemma (the street form of Qureshi)

  • Substance. The codex's Islamic Dilemma hub already gives the full Qureshi treatment with six Quranic surahs. Austin's deployment is the 60-second street version:
  1. Lead with Q 3:3-4 ("He revealed the Torah and the Gospel") + Q 2:41 ("Believe in what I have sent down, confirming what is with you"). The Arabic ma'akum ("with you") is present tense, books the Jews of Muhammad's day actually had.
  2. Then ask: "Can the words of God be corrupted?" Muslim answers no. Austin: "Then the Torah and Gospel, which your book says are God's words, cannot be corrupted. So the Bible is preserved by your own book's logic."
  3. If Muslim retreats to "originals were preserved but they're now lost": "Show me the un-corrupted Torah or Injil today. If you can't, your Quran is referencing lost books, which by your own logic invalidates it."

4. Speech-act parity defeater of "Jesus never said 'I am God'"

  • Substance. Muslim challenge: Jesus never said the exact words "I am God, worship me." Austin's parry:
  1. Speech-act parity: "Does Jesus in your Quran ever say the exact words 'I am the Messiah'? No. Is he the Messiah? Yes. So exact-words formula is not required for an ontological claim."
  2. Title-parity: Rev 22:13, Jesus says "I am the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end." Q 57:3 says Allah is the first and the last. Same title both books reserve uniquely for God. Jesus claims it on his own lips.
  3. Worked example (from this source): "If I say 'I have students and I give them lessons,' did I just claim to be a teacher? Yes, without saying 'I am a teacher.' Claim ≠ formula."
  • Hub candidate: the move could be filed as a sub-section under Christs Deity (the codex's NT proof-text compendium for full deity) or as a "Quranic Christology Confirmations" extension on Crucifixion Denial in Islam's sister hub. Build candidate: a "Rev 22 + Quran 57:3 Christological Parity Defeater" mini-syllogism, flagged for Hubs Roadmap (not built in this pass).
  • Wider: Tawhid (the Islamic doctrine the parity-claim disrupts), Kalimatullah (the Quranic Christological titles already preserved).

5. Hebrew Israelite "Jesus only for Israel" defeater (Matt 15:24 + John 17:14)

  • Substance. BHI claim: Jesus says in Matt 15:24, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"; therefore Christianity is white European fabrication that distorts the original Israelite gospel.
  • Two-step defeat:
  1. Reductio via John 17:14. "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." If "world" = Israel (as BHI claims), then Jesus and his disciples being "not of the world" makes Jesus non-Israelite. Absurd. The BHI reading of "world" cannot be sustained across the Johannine corpus.
  2. Context of Matt 15. Jesus is addressing a Canaanite Gentile woman (Matt 15:21-28). The "dogs/crumbs" exchange concludes with: "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire." A Canaanite woman receives the very mercy BHI claims is restricted to ethnic Israel.
  3. Salvation-historical sequence. Matt 15 = Israel first. Matt 28:19 = "go and make disciples of all nations." The sequence is Israel first, then the Gentiles (Rom 1:16: "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"). The BHI reading flattens this sequence into ethnic exclusivism the texts themselves disavow.

6. Stealing-from-God / TAG live walkthrough

  • Substance. A textbook presuppositional move from the Cornelius Van Til lineage. Lecrae plays an atheist on the Problem of Evil ("If God is all-powerful and all-good, why suffering?"). Austin presses:
  1. "What is your standard for 'good'?"
  2. Atheist answers: "What's good for humanity / what we collectively decide / it's a feeling."
  3. Austin: "If a different collective decides chaos is good, are they wrong? On what grounds?"
  4. When atheist concedes nothing-objective, Austin pivots: "Then your objection to God on the basis of suffering depends on an objective standard you've just denied. You're stealing from my worldview while arguing against it."

7. Problem of Evil, practical-incoherence pivot

  • Substance. After the TAG move (which neutralizes the moral premise of the objection), Austin pivots to two positive moves:
  1. Knowable-good-from-suffering: "Some pain is constructive. Without pain on the stove, you don't know your hand is burning. God, with all wisdom, sees goods we can't from suffering we can." (Classical free-will / soul-making theodicy gesture; not original to GL.)
  2. Practical-incoherence cross-pressure: "If you really believed you had no inherent worth, let me slap you across the face. Steal your wallet. Trip you. Watch yourself feel offended. You can't live the atheism you profess. The atheist is appealing to inherent worth while denying its existence."

8. "Missing books" defeater

  • Substance. Objector: the OT references books that aren't preserved (Book of Jasher in Josh 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18; Book of the Wars of the LORD in Num 21:14; Nathan the Seer, Gad the Seer in 1 Chr 29:29; etc.). Either God can't preserve inspired books or the Bible is false for quoting non-inspired books.
  • Austin's response:
  1. Premise assumption-check: "Who said those books were inspired? The OT references them as historical sources, not as canonical revelation."
  2. Citation ≠ endorsement. Paul quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28 Epimenides + Aratus; 1 Cor 15:33 Menander; Titus 1:12 Epimenides again). Quotation does not imply inspiration.
  3. Reverse-throw on the Quran: "By your own logic, the Quran is false because it confirms a Torah and Gospel with you that you say are corrupted/lost. Same argument boomerangs."
  • Hub candidate: "Missing Books Objection Defeater", flagged for Hubs Roadmap as a Tier-2 build candidate (the objection is online-discourse-common but the argument is logically simple; a focused defeater hub would be useful).

9. Christian-apologist-as-bad-faith meta-smear

  • Substance. A clip plays of an unnamed public theologian saying Christian apologists are "rooted in certainty, not curiosity" and refusing to debate them on principle. (Lecrae attributes the clip to "Christian Smith" but flags he's experiencing a brain-fart on the name, identification is uncertain; should be verified before any entity hub is built.)
  • Austin's response: The meta-smear is conversation-avoidance dressed up as principled refusal. "If you were curious, you'd dialogue with people equipped to engage you. The 'I defend humanity, not Christianity' framing inverts the burden: it accuses apologists of bad faith while displaying the very feature (refusing dialogue) that the apologist is being accused of."
  • Wider: The standard responses to ad hominem meta-objections, see Fallacies (the catalog) and especially Genetic Fallacy and Ad Hominem entries.

Methodology, Austin's pastoral and pedagogical framework

The closing third of the interview is a practical guide to street apologetics. Lifted as live-cite handles:

  • "The only Jesus they may see is you." Cliché but doctrinally serious: the unbeliever's first encounter with Christ is mediated through your demeanor. Imago Dei framing of the opponent (cf. Imago Dei), they are not your target; they are the image of God in lostness.
  • "Win the soul, not the argument." Austin's evolution from arrogant early days (the Qatar story: as a young apologist visiting Qatar, he greeted a Muslim with "I'm an infidel; you're not supposed to shake my hand," to provoke a reaction, he now regrets this as "trying to get him rather than reach him") to a question-led pedagogy.
  • "Jesus never walked up to a Pharisee just to shake him up. He taught the Pharisees, even his enemies." Pedagogical principle: question-led teaching, even toward hostile interlocutors.
  • Hyper-focused single-point pedagogy. "If we don't solidify this point, the rest of the conversation is mush. Once solidified, we build blocks until we have the full house." Reflects a Socratic / presuppositional structure: get the foundational concession first, then build outward.
  • Role-clarity in evangelism. "It's not my job to convert. I plant the seed. God grows it. Another man waters." 1 Cor 3:6-7 applied. Pastoral comfort for apologists who don't see immediate fruit.

A closing testimony illustrates the role-clarity teaching: a JW commenter under one of Austin's Berkeley clips reported that one specific question from a year-old clip ("Is Jesus good?") prompted 16 members of his family, across seven generations of Jehovah's Witnesses, to leave the Watchtower Society. Austin never met or interacted with the family; the fruit returned a year delayed through the comment section.

Comparative-religion clinic (a sub-feature of the interview)

About 8 minutes (~13:00-21:00) function as a one-stop comparative-religion clinic. Lecrae walks Austin through a college-student-encountering-options scenario: Oneness Pentecostal, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist, Hebrew Israelite. Austin's nay/yay/qualify pattern:

Tradition Austin's verdict Brief reason
Oneness Pentecostal Nay Modalism breaks down biblically ([[John 8.16-18
Roman Catholic Qualified Depends on the local extreme (no-salvation-outside-this-church flag); many Catholics have right doctrine and are brothers/sisters in the faith
Mormon (LDS) Nay Different gospel; Jesus-and-Satan-as-spirit-brothers; God-the-Father-was-once-a-man (cf. [[Psalms 90.2
Atheist / Agnostic Nay "Cause-must-have-properties-of-effect" argument: self-aware thinking emotional beings require a personal cause, a Who, not a What
Hebrew Israelite Nay [[Matthew 15
Muslim Nay The Islamic Dilemma + speech-act parity defeats (see §3, §4)

Evidence cited

  • Manuscript / textual evidence, not foregrounded. The interview operates at the doctrinal-deployment level, not the textual-critical level. The Bible-reliability argument is handled via Quranic-internal-contradiction (the Islamic Dilemma) rather than by the standard Dead Sea Scrolls / Codex Sinaiticus / patristic-citation manuscript case. For that case see Quranic Corruption and Preservation and Islamic Dilemma.
  • Quranic surahs cited: Q 3:3-4 (Allah revealed Torah and Gospel); Q 2:41 (confirming what is with you); Q 5:46-48 (Quran came confirming the Torah and Gospel); Q 4:157 (denial of crucifixion, alluded to); Q 57:3 (Allah is the first and the last, the title-parity verse).
  • Biblical verses cited at substance (not exhaustive): Gen 1:26, 18:1ff., 19:24; Ps 33:6, 89:27, 90:2; Isa 48:16; Col 1:15-17; John 1:1, 8:58, 10:30, 17:14, 18:16-17; Matt 15:24, 28:19; Rev 22:13.

Connections to existing codex

Quotes worth keeping (timestamps approximate from the 4473-second transcript)

"For he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation… So is the term firstborn 'first created' or 'preeminent'? In Psalm 89:27, God makes David his firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. David was the youngest son, not the first king. Firstborn means supreme over a group. Then verse 16: 'for by him all things were created.' If Jesus is created, did he create himself?", Austin on Col 1:15, ~5:30

"Why are there two YHWHs in Genesis 19:24? 'And the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven.' Moses writes one YHWH on earth, one YHWH in heaven. Why do we get three persons identified as YHWH in Isaiah 48:16, way before we get to the New Testament?", Austin on OT Trinity, ~34:00

"Allah revealed the Torah and the Gospel. Can the words of God be corrupted? No. Then the Torah and Gospel, God's words, cannot be corrupted. The Bible is preserved by your own book's logic.", Austin's Islamic Dilemma street form, ~38:30

"If Jesus has to say the exact words 'I am God' to be God, then by the same logic, since Jesus never says the exact words 'I am the Messiah' in the Quran, he isn't the Messiah either. But you grant he's the Messiah. So your formula is wrong. Now Revelation 22: Jesus says 'I am the first and the last', same title your Quran 57:3 reserves for Allah.", Austin on the speech-act parity defeater, ~46:00

"Jesus says in John 17:14 that he and his disciples are 'not of the world.' If 'world' means Israel, then Jesus is not Israelite. Absurd. The Hebrew Israelite reading of 'world' collapses across the Johannine corpus.", Austin on Matt 15:24 / John 17:14, ~58:30

"You're appealing to an objective moral standard while denying objective moral standards exist. You're stealing from my worldview to argue against my worldview.", Austin's TAG move closer, ~67:00

"If you really believed you had no inherent worth, let me slap you across your face. Steal your wallet. And then check whether you feel offended. You can't live the worldview you're professing.", Austin's practical-incoherence pivot, ~69:00

"I want to win the soul, not the argument. Jesus never walked up to a Pharisee just to poke him. He taught them, even his enemies. The only Jesus they may see is you.", Austin on methodology, ~52:00

"It's not my job to convert. I plant the seed. God grows it. Another man waters.", Austin's role-clarity teaching, ~74:00

Tensions surfaced

  • None doctrinally significant. Austin's positions are mainline Reformed-evangelical-credal Trinitarian Christianity. The codex does not need to record any internal disagreement.
  • Style / methodology tension, Austin's earlier confrontational style (the Qatar story) versus the codex's existing apologetic-filing pattern ("polemical on position, tender on person", captured in the auto-memory file ). Austin's evolution toward this tonal stance is itself a confirming live testimony of why the stance is correct.
  • The "Christian Smith" identification flag. Lecrae names "Christian Smith" as the public theologian whose clip is played; he immediately flags a brain-fart on the name. Christian Smith the Notre Dame sociologist (Moral, Believing Animals; The Bible Made Impossible) is unlikely to be the actual figure, given the content of the clip. The identification is uncertain and should be verified from the published clip before any entity hub is built.

Open questions / follow-ups

  • Bible references this source cites that don't yet have stubs (ris3n hasn't noted them):
  • Acts 17:28 (Epimenides + Aratus quotations in Paul), referenced under §8 missing-books defeater.
  • 1 Cor 15:33 (Menander quotation), same context.
  • Titus 1:12 (Epimenides "Cretans are always liars"), same context.
  • Joshua 10:13 (Book of Jasher), referenced under §8 missing-books defeater.
  • 2 Samuel 1:18 (Book of Jasher), same.
  • Numbers 21:14 (Book of the Wars of the LORD), same.
  • 1 Chronicles 29:29 (Nathan the Seer, Gad the Seer), same.
  • Genesis 19:24 (Two YHWHs / sulfur and fire), referenced under §2 OT Trinity stack.
  • Entities mentioned but not yet hubbed:
  • Avery Austin (God Logic), created 2026-05-12.
  • Lecrae, created 2026-05-12.
  • Christian Smith (uncertain identification per Lecrae's flagged brain-fart; verify before building), deferred to Hubs Roadmap pending source verification.
  • Jehovah's Witnesses (movement / Watchtower), referenced repeatedly in the founding-story segment; no entity hub exists. The codex has Watchtower references scattered across Trinity, Colossians 1.15, and others. A dedicated entity hub is a Tier-1 build candidate. Flagged for Hubs Roadmap.
  • Concepts mentioned but not yet hubbed:
  • Rev 22:13 + Quran 57:3 Christological Parity Defeater, a focused mini-defeater hub would be useful. Tier-2 candidate. Flagged for Hubs Roadmap.
  • Missing Books Objection Defeater, Tier-2 candidate. Flagged for Hubs Roadmap.
  • God the Mother (World Mission Society Church of God / WMSCOG), Austin's "mall encounter" anecdote references this cult; no hub exists. Flagged for Hubs Roadmap.
  • Things to investigate further:
  • Verify the identification of the "Christian Smith" clip. Likely candidates: Brian McLaren, Pete Enns, Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, or another progressive/post-evangelical public theologian. Lecrae's "brain fart" warning makes this a research item before any hub is built.
  • Austin's announced "cookbook" of apologetic recipes (described as a concept, not yet a book at the recording date), track for future ingest if/when published.
  • Austin's Berkeley clip on "Is Jesus good?" (the 16-member-family-conversion clip), find on his YouTube and consider as a separate transcript-ingest candidate.

See also