August 12, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

The Gospel and the Nature of Justification

Well and good evening, welcome to the dividing line if you're on the East Coast it is evening 7 o 'clock 4 o 'clock out here in Phoenix, Arizona, and I'm very glad to see in Channel our very favorite unicle man Who lives in the Tampa Bay area and I've been calling and calling and calling and couldn't get through it certainly a little bit worried about that but he's there and of course, so we we need to pray for him and his wife and his house and all the folks there as Hurricane Charlie, I Why didn't they name it Clyde?

I don't understand that. You've got Bonnie and you then at least you could have had a joke about it something. But they went and named it Charlie and that sort of sounds silly to me. But anyways, we need to keep our believing friends down there in in prayer down there in Florida.

They live on that thing. It juts out in the ocean near the hurricanes and it sort of happens very regularly. So anyhow that that's being said we have a program lined up for you this evening. I think you're going to find to be very useful if that is you are concerned about the subject of the gospel and if like I thought most Christians believed until the past couple of years, I guess.

If you believe that the gospel defines the faith that apart from the gospel There's no such thing as the as the Christian faith. I'm having to try to get used to dealing with people who who actually believe there's such a thing as Christianity and being a Christian Without the gospel, I don't understand that it doesn't make any sense to me.

But there are those who are functioning on that level and it's very difficult to understand that and of course one of the biggest issues that we face today is the nature of Justification. What is justification.

You've been following my blog, you know that this is an issue that There are many many facets to these days. It's not just what I've been accustomed to in dealing with Roman Catholicism and all of the attacks upon the historic doctrine of Justification from there the biblical doctrine with all the accretions of human traditions and everything else but now we have all sorts of Attacks from every which direction it this isn't the situation any longer where you you have the battle lines Clearly drawn where you have this side over here and then you've got that side over there and then you have the debate.

That's normally how we've done it but the simple fact the matter is is today if you hold to a a rigorous doctrine of justification It's more like you're in a circle and you're surrounded by by people lobbying various and sundry attacks your direction it is truly an amazing thing to observe and One that should be of concern to us.

The New Perspective on Paul and Its Roots

The reasons for it we will we have discussed in the past so today as I announced on the blog I am joined By Phil Johnson. Phil Johnson is of course well known to those of you in the cyber world. As a fellow who had a website and think this isn't fair.

He had a website that looked modern before any of the rest of us did okay? And and I'm not quite sure how he did that but but he did and so you can you can go the Spurgeon archive and you can read all this wonderful stuff from Charles Haddon Spurgeon and and I think Phil had the first meaningful links page.

Not sure if you'd want to admit that because you know that might indicate you know Chronological advancement or whatever that term would be but Phil Johnson is joining us and Phil is going to be with us in November there in Los Angeles and is going to be addressing the issue of the new perspective on Nepal at our national conference and so we have Stolen a few moments of his time.

He's a he's a very busy individual working with grace to you John MacArthur's radio ministry and also always on the lookout for some New thing to eat something that you know would cause me to just simply pass out actually, I think if Phil wanted to really make some money for himself you go on fear factor and The stuff that makes everybody else fall apart wouldn't do anything to you would it Phil I?

Don't know that's true. I've always said I'll eat any food that anybody else will eat, but the stuff they eat on fear factor isn't really food I.

Watched that and I I have to admit the first time I saw it. I did think of you.

You know it'd be surprised how many people tell me that.

What a what a thing to be remembered for you know I? But that isn't really what you're you're really famous for. I mean Obviously, I mean if you were if you were to say do people know you more for your work with Spurgeon or with grace to you.

It's hard to say, but you know. Probably the Spurgeon archive. I would think because that's what most people comment on. When I'm overseas or whatever lots of people come up to me and say I know you from your website right right?

That's an amazing thing that has really changed the way We communicate over just over the past past decade decade and a half and for those of you in the channel by the way before We start talking about new perspectives and for those of you in the channel you are listening to the man who is responsible for my having found out about something called IRC and That's saying a lot because of course I run this channel now and all these people in here some of these folks don't have any Other family, but us so I guess they should thank you Phil.

Yeah, or curse me.

You know I I almost never go on our IRC anymore, but I remember when I first began reading your stuff you were debating on in discussion forums on Fido net. Mm-hmm and.

Nobody today even remembers what Fido net is. Well older people do but yeah. That was the the old BBS is Alpha Omega used to have a BBS that would sit there. And we had a scream in 24 ,000 baud modem that would go do mail runs and all the rest of stuff.

Yeah, things have changed, and you know what I'm still using a lot of the information We had back then so you know just moving into a into the web doesn't exactly change all that stuff. But that does seem to have been a long time ago, and but like I said your your website looked Good before anybody knew what good was supposed to look like so well.

Thank you. That's always that's always been the case now. I know where my interest in NT right and the new perspective or really I think it's proper to probably use the plural new Perspectives because we we always want to differentiate between the different viewpoints.

I know where my interest is coming from that and Where what what caused you to start? Examining this information and and having to deal with the new perspective on Paul. Yeah, I think it goes back years James.

I was in the thick of the lordship controversy as early as the mid 1980s and because of the stance John MacArthur took on the lordship controversy and some of the things Some of the debates I got in with people here and there it forced me to Really be be very careful to defend sola fide at the same time.

We're attacking antinomianism and I just began to study say around 85 86 and Fell in love with that doctrine realized that is the heart of the gospel and that when I begin to hear people saying that's not the heart of the gospel it of course pricks up my antenna and I Wanted to read and refute some of their arguments.

Well when you first I mean The the current how would I say the current expression of what we might call new perspectivism? Really owes at least the inroads that's making into into conservative circles.

It really owes its its impetus to to NT right? But obviously it didn't start with him and in fact there were there were a lot of folks back behind that. I guess we shouldn't assume everybody listening is is really familiar with with the new perspective.

How would you? Want to try to summarize the the major components of what is generally called new perspectivism today?

Well new perspectivism it takes its name. Actually the phrase was coined I think first of all by a James GD Dunn DG Dunn who is done as one of the leaders of the new perspective and. It's really a name for there's really not one new perspective on Paul.

But a bunch of new perspectives on how to interpret the Apostle Paul. And there are four or five things that most who advocate this position hold in common. The probably the starting point the first thing to take note of is that regarding?

First century Judaism. They claim that the Judaism of Paul's what we typically think it was it wasn't a religion of works and self-righteousness and human merit and. So they say we've misunderstood Paul because we've really misunderstood What he was arguing against right?

You know and Well now and just for people listening what you'll hear them referring to is what they call Second Temple Judaism rattany Attic Judaism, but Second Temple Judaism, and what it's about that is really fundamental to to all of the new perspective Writings and all the all the viewpoints that are out there, and so when you hear someone starting to talk about that That's what they're referring to.

So the first thing you'd say would be well this view that knew that Second Temple Judaism was was a religion more of grace than it was of Works and merits is in essence what they're saying, okay?

That's right there. They're claiming on the basis of to have uncovered the fact that Second Temple Judaism was not really legalistic after all. And for centuries they say we Christians have misunderstood and particularly evangelicals and Protestants have misunderstood what the Apostle Paul was saying Misunderstood what the Pharisees taught and And Therefore sort of misconstrued all of Paul's polemics in Romans and Galatians regarding justification in particular.

Now it should be noted especially for folks who are just starting to try to understand this these writers in General the vast majority of them would not come from our background with a strong commitment to Inerrancy and the the consistency of scripture and things like that they can develop these theories without reference to the entire canon of scripture for example.

Or what Matthew says about the Jews or something like that. Isn't that an important thing to keep in mind. Exactly in fact?

I would say that's one of the problems with the view it attempts to interpret the Apostle Paul in Isolation and to deal with the doctrine of justification from a Pauline perspective. Leaving out what the totality of scripture has to say about just if it's being addressed by the doctrine of justification if you see it Only through very narrow eyes.

And in fact some of these original guys that Began to write on the new perspective of Paul don't even really accept the Pauline authorship of all the Pauline epistles. Exactly. So they've narrowed it even further and they really are sort of making Paul.

In my view this is an attempt to make remake the Apostle Paul in a Kind of modern politically corrupt stir. Right in fact. It's interesting that this really has its roots I think in prology. Yes, and it's a reaction against anti-semitism and.

Whatever you know a lot of folks again in our churches are Somewhat taken aback when they hear someone say something like what you just said like well wait a minute. How can how can what. Paul? Believed and taught about justification.

How can that be impacted by World War two? But in point of fact What we're talking about here are theological theories that that have deep roots in in Europe and There was a tremendous backlash at that exactly time and we need to recognize people are deeply influenced by their circumstances and there was there and continues to be a tremendous Push to avoid anything that could be construed as quote-unquote Anti-semitism anything that smacks of that and let's face it you read some sections in second Thessalonians or Matthew chapter 23 and These are we saw during the passion film uproar exactly how people viewed these things as as being anti-semitic and and theologians amazingly enough are impacted by.

By issues like that, that's right and one of the things Many of the new perspective writers are suggesting is that Paul's conflict was not a conflict even a theological harmony and diversity in the church in the covenant community and so the way they would portray it is that the only Significant complaint and even with the Judaizers was can come up with a really patient of the New Testament if you put these glasses on.

And that's exactly what they're what they're doing and when people again in the church hear this they They often wonder how could someone come up with this? But when you don't have to deal with the entire canon, you can be selective and what sources that you're drawing from you're influenced by.

This this push to be careful not to be appear to be in any way anti-semitic or anything along those lines. And then you start hearing them talking about hey, look, you know really justification and I think would this be one of your five marks?

Justification is not a soteriological issue. Justification is an ecclesiology issue. It's and it's a matter of who is in the covenant community and who is not in the covenant community. That's exactly right.

They have redefined the vocabulary of justification the categories of justification the goal and the means of Justification. They've taken it out of the realm of the soteriology and put it into the realm of and as a result though.

They still and especially with those who would view themselves. I mean Jim Dunn would view himself as an evangelical NT Wright views himself as an evangelical. They still use the terminology that we would be accustomed to and yet there is such a radical Reorganization of the context that it can become very confusing for someone who encounters this material especially if it's given to them and in book form by a pastor or something along those lines and It can it can it is in fact causing a tremendous problem Within within the church today.

That's right now. I Wanted to play a clip for you. And so I want just before you forget it and and I'm we were more than happy to take phone calls, too as well at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one I Mentioned to you earlier that I had linked on my blog to a a Discussion that took place about an hour long Mark Dever and Washington had J. Ligon Duncan on and They were discussing the new perspective on on Paul in a very erudite way.

I loved it when when Mark asked Dr. Duncan to go to the text of scripture and said now up those of you in listening audience, please take your Greek texts Or your your committee translated translations and your Hebrew text and I'm just like, oh, yeah.

And then later take your septuagint now and it's like yeah, sure. Okay interesting audience they have listening and anyway they were discussing the fact that The the individuals like James Dunn and see right EP Sanders, these are specialists in certain fields and I I don't know about you when I first started reading NT right one of the things that bothered me was when he would say the Reformers said this the Reformers viewed Roman Catholicism as Nothing but the modern version of Pelagian ism and I remember when I first started seeing this repeated in rights writings I'm sitting here going man if I miss something and You know, I thought I knew something about the writing the Reformers.

This guy is brilliant and I didn't get that feeling and Thankfully, I've started reading enough other folks. They all say the same thing in in the sense that You know, hey the the they're not quite right about this, but one of the things that was said Fascinating in that interview was some information about the fact that the individuals who are most responsible For the new perspective on Paul don't really understand the the Roman Catholic Context and so I'm hoping you can hear this.

We're gonna turn up the computer here. And if you could hear the music beforehand, you should be able to hear this just fine Listen to a little bit of this conversation and we'll we'll pick it up on the other side.

Okay, I remember a one-time hearing.

Hearing Tom Wright lectures back in 94 or 3 in England and Asking him afterwards when he was saying that Luther had gotten Romans wrong. And I asked him to which is about how he'd gotten Romans wrong and and I asked him how he understood justification.

And I said look have you ever read the the decrees of the sixth session of the Council of Trent? And he said at that point he hadn't. But I said, well, I think you did. You would find some understanding justification very similar to what you've laid out here tonight.

Well, let me corroborate that guy waters of another colleague of ours. Did you graduate. Studied with EP Sanders and Richard Hayes at Duke? Worked in early Judaism and New Testament Christianity. Did.

Was at a seminar with with Ed Sanders and For his seminar topic he chose To do a survey of 20th century Roman Catholic New Testament scholarship on Paul the law and justification. He handed in the Sanders.

Sanders said this is fascinating. I've never read any of this material before but if I had I would have given them credit for my thesis.

Now I Don't know about you, but when I hear someone saying if I had read modern Roman Catholic theologians New Testament theologians and Saying if I had read them, I would have to give them credit for my thesis That sort of concerns me just a little bit.

How about you? Well, it would concern me as well.

But I mean, you know You can see the linkage between what Catholics are saying what the new Perspectivists are saying and it's been pointed out to the many times and they deny that there's any linkage.

But it seems obvious to me. I'm surprised that they would be surprised at it, you know, it's it's interesting. I go even further I think in their portrayals of Luther and the Reformers. There's a lot of bluffing and caricature that they depend on.

There's a great article on the web Written by Carl true submitted this I think in about the year 2000 to the Kendall Fellowship Analyzing how the new perspective handles Luther. And the title of the article is a man more sinned against than sinning question mark and and it's subtitled some casual observations of a mere historian and He interacts with how right and some of the other new perspectivists particularly Sanders and done.

Just sort of offhandedly. Throw out comments about what Luther said and what Luther believed. And he noted that I Think it was done. He said was quoting from yes, actually Roland Bainton's role of Bainton's book.

Mm-hmm and not not ever from Luther himself. No. Yeah. By the way, just I've never had one of my guests g-lined out of the network while he was on the air with me. But I I just had them take care of that for you.

So yeah, what happened if you're if you were feeling I'd love there I have no idea. I just did a little multitasking there popped into the channels Channel and said excuse me, but you just g-lined my guest.

Oh, sorry, and I guess they didn't like your your dash dash whatever it was thing You had going on there. So those of you who do know anything about IRC have no idea we're talking about but don't worry about it.

It does not impact the new perspective. And it was shape or form eight seven seven seven five three three three four one before we take our phone calls. I think it's important that people understand that We're not My concern about this subject is is not Because I'm I'm and this is how it's normally represented by proponents of new perspectivism.

It's not because I'm a traditionalist. It's not because I Do not believe in solo scriptura. It is not because I just Have an irrational fear of Rome or or something like that. These are the things that are normally said.

Instead people need to understand that there are certain aspects the doctrine of justification that because of these other issues because of this view of Second Temple Judaism and because of the view of Justification that is that comes out of that.

There are certain aspects. They're simply denied. What specifically about the doctrine of justification? Do you see for example an NT right? That needs to be there that That NT right no longer has and hence makes it worthwhile for us to be addressing this issue.

Well, the big one for right would be. And that meaning when you talk about imputation.

Realizing not necessarily everyone listening is is Unfortunately completely up on the subject of justification. Why would he have a problem with the idea of? Christ righteousness being Imputed to us where what worse worse he getting from that.

Well, I mean, I don't want to I don't want to try to figure form number one because he's starting by redefining Justification so that it's not so much about individual salvation or individual forgiveness of sins or whatever.

It's a corporate issue. It's an ecclesiological issue. Not what. Not at all what we normally think of in justification. Secondly, he says that he just doesn't find anywhere in Scripture Where the doctrine of imputation is taught.

In his book what st. Paul really he quotes I think from 1st Corinthians where it says Christ is made unto us righteousness and all and he says This is the only verse in Scripture. He can find that even implies the imputation of Christ's righteousness, right?

And he says but if you take it from that verse Then you'd have to say that Christ's wisdom and knowledge and all that are imputed to us as well, right? Exactly and any of these goes from there, but every time he ever brings up the notion of imputation. It's to argue against it, right?

And in fact it is obvious to me anyway that it is central to his thesis because if you if you allow for the imputation of the righteous of Christ and justification has to be extremely Soteriological and it diminishes his own his own theory as to the fact that justification is is more an issue in regards to covenant membership than it is anything else and so Right is denying that for his particular reasons.

There are other people have different reasons. The whole issue of our standing before God really and in fact, I liked I liked what Jay Ligon Duncan said. He I forget who he was quoting. But he said it has been well said that one of the greatest and most pernicious errors in reading the New Testament is to take Jesus words when he said my kingdom is not of this world and To turn his words into saying my kingdom is of this world.

And he was saying that in the context of rights Eschatology being realized now and there being very little emphasis in his theology of anything past that the the point of the final justification of God things like that sin is diminished of many people have said that the Whole issue of sin being dead in sin things like that is very much diminished.

Yeah, I would agree with that criticism of right? I don't I don't think he's suggesting that he doesn't really believe in the idea of heaven. But he he I mean he rarely mentions it other than to say that the gospel is not about you know Who's going to heaven and and he constantly talks about the importance of this life so much that his writings were misunderstood.

And now you're writing in the Guardian last year wrote an article That he objected to because she I think it was Karen Armstrong. Yes. Where she? Basically, I think summed up his view and she was kind of lumping him in with all the major religions saying that this world matters more than the next and Fact that he believes in heaven.

I think it's interesting that even Secular newspaper writers reading his material I get the same impression that some of his critics do that He doesn't place us on the next world.

It does seem strange to me given the fact that he's obviously a brilliant man, and he's all obviously an excellent writer. He communicates for a while. I think one of the reasons that like what st. Paul really said and books like that are having such inroads is Let's face it a lot of the books written on theology today from what we would call the the older school.

Well, they're just not passionate. They're they're there. They're lacking in in in the passion and the excitement that he can muster for his own theories and his own perspectives and and so it is always Concerned me or befuddled me just a little bit how someone who is as intelligent as as NC Wright is could.

Then sit there and say, you know, I don't know why everyone's so confused. I don't know why everyone's so upset. He does seem at times to speak out of both sides of his mouth. I mean you can it's pretty hard to nail him down in a hard fast way outside of a certain number of things because Once you start getting into application sometimes he seems to say this sometimes he seems to say that.

Well, yeah, no kidding it almost seems to be a part of the entire theological system, but then they're defenders Nt rights defenders, especially many of them just seemed to almost put him on such a pedestal of almost infallibility.

That's it's very sad to observe. But but so often what they what they end up doing is if you try to interact with him. Then they'll say oh well, but you haven't read this over there or you haven't read that over there.

He says this over here. He says that over there. He's talking so much anymore that you can always find some way of Saying that's not what he meant. You're ignorant again, and and he's right and and it makes it very very difficult.

Audience Questions and Further Clarifications

Yeah, that's right. That's absolutely right. Yeah. Well, let's start taking some of our phone calls and since Phil's with us Ye of great power on the other side of the wall. Did you want to take a break first or did you want to go ahead with our phone calls?

Or what would you we do things live on the air here? I'm I'm I'm I'm a real professional broadcast type guy. In fact, where's a piece of paper here? Okay. There we go. Now. I feel like a real professional broadcast guy.

I'm gonna keep on going good. I have been given the the go ahead to go ahead and talk with Jeff in South Jersey Jeff and South there are Christians in South Jersey and Jeff is one of them and.

Then you are one of them. I would get a cross-country trip and I was actually in Arizona.

Is that where you did? So you just brought your Christianity back with you to Jersey. Is that what you do? I picked it up on the way.

California. I just stopped on the way.

There's not much of it over there except for Southern California where you got you got you got Phil down there.

So why we're in morning tonight for our governor? Yes, I heard about that. Let's not get into that. That'll ruin the entire program. So Okay, I'll try to be coherent. Because it's I find the new perspective to be incredibly hard to.

You know, you think you haven't figured out and then people say no. No, no, that's not what we're saying. So I'm just what I gather they're saying is that Righteousness is like a covenantal badge.

Or something along those lines. Yeah, it's no wonder you have difficulty understanding because. It depends on which new perspective guy you would talk to to NT right. He would say righteous that he defines righteousness as covenant membership and.

What I don't understand about that view would be That kind of seems to go against the whole flow of Romans where it starts off with judgment and sin and Penalty and then flows into justification. It doesn't seem like covenant membership kind of makes sense as the main primary definition there.

Yeah, no, I might. I agree with you. I and in fact that that would be one of my Criticisms against rights interpretation of Romans. It doesn't seem to do justice to the logical flow of what Paul is saying.

He goes so far even as to paraphrase when he gets to Philippians Philippians 3 9 where Paul says, you know There's great hope was to have a righteousness that was not his own but the righteousness of God which is by faith in.

In right paraphrase of that he substitutes the word covenant membership or the word righteousness, right?

Now what I think that might be confusing is that I Think why Paul was concerned with the Judaizing heresy was that they're basically saying, you know unless you do all these things you can't be in the covenant.

And It's not just being in the covenant. Being in the covenant meant if you're in the covenant, you're also justified.

I think they're confusing that well, he keeps keep one thing in mind Jeff the the central thing that right establishes before he starts going into those texts is that he believes that the term Righteousness the the dikaya Sunni dikaya Oh dikaya us the the Greek terms that are being used by Paul there that Righteousness in the New Testament is almost always God's Covenant faithfulness it has almost nothing to do with us individually it is instead the demonstration of God's faithfulness the covenant that he made with Abraham and everything is Based upon that once you get hold of that for right?

Then you can start making sense out of most of what he's saying and so for example when you get into the His commentary on Romans that was just published recently in the anchor Bible series. You will see that that that becomes the overarching concern.

And so when he goes in Romans and he's dealing with the issue of righteousness there we are so attuned to hearing that as Righteousness as in our right relationship with God that we we have a hard time hearing what he's saying.

And that is that this is a demonstration of God's righteousness. That is God said he was gonna bless the world. By sending someone through Abraham's seed He made that covenant with Abraham. He's fulfilled that covenant in Jesus Christ to the resurrection of Jesus Christ his lordship is demonstrated over the entirety of the world and Therefore he has demonstrated his righteousness, and that's what that's the first Fundamental thing that righteousness is and then only by extension.

The do you then get the idea that well by faith? I am righteous in the sense that I am in the covenant community now. It raises all sorts of issues as how you stay in the covenant community. He is very he's very strongly emphasizes that it's it's a it's a future thing it's eschatological the final decree of Justification and even then that is the demonstration of God's righteousness.

And so it's important to keep that aspect of it in mind because without that it can become very confusing well when?

When the primary definitions of words are in question and obviously words can have multiple definitions. That's why I kind of pointed to the context of Romans the sweeping thing and try to say you know Does covenant membership make sense as a primary definition here, which I think it's.

No it doesn't but I mean when the price speaking as a lay person who may you know doesn't have extensive Greek and Hebrew training like. When someone challenges the primary definition of word What do you do?

You know how do you kind of sort that out?

Phil you want to take that or shine you go ahead well see that the problem is I Don't know that there's been a whole lot of serious interaction going on as far as both sides being in the same room at the Same time there are a lot of questions I'd like to ask NC right, but I don't see that those you know I consider myself a nobody so who's gonna listen to me.

Anyways, so I mean I would like to ask a number of questions as I'm reading his stuff. But I don't have that opportunity for example I have very openly criticized his interpretation of 2nd Corinthians 521.

I think it's I think it is very very very easy to Demonstrate that the forcing of what I have called a monochromatic view of Justification of what righteousness is on to that passage results in in in an interpretation that absolutely positively makes No sense.

I know where he's going with it. I know what he's saying I I just can't believe anyone can defend that and When you get into dealing with those particular issues, how do you answer the question well you take that theoretical meaning of the word and First of all you examine how he came up with it and for example.

How does right come up with it? He says well righteous Justification is forensic. It is the Hebrew law court. You've got the judge. You've got two people before him and the judge says you are right in regards to me.

That's partially correct. That's certainly a Deuteronomy 25 type idea. But the problem is Paul goes beyond that because in his law court there is a intercessor. There is a mediator named Jesus Christ, and that's where his idea I think comes short of the fullness of the New Testament revelation about what justification is and then you take his redefinition of those words or his proposed understanding those words and you put them into the text and you put them into Romans 4 and you put them into Galatians and and Sometimes they'll fit and but then there are other times when they will not and if they don't fit.

And you have to use the bigger theological hammer to get it to fit then you've got a clear indication that.

Someone's basically gone off gone off deep end. That's what I thought. I have one final note. I let me let me. Can I add to that? There's a James White highway in Knoxville, Tennessee. Oh my final great.

Thanks.

Go ahead Phil. What'd you want to add that. Just let me add to your answer to it say?

I think color was exactly right that the definitions are obviously foundational. And that's where a lot of the dialogue and discussion and debate needs to take place. All right. Well, thank you gentlemen.

Okay, thank you very much Jeff. And that is where it needs to take place. Unfortunately, that's not in my experience where it is Taking place. It seems to be Engendering more just sniping and things like that than actually people dealing with it.