Dallas Trip and Debate Report, Plus Calls

Other than a passage that is dealing with the subject of predestination election. But if you elect... Alrighty, welcome to the Divine Line, my name's James White, it is a Thursday afternoon, and I am looking at the advertisement we have up.

Once again, thankful to Hasim, son of Ramallah, king of graphics. May 23rd, Saturday, 4 .30pm is time, a little bit early in the evening for you California folks, but it is a Saturday, so... Anyway, at 24 .30, Yellow Brick Road, I didn't name the street, Yellow Brick Road, Walnut, California.

I don't know if that's church, I honestly have no idea where this is, really don't know. I know it's 20430 Yellow Brick Road, in Walnut, California, Jesus, prophet and or God. A debate and dialogue between myself and Sheikh Mustafa Umar, and yesterday I had the opportunity of listening.

Haven't heard back from Sheikh Umar, I wrote to him, and there is a phone number, maybe I'll try that, it's getting a little late, I wanted to send him some books. Seems to be just a few years older than my son, actually.

I think I heard him say he was 32, my son's 29, so yeah, pretty close there. But I enjoyed listening to what I did. What I was gonna do, I've been playing around with stuff for the program today, as far as some topics.

We're gonna open the phones, by the way. When nothing works, you open the phones, 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341. I forgot to tweet that we are at it here, so let me do that. The DL is live, call in now, and people tweet back, what number should I do?

But anyway, one of the things I listened to, I listened to a presentation that the Sheikh made at Cal Poly on the Muslim view of Jesus. That's pretty relevant. But I also found on YouTube, and you can find this yourself, it's real easy, just look up Mustafa Omar, and I think it's on the first page.

He did a debate with Dan Majus. Now that name, it just kept, I kept going, Dan Majus, Dan Majus. Heard that name somewhere before, I didn't expect it really in that context. And it turns out that Dan Majus, the guy that went to, not sure if he graduated from, but went to the Master's College or Seminary, I don't remember which one it was.

I found one email from like four years ago where I was asking Phil Johnson, who is this.

Guy?

Because I had heard him doing a debate against the Trinity from a Unitarian perspective, but the guy's an atheist. In fact, the guy is a full-blown vegan, communist, I mean, he is so far left, if he was a plain vegan, he'd only have two left wings.

I mean, hey, way out there. And if you think I've looked odd in a debate or two with a bow tie, you ought to see what this guy wore to a debate with a Muslim sheikh. Anyway, in fact, at one point, Sheikh Omar said, my hat looks better than yours.

He was talking about his kufi. And I have to agree, it most definitely did. Anyways, what was fascinating to me is, well, first of all, you say, why would you be listening to a debate like that if you're going to be having a debate on Jesus?

Well, because I want to know how the person I'm going to be dialing, how they think, what's their worldview? It helps a whole lot to know what they think about stuff over there and over there. It gives me a little bit more of a sense.

I'm really looking forward to this. I'm hoping maybe, possibly, if the debate doesn't go too long, maybe we can grab a bite after it's over with or something like that. I don't fly back to early in the morning, so who knows?

That would be great. But I'd like to get to know him. I'd like to, I'm already praying for him. And I would encourage you all to pray for the debate and to pray for Mustafa Omar. Now, what do you pray for?

Well, obviously, our greatest desire is that Christ would reveal himself in all of his glory, in his gospel, to everyone. And that's what we want to have happen. But I realize that's frequently a process and there's a lot of things to work through.

So we want to pray that the debate maybe will just be the first of many that we can do. Obviously, fundamentally, that he would come to know what we know about who Jesus Christ.

Is.

The Muslim View of Jesus and the Limits of Presuppositional Apologetics

So I was listening to this debate. It was fascinating. It's fascinating because it's not a Christian-Muslim debate. And so that's really not there. And it was fascinating to,. A, listen to how Muslims deal with atheists.

This has been interesting. We've had some discussions about this in the program before. We've talked a little bit about what's called the fitrah and the idea of the mitakh, this covenant that was taken between Allah and all the offspring of Adam and that the leftovers of that covenant is that everyone is born upon the fitrah, that they have this sense of the fact that they had covenanted to be, covenanted with Allah, that he was their Lord.

We allegedly confess that Allah was our Lord before we were ever born. And I've talked about the parallels between that and Paul's discussion of the Imago Dei, the image of God in Romans 1 and suppression of the knowledge of God, things like that.

It's quite interesting to hear that. But still, I've not seen the development, you could not see the development of a truly parallel apologetic to what we've developed within presuppositional apologetics because you have a Unitarian God.

And that's fascinating to me. Sadly, the vast majority of folks, even those who would call themselves presuppositionalists, have not read Van Til closely enough to recognize how Trinitarian presuppositionalism is and the necessity of the Trinity to a presuppositional approach.

And since Islam does not have the Trinity, has a strictly Unitarian perspective of God, even though they have a transcendent God, a creator God who's made all things, because you don't have the Trinity, because you don't have incarnation, because you don't have imminence in entering into.

And you've got both transcendence as well as the incarnation. You put the two of them together, since they don't have that, there's really no way to develop any meaningful presuppositional apologetic that doesn't become just a tiny circle of believe because the Quran says so, that's it.

There's no transcendental foundation or transcendental argument or anything like that. And so the vast majority of Muslims just really default back to a standard evidentialist apologetic that really does not work very well at all.

But it was also fascinating to listen to Dan Majus. I mean, yeah, lay aside the really weird, I mean, you I really I should have queued up the the sound file with with the Fraser Crane statement, because I thought of it so many times I was climbing South Mountain, descending South Mountain, there are so many times that I just wanted to go, what color is the sky in your world?

It's just, oh, the vast difference between recognizing the sinfulness of man and living in the leftist utopia where mankind is just this wonderful, good, awesome person. If you if you just if you just give everybody universal health care and and stop eating animals, we'd all just love each other.

And you just want to go, oh, have you looked at history? What color is the sky in your world?

Wow.

It's it's amazing. It really, really is amazing. But still, the arguments. Totally. Well, you know, he's arguing against the Muslims, so I guess makes sense. But they were just completely irrelevant to any meaningful theistic presentation.

He had a whole section. I was starting to queue it up, and it just would have taken too long to play all of it. But he had this whole section about how all the theistic proofs are so complicated that God must only be seeking to have the most intelligent philosophers follow him.

And and I'm sitting back on that's a criticism I've made of a lot of of a lot of Thomistic apologetics and things like that. But it really was very, very interesting. And by the way, this whole thing is all megapixelated in here and looks looks really goofy.

It's fascinating to listen to two perspectives that you you interact, you've interacted with both of them, but to hear them, thank you, to hear them interacting really sheds some light on things that that wouldn't otherwise wouldn't otherwise happen.

So you might want you just might want to grab it and listen to it. It's on YouTube. If you just put in Mustafa Omar, Dan Majes, it'll it'll come up. And it was it was it was quite interesting. No two ways about it.

Anyway, someone on on Twitter sort of threw me off there. Not near a phone, but I asked you before, how is a printed copy of the Quran not shirk? It's a created thing associated. I'm not sure I understand that.

Because it's not being associated with God as the object of worship, I would guess. And no printed Quran, even the Arabic Quran is actually the Quran, which is on the the tablet in heaven. And no translation of the Quran is a real Quran anyways, I suppose.

But anyways, that was a question that was asked. I'm not really sure where it's coming from. I'm eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one. We do actually have one call and open for your participation as well.

Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one. Yesterday, Layton Flowers posted the video of a part a partial video. Well, it's the whole debate. It's just not all the cameras that were there.

As I explained on Facebook, eventually, what we will do is we will hopefully gather together all of these sources and we will put together the, shall we call it the director's cut? The collector's edition, whatever.

We'll put together a real nice, super nice version of this thing because there were lots of cameras there. But this is just from one or two and sort of jumped the gun a little bit. But hey, it's out there no matter what.

And so I wasn't going to play this, but I want to give some time for people to line up on the phones at eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one. I'm sorry? At what?

There's three?

I have the screen. I see it. I see one call.

Like I said, I have the shot lined up finally.

Oh, well, that's I can't put it up yet.

But you know, you want to play? I can play it.

Just while I'll be playing it here in a second. I wanted to find a certain part and I didn't have time to. Unfortunately, I want to find a certain part where I asked Professor Flowers a question. And the question was, where does Romans nine talk about this noble cause?

Because if you if you listen to Professor Flowers very long on this particular subject, you will you will overdose on the phrase noble cause. If you listen to just the first just the first of his. Webcasts, and I guess there have been many since the debate to this first is webcasts on Romans nine.

Eddie McKee and I were driving up to Prescott. I said, OK, we're going to do. I wound it back. I said, OK, we're going to count how many times he talks about the noble cause, noble or noble cause, you know, as long as it's synonym.

And we pretty much lost count, 24. And it was like a half hour program. It's almost one a minute. The noble cause, the noble cause, the noble cause. And so I wanted to play the section where I asked him, where where do you get the noble cause from Romans nine?

I mean, it is the interpretational issue for you. Um, it is the the lens that you you indicate must be used. So where does it come from in Romans nine? And I was I was amazed. Because he referred us back to the potter.

And right there to the phrase one vessel for honorable or noble use. I didn't have time to pursue it, unfortunately. But you have to have had this all the way back from the start to interpret in the way that he does.

And so the potter has a right over the clay to make the same lump, one vessel for the noble cause and another for common use. And the parallel. To that in verses 22 and 23 becomes the ones. Who are for common use.

Receive his wrath. He makes his power known in their destruction. But the honorable use is riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which you paired beforehand for glory, which isn't salvation. It's being used as a instrument of proclaiming salvation or something like that.

But I didn't get to find that particular section. So I did find one section. I just wanted to play it if we've got if we're ready to ready to play this. This is part of the cross examination. And a lot of people, just be perfectly honest with you, have said we didn't really understand what he was saying.

We didn't understand where he was going, didn't understand his answers. And maybe that's why he's cranking out all sorts of stuff to help understand that after the debate's over. But here's I thought this was sort of representative.

Let's let's take a look at a little bit of the cross sects here. You said in your presentation that, this was your words, that God has elected or that he has chosen that people be saved by believing that word.

Do you believe that God chooses who will believe or is God's choice that that is just that salvation will be by faith?

The second.

So God doesn't choose who will believe. The object of his choosing is the method, not the individual.

Now, the individual still chosen because the individual who believes, just like the prodigal, when the prodigal son comes home, the father chooses to show him mercy. The father doesn't owe him that. That's a monergistic work of the father.

The father could cast him out or punish him or stone him, even in that day for what he did. It's a monergistic work of the father to decide to take that son back in. So it's a very personal relationship between those two people.

When he's coming home, he chooses to show him mercy. So that's one of the reasons I think our view is a much more personal view of election than your view, because your view has God choosing people without any regard to their personhood or their knowledge of anything good or bad to do.

Whereas my view, he knows exactly what they did. They're coming out of their pigsty. He knows exactly who they are, and he's choosing to show them mercy in the midst of their shame and filth.

Okay, now, I think most people understood the question I was asking. And I don't know why there is this demand to complicate things and to focus upon things other than what the real issues are between monergists and synergists.

Because if you listen to my question, he just affirmed that what God chose to do was to save people who believe in him. He didn't choose the people. So he's choosing a method of salvation, which is by faith.

He's not choosing the individuals. So the object of election is a method, not a person. And so, evidently, the argument is, yes, but once they humble themselves and come back, then there's this personal relationship.

That's a completely different issue. That's way over there somewhere. Has nothing to do with monergism or synergism or anything like that. And it just seems like, especially some of these modern Southern Baptists, they've just decided that the categories of the discussion that were worked out from the Reformation onward that allow for meaningful communication are just, we don't care about that.

We overthrow all that and we're just going to redefine all the terms. That's what Norman Geisler did. And so we spend half our time just getting back to what previous generations had already gotten to.

It really ends up wasting a whole lot of time in the process. And I'll be perfectly honest with you, I find it a great deal of hubris in modern folks who can knowingly or out of ignorance, one of the two, throw out all the categories that have already been agreed upon in this debate.

Maybe thinking that they've seen something no one else has ever seen. We get that all the time. Obviously, you all haven't seen what I've seen. You probably don't even bother giving it to me, but I know at the church, please don't bother contacting me at the church, by the way.

I do not answer phone calls that are given to the church. I do not answer letters that are sent to the church. We've got three people online right now. I mean, I'm a whole lot more accessible than most people are.

Don't bother the folks there at the church, that stuff, please. Thank you, by the way. Just a little thing I'll mention in passing. Anyway, but I get stuff at the church all the time. Long typewritten, sometimes on a typewriter, letters from folks that, you know, they just really think they've come up with something that no one has ever, ever thought of before.

And normally, it is as heretical, ahistorical, unbiblical as can possibly be. But boy, they've got to make sure everybody hears about it. And you get that call probably about once a day from people. I've got to talk to James White.

I have discovered that I've found the way through the Bible. It's going to, once everyone hears this, all disagreements are going to be done away with. And, you know, it's just like, okay. So anyways, that's sort of what's going on here is you have this redefining of things.

And ours is more personal than yours. Except what's elected is not a person. Which, it's a group. It's a method. He's elected to save those who humble themselves and believe. You don't see the difference?

It's very, very different, actually. But he's choosing to do so because they have humbled themselves.

Well, yeah, I would say yes. Yeah, the Bible does say, humble yourself and you will be exalted.

So they have the ability to do that.

I think there's a lot of passages in Scripture which teach that very clearly.

And he knows that the point is, and I as a pastor of Scripture have absolutely, positively nothing to do with a dead sinner's capacity or ability to do anything. And he later on in the debate, he obviously had a whole page of these.

He just wanted to read them, just had to get to them. But there you had it. If you will humble yourself, then that is what allows God to save you. But you have to do that. So it's the method that God has elected, not the persons.

It's not a personal knowledge of an individual. And a choice to save that individual, especially if that individual is not worthy of being saved. But what? You're holding your head and now I have no idea.

Twitter.

Oh, unbelievable. No, Leighton, I really wouldn't. You're cranking stuff out. Keep on cranking, man. I've got other things to do. Let's just finish up this section and get to Jarrett as a first caller.

Humility or humbling yourself is a part of our responsibility as children of God. For example...

As children of God?

Well, oh, okay. Well, as people. I misspoke there.

Did you catch that? You see why I said that? Because the vast difference between children of God and what we're supposed to do, and what our abilities are as regenerate individuals and unregenerate individuals.

It's pretty obvious.

It's 410. Humble yourself before the Lord and he will lift you up. 2 Kings 22 19 is a great passage because it says, because your heart was responsive and because you humbled yourself before the Lord, when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become cursed and laid waste.

And because you...

Okay, so evidently man has the capacity to do this without the Spirit of God. Or is this some kind of prevenient grace? Who knows? Who knows? But I'm trying to get to the central issues and we didn't really get all that close.

And wept in my presence. I have also heard you declares the Lord.

Okay, Professor Flowers, do you believe that the... Okay, now I switched because... See, the way I debate is if someone's listening carefully, they already just heard the classic monergism-synergism issue.

He's stated it. He doesn't want to have to state it, but I've established that.

Move on.

And this is one of the more important questions. I will repeat again. The methodology of interpretation and hermeneutics used by Professor Flowers is not the methodology that has been used in the history of the Church to establish the Trinity, the deity of Christ, resurrection, atonement, justification by faith, or anything else.

It is not. It is idiosyncratic. It is different. And I made the argument from the start. If you have to use a different methodology of theology, hermeneutics, exegesis on this subject than you use in everything else, that's an indication that there is tradition involved, that you're not actually allowing the Word of God to address these things.

That's what I said. So, the presentation that we just listened to here models for us the kind of interpretation and exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, justification by grace through faith, the necessity of the atonement.

Do you believe that this kind of exegesis, which you just gave us, is the same kind of exegesis that you would use to demonstrate those truths from Scripture?

I would think that the book that I'm writing, the blog that I've written, the podcast, I go into a lot more deeper exegesis. This is a 20-minute presentation for the beginning of a debate.

Irrelevant. 100 ,000 irrelevant. Just dodge the question. Notice, you know, advertising a Kindle book and, you know, my webcast, all that. So, what I asked, I asked, is this method of exegesis the same method that we would use elsewhere?

Now, unless he's saying, well, I couldn't, I'm sorry, I couldn't open the Bible and defend any of the cardinal doctrines of Christian faith in 20 minutes, if that's what he's saying, wow, what can I say?

After watching this, I'm getting to the point with him where I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't the way he processes everything. And I would really fear what would happen if we witnessed him going back and forth with a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness or a Roman Catholic as to what he would cobble together as an apologetic.

It's so many different things.

It would have a lot of stories in it.

That, well, the repeated desire to shoehorn the prodigal son into the heart of Romans 9 and make that the a priori lens by which it's interpreted, it blew my mind.

Yeah, well, you know, my point, my point that evening, and it stands, it stands this day, I'm done with that, go ahead and pull that down. It stands this day, it was not the same methodology. And that establishes my thesis from the start.

So cross-sex is good. Cross-sex is always good. The videos are up. Well, even Red Grace put up something today, but it had some problems with YouTube or something, I forget what it was. I jokingly said it was the dog chewing on the cable.

But anyway, there'll be more stuff appearing. And so you can listen and watch to your heart's content. Even my daughter tweeted that she was watching. And so there, so there you go. Let's, let's get to the, get the phone calls and the first ones on the exact same topic.

Well, pretty close. That's why I wanted to get to it. Let's talk to Jared. Hi, Jared.

Hi, Dr. White. Thanks for taking my call.

Hey, is it humid down there?

Oh, man, it's incredible. You can't even imagine.

That's a silly question to ask anyone in New Orleans, isn't it?

Yeah, I mean, anyway, try and get used to it. I've been listening to your teaching about monergism and synergism, and I just have about means, how God ordains the means of self-salvation through the preaching of his word.

They call on him in whom they have not believed. How should they believe in him in whom, and how should I hear without a preacher? And the means, and I believe that you agree with that, that people need to hear the word of God preached to them.

And that's part of.

Yes, that's, that's certainly classical reformed theology always has been. That God ordains the ends as well as the means that the very purpose that we, the reason we stay here in this world is to be conformed to the image of Christ, to be used by God as the means by which he spreads the gospel, builds his kingdom, subdues the nations, etc., etc.

And that that is a part of the divine decree itself, and that the means are real, just because they're a part of eternal decree does not make them any less real. In fact, that is the very guarantee of their being important and meaningful in God's sight.

Just as the incarnation demonstrates the same thing. So, yes, most definitely. We are called to be the instruments in his hand, and that is to our great benefit and to his glory.

On salvation that we need to believe first, and then it would be called synergism.

Well, yeah, because it is asserting that man has a capacity and ability. First of all, the Bible says he does not have. He's dead in sin. He's not able to do what is pleasing to God. Obviously, humbling yourself, repenting, believing these are all things to be pleasing to God, and Romans 8 makes it very clear that man does not have that capacity while he is in the flesh.

In most systems, that ability ascribed to man becomes the deciding factor as to whether God's efforts to save someone are going to be successful or they're going to fail. That's the very definition of synergism, is that the synergistic perspective is that there is at least two, or maybe more, but multiple forces working together to bring about the ultimate result of salvation in any individual's life.

And if any one of those forces is missing, then you're not going to have salvation. So God can do 98%, but it's that 2 of man's free will, self-humbling response that determines whether God's going to be successful in saving that individual or not.

That's synergism. Now, it can be very simple synergism, or it can be very complex synergism in the sense of you've got the entire sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, that's synergism taken to the nth degree, and then there's everything in between.

Down to it then. I would not then be considered...

Well, because you're confusing what the issue is. Synergism and monergism has nothing to do with means. It has to do with capacities on the part of God and the sinner. And saying that God uses means to glorify himself, to bring about the proclamation of the gospel, anything else, is not giving to the means the capacity of bringing about salvation themselves.

It's just simply saying this is how God has chosen to operate. It's not saying that the preaching of the word is one power, and the Spirit's another power, and the person's another power, and the Father's one power, and the Son's...

No, that's just confusing what's being spoken of. When we talk about synergism, we're saying that there are multiple wills involved, multiple workings involved, to where you have to have agreement between these to bring about salvation.

That has nothing to do with the fact that God chooses to use means, in the sense of bringing his gospel to bear upon someone, and the Spirit of God then making those words to come alive in someone's heart.

The real issue is, is the word and the Spirit enough to bring about salvation? That's God's work, monergism. Or is the word and the Spirit insufficient without the addition of the human will synergism?

That's the difference between the two. So the human will, the will of the rebel sinner who is in a position of hating God, who's suppressing the knowledge of God, that will is actually part of the means.

God uses to save them?

That's what the Bible is teaching, you know, that if by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, that is...

Okay, how do you explain then that, A, faith is described as a gift given by God to his people in a number of different places? Philippians 129 just comes to mind. And B, the teaching of Romans chapter 8, that those who are according to the flesh are not able to submit themselves to the law of God and cannot do what's pleasing to God.

Is it pleasing to God to humble yourself?

Absolutely.

If you're humbling yourself to Him, yeah.

Is it pleasing to God to have faith in Jesus Christ?

Of course.

Is it pleasing to God to repent of your sins?

Yes.

So those who are in the flesh, according to Romans chapter 8, can't do that, right?

They will, and I just shouldn't also.

I'm kind of on the fence with all of that. You're talking about Romans 8, where Paul introduces the whole section on salvation. We shouldn't use that verse as a carte blanche for salvation. But you will, A, contextually cite John 1232 without noticing its context, which has nothing to do with the application you made of it.

Because when John 1232 was written, Jesus was hiding himself from the Greeks who were coming to him. And all men, then, therefore means Jews and Gentiles, and hence has no application to your use at all.

You'll take that as a carte blanche and apply it to everything. Whereas if you take John 8, where it's right at the beginning of an extended discussion of salvation itself and say, that doesn't really apply to everything, I think you have it backwards.

I think you have it backwards, Jared. What you need to see is Romans 8 is a universal statement, and John 1232, you've put it in the wrong context. Got it backwards. That would help explain it.

Okay.

All right. Take a look at that. I think you'll see how that works.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks for your call. Appreciate it.

All right.

All right. Let's get to Jeff in Philadelphia. Hi, Jeff.

Hi, Dr. White.

How are you?

Doing good.

All right. So I'm the person who called you last August about the Pope coming to town.

Okay.

Coming to Philadelphia in September.

Yes.

And I took your advice, and we actually started arranging, we're planning to do an evangelistic outreach when the Pope arrives. And I wanted to ping you, or sorry, I'm a computer science guy, so sorry for using ping in a sentence.

I wanted to talk to you and get your opinion on, for people who are planning to go out with us and talk to Catholics, do some street evangelism. We're going to make our campaign generally themed around justification by faith alone, even though we're probably not going to use those terms.

And I know we're going to train our people on soul scriptura issues and stuff like that. And I was just thinking, since we're going to run a gambit for the Catholics that we're going to talk to, probably from religious to cafeteria Catholics, I was wondering what specific issues should I not miss in terms of training our people?

Well, I think if you look over the debates we did on Long Island, you'll see the range of topics that you're going to be running into. Right, yeah. Obviously, authority issues are fundamental, especially people who are going to be traveling to see the Pope and things like that.

We did groups like Catholic Answers and stuff that could be out there, and they're going to be looking for you. So they're going to want to interrupt your opportunities. They're going to find where your people are, and they're going to set up nearby, and they're going to try to engage you, and they'll have their literature to pass out and stuff like that.

I've been trained by Jesus, so I know how to move. We're going to definitely train our people on not wasting our time with people who are just there to interrupt us.

Well, good luck. I don't believe in luck, but they're trained well, and the venues sort of limit the space that you have. When we were in Denver when this happened years and years ago, my goodness, 22 years ago, there were only a certain number of places you could go to really have access to folks.

So they will be there, and a lot of those folks are going to be the types of folks that are going to have lots of questions on authority issues, sufficiency of scripture, issues of the papacy, how anyone does interpretation, things like that.

Obviously, those are the fundamental questions that you want to be able to raise and to address. When you get into the issue of justification, certainly with Roman Catholics, the primary issue is the issue of peace.

I would focus upon the sacramental system and its incapacity to bring a person to the position of having peace. That's vitally important, and that can allow you to really get past a lot of the surface level—you're still there?

I'm still there, yep.

Sounds like you're either shoveling snow or being attacked by an alien. I'm not sure which one it is.

Oh, no, I'm—.

Okay, anyways—.

I'm moving stuff around.

Oh, okay. It might assist you in getting past a lot of the surface level objections to your position to directly go to whether the person has peace, how they can know they have peace, how they know that they have a right relationship with God.