Open Phones with Pastors James and Jeff

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line on a, let's see, what is today? Is it a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday? Thursday? I forget what day of the week it is. When you come back from overseas, you have to be given at least two weeks to just sort of wander around like a zombie.

It feels much better that way. But anyways, I am joined in studio today by the ninja himself, Jeff Durbin. Hey! I can say your name. I wore a, where was I? Oh, Sunday night I wore a hat that I purchased in South Africa and it says Durbin on it.

But the first thing Jeff says when he sees me is, you misspelled it. He spelled it wrong. And somehow, I don't know, I had not thought about that prior to. Really wearing it around everywhere, you don't really thought about it.

He's just trying to represent. I've actually been to Durbin. It's a city of contrasts and one of the major suburbs is Phoenix. Yeah. It's a place called Phoenix. So I was preaching in Phoenix. It was rather interesting.

That's amazing, yeah. Yeah, but it's a very, very different Phoenix than what we have here. But good to have you along. We were just sitting around at, I think it's about the only restaurant other than that one Italian place.

That you and I have ever actually. It's your favorite place. I'm fine with it. I think it's.

Good. It's not overly expensive. It's called Cafe Rio. I think you're the one. You need to.

Start actually getting sponsorship from Cafe Rio for the program. I have their app. Did you see? I know. I know. You were very focused on getting your receipt in that app so you can get your free.

Stuff. Yeah. So we were sitting around because we have a debate coming up. We're not exactly sure where it's going to be yet. We thought we did, but we're working on it. We have a debate coming up in Salt Lake City.

And so, yes, it is wise to take the time to consider how you're going to handle said debates. And I, yesterday morning out in the dark in the desert, was listening to one of the two atheists we're going to be debating, wherever that ends up being located.

And October 3rd is the schedule. It is October 3rd. We thought we knew where it was going to be at, but there's some, we can't confirm that right now. Hopefully we will very quickly. But I was listening to one of the two atheists and it's going to be, I can guarantee you one thing.

It will not be a boring debate. Yeah. No, it will not be a boring debate. It will be. Can we say the.

Names of them? Yeah, sure. Dan Ellis, who's the president of Utah Atheists. Yes. Yes. And then Greg, Dr. Greg Clark. Right. So it's two on two and it's you and I versus two atheists and the.

Debate is the triune God lives. Right. And does, Dr. Clark is a very intelligent man, but he also identifies himself as a, what was the term that they were using? Radical atheist. Very straightforward.

He has no respect for religious systems whatsoever. He considers them to be absurd. But he also has a very fascinating area of work that he also described in this video that I really enjoyed listening to.

And the funny thing was he was a completely different person when discussing that. Right. That was my phone. Sorry. I was listening. It sounded like me though. Yeah, it was you. That's a little bit weird.

Anyways, so it's going to be a fascinating encounter. We're going to be up there, of course, for the general conference of the LDS Church. First weekend in April, first weekend in October. This will be the first conference I've been at since, I don't know, 2003 or four.

Has it really been that long? I really think it has been. The King James only guy started showing up around then. And one of the funny things is you were there in April. And by the way, the phones are open.

If you'd like to call and talk to Jeff and I, it's 877 -753 -3341. You were up there in April and you said that there were, they wouldn't be called protesters, but there were people out there who were identifying as homosexual Mormons.

Yes. Did they have signs? Fascinating. Yes. Yeah, there was actually.

A transgender Latter-day Saints out there. So men dressed like women and some professors. Now,.

If they were wearing the female temple garments, that would be really, really. Hadn't thought of that one, had you? No, you hadn't. Rich, we can hear Rich through the wall. He's had not given that one a second thought.

But what I found fascinating is how are they being received?

Well, that was the thing that was shocking to me because when I walked up, I didn't know how this was going to go down because they have at Temple Square, they have this little square for us to stand in around the side.

So like we're out of the way and everything else. And so I didn't know how it was going to go because I walk up to where we're allowed to stand, hand stuff out and talk. And I see him standing over there and I see him with their signs.

I know what they're there for. It's LGBT stuff. And you can just tell. So I was actually very curious, how's this going to go down? And it was, they were very, very well received the entire time. People were coming up, going out of their way to stop and say, Oh my goodness, I love you.

And I'm so proud of your fight and your struggle and I'm with you and I can't wait till you guys are received. And all those things. They were praised. They were praised. There were some like real Orthodox Latter-day Saints that were in conversation with me, very pleasant conversations that would, I would ask them like, How do you feel about this?

And they would say, Oh no, I'm not good. But they kept quiet about it. But the ones who were vocal, they were definitely well received.

Well, we were there the very first year that anyone like that showed up at conference. I don't remember which year it was. It was in the late 1990s. There weren't that many of them. And of course, back then there weren't any free speech zones or anything else.

You had the run, well, that was before the, that other building opened up. So you had the run of all of Temple Square all the way around it. So they were at the South, the South gate and there, it was frigid.

There was, there was, they were just shunned.

How long ago was that? When did that start? When they start showing up? That was 20 years ago. 20 years ago. 20 years. 20 years. Is all it took. 20 years.

Well, you look at society, same thing there.

Right. Right. We were talking about that over lunch, just the dramatic changes that we wouldn't have even thought were possible, even within professing Christianity, good solid communions and things like that.

And Mormonism though, leaves me completely befuddled because you have an absolutely gendered God in Mormonism. God is a male. The priesthood is a male possession. The power of God is the power of procreation and the priesthood.

That's you, you want the patriarchy. Summer's looking for the patriarchy. We found it. It's in Salt Lake City. It's been there all along. That's right. Yeah. There's no reason to go looking anywhere else other than there.

And so I don't know how Mormonism, how is it collapsing so quickly on this subject? Because it is. I mean, you look at what's going on in Utah and they're just going right along with the cultural flow.

It's like there's just nothing there. And there are Mormons. You talk to some of them, but they don't know what to say. They don't know what to do. Right. I've met with Mormons. I remember meeting with this guy that I talked with a number of times and there are a lot of Mormons sitting there going, what happened to my church?

And the sad thing is they're not so much thinking that they were wrong before and hence to be looking for something else. It's just they're left with nothing to hold on to.

Yeah. It's like, yeah, like we were talking about before, what's the next stage for Mormonism proper? Yeah. At least SLC, like the main, what's it going to look like? Is there going to be a figure that arises and sort of says, hey, let's get back to our roots and this is apostasy and let's get back to what is really Joseph's revelation and on and on.

What will Mormonism look like in 25 years?

Very, very good question. I don't know. It is rife for a charismatic leader. There's no question about that. Someone like that, especially with social media, and just a little bit of backing, could have a huge following.

I'm not suggesting this to anyone. Any false prophets unemployed right now? Yeah, because we've got some work for you.

Call in now. It's in house SLC. No, actually, I was years ago, I was teaching classes for concerned Christians when that was still around in Mesa. It was a long time ago. Yeah. And I remember I was there and Jim Robertson was in there in his office and some guy kind of wandered off the street, kind of poking around, looking around.

And it's a real small little place. And so it's kind of, you know, when someone walks in and is poking around. So I'm like, can I help you? And he's like, yeah, I saw the sign. And he thought we were associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So he says, yeah, I'm just, you know, I'm wondering if you guys can help get me connected. I was like, well, connected to who, to what? He said, well, I'm really interested in real, real Mormonism, historic Mormonism.

And I'm like, okay. And he, I'm just like, how many why's do you want? And that's what he was there for. He was asking me if I knew of any, if this was like a legitimate connecting point to get to the real Mormons, he said, because I'm really a big believer in the polygamy.

And I think where the church has gone today, it's gone way off the rails. And I said, well, you know, have a seat. I want to talk to you about something. So you're kind of in the wrong place, but I'm glad you're here.

But that's what he was looking for was real Mormonism.

Yeah. I remember, I can see the guy's face. I remember what his name was, but what, and what, what story was I about to tell? Well, okay. No, I wasn't talking about polygamy.

Sorry. Let's keep that one on backup. Rich. I want to hear that story now.

Well, according to other people, we met a lot of, of polygamists in, in Salt Lake City, actually. They may not have identified themselves as such at that particular point in time, but we, but we did. Anyway, we were talking to a Mormon at the South gate and he pointed up at the spire of the, of the temple.

Were you there for this one? And he pointed up the spire of the temple and he said, I guarantee you that within, I think he said within 25 years, there will be a cross on the top of that steeple. And I found that really, really interesting that he, because he already saw the mainstreaming that was going on, which Gordon Hinckley started really and, and, and pushed.

But anyways, long story short, we got people on hold. Do we? Oh, we do. We've got people on deck. We've got, we've got four, four lines lined up. We're going to be up there. So we've asked for people's prayers for the, the debate.

We're doing a dialogue the next night, and then we have the outreach on, on Saturday. And then I'm preaching Sunday school and Sunday morning service at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Magna, Jason Wallace's church up there in Salt Lake.

So, so Thursday debate, Friday discussion.

With a Mormon, but Friday and Saturday, apology, a church will be out there doing evangelism at.

Temple Square. So y 'all are going to be going out Friday night just for the people? Friday and Saturday. That's the plan. Yeah. Okay, cool. All right. So with that, I suppose I should put this in here.

So you're so used to wearing headphones, you just automatically throw them on. Yeah. You know, it's not like it hurts my hair. I was wondering when you're going to put yours in, you're going to answer phones by intuition.

It's, it's not like... He's been doing this for so long,.

He doesn't even need the headphones. He knows what you're, he knows what you're going to ask guys.

All he needs to do is see your number. And notice that he's been doing this so long. Yes. You, you remember my younger days. I remember your younger days. That's right. Okay. Let's, let's go to the phones.

You've got an opportunity to talk to me. And I didn't even, you just, you've just been here so many times. I didn't even bother to introduce you as, as, well, I called you the ninja. Right. Yeah. I mean, but, you know,.

People know. I think people, people know. Yeah. Because either it's either Alpha and Omega.

Connects into Apologia or Apologia to Alpha and Omega. You and I both around the world, every place we go. I think if we went to the South Pole, there'd be somebody saying, I learned about you from watching Jeff Durbin's videos or the other way around it.

Yeah. I do actually take heat too, for the things that you say and Rich says. If Rich, if Rich says something, I'm like, people are like, why did he say that? I'm like,.

Why don't you go ask, go ask. Rich. That's right. That's right. And you saw when you walked in.

Today, what am I doing? You're on the phone getting yelled at. I'm answering. I'm just.

Joking. You're answering the phone. I tell people, I tell people that I answer the phones and I do. Yeah. So you call the number, not just during the show, but you call the number. I answer.

And you can talk to Rich. The Rich Pierce. You will talk to him. That's right. It happens.

Yeah. Which, which, which of these is this? Cause I could, I couldn't hear you. Which, which, no, which, which of the little thingies over here do I have to turn?

Well, I can, I'll convey to you what Rich is saying. No, no, no, no, no. That'll be fun. Can you hear me now? Yeah. He says, um, he's buying dinner for the rest of the week, every day.

I'm turning you up over here. Oh, okay. Can you hear me now? Well, we'll, we'll find out here when you try to talk to, uh, cause don't touch it. You'll break it. This is Tanner in Colorado. Hi Tanner.

Hi, Dr. White. How are you? I'm doing pretty good.

Good, good. Um, just a quick background. Uh, you talk about, you know, learning from each other and, and, um, and you know, getting cross contamination of audiences. I was actually saved 11, 12 years ago and started listening to your podcast.

And, um, and now I'm a pastor today. So I'm a pastor of first Baptist church of Leadville. And, and I think a lot of that is due to your ministry. So both of your guys' ministry has really impacted me.

Leadville. So I, uh, I rode through through downtown, um, just a few weeks ago during what's called the copper triangle. You're familiar with it.

I'm not familiar with the copper triangle itself, but I remember following your podcast when you were, when you were up here in Colorado, I was wondering if you'd come through here. So that's,.

That's cool to hear. Yep. Yep. Good. Try again next year. So, uh, uh, if you're, if you're driving around on a Saturday morning, please don't run into any of all those cyclists riding through, riding through town.

I know it's a pain, but, uh, it's, it's fun. So anyways, well, good. That's great to hear, Tanner. What can we do for you?

So I have a couple of related questions. Hopefully they go together. Um, my first, my primary question has to do with the Holiness Code in general. I started listening to, I know you have a backlog of many sermons you did on the topic of the Holiness Code, and my training was such that if we could discover the reason for the law, and we could discern that that reason no longer applies today, then we had no need to follow that law.

So for example, um, sexual relations during a menstrual period, I was taught that that had to do with blood, blood has to do with Christ's sacrifice, Christ fulfilled that, and so while hygienically you may want to observe that law, we are under no moral obligation to observe that law today.

And I was listening to your series on the Holiness Code, and you made a comment that caused me to rethink this, and you said that we need to be very careful about saying we only need to follow laws when we can discern their meaning or their purposes.

Right. And so I was hoping you would maybe speak to that a little bit, and maybe help me to come to a better understanding on that. Yeah, nothing like.

Starting off with the easy stuff, right? That's right, yeah. Yeah, you know, obviously we live in a day when, especially the law as found in the Mosaic Code, the Holiness Code. Now, the Holiness Code is a specific section of that law, and I went outside of just Leviticus 18, 19, and 20 to a number of texts in Deuteronomy and other places in that 35-sermon series, which I think is what you're referring to there that you've listened to.

But I started with a presupposition that what we need to do with the law is to recognize the concept of its abiding validity, and to understand that its fulfillment in Christ is in regards to the penalty for the breaking of that law, but that law continues to reveal to us what has always been pleasing to our Creator.

And the challenge for us is to take certain laws that had to do with Israel's existence in the land, and of course we're talking 3 ,000 years ago, et cetera, et cetera, and try to understand, none of us are putting, almost none of us are yoking oxen today, for example.

And so the idea that most people have is anything about that becomes irrelevant. It better not be, because you go to the New Testament and Paul starts talking about ministers in the New Testament, and what does he do?

He pulls that very law up as being relevant to the continued support of ministers of the gospel. So if you want to have an apostolic example, then you need to follow the apostles' example. And they didn't treat the law the way, and I was taught the same thing, basically, Tanner.

I was, that's pretty much the, you know, that's a very common perspective amongst evangelicals in regards to looking at God's law. I just came to the conclusion from my own studies of how the New Testament utilizes the Old Testament law, that that's not what the apostles did.

And I needed to follow the apostolic example, even if that makes me somewhat unpopular with certain elements of people. And so, all through that series, what I'm trying to do is say this is the reason to tackle even some of the really tough texts that I tackled in the course of that, which most people, look, let's just be honest, they just won't touch them anymore.

There's no reason to, there's no purpose to. Some people want to unhitch the Old Testament completely from the New Testament. I'm looking over at Jeff, he has some experience with that particular subject.

But even amongst people that recognize that the Andy Stanley perspective is too radical, there is still a, what I would call, functional antinomianism that fundamentally sees the law as done away with rather than fulfilled.

And there's obviously something very different between fulfillment in Christ, which can allow you to look at the law as a continued abiding indicator of what's pleasing to God, and so on and so forth.

And the idea that most people have, and that is, well, once Christ comes, then that part of the Old Testament, you really don't have to worry about that stuff anymore. You might want to read it once, so you can say you've read through your Bible all the way, but it doesn't have really that kind of meaningful application.

The problem is that once we get into a lot of the cultural issues that we're facing today, we are left without much of anything if we can't look back to what Moses and the prophets did say and laid a foundation for.

Jeff, you spoke with Andy Stanley, you dealt with people that were disconnecting that stuff. You want to add something there?

Yeah, I can't say much better than that. I think that's perfect. And I do highly recommend those sermons or those lectures through the Holiness Code. And the issue with Stanley, this came up, and it's really, I think, powerful.

I think Briley did a good job at putting that together in terms of when I was on Unbelievable, talking with Andy Stanley about unhitching the Old Testament. He started off where he needed to start, and that was the issue of foundations and authority, ultimate authority.

Is it human reason? Where's the stopping point? Where do I actually say it could hear and not anything beyond that? This is the yes and amen and ultimate. And so that at first was about apologetic methodology.

And that's, it's interesting, though, because it's not just about apologetic methodology. This really is a connected point to Sola Scriptura ultimately. And where is the ultimate authority? Is it in the church?

Is it in a human reason? What's the stopping point? So we did that with Stanley, and then it led into the discussion of unhitching the Old Testament, and it got right down to the issue of authority again.

And we did talk about that, the fact that in the New Testament documents, you have the apostles referring back to not just animal husbandry laws, but judicial law in terms of case law example, they'll even appeal.

I mean, it's done numerous times in the New Testament, the issue of two to three witnesses. Well, that has to do with the judiciary. That has to do with receiving accusations and punishing somebody. You can't do it on the basis of one witness,.

But multiple witnesses, two to three. It's not just writing to people inside the nation of Israel at this time either, writing to Gentile churches, so on and so forth.

That's right. So Jesus appeals to this throughout his ministry, two to three witnesses. He appeals to it in the issue of church discipline. It's appealed to throughout the New Testament documents by the Apostle Paul.

You even have, I brought this up because I thought it was interesting in terms of the principle that God lays down, because no one's saying you take the law of God and slap it on society. Like we're saying, how do you actually approach the law of God in a way that actually is consistent with the revelation of God, Old and New Testament.

But the Apostle Paul, even while he's at trial and he's receiving accusations, something interesting, I've missed it for a long time, but he says something interesting there too, in terms of what is grounding is even for penalties.

In his own mind as an Apostle, he says when he's being accused, if I've done anything worthy of death, I don't object to dying. Like if there's something, so there is something that's worthy. According to his own mind as an Apostle, there's something that's worthy of a death penalty in the judiciary.

And he says, if I've done anything worthy of death, I don't object to dying. Like if it's owed to me, I'll take it. That's post-cross, post-resurrection, post-ascension. So you have judicial law in terms of accusations, you've got animal husbandry laws, and you even have the death penalty reference in terms of principle.

Well, where's all that coming from? It's not just sort of suspended in midair. It's not the opinion of the Apostles. They're grounding it somewhere. And so I think that's important. But if somebody says to me like, well, what about all this stuff with the Holiness Code and like the different fibers and you've got animals.

I'm like, well, that's the reason why I say I don't, I can eat bacon today is because...

Well, Jesus said so, that's the most important thing.

Well, exactly. Because it's actually referenced because we're told, yes, it's not unclean. And then you also have the explicit statements in scripture from an Apostle that says, this dividing wall, this Holiness Code, these, I call them training wheels in terms of sanctification and holiness for the people of Israel.

It's told to us, this is now passed away. It served its purpose. It was doing something. And now in Christ, it's gone and done. Now, Jew and Gentile are together in one body. These things aren't necessary anymore because there's a new covenant and the people of God together in one body.

That's why this is shaved off. Not that it was irrelevant or meaningless, it meant something. And I like that terminology, training wheels.

And the real area where there is still a lot of argumentation and dispute is to understand exactly where those dividing lines are in regards to what specifically marked the people of Israel and what didn't.

So if we have the new covenant, then where is that at? And the tendency has been to get rid of a lot of stuff. And in the process, though, for example, in Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself is smack dab in the middle of all that other stuff.

That's right. And so I just don't see that there has always been a lot of real careful analysis and consideration of what could be the abiding moral principles that are found in things that are frequently just dismissed as being, that was just the Jews.

That was just then. And so careful people in this area have admitted there's still a lot of work to be done. The problem is there's not all that many people doing work in the area because of the presupposition that it's all done away.

That's just old testament. You don't have to worry about that anymore.

Well, I just want to say this to that issue is we better be glad that the law of God, even down to some of these case law examples of property, boundary markers, parapets around the roofs of houses, in terms of two to three witnesses, we better be so glad that that wasn't glanced over or neglected a couple of hundred years ago, because the basis of the fourth and fifth amendment is God's judicial law.

I mean, it was referenced explicitly by those Presbyterians and Baptists and Anglicans in America when they were talking about building communities and justice. They were always referencing God's judicial standards in terms of, well, here's a general equity.

That's how God feels about that. That's how we should feel about it. And like I said, I think when we talk about today and the benefits that we have today that are hanging on by a thread in terms of justice in our society, when you look at the fourth and fifth amendments, that's built upon Christian worldview.

That's not secular humanism that gives you the issue of warrantless searches and seizures being illegal. I mean, that comes from a particular point in history. Christians had been abused in history. And when they start pointing to the law of God and God's standards of justice, they bring reformation and transformation in their communities and societies.

So they look at God's law and they say, we've got these people just coming into our houses and just taking us away without warrants. And we're having to actually self-incriminate in court. And that doesn't fit what God says.

His law actually says that you've got to have witnesses before I can have a charge brought against me. So you can't come ransacking my house and taking my stuff and go poking around to find that I'm guilty.

God says, you can't do that. You've got to have evidence and witness. So there you have in the American system, the blessings of God's judicial law today. And that's the issue again, of like, I don't have to self-incriminate.

Where's that come from? Atheism? No, that comes from a Christian worldview. You've got to have witnesses and independent lines of evidence to accuse me for me to actually be punished for anything. And you can't come poking around in my house, looking for a failure on my part or guilt on my part.

You've got to have evidence before you can.

Do such a thing. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot there, Tanner. There's a spectrum of material out there that is very, very, very wide. Very, very, very wide. And I'm not saying that everybody who will have a high view of God's law is necessarily balanced in all their applications and all their understandings.

There has to be a lot of discernment on your part. But don't be afraid to read widely, is what I'm saying, and look for consistency. I think that's the best way to go.

Very good. That's very helpful. Do you mind if I tag on a follow-up that's loosely related?

That's what related? Loosely. Loosely related. Well, there are three other people online, but make it quick.

Okay. I was reading through Mark chapter 2, 23 to 28. That's where Jesus violates the Sabbath, and he essentially appeals to David, and David utilizing, you know, eating the bread when he wasn't allowed, and him and his mighty men.

My question is, the way I've heard that described is something I'll call law priority or graded absolutism, where these are still absolute commandments of God. These are still absolute commands that he gives us, but they are graded within and amongst themselves.

So we can still hold to an absolute moral standard, while by the same token recognizing that some absolute moral standards hold higher authority than others. But part of the reason I'm bringing both of these questions up is, I'm introducing to our Bible study tonight the topic of homosexuality.

We've been talking through Christian ethics, and I want to discuss all this. You know, they dismissed Leviticus 18 to 20 pretty much. They throw it all out the window because of a few verses, and I just want to develop a consistent hermeneutic on this topic so that I can hold to a good biblical standard that is able to kind of, I guess, answer the skeptics and the critics while also maintaining the integrity of the Word.

So that's, I guess, my question is on that law priority, graded.

Yeah. Well, you know, that particular subject, I dealt with a great deal in that sermon series, because that was the whole point. I mean, I think it was the very first time in the history of any Reformed Baptist church, especially PRBC, that we had played over the sound system a audio from a TV show, because I played the president going after the, what was her name?

Oh, in that TV series. The TV series. The West Wing. Yeah, West Wing. I played the West Wing clip, and we actually played that over the speakers. Oh, yeah. Now that, trust me, that was an absolutely unique event in the context of that church.

Yeah. And so it was specifically why I started at that point, was to say, this is the kind of abuse and misuse of this material that is now rampant in our society. We need to know how to respond to this.

And so that was really what I was attempting to do there. And as far as, you know, the only thing I would say, there clearly are, you know, moral and ethical questions where you're dealing with the issue of what seemed to be, in our experience, competing commandments and how we prioritize things.

All of that is quite true. The one thing I'd say about Mark chapter 2, though, is you have to keep in mind who's speaking there. Verse 28, so the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath, is central to understanding what Jesus is claiming, who he's claiming to be, and his interpretive power at that particular point in time, which the Jews would be rejecting.

So this is one of the very first times when Jesus is really making that kind of incredibly elevated claim for himself. And so that has to be kept into, you know, brought into consideration as well, as to who it is that was picking the grain and who he is, and he's Lord of the Sabbath.

And, you know, that's going to end up paralleling John chapter 5, when he says, My Father's working until now, and I am working. And they pick up stones to stone him. Why? Because they understand that he's making a claim to deity at that particular point in time.

So that's important in that as well. But yeah, I think, obviously, the command to save life, not to kill, is in a sense, a higher commandment than to not wear mixed fibers. One is marking the people of God off from people around them.

The other is an abiding commandment that everyone is held accountable to at all times. So that's one of those issues. But hey, everybody else on the phone is going to start looking up every Tanner in Colorado and putting out a hit on you.

So we've got to move on. Thanks, Tanner.

Tanner Iskra. Thank you so much. You've both been immensely helpful. Take care, God bless.

Thank you, brother. God bless. Yeah, Leadville. There's a famous 100-mile mountain bike race in Leadville. Really? And then it was on the way back toward Vail. That's a tough ride. That's high altitude.

That's a tough ride. 100 miles. It was only 78. But you're at altitude, so it's challenging. All right, let's go down to Texas and talk to, is it Devonta? Devonte, brother. Devonte, all right.

How are y 'all today? We're doing good. You know, I felt a bit guilty about having two questions. And then I heard Tanner unload all of that, and all guilt left. All guilt left at that moment. Okay. So before I ask my two questions, I'm not about to do a soapbox thing.

I just wanted to say, brother Jeff, thank you for the sermon you had on God's law. When I tell you that was like a glacier of godly water on my tongue, it was amazing. I just wanted to say that. Oh, praise God.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the blessing. Thank you. Yes. I have two questions. One of them is related to church history. The other is textual criticism. I was watching your debate, Dr. White, with Jerry Matatix on Sola Scriptura.

I actually went and bought the Webster and King book because of that. Me and a brother are about to read it. But I was watching the debate, and there's a part where you say that, talking about, is first or second Thessalonians that Catholics always bring up about holocaustic traditions.

And you said that Tertullian actually referenced that. I believe you said Tertullian, and he said there was Gnostics in his day that claimed to have this private oral revelation that was unique to them.