October 07, 2011

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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven. Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

News on Islam, Anti-Jewish Rhetoric, and Christian-Muslim Difference

And welcome to a Friday edition of the dividing line. Not just a mere review of The debates we've been looking at. We will be getting to them because we do want to make progress on that. But there were two quick items.

I wanted to get to Beforehand and if you hear some noise in the background, there is a guy right outside the window just sort of standing there with a Leaf blower or I guess we don't have to make leaves around here, but grass blower or whatever.

You couldn't time that any better. Anyways, I Saw an article a couple days ago. I thought I would mention it all is our University is The most prestigious institution of all of Sunni Islam. I think that's a fair statement.

And.

All is our. The deputy rector of all is our University Sheikh Mohammed ashur. Once again memory TV being the source of this information there is I think an Appropriate observation that in the Islamic world.

They say one thing in English and something else in Arabic and Memory TV helps us to see that.

And.

Deputy rector of all is our University Sheikh Mohammed ashur Gave a talk our enemies support the offspring of pigs and apes from September 30th. Now if you're wondering about pigs and apes The Quran says that Allah cursed disobedient Jews and transformed them into apes and pigs in at least one rather intriguing incident and that has unfortunately become a paradigm but He made these comments in a televised address.

I Say to all my brothers and sisters jihad has become an individual duty incumbent upon each and every one of us. Because our enemies have grown arrogant and have persisted in their great tyranny and even uglier display.

They publicly declare their support in defense of injustice Even though they boast that they denounce any injustice and that they are the ones who legislate human rights. But the rights of what human are they defending and supporting they support the unjust oppressors the offspring of pigs and apes.

Now you need to understand what he means by offspring of pigs and apes. He's talking about the Jews he's talking about the Jewish State Israel, etc, etc, the level of traditionally driven hatred That exists amongst many Arab Muslims in the Middle East is Absolutely shocking and one thing's for certain Islam does not help to ameliorate This.

This problem it exacerbates it and that's that is a problem. Christianity on the other hand It's just the opposite because in Christian congregations in the Middle East you see Arabs and Jews sitting next to each other and fellowshipping in in one common bond in Jesus Christ and Islam has nothing to offer like that really doesn't it's one of the many Many differences the line between radicalized Islam as the term has come to mean.

I just refer to it as one strain of Quranic Islam that has a strong Hadith support versus another strain of Islam that emphasizes different aspects of the Quran sometimes aspects that other people think of an abrogated and it has a different set of Hadith in its support and my Concern that I've expressed many many times before is that the sources upon which?

The decision would be made in the debate between these various groups. The sources are insufficient to determine the issue and so I do not believe that Islam as a Religio political system or political religio system depending on where the emphasis is at at any particular point in time Internally contains the ability to restrain the madness of Underwear bombers and 9 -11 bombers and the frightening Reports of people actually talking about planting bombs inside of people's bodies Just Just just an amazing thing.

So there's there's first news item I wanted to take a look at and then Roger Olson good old Roger Olson. I some of you know, I tried to I Tried to contact Roger Olson and and I wanted to ask him why he said on his blog that By principle, he would not read anything by myself or Norm Geisler.

But he doesn't respond my emails. He deleted my comments and I've had a number of people written to me and say, you know.

He's really not really a a chummy type guy.

He's he's really not that kind of guy. Okay. All right, whatever. But he's written a book called against Calvinism and I found I found Today's article on his blog interesting. Some thoughts about conversations slash debates between Calvinists and Arminians.

Now my book against Calvinism is published. And by the way, I just checked I still can't order it on Kindle. I'm not sure if this is one of the we will not make it available on Kindle for a few weeks.

So that if you really want it, you have to buy the paper copy and then you can get on Kindle later. Thing I don't know. By I'm waiting for the Kindle just it's just not important enough to to rush it.

And once I've got on Kindle then I can listen to it while writing and and We'll respond to it. And you know, you know if there's anything really worthy of responding to but anyway I'm receiving invitations to debate Calvinists.

What I want to say is you ready for this folks? Here's Roger Olson from Baylor. What I want to say is Everything I have to say on the subject is in the book. Read it. Well, this seems to be in the Arminian DNA, doesn't it?

Just seems to be in the Arminian DNA. Read my book. I'm not gonna talk to you about it. I'm not gonna debate you about it. I won't defend myself in any type of dialogue where you get any equal time with me.

But just read my book. He goes on to talk about stuff it's it's interesting. It says the other day I was the guest on a 30-minute Christian radio program hosted by a five-point Calvinist. He treated me very courageously but tried vigorously to prove Calvinism true and Arminianism false in 30 minutes.

It seemed to me that he assumed that somehow I simply was ignoring certain Bible passages and just needed to hear them read to me. One more time as it were I wasn't offended, but I was bemused. Does he think I haven't studied the Bible.

Does he think there are no other interpretations of say Romans 9 than his? Alice come away from counters like that and I have more than scheduled just somewhat bewildered. Well, of course what bewilders me is does this man think that there are multiple proper and appropriate interpretations of Romans 9?

And I think he does. I Think it's more of a you know, I just think this is the better way type thing. Then he says later on I'm beginning to think even more than before that most five-point Calvinists I know approach the Bible very differently from non Calvinists.

I know. Yeah I'm talking about Evangelicals here. I'm not including in non Calvinist liberals or unbelievers. Oh, okay, so. Your fellow Arminians. All right, you're or if you don't like that then your fellow synergists.

So do synergists read the Bible differently than monergists probably. Because to be a monergist is to really take seriously what the Bible says about God's freedom in creation. And I think there that is a fundamental fundamentally different way of viewing God and man.

For example, I'm using here because I'm not sure about this. It seems to me that most five-point Calvinists and Oh seem bound and determined to believe anything They think the Bible says regardless of how riff how horrific that may be.

Now let me let me reread that sentence. It seems to me that most five-point Calvinists. I know seem bound and determined to believe anything they think the Bible says regardless of how horrific that may be.

Now I'll just let you muse on that for a moment. He goes on to say in other words if they become can became convinced that somehow they had been Overlooking something in Scripture as they think I do. And in fact God and the devil are actually the same being such that God is evil.

They would believe it because the Bible says it now, okay, that's Just dumb that's just that's just dumb, but The idea that he is expressing is that. Well, they check their their moral principles at the door.

And if the Bible if they think the Bible says it now Olson would say the Bible isn't saying that. But what he is saying is there is an external Judge of what the Bible can say about the character of God.

He is saying that I On the other hand, he says presuppose that God cannot be evil that goodness and being belong inextricably together. Or else there is no ground for basic trust. This is why Wesley said of Romans 9 paraphrasing here.

Whatever it means it cannot mean that He means no matter how much Romans 9 and other scripture passages seem to say that God selects some people to save. Unconditionally leaving others who he could save both of those.

I'm emphasizing those because he put them in all caps. Because election to salvation is unconditional and saving grace is irresistible to eternal torment in hell. It cannot mean that why. Because God is good.

Because God is good so this is Exactly the point that I made in responding to Just one sentence of His commentary early on and people say I have you read the book yet. How can we. Well because I respond to one sentence and if that one sentence had meaning I responded to it.

Well here it is in even fuller sentences. The denial of God's freedom to save as he pleases he is under obligation. Not sure where this obligation came from but some external obligation. He is under obligation if he could save all he must save all that's it.

That's my presupposition. I'm not gonna argue with you about it. I'm not gonna debate you about it. And I don't care what the Bible says about and it doesn't matter if there are passages that completely contradict me.

I don't care. I'm not gonna believe them. Period end of story slash. Roger Olson. That's what you've got. That's what I just read. He means no matter how much Romans 9 and other scripture passages seem to say That God's like some people to save unconditionally and they say exactly that and can say nothing other than that.

Leaving others who he could save because election to salvation is unconditional and saving grace is irresistible. To eternal torment in hell. It cannot mean that why. Because God is good. In other words the I You know, I go back to the first person who ever said this to me straight to my face.

I Never forget it. It was. Oh. When would the date on this be mid 1980s? Maybe late 1987 ish 88 somewhere around there. Maybe a Female graduate student from the Keno Institute here in Phoenix, which is a Roman Catholic graduate school.

Called me up and she needed to interview a fundamentalist.

Dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun.

You know all that stuff.

Yeah.

Yeah, I need to. Do my sounds actually work here? Turn my turn my Thing up here. Let me see if they if my channel sounds work here I just need to have these, hold on a second, hold fast, hold on just a second, hold fast.

Thank you. There you go.

All right.

I just kicked him out of the channel. He says, Roger Olson is irrelevant. I don't think that that's the case, so I just kicked him out of the channel. Anyhow, she had to interview a fundamentalist. I could just tell, I felt like I was in a Petri dish, I was a specimen, and these weirdos.

She comes in and we sit at this table in the front office. We were in this old building, it's gone now, on 16th Street. We start talking. It doesn't take long for us to get to the subject of God's sovereignty and salvation and the freedom of grace.

She is just, she recoils in horror when I say that God is free to save whom he pleases and he is under no obligation to save all people, that he is free and that grace is actually free. When I enunciated to her the idea that grace, to be grace must be free, it cannot be demanded, it cannot be an obligation on God's part.

She was just disgusted. And I'll never forget, she looked across that table at me and said, I would never, I would never worship a God like that. And I just looked at her and said, I know. That's why you believe what you believe.

And that's exactly what Roger Olson is saying. God is, my God is better than your God because if he could save somebody, he would. In other words, my God is better than your God because his grace isn't free, it can be, it's an obligation.

He has to. So my God is better than your God because at least he tries. He can't have any purposes above this. There can be no purpose in the demonstration of his power or justice or any of those things.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. And the more I'm seeing him summarizing the thesis of his own book on his own blog, that seems to be what the argument is here. This text, you know, you might be able to understand it this way, you might be able to understand it that way.

But you know, we just can't understand it that way because then it would run into my synergistic presupposition, and that is if God can save somebody, he will. He's under obligation, doesn't matter. And isn't that really the Norman Geisler, kids swimming in the pond thing, and they all have their own version of it.

But it's a fundamental denial of God's right to be God and to save freely. And I guess they must mean then that since they've gotten saved, well, you know, part of that was just owed to them.

It really was.

I mean, I'm awful glad God tried to, did his best and I cooperated with him. And so he was successful in his efforts because I cooperated with him. And if I hadn't cooperated with him, he wouldn't have been successful and he would have failed.

But all of that aside, he was under obligation to put forth his best effort. That's what these folks are saying, and that's what Roger Olson is saying. So even Calvinist Paul Helm, a leading evangelical Calvinist thinker, agrees, as I show in my book, that goodness attributed to God cannot be totally different from every understanding of goodness and love we know of.

Really? I'll have to see how he does that. Now, of course, I think that if God saves one person, that is mercy and grace undeserved. So the problem is, as we read the Bible, I really do believe that Roger Olson doesn't believe major portions of it.

Oh, no, his traditions keep him from taking seriously not only the holiness of God, but the depravity of man and the fact that sinners are a stench in the nostril of God. Oh, my God's too good for that.

No, I don't think that has anything to do with goodness at all. So it comes out again. You know, there it is right there in our face, right in front of us. And, you know, he talks about, you know, the Calvinist God being a monster and stuff like that and all that kind of thing.

And, you know, if we believe what Calvinists believe, God would not be good and therefore could not be trusted. There you go. So it'll be interesting. Like I said, if Amazon ever gets around to making it available, then we will interact with it.

But it'll be a one sided interaction once again, because obviously Dr. Olson is not nice enough to even respond to my emails. I contacted him and, you know, what can I say?

There you go. There you go.

There's some other stuff we could talk about here, but I really do need to really need to press on because we still have a lot of material, a lot of material to cover. So I did want to address those particular those particular aspects.

Now, I did I sent out I was really busy last night. There's so many details you need to cover before a basically three three week long trip when you're only home long enough to repack. That's that's a three week long trip.

And one of the things I was asking about was, you know, will we be able to use digital projectors in the debates and presentations and stuff like that? And I got confirmation from the locations that those things will be available.

And so one thing I was told was that Mr. Perkins has requested to be able to play portions of MP3s during his presentation. Now, what might he be playing during the course of our debate? Might it be portions from the dividing line?

Well, we would hope so. We would hope so. By the way. Rookie, excellent choice of clothing today. What that shirt there, it says, What is Hadith 2425? Wow, that's that's a cool looking shirt. I didn't get.

Oh, don't do that. I didn't get mine yet. Hopefully it'll arrive today. But because we will need to take a picture of me doing the dividing line, wearing my What is Hadith 2425 T-shirt. But they are they are arriving.

I haven't checked yet to see if Zazzle has caught up and there's a direct link now instead of having to go through Carla's page. I'll have to I'll have to check that and hopefully I will post that once there is the direct link.

But don't forget, all of you folks just just who just can't wait to attend the Veritas National Conference on Apologetics at the the Vatican of the non-denominational denomination, the Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel, featuring Norman Geisler and Ergen Kanner and also some real interesting other folks like Tim LaHaye.

I want to do I want to do apologetics with Tim LaHaye. But anyway, those of you heading there, you know, I I still think if you really want to set the standard for apologetic style, then you need to get your What is Hadith 2425 T-shirt.

And I can guarantee you, you will not be ignored when you attend that conference. You will you want you want to be someone other than just someone who fades into the crowd, be wearing a What is Hadith 2425 T-shirt at any of those events and you will be quickly recognized, I assure you.

All right, let's let's get back to the Roger Perkins debate. I'd say we've got about 10 percent left of the opening statement. We are going to get there eventually.

So let's let's get back to it.

Philippians 2 and the Preexistence of Christ

Being who Parko, he says this demands eternal existence.

Now, here we were back in Philippians chapter two. We said we were going to start right here at the Carmen Christie. And this is good because this is going to be one of the primary areas of discussion that we are going to have.

And Philippians 2, 6 says and more faith. Who existing in the form of God. And the question is, does who Parko as a present participle. Refer to a point in time where the logos or the son or Jesus Christ came into existence.

Is that is that what this is referring to, or is there a basis upon which I and others have rightfully, I believe, pointed out that placing a present participle in a past context emphasizes the continuing nature of that state of existence in the past.

Hence, eternally. Let me read for you the translation that I provided in the article that I wrote for the CRI Journal a number of years ago. I think it's over a decade ago now. I'm not sure what the date on this was.

But let me read you the translation that I provided. You must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus, who, although he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not consider that equality had with God the father.

That's an italics, something to be held on to at all costs. But instead, he made himself nothing by taking on the very form of a slave, by being made in human likeness and having entered into human existence.

He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even the death one dies on a cross because of this. God, the father in italics, exalted him to the highest place and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.

So at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus, everyone who is in heaven and on earth and under the earth bows the knee and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, all to the glory of God, the father.

Now, I believe the insertion of the term the father twice is fully substantiated on the basis of the very last phrase of the crime and Christi, all the glory of God, the father. But you'll notice I did say who, although he eternally existed in the form of God, and I will substantiate that further in my comments, Lord willing, in the opening of the debate and will challenge Mr. Perkins to provide us with a discussion of the syntax of a present participle in place in the eternal context.

And so that's that's what is being discussed here. There had been a brief statement. I believe Mr. Reeves may have been expressing his agreement in his opening statement, which again is well worth listening to.

We played it. We played the entirety of the debate. But he may have been expressing his agreement with my perspective and my translation at that time that what we have going on in this context is a reference to the pre-incarnate Christ and that the phrases of verse seven, the sub clauses that I introduced by the phrase by, by making himself of no reputation, by taking the form of a servant and being found in likeness of men.

Et cetera, et cetera, that the emptying is actually accomplished by the positive taking on of human flesh. It's the humiliation, the the entering into human existence. But the point is that the one who did this is a divine person, not a plan.

There is no plan that has ever been equal to God. There is no idealized concept that has ever been equal to God. This is in reference to the son in his pre-incarnate state. That is the only way that this can function as an exhortation to humility, which is what the Carmen Christie is in context in Philippians chapter two.

So we go back to Mr. Perkins.

Thayer's page 638 says this Greek word meaning means to begin below, to make a beginning.

Now, again, one of the things I'm going to ask Mr. Perkins to do is when you say something like Thayer's says this, that if you're going to do that, that you make sure that what you're actually giving is Thayer's definition of this particular usage of the word.

So instead of, you know, for example, looking at Thayer's and I have it in accordance properly to begin below, to make a beginning universally, to begin Homer, Aeschylus, Roditus and following. Number two, to come forth, hence to be there, to be ready, to be at hand, Aeschylus, Roditus, Pindar and following universally and simply.

Now, when you start looking around for, well, does he, does number three, to be with a predicate nominative as often in the Attic, there are numerous references, remember this, this particular term, huparco is a verb of being, and so it is used many times and will have a very wide, exceptionally wide semantic connotation.

And so you don't go to the general meaning of a word that has an incredibly wide semantic domain and try to cram that into a context where you don't really like what's being said by somebody else. Now, Thayer does mention this usage, but it's under number three, to be with a predicate nominative.

And so you have, and more faith that you huparcine, to be in the form of God, Philippians 2 .6.

That's all it says.

It didn't say anything about below or anything like that. And so, Mr. Perkins, I will be very sensitive to lexical abuse on your part because I can recognize it. And if you're going to cite lexicons, then you need to make sure that you're citing what the lexicon specifically says about a particular text.

And even then, you better be prepared to defend that interpretationally because, sir, words only have meanings in contexts. And I can present, and I've given the example, a number of times when Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker give a meaning of a word that in their interpretation, this is where in the semantic domain this particular usage falls.

And I can give a number of examples where I can assure you Mr. Perkins would disagree with Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker are not the popes of anything. And so, this kind of lexical abuse where you're not looking at really what the source is saying about that particular usage is, well, it's just that.

It's lexical abuse. And I encourage Mr. Perkins to not continue to engage in the abuse of lexical sources because it was obvious in this debate, especially because of what happened with Heismia Henn, that there really wasn't anybody there that could call him on it and correct him on it.

That will not be the case in a couple weeks in Brisbane.

Did an eternal son have a beginning? No. And then you look at Strong's No. 5225, to begin under, not above, to come into existence, not pre-existence. Did an eternal son come into existence below? How in the world are you going to force eternity into this text right here?

Whenever the definitions of Huparka was to begin below, to start to come into existence, I could deal with many other things, but I've got to hurry along here.

I'm sorry, that was not an answer. No meaningful response was offered by Mr. Perkins at that point to quote meanings that have nothing to do with the usage in Philippians 2 .5. He says this is a present participle.

Well, Mr. Perkins, what does that mean? How is that different than an heiress participle? See, that's the question that I would ask at this point. And I will ask if he brings this up as an excuse in his response to my exegesis of it.

Okay, you say it's a present participle. You happen to be right. That is information that anyone can get out of a good Bible program, and I assume that Mr. Perkins has a good Bible program. I have all the good Bible programs.

I really do. I'm blessed. I have the gold standard, in my opinion, Accordance, which is only for Mac. On this Mac in front of me, on Parallels, I have BibleWorks. I haven't used BibleWorks in a long time now that I have Accordance.

And I have Logos, and I have a humongous Logos library. And once again, thanks to all of God's people that has made that possible. I hope that I use it appropriately and well in that way. But I've got good Bible programs.

So even if I couldn't parse Hupparchan, which I can, on site, I could find out what it is pretty easily. But you see, this is where a little Greek is a dangerous thing. And that is a lot of people think that because they've got a Greek program, a program that can do Greek, and tell them what that means, wow, that's a present participle.

Okay, well, could you explain syntactically, Mr. Perkins, the difference between having a present participle here or having an aorist participle? Now, that requires something more than a really good Greek program.

You actually have to have learned the language to know what the difference would be. And in fact, what he's emphasizing would require an aorist, maybe an iterative imperfect, you might be able to argue something along those lines.

But he's totally missing the significance of placing a present participle into a past context. And so he has not given any response to the assertion at all. If he wants to say it began to exist, then why is it a present and not an aorist?

Well, because Thayer says it can mean that. Yeah, but he's not talking about present participle usages of hubarco, is he? No, he's not. And so, you know, if Mr. Perkins had not done what he did on the Tuesday debate, if he had not stood in front of Mr. Reeves and said, you know, the Church of Christ is well known all across the board for just how bad they are in Greek exegesis and hermeneutics, while he himself is standing there pretending that heis, meahen are three different Greek terms, then I wouldn't make these challenges.

But he did. So I have to challenge those things because he's making claims. But I'm sorry, there was no substantiation offered there. Nothing was offered in substantiation at that point.

I can deal with the present active participle. I will tell you this, where it says, being in the form of God, more faith. Bower's Greek-English lexicon defines this, page 528, as the outward appearance, not preexistence.

An outward appearance, the shape of a bodily form.

Once again, we have lexical abuse where, evidently, if you can find any reference anywhere in a Greek dictionary that will substantiate your position, then it doesn't have to have anything to do with what it actually says concerning the actual text.

There is a reference to Philippians 2 .7 in Bower's opening definition of morphe. Again, he goes with the general first definition, form, outward appearance, shape of bodily form. Of the shape or form of statues, of appearances in visions, etc., similar to persons.

That wouldn't exactly fit his position, would it? Of a messenger is also given. And then you have morphein dulu labon, he took on the form of a slave, expression of servility, Philippians 2 .7, with schema as in Aristotle.

This is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preexistent Christ. And morphe theuhuparkon, although he was in the form of God. Antiochus' body is the framework for his morphe or essential identity as a descendant of divinity.

Similar human fragility, Philippians 2 .7, becomes the supporting framework for Christ's servility and therefore his kenosis on the appearance of one, etc., etc. So notice that actually if he had read the specific comment of his source about Philippians 2 .7 and the use of morphe here for morphe theuhuparkon, it talks about this is in contrast to expression of divinity in the preexistent Christ.

So I wonder if Mr. Perkins would have the temerity to say, well, I disagree with the interpretation of this specific term provided by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Donker, or in this case Bauer, Arndt, Donker, and Gingrich.

This is the third edition that I have in accordance in front of me. And so I'm not giving you the meaning they gave for this term at this verse, but they gave this as a general meaning beforehand, and I'm going to apply it to this verse.

I don't know. Is that not lexical abuse? I think that's a clear case of lexical abuse at that point as well. Of course, he's going so fast, no one, even myself, could ever keep up with the rat-a-tat-tat machine gun fire type approach here and check everyone.

But, hey, this is all recorded. You know, if there's a microphone sitting in front of you, if there's a camera staring you in the face, you better be careful what you're saying because it's going to be checked out by people who actually do know.

How to utilize these sources, and there you go. Interesting element there.

Thayer, page 418, says this is the external existence. Equal, esos, is neuter plural, in the neuter plural, rather. Robertson and Lightfoot said that this does not refer to equality of persons but attributes.

If you would read verse 9, it says that God has highly exalted him. Who? The Messiah. God highly exalted him. The Greek verb for exalted, it means to raise someone to the loftiest height.

Okay, let me just stop there because pretty soon, this is going to be one advantage to this. Pretty soon, see right now, if I want to see the channel and internet and stuff like that, what I'm playing back and my Bible programs are on the same screen.

And that means one has to be in front of the other. Okay, so once I get back, and I just want to once again express my sincere thanks to Brian. I will just use a first name, but my sincerest thanks to Brian.

When I get back, my Dividing Line Studio setup is going to dramatically increase in its, what do you call it, horsepower, shall we say. And I will be able to have the playback stuff on a completely separate screen.

And I will be able to dedicate one full screen to nothing but the Bible program. And that means we'll be able to respond even faster. Why mention what Esau means? I'm not sure, not what it means, but why Neuter Plural, etc.

It's an adverb meaning equal. What's the point? Other than to just throw something out there to be equal with Theo. Who's being equal? If God is the one who is indwelling Jesus, so that Jesus is two persons, then who is not giving consideration to becoming equal?

Who is it? Is it the Son? Is it the external form here, just the human being? Well, if it's the human being, then how did the human being empty himself? I would imagine, I take it from Mr. Reeves' commentary that he takes the, this was a incident in Jesus' life like when he washed disciples' feet type thing, which is the Lutheran view as well, interestingly enough, and Robert Raymond's view, which is really weird.

But again, I interacted with all those in that article that I referred to before. But when he quotes Robertson, I would love to look that up. He didn't give a reference. Equality of attributes. Okay. What does that have to do with anything?

It's so, it was done so quickly that I, you know, maybe he'll go more slowly. I hope he goes more slowly and gives a more textually based, understandable explanation or exegesis. But one thing for absolute certain, he's going to have to give us an exegesis of the text that takes us from beginning to end and explains this.

How is the Carmen Christi, as a sermon illustration, an example of humility? This is for everybody. I've mentioned this before. You know, I know that Algo's in channel and Algo can probably just call in and say this for me.