July 27, 2004

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 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.

Opening Remarks, Blog Updates, and the Path to Rome Conference

Well and good morning, welcome to the dividing line live at 2 p .m. Eastern Daylight Time for those of you out there Here in the Mountain West. It is 11 a .m. Still before lunchtime. Anyways, it is the morning anyway.

I got a I'm gonna miss this too. I'm really bummed. I got a Advertisement a nice glossy thing here. Wow, some of these pictures are great for a Path to Rome conference series and The only international conference of famous converts to the Catholic Church Phoenix Arizona, guess when it is November 5th 6th and 7th 2004 yeah same weekend that we are that we are in in Los Angeles for the debate and That's that's a shame.

Unfortunately, I would I would love to attend this. I mean if I was in Phoenix that weekend, I would be there. However, I I'm Okay, I do know a couple of these people. I mean Peter Kreef's gonna be there.

He says Dutch Reformed convert, oh, that's interesting and Jewish convert is dr. Bernard Nathan sent ex-abortion rights leader, but that's the last person I have any clue. These people are and I loved the last one here the Baptist convert.

Sorry Baptist convert. Mr. David Ray MJS miles J J's ooh, that's the organization Catholic missionary Former rapper That was the Baptist converts a former rapper, whoo, there you go I don't know. I Just look at this thing going, um, okay, it's a only international conference of converts Catholic Church not really Overly famous, but we're gonna put that back in the envelope there and hey, maybe someone locally can go You can go see that.

Oh, well, hey, we have a lot of fun around here. Some people find that tremendously annoying because we're not supposed to have fun around here. But hey Some of you know, the blog has exploded of late.

I In fact, I really doubt even the the famous person on the other side of the wall here Has looked closely enough at the front page to to know that I was actually Playing last night. Well, I wasn't really playing but I did a actually a very good job in in adding two books to the bottom of the ad column and I even put the graphics on the right website and I did the right links.

And and it was this dude. I did a good job. I was very proud of myself. I did not crash the entire website and we have we have lots of Lots of neat stuff on the blog right now and the article that's up right now for those of you who Just brought it up and I just realized that the picture we have for the cruise and folks You've only got till August 8th.

If you if you've been putting it off August 8th, man We have we have held over these really incredibly ridiculously low rates for a long long time August 8th is gonna be it you need to do it. Now. We've got so many neat folks You're gonna be on this on this trip.

You you really Like I said, you can't beat this with a stick you can't go to any of those theme parks and things like that and you get to be on a beautiful ship and eat more food than is probably proper to do and Have lots of fellowship and talk a lot theology and things like that.

But I was just looking at the picture and I just realized I know what it is. It's a it's a boat moving away from the ship that we're gonna be on but actually it looks a little bit like three torpedoes.

I'm not really sure that. Anyway, I was just reading an article that in fact was sent to me about rogue waves Out in the oceans 90-foot waves out in the oceans that are much more common than people thought and and stuff like that.

London Baptist Confession, Imputed Righteousness, and Phillips Craig and Dean

So Man anyhow, the first article In the blog is an interesting expansion London Baptist Confession 1689 it was so funny this morning. I'm watching some of these people in channel. I'm sorry, you know some of these folks in channel they just not cut out for discussion in a chat channel because they just they can't follow context and they don't look up URLs and Stuff just goes flying by folks.

And so I see somebody asking. What does LBCF mean? Well, the very first sentence says London Baptist Confession of Faith. And then somebody else says when was it written and it says an interesting expansion the LBCF 1689 and it's got it right after it each time and I'm just sort of like wow, man.

It's sort of like some folks who watch movies and you know. You get down to the movie and then you ask them. So what happened there and no idea I guess they just think movies are meant to go. Wow. Look at all the stuff exploding and things happening and it's pretty anyway, I Just sitting there look reading along going cool.

But for those of you who were following along it is an interesting Expansion and Richard Brassellus dropped me a note he's back from his vacation up in the cool pines and he dropped me a note and said that he believes Warfield addresses this issue and that in point of fact the Expansion in the London Baptist Confession Isn't so much an expansion there as it was there were some dissenters in Westminster over the issue of the act of obedience Christ, so More interesting stuff now.

I'm not done with this particular issue. This was actually as I explained in it Sort of a little thing that I stumbled across as I was writing the next section of my response to Seyfried's comments on justification and his assertion that the idea of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us as our soul standing before God is is unbiblical and and it was we went beyond where we should and so on so forth and So and I'm continuing the Galatians 5 thing.

I haven't given that up on that either I just put a little bit more up on that yesterday and from what Being told from the powers-that-be. The article on Phillips Craig and Dean which I think is very important.

That's why I have on it. You know, it's an important too important an issue to allow to scroll so quickly because I mean it was only on the front Front page for a day or day and a half or something. Just for those of you who are wondering What happens fairly regularly ever since the late 90s when I wrote an article for Sierra the CRA Journal?

And in the CRA Journal I just mentioned what charisma magazine had already mentioned and that was that the the three members of the contemporary Christian singing group called Phillips Craig and Dean Come from a oneness background and I took the time at that time to Look at The websites that were available and of course hate Websites have come a long way since 98 99 that area around there.

This was actually 1999 and But I checked it out. And yes each one of those website each one of those individuals had those connections there and their fathers in two of the three were the senior pastors main pastors their churches now as This has come back up again I've looked in two of those three are now the senior pastors of those churches and What happens is?

These folks go out and they're starting a concert tour and So what happens is there are a few odd folks in each church who are actually concerned about things like apologetics and the doctrine of the Trinity and they have just a little bit of a problem in being led in worship by someone who does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and We've talked about this over the past number of years it keeps coming up, you know, we've we've for example a couple years ago We talked with Caleb the the radio Network that plays Christian music and There was a note sent to them about this issue and they came back and said well, you know We've been assured by Phillips Craig and Dean.

They believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit and We try to you know Just have unity on the on the on the 90 that joins us together and not worry about the 10 it doesn't so in other words the doctrine of the Trinity is in the 10 that doesn't define things and that was a really sad thing and and So what we're we keep getting is people writing to us and saying look I took your documentation I read the article in the CRI journal Looked at the article on your website Eric Nielsen has an article on the website where he is gone through the issue of the Phillips Craig and Dean stuff very thoroughly and I brought up to the pastors my church or I am one of the pastors my church so I brought up to the Phillips Craig and Dean folks and They say you're wrong.

They say you haven't contacted them. You haven't talked to them and That they're not to oneness. And that they believe in the Father Son Holy Spirit. So you're wrong. Well, actually then I then produce the email from Randy Phillips, which Interestingly enough in 1999.

I just checked it out. And this is all in the article. I Find that the exact wording that Randy Phillips used Responding for Phillips Craig and Dean at the Phillips Craig and Dean website at their email address Responding for the group use the exact same confession of faith.

It's found on his Church's website where he's now the senior pastor and it is a modalistic Confession of faith. It is not Trinitarian. It is modalistic. They use the term triune. But they use the term triune of manifestations not of persons and They talk about God manifesting himself both as Father and Son and as Holy Spirit.

That's modalism folks now, maybe sadly the vast majority of evangelicals today don't know that and don't care. That's probably the case. But the fact the matter is that's what's going on. And so when they say oh we believe in the Father Son Holy Spirit.

Well, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Father Son Holy Spirit. It's what they mean by that. The Mormons believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit, I mean that's easy that's never ever been the point.

So anyway well, Steve camp got hold of me this week and Told me what's going on that on a mailing list that he's on of Christian broadcasters. It's come back up again because PC and D are going out on another concert tour and the fact matter is they have the backing of Moody Bible Institute and I've spoken with someone the PC and D's coming to their church and They contacted us said look we went through our statement of faith with Randy Phillips, and he agreed with it and So I directed them to Randy Phillips own statement of faith, and they wrote back and said well those They don't fit do they nope they don't.

Well, why would they? Not be clear about this in fact if I'm wrong, then why don't they just come out and say we affirm unequivocally The Nicene and Athanasian creeds, and we anathematize or reject if they don't want to use old terminology.

We reject utterly the teachings that teach that there is all forms of Unitarianism all Forms there's only one divine person who only manifests himself as father. We anathematize that we reject that why won't they do that and It's sad, but I honestly Do not know if anyone has ever sat down With like Randy Phillips who knows the doctrine the Trinity well enough to answer to ask the right questions.

Because being satisfied with the response, so we believe the Father Son Holy Spirit means you don't have any idea any idea at all what the What the issues historically were or what they are today and So we've put another article up, and it has I don't know how many links in it I mean there you can you can chase this thing all over the place and see one two Three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve Twelve links just in this one short little article so you can go and you can look for yourself.

And and the powers that be on the other side of the wall telling me that he's getting all sorts of emails from various sundry folks and You know some of them are your standard. Oh, it's a Calvinist. You can't believe anything He says and then you've got folks saying well.

Yeah, looks like you've you've crossed your T's and dotted your eyes. But we still don't like it so. Hey folks. It's real simple simple matter here obvious matter. And that is what's most important to you your musical styles and tastes or the honor of the undivided Trinity?

Put in that particular format it should be easy to answer, but the fact the matter is let's face it it really. Isn't that simple for most folks?

I got a real kick out of one of them that I saw that basically the the guy's response was after going to the websites and verifying that that's exactly what those websites say and That that's oneness.

He still said well, I don't believe anything I read on the web. So I'm gonna email those people individually and make sure that that's actually what they believe. Cool. Well, so.

That that would be like going to our statement of faith and then sending me an email saying I know this is what it says At your ministry's website as to your statement of faith and that in fact you wrote it, but is that really what you believe?

Yeah, okay. Well. What can I say? This whole thing could be so easily cleared up and yet years go by and Well, you know Anyhow, so lots of neat stuff on the blog make sure to hit it the material on the issue of the the nature of the Imputed righteousness of Christ did anyone think ten years ago that this would be what we'd be arguing about today.

I certainly didn't. I certainly didn't. But every generation is called to To contend for the faith. Well anyway, I have I have a clip. I wanted to play for you. Yes, we have a sound clip. That means we have to turn up the computer eventually here The Just a few I hope that doesn't start ringing.

Oh good. It didn't I Look over. I've got those really cool bright blue lights on my phone you know most people find it very annoying and Whenever I see them going that's that always happens before it rings, but it doesn't always ring when that happens.

I'm not sure what that means, but they were they were all lit up and so I was wondering it anyhow. Sometime let's see today is Tuesday's. This would have been what? The 21st when was the was the 21st?

Oh, I hate when another menu comes up on top of the there it is. Okay, this is last Wednesday I Honestly I've been traveling a lot and Just busier than a one-armed paper hanger. Whatever that's supposed to mean and so I just haven't been listening to the radio much at all.

Besides that most of the discussion is about what's going on in Boston, and I just I can't possibly handle Handle that at all and Especially since that guy with the initials mm is all over the place and there are a few people actually make me physically ill Like that particular person and that's not Michael Medved either.

I'd like Michael Medved, but there's someone else has the same initials anyhow up see there's there's The Westminster Assembly and it's work page 149 following well I'll have to look that up and But it's on the other side of my bookshelf there.

And I can't get to it right now, and I said I'm gonna be playing a clip anyways last Oh Wednesday I finally turned the oh not in Warfield Mitchell okay Mitchell's the Westminster Assembly pages 149 and following well.

Thank you very much sir I didn't not in Warfield all right. Well anyhow We'll take a look at that, and I don't even know where that one is if it's in my library or not so anyhow. Those of you're going.

What is he talking about? Well I'm reading the channel and Some of you don't go in channel, but some of you have and didn't survive it anyway. I haven't been listening to the radio and So I turned it on and The very first thing it was during Bible answering broadcast so I turn it on and the Soon as I turn it on let's take our next caller, and here's the caller and the caller is asking about limited atonement and so I'm like oh well this will be interesting and So I Took the time to well, I didn't really stop doing anything really but I listened in and The first I don't know Two and a half three minutes it might even been longer than that.

I don't remember now Absolutely nothing new Libertarianism if you don't have libertarian free will there can't be any love the did you got the did the chatty Cathy dolls? You know that the standard misrepresentations of compatibilism and and all that stuff and Absolutely positively nothing new same terminology the only thing we didn't hear at that point in time was Was Sonny and Cher?

And and that was probably good. Because that would that would have caused me to possibly cast things across the room and and do other things that I probably Shouldn't do at a particular points of time, but um anyway I Was listening in and and as we got toward the end of the the call however The the caller himself tried as as best he could to Keep coming back to particular issues, and he never really did get his his questions answered.

That was very very clear in in what was going on, but What really caught my attention was the caller brought up John 644 and everybody will remember that last Last December I did the same thing and we didn't get a whole lot of response at that particular time either.

But what was said and the means of John 644 how was dealt with that's what caused me to fire up Ye old recording device and so let's let's listen in I just sort of jump into the call here Because I like I said the first part of the call was just the standard stuff that we've gone over Million times before we've given full answers to it and and so on so forth, but let's let's listen in.

Which is the freedom to act or to act otherwise. Those are two entirely different views? They are acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy and therein lies a great debate That's been carried on within the Christian Church.

I know that like in John 644 you know Jesus says that no man uniform negative Can come unto me except the father which has sent me drawing. So doesn't that place man without God taking the sovereign? Initiative is that not place man at a you know a complete inability.

Yes, and no I Think that you have to always read texts within their intended context as opposed to having a Predisposition that you already are reading the text in. In other words I think this is the problem people have when they read various passages of Scripture Romans chapter 9 for example.

As a now notice something here.

The man asks an excellent question What does John 644 mean and the response that I'm hearing is well yes, and no we can't read texts with presuppositions and What happens when you read a text of presupposition?

What happens when you when you are not listening to the text, but you instead are bringing your conclusion to the text? Well, that's called eisegesis Reading into the text that which is not there. So what's going to be said here given?

The viewpoint being taken is Reform people that's me, and we've heard this before we've heard it very plainly stated even within a week after the debate I'm reading I am and I am eisegesis John 644 now.

I've yet to hear why or how that is. But the assertion is reform people when you're dealing with John 6. You're not reading it in the proper context and let's find now then notice instead of dealing with John 6 We've gone off to Romans 9 if you remember the debate again back in December.

There was an attempt. It was a failed attempt, but there was an attempt to get George Bryson to Deal with Romans 9 and say well actually so the backgrounds about nations. It's not about this type of stuff and To try to make that argument.

He didn't do what he was supposed to do at that point, and and it didn't work real well, but Immediately going to Romans 9 rather than dealing with John 6, but he will come back to it classic case in point.

If you read it with the predisposition that you just mentioned well You are going to come up with a particular theological construct however if you say you know what I'm not going to read this with.

Preconception at which by the way would include reading the Bible with the preconception of.

Libertarianism as if it is an absolute necessity, which is what Norman Geisler does. I'm just going to read this and interpret this In in the essence in which it's intended or in the sense in which it's intended.

In other words.

I'm going to exegete the passage so reform people are not exegeting the passage.

But libertarianists are which is to say I'm going to read this in the way in which Paul meant this. And Paul is very clearly Assuming that I know something that I have a background as in the case of John Which you just mentioned, but Paul here is saying you know there's a background here.

And I'm assuming that background. So when I say something I'm assuming you're already familiar with the passage that I'm quoting and If you're familiar with the passages that I'm quoting you already understand the qualifications.

In other words there is this overarching Understanding which.

Doesn't normally get expressed. I mean if you want to see it if you want to see the the the background of this go read Lenski Forster Marston read the standard either the the primary influences here, and it's an odd mixture of Lutheranism and Arminianism.

But go read those sources, and you're going to know what this alleged background is. Now of course I would turn around and say actually The opposite is the case here. Look at what John Piper says you know and then you have that kind of a discussion going on.

But that's the assertion is being made so God does not do anything capriciously. He creates vessels for noble purposes because they respond in obedience and ignoble purposes because they respond or reject and disobedience now.

Do you notice what happened. What the glowing example of is a Jesus that was just offered there. There there you have a. Did you hear what Romans 9 was just turned into instead of the Potter creating the pots and the nature of the pots.

Now you have the Potter. Creating pots in response to what the pots do. So the the action of the pots determines the nature of the Potter of the nature of the action of the Potter. Let's put that way.

Completely backwards from the argument, but when you have to have libertarianism there you have the reversal.

So there's a context here. Please don't read this with a preconception only read this. Within the context of the sense in which I've intended it. The interpretation lies in something you should already be familiar with and that is in the Old Testament.

So I'm thinking that sometimes we make The mistake of reading passages like this or the one you just mentioned without understanding the entire context.

No question about it. One of the two of us is. But if you're going to make that assertion, then you have to back it up. And when I have asked to have this backed up, I don't get a A survivable response.

I mean, I'm not saying that that some people can't offer a response. But it's not a response that can survive.

Cross-examination, that's the problem and I think in doing that we we simply are imposing a paradigm On scripture instead of reading scripture for all its worth and the importance in reading John chapter 6 or any other passage now.

Did you listen to this again? This struck me as odd because I know that this can happen Because I don't hear the guy anymore and Listen to this doesn't this sound like this has been edited now. You may go.

Wait a minute. This has got to be live. No, it doesn't have to be live especially if it's a second hour and frequently Wednesday is What is what airs is not what was actually There. I mean, I remember once doing a program when I had to do it by Go down to a radio station here in Phoenix.

Do it's one time about Bible and span. I was in the studio and There was an entire call in the program when I did it that when it aired the next day because it was second hour was not there and During the debate there was a call didn't get aired because it was after the first hour first hour.

If you can get in when it's live first hour, and you know, it's live then it's going to be there but Second third hours things like that. You can remove calls and all they do is just adjust the timing and take an extra call to fill that time later on and Listen to this and see if this doesn't sound like the conversation went beyond this.

But it didn't get on the air on scripture instead of reading scripture for all its worth and The importance in reading John chapter 6 or any other passage. Would be that you need to read it within its intended context and that passage has everything to do with belief.

Not the terminism. Same thing is true, of course in Romans chapter 9, but here's what I would do for you. I would simply say what's really important is that You get some of the good materials that we have available.

We recommend materials on both sides.

Now that I think there was a cut there. I think the call Continued on and that that was added in later. Personally, I could be wrong, but it certainly sounds like it. But notice what is Nothing has ever said about.

John 6 other than this statement on scripture instead of reading scripture for all its worth and the importance in reading John chapter 6 or any other passage Would be that you need to read it within its intended context and that passage has everything to do with belief.

Not the terminus that passage has everything to do with belief not determinism and yet John 6 44. John 6 37 through 44 is In response to Jesus's saying to these men these men who have followed him across the lake They have been called those who were seeking him at the end of John 6 they're going to walk away and in John 6 35 36 Jesus says You have seen me and yet you are not believing.

You are not believing. So the context the immediate context is what it is unbelief in the face of the incarnate Son of God and What Jesus does in verses 37 through 45 is explain why is explain why? So that's the immediate context and What's going on here is the assertions being made is that there is a larger context going back to John 5.

Even though there is a clear Distinction there's a clear cut. There's a clear transition from 5 to 6. Despite all of that what is being said is that? This overriding context trumps the immediate context even if it makes the immediate context Unintelligible the overriding context from sit and what is the overriding context?

What's the only reason for the overriding context? Libertarian freedom. Libertarian freedom and folks I You know, I was trying to Talk with somebody in channel there. I don't think they're in channel right now.

Fellows been coming in channel young guy 18 years old and he's admitted He has admitted that he has been studying theology for 90 days three months and Unfortunately, this young man does not show any interest in actually learning anything only doing what 18 year olds do and that is demonstrate that they are infallible and omniscient and That no one who's been studying theology for decades could possibly know as much as they know after three months of study and And This fellow holds to libertarianism whoever he's talked to whoever's you know introduced him to Christian theology they obviously hold to libertarian free will and So it has been extremely Frustrating To try to talk to this individual fact.

I was scrolling back in the log last night somewhere around 2 a .m. The morning he pops in the channel quotes a couple of the standard passages like John 1232 comments well, it's all clear now and then leaves drive-by proof texting and You know you ask and exactly what have you read on the other side, you know, what have you examined on this side nothing.

But we are infallible Libertarianism and I said this to him, you know, I would think that your first concern Would be that God have libertarian free will. I Would think your first concern Would that would be the God be free not that his creatures have control over him but that's not the case libertarianism and I've said it many times before libertarian free will which is a denial of The Bible's teaching concerning the nature of sin and man's enslavement thereto.

That's all it is. Libertarian free will is The glue of human religion. It is what holds all of man's religions together. It is the necessary element that allows man to control God. All of man's religions Hold that same concept together.

They have to because without it you can't have religious systems whereby you do things that control the power of God and So I do not have A whole lot of patience for people who are so self-contradictory That they will talk about the grace of God and they will talk about the sovereignty of God and then they'll talk about libertarian free will.

That is a person who has not honored God enough to actually think through what they're saying. And I don't have a whole lot of respect for it. I really don't. There there are certain priorities. We're supposed to have folks.

We're supposed to have certain priorities and honoring God's truth Doesn't seem to be at the top of a lot of people's priorities list today. There are people who mock me for even talking about God's truth.

Oh, he just thinks he's just easy I want to know it's God's truth. No, I don't. I don't believe that. But I do believe that a Christian Better honor God's truth a Christian had better be concerned about God's truth.

Is Christianity truly a matter of mere opinion. Is that all it is. How do you know you have eternal life? How do you know that when you wake up in the morning, you are not going to face the wrath of God?

Without God's truth. You don't know. You don't know so many people in the church they are so deeply So deeply Influenced By the modern world and the modern way of thinking post-modernism and it's it's ooey-gooey view of truth That they no longer think in a biblical fashion.

So Anyway, when I hear people Absolutely running from the context of a passage running from the grammar running from the syntax running from the argument Turning the author's intention upside down all in the name of libertarianism a Theology that clearly unarguably is Contradictory to the Bible's teaching concerning the enslavement of man to sin.

I get a little riled about it, especially when the same folks will use proper means of hermeneutics and exegesis on other subjects on other issues as long as it doesn't touch upon the sacred cow of libertarianism and of course Those of you who know something about theology know libertarianism is the lifeblood of open theism.

It is the lifeblood. I mean that the open theists have a really good point. They really do they have seen The inconsistency of historic Arminianism. Historic Arminians have affirmed That God has exhaustive knowledge of future events and they have recognized That that doesn't work.

If God has exhaustive knowledge of future events, there can be no libertarian free will. Because if God knows that Cyrus is going to let the people go Cyrus is going to let the people go. The definition of libertarianism is the ability to act or not act to do do X or not X at any given time.

But Cyrus is gonna let the people go. Peter's gonna deny Christ prophecy exists and So the open theist recognized, you know what we can't have that We cannot have a God who has exhaustive knowledge of what free creatures are going to do.

So we're gonna deny him that knowledge now. The result is pure paganism. There's no question about that. But they have seen the inconsistency. They have seen that that system doesn't work and this Young 18 year old theologian who's been coming in a channel when faced with those things Says well, it's a mystery.

It's a paradox. It's this it's that I'm just not going to deal with what it actually says. And I've been very upfront with him. I said, you know what that's um that kind of thinking Simply does not bode well in My opinion concerning where that that young man is, but you know what?

I'll keep trying to talk to him, you know. It gets very frustrating and sometimes downright distractive but you try, you know, you try. So we'll keep doing it. Anyway, eight seven seven seven five three three three forty one.

We got 20 minutes program left eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one possibly you have some questions about the Phillips Craig and Dean situation or the issue of libertarianism or the issue of the Active and passive obedience of Christ.

I saw a note scroll by in the channel that Question 70 of the Westminster. I think it was shorter catechism seems to speak about active obedience on I'm certain that that is is the intention. I was just simply pointing out that the London Bapst Confession uses the actual terminology and That is being identified by some as a reformed sacred cow and things like that, I think the quotation from Samuel Waldron on the blog today says it all and I discussed this in fact on in My Sunday school lessons Sunday morning, which you can listen to I don't know if I should mention this but larger catechism Thank you very much larger not shorter.

Hey, it scrolls by man. I can't sit here and just read everything it's being talked about and That those Sunday school lessons are posted online at www .prbc .org the Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church prbc .org.

We're just one of many PR BC's. There are many other PR BC's. In fact, there's a PR BC in Southern California that wishes today I'm sure that they had gotten on the net before we did but We have www .prbc .org and you can go there and listen to the Sunday school lessons and You sort of have to click around to get there, but you can listen to Sunday school lessons and I talked about this Sunday morning in regards to this concept of the righteousness of Christ.