A Special Apologetics Methodology Dividing Line

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.

Gospel Offense, Sexual Ethics, and the Collapse of Evangelical Restraint

And welcome to a special edition of the dividing line on a Wednesday pretty unusual to do something on a Wednesday. But I'm not so certain how next week's gonna go as far as how many dividing lines we get and how long they're gonna be.

So I this morning happened to listen to the encounter. But I'd actually heard a few minutes of it live while I was in Germany last week. You know on the Saturday. It was actually strange that I was an hour ahead of London and so I caught the the live feed of the encounter between K Scott Oliphant and Kurt Jaros on the subject of the kind of apologetic methodology that should be used by Christians and.

Since I got a chance finally to listen to the entire entirety of the program this morning. I thought this is extremely educational. I think there's some important things here and interestingly enough.

Having watched the video this morning of Tony Maiano talking about his arrest outside of Wimbledon. Basically the gospel has been made illegal in in the United Kingdom. According to the story that Tony told he was preaching from I sorry call for a Thessalonians about sexual purity.

Said something about homosexuality a woman walking by. And this is interesting said F you and Then went and called the police now of course I would consider that very threatening behavior on her part.

But of course that's okay as long as you're a pagan you can you can use That type of language in public and that's alright. But if you're quoting from the Bible, that's bad. And so Tony was arrested and taken to jail for seven hours and so on and so forth now.

They decided not to file charges against him amazingly. But I'm sure if he went back there and did the exact same thing again. And someone were to walk by and feign this kind of offense the point being that To preach the gospel to pagans is offensive.

It's offensive. It is fundamental to the biblical message that the gospel offends the natural man he is a stone of stumbling and. What I'm seeing as I am seeing Evangelicals collapsing left and right on the gay marriage.

It's no big deal. It's a not much different than you know whether you drive down the right side of the road left side of the road you know it's just a it's no big deal and. And we just need to love our LGBT brothers and sisters and you know never talk about the BT part.

Do they only only talk about the LG part because they're all you know monogamous or even that's a tiny minority. Well, you know. You know how how do you even start with the transgender stuff from a Christian perspective?

You don't that's what anyway. You we see this this collapse all around us where people are going well that battles over just might as well. You know just just go along with the flow. It's like excuse me excuse me.

Whoa whoa wait a minute wait just a minute. Everywhere I look in the New Testament, and I wasn't playing on talking about this, but everywhere I look in the New Testament I find Texts that are crying out to me in light of what's going on in our culture today for example I Forget what I was listening to but someone mentioned the text in Hebrews that the marriage bed is undefiled.

What is the marriage bed? How can that we there is no question? Whatsoever from anybody. What the marriage bed meant? The writer of the Hebrews none zip zero nada. So what our culture is saying to us is change the definition change the definition of the marriage bed.

Abandoned biblical authority change definition. There's lots of folks going. Yeah, well, you know it's the only way we can survive. I guess it's what you need to do and then we have in the same book of Hebrews the description of Jesus as The one who becomes the source of eternal salvation to those who obey him and we have so many people today saying You know we don't really know what Jesus taught on these things.

How do you obey Jesus if you don't know what he taught and if you can't obey Jesus? He can't become the source of eternal salvation. Do you can he? Hmm so much. Reality is the gospel is offensive to the natural man and every time man tries to make the gospel Amenable to the wisdom of the world you have a denial of the gospel.

That's what you got so in light of that it was fascinating to listen to the encounter between Dr. Oliphant from Westminster Seminary and Kurt Jarosz now. Of course Kurt Jarosz is one of the speakers at the unbelievable Conference that had just taken place in in London, so It's fairly obvious Which side of these things Justin comes down on.

I mean he once again did his best to be as Fair as possible and to ask good questions of both sides, but there were a couple of times I it seemed to me that because Kurt was a little bit. He seemed to be a little bit out of his elements and somewhat maybe Nervous about taking on a scholar of the rank of dr. Oliphant.

That He had to sort of take up that side a little bit and and ask some of the some of the questions that need to Be presented. Obviously I can listen to the entirety of the program. I would highly recommend I have many times recommended that you subscribe to the unbelievable radio broadcast it certainly at the very least gives you a taste of what is going on across the pond in essence but we're gonna listen to some portions of it and Hopefully make this an educational discussion for all of us.

We'll start today. Planning on doing an extra long version. Yes. I will be here tomorrow and I just realized I will have to at least be able to take a single call tomorrow. Because I'm hoping that that Paul skies of fava will be able to join me.

So I suppose if I bring the phones up I I might be able to make it work. You're you're worried in there because I'm gonna I'm gonna make it completely irrelevant. Aren't I learn how to do this on my own?

I Know I won't be able to adjust the volume on the phone. I'm worried. I'm gonna get that phone call. Nothing do about that. So anyways tomorrow is a holiday here in the United States. It's not anywhere else, but a holiday here in the United States and so I will be Winging it on my own tomorrow.

But anyways, we'll let you know again on Twitter and Facebook. What time we'll be doing the show? All right, let's get into it. There is a we start with a definition as you may be aware. Dr. Oliphant has a new book coming out.

I have pre-ordered at least the Kindle version. I've put the paperback version on the ministry resource list if someone would like to get that for me called covenantal apologetics. Covenantal apologetics rather than presuppositional apologetics.

He feels that presuppositional apologetics does not really Grasp as far as a description the heart of of the issue, but here's. Here's the definition that Dr. Oliphant began with and I I again to help us get through things and to make people sound so much smarter.

We'll be playing this at 1 .2 speed so it's a little bit faster. But it allows us to get more done here on the dividing line as I understand it whether we're giving it that name or.

Reformed Apologetics, Total Depravity, and the Authority of Scripture

Presuppositionalism it sort of turns on the idea that when say Engaging in a dialogue with an atheist for instance it would you would be Questioning whether they have any basis on which to be even making the kind of claims they make about the universe logic truth Morality because their presupposition about the basis of those sorts of things that we tend to do Our thinking and reasoning with are actually further for you Dependent upon a transcendent reality of God is that kind of their way of trying to encapsulate the yeah.

I think that's good. I think that's good. Except when you inserted the phrase for you. You know you relativize whether whether it's for me or not. The fact of the matter is none of those things can be what they are and none of Us can be who we are.

Unless Christianity is true unless it's the case that God exists and that he created the world and that he informs Everything that we do we live and move and have our being in him. And whether I believe that or not It's the truth of the matter.

So we try to we try to help people understand that it's not simply relegated to a belief system. Even though that's included. But it has to do with the state of affairs as they obtain now in the world.

And the state of affairs as they obtain Now in the world are what scripture says they are now.

That is a that is sometimes hard for Christians to grasp who have Been introduced to a form of Christianity that is basically an add-on to their pre-existing worldview. That's one of the reasons why a lot of Christians struggle with the idea of covenantal apologetics presuppositional apologetics this this approach because what they have is a worldly worldview and They've tried to tack Jesus on to their worldview and If that's where you are You're gonna have a hard time figuring out what dr. Elephant is talking about.

In fact You're probably gonna agreeing with Kurt Jarosz against him. I've said many times our message is absolutely positively Radical it is radical to say that God the creator of all things entered into his own creation 2 ,000 years ago in a dusty corner outside of the the central places of thought and culture of the world in the backwaters of Palestine.

I mean that's just That is a radical Absurd thing to say to the vast majority of human beings and as Paul said the Jews Stumbling block to the Gentiles foolishness more on us and Every time the church Tries to get beyond what the Bible itself says at that point it ends up producing its own foolishness and Not realizing what the wisdom of God is so by the wisdom of God man by his wisdom will not come to know him.

That's the Bible. That's New Testament revelation, and if you're a New Testament Christian that's.

That's your ultimate authority. Let's listen to some more of what dr. Oliphant had to say. Yeah, thanks. I think what? What Kirk said initially is about right? I mean technical theological point. It's not the doctrine original sin that we both would agree on it.

It really is the doctrine of total depravity and and the but the reality of what let me just Try to put it this way the reality of the approach that I teach is not really that new. It's not really that new in terms of historic reformed theology, and I think that the point needs to be made that the approach that I teach Could not be held or maintained by someone who was not reformed in their theology that now to catch that.

I Agree completely if you're going to be consistent. I've seen some people just sort of try to isolate the transcendental argument for the existence of God out from the theology that Substantiates and supports it and try to use it.

It doesn't work. It doesn't work, and here's one of the key issues. I'm sorry that I sound like a broken record. But I will continue to sound like a broken record as long as Lord gives me breath to sound like a broken record and that is your apologetic methodology is derived from and determined by your theology.

Not the other way around it seemed very clear to me in this discussion that dr. Oliphant agrees with that that's his position and Kurt Jarosz his apologetics Actually determines his theology. Seems very clear to me because when he mentions theological issues. It's sort of like well You know we can we can argue about that or we could do you know no?

We could you know we could talk about view of man that did the duh but and then it's back to the practical ramifications of how you can get people to agree with Christianity or Your version of Christianity, and it's it's backwards.

It is absolutely backwards. You can't do it that way your apologetic methodology must flow from your theological commitments to the gospel of Jesus Christ first and foremost. I've used illustration before if you if you asked Robert E Lee and I know some of you go Oh.

But he's probably the greatest general America ever produced. If you ask Robert E Lee defend the first question of his mouth is going to be defend what? What am I defending? Where is it identify it? Well if we are defending the Christian faith, then the Christian faith that we hold Will determine beyond question.

The the essence of our apologetic methodology the foundation of the approach is is is reformed theology itself, so Kurt's Kurt's right there are you know if you if you want to speak more broadly in terms of Christendom?

There are two basic options in Christianity one is what we call more an Arminian approach to theology where you give some credence to a notion of What we call libertarian free will and then the approach that I take is that We are dead in our trespasses and sins and and because of that the only way that people will move from wrath to grace Is by the power of God the Holy Spirit changing our hearts so that we can believe but having said that We also hold in reformed theology.

Let's let's just move the discussion a little bit. Over from apologetics to evangelism any any Christian understands that for a person to be Converted to Christ they have to hear the gospel. Romans 10 is clear about that you have to someone has to preach the gospel in Order for one to believe now would would you preach to someone who has absolutely no capacity to even understand?

The terms or ideas that you're communicating of course you wouldn't think there is a capacity there. But the problem is that those who remain in their sins unless the Lord changes them That will always twist and turn those truths of the gospel into something that to them is not believable.

It really is unbelievable and in incredible. So what what. But but it's the communication of the truth that God uses To convert people and bring people to himself so as an evangelism. So also in apologetics if we are communicating the truth and doing that in a way That is in accordance with what God has told us then we're I you know I'll speak for myself.

But I think in terms of the view that I hold in it until holds he made this point in his own writings. There's nothing wrong with natural theology in and of itself. There's nothing wrong with evidences.

I mean I someone asked me to give a talk on apologetics a number of years ago. And I entitled the talk why I am an evidentialist and the reason I gave it that title was to try to help people Understand that that there's a myth out there that the view that I hold as opposed to evidences I think we make more of evidences than any other apologetic approach is able to do because everything evidence is the existence of God so all of these things can be Taken in the proper way and utilized in in an apologetic approach in the way that I'm thinking about it.

But it apologetics has its impetus in reformed theology so all of these things have to be understood in that context.

It's very very important again the intimate organic relationship between the fundamental assertions of the gospel itself the existence of the Triune Christian God who is the basis of all of existence?

The very only logical basis for the explanation of mankind and our ability to communicate all that is is Absolutely, it must be there and one of the things that breaks. My heart is how many? people are interested in apologetics, but I find them to be extremely shallow when it comes their theology or Extremely willing to compromise on important issues of theology for the sake of what they think is an apologetic advantage.

Now now why would you even do that because you're not trusting that? Fundamentally the only way that you have any success in apologetics is if God blesses your proclamation. And this is something that's important in our day folks if we live in a society that is under God's judgment.

We better not judge the success of our apologetics by numbers. We must judge the success of our apologetics by the glorification of God and the proclamation of his truth and the vindication of that truth whether the vast majority of the people around us buy into that or not and this is I just cannot see how Kurt Jarosz would accept what I just said and.

And given where we're facing folks and the rapid the rapid change in our society. This is vitally vitally Important. I like having Twitter up because I now know that Jared Oliphant is listening and so is Justin Brierley, so Hi guys.

I hope you enjoy this now moving on to the next section. Now one of the things that I am going to emphasize emphasize emphasize over and over again. Let me say it now so you can hear it over and over again the key Issue in this situation and most of you have not seen the debate that I did with Dan Barker at the University of Illinois.

If you haven't it's on it's on YouTube at least for now I think all the stuff will eventually disappear and we have it in the AOM in bookstore. When you're talking about the use of quote-unquote evidences.

What makes the covenantal approach the presuppositional approach different and and I felt that that's Kurt was always saying well sounds like we're saying the same thing and I don't know if that's just a British thing or what but no, we're not saying the same thing because when I am utilizing for example the ATP synthase.

That I used in that in that debate as an example of the intelligent design universe that men are suppressing. When I present that listen to the debate. Before I even mentioned it I made sure that my audience understood that I was not granting to them some kind of human Autonomy whereby they as some kind of judge have the right to determine God's existence.

I made it clear. They are the creatures of God. They are under his authority. Their very breath is a gift from his hand every beat from their of their heart comes from his hand. I am NOT granting them autonomy.

I am only using evidence to demonstrate the Inconsistency of the fact that they cannot live in accordance their own worldview. That's all I'm doing. I am NOT doing what the evidentialist is doing and trying to add to the body of facts that they are very busily suppressing and If there is anything that I would have emphasized much more strongly in dr. Oliphant's presentation.

It was that point. He does say that. But it just struck me and maybe I have the advantage of having been in the studio many times There in London and and sort of you know I could sort of see what's going on and here it was going on in my mind and could see exactly where Kurt was going and exactly why it was that that he was not evidently hearing What dr. Oliphant was saying with the clarity that needed be heard and It'll come back to that a number of times.

Let's um. This is interesting because when Kurt came back to what dr. Oliphant said dr. Oliphant had limited his His discussion to the difference between Calvinist and Arminians as far as a Protestant perspective, but I found this interesting interesting your responses on that.

Yeah.

So first just a First point of contention. Scott mentioned that you can hold to kind of two views the Arminian view or the Calvinist view. I Would say that there is greater room for intellectual dissent there in those two views.

Both of those camps affirm What's traditionally called total depravity? I mean now.

No, I I would I would not say that the vast majority of Arminians I know of would in any way shape or form Actually verify total depravity and you you just can't redefine it Into the allowance for an autonomous free will on the part of the Arminians.

I I would not I would not agree with me and have a different way of.

Getting around that to get to man's free will. Yeah, but not everybody especially have what I have in mind here a Catholic approach to the nature of man or even more so in Eastern Orthodox view neither of those two would affirm this same notion on the nature of man most definitely and.

Kurt is putting his finger upon the real issue how you view both what I would consider to be the first two points of Reform theology and you all know I I believe in a stulip. Back when the tulip was designed the Sovereignty of God part was was a given.

It ain't no more so I believe in a stulip. You got it got a firm that first point so you end up with six points. But how you understand God's sovereignty over his creation and Then as a result how you understand the nature of man, especially fallen man will determine this Issue.

There's no question about it. There's absolutely no question about. That's why dr. Oliphant is exactly right. You cannot. Consistently, I'm not saying you cannot because there are people are lots of inconsistent people out there.

But you cannot consistently Apply covenantal apologetics if you do not have the underlying theological basis to do so. So that's maybe what I was getting at at these different views.

You know whether or not man is able to do this.

You know that is engage in natural theology or theological when you if man is capable of doing this. You see this is where this is where you know Justin Going going by London on my way to Johannesburg in late September, so Would love to do a discussion on the nature of man in Regards to how we do apologetics because the biblical witness.

To the fundamental fact that man in his most Intimate personal heart in his mind in his reasoning is fundamentally enslaved to sin and therefore his his dialogues his reasoning is affected by sin and in slavery to sin is Central to this whole issue.

If you if you don't believe that then you're gonna you're on a completely different Page as far as discussing what will work and what will not work in regards to this particular subject. But the biblical testimony is so clear and so compelling.

I mean the exegesis of Romans 1 here is Central well Romans 1 2 3 but especially 1 3. Absolutely central. I think to being able to answer this question from a biblical perspective. And I think all of us can admit what we want is a biblical Understanding of how we should do apologetics not one based upon pragmatism.

Well, I just seem to have worked over here. That's the same same attitude that people have about worship. I I seem to remember something about Aaron's sons, you know, God gets to determine his worship and If we want our evangelism and apologetics to be an act of worship.

Then they must be determined by God's truth not by pragmatism trying to convince someone the truth of Christianity curtain and you're maybe.

Saying well, we'll look at the big, you know the fine-tuning of the universe or the argument from the resurrection. Are you kind of assuming that they're as a non-christian able to reason well enough to be able to sort of rationally accept your premises and your argument if and so on or.

Or do you hold as Scott appears to that no one until God gives them faith will ultimately See the truth of an argument for Christianity now.

Let me provide a correction. Gives them faith. That is a part of the work of regeneration. That is that is taking out a heart of stone giving a heart of flesh. That is ending Catechon tone. Catechon tone is suppressing the knowledge of God.

So they're unapologetic without an apologetic Romans 1 again. It's not just a granting of faith it is a radical transformation is taking out a heart of stone giving a heart of flesh. It's the heart of flesh then.

That is amenable to the truth of God and will not suppress the truth of God. I think it's the the radical nature of conversion of regeneration and I would say the Reformed understanding of regeneration is much more radical than the idea of a Valley of dry bones choosing to become something other than what they are.

That's that's one of the major differences necessarily. Yeah, so I'm somewhere in between in that question.

So I see you presenting perhaps what we might call false dichotomy. So what I mean by that is Nobody's perfect and we all. You know, the fall has affected us in such a way that we're not perfect thinkers.

So.

Sometimes we are not perfect thinkers. There is a difference between imperfection and thought and constant consistent rebellion against God. And what is the biblical description? Enmity with God. God haters.

Is that not the biblical language it is.

There's a difference. Big difference. You might have to help people and teach them how to think.

First of all, how can I teach someone. I agree I can. I can help an unregenerate person to think more logically. An unregenerate person can read a logic textbook and learn about modus ponens and most ones and all.

That's that kind of stuff and and improve their ability to think but not on this level. The Bible says ooh dunan tie. They are not able to do what is pleasing to God they are not able to submit themselves the law of God that is a spiritual capacity that requires resurrection.

Regeneration new spiritual life. And that might help them understand more about the arguments. I think even Scott would say trying to teach someone about presuppositional approach can be difficult and time-consuming.

But I would say that there are people no more time-consuming than trying to teach someone The ontological argument for the existence of God. I assure you non-christians that are very intellectual. They're very intelligent.

They can understand they understand logic.

They understand argumentation and then historians for example understand how we do history. Many historians who study history.

The Transcendental Argument, Idolatry, and Suppressed Knowledge of God

Now listen to this. Listen to this. I'm gonna roll this back. This is very very important. Listen to what's said here.

Many historians who study history a lot of them become Christians because they apply the same methods to this issue and they realize wow.

This is the best explanation. Now think with me for a moment folks. Is that how you become a Christian? Do you become a Christian? Is a Christian a person who has looked at history and gone? Oh, that's the best explanation I I thought a Christian was someone who repents of their sins and bows the knee To the Lordship of Jesus Christ trusting upon him for eternal salvation.

Now God can utilize I mean, I obviously I believe God can utilize all sorts of things as a Mechanism both of encouraging his own people as well as a means of removing Blockages to bring his people to salvation all the rest that kind of stuff.

But a person who simply goes hmm, that sounds like the best historical explanation. That ain't a Christian Christian Has had a radical break with a life of sin there's repentance involved there's faith involved and that faith is not merely a historical Acknowledgement and that sounds like hmm sounds like a could be the best way to go.

Well, anyways Justin then asked dr. Elephant for his definition of The transcendental argument for God so here here is his definition of that if you call it an argument from.

Your perspective would be when it comes to dialoguing with someone who perhaps does not believe. I believe for instance the what sometimes called the tag the transcendental argument for God is fairly Key in this whole area of presuppositional apologetics.

Yeah, that's right.

Um, I think there you know, there's a lot out there about that argument and it can it can become fairly technical. But in the way, I was trying to articulate it earlier what it what it essentially says is that Christianity is true.

Whether we believe it or not and given its truth. Anything that opposes Christianity is false and that doesn't mean it's simply a collection of false propositions that we hold in our brains. But it means if it's false, it doesn't square with the way the world actually is.

So what you know going into any discussion even if you I mean none of us have the ability or time to to study every Permutation of unbelief but going into any discussion of someone who is not a believer.

You know going in that whatever position they hold is false by definition so you try to ferret out where the problems are and you try to work through those and Not only deconstruct what it is They claim to believe but then construct the Christian position to show that that position alone is able to account for what?

The unbeliever wants to have in his own system. So if you um that and that essentially is the transcendental argument. So if you think about that, let's say in light of Paul's Address at the Areopagus he begins by discussing with the philosophers of the nature of God who he is What he's done and then in order to illustrate that point and expand on that point he uses a couple of Greek poets in his address at the Areopagus and The question I think can be asked and in some ways this is meant to be kind of a trick question.

But when when Paul quotes Epimenides and Eretus two quotations in him we live and move and exist. That's one of them. And then the other one is or we are his offspring. And so I asked the question in in the writing of those two statements are those statements true?

Is Paul using the Greek poets because he's wanting his audience understand what they've communicated is the truth and the obvious answer to that Is of course no because both of these men were referring in him means in Zeus We are his offspring.

We are Zeus's offspring. Now, of course makes those Quotations false, but what Paul has done is poor Biblical and theological content into the reference that is God and now he uses those quotations as points of persuasion.

So that his audience can understand that it is the true God and not Zeus that these statements are True and not in reference to some false God. So that is I think one of the ways that we think about Argumentation there are statements out there statements made That have a kind of formal truth to them like those two statements.

But the material the matter itself makes the statement false reference makes it false. So we can we can use statements like that in terms of persuasive points in order to try to help people see the reality of the Christian position the other thing I now I.

That that's an excellent summary of of the argument. I appreciate that this next section. I think is very very important though, and I I Realize all these programs are very short. So, you know, it's always easy to say Well, I wish this had been emphasized.

Wish that had been emphasized. But this next section needs to be understood. The Christian apologist is not to be in the business of defending a bare Theism and that's not be a are. Anyways, I remember when when Christopher Hitchens Caught out an evidentialist on this very issue and I've talked about before and here's dr. Alphonse saying that the other thing I think is important to say.

And maybe we can develop this a bit is that in our understanding of apologetics. What we're trying to do is defend the Christian faith because it's the Christian faith alone. That is true. And so we're not interested really in it in a kind of generic theism because at the end of the day Theists wind up in the same place eternally where atheists wind up.

So unless it's Christian theism It's idolatry and we want to move away from that. I think that's what Paul was trying to to express to the Athenians.

Let's now that is extremely important because one of the fundamental divides and I have I have leveled this criticism over and over and over again is There is a huge difference Between saying the preponderance of the evidence points the greater probability of the existence of a God and Saying the Christian God exists, you know it and you are suppressing it and my concern is because this can come up a little bit later on.

In fact Here I will skip to this. It's gonna come up in a second. But but listen listen to what justice says right here. They would see this as a very Patronizing sort of view that so if you talk about Romans 1 atheists are going to are going to View this as a patronizing way Of doing things if you're telling people, you know, God exists, but you're suppressing that what that's patronizing.

It's offensive to them and I understand how people might go. Well, you know saying that the greater preponderance of the evidence points the greater probability existence of God that's less offensive than saying God exists and you'll be judged by him and you're suppressing that knowledge.

I Understand that which one's biblical. Which one's apostolic? Which one was less offensive in the days of the Apostles you think the Apostles didn't know how he could have been less offensive. There is a fundamental dividing line there.

There really is and I'm not trying to bring the name of the program in at that point. There's a dividing line there and I do not believe that apologetics is meant to defend a Generic theism. Generic theism is idolatry.

Because God has revealed himself definitively in Jesus Christ so I Cannot embrace an apologetic methodology. That's gonna force me somewhere down the road to have to apologize for having lied to people earlier on the process.

Remember back there when I pretended we actually you know, I didn't really mean that back then now I'm trying to get you to believe that Jesus is truly who the Bible says he is. And so Yeah, you know, I realize I compromised on this earlier, but I'm hoping now I've sort of friendship you into this.

No, I can't do that Can't do it. Even though the society, you know again Evangelicals, well, you just don't understand the society's really well, you know what? It really takes us back to finding out do you do you really think that it's your arguments and your pragmatism and You that makes a difference or is it the Spirit of God?

That's gonna come up in this discussion as well develop this as you say Scott.

And I know you've got a few questions on the back of what Scott saying that Kurt.

Yeah, I mean much of what he says here about what Paul's doing. I don't think many, you know classical apologists or cumulative case folk would disagree with. In fact, I think they would. I.