November 29, 2007

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 three four one. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Travel Plans, Satellite Recordings, and Prayer Requests

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon once again, unfortunately the last dividing line for a while until December 11th sounds like a long time, but November is almost over this weekend I will be at Covenant of Grace Church in st Charles, Missouri should have put that on the blog, but that would be like updating the calendar page.

Which just shouldn't be done. I don't know why but anyway, but maybe I can get that up there because some people might want to know and Show up and then again doing it the day before you're supposed to be there.

So dumb, but anyway, I will be there tomorrow evening Lord willing and Three sessions on Saturday and then Sunday morning as well before flying home briefly and then heading out for those of you who Defend what we what we do and support what we do.

Appreciate your prayers for the coming week have a very challenging task ahead of me in delivering a large number of lectures on videotape that will be translated for satellite broadcast into foreign countries and This is a wonderful opportunity great opportunity tremendous opportunity, but it's going to be difficult.

I confess that speaking with translation is not as easy as you might think it to be. I Remember going down to Sao Paulo and that was first time I'd ever preached with translation and We are creatures of habit we get used to speaking in a particular way we have a particular cadence.

I say things like various and sundry and everybody mocks me for that, but there's a simply ways that you speak and You just you can't do that when you are being translated you you have to be thinking is this an idiom?

I need to avoid idioms, you know, they even wrote to me and said you need to avoid Americanisms and idioms phrases like walking the dog do not work well in countries where they eat dogs and that was literally the example.

So yeah, so you gotta keep that in mind and I've spoken with translation a number of times in Portuguese and into Italian. This will be a completely different language one that will not make any sense to me whatsoever.

So It's going to be challenging so pray for us. We're talking about doing a large number of these video presentations, which means long days of heavy concentration which means That middle-aged men start getting tired About halfway through that so pray the Lord will uphold us and most importantly that what we're doing Which will be a satellite broadcast to Christians who are under persecution of the lands will be of great benefit and assistance to them.

So Please please pray for us during that time but that also means of course that there will be no No dividing lines next week because they would both be taking place while I am doing those recordings.

So just a little programming note there a couple things today eight seven seven Seven five three three three four one is phone number here. I Wanted to comment. Maybe briefly maybe a little longer. I don't know on the encounter that has been taking place between Matt slick of karm and Tim Staples now.

We we would love to arrange a formal debate with Tim Staples on the subject of the Marian dogmas we'd love to Actually arrange a number of formal debates with folks and Catholic answers where we'd actually for example have a real moderator who might actually control Tim and keep Tim from wandering about as he did in our last debate and using cross-examination time to continue making statements and and to actually maybe ask questions during cross-examination every a good thing, but We we'd like to do that.

But every time we've contacted Tim since he went over to Catholic answers. He's just been too busy to do debates, you know, Carl wants him developing stuff and yet when we listen to the program they're always trying to get rid of Tim trying to get him out into the into the various diocese and and parishes and stuff and so we we have had some difficulties arranging anything with With good old Tim, but Tim's very happy to go on the air with other folks.

You know, we we've got these new microphones in here. That's right. Tim in studio. Sure. That'd be you know, come on over.

Welcome to I and I would be happy to go on Catholic answers live, too. I'd even get him a chair. That would be nice a chair would be good, but he could stand up if he wanted to but right now They wouldn't work really well because I wrapped the other microphones and Christmas lights.

So It's pretty it's sort of looks like from another planet, but anyway. So but for some reason Tim will go on with Steve Gregg and Matt slick and everybody else. But but anyway, so I've been listening.

I listened to the first encounter while riding a few weeks ago and I Don't want to start some massive inter-ministry fight here. Because I'm not gonna bother to follow up with it. Anyways, even if it's someone's started someone tried to start something today a Church of Christ guy wrote to me and We get regular there's there's a group of Church of Christ apologists and a Church Christ apologist is a person who is capable of citing acts 238 at least 975 times in the course of at least two days worth of speaking.

That is what makes you that's what qualifies you to be a Church of Christ apologist because that's all he got. I mean, let's face it when you listen to these two and three day long debates. They want to do.

And It's just basically let's debate for 19 hours on the meaning of acts 238. It doesn't take 19 hours to exhaust all of the possible contextual linguistic interpretations of acts 230 it just doesn't.

So they're sort of repetitive and and you know, there was a day when when I would have you know When anybody would have challenged me I would have you know, sort of like back to the future, you know. Don't call me a chicken, you know.

Type of thing. I'm well Yeah, I'm well past that stage now and it's just sort of like I get these challenges. I'm like, yeah, right, whatever and I I don't take him seriously. I'm sorry that the Church of Christ Honestly is not Way up there on my list of really possible truth defenders Pelagianism rank Pelagianism.

I mean these every single one of these guys I've tried to get to deal with with the doctrine of election or any any texts outside of their pet text and Only two years ago. We tried to do this when the Lynchburg thing fell through we tried to there was a Church of Christ guy we tried to get to do a debate at our conference and we just couldn't arrange anything to where he'd be willing to seriously deal with John 6 and and Romans 9 and the key the key text to deal with God's sovereignty and salvation so We've tried and I just I just don't find these folks.

So this guy wrote to me and I just wrote back saying I'm not interested you know. Discussing just these one handful of texts, which is all you guys ever do just isn't Of any any interest to me and I guess within a matter of moments from when I sent that back matter of minutes according to rich.

That was within 10 minutes that post was on the karm web boards. And then somebody else had already written to us and said you may be being misquoted or misrepresented here and knows that's what I said um and Boom all this stuff is exploding up with a place, and I'm like oh good grief.

You know and so it's obvious. It's the whole reason he'd written to me anyways is is for a lot of these guys. Their entire resume is just how many people have ignored them. That's you know about the best they have to offer and.

So anyway that that happened this morning, but going back to the Matt slick Tim Staple situation within five minutes. Maybe ten minutes of the starting of the first has been three so far. There's been three discussions.

They're supposed to be on the subject of salvation. Let me let me give my my my most important criticism first. I Didn't finish listening to number three yesterday. I actually turned it off to go back to a Muslim lecture because I was so sick and tired of The beating of the carcass of the dead horse the dead horse named.

What does necessary mean? If you've not listened to these then you don't know what I'm talking about if you have then you do know what I'm talking about. At least 40 minutes has been wasted and I consider wasted because I mean getting these guys out to where you can actually.

You know make them answer questions is a pretty rare thing and so it's important and to spend all that time grousing about what necessary means. You know I could see Spending five minutes discussing and defining it but 40 over the course of two programs has just been ridiculous.

But that wasn't my that's criticism, but I wasn't my main criticism. I haven't listened to the end of number three because I just got too frustrated and has turned it off. It was like now we're going back to this again.

We're never getting anywhere I just turned off went to something. There would be more edifying so. Maybe this happened at the end of number three. I don't know but in my recollection I Do not recall hearing anyone and this would primarily be mr.. Six responsibility focusing the issue between Roman Catholicism and the Bible upon the only place where it can be focused upon and That is what is the nature of the righteousness which we have before God is it the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ?

Or is it a righteousness that is infused into us that we can grow in and that we can lose. Etc etc etc if you focus upon the fact that we are in Christ. We have his righteousness the perfection of the new covenant all the rest that stuff.

Then you're gonna get to the things that really matter. But so far the things that have been discussed were old law new law. What's the nature of fulfillment of law? What's this that the other thing and and it just hasn't gone anywhere it?

It's been extremely frustrating and from my perspective within the first 10 minutes even if Matt had never heard the six hours of Bible Answer Man programs that that I did with Tim Staples over the past decade or so.

Let alone the debates we did. The first 10 minutes should have been sufficient to communicate to all concerned. That the Socratic method does not work with Tim Staples. Okay asking questions of Tim Staples isn't how you deal with Tim Staples the man is not the most subtle fellow on the planet and He is just gonna keep going and going and I cannot tell you how many times I've been riding along screaming going.

Just shut the man up. Because he's going on he's going on to point number four point number five point number six. And there's Matt going Tim Tim Tim no tip Tim Tim Tim Reach over and hit the button man turn him off.

It's your program. You know it's just like man I'm not talking about mistreating the guy. He's the one mistreating slack and his and his audience by going on and on and on. But that's Tim Staples if you don't stop him the first time he utters a falsehood.

He's just gonna pile it on and pile it on and pile it on and you're never gonna get back to it. And I've heard that over and over again. He said this verse means that and You listen to the programs who did it a Bible answer man broadcast.

He played around subjunctive. I have not heard him play as a subjunctive this time. He may have learned his lesson. Maybe he's learned enough Greek since then that he realizes what he was saying back.

Then was just downright silly. I don't know would like to ask him that question, but anyway as soon as he says something wrong you've got to stop it right there the Socratic method of Just asking questions asking with Tim Staples is not gonna work.

It's going to result in a massive amount of frustration on the part of everybody listening which in fact it has so I Like I said, I don't know what happened at the end of number three about halfway through.

They went back to necessary and when Matt says well, I'm looking at dictionary calm I said click iPod over to something else because I'm I've heard. Honestly, you know, I know what Matt's saying, but you know what I actually have to do with Tim on this particular issue.

Because he's explained look I'm talking about Normative things here and I'm here are these exceptions and it just just let it lie and move on from there. My goodness to to spend 40 minutes on that and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ has never once been mentioned so far in my hearing.

Leaves me just just going Bananas when I'm trying to listen to stuff so That's my take on it so far. I really really really would have liked to have seen now. I've been told I have been told That in January, there's gonna be discussion of Mary now finally.

But it surprises me just a little bit because again Maybe Tim's going All right. This guy lets me go on forever and and just goes Tim Tim Tim Tim Tim and to and I just keep getting to go. So I'll be able to throw out all my Miriam proof texts and we'll never dig into anything deeply enough for me to get in any trouble.

I don't know but That's the specific subject. We've been trying to get Tim Staples to debate on Formally in front of television cameras for a long long time and we still have that challenge out there.

We'd love to arrange that. If mr. Staples, you know, he's cranking out books and CD sets and all the rest of stuff on Mary you'd think that it would be something that'd be easily done, but Anyway, I think people need to realize you see, you know, why Tim Staples is doing this.

He's not doing it to convince someone like me. He's not doing to convince most of people in this audience because most people in this audience are Going to be thinking critically and examining texts and they're not gonna be impressed by As Matt has put it verbal carpet bombing.

They're not going to be impressed by the rattling on rattling on rattling on type of a presentation. But you see there are a lot of really ignorant Protestants. There really are let's let's be honest.

There are a lot of people the only reason that they're not Catholics is a matter of taste. They don't like the funny-looking hats. Okay, they don't like candles, whatever it might be. They don't there are a lot of Protestants who aren't Protestants.

There are a lot of prostitutes who have absolutely no passionate belief in the solas of the Reformation or the gospel of Justification by grace through faith. That's just sort of you know, yeah, I know about that.

But you know, I mean look at look at the emergent movement. Look at what's going on in these things. That's a pretty good illustration of the fact that you got a lot of Protestants who aren't really Protestants there.

They they don't have any real Love for those elements of the faith or knowledge those elements of faith so what Tim recognizes is if he can get out there and if he can rattle off enough Bible verses if he can sound like He's he's stringing things together in a semi-coherent fashion.

That's all he needs to do. That's victory for him. That's it. That's. He's getting into an audience that otherwise he would never ever be able to get into see. So that's why he keeps rattling on that's why you're never gonna stop him.

And if you don't stop him as soon as he makes the first thing I don't challenge him on the factual basis. If you don't you can't use the feather approach and you'd use the baseball bat approach because that's his approach.

That's direction. He comes at you. So that's what you got to do. And I think it's the only way that anything meaningful can end up coming out of those particular those particular discussions so We'll see what happens.

I would I'll be interested in seeing what happens in January. But if if mr. Slick would like to take any any advice from anyone else Drop the Socratic stuff. It ain't gonna work asking questions ain't gonna work.

Get some good citations, there's plenty of them to line up. I mean there's the Let's put it this way If if the Protestant doesn't win the Marian debate, you shouldn't be debating. Okay There is so much information So much history there's so much stuff you can get from Roman Catholic writers to demonstrate the late nature of these things and and the the the Huge massive disconnection from apostolic Christian faith to modern Roman Catholic dogma in Mary.

It the chasm is bigger than in any other area of Roman Catholic theology any other area so Don't do the Socratic methodology start off with with dogmatic statements from Rome and Force him don't you know, don't let him get away with playing around Luke 128 be ready to challenge any of the Kakar to men a be ready to just you know nail him to the floor on the kinds of stuff he gets away with all the time on those issues and Then maybe something something worthwhile will come out of that, but we will we will see.

Cross-Examination, Debate Strategy, and the Imputed Righteousness of Christ

Now interestingly enough This morning I was pointed to a new blog article a Number of months ago. Well, I actually I should have left that one up, but I Should have looked at the date as to when this was but maybe I've got on one of these browsers here.

But anyway a while back a Commenter in a comm box made a statement concerning Myself and cross-examination and debate and he was an attorney and He has now he says in this new post that he is Posted that he apologizes that he was inappropriate In what he said because he you know He was basically saying the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding me and I was all this that and the other thing and it was just Let's face it.

I think he needs to recognize it was very much Like what we get all the time From hardcore Roman Catholics, for example, remember the member Guardian, you know, he was gonna Call in with all this list of all these Lies and errors and misrepresentations and stuff and that was what?

Four months ago now. He finally did call in say well, give me three months to do it and And now it's been four months and and well I'm moving and it's and and you go back to what his original statement was where he's calling me Jim Bob and stuff like that.

And very disrespectful and very condescending and if it takes this long to put together You might have wanted to have restrained yourself and your statements in the first place. So that's sort of the type of thing that that we're we're dealing with all the time so I responded to what he had to say and Then he sort of disappeared.

I think it's the names Paul Hoffer as I recall and then he just sort of you know that that was it and then this morning, I'm directed to a huge Could only been written by an attorney. I mean you see legal documents, you know.

And and you only read the first and last paragraphs and everything else in there for some other reason. That's pretty much what this is huge huge article that has been posted and I When I formatted it when I just if you just selected it and I dropped it into Word it was 42 pages long when I formatted it within the context of what you'd have in a Standard book as far as text type margins stuff like that.

It was right around 60 pages in length there. So it's a it's a it's a small book about the size of drawn by the father some books like that and at least Despite the huge number of I mean some of it is almost next to impossible to understand.

I mean the man's definitely attorney and unfortunately when you apply that kind of Of stuff to Scripture and to theology that the result can get really really ugly and at least He decided to provide two examples that Allegedly anyways have something to do with with my Abusing cross-examination what it is is he's trying to take on Two assertions that I've made and now how that's relevant to cross-examination.

It's difficult to say One has to do with the he took one quote from the Jerry matics debate and back then by the way, we didn't even get to have meaningful cross-examination. You didn't get to do the back-and-forth you you had to you had a certain amount of time to state a question.

The other person had a certain amount of time to answer and yet a certain amount of time respond. You went on the next one. It wasn't much give-and-take. But they took the transcript one of those things and then decided to use all this he's cobbled together all this information About the Corban rule and the amazing thing is the final result of all this when you actually dig through all this stuff and This stuff always happens the day before I travel, you know, I leave tomorrow for st. Louis.

But I still took time to look at it and in essence he comes the final conclusion that what Jesus was actually saying in Matthew 15 what he was faulting a Specific group of Pharisees for was for not following the oral Torah and being solo scripturists.

Yeah. Only an attorney could turn that one upside down like that. But hey, it's he spends 15 pages doing it so it must be right and You know, we'll take a look at it when time allows and point out where the the train falls track, but then he took one that is actually useful and that is he takes the discussion between myself and Peter Stravinsky's on purgatory out of first Corinthians chapter 3.

Now this one will allow us to really dig into the text at a point in time the future anyways and demonstrate that That there's a reason why attorneys are attorneys and and they're not theologians. They're not exegesis.

Now, of course, he makes the accusation. I'm engaging in is Jesus and so it'll be Useful to demonstrate that it is Mr. Hoffer that has missed some basic things. I also mentioned one because we already have some callers In online and want to get to them, but just one of them that I happened to catch was he spends a great deal of time on Zimmy Oh in first Corinthians 3 15 and he's got a bunch of citations from lexicons and and then he tries to basically say that I was You know building my entire case and I was not telling people about this that and the other thing and in reality in a couple times you you will be confused what he's saying because he confuses my actual exegesis of text with my cross-examination of Stravinsky's where he would give an answer and I'd say okay.

Well, if that's what this means and what does this mean and he's he's assuming that since I'm Going with what Stravinsky's is saying and demonstrating the inconsistency is Stravinsky's his position that I'm agreeing with the things for Vince.

It's a saying it's it's amazing how much he completely missed the context of the cross-examination. It was it was shocking and see if I tried to do this on the blog it would take Weeks to just document all the errors and correct them and then go back and say now You know, what if he meant this or what he meant that it was amazing.

Oh, and by the way, I even got faulted. I love this. I First of all, he says well white likes to pretend that he's a he's a expert in Greek. Well, no, I I taught Greek and I've taught Greek exegesis and and things like that.

But my one calling in life is not teaching Greek or I wouldn't have been teaching Hebrew and systematic theology and apologetics and things like that, so I Have taught on the graduate level. I do know the language and study it, but it is not the only thing that I do so so he throws that out, but then on the other side I Get faulted for not determining beforehand in the cross-examination whether Peter Stravinsky's knows Greek.

Now, can you imagine? What would have happened if I had stood up if I'd sat there actually we were sitting for the cross-examination. If I sat there in front of that audience and before I started asking dr. Peter Stravinsky's dr Peter Stravinsky's double PhD teacher Ivy League schools longtime editor of the Catholic answer Author of numerous books called the Catholic answer books.

Could you imagine the cat calls booze? Hisses and all of the angry emails we would have gotten if I sat there and said now father Stravinsky's Do you read Greek? He was the one who didn't take the time to read anything I had written on this subject or said on this subject.

I had taken the time to read everything that he had written on this particular subject. But to even to then fault me for not asking him if the man knew Greek. I sort of figure if you've got two doctorates and you're teaching in theology and apologetics, you better know it.

If you don't well, that's that's a bad thing so I get faulted for that and then he goes through the the section that's on YouTube right now and Then he tries to argue as I said about Zimmy. Oh, and here's where non Greek readers make their mistakes they think that you can go into these texts and you can just you can you fire up Bible works and you click on this and you pull out some quotes and and all as well and What he wants to argue is that Zimmy?

Oh as it's found in first Corinthians 3 15 specifically there It's translated he will suffer loss in the NASB and the ESV and a majority of translations and there's a reason for this and he tries to make it sound like I'm just Hiding that it could be translated to punish someone because somehow that would allegedly fit in.

Well, it doesn't contextually when you simply walk through the text, but There's there's a real easy way to identify someone who's playing with language, but doesn't actually read the language themselves.

Because you see language is not just words sitting next to other words. It's not just grammar and it's not just syntax syntax the relationship of words and clauses to one another. There's there's an even larger context that comes in.

There's a reason why most modern translations render this text the way they do. And it's not one that a person who doesn't read the language. Well, actually if you really just sit back and you're not Quite as prejudiced as this particular writer is you can see it, but it's real simple.

It's called parallelism. And it's due to the fact that first Corinthians 3 15 comes after first Corinthians 3 14 and what I mean by that is Clearly first through first Corinthians 3 14 says if any man's work which he has built on it remains he will receive a Reward Lengths a tie a couple times.

That was miss cited in the article. Possibly indicating an inability to read language. I don't know. I have not asked. I guess I need to call up this gentleman and ask if he actually reads Greek, but He will receive awards to notice if any man's work which he has built it remains He will receive a reward and then the next one if any man's work is burned up He will and then we have Zemia.

Oh. So what's that supposed to mean? How is that supposed to be understood? Not only that but it is in the passive here. He will suffer loss the Parallel to Zemia. Oh is what is found in the preceding phrase, which is to receive a reward now the reason that translations then render it the way they render it is they're saying and seeing that the best way to parallel to play off of Receive reward is to suffer loss.

You don't receive the reward. In fact at one point he even says that I say the rewards eternal life. Which I never said what I was doing was going with what Stravinsky said because that's how he identified it.

Rather than going with my exegesis, which I provided the beginning of the debate. He just didn't seem to follow that. I was saying Okay, if you're saying this then how does your position fit this etc, etc.

Which is what you're supposed to do in cross-examination and find out if someone's being consistent. There's all sorts of problems along those lines. There was a lot of gratuitous silliness that I ran across about you know if If if Jesus had believed in solo scriptura, then this would have been this and this would just just Standard stuff from from sorry not showing any real knowledge of the position being critiqued but that's that's pretty common, so we'll try to find some time to add that to the lengthy list of blog articles and Documentation of what happens when when people try to defend these particular dogmas in those contexts.

Caller Questions on Calvinism, John 10, and Seminary Life

All right, let's try to get some callers in here since we haven't taken some calls for a while and Let's start with.

Allen in Atlanta. Hi Alan. Hey, dr. White. How are you doing? All right? That's good. I actually spoke with Matthew yesterday Matthew slick yesterday and you did yeah. Yeah. He's a good friend of mine.

I've known him longer than I've known you actually and I gotta say the radio station that he works out of Is very antiquated and he doesn't have even a mute button where he sits really or he can't. He can't hang up on him.

He has to tap to the engineer In the other room to hang up on him because I told him I said why don't you just hang up on staples?

Well, it's not Matt. Well. You don't have to hang up on him. You just turn him down. There's got to be a way to turn down. I mean even even Chris Arnzen can turn somebody. And I've been Chris Arnzen's place and let me tell you something that Dinosaur they have over there running in the treadmill to light the place is getting a little old.

So.

Asked him why you couldn't just hang up on him. But I never. I didn't. I don't know anything about radio that he could do that. But I don't I don't know if he could do that or not.

Well, he's got he's got to realize a couple things first of all. We can hear him better than we can hear staples least we're supposed to be able to so he can talk over him if he Has to but it's his program and when someone basically comes on your program and tries to take it over man.

It's your home turf. You gotta defend it. I mean, that's just all there is to it. You gotta defend it. So.

What show did you listen to. Because there's. I think he's done two or three with staples.

I've listened to all the first two and half of the third one and when we went back to what is necessary About baptism in the third one I turned it off because I'm sorry. That that issue was beaten to a bloody pulp in the second program and when it came back in the third program I'm like, oh, please.

There are so many vital important issues. And soteriology. Roman Catholicism. We haven't even touched on on the mass as a perpetuity. Perpetuatory sacrifice. We haven't touched on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

I mean the key stuff is just and this is exactly what staples wants to do that. He's I'm sorry, but he's he's giving in to staples whole reason for doing this. And that's what's somewhat frustrating to me.

Well, I think he I mean, I know he's probably gonna listen to the show the staples radio shows there and. Yeah, like you said, yeah, he's talking about doing the Marian stuff after after the holidays, which.

Should be a bit more exciting. But I mean you know, this could this could be just this could be just as exciting if You don't let him determine the. I mean listen to what? Jimmy Akin did on BAM years and years ago and you'll see that they're working with a template.

They sit over there Catholic answers years ago. They developed a template as to how you handle these kinds of opportunities and their desire is to communicate Within that context that Roman Catholics can go toe-to-toe in Bible quoting whether they're doing it right or not.

Isn't the point. Because those aren't the types of people they're trying to reach. Okay, and so staples is just going to keep buff lowing and he's going to keep doing the the verbal carpet bombing unless there is a a Willingness to step on him and stop him and say no and.

To move on into meaningful areas of discussion specifically. See, he's see staples wants to sound as biblical as possible. He doesn't want to talk about how the mass is a perpetuatory sacrifice. He doesn't want to talk about Against the imputed righteousness of Christ is our sole standing.

And in fact, I think you probably I would imagine Since you have expressed at times in the past a Certain predilection for a certain kind of theology. You were probably a tad bit surprised to hear Tim Staples arguing like a good New Covenant theologian in number two.

Arguing almost verbatim from certain writers in regards to the nature of the New Covenant and the Ten Commandments.

Well, I mean, I've I don't know. You asked me today if I'm if I'm New Covenant theology or from Covenant theology. I'll give you Covenant theology now as an answer more than I would have, you know, a couple a couple years ago, but.

Talking about your hurt. You heard the same. Oh, yeah. Yeah, and you're sitting going. Wow well, that's real interesting and I'm not saying that there's no place for discussions like that, but if the key issues of The the imputed righteousness of Christ and the the finished work of Christ in the cross is the sole grounds of the means by which I'm say the union of the elect with with Christ.

Substitutionary atonement. If that stuff hasn't been at the core by Program number three then obviously the methodology that's being used isn't accomplishing what it needs to accomplish at least from our side.

I agree 100 the Socratic the Socratic method didn't work with Staples because he just he give him because I remember. Even in the cross-examination with one of the debates he did with him. He took he asked him a question and he took over five minutes to give an answer.