1 Cor 15:3, John 6, "Traditional," and Charges of Heresy

And welcome to The Dividing Line. A little bit late getting started today. Somebody who remained nameless was playing with stuff, you know, right before the program. And when you play with stuff, especially when it's Windows stuff, Windows gets really unhappy with you, and you gotta do that reset thing.

So here we are, and that's why we don't do network stuff, because that's not an option. When you're on some network, it doesn't matter. You just go, but we can't. Well, then you're canceled. Anyway, welcome to The Dividing Line.

It is a Thursday morning here in Phoenix. Very, very warm period of the year for us. Those nights when it doesn't get below 90 degrees at night. But that's why we live here, and that's why not everybody lives here.

Those of us that can survive this can survive anything, is how we do things. I wanted to expand upon something that we talked about in the last program, and I'm actually feeding my Accordance feed here.

I've had a number of people contact me and say, well, you know, I've run into other folks that are using the same argument that Dr. Allen has used, which again, I just in all honesty find to be an extremely weak argument establishing the concept of universal atonement.

And that is based upon 1 Corinthians 15 3, and I have it on the screen here, for I delivered to you as a first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

I sure hope that looks better going out than what I see, because it looks like a 320 by something super pixelated thingy-mabobby-wobby, but I'm sure it looks fine. That's what it's supposed to look like.

For I delivered to you as a first importance what I also received. Now, there are all sorts of scholarly discussions in the literature concerning paradidimi, paretica here, that is used here, and how this is, and you know, delivered, and then paralambano, that this is standard tradition language, and that it refers to the passing on of oral tradition.

And that this goes all the way back to the very time of the very earliest church, that this really connects what Paul is saying here to the most primitive, as the scholarly literature would put it, strata of Christian tradition.

And so the vast majority of discussion of this text focuses upon the fact that what you have here is a universal summary. It's a it's a almost creedal type statement of the gospel. And so.

If.

If that's the case, that it's, it's, if what does, what does ha here refer to? Ha kai parelaban? Well, you've got the hati right after that. And so what he received is what comes next in the hati clause.

So this is, where would you ever find anywhere, in Paul or anywhere else, this kind of grammar and syntax to indicate direct quotation so that the hati clause gives us the specific words that Paul spoke as if this is a quote.

I mean, Greek can do that, but not this way. That's not how it does it. Instead, the, the use of the neuter here is wrapping up an entire concept. It can, it can refer to phrases. For example, in Ephesians chapter 2, when we have and that not of yourselves is a gift of God, that's a neuter referring to the entire preceding phrase.

Here you have the neuter functioning in a similar way. What I also received, where I delivered to you, what I also received. That, and then here is the substance of what Paul delivered to the Corinthians.

And he's demonstrating the consistency that exists between what he delivered to the Corinthians and what he himself had received. This is not quotation language. I, I, I again have never run into anyone who thought that it was until now.

That Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures. Now notice the reason that you have.

The.

Huperton hamartion haemon, our sins, is because you have humin right here. I delivered to you that which I also received. So you and I together makes.

We.

Okay, so Christ died for our sins, according to the scripture, is.

And.

The rest, and was buried, was raised third day according to scriptures, appeared to see if it's so and so forth, this whole summary of the gospel is just that the summary of what was delivered to him, which he faithfully delivered to the Corinthians.

The idea, this is a quotation that he stood up and just said these words. That's it. Stood up, said these words, sat down. Obviously, that is not the case. And the entire weight of this argument is based upon, well, while they were unregenerate, unrepentant sinners, Paul said these exact words to them and therefore the temporal order of the words indicates that Paul taught unlimited, unlimited atonement, is one of the most vacuous, silly, desperate arguments I've ever heard in my life.

I mean, really? That's the best you've got? You can't go to Hebrews? I mean, Dr. Allen wrote a commentary on Hebrews. It's nowhere near the class of Hughes or Bruce or O 'Brien or any the rest of them, but he wrote a commentary on Hebrews.

And if you're asking the obvious question, did you ever refer to it in your preaching? No, I didn't. I did not find it to be of that class. But he's worked through it. Why not go to Hebrews, the single longest discussion of the intention, purpose, everything of the atonement there is.

This is what you think is the strongest? Again,.

Pretty,.

Pretty amazing stuff. Pretty amazing stuff. So I wanted to just point out that it is not the natural reading of this text to read it as if this is a quotation of words in a given temporal context. This is, the Hathi clause is fulfilling what Paul had delivered to them and what he himself had received.

That's,.

I really don't think there are too many people that actually teach this subject that would disagree with what I just said. I just don't think there are. I just don't think there are. Oh, we've got a another moron on, I wasn't gonna say anything about this, but we have a moron on Twitter.

And so I'm going to say something about it. I'm blocking him right now called the Purposeful Pappy, whoever in the world that is. Block, there we go. Love the block thing, been using a lot of that. Um, I was going to just stick with what I posted on this subject, but let me just, I'll just, I'm just gonna make one statement.

Eric and Kander's critics have been silent. They've been respectful. If they were the brood of horrific people that they are painted to be, they would be using this as a weapon, but they're not because purposes of the criticism have always been very much theological and focused upon important things.

The only people who have opened their big fat mouths and used this and abused this situation are people who call themselves the friends of Eric and Kander. I have one word for you, shame. Shame on you.

Shut up. Grow up. Get a heart and get a brain. Put the two of them together. Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you. Amazing. I've never seen such imbecilic behavior in my life. I mean, I just feel like turning the computer off and giving up on all of it because I just cannot believe that there are people like you out there that would use this to vent your stupidity and your spleens.

Stop it. Shut up. I don't know what else to say. Don't know what else to say. Amazing. Just amazing. Well, sorry. Just amazing. Okay, pressing on, trying to press on as best as possible in the midst of pure foolishness.

Over the weeks, I collect stuff in a pocket, which is a really useful program, by the way. I bet there are dozens of these anymore. In fact, have you noticed when you look at new stuff that people advertise, look at our new program, and you start looking at it and going, yeah, well, it allows you to save pages on the internet and then puts them all in one place for you.

And how many of those do you need? After a while. I saw a report or heard a report on, I was driving home, and somebody was saying that they had done a study of the Apple App Store and that, what was the percentage?

I should have written it down. I was driving. I'm the guy, so I couldn't have written it down. Who even carries a pen anymore, come to think of it? But I think like this, I'm just going off the top of my head.

I think 65 of the apps in the Apple App Store are zombies. And a zombie app means no one's ever purchased it, no one's ever downloaded it. 65 of them. And the reason is there are so many that how can you find them?

I mean, when I go searching for something in the Droid app or iOS app, whatever it might be, I think there is a BlackBerry App Store, but I think 100%. BlackBerry is a zombie. What do you want? I mean, come on, poor thing.

I had a BlackBerry once. We both had BlackBerrys. We loved them. But,.

You know, after a while, it's sort of like... Well, then came Android and that was game over.

Apple, the combined force has just destroyed poor BlackBerry. But anyhow, yeah, Squirrel carries a pen. Well, that's expected. What was I saying about... Anyway, I go into these app stores and I look for something and I can normally find it, but there are like, how many screens are you going to scroll down anyways?

So it's perfectly understandable that, you know, you might put a really good program out there, but who's going to find it? That's the problem. So anyway, I use Pocket and it does a good job and you can install it into your various browsers and there's a little thingy and it'll save it to Pocket and it makes doing this a whole lot easier.

And so, evidently, sometime in the past month and a half, sometimes somebody sends me a tweet or posts it in the chat channel or any more. Yeah, I actually look at stuff on Facebook. It is an amazing thing, but that does happen.

And I actually tried to post some stuff on Google Plus too, but there ain't nobody there. In comparison to responses you get at Facebook, Google Plus is just sort of like... But anyway, now I'm looking at all the stuff on Facebook here.

That's also where I see... Did you see the video yesterday of Clementine giving me just a wonderful endorsement for my books and my debates?

I actually missed it. I'm sorry. Yesterday was... It was on Facebook. Well, there is that, but actually... It was on Facebook. I sadly spent most of my day yesterday.

On Twitter. It was on Facebook. And you're admitting publicly that I... You out-Facebooked me. That has nothing to do with me doing a lot of Facebook. It's just how the mighty have fallen. That's just...

All I can tell you is I'm having Romans 12 days.

Yes, we all are. Yes, I understand. I understand that. Anyway, somebody says the audio is cutting out again. And I don't know why.

No, I think the report there is the last show we did, which was 58 to 1. And unfortunately, all of the recordings we got, it did that and...

58 to 1?

58 minutes and 30 seconds to one hour and one minute. The last show skipped like crazy. And I don't know. But people in channel are telling me that the audio is just fine and there is no thumping. And I think maybe somebody might be hearing you tapping on the table or something.

I don't know, but I'm not hearing any thumping.

Oh, well, the thumping was you thumping on the thing before the program started. That was going out. Everybody was hearing that.

Oh, well, there is that. Sometimes you just got to...

This is talking about audio cut out.

So as far as I know, we're doing well on this show right now.

Okay.

Unless somebody tells me otherwise.

Just letting you know what somebody said.

We're all... See, there's audio in the chat room. We're all fine here now. How are you?

How are you? Get ready for the Storm Troopers. Yes, indeed. What was I talking about? I don't know what I was talking about. Oh, see, I opened Facebook. And as soon as I opened Facebook, the entire program came to a screeching halt.

That happens. It is an incredible time waster. Anyway, sometime over the past six weeks, six weeks or so.

Yeah.

June 18th from Evangelical Armenians dot org. Craig L. Adams, Calvinism and John 644. Let's see. Here's the email that sent to Mr. Adams, I guess, is S .E .A. Yeah, Scott. Oh, why is it S .E .A.? And it's C .R .A.

Well, whatever. I read with industry comments and Calvin's comments on John 16 on your website. I was wondering what your thoughts are on Jesus' words recorded in John 644. No one come to me unless the Father sent me draws him and I'll raise up in the last day.

It is unfortunate. English editions tend to translate the Greek as draws rather than more accurate compels, especially since it is also translated more accurately as dragged elsewhere. Have you considered that perhaps Calvin's, on the other hand, was intended to recognize the whole of Scripture says about this issue?

He just may have been appealing to theology that is rooted in Scripture itself. Response from Craig Adams. In the first place, I'd like to point out my correspondents attempt to play one scripture off another that we are playing dueling scripture passages here.

Since the meaning of John 644 seems closely tied to its context, using it to fend off the idea of God's universal love in John 316, which seems to me to have more general meaning is a bad idea. And no, no, no, no.

Notice what the Armenian is saying is, well, John 644. It's meaning is quite tied closer to its context, which he won't actually get into later on, unfortunately. But John 316, it's just evidently it doesn't have a meaning directly to its context, which actually I think it does.

The context here has to do with the relationship of the father and the son. John 644. I thought the context was Jews coming to Jesus in the synagogue Capernaum and they're seeking him. And Jesus says, you're only seeking me because you saw the miracles.

You actually are unbelievers. All the father gives me will come to me. I'm coming to me. I will never cast out. And then they grumble. And so the context John 644 is the grumbling of unbelievers, isn't it?

I mean, the relationship of the father and the son is in there, but that's not the focus, is it? Context here has to do with the relationship of the father and son. Jesus is claiming that the Jews are rejecting him because in actuality, they have rejected the father.

Remember that in John 6? Yeah, I don't either. So, I mean, certainly father and son, their unity is right there. John 5, John 6, John 10, it's all over the place. But there's obviously something going on here in the mind of this individual.

So the context of this passage is not a discussion of whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal hell while choosing to arbitrarily save by compulsion dragged.

A few.

The context concerns why these particular Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and son while others have. Now, this is a classic mechanism whereby you create confusion by restating the issue in such a way it has nothing to do with what's actually being argued.

So this is not a discussion whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal hell. Whenever you find someone doing that, what they're doing is they're trying to buy time and they're trying to use forms of argumentation that really aren't helpful in getting thoughts started, but in misdirection.

But the reality is these particular Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and son. Yeah, they're unbelievers. And the immediate context in verses 36 and 37 indicated that that's because they're not given by the father to the son.

And the synergist just can't accept that, has to run from that, can't deal with that. So you've got to come up with some other kind of a way around this. And Jesus asserts here that it is because they have first rejected the father and the testimony of the scriptures.

So this is one of the most common ways around this. This is what Michael Brown did. We saw this in another article. What you do is, even though John doesn't make the connection back to chapter five and make this application, that's what we need to do, is you need to go back to John chapter five and you need to try to create a context of pre-existing rejection as the grounds.

Because again, what can't a synergist allow for? The synergist cannot allow that the actions of men follow the sovereign actions of God. God's actions cannot be sovereign because they have to follow after the sovereign actions.

Of men.

So whatever the scriptural order is, isn't going to matter. The synergist will have to find a way to change that to maintain the synergistic perspective. And so in John chapter eight, when Jesus says, why do you not understand what I'm saying?

It's because you do not belong to God. The synergist has to take, why do you not understand the things that they're saying? Because you have not chosen to follow God and therefore be given by the father, the son, and therefore to belong to God.

You've got to insert, you've got to find a way to pry open the text to find a place to insert libertarian free will. You have to do it. And you have to spend a lot of energy to try to do it. And sure, it doesn't flow from the text, but that's why you have the problems you have.

Jesus denounces their claim to knowledge of the father. He asserts their resistance to the father and the message of scriptures is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the son. Now he never establishes that.

Asserts it, but he never establishes it. The point is made repeatedly. Then he jumps out of John 6, assumes that the Jews of John 5 are the same Jews of John 6 and hence have the same reasons for disbelief.

And of course, John chapter 5, you don't, you do not have the response of the Jews in John 6 because in fact, in John 6, these men are called disciples. And instead of picking up stones to stone Jesus, as you have in John 8 and elsewhere, John 10, what do you have in John 6?

They just no longer follow after him.

They walk away.

So there is a difference. That difference is ignored here. And an absolute equation is made between the Jews of John 6 and the Jews of John 5. All Jews are just Jews, I guess. Then there's, there's a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 text cited from John 5, as if this is the point and the point is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the son, which is not what the text says at all and turns it upside down.

But that's what you got to do. Synergism is an upside down reading of the Bible. So that's what you do. Thus, the point, which has not been established, but now in the mind of this synergist has been, thus, the point is the Jews who are rejecting him are doing so because they have first rejected the father.

But Jesus asserts that those who acknowledge the father were drawn along into acknowledging the son. If you're wondering, where is he getting this? I can't tell you because no attempt is made to tell us.

My correspondent is right in saying that Helcuo can mean dragged. It is a stronger word than is evident in our translations. In John 21, 6 and 11 is used the drawing of fish in a net and John 18, 10 of the drawing of a sword.

Acts 16, 11 and 21, 30 of forcibly dragging the apostles into the streets and James 2, 6 of being dragged into court. But the context tells us what Jesus means. Those who acknowledge the father and the testimony of the scriptures are compelled to also acknowledge the son.

Very interesting assertion. No attempt to connect to the text made. However, the same word Helcuo is also used in John 12, 34, where Jesus says, and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself and RSV.

If Helcuo always means forcibly dragged, then this passage would have to mean that all people, Pontos, are saved. Or you could read John 12 contextually and realize that these words are in reference to the Greeks who have come to him and that all men refers to all kinds of men.

And then it would have the same meaning all the way through. And you wouldn't have to change meanings because you'd allow context to define meaning. But that's not the synergistic way. Yet in Matthew 23, 37 parallel Luke 13, 34, you have the misuse of Matthew 37.

Thus, it appears that Christ desires to draw to himself people who are nonetheless willing, unwilling to come, and they do not. I'm again missing the fact that in Matthew 23, 37, it is the children, not the leaders.

This is a judgment pericope, and it's being abused to be stuck into this particular discussion. But again, that's the synergistic, synergistic misreading of the text. It is not that God chooses to arbitrarily save a few by divine compulsion.

It should be through the cross of Christ draws all, but all do not come. Again, just make assertions. You'll notice there's been so far lots of assertions next to no biblical argumentation, no exegesis.

And we actually haven't even gotten to any type of contextual reading of John 6, 44. And here, I think, is where we get to the crux of the matter. We're getting to the crux of the matter before exegesis, common synergistic thing.

The Bible continually assumes human moral responsibility. Nobody argues that. These Jews were responsible for the rejection of the Father and their rejection of the testimony of the scriptures.

Yep.

It is never assumed that a choice can be made and that people can be held responsible for their choices. It is also everywhere assumed that there is such thing as slavery to sin and spiritual death. But the early Methodists, subjected to Calvinism on practical grounds and not simply on theoretical grounds, Fletcher opposed what he called sola fideism because it was antinomian against the law of God.

It undermined human moral responsibility through an appeal to God's unconditional election to salvation. Or the early Methodists misunderstood that and did not allow everything the Bible teaches in regards to God's holding men accountable and at the same time utilizing men.

And Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 and all the texts we looked at before, it's another one of those situations where you chop up the testimony of the Bible rather than allowing all of the testimony of the Bible to stand.

Clearly, if you are saved and you can't be unsaved and it is solely God's choice, then it doesn't matter what you do. No, clearly that is a simplistic misreading and dismissal of so much of the rich testimony.

Of scripture.

Nothing is riding on it. Of course, everything is riding on it. God's glory, his purposes in his elect. While classical Calvinists never drew this conclusion because it's a misrepresentation of what we believe and only looking at a part of what we believe, some people were willing to follow the logic of Calvinism to this inevitable conclusion.

Well, it's not the logic of Calvinism if it ignores the rest of biblical teaching, which provides the barriers that allows you, that keeps you from jumping off into these absurd conclusions. And this is one of the things our Minions and Wesleyans and Methodists have always found objectionable, allowing an appeal to grace to undermine our responsibility to respond to God, which Calvinists find objectionable too, because it's contrary to our entire system, which is why we keep telling you, our Minions, you are not even on the playing field yet.

Even after all of these years. A call to repentance, for example, assumes the ability to respond. That completely misunderstands Valley of the Dry Bones, Stony Heart, Romans 8, Romans 3. I mean, there's just so much.

And so forth. In many, many ways, the Bible continually assumes both the capacity to respond, the responsibility to respond, which again, just not only ignoring direct biblical teaching, but saying, I'm going to believe this.

I'm not going to believe that. Pick and choose type stuff. Just rolling down here. Yeah, there's there was John 644 was never and never ended up being touched.

It never ended up being touched.

I mean, this is what passes for common argumentation amongst our Minions. And then and a lot of people thought I was going to get to this and I I was going to. But I just. We ended up getting a bunch of other stuff in the way, and maybe this should have been Radio Free Geneva material because I'm addressing a lot of that stuff.

But on July 17th, so two weeks ago, what today? Alan Michael Ray posted at SBC today dot com. And it is a. It's a it's titled Young, Settled and Traditional Reverend Alan Ray. I am young. Twenty nine, to be exact.

You know, there was a day when I can remember. I remember being twenty nine. I remember when Kelly and I got married. We were in this mega church and we were in the young marrieds. You weren't. And we'd look at the the folks in our class and we'd see some of them were 30 years old.

That seemed like such a long time because I got married at 19. So 30 was more than a decade away. My son will be 29 next year, so it's real easy for me to to go. Yep, you're young.

Yep, you're young.

Yeah, I am young, 29 to be exact, have two beautiful daughters and one on the way. They've been married almost eight years. Well, I do congratulate you, Alan, for not having given in to the marriage delay syndrome.

Of our society.

I, I, I think that's that's good. Almost eight years to care of my beautiful wife. We met at Bruton Parker College, a wonderful Georgia Baptist College in Southeast Georgia. All these eight years have been spent in service to the local church.

My days are a little chaotic because Cara and I are humble homeschoolers. I am also serving my first full-time church while pursuing a DEMIN degree. That's good. Thankfully, I have gotten a little experience behind me.

I was blessed to preach my first sermon at age 12 and I was licensed to preach at 16. Those early years of pulpit supply, I had only a Bible. I was borrowing commentaries left and right. However, I came across a little orange book, What Baptists Believe by Herschel H. Hobbs.

Long before theological studies at Bruton Parker College and Luther Rice Seminary, Dr. Hobbs laid the groundwork for me. I also listened to Adrian Rogers on the radio and passed out gospel tracks in my high school hallway.

Well, so did I. You may be surprised to hear that the Hobbs text is a little beat up, but I still listen to Adrian Rogers and I still hand out tracks. Just because I am young does not mean that I am reformed.

I am settled. However, it has taken me a while to get here. I was surprised that I began my studies at a Georgia Baptist college and discovered some professors did not believe as I did. Many students did not either.

Well, that often is the experience of someone who goes to college and thinks the rest of the world is always believed as I believed. I remember the first time I heard about Calvinism. The problem was that I just could not find it in my Bible.

Well, you know, the first time I heard about Calvinism in that terminology was not from an overly great source either, but I knew at that point that I didn't need to look in my, I didn't need to look in my exhaustive concordance for the term Calvinism.

I was assured that with the right training in hermeneutics, I would come around. I'm sorry to say that I did. My desperate need at the time was to fit in. The head of the Christianity department was a Calvinist, and it seems that I just could not get away from the issue.

I threw my lot in with them all the while my soul was tormented. I put down Hobbes. I switched Rogers for Piper. And wouldn't you know it, I stopped handing out tracts. Well, um, well, brother, um, I, I was contacted by some other folks after I mentioned this on Twitter.

And I know the rest of the story. Yeah, I know the rest of the story. Uh, the rest of the story had to do with his first church and one of the deacons dying the night before he was to preach his first sermon at that church.

And I really think if you're going to tell this story, you should tell all of it. Tell all of it. Um, because if you're honest, you need to recognize that nobody, including your seminary professor or Bible study teacher or whatever else, would want you to embrace a theological system to fit in.

No one who listens to this program would ever say that I have ever counseled anybody to embrace a theological paradigm to fit in. You need to be like us Calvinists just to fit in. Furthermore, you stopped handing out tracts.

It was my reformed faith that kept me doing that in Salt Lake City up until certain people made it impossible for that to be an effective outreach. Why is that? In fact, it was traditionalists. I hate that term.

I really, that's a horrible term. It's a rewriting of Southern Baptist history. But it was Arminians who kept telling us, why are you going all the way to Salt Lake City? Why are you going out to the Easter pageant?

Why are you witnessing to these people? There, you know, there's lots of pagans around right around here. Those are the hard cases. Why worry about them? It was the Synergists that told us that. Not the Calvinists.

So there is a less than subtle and utterly ungrounded assertion here that, well, I became a Calvinist. It was just to fit in. Wrong reason. My reason to be a Calvinist is if you're absolutely convicted that the scriptures teach that system of theology.

And it means that I stopped being evangelistic. I became consumed with my election. My time was selfishly spent in trying to convert other Christians to my theological persuasion rather than sinners to the Savior.

You think maybe you weren't really a Calvinist? I mean, can you demonstrate from Reformed theology that this is the necessary, this is the proper mindset to have? Like Austin Fisher, well, at least he knows it's Austin, not Andy.

My journey out of Calvinism is not one-sided. The bulk of my exit consisted of one restless summer where I committed to the soteriology of study of the Bible. I was weary of wrestling with the text and I wanted to let the text wrestle me.

The Bible won. Now, conversion stories are just that. They're conversion stories. And conversion stories are never balanced. And so I don't put any more weight in conversion stories to Calvinism than I do vice versa.

Conversion stories to Mormonism or Roman Catholicism or whatever else. I've heard so many conversion stories over the years. And I'll be honest with you. Don't bother with your conversion story with me until you've actually held that position for at least a decade.

When you have actually demonstrated that you understand it and you can live it out, then it's meaningful. That's why, you know, I raised to Austin Fisher and I raised this gentleman. You're too young to be writing conversion stories about a matter of months in a theological persuasion that you clearly never understood.

Do forgive those of us who have been here for decades for sort of going, yeah, okay. I dusted off my Hobbes book. Oh, I thought the Bible was wrestling with you. Why do you need Hobbes? And Dr. Rogers echoed in my car speakers once more.

I was back to the place I never should have left. I even ended up changing my college major to get away from the debates and controversies. Well, if you had come to a firm conclusion, why would you care about that?

If you could really answer the questions, why would you care about that? My Calvinistic pilgrimage was brief. Sounds like it was really brief and confused and not really a Calvinistic pilgrimage at all, right?

I mean, let's be honest. But long enough to teach me some invaluable lessons. Dr. Frank Page's Trouble with the Tulip, one of the worst books on the subject of Calvinism ever written, reviewed it in the past, filled with straw men.

I mean, it should have, there should be a sticker on the back of Trouble with the Tulip not to be read near open flame because it's combustible. It has so many straw men in it, very shallow straw men.

Dwight probably, hmm, used to have it in here. I mean, I've got quite the collection over here, but I don't see it right now. Now, it was a pretty thin one anyways, but I actually did a whole series. But you know, I didn't do it on the dividing line.

I did it at PRBC. It was in Sunday school, which probably means it's on a RAM file somewhere. Can anyone even read RAM files anymore? Does the computer know what a RAM file is?