Acts 13:48, Cornelius, and Other Topics

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 wife.

A Brief Opening About the Day's Topics

Yeah, actually I was considering declaring it a camping-free zone. I Gotta admit I'm a little tired of the topic. There is no two ways about it especially Given that there's been this strong temptation so many times.

Even doing iron sharpens iron today. There were a couple times. I just wanted to talk over somebody and go. Excuse me Excuse me, excuse me, then turn them down and then say but thank you for calling and sharing, but I didn't do that.

So Anyway, but I'm not going to go that direction today right now. Anyway, we will see if folks end up calling in on that but We have all sorts of other things to be discussing on the program today. I Posted on the blog the fact that I have in my hand right now the voluminous the massive the large the filled with a lot of really silliness book and by Gail Rippling er.

Let's see. Where's the last. There's a lot of advertised 1203 pages long it's fairly large print and and actually could have been made a lot smaller, but.

Anyway.

Still a lot of a lot of work sadly goes into this and oh man, there's some wild stuff and I really haven't had a chance to To deal much with it. But I opened it up to her attack on Kenneth Weiss. Kenneth Weiss was one of my father's Greek professors at Moody Bible Institute back in the 50s and There's a lot of anti-Calvinism stuff in there.

I may may get around a little later on to Reading a couple of the the comments, but yeah, we'll see but I do have queued up a clip that I discovered I rich finally I guess decided to go to the post office box after I don't know a month or something and So he comes walking in this morning with a bunch of stuff From the post office box and Bunch stuff off the ministry resource list actually and one of those things was a gale rippling his book and then another of those things was the series from Catholic answers and specifically Tim Staples on Purgatory and I've told you I've contacted Tim and he said he's going on vacation.

So maybe he's maybe he's back now. I'm not sure but I gave him the URL to my discussion of his comments on first Corinthians chapter 3 and And so we had put on the ministry resource list his presentation on purgatory and Fellow back.

I think in Georgia bought it for us and sent it sent it to the post office box. And so I was Putting it into iTunes so I can transfer it to my new nano and put that on high-speed and listen to the whole thing while writing well there's I don't know how they did this but They have basically each track name on the CD is the first I don't know five six seven words of whatever Tim is saying in that track.

Which is interesting. I would seem to be rather take a long time a lot of work to be very labor-intensive. But anyway, that's what it was and I see my name as one of the track track names James White of Alphanumeric Assault.

I pop it up and And Lo and behold, he's he's trying to respond to something I said in the Roman Catholic controversy. So I thought hey, all right. We'll cue that one up it's it's so When the other side actually tries to respond to something you know, we work so hard to try to get our Roman Catholic friends and Mormon friends and just all sorts of folks to actually, you know interact and give and take and debate and stuff like that.

But yeah. So before we do all of that, however before we jump into the Tim Staples clip and maybe some Hazardous materials from from rippling that's what's called. It's called hazardous. Hey, wait a minute.

Wow. Just like New Age Bible versions one place on the entire cover and it's on the cover. It's only on the spine. It says GA rippling her. No, no author on the front. No author on the back. Just GA rippling her again.

I was trying to hide the fact that she is a twice divorced woman so there you that's how you sell books and Independent fundamental Baptist churches that are King James only that allow her to preach from the pulpit which is really an interesting thing.

To.

It's always fun. Anyhow, let's go ahead and clear the the board here real quick and then we'll jump into the Tim Staples stuff. Let's talk with Kyle. Hi Kyle.

Doing good good good reform convert from Norman, I guess. Thanks to Norman and thanks for your for responding.

So you read that you read norm stuff and then found out somebody responded to it. There you go, you know I'm sure that norm just loves to hear those testimonies, too.

No, I've never had anyone respond negative anything I've ever said about that. Yeah. Yeah. I've gotten accused of being I'm causing disunity or or been cautioned there and I recognize that the New Testament.

Yeah, well, you might find some folks to chat with On a personal level over at the founders ministries because they have to deal with that all the time. That's the the primary area that. You know when you talk to folks at the founders Conventions and meetings you talk to all sorts of folks that are struggling with that very issue, but obviously if on a Confessional level the church has as a part of its Statement of faith or you know as Anabaptists, I may not even be a statement of faith.

Since you kept using that term Anabaptist. I'm assuming I guess I hope that's the right term.

I mean, I don't I guess I don't know what we call our name is that I can cover the.

But.

Apostolic Christian Church, that's that's interesting because That a lot of. Is that part of the apostolic Christian Church of America? Yeah, I think so interesting interesting. I'm looking at looking at the website right now, in fact, and so there is a statement of faith on this and.

So, yeah, it's fairly yeah, okay, so you have a statement of universal Atonement in the fifth point of the statement of faith and Let's see Faith which results in repentance beginning. At least there's repentance in there.

That's good. Spiritual rebirth, but of course that's on the basis of faith and repentance. Baptism by baptism of faith by immersion is Father Son Holy Spirit, okay. It's not. No, there's there's a fair amount here, but they're oh, this is interesting head coverings.

On that I've seen both sides and I think I could. Well not well maybe but I'll admit it's not my.

Prime primary area of Expertise. I mean, I I know some even Reformed Baptists that have head coverings. I I understand the text to be in the context of Corinth and the need for head coverings there because of certain cultic practices amongst the people but Others see it as a as something that has continuing validity today.

It's it's not something I've spent a whole lot of time on but Basically since we've got a bunch of calls coming in real real fast for some reason. Let's put it this way.

It.

There there comes a time when you have to make a decision between.

The.

Desire and the need for consistent biblical teaching and Emotional connections to a church that a person has been a part of for a long period of time. Basically I think if you're in a church that by its confession Says we are not reformed that you shouldn't be seeking to try to change that now, I would suggest sitting down with the elders and and asking You know some serious questions asking for some some Interaction on the biblical text, but my experience has been in the vast majority of instances There eventually comes a point where there's basically said well, you know, that's not where we're going and You really can't you really shouldn't be promoting this within within the fellowship and and at that point, I think that there needs to to be a Acceptance of that.

I don't think you need to be you know sticking portions of Calvin's Institutes in the in the hymnals or something like that, you know, and and what that eventually leads to of course is to you finding a fellowship where there is a Consistency on these issues because it's not a side issue.

It will determine for example So many things that the nature of worship not only the nature of the of the message preached but responses to tragedy Suffering death. I mean, there's just so many places that it ends up impacting things and you're always feeling like well Can I say anything about that?

Well, I guess I can do that. Yeah and for me, especially it just wasn't possible to Remain in a situation like that. I had to find a place where there was consistency. And so I am NOT a church hopper and and I think that a person has to have a really really really good reason To leave the fellowship of a church.

And so that's why I would first sit down with the elders and talk about these things. But once once that has happened and there is a clear understanding and a clear indication that well as the elders This is where we're going.

Then I think honesty just requires us to Find fellowship where those those things are believed as a group I think love also would require you to be straight up front and and and to and to not Make them feel like they're constantly having to watch every every word that you say, you know something along those lines.

So sure, I don't think you know I think you are showing love for someone by recognizing that their authority in that church is such that you would not seek to overthrow it.

Sure. No, and that's and that's my heart in it.

I'm assuming that you mean beyond what is available in the potter's freedom because.

I love that. If I could get that for you know, I wish there was.

You know, well there is. I mean the Reformation Study Bible and the I've been told the ESV study Bible is fairly reformed as well. I don't all I the only form I have that it is on my Blackberry and I really haven't spent much time with it.

But I've been told that the notes they're fairly.

Fairly good as well, but I do have that and I like it. It just happened and a lot of times the explanations aren't as good as what you had in your potter's freedom. Yeah, well.

That I don't know of a single book that just simply You know goes through the various proof texts that can be used. I think that what I try to do in the potter's freedom and in my books the God Sovereign Grace and drawn by the father is to teach people to reason in such a way that when they encounter text they can detect where the The ice of Jesus is taking place.

So, you know, you're you're good reformed commentaries, you know might be places to go there. But I don't know what else I would recommend to you. I mean other than the the standard works on the subjects that that address the various issues like Anything from you know, the sovereignty of God through R .C Sproul's the materials and and things like that John Piper's book on Romans 9 the justification of God.

I mean those are fairly in-depth resources.

Sure. Yeah, no, and it's just a matter of paging to my laziness. But it's just a matter of paging through and finding the best one and and piling it all together. But maybe that's a good practice for me.

Indeed. All right. Thank you. Kyle. Yep. Thank you. All right. God bless. Bye. Bye. Eight seven seven seven five three three, three four one lots of calls today. Let's talk with Dan. Hi Dan. Hi, dr. White.

Yes, sir. This is Dan. How you doing? Good. Thank you.

Sure.

Acts 13:48 and the Sovereignty of God in Salvation

Predestination. Well as I mentioned in the debates.

I've done on this and in the in the books that I've written and addressed this one of the one of the problems. Do you read Greek? Okay. Well if you do then, you know that It's fascinating to me even made the commentaries fall into a real basic trap at this point that is is troubling especially when you find it in publications, but Tasso is not alone.

Tasso is part of a phrase. It's part of a paraphrastic construction a son to talk Menoy and people. Just just completely missed that when I debated Steve Gregg on the subject. He did the same thing with Tasso running around looking at various uses of Tasso sometimes he wouldn't even look at how Luke used it or anything along those lines and the fact the matter is it is In a paraphrastic construction that has a particular understanding to it a particular Tense understanding to it because of the paraphrastic construction.

So when people just just focus on Tasso and forget that a son is sitting there and that makes it a a paraphrastic instruction. Then they're just not reading the text very very carefully. That's why I would think most people when they look at a text would go, you know I wonder why so many of the major translations all render it in the same way and Steve Gregg said well as a you know as a King James.

And they were influenced by the Vulgate and blah blah blah well, that's all nice, but the reality is the reason that the vast majority of committee done translations Whatever their theological bent render it this way is because that's what it means.

So the to say that well, this isn't the term for predestination. Well, nobody says it is. I don't know any I Suppose there might be some cow was out there. I'm not one of them that goes this as some major proof text what it is is a demonstration that that the that Luke has no problem in just simply in passing recognizing the absolute sovereignty of God in this matter of belief and There is no question the idea of those who were disposed and things like that that's a new world translation that and that's the level of of that it just simply does not deal with the facts as the As Luke would use these terms as if they somehow disposed themselves that assumes So many things that have no foundation in the rest of what?

Luke has written in his own use of Paraphrastics and Tasso and so on so forth. So it says they had been appointed to eternal life and as a result of that They believed and and so he doesn't expand upon this.

This is not a text like John 6 or or Ephesians 1 or Romans 9 where the specific topic is the eternal decree of God in regards to human salvation. But it is one of those texts where you see the just the the worldview the the ease of understanding of the inspired writer in recognizing that When the Gentiles heard this message There was a response, but it wasn't because some of these Gentiles were better than other Gentiles.

It wasn't because some of these Gentiles were more spiritual or less sinful or whatever. We might want to insert in there the reason that there were certain ones who believed and others who did not is because they had Been appointed to eternal life and as a result they believed and I think we have to go elsewhere for the mechanics of that.

But I I think that most of the effort that has been invested in attempting to Get around the text has been misplaced because the text says what it says and It doesn't provide much in the way of commentary but It is quite consistent with what is taught on the subject in in other contexts.

Well, yeah, I think it is but I don't think that that's the subject of of of the text that the text is just simply narrating what happened and Luke is in using this language is demonstrating that he believed.

That the reason that that the reason that Lydia Responds and others do not is why because the Lord opens her heart. Why do these Gentiles believe while others mock? It's because they have been appointed to eternal life.

Well. Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's just a passing reference. It's not it's not I mean, it's just simply it's just simply a simple way of speaking of Ordination to something in a paraphrastic construction.

Luke uses a primarily classical Style of Greek. He's not trying to discuss the subject of predestination. It is a reference to it it is a reference to the fact that that's the result of it, but it's not meant to be a Synonym or something because that's not what he's discussing at this point in time.

No, it's not meant. That's not the subject. The subject is not to discuss predestination or anything else. It's just simply reflective of the fact that Luke recognized that those who believed did so for a specific reason.

It wasn't that they were better than somebody else. It's just this is Luke's recognition of that Thing we call the sovereignty of God. That's that's how I understand it. Yes. Well the context the context obviously is the hearing of The gospel by the Gentiles as specifically announcement that the gospel is going out To the Gentiles followed by the fact they began rejoicing and glorifying the Lord and As many has been appointed it's it's just simply a matter of the appointment takes place prior to the belief.

It's again It's not the subject of this of the text to try to say and this took place in eternity past.

There's that's that's taught very plainly in the New Testament, but that's not what Luke's trying to communicate this point. I just did.

You're not listening to me.

I.

Just said that the statement that is made is that when they hear they believe now the appointment comes before their belief. Now if you want to come up with some New Testament teaching that God appoints people outside of his eternal decree fine.

But that's not the subject of the of the Of the text so if you want to if you want to come up with something else and read into that fine. But we have to go to the other place where you're you're coming up with that consideration.

The New Testament teaches that that choice is in eternity past and so I'm I'm just being consistent in In in seeing it that way, but I'm not saying that this text is talking about eternity past or anything else.

It's just Luke's recognition that God's appointment is what resulted in their belief. That's okay.

So when they were ordained, I guess I would look for this. And why would you think that God acts in time like that? He works in our heart.

So you you you do believe that God that God's ordination is what results in a person's belief? So why didn't why didn't he ordain the other Gentiles?

Why do you only during ordain these ones like if you take the word or die?

I can't go there because that's not a biblical phrase. You'd have to show that to me.

Okay. Well, do you understand the concept of proving? Of course? I do. Of course. I don't know it.

I well know what the theological construct is. I just don't believe in it. There's no such thing. Okay, well God's grace. God's grace actually saves it doesn't try to save and fail. So I just haven't encountered this.

This quote-unquote. Prevenient grace that's given to everybody that makes them sort of a moral neutral agent. And and enables them and all the rest of stuff. I I'm well aware of the the concept. I just don't find it in the Bible.

Yeah, the problem is that God teaches in John 645 and that's he drawn. The ones he teaches are those that he actually raises up. It's those that he draws. It's the it's the elect.

I'm sorry, what in John 645?

It says what? No, no, no, no, sir, you are you are incorrect there. It has been written in the prophets. They shall all be taught by God. That's God teaching okay, as everyone hearing from the father and mothone that would that is the the concept of The the moth a taste the disciple so that is reason the result of God's teaching not what comes before God's teaching.

You just just reverse the order. Well, what's it saying. Jesus is explaining in John 645 what he said in John 644 that no one can come to me. That's the father sent me draws him and I'll raise him up on the last day.

The one who is drawn is the one who is raised up on the last day. Why is that because even as the scriptures are taught as it is written in the prophets? They they those that are being drawn will all be taught of God.

That is something God does. This is this is a revelation of God this is describing more fully the nature of this drawing that God is doing and so everyone then. Hearing from the father and learning is coming to me so he's coming to me John 637 all the father gives me John 645 the one hearing and learning from and how do they hear.

And learn because God is drawing them. God has taught them. That's it's all divine and we respond. That's that's that's why by the end of the discussion at John 665. You know Jesus keeps saying and you can't come to me unless it's been granted by my father and they turn around walk away.

They're offended by that.

Okay.

Well, every one who hears from the father and learns is coming to me everyone every single one everyone that learned. Yeah, everything one that those are those who are who are the drawn? They are the ones given by the father to the son if you start at John 637 and Walk all the way through it is not my hearing and my choosing to hear or my choosing to learn.

That determines whether I come. Jesus said all the father gives me will come to me very same Greek phrase as will come to me at the end of 645. So if you follow that straight through then the only way for you to be consistent with John 6 is to recognize that this hearing and that's the That's a that's a active Participle.

The same type is believing in the in in the preceding portions of John 6 the one hearing from the father Learning from the father. That's what the drawing is. Is the one coming to me? So this is just a description of what that drawing is.

So anyway, that's the reason Dan that That I'm being consistent. I've never said I have never asserted that Acts 13 48 as just a single phrase is Containing just you know Everything the Ephesians one says or Romans 9 says but it does say that the reason that these individuals Believed was because they were appointed now if you want to for some reason say that they were appointed.

Because at that point in time they rejoiced Or or whatever else it might be. You know, I guess you're free to say that I don't see any reason to believe that that's that's the problem with that. But then we've got a bunch of other folks.

I'm afraid who are calling in today We got to get to them. So thank you very much for your call today on that interesting subject. We're just gonna I guess keep moving on here. We've got we got too many people to get to here.

So We've already had the Jared on hold for 22 minutes. Let's talk with Jared. Hi Jared. Hi, dr. White. How are you?

Um, I was calling in with a question about federal vision. Actually I understand you had a issue I just recently Came into contact with federal vision. I just recently found out about within the last few weeks and found out quite by accident from that ever accurate place called Wikipedia.

Noted that you were a federal vision. So I guess my my two questions are What is in your view from what you have been able to and what is?

Jared is there a radio or something in the background?

There.

There's something you know what. There's something in the next room. Let me turn it off. Okay. All right.

Yeah, that'd be helpful because it's sort of making it hard to have you have you on. Okay. Yes. So so what is it? And what was the second part?

What parts about it your opinion or unbiblical about the federal vision controversy?

Federal Vision, Baptism, and the New Covenant

Well, the debate I have with Doug Wilson was was rather focused on Roman Catholics. Well, yes, but it was illustrative of one of the primary problems with the federal vision and that is the The idea of grabbing someone by their baptism.

It is a as I see Federal visionism at least is how it was five years ago. Now every movement grows and changes I Sense it has not been something. I have been spending a lot of time on but I sense that there has been a fair amount of divergence Amongst even the federal visionists themselves in the brief period of time that This movement has had that title.

I believe it got that title at the 2001 Auburn Avenue pastors conference, I think was really what sort of launched it and at that particular conference One of the one of the speakers Was Trying to remember the man's name Schlissel.

Mr. Schlissel Delivered a sermon where he really went after He talked about for example Martin Luther's statement the justification is the article the standing or falling church and he just he just mocked I said that's ridiculous it's absurd and It's interesting that a lot of the federal visionists come to me in the same conclusions that the new perspectivist do but they're not new Perspectivist they get there from a very different route.

They they are in some ways somewhat hyper sacramental And almost hyper confessional they take a view of Even the Westminster Confession of Faith that that many others would say is an inappropriate Understanding but basically what what they were emphasizing was and and what we debated was this idea that Trinitarian baptism joins you to the New Covenant and therefore to evangelize a Roman Catholic is to Grab him by his baptism to in essence say by your Trinitarian baptism.

You have been joined to this covenant and therefore you need to be faithful to this because God's going to judge you on the basis Faithfulness this New Covenant my argument against Doug Wilson was that Roman Catholicism is not even a Christian religion.

And so it's baptism whether it be in the name of the Father Son Holy Spirit or not is irrelevant without the gospel Baptism is is merely an external symbol.

But wouldn't we as reformed Baptist believe that it is regeneration and not baptism that that combines us to the. Of course.

Yes, yes most most definitely. Yeah. A federal vision ism had can't really have any impact on reformed Baptist by by by our statement of faith. The 1689 would really preclude any of the perspectives any of the approach because of our view of the New Covenant and a number of other issues along the way, but you know Doug Wilson is is probably one of the least radical of The federal visionists there are others who've gone much farther than then he's gone and that's one of the real real problems is that it seems that federal vision ism has become somewhat of an open doorway for a number of Presbyterians to move into a more liberal stance of new perspectivism because new perspectivism comes to me the same conclusions about the nature of justification moving it out of the soteriological realm and into the Ecclesiastical realm that NT Wright and others have come to but they come to it from a position of a much more liberal view of scripture Than the federal visionists do and and I still see to this day a lot of people just lumping the two together because well I see some similarities.

You can't do that. There. There is a difference Between the two of them, but did you get a chance to listen to the debate with with Doug Wilson? I did. Yes.

I put yeah, okay. All right every time. Okay. Yeah, so I'm and the reason I'm calling is because. From what I got from the debate was that federal vision is so much wider so much more broad than just the topic at hand.

It is and and It's a little you know Debates have to have some focus or they'll never get anywhere. So There has there have been a number of critiques of federal visionism that you might want to get hold of I think probably the primary one that most people would direct you to is the work of guy waters.

I think it's w a TT ERS on federal visionism That's probably going to give you the the fullest response. But again, it's very difficult to critique the movement because there are so many Different levels to it and people come and come at it from so many different perspectives.

I mean Steve Schlissel's position is Significantly different in on a number of points as far as I can see than Doug Wilson's is and so Unfortunately, you have to sort of go. Well whose version are we talking about here?

All right, and so it's It's not as big of an issue as as it was a few years ago when it first came out a lot of people Really focused upon it But I think both it and new perspectivism remain Important issues to be aware of because they tend to find audiences within seminaries And so if you're you find you you know, you're you're freshly minted seminary professor Talking about stuff and it's like well, that's something sounds weird here.

Then that's that's unfortunately where a lot of this stuff Becomes Multiplied and promulgated and so on and so forth. Is it it is it on in some ways is attractive on a quote-unquote scholarly level.

So that's very very frequent. One thing that I did notice about federal vision in the specific context of what their view of the Covenant is is that you fall on the second one does the new covenant is.

If I understand it, right is in their view is merely an extension. An extension a perhaps a better extension or a climax I think was the word Steve Wilkins used. Yeah and that I. Just don't see how they can really believe that.

Well, you're touching. You're touching on the very area where.

You know Everyone could tell that if we'd really wanted to do that debate up, right? We would have done one night on the issue of baptism and then the next night a Division because we're touching on the very issue of the nature of the New Covenant and that for people who know these issues and Unfortunately, a lot of people do not but but for people who know these issues they know that the real issue between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians and others has to do with the nature of the New Covenant and As a result the Covenant signs.

It's not about modes or things like that if you really want to get into the subject that's where you've got to be Going and so that's why this has primarily been within Presbyterian circles where this battle has been fought.

It basically is yeah. And that's why the PCA and OPC and everybody else has had to write statements on things like that. Reformed Baptists haven't because it's just not confessionally possible to To go there because of our view of the Covenant, but.

My Reformed Presbyterian friends. We got it right a long time ago.

I'm just I'm just going to Anyway for all my Presbyterian friends in the channel to have a heart attack right there, but. Have you did you hear the debate that I that I did with with Bill Shishko on this on the subject of?

I'm actually listening. It's in my laptop. I've. I'm on my fourth time with okay.

You know and Bill is a strong opponent. And so You get the sense there were some of the primary issues are In in dealing with this issue is is saying that that he and I would debate on that issue. But he and I together would oppose federal visionism in its various forms, especially when it starts.

Resulting in a compromise on the doctrine of justification. Historically this actually goes back to can be traced in some of its forms to the Northern Presbyterian Southern Presbyterian splits as well because you can find some statements in Charles Hodge Representing a more northern Presbyterian perspective that would be more amenable to the for the federal vision perspective your southern Presbyterians Would be opposed to that.

So it's it's in some ways a sort of a resurrection of that Division and some of the issues related to it, but guy Prentice Waters is the guy you want to look up. And it is actually W a TRS not TT but he's going to give you probably the widest range of citations of The federal visionists themselves so you can get a sense of how wide the movement itself is right?

I'm looking at a list of theology. It's quite a. To Ligon Duncan to R .C. Sproul to guy waters the image of MacArthur to. And your name's on it as well.

Yeah, oh, yeah, there's no question that it elicited a strong response as it needed to but Unfortunately not a lot of people ended up really interacting. You know like in a debate where you can in fact to be honest with you I got I got a bloody nose with a lot of folks for even having dared to debate Doug Wilson.

In other words it There's this odd attitude amongst many people that you just shouldn't do that kind of thing and. So so on the one hand I've been criticized because I'm not willing to throw Doug Wilson under the bus and banish him from it from heaven.

And on and on the other hand I've I've gotten people who you know won't invite me to speak at conferences because I I Dared to debate Doug Wilson. That makes me a loose cannon, so I don't know you know I I just muddle along and we just do our thing and leave the rest.

Understand. I've been considered anathema anathema because of my opposition to pedo-baptism, so.

I'd like to point out that I have never done one of those debates that I was not challenged to do. We never went to Somebody else and said let's debate this subject. It's always been someone's come to me and said let's just debate the subject and in fact just right.

A couple days ago. I was asked well. Why don't we do that in Australia. That subject in Australia like you know I? Mean if I have to but I really that's not. I've said my piece and we make it available.

And I think it's clear and I leave it to people look at and it's just not something that I'm Really all that excited about you know making a hallmark of what I do because I've got some very very dear Presbyterian brothers as well.