James Responds to Paul Copan's Appearance on the Bible Answer Man

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 participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James white. Well and good morning. Good afternoon.

Whatever time it is for you wherever you are. Welcome to the dividing line today. My name is James white and today we have a lot to get to. It's been interesting of late last night I was sort of Brought into an interesting situation.

I had never been on pal talk before I tried it once we have a firewall it makes you know has we have issues going back and forth and Did not have and do not have a microphone yet hooked up to my computer.

I have a microphone sitting in front right now, but that's actually hooked up the sound system and so on and so forth but anyways went in there went into a a Channel was brought into a channel called Calvinism is it biblical and Had a fascinating time listening to the folks talking first of all that was different and then reading the comments and It is interesting.

I did notice that there was a difference between the comments and what was written in other words people are more likely to say something strident and Sort of nasty When they're just typing then when they turn their microphone on and everybody knows who's talking.

I found that Enders interesting study in human psychology, but anyways It was it reminded me a lot of my my days many many moons ago back when I would go into the AOL chat rooms and try to talk with folks in the Christian chat rooms on AOL and you get folks that just They they do not have the humility to ever Consider the possibility that maybe they might want to do some study to find out what they're talking about and that does take humility I'm sorry but there are a lot of folks who think they're very humble by just simply being ignorant and ignorance is not an aspect of humility and There were folks just throwing stuff out.

That was just like you've got to be kidding me, but where did that come from? In in the typewritten stuff there was a woman I assume it's a woman with the name Rachel in her in her ID or whatever and She was just throwing stuff out and after I left actually as she was talking about how oh We had a famous author in channel who insults Jesus Christ well I'm so excited and stuff like that.

And I'm like and by the way Rachel if you're listening feel free to call in and explain that I'd like to know you know What what thought process goes into that particular kind of? You know assumption I don't even follow that but anyways it was interesting it was basically Sort of a re rehashing of Whoa, that's about 14 times louder.

It was a few seconds ago there's a basically a rehashing of Dave Hunt material and I found that ironic because I was I'm sitting here surrounded by printouts of The Dave Hunt book, I'm back on that project now finish the project.

I was on before and Back on that project it's not that much more to do. But it's very confusing at this point because there's there you have 14 different Topics that you're juggling and you've got to know am I supposed to be doing a thousand word response or 500 word response?

And you have to put them in order so you can see what if they're well train of thought ha ha there's no train of Thought but where the basic subject line was supposed to be going anyways, and so it's pretty.

It's it's a little confusing right now, but that's what I'm working on right now. And it was it did encourage me to continue this project for the simple reason that I was hearing a lot of his stuff repeated as if it was gospel truth and That that bothered me a good bit, but anyways the reason I mentioned all this is last week some of you may recall During the disaster that was the Thursday evening dividing line.

No, no singing today for those of you who who have been writing and asking me to put out a CD and things like that. No, not going to be doing that. He didn't have callers mentioned however some phone calls and Guests on the Bible answer man broadcast on Thursday and Friday well obviously they were only talking about Thursday on Thursday.

And then dr. Paul Copan was on on Friday as well and talked more much more about the doctrines of grace and of course There was one good caller that called in gave a good question. But there was no give-and-take there was no response from the Reformed aspect and Given some of the seriousness of some of the charges specifically that people are driven away from the Christian faith by Reformed theology.

We are going to give a response the things that were said by a dr. Copan on the Bible answer man broadcast and Let you know what what it would be like if there was a two-way street there, and there was a response it could be offered.

I again feel that Dr. Copan was was considerably less strident. Being the scholar that he is in then much of what we see out there, but I still think that It really looks It looks like a very consistent Arminian perspective being presented.

There were there was the again Amazingly the standard miss citation of Matthew 23 37. I mean this citation. We've talked about this before it is absolutely incredible to me how many people Miss site Matthew 23 37 and it gives clear evidence of the of the traditional lens through which they read Scripture.

Those of you we've talked about it before people look at Matthew 23 37 they assume they don't exegete it. They just assume it even the error of saying Jesus was weeping over Jerusalem in Matthew 23. He wasn't he was berating The Jewish leaders he was not weeping.

But he says Jesus is weeping over to some just like Dave Hunt did and then when he quotes it He does exactly what Dave Hunt did in our dialogue back in 2000 how often what I've gathered you under my wings.

But you were not willing you would not exact same miss citation. We hear over and over and over again. It's incredible, but anyways, we'll we'll take a listen to that. So that's we're going to do today on the dividing line and I have ten clips to play.

So I I need to get at it because we only have 53 minutes left and less than that actually, so let's let's start with the first section. Well again this.

Can raise some Questions even within the Christian community and and again what I'm presenting is something that I have found both intellectually satisfying and one that does Justice to the biblical text and and what I argue is that God doesn't select individuals for Salvation but rather chooses a body of believers.

We have been chosen in Christ that we become Believe we become part of God's chosen people. It's it's a corporate view of election. We don't we aren't called in the New Testament. We're not called elect until we are already Part of God's people by faith as we freely respond to God's initiating grace.

And I want to emphasize that it's not as though we can just choose our salvation. But rather we without God's initiating grace None of us would ever respond but God does give us the the freedom to respond to his grace.

Let me just pause it there for just a moment. So we don't get too many things In the queue here all at one time. Throughout this presentation we will again hear the problem. The the real issue being that from dr. Copeland's perspective We have prevenient or initiating grace and this prevenient or initiating grace is given to everyone and Yet some people freely respond to it and other people freely not.

This grace does not guarantee salvation. This grace instead makes salvation a possibility. It does not actually bring about salvation. It makes possible salvation theoretically possible. This is of course the position of Rome That insists that grace is necessary for salvation.

This is the dividing line that has been there all along between synergism and monergism. The synergist insists That grace is necessary. But also insists that it is Insufficient in of itself to bring about human salvation.

So as to protect libertarian free will the power of grace must be limited to a prevenient. Enabling that then brings a person to a position where they are then able to make the right decision. That doesn't always happen.

In fact, it's left up to man whether it happens or not, etc, etc. I also would have to disagree very strongly with the assertion Made by dr. Copeland in regards to the idea of the elect. He says we're not called the elect until after we freely exercise faith.

That simply isn't true. Ephesians chapter 1 does not allow for a corporate understanding. The direct objects of the verbs in Ephesians chapter 1 are personal. They are not an import. Whoa Hello I just disappeared and now they're hey quit play around over there, man.

Just that was one of the weirdest things ever heard. We're we're having further technical difficulties. But we do not have a person on the phone line that means someone is playing with the sound equipment.

Anyways, oh now I just fell into a box into a well down here the well weird stuff going on here. Okay. Anyways, I'll try to remain a professional here. Despite all the weird stuff going on around me anyways Ephesians chapter 1 does not allow for The idea of mere corporate election.

Christ is not the elect one in Ephesians chapter 1. It is not an impersonal group that is chosen in Ephesians chapter 1. In fact, it is individuals and they are chosen to personal sanctification and holiness.

They can't get any more personal than that and Therefore this this assertion. Well, we're not called the elect and so we've believed well if you're meaning by that that the term Elect is used with people who've already believed.

Well, of course, you're addressing the church. The issue is is Election post faith. Do we in essence elect ourselves? Do we enable God to allow? Us to be called the elect and that is not the case at all election is is eternal.

And it is not impersonal.

It is very very directly personal as we see in scripture. Or to reject it as Stephen said to those who are about to stone him You are always resisting.

The Holy Spirit. That's Acts chapter 7. I've addressed that number of times. It is certainly one of the most commonly used passages. It is also one of the most commonly misused passages because Stephen is not talking.

He is not even beginning to to assert that the hard-heartedness of The Jewish people that he has been recounting in their history. Is somehow an assertion of the ability of a dead sinner to resist the work of the Holy Spirit and drawing us to spiritual life?

Instead this is of course very clearly In Stephen's context anyways the rejection of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings conviction to all men of sin and righteousness and judgment.

But there is nothing in the context that is talking about the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing his people unto himself. This is this would be directly contradictory to any meaningful exegesis anyways of John chapter 6.

And the meaning of drawn the meaning of given by the father the son all the rest that kind of stuff. It's just not there. But that kind of a passage is just always just thrown out there. After a while you understand that these seven or eight passages that these folks throw out there.

But they will never give you exegesis. You'll never hear exegesis of Matthew 23. It's just simply thrown out there as if well. It's just plain language that happened in the channel last night in that pal talk channel.

I was a well. It's just plain language. This is so obvious that can't possibly be right. That's the same kind of thing we have going on right there and so.

Basically a person is predestined to hell unless He turns away from his sins and responds to the grace of God and those who have Responded to the grace of God are Predestined to a life with God in the new heavens in the new earth.

Notice the predestination then is not of individuals. It is just simply well if you're a sinner you go to hell, and if you believe you go to heaven. That's all predestination is about.

People need to understand that the terminology is being used and so that you know I thought it's sort of like in the Old Testament a person like Rahab or Ruth who are Gentiles they become part of God's people because they respond to the opportunity to to to become part of the people of God and so before.

But once they respond and become integrated into the people of God and similarly in the New Testament We become elect once we respond by faith to the offer of salvation. By by grace through faith in Christ, and so that is how I would respond to that.

And there are some good resources that I give at the end of the chapter that point people For further reading that they can do on the on the topic, but it again it is. You know there are some Christians on that and I don't want to get into it too much here.

Well it seemed pretty obvious to me that Dr.. Copan really That's not his issue. That's that's not the subject. He really wants to address. But it kept coming up now this next clip Was very interesting to me especially because one of the callers asks about the open theistic view of people like William Hasker and those Individuals John Sanders and others and I don't know about you.

But it sounds to me like he basically presents a middle knowledge perspective. He wants to and does very clearly in the other clips. We're going to get to very much. Reject the existence of a divine decree.

Working all things at the Council of his will is not going to fit in this system. Certainly anti-reformed non-reformed in his perspectives on on that kind of a thing. And very much follows the same type of view of a passive Idea of taking in knowledge of the future In in the comments that he makes here, so listen to how a a non-reformed person responds to open theism.

Well, I just wanted to ask what and you guys just alluded to this a little bit on Predestination stuff, but what your viewpoint was on the open. William Hasker's wanted to get your guys's thoughts.

Yeah, there's a there's a lot of spawning to the openness of God. I think that thought. I think that you see God in Scripture as someone who knows in precise detail What is going to happen? But that doesn't undercut human freedom because God being who he is would know what?

Humans would freely do in whatever world he would create them. That would be as I'm hearing him. That sounds like he's promoting a middle knowledge concept and so for example for Jesus to know that Peter would deny him three times.

It seems like you have quite a quite a remarkable statement there of the precision of Divine foreknowledge that it's not something that's merely General, but it's something that is very specific and and we can go on to talk about that.

I do try to address some of those things in my book. That's just your interpretation to to show that the open of the open theism view is.

Is inadequate. It's interesting me. I don't know how. On a middle knowledge theory you can explain Peter's three denials of Christ. The grounding of God's and this is one of the key issues. The grounding of God's knowledge of future events is his decree.

If you do not have a decree I don't know that any meaningful theory has been presented as to how God can have that kind of specific infallible knowledge of future events especially of quote-unquote free creatures.

I've not heard a meaningful answer that and.

Them being undermined. But you can make truth. You could make such a time and it would be true. Just saying at such and such a time without God being in the picture at all. So it's hard to say see how a male God God.

Now if you didn't follow that don't feel badly because I didn't either the first few times it Sounds like what he's saying is since we can accurately predict the future at times. Then God's knowledge of future events could not be causative.

The problem is and This is this again is where I don't find non reform positions to be coherent in their theology. Proper is. We're not talking about God getting it right once in a while. We're talking about God getting it right all the time.

It's the infallibility of his knowledge of exactly what's going to happen. That is the objection of a William Hasker or the other open theist is saying if God knows without question Where I'm going to go to lunch today, and it's not possible that I go someplace else Then I am NOT free in the sense of autonomy and libertarianism to go someplace else.

And the the what what I think he's saying is yes. But God simply knowing that doesn't mean that it's going to happen. Well. How does God know that infallibly? Is this how does God have knowledge of future events is it just simply he takes in passive knowledge if that's the case then we're Stuck with the idea that God created the universe he rolled the cosmic dice it came out well, and so he goes Oh wonderful great praise me for this that that's not praiseworthy.

It could have come out badly, and we could have a scripture that tells us that evil wins in the end. Let's all go out and eat drink and be married for tomorrow. We die.

Seemingly that that could have happened as well. It's hard to know exactly where this is going. Because you could formulate truth statements about about the future. And would we still be fatalistically determined?

I think that the the openness people would have to say no, but then that you wonder well. Why does God's foreknowledge? Make the big difference here. If you can formulate true statements about what will happen in the future With or without God then it's then the issue to me seems moot.

It's not moot at all because the issue is Whether what happens in the future is because of God's sovereign decree or not and once you say it's not Once you abandon the sovereign decree Then what what here's here's fatalistic determinism?

This is the irony is that it is so commonly asserted that Calvinists are the ones who believe in fatalistic determinism. Fatalism by nature is without purpose it is impersonal and so if God has no sovereign decree and yet the future is Perfectly known to him.

That's fatalistic determinism. Isn't that weird. How you know you make accusations and then end up.

Holding that exact position yourself, but that's just you know I think one thing that can be brought up in response. But I do have a chapter on divine foreknowledge and human freedom in my book. Well, that's.

Okay, well we could. I I'm not sure how that works. Anyways now very interestingly. This next one. I do not understand. Here Dr.. Copan is asked about knowledge and causation. It goes back to what we were just saying and He did.

A section from his book is read about psychics having Knowledge of the future. But this doesn't cause it as if this somehow something to do with God's knowledge of the future the perfection of his knowledge of the future is is parallel to a psychic I.

Yeah, this this this one.

Well you listen for yourself by the way the chapter is entitled if God knows what we're going to do Then we don't have free will. And in that chapter. I was just turning to Paging through your book and and looking at page 78 where you make the point that?

God's knowledge of future actions does not by itself Hinder human freedom since knowledge does not actually cause anything. And then you give the. The analogy of a psychic who has the intuition that a murder is going to take place.

He asked the question what did the psychics knowledge actually do even if we can truly say that the psychic knew? That a murder would take place. We do not conclude that the butler did not Freely commit murder.

Expand on that.

Yeah, what I'm what I'm simply trying to to say there is that just because you have knowledge. No, you know granted that if you allow that the psychic genuinely has knowledge of what is going to happen.

Just because you have knowledge of something doesn't mean that you are the one who causes it. It's simply an awareness of what is going to happen and. And similarly we can talk about that with God that God knows what we are going to do.

And again, I don't want to get into the whole issue of you know God's control because I think that there are ways to To understand that as well but the simple point is that knowledge in and of itself does not cause anything and.

And so that's basically where I'm going with that. We can talk about you know Knowing that Jesus is going to return but our knowledge of that future event. It's up to God's barn. So God's knowledge of future events does not cause them.

That means they are uncaused or they're caused by fate. But they're definitely caused by God. Obviously what is being presented here is the passive idea that God takes in knowledge of future events. Maybe not in an ongoing process.

Maybe all at once. Maybe at some point in time. I don't know how you put all this together. But what you definitely do not have is the historic reformed perspective that God's Absolute knowledge of future events is based upon his Decree the fact that he created all things including time itself.

That is that is definitely the one thing that we do not have being presented here now. We did get a caller and the name. Sounded familiar. It really did and I've got some good buds down in Tampa, Florida.

But this caller was from Tampa, Florida and he asked a good question.

Well, that's an excellent question very well put. I appreciate the fact that when folks call in to national broadcasts.

And present a sound question. They do so with with clarity and forethought. Thank you very much to our brother from Tampa for for asking that meaningful question and How is it answered. Well, we'll look at the first section of the answer then take our break and.

Well, it looks like we're going at a good enough pace here unless I stop start preaching. Then maybe I'll take a few phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three forty one.

Let's hear how the the answer began. Yeah, it's a very good question. That's why I said I just don't get the feeling that dr.

Copeland wanted to be going here During the majority of the program. Very loaded question. Someone says that they're not really comfortable with this particular subject.

But as I forgot everyone has turned aside together. They have become now. That's the first part of the response and I'll just simply point out.

We need God's initiating grace is exactly what the Council of Trent said. There's nothing new about that. That is that's the you can go to semi Pelagian ism and all the all the Realm in between. And saying that grace is necessary is nothing new.

It is not the same as what we are saying in any way shape or form to say the grace is necessary. The issue is is grace sufficient. And you can tell that after the assertion that grace is necessary. What you're going to hear after this is it is not sufficient to bring about the salvation of any particular individual without their free cooperation the activity of their will in actualizing that grace and bringing about the state of Salvation.

But that is what we'll be looking at in the next response. We're about halfway through them and making some pretty pretty good time here. So we may be able to take a couple of your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three forty one.

But first quick break and we'll be right back.

Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God. James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith in a readable and responsible style.

Author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611. You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a Omin org, what is dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios.

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant.

In his book the potter's freedom James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded.

Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate. James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen. Or this portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. And the worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26-grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org. Where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Back to the dividing line. My name is James white.

I was just sitting here during the break reading some of Dave Hunt's response to something I said about Genesis chapter 20 and Oh My my my my my I need a lot. If they had a pill that gave you patience I would.

I really need it right now. I really do. Anyways, we're reviewing some comments that were made on the Bible answer man broadcast concerning Calvinism and the next section we're going to be looking at continues the response that was offered by dr. Copan in regards to The very excellent question asked by a caller from from Tampa.

And so here again, we get some of the the idea of how God's grace can be resisted etc, etc. And I believe yes, this is a section. Listen closely folks. What does Matthew 23 37 really say. Is Jesus weeping?

No, he's not weeping. Does you say he wants to gather the Jews under his wings and they would not know he says to the Jewish leaders How often would I've gathered your children under my wings, but you would not.

He differentiates.

But that's not what you're gonna hear. But the question is can that? Illumination can that act of God that prevenient grace as it's been called. Can it be resisted and from. From the way that I read scripture it does.

Seem that that is the case. God who desires that none perish, but that all come to repentance is someone who has offered Christ to us the one mediator between God and man and. So you have scenarios in scripture where the where the Holy Spirit can be resisted.

As Stephen said you are always resisting the Holy Spirit or Jesus in Matthew 23 when he cries out When weeps over as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not. You know God talking in Ezekiel about how he has been hurt By the adulterous ways of his people.

To me. That seems to be more than that that there is something more going on than the kind of scenario that you described. And again, I know we could go on for a long time on this but ever so lightly.

Well.

Unfortunately Given the miscitation of Matthew 23 the lack of any Exegesis of Acts 7 or Matthew 23. I don't know what the Ezekiel thing has to do with with any of this Relationship with Israel etc. Etc.

We're we're really not given any kind of of a meaningful response. I don't think the caller got his question answered. Then again, I don't think there really is an answer from the perspective That's being presented now.

It seems to me. Dr. Copan wants to move on but that's not what happens.

But you don't believe in total inability. In other words. You don't hold that we are made in such a way that we can't respond or that a response is a work.

Let me stop that right there. I don't know anyone who says that we are made in that way as the fallen sons of Adam. We have that inability due to Our depravity and due to our sin not that we were made that way.

That's a miss miss. Inaccurate representation of the reform perspective. I don't know anybody who actually teaches that Adam was made in enable unable.

That that obvious is a result of sin. Exactly. Yeah myself the wrapping I don't know being in myself that in the gift that just. Well.

What's odd is the the objection is is not what is presented here. The objection is if each has been given the exact same kind of prevenient grace Then what makes one man to differ about another? What makes one man to accept and one man not if both are given the exact same grace if God is.

If God cannot in any way have redemptive Redemptive love for his people and so he tries equally hard with each individual which seems to be the the fundamental concern Then why is anyone saved? Why will there be people in heaven and other people in hell?

Well, if it's if the answer is not to be found in God's discriminating grace Then the answer must be found in the person himself. I must in some way shape or form be more spiritual better more pliable smarter more intelligent more wise something than the people in hell and that just simply isn't the case and the praise of the glorious grace of Jesus Christ is Greatly diminished when that grace is simply turned into something that tried really hard But failed with a bunch of a bunch of folks and it only worked with the other ones Simply because of the fact that they cooperated with it.

It still moves the fundamental decision Straight into the arena of man and that's exactly what the system wants because it is promoting the concept of libertarian.

Freewill. One other question related to this. The analogy often is made of Lazarus. Lazarus was dead. Dead men don't respond. Is there a category mistake here between.

Physical death and spiritual death. Now, that's not the first time that Hank has asked that question and normally it's not a question. Normally, he's making the assertion. Hank believes it's a category error to use this illustration and I use this illustration all the time.

And if I had the opportunity of explaining it, I would say I'm not saying that John chapter 11 Is meant by the gospel writer to be taken as a discussion of the means of regeneration, however if we are saying that there is no connection between physical death and Spiritual death why is the term even used or are we saying that Jesus Christ Lordship over the physical realm is?

Not the same Lordship that exists in the spiritual realm and that is what's being said. That is what's being said. We need to recognize that the non-reformed person may want to be willing to grant the Lord Jesus Lordship over the physical realm however.

Because of libertarian free will the Lordship of the spiritual realm is in man not in Jesus Christ. That's why you have the picture the inaccurate picture of Jesus standing outside of a knobless door Meekly knocking not the powerful picture of Jesus standing outside the tomb saying Lazarus come forth and So it is a beautiful picture of raising men to spiritual life.

Truly an incredible picture, but here's how the response came.

Well, I think I think you do have to be careful about how you construe this and when you talk about death. You also have other images too that are I think very important to consider as well. And you you see for example images of enlightenment.

You know and again. I don't want to get into the whole issue surrounding Hebrews about One's losing salvation, but what you do see in Hebrews chapter 6 for example is those who have been Enlightened and who have received the heavenly gift.

There does seem to be this. No. You know if you you know say that a person cannot Lose his salvation or lose his faith. You do have an example of someone who genuinely receives Enlightenment that there there does seem to be this.

And so I think you can bring in other images and scripture does bring in those other images and in the whole area of life. And death may not be doing Proper tribute to paying proper tribute to the other images that might be useful in discussing this whole issue of well.

I'm sorry. I hit the stop button there too quickly. Well in other words well since there's other Illustrations that are used and he goes to Hebrews 6 and I certainly would not in any way shape or form Go to Hebrews 6 to to illustrate some type of general enlightenment of man, but that That in essence is is what's done there, but I want to hurry up because we've got some colors in line.