Caesar’s Gold, Augustine Actual Again

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is a Thursday, I think, about that time of the week or so.

And beautiful here in the Phoenix area right now. Really is. We had a little bit of a nice cool down.

It's actually, I saw 59 degrees. Now, you don't understand.

Some of you, most of you in the rest of the world go, yeah, so. But starting next week, we won't see anything in the 60s again until probably late

October, early November for the low at night, at sunrise, you know, coolest part of the day.

Yeah. So to have been up to like 107 and now it's like it was like 88, 89 yesterday.

That's, you take your blessings as you can take them.

You really do. Anyway, I'm totally hesitant to even ponder or consider making comments about what happened the night before last.

But I sort of need to, I'll try to keep it brief and I will try to, but I'll be honest.

What happened is the troublemaker from Texas, and you all know who that is. The troublemaker from Texas had been commenting on Twitter about churches and monies.

And I hadn't followed all the links, you know, frequently, you just sort of have to look something and go, okay.

And you don't get to really follow up on it, but I finally tuned in and then he sent me a text and I figured out that what he was talking about was churches taking money from the

United States government as part of what CARES, PPP, the PPP portion of CARES, payroll protection, something.

Yeah. And he's, he's telling me about some of the churches that he understands have taken money and how much, how much.

And I'm, I'm just like, no, no, that's, no, that's, that's not, no.

And then he starts giving me more information and more information. And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.

Millions of dollars, fake money anyways, but millions of dollars from the empty treasury.

So from underneath the floor of the empty treasury, as we dig deeper and deeper and deeper into absolutely unsustainable debt, um, deeper and deeper and deeper, millions of dollars that was supposed to be for businesses.

And as people were quick to point out, I couldn't believe how fast people were nonprofits, millions of dollars.

And I'm talking some churches, literally a single church taking more than a million dollars.

One, I've been told, and I don't know how I'd ever be able to verify it. I hope someone's digging into these things.

I'd love to see some public records of this. One particular mega church, $2 .2

million. And I'm, I, at first I, it was just really hard to even believe it.

I just, I just figured this must be a complete anomaly because we're sitting here talking about the church and state and the proper, um, the proper realms of each, where the authority is supposed to, is supposed to be.

We're talking about a period of time where the government is clearly making claims that it has the right to determine not only when and how the church can meet, but what the church can do in its worship.

All for our safety, of course, and for the common good, of course, always.

And in the midst of this, we, we actually have churches that are taking money from the

United States government to keep their, well, their doors aren't open, but to keep their payrolls going, taxpayer money.

Now, just on a governmental level, leaving, leaving the theology and that Bible thing out,

I'm just like, how does this work? I, it, why didn't, why wasn't the

Freedom from Religion Foundation, uh, all over this one, like a duck on a

June bug? I mean, and that would be one time I'd go, yeah, okay,

I'll, I'll, yeah, sounds about right. How, we're not supposed, that's not supposed to be happening.

They're not supposed to take money from us. That's why they can't tax us. See, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

I mean, and we didn't make that up, by the way. That was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the

United States that said that. So we're not talking about that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I knew, yeah, yeah. Okay. So I'm going back and forth a lot on Twitter with some guys talking about this, and they seem to be of the impression that the church doesn't pay taxes because of nonprofit law.

And that's, that's garbage. Nonprofit law started in 1954, okay?

So get rid of all nonprofit law, revoke all nonprofit status, shut down the

United Way, or make them for -profit, shut down all the UN stuff, shut down all the nonprofits, and the church still doesn't pay taxes.

It shouldn't. Because taxation is a burden upon that which is taxed.

And the First Amendment clearly says they cannot restrict the free exercise.

Yeah, but nobody, but nobody today has any idea why that was. Yeah. They don't, they don't, they have no idea that there were established churches.

They don't know anything about history. And so they think that the non -taxation of churches is a benny.

Right. It's, it's something that we talked the government into and therefore we owe the government something for that.

Well, I keep wondering why it is that so many that have this attitude about the First Amendment that we can just look the other way on all this religion stuff.

How about doing that with the press? Well. Because it's in there too, right there.

It's all coming apart at the seams as far as that goes. So, but you know. But just on the governmental side of things, the idea of taxpayer money, whether you want to admit that it's taxpayer money or not, being used to pay payroll for churches should cause anybody to go, whoa, wait a minute, that doesn't sound overly kosher to me.

Well, I don't understand the number, but one of the the exchanges I had said that there was a church that had over 500 employees.

Are you kidding me? I don't understand a church, even a mega church, needing 100 employees.

Well, I would guess possibly, you know, if you have food for the poor services, as far as running a warehouse, clothing stuff, who knows?

I don't know. But if you think about when you and I were part of a mega church way, way, way back when, I, I can't add up to 100.

Oh, pretty close, yeah. Yeah, I would say so. No way 500. Not 500.

I mean, maybe Osteen's Church. Well, I don't know. But, you know, you go back and forth and ask the question, okay, so your church isn't holding services because of this, for whatever reason.

And we can have that debate. We've been having that debate. But your folks decided that 2

Corinthians 9 is out the window, too? Since you're not having services, you're not providing me the service, so therefore your business, the business transaction, isn't actually happening.

So why do I need to buy your product today? Because you're not selling it.

That's the attitude. Sorry, I'm sorry. Yeah, the dividing line today is being hosted by Rich Pierce, and I'm just gonna sit back and listen in.

Hit my hot button, bud. Well, yeah. Well, it was my hot button on, on Tuesday evening, because, so, okay, so there's the, there's the constitutional thing.

Let's get back to, let's get back to Caesar and the church. Can you imagine the

Apostle Paul writing to the churches and saying, you know, this, this famine across, across the

Roman Empire is, causes real problems. So we've, we've decided to apply for, for special imperial monies from Caesar to help us get through this difficult time.

Can you imagine that? Can you imagine the Roman response to that? It's a real thing.

I just, it, it just blew me away that pretty quickly, there were people immediately coming back and saying, well, there's, there's nothing wrong with that.

I mean, if it's being made available, well, first of all, I don't think that was its intention, but even if it was, here's the issue.

If you don't think the church has any business speaking prophetically to the government, then

I can see why you might go, why not? Why not? If it keeps, keeps the lights on and the doors open, big deal.

We all know it's funny money anyways, and it, the bill won't come due to this for a few more years, maybe.

But, but then why, if you take that perspective, then you're never going to be able to say a word when the government mandates, and they're this close doing it already, mandates the celebration on your part of the

Obergefell decision, tells you you cannot have a pro -life

Sunday, that if your church has people outside an abortion mill, and my church does almost every day of the week, you can't do that any longer.

Once Caesar, once you have Caesar's money in your pocket, what can you say?

And, and the problem is, I think there's a lot of churches that go, we don't ever intend to do that anyways.

What about gay marriage? That was Obergefell. Well, yeah, but coming in and ordering the pastor, you will do this.

You will perform this wedding in your church. Yeah, and if you, and if you kept your church afloat with Caesar's money, and then

Caesar tells you to do this, what, what moral ground do you have to say, no, you don't have the right to do that?

Because Caesar's going to go, and by what right did you take my money? I, I was just left going, and some people are like, well, you know, you've been saying that there can be different views as to whether you, you know, go to online stuff and things like that, and trying to parallel the two.

There is no parallel between these two things. It's one thing to have the argument that you should shut down to love your neighbor.

Now, look, it's been well said. There have,

I, I, I was contacted, I won't mention any places, but by people outside the United States about the program last

Thursday, and one of the main points that was made in discussing, who was the,

Lehman? Yeah, the, the Lehman article from Nine Marks.

One of the points that was made was, if you take this perspective, then you're only shepherding a portion of your people.

The others that have a conviction that they need to continue to worship, you're just leaving them out. If someone, and there are, we, we have created a subclass of the panicked in our society now, and they are, they, they are not happy people.

They tend to be very angry people, and they, they tend to lash out, but if you have people who are panicked and who are afraid, you, you don't force them to go to church.

You don't want that kind of person in the service first place. So you, you leave, you leave freedom in that situation, but at least one of the first things that we talked about in our church was leading our people to not be panicked, to not be experiencing this debilitating level of fear.

Anyway, there are people outside the United States that were going, man, we, we need, unfortunately,

Lehman's article is going all over the place. We need written material to respond to it.

Good, he's going to do it. I'm glad he will. So there's just, my initial response was shock, and then it became more shock when people started saying,

I just, I just can't understand why you're responding this way, and I'm like, it's not the same thing.

How, it, there, there are two completely different things. Now, look, there's no question that when the shutdown started, the initial story was a couple of weeks.

That's what we all thought. I mean, everybody was, was, was quarantining for two weeks, and then you're good, right?

Flatten the curve, two weeks, and then it's three weeks, and then it's a month, and now it's been what, 10 weeks now, something like that?

I've forgotten what the, what the number is, but, but it's just getting ridiculous, and the, the, the narrative keeps changing, but at least initially, it was very brief.

Help everybody get over this. Nobody had really thought it through. We weren't given time to think it through, and major leaders are getting phone calls from governors asking for their help.

Can you help us to save lives? Okay, we need to revisit all of that because it's,

I, I am not a prophet nor a son of a prophet, but this will happen again.

This will happen again. It may happen before the end of the year. It will happen again, and what we're seeing is we are seeing governors who are absolutely power drunk, power drunk.

They love this, and their worldview has no restraints on it, and so this is going to happen again, so we got to think that part through, and, and really know what we're doing, and it would really help if we're all on the same page.

I know we're not going to be, but that, that would help, but this is a completely different issue.

This is taking government money, bowing to Caesar, and taking

Caesar's money, while at the same time, Caesar is in every way making it clear that he thinks he can tell you what to do in worship, when to worship, how to worship, whether to worship at all, along with the fact that Caesar is already starting to define as hate speech, reading from Leviticus or Romans or First Corinthians.

I, I just didn't think that anybody would, would even defend it. I, I just, my assumption was anybody who did this, they're just hoping no one's going to notice.

Um, I was obviously wrong about that. I personally think that if a church says, you know, what we did was right, and we are not ashamed of it, announce it.

Put it out there. Tell the government, we want our name put out there. We, we took, uh, funds from the

United States government as a part of the corona pandemic, uh, to, to keep ourselves going.

Uh, we did it, and, uh, we don't think there's anything wrong with it. Put it out there. Don't, don't make people guess because, you know,

I can think of the one church I've been told in Texas makes perfect sense, big mega church.

But then there was a reformed church. I was told not in Texas that I was like, really?

How, how, what? Now I can, uh, we have, we have the, uh, the primary leadership of the ministry sitting here.

Um, we're not taking any money from the government anytime soon, right? We have never, nor will we, as long as I'm breathing, as long as you're breathing, take money from the government of the

United States or any other. Or the Russians. Or the Russians. Or the Chinese. Or the

Ukrainians or the, you know. Whoever it is, don't bother sending it. Yep. So there is that.

Yeah. Um, and I can tell you, I don't think

Jeff would mind that Jeff's response was, not unless we're dead. Sorry.

There's a consensus there. Um, over our dead bodies. Exactly.

Um, but I'll be honest.

I just, when I first saw this, I was just like, no, it had never crossed my mind that someone that people in leadership of the church would actually go, yeah, let's, let's take government funds to keep things.

It just, and when that, that's, that's not a good situation to be in when you get hit with something you've never even thought of before.

And then the more I thought through it, the worse it got, the worse it got. Um, so, um, anyway,

I, if, if anyone was offended by how offended I was, I acknowledge your offense.

I'm not apologizing for it. I can't, I am deeply offended by the mindset that views the church as a business.

I know it. I know we have to function in Caesar's world. I get it. We've got to fill out the forms, got to do this stuff.

I get it. But there is a clear line, a very clear line between doing what is necessary to function within our society and taking

Caesar's money to keep going. The source for the church is called

God and the ordained mechanisms that God has provided for the continuation.

And we are all hurting. We've all had people in our, in our, uh, our congregations that have lost jobs and income and we're having to dig deep to meet needs right, left, and center.

But it just never crossed my mind that we go, I wonder if the government would do that.

Um, I, I don't,

I, I really struggle with how anyone can, can come up with an overarching narrative that would allow them with a straight face to say, yeah, we took what?

$150 ,000 from the government. That's going to help us out for a while. But I can assure you that if that same government comes along and tells us that we can't say this, or we can't worship there, or we can't, we're going to, we're going to stand right up to them and say, no way.

Well, okay. I hope so. I hope you don't mind that they're laughing at you. Uh, you know, the guys that signed the checks that you took and cashed, they're, they're going to be looking at you going, oh, really?

Hmm. Okay. If you say so. I, I just,

I, I was, I was, I have one more thought. I, what, what

I find most curious about this and what started in Tom's, I don't know where along the line you picked up on what was going on with...

Who? Tom, the troublemaker in Texas. Yes, I'm sorry. Um, his primary point was well taken, and that is that there's this cooperative fund.

Yeah. And isn't that what that cooperative fund that all these different churches send amounts of money to is for?

I mean, you think about the church that we were a part of in the 1980s. In the 1980s, the pastor was so proud of the fact that we sent $1 million to that fund every year.

That's how you became president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Well, he was trying anyway. He didn't actually do it, but... I know. Yeah. By anyway, but the question of the taking up a collection for the saints in Jerusalem, there's that passage in Acts, none of these things seem to be going through people's minds, and I don't understand why.

We're supposed to be helping each other out, that there comes a point in time where a church has plenty and another church doesn't, and we help each other.

But no, we turn to the government. Well, and it's not like, see, the thing was this, no one could have planned, no one could have planned this because there was no system involved where the government says, if a pandemic happens, we're going to do this.

It's like, no, the government all of a sudden said, we're gonna make this money available, and it had to have been a fairly...

somebody had to come along and say, hey, they're saying non -profits can apply, and we're a non -profit, therefore, here's the solution to our problem.

And it's like, there could not have been extensive reflection over time, but in my opinion, this really goes to how you view the church and how you view its role in regards to Caesar.

It really does. It really does. I'm done. I promise. I'm done. Well, I'm going on to stuff about Manichaeism in many ways, and you've never, ever, ever turned on the mic about that, so...

So, there you go. All right.

So, developing story, because I did say

I think there should be public revelation of the amounts of money, and who took it?

I really do. And I would encourage, personally, any church that took government monies to give it back, or at the very least, do what it was supposed to have been used for in the first place.

Find yourself some local businesses that are struggling and help them out. That would be my encouragement at that particular point in time.

So, there you go. But yeah, if you want to see what happens when

I just get hit with something I just never, ever, ever thought, then there you go.

So, Pastor Luke is sending me WhatsApp messages. He's editing a tract he's written, and I had not objected to, but suggested that one particular phrase might be somewhat opaque, a little bit difficult to understand.

And so, he's asking about other possibilities, and I managed to type out, doing the

DL. And his response was, stop reading this then. Thanks, Ver.

Appreciate that. It's a live program, folks. It really is.

Okay. I did get a few more minutes, thankfully, over the past two days.

Not a lot, but did have a lot of fun this morning. I'll just mention this quickly.

Just had a lot of fun this morning. I've wanted to get out to my daughter's visit to grandkids and set up my solar scope.

I have a hydrogen alpha solar scope. And so, yes, you can look directly through it at the sun, because that's what it's designed for.

It won't do any good for anything else, I can assure you that. You wouldn't see anything else in it, because obviously, it's highly filtered.

But it's filtered to only give you a certain spectrum so that you can look directly at the sun.

And so, we got that all set up this morning. And my dear chiropractor's husband and oldest son got to come along with us as well.

I am such a klutz. We set up in the backyard, and I'm helping people look and stuff.

And then I want to tell the kids about the sun and about how big it is and that 99 .8

% of the mass of the solar system is in the sun. So all the other planets, the asteroids, all that stuff is 0 .2

% of the mass of the solar system. All the rest is in the sun. Think about that. It gives you an idea. And the sun's made of hydrogen and helium.

So you really get an idea of... And I'm explaining fission to them and fusion.

And then I connected it to the trees in the backyard, the next family over, and the chlorophyll.

I was just doing the science teacher thing. I was Department of Fellow in Anatomy and Physiology. I've got the science background.

So I was doing my thing. Well, I'm wearing a hat because it's sunny. And the way it was sitting on my head, they've got this big old honking bug zapper back there.

And I plowed into that thing twice. I mean, plowing into it once, it's not your backyard.

It's understandable. But smart people now plot that in their mind.

Not me. And I had just seen Nicoletta. I had just seen my chiropractor.

And I tore my neck up twice banging into this thing. But I had to take her husband back.

And so she laid me back down, fixed me back up. I was like, there are a lot of people that think

I think I'm so smart when actually I'm normally walking around going, James, you're an idiot.

Because I am. But we did have fun. And what was neat was we could see a light spot.

It's not a sunspot yet, but a lighter spot on the surface of the sun.

And then some plasma ribbons on the very disk. And I have a bunch of there's a called a

Soho. It's the Soho app for your iPhone that gives you today's pictures of the sun for with various filtering.

And so I brought up the hydrogen alpha one. And what we saw in the scope was much clearer than even what we had in the image, to be honest with you, it was it was sharper, more of a 3d type thing.

But it did verify. Yep. What we thought we were seeing is exactly what was up there.

And it's, it's an amazing thing. We live an incredible universe. We really do. And I really enjoyed really doing my best to instill in my grandkids a thirst for learning, reading, studying, making the making yourself the best you can be not settling for mediocrity.

And doing so as Christians, in the sense of recognizing the tremendous creative power of God, and our role in that and how we can, we can honor

God, and we can glorify God in the study of his creation.

That's what it's supposed to. If you really want to see where science, quote, unquote, scientism, not science, but scientism has gone wrong.

Scientism has gone wrong in its idolatry.

Because while we have more knowledge than we've ever had before, we do not acknowledge the source of that knowledge.

We, as Romans one says, says, we suppress the knowledge of God and refuse to honor and give thanks to the one who created all of these things.

Even though the complexity and beauty of these things is a constant testimony to his, his power and his goodness.

So I want my, my grandkids to excel in the study of true science.

Because true science will always be done under the lordship of Christ, under the lordship of the one who made all these things.

And hence gives consistency to, to all of these things. So we had a good time this morning.

And like I said, it's not beastly hot yet. Out in the sun, it was probably near a hundred, but in the shade, it was, it was upper seventies or lower eighties.

That wasn't, wasn't bad at all. It was beautiful. So did have, did have fun doing that. Okay. Took the first half hour for those preliminaries.

And we will try to tomorrow do some, some phone calls at the start.

We haven't done that this week. We'll try to do that as best we can tomorrow. Oh, one quick note, as I mentioned at the top of the program,

I will be on with Emilio Ramos this evening at 7 p .m.

Central. So I guess that would be 8 p .m. Eastern. We're going to be discussing all sorts of textual critical stuff,

CBGM, numbers of manuscripts, things along those lines. And that will be live via Skype, I think, with Emilio Ramos.

So you can look up Red Grace Media and you can join with us this evening as we look at those things.

One other thing, I am in contact, you may have noticed that there were two relevant debates, and I don't think

I have them on anything on this unit, now that I think about it, as far as the downloads go.

So I can't, you know, do anything with that. But a fellow by the name of Stephen Boyce did two debates very recently, within about a week.

Well, I think it was the next day, wasn't it? One with Leighton Flowers, and then one with Jeff Riddle.

That's an interesting stretch, as far as the topics going from Leighton Flowers and all his allegorical man's abilities arguments to Jeffrey Riddle and the issue of the

Percopi Adultery. I have not listened to either one of them yet.

I'm going to try to listen to at least the Jeffrey Riddle debate, as I have about 75 to 80 miler to try to do this this

Saturday, um, mainly in the dark, because it is going to start warming up by Saturday.

So I'll try to get to that. But it is nice to see somebody else taking on some of these topics.

Like I said, on our blog, I'm not, see,

I'm not sure which ones have been posted yet, because I see them before they appear when I post things in there.

But um, What If We Rewrite the Stars is the

March 20th. Chris Wisenant has given us, discussing

Henry Wilson's work, Part 7, What If We Rewrite the Stars. So there's more information being presented in regards to the background and history of Augustine and the early church fathers and things like that.

So I'm glad to see that. I've mentioned a book being worked upon, not by me, but by, by others, especially in regards to the baptism and church history issues.

So I like to see positive things. I mean, I think that on a social political level, the panicked, agenda -driven overreaction to a disease that has a 99 .98,

99 .95 percent survivability index.

Did you notice this morning, for example, John Glenn's wife died. And of course, of complications, the coronavirus.

She was also 100 years old. How often, honestly, how often when 100 year old people die, do they focus upon the final mechanism?

Because when you're a hundred, it can be almost anything. Normally that's what's said, but no, no, no, not today.

We had to obviously keep pumping it up, keep pumping it up, keep pumping it up because it has become the mechanism of societal legal change.

And it's going to keep working that way because it's effective. How did

I get into that? I don't know. I'm not sure where I was going with that one, but that's okay.

I don't know. I don't know what I'm going to hear when I listen to these debates, but when we,

I get around to it and I listen to it, we'll, we might review some of it on the program. If there's, you know, particularly useful material that we'll look at, we'll, we'll see.

We'll see. So where are we?

Where are we in doing what we were told cannot be done?

And that is in responding to a dissertation from Oxford university, because if it's done at Oxford, it is automatically the best there is.

And the seminary for which Dr. Wilson teaches is willing to say he is the leading expert in the world today on Augustine.

I think the vast majority of church historians would go, who, what, what are you talking about?

I do not see that this dissertation has made any impact in Augustinian studies of any serious note, but be as it may, we're told you, you, you, you, it's just, it's just beyond you.

You can't, can't do it. Yeah.

Someone just posted a, from the space weather, space weather app. I'm not,

I thought I had that. Yeah. The Soho one, I was really disappointed and I'll, I'll, I'll have to, someone just put,

I've got a solar monitor, the sun now in Soho. I need to look for space weather app because that is better.

And that is much closer to what we, yeah, that's pretty much what we saw. That's pretty much what we saw today.

I'm sure that's what Soho had too. I just don't know why it just, it, it transferred to my phone in a rather low resolution thing, but the

Soho app gives you all those, those things too. But I'm going to look that one up and get that one.

Cause I, I like having, I love, you know, any weather apps I have on my phone. It's really embarrassing. It's really embarrassing.

I, I, I, I can give you every kind of radar image known to man when, when the monsoon storms start coming.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm a little bit of a geek on, on those levels, but that's okay. Anyway, going back to Dr.

Wilson's dissertation. So where are we? Is this just never ending? I mean, it's hundreds of pages long, so we could be doing this forever.

Well, again, I've tried to make the examination relevant by spending a fair amount of time reading from original sources, whether it's from Augustine or whether it's looking at the

Manicheans. One thing we, that we haven't done yet that we really, really, really need to do is to go through Gnosticism.

We've talked about it a little bit. We've talked about Manichaeism. We've really gone through some of that.

And I know we spent some time, I read from the Nag Hammadi scripture. I've read from the secret revelation to John. We, we have done some of that, but I, I feel like there does need to be a little bit of discussion of Barbalo and it would be helpful to just discuss a little bit of the difference between Gnosticism and Manichaeism when it comes to the nature of divine beings, in essence.

And what I mean by that is what is the ultimate God, if we can use that term, in Manichaeism and Gnosticism and how they differ.

Because fundamentally, for there to be any kind of logically meaningful connection between Manichaeism and Gnosticism, Augustine, and then

Reformed theology in regards to the sovereignty of God and his actions in this world, then there has to be coherence at key elements of the worldview.

Let me illustrate why this is the case. The, and I've mentioned this before, but let me just make sure you understand.

When people argue that the Jesus story was derived from the various religious mythologies of the period before the time of Christ, Egyptian mythologies,

Greek mythologies, Roman mythologies, when you start examining, you know, well, you know, this

God had 12 disciples or this God rose from the dead or this God was born

December 25th, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and connections are drawn between these things.

The, the serious responses to this offered by Christian theologians point to the lack of coherence at key worldview points that destroy the relevance of the alleged parallel.

Now, some of them are just stupid. I mean, having a fetus sewn into the thigh of a male until it's born is not a virgin birth.

Okay. That's just stupid. And the

Isis, Osiris, Horus mythology, hacking,

God's getting hacked up into 14 parts and can only find 13 parts and becomes a zombie God of the underworld is not the resurrection.

The necessary points of connection of coherence are lacking and therefore that type of argumentation is fallacious and we need to be teaching our young people why that is fallacious and to think with clarity on these things.

I'm simply applying the same standards here. And if you can look at the primary culprit is

Manichaeism because Augustine was a Manichean hearer for nine years.

So if you can look at Manichaeism, recognize it's complete dualism.

It is more consistently dualistic than Gnosticism. We identify

Gnosticism as dualistic because the Gnostics say if it's spiritual, it's good.

If it's physical, it's evil. And so they, they bifurcate reality and we call that dualism.

But Mani took that even farther to where he says that the light principle and the principle of darkness, those two realms are co -equal and co -eternal.

One did not give rise to the other. Now in Gnosticism, the realm of the physical, though not directly created by the primary good deity, comes into existence through the mistaken activities of emanations that do come out of him.

So the physical realm is not eternal and indirectly is created at least by the power of the eternal deity or the greatest of the deities, the non -emanated one, if not by the will.

In other words, didn't desire that to happen, but the last and lowest of the emanations, the eons from the one true

God known as Sophia or wisdom, erroneously brings about the physical creation.

So Sophia's power was derivative back through a chain of emanations back to the one true

God, but there is no expression of that one

God's desire and will in the creation of mankind. So Gnosticism is dualistic, but it's not as consistently dualistic as Manichaeism.

I suggest to you that neither Manichaeism nor Gnosticism in light of its theology proper has any logical, rational, philosophical, theological, or historical connection to the

Christian understanding of the one true God Yahweh as the creator of all things who does in the heavens and the earth as he pleases, to quote

Psalm 135 .6. There is no logical connection, philosophical connection.

There is no relevance between these two things. The attempted connection is incoherent.

It lacks coherence in worldview and is therefore bogus, inappropriate, and wrong.

And if that's true, the entire thesis that is being put forward as applied to Reformed theology is refuted, stands refuted, and cannot be rescued.

And to remind us of that, let me plug this in.

Let's just remind ourselves, this isn't my word.

This isn't my, this is, here's, I know, I know, I know, you've all heard it, but we have people tuning in all the time.

Got to make sure that we're understood here. Mark Bailey To say that Augustine was the first to clearly articulate these views, that coupled with what you found, it seems to be an insurmountable argument against a more deterministic understanding of the text.

Yes, if you want to remain a traditional Christian. If you want to go be a Manichean Christian with Augustine, then it's fine to take a deterministic view.

But for a traditional Christian, you should hold a free will view. So this is, that's

Dr. Wilson speaking, being interviewed by Leighton Flowers. I did not tell

Leighton Flowers what questions to ask. This was recorded long before I ever heard it.

This was recorded before the foundation of Augustinian Calvinism was published, but after the dissertation was published.

This is the application that's being used, that we are being called Manichean Christians. So that assertion, which

I'm seeing repeated more and more in written materials, in social media, which tells you something about social media, but I'm seeing it more and more, that assertion would require coherence of worldviews at key foundational and definitional points between Manichaeism, Gnosticism, and let's throw in the others that are used,

Stoicism, completely different foundational set of thought than the other two, and Neoplatonism.

Those points of coherence do not exist. The thesis is disproven thereby.

So that's the first thing. Secondly, is the use or misuse or abuse of Augustine and the constant, the constantly biased interpretation of Augustine, even to the point of the abuse of secondary sources such as the

John Amira source that we pointed out last week. Those are issues that need to be addressed and looked at.

So where are we? Well, we are, we have already provided sufficient examples of foundational errors in methodology, citation, and utilization,

I think, to establish our point. But what

I will put together is a summary statement. After I finish looking through the conclusion to the opening, after I establish firmly that, to me, the most central necessity of the dissertation was not fulfilled, and that is a definition of defense of an application of the specific hermeneutical principles of each of these groups.

Now, you're not really going to have an exegetical principle of Stoicism because it exists prior to this time period.

But certainly, in Valentinian Gnosticism, in Manichaeism, we are told all the time that Augustine went back to Manichaean interpretation.

Well, if I'm going to say that someone utilizes

Mormon interpretation, then what do

I need to do to establish that that is the case? In social media, nothing whatsoever.

But in serious scholarship and in Christian discussion, if I am going to say that someone is using

Mormon interpretation, then it is insufficient for me simply to go, well, look,

Joseph Smith interpreted passage X to mean that God has great power.

And this person interpreted the same text to say that God has great power.

Therefore, he's using a Mormon interpretation. Now, what's the problem with that kind of thinking?

People get away with it all the time on Facebook and Twitter. What's wrong with that type of thing?

Well, this should be self -evident, but the text might simply say

God has great power and it doesn't matter who's interpreting it. So, there would have to be a particular methodology that is definitional of Mormon interpretation to establish the accusation that I would be making.

Are there such things? Yeah, you bet there are. There are key texts that I can go to.

If someone quotes from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and starts talking about the telestial kingdom of glory, gotcha, because this is a unique definitional aspect of Joseph Smith's interpretation of that text.

If you start talking about temple ceremonies, if you start utilizing language from the

Book of Mormon, if you start talking about Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods being reestablished by Peter, James, and John and by John the

Baptist, okay, now we're talking specifically identifiable aspects of how

Mormons would interpret Scripture. You can do the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses. You can do the same thing with other groups as well.

And that's why on the last time that we looked at this, I went through texts where Dr.

Wilson was saying, here is Fortunatus's Manichean, dupied interpretation of John 665, hoping that we would find something in the citation that would define

John 665 in some way that simply reading the text would not give you.

We didn't find that. And this is absolutely central to the establishment of the dissertation thesis, is you not only have to have a significantly better definition of dupied than the one we've already read to you, but it would have to be rendered in such a fashion that we would be able to understand how there is a connection between Stoics and Gnostics and Manicheans and the

Qumran community and the Neoplatonists. What is it they all believed that has actual relevance as having points of coherent connection?

And what was the methodology they used from Scripture to derive these things? That would be absolutely essential as well.

So I've got all this information that I've been putting together over the past couple of months, trying to sift that together into a summary statement, recognizing that there would be so much more to be said, and that could be said, but doesn't necessarily have to be said.

And the fact that in probability, even after I give my summary reasons for rejecting the conclusions of the dissertation, there will probably be programs in the future when the other gentlemen are at the point in the writing of their book where we can talk about the assertion, and I will talk about some, but some of the assertions concerning faith as a gift of God.

John 3, 5, baptism, these things that are allegedly put forward as radical innovations on the part of Augustine, when

I have books over here from well -recognized long -term scholars in the field of church history that say completely otherwise than Ken Wilson's novel theoretical ideas would require.

So I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'll be honest with you though. I start trying to do fast skimming and I keep getting bogged down because I keep running across a statement.

I'm like, what? What? And then you're off for an hour tracking down the references and getting the material and going, that's not what it says.

That's not even close to what it says. And I forgot to fire this up, so I'm not sure that I'll have time to do it right now.

But one of those happened just, uh, well, where did

I put that? Huh. I was looking at, here it is.

Nope. That's not it. There it is. Yeah. Good. Okay. I found it.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. I was looking at, looking for the page number here.

I realize most of you don't have it, but I, I need to give page 196, uh, of the, um, of the dissertation.

And evidently Logos does not like it if you use other programs while it's opening. Cause I, well, and now it's just not going to open at all.

Um, which is, um, unfortunate because, uh, that's what

I was going to be reading from, uh, is I purchased an

Augustinian resource outside of, uh, and it will not open.

Good old Logos, um, report, reopen, ignore.

I'll try to reopen one more time, but it doesn't look like it's gonna, doesn't look like it's going to take, uh, this time probably going to have to reset and yep, it crashed five times real fifth time.

No, no, this is Logos. Uh, Logos, uh,

Logos has, has issues along those lines. Well, bummer. I wanted to read you a fairly fascinating little text too.

Um, hey, you know what? There is a, there is another way to do this.

Um, at least I think there is someone's probably typing this right now, uh, in, uh, in Twitter going,

Hey, do this. I thought I saw, um, last time that there is a way to do this through the, through a browser to actually access your material through, uh, through the browser.

And I don't, um, I don't see it unfortunately, cause

I thought I, I thought I could. And, um, yeah, here you go.

Uh, the order history, maybe it'll allow me to click on it and open it.

Yeah, there it is. Come on, baby. Uh, be the first to write this book.

Yeah. I'm reading, I'm reading some books that, uh, I would be the first one.

Why? Why? Yes. Uh, yeah, it tried to open the app and I'm like,

Nope, that ain't going to work. Hey, it actually opened to where I needed to. Yay. Ding, ding, ding, ding.

Uh, unfortunately you have to look all the way over here, but Hey, it's better than, uh, better than nothing. Um, uh, well,

I suppose I can, it's just fighting me. No, no, you mean display it?

No, let's not display it. Um, I'm just trying to find the thing that would allow me to, sorry to do this to you folks.

You just skip past or something later on. Uh, there it is. Get the print a little bit bigger.

And, uh, now if I could just get it to take the whole screen, but it won't.

Um, okay, fine. Yeah. Log us. Sorry guys, but your stuff has always been clunky.

Very, very clunky. Okay. Uh, having said all that, let me get back to it here.

I ran across this statement. I believe this is page 181 in the dissertation.

Instead of understanding Romans 5, 18, traditionally as the opportunity for justification for all persons, he forces all men to become the elect because dying infants are damned from lack of baptism without even the opportunity to believe 4 .42.

His extended arguments repeatedly revert to his pato -baptism defense 4 .44 through 46.

So I, I looked at that and I'm like, so then

I, I popped up obviously what's, what's Romans 5, 18. So then as through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men, pantos anthropos.

Even so through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life, ais pantos anthropos, to all men.

Now we've talked about this text a number of times before, but this is a, one of the key universalistic texts.

Those people who believe in universal salvation, all people will be saved. So as through one transgression,

Adam, there resulted condemnation to all men individually. Even so through one act of righteousness, death of Christ, there resulted justification of life to all men individually.

Therefore all will be saved. So this is a standard universalistic text. Now the

Reformed understanding is to recognize the two humanities that are being referred to and hence the ais pantos anthropos.

The first ais pantos anthropos is all who are in Adam. The second ais pantos anthropos are all who are in Christ.

So you have two humanities, two federal heads, first Adam, second Adam. In Adam, you receive from his transgression, the fall, death, and judgment.

In Christ, you receive from his righteousness, righteousness, forgiveness, life.

So what was, what caught my attention then is maybe you are now thinking about what it is that Wilson said.

Instead of understanding Romans 518 traditionally, so once again you have this,

I think it would be humorous if it was not being presented as cutting edge scholarship.

This amazing assertion that there is a traditional understanding of Romans 518 that pre -exists

Augustine. Now remember, this is the time period where you have the shift in the

West from Greek to Latin. This is when you have primarily the theological disputations concerning modalism in all of its various forms,

Sabellianism, Patrapassionism, on and on. Then you have subordinationism,

Arianism, and the Christological controversies. This is what's going on at this time.

You do not have deep focus upon anything that would be considered federal, headship, covenantal concepts at all.

This is not where the focus is. And so you're going to get a wide variety of understandings when the text is even addressed, when it is even addressed in passing.

So this idea of instead of understanding Romans 518 traditionally, well what's the traditional interpretation according to?

Now no references are given. We just simply have to take Dr. Wilson's word for it. Remember the same man who said he went into his doctoral study clueless as to what the early church fathers believed.

I don't know how long he was at Oxford, but looking at how old he is now, he has not had time to become an expert in all the patristic sources.

Nobody does. Nobody does. It's not possible. So what is the traditional understanding of Romans 518 according to Ken Wilson?

As the opportunity for justification for all persons.

As the opportunity for justification for all persons. So we go back to it.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted the opportunity for justification of life to all men.

Now I'm looking at the text and I don't see that terminology and I don't see any textual variance either that would insert that entire phraseology, but that evidently is the traditional interpretation of Romans 518.

It's not that there is a direct connection between the two. In fact, there is a disjunction between the two.

That's what Dr. Wilson's telling us is that the traditional interpretation is that what's in the second half is an opportunity.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation.

Eis katakrama. Condemnation. Well, did that happen?

Is what it's saying is so then as through Adam's fall there resulted the opportunity for condemnation to all men?

No. The whole argument when you follow it back about death and death coming upon all and sin and the two humanities is no.

Through one transgression there resulted. So there resulted is ice with condemnation.

There resulted condemnation. Kutos. Even so in the same way.

So there's nothing in the language that says oh this is a contrast.

This is a contradiction. This is something that's that is going against the other. No. It's kutos. It's araun and kutos.

This is not an uncommon form. Even so, also through one dekaiomatos, act of righteousness.

Eis pantos anthropos to all men Eis dekaiosen zoes.

So you have Eis katakrama and here you have

Eis dekaiosen. How do you break those up? Consistently.

Exegetically. You can't. So if you say the first actually happened, you can't say the second might or it's just an opportunity or whatever.

So if this is the traditional interpretation which I would dispute, it's wrong.

Quite simply wrong. It's not as the opportunity for justification for all persons.

He forces all men to become the elect. How many times now have

I pointed out the prejudicial language? A scholar would say who is trying to in some way exercise some restraint, especially if they know that they have a deep animosity toward the subject of the study, you will have to exercise even more power and more discipline to restrain yourself from saying the things that you wouldn't shouldn't be saying in a dissertation anyways.

So you wouldn't say he forces all men. That doesn't even make sense. He forces.

You could say he interprets, he understands, he asserts all men to become the elect because dying infants are damned from lack of baptism without even the opportunity to So I got the book.

This is the book that we got last night by the way. And this is against Julian.

So what isn't presented by Wilson is the context of what's going on, at least here in a meaningful fashion.

Augustine is arguing with Julian based upon common presuppositions that they share, especially concerning infants and baptism.

He's not debating with a Baptist. There were no such things in the sense of a anti -ecclesial.

Despite the trail of blood, there weren't any independent fundamentalist Baptists running around in North Africa at this they would accept in common.

He's in essence offering an internal critique internal critique of Julian's position.

So here is the section that he just cited, okay? This is

Augustine against Julian. 4 .42.

This is book four. You cite an apostolic testimony saying that God who wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth opens to those who knock.

Now I want to double verify something here because there is a second section and I want to see.

Yeah, he does go into this text later on.

That's what I grabbed. Okay. Yeah. Here he says, quoting another place where it's similar to this, he redefines

God's will for all to be saved. God does not will desire every person's salvation, but God disingenuously infuses that impossible will desire in unsuspecting

Christians so they pray for other persons whom God foreknows he has already eternally damned.

Again, the dissertation is filled with this kind of language, disingenuously and all this kind of stuff, because it's not too difficult to figure out exactly where he's coming from.

But yeah, that's one we'll look at a little bit later on, but this first Timothy 2 .4

section comes up here as well. You cite an apostolic testimony saying that God who wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth opens to those who knock.

You intend us to understand by your teaching that the reason all men are not saved and do not come to the knowledge of the truth is that they do not wish to ask, although God wishes to offer, that they do not wish to knock, although God wishes to open.

By their very silence, infants answer this notion of yours, for they neither ask nor seek nor knock.

Actually, even while they are being baptized, they sometimes scream, spit and struggle against it. I guess that's been a universal experience.

Yet they receive and find it is open to them and they enter into the kingdom of God, where they have eternal salvation and the knowledge of the truth.

Now, let me just stop for a moment. Here is one of those places where I certainly disagree with Augustine, but he is arguing with someone else based upon shared acceptance of infant baptism and understanding of infant baptism that I think is an error, but that's still the context in which he's arguing, okay?

And Augustine did have this odd view where only the elect are given the gift of perseverance, whereas non -elect experience a sort of salvation, but one that will never last because they're not given the gift of perseverance.

Only the elect are given the gift of perseverance. So, you end up with only those that God has elected from time past entering into eternal glory, but you don't have only those experiencing a kind of regeneration, which

I find highly inconsistent in regards to union with Christ and all sorts of things.

So, a far greater number of infants is not adopted for that grace by him who wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

You cannot say to them, I would, but thou wouldst not, for if he had willed, which of them, who do not yet have the power to decide by their own will, would have resisted his supremely almighty will?

Then why do we not accept the statement, who wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, as we accept what the same apostle says, from the justice of the one, the result is under justification of life to all men?

That's where he's jumping back to Romans 5. For God wishes that all those to whom grace comes through the justice of the one under justification of life be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Else we may be asked, if God wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, but they do not come because they do not wish to come, then why do so many infants dying without baptism not come to the kingdom of God where the knowledge of the truth is certain?

Is it that they are not human beings, men, so that the words all men do not apply to them?

Could anyone say that God wishes indeed, but they do not wish, and they who do not yet know how to wish are not to wish in such matters?

When not even the infants who die after being baptized and through that grace come to the knowledge of the truth, which is fully certain in the kingdom of God, when not even these come to the kingdom because of their own wish to be renewed by the baptism of Christ?

If the reason the former are not baptized is not that they do not wish, and the reason the latter are baptized is not that they wish, then why does

God, who wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, not permit so many who do not resist him by any decision of their will to come into his kingdom where there is certain knowledge of the truth?

So, let me summarize. He's arguing with the application, and it's an application that's made to this day, of the statement,

God wishes all men to be saved in a universal fashion by saying, but we see that this doesn't happen because in the case of infants, they cannot resist his will, and yet not all are saved.

Now, of course, there'd be many people today who would argue that point right there. They'd say, well, but in fact, they are, but that'd be on a completely different ground than what would be common, here's the issue, common between Augustine and Julian.

So, he's making an argument that refutes Julian in Julian's context.

It's not an argument that I find at all compelling because I'm not in the context that would include the presuppositions that Augustine and Julian hold together.

Continuing on, this is section 43 if you're making notes. Perhaps you will say the reason that infants should not be counted in the number of all those whom

God wishes to be saved is that infants are saved according to the kind of salvation you understand herein, because you say they do not contract any sin.

And thus, a still greater absurdity follows. You make the benevolence of God greater for the most ungodly and most criminal than for the most innocent and the most free from every stain of sin.

Because he wishes all the former to be saved, he must also wish they enter into his kingdom, since this would follow if they are saved.

But those who are not willing among them block up their own way. On the other hand, God does not wish to admit to his kingdom an immense number of infants who die without baptism who, as you hold, are not impeded by any sin and who, as no one doubts, cannot resist his will by a contrary will.

It follows then that he wills all these to be Christians, but many of them are not willing. And he does not will all those to be

Christians, yet none of them is unwilling. This is abhorrent to the truth. The Lord knows who are his, and his will is certain about their salvation and entrance into his kingdom.

Therefore, the statement, who wishes all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, should be interpreted as we interpret.

From the justice of the one, the result is under justification of life to all men.

So here's, that's where it becomes clear. What Augustine is arguing is that in Romans 5, 18, you have all men, justification of life to all men.

And so, the same phraseology, all men, elsewhere in Paul is to be understood in this context, from the justice of the one, the result is under justification of life to all men.

So the all men is limited to those who are in Christ. That's the argumentation that is being made, utilizing the place of infants.

If you think the apostolic testimony should be explained by saying that the word all means the many who are justified in Christ, indeed many others are not brought to life in Christ, you are answered that in the words, who wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, the all means the many whom he wishes to come to this grace, to the grace.

It is much more fitting to say this because no one comes but him whom he wishes to come. No one can come to me, the son says, unless the father who sent me draw him.

And no one can come to me unless it has been given to him by my father, John 644, 665. And I'm sure that Dr.

Wilson would say, duped, duped, Manichean, something, even though there's nothing about Manicheanism there.

Therefore, all are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth at his willing it, and all come at his willing it.

For those such as infants who do not as yet have the use of free will as regenerated by the will of him through whose creative power they are generated, and those who have the actual use of free will cannot exercise it except through the will and assistance of him by whom the will is prepared.

If you ask me why he does not change the wills of all who are unwilling, and this is a question we get a lot, if God can save some, why doesn't he save all?

Heard that one before? I sure have. I've heard it in Bible studies. I've heard it on street corners. I've heard all over the place.

Well, what's Augustine's response? I shall answer. Why does he not adopt through the labor of regeneration all infants who will die, whose wills are quiescent and therefore not contrary?

If you found this too profound for you to investigate, it is profound for both of us in both aspects, namely why, both in adults and infants,

God wishes to help one and does not wish to help another. Nevertheless, we hold it to be certain and everlastingly firm that there is no injustice with God, so that he should condemn anyone who had done no wrong, and that there is goodness with God by which he delivers many without personal merit.

In those he condemns, we see what is due all, so that those he delivers may thence learn what due penalty was relaxed in their regard and what undue grace was given.

Did you hear what was said? Sometimes when somebody's reading something, even when they're clear, what's he saying?

There's no injustice with God at all. No one is ever given injustice, but he would never condemn anyone who had done no wrong.

There is goodness with God by which he delivers many who have no personal merit.

In those he condemns, we see what is due to all of us, so those he delivers may by that learn what due penalty was relaxed in their regard and what undue grace was given.

Very similar to what I've said many times, why doesn't God save all people?

Well, three choices. You can either save none, you can save all, or you can save some, and in only one of those instances does

God have freedom to accomplish anything, and that is in saving some. And what

Augustine is saying is, when you see those who are condemned, knowing your own righteous condemnation, then you recognize what undue grace was given to you.

Sounds, yeah, it does sound a little bit like Romans 9. You do not know how to consider these matters as becomes

Christian hearts, and it is you who say they happen by fate. That is your statement, not ours.

What is not the result of merit is the result of fate. That's Julian. And last, according to your definition, whatever happens to men must happen by fate.

If it does not happen by merit, you do your best to assert both good and evil merit, less denying merit, you only have fate.

Thus, someone can make the following argument against you. First, you say that if men are given things without personal merit, then there must be fate.

Thus, we must admit merit, you say. If there is no merit, there must be fate. Therefore, infants with no personal merit are baptized by fate and enter into kingdom by fate.

Again, infants with no demerit are by fate not baptized, and by fate do not enter into the kingdom of God.

Behold, sucklings unable to talk convict you of asserting fate. By our doctrine of the demerit or desert due to vitiated origin, however, we say one infant enters in the kingdom of God by grace because God is good.

Another infant deservedly does not enter because God is just. There is no question of fate in either case because God does what he wishes.

But although we know that one is condemned according to the judgment and another is delivered according to the mercy, of him whose mercy and judgment we praise with confidence, who are we to ask

God why he condemns the one instead of the other? Shall the object molded say to him who molded it, why hast thou made me thus?

Is not the potter master of his clay to make from the same mass of vitiated and condemned origin one vessel for honorable use according to mercy and another for dishonorable use according to judgment?

He does not make both for honorable use lest the nature think itself to have merited honor as if guiltless.

He does not make both for dishonorable use that mercy may triumph over judgment. Therefore, the condemned has no right to complain about his punishment, nor can the one gratuitously delivered glory proudly over his merit.

Instead, he humbly gives thanks when he recognizes in the one required to pay the debt what under the same circumstances was bestowed upon himself.

Now that, again, is pretty much what our discussion has been over and over and over again.

And not only is it straight out of Romans chapter 9, but there was another part right before that, though, that talked about the revelation of God in showing both his mercy and his justice.

And that's Romans 9 too, but in other words, the revelation of all of the attributes of God will be fundamentally foundational to our understanding of why

God has chosen as he has chosen. We are not given an answer to why one and not the other outside of God's goodwill, but it is a goodwill.

And that's the important part. And I think a lot of people were unwilling then and are willing today to believe that there is anything good about God having mercy and grace on some, but not others, because of the human assumption that grace can be demanded.

Grace could be something that you demand of God, that God has to give equal grace to all people. That fundamental error in the thinking of man leads to a lot of problems, a lot of problems indeed.

So, but wanted to get to that again, just because we can go beyond just simply looking at the dissertation and go, what was really going on?

And are these conversations still happening today? And they are. They're happening right now in our day.

Unfortunately, a lot of the good discussions of the past are, we're just repeating ourselves over and over and over and over again.

I guess there's no way really to escape all of that, but it does, it does say something to you that we have been dealing with these things for a very, very, very long time.

All right. The rest on 1 Timothy 2, 4, I will get to as time allows, because that is a separate source of material to be reading.

And so we'll do that. I wonder how much of Augustine we'll get read. I hope not.

I hope I didn't miss my stuff here. Emilio's going, looks like we're right on right when you get done with the dividing line.

I'm like, I hope not. I thought I had two hours and 20 minutes for programs.

So we'll find out here. We'll find out here. I am going to be joining Emilio Ramos maybe sooner than I think, but I hope not.

Maybe sooner than I think for his program, doing textual critical stuff. So click on over there, watch for announcement on that.

I'll try to remember to tweet it as well. But we will, we will be doing that this afternoon.

Thanks for watching the program today. Tomorrow, we're going to start off with some phone calls whenever it is we do the program.

So if you've got some questions, we'll get to them tomorrow on the program.