1 Hour with An Unbeliever: Insights from Francis Shaeffer

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala. And today, we're going to be diving into an important topic pretty much inspired by Francis Schaeffer.

Those who are familiar with apologetics, worldviews, even presuppositionalism, even though I would not categorize

Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist, at least in terms of being kind of a one -to -one correspondent comparison with Van Till or something like that.

But he's under the umbrella, so to speak, in the literature with respect to a presuppositionalist of some flavor.

But definitely, I have my disagreements with Schaeffer, but I think he's helpful in so many other areas too. So I highly recommend folks check out

Francis Schaeffer if you haven't. And so you just type in his name, his books will pop up all over the place.

He's a very well -known Christian thinker. And so, yeah. So that's what we're going to be doing today.

It's a surprise live stream. Again, just given the nature of my life and schedule, sometimes

I have to just go live when I have a small pocket of time.

So that's what I'm going to be doing today. I did that yesterday and had a fun time with the folks listening in there as well.

So super happy to be here this morning. Very, very different going live in the morning as opposed to doing my show when

I typically do it, which is like nine o 'clock in the evening. I'm kind of revved up on coffee, but ironically

I'm revved up on coffee here in the morning as well. So there you go. So this episode,

I want it to be very useful for people who have a passion for sharing the faith. And so I get this question all the time, what is the best way to share the faith with an unbeliever?

When we are placed in a context in which we have a little bit of time, it's very difficult to know how to share your faith with someone when time is so limited or the context is not amenable to kind of a fruitful in -depth conversation about the meaning of life, the existence of God and the gospel and things like that.

But what happens if you have like an hour, you have a good solid hour? Here is where I want to kind of share,

I think a good way to talk about the faith with an unbeliever if you had that much time and you wanted to engage in kind of a meaningful conversation.

And so Francis Schaeffer, I think is super helpful here. I do apologize from the get -go.

I don't remember where this quotation came from, but I do know that it is attributed to Francis Schaeffer. And so Schaeffer famously said that if he had an hour to speak with someone about the faith, and this is interesting, he would spend the first 55 minutes explaining how man is created in the image of God.

And then he would spend the last five minutes on the gospel, okay? He would spend the first 55 minutes explaining how man is created in the image of God and the last five minutes on the gospel.

And this approach, I think really highlights the importance of understanding our problem as man before diving into the work of Christ and how he saved sinners and things like this.

Now, again, this is not a recipe that you always have to follow, but I think there's great value in taking this approach.

Now, of course, you're talking to different people, different levels of background and knowledge and things like that. So you're gonna wanna take those things into consideration.

But I think what Schaeffer, I think, is good here on, he's actually highlighting really the one -two punch of gospel presentation, and that is the law and the gospel, okay?

And those who are well -versed and familiarized with evangelism and things like this, we often say something along the lines that before we offer someone the good news, we need to offer them the bad news so that they could actually appreciate the importance of the good news.

And so I think that's very important. Now, again, I think what is crucial in taking this approach from Schaeffer, kind of spending a large majority of our time talking about who we are as image bearers of God, I think is a very good way to set the context for presenting the work of Jesus.

As I've heard many preachers say, and I'm in agreement with this, that you do not understand the greatness of the gospel unless it is set with the backdrop of the blackness of sin, death, and our problem.

And so the darkened background of man's sinfulness and spiritual deadness allows the light of the gospel to shine all the more.

For when we proclaim Jesus as the Savior, we need to ask the question, well, He's a Savior from what?

What does He save us from? And so we need to be able to understand kind of this one -two punch of like law, where we stand before God, the value of man, these sorts of things, man's fall, and all these things that lead up to really appreciating the nature of the work of Christ on behalf of sinners.

And so keeping that in mind, I do think that a useful way kind of piggybacking off of Francis Schaeffer's thoughts here, spending the first 55 minutes of the hour talking about man as image of God, and then spending the last five minutes talking about the work of Christ, I wanna start,

I think, in a very important place, which I would highly recommend people starting with when trying to engage in these sorts of discussions.

And I don't promise to go an hour here. I don't know how long I'll be. But I think an important thing in explaining to someone, taking this approach from Schaeffer, explaining to someone the importance of what it means to be a human being, what it means to be an image bearer of God, you can't do better than starting right there at the beginning in the book of Genesis.

Now, the book of Genesis is so foundational. The book of Genesis is literally the book of beginnings.

And it tells us the beginnings of many things, the beginnings of the creation of the universe, the beginnings of the creation of man, the beginning of civilization, the beginning of the establishment of the covenant between God and Abraham, and Abraham as the father of the

Jewish people. Genesis is the book of beginnings. And so as the book of beginnings, okay, the book of Genesis is foundational to everything else that we understand.

I mean, even just take the whole corpus of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. I mean, everything in scripture, okay, the themes in scripture are housed in the

Pentateuch somewhere, even promises of the coming Messiah, which we see manifest in such a powerful way over 2000 years ago, okay?

When you read, for example, John 1 .1, in the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was

God. In John 1 .14, the word became flesh. You have to understand that that's a culmination of what has been pointed to from the very beginning.

Okay, and we'll touch on that a little bit here in today's live stream. But I think this is so vitally important to make that connection, that everything you see in the

New Testament with the unfolding of the ministry of Jesus and the proclamation of the gospel that was put forth by the apostles and book of Acts and these sorts of things, one of the major points of dispute and discussion and debate between say, for example, the apostle

Paul and the Jewish leadership was the demonstration that all that Jesus came to do was a fulfillment of that which came before, that which was promised before and was promised indeed right there in the book of Genesis and all reminded of, we're reminded of those promises all throughout the rest of the

Old Testament scripture. So Genesis is super important in kind of establishing what

God has set up so as to create a foundation, understanding everything else, especially with respect to the work of Christ and of course, the nature and purpose of the gospel and things like this.

So first, you have an hour with an unbeliever. Let's take Schaeffer's approach just in principle here, we're not gonna follow kind of too strictly, but we take

Schaeffer's approach. Let's start with emphasizing the importance of man creating the image of God.

And that brings us to Genesis chapter one, verses 26 and 27, okay? And this is where we first encounter this idea, right?

The word of God says, pardon, that then God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him, male and female, he created them.

And this is super important segment of the opening chapter of the book of Genesis, because in these verses, we see the unique creation of humanity.

Now, unlike the rest of creation, humanity is made in the image of God, made in his likeness. And this foundational truth,

I think, establishes some very key aspects of what it means to be a human being, an image bearer of God.

For example, we have a relational element here, right? As God is relational within his triunity, right?

So human beings are designed to have relationship with God and with each other, okay?

So our relationality is a reflection of God's relationality within the persons of the trinity.

Of course, we see elements of that all throughout the Old Testament. I think that right there, let us, the one

God speak in the plural, let us make man in our image, I think is important to that end, understanding the relational aspect of God.

I know there are other ways that people kind of explain that, but just to put that out there, you also have a rational aspect in God creating man and man having rational elements to his person, right?

We reflect God's rationality and creativity, right? We're capable of reason, we're capable of moral decision -making.

That is an aspect of what we call the imago dei, the image of God. And interestingly enough, we have this element of dominion.

Human beings are given stewardship over creation, right? We reflect God's sovereignty and care at kind of a lower level.

God is the ultimate king and sovereign, but to a certain degree, God gives us rule over that which he has made.

Very, very important. And in a sense, one of the ways that man, walks into his role as image bearers of God is that we participate in that which

God has given us dominion over. We are to be good stewards of what God has given us rule over, very important.

Genesis 2 .7, I think is an important aspect here where we have God breathing into man the breath of life. And so Genesis 2 .7

reads, then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

And the man became a living creature, okay? It's interesting, this verse kind of focuses on what

I see as the personal and intimate act of God giving life to humanity, differentiating him from the animals.

And so the breath of life really, I think, signifies a spiritual dimension of man, kind of indicating this idea that humans are not merely physical beings, but where there is a spiritual element to man, right?

We are not merely our bodies, but rather there is a spiritual aspect.

We have a soul. Now I'm not gonna get into the theological debates between the nature of the soul.

You have the trichotomy, dichotomy view in terms of which man from the dichotomous perspective, in terms of which man is composed of two things, body and soul.

And in the dichotomy view, soul and spirit are equated with each other.

Soul and spirit are just two different words for the same thing. And then you have the trichotomist view in terms of which man is composed of three things, body, soul, and spirit.

And there's a distinction between soul and spirit on that view. I'm not going to go into the details of that other than just to define it.

But I think the Bible clearly teaches that there is an immaterial aspect to man. Even in terms of our rational life and our thinking,

I'm of the position that when we think, thinking does not occur in the physical brain, rather thinking occurs in the immaterial mind.

And because the soul and the body are so closely linked together, when thinking occurs in the mind, there is physical corresponding activity in the physical brain, but I do not equate the two as there are important distinctions that again, not gonna get too much into, but just to give you this idea that there is indeed from a biblical perspective, a spiritual aspect to human beings, okay?

And of course, we have the creation of man. And then of course, an important thing to talk about when you're sharing the faith that someone is the fall of man, okay?

Man is created as the pinnacle of God's creation, right? We are the imago Dei, which differentiates us from the animals, from the lower beasts and creatures.

But again, we have the pinnacle of God's creation experience the fall. And so to understand man's problem, okay?

We gotta consider Genesis three, where sin enters the picture. And so in Genesis chapter three, verse six through seven, it reads, so when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

And she also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked and they sowed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

Now it's interesting. We always make the joke that, you know, it's all because of the women, right? You know, Eve had to take the stinking fruit, you know?

Well, look what it says there. This is why a man is culpable too. Look, it says, so when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

And she also gave some to her husband who was with her. So he's just standing there, right?

It's what men do, right? We just stand around and watch, right? But there you go, okay? Again, but all joking aside, okay?

It was the taking of the fruit that sin entered the world and there's an interesting thing going on here,

I think. And I've highlighted this before in other videos is that, you know, the nature and the seriousness of the sin committed in the

Garden of Eden is not simply a woman taking a fruit and the man partaking of the fruit as well that God forbade, that's part of it.

But I think it's very interesting that Adam and Eve in this situation knew the command of God.

They knew that God said that you may eat of all the trees in the garden, but do not eat of the tree that's in the midst of the garden.

They knew that command. And then along comes the serpent who deceives Eve with his subtlety as referred to later in the

New Testament. He deceives her with subtlety, okay? And what does Eve do?

She has the word of God, do not eat from this tree. She has the word of the serpent, eat from the tree, okay?

God says, here are the consequences when you eat from the tree. The serpent says, no, no, this is what happens when you eat from the tree.

And when you eat from the tree, when you eat the fruit, your eyes will be open and you'll be like God, okay?

And so you have God's word and then you have the serpent's word and where lies the sinister nature of Eve's sin?

It's when she says to herself, we can read between the lines, I will decide for myself what is right.

And acting autonomously, independent of God's commands and will, she reaches out, eats the fruit.

And of course, we all know what the result is, okay? So this is very important.

You kind of get into this small scripture here, Genesis three, six through seven, you really get not only the act of sin, but the nature of the sin itself.

Once you think a little bit deeper into what's going on here. Now the fall is important.

It represents really a fundamental break in the relationship between God and humanity. And this act of disobedience brought about spiritual death and separation from God, which basically affected all of creation and every other human being born thereafter.

And of course, we can talk about the idea that how can the sin of man impact all of his progeny?

Again, this is wrapped up in the concept of federal headship in which the man represents his family, which is a category that is clear throughout scripture.

We're not gonna get into the details of that. But again, I think it's important when you're talking to the unbeliever to highlight the nature of sin, right?

We talk about man as image of God. We talk about a man is the pinnacle of God's creation. We talk about the fact that we've fallen with sin.

There's consequences as a result of the sin. We have a fundamental break in our relationship with God.

Okay? And then we highlight the impact of this act, right?

In Romans 5, 12, okay? Paul summarizes the universal impact of the fall that we just read about.

Okay? Romans 5, 12. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

Okay? That is the result of the sin entering the world. We all, right?

We all experience death for the wages of sin is death. Okay? Now, interestingly enough,

Adam and Eve sinned, of course. Yes, but we all sin. And we're all guilty of breaking God's law.

Think about, look at the logical sequence here in terms of what the Bible says, right? For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

That's all encompassing. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And then elsewhere, we read the wages of sin is death.

And so what logically follows from that? Okay? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death.

It logically follows that all deserve death. Why? Because we've all sinned. We've all broken God's law. And this is part of building up the case as to why we need a savior.

Just to give a heads up to Jonathan Myron, this is not prerecorded. This is live, my friend. So, so there you go.

It was, I was explaining at the beginning that I didn't plan to do this, but I kind of just come on live as I find the time.

So yes, this is not prerecorded. This is live as you're listening in right now. So, so there you go.

All right. So highlighting the fall, we are able then to lay the groundwork for the need for redemption.

And we can highlight this by going into what the scripture says with respect to God's intention and promises to redeem man that has fallen.

I mean, the first scripture that pops into my head is Genesis 3 .15. Even in the midst of judgment,

God's grace shines through in Genesis 3 .15, where we have the promise of redemption.

This often known as the proto -evangelium. Genesis 3 .15 reads,

I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring, and she shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.

Okay. Well, oftentimes theologians, we refer to this as the proto -evangelium, the first gospel promise.

And this basically indicates that God had a plan for redemption through the offspring of the woman, right?

I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring, the offspring of the serpent and her offspring, the offspring of the woman, he, notice the singular there, he shall bruise your head.

Of course, all mankind are the seed of the woman in one sense, but in a very important sense, it's a reference to Christ here.

He will bruise your head. As we know that Jesus Christ being the perfect, without sin, 1

Peter 2 .24, the perfect bearer of our sins, hence in his crucifixion and atonement, crushes the head of the serpent.

Okay. And so we have this promise of redemption given to us right there in the book of Genesis. Okay. Now notice why, if we go right back to the beginning, not the beginning of the

Bible, but the beginning of this video, we talked about the importance of, we talked about the interesting nature of Francis Schaeffer's perspective here, that if he had an hour, just one hour with an unbeliever, he would spend 55 minutes talking about man as the image of God, right?

Unraveling that in the last five minutes, talking about the work of Jesus. I think this is very important, building that case as to why

Jesus is necessary for salvation. We need to understand man's problem.

Okay. Now we see also in the New Testament, we see the fulfillment of this promise that we read about in Genesis 3, 15.

Okay. You know, John 1, 14, famous passage. Everyone should know it, right? And the word became flesh.

The word being a reference to Jesus Christ. In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God. Talking about the deity of Christ there.

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we've seen his glory. Glory as of the only son from the father, full of grace and truth.

And again, in Romans chapter five, verses 18 through 19, we read, therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification in life for all men.

For as by the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners. So by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous.

Now I want you to pay attention to this. Notice that these passages reveal how Jesus, the second

Adam, rectifies the false consequences, offering redemption and restoring our broken relationship with God.

Okay? This is important, right? We're building the case. Okay? I got 50,

I got an hour, 55 minutes. I want to get into the detail of who a man is.

What is man's problem? What is the solution? Okay? And when we lay that groundwork,

I think we're in a better position to allow the gospel of Jesus Christ to shine in our conversations.

Okay? Now, it's essential to grasp, really, the gravity of the human condition, really, before sharing the gospel.

Okay? So without understanding the fall and its consequences, the need for a savior is not really apparent.

Humans are spiritually dead. We're separated from God. We're incapable of saving ourselves. This is why, okay,

Jesus Christ is needed. All right? And there's nothing wrong with using standard scripture that typically we can use.

And most average people have heard these verses before, but there's, I mean, John 3, 16 is a powerful verse, even though it's been used over probably the most known recognizable

Bible verse in all of scripture, but it is powerfully true. Okay? As it is the word of God, 2 Timothy 3, 16, all scripture is breathed out by God.

And so let us never get tired of overuse, of using too much, quote unquote, too much biblical truth.

They're true. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Okay? So if we believe in Christ, we will have eternal life. If we place our trust in Christ and understanding that it is only by placing our trust in him that we can be saved.

Whereas Ephesians chapter two, verses eight through nine says, for by grace, you've been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing.

It is a gift of God, not a result of works so that no one may boast. So important.

Who is man as image bearer? Man is the pinnacle of God's creation. Man falls out of, due to deception from the serpent.

And there is a result and a consequence in which sin is passed on to all, the consequences of sin are passed on to all mankind.

We're born with a sin nature. We cannot please God in and of ourselves. And that is why we need Jesus. And the way we reach out for Jesus is by God's grace, right, gifting us and granting us faith.

It is granted to us to believe, Philippians 1, 29. And salvation is acquired through faith, by grace, through faith, grace, unmerited, undeserved favor that God bestows upon us.

We do not deserve the gifts of God, but by grace, we've been saved through faith. These are free gifts.

It's not our own doing. It is a gift of God. Christ's work on the cross and his resurrection provide the only means for reconciliation with God.

And by repenting and placing your faith in Jesus Christ, we receive forgiveness. We receive new life.

We receive the promise of eternal life, okay? All these things are promised to us, okay?

And so understanding that we're creating God's image, recognizing the depth of our sin and the separation we have from God sets the stage really for appreciating the magnitude of Christ's redemptive work.

And so this, I think, approach, taking the first 55 minutes or first, if you have a half hour, maybe, you know, the first 25 minutes talking about who we are as man and what

Christ has done in light of man's fall, I think is a very important way to get across really the truths of the gospel, okay?

Now, again, as a side note, I think it's important. A lot of people, you know,

I think it's important for people to recognize the role of the book of Genesis in all of this. I mean, obviously we take the whole counsel of God, right?

But it's so important that when we're preaching the gospel and we talk about man breaking God's law and we can quote the apostle

Paul, you know, all of sin and fallen short of the glory of God, and we can take the Romans road, you know, scripture references and things like that.

But I think it's so important that Christians really get a firm grasp on the significance of the book of Genesis and properly understanding man, especially with respect to a lot of our apologetic context today, okay?

Completely apart from defending the faith, okay? I mean, I'm sorry, apart from proclaiming the faith and having conversations, you know, an hour with an unbeliever, this is what

I would say, these are the directions I would go. Just in terms of apologetics and defending the faith, the biblical view of not only

God, the biblical view of Christ and the biblical view of the Trinity, the biblical view of this, that, or the other thing, the book of Genesis helps us understand the biblical view of man.

It helps us understand man's value before God. For man is valuable because we are created in the image of God.

And I think it's important to share that truth with people who do not value themselves in a way that they should value themselves as image bearers of God.

You see, your self -perception impacts, you know, how you live your life, where you see man going, okay?

Man's purpose. I think a lot of the content of our conversation with unbelievers, especially with people who have kind of this very pessimistic view of existence, like, you know, we're here by random chance, we're just the byproduct of a blind evolutionary process, these sorts of things.

I think it's important to highlight in our conversations with people the value of man and not just the value of man intrinsically in and of himself, but I think the value that we have comes from God.

I think it's important to emphasize, hey, you are made in the image of God, you have value, you have purpose, right?

And so I think these are kind of important themes that really are set for us there, right there in the book of Genesis.

A great tool for evangelism and apologetics, of course, but a great tool for evangelism, and whether it's an hour, whether you're following Francis Schaeffer's guideline to 55 minutes of image of God, man's problem, these sorts of things in the last five minutes, let's talk about what

Jesus did, whether it's an hour, whether it's a half hour or whatever, I think it's going to be vitally important to get a grasp on the book of Genesis and its foundational nature, okay?

And of course, the themes found in Genesis are going to be implicit and explicit everywhere else in scripture.

So if you understand Genesis, you actually will have a pretty good grasp on some of the major themes that are touched upon all throughout scripture.

And of course, for Jesus himself also, he says in the beginning, he made them male and female, right?

He created them. There's references in the New Testament to the book of Genesis as creating that foundation. So they, the apostles,

Jesus, they saw Genesis as foundational. So I think it's important in terms of apologetics and evangelism.

Now, if I could take a shift away from evangelism directly, I know they're connected, defending the faith and proclaiming the faith, they're obviously related, but just in terms of moving away from Schaeffer now and just kind of just speaking to you guys generally,

I think it's important to get a firm grasp on Genesis for the purpose of apologetics, because as we know, apologetics, defending the faith, requires us to defend the fundamental truths of the

Christian faith. And many of those fundamental truths, the seed of which are present in Genesis, okay?

You attack that foundation that, you know, that's going to impact everything else you say, okay?

So again, now I do recognize that there is a vast difference in interpretation and these sorts of things, but I don't want to get into that discussion.

But just know this, know the details of Genesis, know the nuanced positions, and I encourage people,

I know that when people kind of debate what Genesis means and these sorts of things, we want to come to the scripture acknowledging this thing, right?

I want God to speak in such a way that I could grasp what he wants me to know.

And so again, we want to use the proper tools of interpretation, hermeneutics, exegesis, these sorts of things, and allow the text to speak to us.

And so we want to avoid, and this is very difficult, especially talking about the book of Genesis. We want to avoid eisegesis.

Now, for those who don't know these terms, I know many people who listen to my show most likely do, but just to throw it out there, in terms of biblical interpretation, we want to be aware of two terms.

Number one, there is exegesis, and exegesis refers to taking meaning out of the text, ex, out of, all right?

Now, when we have eisegesis, eisegesis is when we read something into the text that's not there.

And so when we approach the book of Genesis, or approach any book for that matter, we want to be very careful not to approach the text of scripture already with a preconceived system that we're kind of overlaying on the text.

There's a sense in which we want to allow the text to speak for itself and to form how we think about the text, okay?

And again, with respect to the book of Genesis, obviously people who are familiar with this stuff know that it is a big debate as to the meaning of Genesis as a whole, and more specifically

Genesis chapters one through 11. And of course, you have the debates between young earth creationists, old earth creationists, theistic evolution, framework hypotheses, all these different views.

Then you got the literal 24 -hour interpretation. These are all important discussions, by the way. But in approaching those things, we want to allow the text of scripture to speak for itself because we want to have a grasp on what

Genesis is all about, because it is very relevant to what we say about other things, especially pertaining to the gospel and so forth.

So very, very important. I hope that this is clear. Now, again, this is an unplanned live stream, but I do see a few people in the chat.

If you have any questions about evangelism or you want to run an apologetic question by me, feel free to do so.

I'll stay on for a few more minutes. I kind of finished my main spiel here. Again, people who are just tuning in,

I was exploring kind of the words of Francis Schaeffer, where he said that if I had one hour, one hour with an unbeliever,

I would spend 55 minutes talking about how man is the image of God, right?

Talking about the importance of man, the fall of man and its consequences. And then I would spend the last five minutes talking about the work of Christ, the work of Jesus, giving him the gospel.

So setting up the, you know, man's fallenness so as to emphasize the need for Jesus, okay?

So that's basically what I was talking about. And so if you have any questions, I will give you time to do that.

If not, I'll just keep going. Cause I have coffee, which unfortunately needs to be microwaved.

You see what happens when I don't plan, I don't use my cup warmer.

So my coffee has now gotten cold. Such is the problem of evil.

This is a very, this is not good. So if you have any questions, you want some advice on evangelism, apologetics, theology question, please feel free to preface your question with question.

And I will take a few minutes to do that, okay? And so while folks are doing that, if they are in fact doing it,

I will kind of just share a few things and then we'll see if there's anything there, okay?

All right, so real quick, just want to give people a heads up. If you're interested in learning apologetics in a more structured fashion,

I offer courses that I teach that can be accessed on my website. It's a great way to support Revealed Apologetics.

If you go to revealedapologetics .com and then you click on the drop -down menu entitled

Presub U, I have two courses that I've created. One is called an Introduction to Biblical Apologetics.

And it's kind of an intermediate level introduction to presuppositional apologetic methodology.

And then I created a new course called Presub Applied. And it's basically how to apply presuppositional apologetics to atheism, to Roman Catholicism, to presuppositional

Eastern Orthodoxy, to the cults, how to navigate apologetic conversations, these sorts of things. And so you could access those things.

It's a great way to support what I'm doing as well. All right, okay, so we have a question here.

So Benny, thank you, Benny, for your question. Do you have a list of verses to learn evangelism and apologetics?

Well, I don't have a list, although there are some lists. Let me actually do this here.

Actually, let me see here. Let me give you, let me give you something here. Let me see. So evangelism, okay.

All right, all right. A really good helpful set of scriptures that I think would be useful.

Are the scriptures typically used for what is known as the Roman's Road? I think it's a good method in terms of presenting the gospel and kind of outlining kind of the basic features of what we want to say to the unbeliever.

So if you have a pen or a pencil, you might want to jot these down, okay? For example,

Romans chapter three, verse 23. It was very good. You want to memorize this for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, okay?

And you want to pay attention to this, that this verse establishes what we were talking about before, the universal problem of sin.

And so it highlights that everyone has sinned and is separated from God's perfection, from God's glory. And this is why we need to be reconciled.

Romans chapter six, verse 23, tells us for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus, our

Lord. Great verse to memorize, okay? Romans 5, 8, but God demonstrates his own love for us in this, that while we were yet sinners,

Christ died for us. Okay, so you have Romans 3, 23, Romans 6, 23,

Romans 5, 8, another one, Romans 10, verses nine through 10 says, if you declare with your mouth,

Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you'll be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Romans 10, 13, another good one. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 8, 1, therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

That's Romans 8, 1. Romans 5, 1. Therefore, since we've been justified, declared righteous, right, justified through faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord, Jesus Christ. Romans 8, 38 through 39 is another good scripture passage for I'm convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, our

Lord. Okay, so again, those are some good verses to memorize, okay?

If you're trying to memorize things and you're like, well, I'm not really good at memorizing stuff. There are a couple of things you wanna keep in mind. Number one, start with one verse at a time, right?

Focus on one verse until you've memorized it before moving on to the next. You know, sometimes we're in a rush and we wanna grab a bunch of information.

Nothing wrong with using something like flashcards, right? Flashcards is a classic way to help you memorize. I'd highly recommend to use flashcards.

Also, when you're memorizing scripture, you want to speak your scripture out loud. Don't just read your card, speak it, okay?

When I study, I often study while reading out loud. When I'm reading a book,

I will read out loud because it helps me remember not only what I'm seeing, but saying, and I often will read a book as though I'm speaking the words in the book because I, for me personally,

I remember better things that I said as opposed to things that I've merely read, okay? But if I'm reading something and saying something and listening to what

I'm saying, it helps with memorization, okay? You also wanna know the contextual understanding of the particular passage that you are quoting.

Don't just memorize one Bible verse per se. Make sure you read the context of the particular verse that you're studying as well, okay?

And then of course, the key ingredient to success is consistency, consistency, consistency.

Very, very important, all right? So I hope that answers your question, Betty. So there you go.

Let's see here, Jonathan Myron asked the question, how do you evangelize to someone who says things like, you are forcing your belief on me?

And lastly, how would you refute postmodernism while evangelizing? Oh yeah, so there are two questions there.

How do you evangelize to someone who says things like you're forcing your belief on me? Well, I mean, it all depends on how you are sharing, you're evangelizing, right?

You can just highlight, well, I'm not forcing anything on you. I'm just sharing with you what the scripture says, right?

If the Bible's true, okay, then God calls all men to repent, and I'm sharing this message with you because I care.

There's nothing wrong with saying there's nothing, you know, you're not being a softy by saying those things out. We care about the people that we're speaking with.

And so we emphasize the fact that here's why I'm sharing this with you. No one's forcing you to do anything, right?

You can choose to listen to what I'm saying or not to listen to what

I'm saying, okay? So again, just to correct, if someone is accusing you of that and you're not doing that, just simply point that out, you know?

How am I forcing you to believe me if I'm simply sharing and proclaiming what

I take to be true? Is sharing your view equivalent to forcing someone to believe something?

Of course not, right? So I would just highlight the fact that that's just false. I'm not forcing you to do anything, okay?

Now, there's a very interesting thing that typically comes up, you know, that you can, you know, if you wanna be a little snarky,

I suppose when someone says, you know, you shouldn't force your views on other people, you know, the people, the comeback is, well, then you shouldn't force your views on me.

Namely, you shouldn't force the view that I shouldn't force my views on others, okay?

Sometimes you have that idea where people are trying to force their beliefs on you, namely the belief that you shouldn't be doing what you're doing, right?

In that case, if the person is doing that, you have kind of a logical contradiction that in some cases might be useful to point out and other cases you want to be able to choose your battles wisely, okay?

Also, you want to keep in mind the scriptural principle not to throw pearls before swine, okay?

Now, again, we're not going to call the unbeliever swine. It's not what we're talking about, right? But you can get a feel, for example, you know,

I talk about this sometimes on the show that when someone asks me a question in the comments, you can kind of get a feel for someone who's asking a genuine question, kind of like, you know,

I was actually wondering, I don't agree with you, but here's what you said. Can you kind of expand on this? Then I get the impression, you know what?

Yeah, this person kind of seems to be asking a genuine question. Or when someone says, you know, what's the evidence for God's existence?

You know, you can kind of get a sense that it's a genuine question. But then you got the people who say, you know, have you proven your stupid

God yet? You know, like, okay, well, you know, they've taken the time to write that in the comments and so I have a choice, okay?

Based upon how they're coming off, how I perceive them coming off as. I could engage, but then

I get the sense that if I engage, this person really isn't asking from a place of genuine inquiry, right?

They're kind of just in debate mode. And quite frankly, I don't have time to engage in, you know, week -long debates with people

I don't know on the comments section of my video. Same thing when you're evangelizing. When you're talking to someone and the person just seems super argumentative, they don't seem to be interacting in good faith, these sorts of things.

You need to make a choice. Am I going to continue with this person or am I going to move on to someone who seems to be more genuine in their questions and their concerns and things like that?

And so at that point, this is where in evangelism, we need to utilize wisdom, okay? So again, people say, well, how do you know,

Eli? How do you know when it's the right place to stop in conversations?

Sometimes you just know. Other times, you just have to make a choice. You're just going to have to make a choice.

It's an issue of walking in wisdom. Not always easy, not always easy. All right, okay.

So Scott Terry says, what's the relationship between evangelism and spiritual warfare?

Yeah, well, they're definitely connected. I did make reference a few minutes ago, the connection between apologetics and evangelism.

But there's that other element that, again, the Bible says that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood.

But rather against principalities and powers of the air, these sorts of things. There is a spiritual element, most definitely, to unbelief.

Okay, what's that scripture? Let me see. Let me get that scripture up here real quick. Let me see. Okay, let me see if I get this scripture up here.

Yes, okay. So it is 2 Timothy 2, verse 26, I think is relevant to your question,

Scott. Okay, and again, I'm answering Scott's question, but if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask away.

We'll try to go a little bit longer. If there are no questions, that's okay as well, all right. But 2

Timothy 2, verse 26, I'm reading from the inspired version, the ESV.

No, I'm just kidding. It says here, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil after being captured by him to do his will.

Okay, now the context there, let's get verses 24 through 26.

Let me see here. Okay, let's see here. Yes, okay.

Okay, let me read the whole scripture reference there. Okay, it says here in verses 24, 25, and 26, that we are to, let me see here.

It says, and the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome, but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

God may perhaps grant them repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth. And they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil after being captured by him to do his will.

So yeah, a person that we are engaging with is ensnared by the devil in a sense, okay.

That doesn't mean that, you know, unbelievers are possessed by Satan. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is most definitely a spiritual element to unbelief.

It is not simply an issue of intellect. Good morning, Ravi. Good morning, hope you're doing well.

There's Ravi there. Thank you so much. Good morning to you. And by the way, folks who are listening in, thank you so much for listening in and the questions as well.

I appreciate it. But yeah, there's definitely a spiritual element and that's why we need to be careful of simply looking at unbelievers, whether they're family, friends, as simply objects of debate, okay.

I have my uncle Tony, he's an atheist and I can't wait for Thanksgiving so I can debate him and show him why he's wrong.

We wanna be very careful, all right. People are not just walking brains or walking. We want to treat people for what they are.

They are image bearers of God. And so whether you disagree with someone or not, you wanna show respect. This is why 1

Peter 3, verse 15 says that we are to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that's in us, but doing so with gentleness and respect, okay.

And so we wanna treat people with respect. But again, there is a spiritual element and that's why your evangelism, your apologetics must be coupled with prayer as well.

All right, pray before you go out. If you know you're gonna have time to talk with someone, pray beforehand because yes, there is definitely a spiritual element to these sorts of things, okay.

Great question, Scott. I appreciate it. And here we have a question from Ravi. I watched one of your debates recently and you were challenged on your first premise justification and how you run tag.

Did you ever get to that? Yeah, I've covered this multiple times in my videos. Yeah, so there's a video out there where I was on Clubhouse where literally

I was walking around the block. I didn't have anything in front of me. Usually I do things, I have notes and things so I can make sure

I'm very specific when I get to the details of certain points. And I laid out the transcendental argument in deductive form.

If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Knowledge is possible, therefore the Christian worldview is true. And so I was asked for the justification for the first premise, okay?

And I was a little confused. I was wondering if they were, and people find that video somewhere,

I don't know where it is, but I was wondering, are they asking me for another deductive argument in defense of the first premise?

It wasn't clear because I was giving my answer and of course, obviously, not everyone's gonna agree with the answer, right?

So I didn't know if they wanted me to give another argument for the first premise in deductive form. And in that sense,

I didn't have one on hand. It was just taking a walk around the block on Clubhouse. And so I was like, you know, let me get back to you.

And of course, after that discussion, you know, it was like, I'll get back to you on that.

And eventually what happens, they post that recording and they said, you know, professional apologists can't answer this.

I'm like, wow, what a sleazy move. Like, I don't have my stuff in front of me. You're asking me for a detailed answer and I don't mind sharing my thoughts, but let me get back to you and make sure

I have my stuff in front of me so I can present it in a clear way. And of course that was exploited and made to look like I couldn't answer a question.

And this is one of the reasons why I don't go on Clubhouse anymore is that a lot of people don't have the discussions in good faith.

If I were to ask an atheist a question and they were like, you know what? I would like to give you a very specific answer and I have my notes back at home.

Maybe I'll take a look at that and share it with you. And then of course I'll say, yeah, okay, that's cool.

Thank you. I would appreciate that. And then what happens? I go and I go on YouTube and I say, look, atheists couldn't answer this.

It's very sleazy. So yeah, I remember that discussion very well. And I have addressed this on my channel multiple times.

You can find it on and look up my videos on Tag. Pretty much when we say, for example, that if knowledge is possible, the

Christian worldview is true, that is just a way of saying in premise form that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge.

All right? And so how do you defend that? Well, you defend it by showing what knowledge is.

So you're gonna have to define knowledge, right? And there may be debate on how knowledge is defined, but just to answer your question,

Ravi, if someone were to define knowledge as a justified true belief, these sorts of things, if you're utilizing the tripartite definition of knowledge, then that would have to be clarified.

You do have different views of what constitutes knowledge out there. You have justified true belief.

There's warranted belief. There's a whole literature out there. And so from a presuppositional perspective, if I were laying out that argument,

I'd have to kind of delineate those things. And it really depends on who I'm talking with because someone might accept the definition of knowledge

I provide, which then allows me to move on to the next portion of the argument, or they might have contention with the definition

I use, in which case we'll have to find a definition of knowledge that is agreed upon so that we can engage in the argument.

So basically I would say that the Christian worldview, when you take, for example, what the

Bible says about the metaphysical situation, the triune God, God is the metaphysical ultimate definer and creator of all things, and the epistemological foundation of the

Christian world, you namely that God has revealed himself. And that is why we can have things like knowledge, things that we can have a justified true belief, beliefs that actually correspond to the nature of the case, given the

Christian worldview, we can have that. Now, the unbeliever doesn't have to accept what I've laid out in terms of what the

Bible teaches, but if it were true that the Christian worldview were true, if,

I'm gonna say this, if the Christian worldview, the metaphysical picture it presents and the epistemological provides the foundations for knowledge, then it is true that if the

Christian worldview, if the knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview would be true, at least in this sense, conceptually, you'd have to think in terms of the

Christian concepts to provide a foundation for knowledge. Now, of course, now the opponent is gonna disagree with that.

They're gonna be like, well, that's ridiculous. I have a foundation for knowledge. And that's where the unbeliever or the atheist or the skeptic is gonna have to disagree with my first premise.

And that's where we have to debate the premise. When I argue, for example, that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge, the way that I defend that is,

A, show that given Christian presuppositions, it does in fact supply what are the necessary preconditions for knowledge.

And B, the person in question who's disagreeing with me does not in fact provide those preconditions, but as a matter of fact, presupposing categories that are within the

Christian perspective. Now, again, I could say that, but that's what the argument would look like. And that's where most of the work would be done.

So when we take a look at the argument in whole, pardon, if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true, knowledge is possible, therefore the

Christian worldview is true. The first premise is what we call the transcendental premise. How do I defend the first premise?

Transcendentally, right? Why is the Christian worldview true? Why is it the foundation? By the impossibility of the contrary.

Reject the Christian worldview. And I would argue, I'm not simply asserting, I would argue that you lack the foundations for the preconditions of knowledge.

And then of course, the opponent is supposed to say, nah, I have a precondition for knowledge. And then they offer their epistemology to combat the epistemology

I've laid out and to combat the criticism of their epistemology that I have offered. And so that's how you defend the first premise.

Now, if I've established the first premise, then yeah, we could acknowledge knowledge is possible.

That's the second premise, okay? If we reject that knowledge is possible, then I think that that's kind of self -refuting position.

Or if knowledge is not possible, how do you know knowledge is not possible? If you know knowledge is not possible, then you've refuted yourself that there is knowledge.

Namely, we can know that knowledge is not possible. That's a contradiction, okay? Now, if someone says, well,

I don't even know if knowledge is possible. Well, do you know that you don't know? No, I don't know. And then you get into an infinite regress.

And of course, if you have no foundation for knowing anything, then how can we take seriously any objection towards my position, okay?

So if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true, knowledge is possible, if we were to establish those points, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily that the

Christian worldview is true. Now, there is a distinction, and I apologize if I'm going in depth here.

There's a distinction between the conceptual necessity of God and the ontological necessity of God. If I were to argue just in a general sense, we could prove, if I argued successfully, that the

Christian worldview as a conceptual scheme is necessary for knowledge.

That is different than saying that Christianity has an ontological scheme. As a matter of fact, that it's the nature of the case that Christianity must be true in order for knowledge or intelligibility or logic and so forth.

However, when we dive into the deeper details of the transcendental argument, we will find that the argument, at least as I defend it, is not simply going into the issue of Christianity as a necessary conceptual scheme, but I'm also arguing that it is a necessary conceptual scheme because it is a metaphysical reality that the triune

God exists, that his revelation is necessary, so on and so forth. Now, that's a mouthful, but I've addressed this in other videos in greater detail.

And so there you go. I hope that answers a little bit and the reason why I don't go on to Clubhouse anymore.

Unfortunately, I wish I could have more good faith conversations, but there are just a lot of people out there just looking to catch someone in something they say and kind of exploit that.

So that's unfortunate, but that's my answer there, Ravi. I hope that is somewhat helpful to your question.

Okay, Ravi continues asking, thanks again. How would you respond to the claim that the triune God is incoherent and so TAG doesn't get off the ground?

Three beings who are one being, Jesus, omnipotent, omniscient, et cetera. That's a great question, Ravi. I appreciate that.

Now, what I respect about this question is that it is doing what it is supposed to be doing when someone who argues the way

I'm arguing transcendentally puts forth the argument. If I were to say that the triune God, right?

So the Christian worldview, which inherent within that is the triune God is a necessary precondition for knowledge and so forth.

The unbeliever disagrees, right? He's gonna give his arguments. I'm gonna disagree because I have my presuppositions and commitments.

So we go back and forth. So what are we left with? We have two conceptual schemes saying, here's my foundation, here's my foundation.

And how do we break the tie between one worldview opposing another worldview? Well, at that point, we need to engage in what we call internal worldview critique.

And the internal worldview critique involves hypothetically granting the truth of the position and showing that given its own truth, it falls apart on its own terms.

And so one of the ways that the unbeliever can try to do this is to show that something inherent within the

Christian worldview is actually incoherent, okay? Because the biblical worldview does claim to be a consistent worldview.

If the Christian worldview is true, then by extension, it must be consistent. And so what I appreciate about the question that Ravi is sharing here is that he is attempting to offer an internal critique of the

Christian worldview by attacking the conception of the triune God, the very concept of the

Trinity. Now, my job when someone like Ravi is offering this as a question, my job is to defend the coherence of the

Trinity. And so right here, I would even take just his question here and highlight that even in his question, he has misrepresented the

Trinity. And now again, I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose. I'm saying like, if I were having this conversation and someone were to say what you were to say, here's how

I would defend the Trinity, okay? You asked the question, how would you respond to the claim that the triune God is incoherent and so tag doesn't get off the ground?

Three beings who are one being, okay? Right there, that's not the doctrine of the Trinity. So one of the primary ways that we defend the doctrine of the

Trinity, okay? Is by correctly defining the doctrine of the Trinity. No Christian teaches that the

Trinity is three beings who are one being. That is a contradiction. But unfortunately for the skeptic, that's not the concept of the

Trinity. The Trinity is that God is one being who exists as three persons. And within Christian theology, we make a distinction between the being of God and the personhood of God.

The being of God refers to his nature, his whatness, and the persons of God deal with his identity or his who -ness.

And as you'll see in any systematic theology, I don't know if it's any systematic theology, but many systematic theologies, someone might make the distinction that God is one what and three whos.

I agree with that. He is one what, with respect to his nature, he is only one God. There is only one God. Here, O Israel, the

Lord, our God is one. But this one God has revealed himself as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. You take all of what scripture has to say about the nature of God and the who -ness of God, and that is how we derive the doctrine of the

Trinity. All of the other philosophical and theological language that we use to explain the Trinity is developed to clarify and sharpen our defenses of the doctrine of the

Trinity and correct it against misunderstandings and things like that. So I would respond to that claim by correctly defining the

Trinity, showing that the definition offered is not a genuine critique of demonstrating the incoherency of the triune

God, because the Trinitarian is not saying God is three beings and one being. That is, in fact, the contradiction.

I would disagree with that, okay? All right, so also, on top of that, we can ask the question,

I mean, Scott Terry asked the question too, what does incoherent mean in a non -Christian conceptual scheme? And then we're gonna get into the internal critique of the other side, okay?

Are incoherent things false on a non -Christian scheme? What is the foundation of truth? What is the foundation for logic and consistency?

When an unbeliever assumes that logic is a universal principle that does in fact apply, how do they know that within their scheme?

What is there, if any, what is the metaphysical nature of logic itself? Is there even a view within the skeptic's position with respect to the nature of logic?

I know, I've heard people say that logic is just the language we create to describe reality. Well, what's reality?

How do you know what reality is? These are not trip up the skeptic type of questions. These are honest questions that are dealing with the foundation of a person's worldview and asking what right does a specific person have to use certain concepts within their own system, okay?

From the Christian perspective, we have answers to those. And I think from the non -Christian perspective, I think Christians have every right to ask the unbeliever the foundation for those questions.

I think this is one of the reasons why a lot of people find talking to presuppositionalists so annoying. You talk to an evidentialist or a classicalist, you'll talk about the intricacies of the beginning of the universe and different theories of time and universe expansion and the arguments from design.

But then when you talk to the presuppositionalist, the presuppositionalist is gonna be talking about the nature of reality itself.

We're not granting those other things, those specifics, the evidences necessarily.

We're talking about the very essence of reality itself. Those that you presuppose, those things you presuppose to even get off the ground in discussing those other things because that's really where the difference between the believer and unbeliever lie.

It's not the difference in kind of evidence and facts, so to speak. We all have the same facts that we're dealing with, but rather it's the interpretation of those facts.

Who is interpreting the facts and the data from within the proper worldview framework? And that's why we tend to talk about worldviews and presuppositions and things like that.

It's not to avoid talking about the details, but in reality, the reason why we differ over the details are because of those more fundamental issues.

And so I think it's super, super important. Let's see here. Yeah, so Ravi asks, was

Jesus omnipotent and omniscient? Yes, yes, he was. And I'll give a quick answer. So if Jesus is

God in human flesh, he is omnipotent and omniscient. We do want to make the distinction, however, that his omnipotence and omniscience is with respect to his divine nature as Jesus.

Or we take a look at the Trinity, for example, we'd say that God is one being who exists as three persons. But when we take a look at the person of Christ, the second person of the

Trinity takes on human flesh in the incarnation. And we describe Jesus historically and theologically as being one person with two natures.

There's a human nature with, of course, has the limitations of a human nature except for sin. And then we have his divine nature, which are equal to the father.

So there's a sense in which Jesus can say the father is greater than I with respect to his humanity. But he can say

I and the father are one with respect to his nature. So yeah, I would answer those questions in that way. Scott Terry asked the question, am

I obligated as an apologist to defend nuanced theological models? Or can I just rest on biblical authority and plead mystery to many aspects revealed?

I don't know if you're obligated. I mean, we're obligated to defend the truth. There are things in scripture in which we need to speculate.

And it might be important to speculate and kind of make sense of certain things that are made in scripture that might not be explicitly evident to us.

But I don't think you're obligated to defend a model necessarily, unless you're arguing that that model is derived from the scriptures, right?

Minimally, the apologist is obligated to defend biblical authority, okay?

The Bible teaches such and such. I'm obligated to defend those things. That's what the Bible teaches. With respect to certain models, yeah,

I want to defend those models if I think they are relevant to the biblical data. But I don't think we are necessarily obligated to defend kind of a speculative model.

Rather, I think that at minimum, at base, it's really the biblical authority and those that are explicitly taught in scripture, those things that are implicitly taught that can be demonstrated to be implicitly taught that are in fact biblical in that sense.

I think we should be defending those as well. So there you go. Let's see here.

All right, okay. Well, I think that's the last question. All right, all right.

Well, this was a lot of fun. I hope that I answered the questions to people's satisfaction. Obviously, you can ask questions forever.

I can't answer all of them. Jesus is omniscient, but I'm not. So I think this is a good place to end.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Scott, for your questions. Thank you, Robbie, for your questions. I greatly appreciate it. Until next time,

I'm not sure what topic I'll be doing. I'll try and plan in the future so people know that I'll be going live. If not,

I'll have to do these random kind of drop -ins, which I'm sure, you know, it's fun doing it.

Yeah, John, I'm surprised that all these questions that are coming through with only seven people.

Yeah, I mean, we have 11 people now. There was 15 at one point, but that's fine. That's fine. I don't mind at all.

Those are great questions and keep asking. And for people in the chat or people who will watch this later, if you disagree, have fruitful conversation, okay?

If you're a Christian, interact with respect, not condescending respect, like I'm trying to be respectful to you horrible sinner.

We want to be genuinely respectful and allow other people to express their views. And then of course, you know, we respectfully express our views as well.

So let's have fruitful conversation in the comments section. I think that's the best route to go. All right.

Well, thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen, for listening to me, uh, for an hour and two minutes until next time.