Open Phones Dividing Line Friday

Welcome to the Dividing Line, an unusual time starting at the half hour, but that's because we just finished recording a sweater vest dialogue with Doug Wilson.

That'll drop sometime next week, I assume. I didn't actually ask about that, but that's normally the time frame.

Maybe over the weekend, who knows? I don't know. I just didn't, I didn't ask. But anyways, so sitting here in the studio, we've got the studio cooled down.

It's, um, uh, how much has it, because Doug was complaining, oh, we're gonna open the phones by the way, 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341,

Doug was complaining that he, um, he couldn't wear a sweater vest. I wore a sweater vest.

I, I took it off since then, obviously, but I wore a sweater vest and, um, yeah, it's, it's three degrees warmer than when we started.

It's 104 here now, we're going for 111, uh, today. And, um, then, uh, the rest of the, the rest of the week, at least in my backyard,

I got, I, I have always wanted one of those weather station things, you know?

And so I, I finally got one. And, um, so I think it's really cool cause you've got, you know, it's super accurate and it's solar powered, which is really neat.

Now it hasn't, we haven't seen a drop of rain since I put it in, so I'm not sure how exactly it's going to do once the wind and the rain comes, uh, we'll, we'll find out how well

I installed it. But, uh, for, um, for my backyard, 111 today, 115, 115, 111, 109, 108, 108, um, is, uh, is what we've got.

So, uh, and he was complaining that it was like 60 degrees up there, so he couldn't wear his sweater vest.

So anyways, we had a good, uh, discussion. We talked primarily about God as creator and how that is central and foundational, uh, to the issues that we are facing in our society today.

Um, and in the, uh, degradation of our society, honestly,

I believe that's central to what we are experiencing, what we're seeing going on, um, to the progress of secularism,

Marxism, atheism. And, uh, both Doug and I would agree, uh, the system that is coming in, it cannot sustain itself.

It, um, it cannot sustain itself now, given its access to technology, it will sustain itself for a period of time and it'll be ugly.

That period of time will be ugly, but it does not have the internal framework to be able to sustain itself.

Isn't it interesting that we, we've made all these dystopian movies, all these movies for decades now, uh, expressing our inner fear of what could happen when it comes to, um, just the, the abuse of technology, the abandonment of a meaningful worldview.

And a lot of the people making these dystopian movies are not Christians, but you dig into the themes and a lot of the themes have to do with the very truths that we see in the pages of scripture.

They're God's revelation gets through, uh, it gets through to people. And so you, you have that kind of, of thing.

But anyway, uh, so that should drop, as I said, uh, sometime next week, maybe over the weekend, but I would imagine next week, maybe next weekend.

I don't know what their schedule is up there and who's going to have time to be working on stuff and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

But I think you all will find that to be interesting. And a week from today, I do not know if it is going to be live.

I mean, it'll, it'll, it'll be live for us. I don't know if it's going to be a webcast or not.

I'll have to look at that, but there is going to be a four -way apologetics round table, uh, evidential apologetics, classical apologetics, something called reformed epistemology.

Randall Rausser is going to be doing that, uh, and presuppositional. I'll be the presuppositional representative,

Dr. Howell from SES, uh, and then Dr. McClatchy for the evidentialist, uh, perspective.

And, um, so that will be, uh, a week from today and I'll, I'll look,

I'll try to find out, uh, maybe Jonathan McClatchy can let me know. Well, that's actually going to be just recorded at that time and then uploaded or whether it will be live via some type of zoom feed or something.

Um, I'm not sure how that would work to be honest with you, but anyway, I don't know right now.

We'll find out. Uh, but that's a week from today on apologetic methodology. Uh, we each have,

I think like seven minutes, I think, uh, to present our sides and we're going to ask each other questions and there's going to be some give and take and some closing statements and stuff like that.

But, uh, it should be hopefully, uh, useful and, uh, and challenging, uh, at that point in time.

All right. So with that, let's, uh, 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the toll free phone number.

Uh, if you would like to get involved with the program today. And, uh, so let's go down to the state that's trying to out

California, California these days, let's go down to Texas and talk with Casey. Hi, Casey.

Hello, Mr. White. Thanks for taking my call. And, um, I just wanted to know, uh, in regards to the papacy, if I wanted to be able to debate this subject, you know, professionally, do you think it would be sufficient for me to, you know, of course, you know, read a whole bunch of secondary sources, but at the same time, you know, whenever references are made to the primary sources, you know, read those as well.

If I was to do that, do you think it would be sufficient enough for me to be able to debate the topic professionally?

And just very quickly at the end, could you provide it to me? Some really good resources on this. I'm already aware of, uh,

William Webster's Matthew 16 controversy, Edward Denny's papalism and George Sammons infallibility of the church.

But apart from those books, I'm not too sure where to go from there. So if you could just also give me some really good books that I can read,

I really appreciate that. Well, um, the Oxford encyclopedia of the papacy is really useful because it has a lot of, um, uh, references that you can expand out from there.

Um, there are so many issues in relationship to the papacy. The papacy having existed for so long.

Uh, the, all the, all the issues would include the origin and rise of the papacy.

So, uh, issues related to the most primitive history of the church in Rome.

Um, there are numerous articles, a number of articles have been written over the past decade, uh, in regards to the primitive form of the church at Rome.

In other words, the rise of the monarchical episcopate. Well, the fact, the evidence is, uh, that the original, uh, form of church government in Rome was a plurality of elders, not a, not a single bishop.

That's a development that doesn't come to Rome until the 140s. And so when

Ignatius writes to the church in Rome, uh, as he's on his way there, he does not address the bishop, uh, even though he addressed the bishop of other churches, uh, to whom he was, uh, writing.

And, uh, Clement's letter seems to indicate, uh, again, a plurality of eldership rather than a singular person representing the church at Rome.

And, and that monarchical episcopate, the idea of one singular, single bishop develops over time in Rome.

And of course, for modern Roman Catholics who have bought into the, um, development hypothesis anyways, that's not all that big of a deal.

Uh, in other words, they accept that what they call apostolic belief today really isn't apostolic at all.

It, it, uh, uh, has the, as Newman put it, you know, the acorn in the tree, it has the, the kernel of truth, but you end up not being able to escape having a system within Roman Catholicism today that allows for the development of doctrine, even to the, to the level of development of revelation, uh, because most

Roman Catholic scholars will admit that the last dogmas defined by the church, the two in regards to Mary and papal infallibility itself are really unknown to the apostolic period or for any period of time thereafter.

And so you have to have some methodology of a living tradition that while not explicitly claiming revelational capacity, functionally is able to give you new information.

I mean, it's, it's the only way you can, you can come up with the bodily assumption as being quote unquote apostolic. So in answer to your question,

I'm not sure what you mean by professionally debate. Um, we don't have a, uh, a, uh, a society of professional debaters.

Uh, so I've debated people that, uh, shouldn't have ever debated. Um, maybe there might be some people who, uh, think

I should ever debate, but, um, so I'm not sure what professionally debate actually means.

Um, uh, you have to be able to analyze your own capacity and ability to speak with clarity, speak in such a way as to, um, be able to communicate an idea within a particular timeframe, uh, to be able to listen to what somebody else is saying and to respond meaningfully to their argumentation, you have to be able to be a multitasker.

So you have to be able to listen, write, organize all the same time. A lot of people are just not built that way.

There, I know brilliant, brilliant scholars that are, are many, many, many, many IQ points above me that should never debate that I'd be able to debate under the table, uh, because they're just not built that way.

They're they, they have to take extensive periods of time to think things through. Then when they give you a response, it's a great response and it could probably be published in a journal immediately, but it takes some time to do that.

And you don't have time in a, in a, uh, in most, in the most kinds of normal public debates.

Now, if you have written, written debate is completely different than, than oral debate. Very, very different.

And what you lose in written debate, you also gain in written debate. And that is in, in oral debate, you have cross -examination where you can really probe the consistency of the other person's position that becomes somewhat blunted in a, uh, written form because you have more time to spin things, basically, uh, when you're actually having to answer a question directly from the other individual and they're probing the consistency of your position, uh, that's why, uh, in, even in Hebrew law, you, you have to be able to face those witnesses.

And that's where we get it in Western law too, is it came from, from scripture is you have to be able to face those witnesses and ask them questions.

And when you can't do that, then their witnesses, their, their testimony is not allowed. So, so that's an incredibly important part of, of the, of debating.

And then as to the sources that you use, it sort of depends on the person that you're debating. I mean, if you're debating a professor from Notre Dame, uh, who, uh, is going to be making his presentation in Latin, well, that's going to make it, you know, this could be a, it's going to indicate where you need to be as to what kind of sources you're, you're utilizing.

Uh, the vast majority of people who engage in a debate on historical sources, uh, are, are going to be using secondary sources.

Um, uh, but with, with a, you know, but checking out with primary sources when possible.

I mean, the papacy, as I said, is a massively huge subject and therefore no one has it all mastered.

No one could possibly have read all the original sources or, uh, read all of, uh,

Patrologia Greca or Patrologia Latina, um, uh, and, and, and then all of the medieval sources and all the fraudulent works that were used, uh, to substantiate the concept of the papacy, the

Pseudo -Isidorean Decretals and all the rest of that kind of stuff. I don't know if anybody's read all of that stuff. And so everybody at some point, uh, has, is utilizing secondary sources, but then it's useful to be able to go to the original sources if there's a challenge against something like that.

But so it all depends on what you mean by professionally debate, what the context would be, uh, what your capacity and ability is to be able to express yourself with clarity and, and, and things like that and what you're focusing on,

I mean, the, when I've, when I've debated the papacy, uh, Jerry Matitix and I did seven and a half hours over two nights in Denver in 1993,

I think it was 93. And, um, uh, you know, the first night was on the biblical evidence.

The second night was on the patristic evidence. So the first, what, 500 years, maybe, uh, something along those lines, we didn't get into papal infallibility.

We didn't get into the development of papal dogma at later times, none of that kind of stuff, uh, which we certainly could have it's, it's relevant information, uh, but even as it was that that's seven and a half hours for just the biblical evidence and the early patristic sources, and no one would say that we covered everything there was to be covered by any stretch of the imagination.

So yeah, there's a lot of, uh, it's a lot of, uh, options there. There's a lot of, uh, uh, variables that have to be taken into consideration, um, in a situation like that.

All right. Well, yeah, you pretty much kind of did answer my question. And if you aren't even aware, but, uh, so yeah,

I do thank you for your comment. Okay. All right. Thanks Casey. Have a good one. All right. 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1.

Uh, and let's, uh, well, why does, uh,

I'm just gonna go with the one that's been on hold the longest. Is that what I should do? Okay. Let's talk with Joshua.

Hi Joshua. Hey Dr. White. How you doing, sir? Doing good. Good. Good.

Thank you for taking my call. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. And I can hear the bird as well. Wow. That's really cool.

All right. Uh, so I kind of wrote it down. So, um, basically I guess

I'll just start with a preface. Do you know who, uh, Dr. Michael Reeves is, uh, Dr. White, he's on the Ligonier ministry staff.

Name rings a bell. I'm not, uh, not, not familiar with him personally, but I may be, but I'm not sure.

Okay. Well, he's, he's pretty awesome. He had a whole series that's on the Ligonier app about, uh, the Puritans and he just had like a whole series about that and the

English reformation and stuff, which was really cool, which was really cool. Um, but basically he just said something that was kind of, uh, just kind of had me thinking and stuff like that.

He was basically talking about how the Puritans, uh, he described them as heart doctors, right? They, he was, uh, they were those who were concerned with the inner, uh, the inner lives of people, whether they, uh, truly desired and loves

Christ or rather, or if it was just anomaly and stuff like that. But he said that the danger, uh, that they faced was that they, uh, would desire to have a response from the people.

And the danger would be to leave a focus on a response to the gospel rather than on the gospel itself.

You're tempted to focus on the holy living and the fruit rather than on the finished work of Christ.

So I just kind of wanted your thoughts kind of on, on that. I'm not sure if you're familiar with anything that he's talking about, but it was just kind of interesting, uh, to think that, uh, to think about of, you know, is it a changed life and, you know, the fruit, the fruit as evidence thereof, or is it the gospel, the, you know, of what

Christ did for us? It's extra notes, right? It's outside of ourselves that saves us.

So I just wanted to kind of your thoughts on that. Well, I, I, I find the, the, the whole issue to be somewhat artificial because, uh, it's, it's comparing apples and oranges.

One is the divine act that provides the very foundation upon which

God is able to, um, treat us as holy, to bring us into his presence, to, uh, invite us before the throne of grace.

It's, it's all every, it's all of God. God is the only one who is, who is to be glorified and all these things.

But he didn't do that to just simply do that. There was, there was an application.

There is the, the existence of the elect and the, the necessity of application to the elect.

And so, uh, it's like, it's like saying, well, is the most important thing, the gospel or the fact that God also intended the gospel to have results in, in our lives, it's, it's not an either or, it's not a competition type thing.

And one can talk about, well, uh, you, you, you know, you can lose balance. Well, you can lose balance on, on anything,

I suppose. Uh, but the, the categories into which the, the, the two are placed are, are different.

One is a, is the divine accomplishment. And then the other is, is also a divine accomplishment, but it's the application in time.

So, so, um, I, I just don't see how biblically that one can look at, um, classical passages like Ephesians 2, 8 through 10 and not see that from an apostolic concept, there wasn't any way of distinguishing between these things.

There wasn't any way of, of coming up with some kind of division between them. Uh, it does remind me just in passing of a very strange tweet that I read yesterday from Dr.

Anthony Bradley, um, who, um, number of years ago was, um, you know, conservative reformed, uh, type of guy.

And, and now is like so many people moved, uh, in light of current events, but he was basically arguing that the, uh, uh, that five point

Calvinist reformed people, um, are, have an overemphasis on Paul's soteriology, whereas the black church is focused upon Moses.

And this was somehow supposed to be some really super, uh, insight that somehow explains things.

I'm not sure what kind of a view of scripture all that might speak to. Uh, but I, I don't think that you can put

Moses versus Paul any more than you can put, um, the application of the gospel versus the accomplishment of the gospel.

They have to be distinguished from one another. Um, but it was God's intention that, that all those for whom that redemption was accomplished, it would be applied.

So accomplishment and application. Yeah, we need to distinguish them, but since both are as certain in the divine decree as the other, uh, trying to quote unquote, prioritize them on a level of importance doesn't mean it just isn't something

I think the apostles would have really given consideration to. Um, it, uh, that, that, that doesn't seem to follow for me.

Okay. That's good. I like it. I like, yeah, I like what you're saying. I'm saying that it's not a either or, but it's a, it's a both and.

Oh, it is. Yeah, definitely. It's just a both and that requires the appropriate, uh, uh, distinguishing on our part to, to make sure we don't confuse them.

Awesome. Well, thank you so much for taking my call, Dr. White. Okay. Thanks. Have a good day. God bless. You too. God bless. All right.

Uh, let's talk with, uh, Anthony in California. Hey, Anthony. Hi, how's it going,

Dr. White? Doing good. I have a quick question for you. Um, very simple.

Um, years ago, uh, Sam Gibbs, uh, put a video out there about what's the big deal about the

KJV. And, uh, I know you had made a video in response to that. A number of them actually.

Uh, yeah, yeah. I've seen them all and they were good. Um, kind of recently, maybe two years ago, um, another video was put out there by Sam Gibbs at the

King James Conference, and he's still putting out the same narrative out there that the righteous

Antioch manuscripts versus the Alexandrian manuscripts. Yeah. Sam, Sam doesn't, Sam doesn't come up with any new arguments.

He, he, he repeats the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times you refute it. So that's just, that's the nature of King James.

I know. It's like, uh, watching a video stuck on a repeat or something, basically.

Uh, but my question is on a scholarly basis. Um, is there any evidence of, uh, these

Antioch manuscripts that he's talking about, I know about the Byzantine type manuscripts that come out of Byzantium, but is there some type of, uh, manuscripts flowing out of, uh,

Antioch of Syria that we can pinpoint to, because that's his whole argument? Yeah. Well, we, the, the, the fact of the matter is manuscripts do not have, uh, origination stamps on them.

And so you can theorize, um, almost any, uh, especially of the more major manuscripts there, when you read about their origin and their character, you'll have theories that this was done in Caesarea, this was done in Alexandria, this was done in Antioch or whatever.

Um, but they're all completely theories and you could have, you could have four different scholars with six different views on that.

It's, it's all excess, excessively, um, subjective when you get to the idea of saying, oh,

I think this, this, this originated in such and such a place. GIP has no, has no, uh, basis of saying these are manuscripts that came from Antioch, um, because manuscripts don't say things like that.

And, and if you get to the point where they do, they're, they're so modern, uh, that they're textually pretty much irrelevant.

So, uh, there is a, what, what happens in the King James only movement is you get, um, facts that are derived from theories that are derived from just something being preached a lot.

And so, uh, something gets repeated enough times that it just becomes unquestioned.

And so they have all sorts of theories about, uh, Antioch, good Alexandria, bad.

And so anything associated with Alexandria, even if it's just theoretical, even if there's, there's nothing in the manuscript that would indicate this, that makes that manuscript bad.

If it's associated with Antioch, that's good. Despite the fact that it was Alexandria that defended the deity of Christ and Antioch that gave in on it, uh, after the council of Nicaea, but hey, anyways, let's not worry about church history.

Right. Um, you know, so, you know, Lucian of Antioch and, uh, it was, uh, had some, had some, uh, interesting problems and things like that, but none of that, none of that actually matters.

The reality is we don't know where manuscripts came from with sufficient accuracy to be able to make the kinds of claims that he's talking about.

It's just something that, that you'll find in movies. And, um, that guy that did the, um, uh,

Sinaiticus was a fraud movie. Uh, then he did a, he did a video.

Yeah. What? Yeah. Chris Pinto, I guess he did a video afterwards that I was in, uh, cause

I went, cause I forgot, I think it was Memphis. I went to someplace. I went to, uh, and did some recording and I, I don't think he ever sent me one, but I saw some clips of it.

Anyway, uh, they, they will present as if it's factual, these theories about groups of manuscripts and you have the pure manuscripts over here and the corrupted manuscripts are there when you push and say, show me your evidence, show me, uh, show me in the manuscript itself, how you know these things, they've got no answer because it's just, it's just the whole group of them that are just repeating these things to themselves.

So it's cross citation, but that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't actually accomplish anything.

That's why serious scholarship doesn't take that kind of stuff. Uh, and it doesn't even allow it in the room because it, it, it, it's circular in its argumentation at that point.

So, um, yeah, uh, there, there are no, there's, there's no reason to believe that manuscripts that are even traditionally associated with a particular area, um, are therefore either to be exalted or to be put down or anything else.

You examine manuscripts on their own basis. You examine their readings on their own basis. Um, and, um, that's, that's how actual scholarship works.

Um, but King James onlyism has never, ever been an expression of Christian scholarship.

It really hasn't. The King James was, but I am firmly convinced that, uh, every single one, every single one of the

King James translators were they to be raised from the dead and introduced today, uh, to the

King James only movement would look at you in absolute, utter disdain and go, you've got to be kidding me.

Uh, this is, this is absurdity on, and especially if they had to read anything by Peter Ruckman, they would just, they would just shoot themselves to get back in the grave.

Um, they really would. So yeah, yeah. But, but Sam Gipp, I mean,

I'm sorry if, if you haven't, if, if, if after all these years, it, even after the

Ankerberg show, uh, that was enough. But, but, but if people haven't figured old Sam Gipp out by now, uh, what can

I say? Um, but, uh, but I do know that Steven Anderson and Sam Gipp do not like each other at all.

And, uh, so what's interesting is I just discovered, um, what was it yesterday?

Day before yesterday? Uh, all of Steven Anderson's, um, uh, media outlets have been closed down.

Uh, correct. Yeah. Gone. From his own, uh, from his own, uh, YouTube channel, he removed them all, especially on all of his videos towards your, uh, work that you did, um, on your book.

Okay. Now, now you said, you said, you said he removed them all? I don't know who removed them.

I shouldn't say that. Um, I'll redact that statement. Okay. They have been removed. I shouldn't say he removed them, but they're no longer on his, uh,

YouTube channel, they've been removed. So I shouldn't say he did it, but they have been removed and a lot of his videos have been removed.

Yeah. My understanding was YouTube shut him down. So, uh, just canceled those, those accounts.

Um, so, you know, and I do not, um, I do not rejoice in that, uh, because they're coming for me eventually.

It's gonna, it's gonna happen. There's no, no question about it. Um, so that's, that's not a good thing, but at the same time, um,

I'm, I'm always wondering, okay, what was the, what pulled the trigger?

What, what was the final thing? You know, because I don't think he had nearly as many views as many of the rest of us did.

And yet they, they went after him. So who knows? But what that does mean is that a few of the videos taking on Sam Gipp have now disappeared from, from, uh, from YouTube.

I didn't get a chance to see those. Yeah, that's why I say anymore. You got to grab stuff. If you, if you ever want to see it twice, you might want to, you might want to be grabbing it.

So, yeah, but anyways, all right, Anthony, appreciate the phone call. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. And, uh, I appreciate all your work that you do on, uh, textual criticism. Thank you. Okay.

Thanks a lot. All right. God bless. You're welcome. Bye -bye. All right. Now I don't have any, uh, names or anything else on three of two of the three.

Uh, so, oh, oh, okay. All right. So we have lines open.

We've got one down to get to, uh, but we have lines open at eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, three, four, one.

I forgot to tweet this. I forgot. Uh, let me, let me do this. Lines are open on the

DL for you right now. Eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three dash two, three, four, one.

There, there we go. I, I neglected it. It, the time sort of sneak up, snuck up on us.

And, uh, uh, so we didn't really get it out there as much as, uh, as we, uh, a lot of people just might not even know we're on right now, uh, because I've only put it on, um, on, uh, on Twitter.

So there's a couple. So, okay. Let's, uh, let's go to the one that we do have right now.

And let's talk with, uh, Matt in Indiana. Hi, Matt. Hi, Dr. White. How you doing? Doing good.

Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yeah. Um, lately, you're not wearing a mask or anything, are you?

Uh, no. Okay, good. Good. Yeah, I am. Um, right. I, uh, recently had to deal with Roman Catholic apologists and my questions on the topic of the justification of Abraham.

It's not specifically on whether, you know, he was, it was by faith, a lot of our works, I know they appeal to passages in like Romans two verses six to seven to try and offend justification, like plus works.

But, uh, my question is on, you know, the number of times Abraham was justified and, uh, the

Roman Catholic apologists that I've engaging with, I, I not very popular, you probably haven't heard of him, but, um, he basically appealed to Hebrews 11 verse eight in order to support the idea that Abraham was justified or had faith in, uh,

Genesis 12 and that Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 are just like other times he was justified to try to support the

Roman Catholic beyond the issue. So I wanted to like, what are your thoughts on like Hebrews 11 verse eight? Is that, you know,

Yeah. Yeah. Uh, extensive section on this argument in the God who justifies, for those who have my book on the doctrine of justification, uh, it is a, um, a common form of argumentation and it is, uh, to me anyways, indicative of where Roman Catholicism is in that it is arguing against Paul's own point in Romans chapter four.

Um, first of all, a couple of things to keep in mind on the, on just simply the factual level. Um, yes,

Hebrews talks about, uh, Abra, uh, Abraham is a man of actually Abram at that point is a man of faith.

But what's interesting is the, you, the first use of the word faith in Genesis is not in chapter 12, it's in chapter 15 and, uh,

Genesis 15, six, uh, Abram believed God and it was reckoned him as righteousness is the second most often quoted text from the old

Testament in the new Testament. The most often is Psalm 110 one. Um, and so the second most often is

Genesis 15, six. So let me just let, make sure people understand what the argument is in Roman Catholicism.

You can be justified multiple times. Uh, justification is a state that is actually dependent upon, now this is an old, this is in older, more

Orthodox, uh, Roman Catholic doctrine, going back to the council of Trent. Um, it's important,

I think, to note that I don't think that the current Pope would hold any of these views.

I just don't, I just don't think that he would. Um, I doubt that he would find this to be a useful conversation.

Um, his, I think he's universalist. And so all of this stuff, uh, wouldn't be overly relevant, but, um, more

Orthodox historical Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic apologists and like the people you're dealing with, um, will make the argument that Abram was justified minimally three times because in Roman Catholicism, you can be justified, then lose your, your status of justification to the commission of immortal sin, and then have to be re -justified.

Now, how Abraham was able to do this without a priesthood, without sacraments, without any of these things, and without it ever being mentioned in scripture is a difficult thing to begin to comprehend.

And the idea of Abram regularly committing mortal sins is likewise something that you would think might be mentioned somewhere in the narrative speaking of him.

Um, I would just simply suggest to you, the apostle Paul has no concept of venial mortal sin distinctions, uh, destructions of the state of grace by mortal sin, any of that stuff that is plainly post -apostolic development.

Uh, it's not apostolic. It doesn't come from the apostles. It doesn't come from the New Testament. So the argument though, is that initially in Genesis 12, when

Abram obeys and leaves Ur of the Chaldees, that this has to be an act of faith, and therefore it has to have been justifying faith.

And so he's justified in Genesis 12, even though Paul never says that.

Then he's justified again. So something happens between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 to where he loses the state of justification.

He's committed a mortal sin. He is then re -justified in Genesis 15.

Now here's one of the biggest problems. Wait a minute, Genesis 15, and then is justified again in Genesis chapter 22 in the offering of Isaac, um, on the altar.

Um, and so three different situations where, uh, that's based on James two, by the way, uh, three different places where, where Abram is justified.

So here's, here's the problem with, with all of that. Um, as I said, uh, faith is only used, uh, one for the first time is used in Genesis chapter 15, verse six.

Secondly, if you look at what happens in Genesis 15, a covenant is made. Remember the cutting of the animals, the torch passing through, uh, everything that takes, that takes place there.

A promise is given in Genesis 12. There's no question about that. Um, but the idea of faith in response to a covenantal promise is picked up by the apostle

Paul and made the point of Abram's justification in Romans chapters three and four, specifically chapter four.

Um, so if Abram is justified multiple times before and after circumcision, this becomes an argument against Paul's own position in Romans chapter four.

Let me show you why. Um, we recognize the centrality of, uh, this to his argument in chapter four.

It says, what then shall we say that Abram, our father, according to flesh is found, for if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

For what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteous. That's Genesis 15, six.

Now, if he had been justified before, why doesn't he quote from Genesis 12? If he's justified later, why doesn't he quote from Genesis chapter 22?

These are, are relevant questions because Paul is engaged in an argument here and he's engaged in an argument against Judaizers.

This is the foundation of how Paul is going to be defending his gospel. And he's been defending his gospel against Judaizers for quite some time.

So they know the Old Testament text just as well, probably better than most of us today do.

So if he's, if he's focusing on Genesis 15, six, it needs to be defensible. For what does the scripture say?

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Now the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

But the one who does not work, but believes in him and justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

And so it's a 180 degree contrast. You have the person who works and the person not working.

The person who works, his wage is not considered to be a gift or grace, but, but it's a debt, what is owed to him.

But to the one not working, but instead believing connected directly back to Genesis 15, six, his faith is credited as righteousness.

So here's where righteousness is coming from. It's from a faith that is in God that is not seeking to get something from God, to fulfill some kind of conditions.

It is a, it's the empty hand of faith. The only, the empty hand of faith that can grasp the hand of grace. Then he says, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom

God credits righteousness apart from works. Now it's fascinating that, that here,

Paul says, here's the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness.

So this is an imputation. It's the term, lagizitai, lagizimai is the Greek term for imputation.

Here's where imputation of righteousness. This is something Rome denies, but here it is directly in the text.

God reckons, imputes righteousness, kores erigon, apart from works without the addition of, or the medium of works.

And then what's interesting is when he quotes from the Psalms, Psalm 32, what you find in the

Psalm is the negative of what Paul says.

So in other words, it's, Paul says, this is God crediting righteousness apart from works.

But here are the words. Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. So notice it is non -imputation of sin in Romans 4, 7, and 8 that Paul sees as being the necessary scriptural foundation of the positive crediting of righteousness that's found in verse 6.

Interesting apostolic interpretation. And again, we might, the

Jewish person's going to argue against this. And if you want to see, there are Jewish rabbis on YouTube right now that will argue with this very text and you can go look them up.

So he's going to have to substantiate what he's just said, but notice what he says, blessed is the man whose sin the

Lord will not take into account. Now, what I would suggest to you, I don't know if you've gotten to this,

Matt, but if you're talking with Roman Catholic apologists, I have asked them many, many times, who is the blessed man in Romans 4, 8?

Who is the blessed man? And a Roman Catholic cannot answer that question meaningfully.

When I asked Dr. Peter Stravinskis, a man with two PhDs from Ivy League schools, a

Roman Catholic priest, actually he's a Byzantine priest, but same thing, a Roman Catholic priest, when

I asked him, who is the blessed man of Romans 4, 8? His initial response was Jesus.

So Jesus is blessed because the Lord will not count Jesus' sin against him. Nah, I don't think so.

So I gave him the opportunity of rethinking that. And so the second answer he came up with was, well,

I hope to be that man. I hope to be that man. Well, here's the problem.

In Paul's argument in Romans 4, every believer is the blessed man. Every Christian is the blessed man in Romans 4, 8.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. That's what it means to be a Christian, is that by faith in Christ, you receive his righteousness and your sin is imputed to him.

The Roman Catholic has no non -imputation of sin. Therefore, there is no blessed man. That's what's important to keep in mind.

Now, here is the key. Then notice what Paul says. Is this blessing then on the uncircumcised or on the uncircumcised also?

For we say faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness. Now, please note something.

The apostle in defining this issue for Christians does not base this on Romans 12.

He, I'm sorry, on Genesis 12, but on Genesis 15.

And the apostle looks at this in a temporal situation, a temporal context.

What do I mean by that? Is this blessing then on the circumcised or on the uncircumcised also?

For we say faith is credited to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it credited? Verse 10, while he was circumcised or uncircumcised.

So right there, you have the utilization in the language of time.

And it's asking you the question, was he credited this righteousness while circumcised or uncircumcised?

Now, the only way we can understand that is Paul is saying that righteousness came to Abraham at a point in time in his life.

It's something, and this becomes foundation of Romans 5 .1, therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.

It's something we look back upon. That's the Christian experience. In Abraham, he likewise had the point of justification.

That he can look back upon and Paul can ask the question, was he, when he was circumcised, when he was justified, circumcised or uncircumcised?

If he was justified multiple times, Paul's question is stupid. It makes no sense.

So if you posit multiple justifications for Paul, for Paul's teaching in Genesis 12, 15, 22, you just refuted his own argument.

Because he's asking a question and he answers the question. He says, not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

So without a doubt in Paul's mind, he was not justified while circumcised.

So there goes Genesis 22. So the third of the three, that one's out because Paul's just said it.

And then which, which verse does he cite as the point of justification?

Genesis 15. So that's Paul's argument. And so when someone comes along and says, well,

Paul was justified again in Genesis 22, they're contradicting Paul. They're saying he was justified before.

They're contradicting Paul. They are taking apart the apostolic argument that becomes the foundation of all the rest of chapter four.

And then in the chapter five, where he says, we have been justified. We have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. And then that takes us into the whole discussion of Adam and the federal headship and everything that follows from there.

So as popular as this argument is, it demonstrates that those promoting it are not individuals that are walking through Romans 4 and following the argument.

They have, well, Rome denies sola scriptura, so they don't have to do that.

They have a theology that is provided by another source of authority anyways. And so it's like pointing out that Rome's doctrine of Mary is not based on any exegesis of scripture.

It has far more influence from the pseudo -Gnostic gospels of the second century than it does from biblical exegesis.

So they don't have the same strictures that we have as far as exegesis is concerned, but that also leads to misrepresentation of the text.

So there you go. Still there? Yeah. Okay.

I can hear something going on there, don't know what it was, but I couldn't hear you breathing, but I could hear something else going on, so is that helpful?

Yeah. I've dug into Douglas Moos' commentary on Romans to help me with some of these passages as well.

So that's good stuff as well. Okay. Thanks for, yeah. All right. Thanks, Matt. Yeah. All right.

And God bless. Bye -bye. All right. Whew! That was a lot.

Let me see here. Okay, let's talk to Andy in California. Hi, Andy.

Hey, James. It's an honor, man. How you doing? Doing good. Good. Good. I'll try to get this question out as quick as I can here.

What do you say to Christians who choose to focus their limited energy and empathy on the legitimate racial injustices, be it

George Floyd or whatever else, rather than the huge, harmful, false narrative being communicated pretty much everywhere?

Well, I've been doing a lot of programs seeking to reason with said brothers and sisters, to try to provide a meaningful, solid foundation for biblical justice rather than Marxist social justice, and to attack the root of this divisive idea that we can have an identity outside of the unifying identity in Christ.

And it's very, very much related to what the last caller was talking about in that the righteousness that is imputed to us is always the same righteousness, and it has absolutely positively no impact what your great grandpappy was, or anybody else's great grandpappy was, or the civil situation you find yourself in, or anything else.

The basis of unity amongst believers is that one single imputed righteousness of Christ, which is the only way that any of us will have peace before God, and that's why there's one table, there's one bread, there's one cup, there's one faith, there's one baptism.

We cannot allow anything to come in to divide these things, and right now what we are seeing is a tremendous amount of division based upon adopting a source of unity,

I'm sorry, a source of identity outside of our relationship to Christ being the foundation of relationship to one

And so, obviously, there are historical topics to be addressed in regards to where this arises from, the fact that history itself is being twisted in this narrative and turned into things that Christians should not support simply because Christians should be people who are always concerned about the truth of history, who are always speaking the truth.

But for Christians themselves, it does seem like a lot of Christians don't get the idea that if they help to bring in a

Marxist context, that Marxism is the sworn enemy of the

Christian faith. It will be the end of our churches, the end of our freedoms to proclaim the gospel, it will definitely be the beginning of a tremendous amount of evangelism within our prisons, by us, and we'll get to have a lot of good conversations as to how in the world we got there, when we get there.

But I'd like to try to avoid that for the sake of my children and my children's children, and would invite them to recognize that Marxism is in itself a fundamental denial of God's rule over his world.

Right, and that's kind of the tough thing that I'm making the connection is, like, if when

I'm talking to other Christians and they're basically saying, look, it's really sad of what has happened to some black people, and I'm like, yeah,

I'm there with you, you know? But it's hard to make that connection to, like,

I'm not going to say, don't be sad about what happened to George Floyd or whatever else, because Marxism is coming in, or something like that.

Like, how do you make that connection? Well, well, just on a couple simple truth issues here, how does anyone wrap their head around the fact that far more black people have died as a result of the violence and the rising of a

Marxist movement in our nation since George Floyd's death than had been killed by all races of police officers of unarmed people for at least three or four years before that?

And that only in a couple of weeks. How can we not see that? How is it that the deaths that will start being ticked off tonight in Chicago and go through the weekend are irrelevant?

We don't know the names, and unless they're under 18, we never hear the names. They're never even mentioned.

How can people not see that there was one man in Minneapolis because there was a video on it and because there was a white cop, and so that became the symbol of everything, and you cannot even raise any issues about that.

You can't even ask the question, well, what was the cop supposed to do? What were the written rules?

You can't ask any of those things. You can't ask whether the man had a record. You can't ask whether the man had drugs innocent, nothing.

It's just that has to be the thing. And everything else that has happened, including black on black violence or black on Asian violence in San Francisco, which

I didn't even know was a thing. I'll be honest with you. I didn't know, but I've now learned is a big thing.

You can't talk about any of that. Why not? Because this doesn't have anything to do with lives.

It has to do with politics. It has to do with power. It has to do with the fundamental destruction of the society. That's what we're dealing with.

And so as Christians, I'm not sure if you heard the program where I, if someone's going to say black lives matter, my pushback is, what does matters mean?

And I'm going to push them to explain to me, why does anything matter?

Why does any life matter? Why does the word matters requires a worldview that can fill that word with meaning?

They're stealing from my worldview to then turn around and make my worldview illegal. And so that's where I start to push back is not with all lives matter, because that has been framed to be offensive as in excluding black lives, but to go to the word matters, why do you think the word matters matters?

What does it mean? And that can take you directly into a presentation of the gospels. That on a very practical level is what

I've been suggesting to folks in my church, in my circles, that they utilize that approach, because it's not something that the society is preparing anybody to deal with.

And there aren't many people in the society that are going, where do you even get the word matters from? How can you substantiate that?

If you just think that we are stardust, that we are bottles of pop fizzing, and that we have no intrinsic value whatsoever, you're trying to bring in a worldview that will destroy all value to human life by using a phrase that depends upon us still thinking that human lives matter, it's amazing.

And if we had not been conditioned to emote, rather than to think, this could never have happened.

But for the past two decades, we've been trained, minimally two decades, to think that feeling something is the same as thinking something.

And that's why we're in the mess we're in. Okay? Yeah.

Can I make one more comment on that? Real quick. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It just seems like the more church sermons that I hear, it seems like everybody, not everybody, thank

God for your program and some others, but everyone is focusing so much on a legitimate issue.

I mean, there are legitimate racial injustices, things like that, but there's so far and few in between.

It's like, you know, Christians will comment back, like, you know, Jesus was for the oppressed, and this and that, and it's true, but man, it's like you're straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel in a sense, you know?

You're right, you're right. And Andy, it's frustrating, and you want to hit your head against the wall. And in situations like this, we have to remember that we are called first and foremost to faithfulness, to what

God has called us to be in our families, our churches, so the immediate context, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, my church.

That's the first thing. And then as I have opportunity, well, I have a whole lot more opportunity than a lot of people do.

As I have opportunity to try to encourage other believers, Doug Wilson and I just did a sweater vest dialogue.

We talked a lot about this stuff today. That's going to be coming out. Hopefully that's going to be encouraging to people here on this program, through my social media, things like that.

I am seeking to encourage people to recognize they're not nuts when they see these things, that they want to disconnect us from each other, so we think,

I must be the oddball because everybody's thinking the same thing. When what's really going on is the media is repeating mantras that have already been, the foundations of these things have been planted for decades, but especially over the past decade, so that people hear these things and they buy into the mantra without thinking through what the foundation is and not seeing where the contradiction is.

And so you're not crazy. Right. And it's hard not to be just pissed, you know what

I mean? Like, just to have joy and not be frustrated, you know? Andy, it's every day.

You want a real basic, something I don't do every day that I should, but before you hit the computer, before you hit the phone, before you hit the emails, the tweets, the

Facebook messages, the websites and everything else, you're hit your knees with the word, hit your knees with the word, get your mind right, get it prepared because it's going to be a battle and it's never good when soldiers have to just roll out of their bunk and grab their gun and hit the deck and start firing.

That's normally a bad situation. You want to be prepared. You want to want to have your armor on and your ammo checked and everything else, same thing with us.

So on a just real practical level, we have so many sources of information coming at us.

I'm not saying ignore what's going on in the world, but limit the flood and make sure you've got the good and the positive coming in first to get you in the proper mindset, and then you can make proper decisions as to who you're going to respond to and who you're not and how you're going to do it and everything else.

But Andy, you're not, you're not crazy. Hopefully, hopefully you've, you've got some, some good folks around you that aren't crazy, um, that can encourage you.

Um, and then just remain faithful. Keeps, keep speaking the truth and eventually speaking if the

Lord does not grant repentance. Look, this could, uh, Doug, uh, in the program we just did talked about shaking everything except that which can no longer be shaken.

It says the phrase from the book of Hebrews. And maybe that's what's happening here. Maybe a bunch of stuff is going to fall down that needs to fall down.

A lot of clarity will be gained and there is going to be a whiplash response to all this.

And maybe the Lord will glorify himself in that way. I don't know. All I know is

I have to remain faithful, even when it starts to cost a lot.

And honestly, I'm sitting here going, it could, something could happen in November that would result by January in radical changes in this nation that would pretty much shut us all down.

We, we could be paying big, big time for speaking the truth in a very short period of time in this nation.

We have to be aware of that. Do I know that's what's going to happen? No. Do I pray that that won't happen?

Yes, but I have to be prepared for it. We all have to be prepared for it. We all have to be prepared for it.

Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. All right. Thanks, Andy. Stay faithful. God bless you. All right. God bless.

Bye -bye. All right, let's get two more calls in here and boy, they look really close to each other.

Let's talk to Augustin in California. Hi, Augustin. Hello, Dr. White. How are you? Very good.

I actually had a question where I was watching a YouTube channel by the name of Michael Jones, and he had a very, like, different interpretation of Genesis, where he says that actually it's compatible with theistic evolution, as where he quotes from Louis Crepe and Origen for allegory interpretation of Genesis.

How, I wanted to see how would he respond to those kinds of things? Well, actually, there is a,

I haven't actually gotten it yet, but I've saw some of the people who spoke there, so I think it might be fairly decent.

Phoenix Seminary just did a, last year did a conference, I think, during the summer, on theistic evolution.

And, like I said, I haven't gotten, they did put, I'm pretty sure it's out. At least I think it's out.

You can look up Phoenix Seminary and, plus theistic evolution, see if something pops up. That'd be one of the most recent things that I've seen done that is dealing with the concept of theistic evolution from a biblical perspective in regards to Adam, the nature of death, the concept of order in the universe, what real neo -Darwinian micromutational evolutionary theory actually is, rather than what it's often sanitized to be within theistic evolutionary concepts.

And I mentioned, again, on the sweater vest dialogue we just did with Doug Wilson, that I was the only creationist in my

Christian college in the biology department, and so this is a battle that I've gone through for a very, very long period of time.

I don't know the person you're mentioning. I would imagine the majority, honestly, of commentaries today that are being put out, especially on the

Old Testament, would argue for an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis.

We gave most of the field of the Old Testament to the liberals a long, long time ago, so that wouldn't surprise me at all.

I would imagine that finding good, solid commentaries on Genesis that would be scientifically literate and be able to present problems with neo -Darwinianism would be the minority anymore.

They'd be much harder to find. So you've got that, but without knowing the individual,

I just didn't catch the name. What was the name again? Michael Jones' YouTube channel is called

Inspiring Philosophy. Yeah, I'm really having a hard time understanding you. It's not really clear, but it sounds like you said

Michael Jones. Yeah, that's the thing. Yeah, I'm not familiar with it so I really can't comment on it, but I think there are insuperable problems with the theistic evolutionary position.

Yeah, it's like one of his videos that I've seen is that where he comments on the interpretation for the global flood where he mentions, where it's scientifically possible that it might have been a regional flood instead of like, you know, like the...

Yeah, very common. That's certainly not what the writer of Genesis attempted to communicate, but it's very, very common in Old Testament studies for people to attempt to limit that so as to avoid any of the supernatural element to it, in essence.

Again, this is reading Old Testament commentaries today.

That's what it's about. That's certainly not what any of the New Testament writers understood in regards to Noah's flood, and certainly not even what

Jesus represented in regards to that particular subject, and you need to understand is that what these people say is, well, actually that was just Matthew's interpretation, or Mark's interpretation, or Luke's interpretation.

They literally would say, we don't know what Jesus actually believed about this. So yeah, liberalism is liberalism, and liberalism will always find a way to conform to the current theories and standards.

You might throw that name into the search bar at Jason Lyle's website,

Biblical Science Institute. I don't know, but it's a possibility. Maybe he's, you know, Jason writes a lot, and so maybe he has responded to something along those lines.

I'm not sure. So, but without reading it, I'll have to stay fairly vague on the response.

Okay? Okay, and I wanted to say, what kind of resources would you recommend for me to study this further?

Well, yeah, what I just mentioned, Biblical Science Institute, the book from Phoenix Seminary, I don't have a bibliography of works on theistic evolutionary material, however, on my computer or in my mind, so you could write to Jason, and I'm sure he would probably have a much more extensive bibliography than I would.

Okay. All right. Thanks, Gustin. Thanks. And let's talk to, let's finish up.

Let's talk to Jack in Texas. You wearing your mask inside, Jack? I'm doing my best.

I hope you aren't. I won't be able to understand a word you're saying, but I saw something about Texas actually asking people to wear masks inside, and I'm just like, yeah, okay, we're done.

It's over with. Give it up. So anyway. Unless my wife reports me to the authorities,

I think I'm safe. Well, you never know. You never know, man. People have been surprised by other things.

Anyways. Well, my question is, just for background,

I'm a religion student at Baylor University, I have seminary aspirations, and I'm married.

But you mentioned your wife, so I sort of put those two and two together. Sorry about that.

Me and my wife, we've been sort of watching how our generation has kind of reacted to this

Black Lives Matter, cultural Marxism thing. And it has us, for lack of a better term, incredibly concerned, because our generation, everyone that we know, even very solid

Christians, are all sort of buying into it, pretty much wholesale, cultural

Marxism and the whole nine. And it makes us worry about potentially having a family here at some point down the line.

And we're wondering, if we were to, you know, if we stay here, and if we have kids and all that, what can we really expect our kids to do in the midst of a world that is hostile to the

Gospels? Is it fair to expect them to be bold in their faith, and then with the risk of having them taken away from us in a society that gets to that point?

Or is it okay to say that we need to be covert about this sort of thing going forward? What would you say is the right thing to do in that situation?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by, I'm not sure what you mean by covert, I'm not sure what you mean by staying here. Did you mean staying in Texas or...

In the United States, if it were to get to a point where... Well, where else would you go? I mean, where else would you go? I'm not sure, honestly.

I'm not sure either. That's the problem, because, for example, I have visited

Germany to teach a number of times, and there's no homeschooling in Germany. Public education is mandatory.

So you try homeschooling, your kids will be taken away from you and given to other people. And so that's frightening.

But what that means is serious Christian parents in Germany have to homeschool at night, basically.

I mean, it has to become extremely time consuming.

I mean, you really have to dedicate yourself to the raising of those children, because the state is taking them during the day.

And that's an issue. And I think that's coming here. I've been saying for years that as soon as the

Marxists, I think that we just need to stop using terms like socialist, communist, or democrat.

Just call them what they are. Once Marxists have the presidency, the

Senate, and the House, not only will they pack the court so as to make sure that there's no problems with the constitution anymore, but they will get rid of homeschooling almost within one year of having that level of control, in my opinion, because they know that parental input in that way will be extremely difficult to overcome in the fundamental changing of the society.

So, but at the same time, it does not follow that we as Christians should stop having children.

Christians continued to have children during the plague, okay? Christians had children during time periods when a woman would have to have 10 live births to expect one to make it through to maturity.

That's how bad things were. Christians were having children when a man could expect to be married three times in his life because he'd lose that many women, that many wives in childbirth.

There have been difficult, tough times, and Christians have always had children in that context because they recognize they're a blessing from God.

And they recognize that the greatest mechanism of evangelism ever designed was the family, always has been.

And so it's a calling. It's a joy.

I wish I had had more, to be honest with you. I won't go into the details on that right now, but I wish

I had. But yeah, since it is a calling, there is nothing that will rip the selfishness right out of you than the first baby, and then the second baby, and then the third baby, and so on and so forth.

It's great for you, but it's also great for, we need to have people in the next generation who have been raised by godly parents.

It's absolutely vital and important. So yeah, have them babies, and raise them in the fear and admonition of the

Lord, and trust the Lord to take care. What? Yes, I, what's that about?

Yes, yes, I know. Rich is telling me about the dividing line we did back in 1998 where I had my kids on the air, but this is a different context.

We weren't thinking about Marxism and everything else at that particular point in time, and of course my daughter,

Summer, does do homeschooling and has done a lot of programs on her webcast,

Sheologians, talking about this kind of thing too. I'm not sure if you're familiar with her, but you might find some of the materials that she's done on those topics to be very useful as well.

But yes, I strongly encourage Christian couples to be fruitful and multiply, and trust the

Lord with what the future's going to be. Could it be tough? Could it be rough? Yep. But we have to keep looking to the future and seeking to build

Christ's kingdom. So hiding in the mountains I don't think is really the option for us right now.

That's fair. Well, thank you for answering my question. I really appreciate it. Okay.

Thanks, Jack. Have a good one. Bye. Bye -bye. All righty. Thank you for the excellent phone calls as always.

And as far as I, why do I have this feeling there's something on Monday? But I don't know.

We'll let you know over the weekend what the schedule is going to be. Be keeping an eye out for the sweater vest dialogue.

And then like I said, I will try to post on media whether there will be a live link to the apologetics discussion next

Friday or whether that's just something that's going to be edited together and put out. I'll try to let you know. Thanks for watching the program today.