June 4, 2009

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of alpha the mega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Scheduling the Morning Broadcast and Reviewing the Hitchens-Craig Debate

Thank you. Morning. Welcome to the dividing line. It's actually Thursday morning. I know it's the wrong time. But as we announced last time, I'm teaching for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary right now.

We're teaching an apologetics class and it begins at 5 15 p .m. And I would have to have a helicopter a high-speed helicopter to get all the way out to Golden Gate's campus if we did the normal time between Four and five so we decided to move it up to the morning and get it taken care of and we'll go from there and in fact I'm hoping that some of the folks in my class will tune into the program or listen to the archive because In essence, I'm going to be doing what I wish I had time to do in class.

It's a summer intensive class. You only have a certain amount of in in class time. And we listened to a portion of the William Lane Craig debate with Christopher Hitchens. Which is a significantly better debate Than the debate with Frank Zindler.

On many levels I I would like to say some people are gonna say you're just hypercritical and so on and so forth but I would like to say that I I don't think I have seen a Videotaping on any higher level than this.

It really is enjoyable to watch. I Have worked as a professional cameraman in the past in television when I was much younger. And so I am a little bit hypersensitive to things they needed to have a better Foundation for one of the cameras it was shaken a little bit.

But other than that, and you probably wouldn't even notice it. I know things like that because I'm a cameraman, but anyway The the numbers of cameras they had the backdrop the everything was just very high quality.

So if you would like to watch an evidential list debate With Christopher Hitchens, this is the one for you. And so I'm sure you can get it from Biola University very high quality production. But the reason that I would like to look at I have an entire queue list here Of about at least a dozen things maybe a little bit more than that Is do the fact that once again the reason that we review what dr. Craig teaches on salvation and apologetics Is not to pick on dr. Craig because if dr. Geisler was as easy to Follow and utilize in this way, then I would probably be looking at dr Geisler's material and I have and I realize I am well aware of the fact and how unpopular it is.

You're not supposed to do this. We're supposed to have a united front, right? Well, I don't do this just simply to be disagreeable. I do this because there are fundamental theological differences between us that then result in a major difference in the Apologetic that we offer to Islam to atheism, etc. Etc.

I can't speak of an apologetic to Roman Catholicism for dr. Craig because there isn't any apologetic to Roman Catholicism, that's the point and So we look at this so as to assist you I truly desire that such reviews primarily help you as a believer To honor God in being consistent with his word in giving an answer for the hope that's within you.

That's the whole reason we do this program. And so that is why we are looking at these things. So we've got a lot of things to listen to today's let's get to it. I Begin with an assertion by dr. Craig that in essence Christopher Hitchens has something to prove.

Let's let's listen to what he has to say.

In conclusion, then we've seen five good arguments to think that God exists. If Mr. Hitchens wants us to believe instead that God does not exist then he must first tear down all five of the arguments that I presented and Then in their place erect a case of his own to prove that God does not exist.

Unless and until he does that I think that theism is the more plausible worldview.

Now again Two things. I don't know that it is actually appropriate or fair In a debate where you are defending the Christian position to say to the atheist You have to prove atheism. Now. I do recognize that Christopher Hitchens has a worldview you must Criticize that worldview you must bring the presupposition that worldview into the debate.

No question about that, but to Demand that someone prove the non-existence of something. I have some real problems with that and I think a lot of atheists do appropriately so Along those lines as well.

So but then the second thing is this this idea of greater probability this is the main thing that you will hear over and over again the difference that you should hear between Greg Bonson's presentations between the presentation that I made at the University of Illinois against Dan Barker is we don't say that that on the whole the greater portion of the evidence points the greater probability the existence of a god of Just bare theism.

I I never see the Apostles doing that that's that's not what I believe the goal of Christian apologetics is and That is one of the major differences between the two now Christopher Hitchens began with a fascinating discussion.

He has been spending a fair amount of time with Doug Wilson and so he he wants to discuss that he recognizes that there is a difference between the apologetic of Doug Wilson and William Lane Craig. The amazing thing is despite spending all that time with Doug Wilson and doing movies and being treated like like a rock star and all That stuff he still doesn't get it.

He still does not accurately understand even what? What what Doug Wilson has to say he's he's still just not getting it. So but it is interesting to listen to this section. Let's take a look at what he had to say now.

What I have discovered in voyaging around this country and others in this debate and just debating with Hindus with Muslims With the Jews with Christians of all stripes is that the arguments are all essentially the same.

For belief in the supernatural for belief in faith for belief in God. But that there are very interesting and noteworthy discrepancies between them. And one that I want to call attention to at the beginning of this evening is.

Between those like my friend Doug Wilson with whom I have now done a book of argument about Christian apologetics Who would call himself a presuppositionalist. In other words for whom really it's only necessary to discover the workings of God's will in the.

In the cosmos and that's not presuppositionalism. How can you do multiple debates? Sit around and talk over well, whatever they were drinking and Do do a book and Not get the basic definition of presuppositionalism and the role of presuppositions in one's epistemology.

I Don't get that but.

Then again Christopher Hitchens didn't get it. I was to assume that The truth of Christianity is already proven and what are called they include dr Craig with great honor and respect in this the evidentialists.

It's already proven. You mean it's already known but being suppressed by the unbeliever. There's a there's a huge difference between the two. I cannot imagine That that was not clarified for mr. Hitchens numerous times by.

Pastor Wilson, but anyway now I want to begin by saying that this distinction strikes me first as a very charming distinction and Second as false or perhaps as a distinction without a difference. Well, why do I say charming.

Because I think it's rather sweet that people of faith also think they ought to have some evidence. And I think it's progress of a kind.

After all if now again, it almost sounds like he he Buys into this just completely false idea that the presuppositionalist does not believe there's any evidence for God's existence. And and I know That that that had to have been explained to him over and over again I mean back in 1997 a Doug Wilson made that clear to Dan Barker.

So I have no reason to think that he wouldn't make that clear to Christopher Hitchens as well.

But that's the situation we have been having this debate in the mid 19th century. Professor Craig or his equivalent would have known little or probably nothing about the laws of physics and biology. Maybe even less than I know now, which is to say quite a lot in its way.

And they would have grounded themselves. Well, he would have grounded himself on faith. On scripture on revelation on the prospect of salvation on the means of grace and the hope of glory. And perhaps on Paley's natural theology.

Paley who had the same rooms or had had the same rooms later occupied by Charles Darwin in Cambridge with its watchmaker theory of design that I know I don't have to expound to you but which briefly suggests that if an aborigine is walking along a beach and finds a gold watch ticking he knows Not what it's for.

Or where it came from or who made it, but he knows it's not a rock. He knows it's not a vegetable. He knows it must have had a designer the Paley analogy held for most Christians for many years. Because they were willing to make the assumption that we were mechanisms and that therefore there must be a watchmaker, but now that it's been here's where the Presuppositionalist versus evidentialist dichotomy begins to kick in now.

It's been rather Painstakingly and elaborately demonstrated to the satisfaction of most people. I don't want to just use arguments from authority, but it's not very much contested anymore. That we are not designed as creatures, but that we evolved by a rather laborious combination of random mutation and natural selection into there there you get to Christopher Hitchens statement of faith.

The the fundamental assertion of the Darwinian materialist Ignoring the the mountain of evidence of design that is that is all around us that is Plentifully available to anyone who wants to look and who wants to learn?

But this is the dogma of the materialist so we this cannot be questioned. Any intelligent person believes us as Dawkins himself would say if you would reject it you are insane etc. It's a species that we are.

Today It is of course open to the faithful to say That all this was now that they come to know it now that it becomes available to everybody now that they Think about it, and now that they've stopped opposing it or trying to ban it.

Then they can say ah actually on second thought the evolution was all part of the design. Well as you will recognize ladies and gentlemen there are some arguments. I can't be expected to refute or rebut because There's no way around that argument.

I mean if everything including evolution which isn't a design is Nonetheless part of a divine design, then all the advantage goes to the person who's willing to believe that that cannot be disproved. But it does seem to me a very poor very weak argument because the test of them a good argument.

Is that it is falsifiable not that it's unfalsifiable.

So.

This I would therefore this tactic or this style of argument which we've had some evidence of this evening I would re-baptize or might I dare say I would rechristen it as some Retrospective evidentialism.

In other words everything can in due time if you have enough faith be made to fit.

Now that's an interesting way of putting it. Interesting critique being made of the that perspective. It certainly wouldn't be the perspective.

I think the critique that he would offer of Wilson and you too are all quite free to believe that a sentient creator Deliberately consciously put himself a being put himself or herself or itself to the trouble of going through huge epochs of birth and death of species over eons of time in which 99 in the course of which at least 99 .9 of all species all life forms ever to have appeared on earth have become extinct as We nearly did as a species ourselves.

You I invite you to look up the very alarming and beautiful and brilliant account by the the National Geographic's coordinator of the genome project by the way. You should send in your little sample from the inside of your cheek and have your African ancestry traced.

It's absolutely Fascinating to follow the myocondrial DNA that we all have in common and that we have in common with other species other primates and other life forms and Find out where in Africa you came from.

But there came a time Probably about 180 ,000 years ago when due to a terrible climatic event probably in Indonesia An appalling global warming crisis occurred and the the estimate is that the number of humans in Africa went down to between 40 and 30 ,000.

This close this close think about fine-tuning this close to joining every other species that had gone extinct.

Well, it's amazing that That mr. Hitchens can know these things with certainty what populations were that long ago and yet can look at the the DNA Transcription methodology or the ATPase and and so on so over the mitochondria and you can't see design there.

It's always been something that very interesting anyways in response to this. Then William Lane Craig gave the following comment. Now, he did make some remarks about the theory of evolution which at least.

Insinuated that this was somehow incompatible with theism and I have two points to make about this. First I think that the theory of biological evolution is simply irrelevant. True the truth of Christian theism Genesis.

One admits all manner of different interpretations and one is by no means committed to six-day creationism. Howard Van Till who is a professor at Calvin College writes is the concept of special creation Required of all persons who trust in the Creator God of Scripture.

Most Christians in my acquaintance who are engaged with either scientific or biblical scholarship have concluded that the special creationist picture of the world's formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief.

Now again, I don't know what he means by special creationist. But is this a serious assertion that God as Creator is not definitional of the Christian faith. I would certainly hope not. Now of course to limit God's creation to sort of a deistic getting things winded up get get evolution started.

And then and then go off to vacation the Bahamas or something It would would also impact things. But it just strikes me that once again right here I've talked to many people who have encountered individuals and churches who? decide to add Christianity on because they feel the need for some self-improvement or something.

But then when it comes to the the central doctrines of the faith and especially the idea that God is the Creator They just balk at this. And and very often eventually end up leaving the church or they end up in the very liberal denominations where there's not much Christianity left anyways.

But what was the one thing? that the one true God in the Bible says about the the truth of his existence over against anything else. That is.

You know.

What what how does God prove his existence? He proves his existence through his creatorship. He knows the future. He knows the past and why the past took place. He is the creator. All of the gods are not the creator.

But here are being said well, you know that part. You know we can sort of fudge that You. What you win them with is what you win them, too.

So.

You know, that's that's that's an important element. Let's let's continue on here so I can communicate with the people outside who are looking all really confused as to what in the world I'm talking about about a creature in the other room and wanting to know where it is now the convictions.

It's just that I I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural Dimension and I don't have never been shown any evidence that any process observable to us cannot be explained by more satisfactory.

And more convincing means now two things. First of all, did you hear the cell phone now? I heard them say at the beginning take your cell phones out and turn them off. But there was a cell phone and even Christopher Hitchens who is a very good speaker.

He's an extemporaneous speaker, but he's a very good speaker. You could tell he was thrown off By that cell phone. So people turn your cell phones. It's just such common sense type thing. But what was he saying?

When you hear an atheist a naturalistic materialist saying to you I Have never seen evidence as a naturalistic materialist. What evidence will they accept? That was my point in the debate with with Dan Barker was look.

What evidence are you gonna accept. You've already said that the only way we can come to truth is through science. And so you have to have physical evidence and Dan Barker demands physical evidence of a non non-physical being.

And I'm sure that in the same way Christopher Hitchens Says well, I've never seen any evidence. What kind of evidence would you accept this is the problem in having a Human being a creature climb up upon the celestial throne and say I will determine what evidence I will and will not accept and I will not accept any evidence that points to a supernatural being therefore I've never seen any evidence of a supernatural being therefore There isn't any evidence of supernatural being now that that kind of tight circular reasoning.

It should be obvious to us. But when someone even as as smart as Christopher Hitchens can make that kind of an error rather regularly. Well, that's that helps out now if you've ever listened to Christopher Hitchens.

You know that he has. He has a pretty standard presentation and it's changed a little bit. You know, at least he does try to improve it some add some things to it. You know at least try to debate the person he's debating, you know, you got to give him at least some credit there it's not just well, you know, these are my points and they're valid whatever the other person believes and so, you know that he asks the idea of Morality what can you as a believer do?

That I as an atheist cannot do that is a good moral thing. And so here's the Hitchens morality questions.

There's there's two questions that I've asked in public and I'll try them again because I try them on every audience. They're very simple ones first. You have to name for me or challenges. Let's say rather than questions have to name for me an ethical action.

Or an ethical statement or moral action. Moral statement made or undertaken by a believer. That I couldn't undertake or say. I couldn't state or do. I haven't yet had an example pointed out of that to me.

That otherwise that a person of faith would have an advantage by being able to call upon a divine sanction. Whereas if I ask you to think of a wicked act undertaken by someone in the name of God or because of their faith.

You wouldn't have or a wicked statement made you wouldn't have that much difficulty. I think in coming up with an example right away. The genital mutilation community, for example is almost exclusively religious.

The suicide bombing community is almost exclusively Religious. There are injunctions for genocide in the Old Testament. There are injunctions of warrants for slavery and racism in the Old Testament, too.

There's there's simply no way of deriving morality and ethics from the super natural. When we come to the question of the ABS, so there's there are the questions.

What can what can you do that you consider to be a good moral thing that the unbeliever cannot do now? As I heard that again, I had an answer and Interestingly enough a little bit later on. Dr. Craig is going to give a similar answer to what I would give but as soon as he gives That answer he's going to change the application that I would make as soon as he as soon as he gives it again an illustration as we will see of The fundamental difference between us at at a theological level that then changes the apologetic application that we make now.

Christopher Hitchens and I we are getting some phone calls. You have to hold on. I'll I'll try to keep up a good pace in my response here but I want to get through this today and then hopefully we'll be able to Get you all in at the end of the program and and make it all fit together and to be consistent whole hopefully Hitchens likes to close his presentations with the celestial North Korea argument or Actually, very little.

This is argument at all. But here's how here's how it goes.

That we don't have the dignity. We don't have the self-respect. We don't have the character to know a right action or right statement when we see it or when we want to to perform it. It's it's this servile element in religion.

It's not strictly speaking the subject of our debate this evening I know but I'm damned if I completely forgo it. It's the idea that Buried in the religious impulse is actually the wish to be unfree is the wish for an immovable unchangeable celestial authority a kind of heavenly North Korea that will take our decisions.

They will take our decisions away from us and commit us only to worship and praise and thank a great leader and his son The dear leader forever and ever and ever. I'm so glad there's no evidence that this is true.

Thank you.

That's exactly how he finishes most of his debates. I'm so glad that there's no evidence. This is true and and so on and so forth, but this celestial North Korea concept He normally expands that he didn't have time to do that this time around.

But you know the thought police and and things like that all meant to. I mean, this is rhetorical. It's it's not really meant to be in a very compelling argument. Very little of what he says is when you really examine it.

He may be a very intelligent man and able to express himself quite well. But it doesn't fall that his arguments actually are compelling at all upon analysis it seems that for him it is far better to Capture the hearts of people and not the heads of people.

But this idea of a lack of freedom what he means is a lack of autonomy. This idea of recognize that one is a creature is Is very reprehensible to him the idea there therefore will be judgment and that there is a moral nature of the universe.

And things like that. That is that is what he finds to be Reprehensible and I've commented on my youtube page. Concerning this atheistic issue. I think that it is relevant. At that point now when we grab the the DVD on on Tuesday and played the cross-examination between Hitchens and Craig we skipped over this section where Craig was asking Hitchens questions and it is just here Honestly that I've come to understand.

This is where debates take place. Now obviously sometimes you're limited in the amount of cross-examination that you can have. And the amount of interaction you can have there's not going to be a whole lot of interaction unfortunately.

In the dialogue that we're gonna have on the 25th with Imam Shamsi Ali. I wish there was much more Interaction at that particular point, but when you have the opportunity I think it really says a lot about the debate as to what questions you ask and how you approach it and Obviously from my perspective if I was debating Christopher Hitchens, I would be challenging his worldview.

I would be challenging the consistency of his worldview. I'd be demonstrating that he has no grounds to make the accusations and arguments that he is. Is that what? Dr. Craig did well, let's let's listen.

All right.

Let's talk first about whether there are any good arguments to think that atheism is true. Now it seems to me that you're rather ambivalent here that you say you you redefine atheism to mean a sort of ah theism or non-theism.

But how do you distinguish then the different varieties of non-theism for example? What is normally called atheism? Agnosticism or the view of Verificationists that the statement God exists is simply meaningless.

Well, I mean there are different schools of atheism as you say, but the there's no there's no claim. I know how to make this as atheism is true because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn't true.

So I wish you'd get this bit right. Because I'm it's there you go again. Well, I just devoted a little time to this. I said it's it's. He's not in itself a belief or a System it simply says you can get by.

Better probably we think Without the assumption that no one who wants you to worship a god has ever been able to come up with a good enough reason.

To make you do it now. So so the point is though that on your definition of of atheism or non-theism it really embodies a diversity of views such as agnosticism what is normally called atheism or.

This.

Verificationism. Now, which of those do you hold to within this umbrella of atheism? Are you an atheist who? Asserts the proposition God does not exist. Or do you simply withhold belief in God in the way the agnostic does, right?

I'm a guy in some on some days. I'm a greater. You know, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna do that much of a favor. On some on some days. I'm a great admirer of Thomas Huxley who had the great who had the great debate with Bishop Wilberforce In Oxford at the Natural History Museum about Darwinism In the mid 19th century who was known as Darwin's bulldog.

We would now say Darwin's pitbull. And who completely trounced the good bishop? But I can't thank him for inventing the term agnostic. And I can't thank him for some of his social Darwinist positions either which are some which are rather.

Because I think I think agnosticism is evasive to me. Yes, if you if you talk about the power of the Holy Spirit and so forth to me, that is meaningless. It's it's to me. I'm sorry. I've tried it's white noise.

It's like saying there is only one God and Allah is his messenger. It's gibberish to me. There are many of us. I'm sorry. There are just many of you know, it seemed to me that.

There were Some sound problems and I can understand that when when Shabir and I were on the same stage We were right next to each other so I could hear his voice. But if you saw how they set this up, they put the two tables far far apart from each other and over and over again.

Dr. Craig was going excuse me What could you repeat that and it really slowed down the cross X and and the speed with which you could go on because it was Just clearly evident. They had not done the speakers, right?

So that each.

Speaker could hear the other one very clearly that that happens a lot. Unfortunately, especially in large venues that that takes place. So we're going to continue with cross-examination. I've still got a Number of things to get to.

We've got two callers on hold. We'll try to get to them as well, but we're gonna take our break and be right back.

Bible Works and Ministry Resources

Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools. Users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources.

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases Similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation.

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter. Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences.

Scholars. Your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files From your computer as well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available.

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program. This is the program that runs 24 7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when I engage In debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious Exegesis of the text.

For over 15 years Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and that enables you to Do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth. Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate.

Justification by Faith and the Gospel in a Culture of Tolerance

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen org. Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program.

The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you.

The Nature of Faith, Roman Catholicism, and Arminianism

And welcome back. I'm gonna go ahead and grab one of our phone calls here because it's directly on the subject. I want to try to stay on subject as best as possible today. And let's go ahead and talk with Rich.

Hi Rich. How you doing? Oh.

I'm doing well. Thanks. I wasn't sure if you were grabbing me because I'm not sure if I'm directly on the topic.

Well, it says dr. Craig.

And I wanted to at least comment on the the nature of his Arminianism because when you were when you were playing him the thing that really struck me is He seems extremely theologically naive in terms of some of the statements.

He makes as if he hasn't really ever ever studied what the the material issues of the Reformation were when he he seems like he understands philosophy more than he understands theology and It erodes where you've you've really highlighted how close Historic Arminianism is to Roman Catholic theology at its at its root where.

Essentially, I I might my antenna were really tuned whenever I was listening to Craig talk about the nature of faith. Where he wouldn't want to turn it into a work but then he would go around and say essentially we continue in love and obedience and that sort of thing and The words he was using were essentially an equivocation where he didn't want to use the word works.

But everything that would be implied by works in terms of our cooperation with grace Is resident in his theology and he just doesn't seem to to because he's saying oh, we're saved by grace through faith.

But then he defined the Gory's or he says well Roman Catholics don't say I works and of course Their theology doesn't have any such thing as as bear works. They all agree that that the the work equally on on the basis of cooperation with grace to begin with.

So I just don't see any material distinction between everything. He's been saying and I I'm just glad you brought that all out so that people can see that and and know that their.

Reformation occurred and it's the gospel itself. Well, I think that's what we we listened to with with dr Craig's discussion of Roman Catholicism and then his presentation of the difference between the Reformers and Trent and then Taking Trent and just tweaking that but doing so in a way that I think Isolates a number of key issues in in a way that misrepresents Roman Catholicism.

It really does I think all of that illustrates Exactly what dr. Truman was saying in regards to his review of Knowles book is the Reformation over and for a large track of even evangelicals including William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler and others I would say it is that those issues are are no longer Definitional and that the you could say that for those individuals Reformation is over now Dr. Truman say well, they should do the right thing and go back to Rome, but They they obviously don't want to because of taste or these lower-level disagreements.

It really reminds me of the fact that you know when you're dealing with with smooth talk and in false doctrine you're dealing with people who are are mostly ignorant and the sad thing is is that They they they have the words so that they feel like they're avoiding Work and what they what they seem to miss is that when you when you make faith Something that God has held out to all men and he's gone 99 of the way and all you need to do is add your will to the equation.

That's exactly what Roman Catholicism is saying all along is that God gives you mostly grace and then you only have to cooperate a little and God looks on that that little bit of cooperation and consider much more than it's worth and essentially The Arminian view of that or semi Pelagian turns faith into that very thing.

It's it's Christ's righteousness Christ's atonement. Plus what you can add in terms of the nature of your faith the strength of your faith the vitality and and then the continued cooperation of that. And that's what that's what saves you and that's what keeps you within Within God's good graces and and it's just sad that that's where so many people are stuck.