Interview with Trey Fisher about his recent debate on Justification

Regardless of your view of the context, does the Bible say that?

Regardless of your view of the context...

Regardless of context. Just remember that.

Travis opened up by not really addressing you, but all of your friends, right? I saw a picture of Jill and a post on her Facebook. I could not believe he started with that. And then he quickly moved to me and my buddy Cameron Vogelsang.

And that's another thing. I can tell that Travis antagonizes people and says, Call my show. Call my show. And what we've seen every time is when someone calls in that disagrees, he's going to isolate a small little clip that they say and play it over and over and over.

And he takes them out of context. We're about to show how he also takes scripture out of context as well. Hello and welcome to The Apologetic Dog. This is an apologetics ministry where we want to guard the truthfulness of the gospel.

This comes from 1 Timothy 6 verse 20, where Paul told Timothy, Oh, Timothy, guard the deposit that's been entrusted to you. This applies equally to us, all of Christ's followers today. We are to guard the truthfulness of the gospel.

And we do this by avoiding pagan philosophy. We do this by avoiding contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. And so thank you so much for tuning in with us today. If you haven't already, please subscribe to The Apologetic Dog ministry here on YouTube.

You can also find us on Facebook. You can find us on Instagram and Twitter. A lot of platforms. And if you follow, then it actually helps this ministry able to circulate the gospel to a broader audience as we continue for the truth.

And so with that being said, I want to first introduce my co-host today, Nathan Hargrave. Please tell us a little bit about yourself.

I serve as the preaching elder at 12 Five Church here in Jonesboro, right alongside with Pastor Jeremiah here. And we get to do ministry together. And so this is just one of those aspects of ministry that we get to be a part of.

I get to come alongside The Apologetic Dog and defend the truth right alongside with you. So I'm glad to be here. Thanks for having me.

Well, thank you, Nathan, for joining us. And without further ado, we have Trey Fisher. Now, you've been on The Apologetic Dog before, but why are you here today?

We're going to discuss the debate we had with Travis Thomas.

Yes. Hey, I watched the entire debate and I hugged a pillow the entire time. I was on edge and loved every second of it.

I just wish it was. I thought I thought we had another round, but whatevs.

Hey, you had a lot of prayer and a lot of support from 12 Five Church. We had a watch party. Nice. So we were together. We were talking about everything that's being said. And I hope everybody else is seeing the benefit of tuning in to the gospel truth where you get to see conflicting worldviews come together and hash out truth.

And I thought you did a wonderful job of contending for the faith, man, that gospel of grace that truly saves and forgives them because it's by faith alone. In the only Savior alone, Jesus Christ, what he did was completely fulfilled at Calvary.

And that's why we look to him. And I thought you modeled that very well.

I appreciate it. I've taken some heat from some people about it. And I'm just thinking, I wonder if they watched it or they just hear about it, because I was the one saying that there are Christians in the church of Christ.

There's Christians and all these denominations, you know, God's people are there. And he's the one that believes that everybody goes to hell if you're not just not simply in the church of Christ, but in a very conservative church of Christ, like you're out.

And I'm like, OK, but I didn't. I didn't think I was mean. Did you think I was mean, Jeremiah? No.

What's funny is I I know I know our personalities tend to get real fiery. And so when I was watching you, Trey, I was like, man, Trey is really guarding himself, making sure to season his speech with grace and love.

And I thought you did a great job of that, because I've been in that situation a number of times on the gospel truth. And when someone hurls an insult or says something very condescending, it's so easy to fight evil with evil and fire for fire.

And I thought you were just very kind all throughout.

Thank you. Or does it hit peace? Does it hit peace on you the day before? Right.

Yeah. Give me a break. Well, I think I think that's his M .O., isn't it? I mean, everything that I've seen with this guy, Travis, is is hit piece after hit piece. It's almost like he's trying to pick at you so that you do respond in a negative way.

It's like he's trying to get you to. But you did not. Just like just like Jeremiah said, we were blown away by simply how pastoral. That's the word that we kept using. Our people kept using that night.

The watch party was very pastoral, how you approached it and how you approached him. So any any of the negative that you're getting from the other side, honestly, that's coming is either they didn't watch it or man.

Yeah. I have not watched his review of it either. I know some people have. I had one guy tell me yesterday he why he couldn't even watch it. He says it's so bad. I hadn't watched it. Who knows what? I mean, there's no telling what you know.

I was in and out, Trey, listening to his follow up. And he was reviewing a little bit. What we're going to do is review a lot of highlighted clips in the debate. And he said, Trey just kept talking over me and I bet Jeremiah told him to eat up his time.

Did I do that? I tell you how to debate and how to eat up his time.

That's exactly what you did. You were right here. You're inside the camera. I mean, you're right here outside the camera. And the people that you were really with, you know, you weren't there.

I mean, those. Well, we were joking because it seemed as though Jeremiah was the third person in the debate because he was brought up so often.

Yeah. Well, Jeremiah is unregenerate and at least he considers me a Christian.

So I it did feel like I was in the debate. I could not believe Travis opened up by not really addressing you, but all of your friends. Right. I saw a picture of Jill and a post on her Facebook. I could not believe he started with that.

And then he quickly moved to me and my buddy Cameron Vogel saying. And that's another thing I can tell that Travis antagonizes people and says, call my show, call my show. And what we've seen every time is when someone calls in that disagrees, he's going to isolate a small little clip that they say and play it over and over and over.

And he takes them out of context. We're about to show how he also takes scripture out of context as well. And so that kind of leads into our first highlight before you talk about that.

I called in the show once and it was when he was dogging Phil Robertson for like two weeks, just absolutely dogging him. And the funny thing is, I was the only person that called his show to defend Phil Robertson.

That's crazy, right? I called because I love Phil. Do I agree with his theology? No, no. But I love Phil and the way he was just absolutely dogging him saying he's making a deal with the devil and he's a heretic and he's this and he's that because he's not going to tell people they got to be baptized to be saved.

I just called in the show. I said, hey, look, Bob, you're wrong. I texted him before that, but he kept going, kept going. And I was like, OK, I'm going to call in and spoke up for Phil. I said that he would not back down.

He would say what he believed at that church, whatever he was going to over there close to him that Travis was having a fit about. And I even said on the show, I said, now, listen, when he does do what I'm telling you, he's going to do what you say he's not going to do.

Are you going to come back and apologize? And he was like, hmm. Yeah, you know, but guess what he didn't do? He didn't apologize. He just kept on floating down the river. But that's that's what we're dealing with.

So anyway, so you said you want to go to your first point? Yeah, because context is king.

Right. When we look to scripture, we want to understand a verse in this particular passage, in that particular chapter, in that particular book, in light of all of scripture. Right. Context is so important.

And when we when we see people calling into Travis's show, we see that he takes what they say out of context and he plays it on loop. And then he just says whatever he wants. Right. But what we're noticing is he does the same thing with scripture.

So I want to play this short clip and kind of get your thoughts on it, Trey and Nathan, as well.

So listen to this. We're talking about context here. So does the Bible say directly that we are justified by words and not by faith only? Regardless of your view of the context, does the Bible say that?

Regardless of context, just remember that.

Regardless of context. You're right. You're right. Regardless of context.

OK, so I want to play that short clip and we want to encourage people go listen to the debate, listen to the full conversation, get the whole context. But Trey, why do you think Travis thinks it's a good point to say, hey, is is faith only faith alone?

Those words, is that anywhere in scripture, regardless of the view of the context? Why do you think that's he thinks that's a good point to make?

OK, because like I said from the beginning, even with Travis talking to him, you know, and somewhat cordial conversations. And I tell you where I made a mistake is talking to him for an hour on the phone and telling him how I would answer things as a church of Christ preacher, how I used to answer things.

And regardless, anyway, so here's why they do that. Here's why they do that. Because if they take the Bible in context, their whole system is gone. Like they cannot you can't read the Bible in context and come up with what they come up with.

You know, I'm saying this is every fundamentalist group. It's always a battle for the definition of words. I mean, so when you change the definitions of words, then you can get you get a whole nother story.

Right. And so we in order to change the definition of words, we have to change the context of things and we have to make up words to, you know. So that's why he doesn't want to look at the context.

Nathan, do you want to weigh in on that? What did you first think when you heard Travis say that?

Well, I mean, I was blown away that he would actually come out and say something like that. And I think he really shot from the hip and didn't plan on saying something. He's smart enough to know that that was a foolish statement.

And he started to try and backtrack it a little bit, I think. But it really it exposed to me as I was listening to him, it exposed to me the fact that that their approach to hermeneutics, their approach to studying scripture as a whole, just like Trey just said, is flawed.

And I had to pull this up just to try and remember exactly what it is. He's essentially using, they call it CENI, I believe, the C-E-N-I, a hermeneutic approach. And I'm trying to see what that what that acrostic stands for.

Do you know, Trey, off the top of your head, looking at command, example, necessary inference.

And inference, yeah.

Yep. And their approach to scriptures is this very thing. It's a literal reading of scripture that when held under a microscope or even looked at at a basic level of scripture, interpreting scripture doesn't hold up.

But I think I honestly think he probably knew he made a mistake when he said that. Especially, I got to point out Trey's perspective, Trey. Oh, I got one of my little ones rolling up in here.

Say hi.

Joey!

But especially when your response, Trey.

Right.

So I made a little video. Do we have that video, Jeremiah?

We don't have it cued up. Oh my goodness.

That was a good video. I love it.

Okay. Yeah, you got to use that on your show there, Trey. I made a little video with like an explosion. I wanted to get like an atomic bomb explosion going on in your head because that's kind of what it looked like.

You were shocked that he said it.

Did you just say that?

You know, it's just like, boom. Like, really?

But, you know, and they talk about context because you have to, like, if you're going to speak the Christian language, you have to learn Christianese. And so you have to say things like grace, faith. You have to say context matters.

You have to say these things. But at the end of the day, when you dive deep and when you look at it and you're challenged, you'll see that you really are not looking at context. And I mean, I think that like you said, I think it was just a subconscious thing that he said, like, regardless of context, because he doesn't care about the truth.

He wants to win the battle. He wants to win the argument. So let's just take context out so I can prove to you that baptism saves you. And that's what I was loving. I was I couldn't wait to get to First Peter 321 and just to hold him to his own standard.

But, you know, it says what it says and it means what it means, you know, that type of standard. I would say, well, see, this this is where we differ is we believe in the Christian faith that Christ saves us, not baptism.

And he would have to say, oh, no, no, no. I think Christ saves us, but it's when we're baptized and I would just hold him to a standard and say, well, it doesn't say that. It says this baptism, you know, this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you, this baptism saves you.

And so if you want to add context to it, we can do that. But if you add context to it, I was going to say, Travis, what you're saying is what you're trying to convince people of. You're actually admitting that you're twisting it to try to say something that's not saying because it says that baptism saves you.

Right. Because we know Christ saves us. So what's the context?

So we're talking a lot about context. Now, a lot of these dialogues and I believe this was brought up in y 'all's debate, but talking about Paul's conversion. And I think Acts chapter 19 was relevant in that.

Did you want to speak to any of what the context is there?

So before we got to Paul's conversion. You know, they love Acts 19 because these people got rebaptized, they were baptized in John's baptism. Right. And then Paul comes up to them and then they're baptized again.

So they use this one out of context to prove that people who get baptized in a Baptist church have to get baptized again. Right. Or somebody gets baptized in whatever denomination. You have to get baptized again because you didn't know the importance of baptism.

And that's the other thing is it's not just simply that you have to be baptized. You have to understand it. You have to know that baptism saves you or it's not going to save you. Right. That's how they're thinking is.

But what I would want to point out a couple of things, I would say, well, Apollos in the paragraph right above Acts 19, verse one, Apollos wasn't rebaptized. It doesn't mention anything about that because it said he taught things accurately, the things concerning Christ.

But then we get to the next paragraph in Acts 19. I just want to make the point of this right here just to get them to think. Why did Paul ask? It's the dumbest question in the Bible. If you are a church of Christ person, if you believe that baptism is what saves you, and that's when you receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Let me show you this right here. It says this right here. And he said to them, did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? Now, here's my question. I was going to ask Travis. Travis, have you ever walked up to somebody and asked them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed?

Why would Paul say such a crazy thing? Paul, you know, you don't receive the Holy Spirit when you believe you receive it when you're baptized. And so, you know, then we get into the whole, well, then what baptism do you receive?

Because they never heard of the Holy Spirit. Well, they never heard of the Holy Spirit. So the next obvious question is, then what baptism did you receive? Because see, we baptize under the authority of Christ.

And when we baptize, we baptize in people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. So you should have heard it at your baptism. But see, they never heard of it. But this is why. So here's the question.

Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? That's the question. And I'll tell you why Paul asked the question, because this is when you do receive it. He says, let me ask you only this. It's in Galatians 3.

This is Paul again. Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, by doing something God said to do, right? Or by hearing with faith? Now, you can put anything in that blank as far as did you receive the Holy Spirit by X, Y, Z.

Put anything, because his point is by hearing with faith. That's how you receive it. You're going down to verse 13. It says this right here. But Acts 2, right? Well, it goes back again. I don't think you understand the context of Acts 2 and what's going on in Acts 2.

Did you notice when he said, when you give a gospel presentation and you share with somebody, do you give them the same one, the first one ever given in Acts? I'm like, no, I give them the second one.

Yeah, I remember that.

Because it says, repent for the forgiveness of your sins.

And he's like, what? Do you remember at the watch party, Trey, you had a bunch of one-liners, man. We were like, man, we should put these on a t-shirt. And that was one of them. Let's look at the second sermon of Peter.

Yeah, does it contradict? And as far as Paul's conversion, they love Acts 19, where Ananias says, what are you waiting for? I'm in Acts 22. Get up and wash your sins away. Be baptized and wash your sins away.

And so their point is, that's when his sins were washed away. I would totally disagree. And I think this is where it comes down to just simple biblical theology. Not a systematic theology, but just a biblical theology.

Understanding what God is telling us throughout all the Bible. And so I would say, well, there's four conversion accounts of Paul in the Bible. And only two of these conversion accounts mention his baptism.

Now, if we're just going to be honest, let's just be honest with ourselves and let's just think to ourselves. If baptism is the hinge on which it swings, right? Wouldn't he be talking about baptism in all four of his conversion accounts?

I would think, I would think, I would say, Travis, or whoever, whoever, when you talk about being converted, do you mention your baptism? I bet you do, right? But why did Paul not? So when we get to Acts 9, let me see if this is it right here.

Yeah.

This is what Jesus calls down to Ananias and says this right here. So in verse 10, it says, Now there was a disciple, Damascus, named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias. He said, Here I am.

And the Lord said to him, Rise and go to Strait, to the street called Strait, at the house of Judas. Look for a man of Tarsus named Saul. He's praying, and he's seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.

So that being the case, Ananias was not sent to Paul to show him how to get his sins washed away. Ananias was sent to give him a sight back. And Jesus is saying, Listen, I have heard his prayers. He's praying to me.

I'm hearing his prayers. And not only am I hearing his prayers, I have given him a vision that a guy named Ananias, you are going to come and give him a sight back. And I would like to say, What's the significance about that?

And I think they would be like, I don't know. I don't know. Well, I would say the significance is right here. We know in John 9, it says that we know that God does not listen to sinners. But if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.

So does the Bible contradict? That's the next question. Because Paul is praying to Jesus, and Jesus is listening to his prayers and answering his prayers. Now, either the Bible contradicts or it's not.

Proverbs 15 says this right here. The Lord is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayers of the righteous. Is it coincidental that Paul is the one that goes on to say that the righteous live by faith?

This is all before he's baptized, before his sins are washed away. Psalm 66 says this right here. Come in here, all you who fear God, and I will tell what he has done for my soul. I cried to him with my mouth, and high praise was on my tongue.

If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. So how is God, Jesus Christ, listening to his prayers? Because he is considered righteous in the eyes of God by his faith alone in him.

Trey, more to the context with Ananias. I love what you're doing because so much has already happened in the life of Paul, who was Saul of Tarsus. What we see in Acts 9 and we see the account in Acts 22 and later in Acts 26 is Ananias, he's being obedient to the Great Commission.

Because the Lord has revealed to him, hey, you're going to go seek out Saul of Tarsus, and he's very hesitant to do these things. In Acts 22 -16, what you see is Ananias being obedient to Mark 115, proclaiming the gospel, and then the Great Commission, making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Rarely do I hear a church of Christ quote Acts 22 -16 properly. Because when you go on to read, we read that washing away your sins is by calling on his name. Paul has a whole theology of what it means to call upon the name of the Lord.

When you do that, you are in the present tense saved. We see that being expanded in Romans 10. What we're getting into is context matters, systematic biblical theology matters. But what we're starting to notice, especially with the church of Christ, is they have rescuing devices.

When something doesn't fit their theology, it's real easy to try to appeal to something to rescue their inconsistencies. This brings me to another clip that I was wanting to get your thoughts on. Let's see here.

Trey, do you know what a synecdoche is?

It's a card they hold up when they don't like it. When they don't. It's their get-out-of-jail-free card, they feel like. As far as Travis, anyway.

Let me play this clip. I want to first hear from Nathan what your immediate thoughts about this are. Think about the term synecdoche.

Baptism. I just want to make sure you understood what a synecdoche is.

It's a convenient word game.

What law was Adam under?

Trey, no, Nathan, you go ahead first.

Well, I really don't have a lot to say here. I think it's just a word play with him, honestly. I think that he threw that word out there hoping to trip him up. So that he can mold anything he wants to mold into it.

Essentially, what you guys were just saying with context. It all applies. It kind of flows out of it. I think it's important for people to have this ability for them to weasel their way out of what they know is inconsistent with the entirety of scripture.

And when they come in contact with someone that has an answer that puts it within context. Then this really flows back to their way of interpreting scripture that I said a moment ago. That necessary inference.

They have to have something like this. Let me read this for our listeners. The definition here is a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole. And there's an example such as 50 sail for 50 ships.

The whole for a part such as a society for high society. That you can just make a phrase and that it applies across the board with whatever you want it to apply to. If that makes sense. And so that's essential for them to be able to come to the doctrinal conclusion that they come to in some of these cases.

For example, with baptism.

So, Nathan, have you ever read the word synecdoche in your Bible before?

Well, I searched. I thought for sure that it's got to be in the King James. It's got to be in there somewhere because they don't use anything that's not from scripture. So, I went and looked and unfortunately I didn't find it.

So, they must have some kind of a special revelation Bible. It's got to be in there. If he's going to use it, it's got to be in there.

Well, so, Trey, this is what I want to throw over to you. Now, something you've taught me and I've loved this because you constantly are exposing double standards. You've said, Jeremiah, you've got to fight legalism with legalism.

So, explain to me why in the world Travis would say their creed, which they don't want to have creed, but they can't because by definition you have a doctrine, a standard that you hold to. Why in the world would he say we speak where the Bible speaks and we're silent where the Bible's silent?

And yet, we see him appealing to this term synecdoche. What's going on there?

Yeah, a lot. And I think I mentioned Francis Bacon, Baconianism in the debate. I don't know if I did or not, but this is the issue of this tradition that started in May of 1811. It was influenced by a philosopher, Francis Bacon.

That's who influenced the leaders, the Campbells in this group that says that you can come to something with a clean slate with no preconceived ideas whatsoever. And this is why they say things. I only want the Bible.

I don't care about man's tradition. I don't want to hear this explanation. That's just a man's opinion. And it just contradicts everything they say because everybody comes to this with a bent, right? And so, they say the right things like, oh, well, it sounds good.

We speak where the Bible speaks and we're silent where it's silent. But you're not. Like, the worst synecdoche is nowhere in the Bible, you know? And you speak a lot where the Bible's silent, and you don't speak when it does speak.

You refuse to acknowledge it. And so, you know, like Nathan's saying, you have to come up with something to get around about, I don't know, 500 plus verses in the Bible that talks about faith and believing, right?

Because it can't be that good. Because think about this. This is Americanized religion that started in America, okay, along with the other restoration movements. And so, it's Americanized. And guess what?

In America, we have this little saying that says if something sounds too good to be true, it probably what? It probably what? Probably is, right?

Probably is.

But see, here's the deal. God's not an American. That's the problem. And this sounds too good to be true because it is too good. It's so much better than you ever dreamed. It is believing by grace that we were saved.

But in America, there's something I got to do. And this is what I tell people all the time in my church. Like, we just had a potluck. And I know y 'all do it every Sunday. We do it once a month. And I tell people, especially for our visitors, don't let this works-based salvation get in your way of coming to our potluck because here's how typical people think.

And it's the same thing with religion. You know, you're starving. You have not eaten. You did not eat breakfast. And you're like, you know what? We forgot the green bean casserole. And so then when everybody says, hey, are you going to stay?

You're like, no, we're good. We're good. No, you're not. You're lying. The reason you don't want to come to the potluck and eat the free food is because you forgot to bring your green bean casserole. You think you got to bring something to the table.

And if you bring your green beans and you can eat anything else, like, that's Americanized. You know what I'm saying? So there's no way I can come to Christ for nothing just by believing. No, there's something I got to do.

I thought it would be worthwhile real quick to kind of present a true synecdoche. I remember a while back I got to preach out of Psalm chapter 19. And we really do see a part of creation that's representative of the whole.

So King David in Psalm chapter 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God in the sky above proclaims his handiwork. So when we read about the heavens, the skies, this is representative of all of God's creation.

It's highly poetic because we understand that God doesn't have hands. But it's telling us that all of creation testifies to the creator. And I wanted to speak to one other thing that you said, Trey, that was really good.

What I've noticed with Church of Christ is Acts 2 .38, Acts 2 .38, Acts 2 .38, and Acts 2 .37 says the Jews say, what must we do? So when they hear us say, you can't do anything, they hear a direct contradiction to what the Jews asked.

And I almost want to call Tom out and say, wait a second. That is a Jewish context. They are in Judaism, and they're asking the broad question, how we live our life. If Judaism is wrong, if the fulfillment is found in Christ.

And so when he says repent, that would also entail faith, right? That's what we'd say, looking to Jesus Christ, the one whom you crucified, the son of glory, look to him. They would have understood everything that he accomplished at Calvary, which is redemption of sin.

That is how you would have received forgiveness of sin, right? And then he's calling them to demonstrate their faith to the entire world, to go public with that declaration of identifying in the name of Jesus, right?

Now, Trey, this is where I've thought ever since my debate a few months ago is, you know, they want to speak where the Bible speaks. And don't give us your interpretation. The Bible says what it says and it means what it means.

Well, what I've noticed is if we held them to their own standard, Acts 238 says, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus. Now, I don't know any church of Christ that would baptize in the name of Jesus.

They would appeal back to the Great Commission and Matthew 28, 19 and 20. They're baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And what would they do? Well, they would break their own standard of Acts 238 says what it says.

And they would have to go and explain how in the name of Jesus means under his power and authority. Now, that sounds like they're trying to do exegesis and Bible hermeneutics and interpret Scripture.

It's a good thing. Give them credit, right? It's like that is true. That is good. Good job, Church of Christ. But and this is what we're talking about, Jeremiah. Like when we get to James 2, we get all these other verses that they twist to try to make their point is like what you're saying with Acts 2.

Don't just give half the verse context. Give the whole verse context. You're doing really good by not doing it in the name of Jesus. You're doing it by the authority of and that's great hermeneutics. That's great Bible study.

That's great context. That's good. But don't stop there. Do the whole thing. Right. Right. And that's that's the thing. But that hurts the narrative. So we're just going to apply it to half of it.

So, Trey, I want to transition. You asked Travis, I thought, a really good question. You asked him about the word faith. So as I'm queuing this up, tell us why this is a good question in the dialogue with the Church of Christ or really anybody that's outside orthodoxy.

Why is it understand to get a proper definition of the word faith?

Because definitions matter. Again, once you change the definitions of words in the Bible, like, man, who knows where you're going to end up? You're not going to end up in the right spot. I guarantee you that.

And so by changing the definition of this, and I wouldn't even say change, they add to it. Right. They add to it because it's just not enough, because that right there, this definition, if that were true, if that is the Greek word, which it is.

That destroys the whole argument, the whole the whole thing is gone. You know, so we have to add in there, you know, and take out of context another verse. Right. Add that context to that definition to get around everything else in the Bible.