July 20, 2006

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 Omega 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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341.

And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Soloing the Program and Setting Up the Day's Topics

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon. And yes, it is my second attempt at soloing here on the program. And so, you know, aside from the whiners and complainers out there, so far we're doing okay.

And the biggest thing, really honestly, the biggest thing that is truly amazing to me is that I managed to get the program up in the archive. Getting this part done, really that wasn't the big thing. The big part was after you get done, converting the files and knowing where to send them, and that's the hard part.

So, we did it once. We will see whether we will be able to do it a second time. Lord willing, Rich will be back next week and then there we'll make it a little bit easier. Anyhow, no, ignore that number.

Ignore the 877 -753 -3341 number because I do not have the phone lines fired up. Instead, we are going to be listening to, before we go back to Mr. Martignoni and his discussion on a Roman Catholic perspective on eternal security, I mentioned on the program that we are going to listen to Dave Hunt.

Why Dave Hunt Misreads Calvinism and Acts 13:48

Once again, we are in a situation where after a while you just wonder. It is so frustrating to have a man who is simply beyond correction. There is no one who can talk to him. He ends this cut. In fact, I'm going to go down here to the end and play this first.

Listen to what he says at the end and then think about how often he has been corrected. He wrote an entire book. How often these issues have been addressed. How many times people have written to him. Does he just protect himself from these things?

Is he not doing any of his own writing? What's the story?

Listen to what he says toward the end. It is through believing the gospel that we are born again. We are not regenerated ahead of time. Any Calvinist listening, please write in and explain this doctrine.

Tell me where I've gone astray on this. Tell me what I don't understand about this.

So there he says, any Calvinist listening, please write in, explain to me what I don't understand about this. What are we supposed to do? We've done it over and over and over and over and over again and he will not listen.

There's no one who has more basis for saying they have explained this, Dave Hunt, than I do. I've written a whole book with him. We had him on the air. I've written letters to him. We've done blog articles.

We've done dividing lines. And if I thought there was any confusion on his part, if he just didn't understand, it's not a matter of not understanding. I mentioned in the blog article that they've put out another edition of What Love Is This.

Now I mentioned, I'm holding the current edition or the previous edition in my hand here. And $27 to get another one. And of course my question, the big question that crosses my mind is, have they tried to fix the problem with Acts 13 .48?

Have they tried to fix it? If you're looking for it, it's on page 264. It's the famous redacted Hebrew version. GUFA, remember that one? If you haven't been listening for a long time, we caught Dave once again.

Dave has just been desperate in trying to find some way around the subject of Acts 13 .48. He just can't get around this text. And so he's tried the New World Translation and he tried the redacted Hebrew.

This is page 264. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as comments from early church writers, indicate that the first 15 chapters of Acts were probably written first in Hebrew. The Greek would be a translation.

Some scholars claim that going back to a redacted Hebrew version based upon word-for-word Greek-Hebrew equivalents would render Acts 13 .48 more like as many as submitted to, needed, or wanted salvation were saved.

And as soon as we found this in this hardback edition that Brian Call put out, page 264, we were all over it. And remember, Brian Call started sending out emails quoting from a cultic website about a Hebrew original of Matthew, as if that had something to do with Acts.

And finally, after everything he said was just completely taken apart, Brian said, well, you know, it was just speculation. You know, it was just an interesting thought, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So the question is, does the new edition of What Love Is This continue that silliness, that inane type of assertion, or does it correct it?

I don't know that I have $27 worth of interest in that. I imagine somebody will probably track it down and will let me know one way or the other, but it would be interesting to know. Well, anyway, a fellow who goes to my church dropped me a note, and I don't know if it was right after I got back from England or what, but he said on June, I think it was 26th, yeah, June 26th, on the Brian Call radio program, there was a topic, and the topic was, was the Good Samaritan a Calvinist?

And as you'll hear, the announcer reads this question to T .A. McMahon and Dave Hunt, and it's a simple question that anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Reformed theology would not have any questions with at all.

Common Grace, the Good Samaritan, and Total Depravity

Why do I say that? It's a question that basically is about what's called common grace. It is about the Samaritan doing what was right, and well, does that mean he had to be regenerated? And if you really, really, really believe that unregenerate men could do no good, see.

And if Dave Hunt had any teachable spirit or had actually done any meaningful scholarly study, then he would have said, well, of course, from the Reformed perspective. Well, first of all, this is a parable, and so we can't push it so far as to make any, and of course this text isn't talking about regeneration, the relationship of regeneration to any of these things, and so we're just sort of speculating here.

He would have said all those types of things, and he would have said, well, this is an issue about what common grace is, and Calvinists do believe that men do things, and when men do things that are good, it's due to God's common grace.

It's both a restraining thing, it restrains the evil of the heart of man, but it's also what brings about the fact that men are capable in certain situations of living together, killing each other when God withdraws his hand, and you see what's happening in our world today.

But when unregenerate men do things that show kindness to one another, this is due to God's common grace, and it is not just as Calvinists recognize that God's love is a multifaceted thing. There is a general love expressed in common grace to all of creation, where men who are unregenerate, even God-haters, are able to do things that demonstrate their knowledge of the universe, and they're able to be kind to their cats and dogs, and so on and so forth.

Just as we recognize those various aspects to God's love, so there are to God's grace as well. There is that common grace that upholds men, and then there is that saving grace which actually saves men.

And so that would be his response if he knew anything about Calvinism, and had any concern whatsoever to be accurate about it. You can sort of tell already, those of you who've listened to it, that, well, that's not what happened.

So let's listen to this and then take it apart.

Still ahead, Dave and Tom continue their weekly in-depth study of the doctrine of salvation. Please stay with us. Now, contending for the faith. In this regular feature, Dave and Tom respond to questions from listeners and readers of The Berean Call.

Here's this week's question. Dear Dave and T .A.,. I have a question that's been buzzing around in my head ever since I read Dave's book on Calvinism, What Love Is This? Since most Calvinists believe that humanity is totally depraved and therefore cannot choose to do good without first being regenerated, which is dependent on God's arbitrarily choosing him or her as one of the elect, I'm puzzled as to where the Good Samaritan would fit into all of this.

Didn't he need to be regenerated before being able to minister to the man who was robbed and beaten?

Now, let me just stop it right there and say, no. There's nothing in Reformed theology. There's confusing two completely different areas here. When we talk about men being able to do what is good in God's sight, we're talking about being able to do that which flows from having a right relationship to him.

Even the Good Samaritan, and again, we're talking about a parable here. Talk about completely missing the boat. But let's just state for a moment that the Good Samaritan was not regenerate. I mean, there's no reason for assuming that.

Let's just go with the argument here. There is nothing in Reformed theology, it does not say, that God in his common grace can cause people to extend kindness to others. There's nothing about that whatsoever.

When we talk about men being incapable of doing anything good in and of themselves, we are talking about the necessity of grace. And, specifically, when we talk about Romans 8, verses 7 -8, men being incapable of doing what is good in the sight of God, submitting themselves to the law of God.

Well, are we going to get a discussion of that from this writer or from Dave Hunt? No, unfortunately, we don't. But that, of course, is the context of regeneration, doing of good deeds, and things like that.

Completely different context than a parable, but anyhow.

Furthermore, why would Jesus use such an obvious non-elect individual as a Samaritan to show the elect Jews how far removed they were from doing what God has commanded?

What? The elect Jews? How do we know these were elect Jews? I mean, there's so many assumptions in the question here, it's hard to even take it seriously that this was actually being written in. But even if it was, you see what happens when someone trusts Dave Hunt and his books for their understanding of Reformed theology.

Dave, the issue of total depravity, and the scriptures tell us that there is none that doeth good, no, not one. What do you think?

Now, that's Romans chapter 3, and I have mentioned, and you're going to hear this again, I have mentioned the fact that when I listened to Dave Hunt address Romans chapter 3 at the Calvary Chapel in, I think it was the Costa Mesa one, but it was a large one in California.

He was wearing a Hawaiian shirt underneath a sport jacket. It was quite interesting. Anyway, when I listened to him address Romans chapter 3 a number of years ago, the only way I could even address what he was saying was to say that it was really bordering on and at times going right into Pelagianism.

It really was going into a discussion that is unorthodox. It's simply unorthodox. Dave is so bent upon attacking Calvinism that he's gone the other direction so far that you're going to hear him, in essence, try to define what it means to be doing good as doing good so as to appease God and get rid of one's sins, which really, he does believe that men can do good before God, outside of God's grace.

He's going to basically say that.

Listen. Well, Tom, this person has read What Love Is This? We've already answered all these questions. I would say even more startling examples. Well, this is a Samaritan.

Yeah, I don't think you point out in What Love Is This? the good Samaritans.

I don't recall, but I do point out some others. For example, the Philistine king, his name is Abimelech, and he is more just than Abraham. Abraham, as you recall, pretends that Sarah is his sister, and she goes along with it because she's a very attractive lady, and he's afraid that this king will kill him in order to get his wife.

But the king is more righteous than that. He takes her. He hasn't had sex with her yet. He brings her into his harem, I guess, preliminary step, and God speaks to him in a dream. He says, you've got somebody else's wife, and you find this in Genesis chapter 20.

And Isaac does the same thing later on.

Now, wait a minute. What on earth does that have to do with anything? In fact, Genesis chapter 20, verse 6 says,. Then God said to him in the dream, Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against me, therefore I did not let you touch her.

So, God, how does that fit free will? I kept you from sinning against me, therefore I did not let you touch her. God is the one who kept him from doing these things. What does any of this have to do with the question that's being asked?

I fail to see its relevance whatsoever. Amazing.

And so he says, Benoit says to Abraham, I have done for you nothing but good. Now, you quoted, there's none that do good. No, not one. That's not saying that there aren't people who can do some good deeds, and they don't have to be inspired of God.

I wouldn't say this man was inspired of God, but he did have a conscience. Now, what is he saying?

It sounds like he's contradicting Paul, and he's saying, well, there's a special kind of good that Paul's talking about, I guess, that people can do good without being inspired by God. Well, again, here's another good reason why Dave Hunt's detestation of systematic theology causes problems.

I mean, what do you mean inspired of God? That's a term inspired of God that is only used in Scripture. So how is that relevant? Obviously, he's using it in some other way. But it sounds like he's saying that men, apart from the common grace of God, apart from the operation of the Holy Spirit, can do that which is good.

And we are saying that men, by common grace, do that which is good, both positively and negatively. Positively in the sense that God, with Abimelech or with any of these other examples we could use, brings about these good things without necessarily bringing about the salvation of the individual, but also negatively in the restraining of the evil of the heart of man.

Both of these are actions of God. It seems to me that Dave Hunt is saying, no, man has the capacity in and of himself. He's not so dead in sin. He's not so fallen. He has the capacity of doing what is good before God.

Now, how he would answer the question, what do you mean good before God? Are you actually saying that a person who is unregenerate can do things that are good before a holy God, that they meet his standard?

I would hope at that point he would say no, but that's one of the reasons Dave Hunt refuses to expose himself to cross-examination and debate on the subject, because he knows once we get into this level, he's lost.

He has no way of answering these questions. Listen to the first radio program we did, which his own ministry makes available, and would even be more pointed if we were to do anything now, which is why he does everything he can to avoid it.

But there are some people who do good, but they are not doing good that will wipe away their sins.

So there's a you can do good, and then there's another kind of good that's expiatory, that accomplishes propitiation? Is that what's being said here? Again, who knows?

It's hard to say. Because once you've sinned, you can't make up for it by doing good. But anyway, he talks about a just man, a good man, and so forth. And the point you're making here, Tom, or I guess the questioner is, how can they do this without being regenerated?

Because Calvinism says we're all totally depraved. And by that, they don't mean we're bad, but they mean we can do no good. We cannot do anything that is good. Now, they take that statement in Romans 3, there's nothing to do with good, no, not one, they're all gone out of the way, and so forth.

They take that as a quote from Psalm 14.

What they're going to say to this, there's no choice in the matter. Everything that we do prior to being regenerated, there's no choice. We're going to do evil, according to Calvinism.

You just have to stop once in a while, and just take a deep breath and go, what are these guys doing on the radio talking about stuff that clearly they don't know anything about? They're completely ignorant of these things.

I mean, oh my goodness, what can you say? I mean, and I tried, I tried to tell him before he put that book out, Dave, you shouldn't write on this stuff because you don't know what you're talking about.

And T .A. McMahon sounds like he's just completely wandering about. I mean, if Dave Hunt is confused and T .A. McMahon is completely confused, what in the world are they talking about here? They keep confusing so many different categories that it's not even funny.

They're not even dealing with the text. I mean, we're talking about total inability. Inability to do what? Well, you know, John 6, come to Christ, do that which is good and pleasing the sight of God, submit yourself to the law of God.

I mean, why not get into the texts that actually address these issues and recognize you're talking about something completely different than the idea that men do good deeds in the sense of not every man, you know, when we drive down the roads, we don't every day veer off into the left lanes to try to crash into people.

Okay, why is that? Well, a lot of it's just quite simply self-preservation. And he just admitted, well, Calvinists aren't saying that we're as bad or as evil as we could be. Well, yeah, exactly. Total depravity speaks of the fact that sin has touched every aspect of the human being.

But some of the things that from an outward perspective look like they're good are simply self-preservation on our part. He's not even dealing with the issue of what is good in God's sight, what is holiness in God's sight, what's the relationship between these types of activities amongst men and doing what's good in God's sight and salvation and coming to Christ and submitting oneself unto the law of God and the conscience.

I mean, there's so much more here. And it's just like you just throw it all in one bowl and mix it all up and go, ah, see, I know what I'm talking about. I spent two weeks reading Calvinist books and now I'm an expert in all things.

And that's exactly what he did when he eschews systematic theology and he eschews using terminology in an accurate way. This is the same problem we've got with the canners and the issue of hyper-Calvinism and omnibenevolence.

They don't care what those terms have meant in history. They just get to make them up as they go along now, claiming all the while to be biblicists in the process. And so in his writings, Dave will just interchange regeneration, saved, sanctified.

He'll just make them all mean the same thing as if they are synonyms of one another. And the resultant confusion is completely incomprehensible. It makes no sense at all. And it's no wonder his followers are completely confused now as to what in the world is being talked about because no one can make heads or tails out of what he's saying anyway.

Even after, there's no choice, really. God has to do it all for us. Now, we believe that God does everything, but we do have to be willing.

What? How is that? Thou speakest out of both sides of the mouth. What is that? Well, we do believe that God does all things, but we have to be willing. Is that sort of like Norman Geisler's I believe in irresistible grace?

Grace is irresistible for those who are willing? Is that... Why even bother mouthing these words when there's no meaning in what you're saying? Is there something really attractive and cool about saying things that have no meaning?

I just...

It's a partnership. But anyway, Tom, if you go back to the... Catch that? It's a partnership.

What's a partnership? What is the specific term to describe partnership, especially in matters of salvation? It's called synergism. Yes, monergism versus synergism.

Psalm 14, Romans 3, and the Charge of Pelagianism

In Psalms, you'll find that all around Psalm 14, where it says there's none that doeth good, none that wanteth, none that seeketh after God, it talks about men seeking God. You have probably several hundred examples in the Old Testament.

Now, again, if you've read the book, you're sitting there going, no, wait a minute, okay. Two things going on here. First of all, whenever you hear Dave Hunt say several hundred, that means he can't find any particular text to fit his argumentation, so he's just going to throw the several hundred number out, because every time you go through one of the texts he brings up, you demonstrate he's wrong, and then his response will be, well, we don't need that one anyways, because we've got several hundred others.

That's the process you're going through there. But have you heard this kind of argumentation before? I have, and I hear it from Roman Catholics who are trying to get around Romans chapter 3 and the concept of total depravity.

And so what he's saying is, well, Paul may have said there's none that seek after God, but there's all sorts in Psalm 14 about men seeking God. So what's your point, Dave? Why don't you come straight out and say Paul was wrong?

Why don't you dig into Romans 3 and tell us what he was really saying? What he was saying was, well, not all men seek after God, but some do. Is that what he was saying? Is that his point? No, you can't get that out of Romans chapter 3, and therefore if you listen to all of Scripture, then what are you going to do?

You're going to realize that Paul is saying there is no God-seeker, and therefore if Psalm 14 does refer to someone who's seeking after God, what had to happen first? See? But if you believe that, then you become one of those dreaded Calvinists, and so we can't do that.

So instead we just, in essence, contradict what Paul just said. This is where I would want to be able to challenge him in person. All right, you take your reading of Romans 3, and now you follow it through.

Let's hear some exegesis here of the text. Finish that catena of passages, Romans 3, 10 through 18, go to verse 19, and tell me how your interpretation substantiates and supports and leads into the rest of Romans chapter 3 in discussion of justification.

You can't do it. And evidently he keeps himself in a position of never having to be forced to do so.

About those who sought God. I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and I found him. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found.

Yes, those are commands from God. But what does that mean? That simply demonstrates the absolute necessity of God's grace. I mean, again, this is why at times you go, is this man a Pelagian? Does he even know what a Pelagian is?

His particular tradition loves to, in essence, stand back and say, well, we eschew all this scholarship, and we're not really concerned about churches. Remember, I've told the story many times. Back in about 1991, 15 years, over 15 years ago, I sent a tape to Dave Hunt of my debate with Gerry Matitick on the papacy that was recorded at the City of the Lord over in Tempe, Arizona.

And I got this little thing back from him that said, well, you know, I don't argue church history with Roman Catholics. I just stick with the Bible. Now, it's not completely true if you look at stuff that he's written, but that's what he said that time.

Again, this was 15 years ago. And, you know, because we discussed the papacy, and I had gone into some of the historical stuff and given some patristic citations and things like that. And that is his idea.

I don't want to argue about history stuff here, even though he goes into history about Calvin and things like that. He's rather selective about these things. But since they don't want to see themselves where they stand in church history, they don't want to see how things have affected them, as if they are somehow, again, just completely disconnected from the history of the church, and they're starting with the blank slate.

And they don't have any traditions. Remember, you know, Dave Hunt's the same guy. I don't have any traditions, James. Remember that from the first radio program. And because of that, they don't see not only the inconsistency of their use of language, the inconsistency of the positions that they've taken, but they don't really care that people have discussed all this stuff before.

They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. And so they will make statements, and anyone who knows anything about the historical debate goes, Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. But they don't know about it.

And they just go on from there. Isaiah 55 says, Anyway, the Calvinist is taking one side of a picture. When it says there's nothing to do with good, no, not one, it doesn't mean nobody ever did a good deed in their lives, because we have examples of unsaved godless people who do good things now in the scriptures.

What it means is this is the attitude, the general attitude of the human heart. This is the way we're going. And so Calvinism then teaches that you can't even believe the gospel. You couldn't possibly turn to Christ.

You couldn't possibly respond to the gospel because you're dead, trespassing in sins, you are totally depraved. Therefore, Tom, this is the most astonishing doctrine in Calvinism that I know of. And I discussed Calvinism for years with Calvinists before I ever found out that this was what they believed.

You must be regenerated first.

Regeneration, Believing the Gospel, and the New Birth

Did you hear that? He just admitted that he had discussed these things, and he said that he has been opposed to Calvinism all along. So that means he was opposed to Calvinism while in ignorance of it, and he just admitted it.

And, of course, all we say is, Dave, you still are. Nothing's changed much. You've just simply gotten a few more quotes to quote, but you still don't know what you're talking about. You're still ignorant of the fundamental things.

And if you had come to the conclusion it was wrong before you even knew the fundamentals of it, what's surprising then that the rest of us are going, hey, Dave, you still don't get it. You still don't understand.

You're still missing the boat. And he is. But he is beyond correction and beyond admission of error. And why? Well, we'll talk about that. You've got to be born again. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine that?

I mean, 1 John 5 says those who have been born from God believe. And, yeah, you know, that being born from God precedes the believing, and that's the basis of the continuance of the believing. But can you believe anyone could have written that there in 1 John 5?

And that's why you won't find any meaningful discussion of 1 John 5 in his writings, because he can't deal with those things, and that's why he avoids engaging in debate on this subject, because, well, it would be a bad thing when you know you're wrong.

And he does know that. The Bible says you are born again through believing the gospel. The Communist says you've got to be born again, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, before you even can believe.

Now, remember what I said before. He just simply throws regeneration, being born again, be saved, justified, sanctified. That's just all one big word for him. He refuses to distinguish between them, which, by the way, would make it impossible for him to deal with the Roman Catholic concept of justification and sanctification, because they confound the two.

Is he consistent at that point? No, of course not. But he just throws them all in one big lump and says, see, you have to believe to be saved, and therefore that means you have to believe to be born again, and it means you have to believe to be regenerated, and so this whole thing just can't work.

And then after you are born again, then God gives you faith to believe the gospel,.

And it must come through irresistible grace, so there's no volition on your part.

Oh, oh, it must come through irresistible grace, so there's no volition on your part. Which means once you're raised to spiritual life, and you're made a new creature in Christ, you have no volition. You're not going to naturally believe, because you've been forced to believe.

Again, you know, T .A. McMahon, he doesn't know. He's just going with... T .A. McMahon could never disagree with Dave Hunt on anything. So he's just simply going with what Dave Hunt has told him, and so he's just, you know, parroting the line.

So, you know, I'm not saying he's not accountable for parroting the line, but the fact remains, that's what he's doing, and you see the snowball. I've mentioned this to you before. How many times have we played other people in the past couple of years who are simply quoting Dave Hunt as if he's somehow an authority on these things, and so the same error just gets repeated over and over and over and over again.

We see it all the time. Right, and that turns the Bible into a charade. What is all this pleading? Don't do this, and please repent, and come to me, you know.

So, you know, anybody read Debating Calvinism? Did I not address that many, many times? Did he not ignore the addressing of it many, many times? It's just... And then to hear the man, as we've played on this program, speaking at churches saying that I didn't want the book published because he did so well and just refutes Calvinism.

It really makes you wonder at times.

Any man, person, come unto me and drink. You've got this all through the Bible. So, Tom, we've talked about that a number of times. It makes no sense. And remember, you can't be born again yourself. That's true.

John 1, 13. They're born not of blood, nor the will of man, nor of the flesh, but of God. But Calvinists, I've never found a Calvinist that acknowledges. Verses 11 and 12 precede verse 13. And they say, As many as received him, to them he gave the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on his name.

So it's very clear that you must believe on his name and you must receive him.

Now, here you have Dave pushing, and by the way, it's just sort of dishonest to say that there's no Calvinist who admits that verses 11 through 12 come before verse 13. I don't think there's any Calvinist who denies that verses 11 through 12 come before verse 13.

The question is, do verses 11 through 12 plus verse 13 give us an ordo salutis? Or is verse 13 taking us back previous to the actions of verses 11 through 12? Upon what grammatical or syntactical basis does he argue, and successfully so, that verses 11 through 13 present a single ordo salutis?

How then does he explain, who were born, not of the will of flesh, nor the will of man, when he's saying that we are born of the will of the flesh? How does he do that? Again, since he won't debate, and since in a book I can't force him to answer questions, I can't, the editors were unable to force him to stay with one particular subject and to just talk about one particular subject in, I mean, like I said, in certain of his presentations, he covered seven different topics when he was supposed to be covering one.

Since he refused to even do what he said he would do in the writing of the book, and that is stick to one subject, because I told him, I told him at the beginning, look, if either one of these sides in a book like this goes wandering all over the landscape, the books could be confusing, it's going to be next to impossible to follow any particular line of argumentation, and I was told initially, oh, no, we'll make sure that everybody stays on subject, blah, blah, blah.

Well, Hunt refused. He refused to be edited in that way. They didn't have to ask me to do that, because I follow the rules, but he didn't, and so you can't force Dave Hunt to answer these questions. I can raise the issues, but I can't force him to answer a question.

If we're in a debate, and you've got cross-examination, and I can look at him and say, all right, let's look at John chapter 1, let's work through verses 11 through 13, let's open the text, let's go to the word of God.

That's what I want to do. Why can't I get Arminians to do this? Why can't I get the anti-reform to do this? They want to have free-for-alls like the Canners. They want to avoid all debates at all possible.