September 13, 2005

Historical Skepticism and the Jesus Seminar Debate

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning 11 o 'clock here in the desert southwest where the monsoon has left and it is dry and Yeah, just still be 98 today. But hey as long as it's in the 70s at night who cares right and so that is a a indicator of things to come and It was awfully nice to come back from the cool climbs of Alaska to a little drier weather here in the in the valley.

I know those of you who live in constant humidity or chuckling right now, but hey, what can I say? Lots stuff to do today. It's seven seven seven five three three three four one. I Correspondence. I have not read the argumentation that Bethlehem Baptist has used to Allow for infant baptism as a valid means of baptism for membership in a Baptist Church.

Haven't read it. So don't know what the argument is. Personally. I think if you're a Presbyterian Or someone who believes in infant baptism Then I think your church should practice infant baptism and that should be what you do to be a member of that church.

And if you're a Baptist, I think you should believe in credo baptism and that should mark your church personally. I think we can work together and there's all sorts of things we can do together. But as far as membership of the church goes Seems to me like that's a sort of important issue.

It's how you understand the ordinances or if you're on the other side of things sacraments and I don't see the purpose of Muddying the waters at that point and So but I haven't read the argumentation haven't read the paper yet.

And I've been busy with lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of other stuff. And so what can I say, but I've heard about it and sounds interesting. But I again just simply don't understand the certain understand that particular perspective be that as it may we have sound clips.

Eventually, we'll have video clips as well. But Video clips don't do us a whole lot of good on the dividing line. Anyways, so we're not really not really Worried about that, but we do have video video clip that audio clips.

I wanted to play the very first question I asked and I Really think that this illustrated what took place during the debate between myself and dr. John Dominic Crossan. My opening statement my opening presentation for those who have listened already is in essence that the argumentation used by radical destructive criticism begins with the assumption that The miraculous cannot exist and that therefore any recording of the existence the miraculous must be non-historical now that can then result either in the idea that The people writing it are dishonest and they're just deceivers and it's it's just all you know, the silliness of religion or It can result in saying well, it's a parable dummy Learn what the parable is read your meaning into the parable and that then becomes your religious emphasis.

Which I also asserted in essence has resulted constantly in the reflection of whatever the particular researcher thinks Man should be upon Jesus or or anyone in in the New Testament or you know Paul's entire perspective becomes a political one and all the rest is stuff and there really isn't any way of saying I'm actually reading the New Testament or I'm allowing the New Testament speak all you're doing is allowing your innermost feelings to be expressed and what you will or will not see in the text and so I Very strongly emphasize that the argumentation that your children by the way, that's why I keep emphasizing this.

That's why I think it's important We didn't just do this debate so we could go out to go up to Alaska and have a big debate these issues the claims made by the Jesus Seminar are picked up by pretty much every group that we as a ministry deal with and That you as a believer are going to be dealing with in apologetically in an evermore post-christian anti-christian society in the West.

This is the stuff that even even Muslim apologists will will take their cue From the Jesus Seminar type materials. This is the stuff that's in our secular universities. This is this this stuff is out there.

We cannot ignore it. We have to deal with it. And the only way to deal with it in its fullest fashion and in its best fashion. Which I think is what you find in someone like John Dominic Crossan is to recognize the presuppositions that give rise to the system as as a whole and.

So my opening presentation had been well, you know, dr Crossan begins this idea the consistency of God if he's not it wasn't doing it in the first century not do it today he wasn't doing in the first century and so if he's not raising people in the dead today, then he's not he wasn't doing it back then and so on and so forth and You know in his in his response.

He said no. No, I was I was just examining The data I spent all these years in the 1960s. Examining the the information and reading the Gospels and and these are conclusions. I came to well, okay. But how you?

Examine the Gospels even he admits what you make when you make a decision as to the nature of your materials that's going to determine your methodology and so Soon as we got into the cross-examination period the first question.

I asked him I think to me very clearly illustrated what's going on here. So let's listen to it now I'll stop it and make some comments. So hopefully we've got the Computer ready to rock and roll. So let's let's see what happens Dr. Cross and given your presuppositions regarding the divine consistency in the light.

What kind of evidence could possibly exist in antiquity that would prove to you that the events of the gospel story, especially? Miraculous events such as the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ from the dead actually took place in historical context.

In the context of a pre-enlightenment world nothing. In the context of a pre-enlightenment, sorry am I echoing? In the context of a pre-enlightenment world Where it is taken for granted that wondrous things can happen that gods and goddesses can come down from heaven and create divine children.

In that context and Granted that's what everyone accepts. The only way I can understand the claims of any one of them is What it means? Therefore when Jesus when I read these claims about Jesus, for example.

What is important for me is when I read the claims of Jesus from people who believe he could do anything He wanted and has all power. He only does it for example to heal. Yeah, I get that message very clearly.

Jesus has the power for example if somebody Sass is him to make them drop dead. That would not surprise anyone as a story from the ancient world. Jesus never does that.

Now let me stop right there just for a moment. Next questions that I'm going to bring up. I I have a real issue with the idea and I kept trying to bring this up and and Over and over again, I would ask a question and I really wouldn't get a direct answer to what I Was asking and and maybe that's because of a conflict of worldviews and maybe I just wasn't being clear I thought I was being as clear as I could be but I A number of times pressed the issue upon dr. Cross's so in that answer you just heard the first thing he said is There there couldn't be any and I he said in a pre-enlightenment world and I'm not sure because he then Repeated himself.

I'm not sure if he meant in a post-enlightenment world there couldn't be any because we don't function on that on that thing, but he basically said there's there's no evidence could exist and Then he went on to say we know in the pre-enlightenment world everybody thought that this type of thing could happen and I I'm gonna ask the question later on.

Because he keeps going back and forth at this at this point. Do you really think that that's what the Jews believed because look at the examples he used right there. Everybody believed the gods and goddesses could come down and and and create offspring.

Excuse me Jews believe that Monotheistic Jews believed in gods and goddesses. Cohabiting with people. No they didn't and So I found in this debate and in the second debate over and over again when it was convenient to emphasize the Jewish context of the New Testament and The Jewish background then it was there.

But then when that would completely and totally contradict everything you're saying such as this point right here I'm sorry Jews did not believe that gods and goddesses. They didn't believe in gods and goddesses so they couldn't didn't believe they come down and create offspring.

So I'm sorry that doesn't follow if you're going to use a Jewish context in the New Testament pagan Romans, okay? That's fine, but that's not we're talking about here because the gospel writers were not pagan Romans and they are quoting from the Old Testament scriptures that do not have gods and goddesses coming down and doing this kind of stuff and So I would later try to emphasize that and it just didn't seem to really connect and so There seems to be a very inconsistent utilization of The historical backgrounds once again simply so as to bring about the view of Jesus that the particular researcher has already decided he's going to come up with and.

So if a Jewish background helps you to come up with the Jesus that you want to come up with. Okay, then You use it if it doesn't you ignore it so Searching for consistency during the cross-examination period that's well.

That's what cross-examination is all about so that's what's important to me about the miracles of Jesus. They're miracles of healing. How you explain them in the ancient world with your dealing with Escalapius or Jesus is a totally separate issue.

For me ah, but it's not. Placing healing miracles in the context of pagan Rome and Healing miracles in the context of monotheistic Judaism where you have Jesus then saying go off of the sacrifices that Moses commanded show yourselves the priest.

But don't tell anybody I'm Moshiach. I'm sorry those are completely different Contexts and to put them together. That you know people all the time these folks will be saying hey How can you accept the miracles of Jesus, but not accept the miracles of all these other religions?

Well because Here here, we're seeing one one important element of it. Polytheism is in and of itself an irrational philosophy and theology it makes no sense. Polytheism has never been able to command The intellect of man because well I would argue because we know better.

We know there's only one true. God who has revealed himself. We know that there is only one creator. There's only one who has revealed his divine power and attributes in the creative world and we're suppressing that knowledge outside of Christ.

We know that but that fundamental foundational philosophical difference Completely changes the context in which anything like a miracle Takes place and what that miracle means so again. Just where where we start here that the the presuppositions that the two of us are bringing Very very very much in determine the conclusions that we have and make no difference though between Escalapius and Jesus in terms of reality there there there you go.

I shouldn't have stopped there. I make no difference but you have to. History certainly has has there's a reason for that is it just because they were Pre-enlightenment and we're post-enlightenment.

Is that what that's all about or is there a vast difference between a polytheistic system in a monotheistic system and the context in which that places the teachings and the activities of Jesus versus anybody else.

But in a post-enlightenment world, which I'm assuming we're talking about this evening, right? Could there be any kind of evidence whatsoever in antiquity that would cause you to believe that God did?

Intervene in the first century in a way that he's not intervening in now the 21st century. Okay, so I needed to redirect because I had heard pre-enlightenment. So I wasn't sure and I felt this was absolutely necessary that people hear this.

In fact, I I I've been it's been suggested to me I need to put this material together in a and if not overly large, but in a short book format. Because the fact that I've and I've mentioned this I've been very concerned about the fact that the people who've heard this debate Didn't hear all the debate.

Oh, it's all there. But there is a whole nother level at which the debate was taking place that Because a lot of folks hadn't either hadn't read the book that I suggested people on the cruise I I suggested the people they read a particular book By dr. Crossman would help them understand where he's coming from or even if they had.

You know, I went to a seminary that was way off to the left of me. In the spectrum of things it's it's not all that far off to the left but I went to seminary where I was exposed to all this and I I learned to understand the worldview that these folks are operating in a lot of evangelicals haven't and Because they haven't Quite honestly, they become susceptible to argumentation coming from this this viewpoint.

Once it once they come to understand that it breaks through and they don't they haven't been building a defense they haven't been building a foundation that can handle that someone in channel point us to a a Post by a former Southern Baptist who has lost his faith.

Of course, I would argue that would indicate and in fact the discussion has been this particular individual Never did show much of a concern about biblical exegesis they're much more concerned about philosophy and things like that to begin with so that might tell you something to start with but All the all the issues that this person's raising now as to explain why he doesn't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Not only are issues that I've certainly encountered over and over and over again have seen many fine responses to. But they again demonstrate that this person never had that grounding. That's what concerns me and that's what that's what this audience is going to be up against all the time in our society from now on is that kind of Of Argumentation we need to understand it.

So I'm refocusing the question. Let's see how it turns out. No. Okay, well There's the answer No. There there there's there's the answer. Let me let me repeat that just one more time. But in a post Enlightenment world, which I'm assuming we're talking about this evening, right?

Could there be any kind of evidence whatsoever in antiquity that would cause you to believe that God did Intervene in the first century in a way that he's not intervening in now the 21st century. No.

Does that not illustrate the presuppositional character of the conflict? No, it illustrates my understanding of how God works which is.

Presuppositional there you go. I mean it really seemed to me. Honestly, and and a number of people on the cruise as we would sit around and chat about it I Just don't think dr. Cross and had ever been challenged on this level before maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe there's I I know Without a doubt that in the books that I read these issues were raised. Did he not read the responses? I don't know. Did he not have conversation with the authors of those responses, I don't know.

But it just did seem to me that that he did not see the difference. You know, he's saying no, it's that's not presuppositional. It's it's how I it's how I view how God works. Well, well if you start like I said with this concept of divine Consistency that God can only do in the past what he's doing today that God is not free To act at certain times in history for his own purposes if you start with that the debate is over the debates over because isn't the main message of the Gospels the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and To take his position would mean that the Gospels have to basically keep on going in it.

You always have to have a Jesus who's doing these miraculous things and that has to be happening today for it to have happened back then so it's a circular argument and Yet this is the pinnacle of Jesus seminar style argumentation that is being thrown at our young people every day right now as we are speaking in junior colleges and community colleges and universities all across the United States and the Western world and sadly even beyond that as The assured results of scholarship and it's actually just it's circular reasoning which I will admit is a presupposition.

What's the presupposition?

Based on two things I did say divine consistency. And when I read first century texts if I only read if I only read the Christian texts I would have to say there is such extraordinary things happening here that never happened in the rest of the world.

But to if I read it in. Well, let's stop right there. Yeah.

Yes, that's right. God has only entered into his creation once in a unique way in Christ. That's the message. It's like there you go. That's yeah. Mm-hmm. That's that's what they're saying. That's that's correct.

And if the reason you start with the presupposition that can't be true is.

First century context or even in the history of religions context I have to see that no similar claims have been made. Not only about Jesus, but about Caesar in that very same context. Whoa, not very same context.

No, no, no, no, no Caesar is in a pagan polytheistic Context of the gods and goddesses that dr. Crossan does see but Jesus is not. The dude Jews don't believe in gods and goddesses that come down and sire children.

They're not the same context I'm sorry. But that and if that's the fundamental and it is if you have read that crosses material that's where he starts. It's in the first chapter boom right off the bat.

Here's you got here you got Caesar Augustus and his birth and here you got Jesus you got the parallels and blah blah blah blah blah if that's wrong if that's wrong on a fundamental Basis historically philosophically presupposition Lee the rest of it is Is quite honestly a waste of paper.

It's printed on as far as it having any truth and you might well, that's awfully mean. Hey NT right in describing dr. Cross's theories Talks about how well the books written and how cogently it's written and and how intelligent dr. Crossan is all those things that I said in the debate as well.

And then he says which makes it all the more unfortunate that the book is entirely wrong. That's and that's it's true. It is it's entirely wrong. It starts. You know I liken it to Mormonism. You know I just posted something Today on the blog like she was very early this morning about Mormonism.

Mormonism starts at the wrong point. It starts at a denial of the eternality and uniqueness of God and if you start there Everything that comes afterwards Isn't gonna work. It's gonna be wrong if you start at the wrong point you can put all the effort and intelligence and brilliance Into the rest of your theory you want, but if you start a mathematical formula Based upon 1 plus 1 equals 3 the answer is not going to be the right answer no matter How well you do the rest of the formula?

That's a fact and.

That's what we have going on right here as I said. It's in all the coins and therefore. No, I don't see anything that wouldn't convince me quite frankly that Caesar was born of Apollo and a human mother.

Atsya. Or that Jesus was literally born of God and the Virgin Mary. Let me stop again. Two.

Totally different contexts in one you have the expectation of What takes place. I'm talking about Augustus. If you wanted to consolidate power if you wanted to? Make it in such a way can we close the door, please?

Thank you. If you want to consolidate power if you wanted to make your political base stronger. Then there was nothing wrong with Making these types of claims all right. There's nothing wrong with Making the kind of assertions that they were making.

Did anybody really really believe that. Well. I suppose some people could. But you see the incarnation was not What the Jewish people were expecting? Oh? Yeah, we can see in Isaiah, but you read the intertestamental material there's a lot of confusion given the the the Messiah as Victor the Messiah as servant all the rest of these things and There was no agenda to be fulfilled By the Messiah coming in human form.

In fact that's the exact opposite of what people expected in the suffering servant. What is the cross? Is it something that was clearly designed to attract? Jews to the movement. See there's there's your conflict.

There's your contradiction between Augustus he's the son of God. We make up the story about Apollo. Polytheistic context as to solidify a political base, okay, that's one thing Jesus Comes as the suffering servant born of a lowly virgin and What's that designed to do what's that?

Why would someone make that up? What's what's the? What's what's to be gained there? Where is the agenda? You'd have to depend upon hmm the Holy Spirit changing someone's heart to believe that because the Jew it's a.

It's a scandal on stumbling block. To the Gentiles foolishness not just the virgin birth, but the idea of the suffering Messiah the incarnate Lord. So the contexts are not the same and so we can see I think again the presuppositional nature of the argument in the fact that.

It simply doesn't hold, but I see those as Radically different claims about the meaning of life. The to accept Caesar as divine is not to accept Jesus as divine.

Is it your understanding that now let me let me mention what he's talking about there. He's not saying what I just said. He's talking about the kingdom of God concept. What would the world look like if God was on the throne and not Caesar.

And In the second debate it just kept coming back to Rome Rome Rome Rome Rome is the only context and really as I pointed out that viewpoint limits the gospel and It limits the proclamation of the gospel to a very narrow spectrum, and it really defies.

It denies to the gospel the ability to cross out of that historical context and to really have any Kind of authoritative meaning in any other context in any other culture in any other time. Really all you get all you can do is Look back and go well power needs to be bottom up instead of top down.

That's pretty much all you've got in this story that's that's it and The Gospels much more than a few mark. Luke and John whoever they would have been it's my understanding. They wouldn't believe that those were eyewitnesses or anything like that correct now.

Why am I saying that it's sort of a statement, but again? I've got an audience of about 400 people sitting in front of me and Dr.. Crossman really hasn't fleshed out a lot of those conclusions in his opening statement.

So I can't just assume that everyone sitting in front of me knows exactly where he's coming from so I'm trying in The form of the questions to get a little bit more information out so that people will have an idea of what's really going on.

And I think the word that Luke uses is not eyewitnesses. It is martyrs it is witnesses. Luke does talk about witnesses of the word. But we translate as eyewitness the Greek is my curious as far as I remember.

That actually was wrong and during the rest of this let's see we're three minutes and 51 seconds in so For about the next five and a half minutes. For those of you who don't get to watch this or we'll watch it later I don't know if you'll be able to see this, but the next five and a half minutes You've got a you've got a picture this this is behind the scenes at the debate.

My questions are in a program called note studio on my palm tungsten t5 and I I've mentioned this on the blog great little program pretty pricey, but great little program works real. Well very easy to use and so I'm I've got these hyperlinks basically.

And I've got all these questions laid out and as I'm listening to him I can sort of just look at a list of questions and the whole question isn't there it's just a hyperlink it gives me the idea of what each questions about and Listening to his response.

I can then very very quickly just tap on The next question I want to ask and there's the whole question right in front of me, and then just go back To then see the whole list again very just perfect. I was looking for Actually what I was looking for wouldn't have been as good As this yes.

Yeah. That Someone just said so I need to find a way to put you in a little window scurrying around trying to find the Greek while He is speaking. Yeah, basically if you can. So what I'm doing is I'm listening to him.

I'm jumping out of note studio into my Greek program into my olive tree Greek program on my palm. I'm going over to Luke I'm opening up the passage in Luke, and then I'm opening up the gram Chord window.

Just double check because you know in a debate like this You don't want to go actually determines this and then discover that because you're just you're barely even able to focus on it you're looking at the wrong word and so I Everybody channels going who showed that was a little voice in my ear actually it's a private message, but anyway So I it took about five minutes.

The conversation keeps going on I keep asking questions I'm going back and forth between the programs on my palm while I'm doing this. You'll see me you know tapping away a little bit and still asking the questions still interacting and Until I was able to find the exact verse I needed term and then at the very end of the cross-examination period I said now by the way, it's a it isn't the term Martyr or witness at all and would you like to amend your statement as well?

If that's the term and then didn't amend the statement at that point so actually Luke does say eyewitnesses He doesn't say Martyrs or witnesses at that point which can be moved on to a later period of time which is a witness.

But you witness to Jesus. You witness to the truth and authenticity of Jesus by dying for him not by quoting him.

Well, and that's not what Luke was saying and. Anyway, so there's there's some idea. What what we had during the cross-examination it actually started moving more fluidly, I think. Especially when he was supposed to be asking me questions.

And then he just sort of started making statements and so I started asking him questions. And it went really it really really got into into the subject during the cross-examination and if you listen carefully if you.

Start and stop and I'd listen to the whole thing all the way through then go back and sort of start and stop and look stuff up now that probably the best way to to do it because again what he's saying is not what most evangelicals are accustomed to hearing and.

So that would be a good thing to do. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. The mp3s are up the CDs Are up. Hope to have the DVDs up later. Did I see somewhere that the conference stuff is is available yet, yes, no, maybe is the is the conference around maybe hopefully.

Well, nobody is there to answer I guess. Okay, not yet soon. Okay, I Thought something about that. We're gonna be taking our break eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We have one call on hold and we'll take your calls as well here on the dividing line.

We're right back.

Trinity, Works Righteousness, and the Value of the Forgotten Trinity

It's all works righteousness, you know. And I'm a new picture grace myself. Some religious place by weeping hard on your face.

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith it defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.

The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommend it.

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org. More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?

James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.

Caller Questions on Emergent Church, Calvinism, and Divine Sovereignty

And welcome back to the dividing line. Just it's odd that Carl Keating's e-newsletter frequently arrives right in the middle of the dividing line so I'm scanning through stuff about ecumenism and a lot a lot a lot a lot of stuff like that and Nothing really important this one.

So it goes down into the Roman Catholic folder. And there we go, which pulls up a Note from a Molinist. Oh, well, anyhow eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one is the phone number. Let's start taking some phone calls.

I just realized I did not make the window with all of this information a Unique thing so I'd either have to scroll back through there we go, or I can just do what we just did. All right. Let's talk to Michael.

Hi Michael. Hi, how you doing? I'm good you doing? All right.

We have met in a January when you did the master's series at Oak Chapel. Okay, yes, uh-huh you did a you did a yeah, I'll go to the solar strip Torah and uh, right. Mm-hmm, and you mentioned something about the emergent church.

And I want to know if you were gonna, you know, write something or do a radio show about the emergent church.

Um We've discussed it a few times I I don't see that as an area where there aren't people who are properly addressing the issue from a from a Sound biblical perspective. I don't like to try to repeat what other people are doing just because it's popular to do it.

So They're you know, da Carson's put out a book becoming a conversant with the emergent church and right and There's there's stuff out there. So I I have not felt any Any need to add that to the to the repertoire at all.

So probably not I mean outside of The normal comments concerning the fact that a a degraded ecclesiology results in degraded worship and degraded proclamation and the fact that I believe post-modern thinking is antithetical to Christian thinking and that That is important in all sorts of areas I don't see myself spending a whole lot of time on on the emergent church issue as a particular emphasis now, huh?

Other questions are mainly George Bryson and.

When you're in the Bible edge, man, yes, uh-huh the debate between myself George Bryson and Hank anagraph. Yeah, right. And um.

Even though myself I was not a Calvinist at that time. I thought it was kind of unfair. I was like two on one.

Well, you know, it's still it still went. All right read my book.

Let's ask you um, have you ever thought about debating Hank on this issue because I know he's not a Calvinist so well.

Yeah, we sort of did that and I would certainly be more than open to a discussion with with Hank on the subject Because as we have documented numerous times in a program He has come to the point now where he is starting to use Terminology and in fact, I you know, I boy, I remember recording a statement that he made at one point and And I don't ever remember if I played it on the dividing line, but there was a there was a time Within the past I'd say four months or so where I Was listening to the program and in essence a statement was made Where Libertarianism was made definitional of Orthodoxy and so if you if you did not hold to a libertarian perspective the entire answer Was based upon the idea that that to to provide a meaningful that the Christian response to the issue of evil for example was based upon libertarianism and I don't remember if I actually ended up playing that on the program or not because All I can remember was recording it, but I don't remember if I played it.

So I Apologize for that. That's what happens when you've been traveling as much as I have Been traveling of late and was really focused upon other things and then I should have been but well No, I should have been focused on what I was focused by anyway, so I would love to To be able to do that.

In fact, if you don't mind here, I just happened while doing this to.

Scan Through my stuff and I started. You want to go to Jeff in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hold on.

Great pleasure talking to you. Nice talking to you. Thank you. I had a question. I was rummaging around your internet broadcast archives and I was listening to your interview with Paul Copen. And one thing he said I kind of had questions about and I think I had a disagreement with him.

He was uncomfortable with saying that God ordains all things because that that to him was too close to saying that God or is the author of evil. I know and a lot of classical Christian thought and Westminster for example, they say, you know, God ordains all things.

But in such a way where he is not the author of evil and I've heard you on a number of occasion mentioned That God creates the potentiality for evil, right. And I just kind of wanted a clarification because I mean a lot of places in the Bible like with Judas and Joseph going down to Egypt.

It seems like a straight exegetical reading would be that God it seems that God ordains all things. And I think I would agree with the Westminster convinced Confession in such a way where he isn't the author of evil.