Cross Examination from the Codrington Debate/Phone Calls

Greetings. Welcome to the dividing line. On a thursday afternoon. We're gonna open up the phone lines at 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number if you'd like to call into the program today.

And while the legions of people are calling in on whatever topics they have in mind that are apologetically relevant. Anyways we last evening got notification of the provision of the um recordings of the debate with graham codrington in johannesburg south africa.

From two weeks ago tomorrow. Yeah sort of like that. Maybe actually a little less than that because it's nine hours. But you know two weeks ago from tomorrow morning at 10 a .m something like that anyway.

Um looks like they're pretty good quality. Like i said it was a good venue uh the the church was. When i first walked in i was a little worried because they're having a having a heat wave and most places just do not have what they call aircon.

Um most places abbreviate things shorter than we do in the united states. I'm just a weird weird thing you know to rent to let um elevator lift um air conditioning aircon anyway. Um but we walked in and i heard somebody says turn on the air conditioning.

I'm like yes. So it ended up being a a comfortable uh context for the debate. And so what i'm gonna do while rich struggles to keep up with all the phone calls at 877 -753 -3341. He looks like he's losing it in there just trying to keep everybody.

You know you might try saying it slower one please. Seven all that you mean like that.

877 -753 -3341. There's there's three threes in there anyway. Um while we line folks up uh or i queue up john denver music too um i thought i would play a portion of the debate. This was the portion where i got to ask questions of dr codrington.

Um this wasn't the audience questions but this was the actual where two of us get to uh go back and forth. And so here is uh not quite two weeks ago uh johannesburg south africa myself and graham codrington.

Romans 1, Degrading Passions, and the Progression of Sin

That's it. Zero. Okay. Dr white's your turn dr codrington. In ezekiel 1650 the singular toeva is used. Why do you not view that as having to do with homosexuality especially in light of the use of toeva.

In the levitical law toeva is i understand it and i know you're a better hebrew scholar than i am but toeva as i understand it is uh simply something that is uh defiling is an abomination is is something that is aberrant to god.

And when we look at ezekiel and if if you have your bibles why don't you go there and have a look at ezekiel 1649 and 50. It lists a number of sins and then the the phrase i'm using the new living uh translation as i read here.

It talks about the things uh that i believe. That's what we're talking about there. Yeah but it's not a good.

Translation. It's translating to plural. It's the singular. It's the toeva. What is the toeva. In light of if we interpret ezekiel yeah as having knowledge of the mosaic code what is the toeva which.

Which of the sexual sins is described as toeva. Uh i think a lot of them are described at it and a lot of things in the holiness code and a lot of other things are described as toeva as well.

So you don't know what the toeva is. Okay. You don't know what the toy was. I just needed to know if you if you knew what it was. Um you said you believe that moses would have interpreted his words the way you do so.

So you believe that israelites that two male israelites could have gone to come to moses and say we want to live together as married people uh faithfully and moses would have said hot dog let's do it.

That's an americanism. I'm sorry. That's fine. I.

Fully understand that fully understand that i'm not sure moses would have said precisely that no i get what you say the hebrew version of it i get it. There must be kosher hot dog been a beef hot dog at least.

Yes something like that. No i get that. Look that's a great question and it's an important question because i'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have and i think that's what romans one is about because the jewish culture had a very particular and we might even today use the word prudish view of sexuality even prudish view of their bodies which they still do today.

I live in a very orthodox jewish community and we still see the full covering for both men and women. And so or slightly tongue in cheek put my hand up to your question earlier. But it's a fair question in response to that i think that moses may have had the response that paul had in romans one to say these things are shameful that these things are things which are culturally unacceptable.

And i think that he probably would have had the same response that paul the rabbi would have had which is to say don't do things that are going to be a stumbling block to other people don't put stumbling blocks in the place of other people.

So to pause your question slightly i think theologically he may have said i think this is fine. Well i mean he was speaking scripture he's being god's word. So he would have said this is fine. I think he probably would have said to the people don't do it.

And i'm not trying to avoid your question anything from moses to substantiate that other than your feelings. No i'm giving you what i think paul has helped us in the rebelling tradition to understand about the difference between something that is evil and something that is shameful.

And i think that's an important distinction. What is a degrading passion. In what context romans chapter one he describes it's the introduction to the discussion of homosexuality. It's a degrading passion.

Well it's the introduction to the whole passage actually not just to the passage. So so here's how i see romans one playing out very simply that there are people here who are against god who are opposed to god.

And what happens in the in in the way in which that opposition to god demonstrates itself is they first of all start to worship other gods. They start to put things in front of god. Then they begin to descend into culturally unacceptable practices.

And they move from those into things that are demonstrably evil and murderous and all of those things. And they eventually descend down to having no mercy no empathy no love no humanity about them at all.

And i think there's a clear progression as you read through romans one of how that happens if degrading passions is is therefore part of the heading of that. That's how the degrading of the passions happens from turning away from god to doing things that are shameful to doing things that are evil to having your entire humanity stripped away from you.

I think that's a good description of what a.

Degrading passion is and yet uh the reason i asked specifically uh is that this is the therefore of verse 24. So it's it's smacked out in the middle it's not a header and it says. Therefore god gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity so that their bias be dishonored among them and then you have the exchanging of truth for a lie and then finally you get to 26.

For this reason god gave them over to degrading passions. So you don't see anything here about these are the made in the image of god but these are passions that degrade the image of god. You just see this as you.

Where does the term cultural appear here. That's the shameful. So the things that are shameful the what term is that animatai or animai. Sorry in the greek. The things that are shameful in what. That in in what they were doing.

I think paul is showing a progression in romans one a progression that that leads them into things that are first of all shameful and then things that are evil. And the way we understand this is when we turn to chapter two.

Paul's going to then say to the jews look i i've painted this picture. I've painted a picture of the evil nasty gentiles. But be careful of how you judge. Please go and read the first few verses of chapter two.

Be careful jews how you judge these people. Be careful that you are not judged in the same way that you have judged. Going to go on to talk about circumcision which is their shameful act as far as the gentiles were concerned.

And he's then eventually going to in chapter three get to the point of saying we're all in this position. We're all in a position where we are capable of very quickly moving away from god and all of us are in need of god.

So the phrase path a atamias degrading passions. You.

Say that's simply something that's shameful culturally that it's not reflective of a exchange.

Of the truth of god for a lie. If they're doing it in a cultic context. If they're doing it in. Where's the cultic context here. In. In. In romans one. Uh you pretty much pick it up from 18 to 24 just as you've read it.

Where they're making little i. I went through 18 to 20. I went through 18 and.

Following in my time and i never had to use the term cultic once. Could you show me where it's.

Found in the text itself. Yeah uh verse 23. Is that good enough. Instead of worshiping the glorious ever-living god they worshiped idols made to look like mere people or birds or animals or snakes. Okay.

So god let them go ahead with their degrading passions. And so the. Exactly the context. Right. So.

The the the the futility of the minds and the darkening the understanding. This is only within.

Cultic worship. No there's a progression that's going. That's the same sentence. The progression is that they move away from god. God gives them over. This is actually the the punishment that comes from god is that god allows people to do the things that they want to do.

It's a very scary passage here of scripture that god allows you to to do the things that you want to do and those shameful things become evil things become things that completely eat you out from the inside.

So when does the cultic context end. I think it's all the way through so but different commentators.

Would argue that in different ways. So. So all the sins uh mentioned. So uh if if you're greedy in the temple that's bad but if you're greedy outside the temple that's okay. No because there's.

A change in in word. Here he goes from calling things shameful uh to calling things evil and you can see that in verse 28. So when they refused to acknowledge god he abandoned them to their evil minds.

He now uses the word evil instead of degrading or shameful and it then repeats. And let them do the things they shouldn't have done. Can you lexically demonstrate what you're saying.

That that that that those terms are not at all semantically related to one another. Yes i can. And.

I don't have that in my in my head unfortunately. Uh not being a greek scholar as yourself. Okay all.

Right you can certainly find them on my website. Then let's do it this way. Um do you see in verse 28 it says. God para did me all right. Again the the uh the heiress form. Right. God gave them over. Didn't that appear earlier in the same.

Well how about verse 26. For this reason god did what.

Parada can get them over but that's precisely the point i'm making. Paul is showing this progression each time god gives them over to the next layer of progression towards complete and annihilation of their humanity so that we get to the to the end of this.

Here they refuse to understand break their promises heartless they are fully aware of this death penalty. They go right ahead and do it anyway. So and that's what he's moving towards. And then in the next verse in romans chapter 2 and verse 1 he's going to turn around and hit his readers and say but you do the same things even though you possess the word of god that's true but so what you're.

Saying is disobedient to parents in verse 30 is farther down the progression than the uh the uh degrading passions a few verses earlier. That's the only way we can it is. I would agree with that.

Okay which is why i don't believe that homosexuality is as much of a problem as you do.

Okay fantastic uh again. That's uh. That's uh. I thought i had popped those back up. That's uh. Ridolf's favorite term. Fantastic uh or 100 100. That's 100 uh it was.

Like i was laughing at that during it was like why why is that fantastic.

Yeah it's just a transitionary statement on uh on his part. So um so there you have it was only 10 minutes. Uh he had had 10 minutes. I had 10 minutes. I don't remember how long the audience questions were.

Um some of them were pretty interesting. Uh because uh ridolf put it they put his phone number up on the um up on the screen and so you texted questions to his phone and um some of them just were not suitable for a public.

Um airing shall we say it was. Uh it was it was interesting. But um anyway we uh have the videos downloaded and so i imagine it's just a.

Matter of uh well fortunately because this is all essentially functioning as a single camera shoot uh for us because they've already done the camera uh work between the different cameras and shifted them live.

Uh i don't really have to do a whole lot of editing and drop some titles in and uh it should render. Hopefully uh have it ready by the middle of next week. Middle of next week. Yeah i don't know it seemed to seem to go faster just a few months ago.

Oh you're a funny guy. Well you know we'll see if it's if it comes before that. That's great. So it's just just trying to remember how this works. Right. Yes i'm trying. Well there is that trying to remember how this works.

You know it's a new uh a new task on my plate. All over again. Uh-huh. Yes. Okay all right. Just all right.

Good didn't take me as long to prepare for the debate as anyway. Uh actually uh right along those lines before we go to the billions of phone calls that we have uh waiting online at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

Um this morning uh well when was it uh monday or tuesday janet mefford uh posted a review of the new alan chambers book. Now if you don't know who alan chambers is alan chambers was the last president of exodus international and uh he's the one that closed it down and uh apologized to all the homosexuals that they had hurt.

And uh has now put this book out and i'll be perfectly honest with you i when when it ended i was like that that's it i it's done. Um because i was listening to it this morning i went on a long ride and i know it wasn't all that long a book about 200 pages i think it said in kindle and i still had a distance to go when it uh it finished.

And i'm i was hearing some uh some some ways of contacting alan chambers uh facebook and stuff like that and i was wondering what i don't get what this has to do with where we are in the book. And then it moved on that was it was done.

And what was not anywhere in the book was any absolutely any interaction with the biblical text at all. Nothing it was nothing but his life story up to this point um getting married and and but but even then it just seemed horribly incomplete.

And just just i don't even know how to respond to it to be i don't know i wouldn't even know how to review how to review it um to be honest with you because it just there's wasn't anything there uh there's so many questions that most of us would have that just weren't asked or answered in in the book.

It was i i don't recall it being very expensive but i don't really think i got my money's worth out of it that's for sure. So i expected you know at least another round of revisionist argumentation. And you know i i discovered that my understanding of these texts and biblical sexuality had been wrong.

And just wasn't there just wasn't there so hard to hard to even uh even know what to say about other than wow that was fluffy um it just wasn't wasn't much there uh to to respond to. Now obviously alan chambers is you know the favorite of the quote-unquote gay christian movement.

Because well here's proof you you can't cease being gay. It's just it's just the way you are it's the way you're born um that's it that's it. And i've not heard him speak on the subject. Maybe he's better in that forum than the written forum.

But i was not was not impressed uh at all with the uh with the uh the book itself there just really wasn't anything there really wasn't anything there so little disappointing along those lines um but i'm sure we'll get lots of press uh anyways.

So a bunch of you decided to jump online. We actually are filled up now. That's uh that's impressive haven't had that happen in a while. So let's get started uh and let's uh talk to craig in new york.

Hi craig. Hey dr white i'm really appreciative to be on the line with you. I really enjoy your debates and you hear lots of callers give the old spiel like that but i really do mean it. Okay and my question to get to the point is i'm a reformed baptist but i really like to read church history and i have a lot of questions about the the priesthood in its nascent form.

Okay and particularly it appears that ambrose and chrysostom in the fourth century make references to the priesthood being a function of forgiving sins. Now like do you have any comments on just.

How that developed doctrinally in the early church. Well have you seen my debate with uh.

Mitch pacwa on the subject. Yes i did and quite frankly i think um mr pacwa had so little information and really didn't even substantiate anything about history. I did like that. I did like the comment.

I did like the comment about mrs pacwa though. Yeah that's true. But he did he did.

Make the assertion and it's it's it's primarily the assertion that is made. That um what you have happening uh in an evolutionary sense is uh the transformation of the term presbyteros into a meaning that it it could never have in any meaningful new testament study uh but over time it becomes the foundation for the distinction between episcopos bishop or pastor.

And certainly what you have as the church enters into a period of time where tradition is going to become more and more important and the distinction between the church and the synagogue in the sense of forgetting old testament backgrounds allegorical interpretation the impact of origin.

You start seeing this in the fourth century writers into the fifth century writers and as a result you start getting these unbiblical concepts that are just flowing from the fact that as the church becomes normative and no longer persecuted um or even and it started before that as as the um like with shipwreck yeah well yeah and even even during periods before that there is going to be a pressure upon the church to abandon biblical norms for what would be considered proper religious perspectives which would include um a a complicated church hierarchy priesthoods that's what people are expecting religions to have.

Uh certainly that's exactly what happened and and you know we were warned about it in the in the old testament and you start seeing the same thing happening as far as the development of the anchorite movement the desert fathers in egypt the rise of monasticism and hence the the creation of a priesthood and you also i'm sorry i think it also comes with the fact that the the book that would be the most uh counteractive to this movement would be hebrews.

And there just seems to be because of its deep connection to the old testament scriptures and the uh rise of allegorical interpretation they're just hebrews just did not seem to function for many people as what you'd call first level scripture because if you don't understand the backgrounds then you're really not going to find the argumentation of hebrews to be compelling.

And i've i've lamented that many many times and i think this is an area that just as in the degradation of the view of atonement uh likewise the concept of priesthood very clearly addressed in hebrews there's only one high priest he holds his priesthood opera baton without succession uh the idea of a of another priesthood the necessity of another priesthood very thoroughly refuted by what you have uh in the book of hebrews.

So uh yeah it's it's a period of time where you have a lot of transitions taking place and if you if you do not have a view of sola scriptura then you're going to be really confused as to what you're supposed to end up doing because those who would say well see you need to have the tradition of the church uh now they're stuck with francis and who knows where that's going to go.

Um but um i mean i mean i mean that that could have been another subject today uh because of what's going on i've got a bunch of articles i just haven't gotten to it yet uh but the stuff with francis and this uh this synod in rome and the issues of sexuality and marriage.

Wow it's um fascinating stuff. But anyways um you know as i said in the debate with paqua this is this is a clear issue where once again if if that which is the anustos is normative then you simply cannot have the priesthood concept because it's not there um paul gives us clear ecclesiology in regards to two offices and the one that becomes central in roman catholicism he never says a word about so it's one of those many places where you have to deny sola scriptura to be able to hold to the roman catholic perspective on these things because it's.

It's a thoroughly unbiblical office now the office seeing that there were people that were saved third fourth fifth centuries when the when it really started evolving that's that's the part that's sort of uh that sort of bothers me thinking about how clearly it's so unbiblical that a priest has the the ability to forgive and to retain sin.

And yet that was mainstream doctrine during that time. I mean what if a protestant denomination taught that today. Well i mean could people be.

Saved believing that. Well people can be saved believing a lot of things. I'm not sure why anybody thinks perfection of theology is the standard of salvation. The gospel is fairly straightforward. Um it i'm not sure what you what you mean by that.

I mean um i know anglicans that refer to their ministers as as priests. Um i certainly would never do that. Um i think it's dangerous. I think it can lead to all sorts of issues. Just look at anglicanism today that should give you enough warning.

Uh as far as uh the mainstream view not the conservative guys down sydney. But um. But that's not a part of the gospel. Uh so i mean it's not it's not defined somewhere as um you know we have certain things that we are told if you got a false gospel anathema you've got the wrong jesus.

No salvation. Uh okay central things you know deny the resurrection incarnation and out. Um but it does seem we live in a day where where people think that yeah. So if there's any difference that could possibly maybe lead down the road to a major thing then you're you're out of the kingdom.

And i i've never quite understood exactly how that how that works. Um was there a great rise in nominalism. Was there a tremendous number of people who would be uh identified as christians outwardly who weren't sure.

Um does that mean that every person whoever believed somebody was a priest is is automatically lost. No. Um i mean i would suppose the issue more so is.

In galatians that even believing that you know to add circumcision atop the gospel and does the gospel is anathema so to add that in order to have your sins forgiven it must be mediated between a man seems perilously close to to adding something to the gospel which makes it a non-gospel.

Well if.

You're talking about a someone actually stating that the only way of salvation is for forgiveness through a particular form of the priesthood but i doubt you're going to find any of them saying that they're going to see it as a means god uses but they're going to make a very clear distinction between saying uh this is a part of the gospel and necessary and the only way that in which god forgives um and and and anything else.

So i i mean sure yeah if someone wants to say that the only way of salvation is through this priesthood then yeah that would definitely uh take you to that that that perspective. And that's what rome certainly has done today.

But that's something that took a lot of development a lot of a lot of a lot of time for that to uh uh to come together. You find you find inconsistencies in all of these people and because they're not god i'm sorry they're not they're not god so well but the point is as as as unbiblical traditions develop um you know you know people that's why i don't a lot of these books that you'll buy let's say well this unbiblical doctrine developed at this time and then this one at this time and and a lot of the books on roman catholicism are filled with stuff like that it didn't work that way it's not how history works and it's not like everybody woke up one morning and oh we have a new doctrine now and so everybody who believes it is now lost um no you had you had inconsistencies as these unbiblical traditions became more and more popular over time eventually necessitating uh the reformation itself.

But the reformers recognized that the uh the idea that well nobody before us was ever saved um was not a was not a tenable or or uh even biblical position.

It just seems to me that like when ambrose is writing against the donatist he one of the things he takes issue with is that the donatist reject the idea that sins are forgiven through the catholic church and he actually speaks specifically about that in the 33rd paragraph chapter 7 on on the priesthood and then and so i don't want to get into detail because you don't know what questions those callers are coming up with and you can't have all.

Well no no again no this is just something i've talked about many times before. Uh as bb warfield said the reformation inwardly considers nothing more than the victory of augustine's doctrine of grace over augustine's doctrine of the church.

And when augustine argued against the donatists um what he argued there was very much formational for later roman catholic teachings. Same thing with ambrose when arguing against the donatists on ecclesiastical issues.

You're going to have that kind of stuff. You're also going to find places where ambrose is going to give a very clear grace presentation. So what i'm saying is they were inconsistent.

Um i would i would agree and i think a lot of it arised out of the fact that uh the church became a state religion in the roman empire. Well yeah. And now they have all these nominal believers coming in.

So they needed visible forms of penance visible forms of confession and things that affect even though who really was a christian anymore. Yeah and that's discussed uh pretty well.

In the book um reformers and their stepchildren um that uh especially goes through the development of the donatist controversy and sacralism and and all the things that came with that um it'd be a good good book to look at.

Craig thank you very much for your phone call today all righty we're going to move on here and talk with uh jeff in philadelphia. Hi jeff how are you.

Doing dr white i uh your your phone uh screener guy told me not to give a big report but i just wanted to say thank you for all your help. Um our outreach during the world meeting of families and the pope's visit went very well and uh a lot of your influence.

Uh was there and uh um so i wanted to thank you and thank you for getting me in touch with chris arnzen that was very helpful too.

Well someone actually thanked me for getting getting in so many types of chris arnzen. That's normally normally i'm getting blamed for that but anyway i i actually was got to go to carlisle.

Pennsylvania meeting. So in the plot there you go there's. He's not just a myth he is no no the man.

The myth the legend the chris arnzen. Yes uh yeah yeah oh great. Now someone's calling him.

Oh good and it's actually a different chris. All. Right. Okay good. Um so i wanted to um uh besides thanking you for all that um i had a couple uh i guess through a lot of interactions online and in person with catholics i had a few things.

Uh one of the things that i popped up repeatedly was pretty much uh every even religious catholics um the vast majority don't think there's a difference between us about justification and it takes a very long time to convince them.

I was talking to a priest for like 10 minutes before he's like oh and then he gave me the uh anticipated objection of uh roman 6 -1 and i was like this should not take this long with someone who went to seminary.

But um the other thing i wanted to kind of um uh i saw something you posted uh maybe a few days ago right after the debate and i encountered this online with um um a religious catholic where it seemed like they had a pretty low view uh compared to us of scripture like you know they believe basically archaeology didn't really support much um that the bible was filled with contradictions but they were like a devout catholic and i kind of some of that was in your debate one of your debates on the apocrypha when you were bringing up that there was historical errors in the apocrypha and i was like there there seemed to be a link between that and you know jesus explicitly has a very high view of the gospel and um and it seems like there's a tie-in with what i guess uh i didn't know if you when i missed the first few minutes of your uh of the dividing line today but uh where i guess your debate opponent tried to say that jesus just was limited by his humanity and didn't understand.

You must be talking about the gagnon kirk debate. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Oh maybe.

That was the gagnon kirk debate. Okay maybe. That was the gagnon kirk debate. Yes i thought you posted something about it on on uh social media um where that jesus is limited by his humanity so he wasn't aware that he was wrong about homosexuality or something like that.

Right. And kind of i. I would assume the catholics have to take a a similar position on jesus's view of scripture since jesus had a very high view of scripture in scripture in in the gospel. Well i did.

Yeah. The question is is like how do you tackle someone who's saying no jesus is. Is that limited by his humanity not that he just doesn't know the day or the hour of the second coming. He's completely off base about like whether jonah actually happened or or you know genesis one.

Two etc. Well there there certainly isn't any um official roman catholic uh doctrine that would give any basis for what daniel kirk said. Um but obviously there's just as wide a variety of viewpoints amongst roman catholics as there is amongst anyone else.

Which is what makes right the argument that patrick madrid makes about sola scriptura being the blueprint for anarchy. Such a such a laugh is that uh rome has just as wide a variety of perspectives. And i would not be surprised at all if the current pope would not be friendly toward expressions of limited knowledge on the part of christ in regards to him being just an idealized man.

He's very very very friendly with very liberal forms of theology. So but he hasn't said so you can't can't really go there. But the point is you you there is no single our roman catholic view of scripture.

And when you try to define the dogmatic statements that's not in any way going to reflect um especially the people that you meet in the street because rome it it's it's just like walking into a christian bookstore you run into one guy who's reading benny hinn and one guy who's reading carl bart and and never shall the twain meet uh as far as being able to figure out any consistency.

And uh roman catholicism just as wide a spectrum of things if not wider in some in some fashion actually because there's so much cultural.

Catholicism um in terms. But i understand that in terms of people you do run into with that kind of view either within the roman communion or about the uh homosexual issue. Uh like how would you um just defend that that jesus wasn't so limited by the incarnation that he you know was basically.

Making those sort of errors. Well i i don't think dr kirk believes in an incarnation uh from what i've read it seems he believes jesus is an idealized man and that what we are getting in the gospels is a uh is a mythical uh presentation that jesus was just a guy uh he was just a great religious leader but he was just a guy uh.

So historic concepts of incarnation that kind of level of supernaturalism and things like that i don't think would be would be relevant. Um you know someone who has has gotten the point of believing that jesus is just a man.

Is someone who who doesn't even believe the um the historical testimony of the apostles themselves. Because it's painfully clear from mark onward that you cannot squish jesus down to those parameters without ignoring what mark says.

I mean climax of mark's gospel. Jesus stands before the high priest and quotes from psalm 110 and uh daniel 7 and says i'm the son of man and who is given a kingdom and is those and his people give him letrua.

They give him the highest form of worship. And the high priest tears his robe and says what more need do we have of testimony. You've heard the blasphemies worthy to die. So uh from the earliest uh strata of tradition that we have all the way through all the gospels you have the deity of christ being presented.

So once you once you abandon that there's really no reason to have a religious discussion any longer about homosexuality because they don't have a religious basis upon which to have it anymore. They don't have a revelation.

Uh it's now just going to be a matter of which scholars you choose and which social scientists you read. And and uh you know whatever the cultural flow is there's really no no basis for having any further discussion at that point.

Because you don't have any revelation upon which.

To stand. Yeah and that makes a lot of sense. Yeah i just um yeah i i mean at least the response i had was kind of that you know jesus. I just pointed to jesus in the scriptures and just uh at least with the roman catholic and they're like well his view of scripture was a lot higher than.