August 5, 2004

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.

Keyboard Bravado, Catholic Apologetics, and Unconditional Election

Well, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number. And that's also one of the reasons why we don't have to worry about having a comment section on my blog. Because you know what?

If you want to get hold of me, I'm easy enough to get hold of. It's a toll free number. We do this for two hours every week. And you know, if you want to get through, you can get through. But it's odd, isn't it strange, I've noticed, that many people who are very brave behind a keyboard are not nearly as brave when it comes to actually facing the people about whom they can be so utterly nasty and use such ridiculous language about them.

Yes indeed, the keyboard does create a lot of false bravado that doesn't translate into real life. But anyway, 877 -753 -3341. I started off the day posting something that just basically said, you know what, it's about time somebody exposed these people for what they are.

So it's just sort of been that kind of day. But anyhow, we're open to your phone calls. Don't worry, you can call in and we'll be nice. Until you say something really silly and then we'll have to slap you around a little bit.

But hey, that's okay. I also was reading an article on Envoy Magazine. Snipping Calvin's Tulip. A former Calvinist who converted the Catholic Church discusses Calvin's theological system. Christopher Cuddy is the name there.

Interesting the people they get. This fellow converted as a freshman in college. There you go, there was somebody who was grounded right in there and ready to go. But at least most of what is said, almost everything except for oddly enough, the definition of sola scriptura, it was pretty good.

I mean the responses were utterly anemic. And you may want to post some blog stuff on this because it's just unbelievable. But what do you expect for something really short? I don't know how many words this is.

It's a fairly long article for something like Envoy Magazine. But it was interesting to see. I even commented once in channels I was reading it that some of the descriptions were actually so good that it was like this is really good that maybe somebody is actually reading this.

And they'll go, oh, look at that, like unconditional election. Here's what he said about unconditional election. And then we'll take our first call. We already have a caller. And, in fact, I forgot to open up my little window thing, my bobby wobber here again, which I do very frequently so I forget who it was.

So somebody is going to have to re-enter that for me. But anyhow, unconditional election is connected to the reformed view of predestination and it builds upon their belief in total depravity. Because mankind is so radically corrupt, so thoroughly sinful, and so diametrically opposed to all things good, especially the ultimate good, God himself, man cannot even take the first step towards saving grace.

In his book, Grace Unknown, noted Calvinist theologian R .C. Sproul, I feel like we're going to hear some classical music come up in the background there as soon as I say Sproul's name. Theologian R .C. Sproul presents the reformed view of election as follows, quote, from all eternity God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish.

And there's a reference to the proper footnote there. Thus the reason why some people choose to embrace God is because God chose them first. God's choice is unconditional. His sovereign choice is not at all dependent upon any inherent good or merit he sees within us.

A Calvinist would vehemently disagree with the belief that God merely foreknows who will come to saving faith and thus bases his choice upon human decision. God isn't a celestial Santa Claus who looks down the corridor of time to see who's been naughty or nice.

He chooses us not because he sees any particular value or worth in some that is lacking in others. Rather it is only because of the mystery of his sovereign will that he chooses some and not others. There you go.

And then it's sort of funny, the response is, many Catholics are shocked when they discover the church actually permits one to hold a view similar to the Calvinist view. He goes on to talk about Thomism and stuff there.

It's sort of funny. Anyway, that's actually on the Envoy magazine website and it's fairly easy to get hold of there. So it was interesting to read that. Anyhow, I'm not sure who we're talking to here because no one reposted the thing, but we're going to be taking our phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

And I'm going to have to go, ah, there we go. Hi, Kyle, how are you doing?

Pretty good. What's up? How are you? I'm doing all right. Well, good. It's a pleasure to talk to you, James. Hey, it's good to talk to you. I was first directed to your site looking for information on Catholic apologetics, and that's the subject of my question today.

I've been involved in a discussion board on a Catholic website, dealing with all of the issues involved there. And my question is, when do you know enough is enough? When you go around and around with someone on an issue, and you've made your point, you've clarified, you've given your biblical exegesis, and they just don't seem to be getting it.

They've redefined your terms. How do you know when to end the debate, especially when there's issues you don't have an answer,.

But it doesn't seem to be going anywhere? Yeah, that's always the decision that you have to try to make, is when you are beginning to cast the proverbial pearls before the proverbial swine, when you are not any longer investing your time in a proper fashion.

And there isn't a hard and fast rule as to when that is. If there is a listening audience, if there are people who are watching this that have not demonstrated that kind of an attitude, that kind of a response, sometimes you can really extend a tremendous amount of patience toward someone that otherwise...

My headphone is sounding really strange. If I start dropping off at all, it just disappears. It's driving me insane here. I've never had this happen before. Anyway, sorry about that. This is very distracting to you, but I'm trying to think.

Anyway, I've seen situations where I've gone a lot farther than I wanted to go with a particular person, not because I was really focused upon that person, but because there were other people who were listening who I was hoping would be watching and learning.

And I remember back in... This would have been about 90, somewhere between 91 and 93, somewhere in that particular range of things there. I was spending a tremendous amount of time posting on... And this was really before I got into the Internet at all.

It was in the infancy stages of the Internet, as far as that goes. And I was posting on what were called BBSs. And there was a Catholic one, which has now, of course, become a website since then. But I would spend a day and a half writing responses.

I really would. And it was good because I was digging into resources, and the stuff that I was doing there was laying a foundation for later debates, stuff like that. It wasn't wasted time, but it was a lot of time dealing with that particular issue.

And I didn't feel like the people, especially since it was a Catholic web... Or not a web board, but a BBS. You know, I didn't really feel like I was doing real well as far as really getting through to anybody.

Years later, many years later, I get an email through our website from a fellow who is now a member of a Southern Baptist church who had been one of the... How should I describe him? Less vocal of my opponents on that particular BBS many, many years earlier.

And he narrated for me how, after I would post this... You know, sometimes it would be five, six messages. It would be very lengthy, a lot of text, a lot of citations. This is back before I had a decent enough scanner that you could scan anything.

So you're typing everything in, and it takes a lot of time. And I would post this stuff. And he says, we would then get together in private, and we would divvy this up, and we'd basically sit there and have discussions.

Okay, how can we get around this? It wasn't, how can we demonstrate this is wrong? Because we basically knew we couldn't do that. Instead, it was, how can we come up with an answer that will sound good for the people who are reading this?

And he said, eventually, I just woke up one morning and said, what am I doing? If it really isn't true, if I'm just having to struggle to find a way around it, then maybe I can find something better than this.

And he came under conviction, and eventually left the Roman Catholic Church and renounced it and so on and so forth. And so there were many times I just wanted to throw my arms up in the air in that particular situation and say, forget this.

And you know what, I don't participate much on web boards because of the fact that if the book of Ecclesiastes was being written today, instead of in the last chapter there being, it says there's no ending of the writing of books, it would say that there's no end to the writing of web board messages.

It just goes on and on and on and on. And six months after you just pored your heart out, as far as that goes, you can have somebody basically just start repeating themselves like you never wrote everything that you wrote before.

And if you dare say, well, look back and look at what I said also, so you can't really answer and da-da-da-da-da. I fully, believe me, I fully understand the frustration of dealing with people who accuse you of doing things that they themselves are the kings of doing.

I remember a woman back in the BBS days, back in the 1200-bod BBS days, for the old folks in the audience, you're going, oh, yeah. And that automatically starts people talking about their Ataris and their Tandy computers, stuff like that.

But I remember a Roman Catholic lady named Sue Weidemark. And I'm going to tell you something. I learned early on every possible false form of argumentation from that lady. It was absolutely incredible.

And a lot of folks just are not built for it. It takes a tremendous amount of commitment. You've really got to have a clear idea as to why you're doing what you're doing. And I don't know that it's something that someone can do for a long, long period of time, to be perfectly honest with you.

I've lost a lot of patience for it as I've gotten older and a little more crotchety. And it seems to be something that younger folks can handle a little bit better. But, you know, you really have to prayerfully consider why you're doing it.

Are you doing it just so that you can, you know, fight a battle against a particular individual? Or are you really doing it because you want to get the message out there with clarity and you're using this as a forum to do so?

And since both sides are there, you know that other people are going to be watching and they're going to be evaluating and so on and so forth. And one other thing, just keep this in mind. People who do what you've been doing, and I've done the same thing, sometimes lose, and of course if they're not Reformed they would always lose sight of this, but even Reformed folks will sometimes lose sight of one particular aspect that can be extremely disconcerting to people.

Anytime you talk about truth, anytime you raise issues of the gospel, there's going to be a response. There is no such thing as neutrality toward God's truth. The gospel is powerful. The gospel is either that which is a sweet savor of life or it's the stench of death.

It's never neutral. And what that means is, if we have people who are today nominally members of what we would call evangelical churches, when the gospel is pressed upon them or when they are exposed to clear teaching concerning the gospel, it's going to have an effect upon them.

And in fact, your discussion of the truth in a particular context may result in people who are today members of what we would call true churches, leaving those true churches and joining false churches.

And that bothers people to no end. It shouldn't. Now you go, what do you mean it shouldn't? I mean, you see someone embracing falsehood, it should always bother you. Yes, in the sense that there's an image bearer of God embracing falsehood, then it bothers you, yes.

But if they're a hypocritical, false member of a true church, they're probably in graver danger there than if they'd go ahead and show their true nature, embrace the falsehood, and now at least you know who you need to be evangelizing and who you need to be talking to.

And so when we do debates, I know those debates have resulted in people becoming members of other churches, of false churches. I know that. But that's the nature of truth. Truth is going to make that happen.

It's going to force people to do things. Someone was just mentioning in Channel, John 6. And what happens there? The beginning of John 6, you've got 5 ,000 people that look like they are followers of Jesus.

They are even called people who are seeking Jesus. And you get to the end of John 6, and there's 12 left, and one of them is said to be a devil. The proclamation of God's truth, and in that case, the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the only source of spiritual life, and that is so detrimental to the ego of man, what was the result of that?

Those people walked away. But you see, they needed to walk away. They needed to be offended. They needed to have their true need exposed, and that's what God's truth does. So keep that in mind. Don't let that get you down when you see that happen.

It's going to happen. In fact, if it doesn't, then I'd suggest to you that probably you are not being as clear and as forceful in your proclamation of the gospel as you should be. So, you know, when people interview me on television and radio programs, they don't have any problem getting me started.

You know, once they ask a question, I just take off, and I just did about 15 minutes right there in answer to your question. It's funny because you went to John 6.

I had another question. I don't know if you have a moment to answer. Oh, we certainly do. No problem. Okay. I've heard you talk about it. I've gone back and listened to the archives on the divining lines, and I've read the things on the Internet, and I'm not a Calvinist yet, or maybe never will be, but I've definitely been challenged.

And, you know, I follow the context that it is about unbelief, as you've said many times, that Jesus is explaining their unbelief. And I follow that, you know, all that the Father gives will come, and because it's the will of the Father that they're not lost, that all who come will be raised.

Right. And I definitely follow that connection that is being made clear. But in verse 44, I see that, you know, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I'll raise him up on the last day.

And I can see that the one who comes on and then is raised, but I'm not seeing that the one that all who are drawn definitely come. Like, I'm not seeing that part. Okay. How would you, like, make that point?

Yeah.

Well, you see, the first thing is, if you're going to assume or conclude that the one who is drawn in verse 44, unless the Father sent me draws him, if you want to make a class available who are drawn but do not come, then in essence what you're saying is the hymn in the middle of the verse can be different than the hymn actually only three words later in the Greek language.

So you're introducing a distinction between the two hymns, and of course I would say where does that come from in John 644 or in the context of John 644, especially since the very next verse continues that thought, and it says, It is written of the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God.

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. The hearing, I'm sorry, go ahead. Well, okay.

See, when I read it, you know, I see that the one who comes is the subject of the sentence, and both hymns refer back to the one who has come, and definitely the one who comes is raised up. So I'm not saying that the hymn is a different verse.

Well, first of all, actually you have an infinitive there. No one is able to come to me unless the Father sent him. He draws him. That's at the main clause there is actually, and I will raise him up on the last day.

The hymn, are you saying the hymn in both is the same? If one is drawn by the Father, one is raised up by the Son?

Well, the subject I would say is the person who has come. No one can come to me unless the Father who draws him, and that hymn is referring back to the one who has come. And then I will raise him, again, the one who has come on the last day.

So we're getting two pieces of information about the person who has come. We're finding out that he was first drawn and that he's also going to be raised up. But I'm not saying that it's saying that the one who's drawn is always raised up.

Well, who are the ones in John 6, 37? How many of those who are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son? All of them. Okay. And so are you saying that it's possible to come to the Son without being drawn?

To come without being drawn. No, it's an impossibility, according to 44. Okay, all right.

So where would you get the idea of a person who is drawn but does not come? I'm just trying to find where this middle group is. I'm not seeing where you're coming up with it. Because would you agree with me that all who are raised up on the last day, that's to eternal life, right?

Sure, yes. Okay. And so if all who are drawn are raised up to eternal life, then you're not asserting some sort of a general drawing different than this drawing, are you? Is there a general drawing that is not ethical?

Like a universal drawing that can be rejected. Right. But then there's a special drawing. You see, I don't know. I'm not sure if giving and drawing is a synonym.

I would say that all that are given by the Father to the Son are drawn by the Father to the Son. Because remember, what's the Father's will for the Son in John 6, 38, and 39? That he lose none of those but raise them up on the last day.

There's your connection, is raised up on the last day. All that are given to him, it's the Father's will that he raise them up on the last day.

Oh, and then he uses the same language about the one drawing. There you go, in verse 44.

And then, verse 45, then says, ties this all together by saying, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, that's another way of saying the drawing, does what? Comes to me. Back to 37. I mean, it's almost, if you were to put each of these clauses, and I should do this, I should put a web page together where you do this.

If you put each of these clauses in 37, 38, and 39, and then 44 and 45, and put them parallel to one another, it's almost like lacing up a boot. It absolutely ties all the concepts together. The exact same language is used.

In fact, if you look at the phrase at the end of John 6, 45, it's the exact same phrase that's in John 6, 37. And so it's a clear unit of thought with all the same language being used. And, you know, people, I've had some folks get absolutely emotionally upset with me when I say this.

But I honestly, I get sent by people all the time, their means of trying to get around John 6, 35 through 45. And I've looked at them. I'm talking Lutheran scholars and all sorts of things like that. And I can honestly tell you, I've never, ever seen an explanation that even begins to allow the text to define its own terms.

It has to use a means of exegesis that none of us, for example, who believe in the deity of Christ and who would go over to Titus 2, 13 together, or John 20, 28 together, and we'd all be on the same page as far as exegesis goes.

I've never seen anyone who would agree with me about how we're supposed to do exegesis on the deity of Christ or the Trinity or whatever else. They all abandon that form of exegesis when we get to John 6.

I can stay consistent. They don't. That tells me something. So take a look at it. All right. Appreciate it. All right. Thanks a lot, man. All right. God bless. Bye-bye. 877 -753 -3341. I have no idea whatsoever what the next question is about.

It could be a long one. It could be a short one. But we're going to take a shot at it anyways. Andrew in Orlando, Florida. Hi, Andrew.

Noah, the Flood, and the Limits of Naturalistic Explanations

Hey, Dr. Ryan. Thanks for taking my call. How are you doing? What's going on? This is kind of unusual, and it may seem kind of childish, not really the Catholic thing that's going on right now.

Believe me, I don't get up in the morning looking forward to that, so it's okay.

I've looked into a lot of the higher apologetics that are against higher criticism and things like that. Whenever people in high school approach me with stuff like that, I can usually answer pretty good.

But here's one that I just couldn't. I thought maybe your background as a biologist and things like that could help out. All right. When Noah landed after the flood, I have two questions. One, how did the individual pairs of each species, how were their grandchildren not all deformed and stuff?

And what did the carnivorous animals eat, especially the ones that would only eat live things, like some kinds of snakes? Yeah.

Well, a couple things. The problem we have, really the background as far as I can see it in the question, is we want to look at an incredibly unique situation, but we want to look at it not in an incredibly unique context, but in the same context that we would observe, we go over the local preserve and examine the way that species survive today, so on and so forth.

How those animals survived in the context of the Ark had to have been just as supernatural as the survival of Noah and his family. I mean, there was a reason why the natural order was suspended, because as is clear to anybody, animals generally do not get together with their, you know, a male and a female and go walking into a man-made structure on their own.

So, obviously, something's going on there at that particular point in time that violates the normal behavior of animals. And so if their behavior there at the beginning is different, then I don't understand why we would expect that their eating habits or anything else is going to be exactly the same while they're in the Ark, or immediately thereafter until the generation...

They're put into the Ark for a purpose. The purpose is so that there doesn't have to be a re-creation in totality after the destruction of that evil generation that existed at that time. So, if the purpose of putting them in the Ark is so as to begin the process all over again, then obviously that's a supernatural purpose and there's going to be a supernatural means of getting those populations started that once they're started is no longer necessary after that.

It's similar to the issue of creation itself. I mean, if stars and lights in heaven are created for a purpose, and that purpose is relevant here, then they have to be visible. And so, you know, I've always wondered why it is...

Well, I guess I shouldn't wonder. I know why it is. And I understand the whole process of thinking. If you're taught to be a naturalist, if you're taught to examine things without any reference to an overriding divine purpose or anything like that, then you're going to import that into the examination of everything else.

And so, you know, that makes sense. But we as Christians especially need to be careful that when we study science, there's everything right in studying science, but the problem is we can't forget that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

And hence, when we examine those things, there's a fine line to walk between being a good scientist and being a humanistic scientist, being one that rejects the existence of the supernatural and immediately just simply says, I can't look at that because I am a scientist and therefore I must, you know, automatically define God out of existence.

So, you know, my answer basically to say the whole flood situation was like supernatural and therefore to look for naturalistic responses and reasons as to why a carnivore would for a specific purpose in a limited period of time be able to eat something other than his neighbor, you know, that's just looking at the whole story from the wrong angle.

All right. Thanks a lot. Okay. Hey, thanks for calling, man. Enjoy it down there in Orlando, Florida. Go ride a fun thing for me. Just don't throw up on the people below you. And I've never ridden one down there in Orlando.

I've seen them. I've driven right past them, but I've never had a chance to ride any of those neat rides down there. I really wasn't expecting Andrew to respond to that. But we're supposed to be taking a break, I believe.

Yes, we're supposed to be taking a break. And we have Jason in the United Kingdom who wants to talk to me. And I had some British people in the channel saying that my accent's not a good one. And I don't feel very good about that.

So I may have to talk to Jason about that. Hey, turn that music down. You can't hear me.

We'll be back after a break. Bye. Such a rarity today. Many stop strong and true and quickly fall away.

Convictions once held and died for among Bible-believing Protestants are now being reconsidered with the advent of the recent Auburn Avenue Movement. Is there currently a common basis for dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants?

Were the signers of ECT correct in their ecumenical efforts and all of the Reformed scholars who opposed them in error? Does Trinitarian baptism make one a member of the New Covenant? Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Join us in Los Angeles, California on November 5, 2004 for a full three hours of moderated debate between Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Douglas Wilson of the Auburn Avenue Movement and New St. Andrews College.

As these topics are debated between two of the most respected representatives of the opposing viewpoints. Additional information and tickets can be ordered at aomin .org. That's www .aomin .org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day.

The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45. Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE. If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What's a debate reserved for Roman Catholics and the Reformers, the doctrine of justification is now being challenged from within the walls of Reformed evangelicalism itself. Join Alpha and Omega Ministries as we embark on our first national conference and confront this very issue.

Justification, the heart of the gospel. With pastor and co-author of Holy Scripture, the ground and pillar of our faith, David King. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Founders Conference, Tom Askell.

New Testament Research Ministries founder and author of Evangelical Answers, Eric Svensson. The founder of the Spurgeon Archive and executive director of Grace to You, Philip Johnson. Nationally renowned Reformed Christian artist, Steve Camp.

And the founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author, Dr. James White. Join us at the Los Angeles, California LAX Sheraton Ballroom on November 6th, 2004, beginning at 845 a .m. Seating is limited, so order your tickets now at aomin .org.

That's www .aomin .org.

Post-Break Banter, Technical Troubles, and Conference Logistics

Now the pilgrim's progress is not an easy way. It's a journey to this by day. It's a walk of praise.

And welcome back to The Dividing Line. There's a lot of really odd people in our channel. Only 43 people. That's actually sort of small for us on a Thursday afternoon. I think we had more or less. We've had, what, up 70, 80 at one point.

I forget why that was. If I mention it on The Dividing Line, say we're going to do something odd or we're going to have an announcement or something like that. Man, everybody's a critic. You know, I'm asked to scroll this ad about the cruise and stuff like that, and so I put in bright yellow.

I have an almost black background. I have a very dark background. It's very easy to see. But it's yellow. I can't see it. Let's put a background on it. Oh, well. Let's... Uh-oh. I see an announcement from on high.

The powers that be say I need to announce something. Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's turn my thing up here, and I will give you a proper introduction. Here we go.

There. You feel better? That's amazing. We need to do something with your unit there. We've got a lot of 60-cycle hum in there.

Well, you know, I'm not the one accountable for the... You changed something. I haven't touched it. You know I did. You know I did. Yeah. Because I'm recording off of those... Who's accountable? Hey, but... I...

Did you test it before the program? Huh? I learned a long time ago, buddy, when you're in charge of technical stuff, if you don't test it before the program, it's on you. Okay?

You're a very funny man. Anyway... Mike, thank you very much. Yeah, well, I'm fresh out of bailing wire, so I wouldn't have been able to do anything with it anyway. Mike and I had a conversation with the fellas over at the Sheraton today.

Oh, you did. And I want to let everybody know, this is very important, the rooms in our reservation block are going very quickly. In fact, we anticipate, in the next few weeks, a kind of a big rush to grab up the remaining rooms.

If you're going to get a room at the Sheraton and get your tickets either to the conference or to the debate, November 5th and 6th, you need to do it now. Now. You need to make those reservations, get on the list, get those reservations done, or you will probably be staying at a place down the street.

Or on the street. One or the other. Depending, because the other side of that coin is that once our block of rooms is eaten up, once they're gone, the $89 a room price goes up to somewhere around $150 to $200.

Can you say cha-ching? Cha-ching. That's what this place normally charges for those rooms. So we're getting an excellent discount, and if you want to get, if you plan on staying there, my advice is get it done and get it done now.

You mean there might be reformed procrastinators? Is that what you are suggesting?

Oh, come on. We're Baptists for the most part, right? We show up 20 minutes late to everything.

Actually, I think we're going to have more Presbyterians at this than we're going to have Baptists.

Well, I don't know how the Presbyterians do things, if they show up at all. So I don't know. Okay. We'll have to ask David King about all that.

We had 50 people calling in. As soon as they heard that, they said forget it. Not going to do that. Okay.

Well, was that the whole announcement? That was the announcement. You can go ahead and cue your music again. And fix that 60-cycle hum. Hold on a second.

Much better. Oh, turn it back up. Oh, oh. See, that's what has to come after that. Isn't that what has to come after that? Get your room now. I cannot believe you sang that. That is absolutely amazing and disgusting at the same time.

Yeah, you know, I think we have callers. I know we do, and we need to get back to them. Okay. I fixed the 60-cycle hum. You noticed I knew what to do. Yes, I know you knew what to do. Turn that line in often.

That's what you did wrong. I knew it. Okay. All right. Well, let's go to our callers. Let's go to Jason. Jason in the United Kingdom. Hello, Jason. Good evening. How are you? I'm fine. Oh, good. Actually, it's in the morning there, isn't it?

It is, yes. Yes, okay. In fact, I saw you this morning talking with a guy named Frink, and you were saying, let's get a bunch of Brits to call in all at once. Yeah, yeah.

Okay. I'm sure everybody in channel will really appreciate that. Oh, they would, yes.

So go ahead. I have a question about presuppositionalism. Yes. I'm trying to say that in the proper way.

Well, I was going to ask apologetics. Apologetics. Is there ever a point?

Well, it might be helpful to maybe explain what we're talking about here, because not everybody just automatically goes, well, what are you talking about? When I say presuppositionalism, what I'm referring to there, of course, is the belief that you can't simply present to a rebel sinner a set of facts and expect that the rebel sinner is going to evaluate that set of facts on a neutral ground.