Reformed Baptist and Church of Christ discuss 1 Peter 3:21 :: Part 1

He's using Romans. You're on Truth or Proof.

Travis, what's going on, man? What's wrong with your buddy Trey? Hey, I just,

I wanted to let you know, me and Cameron, we're on the road right now, so I'm sorry if our signal's kind of staticky.

But we're on the road to see Trey at his church. I'm getting to preach on Sunday, so we thought we would tune in with Truth or Proof.

Alright, well, I'm talking about 1 Peter 3 .21 tonight. Okay, let me, so I got the light on in the car, so let me turn there.

Well, if you're driving, you probably don't need to read your Bible. Cameron's driving.

Cameron, you want to say hey? Hey, Travis. What's up, Cameron? Okay, I'm there, so I'm not driving, so I can follow along a little bit with you.

Alright, so 1 Peter 3 .21, I asked Trey to explain it, and he wanted to go off on some other subjects.

And he invited me on y 'all's program, and I already kind of talked to you,

Jeremiah, and you understood, at least from the Scriptures, that I have came to the point where I have to withdraw from Trey.

He's a brother. The Bible says to withdraw, to avoid him. You know, we've already had our debates.

But you're more than welcome to call in any time, okay? Say that again?

Oh, I said, you're more than welcome to call. Yeah, I was kind of wondering about that.

So, I'm going to be at his studio tomorrow. What if I called you in, but what if Trey wasn't on there and didn't talk?

Would you want to do that? Are you talking about like a live stream? Yeah, we're going to do a live stream tomorrow, where we can just continue more discussion about Scripture, and do a respectful dialogue, but I'm sure

Trey will stay off talking if you didn't want him to, and me and you could continue. We can talk tonight.

I was going to say we could open it up again tomorrow for a live stream, but I just wanted to say we would be flexible if you wanted to try to do something like that also.

Well, what time tomorrow? I've got a fishing tournament. That's a good question. I'll keep in touch with you tomorrow.

We might figure out a time that works better for you. Well, before, I would like for you, and I'm not going to cut you off or anything, but I would like for you to explain 1

Peter 3, 20 and 21. Sure. And give me what you think on this.

Sure, and we can go back and forth a little bit too, because I have some questions for you, but I definitely respect you.

One thing I really respect about you, Travis, is you're willing to be bold to stand up for what you believe in, and another thing that I respect about you is some of the gentlemen in the towns close where I'm from, they will say things like the

Bible says what it says, and it means what it means. The gentleman that lives close to me that I debated,

Brock Kendall, he really thinks that's a good argument, and I've noticed with you, you understand just to read it doesn't give its meaning.

You've got to look at the context. You've got to look for definition of words, and so that's why I think me and you are able to talk about these things.

I'm used to Church of Christ that they'll just read Acts 2, 38 over and over and over again and think that that's like doing something meaningful.

So I don't mind to talk with you at all about 1 Peter 3, 21. All right, well, I know you're talking about, and just for reference,

I'd rather you not talk about the brethren more on a live show because I love my brethren.

Well, no, that's fine. I just noticed you didn't mind talking about Trey, so I don't mind comparing you to other people.

Well, Trey called in. I just got off the phone with Trey. You was probably listening to him. Yeah, no,

I understand. Okay. So what you're, and I asked him before. I mean, he had the opportunity.

I was really wanting someone to call in and explain this because I had studied this for about two or three hours today.

Sure. 1 Peter 3, 20 and 21. What's your, if you would have

Cameron read that expression. No, no, I can read it. He's driving. I want him to stay focused.

But yeah, so you mean read it and then kind of just tell you my thoughts on it? Yeah. Okay, verse 20, because they formerly did not obey when

God's pages Wait, wait, what translation? ESV. Okay, let me switch over to that because I had something different.

All right, go ahead. It's the elect standard version. Okay, go ahead. Okay. So because they formerly did not obey when

God's pages waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared in which a few, that is eight persons were brought safely through water.

Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you, not as removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Okay. Now, this right here, because they formerly did not obey, who's that talking about?

The world, the unbelieving world. Okay. And when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, I think the

King James says God's long -suffering. Let me look at my

Bible. Yeah, it says when once the long -suffering of God, so patience and long -suffering is right there.

Whose part was that? I mean, you would agree that's God's part, right?

It depends what you mean. Can you explain that? Like, was this part right here, was this when

God was waiting for Noah to basically get finished with the ark?

Or what's your intake on when God's patience waited in the days of Noah? So, you'll have to double -check.

I think Genesis 6 talks about how God's Spirit will not always strive with man like 120 years or something along those.

I think that's what it's referring to, that God was long -suffering towards man. One of my thoughts is maybe

Methuselah waiting until he died before the judgment came. Okay. So, God's patience is part of the salvation, right?

Yes. And what about us today? Is God's patience part of our salvation today?

I would think 2 Peter 3, 9 does talk about how God is long -suffering, not wanting or desiring that any should perish, but all should come to Him.

However that verse is said. Well, you're close enough.

It depends on what translation. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is also long -suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Okay. So, we have nothing really on that.

While the ark was being prepared, that is, 8 souls were brought safely through water.

Now, these 8 souls, that's Noah and his family, right? Right. Okay, they were brought safely through water.

Do you have any objection on changing this to any kind of interpretation that it wouldn't say exactly what it says right here?

Sure. Actually, I want to ask you a question. This is not a controversial point, but do you mind to read the

King James Version after it says 8 persons? I want to illustrate something why

I think being familiar with different translations is important. But two things are always preeminent, even over different translations.

You've got to understand more of the Greek definition of terms to adjudicate what the English is talking about.

And context will always inform you how those words are being used. Is that okay to read the

King James Version? Yeah, I got it up here. We're in a few. That is, 8 souls were saved by water.

So the word you want to look at is by or through, right? Sure. Now, hear me,

I'm saying the King James is fine and the ESV, any word -for -word translation is fine.

But I do think this text is harder to understand because of how the King James is rendering.

It's saying that they are literally being saved by water. That's where the ESV kind of qualifies a little bit more.

We're brought safely through water. But they're saying the same thing. I just wanted to point that out.

That's the Greek word, di, I guess is how you say it. Di. Sure.

By, through. Okay. Do you think one translation, though, like really pushes something then one translation doesn't?

Is that kind of what I'm getting? No, I'm saying the King James is a good translation. How you can understand saved by water is really knowing the story of Noah to understand that he's really being saved through water or in spite of the water because,

I think you would agree with me, it's the ark that saved Noah and his family and the water was being used as an instrument of judgment on all of humanity.

Do you also think how this says, it says eight souls were saved by water.

It doesn't say eight souls were saved by the ark. Right. That's what

I think. If you understand, and I'm not saying you don't understand the story. I'm saying that if people understand the story that God was about to bring judgment on the whole world and God saved

Noah who had an obedient faith. You'll never hear me, you know, have a problem with saying an obedient faith.

But he was saved by the ark. That's what was salvific in that story. I think you would agree with me at that point.

To me, I'm not trying to be, you know, shifty or anything. Yeah, but let me ask you some questions about that. Would the ark have done any good if it didn't have no water?

Uh, yeah. It would have floated up without water? No, but Noah would have demonstrated his faith if God told him to build an ark regardless if there was water or not.

Okay. Well, we all know who sent the water, right? Yep. So we can say that God saved

Noah by sending the water so he was saved by water. Probably would just disagree at this point, not to be contrary.

But the way that I understand the story is the water was not salvific. It was an instrument of judgment.

Most people agree with me on that point that the ark is what

God used to save Noah. That's why God shut the door of the ark, saving them through that.

Because in a minute, whenever you want to, that's going to be the type, the anti -type or the correspondence that I think is important for verse 21.

So you think that the ark is the anti -type? Correct. Okay, alright.

Yeah, I'll look at that here in a minute when I get off the phone. But with the type of what the text is saying, you don't think that we could even say the gopher would save Noah?

Sure, the gopher would and the construction of the ark, I see that as going together and Noah was being obedient.

What about the wind? Go ahead. What about the wind? No, I don't think the wind was salvific.

In Genesis 8, 1 and 2, I'm talking about this was after the water starts subsiding, and the wind was from God and it delivered the ark where it needed to go and it had part of them actually getting out of the ark, the exit.

Sure, I'm okay with that. I don't see the wind being salvific, do you think that God used that to guide the ark that I think did save them from the instrument of judgment?

Yes, but that's just how I'm looking at it. Well, this right here, let me ask you this.

So you do believe the ark saved them, you just said that saved them. Yeah, now understand

I'm saying from the judgment of the flood, I'm not saying that he saved them like positionally before God.

I don't think that's what you meant, I was just clarifying. Okay, well, what I'm getting at is earlier when

Trey called in, he said, we were talking about what saves, and he said that God alone saves, but you said the ark saves.

And I'm fine with that, because I think the Bible saves. Trey, a couple things.

If you don't want me to talk about Brock, I don't really want you to talk about Trey, but that's okay. Trey would agree with me that we're talking about two different savings here.

So the first saving with Noah, him and his family are being saved from the judgment of the water on the whole earth, everyone died.

And y 'all were talking about salvation meaning justification. Those are two different things, but I would say

Peter is using that as a picture and illustration of true salvation that saves our souls eternally.

So if he actually wouldn't have built the ark, would he have been saved, justified like you're saying with his soul?

So, good question. If we go back, and I can put the phone down and turn back to Genesis 6, because if we look, and I think it depends on the translation, it's saying the same thing, but all of mankind's heart was bent on evil continually.

I think it's around verse 5 in chapter 6. And then later, I think around verse 9, it says that Noah found grace or favor in the light, or in the sight of God.

And so the point is, I would say, and this answers your question, I think, directly, but Noah was just as sinful as the rest of humanity.

But by God's grace, he changed Noah. And that's why he had a different heart.

He was a preacher of righteousness. He believed in the promises of God. That's why he was being obedient in terms of his works, because he had a changed heart by the grace of God.

Is there any initial objections you have with that? Oh, yeah. There's a couple things, but I'm not going to go off on a rabbit trail.

No problem. So, sometimes

I feel like, and I can do that too, we say a lot, and we don't say nothing.

So, do you think he would have been saved, salvific, justified, if he would not have built the ark?

I think on one hand, in this hypothetical, if God said, hey, I want you to go build an ark, and then he kind of spit

God, then I'm going to do my own thing, that would show that his heart isn't trusting in the promises of God. Is that fair?

Okay. I think that's all I'm going to get out of you. Well, I had some questions for you since you've asked me a handful of times to join on your show, and I really think maybe tomorrow we could do something in the studio, and I understand you not wanting to have a lot of interaction with Trey, but over time, maybe that can change a little bit, and we can be flexible both ways.

Well, I've had other brethren do the same exact thing that he does, and it wouldn't be fair for me to continue to talk with him when they don't get to talk.

Gotcha. So, one question I have, and a lot of these I'll just try to think off the top of my head, but I've made some notes over time.

Do you think the word baptism always means water immersion? As the element?

I think it does mean immersion, but I don't think it's always the element of water. Well, I appreciate you saying that, because I talk to, and I'm not going to name anybody by name, but I talk to a ton of Church of Christ, that they're under the impression that baptism always means wet water immersion, and so you're rightly pointing out, no, the context actually depends what you're being immersed into.

It could be immersed into one's authority. It could be immersed into a type of suffering, and those would be dry immersions, right?

Are you talking about preachers said this, or members? I don't really know their status, but they would just identify as the

Church of Christ brand, and that's one of their arguments, and I've tried to say, look, I can help you make a better argument than what you're giving me, because literally the definition for baptizmos, baptizo, doesn't always entail a wet immersion like you're getting it.

Okay, look, Matthew 3 .11 says... That's a wet immersion.

I would agree that that's a wet one. Well, I don't think all of it's wet.

Right, no, I'm agreeing with you. I'm glad to hear you say that, because... I'm talking about in that verse.

I'm talking about in Matthew 3 .11, it says, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes

I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

So you have two different elements, I guess you could say, right there.

No, I'm glad, because I want to point these people back to a Church of Christ preacher saying, look, he's even pointing out that not all baptisms are water baptisms.

Well, right here is fire. It's the very opposite of water, and that's hail. That's good.

The water in the person's being saved in the ark, and the water is being used as an instrument of judgment.

Also, I want us to keep in mind, like you rightly pointed out, baptism does not always entail wet immersion.

Now, I would argue, and this isn't a rabbit trail, but this qualifies kind of how I interpret epistles versus the book of Acts being more of a narratable book.

Epistles are meant to give us theology and doctrine. And so, one way to show that baptism,

I would say every time in the epistles is not referring to water baptism, is clearly how

Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 10. I think it's verse 2, you may have to double check me on that. But we see that the people of Israel were baptized into Moses as the sea was being parted.

So they weren't being immersed into the water of the sea. They were baptized into the authority of Moses. So what we see here is we kind of see that baptism, which now corresponds or is an antitype to what you just read, saves you.

I would say, okay, we already know that water is being used as an instrument of judgment, and then

I would say, and I think you would strongly disagree, he qualifies even further and says, hey guys, not as a removal of dirt from the body.

I believe Peter is saying, guys, I'm not saying the water in water baptism is salvific in any way, shape or form.

In fact, it was an instrument of judgment with Noah. And so we're asking the question, okay, if water is not salvific here, what is?

Well, that picture would be the ark. And then he goes on to say, and that's a picture as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So a couple more things here, and I know I'm talking a lot, but I don't want to take over. I would say Jesus is the ark of our salvation.

When we look to him in saving faith, I would say a faith that realizes that you cannot do anything in order to gain a right standing with God in terms of the works that we can do and we accomplish, whether that be works of law, whether that be a commandment to get up and do

X, Y, and Z. But he says as an appeal to God for a good conscience.

So I would say faith from the heart is not being mentioned explicitly here in this text.

But if you look with me earlier in this chapter, look with me at verse 15 because he mentions a good conscience earlier and explains what that is.

So verse 15 of the ESV says, but in your hearts, honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense for anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you.

Yet do this with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

So I believe having a good conscience is qualified above saying, sanctifying the

Lord in your hearts. That would entail trusting him as kurios, right?

You understand that as the divine name. So in summary, and then I'll kick it back over to you. Well, what's appeal?

What's appeal mean? So appeal is acknowledging who

Christ is, right? This says, but as an appeal, something, whatever this appeal is, is up here somewhere.

Sure, I have no problem with that. So let me say this summary sentence or two, so maybe we can tie it all together.

You got the story of Noah. They were eight souls that would have been condemned along with the rest of mankind by the judgment of water.

Yet they were saved, by God's grace, by the ark. And that ark is a picture, not of water baptism, but of the salvation that's found in Jesus Christ alone.

And we have a good conscience. We have an appeal of a good conscience when we sanctify the Lord in our hearts.

And we would understand that to be by faith. Okay, go ahead. Alright. Alright, that's pretty much it as far as I'm going to go through it.

May play your explanation next week. I'm curious before we hop off.

What would be your immediate objection to say that baptism requires a wet immersion here?

Oh, the element. Actually, let me see here. So do you think that this is water baptism?

I think it's... I don't. I think he's actually saying that it's not water baptism when he says not the removal of dirt from the flesh because a ceremonial bath would accomplish that.

Okay. Is that a fair understanding? I think he's saying when he says not the removal of the filth of the flesh or the dirt, he's saying baptism is much more than just getting physically clean with soap and water.

Something else I appreciate about you, Travis, is you understand that interpretation means using our common vernacular that aren't necessarily found in the text.

I can't tell you how many times I try to explain something by appealing to the context, and then all

I hear back in return, I won't name names, is the Bible doesn't say that. It doesn't say that. And I appreciate that that's not how you reason.

I actually think you're setting a better model for people of how to engage in reason and dialogue with one another.

Okay, let me go through these three right here. These are some objections, answering, and I think some of your arguments are in here.

So do you want to hang on? Sure. We're not to Trey's neck of the woods yet, so lay it on me.

Okay. So these are some arguments for the viewers that people would come up with, and I think Jeremiah had some of those.

So let's say someone says, you cannot rightly state that water saved Noah just like baptism saves us.

For Noah was never in the water. He was in the ark. Since Noah stayed out of the water and was saved, how can salvation be compared with salvation by baptism?

That's what some people would say. And I'm not talking, I'm just talking to the viewers. I'm teaching right now. Let me get through these three slides.

Okay, number one, the answer is to argue against water saving Noah and to dismiss the parallel is to argue against God's Word, God, against God and His Word, because we're going to bring it up and read it again in a minute.

God made the argument, the parallel. The parallel is the flood, the water, and baptism.

Now, Jeremiah says the ark and baptism is the parallel, but we're going to look at that.

Is it God? It is God who stated that Noah was saved through water. Now that is a direct statement from God's Word.

God stated that Noah was saved through water. So here's another argument some people would say.

Let me get through these two slides. Okay, someone says, you cannot prove that baptism in 1

Peter 3 .21 is water baptism. Now, did you say it was or wasn't?

My position is it's clearly not talking about water baptism. It's not.

Okay. So this one would kind of go with him. So it says, is water baptism...

Oh, you guys must be listening. It's okay. Is water baptism and not a kind of spirit baptism that man experienced?

So do you believe it's Holy Spirit baptism or what kind of baptism? Yeah, no,

I think that's an excellent question. I would say Peter is trying to show, look, baptism, being immersed into Christ is what is being talked about here.

It's not talking about the water, the wet immersion, but it's being united together in Christ because He is the ark of our salvation.

So Jesus being baptized into Christ. Now, you know, if you have Church of Christ audience, they say, oh, you see, they disagree with us.

Well, I'm not talking about immersed in the wet sense. I'm talking about in the spiritual sense, we are united together with Christ.

Does that make sense? So I'm not making a hard case that it's talking about a spirit baptism, but I would say that that's necessarily talking about a spiritual reality of being in the ark of Christ.

Does that make sense? Well, if this was water baptism, is that a pretty strong verse to promote water baptism?

Now, please don't take offense to this. I would say only if you read, baptism saves you.

I think that's the only thing you could say that sounds right. But until you read the verse before it and you read all of verse 21, which

I believe gives the context of saying, oh, it's not talking about a ceremonial bath that would wash away dirt from skin.

Okay, but see, if Peter says it's not a bath that removes dirt, what does that have anything to do?

When you're talking about dirt, are you talking about like mud and grass? Are you talking about sin?

I think he's saying, look, this is my understanding of Peter. He is explaining, don't misunderstand what

I'm teaching you with the story of Noah being a type of our salvation with God. Don't look to something like literal water that would literally wash away dirt from skin.

That's not what I'm talking about. Being immersed into Christ is the ark of our salvation.

I think that's his point here in this passage. Now, if you was a

Jew, do you think that you would have some kind of baggage about washings and Jewish rituals that involved water?

Yes, so there's a number of texts in the Old Testament. You would, right? Yeah, you would,

I mean, right? Right, so when you look at the word... So, let me say something.

If Peter told you that this baptism saves you, but it's not about the removal of the filth of the flesh, because, see, you had a baggage that you thought all the time that you had these washing rituals.

And so now this comes on the scene that you have to be immersed in water and you're confused. And Peter says, no, it's not that.

Does that make sense? Yeah, I think there's probably been confusion about water being salvific even from the time of Pentecost.

And so it seems like it'd be a really good time in a doctoral didactic epistle to show, look, that's not the thing that saves you.

And so Peter's being crystal clear that nothing in your water baptism is the thing that's salvific, but it's having a good conscience in Jesus Christ, which we know is setting the

Lord apart in our hearts, looking to Him and saving Him. So, you just kind of said, would you say then that there was some first century

Christians that must have been teaching that baptism was required?

I think that that's probably been a confusing issue with... Now, don't take offense.

I'm just saying in general, there's been a lot of legalists like the Pharisees that tried to say, oh, here's the command.

If I obey this, then that's going to give me a right standing with God. And here Peter is saying, no, you've been looking to the wrong thing.

I think he's addressing a doctrinal misunderstanding that a lot of people have that are looking to the things that they can accomplish.

So, some people in the first century must have been teaching it, right? Oh, yeah.

I've no doubt that there's been false teaching, you know, ever since the dawn of time. And especially in the first century, you had

Gnosticism being taught. So, this would have fell in their purview of teaching things, you know, secret knowledge or, you know, or the faith.

Yeah. I would say this is probably being more of lungs of Pharisee. That's fine. That's fine.

So, let me get through this slide real quick. Here we go. It says Peter's purpose as he ties the events in Noah's salvation to the events of one salvation to date.

So, like you said, if you know the history of the story of Noah and the flood and the baptism and the element of flood and water, we would only conclude that water is the prominent in the contest and it is what links baptism with the flood.

Again, the burden of proof is upon someone to prove that Peter is not talking about water baptism.

And I don't think you're going to be able to do it in the context. You may respond to that.

Let me get through one more. Because you already referred to kind of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not even mentioned in there.

Right. I would say this is a spiritual reality of having a good conscience in Jesus Christ through the resurrection. Well, let me ask you this.

Is water baptism spiritual? No, I'd say it's a physical ceremonial act that points to a spiritual reality.

Water baptism is not spiritual from heaven. Let me ask you this.

Would this be a good time to put me on your highlight reel if I say no, water baptism is a ceremonial action that points to a spiritual reality.

That really sets... I think most people agree with that even of the

Church of Christ persuasion. They would say, oh, this is a ceremony. Can I ask you what

Jesus asked the Jews? Sure. Okay, he said, the baptism of John, whence was it?

Was it from heaven or from men? Hmm? What would you say? Was it from heaven or from men?

Do you want me... Okay, so are you asking me what that means when Jesus asked the

Pharisees or are you asking me about water baptism? I'm asking you, if you were there and I'm Jesus and I asked you and you was a

Jew and I said, the baptism of John, where was it from? Was it from heaven or men, Jeremiah? So, John the

Baptist was fulfilling Old Testament Scripture, right? He came in the spirit and power of Elijah.

So his whole ministry, he was set apart from his mother's womb, right? Remember, he left his mother's womb. So he was set apart from birth.

So his whole ministry and what he preached would be from heaven, right? So the physical acts that John did would point to the spiritual reality of heaven, right?

So it is from heaven. So is water baptism in Jesus' name from heaven? So it depends what you mean.

If you're talking about doing the ceremonial act, well, that's a physical act here on earth, but it points to a spiritual reality.

I'm talking about the command. I'm talking about the teaching of it. So you know my response at this point, right?

You've got to say heaven. Why? It points to the spiritual reality. Is that not a fair summation?

So if it points to the spiritual reality, that means it's actually taking place at that moment that you do it.

So when you ask if it's a spiritual reality, you would agree, I think, that spiritual things are not tangible and seen by the human eye, right?

Like when the Holy Spirit moves, we're not able to see that, but we can see the effects of it. So we're talking about things that are spiritual and things that are earthly.

The earthly points to the spiritual. We would both go to John chapter 3 to prove that, right?

That's Jesus' point against Nicodemus. Well, we would have some different views eventually on how the

Spirit is working today. You know what we would agree on in John 3, though? I don't think the water is talking about ambiotic fluid.

Yeah, you believe it is Spirit? I believe...

If you want, we can turn there, because I was actually hoping to talk to you about it a little bit. Oh, that's okay.

I think Jesus is... I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. We can set up a debate on John 3.

Me and you, we'll set up a debate. So, I'm definitely interested in that. I also asked you about doing a debate on the sovereignty of God on the gospel truth.

You said you would think about it. Are you still thinking about it?

I'm not really concerned about that particular topic.

I don't know what it would do, but because we're going to be all... I'm wanting to do a textual context debate where we stay in John 3, 5, 4...

Let me say this. I'm definitely interested in that, because I think all the context of Jesus with Nicodemus, I do think he is being very clear with what he's saying.

I know me and you would disagree with that. I'm interested in that. We don't have to make any conclusions now, but I'm interested in something like that.

This is something else I want you to think about, too. I wanted to come on Truth or Proof to show you that I can interact with you on your platform, show you kindness and respect, and I'd like for you to return the same favor to me.

It doesn't have to be tomorrow. I would love for you to come on and let's continue to talk, but I just want it to go both ways, and do you think that's fair to ask that?

Yeah, I mean, it's fair to... You can ask that, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be bad of me not to come on your

YouTube. No, but, I mean, just showing respect towards one another,

I think that would be something kind to do, but you don't have to. You can reject it with your free will. Well, I gave you a lot of time to talk.

I mean, you have plenty of time to talk tonight. Yeah, and you've actually been super kind, so I do appreciate that.

But I'll probably review some of the stuff you said. Yes, I want to make the highlight reel.

And with that, though, if I take anything out of context, I want you to call in and point it out. Don't just say

I do it. Well, this is the thing. I don't mind to call in occasionally, but I want you to come on to my platform because I do a

YouTube ministry and apologetics, and eventually, if it's only coming to your platform,

I'm going to eventually stop because it's like, oh, you know, I'm not... It would seem to be selfish and you don't reciprocate the kindness back and forth, but we can set up something on mine, too, and then you can use that content and use that video to do reviews on your channel.

Okay. All right. All right, I appreciate you calling.

I'm going to wrap this lesson up. I'm going to get into the lesson, I mean. All right, see you.