Sophistry, Sola Scriptura, and Shane

Sola Scriptura and the Authority of Scripture

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

Here is James white.

It really is a fundamental issue it always has been from the very first debate that we did on the subject of Roman Catholicism the subject of Sola scriptura the authority of Scripture as the soul and foul rule of faith as God speaking as being the only example of God breathed revelation the possession of God's people today has always been at the At the heart of any debate we've done.

It doesn't matter what you're talking about. You can discuss justification. You can discuss the mass a merry priesthood. It's all going to come back down to do you have an authority outside of Scripture?

They can in essence say you know what? Exegesis doesn't matter. Meanings of terms don't matter. Context doesn't matter. History doesn't matter. We don't derive our beliefs from the text of Scripture instead We derive we are the Living Church and therefore our beliefs are final in of themselves.

And then we can sort of demonstrate the consistency or claim to demonstrate the consistency that we claim to exist between our teachings and what is found in Scripture, but Fundamentally Scripture is but one source that we derive well, whatever we want from quite honestly.

When it agrees with us, that's that's one thing when it doesn't well That's that's something else we just say that you don't have the right to interpret it yourself. That has been the fundamental Subject the some fundamental issue.

We can talk about tradition till the cows come home anyone who's read Eve's congar knows you can talk about tradition till the cows come home and you're going to find all sorts of different perspectives given different people as we from the outside observe the ever-widening Spectrum of viewpoints expressed within what is called Roman Catholicism today.

We cannot help but in some senses commiserate with a Gerrimatics who finally throws his hands up in the air and says look what the church once taught is easy enough to determine and it's obvious That that's not being taught any longer.

Therefore. Something has gone wrong. Something's missing, etc, etc and So I'm one is there some online one. I Don't have anything in my screen on line one. No, I just know line two and line three. I don't have line one.

So I need to know who's online one that would help me anyway. These are the primary issues and over the past. Thank you a couple of Couple of weeks. I have just made some comments that there they weren't overly unusual in fact, they've just repeated things that I've said in fact.

The Roman Catholic controversy, which I believe if I'm if I'm not mistaken came out ten years ago yeah, ten years ago has a chapter called when solo scriptura is rejected and one of the points of discussion is the difference between Latria and Dulia and The distinction made by Rome over against how you would come to a conclusion as to what these terms mean if You begin with divine revelation and then descend down from that to application.

That is not how Rome does it however? Rome does it by her own teachings and then you go to scripture and pick those things that are consistent with what you've decided is infallibly true and go from there and This is what really illustrates the difference between the two sides and those who have listened to this program know that that becomes the issue With every group we deal with When Pierre our our Mormon friend Calls in and we start discussing what the Bible teaches about salvation.

What does it eventually get down to it gets down to whether you derive your beliefs from the exegesis of the text of scripture? Or you get it from someplace else in the Mormon Worldview you get it from the standard works the Mormon Church interpreted by the hierarchy of the church prophets apostles and so on and so forth and This is a very consistent theme we find it over and over and over again within the context of apologetics the one side That holds firmly to the scripture is the final and sole rule of authority for the church infallible Authority for the church and therefore you begin with it you allow it to define your terms and if you can take dhulia and Latria to the text of scripture then it should be our concern.

It should be our desire to think God's thoughts after him to define our language in light of what he has revealed and Indeed it goes to what we call the regulative principle of worship as to what God finds to be acceptable worship before him and since those subjects go directly those terms go directly to what it means to worship God then we start there and We exegete the text of scripture, and we examine the text of scripture and from that point we then subject everything else including the political gatherings of men down through history to that higher authority of God.

Speaking and that has become the issue now how many people in? The Large number of responses that have been posted in various forums to just a few comments. I commented for example on the And nobody's really wanted to defend the chocolate Mary stuff the chocolate drippings that people saw as Mary nobody wants to talk about that, but I made reference to an article where Roman Catholic priests in Africa were being asked not to engage in prayers to Ancestors and other similar forms of tribal religion.

And I simply commented that it seemed rather odd to me. And it seems rather inconsistent given that Rome is not under biblical authority as to define what worship is that in essence all she can say is don't use those pagan idols, so use ours and I pointed out that you know this wouldn't really this isn't an issue Within our circles because those issues are so plain and so clear.

It's isn't it interesting that allegedly with only scripture. You can't have the clarity that you can have with Rome and yet. Here's a point where we don't have any confusion as to what worship is and what what proper worship is at that point and no?

One's going to be saying oh I wonder if we should go ahead and pray to pray to ancestors you know and in fact when you see stuff like that in in cults and isms developing. It's very obvious, and it's immediately pointed out.

And it is it is Rejected and so on and so forth and so I made comments about that and got a wide range of responses. From it and and I documented yesterday that one of those published on Jimmy Akin's blog Simply missed the point.

Didn't deal with what I had actually attempted to say and had communicated and and the vast majority of the comments that were left Have been ad hominem personal attacks that do not even begin to address the issues that have been in print.

For a number of years they are primarily posted by individuals who will never take the time to read that. But they are they they will take the time to attack me personally and question my credibility and and my teaching experience.

And even though they won't read my books and read my scholarly articles. They won't talk to any students that I've taught over the years. They are quite certain that. That I'm wrong anyway, and that just gives us an insight.

I think you know the mindset of a lot of folks within that context. But the vast majority of the response just just completely passes over All of that material and does not seek to engage it and I have made the application.

And I've asked my blog readers consider what this means in light of things that we have talked about before what happened back in June when Jimmy Akin responded to a question that named me by name Out of simple ignorance, and he just was unwilling to admit that ignorance and to to answer at a adequately and accurately even though there was no shortage of information upon which he could have acted and I've pointed out that Rome's apologists just honestly don't seem to have much of a much time to To keep up with the fact that other people will take their published writings will actually buy their books.

We'll actually read their books will actually Respond to their works will actually play their comments on our programs and respond to them. I don't remember that happening in in reverse At all, and I've just simply used this as an illustration.

You know there's just a fundamental Difference of approach here, and it's not just the fundamental difference approach as to what our ultimate authority is. There is a fundamental difference of approach as to what we think apologetics is and how it is to be pursued and We are to pursue apologetics in regards to First first foremost glorifying God honoring his truth Edifying the Saints and content as Titus puts it in regards to the Gifts that are required the capabilities and qualifications are required for the elder they are to be able to refute those who contradict and as Paul said to Timothy if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth and so.

These are the reasons one does apologetics. But you first and foremost do so out of a commitment to God's truth and hence you have to be have to be Consistent in the in the way that you approach that and so we haven't I think pretty much all of our Lines are already lit up and a number of the people who are involved in this controversy have already called in.

We're gonna be talking to them in just a moment. Just so that if you are listening, and you have not been keeping up with the blog Fundamental issues have been focused upon I have I have made reference to the issue of the of the priesthood, but that really was secondary to the issue of things that I've issues that I raised in regards to the nature of worship and I have Many times said that if we go to the Word of God if we go to the Ten Commandments We are told you shall not Worship them or serve them for I the Lord your God I'm a jealous God visiting the iniquity the fathers and the children the third and fourth generations those who hate me.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that the Ten Commandments no matter What's your view of New Covenant theology might be the Ten Commandments do not? Represent for us something that expresses a God's central prescriptive will as to human behavior and When we come to the issue of worship God in speaking of false guys says you shall not Worship them or serve them.

And those two terms worship and service worship and Service what do they mean? What's a how are we to understand that today is the Bible sufficient to explain to us? The most fundamental aspects of our worship of God.

I mean if we say the Bible cannot even give us that then what use is it? If it cannot tell us who God is and how we're to worship him well of what use is it truly. And There are two terms used here worship and service.

Now there are a couple of different Hebrew terms when you study the terms that are used and Then you study how those terms come over into the Greek Septuagint which then becomes the background of their utilization in the New Testament.

You're able to come to the understanding that when for example Paul says the glade to the Galatians He he says you serve those which are by nature not God's. He wasn't saying that they weren't worshiping them.

Service and worship go hand in hand. The Hebrew term avad can be translated by both terms that come across into the Greek as le true oh or Julio or The substantive forms Latria and Julia coming over into the Latin eventually because those become the terms that Rome uses in distinguishing her forms of worship and veneration and My point has always been that as Paul said you serve those which were by nature not God's.

Does that mean that that is somehow less than worshiping those which were by nature? What is greater? Worship or to serve. Or. Is it possible in a biblical worldview to worship without serving I? Would submit to you that it is not.

If you serve an idol you're worshiping the idol. If you worship the idol you're serving the idol. They may give us a fuller picture of the fullness of worship is but you cannot make an artificial distinction between them.

Can you imagine someone? Bringing a an idolator before Moses. He has been found bowing down before. And an idol in his tent before a bale and He says oh hi, I wasn't worshiping it I was serving it. Do you think that would work.

Do you think that would fly that would be. Oh Moses would say yes. Well, of course that book as long as you're just giving Julia and not Latria all is well. Of course not. That is an artificial distinction that has not only no basis in Scripture.

Here's where the difference is. Do you get your practice from Scripture or do you just try to fit your practice into Scripture? The problem here is you can't do either one. There's certainly no basis for it and you can't fit into it because it would violate the meaning of what it of what worship actually is.

If you're gonna worship God you're gonna serve him you're gonna obey him you're gonna listen there's a whole complex of terms that are used there of true worship of God and they come through into the New Testament and if this is God's Outbreathed word for us is if this God's speaking for us.

Then we should probably start with what he says don't you think before we go to what anybody else says about what these terms mean and I have made the argument and we'll continue making the argument until someone can show me where it is.

Not a biblical argument. I've made the argument that to rely upon some Latria Julia distinction. Latria Julia distinction. And To do so to say well, you know when I bow down Before this This this image when I pray to this angel I'm not I'm not giving Latria.

I'm giving Julia and When I pray to Mary over and over every day seeking her intercession I'm not giving her Latria. I'm giving her Hyperdulia there is no biblical basis for such a distinction none and again depends where you start.

If you don't think that this is God's Outbreathed word and it's it's not where you start. Then you you create your theology and then you you're gonna pick those sections of scripture. You're gonna believe and and those years ago.

Well, you know, it doesn't really have an application to us today. Remember in the debate that I had with Patrick Madrid I tried to bring this up and was told it was a a Cheap shot to mention debates that I myself have had in the past.

I love the double standard that that's constantly used but If you've listened to that debate, you know that when I talked about the prohibition of Worshipping images We were told that what you need to understand those people back then had a problem with idolatry that we don't have today I'm like really they we don't have the same problem they had and when we talked about the Spanish Council that had met and likewise Prohibited that activity.

Well, that's because they had a special problem with idolatry in that area. But since we don't have that then that's why it's not Representative and it's it's like wow. So the the prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament That was just because they had a problem with it then it's okay now.

I How far can you take this? It's just it turns the text of scripture into Swiss cheese and and and simply Turns that turns the text on its head and again it illustrates. It illustrates the vast difference That comes from either coming to the text first seeking to treat it as the Word of God or going to other sources of authority first and so that is the that is the situation we face today now, I I know that Michael was first caller, but Michael's question has absolutely positively nothing to do with what we're talking about today.

And so Michael if you want to hold on that's cool. We'll we'll get to you but we we need to stick with the subjects that we're actually dealing with today and And go with them first and foremost for first and foremost, I will get that one out.

Before we go to the first caller, which is mr. Pre gene online, too I do want to just very quickly mention since I was going to since I said I was going to mention this Mr. Modine has been writing to me today.

He explained that that You know one of the inconsistencies in his arguments about credit cards and sermon audio I guess he doesn't I guess sermon audio can use credit cards and then he can freely use their service and that doesn't that doesn't mean He's not a Christian.

But if we use credit cards to pay for ours and have help you have people help us pay that makes we're not Christians. Anyways, he's put up a new a new sermon that I linked to that explains why Calvinists are are lying about God and stuff.

And I said I would mention that he's done that you can all go listen to that and I'm sure you'll be greatly blessed. Wow. That's one person we don't have on the line, huh? That yeah. We'll have to download that sermon and fit it into a dividing line coming down the coming down the pike someplace.

It would be most interesting, but I wouldn't mind having a mine. I'd love to I'll be that'd be great I'd love to ask some of those some of those specific questions. But anyways, we'll get to it all right, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number that Everybody called this morning before we even got started.

So let's go ahead and start working through the phone calls and let's start with line two and talk with Jonathan preaching.

Hi, John. Hi pastor white.

How are you today sir. Doing well. Well. How about yourself. Well, you know for a person guilty of Nestorian ism snobbery various forms of ignorance. And every and every time I say anything I am described as either crowing Sarcastically saying it etc, etc doing pretty well, but of course I'm quoting you on each one of those.

Okay, well, I mean if we want to go through sort of what what the fundamental error is. I I'm glad that you actually laid it out as you did because I think it makes it clear. If we look at the Ten Commandments and how they're normatively Applicable to Christians, you know, we're not Judaizers.

Obviously we take them and their Christological significance. You know, we worship on the Lord's Day not not the Jewish Sabbath. Okay, so so this is so so it's it's relevant as to how they're received so.

Back up. Mr. Bridger. Hold on a second. Can. The language used in Exodus chapter 20 verse 5. Is that a foundation as to how we are to know? What is proper worship before God or not?

I will if you'll let me explain. The distinction I'm trying to line out. The point is that the prohibition on idolatry is obviously not, you know outside of in fact to use Paul's words worshiping things that are not God by nature and.

That's that's entirely reasonable. However, that should be a clue. That there is Christological significance in the commandment, especially given that Paul used the term not God by nature. And so as Christians we are permitted to worship Christ, obviously.

And Christ has a human nature and. And yet we can worship him. And the argument that you're advancing regarding Idolatry is the same argument that that would be made by Jews and Muslims. Which is you people worship a man.

Now, of course Orthodox Christological belief says we're not worshiping a man. Because there's a personal union between the divine and the human in Christ. He's the one mediator between man and God and.

So we are able to worship the created in Christ without violating the prohibition against idolatry.

Okay, back up the the truck for just a moment. First of all, and you would admit that the incarnation is unique. Yes.

It is the unique basis by which We.

Use the created in our worship. No, no is the is the incarnation unique has has has God entered into human form in any other person in Jesus Christ.

Well, I mean obviously we're all according to 2nd Peter partakers of the divine nature.

Are you in it? Are you an incarnation in the same way Jesus Christ incarnation the word become flesh in you? Yes or no? Well, I'm not. I'm not God. I mean, can you answer any question? Yes or no? I Mean sir, it is amazing to my listeners that I just asked a basic question and that is that the incarnation.

Yeah, I completely agree that so the not not all Christians are Christians are not God and incarnate.

And so the the incarnation where the Eternal Son took on human flesh was a Unique event that has not been repeated multiple times. Is that true or false?

They're there. The question is whether Christians.

Essentially how Christians participate in this. But no it's not it's not my question. That is not my question. No, so that's not my question. This is a very basic question. John 114 says the word became flesh halagas sarts again.

It's I'm gonna ties an heiress verb.

It's referring to it. I mean, that's that's yeah, obviously, I mean I.

So there was a unique historical event where the word became flesh. Yes. Yes. Okay, has that event taken place multiple times or one time?

That that particular event took place.

That will the one time the one time. Okay. All right, so that now we've established that. It sounds to me like what you're stating is that because of that unique event and The fact that as a result there is a unique individual who is the God man and who can therefore be worshipped that somehow as an extension of this this then means that the created in In your worship to use your language somehow takes on the same characteristics as that unique one.

Jesus Christ. Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. I mean we're identified with Christ at numerous points in Scripture. In particular respects partakers of the divine nature is one. And is there anything in partakers.

Is not I but Christ who lives in me. I mean and and we're described as members of the body. Yes.

That's quite true. All of those are quite quite true. Does did any of those in any of those context result in a change of the fundamental nature of Worship of the people of God. Yes or no? Yes. How did that do?

So show me show me where in Peter that resulted in Peter Serving or or giving worship to someone who is another another Christian.

The question is I mean what. I guess I'm not clear what you're asking. Are you saying that that Peter did not give any sort of veneration didn't greet his brothers with a holy kiss for example or.

Anything of that sort. No I'm saying that Peter had no problem differentiating given the the scripture is very clear teaching. But worship is especially in light of for example when the Apostles did have people bow down in front of them.

They told them not to when when the when John fell down before the angel the angel do not do that worship God alone. There was no question about what worship is in a religious context and that Peter never gave that to anybody else and he never Accepted it from anybody else says.

There's no question about that. Greeting a brother with a holy kiss or as a fellow partaker of life in Jesus Christ is very easily distinguishable I think on anyone's part from that which is To me. I mean that.

Well, that's something right there.

I think and that's the theological distinction on which the on which the response of second Nicaea turn. Well, actually.

I am was in fact going to be very interested in in asking you because you you seem to think that if I don't Accept Rome's definitions. It means I'm ignorant of them. Could you show me from the documentation?

Where second Nicaea dealt with avad? Doulaia Latruo and all the various terms that were related there to.

In their in their statements as I recall. I think that I think it was a term later. That was used to To distinguish the worship that's due only to the divine nature. Where did they permissible to to venerate the created in Christ because it's it's transferred through the hypostatic Union.

Where did.

Second Nicaea deal with the biblical Exegesis. That would have to for me now. Maybe not for you. Where did they deal with this? Okay well.

I mean I don't think that you honestly enforce that and here's the reason if you look at the term the the Christological term you you agree, you know, you've you've historically said, okay, we've got one person and two natures.

If you look at the the use of the term hypostasis it changed even between Nicaea and And then in 451 and Chalconon. So I mean there's There was clearly a change in the theological meaning of the term.

So, I mean obviously you don't really think that the terminology has to be the same as the scriptural usage.

No, what I have your scriptural concept. What I am saying is that the second Nicene Council Didn't deal with what the Bible said about this issue. That's the whole point and for a person who holds to solo scriptura I don't care.

What these men said. I hold anybody up to a biblical standard as to what they said.

Well, and I mean, that's fine. And that's logical if you don't understand the Christological.

Mr. Preaching mr. Preaching mr. Preaching because what I am mr. Preaching I am tired of your constant subtle ad hominem my.

Dismiss my rejecting the least bit subtle what I'm saying. Yeah, that's right. You're not that if you approve if you if you approve Nicaea and you approve Chalconon.

Logically you have to follow second. That's not true. That is utterly untrue. And I know it is not sir. No, it is not you do. Please sir. And this is this is where I really start to get agitated because your position Ends up leading to exactly what Jerry Matic said in front of an entire group in New York.

And that is we have the same epistemological warrant to believe in the resurrection of Christ. We have to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. That's where this leads to. I'm not even talking about.

Epistemological warrant. No, sir. You are the theological concepts that were that were ratified at these.

Theological concepts that that we're talking about from a conciliar perspective in here. That you are not Allowing to be subjected to any biblical examination a and B. What I'm saying is I can affirm those things that Nicaea and Chalcedon said that we're consistent with what the Bible Teaches and I have affirmed them and defended them from the exegesis of the text of Scripture.

What it does not follow. It does not it does not. I'm gonna get my point across and I'm gonna put you on hold to do It. It does not follow. Mr Pre gene that when you confess the truth about the two natures of Christ.

That it follows that I lose the simple clarity of the biblical revelation of what worship is. The biblical revelation of what worship is is not changed by this. You're back on my goodness. No, I mean.

Here's here's the problem with what you're saying. What conceptually what you are affirming is not what Nicaea taught. It's not what Chalcedon taught.

It's not what that's untrue. That's untrue. That's untrue. Well, I mean, okay. Prove to me prove to me that if I affirm the absolute deity of Christ and the Fact of what Chalcedon says concerning the nature of the Union That exists in him that I have to throw out Everything that the Bible says about the fact that there is no distinction between Latria and Dulia.

There is no such thing as hyper Julia and to give to the created order not the unique incarnate one. But to the created order including fallen individuals who are redeemed by Christ angels like Michael or anything else.

Show me where to confess the deity of Christ means I have to be able to pray to angels.

Your distinction between the created order and the uncreated order. Then is I mean it's fundamentally Nestorian because it is not is you're saying that there has to be a separate person For the divine nature and a separate person for the created nature and they're just stuck together.

You know, so you just you just agree now in the nature. That's that's a that's a falsehood and every time you repeat it I'm gonna call you what you are. When you repeat falsehoods, sir. Secondly, I you just you just contradicted yourself and that's why I asked you the nature of incarnation.

Beforehand you admitted it was unique. Now you want to transfer that uniqueness of the relationship of of the divine and human in Christ and that Special unique person. You want to transfer that to the entire created order and whatever Rome wants to say.

You can give Latria to or Julia to and that doesn't follow.

Prove it prove it sir. That's that's what the one mediator means. I mean you you're. The biblical language is that Christ and his person is the one mediator between God and man. Now if we don't Participate in his personal hypothetic union.

There's no way that we're saved. That's what I mean. If you go back to Athanasius, that's exactly what he says. What do you mean does not heal?

What what do you mean if we do not participate? Do you. Do you participate in the incarnation. Not in the sense of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within you. But are you uniquely a part of the Trinity.

The way the Sun is it doesn't follow.

It doesn't follow from participating in the hypostatic union that you become one of the Trinity. I mean, these are just basics.

Oh, yeah, well, you know what sir, it doesn't seem you have a clue about biblical theology first. And that's the problem because there is no singular patristic theology. Mr. P. Jean. What does partakers of the divine nature me?

Well, it certainly does not mean that my created nature becomes uncreated certainly does not mean that my Good grief get him get that get that person off the air when you start laughing at what the Bible says there you have there you have it folks there you have a Roman Catholic and There you have his source of authority.

He laughs at the Word of God when you ask him about the Word of God. He stutters and stammers and has no way of answering those questions, but oh we can talk about you know. Well, what does that mean?

He doesn't know what that meant in context? That's totally derived from from one particular interpretation of a church father. My goodness. Not even church father just a group of many doesn't probably know half the men that were there and doesn't know what their arguments were in second Nicaea what an incredible Example of that.

Oh my. So, you know the term that was used by the Reformers over and over again and in the century since then has been sophistry. Sophistry sophistry there you heard it. There you heard it. You can't know what worship is without Rome to tell you.

Why do you even have a Bible? Why do you even have a Bible? Absolutely, and The point I was trying to make as to where this leads and what Jerry Matic said and I would like to ask any Roman Catholic. Do you think that you have the same epistemological warrant to believe in the resurrection is due the bodily assumption of Mary?

I think Jerry Matic's was being consistent at that point and that shows you just what happens when you reject sola scriptura. But the point I was making was This leads to that utter Destruction of Christian apologetics that is sola ecclesia.

Sola ecclesia is not defensible. You have to start with that belief to end with that belief. Have you ever watched we had this sort of happened yesterday in chat channel ever seen a Roman Catholic and a Mormon go at it.

What does it always end up being their ultimate authority versus your ultimate authority, which is their prophet versus your Pope? You can't get into the exegesis of Scripture can't get into some unchanging standard there, it's not possible the destruction of The very foundations of the faith of the result of that and I will not have anyone laughing at what the Word of God says based upon your individualistic Interpretation of some church council and your constant lying.

Well, you just don't understand. No, I reject I Test anything that you have to say or anyone else has to say by what the Word of God says and notice. Mr Pre gene didn't even try to deal with Latria Julia of odd or anything else because he can't he lacks the capacity to Even begin to do so.

Wow. Yeah, do I get upset about something? Yeah folks because I see the results of this if your heart doesn't break. When you see people trapped in idolatry Pouring their hearts out to Mary who can't hear a word.

They're saying because God would never put her through that if Your heart doesn't break when you see that then your heart has become hard that's all there is to it and When I see the Trinity and the deity of Christ and all these things Subjugated to Rome's authority rather than the authority that God gave us in his word.

Yes, I become just a little bit Aggravated by it and I do get tired about being lied about. There's no two ways about it Takes breath. We of course have skipped the break because we have more folks to talk to so let's talk with.

Benjamin, Oklahoma. Hi Benjamin. Hello. Dr. White. How are you? I'm doing all right. How about yourself? Taking a deep breath. Good my brother. Well, I should probably tell you what my background is so that you At least know where I'm coming from.

Now. What's up? Well, I'm a fellow Baptist Also a fellow McGregor And a fellow apologist. Although I'm an amateur but I I believe it's my calling and I I Pursue the study and and hope to have this formal training.

All righty, and you're in Oklahoma somewhere. Yeah. All righty. Yes. I am in Norman, Oklahoma. Actually. Oh, yes, I Actually, I met you face-to-face only once before although you probably wouldn't remember it was at the Unfortunate Bob Wilkin debate in which afterward.

You were gracious enough. We went out to eat. Hmm. We went out to eat.

Yeah. But right before you did you were gracious enough to speak to a young man rather tall ish with long hair Who asked you a question and you stood outside and yeah, I know you were hungry. Yes. I do recall that.

Yes. Uh-huh well, I was calling because I Have listened to all of your debates with Roman Catholics on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Mm-hmm. I've listened to your debate with Shabir Ali I've Tried to basically get up whatever information I could.