Defining Mary

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.

Vista, the New Tablet PC, and Why That Is Not an Eschatological Question

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line at the halfway point of February 2008. And as I sat down I said to Richard said I haven't a clue we're gonna do today because Starting yesterday morning my my new tablet PC arrived and it is Vista now up until this point in time.

I had adamantly asserted that I would not be dragged kicking and screaming into the realm of Vista until service pack 2 and I'm hearing service pack 1 will be out In March.

And.

But the unit that I wanted to get. Right size right equipment right stuff for debates. So you'll be seeing it in the debates starting in March it's tablet and Unlike the tablet I had before it's also a laptop.

So the the screen swivels and then folds back to become the tablet. But then you can swivel back around use it as regular laptop, etc, etc. Has all the bells and whistles on it that I need when traveling and stuff like that.

But anyway, the only only operating system they would offer it with was was Vista. So I'm sitting here going. Well, I could talk about the trials and tribulations. Moving all your stuff over to Vista, I suppose I still haven't gotten it to work and find the rest of the network yet.

Got the internet but can't find the rest of the network yet at all.

It is Vista the evidence that we finally have needed to realize that we are truly in the end time.

That's an eschatological question and I will direct all computer eschatological questions to Shamgar. So You know, I I haven't it's a nice. It's really nice looking. There's no toys about it. This is very pretty.

If you if pretty is good, then this is very very pretty. But Other than that that doesn't really make for exciting webcasting just sit here and go well, okay so, you know, I gotta get the VPN stuff set up and you know, this is how you do this is that you know and Stumbling around through stuff.

I found this that I was looking for 15 minutes earlier and you know. But that doesn't really make for exciting stuff. So aside from the fact we already have one phone caller We can go to that one a moment.

Yes. Oh. Okay, I did just happen to fire up my RSS reader just a few moments prior to the program starting and found a fascinating article and it's fascinating because Ten years ago now. I wrote an entire book on this subject and of course it is from The fire-breathing Catholic apologist of all fire-breathing Catholic apologists art Sippo and Yes, the same art Sippo who for years had after the What I call the the ambush in Toledo.

The ridiculous encounter we had in 1991 as I recall was the it was the date had said where you need to debate justification again, blah blah blah and Finally, I think it was in it was right after the Rutland debate.

I finally said, okay. Tell you what. You live in the st. Louis area. I have a church in the st. Louis area that has me out every December I will come out and we will debate and we'll even debate your subject and Art Sippo ran for the hills as fast as he possibly could yeah, that's same art Sippo who loves to identify everybody else's Nazis and everything else and Who I just discovered a couple weeks ago is really into this.

It's I guess it's not a cartoon. It's some fiction thing I don't know what it is, but Found an entire website of his stuff really odd-looking stuff very creepy, but anyway he put up a article yesterday and In essence is it the title is honoring our mother the Blessed Virgin Mary and he's taking umbrage or expressing disagreement nicely with Patrick Madrid and.

And.

Evidently and I evidently have been too busy with Vista and Arabic and Things related there too to keep up with this but this is this is what RSS readers are for man. They are very very helpful. We read the following over in his apologetics board.

Patrick Madrid has made the following comment concerning the recent move by several cardinals. To request that the spiritual motherhood of the Blessed Virgin be declared a dogma of the church the spiritual motherhood.

Actually, this is the same thing that I wrote a book about in 1998 called is I Was gonna say is Mary my mother. I said I didn't write that book Mary another Redeemer there you go. And of course at the time the speculation was very strong that John Paul the second might declare the dogma in for the the year 2000 and John Paul was very strongly of course a Marian Pope and So there was a lot of speculation that he would identify and and make as a dogma the teaching of the church.

It's already a teaching in the church, and I'm referring to the concept of Mary as co-redemptrix comediatrix and advocate for the people of God. Popes have been teaching this since the 1930s at least and It the terminology itself is used in Vatican to but it is a doctrine not a dogma.

It's not definitional of the Roman Catholic faith it is a doctrine there is a difference between the two and so He quotes Patrick Madrid saying. Personally, I hope the Pope does not act on this petition.

I see it as theologically problematic due to the high likelihood of it being misunderstood and Misconstrued by Catholics and non-catholics alike. The petition is pastorally unnecessary and hugely inopportune now.

There are a lot of people who would agree with Patrick Madrid at that point. I mean The whole situation right now with Rome talking to the Eastern Orthodox folks and Trying to heal that schism. I cannot imagine that those talks would even continue If Rome were to do something like define this Marian dogma.

Because the Eastern Orthodox just would find that to be the greatest example of hubris possible. There the whole idea of of Rome defining dogmas just as Rome is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the the coalescence of East and West anyway.

Because the Eastern Orthodox don't believe that any one bishop can possibly represent the entire church. And so it's it's arrogance from their perspective. The doctor the definition of the doctrine of papal infallibility.

The definition of the bodily assumption all these things that Rome has done on her own our major roadblocks To the East and West getting together. And so at this point to do this would be pretty amazingly Stupid from a ecumenical perspective, but of course our Sippo is about the least ecumenical person on the planet so so It's hardly surprising that his response is I don't agree every Mariology textbook in the last 100 year 100 years has included the rationale for seeing the BVM blessed Virgin Mary.

As.

Coredemtrix and Mediatrix of all graces. The patristic evidence now. This one is this is where it gets really funny. The patristic Evidence for the spiritual motherhood of Mary dates back to the mid 2nd century and includes statements by st Justin Martyr and st. Irenaeus.

The idea that they ever dreamt of.

The.

Expansive modern Roman Catholic dogmas of Mary is So absurd that it's hard to even keep from laughing at that kind of thing. But that's the wonder of Rome is once you invest her with infallibility and her dogmas then become the very lens through which you look back at church history then all of church history becomes Plato in your hand and you can read your modern wishes and desires back into anything you want to find.

So anyway the Popes in last hundred sixty years up up to and including Pope John Paul II have been strong supporters the spiritual motherhood of the BVM and Taught such in their encyclicals 8th chapter of Lumen Gentium specifically gave the BVM the titles advocate auxiliatrix Adjectrix and Mediatrix which they did.

The statement by a general counsel means that the spiritual motherhood of the BVM is already official Catholic teaching. I would imagine a lot of folks would go About Vatican to but anyways raising such a teaching to a dogma therefore adds nothing to the Catholic faith.

It has not already been proclaimed by the Magisterium. But it does make it clear the BVM has a role to play in salvation. And this is a central tenor the Holy Catholic faith that is not negotiable. Which would of course would mean that Sippo would likely like likewise obviously say That such things as the Immaculate Conception the bodily assumption of Mary are likewise just as non-negotiable As anything else and that takes us right back to some of those you know that one clip.

I have have a hundred and Seventeen videos on YouTube now you look surprised by that. One of the earlier ones is caught it has the title Immaculate Conception in it. And it is the the section from the first debate on Long Island with Jerry Matitix where he parallels our knowledge of Is here the Immaculate Conception of bodily assumption?

I'm trying to remember which one it was. But anyway it parallels our knowledge of one of these Marian dogmas with that of the Trinity. It's of the resurrection itself that we have just the same basis for believing the resurrections We have for believing in these fanciful Gnostic ideas that came along hundreds of years later, but that's.

That's what Rome is stuck with because Rome is stuck with her own teaching. Then I I just love Sippo goes on from there, and he says. The opinions and sensibilities of Protestants and other non-catholics about Catholic teaching should be of no concern to the Catholic Church.

These outsiders are a mishmash of unbelievers heretics apostates and schismatics albeit most of them are only materially. So are we not to proclaim the divinity of Christ because Jehovah's Witnesses might take offense.

Are we going to suppress calling Jesus the Son of God because it makes the Muslims unhappy? Do we avoid calling Jesus a messiah because the Jews will balk? What are the things we supposed to suppress to assuage the Protestants this?

Substantial presence of Christ and Eucharist. Apostolic succession. The indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. The anathemas of Trent. If we Catholics are people of faith who must profess a robust faith not one that bends the objections of infidels.

It's easy for me to say these with. As I've been on the receiving end of Sippo's flamethrower for a long long time. So it's I can even see the man saying it. You know I can just I can I can feel the spray coming across the stage at me.

My experience with anti-catholic bigots is that they have no scruples about dissing us no matter what concessions We make so we should make no concessions. None of them have any scruples about mocking Catholics.

Our church in our beliefs I am unaware of any Protestant denomination has refrained from taking a doctoral position because it might offend Catholics. Think of it. Women priests women bishops lesbian bishops abortion contraception divorce through marriage homosexuality.

Defective forms of baptism, what is IVF? I have no idea if they do not oh okay in vitro fertilization if they I guess he just didn't want to type the whole thing. I was thinking about intervarsity press when how'd they get in there?

IVP. If they do not restrict their doctrine to assuage us why are we doing so to assuage them? I don't honestly I don't think Rome. I Don't think Ratzinger is overly concerned about Protestants. Ratzinger's concerned I I I can't prove this and I don't read enough of his stuff to really have a strong basis for this but it's just a feeling is it.

If he you know I guess people who take leadership positions and stuff like that they want to Have a legacy and if I were to take a wild guess at rat what Ratzinger wants as his legacy I Would have a feeling it would not be the definition of a Marian dogma.

I have a feeling it would be the healing of the schism of the East and West. I mean talk about a means to keep your name absolutely central and See he's under a little pressure in that ways because you know John Paul II had reigned the longest of anybody in the in the 20th century and and so.

You know if he can. You know he's he's. Sort of the guy that like when like when the pastor of a really big church resigns. You know the next guy in you know is just a caretaker. He's he's just there for a while.

And he's gonna get bounced out and a lot of people are sort of looking at Ratzinger that way you know well. Okay, this guy's could get in he's gonna be in there for a while, and then you know whatever.

And I think the only way that that he sees that he could possibly avoid just becoming a footnote in history. And when you've already chosen a name where you're number 16 the list anyways that sort of doesn't help you stay off the footnote list.

But it would be to bring about that healing and I can guarantee you That would never happen that East West split will stay there if in fact something happens to where this dogma is defined so.

I.

Don't I don't see that. I don't see that happening, but it is interesting that it's back in the area of discussion. And that Cardinals are involved. That's nothing new. I mean millions of petitions. Millions of signatures on petitions.

I guess I should say have been turned into Rome to define this since well for a long time now and so. Nothing new there, but it is fascinating that that this is back in in the in the discussions. Just a couple other things before we go to the phone.

Of course we heard that today that Dr. Moller is going in for surgery and of course we pray that that goes well. I guess that means he's not going to allow his name to be put in for consideration for Southern Baptist president president Southern Baptist.

I saw in one of the articles that he said That there was a can a fine conservative man who was going to be nominated anyways. But didn't say it was so I was wondering who that was haven't found out yet but I certainly want to to pray for him as well and Just in passing.

I just happen to note that I continue to see bubbling up to the surface sometimes. Bubbling far enough to get into the news again since the Princeton Get together on the Talpiot tomb theory it's still bubbling away and.

I.

Still don't see the vast majority of people dealing with the key massive black hole of the entire theory and that is their their their use of of Fourth-century texts that have nothing to do with the history of Jerusalem in the first century as the the glue that holds it all together, but.

It's still going on and it's out there. So anyway, it's quite interesting. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. Let's get to some of our phone calls here and talk with Mike over in California.

Saving Faith, Human Inability, and Acts 13:48

Hi Mike. Yeah, dr.

White. I must say it's a honor to talk to you. Yes, sir. I've come to reform theology within the last year or two and I'm still struggling with a few items of it. Mm-hmm and one in particular and I have this written out here.

So let me read it. Do all verses that talk about simple belief in Christ have the same prerequisite as spelled out in Acts? 1348 the prerequisite of being appointed to eternal life.

Would you say that was true? Well, I'm really not sure exactly what you're asking. I mean If you're asking does every text Have the same Commentary added to it. No, no, it certainly doesn't. Duh, if you're asking is is all.

Given what the Bible teaches about man's slavery to sin is every Place where we see true saving faith, would we be? Right to say that that requires the sovereign grace of God for it to exist. Yeah, I mean that was.

What was so offensive about Jesus preaching in John 6 was the fact that people kept. You know he kept repeating the fact that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father and and and.

The people were highly offended at that kind of of an assertion. So.

Is that what you're asking? I I guess now I've been through Your Potter's freedom or most of it and it just seems. Again, this is the themes seems to me that a lot of the verses talk about, you know. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

It seems like it just putting forth belief. But if we're to believe In Irresistible God is hard hard of work behind the scenes.

Bringing us to belief. Yeah, but of course as I point out there God ordains both the ends as well as the means.

Oh, yeah.

I realize that the means is through the proclamation the authoritative proclamation of the gospel and when the command is given to believe There's going to be one of two reactions. Either there is going to be a hardening of the person because Even though the the testimony of God exists within themselves are made in the image of God.

They're actively involved in suppressing that knowledge. They love their sin and because they love their sin They have no desire to do what is right before God. Well, but but a Christian shouldn't Christian a Christian should not love their sin there should be a Growing hatred of sin as we grow in our love for Christ, but.

So you'll either have the the rejection of that authoritative command to repent and believe Or that is the means that is used the external call Combined the work the Holy Spirit is the means by which God uses to bring his people into himself.

So The the bare fact that there is a command to repent and believe many people take that as just Prima facie evidence that well, everybody has the ability to believe savingly they ignore the reality of the fact that The body the Bible teaches very plainly our own slavery to sin.

The Bible teaches very plainly the clarity of God's revelation the creation around us and within ourselves the existence of the of the conscience within man, etc, etc, and so They they they really leap Far too far too far in their thinking.

And ignore the role that the proclamation of the call to repentance and faith plays when God chooses both to draw his people unto himself in in mercy and grace as well as when God chooses to use that as a means of Further demonstrating that mankind left unto himself is is going to reject God's truth.

One of my first exposures to Reformed Theology Thology was a recording by J. R. Shelton. I don't think he's alive anymore. I don't know if you if you've read any of his stuff. No, I can't say I have but he's out of New Orleans.

But what he said, I mean he went through the principles of of Calvin Calvinism or reformed theology. And then he went over to the person is on belief and he says now I believe both both sides of it. But I can't reconcile simple belief with God's.

Preordation and that's how he got around it. Well, I don't see any reason to to adopt that. I know many people have. I know that one of the first presentations that was that was given to me Is of a gateway.

We're on the one side of the gate it says whoever will may may enter in and then once you walk through you turn around and on the inside it says You have not chosen me, but I've chosen you and you know.

All of these are trying to to take sort of a snapshot of particular angles of this but I I don't think there's any reason to Contrast the work of God with the idea of quote-unquote simple belief. Once we we ask the question, what does the New Testament teach?

Concerning the very nature of Mankind the very nature of the the sin itself. We see the necessity of the work of the Spirit of God to free a person from the slavery to sin. So it's I don't it's it's it's a mixture of categories.

Really to to even think that you need to somehow reconcile these two things because they're they're not contradictory to one another. Unless you insert into the idea that well simple belief can only exist on the part of an autonomous creature and That is that is Where I go well, okay.

Once you start talking about autonomy now, you're you're getting down to basic things like it does God have an autonomous will. Does man have an autonomous will and the nature of the will and and that's where eventually without without fail Mankind begins to try to limit God and to limit and you end up with you know.

Starting down the path toward open theism and and all the rest of the mess that comes with it. Well, that helps greatly. I appreciate that. Okay. Well, I appreciate that Mike. Okay. Thank you. All right.

God bless. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. Let's talk with Adam. Hi Adam. Yes, sir, yes, sir.

Hello, dr. White. I wanted to first of all apologize for the end of the program last week. Trying to get cognitive language septic and translations Hebrew text out in five minutes is a little too much.

I want to apologize for that and I wanted to ask a more general question today, though. I had a discussion in class today about Genesis 219 and its relationship to the order of creation in Genesis 1 and the debate there about whether you should take it as a poo perfect or a regular presence and it got into an interesting discussion about you know, the nature of God and things like that because My professor argued for the the regular past and from the basically we said I will make and then the verb says Well, then the Lord formed out of the dust to the ground these things and I pointed out that although the Lord said He'll make a helper the next the beast to the field that he formed don't end up being a helper.

And it was really interesting where the discussion went at that point because he tried to argue Well, there are many other texts in the Bible where it presents God is failing at what he does and then getting it right the second time.

And I thought he was just talking about the anthropomorphic language. And so I said what that point that he answers the question to the whole text of the anthropomorphic and he said no I'm not saying anything.

I'm saying I believe the text is teaching here that God failed in his attempt to make Adam a helper. Oh, and I I stopped for a second. I said, okay. And I and then I reversed it and I said and I said so Are you so in other words the Bible can't use this type of analogous language?

And he says well if you're going to take analogous language that way then that means nothing can be completely literal and. So I got from this two questions. Because he really emphasized the necessity of taking he said quote-unquote taking these texts seriously and not quote-unquote.

Ripping them out of the canon and I was wondering how critical to exegesis is a philosophy of language. Such as the reformed, you know version of analogous language and also The text about God repenting came up and things like that.

How important is philosophy of language to exegetes and also how important is to take an entire biblical theology? Into consideration when you're exegeting a particular text because that was something he strongly objected to his life.

So we just execute the text and leave it as it is if there are no questions if there are still questions there that we can't answer just leave the text the way it is and. So those are my two questions how important is philosophy of language to doing exegesis.

But how important is it to take into consideration the entirety of biblical theology?

Wow. Goodness. Well, first of all, yeah, don't look at that time's up. No. Well, first of all Unfortunately what you're experiencing there is is really the The the standard default position pretty much all across evangelical seminaries today the idea There's such a rank skepticism that exists amongst the act the Academy that we actually have a revelation from God that is Meant to function in a particular fashion for the church that it's meant to Equip the man of God to be able to teach and reprove and rebuke and exhort and that that kind of stuff.

So many people atomized the text so much that they would be willing to say yeah, well Paul may have believed that but you know Paul wasn't right about everything and.

And.

So as a result the idea that well, I can come to these conclusions I can look at this one narrow text and I can come to conclusion X that yeah clearly runs afoul of of other statements of scripture, but look this whole idea of a systematic theology is It's a dinosaur of the past.

We we don't in in the majority of seminaries today We simply do not Have systematic theology in the theology department anymore. It's in the history department. It's that can you believe people used to believe this kind of stuff?

They actually believed that the by that the Bible was clear enough to to present this kind of teaching and and so that unfortunately then they seek to take sort of the the high ground and say well No, I I don't think that you should ever allow any type of biblical theology any type of systematic theology to come into the exegesis you look at Genesis 2 and You you have the statement that it's not good for the man to be alone I'll make a helper suitable for him.

And so out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of field and I'm just simply going to Say see this was God trying to fulfill the helper. For man and because he brings all the beasts of field and so on and so forth and And he brings them to to man to man to name them.

But for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him and God went ah shucks. I Did my best let's back up and try again now. Okay. That's real interesting, but if I had a student writing fiction for me and They submitted something like that I really wouldn't have an overly high view of the students capacity and are we really going to think that the writer of Genesis?

Was that shallow and simplistic? That's really hard for me to believe. I mean it seems really painfully obvious to me that there's a reason why he asked the man to name these things and God doesn't name them himself and You know it's just like when.

It's just like when God keeps putting Moses in the position of having to intercede for the people. God says I'm gonna wipe them all out, and what is what does Moses have to do over and over again? He has to go um um no um.

Remember your promises um he has to intercede. What's going on there is God just the big meanie and Moses is the is the much more gracious person? Oh of course not. God is doing something with Moses. He is growing Moses.

He's putting Moses a position where Moses has to change where Moses has to identify with his people or where he's he's keeping Moses's own Sinful attitudes in check by causing him to have to see his role as the leader of these people so on so forth and even.

Then he still loses his temper and smacks the rock and doesn't go in the promised land so If the if the writer can do that then why can't the writer record for us God doing something with Adam as well and The Adam in that interpretation is completely left out.

Adams of just a character in the story has no role in this whatsoever we're not supposed to wonder what Adam was thinking as. As all these animals are brought before him as he observes the beauty of the creation of God as he sees that they're coming to by to.

We're not supposed to see any of that I guess and. And instead we're supposed to leap to the conclusion that well God tried. And and God was hoping that he'd like go. Hey horse. I'll take that what. I'm sorry.

I I'm a little bit confused as to why. Someone would suggest that this is the best way to read it. And not and not do what generations of interpreters done, and I just answered my own question. It's because Generations of interpreters have done it that there is this is one of the major problems in my perspective in the Academy today.

Is that is that if it is the traditional understanding. That must mean that it is pre scientific it's uncritical and therefore it is less likely to be the truth and there is in the Academy a tendency to want to reject that and to go somewhere else to to find some other way of looking at it and Obviously to me.

There is no reason to have to choose. And make a choice and well just let the text speak for itself, and if it's contradictory other. Well, you just let it stand there. That's that that makes God big.

No, it just means God can't talk right? That's that's what it ends up meaning. But the the point is that I don't see any reason whatsoever to do that you read the text and you go. Hey, you know God could have just simply God said let there be Eve boom.

But he chose to use a different methodology. He chose to do something differently and we go well, I just mean he failed the first time around I don't understand that I'm sorry I just it does not even begin to suggest itself to me as a meaningful reading of the text so, you know, I I shrug at that point, but What you're up against is yeah We live in a day where there is this skeptical philosophy.

That says you've got to learn all this stuff about about philosophy first before you can ever get the text of Scripture. And you know, I think one of the you know, this this doesn't fly well in the Academy one of the the greatest refutations of that is if you would drag some of these People out of the seminary and make them go teach in the you know, fourth and fifth grade class and I should let them see how the Word of God can communicate to someone who can't spell philosophy let alone enunciate it and.

I.

Really think it's one where one of the major disconnects is at that point in time. So I'm sure you've been reading some some of Antel probably.

Yeah, that's one of the things that I've been looking at is because as I said, my professor has A very narrow view of language and You know, I've been reading I've been listening mostly to Bonson and his speaking about Wittgenstein and his language games.

And things like that and that was one of the things that I was. But I was that I was thinking about the whole time is you know, I don't think he's I don't think my professor's gonna say. Well, you know God coming out of clouds means cloud means that he's got a saddle on the cloud of the lasso.

And you know, he's coming down you can see him sitting on top of the cloud. No, that's that's you know. Nice, that's not acceptable. But the question isn't how do you discuss the degree to which language is compatible with reality?

And to that I think you have to see how do the scriptures use it?

How do the scriptures. That's how a Christian philosopher would do it. But the problem is you don't have a lot of Christian philosophers in the Christian Academy. You have Secular philosophers who are religious.

That's where the disconnect takes place and I'm sorry but the Lordship of Christ and the Lordship of Athens are are contradictory to one another and one of them is going to have to take second place to the other and Sadly, it is frequently the Lordship of Christ ends up taking the second place.

I thought yeah, it's very interesting because I think my professor has been exposed to a lot of that. But he's also tried to still hold on to the inerrancy of scripture trying to still hold on to the omnipotence of God.

Here wait a second here, I'm like you like your interpretation of scripture. God repenting this text of Genesis completely contradicts that and. Like, you know, it seems like what it seems like what he's saying is he said, oh, I'm going to allow tension there.

Ah,.

Tension tension. I always say take some Advil for tension. That's.

That's what I said. You know, even the morphological forms between the two uses of yes are there are different. Well, you know.

Hey, when I'm when I was at Fuller tension was the favorite word. That is tension is the term you use to get around having to say error So that you can continue to say you actually believe in inerrancy.

That's Yeah, nothing nothing new there. Unfortunately, that's that's very very common. So hey keep keep pressing on with with Bonson Vantill. And you know, don't let it you know, I my seminary experience Was such that I I really had to learn a lot From that.

Struggle and you know do the same thing. It'll it'll be good for you. Yeah. Well, I think that that's that's one of the things I think that a lot of Hebrew Scholars especially liberals say I'm just presenting the facts I'm just presenting the fact and I think what Bonson and Vantill do is they show that you can't just present the fact they've they Come in and they come in a context.

They certainly yeah, and and that's part of the problem that that's why I think that if I Apply those standards to Hebrew studies. I think that we can at least I can help in doing a lot of good to restoring some.

Conservative sanity to the field. Well, you'll be you'll be one one voice. Out there that's you're gonna have to stand strong because you're gonna you're gonna be somewhat on the alone side. But there are others there are others there and the Lord the Lord has his people so press on Adam.

All right. All right. Thanks a lot. God bless eight seven seven seven five three three three four one before we Jump to our next phone call just want to make sure that folks know that is a toll-free number and we've we've over the past couple weeks have posted some videos in response to a number of different people.