Radio Free Geneva: Augustine and the Early Church, then John Lennox and John 6

You constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this, God's sovereign, God's sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign.

They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth. Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus, he says,

Lazarus, come out, and Lazarus said, I can't. I'm dead. That's not what he did,

Lazarus came out. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ? You take lessons from Judas White and Jeff Durbin.

It shows in this kind of sequential format. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?

Um, no. Some new

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief. A verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it?

It wouldn't make any sense to him. A self -righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk. And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

You're not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat.

There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. And now, from our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

Radio Free Geneva! Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for his own eternal glory.

Greetings, welcome to Radio Free Geneva. We have much to get to today. There's always a ton of stuff you can do on Radio Free Geneva.

People always ask, what is Radio Free Geneva? I don't know when we started, it was quite some time ago.

We respond to... Well, there's three categories of objections to Reformed Theology you can respond to.

You can respond to the really good stuff, which is fairly rare, as far as it being expressed.

You can respond to the most popular stuff, and then you can respond to the really, really bad stuff.

Unfortunately, the really popular stuff and the really, really bad stuff are frequently pretty much mixed up with one another.

So, we take the opportunity to respond to attacks upon the freedom of God to save in his own revealed fashion.

We live in a very man -centered age, and the idea of confessing that God is

God and we are not is not all that popular today. And so, as a result, there is much to talk about.

There are, of course, those who do not believe that we ourselves are Reformed, because they expand the definition, or contract it, depending.

I mean, I've honestly said that those people who would basically say that you have to hold certain ecclesiology, a certain sacramentalism to be truly

Reformed, and yet themselves do not hold the highest expressions of God's freedom and salvation, his self -glorification, the perfection of his work in Christ, it really makes you wonder how you're defining what it means to be

Reformed, to be perfectly honest with you. But, be it as it may, we don't worry ourselves too much about those folks. We want to remain focused on what's important, and that is there is a fundamental impact upon your worship, your belief, your ecclesiology, and, in our context, your apologetics.

If you maintain and defend the truth that God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass, as the

Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession would say, as Ephesians 1 .11 says, as Ephesians 1 says in Romans 9, and so on and so forth.

And so, we do these programs every once in a while. The opening gives you an idea of some of the range of materials that we deal with.

I will not be dealing today with any of the reality that certain folks at Soteriology 101 spent two and a half hours responding to 30 minutes worth of a discussion on What About Those Who Have Not Heard?

The reality is that that movement is spinning faster and faster and faster off into full -blown, unquestioned

Pelagianism. You have to sit back and actually need to take a few steps back so when it explodes you don't get any

Pelagian goo on you because it's just going to go everywhere. Don't get

Pelagian goo on you! There's a meme! There's a meme! Don't get Pelagian goo on you!

It's sort of like Ghostbusters, you know, when they would zap those things That's what happens when you go full -bore

Pelagian. But hey, once you've gotten to the point of saying, You don't even need...

We've often criticized, actually made fun of, the

Arminian concept of Prevenient Grace as the equivalent of theological scotch tape.

I've told a story about how when I was a kid, patience has never been my strong suit.

Some people say, Really? In debates? Evidently what happened was God knew that I was going to be doing debates.

I didn't know that when I was a kid, that I was going to be doing debates. And so he had me save up all my patience for use in later life.

And I didn't have it when I was a kid, trust me. So I would make these plastic models.

Remember plastic models? Doesn't anybody do that anymore? Sad. This was before video games and things like that.

I made model rockets. And then I'd also make plastic models. But I wasn't patient enough to let the glue dry.

And so I'd put scotch tape on it. Hold it together. That did not work very well.

Did not work very well. So we've called Prevenient Grace the theological scotch tape.

Hey, when you get to the point where you don't even need that, where you're actually criticizing the

Arminians for affirming the concept of Prevenient Grace, you're really getting out there.

You're getting out there fast. So that's there, but we're not going to be going there.

I want to start with some real general comments on the subject of Augustine.

And then transition into a much more textually based discussion based on John chapter 6.

I'm going to be looking at John Lennox's 9th chapter.

Just going to look at chapter 9. I have it up in Kindle. We'll put it up on the screen along with the biblical text next to it.

And we're just going to walk through the chapter and deal with the argumentation that Dr.

Lennox provides there. But before we do that, I would doubt, honestly, that these recordings still exist or if they do, they're on a cassette tape someplace or who knows.

But I remember, when would this have been? Mid -90s, I think.

I was at a conference someplace. I remember what the room looked like. But I can tell you,

I've only been in that room once. So I don't remember where it was. I think it was in Arizona. And I gave a presentation on what we can learn from the internal contradictions of the

Great Augustine. And basically, the outline was,

I was teaching church history. So this was, now I think about it, I'm pretty certain I was

Scholar -in -Residence at Grand Canyon University for a couple of years. I think it was during that time period.

Because I seem to recall my mind's making a connection between what I was teaching at that time and this presentation.

So anyway, I basically attempted to help people to understand that we are all influenced by not only those who came before us, but also by, and especially by, the current controversies that we are engaged with.

Or that are engaging the people around us. Sometimes we're dragged into things that we don't necessarily want to be dragged into.

And of course, I recognize that I couldn't have known at that time how social media would broaden the applications of these thoughts as well as, in some ways, cheapen them.

But my desire was to help people understand that there are many influences that determine how we do theology and the conclusions we come to.

And we need to be aware of the fact that the language that we use has been formed and shaped over time.

The more we know about the influences that shaped our theological language and the parameters of the meanings of words, the more we're in a situation to be able to analyze, in a meaningful fashion, how biblical our expressions really are.

The less we know, then the less tools, in essence, we have in our hands to be able to go, well, am

I really seeking to live in the light of, apply, and honor solo scriptura, the sufficiency of scripture?

Many people in the history of theology did their work without that desire. That's something you need to keep in mind.

And the number of people today who have a sufficiently high view of scripture, in other words, a view of scripture as high as Jesus' view of scripture, is diminishing in Western culture.

I don't think it's diminishing in other cultures, which may be a blessing from God upon those other cultures.

Let's just put it that way. Anyway, the more we know about those who've come before us, who have given us the tools by which to speak.

Now, there are people today, this is one of the issues with the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Movement, things like that, they don't recognize church history.

They think they're a blank slate, it's just them and their Bible, and they don't have to even think about the history of the language they use.

And of course, they are the most controlled by tradition as a result. I remember

Dave Hunt, James, I have no traditions. Well, those who think they have no traditions are the ones who are enslaved to their traditions.

We all have our traditions, and the more you are aware of them, and the more you're aware of their historical provenance, where they came from, the better position you're in to be able to recognize the influence of tradition and to filter for that tradition when you're seeking to handle the

Word of God. So, with that said, what I was illustrating in talking about Augustine was that here's a man who the vast majority of church historians recognize had a massively outsized influence upon not only the theology of his day, but the next 1500 years.

And I didn't mean to say outsized in the sense of he shouldn't have had that, but I think, given that he was one of the last great lights going into the medieval period, and an especially difficult period very shortly,

I mean, he writes about the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire, so you have the next few hundred years are going to be rough.

I think that may have something to do with how he had so much influence, as he's one of those last people before a period of rather deep darkness.

But, a large portion of Christendom, not so much Eastern Orthodoxy, but a large portion of Christendom, has great respect for Augustine.

A large portion of Christendom has never read much of Augustine. And the reality is, most modern

Christians, were they to read almost anything other than the Confessions, would be going, because there are clearly influences in Augustine's thinking that are not overly present in ours today.

And so, as a result, sometimes trying to follow his reasoning can be difficult.

Probably no other early church father has been studied as much as Augustine as to what influences there were, especially in his philosophy, his

Manicheanism, and the old battles against Gnosticism, and all the forms of Greek philosophy prevalent in his day.

Which had been retooled, sometimes revived, revised.

There are lots and lots and lots of studies on these particular issues. And for most of us who are

Calvinists, we go, okay, that's interesting, but I'm most interested in the biblical foundation of things.

And that's where there are some problematic issues with Augustine. He had a very minimal knowledge of Greek and no knowledge of Hebrew.

And as a result, there is not as much of a balance in what we would be looking for.

I'm looking for someone giving me consistent, sound, compelling exegesis.

And there are times when some of Augustine's most compelling theological statements are surrounded by exegesis that isn't all that compelling.

Let's be perfectly honest, sometimes you'll find a quote from Charles Spurgeon that just knocks your socks off.

But it didn't really come from the text he was preaching on either. So, that's happened.

That's a reality with a lot of some of the greatest men. They sort of go off on their own and say some great stuff.

It wasn't necessarily what the text was saying. But the primary thing that I focused on in that presentation and I think

I've given that presentation more than once. In fact, I know that I have.

And I've talked about it in the program before, but it's been a while. Is that you can see a fundamental contradiction in Augustine's writings that evidently he couldn't see.

And I've often wondered when I'm dead and gone not that anyone's going to care, but if someone takes the time to work through what

I've written and what I've done will the same situation prevail for me? And obviously

I don't want that, but at the same time we live in a fallen world, got traditions, got limitations.

There are things I don't agree with John Calvin, Martin Luther, Oleg Zwingli. I don't know of any theologian where I go, yep, crosses every

T, dots every I exactly like I do. And I learned a long time ago to still greatly esteem those with whom

I have disagreements. That's a capacity that evidently social media eventually sucks out of the brain of anyone who is addicted to it.

Anyway, so I wanted to illustrate that we need to have a level of humility if someone as universally acclaimed as bright as Augustine could have a rather glaring contradiction right in front of him.

What about us? And so I derived the illustration from the fact that in the

Reformation both sides, of course, appealed to Augustine. You had to. Luther was an

Augustinian monk and so there was no possible way for the debates between the

Reformers and their Roman antagonists there was no way for that to take place outside of an appeal to Augustine and the reality is both sides could do so in context and appropriately.

Why? I think the reason you know, I've quoted it many times, there's a tremendous quote from B .B.

Warfield Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield who said that the

Reformation inwardly considered was nothing more than the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the

Church and I think that is a very insightful and appropriate conclusion

The Roman Catholics could quote Augustine on the doctrine of the

Church and the Protestants could quote Augustine on the doctrine of grace and the primary reason both could do it is that there is a fundamental contradiction between the two.

Why? Because of the two great controversies that Augustine dealt with in his life and the fact is when you if you are drawn heart and soul into a great controversy where you become convinced that God has put you in this place at this time this is his truth there can't be a compromise.

So let's use somebody else's example Athanasius Athanasius Contramundum Athanasius Against the

World He's kicked out of his church five times for refusing to compromise in his defense of the deity of Christ the full deity of Christ the

Nicene Orthodoxy even when Nicene Orthodoxy was no longer Nicene Orthodoxy and we honor him because of that today we go hey here is a guy who just wouldn't give up and but no one is going to tell me that having that battle for so long did not fundamentally influence

Athanasius entire theological outlook when you are pulling on a rope for 20 years 30 years 40 years it's hard to stand up straight afterwards you know what

I mean ever played tug of war and you're pulling and you're pulling and then you try to stand up straight afterwards and it's a little difficult because your muscles have become accustomed to a different slant on things that is a danger for all of us it really is

I mean we live in a day where there are certain attacks that come against the faith and as a result the danger is that we will become imbalanced in our handling the word of God because we're constantly having to deal with objections to these things but not to their opposites and so what happens with Augustine is he has two great battles that he has to fight the first battle, the earlier battle at the end of the 4th century which is formative for his view of the church is the

Donatist controversy you had the earlier

Novatian schism then you had the Donatist schism and during Augustine's day there is a gathering of his people that he's in opposition to, they have 700 bishops that's a lot of churches in North Africa that have split off from Catholic Christianity as it would be called kathahalos according to the whole and it all had to do with sacramentalism it all had to do with the doctrine of the church it all had to do with what had happened during persecution it's an excellent story not going to take the time to do it today but it's an excellent story to go back and talk about what happened in regards to the ordination of a bishop and one of the bishops that ordained him was said to have been a traditor, a person who gave up the

Christian scriptures and so an ordination he would do would not be correct and so they couldn't follow that individual or anybody he ordained afterwards and so it was focused upon the efficacy of sacraments when you set aside a bishop this was considered to be a sacramental act and therefore if one of the people engaging in the sacramental act is himself an apostate then the act that he would engage in would not be considered valid or would it?

That became the argument and from this we have the two terms ex opera operante and ex opera operato and so the

Donatists believe in ex opera operante the one performing the operation, operante has to be in the state of grace or the sacrament's invalid whereas ex opera operato operato is the action itself the operation itself contains the authority not the person performing it so the eventual understanding of ex opera operato sacramentalism as initially championed by Augustine against the

Donatists he inherited this, he wasn't around when it started he inherited this battle and so he finds himself in a position of authority, he's now got to deal with it you gotta deal with the cards you've been dealt he was dealt a controversy regarding the nature of the church regarding sacramentalism and so he defended ex opera operato and it would become the orthodoxy of the

Roman Catholic Church and would eventually lead to the idea that a

Buddhist can baptize you properly as long as he does so in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit now

I find that absurd I argue against any form of ex opera operato sacramentalism the gospel is the power of God and the salvation not the forms of sacraments and when you confuse the forms of sacraments with the gospel itself, you've completely lost the lost what's going on but this was central to Augustine's experience, it was the letters he was writing and everything else this was what he was fighting in the early part of his ministry and Roman Catholics at the time of the

Reformation could rightly and in context quote him on their side in issues of church authority sacramentalism even though he certainly didn't have the full seven sacraments that Rome eventually came up with but they could quote him so what's the problem?

well because the Protestants quoted him all the time too on all sorts of things not just Calvin quoting him in regards to predestination and election and they could quote him in regards to grace and the nature of grace they couldn't quote him quite as well on justification because he had one fundamental misunderstanding in his mind because he didn't know

Greek and he was based upon the Latin understanding of justificate rather than the

Dikaiotou word group in Greek we would not consider him to be exactly on board with us now we would like to sit there and go well if we had a chance to correct his misapprehensions well maybe but that's what dealing with theology in church history is all about that's the problem is we can't sit down with him

I'd love to think that if I could sit down with Calvin and actually have a meaningful conversation and remove him from the context of having lived during Munster because Munster poisoned his mind against even listening to what anyone who would have

Baptist anywhere in their designation cannot listen to them cannot hear what they're saying just can't do it

I'd love to think that if we could do that we could sit down, we could have an interesting conversation but that's that's for heaven that's not this life that's not going to happen in this life and so the same thing with Augustine so we have to recognize where the problems came from he accepted the apocryphal books he thought they were part of the

Hebrew canon he was wrong he didn't read Hebrew, didn't have access like Jerome did to the

Jews in the Holy Lands and so we have to be able to look at someone and go,

I disagree with this, this, and this, this is why they believe this and yet still greatly appreciate not only the influence they had historically but how they themselves were influenced and Augustine was influenced in the first place by the

Donatist controversy the schisms in North Africa and then his second great battle was against Pelagius and so he's he is battling against someone who is making each person a new

Adam and so he is defending the freedom of grace now there is a book that I just recorded, it's not very long

I had seen a number of people referring to it months back it's not a subject of any of the debates

I have coming up over the next number of months and I have a number of them we're working on a debate in August right now that a lot of you are going to find very interesting with a well -known atheist but Doug Wilson and I are debating on paedal communion and paedal baptism we've got the dialogue at BYU we're working on a debate up there in Salt Lake on our ethics possible without God with humanist scholars and none of this has anything to do with this particular subject and there's just only so many subjects that you can address in a meaningful way in a short period of time and so I just didn't have it on the list but since it is making more and more of an impact

I'm going to work through it probably on my rides this weekend because like I said it was only it was 145 pages and it was it was once it was recorded it was only like 3 hours or something like that, maybe 4,

I don't remember I'll have to look at the sound file but that's a

Friday -Saturday ride easy right there, well last Friday it would have been I would have gotten it done in a single ride anyway

I mentioned that and I'm sure someone will talk about that on a blog post someplace very soon, happens all the time anyway and so the work is the work is specifically anti -reformed it says so in the opening it says so,

I read the introduction it's intention is to argue against Calvinism which

I found a little bit interesting because the it was being promoted as this super scholarly thing rather than having a particular agenda to it and one of the things that immediately caught me so let me, back up what

I'm going to do is I'm going to tell you right now what I expect to encounter and then once I read it I can tell you whether I was completely on or completely off, of course like I said

I read the prologue so I have some idea but the the standard argumentation that reformed scholars have been dealing with for well since the

Reformation is that you have a strong emphasis in the early writers of Christianity upon the freedom of the will so if you want to see how this plays out read

Erasmus and Luther they knew it this is not something new in any way shape or form and of course

I went to a non -reformed seminary but I had a really good church history professor and I started reading church history immediately thanks to him and so I have always

I guess assumed that everyone else was aware of the fact that the issues of soteriology are not the fundamental focus of the first four centuries of the

Christian faith in the most popular writings that have come down to us remember there's all sorts of stuff that did not come down to us for example the first full treatise on the atonement is in the fourth century it's not that the atonement hasn't been referenced it's that the atonement has not been systematically dealt with and when it is dealt with it's dealt with in very unbiblical categories and so when when people want to find something in the early church writings you can find it

I mean if you read the epistle of Barnabas which is not the gospel of Barnabas two different things, gospel of Barnabas medieval forgery epistle of Barnabas actually in the second century when you look at books of the shepherd of Hermas and these were popular amongst some

Christians in the second century deeply sub -biblical deeply sub -biblical and people go, wait a minute they were closer to the apostles than you are but they didn't have a completed canon some of them barely had any access to the

Old Testament a lot of these people are literally running on about 150th of what we have when we hold a bible in our hands so there's there's a lot of bad stuff in the early church there really is and there are and again, you look at these writers historically you learn to appreciate the good and filter out the bad and when it comes to satirological issues you find that Greek philosophy and those forms of Greek philosophy specifically emphasize the ability of man oh let's put it this way that specifically emphasize the lack of a divine decree which then determines human autonomy um vastly prevalent but here's the problem

I started reading this book and the first thing that it talked about was the universal perspective of the church prior to Augustine there is no such thing there is one thing that is universal in the church before Augustine.

Monotheism. That's it. That's it. I'm sorry I know this guy is well read Oxford and everything else, though I'm not sure these days that's quite as important as it once was but that is a major major overreach it's a major overreach for a number of reasons it's a major overreach because there's so much we do not have from the early church.

I would love to have the rest of the epistle of Mathetes that just simply means the disciple to Diognetius which is so rich in Pauline theology but we only have a portion of it did he address these issues elsewhere?

Would that not have ended the quote -unquote universal consensus on free will? Of course it would have if it was there.

We don't have it so as soon as someone talks about some universal consensus in the early church

I know they're not being fair. They have, they've got they're going for something. They're going for an agenda so if you ever hear anybody saying that the universal perspective of the early church was in support of Calvinism well they're just as wrong that's just playing with early church history just is there a majority a majoritarian influence of a

Greek philosophical perspective in regards to some form of human autonomy?

Yeah, definitely definitely are there in -depth exegetically based discussions of this that deal with the important texts especially, and here's the key as those important texts are found in harmony with the

Old Testament revelation of the God of Israel? No, not that I'm aware of not that I'm aware of so in other words one of the great negative developments

I was not going to go this long on this I was going to do about 10 minutes one of the great negative developments in the early church was the disconnection not only physically but mentally and knowledge -wise between the church and the synagogue so that beliefs like Origen's destruction of the

Old Testament text his allegorical reading which is really based upon a view of the

Old Testament text as having significantly less authority and relevance to the church than the

New Testament writers viewed it could arise and I believe one of the greatest powers of Reformed theology is that it took shape at a time when that early and medieval if you want something to even become a consensus in the medieval period, you've got that diminishment of Old Testament authority and Old Testament teaching that's being overthrown at the time of the

Reformation and that's wonderful because to me the

God who chooses Israel and brings

Israel into the promised land and promises to bless the nations through this little nation that finds itself constantly caught between global powers, between Egypt and Babylon and Assyria and all the rest that God says

I'm accomplishing a purpose and I'm going to accomplish that purpose and bring the Messiah into the world in a particular place at a particular time you cannot make heads or tails out of a meaningful reading of the

Old Testament if you do not believe in God's sovereignty you can't and the early writers the

New Testament writers should say the writers of the New Testament are fully on board with this, this is what is behind everything they say that is not the background of Greek philosophy, that's not

Justin Martyr's background Justin Martyr knows the Old Testament, he has to because he's dialoguing with Trifo the

Jew but he's still more deeply influenced by Plato and Socrates than he is by Moses and that's true with Tertullian that's true with many of the apologists are having to deal with Greek objections and so they tend to go that direction it's really not until Augustine that you have a belief arising that requires you to bring different threads together soteriologically in a unique context the

Church has been focused upon Christological issues, Trinitarian issues all the rest of that stuff and that's still ongoing,

I mean, Chalcedon is still in the future at that point but that's where the energy has been and with Pelagius you have a shift that requires new thought that has not yet thoroughly been vetted and so as a result my understanding is that what this book presents is that Augustine broke with a consensus which evidently would mean that's the view of the

Apostles which of course could only be established exegetically not by anything else he broke that consensus and my guess is going to be this had to do with Manichaean influences or various philosophical influences and of course everyone

Athanasius, Justin Tertullian you start going through the big names they are all deeply influenced by a muddled muddled

Greek philosophy you can find I mean, you can have human autonomy in Greek philosophy but if you have multiple gods what does that mean?

and when a god overrides a human decision, that's not a divine decree that establishes the framework of time

I mean, Greek philosophy just didn't even have what you can derive from reading

Isaiah to be able to be a foundation upon which to build anything that just needs to be understood and so I'm hoping this book may not even try to do the biblical thing and let's put it this way if you are reformed because of historical figures you're reformed for the wrong reasons if you're reformed because of Augustine, if you're reformed because of Gottschalk, fascinating fellow read up on it but because of Gottschalk or Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or the

Westminster Divines or whatever that is not going to be a sufficient reason the only reason to be reformed is if you are truly convinced

A keep reaching back here and I keep grabbing my first really super it still moves

I mean what's the date on this one this is my, it's the

Schofield 1979 so 40 41 years and that's in great shape this is this is in Oxford yeah,

God's word God's word this was the one I read through for the first time you know so obviously back then my eyes were much better than they are now if you don't believe that this is a divine revelation that is consistent with itself, not on a surface level but on a deep thematic revelational level that no human being will ever fully plumb the depths of in this life then

I don't think there's any reason for you to be reformed because what have

I said all along if you apply the same standards of exegesis and hermeneutics to the text of the

Bible that we apply on the deity of Christ monotheism, resurrection, whatever else to the key soteriological passages to the passages that talk about our relationship to God His purposes and redemption, everything else

I believe you will be reformed if you don't believe that I don't believe there's any reason to be reformed just like I don't believe there's any reason to be a

Trinitarian for that matter, if you do not have that view of Scripture so we'll see,

I'll report hopefully next week something could come up, I could get sick, I could get run over by a truck who knows

Rich could be sitting here next week and he's he's jonesing to do it I can just tell he's sitting out there going,

I could have done all that man this is boring right?

No, you're actually listening you're enjoying that church history lesson I love church history lessons they're fun we have my screen,

I hope good because I set it up just to do this I have mentioned a couple of times move this over here move that over there that I want to look at John Lennox's, Dr.

Lennox's book may I start off by saying I believe John Lennox is a servant of Jesus Christ he's a brother in the

Lord and I pray for his health and God's blessings upon him can we say from the start that we can disagree with someone, we can believe that someone

I think in this instance you have another follower of Jesus who

I believe is influenced by a certain set of presuppositions that very frequently are derived from philosophical considerations and that those drive the exegesis in such a way that it doesn't remain consistent exegesis and that that does not mean you're not a

Christian in fact, I'm going to be doing Iron Sharpens Iron in a couple of hours with Chris Arnsett and that's what we're talking about we're talking about the

Sonny Hernandez's of the world who basically promote a form of theological perfectionism to be a

Christian you have to believe this massively expanded, not just the core, but you have to be

I mean you have to believe in limited atonement you know and boom boom boom and we're going to talk about how that would have resulted in the fact that there weren't any

Christians for about at least 1500 years etc etc but they were there secretly though, living somewhere in a cave but anyhow so we're not taking that perspective but at the same time we do not buy into the spirit of the age which says that hey, if John Lennox does great stuff then you shouldn't ever criticize him you shouldn't ever respond to what he puts in print well, what he's put in print is an exact contradiction to what

I've put in print so what do you do? well, some people would say and I say that's not how you handle it

I'd love to see a debate I'd debate John Lennox on this, you bet of course, I go to London all the time easy to do

I don't think it's going to happen but just like I've said I'd debate William Lane Craig on this any day of the year, but that ain't going to happen either so one side's willing to go there and one side is not

I'm not saying we have not specifically contacted Dr. Lennox so I'm not saying that he would never ever do something like this,

I just haven't gotten the feeling I've gotten sort of the William Lane Craig air as far as this particular subject

I could be wrong anyway, chapter 9 if we can show this up here chapter 9 is

John by the Father and Coming to Christ and so that's, we're probably going to have to when

I'm reading it, make it full screen but then we can pop it down to there so let's look at what

Dr. Lennox says John's Gospel provides us with even more ways to help us understand what it means to believe in Christ he uses the metaphor of hearing to illuminate what it means to believe in Christ and so, he quotes,

I tell you the truth the time is coming, and has now come and the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live that's from John chapter 5 now

I would just stop and point out there is a very important play of words on John's part throughout the

Gospel on hearing and seeing, the blind man in John 9 the seeing, hearing very, very important and what was fascinating to me is that I was looking at this earlier and there is a text in John chapter 8 and because Dr.

Lennox is going to leave the context of John chapter 6 he's going to go to John chapter 5 and other places then

I think it's fair that I point this out one of the first texts I thought of was

John 8 43 where Jesus says why do you not literally know or understand what

I am saying my words to you it is because you are not able to understand you are not able, you do not have the capacity akuin to hear the word mine you don't have the capacity to hear my word that immediately came into my mind because this particular section you'll notice 8 47 as well, bring it up here so you can see it,

John 8 47 the one being from God the words of God is hearing, for this reason you are not akuin to same word, hearing because you are not from God so Jesus is explaining to men, remember the context of John 8 is in the middle of the chapter and it was interesting to me that he does address

John chapter 8 skipped right over this part just didn't even seem to see how contradictory it was to his position but he started with the woman taking adultery didn't even deal with the textual issue which

I found really interesting but anyway the point is in John chapter 8

Jesus is saying to men who believed on him who are going to pick up stones to stone him, who are offended as soon as Jesus said you need to be set free you are slaves to sin you are slaves to sin and as soon as if you continue my word you shall know the truth the truth will make you free and they rebel at this idea that they need to be made free and so those who are promoting the idea that we are free have a hard time with the biblical teaching that we are not free that we do not have certain capacities until God intervenes by his grace they struggle with that it's a tough thing for them to deal with and when he looked at that 843 did not even attempt to explain why it said you are not able to hear the assumption that he operates on is everyone has this capacity and in fact it's necessary that you have this capacity or God is not just I was typing

John that was an instance where my fingers and my mouth are operating at the same time and it's the mind it's a fascinating thing

I'm not sure God really designed us to multitask all that much to be very honest with you anyway, he says note once more the order the text does not say that those who live will hear but that those who hear will live this is completely consistent with the fact that the spiritually dead

Adam could hear the voice of God now I need to stop let me pull something out here and I've minimized the thing enough here that I need to expand it out so that you can see something here yeah okay right here this happens over and over again in this book and I know it's a number of my highlights here but when he does deal with John 8 notice it says in this section the

Lord begins by engaging in a deep and complex argument with a group of Pharisees forgive me for stressing the point but the very fact that he does so demonstrates once more that he did not regard them as intellectually dead and beyond argument you only enter into discussion with people if you expect them to understand what you are saying he was arguing with them as a witness to them and he expected them to grasp the content of that witness he was treating them as responsible human beings so Dr.

Lennox has an assumption and the assumption is that there would be no reason to engage in conversation he seems to here's the terminology he does so demonstrates once more that he did not regard them as intellectually dead and beyond argument who does believe they're intellectually dead?

not Reformed people they're not intellectually dead, they're spiritually dead and that deadness is a separation due to a lack of spiritual life and so they're not able to apprehend spiritual things so there is in Dr.

Lennox's presupposition the idea that man cannot be spiritually dead there has to be some level of spiritual life or you don't even bother witnessing to them and he seemingly does not understand that what we're saying is you better believe the rebel sinner can understand the gospel and respond to it universally negatively the response of man to the gospel is suppression and that suppression can take many forms heresy, disbelief, mockery, apathy, false religion of all form you bet man responds to the proclamation of the gospel but that does not mean that he in and of himself has the ability to aquin

Jesus said in John 8 43 you do not have the ability unless you are of God so the

Arminian the Synergist says will you get to choose whether you're of God or not no that's

God's choice and how could it work anyways how do you choose to be of God if you cannot hear his words you can't turn

John 8 upside down you can read it with traditional lenses on and just not see it but you can't turn it upside down and the same presupposition is operating in how

Dr. Lennox approaches John chapter 6 as well by going back to John chapter 5 and saying well here's this fundamental assumption that we have here so this is completely consistent with the fact that the spiritually dead

Adam could hear the voice of God Adam could hear God walking and calling to him but Adam had died spiritually and Jesus teaches no longer had the ability to act upon what he heard.

He hid himself he covered himself he covered his sin with fig leaves rather than seeking redemption from God.

God had to provide through the death of an animal. It's a picture we know it's a picture if you want pictures like this then how about we go with a picture that John purposely intended to give to us let's go to John chapter 11 let's look at Lazarus because you're quoting from John chapter 5 the dead will hear the voice of the son of God you don't think that that's what

Lazarus is about? the dead hearing the voice of the son of God and coming forth to life of course but that's all sovereign there's nothing that Lazarus could do and he certainly couldn't stop the son of God from raising him from the dead when

Jesus said Lazarus come forth please don't tell me that you really believe that a voice could have come forth from the open tomb sorry,

I like it in here nice and cool, don't have to work anymore listening to those two sisters of mine bickering

I'm happy here, thank you close the door, it's getting a draft not going to happen not going to happen the son of God is not going to be made a failure when he exercises his divine power to bring about resurrection so, hearing and believing come together they do and we have to be enabled to do them is the point of John chapter 6

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, that's right that's right once again the order is clear hearing and believing are the conditions in which eternal life is given that's right but, the assumption that is now being read in, it's going to be is being made the lens, and this isn't the first time we've seen this

I've dialogued with people on this program that did the same thing they read certain things into John chapter 5 and said, ah, see this means man has these capacities, so that when

John 6 says they don't have those capacities, we can sort of say well, that was just them or that doesn't really mean that or whatever rather than recognizing that John 5's focus the soteriological aspect of John 5 is not going to be expanded upon, explained until 6 through 10 because, let me ask you a question let me ask you a question let's see how many people in the audience could get this without looking, without googling what's the subject of the preceding verse before John 5 24 what's

John 5 23 about do you remember? because remember, this is vitally important exegesis requires us to honor the flow and context of the author's argument and what's

John chapter 5 about? it's about the perfect unity of the father and the son remember?

remember that Jesus does the healing he says he's working on the sabbath, like his father they recognize the claim to deity he's making himself equal with God and from 519 onwards in 519's immediate context

Jesus is explaining the perfect unity the unity of the father and the son so the son he's not denying his deity but he is saying that he's the source of life that's what

John 5 24 is talking about 5 23 right beforehand what's it about? well, here,

I'll show it to you in case you would question it since it's close enough here it's 5 24 and oh, look at that in order that all may honor the son just as they honor the father the one not honoring the son is not honoring the father the one who sent him huh it's primarily a

Christological issue so that when it says he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, does not come to judgment is passed out of death into life the primary focus is about Jesus it's about his word being the word that gives life it's not attempting to say ah, and that means that all fallen men have the capacity to believe and hear apart from what their relationship to God is whether they're chosen by God whether God draws them etc, etc that's going to be explained in chapter 6 and following but you can't read your interpretation of that into the following chapters to get rid of the actual discussion and that unfortunately is what ends up happening and I think is going to happen here too when we get to it so take us back to where we are in the quotations here once again the order is clear hearing and believing are the conditions of which eternal life is given later in that same chapter

John adds the metaphor of coming as a way of helping us grasp what believing means Jesus says to the

Jewish authorities you refuse to come to me to have life John 5 .40 now some did so Jesus is speaking in generalities and why?

because they want the honor of men they want to be liked by men they're not concerned about the glory of God their focus is completely wrong note once more that coming precedes the reception of life you refuse to come to me to have life, well wait a minute these people are alive, are they not?

of course they're alive so this is supernatural life this is resurrection life and everyone who comes to Christ receives life, there's no question about that the question is who is able to come?

and Jesus is going to explain that with clarity in John chapter 6 if we'll allow him to it seems what a lot of people want to do is they want to go to a chapter earlier and go well

I'm going to think it means this stuff and that will be a hedge against my having to accept what it says later uh

Jesus did not say you refuse to have life so that you can come to me note also that the word translated refuse means will not and refers to deliberate action of the human will well we would agree a thousand percent

I fear that Dr. Lennox thinks that we think cause this is one of the first things, earlier on in the book when it first came out

I started listening to the audio version and there was just so much of this reformed people think that the will has been destroyed that man doesn't have a will no, enslavement slaves continued to exist but they were still enslaved okay you can be a slave to sin you can be a slave to your nature you do as your father does that doesn't mean you cease to exist they made decisions that does not make them autonomous um note that the word translated refuse means will not and refers to deliberate action of the human will the implication is that they were capable of coming if only they willed to do so no, that's not the implication

I realize that that's fundamentally Dr. Lennox's entire argument but Jesus specifically says in John 6 44 you are not able to come to me it's straightforward so why would you read implication into John 5 that is completely contradicted in John 6 unless you're just trying to find a way around John 6 which is not how we should be doing exegesis ever

John 6 is universally regarded as a key chapter in connection with the debate about determinism and it therefore there is further detailed discussion of what coming to Christ involves

Christ miraculously feeds 5 ,000 withdraws and crosses the lake of Galilee he is followed by a large did

I misread that? by large crowds, okay and expresses suspicion of their motives no, he does not express suspicion of their motives, he knows exactly what their motives are, there's no suspicion at all

Jesus answered I tell you the truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs because you ate the loaves and had your fill, do not work for food that spoils, but food that endures to eternal life which the

Son of Man will give you on him God the Father has set his seal of approval, then they asked him what must we do to work the works of God, well

I'm sorry I'm going from a quotation, that's exactly how scribal errors take place because this is a more dynamic translation and as I was clicking isn't that interesting?

I'm just illustrating something here sorry guys, but I'm illustrating something here so I'm clicking over the next page and I gave you,

I've preached on this passage 60, 70 times debated on it have it memorized, and so what did

I do? As I'm clicking over I gave you what I had memorized and how many scribes when copying something at the bottom of a column went ahead and finished up before they turned the page, and maybe there was something different, illustration using a computer, anyway only

I would interrupt a discussion like this to talk about textual critical issues, but anyway what must we do to do the works

God requires I don't, work the works of God I think is even better than that, anyway Jesus answered, the work of God is this, to believe in the one he has sent

Jesus points them away from physical bread to a spiritual source of eternal life and tells them to work for it on their inquiring what that means, he replies the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent they profess to be interested in doing what

God requires, what God requires they believe in Christ this provokes the crowd to challenge him to do a sign, even though they had already seen the spectacular miracle of the feeding of a large crowd so they asked him, what miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you what will you do, our forefathers ate the man in the desert, as it is written he gave them bread from heaven to eat,

Jesus said to them I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven for the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world sir, they said, it's a courteous lord, but I wonder what translation this is from now on give us this bread

Jesus is quick to correct their mistake, it was, it is not Moses but the father, he is the father's son and the major emphasis and discourse that follows is to get his listeners to make the connection between him and his father,

God, the God in whom they profess belief, that connection is profound is the key to understanding and receiving salvation,

Christ is the bread that is given by the father for the life of the world his audience professes to want the bread of God, now

Jesus explains how they can possess it then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life, he who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty in order to have their hunger and thirst for life assuaged, they must come to him, they must believe in him the two terms come and believe are clearly synonymous and that's correct, they are being used synonymously in this section, yet there is a problem and here

I think very key verse John 6, 36, but as I told you you have seen me and still do not believe now

I this is where I'm I didn't look to see what the, well wait a minute got the paper version right here uh oh it's the

NIV the 2011 edition of the NIV, I guess there is some

ESV but otherwise notated it is from the NIV yeah okay here is the problem but as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe but I said to you that you have seen me and u pustuata is you are not believing, you do not believe, you are not believers he is identifying these individuals at that point in time even though they have sought after Jesus they rode boats across the lake to find him and Jesus says you are not believers and it is the explanation of the difference between those who believe and do not believe and why that is going to take up the next section and that is so vitally important my experience is that in the vast majority of non -reformed attempts to deal with John 6 that particular aspect the centrality of his statement to men who have come looking for him and have said

Lord give us this bread and what must we do you would think that would be enough for most people, no not for Jesus you have seen me you are not believers you are not believers how does he explain this rather strong statement now

Lennox goes on the sad thing is that they have seen Jesus, they have seen his wonderful acts indeed they have been fed by his supernatural power and in spite of all that many still do not believe, no they did not believe the ones he is addressing he is clearly suggesting to them that they have had enough evidence on which to base the step of faith in him well is that what comes after this does he upbraid them for you have had plenty of evidence and you are fully capable etc etc is that what is going to come up no instead you have what of those who do come and so may

I suggest that if you go what of those who do come you are creating an artificial break here because he has just said that belief and coming are synonymous they are so if we look over here at 636 you do not believe but the one coming to me

I will never cast out so there is a contrast between verses 36 and 37 and he is explaining the difference between the one not believing and the one believing and his explanation is found the choice of God but since that is not an option in Dr.

Lennox's interpretation then what you have is well what he is suggesting to them by identifying them as unbelievers is that they have got enough to believe well of course

I mean the whole point of Romans 1 is as long as you are breathing you have enough to believe

God's revelation gets through there without excuse so that is a given but by saying but what of those who do come you break the order of the text because remember this is exactly what

Norman Geisler did how did Norman Geisler deal with John 6 37 to 39 by jumping down to verse 40 for this is the will of my father in order that of all the ones seeing the son and believing in him might have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day so here you have men seeing you have men believing and therefore these are human capacities and that has to override what comes in verses 37 and following if you just simply follow the words of Jesus the next phrase after you do not you are not believing is pan ha didosen moi all which the father gives to me will come to me so the first thing in Jesus words is the giving of the father the sovereignty of the father that explains and is central to the unbelief of verse 36 but if you have a tradition then what you do in even in the setting up of the reading in the next verse you bypass that and go but what of those who do come let's let's go to what man does here see how that works one of those who do come

Jesus says all the father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me

I will never drive away for I've come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me this is the will of him who sent me that I that I shall lose none of all that he has given me but raise them up at the last day for my father's will is that everyone who looks to the son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day okay this is the key text so let's let's see what it said we only got 11 minutes left before we need to shut down on this one but if we do not get through all of this we will we can certainly pick it up in a future situation

I did not expect to go as long as I did on the Augustine thing how are we to understand this does this mean that their failure to come to Jesus now let me just stop for a second failure their unwillingness this this was an act on their part you are not believing that's not just failure it's like oops this doesn't mean their failure to come to Jesus is explained by their not having been chosen by the father with the implication that unless the father decides to do so they will never come

I almost feel like the next line is going to be may it never be may it never be or to use the

King James God forbid but that's exactly what a consistent exegesis of these words communicates if you start at the beginning and you just let the words define their own meaning yep that's what

Jesus is saying but such an interpretation of the phrase taken on its own now what phrase it's a couple sentences it's not a phrase taken on its own is superficially plausible no it is the best reading it is the clearest reading it is the consistent reading however if such is the case now watch y 'all see it on the screen right now but now you know why you start a chapter on John chapter 6 back with a couple verses from John chapter 5 because you don't believe what

John 6 says and you're not willing to submit your traditions to it so we need to jump out here real fast instead of walking through the text and explaining positively the words of Jesus you go could it mean that no it can't mean that because we already saw what we said was a suggestion an implication in the earlier chapter so if that's true then so however if such is the case then what we read in the previous chapter of John seems disingenuous and we don't we don't want anything to be disingenuous there

Jesus said you refuse to come to me to have life well yeah how is that inconsistent with what was just said here in John 6 you refuse to come to me to have life the only thing that's inconsistent here is is

Dr. Lennox's assumption that their refusal implies an ability that is upside down from what

Jesus is going to say in John 6 44 that's the only thing that's inconsistent because see

I as a Reformed man I see John 5 40 and yes you refuse to come to me to have life because until that heart of stone is taken out and a heart of flesh is given then you're going to keep refusing because you don't consider the life that he has to offer to be better than the life you currently have yourself whatever it means to be given by the

Father isn't interesting whatever it means oh such a mystery oh such a mystery whatever it means to be given by the

Father we cannot argue that it eliminates human responsibility and I say it doesn't except in your system where human responsibility has to be based upon human autonomy rather than what we would gain from reading the

Old Testament text and realizing that God held the Assyrians accountable for the actions of their hearts what was in their hearts even as he used them called them the weapon in his hand to punish

Israel or just as Joseph's brothers were accountable or just as Herod and Pontius Pilate and the

Jews were accountable if you have a Biblical anthropology rather than a philosophical framework then there's no contradiction none whatsoever you don't have to turn given by the

Father into some vast mystery that no one could possibly understand we do not deny human responsibility since such responsibility is exactly what

Christ affirms three sentences later now folks, do you see what's going on here this text teaches something that goes against John Lennox's tradition and so immediately you see an explosion of well we need to jump over here, we need to go over there instead of let's positively walk through what this text says first in context then we can talk about what it might mean here, what it might mean there how we might make a connection here, so on and so forth and as we have seen it is not good enough simply to assert that humans are responsible, not if we then proceed to portray

God as holding people responsible for something they did not have the power to do so there is this overriding you must have human autonomy, there cannot be compatibility, you cannot have an eternal decree

God cannot have determined all the actions in time he has a philosophical position that is determining how and what he can see in the text rather than forming your philosophical conclusions based upon what comes from the text this is an epistemological issue this is a scripture issue this is a solo scriptura issue this was the issue of the

Reformation this is Luther vs. Erasmus Dr. Lennox is Erasmus Dr.

Lennox is on Erasmus' side he's not on Luther's side on this issue, at all how many hours do you think the

Soteriology 101 thing if I go 45 minutes if half an hour did two and a half and 45 minutes, yeah it's four or five hours it's gonna go forever the statement whoever comes to me

I will never drive away that's that's after, we still haven't gotten the meat is a direct guarantee from the

Lord Jesus that he will never cast out anyone who comes to him that is, our assurance lies first of all in the authority of the word of Christ humanity went wrong because the first humans disobeyed the word of God and we have seen the way back to God involves learning to reverse that attitude in coming to trust him and what he has done for our salvation on the authority of Christ's word then we can know that if we have come to him he will never drive us away do you hear what's happening here please, hear what's happening this is very illustrative, this is very important if we come to him the text says that the only ones who will come to him are those given by the father to the son the whole foundation of our security in Christ is that the father and the son are united in our salvation this is gonna be expanded upon in the rest of John 6 and then in John 10 in my hand in the father's hand, no one snatches this is clearly

John's purpose to communicate these things but what Lennox is doing is we can know that if we have come to him he will never drive us away see, that destroys true assurance because what if I stop coming but you see the true beauty of John 6 is what

Jesus says I've come down out of heaven not through my will but the will of him who sent me and the will of him who sent me is I lose none of all he's given to me but raise it up on the last day there is assurance in Jesus not in me in Jesus not in me some sensitive people more aware than others perhaps their own weaknesses and failures sometimes react by saying yes

I can understand except that Jesus will never drive me away or cast me out but I am a weak person and I don't know what is around the corner how can

I know that I will not myself choose to wander away from Jesus' care am I not free to wander away so yes he will not drive me away but if I go it will be my fault entirely this view is common among Christians who think that human freedom must include the possibility that a believer may walk away from Christ and so lose their salvation inevitably they lack assurance of salvation we shall look at this extensively in our last chapter but for now we note how

Jesus himself addresses this concern to avoid this misinterpretation Jesus now claims once more that he has come down from heaven but this time he says it is not to do his own will but the will of the father who sent him he then explains what that will is that he should lose none of all that the father has given him okay so what does that mean what did it mean in verse 37 the giving of the father is what determines the coming to the son but let's see what the analogy does because I don't know about you but I know someone else who uses analogies to get around everything so let's hope that's not what this one is an analogy may help suppose a shepherd asks me to look after his sheep for an hour with the instruction please don't drive away any sheep that comes to you he comes back and finds me alone what has happened he says well

I did what you said I didn't drive any sheep away they went on their own it would be an entirely different matter if the shepherd said do not lose any sheep that comes to you that is precisely what the father has said to Jesus the good shepherd partial truth that becomes a whole untruth because yes the father has said to Jesus the good shepherd don't lose any sheep that comes to you but the first part of the sentence says

I'm the one that gives them to you and that's why they come to you you see it

I'm this passage is therefore a source of great assurance for the believer it teaches us not only that Christ will never cast out anyone who comes to him but also he explicitly commits himself to losing none of those whom the father has given him he will raise them from the dead in other words he will keep them eternally because it is inconceivable that he should fail to do the will of his father the believer can be utterly confident not only in the love of God in Christ but also in the provision made by the sovereign will of the father for the son

I agree so why not let the text speak for itself would you agree with me that right here

John 6 37 all which to give to me the father to me will come all that the father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me

I will never cast out so what action comes first there is no question about this grammatically logically philosophically in any form there is no question here the giving of the father determines who comes to the son if believing hearing and coming are synonymous then you have to be given by the father to the son you notice he's not doing what some people do and well this is only relevant in this dispensation this is only relevant while Jesus was on earth he recognizes that to start playing that game as many people do play that game and it is a game means you can't affirm

John 3 16 you can't affirm John chapter 10 you can't affirm anything in here as being relevant to us he doesn't do that but he also doesn't deal with the fact that there it is there is the statement this is so important that it is stressed in two parallel statements and this is the will of him who sent me that I shall lose none of all he has given me but raise up on the last day for my father's will is that everyone who looks at the son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day

John 6 39 through 40 the double reference to the father's will suggests that the second statement explains the first the emphasis in the first is on the father's giving and the second on human responsibility to look and believe now

I'll finish with this no no what I'll do is I'm going to I'm going to see what

I'm doing here I'm going to mark it with blue yes thank you very much for whatever you just did

I get it fine whatever they have really improved the kindle app I've got to admit the kindle app all of a sudden became really good

I'm going to mark that I don't want to rush through this because the transitionary passage from 39 40 into 44 is really important and I don't want to rush through it but what we have seen so far is that the key statement was passed over without a word of exegesis wasn't it well it can't mean that but we weren't told what it does mean all that the father gives me will come to me if your explanation of John 6 does not provide a positive contextual interpretation of that phrase it's because your tradition simply won't allow you to believe it it simply won't allow you to believe it that's all there is to it well okay kids we will continue with this

I've marked it that means I can forget it feel free to remind Rich that I forgot and he'll remind me and so we will pick up with it that was over an hour and a half worth of stuff but I thought it was important especially to cover some of the church history stuff and we'll be picking up with that subject as well something tells me there's going to be some radio free

Geneva maybe next week as well I don't know we'll find out thanks for watching we'll see you next time