1990's Mormon Radio Dialogue on Deification and Theosis

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Preparing for the Mormon Deification Debate

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line. My name is James White. We are sort of here today. We are live, but only barely. We're sort of running on six out of eight cylinders. That's just myself everybody else seems to be fine, but we're we're putzing along here just barely and so we're hopefully going to be able to bring you something worthwhile and it's going to help that I did want anyways to play some sections of a debate a radio debate that is available in mp3 format only to play certain sections of it and The reason being that we are going to be In Salt Lake City next weekend, I can't believe it's coming up that quickly.

I certainly don't feel prepared but we're gonna be in Salt Lake City at the general conference the Mormon Church and The evening of our Saturday outreach. We're going to be engaging in a debate with dr Martin Tanner a Mormon attorney on the subject of Deification or specifically can men become gods.

I don't know if it's going to focus on the early church doctrine or just what it's could be focused upon as as of yet. So it depends on I suppose my opponent's opening statement. I intend to focus primarily upon the the doctrinal teaching.

But to be that as it may I have been preparing and one of the ways I prepare is I if I have access To anything that my opponents have done in the past and I will study that if I have been on the air with them for example, I will take the time to to listen to the encounters we've had before and So what I've been doing is I have been listening to sections of some of the radio programs that I did Back in the early to mid 1990s with Martin Tanner as the host of the program.

But as one of the primary antagonists as far as my position was concerned along with Van Hale and just to get you an idea of The flavor the temperature shall we say of these particular programs? I'm going to play some sections and you'll notice and I would suggest you download all of 441 and 442 from our mp3 site if you'd like to listen to.

The two programs are recorded six months apart there's one section I could play a section where I can barely get a word in edgewise and It is very Mr. Tanner's frequently using terms like absurd and ridiculous and and pretty much in-your-face type of a situation and these of course recorded in Salt Lake City, so you've got a situation where you're in Utah and You are in a small radio studio the host of programs Mormon you have a Mormon Guest in the person of Van Hale, then you have myself and of course and you're taking phone calls not exactly a An evenly balanced situation, which is one thing.

I'm looking forward to in a debate is we have even amounts of time but As I was listening to these programs I would record them in mp3 format load them on mp3 player, and I was hiking Squaw Peak a couple days ago listening to this program and All of a sudden I hear this phone call, and I had it nice and queued up.

And then I said you know there's this big blank spot down here I'll go down there and delete that well that moved the queue. So I'm gonna have to play around to get the queue right again again here but a phone call comes in and I found it absolutely fascinating you may recall from last week the fact that we mentioned what has taken place in regards to Daniel C. Peterson and Dr.. Peterson is one of the main Individuals in the Organization called farms the foundation for ancient research and Mormon studies and last week we played for you a section of Dr.. Peterson responding To Bill McKeever on the subject of theosis and in fact that let me just play you a little section of that I mean this has already been Responded to and the fact that they keep bringing this up regardless of the fact is just amazing to me.

Well I would say we keep bringing it up because it's true and I'd be willing to go ahead go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week. And let's let's make sure we heard that it didn't sound very loud in my head.

I'd be willing to go ahead go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week. Okay, so now did you catch that voice? Now I Recognize that voice now having been on the air with Dr.. Peterson on KTK K he and Bill Hamblin and and Martin Tanner again the three of them versus me and But when I was doing the radio programs, we're gonna listen to today.

I had not yet encountered Dr.. Peterson as far as having heard him speak so Imagine my surprise, and I don't remember now. This is over a decade ago, and You do so many radio programs and so many different topics and so many different things that I don't recall all the details anymore but I Do not have any recollection of ever having realized that in the midst of this rather raucous going back and forth with Van Hale and and Martin Tanner especially Martin Tanner van only once in a while gets really animated.

It's it's mr. Tanner that's mainly animated as I'm Climbing up Squaw Peak I hear this call now. I remember the call I remembered someone called in focused on x 17 and Remember, this is a program that started off with my specifically mentioning the ensign article that appeared in 1988.

That was written by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen Ricks on the subject of theosis and deification. I I had specifically written a response that included that particular ensign article in it and so I've mentioned Peterson.

I have specifically refuted assertions that Daniel Peterson has made so imagine my surprise as I'm crunching up the Squaw Peak to hear the phone call, and I realized instantly That Dan on the phone is Daniel C. Peterson.

Here a BYU professor is calling into a program where his own article has been specifically critiqued. He doesn't identify himself does not try to rehabilitate Himself does not try to answer Any of the criticisms that has been made of his material at all.

But focuses on something else now, you know as well as I know That both Van Hale and Martin Tanner knew who this was on the phone. They knew this was Dan Peterson just like Van Hale knew that it was Bill Hamblin that called in a few late years later and That started the whole discussion of John 10 and year gods and all sorts of things that it's on our website if you want to go there and look at it.

The correspondence was was prompted by a telephone call a guy who identified himself as Bill. Well, it wasn't Bill. It was William Hamblin from Brigham Young University, so isn't it interesting? That when You know a little old Baptist minister comes up to Salt Lake City that you have a Mormon attorney a Mormon apologist and a Mormon context and BYU professors calling in and Then and not to you know not to Many years later.

You've got Dan Peterson. So I'd be willing to go to go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week. I'd be willing to go to go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week.

Yeah, uh-huh and Seemingly, but only in only in an anonymous way because He came on the program here, so what I'm gonna. Do is. I'm gonna play you the phone call. And it goes back and forth. It's quite lengthy.

I'll play you the phone call and then I'll play you the rest of that particular program. And again you can listen to these downloading this is specifically number 442 is the mp3 Format file on our website if you want to download that and listen to the whole thing.

I'd I'd Suggest it to you it is it is quite quite interesting, but now this is this isn't the professional way to do it. But like I said I lost my cue when I tried to cut out a space later on so let me say I can find it Here and y 'all get to listen with the father.

So if you want to take it back to the occasion oh very close Dan you're on the air with our guests. I have a question for Reverend white. He's made a great deal of the gulf of the chasm between. Okay, there.

It is that boy talk about a good guess. That's the beginning of the call. Listen to the voice you'll see it's the same voice as we are playing in that other section where. Of course we we hear oh. Where to go?

People on this issue any day of the week. I'd be willing to go ahead go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week. And so that's so that's Dan Peterson. That's his voice.

And what we're gonna hear here, then is his phone call to Martin Tanner Myself and the Van Hale up in Salt Lake City, and you'll I think get the the gist of what's going on. I being the creator. No. No.

The pagan poet who says that we are God's offspring and then he obviously quotes him with approval. What would you make of that. Well? I think I gave an indication in in exactly what I just just said that God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

It's what he says in verse 24, and so yes He speaks of the fact that God is the creator of all things and that's how I understand the term father. God is not a man as we are men. Hosea 11 9 tells us and since we are God's offspring We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone.

In other words We are created in the image of God if we are not Idols of gold silver and stone then obviously God cannot be an idol of gold silver or stone either. We are created in the image of God in that sense you can be called an offspring.

But it that does not make God something different than what the prophets of Israel said the very God who is the eternal creator of? all things who is spirit and who is Omnipresent. So offspring there has a very specialized definition that you could never use in any other context.

No, not at all. Not at all because no not at all because for example in the Old Testament Israel is the offspring of God. Israel. Israel is called. Or God is called the father of the people of Israel, but obviously does not mean that God gives physical birth to nations.

Well, that's quite true. It's usually a metaphorical sense, but it does as it is here of the same type as it is here. No, no, no. You may remember that the word genos which is used there in the Greek is related in fact to the Latin word genus the same One that we use and it means Of the same type it means radio.

I think you've just given height. I think you've just caused yourself a problem because for example the term monogamies Which is made up of monos and genos that is used of Jesus Christ as he is the unique the only begotten Son of God.

Now if you're going to force genos into that what are you going to do with with that meaning? He is the. With that meaning that he is the only one now gamay doesn't have to do with genos. They're obviously related, but it's not the same thing.

I don't want to get into a technical discussion of Greek terminology here. So all of the standard Greek dictionaries indicates something that is of the same genos as something else. Those things have something in common.

They are the same kind of thing. I think you're not really dealing with that issue. Well, I usually you raised through the whole program and it simply breaks down when confronted with a verse like this.

Well, sir, God rebuked those who thought that he was like them in psalm 50 21. You've got to read act 17 in the light of everything that has come before it which includes the clear emphasis That God is not a man that God is eternal that he is the creator of time.

And this idea that he is somehow creating Beings of the same kind off of genos I think is reaching far beyond that if you have one of the standard Greek dictionaries available to you. For example the one you're right in front of me.

Okay, bow our gingrich and donker. Does it cite act 17 29? Spot. I can get the other one in a second, but I don't think I'll take the radio time to do it. Well, I just tell you what it says here. Can I ask you something to send them?

Genus yes, it does not say. Okay. So what you're meeting what you're saying that is that that same term is used of God creating a a planet for example in psalm 90 verse 2 it says before the mountains were brought forth wherever thou form the earth in the world even from everlasting Everlasting thou art God.

The word brought forth has has reference when used of humans to birth. Are you going to be consistent and apply the same technical definition there and be? Extremely literal and say that God is actually a female who brings who gives birth to mountains and world.

Another language. We couldn't get up if you this way. Uh-huh. Are you are you prepared to say right now that get off is never used of anything other than a physical relationship of the same? Kind father and son.

No, I'm not. I'm precisely me. It can be used metaphorically. In fact, you'd probably find it saying that it means kind or genus. It says here. We are also his offspring now I'm not translating it at all springiness.

We are of his kind, but that's what it has a physical relationship I do say that implies a qualitative similarity. Well, wait a minute now I Think you've got to dig into this passage a little bit deeper and look for example at the verb that is used here and try To deal with what it are.

Are you familiar with the verb that's used there? The park on. What does that say? What do you think it says? I'm curious. Well, obviously Paul I do not believe for a second that Paul believed that we are God's or of the genus of God in that sense I realize you don't mean you don't think that it means that but it seems to me to mean precisely that okay.

And so would you say that we are? Would you say that the way I interpret this passage when you first gave it to me? Violates the meaning of genus. Yeah, we are created in the image and likeness of God that violates the meaning of genus.

Well, by the way, you interpret image and likeness. Yes, I think it does. Well, I think that I interpret image and likeness the same way that Paul did because he said God is invisible. So what do you think image and likeness means?

Didn't mean by invisibility the invisibility and in theory you met invisibility. In fact, that's a very easy thing to deal with a very invisible a very easy thing to deal with that heat when Describing the nature of God said he is invisible.

Yes, we don't see him. Do you see him right now? I don't he dwells in light unapproachable. Mm-hmm, and then that's just because well, we haven't seen him. Well, wait a minute. I thought Joseph Smith saw him didn't he?

Yes, he did. Well, that means he's on visible Doesn't know all the argument on this. I'm not going to get into this. So he knows. Could I could I invite you if you would be willing and if Martin would allow me to do so to For me to give out my address and to a correspond with me on the meaning of genus I would certainly be glad to correspond with you on the meaning of genus.

Can I could I give that address out Martin? Sure, that's fine. Okay, you could write to us at the Alpha and Omega ministries and the post office box four seven Zero four one. Let me repeat that. That's post office box four seven zero four one.

Phoenix, Arizona. And the zip code there is eight five zero six eight. That's eight five zero six eight. Very much like to correspond with you on the meaning of genus in act 17 and Begin to you you mentioned you'd be willing to talk about the definitions the words dig into Bauer and gingrich and donker kittles theological Dictionary etc, etc.

Like by the way to take the occasion to deny something else that you've been assuming all along which is that That God is the creator of all things that kneel or that doctrine is not attested. Oh, I think that's very untrue.

I think you'll find it. First of all in the Jewish sources very strongly. Well, none of well I wouldn't I wasn't even including Philo in in in that but it is it is clearly said in. Since the context that I said it was in regards to the early church fathers.

Obviously before the second century you're what you're saying is you do not find in Clement Ignatius or Irenaeus or maybe possibly I'm sorry. When do you date Clement? Oh, I'll tell you about Clement of Rome.

Not Clement of Alexandria. You don't you don't find it in Irenaeus. No, you don't you don't find it Milito of Sardis. Okay, and you'd and if you saw these things I'm getting knocked across the room here moment and if you and if you saw these things if they were sent to.

Well, if I saw them, I'd want to know how you interpreted them. I doubt that they're there. I'm thinking particularly of a correspondence for a couple of people at journal for a far greater authority.

Maybe 165 your favorite station. Well, actually I'd place it in Colossians. All right. I'm sorry Isaiah chapter 40 as being a very clear evidence of it. Oh, I'd absolutely deny that. Well, you can deny it.

I just I just like to invite the listeners to read Isaiah chapter 40 through 48 and see if they don't find out there for themselves the thing that's fair. They should know though that the I totally deny that and ask them to to look into it for themselves.

Okay, I would suggest anything by David Winston and I'd like to just the dr Kaiser from Trinity evangelical divinity school on the subject the Old Testament the doctrine of God there. Well, if you want to feel that way, that's fine.

But. And I'd like to add that amongst most scholarly opinion outside theological schools. There is no God virgin birth or salvation either if you want to go that far. Well, we're not talking about that kind of an issue of faith.

Well, I think we are and I wouldn't identify that as an issue of faith. That's it's not simply the issue of faith that's an issue of. Excuse me I mentioned creatio ex nihilo in reference to the very same early fathers that we were citing in regards to deification.

Please try to be accurate. No, no. No, you also used it. Oh, yeah. Yeah, well, I believe it's clearly in Paul. Well, no one else all things are made by him and for him and he is before all things on him all things.

There are lots of things that that Reverend white has has disagreed with us and the scholars on this evening. So I guess we'll leave leave it there. Please don't give me that. They are they're said to be biased.

Oops. Sorry about that. I Am going to a second thing. I want to hear the end of Peterson's call of fact James I have a statement of fact there are many things that you've disagreed with first of all and foremost is the parallels the striking parallels between the Mormon Concept of deification and that found in the writings of the early church fathers.

Okay, we'll pick up at that point but Aside from Martin Tanner's out. Well, yeah, you know Reverend white. He's a disagreed with us and the scholars on lots of things tonight. Listen to the whole thing and and you'll discover that that really doesn't have a whole lot in the way of merit.

And for those in the other room, we'll need to take our break early because I'm gonna start a second section here in a moment but Imagine for a moment that you have you have written an article and published an article and someone comes on the air and they criticize your article and they they refute your article and You call in and you just give the shortened form of your first name you do not announce who you are you do not address the criticisms that they have addressed of your article and That's exactly what you just heard.

I cannot imagine What it would be like to be Dan Peterson and to call into a program like this in an anonymous fashion as he did and Not even respond to the criticism that was leveled against your own article absolutely amazing and Even more amazing to me is Martin Tanner and Van Halen.

They're knowing full Well who this was and not saying a word about it very very strange. When I when I realized that that call had come from Dan Peterson at that point. Things go back and forth between myself and Martin Tanner for quite some time and you will hear them making reference to a single excuse me a single citation of Ernst Benz now I Go back and I discuss what Ernst what that particular citation was actually about.

We'll play that section. But Well, then we'll move it back later, so I'm gonna play that section and Let you hear the back and forth that took place between myself and and mr. Tanner on that particular particular subject of James.

I had a statement of fact there are many things that you've disagreed with first of all and foremost is is the parallels the striking parallels between the Mormon concept of deification and That found in the writings of the early church fathers.

You want to know they leave foundational things I know I'm but don't say that I'm disagreeing with scholars. But if you would like to that's fine. But you are disagreeing with scholars and I will make that statement again as are you you realize that you that the more of the Entire Mormon position disagrees with ninety nine point nine percent of all Christian scholarship in the world.

That is an absurd statement on the face of it This area of deification and on any other day of the cave and on any other subject that there is a 99 point any degree of difference. That that is absurd the parallels between all brands of Christianity are far more striking than the difference.

Let me ask you how many how many scholars? would support the changes Joseph Smith made in the Genesis chapter 50 and that In fact would support the Joseph you believe the translation. Do you believe that that's 99 that 99 of the Bible was changed by Joseph Smith?

What does that have to do? I just asked you you said that over 99 was not. The same was not parallel in any way. No, what I said was that 99 of Christian scholars would disagree with as an example Joseph Smith Quote-unquote translation.

I use the term very loosely because I don't think he was translating anything. For example of inserting a prophecy about himself in the 50th chapter of Genesis. Can you name me any L any scholars outside the LDS faith that believe that Joseph Smith quote-unquote?

Restoration of Genesis chapter 50 has any basis in historical reality. What's good as a Translation as a translation, you know. But I would be willing to say that 99 of them have never even looked into the matter either.

And so it's interesting when when scholars do look into it. Then all of a sudden they are they're said to be biased because of supposedly being anti-mormon. I've had many conversations with Mormons, for example, where when a scholar has made a statement on Something relevant to the LDS faith.

Well, he's got a bone to pick. Well, and and when we brought up a source earlier this evening where my word as a scholar finds striking parallels I asked if he was LDS. Yes, and he wasn't proper. No, that's fine.

And and surprise. He wasn't. How do you account for that change? What do you mean surprise? He wasn't. I want to know if he was LDS because I've seen some writings that are tremendously. Did you buy it LDS?

No, I did not. I wanted to ask if he was how do you account for the parallels? That he found and the fact that he was not LDS I disagree totally with him with the application that has been made of the doctrine of deification.

In for example, the ensign or in Robinson's book if you want to just say well, yes. There are totally and completely foundational differences. The early the early Christians would never ever viewed their doctrine of deification the way we do but there are still parallels.

Do they want to say that and I said and and I said Something very close to that in the first three minutes of the show. Mm-hmm, and that's why there are some substantial differences, although. You continue to fail to accept the striking and numerous parallels.

Well, I don't. I'm sorry if you want call them striking and numerous parallels. The simple fact the matter is the early church fathers will let our letter to the night. Let me talk about joint heirs about drones about judges the divine nature.

About all authority all those other things about becoming the very image and About about being made in God's image Him and we agree with all those things and yes. And and then you you don't see any of those and then I have seen none of those is parallel.

Well since the early church fathers didn't define God by those things Martin. Oh, really? But it didn't define God. I don't think have anything to do with God. Let that's an absurd statement. Margo's very thing are used to describe that and those very things are used.

To say how we will become like him. How can you say that those things don't define God? How can you think that early fathers to find God by some of the following things? Creator of all things do they ever say that men will be the creator of all things?

No, no, and they ever say Mormons. They ever say be the creator of all things and neither do the early church fathers. Then you just made my point for me that they obviously Clearly do not have in the concept of deification the idea that men will become God in the way that The LDS believe that we are of the same species of God.

No, they ever say that they are to be worshipped. No, but he's afraid to nobody says That the the deification as LDS believe it is exactly 100 the same as the early church fathers. We've said that there are striking parallels.

You have pointed out a few different things. I'm sorry, but if if those differences are absolutely foundational. You as an attorney know that at any good argument if you're attempting to make a parallel you have to deal with the foundation.

Let me go ahead and stop it right there and we will pick up with that rather interesting Back and forth between myself and Martin Tanner and at the end of this program. I also Read the actual citations.

They say that I had ignored and Demonstrate that those citations disproved their point and proved mine and we'll continue on the dividing line right after this.

Justification by Faith and the Reformation

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J Adams says I lost sleep over this book.

I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen org.

More than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?

James White's book The Roman Catholic Controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture The papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at a omen.

Org. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

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

The morning Bible study begins at 930 a .m. And the worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 p .m. On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix.

You can call for further information at 602 to 6 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PR Bc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Continuing the Mormon Theosis Debate and the Ernst Benz Citation

And welcome back to the dividing line, my name is James white. We're listening to myself and Martin Tanner sort of going at it back in the early 1990s and the subject deification in light of the upcoming debate this weekend at the University of Utah up in the Salt Lake area and We are doing so so you can sort of hear some of the interesting things took place.

We've listened to a a call from Daniel Peterson. Who did not identify himself as Daniel Peterson? I'd be willing to go to go head-to-head with any of those people on this issue any day of the week. Yeah, that's the Daniel Peterson.

We're talking about. We can't get him to do that though, that's what he said he'd do but but he won't and so anyways, we're listening to Martin Tanner and I going back and forth on that if you would like to call and Participate in the sense if you've got some questions about some of the things you've heard and Sort of in this general topic area if possible then eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one is the number you might want to wait for a Little bit closer to the top of the hour because the next section that we're going to be playing a little bit lengthy.

Hopefully useful to you. And so let's continue on deal with the foundations since the foundations are completely different. Since the early Church Fathers defined God in regards to his eternity and creation.

In that are you telling me that the LDS concept of God is in no way similar to the early Christian view in your view. Yeah, there's no parallel. No, no. No, you believe it is not a parallel knowing you cannot God's all-knowing.

You cannot do you believe? Yes, obviously you believe that he has all power. Yes. Great. We've got a few parallels. Don't we know how do you account for that? The LDS God the LDS God does not have all power sir, not in the Christian sense.

Well, what is it was there a God do you believe do you believe what they're not before him? I I don't know the answer that I believe that that he was there from all beginning and so what's Turning out if you say that listen if you say that if you say that you have to say in what sense because in a very real sense LDS people believe that God always has been you failed to acknowledge.

He always been God. And he always been God off existed. He self-existed. He was never begotten. No, no, he never lived as a man on another planet. Yeah, he was it was he was he born of parents? Yes. What's he got at that time?

No, then he cannot have eternally been God. Oh, are you self-existent in a very real sense? Okay. So what you're saying is you're self-existent and God is self-existent with the early fathers who said that you were self-existent.

Some would yes. Oh, really in a sense that God is self-existent. All right. I don't know. You're asking me to try and tell me who said that you're trying to get me to speak for the early church fathers the way You want to speak for him?

And I the fact is there are foundational very foundational differences between what you believe and what the early church fathers believe Foundation I want but I don't want to acknowledge that you just want to point out you want to point out all.

There is no difference Thank God if you turn early Christians, but you want to just sweep under the rug all the differences be part I don't appreciate that. I'm not I'm not sweeping anything under the rug.

That is that is an unfair statement. That is not an unfair statement. You have you have presumed to speak for early Chris on one point on and I've documented that and you've agreed with the point. No, I that's not true.

Yes, it is true. What was the point that I spoke for the early fathers that God was again a toss? Without beginning in origin and source and you agreed that that's what they had said. Oh, that isn't exactly what I said.

I disagree. I'm glad this is the ice age. I just agreed with you. Because then we can go back and listen go back and listen, but let me just refresh your memory. I made the point That the early church fathers did not all agree with you on the idea about That there is no possibility for a person being God.

Except for the father I didn't say that first of all the point that I made in Representing the early church was that they believed that the being of God is our guinea toss without origin source Independent and self-existent and that he is alone in that van.

He is alone in that I stand by that. In fact, I would be willing. All right, I would be willing to come back up here to Utah at your at your Leisure and we'll find a place to do it and we'll go for three hours in a scholar debate with with with moderator and And go for exactly what the early church fathers taught in regards to the fact.

Is God Self-existent or is he not? Well, I believe that self-existent. That's not the point. We've agreed on that. We've agreed on it a hundred times. You keep going back to that as they fail for the point that I'm trying to make not avail at all.

Yes, it is. It is not I I'm saying and I I think you I think you were acknowledging. I mean you're kind of nodding your head and so forth. I was I was pointing out that many of the early church fathers Believed that there was a point in time when a person be became a person who is now God.

Prior to that time was not God and I'm making reference to Jesus. They did not believe that Jesus Christ was God in the sense that God is God. That's right. That's right. That's my point. Okay, we agree point.