Oliphint/Jaros Dialogue

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

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

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

July 4th Solo Broadcast and Upcoming Santa Fe Trip

And welcome to the dividing line on July 4th, yes. It is in fact, July 4th here in the United States, which doesn't really mean a whole lot to anybody else. If you live outside the United States and we have a lot of a lot of people Who live outside the United States that listen to us anymore?

So we are thankful that you're listening. But what that means is I am alone here today now, sir Brass said that he is actually coming in. I tried to write back and say don't don't need to worry about it we're we're okay, we're ready where we can handle this and So it's gonna be sort of plain Jane.

I mean we had the opening we we might we might have the closing. I'm not sure But I'm just I'm just here all alone. My voice is is echoing through the hallways. Well, we don't really have hallways. We have a hallway, I guess.

But anyways, here I am and it is it is it's good to be with you All alone first time we've ever tried this every other time. We've done this we've you know, every other time I've been tempted and You know Richard started going over stuff and then you then you click this and then you then you do that and And then you you pop that up and you turn this over here, and I'm just like, you know I I think folks can probably survive without a dividing line.

It's okay and and we just we just haven't haven't done it but I thought you know what I I just hadn't thought about About The fact it was July 4th rich has things to do. He has a family right now I'm alone.

My wife is in Georgia with the with the daughter and and granddaughter and stuff and so I'm just it's just you know, I'm just sort of lonely here all by myself and so anyway, I Thought let's go ahead.

And do it because I I can't guarantee a whole lot of dividing line stuff next week. If I can remember to save these files to my jump drive not to my jump drive to Dropbox so that I can grab them. While I'm in New Mexico.

Maybe maybe we'll be able to press on well, we'll see. Anyways, we will we will do our best. So we're gonna we're gonna get back. I got a lot of a lot great deal of response to the Program yesterday when we started looking at apologetic methodology.

So we will continue with that however, I want to just make sure I just mentioned I will be in in Santa Fe, New Mexico starting on Sunday. I will be doing the Sunday morning service at the Gospel Life Community Church and Then we're going to be having a conference starting at on Monday the 8th.

With a Q &A dinner and a Q &A dinner Generally means that I don't get to eat much. I'll never forget when I did a Q &A lunch at Trinity University, I forget what it was. It was somewhere in Tampa and they literally put a table out front and That's where I had to sit and then the students came in and they got to eat and they got to ask me questions.

They put food in front of me, which I never got to eat. It was like torture because I was really hungry and it was like torture I could I could never eat because I was just being hit with questions. So anyways, hopefully that's that's not what that is Ends up being hopefully the the Q &A part is after everybody including the poor speaker gets to gets to eat but then anyways on on Tuesday evening the 9th maintaining a Christian witness in our secular world and On Wednesday the 10th maintaining Christian witness in the religious world.

And so what I'm gonna be talking about in those. Well, look, it's what we talked about here all the time. But more on a personal level and and obviously within the context of the church and and I've spoken There in Santa Fe a number of times.

The the name of the church has changed Gospel Life Community Church. But this is the church that I've been to many many times before Paul Skazafava is the pastor there and love these folks and for some reason they love me too and so if I can do anything to be of encouragement to them, I encourage you if you're in the Santa Fe area Albuquerque, whatever come on down Great church and we're gonna have a great time together.

It's starting on Sunday morning. That's assuming that my that my little Nissan Versa gets me gets me across the desert there to Santa Fe on Saturday when I will be driving over there and Praying for God's traveling mercy.

So anyways, that's what's going up going on next week. And Yes, I will be doing a great deal of riding while I'm in Santa Fe because Santa Fe is 7 ,400 feet above sea level and that's a wonderful wonderful thing to get to Ride at high altitude before we get back to the apologetic methodology thing.

Bob Hadley, Titus 2, and Calvinism

I just wanted to briefly mention that When I got home Think it was yesterday Some at some point yesterday. I noticed on Twitter that There had been some Back and forth with pastor Bob Hadley now. Remember I I mentioned pastor Bob Hadley On This is weird because We have these security cameras and and so I'm seeing somebody doing something odd and the security cameras now and there's no one else to go sort of like look and see what this person is doing other than me myself and I and So it's it that is very distracting to have that going on there and wondering Why is that guy wandering in there when he doesn't really need to be here.

And so now he's Hopefully he's just hiding in the shade because it's it's hot in in Phoenix. But if all of a sudden Hmm if all of a sudden I I start playing music or something Which I'm not sure I could do anyways.

But if all sudden the song starts and you hear someone yelling be right back that's That's what's going on because now he's leaning over and doing something over there next to the building. And so let's let's hope he's not lighting the building up or anything like that.

But anyhow What was I talking about? Oh pastor Bob Hadley. Yes, indeed pastor Bob Hadley Remember his SBC issues website. I had read some of his commentary against Calvinism And I wasn't trying to review the whole thing simply because it was just as I just can't understand how Anybody can read the Bible and come up with this stuff.

So I'd seen there had been some back and forth. So I tweeted him Just to let him know that I Had responded to his article. Well, he responded to me and This morning. He sent me this I just Now remember Calvinists are terrible Calvinists are mean and Armenians are nice and loving.

So here's what pastor Bob Hadley sent me Since you reviewed my article on Calvinism small-c all the time. I Reviewed your pitiful take on Titus 2 and then there's a linked to his website. Well, at least he kept listening afterwards and I heard at least something that I said, I don't think he really heard what I said to To Michael Brown.

I was reviewing the all and every stuff. But if you go to SBC issues, it's it's www .sbcissues .com. Just read James White and Titus 2 and see if you can figure it out. Basically, I guess I guess well.

Well right the end here White's argument is really very simple since it's God's grace that is training us to renounce godliness and worldly passions. It'll have self-controlled upright and guide the lives in the present age Waiting for our blessed hope appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ that same grace saves us right.

He says that statement is correct. The same grace that saves us is the same grace that sustains us and sanctifies us, right? The mistake white makes is he tries to turn that around to say The same grace that sanctifies us is the same grace that saves us.

Oh So white in Inadvertently, I guess there's two ends there inadvertently slips the us who are sanctified is the same us That not are saved but the same us that God's grace is extended to for salvation.

So his conclusion is God's grace is reserved for the elect only and therefore salvation is available for the elect only and that simply is Not what the tech this text says and of course all of you see they're going what?

He he he what what? Because you all know what I said, if you listen, you know what I said. I Said it's the same grace and since the text limits The the context of who is going to be looking for the appearing and and who is taught to deny on guidance.

Then clearly you can't just take that grace and make it the peanut butter grace that tries to save everybody but only instructs us and so Read this again. The mistake white makes is he tries to turn that around to say the same grace that sanctifies us is the same grace that saves us.

It's right there he put it out there. I think I might want to save this page. Because it's just really Wow, that is there is. There is an incredible example of how tradition creates eisegesis. And it's tradition.

I mean this guy detests Calvinism. He doesn't know what it is, but he detests it and it's there. It's just a visceral. Oh, there's just there's no. You can't you can't really try to reason with folks like that.

You've got to got to leave them to the Lord if they're they're brothers in Christ. God will work with them at His own time own way and you just sort of go on from there. So I thought I'd mentioned that because it was Really odd anyhow, I Will not repeat the phone numbers right now, by the way, because I really can't take phone calls.

I actually could I could have if I wanted to have one extra little complicating thing. But I wanted to keep it as streamlined as possible to try and make sure that We actually got it working and I can see by people in the chat channel that it is working, but here comes the next trick.

And I know it's already gonna work. Actually, I just realized that because I played the sound on the opening of this. But I wanted to one of the things I was concerned about is that since most what I'm gonna be doing today is playing What other people have said then stopping and responding and so I was like Really got to make sure the levels are good.

God really got. Yeah. Yeah Skype calls, right? Sure. So we will we will see that someone's inquiring about the temperature in Phoenix today I'm really not certain what the temperature in Phoenix. I saw I think 106 when I left something like that.

It's not it's not bad I mean for us that's average 106 is average. So 110 is just four degrees over average. So It's it's really really no big deal and I'm gonna be escaping this for a while in Santa Fe.

Though they've got some highs in around 90 and lots of lots of thunderstorms, which hopefully will be primarily in the afternoons. Because I will be riding in the early mornings. Anyhow, let's go back to yesterday.

Got a lot of good positive feedback. You know Cy ten Bruggen Kate was in channel yesterday when I started the program. I'm not sure if you heard the response I gave her the question that he asked me. But I did want to mention that the the guys at the choosing hats Calm, I believe is the is it calm?

I don't know. They'll mention in a moment here at choosing hats Posted an article This morning. Yeah calm. Thank you. But that's fast. Wonder why you all are hearing that so very quickly. There's almost no delay there at all.

And he said boom that was that was quick. Anyways, um I posted a article this morning criticizing sigh for what he did at the atheist monument Unveiling or whatever it is you call it That took place. What was it week for last something like that?

And you know, I only saw a Picture somewhere of an atheist ripping a toilet seat out of size hand if I recall correctly and There was some discussion of it in in channel and So You might want to read that article.

I I think I would I Certainly would never have the freedom to do This way I would certainly never have the freedom to do it. Cy ten Bruggen Kate did there? I that's not my that's not my style to do that kind of thing I've I've debated David Silverman and I I think that There's been a bunch of things recently that I think we just we need to recognize.

We will not be treated fairly in media and So like what happened to Matt slick? We will not be treated fairly in media that the media does not want to hear what we have to say. They want to mock what we have to say.

So we have to I think take very seriously the statement of Jesus about You know being You know gentle as doves but wise as serpents in other words, we've we've got to keep an eye on How our actions could be used against us now sometimes there's nothing we can do about I mean from what Matt slick says You know what?

He actually said was so radically edited that You couldn't make heads or tails out of but still if you could go on The Daily Show You just know what they're gonna be doing. And so when I did see I didn't see most of it.

But I saw part of it where this woman's walking down the the sidewalk with him and saying look out. It's a Christian look at and you know, I would have said okay. We're we're done right here now, and that's it and if You know if I get I don't get contacts is it isn't funny?

You know Matthew Vines is is out there in the media media darling. The guy who very quickly responded with a five hour refutation was material. Who actually teaches has taught the biblical languages on the graduate level has published a book debated numerous times.

They're not gonna contact me because that's I'm not the person they want. They're not gonna contact me. So If I were to be contacted which I don't expect to happen. But if I were to be contacted, I would say well, no, thank you but if you really want to do something then it needs to be done live and It needs to be one-on-one and it needs to be equal time.

Because what they do down Australia, for example on the Australian broadcasting system down there is they'll bring a Christian in. They'll have like six people to oppose them. Just to make it this wild, you know fray of feeding frenzy type type thing that's that's what the media is is about and so I Think we just need to be very very wise as to how we how we handle these things now.

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Nature of Christian Witness

I actually played this section yesterday, but it it gives the context where it comes afterwards. I really need to go back to it. Kurt Jaros of Real clear apologetics is the individual dialoguing with dr. Elephant from Westminster Seminary and Actually saw his Come to think of it saw his Twitter thing this morning.

I didn't get a chance to really send him anything to say. I was going to be continuing this I'm sure he's been apprised of it but He says he agrees with what dr. Elephant is saying. And I know he doesn't now.

I don't think he's being you know, he's dissembling. He's not he's not being dishonest. I I just don't think he really understands what dr. Elephant saying. He's not accepting the full context of it to see what the what the real Differences are and I was told in channel this morning that Everything that I emphasize that I said I would emphasize had I been in dr. Elephant's position in other context.

Dr. Elephant emphasizes those very things so it is good for brethren to dwell together in unity and all that kind of stuff and and I realized that You know have I am an unbelievable radio broadcast veteran of many programs Ranging from Adnan Rashid to Anthony buzzard to NT right for Cranell.

You know, I don't think there's anybody who's ever been on unbelievable Who's who's debated as wide a range of topics as I? I've taken on husband-and-wife teams on Calvinism and hell and and Muslims and and Unitarians and NT right.

Wow, it's That's pretty weird. Anyway We go back to let me let me just play this section because this is where he talks. So this is where You know, you know Kurt didn't put up much of a fight. Okay, he didn't really defend his position or make a positive presentation of his position or stuff like that.

It was pretty much now. What do you think about this? Right? This is sort of the one time where he sort of Fainted with the right. I think it could be the way you put it, you know, so yeah, and.

So let's let's hear what he had to say. Yeah, I would agree with that two-step approach that you mentioned. However, my concern is that in that second step when you want to show people about Christianity that what you're doing.

Then is you're you're taking borrowed capital from these other apologetic methods. So you're using the same arguments there then. So, what do you think about that? I mean, I mean, so essentially it does fundamentally come back to making you know, essential arguments.

Yeah, you could you could talk to someone and present kind of this presuppositional approach at first. I mean some people do this excellently even I you know, I would implement the same method. But then you get to a certain stage where someone says well, you know How can we be certain that Jesus resurrected from the dead and it's not just you know, a conspiracy theory.

And then you're gonna be turning to an evidential apologetics you might write. I mean now Kurt.

Cannot apply this methodology. This is not. This is not a matter of sitting around going well we have these different methodologies and We're going to judge them by their pragmatic results and and once in a while Use this one and once while I use that one, this is this is what really concerns me is That many apologists have this perspective.

They they have this idea that this is just one amongst many possible methodologies for me. Presuppositional ism covenant apologetics call it what you will. It is the method of apologetics that is demanded of me by the consistent exegesis of the New Testament text Regarding the nature of God the nature of man the nature of creation and the need to communicate the gospel to the lost and so.

It's it's not well, I could use this methodology. No, we can't. Because he affirms the capacity of the unregenerate man To just change his thinking. Well, I think I'll I'll change the way I think I think I'll accept that.

Well, that's not what this methodology is about it assumes that can't happen unless the Holy Spirit of God is involved. So I'm sorry. He can't just use this methodology and we started responding last time to the issue of The idea of borrowed capital and that this just shows a fundamental Misunderstanding a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is.

We're actually saying and the necessity of the methodology. And it's it and it's it's a shame but dr. Olyphant had the opportunity of responding.

Why Christianity Cannot Be Treated as One Option Among Many

Yeah, we'll presuppositional apologetics do all the work for you in that sense Scott in terms of the very particular nature of Christianity. The deity of Christ that the Trinity the resurrection and and all of that kind of thing.

Is it does it make sense to say will we just assume all that? That is our presupposition when we come to this when obviously the person you're speaking to doesn't presuppose any of that. Have you given them even though you might be able to you know?

Kind of pull apart their own worldview a bit and say you can't really do this without a transcendent cause. That's not gonna get you all the way to full-blooded Christianity. Is it? Well again, what do you do in evangelism?

They're not presupposing that the cross of Christ is needed as an atonement for sin in order for their sins to be covered and them To be righteous before God. They don't they don't assume any of that.

Does that mean you refrain from doing it until they get reasonable enough so that you can Talk to them about it. There's a point at which they have to understand and you have to communicate The truth of the gospel.

And again that the position here is is not that you're you're saying that to the unbeliever. I presuppose all these things and you don't presuppose them. So there that's not the point. The point is as they until makes clear we understand Christianity be true from from God's revelation.

The only way we know anything is because God has revealed it. Which means the only way anybody else knows anything is because God has revealed it and as a matter of fact Until makes this point as well, which I think is exactly right atheism presupposes theism that that is for a person to be alive and to breathe and to Articulate the words.

I am an atheist and assume that that predication has meaning already presupposes Who God is and what the world is like now, you don't say that to them. That's not the point I'm not I'm making here. It's not that that's your argument.

But it is the state of things as they really exist. We were kind of talking at that last section about now. Again.

That's a radical epistemology. Radical sadly. Well, it's certainly radical for the world. The world's epistemology is focused upon the human being and The human being as the center of all things and the human being as the center of all predication and all the rest.

That's kind Of stuff. Sadly, it's it's radical for Christians to or people at least to call themselves Christians. I'm not sure How it can be that way, but I think it's because we do not. Well, I I certainly do.

Many of you who've heard me speak know that I very very often talk about how radical the Christian claim really is and that this foolishness to the world, but evidently I'm somewhat out of the mainstream at that point and The tendency for many people is to seek to non radicalize the Christian message.

You know turn Jesus into some type of guy who was you know a lot like Buddha or or or some great teacher and Not really God incarnate and that this isn't the definitive revelation of God. But if you go with a New Testament, it's a radical thing.

We're talking about we're actually telling people it is in Jesus Christ that all the treasures of wisdom and Knowledge are hidden in him all of them not just a portion all of them and in nobody else. There's an there's an exclusivity there that is absolutely offensive to the natural man and properly so and when you try to change that You are fundamentally undercutting The reality of the Christian message and we simply cannot do that.

We were kind of talking at that last sec now, of course, let me just mention again I don't know why I'm so concerned about this. I guess because people. I guess because the canner stuff and hey, you're editing stuff.

I am playing this material at 1 .2 times speed. So we can get through it faster. Basically, so just it also makes people sound so much smarter. Section about how we practice not that these guys aren't smart.

I'm just anyway, they do evangelism and and Scott making this important point that okay. We don't kind of lay out the whole foundation to a non-christian at the point where we're talking in these sorts of terms and and.

So your approach might not look that different in actual fact at that level Kurt but what are the issues for you when he comes to your reservations around the pre suppositional approach and your favoring of Natural theology in terms of the way you would present the case for faith to someone who's perhaps skeptical.

Yeah, so it seems like in how we would interact with a non-believer. It would be very similar.

No, it would not. I don't I don't I Do not know why Kurt wants to bend the two positions so closer to one another but there is a vast difference in How you speak to people? when you grant to them autonomy or When you deny to them autonomy,.

I believe me I've been there done there got the t-shirt. There's a big difference. I Obviously gonna be some similarities, but It would just seem to me than the context like this. It would be better to focus upon what the differences are than trying to constantly make it look like, you know.

We're all just doing the same thing. In fact, we might use the same arguments but my concern is more so with whether or not the pre suppositional list is. Remaining consistent with their methodology with what they propose is the case and then also it's amazing to me.

I mean I I chuckled when I first heard that because the whole the only reason anybody would be a pre suppositionalist is Because they desire to be consistent and to have consistency. But consistency between what and what?

Consistency between their theological beliefs their entire system of theology and What it is that? They are doing in apologetics their goal of apologetics their method of apologetics their means of apologetics that's what the consistency has to be and Of course, I think one of the strongest arguments for the pre suppositional method is the fact that It's the only one that can be consistent because no matter how else you put it if you're gonna argue with people that the greater probability that the There's there's a the preponderance of the evidence points the greater probability the existence of a God.

You have to admit that's not the Christian message and at some point down the road you're gonna have to modify The conclusions you've led someone to to get them to Christianity. You're gonna have to say, you know We started off thinking there is you know, some moral neutral ground that we can we could Start with but actually I'm now that I'm trying to introduce you to who Jesus is.

You can see that if Jesus is who we say he is then there is no neutral Moral ground that we can stand upon there's there's there's nothing neutral. Jesus Christ created all things. It's like, you know a person would have a right to say wait a minute.

It's false advertising you you you got me to agree to stuff and Now you're having to go back and say well didn't really mean it. So who's really being consistent. I think that's the whole reason for.

What we're doing here probably the reformed theology that supports the presuppositional method whether or not they're being consistent with that. Specifically as we brought up earlier in the show this idea of inability.

And so my concern is that well Everything Scott said and how he would interact with someone is great. But you know, suppose someone raised these objections. You know about the resurrection of Jesus. How can they be certain?

It seems then that perhaps the presuppositionalist will then begin going into the evidential approach. Either that or they'll just I mean keep maybe keep preaching at the person until as Scott might hold until the Holy Spirit comes and Fixes their their state so that they would accept the gospel message.

And is that a problem for you? I mean is do you feel that that the role of say let's take the argument for the resurrection now. If someone was coming with questions, why do you believe that you know?

Couldn't there be some other theory of why people believe Jesus had risen from the dead and you were starting to present a case for them for that I Mean presumably you don't believe that just your argument is gonna bring someone to faith.

Okay, you'd believe there must be a role for the Holy Spirit. What's going on? That's a great question and you know, we could have a whole debate then on the role of the Spirit in Providence. But and I wouldn't say it's just not the argument itself.

I mean the argument itself is just some propositions. Scott and I earlier said that it's the person's will that it is what makes them not want to believe they suppress the truth.

Now now listen to this listen very carefully.

He and I might have different models for why that's the case, you know, and what originally causes that or if it's self-caused but now the seat.

There really summed everything up for me. Is that Kurt Jarosz is so focused upon his apologetic methodology That he's just glossing over what gives rise to it just seemed many many of my apologist friends on that side of things seem to invest significantly more concern over the minutiae of their philosophical arguments than they do over the broad spectrum of Christian theology itself and my assertion is it's Christian theology that gives rise to The apologetic methodology.

It's backwards. It reminds me of what a friend of mine said He was at a conference that William Lane Craig was was speaking at and after Craig had spoken. My friend was manning a table, you know Ministry table.

I forget what ministry it was. But anyways a ministry table and and Craig happened to come out and stand nearby so he could hear The conversations he was having. Of course Craig is surrounded by all these young guys.

They're just oh, we're all excited and he specifically heard William Lane Craig say to the group around him. And I trust this guy's reporting. He's not trying to make stuff up. He said in response to a question, you know, someone said how can I be a better apologist?

This is the single thing that you can do to become a better apologist today is To not read so much theology and read more philosophy. That's what he said. Don't read don't don't be focused on that theology stuff.

You've you've got a you've got a you've got a deal with the with the world's philosophies and You know, my response would be 180 degrees opposite of what William Lane Craig said 180 degrees opposite when I look at my apologist friends.

I say what's the biggest problem I see in the apologetic community well One thing that has always left me Scratching my shiny bald head is Why is it that the vast majority of my fellow apologists Cannot read translate or teach from the original languages of the Bible.

Why is that? Why is that I don't understand that when people ask me what what what other classes that you took that Helped you the most. I Always answer in the same way Greek and church history. Greek and church history.

There are just few other classes that I took that have had near the value to me in apologetic Response the ability to be on radio programs taking phone calls on all sorts of wide Variety of issues if you know church history and you can read the New Testament and its original language.

You are way ahead of the game. And yet most apologists can't do that. Can't do that. They don't know church history. They can't read the original languages and Why because that's really not the important thing the important thing is is getting your arguments, right and and Following the most recent permutation of the Kalam cosmological argument.

That's that's what you got to do. And I just shake my head and go. Okay. All right, whatever. Whatever you say. But there are the key issues just glossed over just just glossed over.

So the argument itself wouldn't convince someone it's it's a combination of I think a number of factors. The argument the person's willingness to believe. I mean I'm sure Scott and I've interacted with plenty of people who are just simply unwilling to believe and All of us have I'm sure and I guess you can even get people who do believe that Jesus rose from the dead But still don't accept him as their Lord and Savior.

Yeah, that's right says in as Paul says even the demons believe and tremble right. So when we're dealing with these These truth questions. Yeah I mean, so there's a number of factors of which we can debate, you know the Holy Spirit and how the Holy Spirit works and Through whom the Holy Spirit works.

So.

What are you saying? There's there's all sorts things we debate about. Well, that's true. But the only reason that we can debate about them is it because the Bible is not clear on it or because you've allowed human tradition To become an authority.

I mean is is it really that unclear? Is Romans 8 really that unclear that those who are quarrying the flesh can not? Submit themselves to the law of God. They are not able to do so. Hmm. Is it really that unclear or?

Are there some pretty powerful traditions at work?

Yeah, so my concern here is just with the presuppositional ism if they're remaining consistent by not borrowing from these other arguments.

Now remember what has dr. Oliphant said all the way through this. What is he said all the way through this? Because of our belief that Christianity is true and therefore everything that exists is an argument for our God.

Because Jesus Christ is the creator of all things every fact that is a fact is the fact that it is because God made it. That way then we can bring everything in. Because you're talking to a person who's created in the Imago Dei they bear the image of God.

That means they cannot consistently interact with God's world based upon an ungodly worldview. I mean, you know, I've told the story million times about my encounter with Eric up at I think is Bradley University outside of Chicago.

The only reason I remember that is Because algo said it in channel yesterday. He said it was Bradley. That sounds right. It was a guy's name. I knew that anyways, remember I'm talking with Eric the atheist young guy and I sort of let him talk.

Let him talk that I'm talking eventually. He gives me what I need to respond to him and I I dive in and I start identifying where he's been. Inconsistence and you know, he's he's the sophomore philosophy guy, you know, and there's nothing more dangerous or foolish than a sophomore philosophy student and Remember what I used as one of my primary Direct arguments with him his coat his jacket.

Yeah, if you haven't heard the story I Was emphasizing to him that he was stealing from my worldview he was stealing from my God that he was responsible to God for that and that He was not going to be able to live consistently He with his worldview.

He had actually made the argument at one point that he could not even prove that his jacket existed and he had motioned to this Nice brown or black leather jacket and it was very cold outside. You know how I can get in Chicago.

Very cold outside windy and just that that you know 19 degree air with the windchill thing. It just cuts right through you and So I I said to him I said for example, you said you can't even prove that your jacket exists.

However, I can assure you of one thing when you leave tonight and you walk out that door into that freezing cold. You will take your jacket. Because My worldview explains why you will and your worldview doesn't and I pray God will convict you every single time you borrow from his His world to prop yours up and it was like deer in the headlights this guy is expecting to get arguments about the cosmological argument or maybe a little ontological stuff or whatever else it might be and instead I used his jacket as an argument and Yes, he did take his jacket and so dr. Elephant has said We bring all this stuff in but it's the way you It's this it's the presupposition upon which you do.

So I did not ever grant to Eric the autonomy to choose whether God exists or not and That's why I just I just I just don't think.