August 18, 2005

The Dividing Line Opens and the Day’s Schedule

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 602 973 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.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line a Thursday afternoon one more dividing line after this and then we go silent. Sort of like when remember the old Apollo missions would disappear behind the moon for a certain amount of time and you always wondered Are they coming out the other side?

Well, they have to go someplace. So yeah, they did but anyway, yes, we'll be going. So, let me see here. How long I? Suppose it's possible. Marginally that we might do a program on the 6th of September, which would mean we would be missing.

1 2 3. That's only three. That's only three programs. That's not too bad. But anyways, maybe we'll do that just to. You know. Fill everybody in and what happened on the cruise or you know things like that.

I don't know. Well, we'll see what happens because I'm not exactly sure when it is we get back from all this. And so if it's like four hours beforehand, or I've been up You know for 12 hours something like that then.

No reason to do that, but anyway, we will Lord willing be on the air next Tuesday and then Thursday I'm actually traveling so we'll see what happens now. I Have a number of clips here to play haven't even opened up the lines to be honest with you Don't know that I will we'll see.

At least that question is somewhat relevant hopefully so. Anyhow lots of stuff to talk about. I was listening to this one. And I don't know if I should start with this because it's just I almost rode off the road.

Notice how English works are almost road off the road, which really doesn't make any sense but anyways, I was riding along listening to stuff when they were doing questions and answers from the audience and I heard this question and I just I Don't know you'll you'll see what I mean, but I Guess it's perfectly right.

Everybody else is a professional a professional victim. So I'm just gonna get with the flow here and say this offends me. Let's let's just all say it directly here. This this woman offends me and I can guarantee you she's offended by what I believe to but this this woman comes to microphone and Asks Dr. Cross and well, she doesn't really ask a question.

It's more of a statement, but I've it was so. How do you put it? This is just the quintessential New York leftist liberal Pluralistic. Well, listen, you'll see what I'm talking I.

A Woman’s “My Jesus” and John Dominic Crossan’s Response

Was just wondering what your feelings would be on this. I Had I like to have my own little particular view of my Jesus when I read the scriptures and and my Jesus embraces women gays blacks people of other religions.

Historically, I mean, I just don't know what I'm reading into the scriptures, but it seems to me that when I read Jesus words, I Beliefs that were different from from his own Jewish religion or even offshoots of that that he embraced them and I just Wondered, you know, I know everything revolves around salvation and there's so many Christians that you know.

It's sort of that I'm saved and you're not mentality and to me It just breaks my heart because to me that's not Jesus, you know. And and I just I just like to have this feeling that he would embrace Everyone and that that he would look as God as bestowing his grace upon people of very different religions.

But I sort of made a statement instead of a question.

And I think yeah, I seen. Oh I like to have my Jesus. Oh I just oh.

That is very offensive to me. Okay, really offensive. I mean, I Like to have my Jesus. I don't like the biblical one. I don't like the real one. I just like to make my own and aren't I special for doing that?

It's like oh. Oh. Hmm and you hear that. Yeah, I'm saved you're not boy shooter into somebody. Just oh and he accepts women well, duh, you think. Accepts blacks as if the biblical and then of course homosexuality, you know.

Let's not have a Jesus who who honors God's law. And oh. Just listening. That was just just made me want it. Mm. Yeah, and Then dr. Cross's response. I don't know. Seems to have sort of missed I. Well, how do you respond that by the way, I mean put yourself in his shoes.

I mean, what do you say? To someone who wants their own Jesus. But his answer is interesting and there was one thing I want you to catch in it, though. You'll see it just follows a completely different trajectory.

So we'll continue on with that's what I said.

When I talked about distributive justice and the world belonging to God, I think Yeah, you can certainly go into Judaism and in the first century and find all sorts of little nastiness is in there that is not Characteristic of Judaism that's characteristic of us.

You can do the same in Christianity. So I won't go along with any way that says well Look at all this bad stuff in Judaism long came Jesus to clear up the mess because it's just historically not true.

There were certain things in Judaism that I think were dated in even some of this beautiful distributive justice. You could say is dated a Lot of the ritual purity for example with regard to homosexuals is certainly dated by dated.

I mean historically Irrelevant anymore. I Think it's more important to insist on justice. It's not a preferential option for the poor or for homosexuals or for any discriminated group. It's a preferential option for God's justice, which takes care and demands all of them.

It demands that God's World be made freely available. Fairly justly. I grant we have to decide how that is. Sure, we've seen them trying to work it out, right and some of the stuff they did in 50 years.

You say well, that's not going to work fine. They change it, but what they are trying to make certain is that God's world is not discriminating against anyone. Now did every Jew trying to live that of course not not every Christians tried to live by love either.

But it's in the law. It's there. So you can find it and it's at the heart of the matter. It's not peripheral. It's not some wild-eyed prophet. So I find that what you've just said about Jesus is.

Exactly where Jesus plugs into his tradition. I'll stop it. Everything plugs into his tradition with what she just said an amorphous undefined non Lord. Make me whatever you want me to be person. I don't think so, but of course.

You know, there's no Matthew 23 in the mouth of that Jesus. I mean you you know, once you once you've abandoned the consistency of Scripture. You don't even know who Jesus is. You just pick what portions you want to believe.

What portions you don't want to believe. Just ignore them and go on from there. And so, you know works out that way. He could have plugged in somewhere else.

But he didn't do his Jewish in his Jewish tradition.

There were various options in the Jewish tradition in the first century on everything as there is. With any serious question with anyone at any time this now to catch that.

There's always these different options, you know, I often hear I've mentioned this before but dr. Croston will very frequently say now I could be wrong about this. I could be wrong about this. I could be wrong about this.

Understand is he's saying that about everybody we all could be wrong about everything we say about Jesus. We really don't know. We have no way of knowing and that's why no one can say this is right and this is wrong.

There's just no you can't do that. Now. I have found some inconsistencies there. I have heard him be very dogmatic about certain things. Which doesn't really fit with the whole I could be wrong about this stuff.

But still the general idea is well, you know, we really don't know long time ago. Everybody could be wrong. And that's why we should never say that Jesus is true and Buddha's not. Christianity is true and Islam isn't.

Etc, etc. Tributive not retributive not retributive. I for example if Jesus sat down with the Jewish Historian Josephus Josephus says and says quite openly it is the will of God. The big G is is the will of God that we obey Rome.

God gives power to various empires. He's now given part of Italy. We should obey God do not rise against Rome. Do not resist Rome. It's the will of God. If you do God will destroy you. I think Jesus would probably have said we must resist.

And we must do it non-violently. Which is a different option from either to see for us or somebody says we must resist and we're going to do it violently in the name of God. So these are options within a Jewish spectrum of possibilities.

And we now know that spectrum quite clearly so we can kind of locate Jesus in it.

Distributive Justice, the Kingdom of God, and a Reduced Jesus

Okay now. So what you get here is you get distributive justice. He focuses on just a few elements of the Old Testament law. Letting letting the land lie fallow the Sabbath laws and He applies them Sociologically and they did have sociological implications of course in regards to the poor.

You know the poor would be able to you know have the corners of the field and and so on so forth. There's all this stuff in there, and he focuses upon that he Obviously just throws out Completely all the rest of the law in regards to sacrifice and wrath and atonement and personal sin.

There's there's nothing I've been listening to stuff for a long time now. There's nothing here about about sin outside of well you are Sinning if you if you're not supporting the idea of having everybody have equal access to the goods of the world.

It almost sounds like an almost communistic type idea. You know everybody should be equal and have you know free access, and there shouldn't be power from top to bottom there shouldn't be distinctions and so on so forth we all should just be equal along those lines and Etc etc etc and so you've got in all of that though you have no emphasis upon sin redemption forgiveness pardon.

Redemption. Outside of well you know when Jesus touches the leper then he breaks the cultural taboos. And that's where you have healing and la la la la so you have you you don't have retributive justice retribution, but you have distributive justice sort of a free distribution radical egalitarianism aka old-form communism and Then you have this this idea of Jesus does not set up a hierarchy.

He makes a you know he emphasizes very strongly Jesus sent the disciples out to do what he was doing. He didn't say he didn't set up shop someplace and Say okay bring everybody to me because once you set up in a particular location now.

You're automatically creating hierarchy you're creating People who are above other people and that's not what Jesus wants he he wants Distributive justice, and then he wants common meal. If you wanna know what the kingdom of God is from from John Dominic crosses perspective then When he when he says the kingdom of God, what would the king?

What would the world look like if? God was upon the throne rather than Caesar. What would the world look like well the world would would look like this you would have? The church and the kingdom of God there the same thing and what you've got going on here is you have Equality in these little fellowships these little churches where everybody Has equal access equal access to food you you eat together and That's how and it doesn't matter whether you're whether you want to downtrodden or whether you're one of the rich.

See that's where the equality comes in see and so that's what the kingdom of God looks like that's what the kingdom of God is and It's what the world would look like if God was sitting upon the throne on Caesar.

That's That in essence is the everything else in the New Testament is either window dressing. It's allegorical metaphorical means of expressing the same idea, or it's a later accretion because evidently even the writers of Matthew Mark Luke and John and then Paul Didn't quite get Jesus's program even though I should say and I don't rat.

Where did I put that. I wonder if I can find that maybe while I'm playing this next section. Maybe during the break I can find this for you. But where would I have saved it. That's wonderful to have Gigabytes and gigabytes and many many gigabytes of space.

But you know it was a whole lot easier to find files on a 20 meg drive wasn't it yeah. Just I'm still thinking about that 20 meg drive I had many many many moons ago, and it was just you know that thing it was just so easy to find stuff.

I bet you I saved that out there on the big the big G Drive. You know you got one of those big drives out there, and let me see if I just look real quick here. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. There you go boy.

Sometimes. They're really slow very very slow. Oh, that's why I Probably put it over on my laptop because that's what's going with me up to where we are going, huh? Yeah, that's probably where it is. Let's see let's look under crossing.

That's a good idea isn't it yep? That's a real audio file is that it no no there. It is okay. I found it during the break I will someone remember that remember this for me someone remind me during the break which the only person could do that well people in Channel get it to load up the PBS thing the PBS discussion with John Domicross because he does say something really interesting and That is he He does say That those people who say that Paul invented Christianity are all wet they're all wrong.

He actually takes a Less than ultra leftist liberal position on something which is really interesting. It's interesting to hear him say it the problem is the lady who's doing the interview is that lady who? speaks very slowly in her Interview.

And it's just like yeah, I can't even really listen the whole thing. It just just like you want to Speed up the sampling rate just to make it go faster something like that, but I'll try to remember to it's I've got on my screen here, but if I try to load up right now.

That's going to bog down my program in which we have This stuff okay. Let me zoom in on where we are here and pick up with this this is a an Interesting discussion in fact I Listened to this as I was writing yesterday morning did 50 miles out on the Sun Valley And I was listening to this this one.

It's more of the Borg right discussion and After listening to Marcus Borg present on the resurrection Listening to right was like a breath of fresh air Though a couple times again, you know right giveth and right taketh away.

You know I mean you could be sitting there tracking with him going yeah Go go go baby, and then all of a sudden. He just makes some offhand comment that just you know Hands it all away, and then goes back to doing something good.

You know and I I Don't understand that and it drives me crazy, but anyways the at least the presentation He made on the resurrection was really good. It was it was really good. Now here we get into the dialogue between himself and Borg After they've both made their presentation on the resurrection.

There's some very interesting things to hear here. Went to the audience to set the framework for the question. I want to address to Tom. Tom says you really can't explain the rise of early Christianity without saying Jesus was raised from the dead.

I agree. Absolutely. I Agree completely with the statement Jesus was raised from the dead. What Tom and I are disagreeing about is whether that involves something happening to the corpse of Jesus. For me raised from the dead means raised to God's right hand one with God Lord and so forth.

So I want to let you.

Catch that that that's going to be I can tell you right now. On Tuesday. Looking at my August 30th on Tuesday August 30th around noon high noon. Wish I had that little someone should find that little wave file.

I'll be a great one to play at that particular point in time. We are going to be debating this subject, and this is going to be central. It's going to be central. What is resurrection means becoming one with God.

Excuse me? Once again. And and Wright makes this point. He says um. Where did anyone in second temple Judaism? believe that resurrection Means becoming one with God. Where where where is that and Borg never answers that he can't?

He really quickly one points of eyes a lot of new tests about being his own right hand father. Yeah, that's about Jesus. That's that's that's not about us. And that's not the same thing as resurrection in fact right had already made a very good point in his presentation.

That is you can't confuse resurrection with exaltation. They're very closely related, but they're not the same thing and. So that that's good, but listen to what Borg is saying resurrected become one with God and.

So everyone's gonna be resurrected. I get the feeling from what dr. Borg is saying and everyone becomes one with God, and we all say womb and and that's sort of how it works. I guess I I don't know, but that was sort of said quickly because it's summarizing what he'd said before.

But this gives you an idea probe this question of Physicality and transformed physicality. Let me put it this way Do you think the risen Christ? Can appear in more than one place at a time and if so? How do you reconcile that with your emphasis upon.

Transformed physicality. I really don't know that and I don't think anyone would know that. The many later theologians discussed similar questions for instance during the Reformation controversies about the Eucharistic presence of Christ when they spoke of the body of Christ being in heaven and not on earth and therefore The bread couldn't become the body and so on.

But I mean I take I take the point. But all those questions that you raised at the end and this one as another variation of them. They are exactly the sort of questions that Paul faced in 1st Corinthians 15 when people say to him How will the dead be raised?

What sort of a body will it be. Paul does not attempt to analyze it either molecularly or chemically or whatever? But he uses metaphors and symbols and images which as you know are pointing beyond themselves.

But that's to which they point clearly for Paul is a concrete reality.

I would agree, and I would also point out that the.

Now I really appreciate that answer, I mean I was I was dumbfounded to be honest with you I Had that's what I was. A hit fast fast forwards that pause there sort of sounded odd. I Was somewhat dumbfounded in dr. Borg's presentation that the part of his primary argumentation against and the terminology that dr. Wright uses at this point is is a This for a form of physicality and He's recognizing the the difference between the resurrected body and the body that died, but also the connection that's what Paul's doing.

That's what he's doing in 1st Corinthians 15 the seed that goes into the ground of the plant that comes out. No, but don't tell me there's no connection there, okay, that's that's the point there is no connection if you don't have a physical resurrection a transformed physicality is the terminology of dr. Wright uses and so His primary meditation was well does that mean you can weigh Jesus?

And you just want to go yeah, what you That's that's your argument is is well. You know we we don't know what this type of body be like yes. The whole that's the whole point of what Paul's responding to.

Yeah. It's amazing when people make objections the Apostles respond to and they don't see themselves in the in in the objections. How many times we've seen that with Romans 9 you know you'll be sitting there talking to somebody who claims to believe the Bible and they'll Do all the Romans 9 objections.

You know they'll raise all the same objections that Paul answers in Romans 9 then when you show it to him They're they're like Well, I don't. I still accept your interpretation that you all you did was read it Interpret it you know and if they can't see themselves in it same thing here Paul's responding to all this stuff right then and it's.

I'll be bold here the most common translation of the body that Paul is talking about is a spiritual body.

Okay, now. This is very important. This is this is very important, and this is and unfortunately this goes way too quickly. Way way too quickly, but we're talking here about 1st Corinthians 1544. It is so in a natural body is raised a spiritual body if there is a natural body.

There's also a spiritual body and his point here, and let's let's have a little quiz from the class here. See how many people can name various and sundry cult groups, and that's they are they're called groups That we deal with who take this perspective.

Let's have a show of hands who uses 1st Corinthians 1544 to deny The physical resurrection. Well, that's exactly right you over there in the corner. You've got Jehovah's Witnesses. They do the same thing and up.

Yes, you have it. Yes. That's what Hamza Abdul Malik did in our debate on the deity of Christ. He tried to go to 1st Corinthians 1544 and raised the issue of a spiritual body and Over against the resurrection body and and if any of you have seen that debate, and it's well worth watching.

You remember how that happened, so it's like wow here. We are again interesting Conjunctions here now. We've got someone way out to the left who is doing the same thing not for the same purposes they're not going the same direction of course, but Coming up the same thing so look at 1st Corinthians 1544 and this goes a little bit too fast.

Dr.. Wright has an entire section on This in his book on the resurrection does a good job. I might expand upon it from his comments.

When we get finished listening I have no problem with the notion of a spiritual body. What I have a problem with is that the Reason Christ exists in a state of transformed physicality. I can't even imagine how you could put that together with the Trinity.

Well, that did you catch. That? Did you catch. How do you put a Resurrected Christ together with the Trinity as if Orthodox Christians had ever not done that. I I Was I was stunned I was I was left going.

You've got you.

That's a lovely question which it would be great fun to work at. And actually if you read Pannenberg or Bart. That's precisely what they do two of the greatest Trinitarian theologians of our century. Put precisely the resurrection of the physical body within a glorious doctrine of the Trinity anyway.

That's a subject for another man another day, but this is such a critical point. 1st Corinthians 1544. The phrase normally translated in the RSV and NRSV spiritual body Simply does not mean what most people in North America and Britain at the moment Understand by that phrase.

This has been demonstrated again and again and again in the scholarly literature on that verse and on.

1st Corinthians in general within a certain body of scholarly literature I'll simply point out that in the RSV in the new RSV That translation is done by a pity and for that committee to decide on Spiritual body as an apt phrase for that means minimally that a majority of that committee perhaps even a consensus of that committee.

Thought that in context that does express what Paul is saying because amongst other things Paul explicitly says that the resurrection body is not a body of flesh and blood and that's because.

Sark's Chi Heimer in 1st Corinthians 1550 and following is a specific Pauline technical term flesh and blood which again. And sorry, but we haven't been talking about Paul all week, but it is vital to understand how Paul uses Paul's language.

Sark's flesh for Paul is always a negative thing about the destructibility of the flesh about the Corruption of the flesh about the rebellion of the flesh. And the phrase flesh and blood does not simply mean what we would mean by Physical back to 1544 the two Greek phrases are soma psychic on and soma pneumatic on now.

So that that is not that is translated in the RSV and NRSV. Physical body and spiritual body. Look up the lexicons and see what they do with psychic on. Psychic on does not mean what we mean by physical.

It means soul ish S-o-u-l to do with the soul. It's a body animated by soul. That's the body. We currently have and the soma pneumatic on is a body animated by Pneuma, it's kind of difficult to have a hand-to-hand exegetical ding-dong without you all having the text in front of you, but that's a very right and let me simply add that.

It is not the case as you seem to be suggesting that. You know the vast majority of scholarly opinion comes out where you do. I'm saying that scholarly opinion is divided about that and the translators of the RSV and the new RSV can hardly be seen as.

Left-wing skeptics. Okay. Let me stop it right there because we need to take our break. But what about that? Well, as I said NT Wright goes into much more detail about that in his book. He didn't have an opportunity to develop that at all.

Unfortunately, and so I'd like to do so because it's important to understand that what dr Wright was saying there is exactly spot-on. There's many times that we have pointed out things for example is interpretation of second Corinthians 5 where he's not even in the right ballpark but on this one he's he's right on and We'll talk about that once we take our break and we also have a phone call to get to and we'll be right back.

Right after this.

Break, Announcements, and Ministry Promotions

Strong and true. 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 6 30 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.

Is the Bible true. Never before in history has the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures been so viciously attacked by those outside the pale of orthodoxy. And within the walls of traditional evangelicalism itself.

Join us August 27th 2005 at the Sea-Tac Marriott for an historic debate between evangelical Christian apologist. Dr James are white and world-renowned Jesus seminar co-founder and Bible skeptic. Dr John Dominic Crossan as they debate a topic which every Christian should be concerned about.

Is the Bible true. Seating and tickets are limited. So call today 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 or visit a o m. I n org to reserve your seat today. That's 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 to be a part of this historic event That will illuminate the fault lines of faith between conservative and liberal Christians alike.

Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in Their book the same-sex controversy.

James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject. Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans.

Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner. They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people.

The same-sex controversy. Defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality. Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen or the pilgrims progress. It's not an easy way. It's a journey.

John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and the Resurrection Debate

And Welcome back to the dividing line watching the chat channel all the whiners in there. We are having feeding problems today, but it's not our it's not our fault and it's not our server. Some of you may be aware of the fact that once again Microsoft has been taken advantage of by hackers and Win 2k systems all over the world have been infected with viruses.

We even have some folks who have not been able to get back into our chat channel who've been there for years and years and years because certain ISPs have had their their systems all messed up and blah blah blah blah blah, so The the internet is somewhat crippled today.

Thanks to those wonderful idiots out there that to demonstrate total depravity on a regular basis and What you do in the silence of your office you You hacker nuts. God sees and there will be justice someday so anyway.

That's what's going on there. Let's go ahead and take our phone call. Then I want to comment on the first cringe is 1544 issue because that like I said Not just ultra left liberals who don't believe Jesus actually rose from the dead in a meaningful use of that particular term.

Use this but all sorts of other groups do as well. It is important to understand what spiritual body they're over against fleshly body whatever that means that's actually very very misleading translations, and we need to get into that and then I did queue up the PBS things so we can listen to that as well and Already, we're only got like 23 minutes left, so let's let's go ahead and to talk with Brett in Louisville.

Hi Brett.

Hey, dr. White. How are you doing. Doing good. Great? Um I've just been listening to you for the past couple of weeks as you've been talking more about crossing.

Yeah, I'm sorry, and I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You know it's what's on my mind. I got to talk about it.

Hearing the lady that you just played a few minutes ago.

Isn't that just enough to make your skin crawl. You just like oh, man.

Hmm. But I'm just wanted to um first of all tell you thank you. I mean, I know it's I know the task that you're going to to discuss this with Croft. And it's just like banging her head up against the wall because you don't know where to go.

Well, you know the funny thing is I was just reading there's a book that Oxford put out and William Lane Craig did a chapter in his course, this is Craig's area and the chapter after him is Continues to discuss crossings view of the resurrection and in a footnote the guy basically said well in text in a footnote the guy basically said exactly what you just said and that is how do you respond to This fellow.

Because there's really nothing to grab on to here. There's day. You know it's like nailing jello to the wall it's it's it's this very complex ladder of propositions that have been that's been built up and It's just extremely difficult to to really dig into it and respond to it in any in any meaningful fashion, so At least we're on the same page When we come to these conclusions ourselves with all sorts of other folks who've been writing about this stuff for quite some time.

So if that's an encouragement, then let it be right. And in terms I mean I've listened to um I couldn't get a hold of Craig's debate with crossing, but I've listened to his debate with Borg and I thought the best part of I mean obviously as a Christian I agree with everything Craig said.

I mean he obviously takes an historical approach to apologetics. That I don't take. Because it didn't get any either one of them anywhere because what will happen is and this is the this is the case with The debate you were just playing is one side's going to fight a scholar and the other side's going to fight a different scholar.

And they're going to go back and forth they're both going to interpret those Scholars in light of their ultimate authority in light of their ultimate presupposition. And if it's anything that I've learned from reading cross himself is he loves to talk about presuppositions.

I mean how many books does he have in debates where the first thing he says is here are my presuppositions.

There's on mm-hmm at least he's open about at that time even though I I don't know that once he actually gets into his argument in his conclusions. He's quite as open as concerning the guiding Force of those presuppositions as he as he needs to be but we'll see where that ends up going.

In just a matter of days right. And I think the key thing to it is that and I haven't heard anybody. And I think you've mentioned this a few weeks ago that you were Trying to decide on what angle to approach him with and he just he just came to the conclusion that it's got to be Presuppositional.

Yeah, it has to. Yeah, and and this I mean this is what I've learned from like Van Til and Bonson. Bonson has been my vantils mouthpiece for the most part for me. But because I think he explains it so well.