Post Discussion/Debate Review

Post-Debate Review of the William Lane Craig Discussion

Well, greetings and welcome to a Monday Dividing Line. Unusual time, unusual day. And that's because I just finished, less than half an hour ago, a recording. I'm not sure how many times I've been on the unbelievable radio broadcast now in London.

I think that was around 15. I think. I think I had counted at 14. And part of that is because for a while, every time I'd go to London, I'd get ahold of Justin. Justin's like, hey, come in the studio.

And Justin knows, I've done radio my entire life. And so there were a number of times we would do two programs. We'd have an in-studio one, and then we'd have a recorded one, maybe somebody on the phone.

And I'm always willing to roll with punches with Justin. And I mean, we did one program in this teeny, tiny little studio where we needed to share certs because we were so close to each other, just for breath mints.

So we've been doing all this stuff. And so I just finished recording the unbelievable radio broadcast less than half an hour ago on the subject of Calvinism versus Molinism, which gives a better explanation of the existence of evil with Dr. William Lane Craig.

Now, many of you have been looking forward to this encounter on a theoretical level. But as you will notice, I did not announce it when someone else did a couple of days ago. I wondered where it came from.

If you're asking, why didn't you announce it? I wanted to make sure it happened. There wasn't any reason for me to be rallying the troops or whatever. I told a few people, very, very small number of people, and they'll all tell you.

I said, this is just between you and me. Please not tell anybody else this. But I wanted to make sure that it was actually gonna take place. And you may be aware, I was supposed to be in Amarillo, Texas today.

I was gonna be doing this from the Mobile Command Center. I had arranged the schedule, the whole nine yards for that. It didn't work out that way. In some ways, maybe it's better than I'm here in my familiar surroundings.

Justin used a really good new service we're gonna have to look into that seems to work real well for high quality recording of that kind of stuff. I don't know that it has live streaming capacity, but if you wanna record something online and have really high quality from both ends, this seemed to be something I had not seen before and was glad to get a chance to see.

Anyway, before we talk about what happened and the discussion, I thought it went really, really well. I think Justin said it may drop tomorrow, maybe the day after, I forget. He told me, and I apologize, because it's late over there.

Because they have to take, my system's uploading my side of it, and then Bill Craig's was doing the same thing, and then Justin's got his. They've got to pull that together. There were only a couple times when there was any of the max headroom type thing, and that was only when Justin was speaking.

So it probably won't take that long, and it should be, like I said, pretty high quality as far as video and audio is concerned. So that's good. But before I talk about it, because I still have on my Remarkable 2 tablet, by the way, this thing, if you wanna take notes, yeah, that's really, really nice.

That's a Remarkable 2 tablet, and it is, they say it's like writing on paper. It is, it really, really is. It's very, very good. Anyway, before I talk about what our discussion was and go over the notes, let me just say something about Justin Brierley.

I don't remember exactly how Justin and I got hooked up or what the first program we did was, but like I said, I think it was 2006, maybe, did my first program with him. I don't know. I can walk to the Premiere Studios from a number of different hotels in London.

Probably never get to do it again, but I can know the direction from different perspectives, too. Directions, east, west, whatever. Anyway, I just wanna say, Justin and I obviously do not see eye to eye on a number of theological issues.

He wrote a article against reformed theology a couple of years ago. I said, hey, Justin, let's debate. No, no. I think it would be a very interesting discussion. I still wish he would. I wish he would trust me enough to do that, but I know how important Bill Craig is to what Justin does over there with Unbelievable and the conferences he does and things like that.

So I knew that there was a possibility, though a remote one, that there could be some bias involved. I've experienced that before with people that I was very disappointed that it did express itself. Janet Mefford, for example, I knew when I went on her program after the Asar Khadi thing that even though I had filled in for her, we had worked together, I knew it was a possibility, and she went much farther than I ever thought would be a possibility in how she attacked and spun things and things like that.

So I knew there were possibilities in this situation, too, but I have always found Justin Brierley to be astonishingly fair and incredibly talented at getting conversations to take place. And that's exactly what happened today.

He was, once again, completely fair. He helped clarify things. One of the things you've gotta love about Justin Brierley is he's listening. So many people who do interview programs, they have their pre-programmed questions they're gonna ask.

They're not even listening to what's being said. That's not Justin. He's listening, he's asking relevant questions, he's trying to bring things out, and he's just as fair as a day is long. Now, there were one or two programs where it was just he and I in studio, and it was sort of lopsided, and he sort of got this plaintive look in his face, like, let's not make this person look really, really bad.

He's British, for crying out loud. You know how they are. And so there have been times when I've known that he's wanted people to pull their punches and to keep things civil, and I've always joked about when Bob Gagnon was on with the progressive lady.

I'm pretty sure I even wrote to Justin on Twitter and said, oh man, I can see your face, because I think they were both in studio. And I just, I can't help but laugh at what he must have been thinking and trying to do, and sitting there with a fire extinguisher trying to put out the conflagration that was going on.

But he wants everyone to leave with smiles on their faces. Though they didn't, I can guarantee you that didn't happen in the Bob Gagnon interview debate they had. Anyway, so I just wanted to thank Justin Briarley.

He did a tremendous job. I think anybody who listens to this will go, man, there's still so much to be discussed, because I started bringing up some of the ramifications in regards to middle knowledge and the idea that God, because I think this is directly relevant to the thesis of evil, God actuated a world in which there is a tremendous amount of evil.

And if, so what about, is this the best possible world? Well, based upon what? What are God's goals in the actualization world based upon middle knowledge? You can't get word one about that from scripture.

Nothing from scripture. Bill admits that Molinism is a fruitful, fecund mechanism of theological insight. And the people were just, just didn't get it until the Jesuits came up with this. They've abandoned it, but the Jesuits came up with this.

In one case, we were talking about Genesis 50, 20, 2 ,900 years down the road, no one really knew what was going on in Genesis 50, 20, for nearly 3 ,000 years until a theological giant, Louis de Molina.

I'm sorry, but if you think that Louis de Molina was a theological giant, if you don't understand what the Jesuits were doing, I pointed out that Molina is not limited by solo scriptura and Bill just laughed it off, like it doesn't matter.

Okay, anyway, you'll see. Anyhow, the point being that there are lots of other aspects of this that I think should be discussed and I'm open to doing it. There are probably people much more intelligent than me that could do it as well from the Reformed side, but you can be a great theologian, but not do radio well.

So Paul Helm did a great job in his discussion with William Craig, but I speak at three times the rate that Paul Helm does and can respond much faster. It's just the way I'm wired, just the way I'm made, that's just how it works.

And so, like I said, there are people far more intelligent than me that if that was the only thing, they should be the one doing the debates, but they should never debate. There are guys who are just incredibly insightful, but you put them on a debate stage and they're gonna look like bumbling idiots just because of the way they express themselves and because they don't think fast or they can't multitask, they can't take notes and listen at the same time and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And they just look terrible when they do it. I've seen it happen over and over again. People that you'd love to read their books, but man, you do not want them doing exchanges because it's just not fair.

So anyway, so I certainly would be open to those further discussions because the primary criticism that I'm gonna receive is that I did choose, see, you need to understand, in a debate, in a discussion like this, this wasn't formal debate, but in a discussion like this, I have my notes here, all right?

And I'm looking here and let me see. One, two, three, four. So four of the major notes that I wrote down here, I did not have any chance whatsoever to follow up. Excuse me, I've been talking a good bit.

To follow up on what I had jotted down here. Just, you write it down because that's important. I wanna get to that. And then by the time it comes opportunity for you to speak, two or three other points have come along and you have to make a decision.

And I made the decision in this discussion to focus upon the key claim of the Molinist system rather than being on the back foot constantly in defense mode. There's lots of things I could have said in defense of Reformed theology, I didn't, for one simple reason.

They've been said a thousand times before. You can find them in a thousand books. But what you haven't heard in a meaningful way is someone challenging the central truth claim of middle knowledge. As I pointed out on the dividing line, and now you know why we've been doing what we've been doing on the dividing line the past, what, three weeks, four weeks, something like that now?

It's because I knew November 29th was coming. So I've been focused upon this. I've been listening on this in my rides and read books and listening to McGregor and Stratton and Craig and all the rest of this stuff in preparation for today.

I want it to be worthwhile. I still think my discussion with N .T. Wright on Unbelievable is extremely useful. And that was years ago. That's what I want. I'm going to get run over by a truck. I'm going to die of some strange disease, whatever, eventually, sooner rather than later, probably.

And I want to leave something behind for the church, for my grandkids, my family, that will have lasting value. And so that's why I was focused upon this. I think this is important, but I did not hear people focusing about, Eli over at Revealed Apologetics had me on to talk about Molinism, I don't know, a year and a half ago or so.

And then he was talking with Dr. Stratton about that conversation. And when he tried to push Dr. Stratton at the same point, and that is the point of the truth value of subjunctive conditionals, the essence that which defines middle knowledge, that God has this knowledge prior to his decree of what any person would do in any given circumstance.

How, and God does not control that. It is not under his control. It does not proceed from his will. In fact, I think that was a, yeah, he specifically said independent of God's will in our conversation today.

And I was just thinking about Thalmatos, it's multiple uses in Ephesians one, which again, as long as you overlay Molinism over the text of the New Testament, which he admits, that's what he's doing. And it comes from 1500 years after Paul.

So no one really had a fruitful understanding of what was being said for 1500 years. Think about that. That's not saying that there, I've talked many, many times that, the first full length discussion in Atonement, hundreds of years after the time of the New Testament.

Okay, that explains why there were so many wacky views of the Atonement. But the question is, this is a claim that becomes the interpretive grid for the entirety of everything God does in all of Scripture.

And nobody knew about it for 1500 years after the last words of Scripture were written. Just keep that in mind. My focus was on the quote that I gave you all on the dividing line last week. It came from the discussion with Paul Helm.

I played it for you over and over again. I went over this. Everybody should have known exactly where I was going. Quote, what the Molinist does say that the Calvinist does find objectionable is that God is not in control of which subjunctive conditionals are true.

He doesn't determine the truth value of these subjunctive conditionals. That's outside his control. There is the issue. Because it is those subjunctive conditionals that limit, by Bill's own assertion, limit what God can do, what is the form his decree can take.

His decree cannot express simply what is pleasing to him. No. In Molinism, what's pleasing to God is to maintain human autonomy. Now, how that could be pleasing to God before he creates mankind, it does not make a lick of sense to me.

Because as I brought up in the conversation, there is a vast difference between deriving your theology from the text of scripture, creating a theology and pressing it on. He does not believe anyone derives their theology from the text of scripture.

It's all just competing models. That's all it is. Because that's what it is in philosophy. And so it's clearly plain that he does not believe that anyone derives their theology from the text of scripture though I pointed out he then contradicted himself by saying that I was wrong about something scripturally as if you could derive that just from the text of scripture.

So see if you catch that when you listen to it. It went by pretty quickly. Only those that are really tuned in are gonna catch that. Or if you're making notes and sort of doing a flow chart, which is difficult to do because it's not a debate.

Though it was very controlled. There wasn't any, there was nothing. Well, I suppose there's always people who will find some way of complaining about something, but I don't think either Bill or I, I have nothing to complain about.

Bill, he kept repeating the same thing. You're making God the author of evil, dah, dah, dah, over and over again, even after Genesis 50, even after Isaiah chapter 10. And after I read from the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is the same as Westminster at that point, he just keeps repeating it because it's necessary for his position.

But anyway, I focused on that issue and I made sure that everyone who listens to that hears that Bill's response to the ground truth is a grounding objection, because that's what it's called, it's a grounding objection.

If you want to see it rather fully developed, you can read Francis Turretin's section in the Institutes of Linked Theology. I think I express it more clearly thanks to Bill's expression of it in those words in his debate with Paul Helm, or discussion with Paul Helm, whatever.

I think it's more clearly understood now than you would get from reading Turretin, but Turretin's often difficult to follow. But that was what I focused upon, because what you hear him saying is, well, the grounding objection is based upon truth-making theory.

And in this form, it's maximal truth-making, that there has to be something that makes something true. And I reject that. And there's all sorts of reasons to not believe this. And I'm like, wait a minute, every example he gave completely failed.

Because what middle knowledge is saying is that these true subjunctive conditionals, that is what anybody would do in any given circumstance. And I obviously reject that very assumption. Mankind is too complex.

We don't just live, and there was an essence of James White joke that came up during the middle of it that was sort of funny. But I do not exist as some essence floating around through space. I am who I am because the way God made me.

I am the result of God's decree. I, as a person, do not pre-exist God's decree. And I personally am offended by the idea that anyone would think that I do. And so no one, including God, can know what someone he has not decreed to make would do in a given situation, because my decisions are based upon who I am as an individual, and I am God's creature.

The gifts he's given me, the gifts he hasn't given me, all determine the range of decisions, but it's always a range of decisions. The idea it's an either A or not A, eat the ice cream, don't eat the ice cream, is so laughably simplistic.

I just, it amazes me that people actually believe this. And if you think, you know, you can think you know someone better than anybody else on the planet, they will still surprise you. Yeah, but God can really, really, really know you.

But that means you do not have the autonomy that the whole system is designed to try to protect in the first place. So I reject that whole idea to begin with. It doesn't make any sense. It's not autonomy.

And it really is a very shallow explanation to theodicy, to be pretty honest with you, that God micromanages everything that happens in the world so that you are always put in a situation where he knows what you're gonna do.

That's autonomy? That somehow answers the problem of evil? I don't think it even gets close to answering the problem of evil. That is the most mechanistic way of answering the problem it could ever come up with.

But that issue aside, and that's an important issue, that issue aside, I asked Bill Craig, okay, these true subjunctive conditional statements that define middle knowledge upon which God's decree is based, that delimit God's decree.

They're the Legos from which he creates feasible worlds. Not determined by God, right? Nope, that is beyond, what was the term here? It is independent of God's will. They're independent of God's will, okay?

And clearly they can't arise from the creature who has not yet been created, right? Right. So where do they come from? His answer is they don't have to come from anywhere. We do not have to answer that question.

You are utilizing a theory of truth-making that basically says you have to answer that question. And I'm like, yes, you do have to answer that question because it's the center point of your argument.

It's the center point of what you're saying limits God's decree. This is your positive assertion. And you will listen to that program and you will never find out where it comes from. What you will hear is that it's silly to ask the question.

And I just go, okay, there you go. For me, there you go. He admits, no, middle knowledge isn't taught in the Bible. It's a fruitful system. You interpret the Bible by its consistent with scripture. It's not taught in the Bible, that's silly.

Right, there's the point. God's complete freedom to do with his creation as he sees fit is, and I was stunned at how many times. Bill said, there's all sorts of stuff in reformed theology. It's not taught in scripture, like God's simplicity or his timelessness.

And I'm sitting here going, but I'm sorry. Yes, it is. No, there's no explicit statement. I said, look, you start in Isaiah 40, you go through Isaiah 48, you're telling me you're not gonna come up with pretty much all the attributes of God in God's challenging of the false gods to do the things only he can do?

And I just, God bless him. I just don't think that Bill has spent much time with anybody who even, you know what I was reminded of? Honestly, very, very honestly. Y 'all know who my favorite heretic was, John Dominic Crossan.

I say was, it's terminology I've used. I think Dom's still alive. He's quite elderly. But John Dominic Crossan, brilliant man. And IQ off the charts. And when we first met before our debate in Seattle, I think it was, up in the Northwest, he didn't know what to do with folks like us.

He didn't even know we existed. I mean, remember the debate? He and Borg versus me and Jim Renahan on the resurrection. Halfway through this debate, I'm pretty sure it was Dom that said it because I knew Borg was an apostate, so he knew what we were saying.

But John Dominic Crossan was just a ultra liberal Irish monk, lived in a cell all the way through the 60s, studying the gospels. He never ran into a reformed Baptist. And so halfway through the debate, he's like, so you think that there wasn't a body in the tomb after the resurrection?

We're like, yeah, yeah. And given how intelligent the man is, you go, how could he not know that? Because he had never run into someone who believed that stuff. And that's what I was reminded of in listening to Bill Craig.

Is it just seems like he is in a realm where, I mean, just remember his debate with Christopher Hitchens? Well, what Christians do disagree with? Well, Calvinism. And when he describes Calvinism, remember when he tried to review Si Ten Bruggencate's stuff on presumptive apologetics?

He clearly does not believe that reformed theologians have anything meaningful to say. So he doesn't read us, or if he does read us, he reads us so shallowly and with so little respect for the reformed tradition that it's just like, and there were just times where it just seemed like, like there was, that's where the disconnect was.

And that's not the first time I've run into it. Not the first time I've run into it at all. So we did get into the supposed conditional that interestingly enough is a text that I've used a number of times in Paul Writes to the Corinthians about if they had, if the rulers of this age had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

And of course, primary application we've used in the past in that crucified Lord of glory, two natures, one person, et cetera, et cetera, which Bill actually doesn't believe, but he's a neo-Apollinarian on that, which we didn't get into, but I want to know which came first, his neo-Apollinarianism or his Molinism?

And did one influence the other? Because I see a connection between the two. We talked about it on Last Divining Line. That didn't come up, didn't have time to get into it, but I would be really, really, really interested in that.

So let me just, see, sometimes you'll see something and by the time the debate's over, you're like, well, I have here presupposes God is free. Don't remember what the context was. But at one point he did say that the whole history of the world is included in the information that God uses up to the point of a person's decision, any decision in a person's life.

God's taking into consideration the whole history of the world. And what I wanted to say is that means none of that can freely flow from God's eutachia. It can only, it's all determined, every single bit of it, including all the natural disasters and everything, it's all determined by middle knowledge.

Middle knowledge is the driver here. Now, Bill said, oh yes, it's according to the kind intention of his will, but it's not. It's according to the kind intention of the truth value of subjunctive conditionals.

The range of what God can choose is extremely small because his primary function is to run all the data, come up with a feasible worlds and then there's this, the other question is, what is his grand purpose that will then determine which world is going to be actuated?

And you can't answer any of these questions from scripture. For a system that is supposedly so useful in producing light, it doesn't produce much light. It leaves us without the clarity of Ephesians one.

But my point was the whole history of the world includes the decree. There's all sorts of stuff. You know, I need to get dinner on the way home and I've got a pretty good idea what I'm going to do, but there's a bunch of stuff that can get in the way of that.

And I just might change my mind. And the point is, God's made me in a certain way and that is a part of the freedom of his expression. As long as you engage middle knowledge, what man will do becomes the ultimate decider of all these things, of all these things.

It's never an expression of God's eudaichea. Not taught in, but is consistent with, that's the idea of Molinism is not taught in scripture, but it's consistent with scripture. And that's, you'll hear it at least twice come out.

Bill, that's difference between us. And he just doesn't believe anybody. He said, James, you don't, your beliefs aren't derived from scripture. There is no passage in scripture that says that God has a unilateral divine decree.

I'm like, really? And I brought up others. I brought up briefly, I brought up Psalm 2, but I focused on Ephesians 1. Sorry, he did not exegete that text. Listen for yourself. So let me see here. Yeah, and at one point he says, you know, toward the end he says, you know, you don't just simply read this stuff out of scripture.

And I didn't say you simply read out of scripture. You read scripture as a whole. You see it as a full divine revelation. It's not some simplistic surface reading. You read it as a whole. And as such, that's where you drive your, Oh, okay.

Rich, I just looked over here. Rich said, I thought he said Friday. So maybe Rich was setting up to do what we're doing right now. So he heard part of the last bit of the program. So Rich thought he heard that it'll drop on Friday.

Well, okay, that's a few days down the road, but that's fine. We've got plenty of stuff to keep ourselves busy between now and then. But yeah, there you go. So I am again, very thankful for having had the opportunity to engage this subject.

I don't want to just drop the subject. I want to finish up some of the, some of the most useful material is when Bill starts going, okay, if this is true, then what about this? And we've gotten into some of that before in looking at The Only Wise God, especially the idea, which I did raise, but he didn't want to discuss, that there are certain people that God can never save in any feasible world.

And just think about what that means. There are people who exist in some fashion that produce this true subjunctive conditional knowledge that by someone's decree, but in fact, by no one's decree, could never be saved.

Think about what that means. I think that is a fatal objection to Molinism. And I'm going to tell you something. I don't know how many Molinists have ever even contemplated it. There are a lot of Molinists that the only reason they're Molinists, because William Lane Craig told me, but the vast majority of Molinists I've ever interacted with never even considered the ramifications of what this stuff means, never.

I'm hoping they'll have to now. I'm hoping they'll have to now. No two ways about it. There's gonna be a lot of discussion going on. And don't be deterred from the central issue. If you want to be a philosophical Molinist and never make application to theology, fine, go do your thing.

It's irrelevant to me. But the only reason Molina came up with what Molina came up with was to undercut the gospel of grace. That's what he was doing. He was defending the continued existence and necessity and centrality of the Roman Catholic sacramental system.

That's what it was about. Now, Bill is not defending the Roman Catholic sacramental system, but he's still defending the synergism that is central to that. And don't be taken off of the central issue here by, well, you need to read this book over here, or this guy over here said that, or, you know, Bill Craig isn't really, you know, Justin said more than once, hey, Bill's the primary person pushing this perspective.

It seems to be. And I'm aware of McGregor, and I'm aware of Stratton, but they don't seem to be willing to be quite as full in the claims they're making about this central issue, because it was Bill Craig who voluntarily gave us this quote at the end of the debate with Paul Helm.

He knows. This is what the Calvinist finds objectionable. He knows where it is. He knows what the issue is. And I'm just hoping that everyone's going to listen to this and go, well, all this truth-making stuff, you are saying that there is truth value to these statements and then you are saying that it is true that these then delimit God's decree and determine the range of feasible worlds.

So this is central to your entire cosmology. And you're saying that the only answer you're going to give as to where it comes from is that you don't have to know? Is it just a brute fact? It just is? I mean, is the central aspect of Molinism mystery rather than the autonomy of God's will?

I'll take the autonomy of God's will, okay? And I trust the spirit of God will enlighten others to do the same thing. That was the whole point. So again, if you're wondering, why didn't you just tell everybody you're gonna be doing this and stuff like that?

Like I said, I did not want to allow anything to get in the way. I had one guy, I didn't look him up. I had one guy on Twitter that, was it yesterday? Let me see here. I did respond to the guy, so I'm not sure if I could pull it up real quick here.

But I had a little discussion about how biased and probably unfair. Yeah, guy named Reverend Micah Sample. This is on the 27th, so that's two days ago. William Lane Craig is about to crush James White this Monday on Justin Brierley's Unbelievable I Hear.

Calvinism has no God-honoring, logically consistent answer to the problem of evil. So what I've been told, and I haven't confirmed this, is that Dr. Stratton publicly started talking about what was gonna be happening on Monday.

It is interesting, both McGregor and Stratton are directors for Reasonable Faith Chapters. So they're all a part of Dr. Craig's movement, which is the fundamental source of the promotion of Molinism. So I think it's pretty fair to be focused upon what Bill Craig says.

But anyways, and so I pointed out to this fellow, I said, gotta love the fair-mindedness, even-handedness, unbiased perspective. And I did, I believe, try to engage him at some point, but you know how Twitter is, it's a bit of a challenge.

So my hope for my Reformed brethren and Rich, I'll just sort of tell you, cue things up, because there's no reason to go a certain length today. I just wanted to give a post-debate announcement that things had taken place.

I don't know that I would have done this if the other side had not decided to start talking about this beforehand, but I didn't want anybody to think that there was some nefarious reason why we hadn't made reference to the upcoming discussion.

But like I said, singular motivation was, I want it to happen. I want it to actually take place. And I did not want to throw stuff out there that could possibly derail the encounter. And so that was the primary issue.

And, but then to my Reformed brethren, as you engage this, please attempt to do so as best you can with grace. Coming to understand that God is God and we are not and that man's vaunted autonomy is not what defines God's eudachia, that which is pleasing to God.

And in fact, I don't know if any of you saw the statement that Soteriology 101 made. And Rich, I don't think you saw this. I forgot to mention it to you. But I, there was a, did I, I thought I saved, I should have saved that, but I didn't.

Soteriology, there he is, Soteriology 101. Uh, yeah, okay. God is not glorified at the expense of his creation, but at the expense of himself for the sake of his creation. Now there's a lot to be said there, but I answered him, and Rich, this is what you'll appreciate.

I said, so is it God's work and glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man? Now, no one caught that. No one caught that. Layton's response was God is maximally glorious and of himself, his work and grace towards creation manifests glory.

Calvary, for instance, demonstrates not control over his enemies, but his self-sacrificial love for them. And that's glorious because it's revealing himself for who he is. Of course, you just read Acts 4, 27, 28, and you go, oh, okay.

But again, man-centeredness versus God-centeredness is central to all of this stuff. But, so Rich, did you catch what I asked? Let me know in Signal if you recognize. So this is my response. So is it God's work and glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man?

Ring any faint bells? Because nobody caught it. And that sort of bummed me out a little bit. And I haven't had time to follow up on it. But I'm not getting anything from the other side of, because Rich isn't, we're doing this again.

We found a way to replace Rich with a bot. The Rich cam now stares at an empty chair. It's sad. It's the metaverse coming to the dividing line. But I'm not getting any response. God's work and glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man.

Moses 1, 29, Pearl of Great Price. Moses 1, 29, the Pearl of Great Price. That was Joseph Smith's view. And Moses was fairly early. That was even before all the other stuff. So yeah, it is God's work and glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man.

That's Moses 1, 29. Nobody caught it, but it surely reminded me of what he was saying. And that should tell you something given that it's from the LDS scriptures. So yeah, anyway. Okay, all right. So I think the plan is to have a regular program.

Actually, Rich is working. Rich, do you think there might be a change tomorrow or what are you thinking? Now, Rich has to type all this stuff back to me. Yes, you are in tomorrow, but do you think there's gonna be a difference in how we do the program?

You were saying you were working on certain live streaming issues because obviously right now, until we figure all this out, what I can talk about on the program there aren't too many Molinists in Google.

What's that? Put your earpiece in. Oh, yes.

So we're working on various and sundry options, but in the meantime, we're gonna do this and help you behave yourself. Oh, okay, all right. You know, just if you have to talk about the crackers and the cookies, just, you know.

But I couldn't even do a lesson on the Greek alphabet right now without our getting shut down. Well, that's very true. Just like that. I'll have to find a way around it.