August 24, 2004

The Dividing Line Opens With Peter’s Call to Be Ready

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 or morning wherever you are. Welcome to the dividing line. We're back live today having missed Thursday evening and Boy I can really hear myself really well and you have to turn these things down somehow.

Having missed Thursday evening. Because we were in the Pennsylvania. Boy, I'll tell you it was it was warm and it was humid and it was moist and green and everything that everything that it's not in in Arizona, I assure you of that and so anyhow it's good to be back and it was nice to see the folks who Came out and visited with us while we were at the conference there.

It was a long conference in the sense of talked about a lot of things for a long period of time but those of you sitting there didn't seem to mind and some of you drove from Virginia and New Jersey and places like that and so we appreciate you having been there eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

I Did not finish the blog article I wanted to post yesterday. I need to get that done sometime today and so I don't want to really go into that particular issue until I have taken some more time to get that material up and So it is up to you what we do today eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one.

I honestly have nothing on the plate whatsoever. There is absolutely zip in front of me and nothing nothing that is Absolutely demanding. Being addressed. I mean there's all sorts of stuff coming up of course I just I haven't had a lot of travel problems this this fall for some.

It's always been my experience that when I go someplace the folks that bring me in arrange to travel. I mean, you know they sometimes they have you know special deals and stuff and and. But past couple weeks everybody who's bringing me in is expecting me to arrange the travel and they're going so you haven't gotten your tickets yet.

No, was I supposed to I gotta tell me these things this found out. You know something in barely two weeks from now, and I don't have any tickets, and I'm like what? Okay, great wonderful and. So notes to everyone if you have me come in to arrange the travel, thank you very much.

So who knows I don't. Unfortunately the place I'm going that I'm speaking of now the airline that I have access to doesn't go there. So I ain't driving. I can guarantee you that much. So who knows what will happen there?

I have no idea. We're two weeks out, and that's not a good thing. To be two weeks out and not have not have your your airline tickets yet, that's generally bad. Generally not a good thing so anyhow. No, you know I'm someone is getting really annoying and channel.

And I'm gonna next time they say something about my credit card. They're gonna be sitting in the darkness someplace anyways eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. The blog article I was mentioning Will be on the subject of of The imputation controversy, I have a feeling there may be a book about title down the road someplace and That That will be I tell you I Like I said talk about getting blindsided by something.

If somebody had had it asked me five minutes ago five minutes ago five years ago or five minutes ago five years ago, what would be one of the great two controversies and and the like. It never would have crossed my mind That there would be Protestants who would be either saying well You know I think we've just gone a little bit too far with this imputation business.

One thing's pretty obvious, there's a lot of folks in academia who have never encountered a Roman Catholic apologist. They have never you know in any way shape or form had to on a pastoral level. Someone's asking about the reason Whitehorse and I don't hear the Whitehorse and I can't comment on things.

I can't hear. They've obviously never pastorally dealt with Individuals who are being attracted to Roman Catholicism. In fact if you remember I played a clip for Phil Johnson when he was on from the discussion between Mark Dever and Jalen Duncan on the subject of James DG done saying hey I had never read Roman Catholic scholarship, so I didn't know I was saying the same thing basically and I That's what happens when you you have this this wonderful thing called the hallowed halls of academia where everybody just sits around and Writes articles for one another and and they never get out and get involved in in stuff I let alone the battle you know people talk to me about.

You know. Why aren't other people doing what you're doing? Why aren't other people engaging all that stuff and I don't know, but it's pretty obvious. They just don't have the desire to do so maybe it's not politically correct within academia to Do this kind of thing or the scary part is?

There is the fact that well in academics you have You have this idea at least within secular academics, and I see it really coming into. Quote-unquote Christian academics that hey as long as somebody has the right credentials.

Then they have a right to speak within the context of theology and theology has been taken out of the church. Theology is no longer the purview of the church academics outrank elders even though there is no such Position in Scripture, and so the academic thinks that that he is above and beyond the church.

He's above and beyond the eldership. He's above and beyond fidelity to to the the teachings of the church and so he's drunk deeply at the well of of the world and Therefore you know I can speculate on anything.

I jelly will want to speculate. That's my freedom as an academic see. Instead of you know I really. That's what happens when you separate theology from the church and I can just hear people hooting and hollering out there right now.

Traditionalist all the rest of stuff you know but. Can you honestly say that you can exegete? The text of the New Testament and come up with this whole thing we've created the Academy. That has no checks and balances.

It has no controls. It has no responsibility. It's not it's not Accountable to anybody. Where do you get that? I don't care how academic you are and how trained you are and how brilliant you are where do you find that in?

Scripture oh. Well, you know it couldn't have developed back then because you know the church is persecuted, but this is a natural development over time and da da da da da da and so you know the the. You just can't go to the text of Scripture and substantiate those types of things and so you've got all these you know this willingness to just speculate speculate speculate and That that's part and parcel look when someone does research when someone's seeking to to advance in their academic degrees.

Generally the idea is That you are to add to the body of knowledge by your research well. Okay, I can think of many areas in Christian theology and things like that where that's something you could do there are many constructions and usages of things in the phrases and and grammatical constructions and things like that and in the old and New Testaments that that really are screaming out for further study and for in-depth study and things like that that's that would be great and Certainly to church history things like that that would be great but the fact the matter is the constant push to come up with something new especially in the field of theology is inherently dangerous.

Because while that may work in the in the secular area where there is no established truth. We're talking about the once-for-all delivered the Saints faith and It shouldn't be overly surprising that over church history this drive for something new generally means something heretical not something that that is useful and beneficial and so on and so forth and So anyway, it just the more I see this the more I see this attitude that the The more concerned I become obviously and the more depressing it becomes really I had mentioned I think on the program long long ago that how very unpleasant.

My one and only experience at ETS was a national at the National Conference. I presented a paper there on well, I'm Greg Stafford in fact and Just the attitude that I saw there Especially certain people.

I mean there were certain people that were that were there in the very same context I was that Their their experience their their activities sense that have demonstrated that I my feelings were exactly right even back in 1998 about them.

But just the general feeling I saw I saw very little very little I didn't say none. Well, okay I didn't see any at the time but that doesn't mean it wasn't there because my exposure to the whole thing wasn't all that big but but I It Just really frustrates me it just frustrates me to remember how these individuals So many of them were just it's the Academy the Academy the it was almost idolatrous in a sense.

You know, we are the high priests of the Academy and we will lead the benighted Church To to greater insights and and the the idea of a humble Acceptance of of us of it, you know, that's that there's where there's a term I've been looking for humble acceptance of a role of service Serving the church serving others, you know, somebody was mentioning in channel that they were reading a book by a certain scholar and When someone said so what'd you think about it and it was like well be honest with you was really boring and I didn't get much out of it and It just seemed like the guy Really liked using big words.

You know, it's just like and sometimes he could have said it a whole lot more simply than he did but you know, it's just this I'm so brilliant and This this type of you know, this academics speak it's this it's this code it's this stuff that that people communicate to one of and scholars used to serve as a badge see I can I can talk the talk see and The problem is what that ends up doing is the only people that you are quote-unquote Ministering to the only people you're communicating with are people like you.

It's not the rest of the church. It's not it's not anybody else. It's just well, let's all get together and I know people are some people saying well, you know There's some highly technical stuff that only scholars really get into okay, I can understand a discussion say of An in-depth textual variant and I can understand That people, you know in a context like that might find some of the language somewhat difficult to handle.

But you know what? There's only I can only think of a few contexts where you you couldn't explain What those words mean? So that everybody could be involved back one of the things I want to do I was gonna try to do it today, but just didn't get around it.

I need to reset my computer. It's Not right now, but I mean it was moving slower than molasses in January. If you know when something I think it's got a print job. It got lost someplace and so it's all unhappy.

But I was what I was gonna think about doing and maybe we'll do it by Thursday if I can get a chance to is to post some Textual variants on our website and then when we start the program I can give you the URL you can go to it and And go through the variant and and discuss what the various symbols mean and things like that sort of learn how to use.

Maybe a UBS fourth your na -27. Use these wonderful printed Materials that are available to us and If you can't do that if you can't get at least a layman of average intelligence I realize there's some folks that just they sort of struggle okay, and Complex issues just aren't there for a day.

I can understand that but if we're talking about An average guy and You are In a situation where you're dealing with difficult issue if you can't explain it Then you probably don't even understand it overly well yourself.

Or you've become so dependent upon Scholar speak that you can no longer communicate with anybody else and that's not a good thing and I don't personally find it overly impressive when when all people can do is sit around and talk to each other in in scholar speak.

But they can't communicate that to anybody else. That that just really doesn't impress me. That's you know what's what's the use in that but that's what I saw it at at ETS when I was there it was a sad thing to see and.

Is it overly surprising that what five years later? ETS can't get rid of Clark Pinnock. And the issue of open theism because you see Clark Pinnock is a brilliant scholar and and he can cite so many sources and and and.

You know so we need to we need to be open and and and you know and and exactly where do we get that? Oh, well, it's one thing to you know that we might not want Clark Pinnock in our church. But we'll let him teach in our seminary.

Hello Hello anyone see the problem there, it's 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. I disavow all. If I feel if I sound a little short today in answer to your question, please forgive me. It's just I'm still a little little tired from the weekend and and very Disappointed not only with the people in theological realm, but the political realm as well, but I can't get into that.

Because that would be bad, and and I would be evil for doing it and things like that so anyways 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 3 4 1 let's go to.

Open Theism, Divine Knowledge, and Human Freedom

Aaron in California. Hi Aaron. Hi, I can you hear me, okay, doctor. Yeah, well good morning. My time yes, sir. I am trying to tighten up an article. I've typed up In part of it it deals with open theism, and I'm looking for a the most consistent position because I don't want to misrepresent it some some reviews of the open theistic position seem to indicate that By God being ignorant that makes human actions free and I don't I don't know if I can correctly point out though the problem with this position seems to be that you stand before my Closed closet door, and I tell you I could either have tennis shoes or boots in there now I know there's boots in there, but is Is the assertion of such position that because you don't know that there's boots in there that actually create bully that there's actually? tennis shoes in there and I just can just assume.

I'm misunderstanding the open theistic position, or I'm me reading someone who's who's Improperly representing it because I am I just don't see that being having making God ignorant can Make the future any less determined As in the example I gave so I'm looking for what would be a better understanding a correct understanding of it or am I?

Is it's a misrepresentation of it, and I have I've read some of it But I can't I'm looking for probably most consistent position. I hope you can help me with that.

Well, I think I think the open theist would probably say something along the lines of well. The problem with your illustration is it's not it's not personal it's you're just talking about a Factual case whether something is or is not.

Whether something's in there or isn't in there. The sort of the crackers in the Pantry fallacy that the bonds and talked about. And and their point is that that for libertarian freedom for? Freedom to exist at all there has to be the possibility of acting contrary To do something differently than what God knows we're going to do.

So if God knows what the future is going to be then Then that That action is is fixed, and it is not possible in that point of time for an individual to do something differently. And hence there they can't see there to be a real freedom if in point of fact God has has knowledge of what that events going to be.

And so I don't know that there's a strict parallel between the concept of What whether there is something or is not something inside of a closed closet door until we open the door and look and The idea that to be free there has to be the opportunity of acting contrary And doing something differently than what you what you theoretically would do otherwise.

So I think their argument would be well you're talking about difference between a factual state and the actions of a free creature. Basically is what I would say.

But the choices of humans are events sealed in the past that cannot be made contrary. Therefore if God guesses or predicts something that you do contrary. It's not a case of Free will being validated.

It's just of God being proven ignorant. It's in the case of well. I say tennis shoes are in the closet. Nope. It's boots. Well There was never a possibility ever of Tennis shoes being in there. It's it just seems to be well until I don't until I know there's boots in there.

Tennis shoes are an actual factual reality until that point occurs because I I don't really I don't really understand how they can just say Well as long as it has to do with human choices It doesn't matter because human choices are events sealed in the past once they become well.

So they wouldn't agree with that. They wouldn't. That's. Their whole point is that they're not saying the human choices are are Sealed in the past. They're talking about the present and for there to be freedom in the present.

Then one has to have a have the ability to either do a or non a. It's not a past fact. It's not something that's a factual. For their for their perspective. It's not something that's. That's a point of factual knowledge.

It becomes a point of factual knowledge when it is actualized in the present. Otherwise if all human actions are only in the past there is no present.

Right, I'm sorry. I did not phrase it right. I mean even from our perspective choices. We have made in the past from this point. Backwards are things that are sealed are things that if you get contrary to you would just be proven wrong.

You would be proven that that the possibility was. It was something we asserted in light of our ignorance not because it was an alternate reality waiting to happen because no. Except in the political realm where the past is irrelevant, but anyway, yeah, well, that's it's very convenient when you can rewrite your past.

Yes. Oh, yes.

I was wasn't even talking about the Mormons. But anyways, you were saying I Hear just saying I'm not going to defend the open theists. I'm simply going to Tell you what they would say and they would say that the the issue is is not the idea of Factuality or counterfactuality in that sense.

It is it is the very definition of freedom and That that's all I can say. I can't go any further than that. Okay, I.

Think I understand what they mean. They're trying to turn it into the you know, not not a mechanical Mechanical event but a personal creature some along that line I Guess so. I understand it doctor. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. All right.

All right, thanks a lot, okay. Eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one. Let's talk with Jason in the United Kingdom. Hello, Jason.

Hello, how you doing? And if I just say hello messy, you know.

I don't know why people mock my British accent. Because you know, you just said PETA and I mean I that was. You extended that e out about four times longer than any American would and when I do that people just laugh.

So I just don't understand it. But so Peter or PETA. And see we say er and you say ah and and what was. Where does he live in. New Hampshire?

I think I think I'm not sure exactly but I think that's a that's a an online friend. I.

Okay, I'm really not certain that they have the Internet in New Hampshire yet, but anyway. Okay now now that you've violated all FCC rules and actually we're not under the FCC. So they're really matter.

So anyhow, what's up?

Yes, they challenged me on a number of issues of the gospel. Well, you know when you say desires.

That's where I would go. What do you mean? There's a difference between the offer which comes from the fact that We as individuals we as as God's people do not know who the elect are and hence we proclaim the the message to all and it is it is Openly proclaimed that way.

How could it be put proclaimed any other way given our own ignorance? I don't agree That God desires The salvation the non-elect because I think God does what he desires to do That is different than God showing grace to them I mean if God if God does not destroy the reprobate the moment they first sinned and then grace has been extended them and mercy has been extended to them and and Pharaoh could have been destroyed the first moment as a as a Well when he was born for that matter, I mean look at the destruction of the firstborn in Egypt but at any point in his In his Sojourn, he could have been destroyed and hence there was mercy and grace extended to him But there's obviously different kinds of grace and common grace is not salvific grace.

It doesn't require a Salvific intention for it to be grace. And so I I would not agree If that is the way they defined That I would I wouldn't hold to that viewpoint because to say that God desires Something and then does not accomplish that Would mean that he is imperfect in the sense that he will have desires that are not fulfilled and I I don't I don't agree with that Satined means saddened.

Okay. I'm just trying to translate here. Don't worry. I'm a little slow today and I Well, you know, it's funny to again use that kind of terminology.

I mean gene cook friends. Well, that's not it. There's nothing about Jesus weeping in Matthews. There's something in Luke, but.

No, I don't I don't believe that that God's bummed. I say, you know, it's funny people who will defend the impassability of God and will not subject God to human emotions will then turn around and subject him to frustration and even depths of desperation.

And that I I don't understand either. I do not believe that there is any Sorrow in the in the accomplishment of God's purposes in that sense and I don't believe I Don't I don't follow that perspective.

There is there is a general proclamation and you see for example Jesus grieving over the existence and the effect of sin in John 11 in the sense of the the presence of death and what it does in separation and things like that, but The idea that That that God is frustrated each and every day Even though it was within his power to be non frustrated.

I don't I don't follow that either. I don't understand what that what that idea is.

I didn't I didn't know that Ezekiel was in Isaiah. So what you said Isaiah? Oh, okay.

Sitting here looking at you. Yeah, you have conceived chaff. You'll give birth to stubble. My breath will consume you like fire. Well, I. That's that's what that says, okay. Again context context context.

I Actually address this both this passage in Ezekiel 18 about I don't know how many months ago now, but I did address it and I Don't remember what the context is people always say. Oh, what program was that?

I don't remember. We went through Ezekiel 18 that has the same phraseology. It had to do with the context of people saying they couldn't repent because they were suffering for what their parents did. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And I would direct you back to that as as really the Foundation for for taking a look at At that but we need to take our break right now. Thanks for calling the Jason and we'll be right back after this.

Justification, Imputation, and the Reformation Debate

It's all works righteousness, you know. And a man you bet your grace. Some religious place by weeping hard on your face.

At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified.

But about the very meaning of justification and the gospel of Jesus Christ. What's a debate reserved for Roman Catholics and the Reformers the doctrine of justification is now being challenged from within the walls of reformed? evangelicalism itself.

Join alpha and omega ministries as we embark on our first national conference and confront this very issue. Justification the heart of the gospel with pastor and co-author of Holy Scripture the ground and pillar of our faith David King the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Founders Conference Tom Askew New Testament Research Ministries founder and author of evangelical answers Eric Svensson the founder of the Spurgeon Archive and executive director of grace to you Philip Johnson Nationally renowned Reformed Christian artist Steve camp and the founder of Alpha Omega Ministries and author. Dr. James White.

Join us at the Los Angeles, California LAX Sheraton ballroom on November 6 2004 beginning at 845 a .m. Seating is limited. So order your tickets now at a omen org. That's www .aomin .org. Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God.

James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith in a readable and responsible style.

Author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611. You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .aomin .org.

Convictions once held and died for among Bible-believing Protestants are now being reconsidered with the advent of the recent Auburn Avenue movement. Is there currently a common basis for dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants?

Were the signers of ECT correct in their ecumenical efforts and all of the reformed scholars who opposed them in error? Does Trinitarian baptism make one a member of the New Covenant our Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Join us in Los Angeles, California on November 5th 2004 for a full three hours of moderated debate between dr James White of Alpha and Omega ministries and Douglas Wilson of the Auburn Avenue movement and new st Andrews College as these topics are debated between two of the most respected representatives of the opposing viewpoints.

Additional information and tickets can be ordered at a omin org. That's www .aomin .org.

Luther, Eck, and the Cost of the Reformation

Welcome back to the dividing line. It is 1134 a .m. Here in the Mountain West and we have the phone lines open at eight seven seven seven five three. Three three four one. Let's talk with Johnny in California.

Hi Johnny. How are you James? I'm here.

Well, I got a question on Roman Catholicism. I'm holding in my hand a book called church history 20th centuries of Catholic Christianity by John C. I can't pronounce the last name. DW y er Wire I. Yeah, I guess it's Dwyer on page 233.

He says something that I kept caught my eye. I don't know if you have the book. Nope. Okay. He's talking about the debates that Luther had at the beginning of the Reformation and he references here the debate the first debate I believe he had with dr. Eck.

Mm-hmm, and he says Under X prop. Probing questioning Luther probably came to realize more clearly implications of his own theology administered. He admitted that he did not recognize the authority of the Pope and could not agree that the decisions of seven of even church councils Which were were divinely protected from error.

Scripture was the only ultimate authority he could accept. No, that's not that immediately the.

Dr. Dwyer, whoever he is just blew a fuse and fell off the truck. There is no question that in the Leipzig confrontation with Eck that Luther began to see because of it The implications of his position.

There's no question about that. He went to the Library during breaks in the debate because it was it was not like debates we have today. They're only two or three hours in length. They were they extended over days and there were lunch breaks and dinner breaks everything else.

And he went to the library and discovered because of X questioning that he was saying many things that in fact Ian Huss had said just over a century earlier, which certainly caused him a great deal of consternation.

But to say that that means he rejected The papacy at that point is just simply ridiculous. That you don't just simply one day wake up and go hey, you know what I I think that I'm gonna you know, just take a completely radical viewpoint today.

No that that took a fair amount of time. It took you know a period of time for that kind of thing to develop and it certainly didn't just simply develop during the debate with Eck and Really what happened in the debate with Eck is That he was forced to recognize that there was a tension between those two.

But he did not in just a matter of days come to a clear conclusion as to what that is. So if if I heard it properly what you were saying was that that that as a result of this Luther at that time rejected Popes and councils immediately.

Right then and there no, that's not the case. And in fact, it wouldn't even it wouldn't even be fair to say that that. The result eventually would be that he would recognize as we see in his speech before Charles about three years later that Popes and councils have erred and so he will say that they have that they're human and that they've contradicted one another which is a manifest fact, obviously, but That that's something that he came to conclusion on over the course of time between those things.

He hadn't concluded that beforehand when he went and when he wrote the 95 theses and when Eck and he disputed. He still had a lot of development yet to go in his in his theology at that point.

Well, he goes on to say something else that also caught my eye. He says that Eck was sincere and a clever debater. But it is impossible to read the transcript of the debates without concluding that it was Luther who had real religious substance on his side even though some of his views were dangerously one-sided and that Eck was defending some practices and Views of the late medieval church, which were doubtfully Christian.

Oh, yeah, there's no question. What caught my eye there is that that basically for a Roman Catholic to say this about Luther. I think it's Phenomenal but.

No, there's there's actually a fair amount of that amongst Roman Catholic historians and I'm not even referring to the Rather humorous experience we had in Salt Lake a number of years ago where a guy I was debating Referred to st. Martin Luther and the propriety of praying to him as a Catholic.

That's their honest Roman Catholic historians recognize That Luther's fundamental issues had a tremendous amount of validity and that the practice of indulgence selling and the like at least in its practice was a reprehensible thing and I would imagine a lot of them don't like the fact that indulgences are still a part of Roman Catholic theology even to this day.

Remember when you're talking about Roman Catholic scholarship You're frequently talking about something that exists in many times in in a very different context than Roman Catholic apologetics and Historic Roman Catholic theology at least today.

There's there's very frequently a big difference between them. So I that does not surprise me he would say that There are many Roman Catholic scholars that recognize That that Luther was not completely washed up.

They're not they they're not into the old polemics of Luther being this terrible horrible nasty guy. And in fact, they recognize there are a lot of people on their side that just didn't break with Rome who likewise Expressed their their concerns as well.

Well, what what were some of those practices outside of the selling of indulgences? I mean well.

At least in the Leipzig disputation. It was primarily focused upon Indulgence selling in the entire Complex of beliefs that are related to that. Some of the things that Luther himself would say over the next couple of years would include and I don't know that he would necessarily referring to this in regards only to Leipzig disputation with Eck, but You know one of the most telling Criticisms that that Luther records was from his previous experience and as I recall 1510 when he went to Rome.

And going to Rome was You know, it was supposed to be a spiritual thing. But but Rome was a was a real Difficult place to go in those days it was the center of religious corruption. The papacy was at a nadir of corruption and had been for hundreds of years and Leo the tenth wasn't the worst there was in the world, but The the Pope excommunicated Luther, but still there had been some pretty nasty popes up at that period of time and so when when Luther went there, he was shocked at the surface level the of spirituality the One of the things he specifically mentions that they would have these these places where you could go as a priest and say mass.

There would be a room where there would be multiple altars around the outside of the room and you could go in and say mass and you could pay A priest to go in and say mass for you. And so he records that there were these Italian priests who would take money from these pilgrims to go say mass for you know, some dearly departed individual and They would go in there and they would not even say the entirety of the mass.

Sometimes they weren't even actually saying it correctly. Sometimes they were just mocking, you know, if it was a German for example who didn't know Latin They would they would be saying just completely nonsensical things and and just taking the money and just laughing at the at the person and he was scandalized at not only that but but the just the very commercialization of Christianity as a whole that he saw there in Rome, so the the whole practice and piety of the time was subject to the same kind of criticism and.

So maybe that's what he has reference to there I I don't know the only thing I know of in the in lives in the Leipzig Disputation was focused upon the issue of indulgences which very quickly moved the issue of Papal Authority and establishing the the selling of indulgences.

Do you think that maybe Eck was actually defending what you just talked about the experience that Luther recorded?

Oh, no X X only going to be equa's Eck recognized that there were people there were godly people who like Luther rejected the the Implication of the selling of indulgences in the form of attacks the selling of God's forgiveness.

So X was a X was a smart debater. He knew that the only way to really win this debate was to put Luther on a different ground. He knew that he wasn't going to win this debate by actually defending indulgences.