August 5, 2003

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.

Participation if you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at six. Oh two nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free. Across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

Program Introduction and Upcoming Guest Debate

And now with today's topic here is James white. And good morning and welcome to the dividing line. My name is James white. So we invite your participation today as has become rather popular over the past number of weeks at eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

We haven't said anything about the cruise for a long time. We're going to be putting some new information up over the next couple days on the fact that. Well, there's some neat new opportunities for those of you who thought well, I've missed it.

I can't get in there's a window of opportunity yet for our cruise on December 6th on the Zondam a Holland America ship going to the Eastern Caribbean seven days a beautiful beautiful ship and So be listening Thursday night also be listening two weeks from today two weeks from today.

We are going to have a special guest on the program probably go a little long that day I've asked my friend Eric Stenson professor Eric Stenson. Dr. Eric Stenson author Eric Stenson Who has written a number of books?

Evangelical answers and his most recent work on Mary who is my mother? To join me. I was I was working out Thursday night, and I was listening Once again hadn't listened in a couple of years to the debate between Eric Stenson and Jerry Matta ticks on The subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary specifically did Mary have other children after the birth of Christ and That is the the thesis.

For the debate I will be having with mr. Matta ticks the exact same thesis at the University of Utah Friday night October 3rd, I believe is the date and so I wanted to Listen to that debate and refresh my memory on what had taken place and as I was listening especially to mr Matta ticks is open opening statement.

I was again reminded of why I have often said that mr Matta ticks is the king of the cheap debate tricks and I'm going to play an example of that today Analyze it and I've asked Eric Stenson to join me.

We're going to play Sections of that debate and Give Eric the opportunity to to do what you rarely get to do when you're in a debate and that is to actually comment on everything that's being said with enough time to actually say something and That's what I would like to do.

So That's we're going to be doing. I believe that's the 18th or is that the 19th 19th? Yeah, the 19th. In fact the 18th for those of you in the st. Louis area I will be. And you know, we ought to see if there's some way we could webcast this at the same time Because the station isn't on on the internet, but I'm going to be doing a debate On the whether the Sun has eternally existed as a divine person on KJSL in st. Louis and Against one of the leading oneness scholars and so That's going to be two days in railroad.

You're doing some interesting things in the morning. If you are in the Area where you can pick up KJSL you'll want to listen to Tim and I'll show that day As we attempt obviously the problem, of course is this isn't You know, I think we are going to have equal time and stuff.

But when you throw commercials into a morning program, it's going to be very very very very very brief and so Anyway, that's going to be coming up on In just a couple of weeks from now. So what I'd like to start doing while all of you are climbing on to the phone lines at eight seven seven seven five three three three, four one is to Play some some sections from this debate that we're going to be listening to in a few weeks this debate is available at straightgate .com and Remember, that's straight as in the King James version S-t-r-a-i-t G-a-t-e .com straightgate .com that hosts the archives this program.

I believe that we actually Uploaded the archives of last week's program now, so you'll be able to listen to those as well and There at straightgate .com you can listen to the entire this debate I think it was two hours and 47 minutes somewhere along those lines and Eric tells me that there is exactly one Evangelical in the audience aside from this himself.

I know I really know that feeling I have been there been there done that got the t-shirt in essence and It's always it's always interesting, you know to to walk into the lion's den but I've done the same thing a number of times actually and so It's worth listening to all of it.

What I want to do is is there is this one thing that just really hit me and that's what gave me the whole idea I'm gonna play the one section that really I listened to this and I was just I was angry I was very angry because I don't understand.

I don't believe that anyone Could do what Jerry Madetik's does and the clips are going to play for you and not do it purposefully. It is a skill. It is an ability to twist truth, and that's what he does here.

I Absolutely come to conclusion listening to this That this is this is absolutely positively purposeful. But interestingly enough the the debate started as did so many of my debates with mr. Madetik's and I think I've done about 12.

I think I sat down once and figured out it was better somewhere around a dozen debates With Jerry Madetik's at some point in time Starting if in fact he was first person I debated and solo scriptura in August of 1990 at a Catholic Church in Long Beach, so he's want to start.

He was first one to ever contact me and challenge me to a debate so it is interesting that that is the history here. But listening to him debate someone else. I was really really Taken aback by the way that he he handled himself, and he started, and I would say at least in three Possibly four of our debates he started in almost exactly The same way as he started this debate, let's listen Make sure the computers up and running here in fact I'm going to turn the volume up just a little bit, so you've got a little bit more to work with.

Listen to how Jerry Madetik's Started the debate with Eric Svensson well.

I too had a few surprises by way of travel. I was supposed to be in San Jose Tuesday, and I wasn't allowed onto the Planet overbooked it from Scranton and so I ended up going to. Ended up going to Tucson Arizona Tuesday Monday night rather.

And didn't get a chance to see. Get a look at Eric Svensson's book on Catholic. It's his response to Catholic apologists until I had one that actually to me yesterday. So I am also a little bit. I've been giving three days worth of talks in New Mexico.

I have a full days of talks in Sacramento tomorrow, and I'll be speaking here in San Jose again on Sunday. So I would ask that you pray for me that I would be able to do my very best job.

Now that At least he didn't use there the same Argument that he always that he's used before in our debates. He's David, and I'm Goliath and and He's been driving all day, and he hasn't eaten and he drank a coke and he was.

And that's all he's had and he was writing his notes on a yellow pad in the car while he was driving there trying to follow a map, and he had just moved and he has 47 ,000 children and So all of his books are in Boxes and so he's really not prepared and It's just it's just you have to wonder it doesn't he realize that people are going to listen to more than one of his debates and After about the fourth debate in a row where you hear the same excuse you start going excuse me, but Why do you do this?

I mean, you know it's so obviously meant to to in try to endear himself to the audience all poor. Man, he's he's he's just so tired. And he's so thin and he's so abused. And I just listened to this and just want to go just show up and debate would you I mean come on?

It just I don't it just leaves me it leaves me amazed now what I want to play for you is Eric Svensson. Made a presentation now now remember, and and this is one of the reasons I want to do this because it gives you some insight.

I think into into the the pressure of debating I mean. Every time I debate and this debate that I'll be doing with matitix will be my 47th 48 48 yeah, cuz yeah 48th debate that I've done and every time you you get done.

You you look back, and you go well. I could have done this I could have said that. It's very easy to second-guess yourself, but most of the time you have extremely limited amount of time not only to to listen to what your opponent say and take a note of it and Especially if you encounter something you've never even heard before.

To try to analyze it while still listening and still hearing the next things being presented and all the rest that kind of stuff. But you just have sometimes 30 seconds in which to try to address an issue and I always live with the reality that many of the people who are listening to me speak at that particular point in time.

They are looking for any reason to ignore the majority of what I've said. They're simply looking for the The one little thing that they can focus on that will give them a reason to continue believing what they're believing.

And I realize that and I understand that and so so you have to try to to put in 100 on everything. There's no point where you can just simply you know back off and say well. You know the the actual debate parts over you know so on so you just can't do that so Eric Svensson made a presentation the first point that he made in regards to the thesis statement that Mary had Children after the birth of Jesus was based on Matthew 118 now the birth of Jesus Christ Was as follows when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph before they came together.

She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. He discusses the Greek term synergam I. It's in this particular form that it's used here in the aorist Sunil fine and He makes an excellent Presentation he discusses the the fact that there are numerous lexicons that give as the meaning here in context the Natural coming together in marriage of man and woman and he points out that it can be used in a basic way.

Simply mean to gather together. But that in the context here. The only way it makes any sense Is in light of the statement before they came together. She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit that obviously is in reference to the virgin birth.

Okay, and so there's there's the the context. That's why I'm gonna do is I'm gonna play you first Eric Svensson's Statement on this particular subject, then I want you to listen very carefully to Geriatrics reply and what you might want to learn to do is you you may want to Try to in essence sort of Do a flowchart in other words take down the points that Eric makes.

And then put a line next to it and then as Jerry addresses the same issue. What points does he address? What points does he not address? That would be a very very important thing for you to do, so let's listen to Eric Svensson's presentation here on Matthew 118.

Number one Matthew 118 says this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about his mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph. But before they came together She was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Now the phrase before they came together is soon air come I in the grief and it means simply to come together. But it is often used in context to denote sexual relations. Scholars point to wisdom 7 -2 as an example this usage as well as a variant reading and for scrimping and 7 -5.

What's kind of little. And Scott's like another instance of this phrase that bears a meaning to share the bed? Well, that's kind of Bauer art diggers and banker these scholarly standard today. Cites both philo and Josephus both of whom use this word to denote sexual relations.

What's kind of low. Anita gives these meaning sexual relations as that which is to be applied to Matthew 118. But even the context suggests that this means sexual intercourse. Remember the context is that Mary is betrothed to Joseph.

But it is before they came together that she is found to be with child. Indeed Matthew's purpose for this phrase is very polemic. He mentions that Mary conceived before she and Joseph came together to convince his readers that this was a virginal birth and not an ordinary one.

And why do I bother to mention something so seemingly obvious about the text? Because Catholic apologists invariably argue as will my opponent tonight. That Mary took a vow of virginity prior to her conception of Jesus and therefore never intended to have sexual relations with Joseph.

The phrase before they came together must on this view mean before they came together. Platonically that is to say before they begin to reside together. The text is thus stripped of any reference to sexual relations.

Such a view however raises more questions than it answers. Why would Matthew mention this phrase at all if he knew sexual relations had never occurred? If we take this simply as a reference to Joseph and Mary make taking up residence together.

Without thought of ensuing sexual relations. Matthew's point regarding the virgin birth is in quite loss. If he is attempting to show as he surely is in this passage that the birth of Christ was a virginal birth then the phrase before they came together must mean before they engage in special relations and Cannot mean before they came together in a platonic living arrangement.

So if the latter is true, then it would be no more remarkable nor significant for that matter. If Mary was pregnant before they came together then it would be a she became pregnant after they came together.

Well, there's the presentation and that obviously is is a compelling Presentation it is contextual. It gave lexical sources that at this particular point in this verse give as the meaning of sooner come I'm sexual relations.

He points out that it that this whole idea of a platonic Protectorate relationship is a contextual. There's nothing in the scriptures even begins to suggest such a thing. It is read into the text by Catholic apologists.

Very very clearly is a Jesus to the max and so if if you love truth and even if you believe What Rome teaches Then at some point in time You're gonna have to respond to that argument. You're gonna have to actually deal With the argument as it was presented.

You're gonna have to look at the text. You have to go. No, it doesn't mean that and here is how I determine that from the text. But I think most of you who've listened to debates as Roman Catholic apologists recognize That is not what a Roman Catholic apologist is able to do.

Think of think of Patrick Madrid with the issue of Latria and Dulia. Well that that that those laws were for back then when they had a real problem with idolatry. We don't have a problem with idolatry anymore.

Think of Stravinsky's who is the The Blessed Man. Well, that's Jesus Jesus to whom his sins will not be imputed. Just just go through the the list of debates and you can see Exactly where the problem lies.

Roman Catholicism is not based upon the exegesis of the text of Scripture. It is based upon the overriding authority of the Roman Magisterium. So if you are a truth lover and you believe what mr. Maddox believes at this point You expect in the response some Dealing with the context and especially an accurate dealing with what Eriks Venson said did Eriks Venson say that the only meaning of the text the only meaning of the Term is always Sexual.

No, he did not say that he said in this context in light of in fact He even said the normal meaning of the word is to gather together. But in this context it has to mean this and here's why. So keeping that in mind, let's now Go sort of fast forward to Jerry Maddox's opening statement And he's already made a number of statements that I didn't will listen to these in a couple of weeks where he you know weaves this intricate tapestry of stuff that has nothing to do with the text itself, but Here is where?

He attempts to respond to the use of Matthew 118.

By Eriks Venson. The first thing that we can say is that even Protestant commentators and Protestant lexicons that is dictionaries of the Greek language Point out every single one and I will ask mr. Spencer to produce one single instance tonight in your hearing of any Greek lexicon Written by Protestant or Catholic doesn't matter.

Which said that the phrase translated come together Has as its primary purpose sexual relationships so that there would need to be a clear statement in the context precluding this To allow you to interpret it in a different way.

You will see if you look at the Greek dictionaries that the term can also be used and it's frequently used To mean simply to come into the marriage From a period of betrothal that is to finally enter to that final faith because betrothal engagement was more binding.

In the biblical world that it was in our day We think of engagement as something we can easily break. But that come together means to move out of the betrothal period into the period of actual full legal status accustomed in life.

Now If you were following that and you did a little bit of a flowchart. Then you were able to Catch the various assertions that were made now. I'm gonna replay it then I'm gonna stop it. And unfortunately for some reason since I've created my system Cool that it's not working properly anymore.

It cuts off the beginning of every file I play. But so I'm playing this on a different program. It's not allow me to be quite as accurate and stopping and starting. But let me stop at this time and and see if you caught the exact same things that I caught.

And if you had the opportunity, and this is what's frustrating you. There there's so many of these types of errors in Matic's statements that in the cross-examination you can never get to them all. Even in your rebuttal period you can only make reference to them.

Remember it takes far less time to state a falsehood than it does to expose a falsehood and. That's why he gets away with things like this, but let's let's listen to it one more time now stop and start it.

Number one. Matthew 1 18 said I'd be helped if I went back to the right one. Here we go.

The first thing that we can say is that even Protestant commentators and Protestant lexicons That is dictionaries of the Greek language. Point out every single one and I will ask mr. Svensson to produce one single instance tonight in your hearing of any Greek lexicon Written by Protestant or Catholic doesn't matter which said that the phrase translated come together.

Has as its primary purpose sexual relationships so that they would meet you hear that its primary meaning. Eric didn't say that in fact he specifically gave its basic meaning if You were actually Concerned about truth.

What would he be attempting to deal with here that it can he would have to prove that it can never mean this in light of the context. But you see this didn't sound wonderful. And can you can you hear how the person who is easily influenced by smooth?

Deceptive speech, that's what this is. This is smooth deceptive speech. There is nothing truthful about this and remember. Mr. Matic's has. Has his the bachelor's degree is in Greek? From Exeter Academy, I think New Hampshire or something like that.

So he knows better than this. This is purposeful. You can this is not something it's just oh what you know, I didn't I just didn't mean to do I that was just totally unintentional on my part. I'm sorry.

I don't believe that. This is intentional. He starts off talking about Protestants and Catholics all of them together, but he never then finishes that sentence. Does he he doesn't now. He's given the impression that all the scholarship stands against Eric's fencing, but he hasn't given you one single Meaningful shred of foundation for the assertion.

He just lets it hang out there and That's his purpose here is to create confusion to throw out all these the this aura. Of all everyone agrees with me and nobody agrees with you when if you listened carefully Eric had already quoted from low Anita and Byron Gingrich and Dunker and so on so forth.

He had already given you the standard lexical sources that at this very reference refer to sexual union and. So he's already given that but Maddox just ignores that and knowing that he's going second.

I Guess just hopes That there will be so much other stuff to talk about that. He won't get pressed upon this particular issue.

I'm text concluding this To allow you to interpret in a different way. You will see if you look at the Greek dictionaries that the term can also be used and it's frequently used to mean simply to Come into the marriage.

From a period of betrothal that now notice. He does not give you a single reference. Where is it used to come into a marriage from a period of betrothal. When I looked it up It's primarily utilized of gathering together people gathering together in meetings and and things like that.

This idea of this betrothal stuff. Remember the end entering into this into the final step of the marriage. Well again, it is absolutely the the farthest out in left field interpretation to think that the Jewish person would Understand a marriage in the way that Jerry Maddox is understanding this concept here.

It this idea of a protectorate type thing is is the is the way out left field. Well, maybe we can find one reference to it someplace. Type meaning rather than the normative meaning. And yet He's complaining that the meaning that Eric is using here is not the normative meaning.

Well Eric didn't say it was but he did demonstrate that it's well within the semantic domain of the word itself. And it is substantiated by the lexicons themselves.

The betrothal engagement was more binding in the biblical world than it was in our day. We think of engagement as something we can easily break. But that come together means to move out of the betrothal period into the period of actual full legal.

Status accustomed in life now in reality the meaning of sexual intercourse would be significantly more attested than the meaning he is trying to push and. And It just seems to me that Jerry Maddox recognizes that in a debate especially and I've noticed he debates differently in front of a Catholic audience than he does a non-catholic audience and This is a Catholic audience and he knew it.

And so all he's got to do in front of people who want to believe is To give them a reason to it doesn't have to be a sound reason. It doesn't have to be a solid reason. It doesn't have to be a reason that's going to pass muster later on because he recognizes that 95 of people sit in front of him are never gonna listen to this program.

They're never gonna listen to me. They're not going to look at any information that anyone else publishes. So all he's got to do is make it look like there is a is a possible Explanation for each of the points raised.

It doesn't have to be consistent. He doesn't have to deal with the fact that when you did, you know I've used the same illustration when talking about the first vision of Joseph Smith. And as I was listening to Jerry Maddox Trying to deal with this issue knowing that I'm going to be facing the exact same smooth tongue Deception in just a matter of weeks literally I've used this illustration before and I'll probably use it in the debate toward the closing of something like that.

Theoretically it is possible for a person if an avalanche came at you one rock at a time It would be theoretically possible for you to dodge each one of them. But avalanches don't come at you that way.

Theoretically you can come up with a plausible explanation. It may be a real stretch but you know, it's within the bare realm of Possibility for each of the many many many facts that demonstrate that Joseph Smith did not have a vision of God the Father in Jesus Christ a separate distinct person in the spring of 1820 and it may be possible to throw out an Argument that's barely within the realm of plausibility for each one of the many facts in the New Testament that demonstrate The falseness of the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary but as I said avalanches come all at once and You can't you know when you think about it if you if you take a five Let's take argument a you take the five percent 95 probability that the argument goes against you, but there's a 5 possibility and I'm going to cling to that and then you take argument B and you take the 10 and It's 90 against you, but 10 in your favor then argument C.

You take a 15 that it's 85 against you, but 15 you're right and then you're back to a 95 5 you multiply all those Together and the probability you're right is 0 .000 something it gets smaller and smaller and smaller as you deal with.

More and more and more of the information more and more and more of the argument. But mr. Matic's isn't really concerned about that as long as you hear him and believe him. Well, that's all you really Need and if you want to believe hey, he'll give you a reason to.

It doesn't mean it's true. Eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. I hope in Listening to just that little bit first of all you'll be joining us in two weeks from this morning when we have our expense and on.

But also that you've learned to listen carefully to what's being said to recognize The false arguments being used. We're gonna take a break. We'll be right back incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth.

Letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style. James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well-defined arguments.

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith the Theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the LDS Church.

This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons. Letters to a Mormon elder get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at AOMN .org.

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

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

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

They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at AOMN org. What is dr Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios.

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom.

James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White Masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at AOMN org.

It's not an easy way. It's a journey. Day-by-day.

Caller Questions on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Trinity, and Atonement

And welcome back to the dividing line today if we appreciate your listening in at 8 7. Well. You're not listening in at 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 that's the number that you call in. You're listening in and I guess today.

We switch back to real audio. The great mp3 experiments came to an end. Because well, you know, it's just one of those things. Eventually everybody will have high-speed hookups and and that'll probably work someday, but we're back to real audio and.

You know, but anyway, we have one call online right now. That means there's plenty of room for you at 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. Let's go ahead and talk with Kendall in Iowa. Hi Kendall.

Hi James, how are you, sir? Good a very interesting topic. I actually called in I was going to talk to you about the UPC uh-huh, and then ask you about atonement question, but uh I've debated with Catholics throughout the years and usually I would Use the passages that deal with Jesus had other brothers and sisters, right?

This is real interesting. This is a new twist on on using this passage Matthew 118 to talk about the I guess the Catholic claim of.

Perpetual virginity well actually Eric just used You know his book who is my mother? Is is an excellent work he had he was working on it at the time of this debate. It's out now and we we carry it and it's just one of many passages.

Eric is also the one who is has pioneered the study into the phrase house who and Matthew 125 And has caused Catholic apologists no end of difficulty at that point and so it's just one of an entire stream of Passages that when you allow the New Testament to speak for itself when you practice sola scriptura rather than sola ecclesia.

It is one of those passages that that simply doesn't make any sense. If you adopt the the concept of the perpetual virginity and the overriding authority of the Church of Rome. Jerry's response was was not a valid response.

It does not actually Answer the question in any way shape or form but again It it requires critical thinking on the part of those who listen to such things and one thing that sadly I think we have discovered in regards to our nation is that Critical thinking skills are not exactly at their all-time high the the political dialogue within our land would demonstrate this the discussions going on right now concerning Quote-unquote Bishop Robinson and the Anglican Church and homosexuality and abortion and everything else Demonstrates that critical thinking abilities are sadly lacking and that then translates into the church as well.

Why just pulled up Bauer as I was listening to Jerry's argument and You know, he says well, you can't find it in any of the lexicons and so forth. So I pull up Bauer and the first definition has come together literally to assemble but right under that B.

It says of coming together in a sexual sense. Mm-hmm, and you know, then it gives Josephus and Philo and some others and then it gives Matthew 18 as as the marriage contract, you know the sexual union there.

Yeah, but see what he what he is attempting to say, of course. Is and and you heard it, but but you know, it didn't. He didn't really emphasize it or anything like that. What he said was is this is not the main Meaning.

Well, of course, that's not what Eric said that it was right and all the other words where no.

I mean, how many other Greek words have you know, five different connotations to it? Exactly. So you have to make that statement blanket statement, but like you said no one. Not enough people really go back and check it out.

Well, not enough people have the desire to go check it out you would. You know one of the things that I hear and so often as let's say I'll do a debate and Let me see an example on justification and I will make reference to The the different Hebrew terms that were used the the Zedekah family of terms and and when I first debated Mitch Packel We got into since he's a Hebrew scholar the various verb forms that were that were used and how these come across in the New Testament and.

So often what I'll hear from people is well, you know, it just you know, there's just so much. There's good men on both sides and it's so complicated I just can't believe that that God would allow us to be cute confused by things.

There's so complicated so it really can't matter and and it's it's extremely frustrating to try to try to deal with that kind of situation.

Well and to dealing with I called actually at the beginning of the hour for to talk about one of Pentecostals In fact radio station in my sister's hometown where they'll supposed to be a solid radio station but they have for an hour a UPC guy on mm-hmm and.

You know, they give their website address out and you can get on there and that is that David Bernard by the way? No, it's Baxter. Okay. All right.

David Bernard's the the chief theologian for the UPCI and he's the fellow be debating on KJ SL.

Two weeks from yesterday, so. This station's in Missouri as well. Oh interesting. And you know, the sad thing is I mean, do we take the doctrine of the Trinity? Seriously, you know your book the Forgotten Trinity.

I mean enough I don't even live in the town. And I emailed the radio station and you know I asked if they had any doctrinal standards on you know what they allow played.