Malcolm Yarnell/Corporate Election/Bart Ehrman Review Continued

And greetings and welcome, though I can't see anything right now. Uh, I'm not sure whether... Hey! There we are. Technical difficulties. Our technical people are distracted by a live studio audience today.

Obviously, uh, concerned about nervousness and things like that. People looking over the shoulder. That's what happens, uh, when you normally don't have a studio audience. And, um, we were gonna... I played with the idea of starting off with the RFG theme, uh, just because that excites certain people so much and makes them very happy.

Uh, we are gonna... we are gonna start off with something that would fit into Radio Free Geneva. Uh, as I mentioned last time, the troublemaker in Dallas, um, who I guess was sick yesterday. I'm sorry to hear about that.

Um, uh, I pointed out... he pointed out that, uh, Dallas wins and he gets sick. And I said, well, you're... you're overwhelmed by shock. Since that was, uh, the first time in eight games, uh, that that happened.

But anyway, um, the troublemaker from Dallas had, uh, linked me up to a presentation. I'm not sure where this sermon was, but Dr. Yarnell did a, uh, a sermon on corporate election. It was associated in some way, shape, or form with the uh, primary promoter of corporate election.

Um, you know, the Southern Baptists who are fighting reform theology and its general, uh, promulgation in Southern Baptist circles are focused primarily in at Southwestern and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

And it's a... it's interesting the directions they've been willing to go to try to cobble together some kind of a defense. And so you've got the Mullenists running around, uh, doing their very weak William Lane Craig impersonations.

And then you've got the big corporate electionists. And what is corporate election? Well, corporate election is the idea. Well, obviously when you say for all of these, you're going to get spins and variations, but in general, uh, corporate election is the idea that Christ is the elect one.

That the focus of election is Christ. Many will say he is the elect one specifically and that the actual selection, if there, if, if you could even use the term of election selection on God's part is only to save in Christ.

And hence how you get into Christ is left up to man's free will. So the election is no longer of individuals, but of a nameless faceless group or of a plan. Uh, Geisler presented something like this in chosen, but free, uh, the idea that God chooses to save, he elects to save in a particular way.

And that is in Christ. And, you know, unfortunately a lot of folks are, are taken in by that. They, they go, Oh, well, yeah, well, there's, there's an election. There is a choice. Well, that sounds good.

It's good. It's a good way to get around this problem stuff of, uh, of individual election. But many people don't recognize the tremendous cost at which this, uh, escape is made. And when you think about it, instead of there being an intimate personal knowledge based upon God's foreknowing and gate based upon God's choosing in love to enter into relationship with his elect people, that's gone now.

No, again, they, depending on how they deal with foreknowledge and how God has foreknowledge and where they just do the, it's all just a mystery. We don't know. You don't know. Uh, we're not, we're, we're going to make assertions that would demand us to hold certain positions, but we recognize we can't defend those positions.

So we're not going to go there. And so we're called all mystery. There's a bunch of, there's a bunch of folks that are doing that number now, uh, that are basically saying, you know, we can't know how God knows, but God knows differently than us, but God can know without causing things to be known.

And, uh, you know, they, the main thing they've got to get away from is God's sovereign decree that there can't be a decree. He's not working all things after the counsel of his will, or that all things has to be very, very limited and kept far, far away from the true center of the system of every synergistic system.

And that is the free will of man. So whatever, whatever God's working out, it has to stay over here and not cause a problem for the autonomous will of man over here. So, but you'll go from Molinism to corporate election and the cost of that corporate election is the personal nature of election itself.

Because now what you do is you, instead of having, you know, Paul can say he endures all things for the sake of the elect. Well, that is now a, a nameless faceless amorphous group that is not formed by the sovereign choice of God.

Only its existence is formed by God's choice. Instead, the content of this amorphous group is determined by man. And if God has knowledge of who that is, it is accidental knowledge. It is knowledge that he comes to by having some ability of foresight or whatever else.

I mean, you may come up with very, you know, maybe you'll use middle knowledge to, to come to that, to provide God with that knowledge. But as soon as you start using middle knowledge, you're still left with who's the one putting out the cards?

You know, God's got to deal with the hand he's been dealt with. And so we want to know who the dealer is. And it goes back to all of the lengthy discussions we've had in the past of the subject of Molinism.

But all of these are attempts and not overly consistent attempts to get around the fundamental issue. And that fundamental issue is the freedom of God to deal with his creation as he sees fit, with the corollary of that being that you and I as human beings are a part of that creation.

And therefore God has the right to do with his creation as he sees fit. Now, the problem here, I'm just making a connection here before we go to listen to some of what Dr. Yernell said. The problem here is, I hope that as you're thinking about what's going on in the world right now, as you're thinking about the collapse of Western civilization on a moral and ethical level, and once the morals and ethics go, everything else could go along with it.

But when you think about the massive explosion of the claim of self-autonomy, I have the right to determine my reality. My goodness, now we have people that are so wildly immature that they think they have the right to live their lives without ever encountering a thought other than their own, lest they be offended.

Oh my goodness. If I've said it before, let me just say it again. What you're seeing in that ridiculous university movement, that I have the right to a safe space where I will not be offended, is the institutionalization of infanthood.

Of infanthood. I'm seeing that right now. No offense to my dear first-born granddaughter, but she's at that age where she communicates. Oh, does she communicate? Just like her mommy, who was doing that communication thing early on, vocabulary just exploding and an ability to express herself very clearly.

But when the world is still very small to us, primarily mommy and daddy and some friends and maybe some neighbors and some people at church, but the world is very, very small. It's still, you know, she's not three yet.

And when you offend, and that offense may simply be bringing discipline to bear, saying, no, we're not eating the 14th piece of candy or whatever else it might be. When you offend, oh my goodness, the explosion of tears and expression of dismay.

And that's exactly what I'm seeing from 21-year-olds. No society can possibly exist that is run by infants. And no society can possibly exist that will for even a moment give in to the demands of infants.

And yet that's what's happening. We've got people resigning right and left because infants are throwing a fit on the floor. Shocking, absolutely shocking. I have zero sympathy and zero respect for an adult who thinks and acts like an infant, none whatsoever.

And you can say, that makes you a hater. Well, that just demonstrates where you are in your lack of maturity. But anyway, moving beyond that, the explosion of self-autonomy in Western culture runs directly up against Christianity in what way?

If your biggest emphasis is upon the autonomy of man's free will, if your biggest emphasis is that God, that God's sovereignty is to be limited to his sovereignly choosing not to be sovereign, which we've heard people say on Radio Free Geneva more than once, then your less than biblical theology is fundamentally crippling your ability to even meaningfully engage with the cultural situations that we're facing today.

Theology matters. And if you believe that God has kingly freedom over his creation to do with it as he sees fit, then that means he has the right to determine the parameters of human sexuality and marriage and relationship and what is morals and what is ethics and his law and everything else.

He has the right to do that. And we do not have the power ability as his creatures to circumscribe that or to change that. But for a lot of folks, that's just really not where they are. That's not where they are because they, for other reasons, in a completely different area of theology, have decided that, well, we just don't like that Calvinism stuff.

So we want to, we want to go someplace. We don't like them new fangled things, as someone said just recently. And so it has an impact. It has an impact. So I'm going to play this a little fast, actually 1 .4 for those interested so we can get through it a little bit quicker.

But I found this sermon or this presentation troubling. It was difficult to follow at times. At one point, it would sound like I'm in, I'm in agreement with what's being said. And then 10 or 15 seconds later, it's, well, no, he didn't mean what I thought he was saying.

Okay. Now he just said, God is sovereign. And, but now he's saying that doesn't mean this. And it just struck me. What I was hearing was someone who is struggling with the text and is very concerned that the text might say something that he does not want it to say.

So he's dancing right along the line. And what it reminded me of, to be perfectly honest with you, what it reminded me of is when I hear somebody speaking and I know their boss, their employer, someone who has extreme authority over them that could make things really difficult for them is listening and they know there are certain places they just simply can't go.

I don't know who is in this audience, but I have a feeling Paige Patterson was there. And if he wasn't, there are plenty of folks who know him and who would report to him. And so I just got the feeling, I'm not sure whether you'll get that feeling or not, but I just got the feeling that the, it seemed to be nervousness.

Now nervousness can be also created by playing it too fast, I suppose. But there seemed to me to be a nervousness and I didn't listen to it all that fast when I first listened to it. So it's probably not that, but an energy that whenever you'd start, because Ephesians 1 is Ephesians 1.

I mean, it's like, you know, Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6, John 10, you know, these passages are very compelling. And it just seemed to me like there was a concern on Yarnell's part about going somewhere that he might have to explain in a way he didn't want to have to explain.

Okay. So that's what we're looking at. Just program note, I don't know what Friday looks like. It's a no. Right out. Leaving town, huh? Might as well be. Okay. So that's why we're front loading the week again.

So for those of you wondering, well, why did you do Monday, Tuesday? Why do you keep changing things? Well, that's just how it works. You know, what can I say? Most of you listen by podcast anyways. So why are you complaining?

So have a wonderful Thanksgiving and we'll be back next week. So let's get to Malcolm Yarnell here. And I'm skipping. I'm going to skip through a few things, but we'll get some of it here. And then I'm actually not intending to use the whole hour on this.

I hope to get to some other stuff, but we'll see. All.

Right, let's jump in. And that means that you are the object of his election. God really cares about you. This is a blessing. You are the object of his election. Now, many of you are beginning to think I'm the object of his election, particular election, particular election, followed by particular reprobation, double predestination.

And all of a sudden, like the enlightenment person you are, who thinks everything in a mechanical sense, you have decided that God is this great computer in the sky who's decided that there are zeros and ones, and he's assigned everybody to.

One of those or another. Now, I actually slowed it down to 1 .2. It sounded, sounded way too fast there to begin. God is the great computer in the sky, personal election, reprobation. And he's, he's, he's at verse four of Ephesians one.

And so I guess the idea is that if you believe that election of individuals unto salvation is in view in Ephesians one, then you need to view God as the great computer in the sky, that, that you're a post, was it post enlightenment thinker?

Was that the term? Let me, let me, let me catch it again. I want to, I want to get.

Exact. And that means that you are the object of his election. God really cares about you. This is a blessing. You are the object of his election. Now, many of you are beginning to think I'm the object of his election, particular election, particular election, followed by particular reprobation, double predestination.

And all of a sudden, like the enlightenment person you are, who thinks everything in a mechanical sense, you have decided that God is this great computer in the sky. Who's decided that there are zeros and ones, and he's assigned everybody.

To one of those or another enlightenment person that you are. If you believe that election is personal, uh, then you believe that God is the great computer in the sky with zeros and ones. And it's, you're either a zero or you're a one it's binary thing.

And it's all very, uh, two dimensional, nothing more to it. Yes, no on off. You know, I remember, I remember, Oh man, this was still in, we still lived in Pennsylvania. I think, I think it was when we still live in Pennsylvania.

I remember getting a radio shack. Remember those, any of you old enough to remember because I loved getting these things, radio shack would have these electronics kits. Remember these, I remember this big one that I got that would have all these transistors and diodes and, and stuff in it.

And then they'd be hooked up to these little spring things. And you'd use wires, you know, kind of came with a book and you'd use wires to connect things up in different ways to create, you know, it'd have some lights on it and stuff like that.

And I remember one year I got this one where you would, you could make a microcomputer that was binary, you know, and so light on light off and had some lights and stuff like that. And, and, um, most people in the audience have absolutely no idea.

Yeah. Radio shack battery, the month club. I do remember that. I was also part of that too, but, um, I thought these are, yeah, a hundred. Yeah. Uh, Theophilus had 150 in one electronic. That's what, that's what I had.

The 150 in one one. That was so cool. I bet you do that. I bet you don't have things like that anymore. I mean, I mean, it's not going to be long before we won't have radio shock. Am I understanding? Well, I understand that too, but I mean, I mean, uh, this generation just plays video games and my generation understood how to make things work.

It was, it's different anyway. Um, yes, we've, we've, well, who is the packet us or the us, us, the next generation, next generation, things go, things go fast. Yeah. All right. Um, I've been missing the, uh, the, uh, tweets here and the day, the day, the day, the day, retirement home, uh, radio shack still has them according to Jake Cole.

Um, anyway, uh, the idea of being, I remember making this one and you know, the light was either on or off in answer to whatever input you made. And that's what God is. You either elect, you're not elect.

It's just this simplistic yes, no thing. And I suppose, I suppose there's a Calvinist someplace that has presented things like that, I guess, but that's certainly not the, the general understanding of the very personal nature of God's interaction with his people in time, uh, at all.

But there's the idea. The idea is if you think that's what this is about, you're missing the whole point. Uh, the whole point is that this is all about Jesus. Well, he's going to emphasize that as in Ephesians one, four, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before him in love.

And no one is going to suggest for a second that affirming that the verb has as its direct object, us, not Christ. It does not say he chose Christ. It says he chose us in Christ in him. Now, what does that mean?

Does, does that mean what the corporate election is saying? Is that what is the most natural grammatical understanding? And that is that the choice of election has a personal direct object, a personal direct object, not, not impersonal.

It's not that he chose a nameless faceless group to be in Christ, but that the realm of his action of choosing is delimited by Christ. Now, see, my assertion is, is that the natural reading of the text is that you have an action on the part of God, the father that has as its direct object, the people of God personally and specifically, and that the assertion is that this is a triune action.

And Dr. Yarnell emphasized, I appreciate the fact that he emphasized the reality that this text is Trinitarian. And it is, I mean, don't he, you, and he was right. You don't even have to wait for verses 13 and 14 where the spirit as the Arabon, the doubt payment comes into Paul's discussion.

You don't, you don't have to wait till then. There are other places where the work of the spirit is properly to be understood and seen. This is a triune text, but it seems to me that for all of his recognition of what the text is saying there, there's this strange artificial fear of one unacceptable conclusion, one unacceptable reading that he's constantly having to struggle against in his exegesis.

And what I'm saying is God, the father chose us. That's personal election, the identity of the elect, the, the elect exist because of God's choice to choose them as as the people of God. And the idea that he, his sovereign choice was to make a group and then leave it up to humanity to identify the group involves such a massive reading into the text.

It does not. That's not what flows from the text. What does flow from the text is that the choice of this elect people is absolutely exclusively, here's where inclusivism goes out the window, exclusively in Christ.

The point is that the triune God has acted decisively in history and that that action in the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection of the son of God means that that grace of God, that power of God, that gift of eternal life is found only in the way that God intends it to be found.

And that is in Jesus Christ in no other way. There is no other name. And so it is the exclusive nature of the Christian message, which flows from the amazing self giving of the sun. How could it be any other way?

If, if you even grasp for a moment, the awesome humiliation, humbling, self-giving voluntary nature of the act of Jesus Christ, when you realize that, that God has given his own son, when you realize how amazing that act is, then you can recognize, well, of course that has to be the only way because if there could be any other way than what God did was absolutely foolish.

If there could be any other way of salvation, then God's own self giving upon the cross would be, would be ridiculous. It would be far beyond what would be necessary. If mankind could do it himself, why would God be doing this?

Why would God go to such extreme ends? So when people try to make you feel badly because you're not an inclusivist, you exclude people. No, you exclude any options that turn God into a fool. You're simply excluding any options that deny the Jesus Christ was who he said he was and did what he said he did.

That's all you're excluding. You're not excluding anyone. You're excluding options that make Jesus a liar. The world generally doesn't put it quite that clearly, but that's why we do what we do to make sure that you understand that's exactly what they're demanding of you.

So the en auto, in him, in Ephesians 1, 4 provides to us the, the context in which the choice of the father is made. It is made only in the son. Now it's also said in the rest of the verse that this, this is, this took place before the foundation of the world, before the foundation of the world.

So this is one of the reasons why we insist upon unconditional election. It is more clearly stated in, in providing the negative in Romans 8 and 9, especially in Romans 9, not because it wasn't, not because it wasn't, solely because, and it's positively given to us here because when it says he predestined us, verse 5, to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.

So there's the positive statement. And that is, if you want to know the basis, if you want to know the reasons, fundamentally, if you are not, if you are not satisfied with that phrase at the end of verse 5, according to the kind intention of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, then you're not going to be, you're not going to be satisfied with any other answer that is going to be truly biblical.

If you want something more than that, if you want to delve into the mind of God beyond the fact that he chose to express the kind intention of his will, and he chose to bring about the praise of his glorious grace, if that's not enough for you, and I'll be perfectly honest with you, I, I can see, I think I could make a strong argument that any unregenerate heart would find that insufficient.

An unregenerate heart would find that answer insufficient. Now, of course, what I'm also saying is, um, as a Christian, you should find that a sufficient answer. And if you don't, you might want to do a spiritual gut check or heart check in this case.

Uh, if that's not enough for you, but unconditional election from our perspective flows from the reality that this election on the part of the triune God is not based upon what we do. It's not based upon looking at our lives, foreseeing what we're going to do, demanding that we fulfill certain things, any of that kind of stuff.

It is a demonstration of God's kingly freedom and power over his own creation. He chose us in him before the foundation of the world. And here is where another very important element comes into place.

Now, and Dr. Yarnell said it, said it correctly. Let me see if it comes up in this next section. Um, let's, let's listen to a little bit more and I want to make an application.

And your mind falls into this mode. And you know what? The text doesn't say any of that. It says that he chose us. And then notice the qualification in him, in Christ, in some way is used 39 times in the book of Ephesians.

This is important. The focus is on Jesus Christ. The founder of this seminary said it in this way, when he's expositing Ephesians chapter one, if you want to know who is among the elect, then have faith and get in him.

And then you will know you were among the elect.

Um, by the way, I wouldn't disagree with that statement because we don't know the identity elect that the best knowledge we can have is by profession of faith. So from a human perspective, that would be true.

But if you limit the extent of what Ephesians one is saying to only what human beings can recognize, that's where you got this text of its transcendent, um, value and treasure, because it's telling us that there's more to it than that, that what happens in time is reflective of what God is intending to accomplish from eternity past.

So, you know, okay, it's a cute little statement and it's true. So far as it goes, the problem is when people take that and say, that's as far as the truth can go,.

That's when it becomes problematic. The focus is on faith in Christ. Election is focused on the.

Place and Christ is the place that I haven't seen the word faith here. It does come eventually when it talks about you were the first to believe, but that's the result of all this stuff that took place before the foundation pro before the foundation of the world.

So I don't disagree that Christ is absolutely central to everything's being said here. There's no question about it, but notice something got snuck in there without a foundation being provided for it because now all of a sudden it's faith in Christ.

Well, how do you get that from Ephesians one four? I mean, it's true that what he's chose us unto is going to result in our believing in Christ, but the problem is these folks are going to eventually want to say that the reason we're in him is because of our autonomous choice to believe in Christ, which the text is not addressing.

Ephesians will address that in chapter two pretty clearly,.

But we go on. The father is focused on the son and that's why he keeps repeatedly inspiring by his spirit, the apostle Paul to talk about everything being summed up in Christ.

Um, I struggle a little bit with that. I, I would say Christ, the fact, the exclusive nature of the father acting in Christ central to Ephesians one, but I don't think the focus ever leaves the father.

I don't think the focus ever leaves the father. It's the father's intention to sum up all things in Christ, but the father doesn't just simply disappear here and become a background player. The very first, what's the very first word of the sentence?

Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So I, I, I, I would struggle with that.

Most of us are thinking when we begin thinking about particular election, we are not thinking.

Theologically. We are thinking anthropologically. I'm not, I'm not, I'm thinking theologically. I am thinking about the nature of what election is about and that's why what I want to get to here in a moment, he's going to somewhere along here accurately say that if your election does not result in holiness, you've got the wrong election.

He's exactly right, but that's the point. The point is that everything we're going to find in here, forgiveness of sins, holiness, adoption, what's that all about? How can that be anything other than absolutely central to what salvation as a whole is and the experience of each individual person who makes up the elect as a corporate body, the elect as a corporate body, only experience forgiveness, adoption, holiness as individuals.

And then the body as a whole, as they experience it individually, you don't have a, a corporate um, forgiveness of sins because those sins are of different natures of different types and, and so on and so forth.

So that's, I think where the corporate thing falls apart is that you, what is intimately connected with election here is the forgiveness of sins, adoption, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, uh, redemption is mentioned, et cetera, et cetera.

These are all the things that we as individuals experience. And so I'm not thinking anthropologically. I'm not starting with man at all. In fact, I would argue that the system that Yarnell is presenting, if you step all the way back and look and see what its starting origins are, the synergist has to start with man.

Only the consistent monergist can start with God. And when the synergist is struggling with a monergistic passage, um, it can get a little brutal. It can, it can get a little tough for them to remain consistent in what they're saying.

And notice that our election is in Christ for what reason that we would be holy and blameless before him in love. Wow. God has determined that he wants you to be holy. And if your doctrine of election fights against holiness, let me tell you,.

It's not the right doctrine of election there. That was the phrase that I was looking for. Agree a thousand percent. I agree a thousand percent. But what does that mean? What does that mean? It, it means, are you saying that God's election is simply a statement that he desires the elect as a impersonal group to be somehow holy or is the text saying that this is personal?

Now he makes the personal application. He says, God wants you to be holy, but what he's saying is if you choose to put yourself into the elect, then the overarching idea is God wants you now that you're part of the elect to be holy.

I believe that to be consistent with Paul, that you need to recognize conformed the image of his son. I can't imagine something that's any more personal than being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

And when you turn that into some sort of impersonal corporate election thing, it loses, it loses everything that it's really supposed to be communicating. But then the last thing, and I'm going to stop here.

There's a lot more to look at, but I really did want to, um, choices on the fly, uh, is what I'm doing here. Um, well, let me just talk about this before I forget it. If you want to try to keep maintaining this idea of a non-personal aspect, what do you do with the last two words, this verse, at least as it appears in the English blameless before him in love.

Aren't you the folks that really emphasize omnibenevolence and the personal nature of love? So are you saying that God has love for nameless faceless groups? Seems to me that what Paul is saying is this love.

If it's going to be love has to be personal. And the cost of embracing corporate election is the cost of losing the assertion that God set his love upon you. No, God didn't set his love upon you. The open theist has already given that up.

The open theist admits God didn't even know you were going to exist. So there's no way his love could have been set upon you from eternity. But how can the synergistic non-open theistic corporate election?

Oh, good grief. Um, how can that person give a consistent argument for a personal nature of love in this context? That would be interesting to hear how that would work. Uh, what basis for the certainty of God's knowledge.

And again, it keeps taking us back to who God is, what his decree is. Does he have a decree? Keeps going back there. Listen, listen to my debate with Michael Brown. It, it, it kept going back to that point because that really is no pun intended or advertiser intended.

That really is the dividing line. Whether you believe that God has a specific purpose and intention that he's accomplishing in this world and whether it is more than just simply, yes, his specific intention is to save a people, but he leaves it up to us as to who that people is going to be.

That's very different than saying he has a specific people and that he chose them and they are his because he chose them, not because they chose him and then he saw they were going to do that, et cetera, et cetera.

So I'm actually just going to mark that and might come back to do some more with it. Might come back and do some more of it. Uh, there, there's a couple of sections that might be, might be worthwhile looking at that.

But I, I, I feel like sometimes I am pop skipping and jumping too much. You know, I suppose we did this program every day, which would be impossible to do. Um, I might be able to get through things a little bit easier.

I like to be able to respond to stuff that's coming up, things that happen, talk about things and when they're still fresh on people's minds, um, or not talk about them while they're fresh in people's minds because their emotions are too, uh, crazed.

But, um, I would like to get back to Bart Ehrman before we completely forget about Bart Ehrman and we still have about 15 minutes left in the program so we can make a little progress. I think this is important.

I saw somebody on Twitter just recently saying that they had watched the debate, listened to how far we've gotten, the reviews found it very, very useful. Uh, we try to provide useful information that you might not be getting regularly someplace else.

So we are, uh, for those of you who have the download, we're 46 minutes and 37 seconds, I believe, uh, into the recording. We are in Dr. Ehrman's presentation. He is explaining why he does not believe Jesus believed that he was God.

Um, and I'm, I'm not going to go back over all the foundational things. Can't do that. Obviously we've done that in previous programs. Um, but let's get back to what Bart Ehrman was saying and continue our response.

Okay. This is his, this is his standard Ehrmanite, um, inoculation of uncertainty. This, this standard Ehrmanite inoculation, that would be an S E I U. Isn't there, isn't that a union? That's a liberal union and we've got, okay, that works.

The standard Ehrman inoculation of uncertainty routine. Um, oh, that's, that's, that spells seer. That's, that's fairly close. Anyway. Uh, this is where he runs through all the stuff in the resurrection accounts that he, in a very flippant, simplistic manner, uh, indicates is, uh, contradictory.

Now remember contradiction has a very specific meaning. And very rarely when people accuse the Bible of contradiction, do they even know what the definition of that term is? Let alone how to apply it properly.