All right, we're back in session. And during the break, I've done a little artwork on the board behind me. This is my attempt at trying to work out what Schaeffer's doing. And it goes something like this. We know he starts with Christian theistic presuppositions, the God who is there, the Trinitarian, personal, infinite God of the Bible. He says that over and over and over again, so there's no real question about that. We also know he ends up there, because that's the only place you can end up. But here's what I think might be happening. He's starting with a presuppositional presupposition. We would say that he's starting on a presuppositional line of argumentation But instead of following his mentor, Van Til, and staying on that presuppositional line of argumentation, confronting the false premises and the atheistic argument, instead what he wants to do is jump from that line of argumentation down here, where the person he's talking to is starting from an atheistic worldview. And then the apologetic process becomes one of elimination. In other words, this now becomes our hypothesis, and we have to disprove that. And we're going to look for the evidences to disprove the hypothesis of atheism. But on this line of argumentation, how far can that take you? It'll get you to theism. He's wanting to enter into the world of the person he's talking to, rather than standing in his Christian worldview and arguing from this Christian line of argument. He's going into the other guy's worldview, which as we've seen, makes him vulnerable because he's basically saying, let's test Christianity and see if it's true or not. So identifying that step, is that what Ben told me is by a point of I think what Schaeffer means when he's talking about point of contact, when he's entering into this person's worldview, he's having to rely on things like evidences. So in other words, he'll say like the manishness of man, what man is in his personality. and the way the world is and how it works. So he comes down into this line of argumentation and he's now having to use things like that individual's experience, what they've experienced, the conflict that they have with what they think they believe versus the reality that they're having to bump into all the time, and pushing them along this line, showing through a process of elimination that that that worldview doesn't hold up. So we see him using things like rationalism, natural theology, reality, and the goal then is to prove that atheism is false. And again it's that idea that we were talking about with verificationalism. I don't like the term verificationalism. You wouldn't use that kind of a term to describe a scientific process because you never verify the hypothesis. All you can do is disprove it. So we're kind of in this line where all we can do is suggest atheism as the starting point and see if the evidence disproves it. And that gets us to theism. And then the critique is Well, he jumps directly from theism to Christian theism without interacting with all the other possible forms of theism that are out there and showing how each one of those is wrong before he gets to the conclusion of Christian theism. And so, in my Columbo fashion, I'm scratching my head and saying, how did he do that? Or why is he doing it? And the answer is because that's where It has to end with Christian theism, and I think this is what it means when we read this idea that presuppositionalism ends up being a circular argument. Because we start with the assumption of the existence of God, and that's where we're going to end up. That's the point of presuppositionalism. This is not something that can be proved. We don't try to prove it. We have to assume it. And we assume it on the basis that what's called the impossibility of the contrary. We assume it because if we don't start here, then we really are, if we're down here in atheism, then we have that problem of we have no epistemology. We don't have any reason to think that we can know anything by science or any other method or by experience. We can't know anything down here So if we're going to know anything, we have to start with Christian presuppositions. And in that sense, it becomes circular. We're not trying to prove Christian theism, but we're simply arguing along that line, and we end up there because that's where we started from, and that's the truth. That's why we do that. But can't we end up there if we're trying to disprove the other theisms? And I'll use the parallel of what it's like in the world of science. There are essentially an infinite number of hypotheses that you could set up. So the only way that you can ever say that you have confirmed your hypothesis is if you have infinite knowledge. That's all it takes. And this is what frustrates me in the world of science, when scientists start acting like they know what they're talking about, that they're speaking with certainty. And it's so funny, if you think about it just for a second. What do human beings know at this particular moment in time in relation to the total sum of all knowledge that could possibly be known? I'm pretty sure we're still less than 1%. probably several decimal points below 1%. So how can we speak with certainty about things where all we can do is go through this process of elimination? How many possible theistic alternatives could we set up here? Right. So there's one gentleman by the name of Frank Turek who uses the phrase that I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. And he goes through the low probability of cock. It takes more faith to believe in atheism when you look at the junks that have to be made, these gaps that exist that stick out like a sore thumb. So it helps with the probability for Christianity, but you're right. You have so many tests to make that you can never prove it. in this line of argumentation, as we were saying last time when it comes to statistical probabilities, even if there's a .000000001 chance that there's no God, then I'm going to latch onto that chance as a skeptic and say, well, I'm going to believe it. Let's play Powerball, man. But the probability of First of all, the existence of the universe and its organization and its structure that we see, and the complexity of all kinds of life, in terms of probability, that's as close to zero probability as you can get. And yet, what does the atheist say? That everything came from nothing. You're saying, what do we really know? A lot of what they know is junk. Well, that's true. They call us junk scientists. No, what they try to say is that when we start talking about a creator, we're introducing what into the argument? Religion. Yeah. So the idea there, from their standpoint, they have their science, and we have our faith, and ne'er the twain shall meet. But what's the problem with that argument? Their faith is in their science. Say that a little louder, Kate. Their faith is in their science. Their faith is in their science. There's no one who does not have faith. It's just a question of what is the ground of your faith. Is the ground of your faith Christian Theism or is the ground of your faith Atheism? And the point that Frame makes, this is on page 4, where he says that Schaeffer is transcendental in the sense of the alternative being time, chance, matter, and motion. That's it. It's either God or it's time, chance, matter, and motion. So you tell me, is that science or is that religion? There's the presupposition that there is no God. and then we have to develop an idea of how everything got to be the way that it is, with no God, and have faith in that belief, not just for the present, but for the future. Think about how scary that is. That it's not just that you believe that for the present, but because of your faith in time, chance, matter, and motion, When your life comes to an end, it comes to an end. There's nothing else to it. So how do people fight the supposed belief system that there's more than one road to God? How do you fight that? Well, I mean, if we're saying that Christian theism, I mean, there's no way to prove it. Well, and that's where we say that in this line of argumentation that we are confronting the false premises and all those alternative worldviews and showing that they're not true, they don't hold up. And ultimately the truth has to be grounded in scripture. So scripture is really the only way to prove Christian theism. It's certainly the starting point. And I think that's what the presuppositionals would tell us. We have to start with scripture. And not just start with scripture as a book of suggestions, but start with it as what it claims to be for itself, which is the inerrant, infallible, authoritative truth of God. Revelation of Him and of the world that He's created, of man, made in His image, and of all the things that historically have happened in time. You know, Schaeffer's pointed out that part of the problem with the liberals is that they don't really have a doctrine of the fall. How do you explain man's condition without a doctrine of the fall? So we have to have scripture to tell us those things. Okay? Does this make sense to anybody? This is my attempt of trying to put together the pieces of things that we've been studying and trying to figure out what is it that Schaeffer's doing. I think he's clearly starting But then as he starts down the road he jumps over to the other person's line of thinking and is trying to argue them out of their line of thinking from their vantage point. That's how it's come together in my mind anyway. I'll put a Do Not Erase sign on the board. Maybe it'll still be there next year. And that point of demarcation there, he ends up in a form of natural theology apologetics. Yeah, and this line, that's why he's being criticized for relying too much on rationalism and natural theology and experience. Well, it's because he's in a different line of argumentation than he would be if he stuck with a presuppositional line of argumentation. So he's kind of adopting the unbeliever's way of thinking and arguing and experiencing things. And that's where part of the critique comes in because that ends up putting too much authority in man in terms of how he argues about things. And even if we followed this verificational process, like we said, and got down to this point where we said, Well, it seems really, really, really, really likely that there's a God out there somewhere. Then the skeptic can still look at that and say, well, I still don't believe it. I wish I could watch him interact with an actual person. Because what I wonder is if in his Those kind of one-on-one, yeah. He's actually bouncing back and forth between those two lines, trying to pull them both together. You know, kind of using a one-two punch. You know, sometimes when somebody seems to be too much relying on their own logic, then he'll go in and say, well, that's inconsistent. And then when their knees get wobbly, then he comes in with a presuppositional statement. Well, let's think about that for a second. If it's the case that First of all, he's entering into their way of thinking. Remember his emphasis on understanding the natural man's thought forms, the 20th century thought forms, getting into his way of thinking. But, what's he doing when he's down here? He's answering questions. And what is the basis for the questions that he's answering? Unbelief? I think I like what Eli is saying. Because when the unbeliever asks a question, let's say about art or science or politics, he can come up here to scripture and say, here's how scripture answers that question. That's how you do it as an evangelist. It's always how we did it when we were one-on-one with an unbeliever. I think that makes sense. I need to have more dotted lines back and forth here. The vacillation technique. But that's right. In some ways he's arguing on this side using these kinds of tools of argumentation, but still coming back to scripture and showing that the Bible has the answers. And then we think back to his own experience. of wrestling with the big questions with philosophy and even religion and not getting answers until he starts reading the Bible and then he finds, wow, the Bible has the answers to those questions. So Gihan, remember last week he asked those four questions and one of them is, can you make any rational apologetic about predestination? you know, sovereign grace about God saving who He wills to save. And that was one of the questions there. So, and that's an interesting thought, you know, and Schaeffer never really went there. Well, if not retreating, then not really saying much about it. Well, not disclosing it. Not emphasizing it. But again, you know, part of the struggle that we have, we're trying to critique. It's like Eli's saying that we're trying to critique what he has written and what we know that he has said and what others are quoting about him. But how different would it be, our understanding of his apologetic if we could just be a fly on the wall sometime at LaBrie, at one of those fireside chats, and listening to him talking to different people on different occasions. When I get pumped about, oh, you believe in that reformed, you know, God only saves the elect, and I just, I don't go there, I just say, you know what, anybody who truly wants Jesus Christ, that wants to be saved, will be. So think about what you just did. We'll draw an analogy here. Think about it this way. These two lines that I've drawn for a moment, just think in terms of the first one is the biblical or God's perspective of things, and this one is man's perspective of things. From man's perspective, what you just said is correct. The gospel is freely offered to all, and all are commanded to receive it. Some do and some don't. So on this level, you have man choosing, but it's also the case that you have God that is over that. And it may not be that someone who is saved will realize until much later that it was all kinds of providences and ultimately God's sovereignty that brought him to that point at that moment where he chose what he freely chose. So there's a different way of looking at this, both from a higher biblical perspective and kind of a lower man-on-the-street perspective. Well, we won't ever really, really know. Yes, we believe in the predestination that God draws the believer, but there's a tension there between God drawing and a person making a decision. We believe that God God draws and therefore we make a decision, but the person who doesn't have that background may not realize it. Yeah, so again, the difference, think about it this way, that Schaeffer's dealing with the man, the unsaved man, on the basis in part of his own experience. Right? And we could each talk about our experience of salvation. And there's probably a variety of answers to the question of what was your experience of salvation? When was that moment? How did it happen? Was it, you know, a lightning bolt kind of experience like Paul? Or was it the kind of thing where at some point you realized, you know, I'm a Christian because I believe these things. So, there's that level of human experience Schaefer put a particular emphasis on not just the value of the individual, but he also talked a lot about how the individual operates into history. He's significant in history, that his choices matter in terms of history. And here's where we could say that maybe nobody's choices mattered more than Adams. because his choice has affected all future history. So there's a truth to that, but in Reformed theology we also acknowledge that God is sovereign over everything, that he must ordain everything that comes to pass or else he's not God, and that how could we ever have any certainty about the future if that weren't the case, and that he works with man's choices and man's will in bringing those things about. So yeah, that's maybe one of the hardest things in Reformed theology to understand is that tension between God's sovereignty and salvation and man's freedom and his responsibility. So that man is not just a puppet under God's control. So I think what we see in Schaeffer is that he's putting more emphasis on the human experience side of things, of trusting in Christ, and not so much on the theological background behind it, of how God is working that. Other questions or thoughts? Yeah, I think you're right. You need to make some dotted lines between the two. Here's what I'll do. Here's my compromise. I'm going to put a two-way arrow right in the middle. How's that? So we still have the idea that Schaeffer's entering into the unbeliever's worldview and into his thought forms, but that as he's working in this line of argumentation, he's still a presuppositional apologetic kind of argument. Could we place a template over that? Like how Schaefer talks about the upper story and the lower story? How do you mean? Well, you know how he talks about rational and you're on the lower story and then you take a leap to the irrational. But that's pseudo. That is this world. That is You know, that which is erroneous. But isn't there a true version of that in what you're saying there? Isn't there like man is on this rational level and yet up above there is a true, something that is above rational. Something that really, there is that paradigm that Schaeffer's talking about where the leap is truly into God's arms. between natural and supernatural. And in Schaeffer's view, he was always emphasizing, he would say it like this, that the supernatural is right here. We don't realize how close the natural world is to the supernatural world. So, maybe something like that, but I kind of like this. I'm going to keep thinking about that and if you've got a week to think about it before our last class and if you have some more ideas about that let me know because I don't know. I think that's helpful. I like to be able to see things in pictures because that helps me kind of see how things are arranged, the relationship of things. Just in my little scribble notes here, I said the Schaeffer doesn't end with the logical conclusion of his argumentation, which would be theism, because it's not a sufficient answer. And there's still a problem here. We can't prove Christianity by disproving atheism. So the only way we end with Christianity is if we started with it in the first place. And so this seems to be kind of the pattern of Schaeffer's approach. You can't prove God, you can only assume God because of the impossibility of the contrary. And that's probably a pretty concise definition of presuppositional apologetics. Alright, any other questions or thoughts before we look at a couple more articles? atheist or the scientific materialist is trying to do is to make science something solid, verifiable, and denying that faith is anything more than just a wish. Oh yeah, it's a distortion on both sides. Because the way this gets distorted, the way faith is distorted, is that we distort it by saying that it's blind faith, faith in nothing, or faith in faith, right? Which it's not. Christian faith has an object. It has content. That's right, content and an object. On the other hand, science, or empiricism, is the idea if we can see it, then we know it. And that's basically our epistemology. I can go in the laboratory and I can prove it in the laboratory or I can go out in the field and I can make observations. And that's how we know things. But there are so many things that we can't replicate in a laboratory. We can't see them. They become a foundation for our blind faith in science. Yeah, and so It goes back to the fact that science operates on a very little bit of data and we kind of saw a statement to this effect last week, I think it was, is induction. In other words, if I go out here in the property and I'm observing squirrels running around in the trees, I'll count the squirrels and I'll say they're all a certain color and a certain size. And this is, I'm actually kind of ripping off something from R.C. Sproul where he talked about squirrels having bushy tails. I noticed that squirrels have bushy tails. So I observed, let's say, 20 squirrels in the immediate environment and they all have bushy tails. So that's the observation. My data, n equals 20. But what am I going to do with that n equals 20? Yeah, by induction I'm going to assume that all squirrels have bushy tails. All the squirrels here and there, squirrels from the past. And then you go and find one that has a squirmy tail. Yes, and when we do that, that's what we call an anomaly. And as long as there are not very many of them, we can live with those. But that's the kind of thing that science does. With very little information, it's going to extrapolate some very big general conclusion. This is exactly what we were seeing in Lewis's article, where he has that diagram of going from the particulars to the general. We observe particular squirrels, about all squirrels, but can we do that? Do we really know that? And the answer is no, we don't really know that. That's one of the things that I think the James Webb Space Telescope is starting to throw wrenches into the works of cosmology because we're seeing observations in deep space that don't correspond to what we thought we were going to see based on our theory of how old the universe is and how it got this way. And then enough anomalies, or if they're big enough, start to become a crisis. And then that means your theory was wrong. You're going to have to have a better theory to explain the data. So didn't Darwin do that when he said that all of life has this feature of evolving? And so he just distributed his theory over everything. But when it came to things like the fossil record, he said, it would be found any transitional forms in the fossil record that would make my, that would void my theory. And yet, even though he said that, they continued on with it. But he, he distributed his ideas over every species. And he saw microevolution, and he generalized that over every species, saying that it was So, yeah, that's one of the big leaps in evolutionary theory is that we observe microevolution, we observe the finches that have larger beaks one season and smaller the next, and then we make a huge leap and say those variations that we can observe, when you pile up enough of them over a long enough time, then you end up with some other species. That's a huge leap. from what we observe to what we can't see. Now the problem in the fossil record is different because even in Darwin's day there were no transitional forms. Darwin assumed that over time those transitional forms would be found to provide some support for the idea that there's this gradual change over a long time. Those transitional forms were never found. He also said that if it could ever be proved that change didn't take place by very slight successions, that his theory would break down. So, there are all kinds of problems with that, but there are... The big leap in evolution is observing small changes over a short period of time and extrapolating not just big changes, but changes in species. So the finches don't just have a bigger beak. The finches eventually become something else. Giraffes or whatever. Yeah, and the proper response is to laugh. If I told you a fairy tale and said that a prince, a princess kissed a frog and he turned into a prince, you'd laugh because you know that's a fairy tale. But if I told you it took 50 million years for the frog to turn into a prince, you'd say, oh, that's science. That's evolution. And it costs a lot of tuition dollars to teach your kids that too. Oh, don't even get me started on that. So, good discussion. Any other last rabbit trails? I'm trying to decide how we're going to... Squirrel trail. Squirrels. Squirrel. Yeah, so that's just part of what's, you know, if you think about What a narrow slice of time and space we occupy and we can observe to suggest that we have got everything figured out in terms of how everything's put together and where it all came from and how it works. No, not a chance. I saw a video clip of Richard Dawkins and I believe it was Christopher Hitchens before he died and they were sitting in the back of a car talking, discussing what it is that they have a big problem with. everything is so programmed and fine-tuned. Yeah, the fine-tuning, it's the argument that the universe seems to be designed specifically for it to work the way it does so that it will support life. And especially where we happen to be favorably positioned here on planet Earth, a certain distance away from a stable star where it's not too hot and it's not too cold, kind of the Goldilocks situation. And what then becomes the basis for presuming that there may be life somewhere else in the universe? Yeah, there are so many billions of stars and billions of galaxies that somewhere in one of them there are bound to be not just a few but maybe thousands or millions of planets like this one that could also support life. So either billions of stars in space or billions of years? Well yeah, you kind of need both because evolution is a very slow process. And then you start getting into things like related to the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants. Well, the explanation then is this just happens to be one of maybe millions of other universes that happens to be fine-tuned that way. So you have these wild suppositions about multiverses that are totally outside the realm of science. You can't even observe it once in that case. So, back to the script. We had a couple of other articles to consider. Schrock, where he gives us a cheeky title, it is there and it should not be silent, and then also Bonson's false antithesis. Why don't we think about Bonson's false antithesis. It sounds like there might have been a little more interest in what Bonson had to say about Schaefer. So the gist of his article here is that Schaefer is creating what he calls a false antithesis. He starts out by stating that apologetics has to have a healthy notion of antithesis or it doesn't make any sense. And that belief and unbelief, which is the big antithesis, have to call each other to account as though the stakes are eternal. That if we're going to be faithful in our Christian ministries, whatever it might be, whether it's academic or whether it's church ministry and so forth, that we have to have a proper understanding of antithesis, especially because of the age of relativism that we live in, as well as theological compromise. Any false concept of antithesis undermines biblical antithesis, and it's going to hamper apologetics, and Bonson says this is the problem with Schaeffer. So he goes on to say that Schaeffer defines antithesis as a direct contrast or opposition between two things. He also uses it loosely to refer to things that are opposites. And then relying on the broad definition, he points out several themes in his apologetics. He picks up especially on Hegel, and Schaeffer says that Hegel is the one who opened the door to crossing the line of despair, and Bonson as well is going to say that Hegel didn't say what Schaeffer said he said. And we can't attribute to Hegel what Schaeffer wants to attribute to him. One of his summaries, he says, can we eagerly list the works of Schaeffer in our project of restoring the consciousness of the antithesis to contemporary Christian scholarship? Sadly, we cannot do so at all. And I don't get the impression that he was actually very sad when he said that. He says Schaeffer's view of antithesis is evidence of a disregard for biblical antithesis. That he does not insist upon a Christian concept of rationality. So again, we're seeing kind of what I'm trying to draw here, that he's down in a different part of argumentation that's not explicitly Christian, but that he seems to have worked out a way to use it pretty well to his advantage. Bonson says, Schaeffer does not press a choice between apostate and regenerate philosophy, but rather a choice between Hegel and the Greeks. His antithesis draws no antithesis between Christianity and the world. And in so doing, he substitutes an older version of humanistic thought for a newer one, which again is not a true biblical antithesis. I appreciate the fact that Bonson pointed out that Paul had something to say about Greek philosophy in his day. This is one of those things where you say, well, maybe we can overlook not having a great historical grasp of what the Greeks really thought and what they taught, but if you can go to the first couple of chapters of 1 Corinthians and see that Paul is basically making mincemeat of Greek philosophy in a very few verses, that might give you a little bit of pause for suggesting that the Greeks were some kind of a standard of objectivity. Bonson says the despair of unbelieving philosophy was just as clear in the days of ancient Greek speculation. And he goes on to talk about how Schaeffer has distorted Hegel's philosophy, quote, on a massive scale. And that his largest mistake of all is the belief that Hegelian synthesis means the loss of rationality. So Bonson goes on and gives a description of Hegel In saying that he argued for a coherence view of truth, that the categories that we use in our logical thinking are provisional, in other words, are contingent. And again, in a scientific kind of way. And it occurs to me as I, what I see about Hegel's antithesis thesis, antithesis, synthesis, it sounds like a scientific process where you are going step-by-step and through a process of gaining greater knowledge you're refining your understanding of something. And that seems to be the understanding that Bonson is describing here. He says that both views referring to thesis, antithesis contain something rational but both proved to be inadequate. So the synthesis that you form is intended to preserve what is rational to both of those sides and to remove what is non-rational. And that all contradictions will be worked out when the system of thinking is complete. And that also sounds like science because there's no such thing as complete science. It's a constant process of discovery. My difficulty with that is that if that's the case, then what we started with was really not a thesis and an antithesis. Because if it really is a thesis and an antithesis, and thinking in terms of a Venn diagram, there's no overlap between those two, then there's no way to come up with a synthesis between them either. So there's something just kind of fishy about that. I find myself being sympathetic to Schaeffer, I'll put it that way. Hegel's dialectic, quote, encourages us to understand reality as an evolving process, and that stages in the process, as we move along that path, are not fully adequate. So again, a process of discovery and understanding. Sounds like science. He says that Hegel's view is miles from Schaeffer's characterization of it as a renunciation of logic. And here I'm inclined to suggest that he's probably being too hard on Schaeffer because what Schaeffer is saying that Hegel opened the door to that. And who is it that he says that came afterward that actually kind of pushed the door open? Kierkegaard. Yeah, Kierkegaard followed after that. So this might be a case of Bonson attributing too much to Schaefer in his evaluation of Schaefer's view of Hegel. Unbelievers cannot justify the most elementary laws of thought. Schaefer repudiates the nature-grace dichotomy, but his apologetic method creates a dichotomy of its own. Unregenerate man can make sense out of nature. but not the supernatural. And here he's picking up on the idea of the room with two chairs. That is knowledge, that natural man's knowledge can be correct, but it's incomplete. Schaefer describes the difference as an antithesis that can never be brought into synthesis. And his view of the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. The unbeliever only needs the other half of the orange. And here again, maybe the critique is a little too harsh in terms of the fact that it's just a thought experiment that Schaefer's proposing. Bonson says, this sort of mistake is not a minor matter for apologetics. There's apparently no antithesis for Schaefer when it comes to regenerate and unregenerate minds understanding the facts. true antithesis as of an entirely different order than Schaeffer thought. And if you were wondering what Bonson was referring to by Barbara logic, I had to look that up and I put a little note there in your notes just referring to a form of syllogism. No, the different kinds of syllogisms that are illustrated with several different words, Barbara being one of them, have to do with the vowels in the word. So Barbara has B-A-R-B-A-R-A, and that corresponds to two premises and a conclusion that have all A propositions. And the example there is every swan is a bird, every bird is an animal, therefore every swan is an animal. So, if you've had some class in logic you probably knew that, but I had to look it up. Thank goodness all the answers to life's important questions are on the internet. Thoughts about Bonson? Bonson comes across as just kind of acidic, or acerbic. PhD philosophy, University of Burma. Yeah, you know, it's hard to miss the academic snobbery that comes across in something like this. I can say on the one hand that I'm a fan of Bonson. I think he's done some great work and he's been profitable to me in my understanding of apologetics. But I got to tell you what I've heard of him as a person is pretty negative. So maybe not somebody that you wanted to have as a friend, but somebody who could be a teacher because he was very knowledgeable, certainly in philosophy and apologetics. Oh yeah, well I like to say that Gordon Stein doesn't realize, you know, 25 years later or 30 years later, he still doesn't realize he lost that debate. So his PhD was in the mating habits of quails. Are you serious? Are you just making that up? Well, it was a mismatch. I'm sure a mismatch at least comparable to the mismatch of the debate that Schaefer engaged in in Cambridge with the atheists. Alright folks, we are at an end of our time. The piece on Schrock is there in your notes. It's about what, about a page on Schrock's material. So this will be the material that's on your last quiz, which will be posted Friday morning. A quick word about your final exam, so that there are no surprises. Doesn't mean there won't be complaints. But what I'm planning to do is have basically three quizzes in terms of its size. 30 multiple selection questions, three essay questions. So just comparable to what you've had in your quizzes except more material and it covers the whole semester. So the only material that won't be part of a quiz is what we'll cover next week. Next week's material we'll just carry over into the final exam. So that's the only new material that'll be on the final exam. I'll have it posted May 8th and you can take it anytime the week of the 8th as long as it's done by midnight Friday. I'm pretty sure I know when you're going to turn it in. I should have everything graded and your grades turned in by Monday the 15th. Any questions? review your notes, your class notes, and you may want to review the quizzes. I'm planning to write everything from scratch, so I'm not gonna just take questions that you've already been asked and put them on the final. So the questions will be new questions, but it'll be comparable to what you've had every week since we started the class. So no surprises, just bigger in scope and That ends up counting for 20% of the grade so it should be bigger as it were. Questions? So next week, Van Til's critique. Give some thought to my picture up here and if you have some suggested improvements or more suggested improvements, let's talk about it some more. Also, fair game for the quiz. Is that not right? Yeah, perhaps. I'm not going to make you redraw it or something like that. Let's assume that that is correct. If I said it in class, it could be on the quiz. You're assigning a probability number? Just kidding. We're done. Less than 10%. Alright, let's pray. Father, we thank you that you've given us this time again tonight to be engaged in a learning process. We thank you that you've given us minds that are eager to learn and to understand. And we pray that through the work of your Spirit these truths would be applied to us and we would understand not only what we're reading and thinking about, but how to use this in our various lives and ministries. Prepare us for the next class as we get ready for our New Testament class, and keep us safe later as we head home this evening. In Christ's name we pray, amen.