Mental Assent vs Saving Faith Pt 2

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central? Who knew that you could end up with an entire series of podcast episodes as you try to figure out what is the difference in fourteen inches? Well, obviously the difference is fourteen inches, But how does fourteen inches make an internal difference? How does fourteen inches determine your destiny in either heaven or hell? Who knew that fourteen inches could become really a I don't know how many episodes can We don't know. I guess we could probably go a very long time, because it's a very important subject when you think about it.

0:49 If fourteen inches determine if I'm going to spend eternity in heaven or spend an eternity burning in the Lake of fire, yeah, yeah, then I need to understand what is the difference in fourteen inches more than just well fourteen inches, because it seems to have an eternal difference, at least in the minds of some. So that's what we're going to be talking about. But before we do, let me say welcome everyone. It is Tuesday, October the eighth, twenty twenty four. It is currently two fifty two pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central Studio located right here in Abilene, Texas.

1:29 In Abilene, Texas, we've yet to receive the memo. We're yet to receive the notification that it's fall right someone, at least in Texas, we still think it's summer, okay, because it's like ninety degrees outside right now, and so it's going to get very hot here in the studio. So we need to see what we can accomplish now. Not only is it going to be hot here in the studio, I know a lot of people are going to get very hot under the call because they're going to strongly disagree with what we've been discussing. But let's just remind you this is not my fault, all right. Someone emailed me and asked me this question about what we refer to as mental ascent, salvation and mental ascent, and the idea went something along these lines that many pastors, many maybe even Christian podcasters broadcasters will say something along these lines, don't miss heaven by fourteen inches, and what they mean and they're kind of just using kind of an illustration is that hey, there is fourteen inches separating your mind from your heart, and if you just believe with your mind, you are not saved and you're going to go to hell. You've got to believe with your mind and you have to believe with your heart. You need both. If you only have one, it's a fragile at faith and you are not saved. So we've been trying to work on this. I told everyone it was

3:01 going to be, you know, kind of tedious. It's gonna be. We're gonna be covering a lot of different issues. I don't think I've received an email back from the original emailer, so hopefully they have listened to part one and they'll they'll kind of tell me where they're still struggling or what they're trying to figure out, and we see if we can address it in a more specific way. But the way my approach was this is that let's kind of just start maybe from a biblical perspective. Let's try to just see what the Bible says. Does the Bible draw this major distinction between the mind and the heart, between mental assent versus some other kind of faith. And what we determined is I think it's very fair to say if we go to the Old Testament, if we take Hebrew thought in the Old Testament scriptures, it makes the mind and the heart synonymous. I think that's very fair to say. It views it as a synonymous thing, like as a man thinketh in his heart, that means the heart is the center of not only emotion, but will, thinking, thought, intellect.

4:08 We would refer to that as the mind and many aspects. So the Old Testament seems to clearly it's and Hebrew thought it's synonymous. You don't have what the mind this and the heart this, and there's somehow a distinction between the mind and the heart. It's more grouped together. And when you start trying to divide this what we have seen over and over and over, and we've been dealing with this in a number of you know, in our other series. I'm kind of placing this with the other series. I may make this its own separate series, but they're very much linked together. Where we're talking about the secrets of the Christian life and why do Christians continue to send in a lot of that discussion, it's very much related because you get in there, you're like, wait a minute, do we have a new mind? Do we have a new heart, old heart, old mind. Well, this is more about okay, when you believe, right, are you sure you're make sure you're believe is in the right place, because if the belief is just in the mind, you go to hell. Well wait wait, but I believe, Yeah, but your belief is in the wrong place. It's got to go from the mind to the It's got to travel fourteen inches or you burn. I mean like just seems so like, oh, how do you draw that distinction. A person is sitting their way? Well, I think I believe, but maybe my belief is only in my mind, and inevitably, what does this turn into. It's not really about mental assent.

5:29 It's not really even about that once again, it's about Christians trying to determine why Christians continue to sin. So we've always got Inevitably, what it comes down to is if you continue to sin and you commit big sins because your everyone's already living in perpetual sin. I mean, I stated all the time God tells you to be holy as He is holy, no one as holy as He is holy. Therefore you're in perpetual sin. Right, And I could add a lot more scriptures to show you your in perpetual sin. But the issue really well, you can be in perpetual sin, but you can't commit this sin because if you commit this sin, then we throw you out of everything because you're not really a Christian. This really just is not even really an issue about mental assent. It's really about who we can throw out of the Kingdom of God and determine who is saved or not saved. And already there's a problem with that because now we're determining salvation based on what we do or don't do, versus basing it on the finished work of Jesus Christ. So but we determined that the Old Testament scriptures, it doesn't have this weird separated now, you know, separated into these two. There's the mind, there's the heart.

6:36 When we got to the New Testament, we acknowledge there are some scriptures that try to maybe offer some separation, but it's very nuanced, and there are clear scriptures that still once again links them together and sees it as a holistic a holistic unity. Right, that the heart contains the thoughts and the intents or the emotions or the will, but it's all within the heart. So what do we do. I mean, I guess we could go through every scripture in the entirety of the Bible and go, okay, wait a minute, guys, does this verse speak of heart and mind the same or do they separate it? I guess, I guess we could look up all the verses that uses the word heart, all the verses that use the word mind, and see. I think you'll I mean, if you want to do that, be my guess. I think I think you'll probably lose your mind. I may, I may do some work and see if I can find some kind of a summary. Maybe maybe we'll do that before this, I guess this is going to turn into a mini series is over so so. But from the biblical perspective, just from scripture, we don't have we don't even have the phrase mental assent. And I don't know if we can really cut someone into two parts and say, well, there's the mind, there's the heart, and the two are completely separate. So you, in a sense, can I don't know what do you do with your mind? You acknowledge with your mind that Jesus is the eternal so of God who died for your sins, But then your heart says, but I don't believe it. Well, if your mind accepts it, then isn't that a form of belief? If your mind

8:08 knows it and your mind gives some assent to it, is that not faith? But some people say, well, faith needs really the knowledge, the assent, and the trust. I can't remember the three Latin phrases. I can't remember the three fiducia. I can't remember that there's three Latin phrases. Maybe we could get in I guess you could try to break it down that way. I think you just start drawing all of these distinctions, and at some point I think you just left with a confused mess. Right, if my mind says Jesus is the eternal son of God, he was sent by the Father, died for my sins, buried, raised the third day, ascended to the right hand of the Father. It's coming to judge the living and the dead.

8:52 How can you say, well, your mind knows that, your mind gives assent to that, but it's not trusting in it. What is mind doing with it? Then? Well, it's got to get to the heart. Then the heart, see, well, then grab onto it and then and what is it inevitably going to come to we'll see when your heart grabs onto it, then there's going to be transformation. Because Christianity is obsessed with this concept that we're transformed, even though well we're not really transformeding we're transformed. We claim we're transformed, but then we admit we're not perfectly transformed. Well, then is that a partial transformation? Is that a twenty percent transformation? Thirty percent? And then and how is the transformation occurring? Is it occurring because of imputed righteousness? Well, imputed righteousness doesn't transform, It just transforms my position. And then we just get into all of these same issues.

9:43 So we looked at a lot of things, and I could go back through a lot of it, break it down a little bit more. But what I want to do in this episode is what we had is it seems that a lot of the discussion about mental assent versus saving faith, well a lot of it centers on Jams two seventeen. Even so, faith, if it have not works, is dead being alone. And so what they seem to argue is that there's a faith that works, that's our saving faith, and a dead faith is just mental assent. Well, there's already all kinds of problems with us. But let me just remind you that this idea that even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead. Remember, there is not agreement in two thousand years of church history of exactly what that dead means. Some people means, well, your faith is dead. Basically, well, it's not doing anything. It's not doing it. Maybe it's saving faith. In other words, positionally your faith has saved you. You're declared righteous by faith alone, you're declared purpose perfect. But practically your faith is dead from doing anything. It's not loving anyone, it's not helping anyone. So it's dead from a practical perspective.

10:57 This is not necessarily saying it's dead from a position ditional standpoint, right. And we talked about that in the last hour and are the last hour long broadcast that we did wasn't an hour ago, but whenever, it was a little over an hour ago. So so we looked at that we can do some more work on that. But at the very end of the last broadcast I mentioned James two nineteen because some of the things I was referencing reference to James to nineteen Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well the devils also believe and tremble. The devils also believe and tremble. The devils also believe and tremble. So now the idea is okay, wait, okay, mental assent therefore equals the faith of demons, because demons just have mental assent, but they don't believe in their heart.

11:56 This is kind of it kind of used to to try to justify this or look at this, and I'm like, wait a minute, wait a minute, I think we got a major issue going on here. I don't think that this verse. Just please note James two seventeen and James two nineteen never mentioned mental assent or tries to draw some distinction. We're trying to draw these distinctions, right, So, how do we understand thou believest that there is one God, Thou'll do us well? The devil's also believe in trimble. How do we understand this? Well, let's look at this in this context of trying to draw this distinction. Using James two nineteen to basically draw a distinction between mental assent and saving faith is very problematic. And I'm not the only one drawing that distinction. All right, And here's some ideas. Let's first look at the context of James two nineteen. James two nineteen states you believe that that God is one, and you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder. The verse is often cited to argue that mental assent to truth, believing that God exists or that He is one, is not enough for salvation, since even demons acknowledge this truth without being saved. However, this interpretation has potential weaknesses when applied to human beings. Now, immediately, we just have to know we're dealing with two completely different categories. Here's demons, here's humans. There's going to be some clear distinctions here, all right. Here are some possible

13:31 reasons why there's problems or potential weaknesses. The text itself specifically references that to the belief in the oneness of God. This is very important, all right. This is specifically referencing the belief in one God. I cannot express to you how that's like your textual cue. That's your hermoneutical key. All right. You believe that God is one, which was a core tenet of Jewish monotheism, all right, which comes from Deuteronomy six ' four. Here O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one. This is a statement of basic belief, not a comprehensive a comprehensive affirmation of Christian faith and Christ's redemptive work. So, in other words, all the text is saying is, hey, the demons believe in one God and they tremble, so belief in one So what this text would be saying simple belief in one God or a belief in monotheism or a mono theistic belief is not sufficient for salvation. This is not about oh wait, well you say you have faith, Well, demons have faith and they're not saved, so you've got to have a right kind of faith. Now, this is simply saying faith in one God is not sufficient. And why is this important? Because look, it's the context. Look at the who James is written to James, a servant

15:05 of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad. This is being written to Jewish readers, to Jewish believers. Hey, if you're Jewish and you're just saying, well, we believe in one God. So belief in one God is not sufficient. Salvation requires not only belief in the one God, but belief that the one God. And now at some point we would argue maybe some trinitarian belief is required, We could get into whole discussion. But that that one God sent his eternal son, one God, three distinct persons, father, Son, holy Spirit. Okay, but sent his son as a substitutionary sacrifice to die and pay for your sins and salvation is found in faith in what Christ did, not just in the belief that there's one God. So already you can't just say, well, see you can believe and still not be saying no, no, no, no, no no. This is if you believe simply that there is one God. This would be referencing the thiological content of one's belief. This statement of basic belief not a comprehensive affirmation of Christian faith in Christ's redemptive work. James isn't saying that demons believe the full scope of the Gospel, death, burial, resurrection, and the need and the need for salvation. Rather, they acknowledge the reality of God's existence and his sovereignty, which they cannot deny. This acknowledgment doesn't encompass trust, obedience, or

16:36 relational faith in God. This is just simply they can't deny this. You can't compare this demons to us and do something with This is just telling Jewish believers, you believe in one God. Great, there's got to be more than just the belief in one God. And we would all agree with that. This is not talking about mental versus hard believe that. The fact is that the demons simply believe, and this is just simply acknowledging, well, they believe in one God. You believe in one God. Believe in one God is not sufficient. Now number two. According to some demons, beliefs are limited. Demons may believe in the existence and oneness of God, but there's no indication that they believe in or accept the Gospel message. Demons might intellectually assent to certain truths about God's existence, power, and authority, but demons do not have the capacity for trust or salvation in the same way humans do. They are spiritual, spiritual beings who have rejected God and are an active rebellion against him. Their belief in God is purely an acknowledgement of a fact they cannot escape. It's not the same kind of belief humans are capable of exercising, which includes trust, reliance, and submission to God. Now, of course I would say we're incapable of it as well.

17:58 God has to give us the belief right, I mean, not the whole concept. I mean, I guess unless you believe in if you believe in free will, then you can just freely choose to believe. But then that goes well, are you to pray? Okay? That gets that gets into Pelagianism, semi Pelagianism. That just leads to a million other theological issues. The belief, the belief described in James two nineteen is more akin to fear or recognition of God's power, rather than a saving faith that trust in God's promises. This highlights that mere acknowledgment of God's existence without trusting him for salvation is not the same as saving faith. Now, some will say, well, see this is this is drawing the distinction between mental assent and trust in Him. But I would argue it's just simply saying belief in one God is not sufficient. It's not about whether it's mental assent or trust. It's just just belief in when God and the demons have no choice but to believe it.

18:59 There in this idea that this is describing some kind of a mental assent versus heart believe. There's an implicit assumption in this interpretation that demons share a similar cognitive and spiritual makeup as humans, having a separate mind and heart. However, demons are fundamentally different than human beings. Demons are fallen angels, spiritual beings who do not have the same moral and spiritual capacities as humans, especially in terms of redemption. They do not experience salvation or sanctification. They're irreversibly condemned. Therefore, the way demons believe cannot be equated with how humans are called to believe in trust in God. Human faith involves relational trust in God and a turning of the will towards him, something not available to demons. It's problematic to assume that demon's intellectual acknowledgment of God's existence is equivalent to the faith a human being is capable of having, which includes both mental assent and the heart's trust in Christ.

19:54 So you can't just go with hey, they're just like, no, this is just I think we can make things so complicated. The simple thing is, to Jewish believers or to Jewish readers, you believe in one God, You quote Deuteronomy, great demons acknowledge the belief are the existence of one God. That's not sufficient for salvation. All right, James's overall point isn't to create a sharp distinction between mental assent and saving faith, but rather to emphasize that genuine faith will naturally result in works. Now, this is where I'm going to disagree with this completely, but okay. He is addressing people who might claim to believe, but whose lives show no evidence of belief through action. James uses the example of demons to show that simply acknowledging God's existence does not mean once faith is real or sufficient. However, the issue isn't about the cognitive dimension of faith versus the effective dimension mind versus heart. It's more about the evidence of faith.

20:59 True faith, James argues, should produce visible actions that align with that faith. His concern is practical faith and does not result in a changed life for good works is dead and the sense of being ineffective, not that it is completely absent. Now, please don't they they do correct that even though James's point here is you believe in one God, so what the demons do? Do? You have a dead faith? Dead not in the sense of not saving or salvific, but dead and being ineffectual. It's not doing anything, it's not moving anything, all right, So dead does not mean it does that it's not salvific. It just can mean it's ineffective, which many throughout church history have understood. Right. James two nineteen is particularly tied to the Jewish belief in monotheism. For a Jewish audience, the belief in one God was central to their identity. However, James challenges the idea that simply holding to this belief is is not enough. He's challenging their belief that it is enough. His point is more about the quality and completeness of faith, not the distinction between intellectual and saving faith.

22:10 Belief in one God was foundational, but saving faith and false trust in Christ involves trust in Christ. Demons believe God's existence, but they don't trust, obey, or align themselves with God's purposes all right. Using James two nineteen to make a distinction between mental assent and saving faith is problematic. Number One, it assumes that demon's belief is directly comparable to human faith, despite the fact that demons are fundamentally different. The verse refers to specifically to belief in the wellness of God, not the full scope of Christian faith. It is not saying that demons believe the Gospel. They simply acknowledge God's existence and power. James point is that genuine faith again should produce works. This is an ongoing concept, right.

22:54 Thus these verses do not provide a sol foundation for distinguishing mental assent from saving faith. All right now, I could go through here a far more into this, but I could go far more into this, but you get the basic idea. The concept of James two nineteen is simply that, hey, you believe in one God. That's not sufficient, all right? All right now, then it goes on. But wilt thou know, o vain man, that faith without works is dead again. A faith that does not work is dead in the sense of it's being ineffectual, it's not being it's not practically doing anything. Does not mean it's dead as far as saving is concerned. You have to infer that. And if you infer that faith will produce works, you're gonna end up in a problem. Let me explain, right, and a system of imputed righteousness, which is what we claim to believe. True faith calls us to a transformed life, but it is not our transformation that saves us. Rather, our standing before God is transformed because we are credited with christ righteousness, not because we become inherently righteous in ourselves.

24:18 Imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the idea that when a person puts their faith in Christ, God credits them with righteousness of the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness is external to the believer and is a legal declaration that changes those believers standing before God. This doctrine is Foundational and Reformed theology and reflects the idea that we are justified by faith alone, not by any intrinsic righteousness or good works. Infused righteousness and contrast, refers to a gradual process which righteousness is infused into a person over time, leading to an inner transformation. This is Roman Catholic theology, where salvation is seen as both a legal declaration and a moral transformation. And this view, sanctification and justification are closely linked, and the system of imputed righteousness are legal. Standing before God is transformed, but we are not immediately or completely transformed in our character. We remain sinners who are continually in the need of God's grace.

25:29 Let me state that again, and in the imputed righteousness system, we remain sinners. We are not transformed. Our position is transformed, not our practice. All right. In the imputed righteousness system, our standing before God has transformed in the sense that through faith in Christ we are declared righteous based on Christ's perfect obedience. This means that when God looks at us, he sees the righteousness of Christ, not our sinful state. This is the essence of imputed righteousness. It is Christ's righteousness applied to us, not our own. We remain sinners.

26:10 Although our legal standing before God has transformed, our personal nature is still subject to sin. We are still imperfect and incapable of keeping God's law. All right, that's so important. Well justified, we continue to experience the effects of the fall and our inability to meet God's standards. In the imputed righteous system, we're still sinners. We're still going to sin. So if you say, if you turn this into oh wait wait wait wait wait, if you have faith, you will do this. No, No, imputed righteousness doesn't make you do this. It doesn't produce works. Imputed righteousness does not produce works. Imputed righteousness does not produce change because it's outside of us, and it simply declares us to be that which we are not. So we can have a saving faith, and yet we can have works or no works or lack of works because we're still well, we're still sinners. Although we're legal standing before God, we still are sinners. We are not transformed in our nature. This understanding preserves the idea that salvation is entirely by grace and not by works. We are saved not because of an inherent transformation in us, but because of what Christ has done on our behalf. Even after we are justified, we remain unable to perfectly keep God's law. This is why the concept of imputed righteousness is so crucial. If

27:42 we were required to achieve an inherent righteousness by our own efforts, even with the help of grace, we would have inevitably fall because of our sinful nature, meaning our sinful nature still exists. Imputed righteousness assures that our acceptance before God is not based on our ability to keep the law, but on Christ' perfect film it. His obedience is counted as ours, which means that we are seen as having perfectly kept God's law even though in practice we fall short every single day. I cannot stress that enough. So when we come to this and we and we in James, everybody gets turns us all into Hey, how do you know you're saved? You'll do this and this and this and this. Well, wait a minute, what's making me do this and this and this? Because I'm sayd by an imputed righteousness, which doesn't cause me to do any of that. So that's already a problem number two. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, So now my salvation is proven by what I do.

28:39 You don't prove salvation and an imputed righteousness system by works and an infused righteousness system. You judge salvation by works an imputed righteousness. You judge salvation by the works of Christ, not by the works we do. Now are we called to good work? Work? Absolutely? Does God call us to it? Yes, in a practical sense. If I say I have faith in God, but yet I don't do this or don't do this, then guess what. No one's going to profit from my faith. It's going to be useless. It's going to be meaningless. If my faith doesn't produce some good, then it becomes meaningless and useless from a practical perspective. From a positional perspective, my faith saves me because of the finished work of Jesus Christ.

29:33 So that deals with James two seventeen. Even so, faith, if it have not works as being dead, and it also deals with James two nineteen. Thou believest there is one God Tho'll do us well. The devil's also believe in tremble salvation requires more than a belief in simple Jewish monotheistic understanding of God, it believes. It requires more than monotheism. You've got to believe the finished work of Jesus Christ. Now, I don't this is anywhere shape or form being used to say, oh, there's a distinction. There's the mind, there's the heart. Now inevitably, what people do with the mind and heart suppose a distinction is they want to drive home some concept that see wait wait, wait, wait, wait, here's what happens. Here's what happens. So you believe in your mind, but in our your heart, how does and how do you know? Because you're not doing this or this or this or this or this or this, well, what would be causing me to they say? If I believe in my heart, then that causes me to do all of this. No, believing in my heart doesn't cause anything, because I'm believing in the finished work of Jesus Christ, and his righteousness is accredited to my account. It's not put inside of me. So we can have this never ending debate over mental assent. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. How first do you draw the distinction? What does your mind do? Well, repentance is

31:05 a change of mind. So now some people say, well, it requires the mind and the heart. They got to be two together. But how how do you draw the distinction? Knowing that if the two were together or two not together, almost inevitably as as well? You know the two together is because well you do abcd FG. Well if I do ABCDEFG, why don't I just do the entire alphabet? Why don't I just do everything perfectly? Well, you kept not going to do everything perfectly? Well? What in that other imperfection? Then call into question if my faith was legitimate, Well, no, as long as I got some Well, now I'm gonna base it off some external acts. Well didn't Jesus say, Hey, in the last there's going to be those who say, Lord, Lord, didn't we do this, this, this? And he's like, depart from me. I never knew you. So doing things is not even a guarantee. Doesn't this all become just absolutely convoluted?

31:54 And how are you going to draw this queer distinction? All right, my mind, my mind acknowledge, my mind accepts it, gives a sent but my mind doesn't believe it. Or my mind can acknowledge it, give a cent to it and believe it. But that's not enough somehow, Now my heart has to step in and give acknowledge it, give a cent to it, and trust in it. You're just making these distinctions. That's just going to leave people completely perplexed. The Bible sees it in a more holistic way. So faith without works is dead. Does not mean it's dead in a Salvafic way. It's dead in a practical way.

32:47 Demons believe in one God. Believing in a monothys theistic understanding of God is not sufficient for salvation. And that would be very practical too. The Jews who would be like, hey, we believe in one God. Congratulations. Now you have to go from there. Now there's a lot more I could get into, but I just wanted to at least get the James two nineteen out of the way, and then we'll see if we can circle back and put all of this together at some point, because I'm assuming I'm going to get some emails on some of this. Inevitably, what this turns into is if you believe, you will do, and I will argue if you believe it's already done in Christ and his works are imputed to me, so I stand perfect. Whether I do or don't do doesn't change what He has done. Now it does impact how practical my faith is. I have faith in God, but I don't love my neighbor. Within my faith is of no practical value to my neighbor. It's no profit to my neighbor. It's no profit to anybody. It leaves me.

34:05 It's dead in that sense. It doesn't mean that I'm dead and my trespasses and sin and not saved, because now you're going to have to create a very specific measurement to know whether I've done enough and done it the right way in order to be saved, and nobody is all the tests that people have come up with to try to judge this one. It inevitably turns you from focusing on trusting in christ work to trusting in what you do and don't do. And all of them even have to admit, well, you'll do this and do this, I mean, you're not going to do it perfectly. So then they argue that imperfect obedience is somehow grounds to prove you're justified before God. No, perfect obedience is the grounds of my justification. It's just not my obedience, it's Christ's obedience. And I don't know how I draw a distinction between my mind and my heart. I know we can try to do that. I just think it becomes a distinction without a difference. I don't know how even to state it. So all right, we'll stop there. I want to go further, but yeah, yeah, I don't know

35:38 what else to say. I feel like this would be like if I'm having a discussion, then someone could immediately follow up and say, well what about this? What about this? And then I could continue going. But all I can do is kind of leave some of this there and then just see how people respond to it. But some of you are going to get mad and get upset and try to throw me out of the Kingdom of God. Look, I'm simply arguing for the historical non Catholic perspective, which is imputed righteousness, not infused. And modern evangelicalism gives lip service to imputed righteousness, but they operate in an infused righteous mindset, which is an absolute rejection of the entire Reformation.

36:21 Maybe in October we need more churches will actually think about what happened on the Reformation instead of paying lip service to it and do less just playing games and doing whatever people do. And when it gets to be October thirty first and focus on what the what you really need to draw the distinction is what is the distinction between imputed and infused righteousness? On Sunday, walk around your church and say, hey, what does it mean to be saved by an imputed righteousness versus being saved by an infused righteousness? See if they can even explain at all what that means. But even if they start explaining that we're saved by an imputed righteousness, wait, they'll say they'll say, well, we're say by an imputed righteousness. You can even ask your pastor yes, but they'll immediately say, but which just negates everything that comes before it. However, we will do this and this and this, and then you can ask how does an imputed righteousness cause me to do this and this and this, and you'll just at some point you're just like, you know, pastor, you go ahead and preach. I'm just gonna go to the liquor store. I'm hoping it's open this Sunday morning, because I don't know what to do anymore, because it just gets it'll just it'll just be circular reasoning and insanity.

37:33 And it's like, I think we're starting to argue for the Catholic understanding. Now if you say that everyone loses their mind. Oh I'm not a Catholic, Well you sure sound like it. So that's that's the issue. All right, we'll stop right there. All right, Thanks for listening. Everyone, have a great day. God bless