How many of you got to saw the email that was sent out Saturday morning? Raise your hand. OK, check your email. There was an email sent out Saturday morning about the systematic theology class. If you're if you receive the church emails from Beth, then you've got this email. OK, if you don't receive the church emails from Beth and you need to make sure Beth has your email address. OK, is there anybody in here that doesn't receive the church emails from Beth? Raise your hand. OK, if for some reason you're not sure, just go ahead after class and make sure she has your proper email address, whoever you are in that email. I sent an article to you all on every Christian must be a theologian. It would be good for you over this next month. I don't know the articles, what guys did you see how many pages it is? OK, so four pages, it's not that much to read. If you didn't get that article, let Beth know so that she can put your right email address in and send you that email in that email. You noted that there were some page numbers that I gave out for reading. Did you all see that in the email? OK, if you didn't go back and look at the email, if you hadn't looked at it, Stephen, did you get the email that was sent out Saturday? Okay, good. All right. In that email, I gave some page numbers out. Those page numbers will be used today. So if you weren't able to look through it previously, go ahead and you can look through it some. Yes. All right. Yes, I can do that. I'm capable. I can do this. This is my Tony Robbins speech to myself. Chapter two in DAG. Chapter two. Go back and look at the email, I thought I gave chapters, if I didn't, it's chapter two in DAG. Pages 19 to 25. And then in Boyce, it will be chapter three. Is that correct? Hang on. Yeah, chapter three of Boyce. Now, look, remember, I'm using DAG as the main text, so I'm walking through DAG a piece at a time, OK? In voice, I'm doing supplemental stuff. So there's times where voice doesn't match up with DAG and you'll say, well, he skipped a whole section of voice. Yes, I did, because I'll probably go back to it as supplemental reading. So you'll look at chapter two of voice and it says the being of God. You go, he's going to talk about the being of God. No, no, no, because that comes up later in DAG. OK, so. In Boyce's supplemental, I said it was chapter three, Reason and Revelation, pages forty six to fifty three or fifty four. OK. Well. Oh, yes, and one through seven, that's correct. Thank you, Stephen. Yeah, you'll do actually one through seven is what we'll use today of voice. But you'll want to read the chapter on reason and revelation, which is chapter three. We probably won't get to all of that today. OK, so go ahead and put that down just so that you can read through it now. First of all, if this seems at the moment a little overwhelming, I want you to put it in perspective. If you were in a seminary class. The two sessions, the session we did last time, the session we'll do today, that would have been all one lecture on a Monday and you would have turned around on Tuesday and come to another lecture, which is what I will do on January the 8th. So you're getting a whole month to read material that a seminary level student only would have had basically 24 hours. OK, so it's not don't think of it as overwhelming. Put it in perspective. It may seem like 15 or 25 or 30 pages and you're going, if it's 30 pages of material, that's literally less than one page a day. So if you would just sit and read one page a day or less, you would get the material. A seminary student has to read all of those pages really in less than 24 hours, OK, because they're coming back day after day after day, Monday through Thursday, depending on seminary, some of it's Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes, whatever. OK, so we're going to do basically you're going to go through pages one through seven of Boyce today. We will get to a portion of chapter two of DAG maybe. OK. So you want to keep in mind one through seven of Boyce. Chapter one, one through seven. In chapter three of Boyce. OK, and then chapter two of DAG, if you're not if you're not reading and you're just coming to hear me talk, that's fine, too. You know. I'm not sure what that means, that I'm just a good babbler or what. I don't know. But if you get it from me talking about it, that's fine, too. But if you're wanting to grab hold of the material as far as reading it and looking at it, take it a piece at a time. We're doing the class a piece at a time. That's why we're meeting only once a month. So you can have time to look at the material. And it's not a burden to you. OK, if I were real serious about you having a systematic theology class, we'd meet more than once a week, twice a week. And you'd have all this reading, but you're not going to seminary. Your pastor is just trying to teach you systematics. OK. Well, enough of that introduction, if you have any more questions about what to read and what not to read, we'll talk about that afterwards. Let's let's open up in prayer and then move forward into the lecture section that will start off this morning. OK. Heavenly Father, we praise you, Lord, for this day and thank you so much for this time that we have to. look at your Bible, but to look at it and understanding how to connect the dots that we see who you are and all that you've done in a way that we can put it into an organized, functioning understanding. Lord, we ask that you would give mercy to us as we work through these things and you would help us with clarity as we work through these things. And we're just so thankful for all that you give us. It's in Christ's name we pray. Amen. OK, now I've given you. Most of my notes, I didn't give you all of them because I didn't want to print that much paper, number one. And number two, if I give you all the notes, then you won't write anything. So when we get to page three, you'll see gaps there and that's places as we get to that, which I don't know that we'll finish all of that today. But as we get there, you can write notes on that. We probably will do well to get through pages one and two today, but we'll just see. I've never taught a systematic theology class, so this is new for me, too. We'll see what happens if we get through it. Great. If we don't, that's OK, too. All right. You'll see here I quote James P. Boyce and I want to take this quote and really Just parse it out. OK, let's look at what he's saying. A lot of times we read over stuff and we get main points, but let's look at what he's saying here from this quote. First of all, we have to know theology as a science, theology as a science continues to be debated by many. Boyce stated, quote, Theology is defined as a science. It lacks nothing that constitutes a science. It is concerned in the investigation of facts. It inquires into into their existence, their relations to each other, their systematic arrangement, the laws which govern them and the great principles which are the basis of this existence and these relations. As in other sciences, there is much that is absolutely known, much beyond this, that is little question. Much that is still matter of speculation and much as to which there is decided difference in opinion. Now, first of all, why would we talk about theology as a science? Did you grow up in school learning theology as a science? I didn't. I went to elementary school, middle school, high school, public school. I was never taught the science. Somewhere. In the mid 1800s, there starts to be a transition in. Transition takes theology from a science to just a religious discussion. But before that point, and once we get into the early parts of the 1900s, all discussion of theology of science is just about thrown out the window. OK, so. Before you get to this middle part of the eighteen hundreds, theology was considered a science and was considered what is called the queen of all sciences. All right. If you wanted to know anything about anything, the theology or the science you started with, what's theology? All right. So. Boyce is taking us to a place to say, Theology is not just mere discussion, it's a science. On what basis does Boyce prescribe that theology is a science? Well, number one, the great concern of theology is the investigation of facts. Are we not trying to investigate facts when we investigate God? When you investigate his word, are you not trying to investigate facts? It's exactly what you're trying to do. It's the existence of these facts. I mean, now, this seems minimal, but when we get into get it later into this study, you're going to see even more why this would be considered a science, because you're trying to work out some of these ideas of the Godhead and you start talking about the Trinity. What kind of facts are we going to have to establish the Trinity? The relations of a relation of facts to each other, these facts and how they relate to one another. To me, that's what makes theology such a great study is because it systematic theology lets me know I have a system of facts. I have. Fact A. And I have fact B and I have fact C. I've lettered them, but how am I going to investigate their relation one to another? Maybe I've labeled them A, B and C, but once I investigate and work through these facts in the scripture, I'll find out that really this is fact one and this is fact two and this is fact three. So I'm learning in systematic theology how to connect the dots. It's the relation of these facts one to another. That's why it's a science you're trying to get forth information about facts. You'll see letter C, which we just covered, it's a systematic arrangement, one, two, three of these facts. Now, what makes that what makes it a systematic arrangement versus or makes it different from versus just reading your Bible? OK, and you know, there's some. I mean, chronologically, when you read the Old Testament, you're not really reading it chronologically, but you're reading it as it was put together. But point well taken in this class, I'm going to try to be specific in this class. OK, so don't get offended if you say something and I kind of tweak it a little and vice versa. If I say something that needs to be tweaked, well, let's discuss it and tweak it. OK, because that's what this class is about, is making sure we tweak stuff and we're dealing with details. All right. So but you're reading the Bible in a fashion in which it was given. OK, from Genesis to Revelation. Right. Whereas in systematics, what you're doing is is you're taking out that information that Genesis, the revelation gives you and you're saying, OK, this portion of this book and this portion of this book and this portion of this book and this portion and so on, they fit fact one. Vice versa, this fact, this fact, this fact fits or this this verse, this versus or fits back to. OK, so you're pulling it out and systematizing it in a way to say we can see who God is and what he says about himself. All right, from A to Z. As far as the Bible tells us, right. All right. Now, the other thing that he brings out here, though, is that there are laws that govern these facts. Well, what does he mean by that? All right, laws of interpretation. Yeah. All right. He says the laws which were given them. Now, what's the them referring to back up in the quote? It requires it inquires into their existence, their relations to each other, their systematic arrangement, the laws which govern them. So we're talking about the laws that govern what the facts. Well, that's going to be important when you talk about the being of God, let's we use that earlier, are there going to be some laws that govern the fact of the being of God? Give me a for instance. Holiness, he doesn't sin. There's a law that governs God. That law is from his very person, from his innermost being holiness. So therefore, he cannot sin. He is unchanging, he cannot lie, you see. So we're going to talk about the laws which govern these facts and the great principles which are the basis of this existence. And these relations. Now, there are other great principles surrounding the governing laws of these facts. All right, as we investigate this material, we're going to see that the Bible. Will give us these great principles surrounding the govern, the governing of laws and these facts, the Bible is going to give us these other things. You know, just like we deduced from the Psalms this morning. Well. If God. Has an everlasting covenant with his people. And the Psalmist is saying. Oh, how long, oh, Lord, oh, how long will you forget me? Well, there's a principle that's being worked out from the fact of the Godhead when he asked that question. Is it even possible that God would forget His covenant love? Well, no. But the principle that tells us that is His everlasting kindness or His everlasting covenant. But that covenant comes from his very being. You see, we're making connections when you do all that stuff. When we talk about that song, we're giving you systematics and people don't think that's what you're doing, but that's what we're doing as it's worked out. All right, number two, theology consists of known absolutes. Now, notice my little princess there, this is my fault. Other sciences deduce that a beginning to the universe. and its component parts exists. So other sciences, what do they tell us? They're trying to find the beginning to write. And through their sciences, they're going back and they're working it out and what's been one of the latest, greatest understandings of the beginning of all. The universe. Have you, have you all, I'm sure you've read about it somewhere or heard about it for the last few years, not just like last week, but last few years. Well, that's that's been out there. That's that's one of them. Yes. The Big Bang Theory. Deistic evolution is out there, but scientifically, well, now that's been out there, too. OK, there's an expanding universe. Therefore, it had to have a beginning. Now they're taking that idea and saying, well, there's got to be a beginning. So they're trying to work out what that beginning is, just like we are. Theology is a science, it's working out the beginning. Now, the great thing about our science is our science tells us what the beginning is, OK? Well, I say here, so does theology, but the struggle comes in defining that beginning in the questions of how and why. That becomes the struggle. Thirdly, theology consists of facts that are surrounded by some. But few questions. Now. I point this out because people act like Science is the end all the end all, and there's no questions. If I bring forth a scientific book that says this, it can't be questioned. Now, I took. What at the time, I really wasn't sure what it was going to be, but I had to take an elective class one semester, and so I signed up for this class called Science and Poetry. Sound intriguing, I don't know what it was about, thought I'd give it a try. Turned out to be very cool. This is the reason why. The dean of the science department and the dean of the English department taught the class together. Their goal was to teach in the class how scientists and poets use the same, basically the same methods to do their work. The English professor used the poetry of a particular lady to show how when she viewed nature, she was observing it and writing it in poetry, but she was making observations on the nature itself. The science teacher showed that scientists use similar methods by observing things to come up with their hypothesis and theories and so on. And it was the first time I'd actually ever heard A professor of any type of science and Dr. Sun was an absolute genius. I mean, his mind runs with all kind of stuff, but he admitted. That we had to understand the students, science was not perfect. I thought. Because that's not what they get in high school. Most high school teachers and middle school teachers teach science as if it's the end all to end all, depending on the school you go to. That's not what he did here. And furthermore, he made us read a book that showed that there were major problems in scientific investigation, even to the point of fraud. Now, not that we wouldn't know it, but to have somebody actually admit it was amazing. Well, the thing we see about theology is it consists of facts that are surrounded by some questions. There certainly are questions. Now, for us as Christians, those questions are fewer than for non-Christians, but they're still questions. And we're not any different than any other scientist. What we're going through and what we're working through is we're going to see how we can accommodate working with information to deal with what are the facts. Coming to a place of observation, dealing with all of that information, stating what is maybe theory in our mind at one point, and coming to a place that we can say this is a fact. Now, the thing that bothers most scientists about theology is there's a place that they come to in theology where there's some information that can't just simply be accepted by mere rationalism. And why is that? Because of depravity. Depravity doesn't accept rationalism just pure and simple of the Godhead. You're going to investigate facts. You're going to have questions. That's OK. I mean, that's real. I talk with some of you individually and. And there are questions. And when I talk with people individually, there are some people, their questions are, you know, they're there in the milk stages. There's some questions that are there in the meat stage, and there's some questions I put them not in in the meat stage. I put them in the stew stage. Meats, the milk and meats been already added together and they've already mixed the stew and they got a pretty good pot of stew going. But there's this, you know, little mystery vegetable that's floating around, you know, and sometimes you're not sure what that mystery vegetable is. But when you taste the stew, it still tastes good. Yeah, that's good stuff. I don't know what that thing is, but it's good. So you're still going to have some questions. All right. Furthermore, number four, theology consists of information based on speculation, but not mere speculation. There comes a point with some of our questions. That some of those questions can still be a matter of speculation. But they're not a matter of mere speculation. What is the difference between speculation and mere speculation? Speculation consists of some inference from the scripture, but mere speculation possesses no scriptural evidence whatsoever. OK, so you see here what the difference is in speculation, right? Is there any question about that? There's scriptural evidence of something, there's something that the Bible seems to infer or imply. And you'll start to hear that word more in our covenant study. Barry's going to teach a study on baptism. You'll hear this word inference. OK, it's when something is inferred, it's not explicit, it's implicit, it's implied. Well, speculation is when something's implied. But mere speculation. Has no scriptural evidence. If you've got a question that there's absolutely no scriptural evidence for it. It's probably not a good thing to harp on it long. OK. That's just a safeguard. If there's something that it's I mean, it sticks in your mind that you've searched and you work. And there's just absolutely no scriptural evidence to talk one way or other about this question in your mind. It's probably best not to harp on it long, because it'll probably lead you to some heresy and you'll be in trouble, OK? On the other hand, there are places that we see some evidence that the Bible seems to infer or imply this. Well, we can ask questions. Sometimes those questions can be answered. Sometimes, though, we have to live with a reality of mystery. OK, sometimes. All right. Now. On the reverse of that, there are a lot of churches today that want a lot of mystery. Because they don't want to answer any questions about theology. I went to a pastor's luncheon a few years ago, I was invited to a local pastor's luncheon for the association in Butts County and Jasper County or whatever county is next over there. And the first thing that happened when I got to the luncheon is the man that took me, you know, he introduced me to a couple of men and the man that was leading it, the director of missions, he said, he said, he said, now, Brandon, I want you to know. Oh, he said, well, now what church do you pastor? I told him Trinity Reformed Baptist Church. He said, oh, you know, I want you to know now while we're here at this luncheon, we don't we don't talk about doctrine. So don't bring theology discussions up. So what do pastors get together and do if the sole purpose that you set me aside for or let me say this, the main purpose that you've set me aside for is to go and study the word of God. When I get together with other pastors, what am I supposed to do? Now, as much as I love football, you mean the only discussion I'm supposed to have these guys is about Georgia and Auburn. Golf score. Which, that would be a terrible discussion. Let me say it would be one that had a lot of high numbers in it. I didn't go back to that luncheon. What was the point of me going? That was a total waste of time. I was supposed to get together with other men who were pastoring churches and have some discussion about the scripture. At least for some time. If you were there for an hour, maybe 20 minutes, I would think. I mean, you know, but nope. What was he saying? We don't want to be confused with theology. Don't confuse us with the facts. Just the facts, ma'am, just don't confuse us with the facts. OK, so there are churches out there, they just want a lot of mystery, and I don't think that's that's what we all do as Christians, we shouldn't sit around and want a lot of mystery. The Bible answers a lot of questions. OK, but there are there's this, you know, this small percentage. It's probably going to have to be left a mystery sometimes. OK, and we just have to live with that. Some things you just can't always connect. Sometimes it's not even matter that the Bible doesn't answer. Sometimes our minds just don't get it. Now, maybe by God's spirit and illumination as we grow in the Christian life, there's things I admit to you all that passage in 1 John, it's troubled me for years. And there's still debate out there, you can go read other men who will totally disagree with me. They'll say, well, yeah, that might be the case, but. That's OK, but to me, for the first time, first John makes sense in totality. Maybe one day I'll be proven wrong, I don't know, but it makes sense for me now, I see it, OK, I finally understand first John in some sense that makes sense to me in totality. All right, well. You know, there's some mysteries, you know, that you get as you grow in the Lord, you know, but but sometimes there's mystery. Number five, theology consists of matters decided in difference of opinion. Well, that's what we're discussing there. To some men, there will still be a difference of opinion about the sin unto death. There will be a difference of opinion about the passage which I preached on this morning from First John, chapter three. There's other passages, too, but since we've been there already, we can use that as an example now. You know, what does that difference of opinion do? Well, I go back to hermeneutics and very study and very stated something I think is very important. In his study on hermeneutics and biblical interpretation, there's only one meaning to the text. So if there's three possible views of First John, chapter three, verses one through 10. There's only one meaning to the text, there might be several applications, but there's only one meaning. So I had a choice this morning, I could get up and give you three meanings of the text and confuse you further. and tell you nothing, or I could work through the text, all of that which I've understood to the best of my ability and give you what I think the text means. So I chose to do the latter. There still be some difference of opinion over that. Somebody's right and somebody's wrong. Could I be wrong? Yeah, I could be. I hope I'm not, but I could be. But I will say this to you, just because there's difference of opinion doesn't does not change the reality. There is one meaning to the text. So we have to work out the text, and that's what systematic theology is, is working out the text and putting it into this system, establishing these are the facts and here they are. Fact one, fact two, fact three, fact four, fact five, fact six. And so. And sometimes there's a difference of opinion. But we have to live with it. Boys continued, new facts are constantly developing in this science, as in others, which enable us to verify the facts and principles heretofore accepted when true and to modify them when erroneous. Now, I want to stop right there. That is exactly I mean, exactly what scientists do. Remember here, our main topic here is theology as a science. That's exactly what scientists do. New theories present themselves for the better explanation of facts already known and are tested by these and by others subsequently discovered and are received or rejected according to their ascertained correctness. The knowledge of the past is built upon for progression of the future. Well, let's talk about what he means with that. In what way do we treat new pieces of information as theologians? We must verify the facts and principles, accept them when found to be true and modify or deny the information when found to be false. All right, simple statement makes sense, doesn't it? We take the information we have, we accept them when found to be true, we modify or deny the information we found to be false. Then he brings us to another question, how do we practically deal with this new information? Well, look a step further at what Boyce explained, we must recognize that God gave the church or covenant people first his word. So first, we have the word of God that helps us to establish these facts and to verify these facts or these principles. Second, the word God's word now notice what I'm saying here, I'm not saying second, the church was established, I'm saying second, the word of God established the church and to the church is given officers. So you have a body. of believers that was established by the word of God, that body is to be made up of believers. Those believers are to be ones desirous to learn about the scripture. And among those believers, they set aside men as officers to serve the church. Some serve the church in in the diaconate or the service body. Some serve the church as elders, and they are mainly teachers, those who teach the word of God. According to Paul's writing to Timothy and Ephesians four. Furthermore, it says the body discusses this material from within. Where the body needs further help, Paul tells the church of. With gifts received by God from within inside the body to aid in the leading of the church and sound doctrine. So you've got gifted men that are to lead the church. In addition, where this new information fits the facts already known on the theological subject, we place it in proper order. If we've already got one, two, three set up and we know their facts. The church discusses it, the elders have discussed it, we talk about it, we bring it together and we go, well, that information already fits fact number two. So what do we do with that information? We place it in fact, number two. Let's say fact, number two is fact, number one is God is holy. Fact, number two is God is unchanging. Well, we found another piece of information in the scripture that tells us God is unchanging and it's verified by the scripture, and then our experience also goes along with that, but our spirit, our experience is not the overriding factor, is it? What's the overriding factor? Scripture, OK? Some pieces may fit into order and coincide with previous knowledge in such a way that practically there is little change. For example, a piece of papyrus found that further establishes the authority of one of the books of the Bible. We do not change our doctrine when we are further comforted that God's word is infallible and so on. We already have a fact that we're saying God's word is infallible. If we have, as Barry discussed in his study on the scripture, on textual criticism, we've had new pieces of papyri that were found. Those pieces only establish further what we already believe to be true, right? So there's no reason based on that to change what we already believe about the Bible. We already believed it was infallible. Now we just add that to the facts we already have. What you're doing is is is you are starting out with. You're starting out with a biblical foundation. And you've got this block of information. Well, if I have this block of information, there's sometimes I'm adding a block to it. And then I'm going to add another block to it. If my blocks were better straight, it'd be better, wouldn't it? OK. Now, when I've got those blocks, I feel pretty sound because I'm building on top of each other as we go along. But there's sometimes I find out information. It doesn't change this foundation I've already built, nor does it add to it. It just strengthens this block that I've already got here. Does that make sense? Exactly. OK, so that's what we're doing as we work through this theology as science. OK. Theology studied in two main ways. It's freezing in here, isn't it? Keeping you awake, though, isn't it? Yeah, I know it'd be hard after that meal for you all to stay awake. I prayed for the Lord to keep you all awake, and I guess he answered that prayer, didn't he? In a mystical way. Anyway, I'm only kidding. OK. Everyday life reveals the reality that no one exists forever on this earth. Humans are different from animals and that humans possess souls and the human soul controls a conscience that does not allow escape from the reality of death and some type of afterlife. Dag wrote, quote, We need information respecting that unseen world and the right method for preparing for it. And no other knowledge can be so important to us as this. Can it be that we have no means of acquiring it? So, first of all, he's. Bringing something important before us, OK? He's formulating a basic foundation of the importance of. the sources of knowledge we have in discussing systematic theology or in theology. And one of the sources of knowledge is just the everyday human experience of life and death. I mean, think about it now, there are some and, you know, these some of these extreme evolutionists will say, you know, you just take a dirt nap, you just put in the dirt and it's over and done and nothing else happens. And, you know, and that's really evolution to its logical conclusion, because that means there really is no soul. I mean, just going into the dirt and it's over and done, no big deal, that just means there's no soul. But What we've seen the difference between humans and animals is there is a soul. No science has been able to prove it up to this point, anything different about the difference between animals and humans. That's why animals, when they start talking about instinct, that's different than talking about just pure understanding of human nature. Some will try to say when we talk about human nature, we're talking about one's instincts and those instincts are like the instincts of an animal. Now, we do have some things that by nature or by instinct we do, and it seems animalistic in the sense that you see a and explores this. You see an animal, a female animal, take care of one of its offspring. Seems to do that by nature for the most part. OK. And there's some instinction there that we have. The difference, though, is that an instinction by the animal, the animal does that in a normal or proper reaction. To the reality of what is taking place. There was a physical relationship between that female and that male. Something went on in her body. All the science, we don't get into all the biology of it. And then the female starts to realize something's going on. And then one day she lays down and boop. OK, well, she reacts to that in natural instinct to take care of that offspring. All right, but the human mother is a little different. OK. My wife was not just reacting to the fact she was pregnant and preparing for that child to be born. You know, yes, there's fiscal action goes on and they say, well, birds, some birds will do this. I'm not talking about physical preparation. I'm talking the fact that my wife is sitting there thinking about the little child that is going to be having this great emotional intrigue and wonder about this little child and their soul and who they are as a person and what they'll be. Animals don't do that. It ain't happening. The cheetah is not going, I wonder what they'll be as a cheetah. It's all about survival. For the human, though, it's not that way. We always act in reference to not just here and now, Sometimes the past. Yeah. And that's exactly what Dag is getting at, is there is something expected in the human about the future. And if death is a reality, then the future is hopefully something about an afterlife. And that's his point here. We need information respecting that unseen world and the right method for preparing for it. And no other knowledge can be so important to us as this. Can it be that we have no means of acquiring it? He's saying to you that theology is the science by which we can acquire the proper information as how to prepare for and deal with the reality of death and the life thereafter. I didn't put that in my note in your notes, but. There it is. OK. How do we acquire information about dealing with the reality of death and what happens to a person after they die? Answers to these questions arrive from arise from two sources of knowledge, natural revelation. And divine revelation. All right, now, this is some of this will be information most of you have gone over, so you have natural. Revelation. And divine revelation. OK. Dagg formulates three headings under natural revelation. And I name them for you here are moral and religious feelings, the religious and moral feelings of our fellow men and the course of nature itself. The exploration of these three headings reveals the source of knowledge man has from nature or through natural instinct and surrounding. So we're going to end here, all right, before we start to try to explore this whole idea of these. Three headings under natural revelation. This is your overarching thing, and he's going to give you one, two, three, and then we're going to talk about divine revelation. OK, I could go on, but I won't. Well, we've gone forty five minutes. What we will discuss next time. Is natural revelation, the three headings and hopefully get into divine revelation now, that being said, Let me add one thing that you could read supplementally to be helpful, and it's in Dag's Manual Theology. Is on page 26. Chapter one. It's called Book One, chapter one, And it's the appendix to that page is twenty six to. Something forty two. Twenty six to forty two. Excuse me, the appendix to chapter two, thank you, Stephen. OK, pages twenty six. He starts at page 26 and goes and you'll see it in. Now, what that's going to do is that's going to help you on the he's going to discuss for you in this reading. He's going to discuss for you the three headings of natural revelation. And divine revelation, OK, then after divine revelation, he has this appendix which discusses the origins of that divine revelation. OK, now I'm not going to spend a ton of time on that because Barry did a wonderful job in our textual criticism class. But this will be a good little thing for you to read for next time. OK, so today you finish pages one through seven of voice. We went through that. The only thing we'll start to look at next time will be chapter three on reason and revelation. You're writing this down, so you'll know because I know what's going to happen. The next time what we'll discuss will be chapter three, Reason and Revelation. We'll discuss sources of knowledge. OK. So that's page 18, which is chapter two, as Stephen said. Page 18. To 25. And then for supplemental reading, you'll read the appendix, which is 26 to the end of that chapter. OK. Are any any questions or comments about what we learned today or thoughts, whatever? Theology as a science, have you ever thought about it as a science before? Well, let's start thinking about it, the science, your theologians now. So it's a science, OK?