would be along the lines of, science has disproven God, or if they don't want to state it that strongly, science has made belief in God unnecessary and irrelevant. Those particularly who follow the New Atheists, men like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Those who would read these guys or watch their clips on YouTube will often use a form of this argument, that science has disproven God. And the basic argument is this. Due to science, events that were previously attributed to Him can now be understood as the results of ordinary processes of nature. And I've given some examples here. Belief in divine creation has been replaced by an understanding of evolution. or perhaps sickness that people once believed was God's judgment is now seen to be the result of harmful bacteria and there's this kind of an argument and so the idea then that is promoted is that that science has helped us move past this basic primitive idea of a belief in God let me just read to you this book called a shot of faith to the head, but the author, whose name is Mitch Stokes, says this, Christopher Hitchens identified precisely when God became superfluous. The auspicious moment occurred a century after Newton, when Napoleon Bonaparte met with Pierre-Simon Laplace, a French mathematician and physicist. Laplace presented the emperor with a copy of his monumental Celestial Mechanics, a work in which he spread Newton's physics further through the solar system. It had taken 26 years for Laplace to complete his enormous five-volume work. As Napoleon received it, he remarked to his honored guest, Major, tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe and have never even mentioned its creator. Laplace coolly replied, I have no need of this hypothesis. And Hitchens presents his own take on this and says, and neither do we. The idea is we have no longer any need for God because science has brought us past this kind of a primitive belief. How do we deal with someone that would make this kind of claim? Even as I have pointed out some strategies for discussing faith and discussing God's existence with this kind of an atheist or this kind of an unbeliever, I want you to understand that you may not make it through all of these things. And these are not the only things that you can say to an unbeliever. These are simply some strategies. Remember that as we approach this, one of our main goals is we want to be subversive. We want to be undermining their belief system. We want to move them to a place where they're questioning their own beliefs. And so this is why I take the approach that I do. On top of that, the kind of approach that I would use does not require you to be an expert in science. Sometimes you see debates or you hear people discussing things in a public forum, atheists versus Christian, and the Christian has all of these charts and these quotations from famous scientists and all of this data. The reality is that at ground level, most of us don't have that sort of experience. If you have it, that's wonderful. It could be used as a tool by God, but most people don't. And so this is why I suggest the strategy that I have. Now, you may find it strange, where do I go first? Look number one, point to scripture. Now, some of you might be saying, well, the person's an atheist. Why would I go to scripture first? They don't believe the Bible. Why would I go there first? And that's a very good question. And it seems counterintuitive. Let me give you some reasons why I go first to scripture. And I don't have these written down. So maybe we can, if you want to take notes on them, we can discuss them a little bit later. But here's why I go there first. Why I don't think it's a waste of breath. First and foremost, it is God's word. It's God's word. Now, in light of the fact that it's God's word, I don't know how much time I'm gonna have to speak to that person. If I'm gonna talk to a person and I don't know how much time I have to speak to them, I'd rather leave them with God's words than mine. So let's say I'm talking to an atheist, someone that claims to be an atheist, and I only have two minutes to talk with them. I'd rather start out by giving them God's word than mine, especially in light of the fact that I may not be, I don't know how much time I'll have to talk with them. Let me kind of build on that if I can. So it is God's word, all right? I want to leave them with God's Word before I leave them with mine. Second, it is the foundation of truth for a Christian. It is the foundation of truth for a Christian. Third, there's no use hiding my presuppositions. We've talked a little bit about this before. There's no use in hiding the fact that I'm a Christian and that I believe the Bible. We all have our presuppositions. As we approach any argument, any discussion, we might as well just admit it right off the bat. And then fourth, it is God's word that is truly powerful. It's God's word that's truly powerful. I want to look at a few verses, even before we go any further, just to reinforce this once again in our minds. So it's God's word that's truly powerful. Psalm 19, verses 7 to 9. Oh, it's the foundation of truth for Christians. So I'm a Christian, so it's the foundation of truth for us. So Psalm 19 verses 7 to 9. Anyone have that one for us? 7 to 9? Yeah. The law of the Lord is perfect. converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the sample. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the right. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. Now we recognize this as different synonyms, different words for the Word of God. But notice what the Word of God is able to accomplish. The law of the Lord is able to convert the soul. The law of the Lord is able to make wise the simple. The commandment of the Lord is able to enlighten the eyes. And so, I bring us to this passage to remind us that the power is in God's Word. Ultimately, that's where the power lies. Now, that does not mean I'm not going to say anything else. But everything else that I have to say serves the Scripture. I don't have to build up this edifice and then the Bible can rest on top of that foundation. Everything else that I have to say rests on the foundation of God's truth. So that's where I go. And that's why I go there first. I go to the Word of God. Now where would you go in the Word of God? it's not hard to find passages in scripture that point to the reality of God. I mean, page one, Genesis 1.1, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Even right here in Psalm 19, Psalm 19, verses one through four, says the heavens declare the glory of God. The firmament shows his handiwork. Day unto day utter speech, Night into night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." And basically here, God says that the knowledge of his glory is revealed in nature, and nature speaks in such a way that the whole world sees the glory of God. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth. Now, a common tactic that I have used, others have probably used it more than me, when you go to the Word of God, invariably someone who claims to be an atheist will say, well, I don't believe that. I don't agree with that. And it's what some people call the two-move checkmate. Bring them to the Word of God. They say, I don't believe the Word of God. I don't believe that's true. You don't believe the Bible's true? No, I don't believe the Bible's true. How do you get truth in a world without God? And all of a sudden there, you're bringing it to their territory. Now that's not something that is just for the science objection. It's really something that can be used for any objection. It's something that puts the ball in their court. You don't believe the Bible's true. How do you get truth in a world without God? And you're taking it to their side of the court. But let's go from this. It's good for us to know the scripture, including the scripture we looked at last week, Romans chapter 1, verses 18 to 20, which talks about how God reveals himself in nature, and that revelation leaves people without excuse. But let's go beyond that now and hopefully look at some tactics that may be subversive to try to undermine their belief system and point them back to the scripture where we started. So the first thing that I, after we've looked at the scripture, or quoted the scripture, it's good to have these committed to memory, so you don't have to, not many atheists are all that willing to stand around while you, ah, was that Psalm 19 or Psalm 119? Oh, hang on a second, let me look it up in the concordance, right? So it's good to have these things memorized. But moving from there, in the service of scripture, it's good for you to be able to point to the limits of science as a discipline. That is, science as a discipline has limits. What I did was I, this definition here, I typed in science definition in Google, and this is the first definition that came up. So that's just what I put down here. Now look at what it says, science, So this is not a Christian that's made up this definition, this is just Google. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior, notice this, of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Notice again the physical and natural world. Science as a discipline is about observing and experimenting with the natural world. I've placed some questions down that, in light of this, you can ask the atheist who brings up this kind of objection. For example, science can say what things are like today, but how can it answer the ultimate why? How is science as a discipline able to give us the answer to why things are the way they are? It might be able to tell us the way things are right now, but can it tell us why things are the way they are? Another question, how can science pronounce an immaterial God non-existent? In other words, if science deals with the material, physical world, and it's about observing and experimenting in that world, how can it then go on to say God, who is a spirit, does not exist? We're going to, in a way, circle back to that one later. I have a little bit more here. This is kind of a number of questions that bundle into one here. How can science give an accounting for the laws of science? How can science give an accounting for the laws of science? Come back to that in just a second. Let me push this one a little bit further. How can science give us an accounting for its own existence? Is there not more to reality than physical material things? For example, love, hate, joy, those aren't physical things. We may express them physically, but they themselves are not physical things. What about math and logic? Are math and logic physical things? They're not. They're immaterial. But where would science be without math and logic? So it's interesting that science says, no, no, no. We don't need God. We haven't found any evidence for God. He's not there. We've never seen him. But they'll accept logic and math. In other words, in order to make their system work, they'll accept one non-material thing but not another. By what standard do they get the right to pick and choose? These are questions, and again, remember, questions can have an effect on someone to get them to think through their own worldview. This is what I've expressed, but why do I believe what I believe? And so, one more question you can ask is, doesn't science make use of non-material things in their attempt to explain material things? So science will use logic and math in their attempt to explain the material world. But ultimately, in a scientific world, in the science as a discipline, it cannot give an accounting for those things. It cannot say why those things exist. It simply assumes them and moves forward. It assumes them, uses them, and moves forward. But it's good for us to point out, there are limits to science as a discipline. If science as a discipline is focused on finding out things about the material world, God is a spirit. And if you want to dismiss things that are non-material, you have, in effect, undercut your own discipline, your own science. Because all of a sudden, logic and math, you have to have those to have science as a discipline. But how can you give an accounting for that? As a Christian, I can. And I want to remind them that. As a Christian, I can give an accounting for this. As a Christian, I believe that there is a God. who is the foundation of truth and logic, which would include math. He is the foundation of truth. And the God who is a God of truth has created this world. He created this world perfect. He created men upright. But in the Christian worldview, man sinned, men fell. The creation was subjected to futility because of that fall. Mankind, who was created in the image of God, became a shattered mirror, which sometimes reflects God's glory, and sometimes reflects a distorted image. Mankind fell into sin. I can explain. I can give an accounting for these things in the Christian worldview. But I want to put the ball in their court and say, how do you give an accounting for this? All right? So let's move on. And I do want to leave some time as well toward the end here for us to discuss this and questions and all that as well. So point to the limits of science as a discipline. Second, point to the limits of scientists. So sometimes when they say science has disproved this, one of the things that they'll say is that, well, the majority of scientists don't believe in God. Or they'll make a sweeping statement like, scientists don't believe in God, we don't need him, we haven't found him, whatever else they want to use to. It's always good to ask, which scientists? Which scientists? Do you automatically exclude scientists who believe in God simply because they don't fit your worldview? Because there are many scientists who do believe in God. and believe in the triune God of scripture. So, which scientists are we talking about? Now, if they say, well, the majority, because that's where I want to go first. Scientists know today that there is no God. Okay, which scientists say that? Well, and then I'll point to the fact that there are Christian scientists. And they might say, well, the majority of scientists. Okay, let's go there. And that's where we go next. If truth is determined by a majority opinion of a scientist, God would have existed until only very recently. Give an accounting for this. I mean, if we determine truth by counting heads, then God existed until only very recently, because that's when the majority tide turned. How do you give an accounting for that? Again, I want to put the ball in their court, okay? Or, if truth is determined by the majority of scientists, then many strange views have been true throughout history. If we want to count heads and say, well, the majority of scientists believe this, so it's true. Okay, so alchemy was true in the Middle Ages? So racism was true? Because that was very much a scientific belief. they actually had very wicked racist views and they'd measure people and according to their ideas of what measures, you know, were the optimum measurements, they concluded, well, you know, the white people, they're at the top of the race, you know, and these other people, they're closer down, closer down, they haven't really evolved into being fully human. That was very scientific. In fact, some people don't know this, but the origin of species The full title of that was something along the lines of, The Origin of Species for the Propagation of Favored or Special Races. Because, truth be told, Darwin believed that the lighter your shade, the less melanin you had in your skin, as people would discover later, the lighter your shade, the further removed you were from the ape. Whereas the darker you were, the closer you were. He actually believed that. That's Darwinist, racist beginnings. So, you know, racism is true. Astrology is true. I mean, there's all kinds of things that a majority of scientists have held throughout the years. We have to point them to a biblical view of truth. A biblical view of truth is truth is truth no matter whether anybody believes it. Truth is true no matter whether Christians are hypocrites or not. Truth is truth no matter whether Christians are holy or not. Truth is truth. Truth is what reality is. Truth is what God knows. It's also good to remind the atheists, that a scientist's presuppositions are going to influence their interpretation of data, particularly when it comes to interpretations that are about non-material things. Mitch Stokes says in his book, the things over which scientists fight are usually explanations, not the observations themselves. So scientists, they observe something, they do their experiment. The data that they get from their experiment, they're not usually fighting over. They're seeing, they're weighing things, they're measuring wavelengths of things, and they come to the same understanding of what the data is. But then when it comes to interpreting it, that's when scientists start to squabble among each other. And when it comes to the big questions of life, ultimate questions of life, Our presuppositions are going to carry the day. They really are. If you enter into a discussion with someone believing that ghosts are everywhere, it won't matter how many reasons they give you why ghosts aren't real. because you've gone into it and your heart commitment is to something. Usually people are not swayed by arguments. Usually, not always, usually. It's not to say that we don't use them, but it's especially though, especially when it comes to spiritual things. When it comes to spiritual things, the scripture talks about how people have their understanding darkened. There's a commitment people have to their own autonomy. There's a commitment that people have in their unsafe condition to what Isaiah would call our own way. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. And we're committed to that own way. Until grace rescues us, we're going to go our own way. Now, our own way may look different. Our own way might be the, you know, shake your fist in the face of God atheism of a guy like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Or it might be just the, I'll live my life for pleasure and for the accumulation of wealth and give no thought for God. or the person who claims to believe in God, but ultimately does not live their life according to his law and lives as though there's no judgment or reward. Unbelief can take all kinds of different manifestations, but we are committed to our own way. And when we're committed to our own way and our understanding is darkened, we are going to hold on to that own way. very tightly. Some of you might have seen this. In September, there were some whale bones that were found. Let me read you part of an article here. The nearly intact fossil, and of course you'll guess that this is not a Christian publication, the nearly intact fossil of a four million year old whale has been unearthed at a construction site in Santa Cruz County. Discovered well above sea level, the bones made their way to the mountains through the shifting of tectonic plates. Now, just think about this for a moment here, okay? There's whale, and it's a fully, you read further in this, it is almost completely intact. You can find pictures of this on the internet. It's an almost completely intact skeleton of a whale in the mountains. and their explanation is it got there through the shifting of tectonic plates the shifting of tectonic plates basically we're talking about the movement of the earth's crust the sort of activity that that also results in earthquakes not always as violent as that but generally speaking it's a very violent you have massive amounts of energy as huge shelves of rock are being and somehow somehow This thing was on the bottom of the ocean. Tectonic plate activity brought this thing all the way up into the mountains fully intact. Now, a Christian looks at that and is like, oh, okay, we can expect that, because there was a worldwide flood, and okay, makes sense. But the atheist looks at this and says, hmm, it's got to fit in with my evolutionary presuppositions, so let me explain it this way. And away they go. And that's how they explain it. it also be got my in my ear my curiosity peak so i i looked around at some other articles that talked about whale bones in mountains and i found one that was from back in nineteen eighty seven and it's and it's funny because uh... in this one they talk about how uh... how It probably isn't tectonic activity that brings these fossils up because there wouldn't be anything left over after tectonic activity because tectonic activity is so violent and there's so much energy being moved around. So what they do is they have another theory about gradual movement and how there was water covering things and how mountains gradually rose up, gently enough, of course, as to not disturb the bones, but gently were pushed up into their present state. And this one had to do with one in South America. But all of that to say, our presuppositions color the interpretation of the data. And so an unbeliever is going to find an explanation for it that is not consistent with reality. Now, can the Christian worldview explain this? Yeah. Like I just mentioned, Christian worldview talks about big old flood, covered the whole earth. And anyways, that second article I was telling you about, they actually talk about how, well, this whole area was once covered by water. but then the mountains gradually rose. Okay, well, it was all covered by water, but the whole thing about mountains gradually rising so as to keep all these fossils intact, no, it doesn't, no pun intended, hold water. But again, it is our presuppositions that are gonna color and really modify in our mind our interpretation of data. Let me move on here. I think going beyond science and scientists, it's good to then take on their worldview, if you have the time. Obviously, you may not have the time to go through all of this sort of thing. And again, these are not the only things that you can say to an atheist. The operating assumption of most people who engage in the discipline of science today, and really at this point now the majority of scientists, would be an evolutionary materialistic worldview. That the world is made of matter, we came here as a result of time, acting on random events, and we ultimately are here as a result of an accident. Boom happened, and in the process of time, here we are. So I think it's good then, once you've sort of pointed out the limitations of science, hey, your presuppositions are gonna influence the way you look at the data to then go to those presuppositions. to then try to undermine, if you would, to cast down those arguments, undermining that worldview. So, point to the limits of a purely materialistic evolutionary worldview. And here is one of the ways you can do this. You can show that it rarely will consistently answer the four questions of existence. These are not original to me. I've used them in various forms. This particular formulation of them was found in a book called Smooth Stones. But, four questions of existence. The question of origin. Where did I come from? The evolutionary materialistic scientists will say we came here as a result of random mutations acting in time. We're the result of an accident. Ultimately, that's the number one answer, okay? We're here as a result of an accident. Then the next question, destiny, where am I going? We're going to the grave. That's it. For the evolutionary materialistic scientists, you're going to the grave. That's the end. There's no life after death. There's no immaterial soul that lives forever. So you've come from an accident, and you're going nowhere. That's the way the first two are answered. Now here's where things start to disconnect. Because you don't really want to live that out consistently, do you? I mean, you've come from nowhere, you're going nowhere. If they're going to be consistent, purpose, why am I here? If you come from nowhere, you're going nowhere. Where would purpose come from? And so most people will say, you determine your own purpose. or they'll arbitrarily say, okay, you might be talking to someone who's an atheist and you say, what is your purpose for being here? Well, my purpose is to try to make sure the world is not fooled anymore by you stupid Christians. Or something goofy like that. Or my purpose is pleasure. Or my purpose is intellectual pursuit. Well, at that point, why? What in an existence that comes from nothing, or an accident rather, and is going nowhere, how then do you all of a sudden arbitrarily put purpose into that? By the way, philosophers of the past recognized that. There was one philosopher I talked about how we live with a tension, a dialectic tension. And what dialectic tension meant, we live between two poles. We come from nowhere, we're going nowhere. But take heart. You have to have this existential courage. You have to have the courage to face the reality. You've come from nowhere, you're going nowhere, your life is pointless. Face it, determine your own reality, and go for it. Well, if I've come from nowhere and I'm going nowhere, there ultimately is no purpose. Even though someone might give you one, it's good to push that, okay? Well, you just told me you come from nowhere, you're going nowhere, why, what's up with this purpose? And then the final one, and this is huge, morality, how should I live? So your purpose in life as far as how should you live. If you've come from nowhere, you're going nowhere. If we today, where we're at, we're just the result of evolution, mutations happening over time that have brought us to where we're at. Random. How do you ascribe right and wrong to randomness? You know, you think about randomness today. There's nothing much more random in my mind than opening up a shaken bottle of pop. Now, I know that scientists would tell me that there's probably some laws that would govern that, which again would point to the lawgiver, but that's another matter. But let's say we shake up a bottle of Coke, and then we shake up a bottle of Pepsi, and then we put them here on the table. On the count of three, we open them up. How many of us are going to say amen? None of us. That's just a random activity. There's no morality involved. There's no truth. There's no sinfulness and righteousness involved. And essentially, the atheistic worldview is always scrambling to give an accounting for its morality. Now, I say that It rarely will consistently answer the four questions. There are some who will. There are some who will consistently answer. We've come from nowhere. We're going nowhere. There's no purpose in life. Live whatever you want. There are some who will say that. But I've yet to meet someone who actually will consistently live it. No doubt we'll come back to this. I mentioned this before. The conference questions, Hersey's scroll is there, and the question is asked, the whole panel, my roommate doesn't believe in right and wrong and the existence of sin. How can I prove to him the existence of right and wrong and sin? And this doctorate of theology leans back in his chair, says, steal his wallet. See, the people that will say, well, there is no right and wrong, all of a sudden, when you take their stuff, they don't believe that so strongly anymore. All of a sudden, their worldview crumbles, practically speaking. They might say, there's no such thing as right and wrong, if they're trying to be consistent with these answers, but very, very few people live it. And the ones who live it are the ones we have to lock up and put away. in hospitals for criminally insane people. So the limits of a purely materialistic evolutionary worldview, it rarely will consistently answer the four questions of existence. And even when it does answer them with consistency within them, it won't live in consistency. It won't live consistent with the answers that are given. Next, and this is where we're kind of circling back to this one. A purely materialistic evolutionary worldview cannot give an accounting for non-material realities, such as natural order. Okay, so science is all we need to explain. How do you get order in nature from an accident? Where would that even come from? There's actually one evolutionist, one scientist, who has actually been forthright enough to say, well, the chances of evolution happening is roughly about the same chance as an explosion in a junkyard bringing about a fully assembled and functional Boeing 747. He's at least admitted it. You don't get order from chaos. And so, how do you give an accounting for natural order? How do you give an accounting for love? If we're here, again, as a result of randomness, an accident, and then randomness until this point, mutations, we're basically a collection of atoms banging around the temperature that they're colliding with each other right now. That's all that explains us. Where do you get love from? How do you account for kindness and joy? It's one that I've mentioned before. If we're the result of an accident, when did the accident start making sense? And why do we have the Special Olympics? Where does order come from? in an accident, and why should we have kindness? Why should we cheer on for the Special Olympics? By the way, if you read the writings of Darwin, Darwin actually did believe that there was a place for getting rid of the weak. Which really, purely evolutionary worldview, you know, you want to take care of your own. If there's a part of your race that would drag it down, would suck resources away from it, get rid of them. so that the strongest and the best can continue on. Which then leads us to this last thing. It leaves one hopeless and heartless if followed consistently. It leaves you hopeless because you've come from nowhere and you're going nowhere, and there really isn't a point to your existence. It leaves you heartless because if you're gonna follow this thing out, Who's to say that Stalin is wrong? Who's to say that Hitler is wrong? Who's to say that you're wrong if you want to murder your neighbor for making too much noise late at night? That worldview cannot give an accounting for right and wrong. if you're if you're gonna follow that worldview remember last week i quoted uh... lennon's john lennon's imagine not lennon as in the communist john lennon imagine some of you carnal wretches know the words to that song but you notice that you know he talks about imagine this world where there's no heaven above no hell beneath that's pretty scary All of a sudden then there's no morality, there's no right and wrong when it comes to Auschwitz. And by the way, there's a great irony about that because he also talks about in that song, you know, about basically if no one was rich, we just gave everything to everybody else. But when he died, he was worth $800 million. So, you know, I didn't live that one out very consistently. So let me then bring us back here. What if I have the chance? I want to bring them back to urge them, point them back to God and their need to repent before the God they know exists. Now you say, wait a minute, they're atheists. How is it that they know God exists? As I mentioned before last week, on some level, they know God exists. They may bury that truth, they may twist that truth, they may lie to themselves, they may become delusional, but on some level, they cannot get away from the truth that God is, that God exists. That truth is all around them. And by the way, I would even say that truth, in a sense, is written on their hearts. God has put eternity in their hearts. And so, yes, they may run as far and fast away from God as they can. They may lie to everyone else and themselves. They may become delusional, but on some level, they know God exists. That's the testimony of scripture. That which may be known of God is evident. God has shown it to them. And so I want to urge them back to repent before God, and then this, and I'm not going there in my notes here, but this then gives me an opportunity to go to the gospel. There's a sense in which all of these other things are really pre-gospel. I'm not pointing them to the cross in any of this other material that I've said, but there's a sense in which I'm trying to cast down any imagination, any worldview that's going to exalt itself against the knowledge of Christ. I'm trying to knock that down, knock those walls down so they can more clearly see the truth of the gospel. Ultimately, this is a work that the Holy Spirit has to do. It is. And can I say one more thing here before we discuss together? Evangelizing someone who has gotten to the point where they're running away from God and denying God's existence is usually not a one and done thing. The only professing atheist or someone coming from an atheistic background that I've ever had opportunity to have a hand in helping them see the truth and come to Christ is a young lady that was a part of our church plant downtown. And she was with us for over a year. And we were just, you know, thankfully she kept coming out. And we were going through Genesis of all things. You might think, oh, Romans is what's gonna convert it. Atheists, but we're going through Genesis. And it was just us loving her, her hearing the truth consistently, her seeing the truth within the context of the whole worldview, how the truth intersects with everything. And it was a work of the spirit that she trusted Christ after she had left and gone back to France. So, I mean, none of us could really take the credit and say, ah, yeah, it was my thing. Because, you know, we all had a hand in helping her see the truth. But it was when she got back to France that she sent an email and said, I've trusted Christ. And that reminds us that, and I think that's probably true of so many people today, that usually people are not going to come to Christ the first time that you speak to them of truth, or even if you get so far as the gospel. Did anybody in here trust Christ the first time they ever heard the gospel? I have met some people that have, I didn't. And if we didn't trust Christ the first time we heard the gospel. Remember that when you talk to other people. And do your best not to get frustrated with them. Because we have a tendency, right? We live in this instant age. We hit a button and whatever we want to watch is on TV. We go through the drive-thru and two minutes later it's all there in a bag for us. And we want it all to happen like that. It doesn't always happen that way. Conversion happens in a moment. But God will sometimes set the table, so to speak. And it'll sometimes be a long haul. A person's justification, their conversion, that happens in a moment. But sometimes there's that building activity that brings you to that point. And so don't get frustrated, okay? Speak the truth, right? But don't get frustrated if they don't just turn to Christ, you know, three seconds after you dash down the Romans road, right? All right. Let me,