Christian Apologetics - Lesson 21
David Hume's rational arguments against miracles and responses to those arguments.
II. David Hume
A. Two Interpretations
1. The Metaphysical Interpretation
a. A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.
b. Nothing can violate the laws of nature.
c. Metaphysical interpretation would introduce a contradiction.
d. Hume's greatest discovery - analysis of a law of science.
e. No certitude that what has happened in the past will happen in the future.
f. You cannot then teach that miracles are impossible.
2. The Epistemological Interpretation
a. Nobody can prove that miracles are impossible.
b. No human could ever know that a miracle did occur.
c. Hume's argument deals in probabilities.
d. Miracle must be the least likely event possible.
B. Responses to Hume
1. A person may be an eyewitness to a miracle.
2. Some important natural laws would not have been discovered following Hume's skepticism.
C. Hume's Subsidiary Arguments
D. Answer to Hume's Subsidiary Argument
Introduction to Apologetics.
Apologetics involves finding evidence and presenting arguments to defend the Christian faith.
Two prominent worldviews are Christian theism and naturalism.
The law of non-contradiction states that A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.
Explanations and responses to different worldviews.
If God is good and all powerful, then why does evil exist?
Discussion about how the existence of evil is consistent with God's character.
Your noetic structure, presuppositions and view of epistemology are important elements in the formation of your worldview.
Discussion of deductive presuppositionalism vs. inductive presuppositionalism.
Objections to inductive presuppositionalism.
Arguments for and against evidentialism.
Arguments for and against foundationalism.
Discussion of natural theology.
There are valid, sound and cogent arguments for the existence of God, but no coercive proofs.
Discussion of different arguments for God's existence.
One version of the cosmological argument for God's existence emphasizes God as first in time, another emphasizes God as first in importance.
A possible world is a way the real world could have been. Modal logic, propositions, state of affairs and eternal entities are some of the considerations when discussing a possible world.
Something is logically possible if its description does not include a logical contradiction. The existence of the laws of knowledge refute the system of naturalism.
Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge attributed to God by Molina.
Miracles are a dividing line and central to Christianity.
David Hume's rational arguments against miracles and responses to those arguments.
Two miracles central to Christianity are the incarnation and resurrection.
The question of whether or not Jesus is the only savior touches on pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism.
Pluralism is the view that all religions have salvific value.
Inclusivism is the view that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for a person to be saved.
Salvation is totally the work of God and all children who die in infancy are elect of God.
Discussion from a biblical perspective of God's character and attributes.
Open theists believe that God does not have a perfect knowledge of the future.
Divine omnipotence and divine omniscience are two attributes of God.
When contemplating life after death, remember, Jesus has been there and come back. Will you commit your life to him or reject him?
These lectures were given at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida during the fall of 2001.
Dr. Ronald Nash
[00:00:02] Let me go back to David HUME. There are two interpretations of David Hume's famous. Attack upon miracles. There are two interpretations. Now let me come up with descriptive labels of these two interpretations of David HUME. The wrong interpretation. And the right interpretation. Okay. Now. I used to teach the wrong interpretation of David HUME. This is an easy mistake to make. It is so easy that I taught this interpretation of you for 20 years. But of course, I also showed students how you could answer human. Now let's give a name to the right and the wrong interpretation of whom this is going to be the wrong one. Okay, let's call the wrong interpretation of him the metaphysical interpretation, and let's give the right interpretation of HUME the epistemological. Now, I quote quite a bit from HUME, so let's just open our text here to page 227, right below the middle page heading the first paragraph after the the the heading on the middle of the page, a large number of people who ought to know better. And that includes me 20 years ago. See, I can teach this stuff for 20 years and be wrong and then change. Discover the truth, and then teach the truth for 20 years. That's and that helps to be all a large number of people who ought to know better believe that one reason, perhaps the major reason why HUME wrote his essay on miracles was to argue that miracles are impossible. Such people base this opinion on a superficial reading of the following quotation from him. Quote, A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
[00:02:26] And as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws. The proof against miracle from the very nature of the fact is, as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Now, let me quickly summarize the metaphysical argument, and then I'll show you why it cannot be the right understanding of David HUME. This would be step one. It's it's a supposed definition of a miracle. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Period. Now let's think about that. Let me talk about that for a minute. Nature, you're supposed to believe, is governed is controlled by laws. And those laws are well known to every scientist. And to anyone who has studied science. All right. So nature is controlled by laws. These laws of physics function. Get this language. This is still my first point. These laws of nature function as a kind of metaphysical straitjacket. Such that once you identify the laws of nature, nothing can ever break those laws. Nothing can ever violate the laws of nature. However. When a Christian says he believes in miracles, the only thing he can mean by a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But there can be no violations of the laws of nature. Therefore, Christians are barking up the wrong tree. That expression just occurred to me. Christians are. Okay, So there they're chasing a will of the wisp. Okay. They're you know, they're they're they're in there jousting with the master. There can be no violations of laws of nature. You Christians say you believe in miracles and you interpret them that way. You can't win this game. Christians. Let me tell you now. But and you see, a lot of people would just accept that, whether they'd read humor or not.
[00:04:50] Here's why HUME could not have meant this. The metaphysical interpretation of Hume's sentences that we just read. Would introduce an embarrassing contradiction in Hume's philosophy if, when, if in that paragraph, HUME really meant that the laws of science are a metaphysical straitjacket which can never be violated or broken. HUME is contradicting himself. In a in a horrific way. Now I'm going to explain the contradiction in HUME. Here's the contradiction. Hume's greatest discovery. The philosophical discovery of which HUME was most proud. A philosophical theory that that enhanced his reputation more than anything else. Was his analysis of a law of science. If anybody had ever done this before, it would have been a muslim thinker during the Middle Ages. But everybody had forgotten that guy. His name was Al-Ghazali. I look? Nash Every day, every time we meet, you forget the most common names in world history. And all of a sudden, you remember the name Al Ghazali. Yeah, Well, that's what happens when you get to be my age. But forget Al-Ghazali. We're talking about David HUME here. Here's what David HUME did in there and analyzing a lot of science. He said there are two parts to every law of science. We're talking physics, chemistry, biology. There are two parts. Part one of a law of science is what it says about the past. Now, I'm going to give you a timeline here. All right. I'm drawing a horizontal line, and I'm going to draw a vertical line right in the middle in order to distinguish between past, present and future. Isn't that original? Never seen that before. A horizontal line in which we distinguish the past, the present and the future. Okay, Now, what's the past section of any law of science? Answer.
[00:07:22] What experience tells us about the about the past, the unbroken experience of the past. Now, I'm going to use here an example that a lot of teachers use. I have a whiteboard crayon in my hands and I'm going to throw it up. Well, actually, I won't throw it. I'll just hold it up in the air and release it to see what happens. Any anybody want Want to bet what happens there? Okay, well, it dropped. Did you see that? I again, once again, I hold the Koran up in the air and I'm going to release it. It's heavier than air, right? Doggone it fell again. You know what I think? I think every time in the past than an object heavier than air has lost support and been suspended. It has fallen towards the center of the earth. Anybody want to quibble with that? Okay. So that's the unbroken experience of the past. Objects left suspended that are heavier than air always fall towards the center of the earth. What's the second part of a law of science? What it says about the future. And the basic assumption in every law of science about the future is this The future will always be like the past. Will always be like the past. But now. When it comes our confidence that the unbroken record of human experience in the past is that objects heavier than air have always fallen to. The unbroken experience and human testimony from the past. We can understand that. But here's the next question. Where comes your confidence that the future will always be like the past? What you know about the past is based upon unbroken human experience. But pray, tell me, whence comes your confidence about the future? Hume's answer is.
[00:09:49] We don't know. There are no guarantees. Human. David HUME says that's an assumption that is. Get this. Although I'm using somewhat different language than David HUME, that's an act of faith. That's a presupposition, but there's no proof for that. You take that I hear I'm paraphrasing, I'm using language that HUME didn't use, but he could have you take that on faith. Every day in the history of this planet, the sun has risen in the east. That's where it came up this morning. But how do you know the sun is going to come up in the east tomorrow? Strictly speaking, HUME says you don't know that. You can't know that. There is no scientific proof. Maybe that's a little strong. Okay. Strictly speaking, you don't know what will happen tomorrow. You don't know what I remember the first time I encountered this. I still hadn't taken a philosophy course, but I'd gone home to Cleveland. And I. I spent a little time with my best friend, and he still would be my best friend, but he got murdered. But he was going to he was going to a technical university in Cleveland. He was going to it was going to be an aeronautical engineer. And he did become an aeronautical engineer. And then he was murdered while he was just driving along the highway. Sad, sad, sad thing. But he was telling me that he had he had a philosophy professor. What was the name of that school he was at? Well, see, I can remember Al-Ghazali, but I can't remember the name of that university in Cleveland. Maybe it was Ghazali University. I don't know. But he had a actually, he his professor of philosophy was a graduate of Calvin College. But, you know, my friend was giving me this stuff.
[00:11:58] He was saying to me, and there I had no philosophy background. He was saying, Do you really know that this pencil or this crayon or this this thing will fall? And I said, Sure, you dummy. You know, as friends kibitz with friends. And he wanted me to believe that there was a possibility that the next time he released that pen, it would continue to stay suspended in air or maybe, you know, float away. And I said, Joe, what are you been drinking? I mean, you're out of your mind, man, because I was too dumb to understand the sophistication of the point that the philosophy prof at whatever that school was, the sophistication of the point. All right, now, what's the point here? This was the one element of Hume's philosophy that made him most famous, that brought him the most plaudits. And notice it once. If you hold to Hume's analysis of a scientific law, then you cannot consistently teach that miracles are impossible. Because if we have no real knowledge that tomorrow will be like the past, miracles become the most possible thing in the universe. Do you understand? If we cannot prove, if we cannot know, if we do not have certitude that tomorrow not only will be, but must be the way things were yesterday, then all of a sudden miracles are in play. The one philosopher in the history of the world who could never argue that miracles cannot happen was David HUME. The second one was Al-Ghazali. I would make a good name for a baseball player. On the. On the Arizona Diamondbacks would Alcazar is up to bat. You can't. So that's the basis of my saying that the metaphysical interpretation. Of Hume's famous passage can't be right. Okay.
[00:14:11] What then, is the right interpretation of him? What's the right interpretation? Now, remember, we must be faithful to the text. Remember what I said a few weeks ago about reasoning to the best explanation. And here we're reasoning to the best explanation of a literary text or a philosophical text. We must be true to the context. We must be true to the whole system and which the author is writing and so on. The epistemological interpretation goes like this. Whether we like it or not, nobody can prove that miracles are impossible. However, what we can prove is that even if a miracle did occur, no human being could ever know that it was a miracle. It's not a question of metaphysics. It's a question of knowledge. Miracles are possible. But if even if they did occur, no human being could ever know. That's a miracle. It's a question of knowledge. See? Now, let me give you an example from the book. Suppose we're living in Washington, D.C. in 1865. And let us say that we were in Ford's Theater. When Lincoln got shot. And we know that it's a mortal wound. And let us say that as members of the president's entourage, we're allowed to be taken across the street or whatever, wherever the the dying president was taken. And let's say we're in the room. When Lincoln finally painfully breathes his last and after someone checks for a pulse, we hear the words now he belongs to the ages. Were there. Lincoln was dead. Okay. Three days later, I'm walking somewhere in downtown. What was then downtown Washington, D.C.. And I run into one of my colleagues who was also present in the room when Lincoln died, and he rushes up to me and he says.
[00:16:36] Abraham Lincoln is alive. I've seen him. I've heard him. I've touched him. He's alive. What's the first reaction you're going to make? First thing you're going to do is put your hand on his brow to feel for a fever. Right. Next thing you're going to do is smell his breath. Has he been wine, Bibi? Next thing you're going to do is look around for some friend to see if he's, you know. But you remember now, he was always stable. He was not. You know, he's not. Crazy. And he says, I've seen Lincoln, I've seen him. He's alive. But what are you going to do? You're going to find some explanation. Of this testimony. That is consistent with Abraham Lincoln's still being dead, Right? That's what every one of us will do. We cannot accept the literal testimony of this man that Abraham Lincoln, who was dead three days ago, is now living, is speaking, is walking, is eating. So maybe we just say, well, you know, I really can't explain it, but I know that whatever happened, he's still dead. Well, this is Hume's. This is. This is Hume's argument. And it deals with probabilities. It deals with probabilities. Which has the highest, highest probability in this case. That, David, that that Abraham Lincoln has come back from the dead now. That probably has the lowest probability of any option available to us. Why? Because every time. Now, this is a quote almost verbatim from David HUME. Every time in the past, a human being has died. He has stayed dead. Now, if you owned a copy of Hume's essay concerning miracles, I don't know about you, but I'd write in the margin. David, you're begging the question. It is not the case that every time a human being in the past died, they stayed dead.
[00:19:07] There are a number of instances to which credible human beings who are not drunk or crazy or deceived or anything else, that they testify that a dead man had come back to life. So, you know, but there's you. We have the unbroken human testimony that every time a human being dies, he stays dead. Therefore, the probabilities against Abraham Lincoln coming back. Abraham Lincoln coming back to life are almost. Almost zero. One. Well, we could say the probabilities against it happening would be ten to the 85th power or something like that. And it's as close to impossible as it can be. If I saw the Cleveland Browns football game on Sunday, I didn't think I'd be strong enough to talk about it today. And many of you have no idea what happened because you don't care about the Browns. The Browns were ahead by 14 points with less than 2 minutes, actually. Bad example for me as a bad example. I bet you went nuts. I bet you lost your sanctification. Were you watching that horrible world game when that happened? Oh, you watch the highlights. I was there in No. So in a matter of 35 seconds, the Chicago Bears scored three touchdown. That's a miracle. That's a miracle that comes straight from hell. It is. You know, the devil can perform miracles. Did you know that? Probability. Now there is another miracle related to sports. Only once in the history. A baseball. Has a better. Hit a hit a home run. Right handed and in the same inning come up the second time and hit a home run batting left handed. That's close. Based upon the laws of probability, since that's only happened once in billions of baseball swings. That would that would qualify as a miracle.
[00:21:43] Guess which team that player played for. Hmm. But, you know, see, with the Cleveland Indians. Cleveland Indians, that player's name was Carlos by air. Once thought to be a shoo in for the Hall of Fame. Now he's a shoe salesman. That's Carlos by air miracle. Okay. Now, HUME is right, is he not, that the laws of probability are such that whenever you're confronted by two situations, one is the miracle, the other one is disbelief. Even if you say I can't explain it, but I know this sort of thing cannot happen. That you go with the probabilities and thus no one, no one in his right mind would ever say, I know that that miracle happened. Now let me see if I can't find a. A key sentence that I can refer you to. Yeah. The bottom of page 231. I'm quoting from. It's funny. I have so many former friends. You know, it seems like every time I want to quote a friend. I once hired this guy. He taught for me for one year. He was on leave of absence from Wheaton College. C Stephen Evans, former friend. I've got more former friends. Then most people have real friends. Do you understand? Now, Steve Evans writes this quote on the page 231 What is the intrinsic probability of a miracle? According to UME, it is extremely low, as low as one could imagine. The probability of an event, he says, is determined by the frequency with which it has been observed to occur. A miracle, as an exception to the laws of nature must then be the least likely event possible. It is, isn't it? You're standing outside the grave of Lazarus, and Jesus says, Come forth. And you start giggling. Okay. We know that Lazarus is dead because we can smell his dead body.
[00:24:01] He. He's. Okay. He come. Come forth. Can you. Have you ever met? All. And then you start running the other way, like it's like a scene from the Mummy movies where this guy comes out of the grave. But that's the most improbable thing. HUME is, in effect, claiming that miracles are, by definition, so improbable that even the most impressive testimony would merely balance the counter evidence provided by the improbability of the miracle only testimony so strong that its falsehood would itself be a mere would be more miraculous than the alleged miracle would convince HUME of the miracle. Well read that stuff effectively. So are there any responses to Hume's major argument? Well, here are four of them that I found in the literature. Okay. That stuff from Steve Evans appears in his book, Philosophy of Religion, published by InterVarsity Press. There are four answers to your name. What would be the first answer? This is page 232. Hume's argument assumes that any person who comes to believe in a miracle does so on the basis of testimony. Now, HUME does do that, but that's a that's that weakens his argument because it ignores the possibility that a person's belief in a miracle might occur, not because he's accepted the testimony of somebody else, but because he himself has been there and seen it. Okay. He himself has been there and seen it. Forgive this little personal testimony. And it is a personal testimony. When I was going to school at the first school I attended in upstate New York, I was pastoring a little church about 90 miles away through, and I had to drive through some pretty rough country. And I was driving, I think, then a 1936 Chrysler. Boy, I wish I still had that car, man.
[00:26:11] I could sell that car and retire. Oh, a 1936 Chrysler. I had to drive back one night along the Susquehanna River between Elmira, New York, and, well, Waverly, New York, and right along the river. And there had been heavy rain and the land the ground office off of the road was very soft and so on. And somehow in the heavy fog, I got off the pavement and I, I couldn't see a thing. But I knew that if I stopped the car, I would be stuck. And this was about 11:00 at night. I would be stuck in the mud until way past daylight. And so I just kept gunning the motor. But what I didn't realize is that in the heavy fog, I was heading straight for a cliff and straight towards the Susquehanna River. And by all that should have been, I should have died that night because there I was, dumb. 19 year old kid. I. I know. And so help me. This happened all of a sudden. The wheel was taken out of my control and turned to the left. I can still feel it. There I am. Can't see a thing. And the wheel just turned to the left. And before I knew it, I was back on the road. Now, every time I think about that event, I fancy that I heard a voice. I really didn't. But I fancy I heard a voice that said, Dummy, let me drive for a little while, okay? And it wasn't until I was back on the road that it hit me that what happened. Right now, you don't have to believe this. But I was there. This was your. I'm giving you the testimony. You can think whatever you want about the testimony, but I witness this thing, man.
[00:28:25] No reason in the world for that wielded. I mean, it wasn't just the stone that we all jerked like this. Okay? And boom, all of a sudden, I'm on the road. So. HUME He he says people believe in miracles based upon the testimony of testimony of other people. Now, sometimes we see these things for ourselves. The disciples saw the resurrected Christ for themselves. Hume's argument also ignores the many times when direct testimony turns out to have been direct testimony against what had been the uniform experience of a people turns out to have been correct. Now, boy, this is great stuff. This appears in the writing of a British philosopher named C.D. Broad. Hey, I would be interested in a research paper on this. This is what puzzles me, said Broad in this journal article, gives one of the greatest arguments I can imagine against David HUME and for the miracle of the resurrection. And as far as I know, C.D. Broad was not a believer. He was not a believer. I you know, I've read a little bit about the guy. Now, see, C.D. Broad would have lived close to 100 years ago. But listen to this quotation. Top of page 233. Clearly, many propositions have been accounted laws of nature because of an invariable experience. In their favor. Then exceptions have been observed. And finally these propositions have ceased to be regarded as laws of nature. Now, let me repeat that. The people believed that such and such was in all nature. Everybody's experience testified to that. And then there were count contrary testimonies, and eventually the law was overruled. The law was kicked out. People said, that's no longer a law of science. Okay. But the first reported exception, that is the first time somebody stood up and said, I have just had an experience that's contrary to that law of science.
[00:30:32] That first reported exception was to anyone who had not personally observed it in precisely the same position as the story of a miracle. If David HUME be right, those then to whom the first exception was reported ought to have rejected it. If they were humans, they could have said no. All human experience prior to this is against that. So we can't accept your testimony, your experience. And they should have gone on believing in the alleged law of nature. Yet if the report of the first exception makes no difference to their belief in the law, their state of belief will be precisely the same when a second exception is reported as it was on the first occasion. So here's Person A My experience is different than that. Get out of here. Two years later. My experience is different to that one. Get out of here. See? Now let's keep reading. Hence, if the first report ought to make no difference to their belief in the law, neither on the second. So it would seem on Hume's theory that if up to a certain time I and everyone else have always observed a to be followed by B, then no amount of testimony from the most trustworthy persons that they have observed. A not followed by B ought to have the least effect on my belief in the law. And here's the the punch line. If scientists had actually proceeded in David Hume's way, some of the most important natural laws would never have been discovered. So instead of him being on the side of science, his theorizing turns out to have been an enemy of scientific discovery. Boy, that's that's potent stuff. Mr. Broad. Clearly Broad is saying that the advancement of science itself would be hindered by a universal skepticism toward alleged counter instances of what are regarded as the laws of science through.
[00:32:32] There's a good philosopher at work. But still I'm puzzled. Oh, then you can go on and read part three for yourself. And here again, here's CD Broad Defending the Resurrection. And you can read that for yourself. And also the bads, the bad theory of statistical probability that David HUME uses. And you can you can read that for yourself. Now I'm only going to make one other point from Chapter 16, and that is this. HUME has, in addition to the big argument, which I have just said, is not this, but this the big argument. He also has four subsidiary arguments. You know, he's building a case or they came to his mind late and so on. And you can read the first three and read the refutations for yourself. It's the fourth one that I think occurs to a lot of students like you. And so let's look at it. David's fourth subsidiary argument is this He points to the fact that competing religions attempt to support the truth of their faith by appealing to their own miracles. Yeah, you Christians, you have your miracles. But you know, we Moslems, we have our miracles. We. Well, Jewish people don't have their miracles, I guess, you know. But we Muslims do or we Buddhists, we have our miracles or we Hindus, we have our miracles. Now, there's a good point here. How can a Christian be consistent to his faith? And say my miracles prove the truth of Christianity. But the miracles of the Hindu or the Buddhist or the Muslim don't prove the truth of Islam or these other religions. Now, that's a good argument from David HUME. Okay. Christians claim that certain miracles prove the truth of their religion, but other religions have their own miracles that supposedly prove the truth of these other faiths.
[00:34:48] But two contradictory religions cannot both be true. Hence the miracles of religion. A if actual would count against the actuality of the other religions, miracles and against the truth of other religions. Have any of you are ever had this thrown in your face? Well, maybe you're not witnessing as much as you should. You're shaking your head. Yes. Sure. And you know who it comes from? It comes from people who probably don't know diddly squat about these other religions. I don't know what diddly squat means. I'm afraid some day it's going to turn out to be an expression that Christians shouldn't use. But shucks, my wife uses it all the time and she's a Christian, so I can't too. All right. Now, here's the answer. And it's this answer has been made by a number of pretty good thinkers. For example, on the bottom, on page 238, there's an answer from a Catholic philosopher named Richard Purtill. He points out that. Well, let me just read. Patel. What would threaten the argument for miracles, for the truth of Christianity would be genuine miracles worked in opposition to Christian claims or in support of incompatible claims. If, for instance, a muslim holy man raised a man from the dead in order to persuade Christians that Muhammad's revelation had superseded that of Christ. This would be a case of genuine incompatibility. However, so far from any case of this kind being established, it is hard to show that any case of this kind has ever been claimed. That is in no case where there are allegedly incompatible miracles. Do the miracles of the non-Christian establish any essential elements of a competing faith? The mirror. The alleged miracles that are found in a Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist context are, quote, miracles in which.
[00:36:55] A person is healed. Maybe a child is healed from a terminal disease. And I and what I'm here to tell you is if ever anybody confronts you with that kind of an example, don't dismiss the non-Christian miracle too casually. Because if you dismiss the non-Christian miracle too casually by saying, well, that violates the laws of science or something like don't don't become a David HUME yourself. Okay, here's what you should say. Instead of saying, I reject your miracle, say look. Christians believe in an all loving, merciful God. And the more I don't deny the miracle that you just describe, because at the most, assuming that the miracle that you've described happened. What it points to is the loving concern that God, the Christian God has for all people. Now this. And nothing I'm saying here contradicts the need of people for salvation and the need of people to believe in Jesus Christ. I'm simply saying that's an example in which the Christian God had mercy on this little baby. And brought him back to health. Because our God is a God of love, not a God of fear. So because there's no logical incompatibility between that non-Christian miracle and the essential, miraculous truths of the Christian faith, we don't have to, you know, we just point out we can try and use this appeal to a non-Christian miracle as a way of fostering people's interest and confidence in the Christian God. Oh, well, keep reading on that stuff. There's also a nice similar quote from Richard Swinburne. And what these two quotes show is that Christian apologists have done their work here. They put their act together. And what looks like a really powerful objection from David HUME turns out to be nothing at all.
[00:39:12] Thank you for listening to this lecture. Brought to you by biblical training, dawg. Your prayers and financial support enable us to provide a biblical and theological education that all people around the world can access. Blessings. As you continue to study and live out your faith and as you grow in your relationship with the Lord.