Open Theism & Dr. Richard Rice, Pt. 3

Greetings to the brightest audience in the country, and welcome to Bob Enyart Live. Today, we're going back to a 2020 interview. This is Bob Enyart with Dr. Richard Rice.
Dr. Richard Rice, he's the person who coined the term open theism, right? Open theism is an idea that goes really far back, but open theism, those two words being added together, that only happened relatively recently, and that was coined by Dr. Richard Rice. So this is Bob's interview with Dr. Rice.
You do not want to miss such a fun interview. Now let's jump right in to the broadcast.
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country. Welcome to Bob Enyart Live. I'm the pastor of Denver Bible Church.
Today, we will broadcast the conclusion of our interview with the man who put two words together, Open Theism, Dr. Richard Rice, with his first book on the topic 40 years ago. His latest book is called The Future of Open Theism. If you'd like to listen to yesterday's broadcast, just go to our website, kgov.com/openhyphentheism.
You'll find the link there. Now, let's join the discussion in progress. Whenever there's an analogy, the Bible uses many analogies.
They're analogies. They're not direct. They're, as analogs, therefore, not literally, but to then argue that most of what the Bible says about God is metaphor, I think stretches beyond the breaking point, the Bible's claim itself, because the Bible presents God as good and holy and merciful and awesome, and he's the judge, he's the savior.
So overwhelmingly, it seems that what the Bible tells us about God is literal, even though it's often using metaphors or analogies to make the literal truth about God more clear from certain perspectives.
yes, we need to be careful about, in our description, our portrayal of biblical language, because as I've indicated, I think there's quite a range here. And I think if we were to say, okay, take the contrasting symbolic descriptions of God as shepherd and king. Now, how many characteristics does God have in common with shepherds that we see on hillsides?
And how many characteristics would God have in common with earthly monarchs? Well, we might say king gives us a little more about God than a shepherd does. A shepherd may communicate some perspectives on God.
Perhaps a king gives us a bit more. But then when it comes to the kingship of God, it's interesting how that symbol, when you look at the way that God exercises sovereignty in a sense, I would say turns that symbol inside out and says God is not just a sovereign, but God is a sovereign unlike any human sovereign. So to see what the sovereignty of God does not mean that God is an uncaring person totally committed to his own power over.
But God is a sovereign that is unlike the sovereigns that we see on earth. So there's a certain irony and a certain, you might call it deconstructive quality to the symbols when they're applied to God. And we see it's the difference between God, when we think of God in this way, to others.
For me, that is a way of saying, attributing fatherhood to God in view of some of the critiques of that as being sexist language and saying, okay, thinking of God as father, and we've got the Lord's Prayer, the address of God. When we think about the fatherhood of God, it's in some way similar to human fatherhood at its best, but different from human fatherhood. Because I think God is, and this is what I think happens with the story of the Prodigal Son, perhaps better described as Helmut Tiliki did, the story of the waiting father.
When you see that parable in light of the ones that preceded it in Luke 15, the lost sheep, the lost coin. Anyone losing a sheep and recovering it, losing a coin of great value and recovering it would rejoice. But here you've got this third point, a father whose son has gone away, disgracing the family perhaps, and wasting his portion of the family's inheritance and comes back.
You look at the father's response to that and you say, now wait a minute, that's not the way fathers typically respond.
It's more like a mother's response.
Well, I'm not sure mothers either would welcome him back, but you may be onto something. I mean, I can imagine the people hearing these stories instead of saying, well, of course, just like the shepherd, no, there's no rejoicing. This guy has disgraced your family's name.
He's abused the trust you placed in him. Get rid of him. In fact, the son himself thought it would be an example of grace and tolerance if he could just be a servant.
The father welcomes him and restores him. And you got to say, no, no, that's not like fathers ordinarily behave. It just lives by its irony in a way.
And you might say, well, wait a minute, them, if that's the kind of father God is, it's in a sense, it's the contrast between the fatherhood of God and human fatherhood that this parable so vividly illustrates to say, God is a father unlike anyone you've ever known, or been.
Wow. And I hate to refer back to this discussion with Dr. Lamerson, but he was saying that the New testament writers, specifically Hebrews, that it was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy because of shadows and types. And I responded back that shadows and types, that all predated Greek philosophy by a thousand years in the scriptures where God went to great lengths to provide types and shadows of what would come in the future.
And the Greeks, if anything, they're just borrowing the things that the creator who said, let there be light, they're borrowing these concepts from God. He's actually the originator. So even if we think of God as our father, if we think of them as Lord, the Lord's on earth and the father's on earth, they're actually the metaphors.
It's God who is the substance of these things, it seems.
That's a nice way to, I think, sort of flip the ultimate meaning of these words. It's God who perfectly exemplifies fatherhood, and not what we find here. God is the true king who cares and is dedicated to the welfare of God's subjects, and not the sort of tyrant and unquestioning, unquestionable source of power that we find in earthly monarchs.
Right. Writing about the early formulations of open theism in your book, The Future of Open Theism, you say this, God is unchanging, immutable in his essence, but not in his experience, knowledge and action. Could you expound on that?
There's something immutable about God, but not everything about him. So that God is unchanging, immutable in his essence, but not in his experience, knowledge and action.
That's right. I think what open theism gives us is a picture of God that affirms in some important ways, the classical concern for an ultimate source of reality that is unchanging, reliable, shall we say, that makes sense out of the temporal world. In other words, the world we experience is dynamic and changing.
And the more we come to understand it, the more we realize how radically temporal than reality is, down to the behavior of electrons and so on. And so what leads some people to believe in God is the fact there must be something holding this whole thing up, something that sustains it, something that's constant. And that ultimately from, certainly from a believer's standpoint, would be divine reality, an absolute, unchanging source of existence that sort of sustains this whole process.
However, the Bible gives us a view that, and others take the position too, but particularly in the Bible, that God is deeply involved and affected by and responsive to what goes on in the world. You cannot read the Bible without coming up with that view. And I think we just referred to the story of the waiting father or the prodigal son, deeply, you know, intensely responsive to his son's return, deeply committed to the welfare of his children and so on.
And the fact that he has a conversation with the older brother after the son has returned and the older brother is upset, I think we see the sensitivity of the father to others. So I think we do have a view of God as one who is absolutely changeless in certain respects, ultimately powerful, but brings into existence a world in which he is dynamically involved in the experience of the creatures that he loves and seeking by many different manifestations of his providence and resourcefulness to guide them to the fulfillment of his purposes. And this is a God who never gives up, but a God who along the way is deeply disappointed with some of the things that happen.
Yeah, our sin grieves him.
yes, that's right. And I think one of the interesting incidents in the book of Samuel is where the people are unhappy with the way things are about to go. Samuel's sons are not worthy successors to him.
And they say, give us a king. We need some, you know, we need some, what would you call it? Political stability in our system.
And Samuel says, oh no, you don't want to be like that. Look at what kings do. And God instructs Samuel to say, you know, let's go ahead and give the people what they want.
Let them establish a monarch. I agree, it's not going to go well. They won't be happy with the things that a monarch does.
But if that's the direction they insist on going, I'm willing to go ahead. And so you almost have God expressing a willingness to do things that he'd rather not do because he's trying to meet the people halfway.
Dr. Rice, we teach the same here on Bob Enyart Live, Denver Bible Church, with maybe one clarification, that it seems that it was the timing that God intended to introduce a monarch one generation later at the time of David, which when his throne was moved to Jerusalem, it was exactly 1,000 years before Christ's first coming. And you go back in the time of moses, and God predicted that there would be a king. And here are the rules that I want your king to follow.
It's right in the Book of Deuteronomy. But then the people were demanding a king out of due time, not when God wanted to introduce a king. And so then God does agree, although it wasn't his original plan.
A couple of moments ago, Dr. Rice, you mentioned electrons. I just want to make sure I caught what you said. Could you repeat that?
It was just in passing.
Well, what I intended was the more science tells us about the nature of reality, the more we see that time or temporal succession is involved and characterized even in the ultimate or the most infinitesimal parts of reality, atoms, electrons. There's temporal succession there. Electrons move at indescribable speeds and so on.
So you have temporal experience at what we would say the heart of physical reality. So some people have come to the conclusion, there must be something holding this whole process up. And that goes clear back to the cosmological argument as developed by Thomas Aquinas in a world of ongoing change, there must be something that supports this and keeps it going.
So that caught my attention because on Fridays, we air a science show for many years, Real Science Radio, and we've just concluded our series on quantum mechanics of all things.
Well, then you're more up to date on this than I am.
Well, as a Bible thumping pastor. But interestingly, of all the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, four of them are deterministic, like the many worlds, multiverse. Eight are consistent with indeterminism, and then five others could go either way.
So it's interesting that for some centuries, theologians looked at Newtonian physics, and it all looked very deterministic, and they thought, hey, this supports our reformed theology. But now, in the last century of the era of quantum mechanics, and today even quantum computers, there is a lot of evidence from the physical world that indeterminism is in fact at the heart of God's physical creation.
Right. That's very interesting, and I would defer to your judgment on that. The contrast that I've sometimes made is that of the world being God's adventure and not just God's invention.
Now, if we say, did God invent the world? yes. But is it a machine or is it more like a dynamic relationship?
And I think God created a world that would, in a sense, enable God to have an adventure in relating to the contents of the world and not just lay it out. Now, I like things that do exactly what they're supposed to do. Computers, automobiles, things like that.
But at the same time, if everything were exactly determined, I think we'd have a less rewarding experience and a less rewarding world in which to live. And the idea that God is open is a way of affirming the fact that the world is open. And God is committed to it, pursuing God's objectives, but through a process of interaction.
And I think that takes a remarkable creativity on God's part.
In fact, perhaps the very favorite character in the science fiction Star Trek TV series and movies is Data and Data is not a person, he's a creation. And people have this natural love and wonder toward his character because here is a creation that he is conscious, self-aware, and he's autonomous. He could do things on his own.
And it seems that God, the omnipotent God being able to call things into existence and for God to bring into existence creatures that like him are self-aware, but also like him are autonomous, and they could do things of their own will, actually be truly creative, and actually think thoughts on their own. That would have to be the greatest achievement of anything that God could create. And indeed, that is what the Bible shows that God did create.
Thank you. I think that's a very nice way of putting what it means to be in the image of God. God could have created a world that in every respect did exactly what it was pre-designed to do.
There are certain satisfactions that such a relationship brings, but there are others that involve openness, delight, surprise, and even an element of risk and suspense. And that's the picture of God that the open view of God affirms. So there are things about God that never change, and there are things about God that change more than anything else that we can imagine.
It's a view of God that I think is rich and attractive, faithful to the Bible, philosophically defensible, and personally meaningful.
If we have the time, I have three last questions. One about omniscience, and the other two on the very foundations of open theism as a theology or an argument. You're writing about William Hasker and omniscience, and let me quote, God knows everything that is logically possible to know.
So this is common in open theism circles, that God knows everything that is logically possible to know. Like, he knows how many hairs are on our heads, but not how many hairs are on the boogeyman's head, because the boogeyman doesn't exist. But...
Well, yes, I think what we're trying to say there is that if in fact there is a difference between past and future, or present and future, and the future is in fact open, and it might go in different directions, well, God knows the possible is possible, and the actual is actual. So God knows reality as reality is, and that constitutes perfect knowledge. So the future from the standpoint of open theism is not settled and completely definite.
Their openness, their indefinite aspects to it, their possibilities there that may or may not be realized. God knows it as such. God knows the past is completely settled.
So God knows the past is past, the future is future. So his knowledge of reality is perfect. We could say God is omniscient.
The real difference between the open theist view is not the relative, the adequacy of God's knowledge, but the nature of what God knows. So that would be the difference there.
Those who their theology is founded almost completely on the omnis and ems and omniscience that God has all knowledge, they tend to deny him an entire category of knowledge, which is experiential knowledge. Surely God lacks the first hand knowledge to know what it's like to sin. jesus Christ on the cross, he took our sin upon himself, but he himself did not sin.
He paid the price for us. So I love how you distinguish that future knowledge versus present knowledge. God knows everything that is logically possible to know.
If the future does not exist, therefore, even if God knows everything knowable, that doesn't mean he knows the future decisions of free will agents, nor even his own future decisions. But could I challenge that a bit, Dr. Rice, just a bit, that God knows everything that is logically possible to know, talking about just present knowledge. Like that claim, when theologians make that claim, do they really mean it to be all inclusive and exhaustive?
For example, it seems to me to be a concession to God as though he were a computer database that had no will or no say in the matter, or he's a mathematical equation, or a divine bureaucrat who has no choice but to collect all conceivable knowledge. Like, as the Bible presents God as a person, if God is a person, he might decide what knowledge to retain, what to collect, what to discard. It seems more biblical remembering him as a person to say that God knows everything knowable that he wants to know.
And I could give one example, we could multiply it a thousand times. But let me give one example and then see if you have thoughts on this. If God doesn't care to keep track of which atoms on the earth have gone through the intestines of rodents from the creation until today, what would compel God to keep track of what seems to be meaningless data of all the atoms in the world?
You know, which ones were drank by which insects at which moment in time, and which ones were expelled from which insects. I mean, when theologians talk about God knowing everything, it seems to me, and we've been arguing this on the air since 1991, it seems that they actually don't take the time to ponder what would it mean to really know everything. And what they seem to be saying is that God knows everything that he wants to know.
That's what it seems.
Well, personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of God knowing absolutely everything, including the position of every atom in the universe, let's say a hundred years ago or something like that. If we're saying, though, what clearly is the focus of God's attention and primary concern, then I think we as Christians would say it has to do with God's relationship to human beings, sentient creatures and so on. So it's like you can have all this data in your mind and not necessarily have it detract from the focus of attention on other things.
And one of the things that is a challenge when we make a distinction between actuality and possibility is what sort of distinctions do those represent if we attribute to God's knowledge a full knowledge of each one. If a knowledge of a possibility is somehow exactly the same as God's knowledge of it as an actuality, well, then I think we've created some real problems.
Yeah, we've blurred reality if that were the case.
I think open theists, if you look at the way in which they try to deal with this, don't agree among themselves. They want to maintain a distinction and yet somehow attribute to God perfect knowledge. I like the expression perfect anticipation when it comes to God's knowledge of the future.
Now to anticipate that something perfectly would be to know what is definitely going to happen because of factors that are already here and what might happen. And an example that I use if you're going on a vacation and it's quite a distance away, you may say we will have to stop for gasoline or recharging our electric vehicle every so often and so on. You can anticipate that rather definitely.
But if you're going hiking in the mountains, you may take a first aid kit because you realize some things could happen. We hope they don't, but it is a possibility and we want to be prepared for it. So I know these are analogies, but I think there are differences between things that are definitely going to happen.
You can get prepared for those things that might or might not happen. And I think of God's relation to the future in terms of perfect anticipation. God knows what is definitely going to happen.
A lot of what's going to happen is already in the cards, shall we say, because of present factors. But given the nature of the world God created, there is openness. But God is not taken totally unawares of what's going to happen, even though God is disappointed by what might happen.
Sure.
We know that, you know, in genesis 6, it says, given the way that human beings were going, God was sorry he had created them.
Yeah. He repented that he made man, and he destroyed them.
He was sorry with what had happened because it had such an effect on him and such a disappointing influence. So did God have no idea this was going to happen? I don't think so.
I think giving human beings freedom means that God knew this was a possibility. But I think God did everything God could to minimize the possibility that that would take place. A little like, well, we're both parents, or you've got younger children than I do.
But raising children, we know that there are some risks. We can't prevent the possibility of some mistakes being made, but we do everything we can to influence them, to avoid making these mistakes. But if they do, and sooner or later, sometimes they do, we will meet them and try to do what we can to overcome the consequences and get back on the right path.
I won't give you personal examples, but I'm sure we both had those experiences.
Oh, yeah. As to present knowledge, when we look at the Bible, there are only a couple of locations, but they surely are saying significant things, like with jesus in the Gospels, and God talking to Abraham in the Old testament, where God the Son became flesh through the Incarnation, became the man. The man, jesus Christ, is God the Son.
We have some whom we have debated, like Dr. james White, a reformed theologian, who insists that God the Son did not take on a human nature, which we think is just flat out heresy. It's denying the Incarnation, but he's concerned that if he admits that God the Son took on a human nature, then God changes and he has a greater commitment to this Greek immutability than he does to the Incarnation. So he refuses to admit that God the Son became flesh.
In fact, another theologian, the son of a theologian, RC. Sproul Jr. agreed with james White, and it was on the occasion of my debate with Dr. White, downtown at the Brown Palace in Denver, when this happened and it truly was stunning. But aside from those kinds of aberrations, Christianity has held firmly with amazing tenacity that jesus Christ is fully God.
Fully God, he became man, he's fully God and fully man. And that's true, right? Dr. Rice, I'm not exaggerating that, the position of the church.
No, I think that's where the early church came to that conclusion. And of course, there were, what should we say? Those who maintain he only appeared to be human, he was really a divine being.
Sure. Only participated in human activities, not because he ever got hungry, for example, but just to sort of continue the demonstration. And others maintain that he was essentially human and, you know, only was sort of elevated to the idea or to the status of divinity later on, adoptionism.
So there were extremes. And what the early church came to, Council of Nicaea, was fully God, fully human, fully man, and yet one personality. So they had to deal with this.
So I would say one center of consciousness. Now, this does require us to look carefully at what goes on in jesus' experience. My own view is that jesus' sort of conscious experience was that of a human being.
And that is he had moral struggles, shall we say. We think of the temptations and so on. I think he had consciousness of his divine power that he had access to.
If we think of the very first temptation of the devil in the wilderness, if you're the son of God, turn these stones into bread. Well, jesus had just heard the words, You are the son of God, my beloved son. Well, the devil is saying, You've got power then, just use it to satisfy your hunger now as a human being.
And jesus said, No, I'm going to live by the word of God, and not by some access to supernatural power I might have. That would have violated the conditions, shall we say, of his earthly life and earthly ministry. And so we can see that jesus had this, shall we say, awareness of the power he had access to, but his experience as a human being was that of trusting God, following God, taking God's love and care for him.
As I would say, we could even say a matter of faith. He trusted God.
As the pastor of Denver Bible Church, I would really like to clarify something. When you said jesus had moral struggles, the Bible goes out of its way to tell us that right before that temptation, jesus had fasted for 40 days in the wilderness. And so when Lucifer tempted him with food, that was a real temptation.
That was actually his body longing for nourishment. And here you could have it in a way that causes you to submit to me. So God the Son became flesh, and as a man, his body would have longings that are real.
And as Hebrews says, he therefore is better able to help us when we are tempted because he was tempted. But I would like to clarify that I don't think there's any sense in which we could see that jesus was actually tempted. Not that sinful ideas were not presented to him.
I'm sure they were every day of his life. But the Lord was never wrestling with whether or not to be sexually immoral, whether or not to betray the innocent, whether or not his struggles had to do with the physical aspect of the body that he took on. But I don't think there's any indication, and I would argue strongly, that the Lord never wrestled, for example, with sexual immorality, or with stealing, or betraying his father.
Well, we have to... I think we have to look carefully at what the issues were that jesus was dealing with. My own sense would be, and I might give a somewhat different reading of that first temptation.
I have heard, I've never been, I've never fasted for 40 days, but people have said that if you get in deep into a fast, you don't, you're not hungry anymore. You know, it's not, you know, missing lunch today makes me more hungry for supper. But you got to wonder that if the issue here was doubting what he had heard God say, in other words, this is my beloved son, he's in the wilderness now, it looks like he may be on the verge of perishing.
What does it mean to be God's son? If I can't somehow have demonstrative proof that I have divine power, wouldn't that settle the issue if I were really God's son? And so the issue there is, will I use the power that I may have, or rely on the word of God to give me the assurance I need?
So that's another way of looking at that first temptation, not appetite, but identity.
Well, certainly that's the deeper issue, but I think it's not for no reason that the Bible sets this up in the context of the Lord fasting. And I'm sure it's true. I've read it too.
I've not done it, that you could get to the point where you're not hungry. But once you start thinking about eating, then it's amazing how quickly people could realize, hey, I'm really hungry. It seems that the temptation had to do with the incarnation itself, that God, the Son, was making himself vulnerable by becoming flesh.
And so that was the first of the three avenues of attack that Lucifer brought on jesus. But that's, I think, a relatively minor issue. When I brought that up, it was to get to the Lord saying that speaking of his second coming of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven nor the Son.
So he has a hierarchy. No man, no angel, not even the Son, but only the Father. And that's present knowledge.
The day that the Father plans to have his Son return. And so lacking that knowledge does not in any way diminish the Lord's divinity. He was fully God.
God was fully revealed in the person of jesus Christ. So when and there's other examples too, in the Bible of that. So when we theologians say that God knows everything that is logically possible to know, which is almost when you look, when you even look at the way God created the physical world.
I mean, inside of an atom, right, there's what, two septillion water molecules in a single drop of rain. And inside of every atom, inside the proton, there are three quarks, which are moving at like approaching the speed of light and quadrillions of interactions per second. And can God keep track of all that?
Absolutely, He can. But it seems that our theologians are imposing on God something that he's never claimed for himself. And they seem to be doing it to satisfy some kind of a mathematical equation of their theology about God, and not based on God as a person.
It seems.
I think you're on to something there. One of the, what should I say? One of the apparent inconsistencies of more traditional ways is the fact that people are willing to clarify the meaning of omnipotence, perfect power, when it comes to God, and say, well, that doesn't mean that God can do the logically impossible.
Right.
Can God add two and two and get five? Can God create married bachelors? And the response is, well, of course not.
But that doesn't, that's not a limitation of God's power. It's simply clarifying that what you're, what you verbally put together is not logically doable. And so, you know, that that's not something that makes any sense to do.
And so the parallel would be, when it comes to perfect knowledge, God knows everything logically knowable. does that include all future decisions and so on? Not if they don't exist at this time, not if they're possible objects of knowledge.
And so we're simply clarifying the nature of knowledge and along the lines of the nature of divine power. There's a parallel there.
yes, Dr. Rice, the author of The Future of Open Theism, I think that's a brilliant insight. And there's one that's very close to it. And that's how theologians treat God's knowledge inconsistently with how they treat his power in this way.
God being omniscient isn't claimed to mean that therefore God does everything. God doesn't have to do everything. God being omnipotent isn't claimed to mean that therefore God does everything.
Rather, he has the power to do anything doable that he wants to do. And likewise, if they were to be consistent, God's knowledge shouldn't mean that he knows everything, but rather he has the ability to know anything knowable that he wants to know. It seems like the two are very similar, but they're treated inconsistently.
I think you're right, and that's a problem. I guess the question we would ask is, can God create a world with creatures who have the ability to make decisions on their own and do things that would bring joy and delight to God because he looks forward to them and hopes they will do these things, or disappoint God? Is that the kind of world that's possible for God to create?
And if the answer is, well, no, God cannot create a world that is capable of surprising him. Well, then it sounds like there's something God can't do, or God decided not to create that kind of world. Well, then we've got the contrast between the world in which we live, which seems to be a kind of world where people do things on the basis of free choice and so on.
And that's not the kind of world that it looks like, according to classical theism, that God created. Well, wait a minute here. Can God create that kind of world if God wanted it?
And if God wants a world that has openness to it, a future where people in God's image make their own decisions, and those decisions enter God's knowledge as they're made, well, why couldn't God? Isn't that the kind of world that God created? So it looks like just looking at the kind of world in which we live, a drawing on personal experience, the fact that we make decisions, the fact that some things happen that are a source of delight, other things happen that are a source of disappointment and concern, that seems to be the kind of world that we live in.
And it seems to be the kind of world that the Bible describes God is creating. So it makes sense, I think, to say, yes, this is a logical possibility. In fact, it looks like the actual world that God made.
Dr. Rice, I have kept you way beyond our initial request for your time. You've been so generous. these two questions I have, I'm not going to ask them because we've gone too long, but if we end up doing another program, in addition to continuing to excerpt your book, I have two questions for you about the foundations of the argument or the position of open theism.
So perhaps we'll do another show if that works into your plans. But thank you so very much for taking this time with me and our audience. It truly is an honor.
Well, nice to be with you. Thank you for your interesting questions. Very provocative and for your interest in open theism.
I appreciate it a lot.
Well, you're very welcome. That is Dr. Richard Rice, one of the leading authors of the open theism movement. And of course, we will link to his latest book, The Future of Open Theism.
And if you go to opentheism.org and click on the timeline, you will see that it defaults to an entry for Dr. Rice. So it's a lot of fun. He's the man who put two words together and coined open theism.
This is Bob Enyart. May God bless you.
Hey, this is Dominic Enyart in studio. Thank you for joining us for that broadcast. A lot of fun, really insightful show.
Dr. Richard Rice and Bob Enyart, a power duo here on KGOV. Hope you really enjoyed that. If you want to support KGOV, the KGOV ministries, head to the store, kgov.com, click on the store, get any of Bob's vast library of products.
You do not want to miss any of those. His Bible study resources, his topical resources, God and the death penalty, verse by verse through the entire Bible. Such good stuff.
It helps you and it helps us. So it's a win-win. Again, kgov.com, click on the store.