Student Profile: Pastor Mark Culton

Dear Raja,

I’m sympathetic with your concerns about some “old school RB” tendencies. I think the “pendulum swing” syndrome has characterized some of our beliefs and practices. That is, we’ve sometimes overreacted to abuses or weaknesses we encountered in other ecclesiastical contexts. In doing so, we’ve sometimes thrown out some of the baby with the bathwater. We need to correct this “over-correction” and strive for biblical balance, which will often entail a willingness to learn from brothers outside our circles. After all, don’t the Scriptures warn us that he who isolates himself pursues his own agenda and rages against all sound judgment (Prov 18:1)? I fear that by isolating ourselves from other brothers outside our 1689 circles, we’ve pursued our own agenda, been unwise, and, as a result, only reinforced some of our imbalances and weaknesses.

On the other hand, we must beware of making the same mistake when assessing perceived weaknesses among our RB brothers and sisters. Not all our evangelical brothers (outside 1689 circles) are guilty of the abuses and weaknesses we sometimes in broad-brush fashion attribute to them. Similarly, not all our “1689 brothers” (for lack of a better label) are equally culpable in the case of overreaction, legalism, imbalance, etc. I’m sure you would agree and don’t intend to impugn every RB pastor and church for certain abuses, weaknesses, or imbalances you may have witnessed or experienced. But I just want to insert a word of brotherly caution lest the comments here turn uncharitable.

Actually, the main purpose of the post was to introduce one of our students to the rest of the student body and to our readers. While I believe there’s one general office of pastor, I also affirm the idea of a diversity of gifts and would support a “task-oriented” eldership in which the elders/pastors may specialize in certain areas of pastoral care and ministry while still assuming the general responsibilities of an under-shepherd. Accordingly, I find no fault in principle with Mark’s focus on providing pastoral care to the young people (provided that there are other pastors caring for the other members of the body).

If it’s any consolation, I do believe many of my fellow RB pastors are beginning to recognize the need to do more than just preach hour-long sermons to the young people. Having children and especially teens has opened my eyes to this dimension of pastoral care.

So I can affirm with you that some “old school RB” thought and methodology needs to be reexamined in the light of Scripture. I also believe that pastors like Mike Waters would, in principle, concede this point. I’m not familiar with all the particulars of Mike’s perspectives and practices as an RB pastor. But I have no reason to question his love for his sheep and his supreme allegiance to God’s word. My acquaintance with Mike Waters has been positive.

Let’s pray for each other. I know I need it! I’m still learning, and I don’t want to cease striving to bring my own thought and practice into greater conformity with the Scripture. Jesus, please be patient with your oft-erring disciples!

In the spirit of Christian charity,
Bob Gonzales

Angels, Sethites, or Human Despots: Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6?

Pat,

Please be aware that you’re under no obligation to read or to interact on this blog. I apologize for wasting your time.

For those who don’t find RBS Tabletalk a waste of time and are interested in the evidence for viewing “son of God” and “image of God” interrelated concepts (see Gen 5:1-3; Luke 3:38; Heb 1:1-3) that highlight man’s royal status (Gen 1:26, 28; cf. Psa 8; 1 Cor 4:8; 6:3; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10; 20:6; 22:5), take the time to read the post Man’s Royal Status as God’s Image and God’s Son. That article cites a number of ancient Near Eastern sources in which ancient Kings are depicted as “the son” of the deity. This kingship ideology was pervasive in the ANE milieu in which Moses and the Israelites lived. Accordingly, “sons of Elohim” would have suggested to Moses’s original readers primeval human monarchs who exercised despotic rule and who built royal harems.

I fail to see how this reading is any less plain than the reading that suggests “sons of God” equals believers and “daughters of men” equals unregenerate females. That Mosaic revelation identifies corporate Israel, which by-and-large was characterized by uncircumcised hearts, as “the son of God” (Exod 4:23) demonstrates that “son of God” (especially in the OT) did not ipso facto predicate regenerate people.

In my opinion, a more viable reading sees the “son of Elohim” kingship ideology as a corruption of the primordial revelation which identifies all of humankind as Yahweh-Elohim’s viceroy-son (Gen 1:26, 28; 5:1-3). God’s word through Moses in Genesis “sets the record straight.” Adam is God’s image-son (Gen 5:1-3; Luke 3:38), that is, his vice-regent commissioned to mediate God’s presence and God’s rule over the earth (Gen 1:26, 28; Psa 8). Jesus, as the Second Adam, is the “image-son” par excellence (Heb 1:1-3), and he fulfills the commission Adam failed to fulfill by faithfully mediating God’s presence and God’s rule in the world. And believers, as God’s renewed image-sons, will rule and reign with Christ forever (1 Cor 6:5; Rev 5:10; Rev 20:6; 22:5).

So while I don’t deride those who prefer to interpret Genesis 6:1-3 as a reference to godly Sethites marrying ungodly women, I would suggest that the interpretation advanced above is more consistent exegetically and contextually (both in terms of the biblical corpora and ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu).

Blessings,
Bob Gonzales

Angels, Sethites, or Human Despots: Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6?

P.S. Pat, I’m not sure why you’re not receiving notices of follow-up comments. Have you officially subscribed to the RSS feed?

Angels, Sethites, or Human Despots: Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6?

John,

Many scholars believe that Jude is alluding to the teaching of the pseudapigraphal Book of Enoch when he refers to the angels. I think it’s plausible that Jude had the account of the Book of Enoch in view. If so, then Jude would be referring to angels having intercourse with human females because that’s how the Book of Enoch interprets the account of Genesis 6.

Nevertheless, God’s negative assessment of the state of affairs in verses 3, 5, and 6 doesn’t focus on angelic sin but on human sin. For this reason, I’m inclined to think that the immediate culprits in view are humans though it’s also possible that these rulers were animated and influenced by demonic (fallen angelic) powers working behind the scenes.

I haven’t seen the movie 300. But if Leonidas was an ungodly ruler that glorified unwarranted violence, the picture I chose accurately depicts the entities who stand in the purview of Genesis 6. After all, it wouldn’t make much sense to select a picture of a virtuous and gentle hero to represent the entities described in Genesis 6, would it? Of course, my intent is neither to endorse nor to condemn a movie I haven’t seen.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

Angels, Sethites, or Human Despots: Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6?

@ Trevor: Actually, brother, I’ve often prayed that God would raise up someone in Hollywood who would create a movie about primeval history, particularly the antediluvian. So much good material there for a great storyline!

Angels, Sethites, or Human Despots: Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6?

@ Pat: you asked, “Where in Scripture does the phrase Sons of God ever refer to human rulers?” Great question! Let me attempt a response:

(1) Adam in particular and mankind in general are identified both as “the image of God” and also as “the son of God.” This nomenclature predates Genesis and is common in ancient Near Eastern kingship ideology. In other words, the original audience of Genesis would have interpreted the description of humans as the images of Elohim and the sons of Elohim as denoting man’s role as God’s viceroy or vice-regent in the world. (For more on this, see my article, “Man: God’s Visible Replica and Vice-Regent,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review.)

(2) That man’s identity as Elohim’s image and Elohim’s son denotes the function of “ruling” is suggested by understanding the clause in Genesis 1:26 as a purpose clause: “Let us make man as our image … so that they may rule over …” (see also Psalm 8).

(3) Human rulers are specifically designated “Elohim,” elsewhere translated as “gods” (see, for example, Ps. 82). The idea is not that humans are constitutionally divine (or semi-divine) but that they, as images of God, have God-like prerogatives.

The evidence above, which is explained more fully in footnote 13, provides, I think, sufficient warrant for the view that the bene-Elohim or “Sons of God” may be a reference to human rulers. This is how some early Jewish Targums interpreted the nomenclature.

Hope this helps.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

How Does Ministerial Training Need to Change?

@ Trevor: Brother, thanks for your encouraging comments. I think we need to develop a greater awareness of the staggering needs in unreached territories and endeavor to impress on the consciences of our congregations and, in the case of RBS, our students the huge need for men and women to consider prayerfully whether God would have them leave family, houses, and country in order to reach those who have never heard. At the level of RBS and ministerial training, we are giving this matter some careful thought. We think the traditional “Pastoral Theology” curriculum tends to prepare men for already established churches but is inadequate for training men for front-lines church-planting and pioneer missions. Here is where we do well to listen to men like you who can offer us experience and a perspective that we’re often lacking in the States.

@ David: First, I truly appreciate your commitment to foster theological and ministerial training within a church context. Unfortunately, not all of our student’s pastors are as committed to mentoring their students as we would like to see. Second, I do agree that the academy has sometimes, unfortunately, been the breeding grounds for much aberrant doctrine. I also agree with Pratt that the scholar’s agenda is not always the same as the church’s agenda. So there are potential weaknesses and even dangers in traditional seminary training. On the other hand, I did learn some good things in a context of a traditional seminary where most my teachers reverenced the Scriptures as the Word of God and believed in the vital importance of personal piety. So even though I don’t think the autonomous seminary is the ideal place for men to receive ministerial training, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I learned many good things, theologically and practically in a traditional seminary. Moreover, many of the most helpful books on our shelves have been written by men who have studied in or who teach in “the academy” (as did some of the Puritans!).

@ Raja: I agree that a lack of biblical balance and proportion can result not only from harmful influences coming from the academy but also from harmful influences arising from pastors who are imbalanced. This imbalance can sometimes result from adopting an overly narrow perspective on what constitutes healthy ministry and, thus, limiting our theological mentors to those who happen to agree with us on all points of doctrine and practice. Solomon puts it this way, “He who isolates himself pursues his own agenda and rages against all sound judgment” (Prov 18:1).

This has led me to the conclusion that RB pastors would do well to endeavor to cultivate friendships with evangelicals outside their own ecclesiastical (1689) circles with the view of learning from them (not just teaching them). Of course, there are areas in which we may be stronger and have something to offer others. But I’m equally convinced that I can learn from others outside my circles. Accordingly, I need to read their books, listen to their sermons, and study their ministries.

I think David is answering truthfully when he affirms that his reading list is not confined to Banner of Truth books. Though David and I disagree on some matters, I believe he’s endeavoring to please the Lord and is open to receive the truth wherever he finds it. I suspect that he’s read writers like Piper, Carson, Mahaney, etc., and profited from some of what he’s read.

Thanks, guys, for the iron-sharpening-iron discussion!

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

The Regulative Principle of Worship in Theological Perspective

Jim,

I’ve read your article several times, and I think I have a pretty good handle on your basis approach to the RPW. However, after reading Dr. Waldron’s comments and your response, I think I detected a point where there may be some points of ambiguity in your presentation. In particular, consider this summary paragraph, which appears roughly in the middle of your post:

To summarize, it is somewhat misleading and confusing to say that the RPW applies to all of life. As historically defined, it most certainly does not. It is more accurate to say that Scripture applies to all of life. It is the rule for everything, including worship. This is the Regulative Principle.

First, you suggest that it’s misleading to assert, as some do, that the RPW applies to all of life. Second, you say it’s more correct, in your view, to affirm that Scripture applies to all of life, including worship. Third, you immediately define this norm, i.e., Scripture-as-applying-to-all-of-life-including-worship, as the RPW!

What some readers may miss if they don’t read this paragraph in the light of your presentation as a whole is the fact that you’re speaking of two versions of the RPW. The first version of the RPW, which you don’t believe applies (or can realistically apply) to all of life, is the RPW as historical defined. You actually make that qualification in the second sentence of the paragraph above, but some readers may miss it. The second version of the RPW, which you do believe applies to all of life, including worship, is the RPW as biblically defined, which is, if I’m not misinterpreting your thesis, none other than the principle of sola Scriptura applied to worship, which also applies to all of life.

I should add here, as an aside, this is basically the position of John Frame. Frame does not argue that the RPW as historically defined applies to all of life. Frame, in fact, finds some fault with the RPW as historical defined and argues for a single hermeneutic or norm for worship narrowly defined and broadly defined, namely, sola Scriptura applied to worship (see Worship in Spirit and Truth, 38-47). So the position you advocate is not far removed from Frame’s own position, which, by the way, I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing.

What does this principle look like or how should it be summarized? It seems to me that, in light of your basic thesis, one might articulate or summarize the RPW biblically defined in one of the two following ways: (1) We must worship God (whether in public worship or in worship as a way of life) in ways that are warranted by God’s word. By using the term “warranted” as opposed to “prescribed,” we allow for a wider semantic range of modes by which attitudes and conduct are to be regulated (e.g.s. commands, prohibitions, precedents, inferences, authorized freedom, general biblical principle, the light of nature, etc.). Or, we could define the RPW that you’re advocating in the following terms: (2) We must do what God commands; we must refrain from doing what God forbids; and with respect to actions neither expressly forbidden nor explicitly commanded, it just depends—they might be acceptable depending on the nature of the activity in view, general biblical principle, Christian prudence, and the light of nature. Have my comments here have helped to clarify your position or am I misreading you?

Thanks, in advance, for taking the time to interact with us on this important topic. And special thanks for the massive about of time and research you put in to your article!

Sincerely yours,
Bob Gonzales


Should We Allow Children into the Membership of the Church?

@ Robby Briggs: Brother, thanks for your input. A couple of clarifications are in order:

First, I don’t believe Dave Merck comes to the conclusion that baptism and church membership must be limited to adults. So my post is not intended to be a rebuttal of his position. On the other hand, I don’t believe Dave sees the grammatical connections in Ephesians that strongly suggest Paul is assuming that the subordinates whom he’s addressing (wives, children, slaves) are in fact saints. And since he’s addressing “saints” in a letter written to “the saints who are in Ephesus” (1:1), who are “of the household of God” (2:19), then it’s hard to resist the conclusion that these people were baptized members of that church. If I recall correctly, Dave basically argues, “I don’t see any evidence that children were baptized and added to the membership of the visible church in the NT,” but he doesn’t assert, “The NT forbids the baptizing of children and bringing them into church membership.” I’m suggesting that if Dave would reexamine Ephesians passage and see the grammatical links I’ve pointed out, he might not dismiss that passage’s relevance so easily to the question in debate, and he might slightly revise his position.

Second, even aside from how one interprets the Ephesians text, the bottom line, for me at least, is this:

(1) Major premise: the prerequisite for baptism and membership in the visible NT church is not adult maturity but a credible profession of faith.
(2) Minor premise: a credible profession of faith includes a spontaneous awareness of and sorrow for one’s personal sin (Matt 3:6; Luke 18:13), a genuine understanding of and belief in the basic truths of the gospel (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:3-4; Heb 11:6), and a sincere willingness to trust and commit oneself to Christ (John 1:12; Rom 10:9; 2 Tim 1:12).
(3) Minor premise: non-adults (i.e., minors, children [though not infants]) are capable of making a credible profession of faith (see Matt 18:1-6; Matt 19:13-14; Mark 9:42; Luke 18:15-17).
(4) Conclusion: there’s no biblical warrant for limiting baptism and church membership to adults.

Third, I agree that pastors and parents should be careful in assessing the credibility of a minor’s profession of faith. Of course, as I’m sure you agree, caution is not the same thing as refraining or abstaining.

Fourth, I recognize that every church member is not ipso facto qualified for every privilege/responsibility in the church. Most obviously, women are not qualified for the privilege/responsibility of office-bearing. Indeed, there may be many men in the church who aren’t qualified for this privilege/responsibility. Yet we don’t exclude women or such men from membership simply because there is within the visible NT church community a particular privilege/responsibility for which they’re not qualified. Similarly, there are other privileges/responsibilities in the NT church community that may require a level of gift and/or maturity that might preclude children or minors. Examples might include serving as church treasurer, supervising the nursery ministry, and voting. But I don’t think baptism or inclusion into church membership should be predicated on one’s ability or qualifications to participate in all the privileges/responsibilities that are part NT church life. The fact that a 13-year old child may not yet possess the degree of maturity requisite to vote on a sensitive issue does not, in my mind, automatically disqualify that person from baptism and church membership since there’s much more to church membership than merely voting. Such young people can attend the means of grace, engage in fellowship and acts of brotherly love, and share their faith with others–at least at a basic level. As they mature, they can participate in these and some other church privileges/responsibilities in accordance with their level of maturity, spiritual giftedness, and providential opportunity.

Finally, I acknowledge that there are complexities related to the potential tension created when a child is brought into the membership and now has a new delegated authority in addition to his parents. Here’s where much pastoral wisdom and teaching is needed. Ted Christman attempts to provide some guidance to parents and pastors concerning this potential tension in his little booklet, which I’ve footnoted above. But the fact that including minors in the members of the church may introduce potential tensions vis-a-vis spheres of human authority does not, in my mind, require us to deny them membership. Children are, after all, under Caesar as well as mom and dad. This reality can also present potential tensions and introduce difficult ethical/legal cases. But we just have to pray for wisdom to deal with each case in a way that does justice to all the biblical data. Setting up a rigid fence, i.e., one must be 16 or 18 in order to be a member of a NT church, may be safe and may avoid certain potential tensions, but I’m not sure such a fence is the best and biblical thing to do. It can soon morph into a man-made tradition that’s elevated to a biblical standard. It can also, I fear, convey to young Christians that we’re suspicious of their profession of faith, and it can deprive them of certain means of grace that Christ intends for them (Lord’s Supper, service in the body, pastoral oversight). On the other hand, I’ve seen young Christians thrive and flourish in churches where their profession of faith is taken seriously, where they’re baptized and admitted into membership, and where they’re encouraged to serve in and on behalf of the body in ways that are consistent with their maturity and gift.

@ Don Donell: Brother, thanks for the encouraging word. I too fear that we can overreact to easy-believism and decisionalism by placing so much emphasis on the need for visible fruits of repentance that we lose sight of the simplicity of saving faith. I think this is another reason why we should make a distinction between a credible profession of faith and the fruits of a solid conversion. The latter may develop slowly over a lengthy period of time. The former may manifest itself more immediately. And since folks in the NT were often baptized on the same day they professed faith in Christ, I’m inclined to think we should make a credible profession of faith the condition of baptism and church membership, not the possession and manifestation of a full harvest of regeneration fruit.

I also agree with your recommendation of Gunderson’s book, which I’ve read and referenced in a footnote above. Very good pastoral counsel.

@ Mike Waters: Thanks, brother, for the encouraging words. I totally with you. I also agree that Christman’s book and especially his response to a lengthy critique are excellent. I wish that he’d republish the book and include facets of his response. Press on, brother, in the work of the Lord!

@ Jim Montesano and Bobby Crenshaw: Brothers, thanks you too for your words of encouragement.

@ Oskar Arocha: I agree that the NT doesn’t focus on age as a prerequisite for membership in the visible New Covenant community but a credible profession of faith. Moreover, I acknowledge the importance of not withholding the means of grace from any true disciple who’s walking in the fear of God and in communion with the saints. Some churches will baptize a minor and permit him to the Lord’s Table but not add him/her to the membership role. In their minds, membership must entail full voting privileges/responsibilities. This is certainly a better approach, in my opinion, than the one that excludes born again minors from the Lord’s Supper and official pastoral oversight and care. But being officially part of the body brings with it a greater sense of belonging, privilege, and accountability, all of which can be powerful encouragements and helps to any disciple. So I think it’s better to bring them into membership when their baptized. This also allows me to keep the Lord’s Table a church ordinance for disciples who are members in good standing of an evangelical church. But in the end, I acknowledge that each church must seeking to apply the principles of Scripture to this issue in the way it sees best and most faithful.

2011 Winter Module: Dr. James White on Islam, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and The New Atheism

Michael,

The lectures will be made available live webcast and recorded in digital audio/video format, and they will be incorporated into our Polemics distance learning class.

Bob Gonzales

"The New Calvinism Considered" by Jeremy Walker

Jason,

Thanks again for taking the time to share your viewpoint.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

"The New Calvinism Considered" by Jeremy Walker

@ Robert Elliott and Michael: Thanks, guys, for your remarks.

@ Jason Crawford: Brother, I would be curious to know what in particular about points 16 and 18-21 you find problematic or disconcerting. Have you had the change to read and consider some of the qualifications Jeremy made on his blog as well as some of the counter-points offered on his blog and here (in the footnotes and comments by others)?

@ Trevor Johnson: Personally, I think the ecclesiology of some strands of the older Calvinism is too tight and overly restrictive. I think this is due in part to an improper understanding of the way in which the Bible is to regulate church ministry, government, and worship. I believe the Bible allows for a great deal more of “contextualization” or “principled pragmatism” vis-a-vis methodology (see footnote 13). The new Calvinism sees this better and, I suspect, this is one reason why they’re producing more foreign missionaries.

@ Richard: Brother, thanks for your input on the term “antinomian.” I agree with you that the term “antinomian” has been used historically with different senses. I would prefer to label these senses “narrower” and “broader” as opposed to “doctrinal” and “practical” simply because practice is usually justified by what one believes the Bible teaches or allows (i.e., doctrine). Hence, practical antinomians usually try to defend their loose living on the basis of a faulty doctrine they derive from a misreading of Scripture.

Whatever the case, I’m sure Jeremy didn’t intend to imply that the new Calvinists endorsed a broader kind of antinomianism that views the Christian as no longer responsible to live according to the abiding moral dictates of Scripture. However, it seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the term “antinomianism” is used and understood more popularly in the broader sense. For example, according to Millard Erickson’s A Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, antinomianism is “an opposition to law, specifically, a rejection that the Christian’s life need be governed by laws or rules” (13). The New Dictionary of Theology treats antinomianism under “Law and Gospel.” The article acknowledges some of the historical uses of the term but seems to describe its essence as something more than merely questioning or rejecting the abiding validity of the 4th commandment:

Antinomianism so stresses Christian freedom from the condemnation of the law that it underemphasizes the need of the believer to confess sins daily and to pursue sanctification earnestly (379).

I think this is what comes to mind when many think of the label “antinomianism.” And since men like Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, Dever, Carson, Driscoll, Keller, and others who would identify with the new Calvinists do affirm the need for a life of repentance and the vital importance of holy living, I’m personally uncomfortable applying the term antinomianism to them. Perhaps it would be safer and, in some cases, more accurate to refer to them as non- or anti-sabbatarians.

In any case, thanks for your input as it helps us better interpret Jeremy’s remarks. I also agree with you that Jeff Smith’s comments on Jeremy’s blog are very helpful and point out another weakness in the theology of some new Calvinists.

@ Robert Briggs: Brother, thanks for your helpful and thought provoking remarks about the way in which historical setting and culture can influence one’s theology. Of course, this can yield good or bad results. Sometimes, an improper response or overreaction to our historical setting or culture can result in some imbalances in our theology. Personally, I think there are some imbalances and overreactions detectable in Puritan theology and practice that can be traced to aspects of their historical setting and culture. Thankfully, much Puritan theology and practice evidences a healthy and biblical application of Scripture to their historical and cultural setting.

What is true of the Puritans is also true of the new Calvinists today. They’re seeking not merely to regurgitate and parrot the theology of the past, but they’re endeavoring to apply the Bible’s teaching to the historical and cultural setting of our own day. I think some of their contextualization (or for those who don’t like that term, “application of theology to one’s context”) is insightful, helpful, and biblical. We can learn from them. On the other hand, none of these men are infallible, and it’s likely that they (and we) sometimes overreact or improperly respond to our historical and cultural setting resulting in imbalanced applications of Scripture.

I would commend again (see footnote 5) Richard Pratt’s essay “John Frame and the Future of the Church,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John Frame, ed. John J. Hughes (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 933-960. He discusses how John Frame’s emphasis on sola Scriptura and his triadic multiperspectivalism (normative, situational, existential) can help us perpetuate and maximize the usefulness of some of the insights of Reformed theology in the future. He includes a helpful discussion of the future of theological education.

Thanks to all for your comments.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

What Does Idolatry Look Like in 21st Century America?

Dennis,

I think you probably know the author well enough to know he’s not necessarily condemning every lawful activity in the list as intrinsically evil or the lawful use of God’s creation as intrinsically idolatrous. He goes on to write, “Be careful of making a good thing, such as marriage, sex, children, health, success, or financial stability, an ultimate thing, or what Jesus called our ‘treasure’…. And be careful not to worship a good thing as a god thing for that is a bad thing” (346-47). Hope that helps. And thanks for requesting a clarification.

Bob Gonzales