 I just did a series that I know the orthodox apologists don't like, but on just believers' baptism. They'd like to present it that way. We'll see the early church was in infant baptism. Well, certainly it was practiced, at least in the third century on, but believers' baptism is what you see up until that point. And even when you see infant baptism, I think the evidence would indicate believers' baptism was still just as common or maybe more common. It looks like clearly in the fourth century, and I think most infant baptizers would acknowledge that the fourth century believers' baptism is the main practice. So, yeah, so we kind of let them, oh, well, infant baptism, okay, that's the early church. Well, no, we can take a stand. The early church has a strong witness for believers' baptism. We are following the historic faith. Interesting, because isn't that, that sounds pretty controversial, depending on who hears you say that, because you're like, oh, no, that's not what the early church taught, whatever, whatever, which I guess in that case, we're going to have to do a whole another episode on it, but you said you did a series on this. So, is that something people can check out and listen to? Yeah, so there's, it's on scroll publishing now. There's four CDs. It goes, it starts with the New Testament, and that's one of the problems with people who go Orthodox. You've got to stick with the New Testament. The early church, the early Christian writings are best commentary on the New Testament, but when they start, when people start using them as an authority in their own right, then they're dangerous because they're fallible humans, and they would have never wanted to be used that way. They're just trying to expound the New Testament, and we have a witness of what they believe, but they weren't trying to write things for, oh, this is what everyone should do for ages to come or anything like that. But always stick with the New Testament, and so that's where I start with the New Testament. Do we see anything about infant baptism there? I go through the book of Acts. All, so many baptisms, every time, it says they believed, they believed. Even if it's a whole household, it said they all believed. So, and then we look at the second century. Any mention there? I mean, we go through quote after quote. So then we get to where we do start getting some clear evidence of infant baptism, and first, it's generally emergency baptism. An infant is dying, and so not everyone did it, but a lot of parents, like to baptize them, they could feel like, okay, they were baptized when they were buried. No teaching that the child was lost if they weren't baptized. But yeah, you start seeing emergency baptisms. But again, you see emergency baptisms of people 12, 19 in their 20s. So it's obviously weren't baptized as infants, or they wouldn't be getting an emergency baptism when they're 12 or 19. It's always because they have some fever, they're about to die, and they get this emergency deathbed kind of baptism. So even that practice shows that the only reason even those infants got baptized was because they were going to die. Otherwise, yeah, they would not have been baptized. So actually, that practice shows that believers baptism was the norm. Because again, if all babies were baptized from the start, then you wouldn't have to do these emergency ones. The fact you were doing it shows that, yeah, they didn't get baptized when they were newborn, and you're baptizing them at the year one, or something like the age one, one year because they are dying and the parents want them baptized as a Christian before they're buried. I'm not saying I approve of that practice, but I don't know that there's any tremendous harm in it either. Well, that's so interesting though, because yeah, I think that has been one of the critiques I've heard about your work over the years. It's like, oh, well, he's selectively reading early church writings. He's missing one, and which one of them that someone did mention specifically was that issue of baptism, which I did not know you'd done that series. I'm going to definitely text that person and be like, hey, check out this series, let me know what you think, because they weren't necessarily agreeing, disagreeing, but they're just like, I think that's a blind spot. Bersot needs to, whatever, he needs to address that. And that's really interesting to hear you say that because yeah, I know there's definitely people out there that are, yeah, maybe they're reading a different era of church history. They're reading it in a very different way, and I think that's important. And they're being influenced. I mean, even us, we wouldn't have gone down the journey we did in Texas. But like I said, the only source books we had outside the Indian Ocean Father, which again, that's a lot to try to find out what they say about this, were these books published by Roman Catholics that yeah, Doc, you know, topically had this laid out. So you see only these quotes that fit the Roman Catholic doctrine. And we didn't have anything, you know, even when I did the dictionary, and I don't regret it, I made it as theologically neutral as I could. I didn't, you know, and I was in a good position to do that because like I say, Anglican is kind of a bridge between Protestant and Catholic. And, but I just, I wanted to be honest that people could find the quotes there. But I didn't just selectively put ones in that fit, whomever. I mean, but like I say, all the other people, yeah, their stuff is always just the stuff that fits them. And so, yeah, it's convincing if you don't want to look at the broad thing. So yeah, people think I'm only selectively quoting, I think it's just the other way around. I've tried to put everything in there and acknowledge, you know, what is there. They've never talked to me about the subject of infant baptism. So they just think they know what I believe. Because I never, I never did any CDs on that. I mean, this is the first time.