Road Trip Shorter DL: Conclusion of Longshore Response

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. It is good to be with you. We are recording this program so I can sort of get it done and get it out there. Here's what's going on. I'm still in Kansas City, Missouri, sort of.

Kansas City is sort of a schizophrenic place, Kansas City, Kansas, Kansas City, Missouri. I was in Leavenworth this morning at the CREC church there. Did a little thing on Christmas that I enjoyed getting the chance to do.

That's why I'm still wearing my brightly colored, this is actually a Tundra sweater. They're the Canadian version of Coogee. I'd say about 60 of my favorite Coogees are actually Tundras, just so you know that.

And they also tend to be a little bit cheaper on eBay if you're hunting for something like that. But anyway, did something on Christmas this morning and hope that that was a blessing to the folks there.

And tomorrow I'll be preaching and then heading out. And what I've done is I've changed my travel plans so that I can get home a day earlier. And that means I'm going from six hour days to seven and a half hour days on the road.

A little dangerous, but I really, really liked it home that extra day. And so that may impact my ability to get any dividing lines done on the way home on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So I thought, all right, I've got a little time.

Let's finish up our response to Jared Longshore, get that out there. And may not be a whole hour, maybe more. I don't know. We'll see here. If I don't stop talking about other stuff, it will be too long.

And see how that all works out next week, or at least even if I get to sneak a program in, maybe on a little lighter subject or something like that. We'll see. We'll just see how it all works out. That's what road trip dividing lines are all about.

That's how it works. So again, once again, talk to all sorts of neat people in St. Charles and Sedalia and now here in the Kansas City area. So amazed at the reach that this program has. It's important to a lot of people.

And I hear you when you tell me that. And it means a great deal to me that it's been a lifeline for a lot of folks. And it's amazing to me, we don't try to do the fancy dancy stuff with the jingles and all sorts of entertaining stuff.

And it's just me in an RV. Well, I do have the best background light in the business. But actually, someone actually tracked it down on Amazon and bought it for themselves. Told me about that. It's like, okay, cool.

So anyway, great to meet folks and to hear folks and go from there. All right, let's get back into the response so we can get it done here. I will probably, I fixed, Rich told me how to fix the box in box thing.

So I will be throwing accordance up there when we get into the text, if we get into in-depth stuff in the text. And this time, you'll actually, you'll see me as a little teeny tiny box in the corner.

We sort of made that work better. So anyway, we were looking at the section of the discussion, section of Jared's article. He says, I did raise a very particular question when Strong Mending this point above, namely, who in tarnation is the we of Hebrews 10 .10?

In other words, does Jesus sanctify this whole new covenant people, even the ones who the Paedobaptists claim are not among those who will end up in heaven? The answer is yes, Christ does sanctify them.

And of course, the sense of the sanctification is very important. So once again, what we're dealing with here, my assertion that, first of all, I reject the idea that the Paedobaptist is over-personalizing.

Because again, I'm saying we need to allow Jeremiah 31, as it's fulfilled in Hebrews 8, as we allow the apostle to define these things, to define the nature of this covenant and what its effects are, not just what is hoped for or in a general sense, because the specific things that are mentioned for us in Hebrews 8 are the same things that are mentioned that demonstrate the perfection of Christ's work as priest.

So we're hopefully not arguing that Christ is a better priest because he has a 97 .5 saving rate, that he perfects 97 .5 of those that he tries to save. No, it's 100%. It's the Father's will that he lose none that have been given to him.

And the result of his work is that their sins are forgiven. The law is written in their hearts and upon their minds. That's full renewal, heart and mind. But how are we to love God? With all our heart, soul, mind, strength, you know?

So that's regeneration. That's total renewal. That would again force somebody, if you're going to say, yes, you are renewed, but then you can become unrenewed into either the Augustinian idea that you can be truly regenerate and then lose that because you're not given the gift of perseverance.

But if Christ is the one that's regenerating you and if you're being redeemed in the blood of Christ and he has shed his blood in your behalf, that's for the elect. And so this idea of being able to split that up doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

So we're trying to look at this from the broad context of Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10. But then given that this theology is talking about election and it's talking about Christ saving perfectly, we have to allow other statements that are made in the canon of scripture on that subject to add the color and light that needs to be there to have a full testimony of what's going on.

So we now get to this idea of the meaning of sanctification. And first, he makes reference to, he says, there are other kinds of sanctification. Most admit this given Paul's testimony that the children of a believing parent are holy, 1 Corinthians 7, 14.

And once again, my son-in-law reminded me that we did walk through Paul K. Jewett's discussion of 1 Corinthians 7 about three years ago. I haven't found that link yet, but if he found it, I'm sure that it probably can pull it up on the transcripts thing.

And so it's not an issue that hagiadzo can't have various meanings. The issue is, what does it mean here given that Hebrews 10, 10 is continuing the line that goes all the way back minimally to Hebrews 7, 24 -25 where he ever lives to make intercession for them?

I would argue that you can make a good case that the consistent reading of Hebrews as an apologetic forces you to recognize the 7, 24 -25 is vitally important for recognizing what sanctification is in 10, 10.

Now, he does quote, he says, that holiness is the kind of holiness in view in our Hebrews text. Now, by the way, that holiness in 1 Corinthians, just simply they are valid children. They're not a believer and an unbeliever.

One person becomes a believer, the children do not become unclean. They do not, the marriage covenant is not broken by that condition as the gospel is going on in the world. And that has nothing to do with what is being discussed in Hebrews chapter 10, I can assure you.

So, to say that holiness is the kind of holiness in view in our Hebrews text, I just go, no, it is not, not even close. I don't know how you can even begin to connect the validity of the children's relationship to a now mixed marriage due to God breaking in and saving someone's heart, with the argument that is being made in chapter 10 of Hebrews in regards to the once for allness, the sacrifice of Christ, and that blood of the covenant is made for a specific people, if we believe in particular redemption.

You know, if you don't, then you can go to the direction, but I thought that was the context we're dealing with here. So, I have to just completely disagree and say, no, that holiness is not the kind of holiness in view in our Hebrews text.

He says, I stand with John Owen on this point. He explains the sanctification Hebrews 10 .10 is simply not the sanctification one learns in an ordo salutis soteriology lecture in the second year of seminary.

Not sure where that's coming from, but I had to take the time to look that up to see what's going on here, and so we did. And a quote, he gives us a quote in the article, and this is what he says, Owen writes this verse, the principal notion of sanctification in the New Testament is the effecting of real internal holiness in the persons of them that do believe by the change of their hearts and lives, but the word is not here so to be restrained, nor is it used in that sense by our apostle in this epistle only or very rarely, and the quotation stops there.

I'd like to continue the quotation if I could. Oh, and then you click on, oh, then you click on Logos, and it takes you 80 pages from where you were, but thankfully, I remember what page it was. Yay! Okay, so here we go.

I pick up with where the quotation ended. It is here plainly comprehensive of all that he has denied under the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of the Old Testament with the whole church state of the Hebrews under it and the effects of their ordinances and services as a complete dedication to God in opposition to the typical one which the people were partakers of by the sprinkling of the blood of cows and goats upon them, Exodus 24, a complete church state for the celebration of the spiritual worship of God by the administration of the Spirit wherein the law could make nothing perfect, peace with God upon a full and perfect expiation of sin which he denies under the sacrifices of the law, real internal purification or sanctification of our natures and persons from all inward filth and defilement of them, sounds like what I've been saying, which he proves at large that the cardinal ordinances of the law could not affect of themselves, reaching no farther than the purification of flesh, hereunto also being the privileges of the gospel in liberty, boldness, immediate access unto God, the means of that access by Christ our high priest and confidence therein in opposition of that fear, bondage, distance, and exclusion from the holy place of the presence of God which they of old were kept under, all these things are comprised in the expression of the apostle, we are sanctified.

So there's a whole lot more than the quote provided actually indicated there and a little bit later on as he expanded upon this, I want to give when he actually gets down the part that Jared quoted from is sort of at the beginning, look, quoting Owen is notoriously difficult because it's just so voluminous, so I'm not trying to make any accusations here, but when he actually gets to the actual Greek phrase, we are sanctified, he says, our sanctification is wrought, affected, accomplished by the offering of the body of Christ, in that the expiation of our sin and reconciliation with God were perfectly wrought thereby, in that the whole church of the elect was thereby dedicated under God.

Isn't that what I'm saying? I mean, again, I'm just calling for consistency in Reformed theology. I think there needs to be a consistency between our belief in the nature, intention of the atonement and our giving of the sign of the covenant in his blood and that blood is shed to bring about the redemption of the elect, a particular people.

There needs to be a consistency here, and I believe that consistency is compromised by the historical intrusion of paedo-baptism, not so much earlier in the early church because there wasn't even a complete treatise on the and complete as in that's what it was focused on, until the fourth century, and unfortunately, the deep looking into that subject became interrupted in the east and the west for different reasons, the collapse of Rome in the west, the exaltation of tradition in the east, and picks up again at the time of the reformation, and so paedo-baptism becomes an established practice in the west for all the wrong reasons that even the Presbyterians would agree are the wrong reasons.

So that paedo-baptism being practiced isn't Reformed paedo-baptism. It's minimally a deficient understanding and maybe a completely erroneous understanding, and then that becomes replaced by a willingness to continue in that perspective requiring further reformation is how I would say it.

So all that to say, if you have Owen here saying, in that the whole church of the elect was thereby dedicated unto God, which privilege they are called into the actual participation of through faith in the blood of Christ, in that thereby all the old legal sacrifices and all that yoke and burden and bondage were with they were accompanied are taken out of the way, in that he redeemed us thereby from the whole curse of the law as given originally in the law of nature and also renewed in the covenant of Sinai, in that thereby he ratified and confirmed the new covenant and all the promises of it and all the grace contained in them to be effectually communicated unto us, effectually communicated unto us, in that he thereby procured for us and received into his own disposition and behalf of the church effectually to communicate all grace and mercy unto our souls and consciences.

In brief, whatever was prepared in the will of God for the good of the church, it is all communicated unto us through the offering of the body of Christ in such a way as tendeth unto the glory of God and the assured salvation of the church.

I, that seems rather um clear and compelling to me uh in what he is uh what he is saying there. So uh we press on. Fifth, Christ's sacrifice of himself indeed is far better than the old sacrifices of bulls and goats, but it does not follow the new covenant in which the blood of Christ pertains consists of only regenerate members.

It does. Again, if you really think of Christ dying for you as an individual, then my point will be incomprehensible, and I guess my best response would be, and if you're thinking that Christ's death establishes covenantal parameters such that an individual can be in the covenant but not receive the effects of the blood that initiates the covenant, then I think you've missed the point.

And in a frightening fashion, it's not a matter of, well, it's all covenant, no individuality, or it's all individuality and no covenant, but you have to recognize that the description of the effect of the covenant upon the members of that covenant from the least to the greatest of them, forgiveness of sin, knowledge of God, possession of the writing of the law upon the heart, these are not things that are to be, these are things that cannot be understood outside of the collective application to individuals.

It's the sins of individuals that make up the collective sins of the whole. So we can talk about Christ bearing the sins of the world, Jew and Gentile, from the beginning of those who had faith to our situation today, we can think of it in that general sense, but we can't think of that without the individualization of those sins, that burden of sin is made up of individual, discrete, concrete, known-to-God sins that are then forgiven because Christ bears them in his body upon the tree.

And so he says he manifestly did die for individuals, that bears repeating, Christ died for individuals, but he also died for a bride, as the good old hymn the Church is One Foundation says, with his own blood he bought her, and for her life he died.

In other words, his blood was the blood of the new covenant, that blood operates according to the terms and conditions of the covenant. If members of the covenant do not walk by faith, then they will not receive the benefits purchased by Christ's blood.

But saving faith is the result of the finished work of Christ in the elect, and when you separate them, you open the door for all sorts of bad stuff, including the federal vision. You do, you do, no matter how hard you try.

So this is key, because it is specifically saying his blood was the blood of the new covenant, and it is, and I believe that that blood is shed, that life is given in behalf of a specific people, and everyone for whom that blood is shed will receive the full remission of sins because of their union with Christ.

That's the description of Hebrews 8, that's the description of Hebrews 7, he is able to save the uttermost. What is the essence of Christ's intercession in heaven? He holds his priesthood permanently, he's able to save them, because he ever lives to make an intercession before them.

What is that intercession? Is it a separate work outside of his death, or is it the presentation of that perfect and finished work in their behalf? He is their representative. If that's not personal and specific and individual, as well as group, he represents all the elect, but every individual in the elect.

This separates that out. He represents the covenant members, but not all the covenant members. They have to operate according to the terms and conditions of the covenant, but the terms and conditions of this covenant is, I will make the covenant, and I will do these things, and I will write my law, and I will reveal myself, and they will know me.

And by the way, to know, it's not like, oh, here's a general knowledge, and they were the ones smart enough to make that connection and come to know God. This is all what God does. That's why it's so perfect.

That's the description in Hebrews 8. God's the one that writes the law. God's the one that reveals himself. They shall be my people. I will be merciful to sins. Wipe the sins out. It's all connected together.

You can't disconnect it. And so, to open up this door of, well, but you can be a covenant member, but none of that's actually true of you. You either have to say, well, it's actually true of you, but it can be undone, which makes absolutely no sense at all, I mean, unless you now construct a sacramental system, and you fundamentally change the definition of what it means to be, what the atonement actually accomplishes, and what justification is, and I mean, not go in that direction.

So, that blood operates according to terms and conditions of the covenant. Yes, I will make them my people. I will write my law. I will forgive them. They will all know me. Least of the greatest of them.

There's the description of the covenant. There's the terms and conditions of the covenant. If members of the covenant do not walk by faith, then they will not receive the benefits purchased by Christ's blood.

That's different covenant. That's taking the old covenant and just transferring it into the definitions of the new, rather than letting the new covenant documents define the new covenant, and this has always been the issue.

The issue has always been, well, it's an argument about continuity and discontinuity. No, both sides believe in continuity and discontinuity. The question is, do the new covenant, we call it the New Testament, that's the documents of the new covenant, do the new covenant documents define the new covenant, or do the old covenant documents define the new covenant?

Well, Jeremiah 31 is in the old covenant, yes, but its fulfillment and the specific fulfillment and application is found in the new covenant documents, and does that take precedence over taking something from the old covenant and say, well, I think this is the context in which we must bring this in and force the new covenant fulfillment to be in this way.

So, if members of the covenant do not walk by faith, then they'll not receive the benefits purchased by Christ's blood. You might as well say, if the elect do not walk by faith, they will not receive the benefits purchased by Christ's blood, and the Reformed understanding is Christ's blood, and then the application of that by the Spirit, again, Triune Harmony in the Gospel, the Father decrees, the Son procures, the Spirit applies.

If the elect are truly redeemed by Christ, then that saving faith that is theirs is the gift of God. It's not just simply offered to them, it is the natural result of their changed nature. The living heart that has the law written upon it, rather than the heart of stone, is going to walk by faith.

It's not our walking by faith that then allows the new covenant to do what the new covenant can do. Again, there's a dark specter down there, there's a lot of dark specters down that road, but I mentioned what that dark specter was a little while ago.

So, how is Christ's blood better than Bull's blood, you ask? Bull's blood cannot take away sin. Indeed, Bull's blood was a reminder of sin. It was, the citation is Hebrews 10 .3, but that's not why it was a reminder of sin.

The reminder was in the repetition. I just want to correct that, but this does not mean that Bull's blood was a reminder of the Old Testament saints of sin that was still in their account. By faith, they received the virtue and efficacy of Christ's redemption back then, their sins being taken from their account and placed on Christ's account.

Yes, those who had saving faith, in other words, the elect, but that wasn't everybody who bore the old covenant sign. The old covenant sign was given by birth. The new covenant sign is given by rebirth.

That's the difference. There is the credo-baptist, pedo-baptist difference amongst Reformed people. That's not the difference when you're talking about pedo-baptism in the understanding of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, even though there's differences there too.

So, there those sins were sitting in Christ's accounts. Then, when Christ came, his blood actually paid for those sins, such as they now are not even in Christ's account. Thus, the sacrifice of Christ is once for all.

Once for all. Right. Temporal adverb. As James mentioned, this is not once for all people. It's once for all time. In the new covenant, these sins have been blotted out entirely by Christ's blood, such that God says, and their sins and iniquities are remembered no more.

Now, remission of these is there is no more offering for sin. Hebrews 10, 17 through 18 agree. God remembers our sins no more because they are no more sins in any account to remember. Bull blood couldn't do that, and I would add to it repetition sacrifice.

For the law only had a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of them. So, the sacrifices could not make the old covenant people perfect, the repetitive sacrifices. Thus, the Old Testament saints still had remembrance of sins, but this was temporary for Christ has died, canceling sin completely, making us perfect, and doing away with sins such that there is no more remembrance of them.

And I would simply say, and who is this specific? Let's put any other categories aside. Are we talking here about penal substitutionary atonement, and specifically substitutionary atonement of the Son of God for his elect people?

What does that result in? And yes, that took place in time, and in God's purposes, there was the old covenant and those that believed under the old covenant, but now we have the new covenant, and we have the description of the new covenant, and so there's where the issues are.

So, in summary, the claim that the Christians' children are in the new covenant indeed involves the further claim that not each and every member of the new covenant is actively regenerate. There it is.

To maintain a theological novum from the 16th century, we have to redefine what I think is the clear exegetical conclusion of starting in Hebrews 7, going to Hebrews 10, and letting it be a consistent argument, because you have to make the new covenant like the old in being a mixed covenant.

Not just—I'm not talking just about the external church here. We can talk about how we deal with faithlessness and deception and, you know, people who lie to receive the covenant sign, and we can talk about all that stuff, but that's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about what Christ accomplishes in his blood in the new covenant. He says, it does not fall. This claim destroys the apologetic argument of Hebrews. I disagree. It does. You could build quite a case for telling Jim Bob not to go back to the old covenant, indeed an argument in keeping with just what Paul is saying in the text, but that's not what Paul is saying in the text.

We've seen that a number of places already. Okay, under scattershot, we're getting—there's just very little left here. We've talked about some of these things, but I want to try to get them all in today, and I do have to apologize.

It's obviously completely unfair to do this. I mean, I'm not expecting Jared to respond to all this. We're up to, what, probably two plus hours now of commentary on this, and that just keeps getting longer and longer and longer, and neither one of us have time to be doing that, but I particularly have to apologize because clearly he does not have any sweaters nearly as glorious as mine, and so he'd have to be wearing these drab, boring things, and it just seems a little bit unfair.

He's not going to have the light in the background that I have, and so it's a little unfair. I'm sorry, Jared, but I've been doing this a lot longer than you have, so I'm not really sorry. Never mind.

Forget it. Okay, now, under scattershot, James asked, what does Christ intercede for in the new covenant, or who—correction—who does Christ intercede for in the covenant? Answer, all new covenant members.

Keep that in mind because this is now touching on the very nature of intercession. What is the nature of intercession? The presentation of that finished work. Here is the high priest. He enters into the holy place with blood on his own.

That's the old high priest. Now the new high priest enters into the holy place with his own blood, having what? Obtained eternal redemption. Okay, his presence before the Father in the place of whom? If it's new covenant members, then the new covenant and the elect are coextensive, or you don't believe in particular redemption, right?

Answer, all new covenant members, and as clarified above, he does so according to the conditions of the covenant, not contrary to those conditions. So, in other words, he intercedes for everyone in the new covenant as long as they walk by faith.

Do you see what's going on here? Do you see what this means? Because it is perfectly correct to say that new covenant members will continue in faith, but why? Because they are the elect. Because they have been given by the Father to the Son.

The Son does not lose any that are given to Him because the Father, Son, and Spirit work the work of salvation perfectly. They bring about redemption. If you want to pull John 6 in here, they learn from the Father.

They're drawn to the Son. If you want to just, you know, do the Hebrews 8, they're forgiven, least of the greatest. All of those things are true, and it's all the work of God. It's all to His glory, but it does result in continuing saving faith on our part.

But if you make, if you pull in from the old covenant a distinction and try to say, no, the new covenant is a mixed covenant of the elect and non-elect, now you have Christ representing in His blood those for whom He did not die to save.

And we're back to the inconsistency of the Arminian who, on the one hand, will talk about penal substitutionary atonement, Christ died for me, but then ends up having to say Christ died for everyone in the same way.

And we don't need to go into John Owen, death of death, to know where that goes. So, in other words, He intercedes for all the fish in the net of His kingdom. At the same time, He intercedes for the good fish in the net in a way He does not intercede for the bad fish in the net.

Now, I just simply have to say, this is totally redefining the idea of the union of the elect with Christ in His death. That would make them the good fish, but the question I was asking when it says, who does Christ intercede for in the new covenant?

What does intercession mean? What does intercession mean? That was defined for us in Hebrews 7, 24 -25. It is that singular presentation of His finished work. He is presenting before the Father the finished work of those united with Him.

That's the elect. If you're saying that there are bad fish united with Him, you have completely changed your doctrine of atonement. I don't even get it. Where does that come from? I don't know. So, then it says, He also asks, what does Christ mediate in the new covenant?

And the answer is, He mediates the covenant. I'm not sure that that's, that's, what? He is a mediator of the new covenant, but what does He mediate to the elect? What do they receive through His intermediary work?

What do the, okay, let's put it this way. What do the good fish get that the bad fish don't? In fact, the bad fish, if their judgment is, in fact, a part of the mediation of Christ, then the only way to understand that is that Christ mediates wrath upon members of the new covenant based upon His blood.

And I guess I could, I could come up with a, well, they trample underfoot the blood of the Son of God, therefore they get wrath, but that's how it's mediated to them or something. I suppose we could try to go there.

I don't know how that would, that's not going to flow consistently from all the way through having obtained eternal redemption, but not really retaining, obtaining eternal redemption, only in a theoretical sense, but only for people who do this, that, and the other thing, and that becomes, that becomes bad.

The Father's solemn oath of life to man on earth is an oath in and by Jesus Christ and conditioned upon obedient faith. I should add this obedient faith condition is not legalism, much less F .V. Redux.

And then he refers you to reading some other books, and he puts obedience right there as a condition of the covenant. Obedience is always a condition of the covenant, that's why Christ obeyed, in the place of His people.

But to say that, this is saying that faithful obedience, faithful obedient faith, is not purchased by the blood of Christ for the elect, or for the new covenant member. So I guess they would say, yeah, it's purchased for the elect, but not the, not the new covenant member.

That takes us back to Augustine and perseverance, right? I'm not, I'm just not even sure how that, how that works. I can't see it. James states, this covenant, the new covenant, brings about regeneration, and not in the minority response, I agree, as noted above.

Well, what I meant by not in the minority, as in the old covenant, I mean in the sense of these are the elect, and so it's all. James indicates the new covenant actually establishes a relationship between God and covenant members.

Reply, I agree, a covenant relationship for all, and a living internal person relationship for the elect. So there you go, there you have the distinction. You're back to the old, where you had elect and non-elect in one covenant, which is the whole point of Hebrews 8, from the least to the greatest of them.

It's, it's right there, that's the whole point, and it's lost in the paedo-baptist position. I said the new covenant is salvific. I, he says, I agree, so was the old. Clarifications on the nature of that salvation must be made from there, and many of them were made above.

Yeah, I, I don't, we're, we are talking past each other at this point, because I would say the definitions that Jared is now placing upon the text are coming from outside the text, are not being derived from the text.

So there you go, he says, James emphasizes the individual at points, and I agree with the emphasis, but want to include the corporate along with the individual, and he talks about Paul, Palmer Robertson, and things like that.

Okay, so we've gone through a lot there. We have, we have touched upon a, a lot of material that already I've had people say that they've appreciated being forced into the text of Hebrews and following the argument as it, as it moves along, and you know, we aren't the first generation that's had this conversation by, by a long shot.

We've, we've covered this over and over and over again, and we need to keep covering it over and over and over again, and we can smile and say, yes, as, as God-given unity is granted to the church in the post-millennial hope, the other side will eventually dwindle once we come to a full understanding, and you know, we all would like to, like to believe that's going to be the case.

I'll leave that to future generations. In our generation, my assertion is that if you're going to seek to have a consistent understanding of the atoning work of Christ, and if the new covenant is the covenant in his blood, then you must include intercession, you must include the perfection of that work in behalf of the elect.

To have any kind of meaningful, meaningfully consistent theology of atonement, and then downstream from that, baptism. That's just absolutely necessary. So, snuck that in in only about 40 minutes or so.

Like I said, I don't know what we're going to be able to do next week, because I have changed my travel plans, and it's going to be exceptionally difficult to do that, and to get back, and to have time during the days for anything other than just the traveling part, but we will make an effort.

We will try to do something along the lines. If not, hopefully you'll be able to understand and continue on from there. So, thanks for watching the program today, and we will see you next time on The Dividing Line.

God bless.