July 22, 2003

John 3:16 and the Meaning of “Whosoever”

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James White.

The name of this program asserts the scriptures daily. The name of the ministry is the Berean call. They search the scriptures daily to see if what the Apostle Paul was saying was so. Now our concern here is with the scriptures and how people understand the scriptures.

Because I know there are listeners out there to say I'm clueless. I don't know what Calvinism is about and Arminianism. I don't know any of those things and I'm not particularly interested. Well, Tom, just a second.

I'm the interject a moment. I remember a letter recently from a pastor and he begins by saying we've been taking the Berean call for many years. We have agreed with you 100 right down the line. How you've exposed air and how you stood firmly for the truth.

But now as soon as you say a word about Calvinism all that's out the window. We dare not touch this that really concerns me. Mm-hmm. Well, let me tell our listeners how basic this is and I think this is.

Shows you what we're concerned about. First of all take the first scripture that anyone in Sunday school any Christian would learn. It's John 3 16 for God so love the world.

That of course is from the Berean call radio program. You may recall just a couple weeks and I am really really really hot in my headphones here. That we started looking at some clips from the Berean call that I had called from the archives and I just disappeared and We started responding to some of the common Assertions that are made by Dave Hunt and his co-host TA McMahon.

We only got through a few of them that program and I started thinking over the past couple of weeks. That in reality on Tuesdays as I've been we've been doing this for a number of months now. Tuesdays during the day generally, we don't get a lot in the way of phone calls and.

And Thursday evenings during the evening we do that makes sense. Most people are at work right now. They can't get get in to You know make a phone call or something like that. And so that makes a lot of sense.

And So my thinking is in essence, maybe we could Focus on Tuesday mornings on programs where I do more of a presentation something like that. Maybe you know take a phone call or two if they come in. But in essence then on Thursday evening have more of the interaction.

I've got a lot of distortion and stuff in my headphones right now. So you all just ignore me? I'm doing the best I can that of course what I was playing for you. Which sounded fine was TA McMahon and Dave Hunt and they are discussing John 3 16.

That's where they start. You'll notice that. Mr. Hunt said, you know, you're just not supposed to discuss these things. It is not that you're not supposed to discuss Calvinism David's. It's the means by which you're to do so.

Remember the words of Spurgeon when he said if you're going to disagree with our Calvinism at least represent it accurately. Which has been the issue so I can go back to that particular Section again and restart that and we'll hear what Dave has to say about John 3 16.

Well, let me tell our listeners how basic this is and I think this is Shows you what we're concerned about. First of all take the first scripture that anyone In Sunday school any Christian would learn.

It's John 3 16 for God So love the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever Would believe upon him. Now somebody said well, I know that scripture. So what? How would a Calvinist and now I'm being honest here David. I know that you will be too.

How does a Calvinist have to interpret that critical very important very wonderful verse because of their peculiar belief in predestination of a certain nature of irresistible grace and so forth that God has Predestined some to go to heaven and predestined others to go to hell.

Therefore it can't be for whosoever. They believe in limited atonement that Christ did not die for all. Therefore they have to change world to elect now. Let's stop right there.

You'll notice and this again is something that mr. Hines has been corrected on a number of times that he has has yet to Grasp hold of it or accept the correction. And of course if you're not going to accept the correction, you might want to be able to explain why?

There is an issue in regards to why? It is improper to understand in a particular direction, but be as it may the phrase whosoever Is very key to the understanding of this passage? In regards to mr. Hunt's understanding of it and many others the more scholarly Armenians will not be quite as Emphatic at this point because they can read the text and they can translate the text and that Changes things in essence for them.

They recognize that there is no general term in the text for Whosoever they will not read into the Greek text the concept of universal ability. But mr. Hunt does and it's interesting. I might mention around the way.

And There's folks mentioning. It sounds rough. It'll clear up clear up in just a second. It just hit I don't know what happened, but something just hit and all of a sudden we're back to where we we normally are and it sounds good, but anyway the the Material the discussion that we've had on this program Regarding Dave hunt of late and by the way, let me back up one more time Straightgate calm if you haven't been there Str a IT Gat e .com if you've not read Pilgrim's Progress that might not mean anything to you, but straightgate .com.

That's where our that's where this program is archived. If you're listening this program on archive You're probably listening to it there unless you purchase the mp3. That site has been completely reworked.

Steven Luker's done a great job. And what he's done is he has Collated all our material on various subjects and put the put it together so you can go to now a Dave hunt page and Obviously this particular program will be added to that and you can see all the responses we've offered to Dave hunt over the past about three years now and On that that material is getting all over the place.

I'm getting regular emails right now. There's a tremendous amount of discussion of Dave hunt and his book in Australia and New Zealand and it's fascinating to read these supporters of Dave hunt who will for example say well I listened to that debate between white and hunt and and we haven't debated yet and mr. Hunt won't.

He's reneged on his his agreement to do so saying that the book is sufficient and obviously it's not but I listened that debate and it was just the radio program that I hosted the Marty Minto radio broadcast on KPXQ and and I Felt that that hunt bested white.

And I'm and I I listened to that program and everyone that I know who's listened that program just just looks at it and goes. That person said what they they they said what and it was it was Amazing that's that people who said but anyways, this stuff is going all over the place these programs are being taped and are being distributed in in the places where the the battle lines are drawn and You might say, you know, you've gone over John 316 before yes sort of.

There is an exegesis of John 316 on our website. If you go to the the Dave hunt open letter go about three-quarters the way through that very lengthy article. You'll find a section on John chapter 3 but the the fact the matter is The brilliant call it the newsletter the radio program is distributed all across the world.

And as statements are made responses need to be made and sometimes if you listen regularly, you'll see a response made more than once. That's because not everyone listens all the time and we frequently get people asking the same questions.

And so sometimes yes there is a level of repetition that has to go in there and Obviously when dealing with John chapter 3 verse 16 the first thing to catch when you're listening to someone Presenting it to you one of the one of the ways I've discovered and this isn't really anything overly insightful.

But it's certainly something that I've found to be consistent is that if the person emphasizes the term whosoever and Immediately makes application based upon that one of two things is going on either.

They have not interacted seriously for lack of exposure to Reformed materials say they they're going on their tradition. They've never had a response. They may be very interested when you provide them with the response and they may be very much Willing to embrace what the what the actual text is saying and to abandon that that's quite possible you can't just assume that they're going to you know, Blow you off and and so on so forth, but The other possibility is that yes, they're very much repeating a tradition.

They've already heard a response and they have no intention of accepting that response. That unfortunately is. It's a possibility as well. I you know, there's there's no way of knowing until you get into the conversation but when you hear someone emphasizing that whosoever you need to to in a In a respectful way and in a knowledgeable way and In a way in which you are seeking the edification of all involved correct the misapprehension and What I mean by that, of course is that when that whosoever is emphasized It's being emphasized without a textual basis.

What do I mean by that? Well if the person is saying this Verse is saying that every single individual has the capacity to engage in this activity. Then there would have to be something in the text to provide that foundation.

It's not there the actual Greek refers to all the believing ones now. We generally in English do not use that kind of a construction. We can understand it, but it's very rough. And so what we'll say is whoever believes What whatever group it is when you when you have that believing group name any person within that group of ones who believe and You will there have A person if they believe they receive eternal life.

That's all it's talking about all the believing ones receive eternal life. That's all that the John 3 is talking about when you use that term whosoever and say see it. There's no election then you're you have now Transported John chapter 3 out of its context you have ignored its original language.

You've ignored the original point and you're not showing respect for the passage so much what you might want to do. When talking to someone who brings this up when they say well, let's look at John chapter 3 you might say, you know.

Let's do that. And in fact, let's look at let's look at the key passages in John John chapter 3 John chapter 6 John chapter 8 John chapter 10 and John chapter 17. Let's look at all of them. Because you know the advantage here is we're staying in John we can stay in the words of Christ specifically and the dialogues he had with others and let's really do our best to show respect for the Word of God and What I mean by that is let's make sure that instead of Me hearing my Calvinist traditions or you hearing your non Calvinist traditions.

Let's do the best we possibly can to make sure that how we understand these words is how they were originally intended and. So if if there's something that we emphasize. Then we need to we need to make sure that that emphasis is the text's emphasis and not our Emphasis and now you've laid into foundation.

So when they quote John 3 and they emphasize this whosoever phrase you can go. Well, you know, it's it's interesting. You seem to believe that that there's there's something in the text here. That's talking about a universal capacity.

But all it's saying is all the believing ones whoever believes receives eternal life it in fact limits the text to believers because I'm believers are not going to receive eternal life and then you're assuming and I'm not sure upon what basis especially in light of the contradiction in John 644 that this somehow is a Universal capacity and that way you've sort of laid a foundation and one of two things is going to happen.

Either the person is going to listen and go. I've not thought about that way. I'll need to look into that or The more common reaction sadly is oh, you're just you're just complicating things and you're just you're just such a standard Calvinist and etc, etc, etc that unfortunately does happen a good bit as well.

Therefore it can't be for whosoever. They believe in limited atonement that Christ did not die for all. Therefore they have to change world to elect. Whosoever must be whosoever of the elect. The next verse.

Verse 17. For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world But that the world through him might be saved on and on it goes. With so many verses the Bible ends. Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely, but no you can't say that's whosoever.

Now notice something and I you know, if you have not taken a look at his book What love is this? One of the things that the Dave does and and this is a standard mistake an exegetical mistake that many people make.

He he will utilize Strong's exhaustive concordance the Bible now Thank God for Strong's. Strong's is wonderful but you have to use Strong's correctly and what I mean by that is if you simply look up a word in Strong's and You Don't bother Checking the the words or phrases that that word is translating in the original languages.

Especially when you use span across Old and New Testament, you're going to end up coming to some some pretty bad Conclusions and that's what mr. Hunt does. He he goes through this term whosoever and he doesn't seem to recognize that especially a Phrase like who's a word like whosoever in English is can be translated from an a number of different foreign language phrases whether we're talking about Hebrew or Greek and that that can that type of a Translation can come out of a number of different Original language contexts and so you can't just simply throw them all together and say well It's used 500 some odd times and it always means this or something like that.

You simply cannot Take that kind of a kind of a road That may impress folks who who don't do exegesis on a regular basis, but it's not sound Exegesis, it's a common error and it's an error that mr. Hunt has made freely, but no you can't say that's whosoever.

Because only the elect are allowed to do that. And in fact, no one can unless God regenerates them first. So you have to be born again before you get saved before you can have faith to believe the gospel.

So why would God be saying whosoever will let him come? Why would Jesus say come on to me? All ye who labor and are heavy laden.

Well, why why would Jesus say that you know, if someone were to ask you that question if If someone were to ask you why would Jesus say come on to me all you who are weary and heavy laden. How does there what is a reef reformed understanding of that passage?

Well, it's quite simple and in fact in my experience the vast majority of Objections that are raised by I Guess we could call them neo-arminians. I think I would I would almost have to call them Pseudo-arminians.

I need to come up with a term for evangelicals who know nothing about church history. Who hold to a non-reformed soteriology on the basis of tradition and But yet just don't know the whole issue and argument to begin with.

I need to come up with a term. Maybe we'll maybe we'll come up with a contest one day have y 'all call in with your suggestions for a term applies for someone like that. But When when such a person asks the question, how would you understand that the vast majority of cases?

We just sort of have to look at him and go. Well, there's nothing there. That is an objection. One of the things that we have to struggle with is that many people think that almost you know, they'll throw these verses up.

That's an objection. No, that doesn't mean anything to my position at all. You just don't understand my position evidently. Come on to me all you who are weary and heavy laden. I will give you rest. Does the unregenerate man recognize?

What's being discussed here does does the unregenerate man hunger and thirst for righteousness of the unregenerate man. Is he weary and heavy laden? These these calls out to and this is something that hunt just just hammers away on God gives all these invitations.

Yeah, I Use this illustration and I'm certainly of course. I I I Certainly recognize that I didn't come up with this illustration, but it's one that I have used For all sorts of Years now and it's all sorts of in context and that is The the non reformed perspective in essence has God walking through the the graveyard of humanity carrying in his hand the elixir of life and With tears in his eyes, he's calling out anyone who will Raise yourself to spiritual life and take the elixir of life from my hands and If you do that in the graveyard long enough, they'll come and cart you away because there's something missing and What's missing of course is spiritual life itself.

No one can raise themselves out of that grave to to take from you that that that healing potion and so The whole idea of well, there's all these there's all these Passages of script hundreds of passages in the Bible where God pleads with people.

So, let me see if I follow the argument so if God pleads with people Then there can be No further action on his part where he enables his elect people to respond to those pleas. Instead the assumption the unstated assumption that is being made over and over and over again.

Is that if God makes the plea every single person has the capacity to respond to it? And you see what follows from that is the idea that well what's going on here is If God commands something or God gives a plea he must give the ability to fulfill it as well that becomes the argument and That needs to be the the statement the unstated premise that is a part of most of these objections is This idea that well if God pleads with all then he gives all the ability to respond as if giving that plea and then enabling the elect to respond to that plea and using that plea in their life to bring about spiritual life or spiritual sanctification and at the same time through the Rejection of that to bring about the hardening and the just damnation of those who hate God just as in the preaching of the gospel You have the exact same thing somehow God's not allowed to do that That becomes part and parcel of what's what's going on.

Let's finish up this clip.

Come on to me all ye who labor and are heavy laden I will give you rest. Do only the elect labor and are heavy laden or if you're just saying that To the elect see so we have hundreds even thousands of verse.

Hundreds and thousands of verses that is the Constant argument that I encountered in the writing of our book. Every time a particular verse of mr. Hunt's would would be refuted And demonstrated to not teach what he thought it taught for example first John 5 1 then the response to me.

We don't need that verse anyways because there are hundreds of others, and then you'd pick out another one. Let's look another one of these hundreds of others you'd examine it boom that one doesn't work either.

Well that doesn't really matter because there are hundreds of others, and it's this constant. Well, you know these nebulous lists when you start going through the list and you find out the list don't have anything to do with what?

We're talking about here. They don't they don't prove the point and yet it keeps being repeated over and over and over again. Let's listen to this one more, and then we've already got two folks online and phone numbers.

Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. I didn't expect much in the way of phone calls today, but we've got some questions Specifically on the subject today, so we'll go ahead and take those.

But let's listen to this this next clip first that this needs to be addressed because it has to do with how you interpret.

God's Word and Look, we're not saying that they're dead wrong in everything, and and I don't want them to say that about us, but let's wrestle. Let's go through the scriptures. Let's search the scriptures to see if these things are so.

Did you catch that amen there. There's an obvious reason why I played that because I agree with it, and I agree with mr. McMahon. Let's go through these scriptures. Let's let's do this. Well, I suggest that doing it the way.

We're doing it right now that is. You have you have the folks you know up in The brain call and they do their programs. And they give their side and we give our side. Now of course what we do is we not only give our side But we play their side too, and then respond to it.

They don't play our side and then respond to it. We certainly by the way would would love to have Mr.. Hunt or mr. McMahon on our program if they would like to respond to any of this would be glad to have them on and By the way, we'd be glad to come on the brain call as well.

But obviously we think that the best way to do it is not through. You know radio programs and webcasts. But to do so in the form of a formal debate. Where we could debate John 316 and we could debate the exegesis of John 316.

We could go through the text of John 316 so on and so forth. That's what we would like to see. Take place well our phone lines are almost full. I guess it's just one of those days and What I'd like to do is go and not quite the same order because I'd like to try to keep the the the topics related here and since we were just discussing the term whosoever and What it means and things like that.

I'd like to go down south just north of Nogales, Mexico to Rio Rico, Arizona.

Calvinism, Reformed Exegesis, and the “Whosoever” Debate

Hello, Jim. How are you? Hey? I'm fine Jim. Jim and Jim. Yeah, right. I don't know if you remember yet. You were at conference with us several years ago. Oh, yeah, sovereign grace Baptist Church. That's true.

It's the only time I've ever been into Mexico is when you took us across the border there to the restaurant that John Wayne used to frequent. That's the about the only thing I remember about the specifics there then.

I was hoping a whole lot that I was going to. Get back into the good old u .s.. Of a and not encounter any federales, right?

I think I think you made it safe and sound. I think we did. Maybe a comment about This this concept that it might takes on meaning when you do it. For instance in Proverbs at King James Reference that says wine is a mocker strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceived thereby or doesn't mean anything.

Really when they throw that out there is that is that not true. Well?

Yes, and of course each one of those phrase whosoever whoever is what the new American Standard uses. You know each one of these has to be defined within its context because as you're right as you say whoever Does this whoever fulfills this condition?

It's just a part of the English language, but what we see here. I think is an example of where tradition exists within Evangelical preaching and teaching and that is when you know you don't have to stand up in a pulpit and Say well whenever we say whosoever This is what we want you to understand by it as long as you use it that way with an understood idea.

You never have to actually commit yourself to the teaching, but the teaching is there nonetheless and in fact it is so clearly Communicated that to question that on the part of anyone is to expose yourself to being identified as a God hater and a false teacher and and Occultist and everything else as I have discovered.

You know over the past number of years myself so I think you know we really need to learn that that there is a That one of the means by which tradition is promulgated even within Evangelical churches is through the way in which we use verses not necessarily by what we say about Them we can simply allow the conclusion to stand and if you repeat that over and over again Especially within the context for example of a of an emotional altar call or something like that You repeat it on a weekly basis over and over and over again eventually people get the idea that well you know what that must be what the verse means and That they stop thinking critically about the verse and just understand it within the context of tradition.

Right, right. Yeah. Refers to that in his figures of speech as a synecdoche too, doesn't he? I'm not sure what he refers to it as now. Yeah, he puts it on the category of a synecdoche of genus.

Well, especially with verses like that you heard TA McMahon saying well You know This is the first verse any of us memorized as if what that means is This is a verse that everyone understands and our traditional understanding is the only way that it can be understood.

The problem is the vast majority of us have never been challenged or instructed to recognize That what John wrote under the direction of the Holy Spirit of God as he spoke from God Was Hinnah pass hoppest you own in order that all the ones believing ice out on in him.

And you go on from there that he didn't use the term whosoever our understanding of whosoever must be Made commensurate with and must match what the Holy Spirit gave to us in John initially. And that's that's the important part that people need to understand and and I think we need to communicate very clearly to our our people today.

Right. All right. All right. Thank you very much brother. Thank you for your work down there in Rio Rico beautiful area.

I imagine you're getting some some monsoon storms down there about now. Yes, we are. We're getting I bet.

All right, brother. God bless you as you work down there. Okay. All right. Thank you for calling. Bye. Bye. 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. We need to take a quick break and then come back with Drew and With Jason.

Jason first down in Florida and we'll continue here on the dividing line right after this.

Covenant Theology, the New Covenant, and Christ as Mediator

Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth Letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style. James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well-defined arguments.

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith. The theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the LDS Church.

This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons. Letters to a Mormon elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at a omen.

Or more than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and.

Many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book the Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture. The papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself. They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen org.

What is dr Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios. No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom. James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White Masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen. Org.

It's not an easy way. It's a journey to walk of praise.

And welcome back to dividing line. My name is James White and Yeah, I'm noticing someone discussing Phillips Craig and D in the channel we are discussing Responding to some statements from the Dave hunt.

It's interesting. I have we're only on the ninth cut I have 13 we've only played two or three two I think so far this morning and we have lots of phone calls. So so much for my observations as when the phone calls come in whether it's Tuesday morning or Thursday night and so much also.

For you know planning along those lines and I appreciate the phone calls I think it's good to have have folks listening. So let's go ahead. We're going to head out to Sunny, Florida and talk with Jason.

Hi Jason. Hello Jason, how are you doing good? What can we do for you today? Well, I.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get one amp to work so I have no idea what you've been.

Discussing other than what what I heard on the phone. Oh, okay. Well, I win amp works. Music match jukebox should work. We've got lots of folks that listen regularly on them. So it's just a matter of probably playing with your buffering settings and and your network network setup.

Yeah, yeah, I'd.

Right. Yeah, I'm having trouble with that. Anyways. The reason for my friend of mine who's was the Presbyterian, mm-hmm, and I Was using the argument that you you had come up with on Christ being the mediator of the New Covenant, which you know the mediator somebody the mediator of the.

I said, well, yeah, I think so and Did Moses mediate wrath to people in the Old Covenant and I said, yeah, and then he says well, what's your point?

Well the point. Yeah. Yeah the point. I'm Sorry, if someone would say that simply because the points fairly clear and that is that the offering that Is a part of the Old Covenant as argued in the book of Hebrews is an offering that can never take away Sins, the New Covenant is the covenant in his blood.

I think if we would always instead of just using terms old and new if we would just refer to the covenant in his blood Then the issue of the nature of Christ mediation intercession his being a mediator of a new and better covenant would I think be a little bit more clearly understood by everyone because If someone were to say to me, well, what's your point? I would probably respond Well, I guess you didn't get my point.

My point was that the work of Christ in his blood as a mediator is Significantly different which is what makes the covenant new and better in the first place now I recognize that there are all sorts of ways around this.

So there are those who say the New Covenant Will not be brought into full fruition Until the end of time in essence in a post-millennial concept other people who limit the betterness of the New Covenant to such things as the priest of the priests and The knowledge of God's leaders in the New Covenant and things like that.

But I think if you just simply read Hebrews and the argument of Hebrews and always keep in mind it is an argument It is an apologetic and we must understand it in such a way that its arguments have weight and make sense.

Then the question that I have asked many times in regards to Christ as the mediator of the covenant in his blood is significant but significant in different ways to different people what I mean by that is obviously this is a Debate within the context of those who believe in such things as particular redemption for those who do not believe in particular redemption That's a completely different context for them in regards to the nature of the New Covenant in the first place.

So that would have been my response to him as if you'd said well if Moses mediated wrath well, first of all Moses isn't the one who Provides the covenant in his own blood. There's a there's a thing. There is a significant discontinuity in the fact that the pictures of the Old Covenant pictures in the New Covenant of the New Covenant That is the the types and shadows the sacrifice of Christ in of themselves could never Fully picture the sacrifice of the Son of God himself.

You did not have a a person who is both the high priest and the offering. This is another of the of the great Superiorities of the the New Covenant to the old at that point and so that the discontinuities there would cause all sorts of issues and I would I would probably just go back and try to Explain that to the individual and see see where they come from then.

Something I just thought about it's actually in the Shorter catechism is. One of the reasons why Christ had to be a mediator was because he had to take and in that respect.