Debate Review | James White vs. Jason Breda w/ @apologeticsfromtheattic7131

Debate Review of James White vs. Jason Breda

Well hello and welcome to The Apologetic Dog where we're live. This has been pretty.

Fun with this whole new studio setup and today I'm wanting to just jump right in and let you know doing a debate review. Now I hate to say it but this debate review was supposed to be with Dr. White last week but he's not feeling so hot so if you're tuning in just please lift Dr. James White up in prayer.

He's combating a lot of sickness and he has another debate this week and so I'll let you know a little bit more about that. But before I let you know who I have instead of Dr. White on the show, this is The Apologetic Dog where it's our heart's desire to contend for the gospel of grace and so if you see The Apologetic Dog logo somewhere you might see 1st Timothy 620 where Paul is telling Timothy, oh Timothy guard the deposit that has been entrusted to you.

And so that deposit is the gospel of grace and he says avoid irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. And so here at The Apologetic Dog we stand on God's truth. That is where we get knowledge and we're equipped to contend for the gospel of grace and we guard it with all of our might.

So I just want to thank you all for tuning in to The Apologetic Dog. The Tennessee electrician reminds us that God is the necessary precondition for electricity. Thank you Tennessee electrician. True facts.

True facts. And so with the the live streams something I'm looking forward to is getting more acquainted with the chats in the sidebar. So y 'all have to bear with me a little bit. Y 'all say some of the wildest things out there and I love it.

Let's see so the intro is super quiet, sorry about that, in the side chat and Facebook land. I believe we are live on Facebook as well so if you have any questions along the way as we do this debate review let me know your thoughts.

Definitely want to include you Facebook world out there. But without any further ado let me show you my co-host today or this evening, David Lewis. What's going on sir? Hey. So.

You just introduced me as instead of Dr. White. That's kind of crazy. You know.

What? Your name was in the same sentence as Dr. White. That's pretty awesome.

We can't say too much of this. Everyone who watches are gonna say we're biased and that's why. Well let me say. It doesn't matter how good Jason did, he can't.

Possibly win. I'm extremely biased. I was at the debate and I think you're familiar, there was a little bit of background history with Dr. White and Jason Breda. Am I saying his name right? Do you know?

Not sure but I didn't know.

That there was a background though. There's a little background.

Jason, love him, very cordial, respectful individual, but I believe he was critiquing Calvinism and he may have been critiquing one of Dr. White's videos, I don't remember exactly, but Jason ended up on the dividing line and on a radio free Geneva.

So Dr. White really brought out the Greek analysis and showing how you know you got to do more than just going to Bible tools with.

Just looking at the Greek verb tenses. I know, I remember that dividing line now.

Yes, so when I was talking with Jeffrey Rice he was like oh yeah that's the guy we got debating Dr. White and I'm like oh man I cannot wait to see what happens and like I said I was there live in person, David, and you know I really Leighton Flowers was there also.

I got to have a selfie with him so and Leighton was genuinely kind and we were talking a little bit before the debate and he let me know I was one of the nicer Calvinists that he's met and I was like I appreciate that.

So and you know I think it's unfortunate that we have to be so intentional with just trying to be extra kind because a lot of people can be jerks. I'd love to hear some of your thoughts why it is sometimes in the Reformed crowd there could be arrogance and stuff like that.

Have you had any.

Experiences like that before? Oh sure, a pastor, good friend of mine, it took me two years and we were at breakfast one time, he's not a Calvinist, he said to me yeah you're the first Calvinist I've ever met that isn't angry all the time and then he let me preach from his pulpit in a non-Calvinist church.

Yeah I think my best explanation for that is that if Satan can't blind people to the truth he'll make the ones who have the truth arrogant so that they'll never receive it. Yeah that's one way I've talked about it so I think that's I think that's a satanic attack against Calvinism personally although I'm not blaming Satan people give in to sin as well and need to repent but yeah I mean I think that that's you know among in the cage stage theory that so many times people who become Reformed they become Reformed in a non-Reformed context mm-hmm so they're the only ones who believe it for a while and then versus if you grew up in it like you won't find very many like Reformed Presbyterians who were baptized you know as an infant you know they have the opposite like why aren't you more excited about you know I've met people like that like shaking them like why aren't you oh yeah tulip yeah well I was two years old you know.

You make a good point about you know a lot of is you know there is spiritual warfare at work and it's not just the Reformed crowd. You can have really militant provisionist if you will cage stage II Armenians and so it's I think it's just a it's a heart mindset.

I think a lot of people can be excited about learning new things and that excitement comes across as so dogmatic that you can't see the love in it. And so I David you know being at the why Calvinism conference so many wonderful conversations like I said I got to meet people of different perspectives people asking questions and it was a very gracious environment.

And obviously getting to chat with dr. white you know he was looking forward to the debate and he essentially was debating limited atonement defending that doctrine and I want to throw this graphic up again for everybody to see.

So the debate that David Lewis and I are talking about is the debate between James white and Jason Breda. I don't know if I'm saying the last name right but I'm thinking that bread that Monet. But Jason was very respectful and I think he was more representing the provisionalist side of things.

He definitely used that terminology and you know more power to him if they're wanting to try to distinguish themselves you know as not being Armenian per se definitely synergistic I've learned to they don't like that terminology that much either.

But that's okay because like I said what was kind of in you know the foresight of their conversation was you know what is what is the nature of the atonement. Limited atonement maybe gets a bad rap because we're not putting limitations on God but we're talking about particular redemption that the blood of Jesus is sufficient to save to the uttermost all that the Father has given to the Son to save.

So do you want to add anything else to the doctrine of limited atonement and maybe how it's misperceived and what.

We really mean by that. Yeah first of all I have to say you're a stumbling block to me Jeremiah. Every time we say that you were at the debate and you were at the conference I just want to point that out.

So you caused me to cause me to covet. I have to repent. You know I'm joking. Hey I will say I have I have some.

Stories for you along the way that I may attempt you to covet more but yes it was phenomenal. You know what that means David you just got to come next time.

That's true. All right. So I so I agree that. So yeah you'll hear a lot of times Calvinist will say we shouldn't use the term limited atonement anymore. We should use particular redemption. Which I agree for the reasons they would give.

But I like when a non Calvinist does use limited atonement because it gives you the opportunity to point out. Unless you're a universalist everyone limits the atonement. And if you ever heard that line but mm-hmm I forget where that's from.

But everyone limits it. So there's a couple times I don't know if we'll play these clips or not. But there's a couple times where you know I was yelling at the debate when Jason was making a few statements where it's like dude you keeps giving you want to give the atonement this universal provisional scope.

Right. But it's it's limited even in your view because it's only for those who believe. Again he said that a whole bunch of times. Well it's only for those who believe. It's only for those who believe.

I mean you I let's go down that path. It's only for those who believe. Correct. So when someone dies in unbelief was the atonement for them. And dr. white I've heard him do this. He's very good at it.

Like he'll corner you to the point where so you're saying that those who are spending an eternity under the wrath of God in hell. Jesus died for them. Are you preparing. You know just say yes. I mean be consistent right with your position.

And then that pushes them to basically. Well it's either universalism or particular redemption. Mmm unless you change the atonement. And then now we'll change the atonement away from a penal substitutionary atonement to something else to get completely out of that conundrum which is what Arminius did and which is what like Charles Finney did more more recently.

Mmm let's get rid of the whole let's change the entire doctrine of the atonement away from penal substitution. So we can avoid that Calvinistic challenge which we can't refute. I'm glad you brought up penal.

Substitutionary atonement because that's the core of the gospel. I'm thinking of verses like 2nd Corinthians 521 that says the father essentially made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God.

The great exchange right is how I've often understood it and explained how when you put your faith in Jesus a faith that recognizes you can't do anything to earn God's favor all of your good deeds righteousness is like filthy rags.

So we're looking to the one who is perfect who is perfectly obedient to the law who did everything that he should have done and never did anything he wasn't supposed to do. And when you look to Jesus in faith apart from your own merit and works then you receive that perfect righteousness imputed to your account.

And when we talk about the beauty of the gospel in this penal substitutionary atonement justification by faith apart from our works Jesus is our perfect substitute. And so as we're gonna look at a few clips in the debate David this necessarily brings about Trinitarian language right.

Like I was quoting 2nd Corinthians 521. Well this is something between the father and the son you know I mean and the spirits involved the spirit regenerates hearts and the the Holy Spirit seals believers unto the day of redemption that's why the doctrines of grace.

That's why really it's hard to totally divorce any one of the doctrines of grace from the rest of them because who the son sets free is free indeed. And God the Father is never going to overturn that justification and that declaration of being right because we have the perfect righteousness of Jesus therefore the Holy Spirit preserves us to the end.

And so what I'm getting at is there's a Trinitarian harmony. Okay. So what do you think about when you hear that phraseology the Trinitarian harmony. Well I think it's a.

Very powerful argument for particular redemption. It's a very powerful argument for Calvinism in general but especially for particular redemption because you have from the non-Calvinist perspective you have the Holy Spirit being sent after the work of Christ to create the church and to send the church forth to preach the gospel and the spirit is attempting to save those whom the Father did not elect and the Son did not die to save so that's so that's the one way that I've heard the Trinitarian disharmony of the atonement really is what you know it's you have this now to get around that you deny the foreknowledge of God.

That's the open theist route and then you change the nature of the atonement. That's more the Arminian route because the Arminian is not going to deny the foreknowledge of God. So there's different ways to shuffle the deck there to try to get around it but the it's a strong argument because the Trinitarian the spirit is going to be drawing those for whom the Son died in the words those for whom the Father elected.

But when you deny particular redemption you well there's people I think Spurgeon has the best stuff on that. I'm trying to think who I'm pretty sure Spurgeon has a couple sermons where he just crushes that like what the Trinitarian harmony.

But yeah I was looking in a reform doctrine of predestination by Botner but I don't think that's where I think I was thinking of Spurgeon I thought he had he has a little bit on Trinitarian harmony but it's not what I it's not what I was thinking of.

I believe in the.

Debate. John Owen was brought up on a strong Trinitarian harmony especially going through the book of Hebrews. And so I want us to play this first clip where it caught my attention because the Trinitarian harmony phraseology is beautiful because we understand that the gospel is Trinitarian.

We understand famous passages in John's gospel that you know no one can take us out of Jesus's grasp his hand and then the same breath that talks about and no one can snatch them out of my father's hand.

Right. As he's about to talk about the Holy Spirit's work and believers. How he won't leave us as orphans. Right. And so I want to play this first clip before I do I just want to encourage our audience.

Please like and subscribe the content here at the apologetic dog. I've done a little research and the more subscribers that we have the more that you know this content is shared the more the algorithm brings this content which is the gospel at its core.

And this is just where my heart's I know this is where David's heart at hearts. That too is we just want to sow seeds baby we want to sow seeds and we trust God to give the increase. And so if you've if you've ever appreciated the apologetic dog ministry please like and subscribe and that just really helps out the channel.

So David with that let me play this first clip. It's just a few seconds long and I'd love to hear your thoughts about it all.

Right you you've heard dr. white discuss the Trinitarian harmony argument and Trinitarian harmony as he mentioned emphasizes the unity within the Trinity concerning redemption and how Christ's intercessory work only applies to the elect.

I do see this as a smokescreen to support limited Atonement and we all believe that there's harmony within the Trinity. I mean okay I just want to kind.

Of pause there and he said a few things he called the Trinitarian harmony argument like smoke and mirrors a smokescreen and then he just says cuz we all believe in a Trinitarian harmony and so is that.

What's going on when you kind.

Of look at this as a provisionalist perspective well well I mean that's just an assertion does it. I don't know if he ever actually I mean he was he was about to back it up I think but if you want I can keep playing a little bit.

Yeah yeah.

I think we all at least agree on that that there is no disunity within the Trinity but my disagreement lies in the interpretation behind how white and Owen.

View. God is working. Okay okay go ahead and stop it. So first of all remember everyone theology is the art of making proper distinctions. I got that from a Lutheran guy years ago. It's very very good though.

So so okay is he talking about the imminent Trinity or the economic Trinity. For those who may not know what that means we distinguish between the Trinity the triune God as he is in and of himself. We have very little access to to that.

We have the revelation of Scripture which only takes us so far. But yes there is total perfect harmony. And this is what I assume. This is what I assume he was saying. That's what he was talking about when he said.

Well of course we believe there's harmony in the Trinity. He was talking about the imminent Trinity the trying guys he exists from all eternity. He certainly wasn't talking about the economic Trinity which is what dr. white is arguing.

When the triune God acts in history there is a perfect harmony between the persons in that those actions those things that they carry out. So and I don't think he even touched that at all. He just made the assertion basically that now of course there's there's harmony in the Trinity.

Nobody disagrees with that. I mean of course he.

Didn't touch dr. White's argument. Only thing I would add is it's the reformed perspective that I think carries a legitimate Trinitarian harmony because we have the father decreeing essentially sure whatever comes to pass all that means is the means to bring about the the ends and the son is the perfect Savior to purchase redemption for that elect that the father is chosen and the spirit regenerates seals unto the day of redemption and we're saying voila that is you know a perfect that is salvation perfectly worked out by God.

And then when we look at other beautiful passages which we're gonna get into Romans 8 here a little bit especially how it's brought out in the debate but when we when we look at for all things work together for the good for those that love God those that have peace with God by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone well then we understand all things are ultimately working together for our sanctification.

And so to kind of flip the script. You know I don't under like I don't see a harmony in an incompatibilistic worldview meaning that man has this superpower aka doesn't really like it when I say that but the superpower of a free will that I argue contradicts the very nature of God meaning that he's omnipotent he has a limitless choice and yet he has to limit his choices for you to make an ultimate choice.

And I'm saying that's that's God denying himself. There's just an inherent contradiction within provisionalism and these incompatibilistic worldviews. The reason I'm saying that is everybody has a worldview and so provisionalism necessarily says it's impossible for God have overriding ultimate determination over whatsoever comes to pass.

And that's fine we can critique it on that basis. And what I'm saying is there's not a Trinitarian harmony because the father is really hoping made provision for all in such a way where everybody has essentially these same kind of opportunities but the ball is in man's court right to respond in an ultimate sense Jesus did everything right the Holy Spirit is wooing and so there's not this this harmony that the reform perspective is saying that's what the book of Hebrews that's what Romans 8 is arguing for that Jesus not only died for the elect but he raised.

People want to know. Well John 3 16 says whole world you're saying they looked. I'm like well what is the world. Because Paul would say well you know he died for believers who can bring a charge against God's elect.

He not only died for them but he resurrected and perfectly intercedes on their behalf. So am I being charitable by saying that the other side can call it a.

Harmony. But I don't see it. Yeah. So the minute that you give God perfect fore knowledge of what's going to happen in time before he creates you. Okay okay I'll receive it. Man. I totally forgot that you wanted to bring me on your show.

Brother yes okay I've gotten the blessing from the wife about I can do more of these late shows so we're overdue but David AK is just gonna grill me on certain proof text that Calvinists go to so we're in for a fun time.

I know he's been itching for a round two since our last debate back at.

The summer. Good. So back to the point I was making so the minute that you introduce into your theology that God before he created the universe whether you do it with an amulanistic way or a simple foreknowledge Arminian type way the minute you say God certainly knows.

You have to say he decreed you can find get that language out you know people don't like it. God knows who is going to repent and believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ who is going to respond positively to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Right. So God knows that say whatever you want about the Atonement whatever you've introduced into your system a situation where God knows perfectly that John Smith is never going to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and therefore he's never going to put faith in the Atonement of Christ which is if you want to say it's faith.

Faith is the condition which Jason said a whole bunch of times in the debate you've there's your Trinitarian disharmony right now because now you have the father knowing who's going to not respond to the work of Christ and the spirit is job is to apply the work of Christ right.

So now you have the spirit trying to save everyone but the father knowing that not everyone's gonna be safe because he has foreknowledge. So what do you do to get around it and see why did the provisionists never address this issue.

Because Leighton has every single type of view of God's foreknowledge other than reformed on his program non-stop. He has open theists on there constantly. He has Molinist on there constantly. He says he's some kind of Bohemian.

I don't even I should look up but you know Bohethius or whatever he's got some CS. I'm just like CS Lewis they'll say. But notice they never make a commitment to that issue of God's foreknowledge of the future.

They just don't. And then as Dr. White has said a million times the only consistent way to fully consistently push your theology and put it all in its proper places to be an open theist. Because then there's no Trinitarian disharmony because no members of the Trinity know what's gonna happen anyway like you said they're hoping that people will believe.

So I just want so that's that's where I'm. We know that I know the debate is on limited atonement but when you go one layer deeper and just ask those type of questions that's where it all falls to pieces.

Yeah oh you Calvinist are just determinists. So let's just start let's talk about that obsessively for the next ten years. You know like that's their way around it too they never want to talk about their view.

Yeah you know I've been on Layton's program many times. I tried to press him on it. You know what he does. I got him to laugh when I pointed this out to him. He goes well that's the me too fallacy. I said late and so do I have to ask the question first for it not to be the me too fallacy.

And he actually laughed. I said so that's pretty good you know. Like if I do I have to because he or do you have to ask the question to me. And it won't be a me too because he just that you've noticed that that's what they do.

They just bash the Calvinist for being determinists. And then they so therefore we don't have to deal with any of your arguments because you're a determinist I don't have to be an AK. We'll do that too I love you a K but he doesn't like a I do a minterm and isn't that's just determinism.

That's just determinism. That's just who ultimately.

Determined you to do that and I'm like I've never heard that one before. I do want to address a few points a K only because I want to say I risk I respect a K. I think he's a sharp thinker. That's why we had a movie 12.

I've charged to debate because I've been studying this content for a long time and I think I figured him out I mean that in a good way like he's really challenged me to think. And so like when he says here if it were talking about libertarian free will if it were a superpower then I could be saved on my terms rather than God's which is faith in Christ.

So what I mean by superpower is I'm just saying into in compatibilism has baked within it this libertarian free will that says you as man has ultimate ability to choose a or not a and I'm saying it's it can't work.

That's why I call it a superpower that which is created and limited and finite even in the Imago Dei which means a reflection of God. We don't have ultimate capabilities and we mean a chemistry. We'll talk about this on his program some.

But there's a reason for that. It's there's a reason why God can't create another omnipotent being that would be ultimate right. Because it would cancel out there would be two omnipotent powers that would be colliding.

And that's where you know in our debate David I was saying to a K is you can't unificate the the will of man and the will of God. Because you do have all of these these problems. And I want to bring some more clarity here real quick because the proper term is determinism.

But you have to ask the question like any good philosopher and theologian what kind of determinism are we talking about. Because there is such thing called hard determinism which is fatalistic and incompatible right mean you've talked about these terms before at length and incompatibilism is fatalistic and man is not morally culpable for his decisions.

That's not what the Calvinist framework is arguing for. We're saying truly God makes determinations eternally and man makes choices makes determinations temporally. And I argue not in the same way but God's determination grounds and gives meaning to whatever comes to pass in his world.

And I noticed David we get accused well for knowledge doesn't mean causation. And it's not that a case said this but it's always implied. And we get misunderstood because we're not saying God's omniscient necessarily means determinism.

We're saying if God is omniscient and then chooses to create a world knowing the end from the beginning. Well then now you're locked in time. And now when you're in real time a K has said you could choose otherwise you just won't.

And I'm saying that undermines the premise of libertarian free will that says at the moment of choice you can choose a or not a. And I'm just saying you don't have that superpower if you start with who God is in his omni properties and you beak and you start there and then you start to be consistent from there with how we understand man.

So this isn't about a K Richardson even though we we love you. Okay so if you notice if you notice the.

Open theists they attack the omni properties of God. Yeah prior I from the door in that. So if you've ever listened to an open theist from the rip that's platonic. That's a platonic view of God. They got all this stuff.

So. They they. It's important you brought that up because that. So. So the non open theists will not do that. Right. They will try to reconcile the omni properties of God with a truly libertarian free will that has no determination to it.

But they don't. It can't be done the minute you give God the omni property of foreknowledge and omniscience that eliminates libertarian free will. It really does it. It. It can't exist. It can only exist as the they wanted to.

In an open universe where God doesn't know the choices that are gonna be made he doesn't have omniscience. It's just a fact. And I will say like when you.

Know Leighton flowers. Which by the way this this person asked. So is Leighton flowers the founder of provisionism. Yes he's the one that kind of made a counteracrostic to tulip as provide and I can't remember all the points of provide but he's trying to distinguish himself from our minions right.

And as this kind of relates back to the debate I know this for a fact talking with Jason Breda. Hope I'm saying his last name right. But he is a learner of Leighton flowers. And so I want to play this next clip.

David. Yeah before I do I just want to remind people please hit the like button if you're watching. That just helps the the the content and the algorithm. I'm out there and Facebook world and YouTube land and so this next clip.

I believe it's something kind of wild that Jason talked about. I'm pretty sure this is where he makes his unique argument from Romans 8 and so I don't want to give it away. I want you to kind of hear it for yourself and I'll let it play a little bit.

Go ahead before you.

Start that just answer reform Bree. And if you want to do a deeper dive into this Leighton comes out of what in Southern Baptist life is called traditionalism. Yep. So if you do the Google search traditional Southern Baptist statement I think it's called that.

There's there's always been since Albert Muller kind of took over Southern and reformed it. There's always been in the Southern Baptist life this Calvinist verse Arminian battle going on. And then Leighton kind of you know takes it to the next step anyway.

Yeah that's if you really want to dig into the history behind it. So Leighton doesn't come out of nowhere like he emerges in Southern Baptist life from the traditionalist.

Southern Baptist they call themselves and props to Leighton because he kind of took up the challenge from dr. white and many people of saying okay if you're not Arminians then you tell us what you are don't tell us that you're not a Calvinist tell us what you are.

And provisionalism is trying to say yes there's original sin but was what was not lost at the fall was libertarian free will. To me that's the big thing. Because David you may more know more nuances about this because didn't you debate David Palmer the classical.

Arminian yes that was my first ever online debate yes. Hey I remember.

Watching that years ago thinking man David Lewis is the man I gotta learn from this guy. And you've been doing a running commentary on Romans that I just want to encourage our audience go check out. I really enjoy.

I crank you up on times two just to kind of power through. But you know what you said you really like Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I do too and that is like ah no wonder we're so on the same page because I'm indebted to that man's ministry.

God gifted him mightily and I love his commentary. And hey gospel truth what's up Marlon. Marlon.

Good to see you've recovered from the Matt slick Chris Fisher debate. That was the wildest debate ever in the history of the gospel. Truth by far. Chris Fisher is putting up a paddle that says drink. He's playing a drinking game with his audience in the midst of the debate.

It's so believable. So David I didn't watch.

The debate but I watched Marlon's follow-up video saying hey we got a.

Buckled down on. Well I didn't I didn't. I tuned in because I knew that thing would be wild. You know I you know Matt slick he's known for. You know he's he's direct. We'll just say that. And then Chris Fisher that.

I that dude. I totally disagree with him on almost everything. But there's an open theist. Right. Like the way. Yeah. Oh big-time open theist. But he can just keep a smile on his face. But if you want if you want radical consistent open theism with pulling no punches it's Chris Fitcher.

Like no. God learns. God did not know where Adam and Eve were in the garden. God did not know that Abraham would sacrifice Isaac. He was waiting to figure that out. Like he will just say that he doesn't even.

Which you know it's. It's easier to deal with someone like that. Okay you're just putting it out there. You're not pulling punches anyway. We should probably review.

The debate here. Right. Yes all right. So the next the next clip I'm gonna let it play for a minute. But Jason made a very like we all paused in the audience like gasp huh when he said this and he was starting to rebut dr. white in Romans.

Chapter 8 so check it out. The Jew and the Gentile believers it's also a theme we see all throughout the New Testament and it's really beautiful once you see this. And as I mentioned there is a dividing line in the book to the Jew first and also to the Greek Romans.

8 is not speaking to Jew and Gentile and every believer in general as the Trinitarian harmony would suggest. Paul is actually speaking directly to his Jewish audience here in chapter 8. Okay we can.

Keep playing. But did you catch it. David. What he was saying is this the is this his opening statement or is this his first rebuttal. This is his opening.

Statement because I know this because we all heard it. We're all doing this now. I knew where he was getting this from and I want us to lead into how I've heard this before. But we were all gasping and I don't know if we have it queued up but in dr. White's first rebuttal he basically said did you just hear what was just said what Jason just said and we're all kind of like on pins and needles and he's like if he said what I think he said that is rank heresy and he was kind of like looking at him like are you serious.

Romans 8 is just about the Jews and so we were all waiting of like okay he's either gonna double down or.

He's gonna soften his stance right. So what's often. And he's off. Yeah he did because he kept cuz he kept saying. Well I'm not saying there isn't a sense in which this could apply to all believers. I'm just saying Paul was writing to the Jews.