October 21, 2003

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 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Pre-Show Banter and Seminar Announcements

Well, you see there's an advantage to listening to The Dividing Line live. I know some of you can't do that. I know some of you listen by archive because you Slave away behind a firewall and those mean nasty network administrators will not let a real audio Stream through your firewall.

I know that some of you are oppressed and Sort of like that scene in Monty Python. That type of thing but you know, I understand it's okay, but there is an advantage to listening live because you get to hear the pre-show and.

It's it's it's it's sometimes it's it's nothing. At all and then sometimes like today. We featured we featured interesting stuff. It's no. I tell you, you know, I made a major mistake. I must admit, you know, some people will not admit to mistakes.

I I admit to them all the time. And I made a major mistake. I introduced a Canadian to talk a hero and the results have simply been frightening absolutely frightening. I mean almost. Well, like like a new person has been born as a result and it's a very frightening thing.

And.

We got to hear the talk a hero remix the tech tech techno talk a hero techno, whatever it was it was it was very very very frightening actually and so anyways, the people that were listening to the pre-show are awake and alive right now, but By the way, I I don't know if the folks in fact I need to respond to this, you know, there it is.

I need to yeah, I need to respond to this this this email message, but last week our friend from Atlanta was kind to call in and read the Brochure for the upcoming seminar at Southern View Chapel Which is in Springfield, Illinois 4 ,500 South 2nd Street, Springfield, Illinois this is going to be November 7th through the 9th that I'm going to be speaking there and I had seen this and I remembered it was a very very nice brochure.

Very nicely laid out very colorful. It's sort of yellow and blue. Actually, it's only two colors, but it looks very colorful yellow and blue and We found it. Well, I didn't find it. It just appeared on my desk.

I think someone else found it and We read the things last week, but Justification, you know 9 to 10 a .m. Justification including an evaluation a new perspective. For those of you who are in st. Paul, we were at the Chicago Chicago that's hard to say.

I bet you everything says basically Chicago Chisago Lakes Baptist Church Twin Cities Bible Church, they got together and we were at the facilities of the Chisago. It was a Baptist Church up there I can't say Chisago too many times and Anyways, very nice facility nice folks there and we did.

Well four full hours of Lecture and I barely touched on new perspectivism in the process. I mean, it's just a huge subject if you're going to do it do it. Well, we have one hour on Friday November 7th 9 to 10 a .m 10 30 to 11 a defense of the Trinity.

Why is it important? And then that evening The King James only controversy that's an hour and a half. That's just enough time to sneak it all in. The presentation on that and then Saturday during the day nothing going on, but in the evening 7 8 30 Comparison of Calvinism Arminianism and then Sunday's all to be on biblical sufficiency part 1 part 2 part 3 So that'll be I'll be talking about solo scriptura and solo scriptura and the inspiration of scripture and the canon and all the Wonderful fun stuff, so that'll be on November 7th through 9th, and I'm sure if you drop them a line Www .sv chapels, that's for southern view svchapel .org I'm sure they'd send you one of these two.

Because I know some folks are going to be coming from quite some distance to be there with us. So That'll be that'll be cool. So I found I found the information I'm glad that I I'm glad that I did had a great time up there in the Minneapolis st. Paul area and Called it.

I learned to call it the Twin Cities because if you're in st. Paul and call it, Minneapolis. They don't like that and there's sort of a they the two cities sort of don't like each other a whole lot. And so if you're smart just refer the Twin Cities and everybody will be happy and you won't offend anyone Which is I think a good thing.

Hey, I got an email. I Know they don't read emails, of course, but I I thought this one was was sort of ironic.

I.

Responding to Jerry Matatics and the Perpetual Virginity Debate

Announced the week before we left. That well, I announced last week. It's you know when you travel the time just sort of.

Disappears I.

Announced that We had. I had been corresponding back and forth the end of last week with mr. Matic's.

Was that last week the week after?

And I'll tell you, you know when you're gone every single weekend for five or six weeks in a row you just completely Lose track of where in the world you are and what the world's going on. I guess it was last week and I I played some some clips from the debate with mr. Matic's on the subject of perpetual virginity of Mary and I mentioned that I at the end of the program that I've been very very very clear in expressing to mr. Matic's my views on his activities his teachings.

And the fact that the term apostate I think is very applicable to a person who once knew the truth who once for example wrote a paper that his professors described as as As a classic on John Owens doctrine of perseverance and yet he can turn around and Tell audiences that Protestants believe X Y Z and and and not even try to Respond to the the best always respond to the worst etc. Etc.

And so anyway, I didn't hear anything for a while and I just got a got a note yesterday and I fired it off to Eric Stenson to see what his schedule looks like it looks like. Both Eric and Jerry are not available this week, but both are available next week.

So this afternoon, I'm going to write back to both of them to say, okay, can we pencil in next Tuesday morning and Go as long as we need to go. That means that's when we're all going to get to hear the quote from Josephus and if we don't hear the quote from Josephus, then we're going to obviously make the point that I bet Jerry's told many people about this alleged quote from Josephus and it doesn't exist and hopefully hear him retract that and Then we're going to talk about what?

Bowered Dunker aren't in Gingrich says and whether mr. Mattox even has the third edition and has had the third edition all along and what it says it Matt, but the translation that it gives at Matthew 118 and all those neat wonderful wonderful fun things we're gonna get to read the odes of Solomon and I'm not going to do that again because that's probably one of the most infamous dividing lines ever was reading the odes.

And we're gonna see. We're gonna listen as mr Mattox attempts to explain to us that just because a writing like the odes of Solomon contains errors doesn't mean that it can't contain truth and I'm going to go.

Okay, great. So you would if you had found a Reference to monotheism in the Book of Mormon, you would glom on to that as if it has some relevance to the truth. It just it's just it should be very enjoyable and of course Eric's going to be.

I didn't play this. I suppose I should well, maybe I did. Well, I don't remember what I played but at one point. Mr. Mattox mocked Eric Stenson's work on house who said Ron Tichelli's article destroyed Destroyed it and even even seemed intimate to me.

Anyway, is that that other apologists have abandoned the the the use of the phrase. Actually, I'm not sure of a whole lot of apologists who are involved in this field that even deal with the original languages very much.

Eric Stenson and I do obviously but there who well, who is he referring to? He didn't give us any names. I'd be like to. I would like to. You know ask about that. That should be interesting. But hopefully that'll be next Tuesday but Notice.

Let me just read to you what mr Matic says. I'm still very interested in joining you and Eric Stenson in a live radio analysis of our debate. But I have not heard further from you on this actually I had written back to him.

But he was proceeding paragraphs of mentioning how busy is I? Offered to be on your show the day you first had a show discussing our debate last week. But you were unwilling to have me on at that time as your emails clearly prove.

I remember at one point I had written to him and I and I Had used the phraseology, you know, I can't believe you're demanding to be on the program. You don't have any basis for demanding to be on anything.

It's like it'd be like me calling up Karl Keating. I demand you have me on today. I've said many times I'd be glad to be on Catholic answers live and take calls and whole nine yards. But I've never been invited to be on Catholic answers live.

I'd love to be on EWTN. I'd fly down there. I'd appear on the program with as many people as they would like to have on no problem at all. But I can't demand it and then he wrote back. I never said anything about demanding.

Well as you you see if this doesn't if this doesn't use the term. You know does not substantiate the term demand anyways as your emails clearly prove unfortunately I cannot do it this week as I'm already booked to teach classes on Tuesday and Thursday and also have two lectures to prepare and deliver at the Catholic Family News annual conference in Philadelphia this Friday through Sunday, October 24th to the 26th and If he does that the way he normally does that he will be writing them as he walks to the door.

So I'm not sure that would really have a lot to it, but that's fine. But I love this last this last this last line this last is it one line notes, too. But I could do it next week or any other week of your choosing after I suggested it might be Construed as cowardice on your part to have a one-sided show in which you would beat up on me in absentia.

You then agreed to have me on and I hope that you'll follow through on this and won't invite further Suspicions by withdrawing the quote invitation end quote. Look Jerry if you want to if you want to be the subject of a live vivisection on on this program.

That's your business. We'll have you on and we'll be glad to do it but I Just you know, I'm getting emails from folks going is this guy serious Does that I mean he he can't possibly be serious about this.

Yep. He's perfectly serious and.

So.

I'm gonna write back to to I'm gonna write back to Eric and him today and I'm gonna say Let's do it. Let's do it. Next week from this morning Tuesday morning, that would be the 28th.

Of.

October it is October right? It's it's gone been a very fast month. Very very fast month. It was September the last time I really noticed the calendar 28th of October and we will have mr. Maddox and mr. Spenson and we'll just we'll go as long as we need to go and we'll have have some interesting questions For mr. Maddox to answer in regards to the subject of The perpetual virginity of Mary and his claims and the whole the whole anachronistic reading into Into the history of the church all sorts of things that weren't there and I'm gonna I'd like to ask.

A.

Fact. I need to do something here. There we go. I'd like to ask, you know, was this like the Josephus thing was this a Part of what converted you when you say the Bible converted you to Catholicism. Is that is this an element of that kind of material that converted you?

Where did you first hear this who came up with this stuff? You know, I did get an email this week and The email did provide a possible source of Mr. Maddox is a confusion and There is a reference. It's found in early Church Fathers volume 8.

Hegesipas said something about James and he'd mentioned that James was 94 years old. No, no, no, no, no, no. Take that take that back. This is the ironic part. Is the ironic part the only mention the age of James at martyrdom, you know rats found Fox's Book of Martyrs.

I love the idea that the geriatrics has been going around Giving folks information that actually found its original source in Fox's Book of Martyrs. That would just be Absolutely positively classic if that was if that was the case, but something tells me I don't think mr Maddox is gonna want to buy into Fox's Book of Martyrs, but hey, you know, that's That's what we'll find out next week anyways, so y 'all set your Set your clocks mark your calendars take a day off work do whatever you need to do and That'll That'll be funny.

What's up with Fox's Book of Martyrs the Catholics don't like the Fox's Book of Martyrs and it's it's not exactly your source of documentary history either so I Just really sort of doubt that that he's gonna want to buy into that one besides it's too old 94.

I mean that that would that would make James a very very very very old old dude so that wouldn't make any sense. So anyway, that's what we'll do next week and Otherwise, there will be suspicions of cowardice on my part.

Yes. Just keep in mind folks that I I had never even I mean debates. I I knew they existed but had never really thought about them till one day the phone rang. At our little offices at Alpha Omega Ministries is back and we had offices on Camelback Road in Phoenix and The phone rang and I picked it up and the voice on the other end was that of Jerry Matta ticks calling from the much nicer offices much bigger nicer offices of Catholic answers in San Diego, California.

And.

It was he who was inviting me To debate and I said yes, and it was only what that would been 89. No, no that 89. Yeah, but no, I was 90. That was that was an early 90 and only three years later. The article appears in this rock magazine that calls me a debate junkie.

It was called the white man's burden. Of course Jerry wasn't with Catholic answers any longer. In fact, he was with them for only about.

Six.

Well, our first debate was in August of 90 and by January 91 he was histoire.

So.

Wasn't wasn't with Catholic answers much longer than that and By the time he was the darling of Catholic answers. He was the the the anti Catholic convert, of course. I remember asking him in one of those conversations Jerry you call yourself a you said you were an anti-catholic, you know and you liken it to.

You know Paul Paul's great conversion on the roads Damascus type of a conversion you were just great anti-catholic and. So so what books did you write against Catholicism as an anti-catholic since you like to use that term.

Well, I didn't write any books. Did you write any articles published anything? No dry tracks against Catholicism and she distributed folks. Well, no, no, I didn't. Did you do any debates? No, I didn't do it a bit.

Videos audios tapes. No, no didn't do that. So exactly why do you use that term yourself? Well, I was very opposed to Catholicism. That's what makes you a quote-unquote anti-catholic. What you have to go through to to be a convert in the sense of of Making it sound like your conversion was this, you know.

You knew all this stuff about Catholicism and and but you were proved wrong now. The vast majority of the people who convert to Roman Catholicism you know Jerry and Scott Hahn would have known more than most but you read Rome Sweet Home and.

Only one of two possible things is true. Either the representation in Rome Sweet Home is grossly inaccurate. Or Scott Hahn didn't know what he claimed to know now, I've heard the man quote John Owen. Or was it Jonathan Edwards?

I forget who it was. And so it would seem to me that's more likely that the presentation in Rome Sweet Home is inaccurate than it is the other way around but in either case the vast majority of folks you hear on EWTN and and Catholic answers and all the rest of the stuff they had they were anti-catholic in the sense that they were ignorant of the real reasons to be opposed to Roman Catholicism.

Their reasons weren't the best and that's true of a large portion of what's called fundamentalism today. If you've never taken time to hear what the other side has to say. That doesn't mean you're wrong to be opposed to the side.

I'm not saying that that it's a responsibility of everybody to go out and Read the Book of Mormon so that you'll be a knowledgeable opponent of Mormonism. But obviously most people would have to admit that.

Their reasons for not embracing most of the faiths are not because they know Positively where those other faiths are in error how they're contradictory to scripture or what their scriptures are about or anything like that.

You know and so the whole the whole convert. Syndrome is a fascinating thing to observe of course I've commented on it many times in the past and and it is valid in regards to mr. matics as well, though.

Certainly John Gerstner thought he was he was a person who knew what he was talking about at least initially Before his conversion, but that's a whole nother story that goes way way back good grief back to 19.

No into the 1990 right now now. I'm thinking about it 1991 around in there because I debated Mitch Pacwa in January of 91 and It would have been right after that that I spoke with John Gerstner about both matics and Han.

Because they're both running around talking about this famous reformed theologian. They had met with and it was ironic one of them called him dr. G and the other one called him dr. John. No, let me think here for a second dr. John G.

I wonder who that is. They wouldn't use his name but they would make reference to him in this famous meeting at a holiday in as I recall on the Pennsylvania turnpike and How John Gerstner had not been able to give a response to their brilliant arguments for Roman Catholicism?

I have to wonder if one of those brilliant arguments was Josephus's citation of James or something along those lines. I don't know something tells me the odes of Solomon didn't get read during that meeting.

They would have been kicked out of the kicked out of the holiday in if they had read them too loud. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three. Three three four one is the phone number.

It is the access number as they say on all of those all those programs. That's how you can access the program today. I guess they're trying to get geeks to call in that way and You can get on board with your questions.

We had one person call last week didn't get on. So feel free to pick up with the I just dropped my John Owen CD. That's not a good thing to do. I don't think mr. I don't think the right Reverend John would appreciate being dropped.

That's a great CD to have by the way. Oh, where's the CD? I bet you it's still in the drive. What do you want to bet if I hit this button down here?

Yeah.

That something's gonna pop out. Let's go. Yep. There's John Owen right there. Put him back where he belongs. Oh Thursday. Oh, okay. Well the person who didn't get on on Thursday is gonna call back on Thursday, I guess so well.

Whatever it does. He doesn't want to call him Tuesday. Not next not next Tuesday. Anyways, that'd be a bad thing. That would be very confusing.

But.

Anyway, eight seven seven seven five three thirteen. You know, I need to get this right eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. It's right here on my monitor. I've got it right in front of me.

So if you're going wow, he's got a computer monitor for the program. Yeah, it's my computer monitor that's that's just my computer monitor my email comes in during the program and and The whole nine yards and that's where I'm working on the chapter on the cannon right now still working on that.

It does not help to travel. But anyway, I did put together a PowerPoint presentation on new perspectivism For this weekend never used it but I put it together and While we are waiting for your phone calls here on the program this morning I thought I would mention something I hold in my hand and he writes what st Paul really said was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity as I have noted.

This 1997 publication is one of the main Ways through which new perspectivism is coming into The church today. Hey look at that Airport improvement fee, you know, if you walk through any Canadian Airport at least the one up in Vancouver.

You have to shell out eight bucks to help them improve their their their airport. It's not enough they nail you on the tickets and stuff like that. You got to walk this thing and you got to shell out shell out money.

And there's my receipt for having gone to the Vancouver Airport. Isn't that isn't that great in two different languages? Leaning over to throw it out here. Yep, there goes anyway. Obviously I had this with me when I was sitting in the Vancouver Airport waiting to Fly back to the United States.

There is no food in that airport. It's terrible. There's just I don't even have McDonald's there. I mean, it's they had a McDonald's in Sao Paulo in the in the airport, but they didn't have one in Vancouver.

It's You know, where is where is culture? You know, where is civilization here, you know? Anyway. One of the things that I've been mentioning recently in discussing new perspectivism in fact, there's oh by the way, there's a new main page article and Even if you saw it last night There's some updates on it and so there's a Two pictures I mentioned in my Brazil my brief mention of Brazil Myself and Eros my my translator and how much we look alike and that pictures on the main page Aomin .org right now and then just this morning.

I got a picture of the whole group. The whole gather all the gathered pastors and it's a very large group as you can see from the picture that is right on our main page right now and Yeah, we really shouldn't call it a article.

It's more of a blog. In that wonderful how we make up new words blog. There's I've put a blog on the main page I guess you might say a couple rambling thoughts a little bit about Brazil a little bit about solo scriptura versus sola Scriptura and then a little brief thought on new perspectivism.

I've come up with a term I was trying to I was trying to think of a term That would capture what I see going on in new perspectivism and As I've been reading this stuff and has been especially considering all the arguments put forward but for well, the righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness and and There's no there's no imputed righteousness of Christ.

It's it's not there's no great exchange. You're just you're just declared to be righteous in the sense of being in the family of God and that leaves open all sorts of issues of of whether you're going to stay in the family of God how you stay in the family of God the method by which you stay in the family of God covenant works of righteousness.

Covenant works of faithfulness and all these other issues are hanging around out there and and all this kind of stuff. But as I've been thinking about especially thinking is 521 Philippians 3 9 trying to read Romans 4 with this this View of the righteousness of God is is not having all of the aspects that reformed theology has historically seen in these passages and.

I.

Monochrome Justification and the New Perspective on Paul

Kept looking at those things going man. This is and finally came, you know, it's it's a squished down. It is a it's a One-dimensional it's it's less Than the biblical definition of righteousness. It is it is it is taking a smaller narrower definition and forcing it Into all these passages where it just doesn't fit and finally last night.

I came up with the right term That I'm going to be using in the future when I talk about this. I was thinking about it. You know, I'm sitting here looking at this this this Monitor in front of me. It's a 19-inch monitor someday someday.

I'm gonna have a flat screen I'm gonna have one of those beautiful LCD things sitting here someday. But I'm looking at this and it's got who knows how many millions of colors and all that kind of stuff on it.

And I like to have beautiful beautiful pictures right now there's a beautiful snowy picture on my screen a big mountain in the background and Even though it's going to be 101 today I'm just wishing that it was something other than that.

But it's beautiful and I've got lots of colors and the people in channel know I use this thing called a window blinds. That I can change all the colors and the look of windows and all the rest that stuff and So I was looking at that and all of a sudden that the right term came across my mind for the the minimized squished down definition of justification monochrome.

Remember monochrome monitors my first few. I remember my first monitor on us this compact portable. Ha ha ha. Was like this 8-inch green thing and Then when I got a bigger computer with that had a 20 meg hard drive on it thought I'd never fill that up.

It had a that amber color sort of the orange, you know, but they were monochrome. Just just one color and That's that's what that's what this doctrine of justification is. It is a monochrome definition all the color and the vitality and the depth and the fullness of Righteousness has been taken out.

It's been squished down into this flat monochrome Concept of righteousness of justification and If we only get the one call we've got right now I'll come back to that and illustrate that in one of the ways in which NT Wright addresses the subject of justification and specifically the Hebrew.

Law court.

But before we we take our phone calls and before we come back with that it is the bottom of the hour and Therefore we take that wonderful break in which you get to hear all those other voices other than my own.

Advertising wonderful things and and and Steve Camp sings and does things like that. So we're gonna take our break and be right back.

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book the God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of Justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute. James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. J Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down.

James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words.

The God who justifies by dr. James White. Get your copy today at a omen org. Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God. James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators Conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true Christian faith.

In a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and Investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611.

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .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.

New Perspective on Paul, Forensic Justification, and the Hebrew Law Court

We have callers now, and they're not asking about new perspectivism either. But be that as it may we'll get around to that eventually. Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number.

Let's go up To Iowa where it was probably warm this weekend as it was in the Twin Cities area and talk with Kendall. Hi Kendall.

Oh James. How are you sir good? Well when I? just got in the office and Got online to the webcast and you were talking about Catholicism, so I want to ask you a question. We could talk about the new perspective.

No, that's that's all right. We cover it all. Well actually actually we don't. We do not cover eschatology, but other than that we cover it up.

In dealing with the new perspectivism. How do they. And I haven't read much on it, but how did they get around all the?

Greek legal terms in the book of Romans well actually that's what I was going to address was Was nt right and for those who have this book it is especially Presented on pages 9 to 6 and following he really emphasizes that the forensic background of the Dikaios Dikaios Sunni Dikaio family of terms Is to be found in the Hebrew law court, and there's even a diagram on page 97 where it says the Hebrew law court.

And then you have judge and then a line goes down and you have it split off to plaintiff and defendant. A plaintiff bringing the accusation defendant the accused and He's just read here. It says one in the biblical Jewish law court there are three parties the judge the plaintiff and the defendant.

There is no director of public prosecutions. All cases take the form of one party versus the other party with the judge deciding the issue. And then he goes on to talk about the fact that. What does it mean to use the language of righteousness and in con in this context?

It means something quite different when applied to the judge. To what it means when applied to either the plaintiff or the defendant apply to the judge. It means as is clear from the Old Testament that the judge must try the case according to the law that he must be impartial.

He must punish sin as it deserves. He must support and uphold those who are defenseless and who have no one but him to plead their cause for the judges for the judge to be righteous and to have Have in practice righteousness in this forensic setting is therefore a complex matter to do with the way he handles the case.

For the plaintiff and the defendant however to be righteous has none of these connotations. They after all are not trying the case nor less obviously to us because the moral overtones. The word righteous now has in our own language does the word mean that they are?

Before the case starts morally upright and so deserving to have the verdict go their way.

No.

For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous in the biblical sense within the law court setting is the hemp them to have that status as a result of the decision of the court. And So what he then applies that to is look.

There is no transference of righteousness From the judge to whoever wins the lawsuit. And so this is where he has a problem with the idea of imputation. It is merely the idea that there is a declaration made by the judge.

If the judge has declared righteously then he is righteous he has been faithful to the Covenant in essence. And When the plaintiff or the defendant is declared righteous Then he is declared to be in the right.

But there's no transfer of anything from the judge to the individual being judged.

Well.

What I've been pointing out is here is another good example of this monochrome aspect of new perspectivism and what I mean by that is yes the Hebrew law court and the forensic nature of Justification that the declaration by the judge that is a part of it, but it is missing a an element of the forensic nature that the text of Scripture itself presents and that is in Romans chapter 8 you don't just have the judge and the the person bringing the charge which would be the enemy of our souls and Then the the defendant is very clear that the major Element of the gospel and of the law court setting is completely missed and and right Repeats this over and over again in in this book and that is there is a substitute there is the the advocate that Stands between the defendant and the judge and it's the man Christ Jesus and the whole idea of union with Christ substitutionary atonement the the whole Incarnational concept of Christ living a perfect life.