May 8, 2008

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James wife.

Responding to a Calvinist Email on Foreknowledge and Salvation

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon starting off the program today with an email that we received and our writer asks the question you and other Calvinists with a capital C.

At least it was spelled correctly. Unlike many people a channel who spell it C a L V a n You and other Calvinists often say that non Calvinists n Dash C which might indicate this is either a mathematician or an engineer one of the two.

Like myself, so we have a non Calvinist engineer. Say that Jesus only made it possible for men to be saved. You often speak of Jesus not actually saving anyone on our view. However, I'd like to briefly contend with this issue as I believe it is a straw man argument and of course He's right to a point that is we often say that if you basically say that Jesus tries to save everyone equally and That it is up to the man's cooperation as to whether he succeeds or not if it is intention To save everyone he tries to save everyone and the reason one is saved another is not all has to do with whether or not you cooperate synergism and so That would mean that Jesus doesn't save anyone completely in of himself.

He tries to save everybody but there has to be a synergistic cooperation for any one person to be saved. The email goes on before God created anything. That is did he know already? I'm sorry. Did he know okay knows repeated twice?

So I didn't read it correctly. Did he know already know all things that would happen? Of course, we both agree here well, I stop and say well when you say of course, you just eliminated a number of people today who are Self, I think very self-consistent Armenians.

That is their open theists and they deny that God does know the future. But the real question is How does God know the future? Did God simply create sort of throw the cosmic dice and it turned out a certain way and God goes Oh, that's how it's going to be.

Okay, if If that's how it is, if God God does not have a decree that determines what takes place in time Then how does God know what is going to take place in the future? Either he has to be taking in passive knowledge of future events and Therefore the result you we can't glorify him for it because he didn't have anything to do with it.

He just created that's how it turned out and Voila, or you're gonna say that maybe he created it didn't have the way he wanted it. So he tweaked a few things to where it came out the way he wanted to or something along those lines.

I mean, I really don't know the the writer doesn't indicate exactly how he grounds God's knowledge of future events, but anyways, he agrees that God does know future events. Well at this point I've sort of got him because if you believe that God does know future events.

You're gonna have a hard time getting out of the rest of it. Anyways, so if he knew all things that would happen and he knew who would accept the offer of the gospel in my view. Of course, how is it only possible that those would be saved?

Well again if God knows with absolute certainty who is going to accept the gospel at the time that he creates. Then the number of those who are going to be saved is Known to God from eternity past and those are the elect now.

The problem of course is does he know that passively? To where it is man that determines this number or does he know actively because it's the result of his own sovereign decree. That's where the argument is.

And I don't think that our our Questioner really recognizes that that's where the argument is. The argument is not whether God knows who's gonna be saved and the argument is upon what basis does he know who's gonna be saved.

Is it merely a passive taking in of knowledge that opens up all sorts of vistas of possibility that you know maybe God has created all sorts of universes and in those other universes he lost or Nobody took him up on his offer or evil was victorious or whatever.

Those are some of the issues that we have to consider. But he goes on. If God started time and space knowing who would receive the gospel then it is not merely a possibility that these would be saved.

From this perspective. I don't understand how one could have could continue to assert that we Non-calvinists believe that Jesus only made salvation possible. Well, the actual objection main is still maintained because in your system.

Even in your system God is stuck in an endless loop of futility. Because even though he knows that only a certain number are going to accept the gospel yet he still intends to try to save all and So what you do is you have God creating a situation where he is making himself purposefully unhappy.

He's created. He's to be the eternal frustrated God. He's created the universe and he's gonna try to save all these people even though he knows from the start that he's going to fail. So is he really trying if he knows he's gonna fail anyways, and why?

And what's the purpose of this and give me chapter and verse. I good luck finding chapter and verse on where God details his eternal frustration. But anyway He secured it for those he foreknew at the moment of the Holy Spirit's drawing not randomly or at their own will Would repent and believe in response to preaching the gospel and that at that point if you're if you're really saying that the Holy Spirit Actually does accomplish salvation.

And that it's not at their Own will. That causes some major problems. Are you certain you want to say that? I Don't think that that your system really has a grounding for allowing for that. But anyways.

And since again, you started time and space knowing who these would be then it cannot be only a possibility that those would be saved. Well, that's true. If you want to say, you know, you're not getting argument from a Calvinist in Saying that it is impossible for God's elect not to be saved.

The issue is Who is the elect is the elect determined by man or by God and Most importantly is God equally attempting to save those that he knows he's not going to Actually end up being able to save because of infallible foreknowledge.

It last paragraph says so one might notice this point how similar our view actually is the Calvin Calvinist and I would agree I Have to wonder what all the fighting is about and why Calvinist and non-Calvinist who both believe in all the soul is Trinity, etc.

It's been so much time mocking and deriding each other. Especially mocking a discussion is one thing that I've rarely heard a discussion between two groups that didn't degrade in some way shape or form.

I am NOT saying we should be hold hands and forget our differences. What I'm saying is that most discussions are not productive or humble and could be well I'm certain that there are all sorts of discussions that degrade very quickly and Once you start going into ad hominem everything else happens on both sides of the fence at that point.

That would be true. However, I don't think that the position that this gentleman has arrived at is a consistent one. And it doesn't really answer the primary questions in regards to who the elect are why they are the elect and the issues of monergism and synergism as well.

When I read that I got the impression that he was Not necessarily grasping the difference between the passive and active. It doesn't even mention it, but I kind of got that flavor from him that It's right there where he sees the difference, but he minimizes it.

He doesn't see that difference as any kind of a big deal and he's kind of just kind of saying, you know Why are we making such a big deal between those two points when ultimately we all came come to the same conclusion?

Evidently, no, I didn't see any evidence of that at all. So I I don't know what the gentleman has or has not listened to what he's read. I have not read but it's a good question thought I would address it and looks like the first call We have is a good one as well.

A Caller Asks About John 12 and John 6

Let's talk to Dale in Indiana. Hi Dale. Doing good.

Hey.

Interesting thing happened this week. I had I had a relative with me in the car driving and I've. He's a well you wouldn't claim being Armenian, but he's certainly not a Calvinist and so anyway, we listened to your Your mp3 file on Romans 9.

Yes.

What you carry this around your car. Something. Was it a Calvinist trap or something? I'm not gonna slow down till you finish reading.

Play. I was driving. He turned it on.

Yeah, but you stayed at 65 miles an hour too so that's.

No, anyway, it's interesting because he listened to that well, maybe he's actually with me to learn something. Who knows. Yeah, and Got done and He said he had to disagree. And his first his first problem Was that you had no foundation because you were using the New King James, which I don't think.

Is it I don't think you actually were using.

No, it's probably using. Well, I'm looking at the Greeks. So it was by a mixture.

You mentioned the New King James in it. I think that's what he picked up on. Oh. But here's my question What what would you do in that situation as far as would you. Because I can I mean I'll take James and show him where he's wrong.

Right. Mm-hmm. So then you're kind of a fork in the road of do you show the error of his James only is and more. Do you show him the error of the fact that? Synergism is wrong. No matter what.

Yeah, it's hard to say. In fact, I'm gonna be playing a video which of course for you all want to be an audio. But I'll be playing it here in a moment of a modalist King James only guy and that's one of the issues He's challenged me to debate.

And one of the issues that I have to immediately raises. Well, what's going to be the foundation of authority if you're King James only, you know. There's a fundamental issue of authority right there.

And so can you really get into a discussion of these other things? But the fact is you could use the King James just as readily as any other translation in Romans 9 and Come the same issue. And in fact, the vast majority the King James translators were themselves reformed in their soteriology.

That's how I learned it, I mean I read it. That's how I learned Calvinism from the King James. I mean, it's not like you have to go to the NIV to learn it. No exactly. Yeah, but see I told I told him that you were a Greek scholar and you'd you know.

He'd studied Greek and all that. He said that he said he didn't believe that we needed the Greek. He said it was okay. He said it wasn't wrong read a Greek but we didn't need it because God promised that his word would be simple and preserved and it's reserved in the English language and.

You know, I'm sure you've heard all that before. I've I've heard it all and I fully understand its attraction. It's the same arguments that were used for the Latin Vulgate. It's the same argument that can be used for all sorts of of Really bad perversions of God's truth, too.

So I Understand the argument. It's not a good argument, but I understand it. One last question before I get off.

All right, I was reading your book on the King James only controversy which I'm about doing the second edition of. Should I finish it? Oh, sure. Oh, yeah. Wait till that next one comes out. Well, uh.

I've never anybody asked you that question because I've never done a second edition before but I begged. Bethany house. And they've given me 32 more pages. So what I will be doing with that. There will be some places.

That that I'll be making slight adjustments in the material. It's already there, but the primary thing I need to do is to to add a whole chapter. Textual criticism has undergone a fundamental ground swell a shift the change in perspective.

Since the 1980s and of course that book was written in 94. But you know, you're always going to reflect what your upbringing was and there's been a lot of changes from 94 until 2008. Not so much. With the text the text really hasn't changed much.

But the people who are addressing it people like Bart Ehrman and misquoting Jesus like that. So I am going to respond to those issues. You know, that's a lot to cram into 32 pages, but I'm gonna do my best to do it.

Know what you need to do is you need to finish reading the one you have now wait for the new one buy it and then read it. Not that I'm aware of. No. You got to be pretty big to get those things and what I mean is distribution.

So yeah, no.

I don't have any an audio format. All right. It's getting more accessible. But anyway, all right.

Thanks, Dale. God bless. All right, that way you could put the whole book in the car and then drive across the country Without ever stopping because he's in some sort of a hybrid or something and that way you just make people listen to the whole thing.

That'd be sort of interesting anyhow, I Rich got a phone call. I don't know a month or so ago. Maybe more. I don't remember what it is. I I don't I really don't keep track of these types of things, but I'll go does but I I don't.

From a fellow who I guess was trying to make sure that I knew that he was putting YouTube videos up about about me in response to me or something and What was it King James. King James man or King James version man or something along those lines.

Is his nick on YouTube as King James in at some place and but the odd twist is that he is an Antitrinitarian King James only person. That's actually not unusual most the cults use the King James. That is not an argument against the King James but it is an accurate observation of Many of these cults using the King James and.

Maybe.

Possibly that's because some of the archaic language can be used to Substantiate. Various points that are not necessarily as easy to substantiate in modern translations do not have the archaic language anyway.

I.

Tracked down a couple of his videos looked around and wanted to respond To some of the things that he said, but I loved how how the first one starts off. And that is this this video Exposes James White and I was wondering you know I maybe I should start.

You know this video Exposes Islam don't don't don't you know something like that. I've never quite figured that part out. Maybe I'm just missing all the really fun. You know who things you're supposed to do to make things your videos exciting as I don't know but.

So I'm going to play Me being exposed, you know it's sort of like I don't know if you saw this this morning, but I'll go was looking around for that art Sippo quote. Remember the art Sippo quote from I think it was May of May 27th 2005 I think Where art Sippo was talking about how what an idiot I am and that I was raised by bigots.

And I'm a bigot and and if there is money that I'd be burning crosses on people's lawns and wonderful. Just just kind wonderful stuff like this, and it made me think of Ben Douglas. Who has been lecturing me on how I need to be much more charitable?

And so when I finally point out the stuff that Steve Ray has done. And I say have you ever read the Catholic answers web boards and see how much garbage there is how many just just gross Adhominem lies there are about me on that Envoy Jimmy Akins comm boxes.

I mean this is This is Roman Catholicism, and he wrote back to me. It says no. I don't go to any of those places. Well. That's nice. Then what are you doing lecturing me if you don't even know what's going on in your own backyard?

Friend you know. Well, I'm perfectly nice, so you should be just as nice as I am well I don't know I Forgot to ask Ben when he started working with Bob's and Janice. Because if he was working with Bob's and Janice when Bob's Janice, and I had the mass debate.

That that's sort of that was a long time before that was what 99 it was 1999 so I doubt that he was. He doesn't look like he's really all that old so he might have been about 12 at that point or something.

I don't know but anyway. So What the world that I have doing oh yeah, I'll go yes there you go, so anyways Here is here's the exposing. Now from a King James only and by the way I do remind me to play the end of this because at the end of this he talks about how all this has been revealed to him and You know once you once you're up against someone who claims well Fundamentally God just revealed this to me.

That's a that's you know sort of like debating Joseph Smith. You know it's just sort of That's the trump card. You know and why do you say that mr.. Smith? Well because God told me so that's why I was like well sort of hard to examine it, but anyways here we go.

Colossians 2 and the Fullness of Deity in Christ

Welcome in everyone. Today's video is called one who and not three who's and this is a video exposing dr. James White the famous author of God and Trinity in the King James only debate.

I am going to give a few scriptures here.

Refuting this.

Belief by James White that I I did not actually origin Originate the belief. Just want to make sure everybody knows that I am getting older, but I'm not quite that old. I've just sort of came on the scene after this lots of people before me who believe the same exactly the same things.

I did God is three who's and I'll give you his quote in just a minute. Thank you, but let's start off with Colossians chapter 2 verses 9 and 10.

Colossians 2 9 everybody turn there. This is one of the favorite texts of King James not King James. Okay of King James only modalists. There we go we rescued ourselves, and I would. And I believe that Robert Sabin used this and I think almost everybody does.

It is a text I've used many times. In fact I've told many people if you want to memorize at least one verse to have ready to go when the Jehovah's Witnesses come to the door. Memorize Colossians 2 9 but memorize it for what it's actually saying not how we are about to see it abused.

And note the Utilization, and I'm sorry for a certain person in channel that I know likes the King James. But one of the reasons the King James is easier for cultists to use is because of an inconsistency in the translation of The family of nouns that are either Thaya or Thaya in their in their roots That is they are they toss and Thyatis are Translated by the same word in the King James, and that's wrong they're translated the term Godhead whatever on earth that means and Because it's archaic and because it's not easily defined and because it isn't translated consistently in the King James version between Romans 1 and Colossians 2 9 you're gonna see how it all comes together to allow this fellow to Have their own conclusions.

Colossians 2 verses 9 and 10 and that will give us a good scripture to work from here. All right. Colossians 2 9 says speaking of Jesus Christ. For in him for in him Jesus for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily and Ye are complete in him.

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily and ye are complete in him. Now if this scripture is Looked at carefully you will notice that That all the fullness of God whoever God is whatever God is however many persons He is.

According to Trinitarians All that fullness dwells in the body of Jesus Christ. Now did you catch that.

Whatever God is whoever God is however many persons God is dwells bodily in Jesus Christ and so the idea is that Godhead Means everything that is God every aspect of God I would I guess person Attributes everything.

Now are we given any substantiation that no we are not. What does the Greek term Theotokos mean well immediately as soon as you ask that question you leave the King James only advocate behind? Because he can't that's that can't really be over relevant to him.

Because it's Godhead, and that's our final and final authority. It's just Godhead. Well. Then how do we know what Godhead means. Can we ask what Godhead meant to Paul? No because he never used the term.

The English language did not exist when Paul Wrote to the book of Colossians, and so we do have to look at the original language and They are they toss. Means that which makes God God. The the term most translations uses deity.

You cannot expand that out to mean well however many persons there are anything like that. What it's saying is the fullness the divine being dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form now. The reason for the phrase bodily form is because of the context of Colossians.

What is Paul responding to he's responding to the proto Gnostics the early encounters with Gnosticism and Gnosticism is a docetic system. A well, I take that well it results in Gnosticism. Gnosticism is a dualistic system that results in a docetic Conclusion arising eventually, but since it's dualistic it believes that that which is physical is evil and that which is spiritual is good and so to say that the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus in somaticos bodily form is to slap the Gnostics across the face because the fullness of Deity and remember play Roma was also another word they would use the fullness of deity cannot have anything to do with that which is somaticos because that which is somaticos is evil and.

So Paul is repudiating the dualism of the Gnostics by asserting the continued deity of Christ as the resurrected man as the God man, and so that's his point to try to Insert that into some other discussion.

Especially when the Apostle Paul has already clearly distinguished Between the son and the father in Colossians chapter 1. If you if you just look back at Colossians chapter 1 I'll look at just some of the texts that they clearly distinguish between the father and son.

Verse 3 we give Thanks to God the father of our Lord Jesus Christ praying always for you. Now again, if this is modalism we give thanks to God the father of himself. Or we give thanks to God The God of our God or however you want to put it.

The the modalism turns the New Testament into mishmash because it turns God and Jesus into one person and and it you just can't make heads or tails out of anything. And what is more when you get down to the discussion in?

Verses 13 phone look at verse 12 giving thanks to the father Who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the Saints in light for he that is the father? Rescued us in the domain of darkness and transferred us the kingdom of his the father's beloved son.

In whom we have redemption the forgiveness of sins. So you have another clear distinction between the father and the son the New Testament is always Clear on this subject there you really really really really have to throw out all standard forms of interpretation.

That just allow the language to speak for itself to come up with this kind of conclusion. And so though Paul has clearly differentiated between the father and the son. You didn't start in Colossians 1 you jump into Colossians 2 ignore that.

And then say for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form use the King James for Godhead. And then in him you have a made complete and he is head overall rule authority now notice what the application is going to be in regards this being made complete.

He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily so if the Godhead is the father he is the fullness of the father.

In every respect all right now. Where do we get that the Godhead is the father well? We aren't told. It's just thrown out there, and I imagine if we pushed hard enough. Well God told him that revelation.

You know that's always the way around it. You can't you know when you have to depend upon this you know. Flesh and blood did not reveal these things to me. Rather than you know going to the scriptures.

That's the sure sign of the beginning of a new cult is basically how that works. That's how Joseph Smith did it and everybody else does and especially in bodily form all right?

And it says ye are complete in him. Well Trinitarians would have us believe that we're not Complete in Jesus Christ that we need two other persons or we have rejected God because we rejected a three-person three.

And sometimes three-bodied Trinity by now note note the complete shift of subject here in Him that is in Jesus Christ you have been made complete. Now how on earth does that have anything to do with the application was just made we're not told again.

It's just thrown out to us. When when the scriptures are talking about are being made complete in him that has one application and it in no way shape or form says and That what that means is you don't need the father or what that means is you don't need the Holy Spirit.

Because the being complete in him has nothing to do with any of that. That's a complete shift of subject here. No, Trinitarian has said no outside of Jesus Christ. You're not complete. What we're saying is the Bible's revelation of God's existence is Set tells us that the Son is not the only member of the Trinity.

And that the Son is not the father by the way for those of you Been looking at the blog remember the the Muslim who falsely accused me of patra passionism. This guy is a patra passionist. There's a whole series of videos on his website on this YouTube account Titled Jesus is the father or the father is Jesus one with him and so here's a patra passionist here's the guy that the Muslim falsely accuses me actually of being and Notice we are refuting him because well the Muslim was confused as well.

And so.

But they will have us believe that by rejecting the Trinity we are rejecting Jesus Christ and nothing could be further from the truth. The scripture says that we are complete in him complete in Jesus Christ.

And if we are come.

Saying that we are complete in Jesus Christ is not saying that Jesus Christ is the entirety of the Godhead. I mean that Connection is just non-existent. It's not there. It hasn't been substantiated. He's operating on it, but he hasn't told us why he would be operating on that.

We'll continue with a little bit more from this video. He goes to 1st John 3 16 a moment if you'd like to look that up and be ready for that and we'll also be looking at a text in Hebrews 9 and Taking your phone calls 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 we'll be right back.

Easyway, it's a journey.

Roman Catholicism, Evangelicals, and Ministry Advertisements

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 purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain in 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. The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us.

James White's book the Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters. It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.

The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org. Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants.

Alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior. In Their book the same-sex controversy James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject.

Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including Genesis Leviticus and Romans. Expanding on these scriptures. They refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner.

They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people. The same-sex controversy defending and clarifying the Bible's message about homosexuality.

Get your copy in the bookstore at a omen .org. I.

Can't hear you. You can't hear me. Not really. Way cool. Why is it only on Thursday? Because that's the lineup. Oh, that's where it is. Is that why it said five minutes at one minute. I.

Hit the wrong button.

I.

Hopefully didn't hear you that no. It's such a professional program, you know. That's why I have just you know a couple of people actually have talked to us about you know, like going on a network or something like that and I would mean We'd actually have to start on time.

We wouldn't be able to do this stuff. Why do I do that? I don't get it, you know, and then then you know. Anyway, nobody listens to me on the radio anyhow, so. It's seven seven seven five three three three four one is phone number.

Let's go back to our King James only Modalist. What's wrong? What? Oh. He's at work, oh, okay, let's not go back to our King James only modalist let's. Let's take our phone call and talk to Jason in Phoenix.

Hi Jason. Hey, how's it going? Dr. White? It's going pretty good. I'll try to answer as quick as him quick question.

Wondering in John 12 where Jesus says When I am lifted up from earth will draw all people to myself. Is is that the same idea that that he uses in John?

Actually, no, in fact, I if you have the Forgotten Trinity, I'm sorry the Potter's freedom I addressed that fairly in depth because that is the common place that people go to when you present to them John 6 they go.

To John 12, but the context are completely different in John chapter 6 Jesus specifically says that he draws. That the Father draws people to the Son and he raises up all those who are drawn in John chapter 12.

You have the end of Jesus public ministry and you have Greeks coming and they're seeking Jesus. Philip comes to Jesus they've come to him probably because they recognized his Greek name and they come to him and When now Jesus is about Jesus as far as we know does not meet with them.

He hides himself from these individuals, that's what it says in John chapter 12 and so the context is of Gentiles coming to Jesus and When Jesus says if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself.

The question is in the context of Jews and Gentiles and the assertion is he's going to draw Jews and Gentiles unto himself now the lifting up has to be the crucifixion. It's not the ascension or something.

It is it is the crucifixion itself and we know that the crucifixion is not naturally attractive. To the natural man. In fact, what does the Bible say? The cross is it's repulsive. It's uh, it pushes away Jews and Greeks.

But it says I will draw so this is the of course the work of the Father the Son the Spirit and so the assertion That Jesus is making is that he if he is lifted up he is going to draw Jews and Gentiles bond and free male and female as Revelation 5 says men from every tribe tongue people in nation.

We made a king of priests by the by the work that he has accomplished. So the context needs to be kept in mind and that is of the Gentiles coming to seek Jesus. That's often ignored. And in fact, sadly I would probably say it the majority of those who have ever raised the text to me as an objection if I were to have Embarrassed them by asking what the context of John 12 was they would not have known sure.