Message 13, Questions & Answers with Hamilton, Nichols, Reeves, Sproul, and Thomas:
A questions and answers session with Drs. Ian Hamilton, Stephen Nichols, Michael Reeves, R.C. Sproul and Derek Thomas.
- What did the Lord do in your life to help you embrace your calling as a battlefield theologian? (00:30)
- Please reflect on the helpfulness of the Ligonier Statement on Christology. (02:28)
- Can you know Jesus without the Bible? (7:44)
- When the wrath of God was poured out for our sins was the Son of God separated from the Trinity? (12:00)
- Was it difficult for Christ to live a sinless life? (13:38)
- Did Jesus die and take the punishment for the sins of everyone who ever lived or only those who were chosen to be saved? (18:08)
- Please elaborate on the apparent disproportion between eternal damnation and transitory sin. (25:14)
- Does the Bible teach that Jesus is never disappointed in our mistakes or disobedience? (26:58)
- How can I be sure my name is among the chosen? (30:02)
- Does repentance require confession? (42:05)
Note: Answers given during Questions and Answers sessions reflect the views of the individual speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dr. R.C. Sproul and Ligonier Ministries. Here is our Statement of Faith.
CHRIS LARSON: Dr. Sproul, this has been a journey that you’ve led us on to be able to bring Ligonier all this way and in terms of being able to marshal the organization of Ligonier, to give it its animating impulse. Thank you for leading the charge and giving us this type of a vision to be able to be, as you’ve noted for years, a battlefield theologian.
So, that’s going to be the first question to open up this Q&A time. What did the Lord do in your life to give you that understanding that the church needed to not shy away from the polemic, to embrace your calling as a battlefield theologian? How did that form in your soul and in your heart?
R.C. SPROUL: I think mainly the influence of my studies in seminary as a young man and looking at what happened and what God did in the Reformation of the 16th century. You see that the magisterial Reformers were world-class academicians, people like Luther and Calvin and so on.
But they understood that if you’re going to have reformation you have to take your case to the people, and that’s what I meant by being a battlefield theologian rather than an ivory tower theologian. That you’ve got to make your case before the people and communicate to the people.
John Piper said it somewhat like this, that not only must we be able to confess our faith and not only must we be able to defend our faith, but we must be willing and able to contend for the faith once for all delivered in sacred Scripture.
And so there is always a polemical element involved in the confrontation between the world, the flesh, and the Devil and the truth of the Christian gospel. And so, we have to be willing to be the church militant before we’ll ever expect to be the church triumphant.
CHRIS LARSON: Dr. Thomas, as one of our newest teaching fellows, could you just reflect on the Christology statement and situate it in your own understanding in terms of its helpfulness for the church?
DEREK THOMAS: Well, first of all, let me thank Dr. Sproul for the vision for this statement and tell him that at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina, our entire congregation on three successive Christmas Eve services recited this, this statement of Christology.
So, it works in terms of the eminent way in which an entire congregation can recite this, and I thought it was a perfect setting. We are of course Trinitarians, so we want to affirm the, the three-ness of God. But on a Christmas Eve service, it just seemed to us to be absolutely wonderful to have a statement that reflected on the person and work of Christ.
You and I have spoken recently of how in the 20th century in response to liberalism and an understandable response to liberalism, evangelicals have been defensive of the deity of Christ but have often done so in a way that has compromised the humanity of Christ.
And if you were to ask a congregation or a fellow Christian just a very basic simple question, “If you went up to Jesus, He is walking in Galilee, He’s moved away from the disciples, you see a moment to sort of sidle in and have a quick Q&A session with the Savior and you ask Him a simple question.” Do you think — The question is to Jesus, “Can you sing the opening bars of Beethoven’s fifth symphony?” Dada-da-da…
R.C. SPROUL: I know what that is, you know, because Beethoven was travelling in the United States and he was, he was riding a train from New York to Chicago, and they came through Pittsburg and a conductor came down the aisle saying, “Pittsburg PA, Pittsburg PA…” The devil made me do it.
DEREK THOMAS: Well, Mormonism apart, it’s an interesting question to ask somebody. “Do you think Jesus would
know the opening bars of Beethoven’s fifth symphony?” And the answer is of course, No. Because first of all, you’re asking the question in English. So, there is no need to even conjecture that Jesus would understand the question, let alone who Beethoven was or what a symphony was or be able to sing the opening three notes of Beethoven’s fifth symphony.
R.C. SPROUL: He certainly didn’t know what Pittsburg was.
DEREK THOMAS: But it’s such a fundamental point that there is a knee-jerk attraction to an ancient heresy called Apollinarianism within the modern church. And it’s in our circles. So, it’s very important that this, this statement on Christology not only addressing issues of justification by faith and double imputation and new perspective and all of those other aspects, but addressing some very basic things that belong to, well I say “Chalcedon” and you say “Chalcedon,” as long as we’re talking about the same thing.
R.C. SPROUL: We all pronounce that differently, just like everybody pronounces my name differently, but you pronounce it uniquely. You’re the only person in the world that pronounces my name like you do, but Jesus didn’t speak Welsh either.
DEREK THOMAS: I love this statement on Christology. I have a class, I’m teaching a class at the minute at RTS in Atlanta on Christology. It’s an elective class. We have seven or eight students. We are going to spend two and a half hours just walking through this statement in a couple of weeks’ time.
R.C. SPROUL: Great, I really appreciate. But one thing I want to correct for the record, you keep thanking me, but the lion’s share of the thanks goes to Steve and Chris for…
DEREK THOMAS: It would go to his head, I’m just thanking you.
R.C. SPROUL: …and the teaching fellows from Ligonier that cooperated together on this whole work.
CHRIS LARSON: Question comes, “Is it possible to know Jesus without reading the Bible?”
STEVEN NICHOLS: I would say, if you wanted to know the Jesus of the Bible, you should read the Bible. And the reason why I say that is because Jesus is quite a cultural figure, and there’s a great deal of material out there on Jesus as a cultural icon. He shows up in all sorts of places throughout history, throughout culture. Those very quickly become distortions of who Jesus is.
And so, what we constantly need to do and even evangelicals in many ways can harbor these distortions, if we want to know the Jesus of the Bible, we need to read the Bible and not only just the parts of the Gospels that we like about Jesus; we need to see the whole complex of Jesus as He comes to us in the Gospels. In many ways, theological statements and the early ecumenical creeds remind us to have that full complexity as we think of Jesus.
And I just wanted to point out one thing very quickly, and that is accent, accent, accent, Dr. Sproul. So, I hope you all recognize the handicap that I am operating with during this Q&A.
MICHAEL REEVES: I don’t have an accent.
DEREK THOMAS: Can I add a rider to that question? Can you come to know Jesus savingly without a Bible?
R.C. SPROUL: Yes.
IAN HAMILTON: Yes.
R.C. SPROUL: I think that the Ethiopian eunuch got to know Jesus savingly without the Bible when he heard the proclamation from Philip. And we have seen all kinds of cases where people have orally proclaimed the Word of God without the Bible, so it’s not a necessary condition to have the Bible in order to have a saving knowledge of Christ. But certainly, if you want a sanctified understanding of Christ, you need the Bible.
DEREK THOMAS: Because the first disciples in the New Testament didn’t have a New Testament either.
R.C. SPROUL: No, they didn’t.
IAN HAMILTON: But they did have the Old Testament that’s full of Christ, pointed to Christ, spoke of Christ, and Jesus on the Emmaus Road said to His disciples and He opened up the Scriptures. I thought the question was asking, “Are there people in this world, who because of where they are don’t have access to the Bible and is God — not is God able, but is God pleased to work above and beyond and even against the means that He has ordained in order to bring them by His electing mercy and grace to salvation in Jesus Christ?”
And I would want to say, “Yes.” Is anything too hard for the Lord? God is not constrained by anything, and it may be unusual, maybe deeply and profoundly unusual, but I think we, perhaps many of us have heard of instances where God has above and beyond what we could imagine brought people by the ministry of His Spirit, to believe in His Son without the means of grace.
I’m a principial cessationist, but I am still happy to say, “Let God be God, and is anything too hard for the Lord?” Maybe you disagree with that. Maybe I’ll never be invited back again.
R.C. SPROUL: That’s not likely to happen.
CHRIS LARSON: When the wrath of God was poured out on Christ for our sins, was the Son separated from the Trinity?
R.C. SPROUL: Go ahead!
MICHAEL REEVES: I think we have to say, absolutely not. We do not see a breakdown of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the sense that the Trinity is somehow breaking apart. That is not what is going on. The language of separation that is used, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” is the language used of being under the wrath of God, being separated from the presence of His graciousness.
But there is nowhere for anyone who is under the wrath of God to escape from the presence of God ultimately.
And so, something quite unique happens at the cross that the eternally beloved one has the wrath of God poured out on Him. He’s never known that before, but He remains the eternal Son, and He’s not suddenly become split apart from His Father. There is a unique, utterly unique moment in their relationship, but He still remains the eternal Son.
CHRIS LARSON: A question relating to the sinlessness of Christ. Was it difficult for Christ to live a sinless life? And then another question relates to that. Jesus faced temptations like all humans because He was fully human, truly human. Did He face sexual temptation? So was it difficult for Christ to live a sinless life? And then an applicatory question, did He face sexual temptation?
R.C. SPROUL: Go ahead.
DEREK THOMAS: Everything that we read about Jesus suggests that the entirety of His fulfillment of His role as the servant was done through effort, that the temptations were not imaginary, they were real temptations. I think in John chapter 4, the “woman at the well” story, is in some measure a sexual temptation. Here’s a woman who’s had five husbands. She is working on her sixth, and number seven, which is a significant number for John, is Jesus. I think the setting is at a well.
The language of drawing from a well is full of double entendre. I think well stories in the Old Testament are settings where you “pick up” someone. You — I need to rephrase that, but in the patriarchal narratives, the well stories are often associated with associations of men and women with other intentions.
And for me when I counsel someone, as I all too frequently do, who’s addicted to pornography, to be able to say, “You have a savior who has been tempted in every point like as you are.” He, he knows what it is to be tempted as a man, as a human being, by sexual temptation.
And to walk through that temptation and emerge on the other side sinless, absolutely pure, that’s tremendously important to be able to say that in a counseling session with somebody who’s addicted to pornography, who’s fallen victim to lust, that they have a Savior who knows what it is to be tempted in this area and that forgiveness and redemption is possible.
MICHAEL REEVES: You simply can’t read the account of Jesus the night before He’s crucified in the Garden of Gethsemane and not think that He struggled, that His ministry was a grand wrestle culminating in victory. That wrestle happened, we see, again and again in the power of the Spirit, and so He — we read that “Zeal for my Father’s house consumes me.” He was filled with the Spirit, and therefore, in the power of the Spirit wrestled against temptation and was victorious.
IAN HAMILTON: I heard many years ago a phrase that has long lingered with me, “The Lord Jesus Christ never cruised to glory.” He entered the glory through blood, sweat and tears, because the flesh that He was united with in the womb of the Virgin Mary was, as Calvin so evocatively puts it, addicted to so many wretchednesses. It was true humanity, and He endured the cross despising its shame.
CHRIS LARSON: Did Jesus die and take the punishment for the sins of everyone who ever lived or for only those who have been chosen by Christ to be saved? In other words, did Jesus die for everyone or just some?
R.C. SPROUL: Why are you looking at me, you know? Come on, you guys all believe the same thing, come on.
STEVEN NICHOLS: I’ll hop in here. This is helpful for me to think about, because in many ways the context and maybe this is true for some of you, came initially to Christianity, not necessarily within Reformed context, and it strikes me that, like what sort of sealed this in my thinking is Christ’s — is the pronouncement, “It is finished.” And that is, I think, the thing we have to reckon with here. Either Christ accomplished redemption on the cross and secured it, or if He simply provided it and made it available, then that requires us to add something to what Christ did on the cross for salvation to be effective. And that was enough in my mind to answer this question.
DEREK THOMAS: I’ve always found for me, the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption, Augustus Toplady, his double justice argument for me was so convincing. “Just as God cannot twice demand, once at my bleeding surety’s hand and then again at mine.” What Toplady is saying is that if Jesus has endured the wrath that my sins deserve and endured that wrath to the full, that God has meted out justice upon His Son in my room as my substitute, He cannot demand that of me again on Judgment Day.
If Jesus died in that sense for everybody, then those who are unbelievers, who are punished on the Day of Judgment, that sin is being punished twice. It was punished once in Jesus, and now it’s being punished again in the sinner’s life, which is double jeopardy.
IAN HAMILTON: Undergirding the work of Christ is the holy concurrence of the Triune God in the work of Christ. What the Father has purposed, the Son has accomplished, and the Spirit applies. And if you posit anything else, then you’re looking to posit some kind of disjunction in the Holy Trinity. You’re saying that the Father sent the Son to save everyone, the Son died in order to save everyone, but the Holy Spirit chooses not save everyone.
At the very heart of the work of Christ is this glorious, holy concert between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in perfecting the work of Christ, perfecting it in terms of the eternal counsel to save, perfecting it in the accomplished work of Christ on the cross, and perfecting it in the application by the Holy Spirit to all of those given by the Father to the Son, and that’s the glory and beauty and symmetry of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
R.C. SPROUL: I think it’s important to understand that the question really has to do with the eternal design of God with respect to His plan of salvation. Did God plan, from all eternity, to save each and every human person in this world? Well, if He did sovereignly, eternally plan to save each and every person in this world, then QED, every person in this world is saved.
But the New Testament screams to the contrary that not everybody is saved. Well, did God fail in His ultimate design, in His plan for salvation? Again, going back to what we’re saying is all that He did was to have an idea that He would provide a possibility of redemption and then step back, wring His hands, pace up and down and hope somebody might avail themselves of it? But in the final analysis left it to our wills to, to make the final decision and have a doctrine of the atonement where theoretically possible that no one would be saved?
But God did more than just make it possible for salvation; He made it certain. He had a plan, eternal plan to save and if for no other reason than for the glory of His Son. The only explanation I can give for being included in the kingdom of God is that we are the gifts that the Father gives to the Son that He may see the travail of His soul and be satisfied.
But I think the big problem that we’re dealing with all of this is that we wrestle every single day with a concept of human strength and freedom that is utterly unbiblical. It has been inculcated from kindergarten on in the Western world through humanism that really denies a fatal fall into sin.
The idea of freedom means that I have the equal power to incline myself to the left or to the right. I have no predilection. I’m not dead in sin. I’m not in bondage to sin. But if it’s really true that I’m dead in sin and in bondage to sin, then the only way I’ll ever be rescued from sin is that if God takes the initiative and brings me safely home.
CHRIS LARSON: Are you ready for this one, Dr. Sproul?
R.C. SPROUL: I must surely be.
CHRIS LARSON: Please elaborate on the apparent disproportion between eternal damnation and transitory sin.
R.C. SPROUL: And what?
CHRIS LARSON: Transitory sin.
R.C. SPROUL: Between eternal damnation? Alright. Well, the concept of eternal damnation is postulated on the basis that the crime that is committed by transitory human creatures is a crime against one who is infinite in His perfection. And in fact, I’m saying that there is a — an almost ontological cosmic impossibility for justice ever to prevail, even in hell.
Because eternity is not long enough to satisfy the heinousness of the crime that I have committed against my Creator and against my God, who is infinitely perfect in every way, and so that my guilt remains eternal. And again, it’s not enough. That’s the big problem, is how can an eternal punishment in hell be enough to balance the scales of justice?
CHRIS LARSON: Does the Bible teach that Jesus is never disappointed in our mistakes or disobedience? Is this what grace is?
R.C. SPROUL: Can you read that again?
CHRIS LARSON: Does the Bible teach that Jesus is never disappointed in our mistakes or disobedience? Is this what grace is?
R.C. SPROUL: My skin crawls when I hear sin ever described as a mistake. You know, but that’s the language that we use, that we’ve been taught to use. The political correct language of our day, “I made a mistake.” You make a mistake is when you add two and two and come up with five. Now there are moral implications of that because of the noetic effects of sin and so on. But a mistake does not carry the full, moral weight of a willful act of disobedience against a holy, perfect, and righteous God.
Now, we grieve the Holy Spirit, even in our redeemed state, by our sins. I don’t think that the Lord is weeping over Jerusalem when we make a mathematical error. But when we violate the law of God, I think, yes, He is disappointed. I don’t think that that destroys His eternal felicity in any way, but yeah, He is grieved.
MICHAEL REEVES: I think to think that God would tolerate evil actually makes Him less gracious to His children and less glorious. It has a very small view of salvation, what’s being posited there. The idea that God simply wants to get us to a saved status, whereas what we see is that calling us into the life of Christ, God desires to remove the sin that disgusts Him from His children.
So He desires to call sinners to Himself to give them a righteous status and also to give them eventually a righteous character. And given how sin destroys lives, it would be ungracious of Him to leave us wallowing in our sin even if we had a righteous status.
CHRIS LARSON: Since I am now, excuse me, since I am using Christ’s righteousness to enter heaven and yet I am still a sinner, how will I become sinless when I reside in heaven? If I don’t change somehow, wouldn’t heaven just be like earth?
R.C. SPROUL: This is why we talk about the order of salvation and that the way the term salvation is used in every tense of the Greek verb. We were saved, we were being saved, we have been saved, we are saved, we will be saved, we will be being saved, and that the pattern is that we’re justified the moment we believe. And Luther’s famous motto simul iustus et peccator “at the same time just and sinner,” we’re justified by an imputed righteousness, but still in and of ourselves we remain sinners, but sanctification begins immediately.
We are being made into the conformity of the image of Christ as we are being sanctified. But even the finest, most sanctified Christian, when they leave this earth, is not fully perfected until glorification.
And that is the work of the Holy Spirit, when we come into glory that we are cleansed and purified from sin altogether. One of the things that you talk about the Highland hymn and the beatific vision, where we talk about seeing God as He is, in se est, and we would say, and this we don’t know what we’re going to be. But this we know, that we will be like Him because we will see Him as He is.
And the question that I still haven’t resolved in my mind is how that works. We will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is. Now, maybe what that means is, if we go back to the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And the reason we don’t see God right now is because we’re not pure in heart.
So the idea means that we must be purified or glorified before we can have the beatific vision. That would seem to be the logical construct that we would reach from that relationship between those two things. But what I’ve always wondered is if the final act of purification is that we will see Him and it’s by the beatific vision, the vision of God, that that’s the very action that affects our ultimate glorification.
I’m not sure which way that goes. It would seem to me the former rather than the latter, but I’m not sure that it isn’t the latter rather than the former. What do you think? You’re from Scotland, I mean Ian. What do you think?
IAN HAMILTON: I think you’re right.
R.C. SPROUL: Well, I hear truth.
IAN HAMILTON: One of the most significant dogmatic statements I’ve ever read, Volume 2, early on, maybe page 32 of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, “Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics,” and it’s lovely, I hope I say this not to flatter you, it’s lovely when theologians are willing to say, “You know, I really don’t know.” There is a profundity, a mystery, a holy mystery, we see through a glass darkly.
I think, like you I tend to believe that the final moment will be when we see Him as He is, unclouded by our poor sight and by the veil that there is between this world and the world which is to come. But we live, at times we live in holy agnosticism, because God is God, and we are not.
CHRIS LARSON: How can I be assured that I am among the chosen?
IAN HAMILTON: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
R.C. SPROUL: Now the problem is complicated, because we have four kinds of people. The people who aren’t saved and know that they aren’t saved, people who aren’t saved and don’t know that they aren’t saved, people who are saved and know that they are saved, and people who are unsaved who know that they are saved.
That’s where the problem comes in, because you have all kinds of people who have an assurance of salvation illegitimately. Because they don’t understand what salvation requires. Maybe somebody taught them, “If you raise your hand in an evangelistic meeting, or if you walk down the aisle, or if you speak the sinner’s prayer or if you do this method or that method, that guarantees that you’re saved.”
But the New Testament and Jesus specifically warns us about a false assurance. That there are many who will come on the last day and say, “Lord, Lord! Didn’t we do this and didn’t we do that and so on,” and He will say those horrible words, “Depart from Me. I never knew you, you workers of iniquity.” So, there is such a thing as a false assurance. That’s why we need to know what salvation really is and what it really requires. And then the question is, “In my own subjective evaluation, do I meet the requirements,” that as we’ve just heard, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I will be saved”?
And then you can say, “Well, do I really believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?” How can I sin the way I sin when I know that’s not consistent with true faith in Christ? Good news to know that we don’t have to be perfect in order to be saved, but we do have to understand who it is that saves us and how it is that we are saved.
Very practical ways, I’ve talked to people who struggle with this question. I ask them, “Do you love Jesus, the biblical Jesus? Do you love the biblical Jesus perfectly?” I’ve only heard two people in my life who have answered that question in the affirmative to me, who would say yes, they love Him perfectly. That’s for the perfectionist problem, and it’s another story. But the vast majority of professing Christians will answer that question, “no.” They know I don’t love Jesus perfectly. I know I don’t love Jesus perfectly.
And then I’ll say, “Well” — I will say to them, “Well, do you love Him as much as you ought to love Him?” Well if they answer the first question “No,” they’ve got to answer the second question “No,” because I ought to love Him perfectly. And so if I say, “I don’t love Him perfectly,” then I know I don’t love Him as much as I ought to love Him. So now, the spiral seems to tend to be more and more pessimistic.
Then I ask this question, “Do you love Him at all?” Do you know in your heart whether you have any any genuine affection for the biblical Jesus? And there is where your theology comes home to roost. If I can say, “Yes, I know that I don’t love Him the way I should love Him, that I don’t love Him perfectly, but I know in whom I have believed. I know that I have some real affection for Christ in my heart and in my soul.”
Then if my theology is sound, then I ask the question, “How could that possibly be?” Because I know an unregenerate person has no affection for Jesus and can’t possibly have any affection for Jesus. So, if I have any affection for Jesus that tells me I’m regenerate. And if I’m regenerate, I have true faith. And if I have true faith, I’m numbered among the elect and can have full assurance.
That’s why, you know, Peter talks about that we should make our election and calling sure. That it’s a very practical issue, because if we don’t have the assurance of salvation that we should have and can have, we’re tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. We’re unstable or inconsistent. We’re duck soup for the temptations of the enemy who comes our way.
That’s why, you know, I look at the difference between Judas and Peter. Jesus says in the Upper Room to Judas, “What you have to do, do quickly.” Go do it. And then when He talks about Peter, He says, “You’re going to deny me.” Oh no, no, not a chance. “Simon, Simon, Satan would have you and sift you like wheat. You’re simple, duck soup for Satan, but I have prayed for you, so that when you turn,” not if you turn, but when you turn, “strengthen the brethren.” Ah! The personal gratification that that gives to my soul is immeasurable, and that’s why we have to understand the work of Jesus, that He not only is King, but He is our great High Priest who intercedes for us every hour of every day. And when the Lord Jesus Christ prays for His weak disciples, there’s no question of whether or not they’re going to turn. We’re capable of serious and radical falls from grace, but never total and final fall, because we are being preserved by our Savior. And that’s where my assurance comes in.
CHRIS LARSON: Does repentance require confession? If I did grievous acts when I was young, do I need to tell my family or church?
R.C. SPROUL: Yes or no? It certainly requires confession, and God willing, I’m going to talk about that tomorrow, too, about what repentance means. That repentance does not mean simply, I’ll say it now and say it again tomorrow, God willing, a resolve to change and behave differently in the future from what I do today. I don’t believe that I need to confess every one of my sins of my childhood or at any time to everybody in the world or to all of the people in my family. Ultimately my sin is against God, and what repentance does require, always requires, is confession of our sin before God and confession, not only confession, but confession accompanied by contrition, real remorse.
I don’t know about you yeah I do, I know about you, too. I know that I have never in my life approached the full measure of remorse and contrition for my sin that I should have, but I also know that’s true of you as well it is of me and I forget who it was, I think it was, never mind. Thomas A. Kempis who said that the greatest saints rarely come anywhere close to feeling the full measure of weight of their own sinfulness.
And I’m glad that the Holy Spirit reveals the depths of my sin gradually to me. If He would reveal to me right now the full measure of my guilt before God, I would be destroyed. Just in the one moment, when Isaiah said he was coming apart. He disintegrated with his vision of God. But yes we have to confess, and with that confession comes a real godly sorrow, not just a fear of punishment, what we call “attrition,” but a broken and contrite heart, God doesn’t despise, but He desires it as the reality of our repentance.
CHRIS LARSON: Would you thank our guests and panelists this afternoon.