The Process Of Justification

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro: Jesus said to him, "He who has been justified needs only his daily sins removed, but is justified despite whether his daily sins are removed or not, but not all of you."

Now, this is a contradiction and this is what you have been saying since you first posted these verses. I can go back and copy and paste your exact words if you want me to. I have asked twice for clarification and this will be the third time.

Yes, you do indeed need to copy and paste. I've said over and over and over again that one will lose their justification if they refuse Christ's forgiveness after they have had a whole bath. I NEVER said a believer remains justified whether or not they get daily sins cleansed. I have never said that because I do not believe that. I have clarified this over and over and over again, and it amazes me that you can not grasp what I'm saying. Simply amazing.

Please answer the simple questions below:

A believer says "I refuse to have Jesus wash my feet. I refuse to allow Him to remove the stain of my daily sins".

1) Does this believer "have no part with" Jesus (lose justification)?

Yes.

2) Is this believer "completely clean" (remaining justified)?

After refusing to get Jesus' cleansing for daily sin? No.

You asked the questions, so hopefully now you'll understand what I've been saying all along.

The words "completely clean" don't carry with them a connotation of ongoing justification.

See? You simply don't understand the argument. "Completely clean" all by itself is not what connotes Peter's ongoing complete cleanness. The fact that Jesus said Peter "is completely clean", and "you are clean", despite the fact that he has dirty feet that need washing, that is what plainly denotes (not merely connotes) that "completely clean' is an ongoing justification that continues despite the dirtying of ones feet. But your doctrine says dirty feet requires re-justification.

I'm not the one with the problem of comprehension. You are. The passage itself Jesus plainly says dirty footed Peter who needs his feet washed is "completely clean" despite those dirty feet.

10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean" (John 13:10 NASB)

But your doctrine says dirty feet requires that one be re-washed/ re-justified.

He is completely clean in the sense that he is baptized and his soul is capable of enjoying Heaven. He is justified at that point in time. That isn't to say that he is "justified despite the stain of his daily sins".

You are so terribly wrong. Peter has dirty feet. Jesus says to dirty footed Peter that he doesn't need a bath. He's so clear about this that it is impossible for it not to be understood that Peter was not only justified "at that point in time" of his whole body washing, but is still justified even with his dirty feet. He doesn't need to be re-justified:

"10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean" (John 13:10 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

He said that unless He removed his daily sins, left his feet dirty, he would "have no part with" Jesus. You have agreed that this means "unless Jesus removes Peter's daily sin, leaves his feet dirty, he loses justification".

Right in the passage it says while Peter had dirty feet in need of cleaning he "is completely clean". It's impossible to disagree. The passage plainly says that:

""10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean" (John 13:10 NASB)" (John 13:10 NASB)

'You, Peter, who has dirty feet. You are completely clean, even though you have dirty feet. You are clean. You only need to wash your feet.' That is the plain point you seem oblivious to. I'm amazed that you can't see it. Simply amazed. That is the point being argued. Not the point that if he refuses to get them cleaned he will have no part of Jesus. You keep harping on the part about him losing the whole body cleanness if he refuses to get his feet washed, skipping right over the fact that he is clean while he has the dirty feet, but before a decision is made to not get them washed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I can post your quotes that say those exact words. "Completely clean" does not mean "justified despite the stain of his daily sins". This is what you have been saying and what contradicts v.8, which says "If I do not remove your sins you will lose justification". This is contradictory, and blatantly obvious. Just admit you made a mistake, for goodness sake. This is getting embarrassing...

Actually what's happening, dadof10, is you aren't comprehending the argument, nor the plain words of scripture that say Peter "is completely clean" while he has his dirty feet. Then you try to defend your misunderstanding with a different point being made in the passage that Peter will lose his complete cleanness if he refuses to get his feet cleaned.

The passage says he is completely clean while he has his dirty feet. The warning of losing his place in Christ applies to whether or not he refuses Christ's washing after getting dirty feet, not applicable to him having dirty feet in the first place. That's what the passage plainly says.

5Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”7Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.”8Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” (John 13:5-11 NASB)

"If I do not wash you"....that is when Peter loses the cleanness of his justification (not when he gets his feet dirty). That is when he would need to be re-justified. But that is impossible. God will not do that (Hebrews 6:4-6). Your re-justification doctrine falls flat. Not only is it unnecessary for dirty footed believers who get their feet continually washed by Christ to be re-justified, but it is impossible for the 'believer' who refuses to get his feet washed to be re-justified.

Re-justification: Unnecessary for the believer, who gets his feet washed by Jesus, because he is already justified, and impossible for the one who loses his justification, by not getting his feet washed by Christ, because God said he won't do that. I said this right from the beginning.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, you do indeed need to copy and paste. I've said over and over and over again that one will lose their justification if they refuse Christ's forgiveness after they have had a whole bath. I NEVER said a believer remains justified whether or not they get daily sins cleansed. I have never said that because I do not believe that. I have clarified this over and over and over again, and it amazes me that you can not grasp what I'm saying. Simply amazing.

Here it is again. I'll take it line by line:

Referring to the "lump/leaven" metaphor you said:

"So, despite their sin, which they are still in, their unleavened perfection still stands. He said so. Their sinning did not remove that so that they need to be re-justified." (italics in the original, Bold mine)

Despite ongoing sin, their "unleavened perfection still stands".

"We see another illustration of this concept of being always perfectly justified before God despite the stain of our sins here

"8 Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”" (John 13:8-10 NASB italics in orig.)"

"Despite the stain of our sins" we are "always perfectly justified before God.

Peter doesn't need a whole bath all over again. He only needs his feet washed. The bath is justification. The washing of the feet is the stain of our daily sin that doesn't necessitate an entire re-washing (re-justification) of the believer.

The "stain of our daily sin...doesn't necessitate an entire re-justification of the believer".

Let's recap.
"Despite ongoing sin, their "unleavened perfection still stands".
"always perfectly justified before God despite the stain of our sins."
"The "stain of our daily sin...doesn't necessitate an entire re-justification of the believer".

Your words here The Process Of Justification. Now, let's see how they stack up against your words above.

"I NEVER said a believer remains justified whether or not they get daily sins cleansed. I have never said that because I do not believe that."

This is truly sad. You can bluster and rant about me "not getting it" or about how "amazed" you are, but your words speak for themselves. Last time I checked "always perfectly justified before God despite the stain of our sins" means "remains justified whether or not they get daily sins cleansed", which you deny you said. So does "despite ongoing sin", their "unleavened perfection still stands" and the "stain of our daily sin...doesn't necessitate an entire re-justification of the believer."

I can only guess why you won't simply accept that you made a mistake using these verses. The fact is that you did and you won't for whatever reason, simply admit it. What I think happened is that you saw "dirty feet" and "completely clean" in these verses, but missed "have no part in me", which you had to admit means "lose justification". This was the mistake that should have been admitted long ago instead of doubled down upon.

Yes.
After refusing to get Jesus' cleansing for daily sin? No.

You asked the questions, so hopefully now you'll understand what I've been saying all along.

As is demonstrated above, you haven't been saying it "all along". You have been trying to weave your way through a contradictory mine field without having to admit a mistake.

See? You simply don't understand the argument. "Completely clean" all by itself is not what connotes Peter's ongoing complete cleanness. The fact that Jesus said Peter "is completely clean", and "you are clean", despite the fact that he has dirty feet that need washing, that is what plainly denotes (not merely connotes) that "completely clean' is an ongoing justification that continues despite the dirtying of ones feet. But your doctrine says dirty feet requires re-justification.

Mine and yours. You clearly say above that "refusing to get Jesus' cleansing for daily sin" (i.e. leaving dirty feet) does not allow a believer to remain justified. Are you going to deny you said this in this post? Do you want me to post your exact words again?

I'm not the one with the problem of comprehension. You are. The passage itself Jesus plainly says dirty footed Peter who needs his feet washed is "completely clean" despite those dirty feet.

How can his justification be "despite those dirty feet" yet, leaving his feet dirty has no effect on that same justification? You contradicted yourself within two sentences. I'm a little scared right now. This is bordering on the schizophrenic. Seriously, are you feeling OK? You usually aren't this disjointed, which is why I enjoy talking to you.

10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean" (John 13:10 NASB)

But your doctrine says dirty feet requires that one be re-washed/ re-justified.

Again, from your answers above, so does yours, unless a believer can refuse to allow Jesus to cleanse those feet and still remain justified. At least that's what you said at one point above, then contradicted yourself...again.

You are so terribly wrong. Peter has dirty feet. Jesus says to dirty footed Peter that he doesn't need a bath. He's so clear about this that it is impossible for it not to be understood that Peter was not only justified "at that point in time" of his whole body washing, but is still justified even with his dirty feet. He doesn't need to be re-justified:

"10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean" (John 13:10 NASB)

If he refuses to get his feet washed, does he lose that justification? So, even with his dirty feet (i.e. refusing to let Jesus cleanse them) he is still justified? I'm kinda scared of your answer. It could be anything.

 

[dadof10]

Can you post a scripture for this statement, that says water baptism doesn't save.


JLB

They are right next to the verses that call it "merely symbolic" and "a show of faith"...

 

[dadof10]

Actually what's happening, dadof10, is you aren't comprehending the argument, nor the plain words of scripture that say Peter "is completely clean" while he has his dirty feet. Then you try to defend your misunderstanding with a different point being made in the passage that Peter will lose his complete cleanness if he refuses to get his feet cleaned.

The passage says he is completely clean while he has his dirty feet. The warning of losing his place in Christ applies to whether or not he refuses Christ's washing after getting dirty feet, not applicable to him having dirty feet in the first place. That's what the passage plainly says.

5Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”7Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.”8Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” (John 13:5-11 NASB)

"If I do not wash you"....that is when Peter loses the cleanness of his justification (not when he gets his feet dirty). That is when he would need to be re-justified. But that is impossible. God will not do that (Hebrews 6:4-6). Your re-justification doctrine falls flat. Not only is it unnecessary for dirty footed believers who get their feet continually washed by Christ to be re-justified, but it is impossible for the 'believer' who refuses to get his feet washed to be re-justified.

Re-justification: Unnecessary for the believer, who gets his feet washed by Jesus, because he is already justified, and impossible for the one who loses his justification, by not getting his feet washed by Christ, because God said he won't do that. I said this right from the beginning.

I'm done discussing these verses. This particular tangent is not getting either one of us anywhere. I would like to point out one thing concerning "engaging", though. You have brought up "foot washing" verses, "lump/leaven" verses and other verses that you think bolster your case. In every instance, I have "engaged" by doing an exegesis on the actual verses you post. You usually don't agree, but I have "engaged". We went 'round and 'round about lumps, leaven, Church and that one sinning "chap". We went 'round and 'round about "foot washing", "completeness", baptism and repentance. In short, when you post your opinion on Scripture, I engage on those verses, I don't say "that can't be a proper exegesis because of these other verses over here". I would like the same consideration.

The OP of this thread includes an exegesis of Hebrews 11: 4-8. I have repeatedly brought it up, most recently Monday The Process Of Justification. You continue to ignore it, except to say that Hebrews 11 is "all about commendable faith". I will post a short exegesis here in the hopes that you will actually engage on these verses. I'll use the NIV because it uses the word "commendable". I will also include in my exegesis your "commendable faith". It is just another word for true, justifying faith because God is doing the "commending". It is not another whole hybrid "kind" of faith that obeys, trusts, has "works attached", yet doesn't justify.

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

So, the "commendable faith" Abel had when he "brought God a better offering than Cain" made him righteous. The "commendable faith" mentioned here is a faith that justifies. Abel was justified by his "commendable faith"

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: "He could not be found, because God had taken him away." For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

Enoch was "taken away" by God, obviously justified, unless you want to make the case that God "takes [people] from this life" who aren't justified. He didn't taste death because "he was commended as one who pleased God". Here is another example of "commendable faith" that is pleasing to God and that lead to justification. Enoch was justified by "commendable faith".

The Greek word for "commendable" in both these places is "martyreō" which is defined as:

to be a witness, to bear witness, i.e. to affirm that one has seen or heard or experienced something, or that he knows it because taught by divine revelation or inspiration

1. to give (not to keep back) testimony
   
   
2. to utter honourable testimony, give a good report
   
   
3. conjure, implore

This would mean both of these men had the kind of faith that God "bore witness" to or "gave testimony" to. This is "commendable faith" or "witness faith" or "testimony faith". The one doing the "bearing witness", "giving testimony" and "commending" here is GOD. If the faith that these men had was "bore witness" by God, how could it be less than justifying faith? Let's continue...

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Enoch had a faith that pleased God, even though he didn't have the fullness of truth. He had a rudimentary trusting faith, which included belief that He exists and created, and that "commendable faith" was enough to justify him.

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.

Noah became an "heir of righteousness" by faith. Obviously "inherited" the faith from Abel and Enoch. I'm sure we agree that the faith being talked about here is "justifying faith". He "inherited" this justifying faith from two people who had "commendable faith". Noah was justified by faith. Whether you consider it "commendable" or not is up to you. Whatever label you want to use, the facts are that he inherited it from Abel and Enoch and it justified him.

Abel was "commended as righteous", Enoch was "commended as one who pleased God", Noah "became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith". Seems like this "commendable faith" is a faith that justifies and that this justifying faith is a running theme throughout Hebrews.

Now, the author just gave us three straight examples of "men of old" who were justified by their "commendable faith", and please note he has not given one example of a person who had a faith that did not justify. The last word in v. 7 is "pistis", faith. The last few words of v.7 are "By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith." The very next word is "pistis" and refers to Abraham in Gen. 12....

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. (Heb 11:4-8 NIV)

This is obviously the exact same kind of faith that has been mentioned in all the previous verses. It's the faith that "commended [Abel] as righteous", led to Enoch being "taken from this life" by God, and made Noah an "heir of righteousness", the righteousness shared by both the men listed before him. This is the exact same kind of faith that all the other "men [women] of old" have, including Rahab, who was justified by her faith, yet not mentioned in Hebrews as "righteous". I guess the author figured he didn't have to make an announcement about everyone's justification. We could draw that obvious assumption from the first 8 verses.

The author is obviously talking about the faith that justified these "men of old". First, Abel is shown to be justified, then Enoch, then Noah, all using the same word "pistis", "By faith". What makes you think that the faith mentioned in verse 8 and connected to Abraham, was somehow not a justifying faith? What sets Abraham's "pistis" apart from the ones that came before? Don't you see a running theme throughout Hebrews 11, and isn't this theme that it was always faith that justified these "men of old", not "works of the law"?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Last time I checked "always perfectly justified before God despite the stain of our sins" means "remains justified whether or not they get daily sins cleansed", which you deny you said.

Again, you show that you are simply stuck in a profound misunderstanding of the argument.

Peter was not cut off from Christ for just having dirty feet. Christ said while in that state he "is completely clean" (John 13:10 NASB). You can't deny this, the passage plainly says that. And this is the point you refuse to acknowledge. It isn't until he refuses to have his feet cleansed that he would then be cut off from Christ. In the example of the sinning fellow at Corinth, what determined his status in Christ is whether or not he responded positively to being confronted about his sin, not that he was in the sin in the first place. This is the single point you simply are not getting, even though the Bible plainly teaches it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm done discussing these verses.

I'm heading out the door for work, so let me just say it will look bad for you if you walk away without acknowledging that Peter "is completely clean", in every sense of justification that we are arguing, in his dirty footed status. And that it isn't until he refuses Christ's cleansing, choosing to keep his dirty feet, rejecting Christ's forgiveness, that he is then cut off from Christ.

If you've been paying attention even a little to where and what I post here you will know this is pretty much my theme:

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26 NASB)

Leave if you want, but let it be clear that you never undid the argument that Peter was "completely clean" in his dirty footed status.

 

[JLB]

So, the "commendable faith" Abel had when he "brought God a better offering than Cain" made him righteous.

It couldn't be anymore clear.

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.

I believe the Spirit used the word heir here, because Noah was commissioned with "starting over" with Mankind, as we all would be from his family line.

In any case, Noah leaves for us an example of the righteousness which is according to faith, which is called the obedience of faith.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26

Faith without this obedience is dead.

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

By faith, means the thing that God spoke of was accomplished, having been fulfilled by obedience to His Word.





JLB

 

[dadof10]

I'm heading out the door for work, so let me just say it will look bad for you if you walk away without acknowledging that Peter "is completely clean", in every sense of justification that we are arguing, in his dirty footed status. And that it isn't until he refuses Christ's cleansing, choosing to keep his dirty feet, rejecting Christ's forgiveness, that he is then cut off from Christ.

If you've been paying attention even a little to where and what I post here you will know this is pretty much my theme:

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26 NASB)

Leave if you want, but let it be clear that you never undid the argument that Peter was "completely clean" in his dirty footed status.

I don't have to "undo" any argument about these verses. You have undone your own arguments over and over by repeatedly flip-flopping from "always perfectly justified, despite daily sin" to "lose justification unless daily sin is removed". I'm being charitable by letting you off the hook here.

I know you are reluctant to "engage" in actual exegesis on Heb. 11:4-8, because you have absolutely no reason to believe Abel, Enoch and Noah are all justified by their faith, but Abraham is not. You are reading your theology into these verses and it is obvious, even going so far as to invent a new "kind" of faith. It's easier to stay here and use analogy and metaphor for confusion, but I'm not going to let you off the hook again. Hebrews 11, please...

 

[dadof10]

It couldn't be anymore clear.



I believe the Spirit used the word heir here, because Noah was commissioned with "starting over" with Mankind, as we all would be from his family line.

Good point.

In any case, Noah leaves for us an example of the righteousness which is according to faith, which is called the obedience of faith.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26

Faith without this obedience is dead.





By faith, means the thing that God spoke of was accomplished, having been fulfilled by obedience to His Word.





JLB

Right on. Obedience is necessary for ongoing justification. stop obeying God, no more justification. The good news is, that we can repent and regain this justification.

 

[reba]

This is a hot topic , you guys have been behaving very well DONT mess up reba

 

[dadof10]

This is a hot topic , you guys have been behaving very well DONT mess up reba

We'll try, mom...

 

[reba]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You have undone your own arguments over and over by repeatedly flip-flopping from "always perfectly justified, despite daily sin" to "lose justification unless daily sin is removed". I'm being charitable by letting you off the hook here.

I'm not letting you off the hook. I don't want you coming back months from now claiming some kind of victory in an unfinished argument like you did to me once before. I want to settle this now, once and for all (see, I'm smiling).

I answered your simple questions, now you answer mine:

According to the passage below, when will Peter "have no part with me (Jesus)", 1) when he gets his feet dirty, or 2) if/when he refuses to have his feet washed? Be honest. God is watching.

"5Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”7Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.”8Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”" (John 13: NASB)

See, I'm still smiling .

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is a hot topic , you guys have been behaving very well DONT mess up reba

Mods aren't prohibited from engaging the discussion in a moderator type way, correct? I actually would welcome a little, "well, he has a point, what do you say to that?", or, "he did make that point clear", etc.

 

[reba]

ok "well, he has a point, what do you say to that?", or, "he did make that point clear", etc.

Some mods can i get too emotional about some of this stuff so i try to be quiet... me quiet is not a easy task...

 

[WIP]

Just posting this as my response, not an official statement/warning.
.
5) Do not expect the staff to take sides in debates. (ToS 2.5)

Since I do moderate this forum I try to avoid getting involved with the debates.

 

[dadof10]

I'm not letting you off the hook. I don't want you coming back months from now claiming some kind of victory in an unfinished argument like you did to me once before. I want to settle this now, once and for all (see, I'm smiling).

I answered your simple questions, now you answer mine:

According to the passage below, when will Peter "have no part with me (Jesus)", 1) when he gets his feet dirty, or 2) if/when he refuses to have his feet washed? Be honest. God is watching.

"5Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?”7Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.”8Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”" (John 13: NASB)

See, I'm still smiling .

You have me confused with someone else. I don't "declare victory". You are still reluctant to actually address the OP. I can see why. Pretty airtight case.

 

[WIP]

Come on guys. Let's not get personal or I'll tell mom!