![\"JamesPapyrus\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2013\/10\/JamesPapyrus.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n***<\/p>\n
(10-9-13)<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
I have recounted in a past post, White\u2019s hit piece on his webcast, The Dividing Line<\/i>. During his broadcast of 15 February 2008, in between endless mockery and calling me a liar and dishonest and an imbecile (etc., zzzzzzz), he commented about yours truly:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know how long I spent, writing the chapter on James 2 <\/span>in The God Who Justifies<\/i>. . . . I\u2019ve never seen a meaningful refutation or even an attempted refutation of that chapter . . . and I\u2019ll tell you one thing. Dave will call this mocking. This isn\u2019t mocking; this is a simple fact. That <\/i>man is not up to even trying. He doesn\u2019t have the skills; he doesn\u2019t have the background; he doesn\u2019t have the training; . . . <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Roman Catholic apologists . . . don\u2019t keep up with what anyone else is saying, who\u2019s providing a response to them . . .<\/span> .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n White\u2019s book, The God Who Justifies<\/i><\/a>, was published in 2001 by Bethany House (Minneapolis). Chapter 20 is entitled, \u201cJames Attacks Empty Faith.\u201d It runs from pages 329-354. The great bulk of it is devoted to notions and aspects where Catholics and Protestants fully agree:<\/span><\/span> 1) A person is saved by God\u2019s grace.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 2) A person is saved by exercising faith (itself caused by God\u2019s grace).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 3) True faith will manifest itself in good works.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 4) A person demonstrates his genuine faith by performance of works.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n White asserts over and over in the chapter, that the person demonstrates or \u201cshows\u201d his faith (per James) by his works. That is true in most respects, but Catholics would argue that this is not the be-all and end-all of the purpose of James.<\/span><\/span> We agree that a justified person can and does do works in gratefulness to God, but we deny that it is the only <\/i>neat little \u201cslot\u201d that works can be placed in, as if they have nothing whatsoever to do with final salvation.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> White argues in very standard, garden-variety fundamentalist Protestant exegesis of James (especially chapter two) that it\u2019s all about the outward show or \u201cproof\u201d of faith rather than the nature of faith in and of itself. Thus he starts the chapter with his \u201cSynopsis,\u201d writing:<\/p>\n The entire purpose of James 2:14-26 can be summarized by the words, \u201cshow me.\u201d . . . This exhortation of Christians is not addressing how the ungodly are declared righteous before God, but how that declaration is shown outwardly in the Christian life. (p. 329)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the way that fundamentalist Protestants \u2014 exemplified in almost \u201cself-parody\u201d terms by White \u2014 try to escape the seemingly obvious \u201cCatholic\u201d thrust of the book, insofar as it ties faith and works more closely together than many Protestants through history have been comfortable with (the most famous case being Martin Luther, who came very close to tossing James out of the New Testament \u2014 as if he had any authority to do so in the first place).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n White, in seeking to make his case that St. James is discussing issues vis-\u00e0<\/span>-vis faith and works in a more or less completely different sense from St. Paul, then examines James 2:21 and especially the translation of same:<\/p>\n James 2:21<\/b> (RSV, as throughout, when I cite Scripture) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since \u201cjustified by works\u201d sounds so \u201cCatholic\u201d and foreign to Reformed Protestant thinking, White wants to stress different translations, to \u201csoften the blow\u201d of the passage, so to speak, for Protestants. He even lists a Catholic in order to do this (on p. 345): Luke Timothy Johnson, who translates the verse [The Letter of James: A New Translation<\/i> (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1995) , p. 239], as:<\/p>\n Was not our father Abraham shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He offers the evangelical-biased NIV as a second rendering:<\/p>\n Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (p. 345)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The problem is that these are non-literal translations, that don\u2019t even include the word or notion of \u201cjustification\u201d in them (ostensibly, or speculatively, for fear of sounding \u201cCatholic\u201d). These are the translations what White chooses and highlights, with the utmost selectivity, for his polemical purposes. His aim is to demonstrate that the thrust is to \u201cshow\u201d or outwardly manifest the interior faith and that this<\/i> is solely what the justification by works spoken of in James is referring to: not that good works (enabled by God\u2019s grace and flowing from the faith life of a regenerate person) are, or could <\/i>ever be (in White\u2019s mind) organically connected with justification.<\/p>\n Many other non-Catholic translations are very different from White\u2019s \u201cfavored few\u201d:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n KJV<\/b> \/ RSV<\/b> \/ ASV<\/b> \/ NASB<\/b> \/ NRSV<\/b> \/ NKJV<\/b> . . . justified by works . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n NEB<\/b> \/ REB<\/b> Was it not by his action . . . that our father Abraham was justified?<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Beck<\/b> . . . get to be righteous on the basis of works . . .<\/p>\n Goodspeed<\/b> . . . made upright for his good deeds . . .<\/p>\n Moffatt<\/b> . . . justified by what he did?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wuest <\/b>. . . vindicated by works [justified as to his claim to a living faith] . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The following (less literal) translations even (rather delightfully for our argument) include an element of \u201cin God<\/i>\u2018s sight\u201d that is directly contradictory<\/i> to White\u2019s overall interpretation of James 2 (in man<\/i>\u2018s sight rather than God\u2019s): Barclay <\/b>Was it not because of his actions that he was accepted by God as a good man?\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Phillips<\/b> . . . his action which really justified him in God\u2019s sight . . . <\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some translations have the \u201ctake\u201d that White prefers, but they are clearly out of the mainstream. Williams has \u201cshown to be upright.\u201d The Amplified Bible has \u201c[shown to be] justified\u201d but then it adds, \u201cmade acceptable to God \u2014 by [his] works\u201d. Thus, the latter translation has one element that White favors (\u201cshown\u201d) but also has the other that he seeks to deny: justification in God\u2019s eyes rather than merely outwardly in man\u2019s sight. Even the NIV\u2019s \u201cconsidered righteous\u201d doesn\u2019t make it clear whether it is man or God who does the considering.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Ignoring all of this overwhelming consensus of translation of James 2:21, White special pleads (as if repetition were rational argument): James\u2019s use must be allowed to stand on its own. As a result, the translation . . . \u201cshown to be righteous\u201d or \u201cconsidered righteous\u201d (NIV) flows not from a precommitment to a theological perspective but from the context itself. (p. 346)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s interesting, then, that 14 non-Catholic translations that I have found\u00a0 (to his two, plus Williams and Amplified) didn\u2019t think it necessary to add this notion of \u201cshown\u201d to the passage: that White seems to think is essential to its meaning or emphasis. White then bolsters his argument that James and Paul are talking about two different things:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But we have already seen\u00a0 that James is arguing against a use of the word \u201cfaith\u201d (a deedless, dead, empty, useless faith that exists only in the realm of words and not of action) that is not <\/i>paralleled in the Pauline passages that speak of how one is justified. Second, Paul speaks of justification \u201cbefore God\u201d (. . . Galatians 3:11) or \u201cin His sight\u201d (. . . Romans 3:20), while the context of James is . . . \u201cshow me.\u201d (p. 346)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To be justified before men is something obviously very different than to be justified before God. . . . This is important in considering James 2:14-26 . . . (p. 181)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The problem with this is that it doesn\u2019t accurately portray the totality of what St. Paul teaches about works. He, too, aligns them with faith, just as James does, and not simply in this \u201cdemonstration\u201d sense for which White contends. For example:<\/p>\n Romans 2:13 <\/b>For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul is simultaneously discussing those who are justified or \u201crighteous before God\u201d and the relationship of works to that justification. A few verses earlier he had been discussing the final judgment (and eschatological salvation or justification), and presenting it in terms of good works or lack of same, rather than faith alone without works (he never mentions faith at all in the passage). For Paul, then, works are central in the equation in terms of God\u2019s judgment of who is saved and who isn\u2019t:<\/p>\n Romans 2:5-10<\/b> But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God\u2019s righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s the \u201cdoers\u201d who will<\/i> be justified in Romans 2:13. This is backwards, according to White\u2019s own soteriology. Paul needs to spend time reading more of Bishop White\u2019s books (or his Internet and Dividing Line<\/i> rantings), to get up to speed. What he should <\/i>have written, getting the chronology and the main categories correct, was: Romans 2:13<\/b> (RFV: Revised Fundamentalist Version) <\/span><\/span>For it is not the doers of the law who are justified, but the hearers of the law who are <\/span><\/span>declared righteous before God<\/span><\/span> and then become doers in gratefulness for their justification.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Poor Paul. He just doesn\u2019t get it. But thankfully for our sakes, James White does<\/i>. Paul doesn\u2019t just state his shocking conclusion of Romans 2:13 in isolation. He continues the supposedly exclusive theme of St. James in other passages:<\/span><\/span> Romans 6:22-23<\/b> <\/span><\/span>But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. [23] For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Paul again gets it backwards (it\u2019s frustrating and maddening how often he does this!). Somehow he mixes up justification and sanctification in a way that Catholics are notorious (in some circles) for doing.\u00a0 Eternal life and salvation isn\u2019t the end of sanctification, but of [imputed] justification<\/i>. Thus, this passage is supposed<\/i> to read (to make it consistent with White\u2019s fundamentalist Reformed soteriology and non-troublesome):<\/span><\/span> Romans 6:22 <\/b>(RFV) <\/span><\/span>But now that you have been set free from sin and have attained eternal life as the end of justification alone, as slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, manifesting the proof of saving faith.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s clear that if White is right in correcting Paul\u2019s soteriology, that he ought also<\/i> to correct his epistles as well, so that the rest of us aren\u2019t led astray so often by him. St. Paul continues in his \u201cCatholic\u201d folly in his epistle to the Romans:<\/span><\/span> Romans 8:15-17<\/b> <\/span><\/span>For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, \u201cAbba! Father!\u201d [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Huh?!\u00a0 Here, Paul informs us that being \u201cheirs of God\u201d is conditional on a work that we must do in order to be glorified with Christ: suffering<\/i> with Him. That\u2019s not faith alone. It\u2019s not imputed justification and merely being declared righteous in a forensic, external sense. It\u2019s real action and real deeds: suffering, which is directly tied to being glorified with Christ (i.e., saved in the end, with heaven and glorified bodies as our reward). St. Peter echoes this theme of suffering with Christ as a condition of salvation:<\/p>\n 1 Peter 4:12-13<\/b> Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. <\/b>[13] But rejoice in so far as you share Christ\u2019s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Alas, White decided to skip over Romans 6 altogether in his book about justification and soteriology; and also Romans 8:15-17 (starting with Romans 8:28 in his chapter 14) and 1 Peter 4:12-13: despite devoting five chapters and some 115 pages to various portions of Romans. Paul again ties works to ultimate salvation:<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 6:18-19<\/b> They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is works which lay the \u201cgood foundation for the future, so that\u201d a man may \u201ctake hold\u201d of eternal life. This repeats what he wrote in 6:11-12, where he urges Timothy to \u201caim at righteousness, godliness\u201d and \u201cfight the good fight of the faith\u201d so that he may \u201ctake hold of the eternal life\u201d that he was called to when he confessed faith in Jesus. The confession is only the beginning. To \u201ctake hold\u201d of the salvation requires works and strong perseverance. To reiterate how important works are in the overall equation of salvation, Paul states: \u201cI charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach\u201d (6:14). This is another passage that White didn\u2019t find time to exegete in his book. Perhaps in the sequel . . .<\/p>\n White moves along in James:<\/p>\n James 2:23<\/b> and the scripture was fulfilled which says, \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d; and he was called the friend of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He comments:<\/p>\n . . . Abraham\u2019s confession of faith is recorded in Genesis 15:6. God justified Abraham upon the exercise of that faith. The reality of the faith Abraham had, upon which he was justified, is demonstrated in the offering of Isaac. (p. 349)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here he will run into several serious difficulties, based on his assumption that justification is a one-time event only. White believes that for Abraham, that one-time event is described in Genesis 15:6; cited in James 2:23, and also by St. Paul in Romans 4:3. The conundrum for White and the false notion of one-time justification is seen in the book of Hebrews:<\/p>\n Hebrews 11:8-10<\/b> By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. [9] By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. [10] For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The entire chapter is devoted to faith and the heroes of faith, and is a great Protestant favorite, for that reason. It starts out:<\/p>\n Hebrews 11:1-2<\/b> Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [2] For by it the men of old received divine approval.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, the \u201cfaith\u201d referred to here is clearly that which follows justification. It must be so \u2014 particularly in Reformed soteriology \u2013, since for them, no man who is unregenerate of unjustified can exercise true faith. But \u2014 here\u2019s the rub \u2014 Hebrews 11 is hearkening back to Genesis 12<\/i>, not Genesis 15:<\/span><\/span> Genesis 12:1-4<\/span><\/span><\/b> Now the LORD said to Abram, \u201cGo from your country and your kindred and your father\u2019s house to the land that I will show you. [2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.\u201d [4] So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The question then becomes: is this saving<\/i> faith or justifying <\/i>faith, that Abraham exercised at this juncture in his life? St. Paul seems to think so:<\/p>\n Galatians 3:8-14<\/b> And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, \u201cIn you shall all the nations be blessed.\u201d [9] So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. [10] For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, \u201cCursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.\u201d [11] Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for \u201cHe who through faith is righteous shall live\u201d; [12] but the law does not rest on faith, for \u201cHe who does them shall live by them.\u201d [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us \u2014 for it is written, \u201cCursed be every one who hangs on a tree\u201d \u2014 [14] that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This implies either a notion that justification can occur more than once, or some sense of ongoing justification, rather than one-time only. White shows awareness of this \u201cparticularly appealing\u201d counter-argument, and mocks it by referring to \u201cthe ingenuity of man who is constantly attempting to find a way around God\u2019s way of justification\u201d (p. 221). What is his response? Here it is:<\/p>\n The writer to the Hebrews says that Abraham acted in faith in responding to God\u2019s call to leave Ur of the Chaldees. However, saving faith always has an object, and the object of saving faith in Abraham\u2019s life was the promise given him in Genesis 15, not Genesis 12. (p. 222)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He digs in and ratchets up the polemics for effect:<\/p>\n Justification, then, must be a point-in-time declaration, not a process that is repeated, or else Romans 4:1-8 is not inspired Scripture. To say otherwise is to make a complete mockery of the entirety of Romans 4. (p. 223)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unfortunately for White, there is a lot of disagreement with him, even from within his own Reformed camp. And the disagreement and exegesis contrary to White\u2019s take is not, I submit, motivated by a disdain for St. Paul or desire to mock Romans chapter four. Phil Gons has a doctorate in theology (a real<\/i> one; not a fake doctorate such as White possesses). He describes himself<\/a> as \u201ca theologically conservative evangelical Christian who is committed to the essence of Reformed Protestantism.\u201d Phil wrote a heavily researched article, \u201cWhen Was Abraham Justified?\u201d<\/a> He concluded:<\/p>\n . . . virtually all the commentators and theologians that I have come across who deal with the issue are in agreement that Abraham was justified by the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 12. Luther, Calvin, Brakel, and Spurgeon defend a Genesis 12 justification, as do O. Palmer Robertson and Brian Vickers. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The view that holds that Abraham was not saved until Genesis 15 finds virtually no support at all throughout church history (at least not that I have been able to find in hours of research in scores of commentaries and hundreds of journals) . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Very odd, isn\u2019t it? Could James White possibly be wrong<\/i>??!!! Such a momentous, unheard-of event would stop the presses, the movement of the earth, and swiftly bring about the Apocalypse, for sure. But there it is! In a 20-page Word document<\/a> accompanying the article, Gons assembles an impressive array of supporting sources for his contention. Here are some highlights, with my own added emphases in blue <\/span>color:<\/p>\n John Calvin<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We must now notice the circumstance of time . Abram was justified by faith many years after he had been called by God; after he had left his country a voluntary exile, rendering himself a remarkable example of patience and of continence; after he had entirely dedicated himself to sanctity and after he had, by exercising himself in the spiritual and external service of God, aspired to a life almost angelical. It therefore follows, that even to the end of life, we are led towards the eternal kingdom of God by the righteousness of faith.<\/p>\n On which point many are too grossly deceived. For they grant, indeed, that the righteousness which is freely bestowed upon sinners and offered to the unworthy is received by faith alone; but they restrict this to a moment of time<\/span>, so that he who at the first obtained justification by faith, may afterwards be justified by good works. By this method, faith is nothing else\u00a0 than the beginning of righteousness, whereas righteousness itself consists in a continual course of works. But they who thus trifle must be altogether insane.<\/span> For if the angelical uprightness of Abram faithfully cultivated through so many years, in one uniform course, did not prevent him from fleeing to faith, for the sake of obtaining righteousness; where upon earth besides will such perfection be found, as may stand in God\u2019s sight?<\/p>\n Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world.<\/span> If any one object, that Abram previously believed God, when he followed Him at His call, and committed himself to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life .<\/span> For if Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram\u2019s first vocation, the cavil of which I have spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death.<\/span><\/p>\n (Calvin\u2019s Commentaries<\/i>, Genesis 15:6)<\/p>\n The Lord, on the contrary, declares, that he imputed Abraham\u2019s faith for righteousness (Rom. 4:3<\/a>), not at the time when he was still a worshipper of idols, but after he had been many years distinguished for holiness. Abraham had long served God with a pure heart, and performed that obedience of the Law which a mortal man is able to perform: yet his righteousness still consisted in faith.<\/span> Hence we infer, according to the reasoning of Paul, that it was not of works<\/i>. In like manners when the prophet says, \u201cThe just shall live by his faith,\u201d (Hab. 2:4<\/a>), he is not speaking of the wicked and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the faith: his discourse is directed to believers, and life is promised to them by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when in confirmation of this sentiment he quotes the words of David, \u201cBlessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered<\/span>,\u201d (Ps. 32:1<\/a>). It is certain that David is not speaking of the ungodly but of believers such as he himself was, because he was giving utterance to the feelings of his own mind. Therefore we must have this blessedness not once only, but must hold it fast during our whole lives.<\/p>\n
\nI dealt with the latter lie, documenting several examples of the opposite. <\/span>Now I shall reply to his chapter. How he will almost certainly behave after I do so was dealt with in the previous paper (citing many past instances of his unsavory behavior), and I need not revisit that.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span>There is no need to deal with these aspects since there is no disagreement. The main disagreement Catholics would have here would be the attempted removal of sanctification and works from the equation of salvation altogether (formal separation of justification and sanctification and merely imputed, forensic, external justification) and the notion that salvation is an already attained past event, after which the saved person does good works in gratefulness to God for his salvation, thus proving or manifesting evidence that he is saved. Reformed Protestants take it further and claim that this salvation can never be lost, once attained.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\nMoreover, we would quibble with White\u2019s argument that James refers to justification and faith and works in a sense altogether distinct from St. Paul, so that portions of Paul\u2019s writings about justification and faith cannot properly be cross-referenced with regard to James\u2019 treatment; moreover, that justification is an entirely past event in the believer\u2019s life (one who is doing good works), and is a one-time event.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Earlier in the book, in discussing Romans 3, White had stated:<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n