The Dividing Line August 12, 2008

Desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White. Hey, good morning, afternoon, wherever you are. Welcome to the last Dividing Line until, let's see, August 26th, so that would be two weeks from today.

Yes, indeed. I am headed to the not-so-sunny climes of Anchorage, Alaska. I will be speaking at a conference with Tom Askell and Steve Lawson up there in Anchorage. There are, I believe, two Calvinists in Anchorage, and so they invited us up.

As some of you may recall, I was up there last year, had a wonderful time, and so we're going back and we're doing a conference, and then I actually get about three or four days to do fun stuff. Haven't done, I haven't had a formal vacation since 1989, so I guess it's a good time to start one.

I have a feeling I'm going to be really busy during those days, actually, but thankfully, hopefully not except in the evening, maybe dragging out the computer, especially now that I have a true computer.

Yes, I have seen the light. The brainwashing that I experienced decades ago has finally broken away to the truth, and sitting in the other room, even now, transferring files and doing all the things I need to do is a 15-inch MacBook Pro.

Oh, it's good to be with a real computer. I'm going to tell you, it's night and day. It is night and day. I shouldn't be saying that, though, because, you know, poor Rich is in the other room and I shouldn't be saying all these types of things.

Well, with our budget, I might be able to get one in five or ten days. Well, this one, when this one starts getting dilapidated, we'll pass it on down. We're like a family around here. You unfortunately get the hand-me-downs, and so, anyway, no, it is, let me tell you, it's that is a machine.

That is, wow, wow. Look out now, folks. Here I come. So, anyway, so no dividing line next week. You know, I can, believe it or not, I already have Skype installed, and I have, you know, built-in sound, the whole nine yards, so we've talked about doing it many times.

So, the possibility exists. We possibly could do it. It might behoove us to throw out a little reason why we had to go down this road to our supporters. Oh, you mean the fact that Vista is just unreliable?

We had to replace the laptop a few months back. We just needed to do it, and it was a budgetary decision that was a little bit tough, but we did it. And, unfortunately, since that point in time, it has made your situation virtually non-functional.

You got it. And we've had no choice on the market that's out there, but to get you a machine that we know you can work with. It's going to work. It's going to work, and every time, you know, the thing is, the thing that drove me nuts about it, and I know there are some Vista defenders out there, about two of them in the world, but it would work fine in the office, and then I'd get to church, and I'd set it up the exact same way, and I'd do the exact same thing, and it wouldn't work.

And it just drove me nuts. You know, at least with XP, you knew, you know, what you were getting, and if it worked once, it was going to work the next time, too, but not Vista. Mm-mm, no. It decides it's going to improve itself.

Ah, computers should do what computers are supposed to do. Each time computers do it, that's how it works. So, anyway, yeah, definitely, when I'm sitting in a debate, or if I'm doing a presentation, I've got, you know, I'm doing some type of presentation with my projector or something, I've got to have something I can trust.

So, just got to go that direction. So, anyways, I'm very excited about that, but it only arrived yesterday, I'm leaving tomorrow, so that's not a whole lot of time to get stuff moved over, but it just works so well that it looks like it's going to be a possibility.

A couple things on the program today, I've already got a phone call, we might have some more coming in. I have some clips, a fascinating clip from Jimmy Akin I really want to get to that's just truly amazing, but I see one of the two Vista defenders in the world defending Vista and Channel at the moment, but, you know, some folks just, you know, Don Quixote, go defend, you know, go on a crusade or something.

Anyway, no, we love even, we are equal opportunity people, we love everybody even if you use Vista. But anyway, I want to start off, however, on a somewhat serious note, we didn't, but now we'll have to shift over to that.

Graciousness in Defending Reformed Theology

I wanted to just briefly address basically the issue of the fact that over the years I have been very, very privileged, and I do consider it a privilege, to have introduced a number of people to the doctrines of grace, and that's a wonderful thing.

And in that process, I have a number of times been reminded of a little booklet that Al Martin wrote many years ago called the Practical Implications of Calvinism. I almost feel like we should see if Brother Martin would let me insert that in the back of the Potter's Freedom or something.

The reason being, there is nothing more disturbing than graceless Calvinism. In fact, I don't know if you can call it Calvinism if it's graceless, but what I mean is there should be some kind of a connection between talking about the fact that God is holy and we are filthy in His sight, and yet He has condescended to show to us mercy and grace and He's taken out a heart of stone and given a heart of flesh.

And you know, there's everything right about defending what I just said. God takes out a heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. I mean, it's amazing how many people do not want the Gospel to include that.

I, don't touch my heart, I will slowly chip off parts of the stone. Or I will massage this rocky heart and make it a little less rocky. You know, the humanism of all the religions of men should be repulsive to the biblically sound Christian.

There's no question about it. But you know, doesn't having a heart of flesh then also speak to what we are and how we behave, and that means that we should have some graciousness to us, possibly, in that process somewhere?

And there's just nothing, to me, more disturbing than graceless Calvinism. Than Calvinists who just don't get the balance between a zeal for the truth and the overwhelming desire to just run somebody through with your theological lance.

And I get, you know, I get it from both sides. I'm constantly being described as being far too mean and nasty and unloving and all the rest of the stuff. And 98 of the time, when I get a chance to actually talk to those folks, they're going on second, third, and fourth-hand information.

Even some people who are good friends of mine today will admit that initially they weren't so sure they even wanted to get to know me because they went and believed what some Roman Catholic told them about me.

I mean, if all you knew about me was what you read on the Catholic Answers Forums, I mean, you'd figure most of the unsolved murders in the Southwest were due to me. I mean, that's all you could come up with.

If I believed a tenth of what is written about me on the Internet, I would not want to be around me. It's really that bad. So, I get it from that side. But then, believe it or not, I also get it from people who think I'm just too wimpy, that I'm compromised.

And I suppose as long as you get it from both sides, it's probably a good thing. It means you're somewhat balanced. But, you know, balance is so important. It's important in the Christian life. It's important in Reformed theology as well.

To be given a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone means, yes, we're given a new nature. Yes, that's true. That's the dogmatic, the doctrinal element of that. But isn't there an implication to that?

Isn't there something that we can see from that? That if we've had a heart of stone taken out, we've been given a heart of flesh, that maybe that means we should recognize our own fallen state and we should probably be a little bit slower to want to wish somebody into the fires of perdition than otherwise, you know?

That just seems to be the case. And we need to have a balance. And I don't claim to always keep the balance. But I know, it seems to me, you can agree or disagree with me if you want, but it seems to me that there is more danger.

Here are the two dangers. On the one side is compromise. On the one side is the easy road of just letting everybody, you know, let's just all get along. You know, Rodney King theology, let's not worry about doctrinal distinctives.

Okay, that's the one danger. That's one side. On the other side, and I think this is a bit more of a danger for the Reformed person. The Reformed person can't go that direction and still remain Reformed.

Look at anybody who was a Calvinist and went that direction. Are they really a Calvinist after a while? I mean, do you even hear anything anymore in their preaching about it? No, you don't. The other direction, the other danger, is to become so hard and so judgmental that you lose the ability to keep your balance and to make proper distinctions.

Distinctions between theological viewpoints and those who hold variations thereon. You can see this amongst those who simply cannot get the difference between saying, this teaching is wrong, this teaching is in error, and then the next part of the spectrum, this teaching is dangerous, it can become a full-blown error.

And there's a whole spectrum. And you have to be able to recognize those things. And then you have to be able to recognize that there are people in this life that hold teachings that we recognize as being dangerous and could lead to full-blown error, but they don't go all that way.

They are inconsistent. As, in fact, all of us are in this life in one way or another, are we not? And so, when you lose the ability to make that distinction, then in essence what you end up doing is, well, look, anybody who disagrees with my very, very narrow view is just on their way to hell.

And you can take a proper thing, there are times you have to say, this is the gospel and that's not the gospel, you do have to do that. But then they take that, and they not only expand the appropriate borders of that to the nth degree, but then you have to start basically turning yourself in the Holy Spirit and condemning people to hell.

And saying, this person is going to hell, and that person is going to hell. And you have to then, and almost always along with this comes a real hardness. And this is what I've objected to with some of these folks in the past, is they may be theologically accurate in what they're saying.

I may agree with what they say on particular theological issues. And in a particular debate situation, I might agree with the specific points they make. But I will never agree with someone who will accurately define the truth, and then as their parting shot, as their adornment of their argumentation, they go, and not only that, but your mother is ugly!

There's no reason to do that. Why in the world give absolutely, positively, completely unnecessary offense? These folks seem to think that what is actually a necessary offense is just being strong over the gospel, and this kind of thing.

But if you have to take people's names and turn them into isms all the time, there are times that's appropriate. I mean, Ruckmanism is a meaningful phrase, because Ruckman is really unique, and his whole stuff.

Ruckmanism, yeah, it's pretty good. But you don't have to deal with everybody's name, and you don't have to necessarily drag in the most, you know, we know there are certain words that are just verbal landmines, they're verbal hand grenades.

And there are just some people, they can't get through a paragraph without throwing one. They can't write something that's peaceful. And so often what ends up happening is the truths that they present end up being completely lost in all the sounds of the explosions.

And that then gives people a reason to ignore what they're saying, because, well, who cares what you're saying? Look what you said here, look what you said there, look how you acted here. I don't want to have anything to do with it, you know, so on and so forth.

I know there's a balance here, because you've got the postmodernists, and you say anything about truth to them, and they're offended. But then you've got people who swing over to the other side, and it's like, let's just offend everybody for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I think that's why we have things like speak the truth in love and giving a reason with the hopes that are within you, yet with gentleness and reverence, you know, there's this path we have to go down.

And we are given examples of how to do it in Scripture, but it still is up to us to really learn how to follow that path. And so when I fail on that, I apologize, and I ask you to pray for me. And I would never want anybody that I have had the opportunity of introducing to the doctrines of grace slipping into that mindset and thinking that this somehow is a justification for behaving in a way that just simply isn't appropriate for the Christian faith.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number, and I see here we have a call all the way from where I'm headed in November, Lord willing, and that's Jack in London. Hi, Jack.

Hi. Can I call you James? Sure, that's fine. We share the same name, except in a different language. Yes, I understand. Good evening to you. It's 7 o 'clock over here. Yes, indeed. I'm glad you shared about unnecessary offense, and I compliment you in your courage in apologizing for your own failings.

I would share the same. I wouldn't want to do that either. It's for that very reason that I wrote a comment to your friend Lane Chaplin's video he put on YouTube, to which he then challenged me to bring you up.

Was that the Kanner stuff? Yes, it was.

And I thought that it was kind of devious and dishonest to suggest some of the things said on the video. Such as what? Well, first of all, possibly the category error that you mentioned, because effectively Erkin Kanner was very clear that, you know, you cannot say this absolutely only to Ted, you know, that there is another option.

Well, Jack, let me ask you something. Have you read the about 95 to 100 pages of correspondence between myself and Erkin Kanner that preceded that program? No. Oh, okay. So you have the context where I have actually addressed all these things with Dr. Kanner in the months preceding that.

No, I don't think any objective observer who watched the video, which was posted by Lane, should be in doubt that there wasn't sufficient on that video to show that really. Erkin was not referring to a theological position when he called himself a Baptist.

You know? So, wait a minute, I'm confused. Are you aware or not aware of the fact that there had been extensive correspondence between Erkin Kanner and myself in the months prior to this that addressed all these issues, including category errors, redefining historical terminology, redefining theological terminology that's been in use for hundreds of years?

You're not aware of any of that? I am aware of it in that since the interchange with Lane that there was correspondence. But what I'm referring to is the video itself, which is complete in itself.

No, it has a context. Nothing is complete in itself. Okay. You can't argue that? No, Jack, we can't argue that, because if you're familiar with what the video was, Lane took this program, the dividing line, which takes place in space and time, and that was one program of many programs that addressed this issue.

It wasn't the first program. It wasn't the last program. And all that documentation had been posted on the Internet beforehand. And so to pretend that that dividing line existed in a vacuum is not rational.

It existed in a very clear historical context, and the people listening to that were aware of that. And I would argue that to say that I'm a Baptist and that that somehow isn't relevant to the issue is a category error, because there have always been general Baptists, and there have been particular Baptists, and that's a split that's existed for a long time.

And so simply ignoring the use of historical terminology brings confusion. It doesn't actually answer anything, and it does introduce what's called a category error, unless we're just going to ignore all the history of theology and think we can sort of do better than everyone before us has ever done.

Right? So you would suggest then that when Ergen stated, Calvinism and Arminius are not the absolute two, and then he just quipped, I'm a Baptist, you're suggesting that him saying that is a category error.

Since he had already been faced with the problem of his terminology and he refuses to deal with that, yes, since he won't acknowledge the very categories of what a Baptist is, and since he was frequently redefining the very terms of the discussion, ripping it out of its historical context, that results in great confusion on the part of anyone who maybe is just now coming to discussion and is looking to him for guidance.

I think when you are in his position that you are under some obligation to be accurate in your utilization of language. I think it's amazing when people decide that the conventional terminology that has been used for a long period of time, they can just throw it out on their own authority as if no one else has had a clue but them, and as a result start redefining terms right and left, resulting in tremendous confusion.

I've seen the result of that confusion, and it takes quite some time to try to get over it. I don't think I have the right to do that. Do you think we have the right to just simply redefine everything?

Well, in a sense, you're redefining my challenge, because we have correspondence which I have not read, and the one-and-a-half-hour-long video by Lane was sufficient in itself to show, to me, Ergun wasn't referring to baptism as atheological.

Just add it to that. I don't think we have much more fruit talking on that. But let me, because I've had a week to, in a sense, prepare for bringing you up, if I may, bring another topic, because effectively we probably make better use of time.

In another debate, this was the one in Anaheim. It was another video which I happened to notice on the YouTube. You mentioned that you've heard no response to John 6, to Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, 1 Timothy 2.

You've heard no replies, you've heard no excuses. That says no. It doesn't exactly say that God elects unconditionally.

In the debate with George Bryson, yes. Yes, indeed. I've heard all sorts of interpretations. In fact, I've spent quite some time over the past number of years collecting interpretations, especially of John 6, because it is amazing to me the facility of man's mind in attempting to get around the plain meaning of words.

And the same thing is true of any text of Scripture. You can find interpretations of any text of Scripture, whether they pass muster, whether they have anything to do with the original language, original context and things like that.

It's a completely different issue.

I have to agree with you on a number of points on that video, by the way, and I heartily agree that in many places all means all kinds, for example. Although I wouldn't say that for, you know, all have sinned, for example.

I would have said that was the John 6 issue. I mean, I'm comfortable with that in a non-Calvinist interpretation.

And how do you derive a non-Reformed interpretation of Jesus' text?

Well, when Jesus expands on what he says in verse 45 of John 6, he says, it's written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught by God. Therefore, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

Now, that tells me, I mean, I would interpret that not as all kinds. I would interpret that as all everyone, because in John 1, 9 we're told, he's the light that gives light to every man who comes into the world.

But not everybody responds.

Everybody, revelation. That would be my interpretation. So you go to the end of the text and read that one verse, and then that changes what came before, where Jesus says that the Father gives to the Son a specific people, and that that specific people all come to Christ in faith, that he raises them all up to eternal life, that no man has the ability to come to Christ apart from this drawing.

And see, I start at the beginning of John 6 and go through the entire discourse and define terms as they are presented by the Lord in his own teaching. And so after he has just made the statement in verse 44, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Then that drawing is then defined for us in verse 45 when it says, it is written, the prophets, they shall all be taught by God. It's God who's doing the teaching. The active agent in Pontus Didoctoi Theou is God.

God is the one who's doing the teaching. Therefore when it says, everyone hearing from the Father, and again, hearing is passive. It is taking in something from outside, and learning, that's passive as well, teaching is being done by someone else, is coming to me.

So who's coming to Jesus? That term, erketai, is used throughout this text and is those that are given by the Father, the Son, those who are drawn by the Father, the Son, and here is the definition of that drawing, that it involves hearing from the Father and learning from him, and they come to Christ.

All of them come to Christ. Not just some, but all who hear and learn because that hearing and learning is supernatural, it is a further definition of what it means to be drawn, and all who are drawn by the Father and the Son are raised up on the last day.

So I don't see where man's free will enters into this particular, if we define that as an autonomous will outside of God's sovereignty.

Where does that come in here? Well, that's your version of reading that. I mean, I have it in front of me as well. Akousas, mathon, so you've got has heard and has learned. Therefore, that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me.

I would read to you what's written before where John 1, 9 says he gives life to every man who comes to the world. John 1, 12 says when he's received him he gave the right to become children of God. You know, and that is after they've received him.

I disagree with that, but why did we jump out of John 6 to get to John 1? Are you arguing?

Because of your usage. You said to me just now that, you know, you read to us beforehand.

Yeah, in this sermon. That's what I meant was in this sermon. I don't start at John 6, 45 and then read 45 back into 37. 37 comes first, obviously. And so Jesus defines who it is that's coming to him.

Who comes to him? Those who are given to him by the Father. Who are these? These are the ones who don't have that capacity unto themselves, but the Father draws them. And then you just said...

You just added to the text there. Where? Those who have got the capacity themselves. Yeah, John 6, 44. What does udais dunatai mean?

No one comes, well... No, no one is able. Udais dunatai means no one is able, elfain kwasme, is able to come to me, eonme, unless there is a fulfillment of a condition, and that is the Father, the one who sent me, draws auton.

Then, kago anastaso auton, I will raise him in the last day. You cannot introduce a distinction in the autons here. So if you're, you know... Would you agree that all who are drawn by the Father to the Son are those that are raised up in the last day?

I agree that all who are drawn to the Father. Yes. Sorry.

No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Yeah, everyone, unless you've been drawn by the Father, you, you, you know, unless you've been taught by him, you can't, you just can't come to him. Who does the Father draw?

Well, the Father draws everyone. So all people will be raised up on the last day? Those who've responded, who've heard and learned,. Okay, so you just, you introduce a distinction between... I'm doing nothing of the kind.

The term, the term auton, in verse 44, I will draw him, auton, that's different than the auton only two words later, according to your interpretation. Because you're telling me everyone's drawn, but only those who do something are the ones raised up on the last day.

And I'm saying to you, there is no reason in the text whatsoever, this is where human tradition comes in, where you come up with a distinction between he who is drawn by the Father and he who is raised up by the Son in one sentence, in only a total span of four words, you have the same word auton.

And I say to you,.

They are identical. Which part of verse 44 are you reading here? And I will... The Father? Him. Him. Okay, sorry, you're pronouncing it in a way I wasn't understanding, I apologize.

And then I will raise... Auton, I read that. Auton, him, on the last day. Okay, so, you say those are different autons. I say to you, why? Because you say that the one, the first one, is everybody. The second one is only those who believe.

You make a distinction. There is no distinction whatsoever in the language. It makes no sense to insert the distinction. And to go to verse 45, where the nature of the drawing, and in each one of those words that we looked at, it is...

You're making the assumption there.

That, for example, okay, and I am adding into here, because, you know, I, my, five, is Jesus explaining what he just said? You're making the assumption here, for example, that, you know,.

For want of a better phrase, once saved always saved, that somebody who's drawn can never... and that kind of thing. Well, that came from verse 39, where it's the Father's will of the Son that He lose none of those that have been given to Him, but He raise them up on the last day.

So, yes, I do believe Jesus is the perfect Savior. He will not fail to save any of those that are given to Him by the Father. There's no question about that. And that's why the passage is so consistent, because Jesus is explaining the unbelief of the Jews.

He says, you're unbelievers. Why are you unbelievers? Because the Father gives me a certain people. They're the ones that come to me. I save them perfectly, and I raise them up on the last day. But then again, you see, you've added to that text in the way I read it, in the sense that the will of the Father is always done.

Yeah, yeah. That's Psalm 135, 6. God does what pleases Him in the heavens and the earth. We're not doing the Father's will, are we? I'm sorry? When you sin and when I sin, when you cause offense or when I cause offense, we're not doing the Father's will, are we?

That depends on how you're using the term. In God's eternal decree, yes. Were Joseph's brothers doing what God decreed to take place when they threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery in Egypt? Yeah, he made use of that.

Ah, it doesn't say he made use of that. It says, in Joseph's own words, you intended this for evil, God intended this for good. It didn't say made use of it. God intended it. Can't get away with that one.

That's not the term. I can take that. You see, I mean, we're going on to the issue now of pardoning of hearts and that kind of thing. Well, actually, just the sovereignty of God. Whether there's a sovereign decree, whether we can really say that God is the one who determines all things, whether all things happen according to his will or not,.

Ephesians 1 .11. So that's, you know, I'm sorry? I mean, said is not in God's will.

Well, it's sort of hard to understand. Are you an open theist, by the way?

Well, you'd have to define the term. Do you believe,.

When God created the heavens and the earth, did he know in his creative act that evil would exist and what each and every act of evil would entail and would be?

I wouldn't. No, I would not agree from reading my Bible that God knows everything about the future. No.

Okay, then we're coming from completely different places. I appreciate that. That's very, very plain Scripture.

Well, 2 Chronicles 32 .31 makes it very clear to me, you know,.

That God wanted to know and so he tested Hezekiah. And so when God in Isaiah specifically defines himself as the one who not only can tell you what's going to happen in the future, he can tell you what happened in the past and why it happened.

That clear, plain statement that is supposed to be used by the people of God as a means of recognizing the true God from the false gods is to be subsumed to a hypothetical case.

In a historical situation in the historical books. Is that how we understand that? No, I don't think you're quite picturing what I'm saying. I mean, for example, when he says in Isaiah, you know, he knows the end from the beginning.

The immediate context is about prophecy and he decides, and yes, he predetermines what happens and he makes it happen. This is why Jesus said where it was written, you know, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

He says, I thirst and he was given to drink from the sponge. But that's only for special things. That's not for all things. Correct. Okay.

That's how I read the Scripture. So when God created the heavens and the earth, he did not have any way of knowing you would exist? I don't know that in particular, but definitely there are.

A range of things. Yes, he does not know. Okay. As far as I read my Bible, God knows all that is knowable.

Again, I would direct folks to the debate that I did with John Sanders on this very issue at Reformed Theological Seminary in 2001 for a full discussion of this. But I at least, and I would just suggest that the differences that we had in going right into the text itself, I think the reasons for those differences have now been explained because we're coming at the text from a very different perspective.

And I don't think that that necessarily changed the fact that I'm being consistent in saying that in John 6, 44, the one who is raised is the one who is raised, is then raised up by, I'm sorry, the one who is drawn is the one who is raised up by Jesus.

But fundamentally, I think there is an overarching theological paradigm that is in play here, which would also explain why you go to 6, 45 and then read the text in essence backwards rather than starting at the beginning and moving to the end.

So, but again, if you don't believe God knows the future exhaustively, there are things that he doesn't know and that the free will actions of men, because you said God knows what's knowable, so I'm assuming you're using that in the same context as open theists who say that the free will actions of men are not knowable, right?

Within the range of things that God gives freedom, yes. Okay, yeah. So, if that's the case, then there's certainly no reason whatsoever to believe in anything like predestination, election, the idea of...

The conditional kind. In fact... The conditional kind, I would, but not the unconditional kind. The kind that the early church fathers taught for about four centuries before Augustine came. And well, except for the epistle to Dionysius.

But so the idea then is that you have... So when God created those same people that you're following said that God did not know that any one of us would exist. So something tells me your view of the atonement, then, would not be substitutionary, right?

No, I disagree. Oh, you believe in the substitutionary atonement? Absolutely. How? Well, why not? Jesus makes his reign to shine on the just and the unjust. But not all benefits. Okay. And the blood of Jesus pays for all substitution incomplete.

How could it be substitutionary if God doesn't know that we're going to exist?

How could we have been united with Christ? Or do we just unite ourselves to Christ? That's not quite what you're thinking. Well, there's substitution. I recognize that in a lot of evangelicalism there's a really shallow understanding of what substitution is.

That we basically... It's not truly substitutionary atonement. It's if you choose to take... to get a benefit from what Jesus did, that's cool. The idea of substitution, however, is much deeper than that.

And that is... Paul says that he was crucified with Christ. Now, the only way for that to make any sense is that God not only knows I'm going to exist, but that just as I'm already seated in the heavenly place is Ephesians 2.

That I was united with Christ in his death. That the elect of God were united with Christ in his death. So that his death becomes their death. His resurrection becomes their resurrection. This being in Christ is a vitally important element.