Calvinism vs Arminianism Day 2

Opening Banter and Program Setup

We are not going to waste any time with intros, with background, with reviews. We're going to dive right back into the discussion on Calvinism. I don't want to frustrate you. I'm not going to be taking calls today.

You can always call Dr. White on his web radio program. But I want to get maximum time for our dialogue. You can get involved in the online discussion. And tomorrow, I'm going to reiterate some of my own views.

And all of you who are Calvinists, all of you who differ with me, you can go for it tomorrow and flood the phone lines with your calls, critiquing, interacting with me. But right now, Dr. White on. Those not familiar with Dr. James White, he is one of the foremost Christian apologists today, solid theologian, and on the forefront of standing up for the faith.

99 of the time, we are cheering each other on in terms of standing up for the faith and righteousness and the dignity of the name of Jesus in the midst of this fallen world. And here we are challenging him.

James, thanks again for being on the program.

It's great to be with you, Michael. And someone just pointed out to me, and I hadn't even noticed this. Do you realize that this is not a very colorful debate? White and brown is sort of like an Amish debate.

Yeah.

And when I debated a Reform rabbi last September, he was silver and I was brown. The only challenge on that one was that he was almost an atheist, actually.

Yeah, that's a shame.

That was a little different. But hey, just want to remind our listeners, Dr. White is going to Islamic leaders' website, AOMIN, it's an alpha omega. Get behind what he's doing as he lifts up the name of Jesus.

And that's going to be quite an environment, isn't it?

Well, it was, especially in November of 2008 when we did five debates in London. It was a tremendous privilege to stand in front of an audience where half of the audience is in Islamic garb, some of the women in full burqa, you can only see their eyes, and to be able to proclaim the deity of Christ, to proclaim that he is our creator, our maker.

You cannot be neutral about him. He is not merely a Rasul. He is truly the son of God, and we have to deal with him as he revealed himself to be. So that was a great privilege, and it amazes me when I think of how this ministry started, that I could be in London having that opportunity.

And if I could just mention really quickly, because we want to get to our topic, but tomorrow afternoon, I think I mentioned this to you, we'll be doing a debate on my webcast with Tim Staples. Mr. Staples is one of the staff apologists for Catholic Answers, and he and I are going to be debating 1 Corinthians 3, verses 10 and following.

Are these relevant to the concept of purgatory? So it's going to be sort of an exegetical debate for 90 minutes.

The purgatory debate, yes. So folks, go to Dr. White's website, and then you can listen, and you can listen to the webcast, and then we're going to be planning out some time so I can go on his broadcast and get into these things.

Oh, okay, since you just mentioned that, I'll mention that for those of you who have not seen the Tyra Banks show today, I'm actually on it. There's a discussion, a very sad topic, so-called transgender children, these are little kids that think they're trapped in their own body.

The whole show goes in one direction. I have one little segment to speak the truth, and it was prerecorded. So I think that's going to be going on in many TV stations right after this. So, hey, we're in the thick of it, by God's grace.

Yes, we are.

God's Desire for the Salvation of All People

All right, so here's what we're going to do. I got a lot of e-mails, points that we had discussed. So we've agreed to do some rapid-fire answers, and here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to ask the question and then give you my position, James, clearly and concisely, and then you can give yours.

This way the viewers have both things out. We'll go through a few quickly, and then we'll dive into limited atonement issues and any direction that we go. So the first question, and again, I'll ask it and then answer it so there's no ambiguity on my part.

Does God desire all men to be saved? I say absolutely yes. The core of his inmost being of who God is, his deep, ardent desire, expressed in many verses that he takes no delight in the death of the wicked but rather that they turn and live, and Jesus longing to gather Jerusalem, God's love for the entire world, which I don't believe can be limited to the elect, God's delight to show mercy, that he has an ardent desire to see all people saved.

He has not willed in a forceful way that everyone will be saved, but he genuinely desires the salvation of all people. So, James, how would you answer that? Does God genuinely desire the salvation of all people?

And that brings us right back to the point that we were discussing yesterday, and that is the fact that God's prescriptive will revealed in his word and in his law tells us that God commands men everywhere to repent, and so there is an expression of God's prescriptive will in his law, and that is what we are judged upon, by the way, that is what we must live in light of, because his secret will, his sovereign decree, which gives the very form to the fabric of time itself, is such a thing that I was just talking with a friend about this, and he mentioned John Frame had said that in essence, God in his decree has not decreed that his prescriptive will not be sinned against.

And in fact, there are plenty of, there's all sorts of passages of Scripture where we see that God works such a way with Joseph's brothers, with the Assyrians, with Abimelech, with the crucifixion of Jesus, where he works in such a way that he accomplishes his will, and he doesn't just simply take the sinfulness of men, he actually accomplishes his will.

So when we say God desires, the way that Judas put it, you have one desire for God. From my perspective, God's desire is to glorify himself for the salvation of a particular people in Jesus Christ, and he also desires to glorify himself through the righteous judgment of those who remain in their sin and in their hatred of God.

So there is a desire on God's part for the revelation of the entirety of his character, his divine character, including his mercy, his love, and his justice.

Right, so I affirm God's desire for the glorification of his name, and it will be ultimately accomplished both through mercy and justice. I'm afraid just by the emails that I got asking for clarification, I'm able to answer this in a yes or no way.

Yes, God desires all men to be saved. And since we have biblical language, you know, saying, it's not my desire that the wicked die, but rather that they repent. Or God saying, how gladly I would have treated you like sons.

This is what I really desired to do. I desired to gather Jerusalem together. You weren't willing. This is expressed in so many different ways. Isn't there a simple yes or no to God's actual desire? I mean, I'm reading verses, and we would all agree exegesis comes before theology.

That's the building block for theology. So I know you have a detailed system that makes sense to you. I'm just afraid it's not clear to people listening.

Well, Michael, remember that Shmuley Botiak threw yes and no questions at you that you had to very carefully delineate. The problems in his yes and no questions, because they're based upon a problem. Each one of those texts you just mentioned, if we went to Matthew 23, 37, if we went to 2 Peter 3, 9, if we went to Ezekiel 18.

And I would be happy to do that. I believe that in looking at each of those texts, we would not find that what I've said is contradicted by any of them. And in fact, it's very consistent with what I'm saying.

And so when you say, is there a simple yes or no? When you're talking about God's desires, that's like saying, could you give me a yes or no answer on the issue of God's eternity? Can God be eternal and yet interact with beings in time?

Well, the very question itself precludes the idea of simple yes and no responses. We have to allow for the fact that there is a desire for God that is revealed in his prescriptive will, in his law, that says you shall not sell someone to slavery, for example, or you shall not kill.

And yet, that took place in history, and God used that to his own glory. And I believe that is part of understanding what God says when he says Yahweh does whatever pleases him in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and all their depths, Psalm 135.

But there is a clear difference between God giving a command, don't steal, and then saying that God desires someone to steal or God doesn't desire someone to steal. He doesn't desire them to steal, which is why he gives the command.

I'll tell you what, we're coming up against a break. We'll continue. But it's fine if you say there's not a simple yes or no answer. To me, there's a simple yes. That's fine. I accept that. I want a clarity.

I'm going to read this statement, and then we'll take a break and come back with the question of the offer of the gospel. Two Calvinist scholars, Stonehouse and Murray, wrote this. We have found that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass.

This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree, which is indeed mysterious. So you may have a reflection on that as we come back.

But we'll continue the dialogue. Thanks for listening. Email me at drbrown, drbrown, at askdrbrown .org. Better yet, go to the Line of Fire discussion. The Fire Broadcast, Michael Brown. Delighted to be with you with my special guest, Dr. James White.

In the midst of a busy schedule, he consented to come on. Foremost apologist and theologian, and it's my joy and honor on the broadcast. Again, I'm not taking calls today, tomorrow. All those that would agree with Dr. White's position, by and large, wherever you're coming from, I'll be taking calls so you can challenge me on different things.

But I want to give maximum time for interaction with Dr. White. You can email me at drbrown, it's drbrown, at askdrbrown .org. Or you can go to the website, askdrbrown .org, click on the Line of Fire, get involved in the discussion.

And all our friends on the He's Alive! radio network that are now listening to the Line of Fire, welcome. We are thrilled to be on the air with you. And let me say again, James, you and I know this, but for the sake of our listeners, we're doing our best to present our differences clearly.

Everything I do, I do with the utmost respect for James and what he stands for and what he does and his desire to honor and glorify the Lord. And that's my deep desire today, is that whatever we talk about glorifies the Lord, sharpens issues so that people can study the Word and come to biblical conclusions.

James, I don't know if you had a comment on that conclusion of some Calvinist authors. If you wanted to comment on that, please.

Yeah, you had mentioned that in your presentation a few months ago. And I simply disagree on that issue. I attempted to offer in The Potter's Freedom an exegesis of each of the key texts upon which that was based.

And so my response would be primarily an exegetical one. And I hope maybe on my webcast, in fact, I'll throw this out to you. I think what we should probably do is each one of us should select maybe three key passages and exchange them with each other and then go over those verse by verse exegetically on the program.

And that might be the best way because, honestly, I hold this position fully aware of the fact that it would be easier for me to hold other positions. I mean, there are a lot of doors that are closed to my face because of this.

But I honestly believe, and I know you believe this as well, but I honestly believe that the method of exegesis that I use to defend the deity of Christ against Sassinians like Anthony Buzzard, who was commenting on your website yesterday, or Greg Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever it might be, the same method of hermeneutics and interpretation I use there forces me to these conclusions.

When I go through John chapter 6, I go through Ephesians 1, et cetera, et cetera. So that's really what my conviction is here. And I've heard you say the same thing in regards to if it's what the Word says, then I must believe it.

So that's why I really feel that, in my experience, getting into the Word is the best way to deal with these issues.

Yeah, and look, I was just talking to someone that was trying to help me to work with more different schools of higher learning to serve them in Jewish apologetics and Hebraic exegesis. And they said, yeah, well, this one door would be closed to you because you're not Reformed unless you sign on the dotted line you can't see.

So, you know, it always goes both ways. But, okay, back to just simple questions and answers. And, again, I'm perfectly happy if you say that there isn't a simple answer from your points. I'm not trying to squeeze you.

I'm just trying to get clarity. So the next question that I was again asked to clarify and then give my brief answer, does God genuinely offer salvation to all men? I say absolutely yes when the Gospel message is preached that there is the full offer and the full ability by God's grace and the full provision in the cross for that person to be saved.

It's a genuine and true offer, not a make-believe offer that's impossible to ever come to pass, that when God commands all men everywhere to repent, it's based on the fact that He's given all men over to disobedience and that He can have mercy on them all, that Jesus truly is the ransom for all men, that truly He's the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that truly the grace of God's appeared to all men, that Jesus has tasted death for every man, et cetera.

So I believe it's a genuine and true offer that comes in keeping with God's desire.

Well, can I ask you to clarify one statement that you made? I think, and it was right toward the beginning, and I'm getting old, so I may have forgotten the specifics of it, but did you say that He has given to each one the same ability or capacity or ability, something right toward the beginning you said, something along the lines of, does He give to each person the same, I guess the term would be, prevenient grace?

Yes. Thanks for asking for clarification. When the Gospel comes to someone, there is an invitation from the Lord that is an enabling invitation. If faith comes through hearing the word of God, that Jesus has truly paid for their sins and that person has a genuine opportunity by God's enabling grace to believe, to follow, to agree, to receive the gift, that there's a genuine opportunity, maybe that's the better word to use, for every human being to receive the gift of salvation when it's offered to them through the Gospel.

Okay. That would be something I think would be very good to discuss, because obviously from my perspective, what we're talking about here is a situation, and your specific question, again, you want me to answer briefly, was the genuineness of the offer.

And I do not gauge the genuineness based upon my having knowledge of God's eternal decree. The genuineness is this, any person who turns and believes in Jesus Christ will find Him to be a perfect Savior.

Any person, there has never been anyone who has turned in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ, who has been turned away by Him. No Reformed person believes that anyone could turn in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ and not be saved by Him.

And that is the only way to judge, quote-unquote, genuineness, is that when I say to someone, repent and believe and Jesus Christ will be your perfect Savior, that is a message that I can deliver to anyone, and have delivered to anyone, because I absolutely believe that.

Because this question really doesn't address the real issue, which seemingly is being raised along these lines, well, if Jesus didn't die for everyone, well, I don't know who the elect are and neither does anyone else.

And so we do not evangelize based upon knowledge of something that we do not possess. We evangelize based upon the apostolic exhortation, I preach like the apostles, repent and believe in Jesus Christ and you will find Him to be a perfect Savior.

Now, I just saw a website blasting me because I preach repent and believe. So, again, we're in harmony on that, not as a, and we agree that repentance is not a work, etc. But when I am looking at someone in sincerity and telling them the message and they say, well, I don't feel loved, I've never felt God love me and I don't know if Jesus died for me, I'd be able to say God loves you, Jesus died, repent and believe.

You couldn't tell them that part though.

But see, the cost of that, first of all, if you could show me where the apostles responded as you just did, then I would be able to go with you there. But you see, the cost at that point is not only am I abandoning the apostolic proclamation of what it means to repent and believe, but you're also saying to an individual that Jesus' perfect life was given in your place.

However, that's not enough because He did that for everybody. And yet every person standing upon the parapets of hell and eternity to come will all be able to say that. They'll all be able to say, I have invalidated the very work of the Son of God because He gave Himself specifically to save me and He failed.

He wasn't able to do it. The price there strikes me as being way too high to pay because we're leaving the apostolic proclamation.

Got it. Alright, I'd say the apostolic proclamation is very much in line with what I declared and is the message of God's reception of His love. Okay, we'll continue this and then I've got one more question and then we'll move on to further atonement issues.

Yes.

Thanks for joining us. Michael Brown with my apologist colleague and today theological opponent Dr. James White. And we knew from the start, being on the air together, these broadcasts taking a couple days would scratch the surface, be introductory.

And the goal is we'll definitely execute passages on Dr. White's broadcast. Yes, God willing. I always say God willing. I see that as thoroughly scriptural.

But I don't know why, Michael. I mean, God may have willed it, but it's up to our free will, isn't it?

We work together. He may desire me to be on the radio with you and I may stupidly choose not to and be held accountable. But anyway, and then God willing, we'll sit down and do public hours. I think it would be enlightening and helpful.

So I just want to respond really quickly to that last point. I see the apostolic witness as, to you, the message of forgiveness of sins through Jesus is proclaimed. Therefore, it's a genuine offer. We'll be saved.

Certainly, as I'm hearing that as an individual, I'm taking that as genuine, not duplicitous. That, well, it means one thing to one person there and not to another. And God in his love has ordained things that he requires us to receive his gift, and there's the reciprocation.

But that would move us to the other point then, which if I could be clear on, the question of does God specifically predestine certain individuals to eternal destruction? That was his predetermined destiny.

They are vessels for wrath, as some have quoted Calvin saying, doomed from the womb for certain death. And therefore, it could be your own child. It could be your own spouse. That could be one of those prepared for destruction from before the foundation of the world.

So no prayer, no supplication, no crying out, nothing we could do could ever change that. That is their eternal destiny. I absolutely do not believe the scriptures teach that. What is your view on that, sir?

Predestination, Election, and Reprobation

Well, I can give you a yes or no on that, as long as I correct one thing, and that is it is very common for people to try to create an equal ultimacy in the extension of God's grace in predestining people into salvation, and then making that the exact same thing as some type of exercise that causes him to reprobate people.

I want to distinguish between those two because obviously to save a sinner requires the extension of God's grace and mercy. It's not just undeserved grace. It is demerited grace that is given to us. We are rebel sinners.

We are filthy in God's sight. We are worthy of judgment. And yet in his love, he not only provides perfect salvation, but at the time that he is ordained by his spirit, he brings regeneration. He brings life.

He unites us with Jesus Christ, and we experience salvation. So that's a very different thing than simply allowing a sinner to continue in their sin and to receive his just desserts. But with that distinction made, then I can say very clearly, yes or no, yes, God, from eternity past, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, they all say the same thing.

The number of the elect is absolutely fixed. God knows their identity. This is not only a surprise to God, but it flows from his purpose and his decree. It is not merely something that he discovers in creation.

It is an expression of his purposes. And that has a two-sided. You expressed the one side of it. That is, as a parent, one of my children could be one of those that God, in his justice, is going to pass over and bring under his wrath.

That is very true. But the other side that wasn't expressed is that one of those children could be an heir of eternal life. And that means that there is no power in heaven or on earth that will stop the triune God from glorifying himself in the salvation of that child.

And as a result, that child will only be able to glorify God. For as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1, it is of his doing that you are in Christ Jesus. So that anyone who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.

So that's the other side of that, is that we boast only in God, in that salvation.

Right. Of course we boast only in the Lord. I've never once heard a testimony in my life where anyone did anything other than boast in the Lord, his saving grace, his power. And, you know, as is often mentioned, when the jailer said, what must I do to be saved, there was a response required.

He couldn't then pat himself on the back. We receive his gift by faith. That's simple. So you embrace the fact, because you love the will of God, and whatever God does is good. You embrace the fact that God and his sovereignty could potentially, here's a godly couple.

They love the Lord. In your view of being elect believers, they pray that God would give them a child, and they seek to raise this child in the fear of the Lord and follow all the scriptural admonitions with promises from God.

And yet it's possible they could do what God required. They could set that child aside to the Lord. They could pray fast for that child. They could nurture them, teach them the ways of God. But that it could be God's predetermined plan that that child was born ultimately for damnation.

And that's something that we should embrace and rejoice in.

That child was born to glorify God in whatever God's purpose for that child is. And even from your own perspective, they could do all of those things, and God could try and do his best to try to save that child.

But if that child simply doesn't cooperate, that child cannot possibly be saved. So I don't know how the raising in the fear and admonition of the Lord is an issue there, because obviously, yes, they can do that, but they're doing that out of obedience to Christ.

They're doing that out of obedience to God's revealed will.

But they also know that in cooperation with that, that God will be doing certain things to bring that child to himself or herself, excuse me, to bring that child to himself. And that in doing those things, there's actually a process that's going on that God's at work at, as opposed to he's actually working against that process because he has destined that child for damnation.

But he doesn't have to work against any kind of process at all, because that's what I was saying, there's no equal ultimacy between the two. But I just want to make sure people understand what you're saying.

That process, however, God tries his best, but unless you're saying that all children of Christian parents are automatically saved, I mean, ask David about whether children born in the covenant are necessarily automatically saved.

Unless you're saying that, what are you saying?

I'm saying that that child has every opportunity to be saved, and that's all I can ask for as a parent. As a parent, anything in life, I can't guarantee the future of that child, but I can guarantee that I will do certain things so that child will have an opportunity for an education, that child will have an opportunity to be loved, that child, more importantly, will have an opportunity to be introduced to God.

God could have set up a system where he makes everybody do certain things. He simply didn't, so that's his will.

But Michael, here's my question for you.

I bow down to his will.

Just one question, because I think this will clarify something. It sounds to me like you're saying God is already giving a 100 effort to save that child, right?

Certainly.

Then why pray for him?

Because that's how he set it up, that we are co-workers with him. As Spurgeon said, like it or not, asking is the law of the kingdom.

So when I, as a Calvinist, pray, I've had many Arminians say, well, why are you praying if God's already done this? I believe he's changing me in my prayer. But if God is already doing 100 of his effort to save that child, what more can he do?

Okay, well, the 100 of his effort is in conjunction with us, because that's how he set it up. That's why Paul said we are fellow workers, we are fellow laborers with the Lord. He works with us and through us.

That's the way he set it up. I'm just following his system here. Anyway, we come back, you can take this further if you want, or get over to the high priest.

Yeah, let's do that.

Friends, join us, askdrbrown .org, click on the line of fire, get involved in the discussion there. Back with you shortly. Michael Brown here with Dr. James White discussing Calvinism. He's taking calls tomorrow.

I just saw one chat room saying that someone sent me a note that Calvinists are supposed to flood the phone lines tomorrow on my show. Please, please, please. That would be my highest joy. So tomorrow I'll reiterate again some of my own positions since I haven't written books on it or even discussed it before now with Dr. White.

Again, I remind folks that I was a staunch Calvinist from 77 to 82, saved in 71, staunch Calvinist from 77 to 82, and my passion for the glory of God and love for the Word brought me out of Calvinism, the very things that Dr. White would say affirm his Calvinism.

Calvinism, Humility, and the Nature of Reformed Theology

Yeah, that would be a good idea. By the way, have you turned in your John Calvin card? I just want to make sure you're not trying to use that to get in places and things like that. You need to send it back.

No, it got rescinded actually.

Oh, okay.

We took it back already.

All right.

Yeah, it got rescinded with scorns and mockery that I've abandoned the orthodoxy. Let me just say one thing though. I got to get this off my chest.

Okay.

I would think that Calvinism would produce a deep humility and that someone blogs saying that that's what it should do. I run into so many people that have this arrogant thing that they have the truth and they look down their nose at scorning everyone that doesn't hold to, quote, reform doctrine.

I can't figure out where that comes from. It's the opposite to me of what I would have expected, and I run into it so often. I mean, it's rare that I don't run into it. Even if the show is going on and someone just copied me discussion, it's the same kind of thing.

We have arrived.

We have the truth, and you idiot Armenians, you're hard to even say.

Did you ever see the Banner of Truth publication called The Practical Implications of Calvinism by Albert Martin?

I saw it, but I didn't read it. I had a nice Banner of Truth library. I still do actually.

Yeah, I would highly recommend it to anyone because you're exactly right. That is inconsistent, but I also, of course, encounter many Armenians who, on their side of things, identify my god as a foreign god and monster and all the rest of these things.

So I don't know if that's I do see that, and I think any reform folks in the audience who are serious and, Michael, I think we should point out there's a difference between holding to five points and living consistently with Reformed theology.

A church that is impacted by Reformed theology, it's going to impact everything the worship, the preaching, how everything's done. And so I'm not going to claim that my Reformed brethren are all perfect, and we have differences between each other, but we all want to look to the Word of God as the final authority in these things.

Yeah, and there are issues on both sides. The reason I raise it is because I'm constantly hearing how it deeply humbles someone, and then I run into this, we-have-arrived arrogance, you know, the same kind of thing when I talk to an atheist.

You know, we know better, and kind of looking down their noses. So it does hit from both ways. We can only call on people to be genuine disciples, and if Jesus is truly Lord, then there's nothing in us except to bow down at His feet and worship Him.

But we're obviously racing against time here, but I know there was a point you wanted to make. If you can develop it in a couple minutes, we can get it in, and I'll give a brief response before we're done today.

The Book of Hebrews and the Particularity of Christ's Atonement

Well, very, very quickly, I wanted to present the idea, since I had heard people talking about quote-unquote limited atonement when they called your program earlier. I think one of the strongest biblical reasons why I hold to the particular redeeming work of Jesus Christ is because of the book of Hebrews.

In the book of Hebrews, a book that is closed to so many evangelicals today because they have no idea what its background is. They don't spend any time in the Tanakh to be able to know why the argument is being made the way they are.

In that book, we have the presentation of Jesus, not only as the one who gives himself epipox, one time, as the sacrifice for sins, but He is also the high priest. As we know, the high priest, when he would offer the atonement on the day of covering Yom Kippur, he would enter into the holiest place with that blood of the sacrifice, and he would kafar, he would cover that seat, that place of halasmas, of atonement of covering.

With that blood, it was one act. No high priest would ever give the atonement and stop there because the work was not finished at that point. There was a presentation. It's all one work, which the high priest does.

Because of that, the book of Hebrews tells us that when Jesus entered into the holy place, he had obtained eternal salvation. He had not merely made eternal salvation a mere possibility. He had obtained eternal salvation.

Hebrews 10 tells us that he perfects those for whom this offering has been made. When people make the presentation that Jesus gave himself in a universal sense, but then when he enters in, he does not intercede for all those for whom he has made.

I see a contrast there, but I hear the music. Maybe you can pick it up on the other side.

All right. Then we'll have to be brief. I'll give a brief response to that. Thanks for being with us, friend. Time again, a delightful James White as we get to press these issues. Hopefully, in further dialogue, we'll flesh them out more.

For me, James, the building block for exegesis is philology. That's where my primary training is. I wouldn't even seek how far it's covered, but that's another subject. I'm sending an article. I wrote on that in a best script for Professor Barth Levine.

What would you see it as?

It means to expiate. It doesn't mean to cover. It means to expiate, atone. It can also have a Persian meaning. Anyway, that was just a minor footnote because I'd written on it, and I know you love detailed exegesis.

Sure.

But that didn't impact your overall point. Take about 30 seconds more.

In 30 seconds, all I want to try to say is I believe that I can make a very strong point in the book of Hebrews that there is a direct relationship between the atoning work of Christ and the interceding work of Christ.

The question I simply ask of anyone in the audience, is the Son interceding before the Father for every single human being who has ever lived? The Amorites, Pharaoh's army, is he interceding before the Father, pleading his finished sacrifice before the Father for those individuals?