4 Point Calvinism

Webcasting around the world from the 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. It's 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.

The Gospel Coalition Article on Four-Point Calvinism

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. On the 26th of August is 28th of August Matt Smithers posted an article on the gospel coalition blog called the consequences of Calvinism and this was an interview with Matthew Barrett and Thomas Nettles editors of whomever he wills a surprising display of sovereign mercy and As it says it explores and celebrates doctrines of grace from multiple angles.

Barrett executive editor of Credo magazine and assistant professor of Christian studies at California Baptist University and Nettles professor of historical theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

You must emphasize the word the or you're mispronouncing the entirety of the name. I want to make sure you understand that in Louisville, Kentucky our self-professed Baptist Calvinist. No oxymoron there.

They note Baptist heritage drips with Calvinism much to emir canner's chagrin. That's not in the article. I just thought I'd throw that in there for the fun anyway, I Smethurst says I correspond with Barrett and Nettles about why their book matters practically.

Where the Calvinism is a gospel issue what to make of four pointers and more now. Whomever he wills is of course response to whosoever will. The collected papers of those who made presentations at the John 316 conference number of years ago.

We have responded to the majority of the John 316 Conference on the dividing line if you want to go back and look at that and on videos on YouTube and articles and various other things along those lines.

You would think that that would have resulted in a number of excellent public debates on the subject but Remember debate only goes one direction on this particular topic. With one exception with one exception.

I received an email last evening from my dear brother Michael Brown and there is a seminary and I'll just say that it's on the wrong side of the Mississippi River. That's all I'll say right now that has Asked if they could Convince he and I to finally get around to doing that big debate on Calvinism.

So What I want to do and then I'll be able to tell you because I'm not let's just put this way I ain't gonna be the home team. Okay, I'm gonna be the visitors on this one. But what I would like to see happen is If We could possibly work it out is What I would like to see is a week-long thing and At the beginning have Michael and I debate to Muslim apologists and Then have our debate later on.

I think that would really be neat to have the two of us together in defense of the gospel against Islam and Then Later in the week we we go at the the big issues and Or in the middle of the week and then they want to do Q &A and I might even get to Lecture in some classes at this seminary, which would be very interesting because again, I'm not the home team here.

Okay, that'll just give you just give you an idea What we're talking about here, but anyhow Go back to the article here. One of the one of the questions that was asked is Pastorally, what are the implications of embracing the basic message of this volume or for dismissing it and the response given was massive.

We don't like to admit it, but how we pastor do church and dare we say approach missions in many ways reflects our theological bent. Oh good grief. Yes as Pastors when we pray for the lost our congregations.

Do we ask God to actually save them or we counsel a member who just lost her husband? Can we genuinely assure reassure her that the God who has predestined called and justified her will indeed work all things.

Yes, even evil things together for good or when we commission missionaries to the field perhaps even to spill their blood for the gospel. Do we believe that God will unfailingly call his elect in all nations?

Those are exceptionally important questions and I would agree. There's there's absolutely no question after. You know, I'm I'm middle-aged heading toward the big 5 -0 here in just a matter of weeks and But I've been in ministry long enough to know that when you look at ministries when you look at churches it's it's not too difficult to figure out what the real set of priorities that drives that that ministry is and whether you are Thoroughly reformed or whether you're not will have a huge impact.

There is absolutely no question about that in any way then we have this section and most of you know where I'm going here, but I wanted to give the the article to which Today's article which I'm going to be responding to was actually responding.

This is a very short article by the way, so obviously this was this was not some long discussion this was obviously cobbled together from Probably multiple emails and and is is meant to be fairly Brief and into the point and I think some of the criticism of it that we'll look at in a moment miss that.

But anyway, what about the death of Christ? What about the death of Christ have convictional four-point Calvinist perhaps failed to adequately consider? So the question That is asked assumes that convictional four-point Calvinists Have failed to adequately consider something.

Now someone were to ask me that question I would say well Obviously the the focus is is on the high priestly role of Christ and the unity of the Trinity which is exactly What they respond exactly how they say it, but that's how the question was asked.

At least two things one the priestly role of Christ and to the Trinitarian unity and redemption planned accomplished and applied. First as Stephen Wellham recently argued in his SBTS faculty address and as David Schrock contends in chapter 4 Christ is the great high priest of the New Covenant and therefore acts as a representative substitute and intercessor on behalf of God's people in doing so he not only pays The penalty for their sin but purchases everything necessary including the work of the Spirit to bring them to salvation.

Universal Atonement advocates fail to situate Christ's priestly work in its covenantal context. I agree. Especially when we're talking about a covenantal context within the very Godhead itself. I Mean I I'm I'm not the first one to have said this.

John Owen emphasized these things people have I think even more finely tuned What Owen said over the years? But I am just absolutely convinced and when we have had dialogues This is not an area that I have found folks to have much Meaningful to say and you go into the book of Hebrews you look at what the high priest does you look at what the high priest accomplishes and There is absolute unity between the Father and the Son and if if the Father has if the Father Son and Spirit together have Perfect divine foreknowledge of who will be saved and who will not the idea That the Son would undergo in their place to absolutely no salvific end.

And if you want to come up with some non salvific purpose for this Please explain what it might be from the scriptures not just philosophically or or speculatively. But from the scriptures what where does the high priest?

Offer sacrifice for those outside of the covenant community. Where is that in the Old Testament? Where is that in the New Testament? We we need to see these things. These are I think that's absolutely vitally important.

The article goes on second to affirm an individual unconditional and particular election by the Father and an effectual unconditional in particular calling by the Spirit. But then to affirm a universal provisional and general atonement by the Son creates confusion in the mission of the Trinity.

I want to repeat this because this is very important. Why it why is it important for us to be precise about this? Well, let me give you let me just completely Jump the track here for a second because I know I'll remember where to get back to an article.

Anyways, let me jump the track here a second and give you an illustration. Why is it important? It's really easy for me to sit here and say look folks. We glorify God best. When we are consistent in our defense of the faith.

We glorify God best when we are consistent in our interpretation of the scriptures, etc, etc, right? Okay I've recently been really diving into the earliest Apologetic encounters between Muslims and Christians the earliest ones.

So I've been I've been reading the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy the first Dialogue with the Muslim Caliph and I've listened now to a couple times on it's been pretty much all I've been listening to a writing recently has been Al-Kindi's Dialogue as well.

These are from around 780 and 820. Respectively so very very early this morning. I started listening to Ali Tabri's Muslim the former Christians. This is from the other side his explanation of why you should leave Christian to become a Muslim and One of the things that struck me was there are times When and yes Farshad was mentioning John of Damascus and John the first and yeah, I've been all those all that stuff but There are times when seeking to be scholarly and and honest and consistent I have to give the point to the Muslim at at times in these debates and Almost every time that happens not always but almost every time it's big.

It's when the Christian is attempting to defend something that simply isn't biblical. They've allowed the opponent to force them to defend something or their own tradition has forced them in position of their defending something that's not biblical and so if We are going to be consistent apologists in giving an answer in this ever darkening Western culture Then we have to be consistent in our theology.

It's not just a man. This isn't just a matter of will you you Calvinist? You just you just think you're all that hot stuff and you you should just allow for differences of opinion this is fundamental and foundational stuff and it's going to determine how you defend the faith.

A Calvinist is going to defend the purpose of God in creation and the purpose of God in the atonement. Differently than our minion will There's just that's just a given. There's no read. There's no sense to cover that over.

There's no sense to say we're well, we're just all on the same page. No, there's a difference there and There are a number of times especially in Timothy the first encounter where The the Caliph Really asks penetrating questions that demonstrate that he's caught him in an inconsistency and We when we are engaged in apologetics that That inconsistency is well the sign of a failed argument, isn't it?

Yes. Yes it is. So back on to the Back on to the the train track here. Let me read this again second to affirm and so for a reformed person and we're talking about four pointers here. Okay people who allegedly affirm everything but particular redemption allegedly again in my experience It's not how it works except for a few who've actually read Historical theology enough to make the very very fine distinctions.

For the vast majority of people with whom I have dialogued over the years. This is just this is anecdotal evidence. But I've got a lot of anecdotes to back it up. The vast majority of my dialogues of people who call themselves four pointers when you really pushed you discover they weren't four pointers.

They didn't really believe in an all-encompassing divine decree. They really didn't believe in in total inability and their real objections were done conditional election. So anyways back to the back tackle.

Second to affirm an individual unconditional and particular election by the Father and an effectual unconditional and particular calling by the Spirit so the work of the Father and the Spirit is Specifically in line with the decree of God to save and elect people.

But then to affirm a universal provisional and general atonement by the Son creates confusion in the mission of the Trinity. I Agree 100 that is exactly right and if you present a theology That that Asserts incoherence in the actions of the Trinity.

There will be people on the other side on the non-christian side on the Muslim side on the atheist side. Who will catch you and They will see it remember when remember when even Christopher Hitchens Would catch people for their inconsistencies.

You don't have to be a Christian to catch Christians in inconsistencies goes on to say. Robert Raymond captures what such inconsistency would sound like as Jesus prays in the garden. I Recognize father that your election and your salvific intentions terminate on only a portion of mankind.

But because my love is more inclusive and expansive than yours. I'm not satisfied to die only for those you've elected. I'm going to die for everyone. Therefore as Robert Latham argues argues Universal Atonement quote threatens to tear apart the Holy Trinity.

Close quote for it means the Father and Spirit have different goals than the Son. But as the reformed slogan opera Trinitatis Indivisa Sunt reminds us. The works of the Trinity are indivisible. The father plans redemption the son accomplishes redemption and the spirit applies redemption and all three persons of the Trinity are Simultaneously and actively involved in each other's salvific work on behalf of the elect.

I love that. Those of you who have listened to this program for more than a year or for much longer if you're algo. No, that's exactly what my argument has been for a very very long period of time. But very very well said.

Now there are people of course. Who would argue? That well the very fact that he quotes Robert Raymond. He's hyper Calvinist. There's one hyper Calvinist. Those those are the four pointers and that's how they try to get around the weight of that argumentation.

So that's part of the article. It wasn't really a long article didn't go much farther than that. That prompted evidently this morning Trevin wax August 28th 2012 this is also one of the blogs on the gospel coalition a Word to my Calvinist friends with a nice pretty picture of a tulip there.

Calvin wax is the managing editor of the gospel project at lifeway Christian resources. Brothers consider me irked irked as in I love you guys, but you're talking down to me not with me. That's my basic response after reading a brief interview with Matt Barrett and Tom Nettles about their new book.

Whomever he wills. That puts forth a robust argumentation for a reformed view of soteriology. Many of you are my friends including some of the authors this volume. So allow me to say at the outset how much I admire your conviction your theological rigor and your commitment to rightly interpreting the scriptures.

Let me also put this little Squabble in perspective when I consider the culture's current trajectory as well as the disturbing evangelical capitulation to culture rather than biblical truth. This in-house debate between people who believe in the inerrancy and authority of scripture is just that in-house.

It is certainly not the most important topic for discussion. Well. Let me start my disagreements there. I am concerned that this is how we approach a discussion of the coherence of the Trinity of the divine persons the Trinity in bringing about the Glorification of God himself, which as I understand it is the central purpose of all of creation.

Many people have been sending me links to the Jerry Walls videos and I looked at the Jerry Walls video started looking at it and how did it start out anybody who watched it? How did it start out when he said here's the heart of the matter?

What's the heart of the matter to him? Was it God? Was it? The coherence of the Trinity and the works of the divine persons and the the glory that that results from their work. And was it any of that?

Nope. Oh. Didn't start with God. Arminianism doesn't start with God. That's the problem it started with man and it started with creaturely freedom the central issue is Creaturely for no, it's not and when you start there, you've you've already capitulated.

That's it. It's all over with and so How I respond. What why is it that over the past number of months? I have spent so much time on the dividing line responding to Matthew Vines and and to Harry Knox and Discussing homosexuality and the the the profanation of marriage and and all the rest these things.

Why why would I do that? Is is that really connected? To what I believe as a Reformed apologist. The answer is yes. It is it flows of necessity From the central affirmations that I make of my faith Including the doctrine of the Trinity and the fact that in eternity past the Father the Son the Spirit covenanted together to bring glory to the triune Godhead Through creation and the redemption of a particular people through the incarnation Death burial resurrection of Jesus Christ and the union of those people through him their eventual glorification it's all what God has chosen to do to glorify himself and When you really think that everything your entire life who you are What you do your entire existence Is to be subjugated to That ultimate criterion that ultimate reality.

It changes you it changes how you respond it changes what you do and it also changes and determines the means and methodologies by which you're going to interact with this culture and Why you're going to do what you do and say what you say, so I I have to Disagree With Trevin wax when he says well, this is just an in-house debate.

Yes. It's an in-house debate in the sense that We are debating with fellow believers. But that does not make it. And he's not saying it's unimportant, but there is a sense here in which he's saying It is certainly not the most important topic for discussion but it is on the level of found of Foundationalism of what what's going to determine how you're going to address those other things.

It's vitally important vitally Important. I continue on but as one who doesn't follow your logical arguments all the way to their conclusions I confess my frustration with the type of Condescension that often accompanies your passion for your position.

Now I did not find any condescension in the article. You might not have liked the way in which a question was asked. But the reality is if you're going to say That there is inconsistency in someone else's position.

It's real easy for them to say. Oh, you're being condescending to me. Well, it would be easy to me to sit here and say well, I think Trevor wax was condescending to all of us. Even if I thought that Who cares?

Why is it that modern man wears his emotions on his sleeve. Aren't these things more important than than my perceived offenses. I Don't understand why it is that in modern Christian context even we can't just I Mean, I don't know what it's like and I'm not saying Trevor wax does this but his response to this certainly strikes me as that.

But I don't understand how Anybody can live much of a Much of an enjoyable life to be honest with you if if you're always being being offended I mean, I would be supposed to fit the planet the way people address me all the time.

I mean, you know We all need to learn didn't don't we learn this in our churches. You know the people that you that we as elders spend the most time trying to unbend their noses are the people who walk in.

Looking to run into the walls. They're always looking for reasons to be offended by others and the people that we know we're not gonna have to worry about and the people are gonna do. The best and the people are gonna be working the hardest in the church are the people who aren't looking to be offended.

They're not they're not going well that person didn't say anything to me today or that person didn't compliment me on my dress blah blah blah blah blah blah. You know if you've got your if you've got your priorities straight you're just that's that's not where you're gonna be going.

So Anyway, I just didn't see it. I I read the same article. I just read to you and You know people answering a question that was asked to them. What do you find inconsistent about the four pointers? Well, huh?

It's just you're talking down to me. You're not talking with me. Well if I'm gonna say you're inconsistent you I guess can interpret that as talking down to you, but This idea that well, you know all positions are equal, you know, we have thought this stuff through.

Well, if you don't give a good argument in response, then maybe you haven't. I don't know. Particular redemption in service to universal atonement. Here's an example. This is the example of condescension That creates frustration and Trevin wax, here's an example from the interview consider how the question is worded.

What about the question about about the death of Christ? Have convictional four-point Calvinist perhaps failed to adequately consider well Why? Why not take this out on the person asking the question?

I guess instead of asking Why do you reject the unlimited atonement view the question is framed in a way that treats four pointers? Like they have simply failed to adequately consider all the relevant point relevant points.

Well, if you're gonna say they're inconsistent. You're either gonna say you haven't fail. You've either failed to consider the relevant points or you have you have considered them and you're just plain wrong.

Isn't that a little bit more? Aggressively placed it would almost seem to me that for a lot of folks The way the question was asked was almost trying to be politically correct. What haven't they considered rather than why are they wrong about that?

So you're you're darned if you do and darn if you don't you know. If you if you try to be politically correct, you get it. And if you if you don't you get it I normally am NOT the politically correct one say.

So I feel sorry for like mm-hmm. Okay, the implication is this. Oh those four pointers are good guys, but they obviously haven't thought it through as well as we have well when it comes to for example, I Haven't gotten back to it for a while.

I apologize. I need to but the The recent book, you know by the alleged ex-Calvinist who actually was a four-pointer. That's exactly what I would say, yeah, it's exactly what I would say that the the position Presented in that book has not been adequately thought through it is it's it's shallow.

There are shallow four-pointers yes, there are doesn't mean all of them are and The response that was given to this question was not At all commensurate with the idea that well those four partners are good guys.

They obviously haven't thought it through as well as we have that wasn't the that wasn't the answer that was given. I Mean the answer was a deep Theologically rich answer Goes on to say no my brothers there are plenty of us who reject the traditional Calvinistic understanding of limits on it precisely because we have adequately considered their arguments and Have found them wanting.

The reason I stand with theologians like JC Ryle, Millard Erickson, Greg Allison, Bruce Demarest and Bruce Ware is Because their argumentation is more persuasive than yours well Trevin if they could present Incredibly persuasive arguments in one paragraph.

Why don't you why don't you because I'd like to hear it I Would like to hear The a response to How it is you can have the father doing one thing the spirit doing another thing this and this and the son doing something completely different.

The father in the spirit they work in harmony, but son and as someone just went out and channel. If you found them wanting and their argumentation where isn't that isn't that rather condescending. Trevin, I mean really See it's so easy to do that.

I don't I don't Read it that way it was it was Theophilus and channel, so I'll blame him. I don't I don't actually Read it that way, but somebody else didn't see so that's that's his problem anyways. He goes on.

I understand you believe you are safeguarding the reality of Christ substitutionary sacrifice when you affirm a definite atonement position many non Calvinists believe they're safeguarding the free offer of the gospel by affirming the general atonement position.

The truth is just as Calvinists can believe in definite atonement and the free offer of the gospel. So also can non-Calvinists believe in general atonement and penal substitution. Neither one is necessarily lost by either position.

That's why I defend Calvinists from the charge that taking a limited atonement position necessarily leads to apathy and evangelism. I'd appreciate that it if you defend your general atonement friends from the charge that our position leads to Universalism instead of saying our view threatens to tear apart the Holy Trinity.

Now um a couple of assertions there without any reasoning that goes with it for example. Many non-Calvinists believe they are safeguarding the free offer of the gospel by affirming the general atonement position.

Now we need to talk about that because the phrase free off of the gospel has become a Shibboleth in certain circles and unfortunately It is a shibboleth with hidden Presuppositions that are almost never brought out with clarity.

What do I mean by that? When we talk about the free offer of the gospel, are we talking about the fact? That we as believers can freely offer the gospel to all people. That we are commanded to proclaim the gospel to every creature in heaven that we are commanded that all creatures all are commanded to repent and believe and That we are under no obligation whatsoever to be searching for fruit searching for evidence of regeneration.

Doing what the hyper Calvinists do and and saying well before I can proclaim the gospel someone I need to see evidence of regeneration and and things like We were everybody rejects that or at least everybody who's not a hyper Calvinist does but Beyond the freedom of the universal proclamation of the gospel there is a a second strain That is now being presented as if it is the only way you can believe in the free offer of the gospel and That is you have to somehow in your mind Believe that God has provided Everything necessary for the person you're talking to to be saved including Christ dying for them in their place now of course.

Hopefully immediately going wait a minute. We don't have access to who the elect are. We don't we aren't given that information and they're never. In fact, it's interesting. They fall into the same trap the the hypers do here the the idea being that that my attitude my knowledge has Something to do with how I should be presenting the gospel to someone when I can't look into their hearts.

The the wonderful thing about the gospel is You proclaim it. It takes care of itself. Because it's the power of God in salvation. The Holy Spirit of God honors that you proclaim the gospel. I don't have to know anything about the person.

I'm talking to Anybody I really don't I? Mean. I'm not saying you shouldn't get to know folks. But I'm saying if I meet somebody on a street corner I can present the gospel to them. I don't have to sit down and have a cup of coffee coffee and find out where they're from and blah blah blah blah.

I don't have to do that. The Apostles didn't do that. That's not a necessary aspect of things and so I view That I would I would identify Two different kinds of belief in the free offer of the gospel the coherence view and the incoherence view.

The coherence view is sort of like compatibilism. What is compatibilism? Most of us reform folks believe that that God's exhaustive divine decree is compatible with creaturely freedom. We define creaturely freedom freedom in light of God's decree.

God's decree determines what a creature is what a creature can and cannot do the range in which that creature is going to have choices and that creaturely feet freedom can only be understood within that context and Hence we believe in compatibilism and we point to Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 and Acts 4 is evidence of compatibilism functioning in the Bible in the same way I would believe in the coherence view of the free offer of the gospel and That is that there is consistency and coherence between a recognition of God's sovereign election of elect people with the free proclamation of that gospel to all people based upon a Obedience to God.

This is how God has chosen to do it. He does this through the proclamation of his word the work of the Holy Spirit. We are called to proclaim the gospel. That's why he doesn't just cause all this to go poof as soon as we get saved and go to heaven.

We have a job to do down here. We continue to do it. He conforms his name is injured image of Christ as we do these things. There is coherence. There is consistency Between Recognizing that that God has an elect people and the freedom that we have to proclaim that gospel.

We do not have to Insinuate impute or attribute Incoherence To our God in the process and what do I mean by this? Well, there are people who will tell you That you have to believe That God when he created Decreed Incoherent and incompatible desires on his own part that is that God decreed that he would desire the salvation of his elect people and That he would fulfill that desire.

But he also decreed that he would desire in some fashion anyway. Not just in the sense of the universal command and In what's called the prescriptive will of God which is found in his law. His law says do not murder.

Therefore it is God's desire that no one murders yet at the same time We know that a part of God's decree has included A tremendous amount of murdering including in the utmost sense the murder of his own son.

That's a part of God's decree but This is this position asserts that you have to believe that God has decreed that he is going to have a desire a true heartfelt desire. That he is then going to decree not to fulfill for himself.

The whole basis of this is that if you don't think It somehow your gospel proclamation your gospel presentation Has to be determined by what you think God is thinking at this particular point in time.

How you think God feels at this particular point in time and if you can't have absolute assurance that God is Going to save the person you're talking to. So in other words, you need to know what God's decree is then you're somehow going to Not be as evangelistic or something like that, that's the idea so God Desires to save everybody but God doesn't desire to save everybody.

He has decreed an incoherent incompatible set of desires for himself so much so that for some God's desires will remain that way for eternity. I would hope most would admit that well It's only something God experiences well, this is sort of weird temporally and Once Eternity has been ushered in That those desires will end.

Otherwise God's determined that he will be as I've said in the past eternally bummed Eternally unhappy. Eternally without fulfillment. And I'll call that the incoherence view you are you're presenting an incoherent set of desires on God's part.

And you can't explain the why. Outside of you know, well if if I don't feel like God Wants to save everybody then maybe I don't want to save everybody. Well, that's making your Disobedience and your feelings Determinative of what you're going to attribute to God.

That's going backwards. That's your standard Armenian way of thinking and So when you hear this phrase free offer the gospel. Find out what someone's talking about. Are they talking about the fact that we can freely offer the gospel and everyone because we don't know who the elect are and God saves every single person who has ever turned repentance and faith to him.

Is that what they mean by free off the gospel or do they mean? You need to present an incoherent view of God where God wants to do something that he's actually then determined not to do. Because that's what people are saying and there's a bunch of them out there and you know who you are and you run around calling everybody else hyper Calvinist if they don't agree with you and Basically, I just would ask all of you just what have you accomplished?

Anyways, you know other than you know, your own little click of people and and You know causing problems here there and everywhere. What have you really accomplished? I just sort of wonder sometimes about that.

The Free Offer of the Gospel and Divine Coherence

So anyways, we go back to the article here. And I got to go up back to it quickly because I wanted to go another one still yet today I'm a completely different subject. Um, I do struggle to understand.

What's being argued here? I'd appreciate it. He says if you defend your general atonement friends from the charge that our position leads to universalism instead of saying our view threatens to tear apart the Holy Trinity.

That's not an answer to the question. Okay. You've listed some big names. You know Bruce where a wonderful guy but I debate Bruce were on this subject because I think he's wrong. We go to the word and I'd ask Bruce where or I need to the other fellas some of whom are not with us anymore obviously, uh.

Okay, that's nice. But can you answer the assertion that was made in the article you're responding to rather than just taking offense as a you're all talking. Down to me. How about answering it? How is it that the Sun?

Has an intention other than that of the Father in the Spirit you you are presenting what seems to be an incoherent view of The of the intentions of the divine person to the Trinity the best way to refute that is to do what?

Demonstrate it's not incoherent. Not just say why don't you defend us against stuff like I can't I? Can't defend you against it if you don't tell me how I'm supposed to do it. Can can you tell me how?

Christ substitutionary death in behalf of individuals. That just from a foreknowledge perspective. God knows are never going to be saved. Salvific substitutionary atonement. Sin the wrath of God completely fulfilled for every single person who will then be other gods wrath for all of eternity.

Can you explain? How that is a coherent view? I've not heard it. I've heard some amazing attempts. But I've never heard a response to it. Says yes, there are statements of scripture stress the particularity of Christ's sacrifice and its universality.

But to squeeze universal feet into tight particular shoes is precisely the wrong choice to make. Instead when the particular texts are nestled snugly into their universal shoes. They fit more naturally.

Well that I'm sorry. That's that sounds so nice. But what does it mean? Are they particular text or aren't they are the universal text aren't they what do these texts mean? I Just get the feeling again my my four-point friends.

Wanted to say hey, we want it. We want to be in in in the in the game here as well. But when you ask them, okay, what specifically do you mean by this? Then they come up with answers like this and I don't see how that's defensible.

That's not gonna be defensible against someone outside the Christian faith. They want to know what is this text actually saying? Is it universal in a particular sense? Did Christ die for the Amorite high priest to whom the father never sent any?

Any prophets why. What did that accomplish? What did it do? I don't get these answers. I'd like to hear what the answers are but Just talking about shoes doesn't help there. In the context of the Old Testament particularity serves universality.

God chose a particular man in Genesis 12 Abraham in order that through his seed the whole world would be blessed. Okay, God's chosen people Israel are not selected merely to receive God's covenantal benefits.