DEBATE REVIEW: White vs Breda (Moderator's Perspective)

Sometimes I feel the weight of the world fall down on me, so heavy

And I need a friendly voice with some good theology

Now because you'll be speaking, so I mix a manly drink, Pepsi and shoe polish

And I hit the YouTube link, don't say hit, that sounds violent And I feel my troubles all melt away, oh

It's your Calvinist Podcast with Keith Polisky Beers and boat rides, laughs till sunrise

It's your Calvinist Podcast with Keith Polisky He's not like most

Calvinists, he's nice Your Calvinist Podcast is filmed before a live studio audience

Good afternoon, I'd like to introduce myself, my name is

Doug Wilson and I'll be the moderator of today's debate Actually in all honesty, my name is

Chris Arnson, I'm the host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Hey guys, it's

Keith and welcome to your Calvinist Podcast Today's the day, we're going to be giving a review of the

James White -Jason Breda debate on the atonement And this is a unique review because I'm going to be doing so as having served as the moderator

But I'm not going to be doing it alone, thankfully, I'm going to have two really good friends with me to be a part of today's debate review

I have with me my very good friends, Jake Korn and Matthew Henson Jake Korn, of course, is the tag king and my fellow

Calvinist And Matthew Henson is the techromancer and of course the not yet Calvinist And that is how we're introducing him every time, even though he is wearing a shirt with all of our faces on it

And Uncle Rich's face and his shirt has the word Calvinist on it It's the biggest word, in fact, it's the bigliest word on the shirt

And so does mine, this is my gift from Claude Ramsey And you're wearing your

Five Point Calvinist shirt, Jake? That's right, it feels good to be back, man, I haven't been on for months

Yeah, I know, I'm so glad to have you guys on, I'm excited to do this And we have a lot to get to today, but I do have a few things

I want to say before we get into this First of all, I want to thank the conference, the people who put this conference on That is

Jeffrey Rice, those who know about his Bibles, he binds

Bibles He's one of the best in the business, I would say the best And Jeff is the one who is the pastor there, and Haps Addison and Braden Patterson They're the ones who put this conference together

They did the conference the year before I was there as a podcaster This year I was there as a speaker And I just want to say how much

I love and appreciate those brothers and all the hard work that they did Also want to say that the conference was great

There was three days of wonderful messages There were a lot of children there, the children sat through the messages

They did a great job, they were very well behaved Had a couple little boys who were so sweet to me They would come up and say, you're that funny guy

And they'd follow me around, and I was just very encouraged by the fact that they were enjoying some of the videos that I was putting out

And if you watch some of my interviews from the debate, you'll see the boys walking around the background One boy's even kind of making a little motion to get on camera, which

I thought was cute But everything was great, I was really encouraged Had an opportunity to spend some time with Leighton Flowers while I was there

And I will say this, from the outset I spent time with Dr.

White, spent time with Leighton Flowers, spent a little bit of time with Jason Brita And I was encouraged by all of it, there was no negativity, there was no ugliness

Everyone was very kind and sweet Jason was a nice guy, had a chance to talk to him before the debate

Talked to him a little bit about expectations and rules and stuff like that And as far as following the rules and everything,

I think he did a good job I think he was certainly respectful It wasn't anything like we saw in some previous debates where guys wanted

Dr. White to drink What was that one guy wanted him to drink? Was it

Drano or was it Bleach? Antifreeze Antifreeze, that's right After complaining about no visual aids,

Brother Man straight up brings a jug of Antifreeze right up to the debate And spills some of it everywhere, which is just special So also,

I want to say this As we talk about today's debate review, obviously I brought along two friends

And I'm very thankful one of them is a Calvinist and one's not a Calvinist I've watched a lot of the reviews so far And I've noticed there's been, in most of the reviews that I've seen

It's either been all Provisionists or all Calvinists that are talking I've yet to see one that sort of has a mix

And obviously Matthew is a not yet Calvinist, I joke about that He doesn't have antipathy towards Calvinism He's not a

Provisionist, so I didn't bring a Provisionist along I did try to at least balance this out with someone who may not hold the same view

As we do on this issue of the atonement Because I do think confirmation bias does play a big part

Of how people see debates, how people respond to debates And if you don't believe confirmation bias exists

Just remember that last night there was a State of the Union address And many, many people said Biden did a great job

And if that doesn't prove to you that confirmation bias exists Then I don't know what it is

I support my Commander -in -Chief and I will gladly do everything that he says Jake, for those listeners who are unaware

Jake is currently serving as a chaplain in the United States Army And has opinions that are largely governed by the

UCMJ So we'll just leave it at that And he's not going to elaborate on that And we're very grateful for your service, my friend

Yes, we are Also, I want to mention this Just one thing

About Jake, and I'll pull you back in a second About Jake, Jake is a graduate of Gordon -Conwell Seminary And later on, some of the

Greek text that comes up Is going to be part of our conversation And Jake has some thoughts about that So just if anybody questions, you know, well, who's this guy?

Well, this guy, he's a seminary graduate So he knows a little something And so, again, thank you,

Jake For being on today And sharing with us the wisdom that you have Gleaned from spending time in God's Word And Matthew, of course, is an elder

As I said, Matthew is an elder at his church So he's certainly no slouch either So glad to have both of you

But Jake, you were going to say, and then I'll let Matthew speak I was just going to say, let's not get anybody's hopes too high up I mean,

I'm eight years out of seminary I still use my Greek I tutored in Greek, I TA'd in Greek But, I mean,

I'm no James White Just, I think there might be some useful points for us to look at As it means for this debate Sure Matthew, you were going to say?

Yeah, regarding the not -yet -Calvinist point Which is funny, and I do like it as a show joke Something, I think, people get too binary in their thinking

And they think you're either a five -point Tulip -professing, like, very passionate

Advocate of, yeah, advocate of Calvin's soteriology And so when people ask me, why aren't you?

Or, you know, what is your position? My usual response is, listen, all five points That we, really, we were reading that back into Calvin He didn't separate them out that way

But we've sort of categorized them that way All five points absolutely have a grounding in truth

And there's a lot that I would agree with them It's just the extent and the application That I wouldn't go as far as Calvin necessarily did

And some modern -day proponents would So if the listener is expecting me to take the anti -Calvinist position

Then you're going to be disappointed Because it's not what I'm here to do I'm not defending or attacking a particular philosophy

I'm just going to take point by point and say Here's what this looks like to me So I just wanted to make that clarification Because in the past, we had a

Misconceptions on Calvinism show And 2 Peter 3 -9 came up and we diagrammed it out

Jake has this wonderful sentence diagram Where we're looking at, you know, the subject And the nouns and the verbs and all that And someone got very mad at me

He was like, I can't believe you didn't hit him on 2 Peter 3 -9 And I'm like, that's not what I'm here to do I'm not, like, this isn't a debate

I'm not here to take a different side I'm here mainly because I love my brothers here I love

God's word and I love debate And I'd like to talk about what we saw and all that So if you're looking for a food fight

Just go ahead and turn the podcast off now And dislike the video twice So there we go

You're on mute, buddy Thank you I was going to say, always, if you hit that thumbs down button

Make sure you hit it twice just to tell us how bad it is Yeah, absolutely Well, what we've done is we have put together

A list of actual clips from the debate This is directly from the speakers

And we're going to speak on them Some of them are a little longer than others And we're going to try to get to all of them

We're going to try to keep our comments Focused on what this is saying It's a lot, though And this is another thing

I haven't seen people do I don't know if there's anybody out there who's done that Who's actually taken clips from the debate I'm thankful for StreamYard I know that's something funny to be thankful for But I'm thankful for software that allows us to do this

So we can all see the same thing So I'm going to pull up First, this is

James White's central argument This is a two -minute video So this is going to take a minute to get through But this is the central argument that James White was making

The subject of the debate is Is the Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement Biblical and important?

Which is a very weird thesis We all agreed that it was kind of an odd choice For a thesis because it didn't say

Is limited atonement It said the Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement And, of course, Breida jumped right in Well, there is no one single

Reformed Doctrine And that was part of his argument And I get that, right? That does leave a lot open

But Dr. White is clearly arguing For limited atonement What we would call classic

Owenian I don't know if that's the right way of saying it But Owen's doctrine of limited atonement From death of death

And so this would be what he's defending here Who has the ability, the power, the capacity

He is able to do what? To save completely It can be ponte less

It can be completely or forever Obviously both of them imply the other To save forever or completely

Those who draw near to God Through Him This refers back to who was it Under the

Old Covenant When the offerings were being made The people had to come into the presence

Of the Lord They became the congregation of the Lord When those offerings were made

They weren't made for the Amorites They weren't made for the Babylonians They weren't made for the Egyptians They were specific under the

Old Covenant Therefore he is able To save completely

Those who draw near To God through Him Only Him Why?

How does he have this capacity? How does he have this power? Since he always lives to make

Intercession For them Now the high priest made intercession But he always had to do so with what?

The blood of the sacrifice But what did we see in Romans Chapter 8? And I believe

Paul Preached Hebrews in Hebrew And Luke wrote it In Greek.

That answers pretty much All the questions for me as far as that is concerned So I think this is the same theology

But it's all from the Holy Spirit Anyways, since he always Lives to make intercession

For them The work of intercession Is specifically For a specific people

And it results in Their salvation It results in Their salvation

It does not provide a means It doesn't just Simply make men savable

Notice the result is He always lives to make intercession For them and that's the ground

Upon which he has the capacity And the power to save Completely That's the perfection

Of the work of our high priest And the author continues on He then quotes from Jeremiah 30

Alright So that's as much of the clip as We're going to listen to We obviously hear the argument

That Christ intercedes only For the believers His atonement, his sacrifice is made

Only for the believers And I remember one person I saw that was arguing against White he was saying well in this

Scheme he's saying that Christ intercedes For unbelievers and the bible doesn't say

That it was a very kind of a convoluted Argument but You guys want to hear your thoughts

Just on White's opening there So He's referring to Hebrew 7 25

This is not one of the normal Texts that like people who Bicker about this online go to They go to places like John 644 you know and I'm kind of Impressed that James White didn't do that And like to get after What you're specifically saying

It's in Hebrew 7 25 the answer of Who is able to be saved

And who is being interceded for I don't think Dr. White Underlined it enough

He is able to save to the uttermost Here's the qualifier Those who draw near to God Through him

So it is qualified to whom Specifically this saving and intercessing

Action is given to I just don't think enough time Was spent on that because people who didn't

Understand the argument I think Were like you just said about that other gentleman Were saying well that could apply to other

People well no it can't that's the Classic Calvinist argument right It's the classic Calvinist argument against John 316 the whosoever

Well we have an answer for the whosoever The whosoever are the people who are regenerated We have an answer as to who those people

Are same here who will Be the people that will draw near to God Only those who are the elect

Which is why Dr. White Connects this to Romans 8 I would also connect it to John 6

The only ones who will draw near Are the ones that are given by the Father the ones that are called for Known predestined so What he's doing is he's drawing a longer

Argument he's not doing proof Texting he's not doing bits And bobs he's kind of taking

An overall discourse analysis Through the New Testament And drawing kind of The boundaries around answering the question

Who are the saved ones And I think this is a really brilliant place to do it But I understand why not everybody understood it

Matthew your thoughts Certainly the work Of atonement and intercession

Are intimately connected The act

On Yom Kippur Of the high priest going into The holy place and dying

If anything was out of If he had not completed his ceremonial rituals And cleansing and all that correctly

And making intercession but then having to do it Over and over and over and over again And the entire argument of the book of Hebrews Is that Christ is both a better high priest and a better sacrifice

Yes of course Hebrews is the most As far as I'm aware it's the most

Extended treatment on the subject Of atonement in the New Testament I think I don't know where else you could really

I mean like Jake said Maybe some verses here and there You know there's plenty about Christ dying for his sheep

And all that kind of thing but like The idea of Actual theonistos revelation

On atonement The best treatment of it is in Hebrews It's somewhat Unsurprising to me that that's where White wanted to go

I mean it was It was Romans 8 and then Hebrews 7 And both of those are intercessory

Texts and so That is a common place That he would go Without getting

Over my skis I would just say If I were to write the script for a James White debate On this subject

I would have Not to the level of detail of course But as far as broad strokes If I were to outline it in bullet points

His opening statement is exactly what I would have Expected him to make What does it mean to be over your skis?

I've not heard that before It means to be Overeager it means to be Your center of balance is too far forward

Because you want to get going but then you tumble Yeah It would be like I know that's not anything to do with the debate

I just anytime I hear Colloquialism I'm not familiar with I'm like What does that mean? I'll give you an example

If I pulled out my Strong's Concordance and tried to make Some super in -depth point About the particular tense of a verb

And we're going to get into a little bit of original languages later I'll just tell the listener And to you guys too I don't have the skills to do that I'm not versed in the original languages

I know a foreign language So I do understand some of the intricacies of translation And how you can lose stuff

So I'm familiar with that in concept But I would be getting out over my skis If I were to try and make

Some very in -depth Original language points let's say Speaking of Would you pull up my screen really quick?

Sure can do that right now Jake is running BibleWorks There you go So people who are a thousand years old will recognize this program

Which no longer exists anymore But I'm not willing to take out a second mortgage To get logos Here's the operative phrase

So you can see it here in the NASV And here it is in the Greek It's those who draw near Which is this participle

So those of you who like to argue about John 3 16 And the whosoever being a participle It's the drawing near ones

To God Those who draw near to God But here's what matters The through him

These are the ones who draw near through him This is a preposition that says It is through God's work that the ones draw near Not through their own belief

Not through faith provided to them I'm sure we'll get into provisionism later But this phrase right here

Matters so much for this argument And so I just wanted you to see that The King James renders it by him

Which is also in view Because that puts more of the emphasis On who does the drawing

On to God Now the provisionist might try to find A little like You know

Crack that they can say Yeah he provided a way I just don't think that's what the force of the preposition

Is saying So I wanted to point out this text Absolutely And I Can I take it down now

Yeah yeah And we'll bring it back up When we get to the next part

But real quick I did hear one argument In fact I think

If I remember correctly I think Leighton Tweeted this After the debate he said when

James White Made this argument the guy beside him I don't know who it is Said yes they're the ones drawing near So focusing again

On them doing the work of Coming to Coming to Christ So that's the argument that they make

At least not The argument that this person made And I guess Leighton You know thought it was

Worthy of retweeting But they're the ones doing it They're the ones drawing near I mean it really is it does come down to a

Question of who does Who is the one that's Active in the drawing God or The person is drawing himself or moving

Toward so That's just an interesting little side note There if you guys want to comment on that or we can move on To the next thing

Ultimately it pushes the burden back to having a doctrine of regeneration You have to have a

Doctrine of regeneration You can say all day long that this offer was made To everybody but the question is

Who will be the ones that take the offer It is the ones who are actively regenerated Or it isn't

But there's no middle ground between Those two options Also last night

We're doing this on Friday morning March 8th And it'll go out later today Lord willing But last night was

The James White John 6th debate That was funny Almost lost your background there

The James White Leighton Flowers John 6th debate

And this question did come up the question of Is conversion A I forgot whether he says was it a miraculous

Act or something but people can go watch the video and see It's interesting to hear how Leighton Responded to that is regeneration

A Is I forget a miraculous act or something

People should look that up because it's Interesting how he responded Alright so we're going to move on Now do you guys want to hear

Another part of James White or do you want to move on to Our First Jason Breda part

I think if possible let's Try and stay chronological in the debate So that the listener can I know we're taking

Excerpts but to try not to get out Of order in as far as how it was presented Because this was a traditional

Oxford debate in which opening Rebuttal cross Closing so yeah

And I've got it out of the way so this is Yeah Okay well let's just hear this only this only 45 seconds

So we'll listen to this part Of the coming work of Jesus Christ And so what that means is we have to bring

Together and keep together The biblical teaching of What the high priest did

So it's not just the offering Itself but then The intercession the fact

That the son appears in the Presence of the father in Our place and intercedes

For us what is he presenting What is he doing is that some Extra work beyond the cross

No it is the presentation Of that finished work and That means we can look at what the new

Testament teaches about intercession And intercession Is very clearly made for a specific

People for one real reason It always works Yeah that's the

Heart of his argument that that that really just Sort of reaffirmed what what he said And that I think that was the end of his

Opening statement so Go ahead I think what matters here and when

We get into Brady's argument what's most Important is Dr. White is making a biblical Theology argument entirely from The text this is an

Argument that goes that spans both testaments That which is what Hebrews is doing to Say here is how you understood

Atonement before and now How that has taught us something about what Christ Is doing it's all from the text

And it's it's a not a systematic Theology right because us Calvinists we get Blamed all the time for being obsessed with our

Systematic he's not making a systematics Argument he's making a biblical theology argument which Is about the continuity of The work over time

So and that's why this what He's saying matters right what did the High Priest of Israel accomplish

Well that's what Christ is accomplishing in A different manner and so to Track his argument over both testaments is to Understand that he's saying this

Is a Christological scriptural Framework right that That is entirely from the text

And when we get to Brady we're going to see he doesn't Mention a text for seven or eight minutes So I mean this just the heart of how

This argumentation is made I think makes a Big difference in how that plays out during cross Yeah Matthew any thoughts

Before I move on to Breda's Nope I think we're good Alright so here's how I broke

And we all had an opportunity to say what Parts we wanted to hear and You guys both sent me the ones that So here's how this is clipped out because I Have four of Breda's Statement Actually five in a row

And they're all kind of short but he The first one he mentions first generation Reformers the second one he mentions

Calvin's Greatest doctrine He mentions Owen But his central argument is

His argument about Romans And how Romans chapter one through Eight has

A focus on the Jewish people and There's an ambiguous antecedent in Romans Chapter one and So if I'm going to play one

Once it stops make any comments you want Then I'm going to go right to the next one because I'm just going to let you guys Say anything you want

But really getting to his central Argument is the goal so I just want people to kind of hear a smattering

Of what he had to say so here's his First clip Calvinist Dr. White is

Holding to that be limited atonement Is the correct position and For someone like myself a former

Calvinist Holding to an unlimited atonement Is not biblical nor Important or even a reformed position at all

However Did you know that scholars Say that the first generation Reformers held to a universal

Atonement and in fact not just Held to it but rejected limited atonement Many respected theologians

And historians such as Richard Muller affirm first generation Reformers such as Luther and Calvin Held to a universal atonement

Limited atonement Wasn't a part of any reformers theological Framework until Theodore Beza 23 years after Calvin died

And prior to Beza Most theologians Except for the exception of God's chalk

A ninth century monk supported Universal atonement And when God's chalk presented limited

Atonement it was rejected by three French councils So I actually feel confident in telling you that The first generation reformed doctrine

Of the atonement is biblical and Important because it emphasized what the early Church held on to and even what the

Early reformers held on to which was Unlimited atonement I do want to say

I said I wasn't going to say anything but I have to At least at this point I have to make And I know when it comes to debate

Matthew totally can eat my lunch As far as rules and things like that but this is Where I'm going to say as far as from the moderator's

Perspective this is why I think the Thesis was not great because The thesis left this open as an argument

Okay because when you say the reformed doctrine Of the atonement you then can go back And make the argument well this wasn't really

Calvin's argument or this wasn't really Luther's view or this wasn't The view that was held it should have been

Is limited atonement Biblical or whatever I think There should have been or particular redemption

Or something should have been in there because when you say The reformed doctrine of the atonement you get this kind Of argument that's my thought you guys

Oh oh oh oh Jake you're muted Start again

Sorry James White does say at one point Well why don't you just read our confessions Because there's a lot more of A unified view there and what it shows

Is an ignorance of how historical theology Is done I mean you know I Especially love the idea well nobody believed

This Calvinism stuff until the 15th century or 16th century Well yeah it's because we were you know killed on pain

Of death for disagreeing with the magisterium So no one was really allowed to disagree Until a certain point and then once They were allowed to disagree everyone

Came up out of hiding and very slowly Over time kind of started Redoing the idea of councils

Right why is Nicaea So late in the game well it's because they were Having to hide from the bad guys that were

Going to kill them and it's the same thing in the reformation So the doctrine of a little bit of atonement Does develop over time but that doesn't mean

That that if Calvin were involved In those later conversations he wouldn't have gone Along with it these things had to Be given some space and air to breathe

And so first of all That's a stupid argument before that Brayden literally says you know

You reformed guys something along the lines Of you know we get our argument From scripture but you guys get your argument from You know presuppositions and reading other guys

And then he goes on to make what Seven references to other people God's shock

Believe this Beza believe that Richard Muller believe this Like literally just appeal to authority

Appeal to authority so again That's just the you know the huge difference And one last thing I'll say is he keeps

Talking about universal atonement and Unlimited atonement and these are Really stupid phrases because Everybody who is an orthodox

Christian of any Stretch to include the synergist Believes in some sort of universal Or some sort of limited atonement

This is sprawl this isn't me right Everybody limits the atonement to some degree Otherwise if Christ's atonement

Was truly universal he would have Atoned even for the sin of disbelief in others Which is not something

That we see unless you're universalist So it's just a super Weak argument all around nobody in that audience

Cares what God's Chalk thinks Or how the doctrine developed over time And so this is just again this is

I don't know the man I don't know his education I know that he's primarily a counselor He's into biblical counseling

But what this shows is someone who doesn't really understand How historical doctrines develop Over time because we can say the same thing about The trinity we can say the same thing about any

Eschatology that it isn't until Big councils meet over time or Big ecumenical groups meet over time

That these things are better articulated Matthew? Yeah a couple thoughts on that Keith can you repeat the word for word

Can you repeat the thesis of the debate just so I have it clear The reformed doctrine of the atonement

Is biblical and important Okay yeah so Which again is not something

I think Even the last word important Important is A relative term what's important to me

Might not be important to you So I think even that In a debate thesis just seems Difficult to argue

Most debaters That I'll listen to usually in their intro Will say something like thank you all for being here We have a very important subject to discuss

That seems to be a fairly common intro And as a moderator when I'm doing intros I used to say thank you all for being here

This is a very important matter but I've stopped Doing that because one side's argument Might be the core of their argument

Might be this doesn't matter Right like it doesn't So I realized that I was undercutting one side

Or the other of the debate When I would intro that way so I don't do that anymore You know to me it seems

Kind of silly if you think a doctrine is completely Pointless and you're Showing up as an audience member to a debate

So that someone can prove how pointless this thing Is that seems a strange motivation But out of fairness I don't do that anymore

So Let's talk You know church history for a bit One of the critiques of dispensationalism

For instance is that this is a relatively Modern invention you have john nelson darby In the 1800s and prior to that His formulation really can't

Be found in church history And the dispensationalist will say well Calvinism couldn't be found before the 15th

And they'll say that's not a great argument and I agree On its face it's not but here's what A here's what a

A an argument that Says well this wasn't around until the X century should do is it should cause

Whoever hears it to say okay let's talk About why that is let's and that's what jake Was just saying is because we were prairie

Dogs getting our heads shot off every time we came Up out of the ground and so finally when there Was some safety uh you

Know nicaea could be convened and Then of course with rome Smacking down especially after the fourth

Ladder and council anyone who really disagreed With their theology the reformation Finally gave some space to breathe

You had uh the ad fontus Kind of back to the sources the greek New testaments were being printed the printing

Press a lot of of outside Things that god was was working to Make this happen occur

And so it's understandable why these things Don't necessarily come to light Until a certain time period now that Said um

Uh and oftentimes Um debate theses Between two people who really disagree

On something very much act like A negotiation between opposite Political parties and so you end up with a

Compromised bill um that Gets through congress or whatever and The issue with that is um

Scalia once said this about interpreting a Statute someone said well what if your interpretation Makes no sense and he goes well if the underlying

Law makes no sense then that's what i have to do My job is not to make a law Make sense because that presupposes

That whatever congress passes is always Logical and rational it's not so i Just have to work with what i've got and interpret it

As it says i'm not dunking on the Debate thesis but i will say if you have Imprecision in the debate thesis

It will result in two opening Statements that just diverge and diverge and Diverge and diverge and i'll say

This too um the The um The fact that a specific text

Wasn't identified so the james white Layton flowers romans 9 debate from 2015 or whenever that was

Gosh it's been nearly 10 years ago That one said does romans 9 teach Calvinism so that was targeted at a specific

Text and so if someone runs off and Goes not to say you can't bring in other scriptures But if you spend a majority of your time outside Of romans 9 that's a tell that you're not

Addressing the true subject of the Debate whereas this one though It says the reform

Doctrine of the atonement is biblical and Important you could i mean That there's a lot of freedom in that to address

What you wanted so unfortunately yes bretta And white were both using very different Methodologies but i i can't

Specifically say that bretta was breaking The rules of debate or he wasn't addressing The topic or whatever he was

Making a church history argument You could argue that the word biblical Was in there so he should have spent more time in the text

And i won't argue with that but Because the the Thesis did not him him in appropriately

He was able to do That now one last thing i'll just say The creeds have very

Particular phrasing for things And in fact one of the things with In the arian controversy

Was they kept having to make The creed a language more and more specific Because if you just said christ

And you know christ and and The son and the father of both god yeah Yeah we agree with that in in some sense but There was always some nuance so they had to Keep getting more specific more specific

More specific to finally pin them Down to something they would disagree with and That's where they stopped that's where the creed

Ended when they finally him to the men This thesis didn't necessarily Do that and force a debate to Go right to the text and so Again i'm not knocking

Anyone who was involved in the organization Of it i'm not saying that anyone had an Agenda in whatever i'm just saying

That it is unsurprising to me given The thesis that was given this is what We ended up with Yeah i don't know who i have no idea

Who came up with the thesis but i will Say this when i was talking to dr white before The debate we we had a nice Long conversation at my table he

Sat down with me and and i said Part of me feels like this Debate is actually going to be

About penal substitution rather Than about limited atonement and He kind of looked he said what do you mean i

Said well i said look at the thesis It doesn't say limited atonement it says the Reform doctrine of the atonement i said do you

Think he's going to come in and and Argue possibly against penal substitution And i nailed it because there's a portion

In the debate where he literally Says there's all kinds of views of the atonement And he brings up christus victor and things i don't

Have that clip but that's in there you can go back and find It so that really was It left a wide

Birth open for different Arguments and and really At the heart of it penal substitution could

Have been part of the debate And uh it wasn't the main part but Certainly is um when someone says

Well you know there wasn't any Limited atonement before beza there was No view of limited atonement someone could say yeah

Well there was no penal substitution view it was All christus victor it was all you know ransom Theory or whatever that preceded that And and and that's why white

During the cross x he says yes But this is you know do you not think the The apostles knew

What it was or no brita asked you not what if Do you think the apostles knew and he says yes Of course they did they knew what the

Doctrine of the atonement was yeah now I just i just wanted to say this because i've got the Transcript up here and and This is a little a little uh

Cut against dr. White was that in The romans 9 debate He and layton as they were going at it

Um no i'm sorry i'm Completely wrong it was not the romans 9 debate with Layton it was the steve tassi debate that Was the fun one okay so Yeah that was uh

Interesting uh he He asked tassi In cross is it possible you have any

Errors in your understanding of reformed theology And then tassi said sure i Guess so and then he said how would you know if You had errors in your in your understanding of reformed

Theology and he said well i would look At the scriptures then i would apply reason And white said that's a category

Error or he's in cross so he's asking Didn't you just make a category error trying To keep to the rules and he says wouldn't

It be to reference to the standard works Of reformed theology and so he Says i've read bushwell i've read and then he mentions

Ryrie which was kind of funny but anyway Um he lists off all these that he's Read okay so with that in mind

That was how white Pinned him on that he said in order to Understand reformed theology you would reference the

Standard works of reformed theology Well that's what That's what jason bretta did he

Addressed john owen he went back To the first generation reformers he He kind of Did what white was challenging tassi

To do now In his rebuttal and again i'm Looking at the transcript here james white in his

First 30 seconds or so he said And this is the youtube transcript there may Be some typological errors here so bear with me

He says um Let's see uh i This is james white speaking i never quoted

Calvin i didn't quote oh and i didn't quote any Of these individuals i gave a biblical presentation Um they're interesting to talk about I teach her church history so we could

Do it but i gave a biblical presentation Well okay But the problem is the word reformed

Was in the debate Thesis and so bretta was not out Of bounds to do what he did you can argue

It made for a poor debate you Can argue that they there were two ships passing In the night but he was doing

Exactly what james white challenged steve tassi To do reference the standard works of Performed theology now but But that then just shows

One that bretta calls himself I used to be a calvinist And he's definitely not reformed because As a reformed person

Where do we put our underline Of understanding for what The standard doctrines are it's

Not in the individual writings of any single person Reformed means having Confessions so You can't say

Calvin taught this swingly taught this Because we come together And we make confessions

And based on those confessions those are Doctrinal statements of agreement Of a reformed community so you can say calvin

Didn't agree with that but you can't say that's A reformed view a reformed view is what a Confession say and they do have more robust Uh drawing up of Limited tone well i

Think then the thesis should have made Reference and james white did a little bit But i think the thesis should have mentioned

Oh i agree 1689 something like that because again I was struck because i was i've been

Just anyway meeting Some some podcasts in my ears And stuff like that over the past couple of days

And so i went back and listened to that Because if you know the tassie debate it went all Over the place in terms of Different doctrines and stuff like that and and Watching it was the best example of two

People that were just Completely at odds with how you Conduct a debate and it wasn't even

Really a debate but but the point is that Cross x question caused a light bulb to Go off because i was like yes

James white said to understand Reformed theology wouldn't you reference The standard works of reformed theology and I do believe that's what bretta was trying to do so I i gotta give some credit to that All right i'm gonna uh

For the next there's two in a row They're both very short i'm gonna play Both of them and we can respond to Both so just and you're about to lose your

Background again jake All right the main reason i

Think that limited atonement holds so Strongly to men like dr. White is The fact that is the greatest theological

Position that supports calvinism's Highest theological position and That is unconditional election

All calvinists Agree on unconditional election And i think limited atonement is

Just the newest theological theory To support uh the Greatest doctrine for calvinism

Which is election i really Much of the arguments that Support limited atonement stem back to Owen's book and he presents

Theological and logical arguments But they're not biblical Literally every argument that Owen brings up in his book starts with the

General principle that determines The outcome of his presentation Before he takes you to the scriptures

To support it so Owen uses a deductive approach To interpretation not an inductive

Approach and a lot of Isogesis a few primary Examples are the covenant of Redemption all right so So two things there he says

That the reason why we hold the limited Atonement is because it supports unconditional Election i want to speak to that but I know jake you have something to say i'll let you go first But then he also mentions owens

Um basically saying Owen was a bad expositor because He said that owen uh

Started with a presupposition and then Went back and and read it into the text And so i mean that's that's classic

Isogesis so uh I have a thought on the um The unlimited atonement thing but go ahead jake

Well yeah so he he Calls the greatest Calvinist doctrine or whatever he says

Is unconditional election which again just Shows he was never a calvinist because That's not true the greatest

Calvinist doctrine the thing that i think Is the foundation upon which everything is built Is total depravity that we have

Total inability the entire Provisionist argument falls apart If total depravity is true

Because that means nobody is able To receive the Provision given by god

Um and just to touch Back on the clip before that when he's listing all These people calvin didn't believe that calvin didn't

Believe that bayes didn't believe that nobody believed it Well nobody believed provisionism either so let's Calm down that was invented 22 seconds

Ago so again that's a stupid argument Right but excuse me it's the traditional View that's what they call it to get

Sure it is yeah they have to they have to Resurrect pelagius and make pelagius a good guy To make that argument make sense but anyway

Um the concept that The we're doing this to support unconditional Election means you don't understand reform theology

It is man's inability that Requires the need for a limited Atonement and an unconditional election

And irresistible grace it is man's Inability to to take Uh acceptance of Of uh the offer of Salvation so again it's

Just a complete misunderstanding of who he's Up against or or i Never take anyone seriously when they say i used to be

A calvinist literally ever Should they perhaps just say they don't Understand reform theology and move along And move along it would say it was all a lot of time

It is funny though that you Point that out i i i smiled When you said it but you're right none

Of them none of them were provisionists either You know so to say you know they were you Know they didn't hold to this well yeah well they didn't hold

What you're saying either and that was that was Funny i thought that was funny all right So with that um i just Want to make this point and and this is gonna make

Some people's head explode and i know that i'm gonna get Some emails about this and that's fine Just know that i you know if it's

Very very long i won't read it if it's short Enough i might read it um just Just know yeah and he will forward

Them to jake to not read too Yeah yeah i just remember If you need to call me my number is 9 -1 -1

So yes that's it that's it Anyway so uh I I'm just i'm convinced i said

This yesterday when i was teaching because i was Teaching on uh in a group I said i think that limited atonement

Is the um is the one Doctrine that i think should be Embraced by both uh

Calvinists and non -calvinists together Because as i understand limited Atonement and what we're saying by Limited atonement i don't understand

Why it can't be affirmed Necessarily by someone who Even would hold to the view that A person can come by their own

Power or under their own strength or And i don't want to misrepresent The idea that they have the ability to receive

The gift that god has provided either Way the atonement is limited To those who believe and that's the point right

It's those who believe who receive The benefit of christ saving work And if somebody goes to hell they do

Not receive the benefit of the blood of the Cross which was was paying the penalty For their sin they're going to pay for The penalty of their sin in hell and so Either way i just don't see why

Someone would say the reason why you believe In limited atonement is because it supports Unconditional election i say no i believe in limited atonement

Because even if i weren't a calvinist I would have to believe in limited atonement jake said It earlier limits everyone limits

The atonement as you know we parrot sprowl Who said that it's just How and in what way but The the idea that this

This only exists to support Unconditional election i think Is a i just Think that's a bad argument in my opinion

And again i'm speaking you know You know that that's my thought So and i know matthew you you probably

Don't hold to the same view of limited atonement That i do but am i being Illogical to say that that That even if even as a non calvinist

I think someone could hold that perspective Um Well to to say

That the atonement So so bretta broke down i think it was It was

Uh extent application There were a few different words that he used to Surround the atonement and i think anybody

As jake said earlier i'm not Going to repeat it um anyone Who's not a complete universalist

Which even someone that many of us would consider Way off to our left like nt writes not a Universalist even Explicitly denies that and Um So Uh yes

Everyone limits the atonement in every Christian i think every orthodox christian Uh limits the atonement in In some way um at Some point right so Um you there's also

The the logical construction i've heard if He died for all the sins of all the people if he died For some of the sins of all the people if he

Died for all the sins of some of the people you know Etc um and and i think that's Useful a useful way to think about it too

Um i will say That hebrews text those who draw near To god right because that's what that's what

Layton and the others would jump on and Say well see you have to you have To draw near to god or else it doesn't you know it doesn't

Count um And there's an immediate anthropology Question there because Uh in reform theology um

Nobody does that unless the spirit Does something first and Uh and it's

A 100 percent of the people The spirit draws come and zero percent Of the of the people that the spirit does not

Draw do not come and so It is it does get into An anthropological argument like jake

Was saying it gets back to the t not the U necessarily um Uh but But the the the acrostic

Is intimately connected i mean Things start getting weird when you start knocking Out different points which is why i think

That the four -point calvinists such as They are called are In a weird spot um

I don't feel like i think a I think a full arminian or even A provisionist theology

You know though they have their Issues is more consistent than the four -point calvinist I'll just say that much

Um uh Yeah i had some more On that but i think i'll leave it there for the moment

All right so we're Going to get to brita's central Argument and this is this is the central Argument this is where he's going to talk

About romans and he's going to talk about The ambiguous antecedent get Get tighten your seats

Folks because we're just getting started We've been going for 48 minutes but we're going to keep going Because this is the part where We're going to actually look at some of the original

Language uh with jake and we're going to talk A little bit about this but for this Uh we're going to listen to two

Quick clips here the first one is on His central argument then we'll go into the next part Gentile and every believer

In general as the trinitarian harmony would Suggest paul is actually Speaking directly to his jewish audience

Here in chapter 8 But not just chapter 8 actually From the chapter 1 all the way back

So not only If this is true not only does this Go against the trinitarian harmony Theory it actually goes against the golden Chain of redemption and who the elect

Are so i tell you this is massively Big let me show You why and how all right

Before we get to the ambiguous antecedent The argument he just Made and he does make this argument through His opening statement is that really

We have missed the understanding of The golden chain because it really Isn't about everybody

It's only really god's relationship with The jewish people And i'm not trying to misrepresent him i'm just I sat behind him for you know

His 20 minute opening statement and i was really Trying to keep up with what With the time but also trying to keep up with what he was

Saying so that i made it make sense And i still don't know for sure Because later on he would say well it's not

Everything to the jews because certainly this is the gentiles Certainly this is to everybody So it just seems like You know sort of a mishmash

But thoughts I mean i'll get into it more once he makes

His point about the antecedent but What overall i want to keep People's minds on is the

History of how new testament letters Were presented so this Was a letter that was written to the church

It's not like there was a printing press So if there were a thousand christians in rome There weren't a thousand letters

There's usually one with some copies That somebody would read To the entire congregation

All at once so all church Of rome were all together on The lord's day i'm going to read you our letter from Our brother paul and it's not like hey

Greeks leave the room I'm just going to read the jew part and then Jews y 'all leave the room gentiles Come back i'm going to read your part

That's just that's so Ahistorical and ultimately Again i'm really not trying to be

Insulting to brita he really loves the lord And i love biblical counseling But he appears

To not be seminary trained So what we learn In seminary not just greek and Hebrew like words and letters

But we learn how discourse works It's called discourse analysis it's very Important for new testament letters

How is paul framing his argument And there are times he makes a good Point about roman 7 1 where he says

Right now i'm talking just to the jews But that's just for a sentence That's not for the rest of of the chapter

Or the next three chapters he's just saying Hey this point i'm talking to y 'all Um but overall

The point that he's making Fails when you when you diagram The discourse it utterly falls

Apart this is somebody who doesn't understand How greek construction works and and we'll get more Into the specifics of it later but keep your eye

On the prize who was The letter of romans written to writ large To the church at rome

Read to all of them at one time I think for interpretation purposes

Um i'm just Going to say effectively what jake said In different words something that has really challenged

Me when i'm going to teach or preach any text Is would What you just preached

Make sense to the people that this was Written to would the Romans who received paul's letter

Have understood Um what You just said um

And would they take the same Application that you did uh And and that's that's very

That's a critical point in your in Your hermeneutic because again i'm Reading transcript here um he says

He says Uh there's a Dividing line in the book to the jew first and Also to the greek romans 8 is not speaking

Jew and gentile and every believer in general as The trinitarian harmony would suggest paul's Actually speaking directly to his jewish audience here in Chapter 8 but not just chapter 8

Actually from chapter 1 all the way back so Uh if this is true not Only does it go against trinitarian

Harmony theory it actually goes against the golden chain Of redemption and i'm just thinking like It goes it goes

Again how do you go against The golden chain of redemption because This argument if and And i don't want to touch it too much but The letter to the hebrews is obviously

Written to jewish christians but if we're just gonna say Well that was written to jewish christians then why is it even In our bible like what do we need it for Then and Hey you're reading other people's you're reading

Other people's mail bro that's right yeah By the dispensation list don't don't read other People's mail well or the other thing

To say like yeah the pastoral Epistles well these were just written to timothy So they don't have any application to us

Like i'm sorry what You know and and so i'll just If you if you say hebrews

Was written only to the jews and romans one through Eight was only written to the jews then you have Gutted the new testament's

Teaching on intercession About all you've got left is there's one Mediator between god and man the man christ jesus

That's about all you've got if you're just Going to to put this in the Jews only you know category

So um he'll develop His argument further but uh yeah Let's let's listen to that as we do

Yeah i i only want to i want To add one thought before we go and i know We're just uh

Keep just things keep coming to Mind and this is this you made a good point Matthew you said if uh if this

Didn't make sense to the original audience then Then then we have to consider that i want to add A thought to that If other sermons that you have

Preached that this would That your argument against this would undercut Other sermons then

You got to consider that too and here's here's What i mean by that i don't know Jason brita but i know he's been i mean he's been

A christian for a long time he's been in ministry For a long time and i have to Assume that at some point he has preached

Romans 8 28 as A comfort that You know god is working all things together for Those who love him and if and If and if you take the the teeth

Out of the golden chain and say well this really isn't About us this is just about the jews Then then then you're also you know

How many sermons and i think godly Goodly sermons have been preached on the Comfort of romans 8 28 for all

Believers that god is working together all Things for your good you Know you're you're you're

Cutting off your nose to spite your face That is a colloquialism that i think Really could go along does that make

Is that making sense what i'm saying that that You're you're you're Absolutely saying is true what you're saying

Is true it might prove too much you might be Too much yeah but But even if what you're saying is true it's

That old uh satan brugge Meme right it's Even if what you're saying is true like when people

Say well you know romans 9 is Is not about individuals it's about nations And so i says well that's a lot of individuals

Then you know like it Even if that were true it still has Implications on the individual

So even if this were true that it's just About jews as james white says we better Hope that that's still true about Gentiles and then there's this other

Argument where people go well you know That's just for the jews Um that wasn't really meant for us like when people say

Oh well you know matthew the book of matthew Was only written for the jews Okay but like i'm not

Jewish people well you know Because it starts with the genealogy And so that's just because a jewish audience

Would understand that um gentlemen are either Of you jewish no Do you get the genealogy of matthew

Go what do i do i don't understand This what am i gonna do with this We're gentiles and we understand what's

Being said there in fact i would make the other Argument with matthew to say matthew is Catching the gentiles up like hey

Here's some headlines about the past that y 'all Want to get on board with and understand So again like Uh even if that were true

It doesn't mean that gentiles can't Understand synthesize and have implications For them which we'll see isn't the

Case as we get into roland's 113 Well i think that's why luke Records stephen's sermon in act 7

I mean to the audience which Was the pharisees you know the sanhedrin Sanhedrin specifically

He's just summarizing the old Testament bro they've got it all memorized what's The point of telling them this story what's the point

Of doing all exactly But luke had a point in recording All that now at the end stephen sticks the

Knife in and says and you killed you know the The messiah that was coming and that's when they Stoned him but what it's like 40 verses of Summarizing the old testament all the way from the

Patriarchs forward why even record that well because I think luke knew When he's writing to theophilus

Which is either A person or just a generic title of A friend of god He knew that This was going to be something that would be useful to Both you know to both jew and greek

I've got Something else but i'll we'll move on because we're yeah Go ahead Theophilus was almost the name of my son

Theodore we i Argued because my wife was called theo i said We go theophilus but she she

Was stuck with theodore so so Then we could say that We could say that luke acts only applies

To him and we don't have to worry Only written to your son To my 19 month old

Child that's right that's right All right here here's the central or here's the Ambiguous antecedent this one goes for A whole minute so it's a little longer video

But this is where we're gonna spend some time verse 13 It says i do not Want you to be unaware of Brothers that often i have

Planned to come to you and have Been prevented so far so that i may Have some fruit among you

Also even as among The rest of the gentiles Now you must affirm that there

Is an ambiguous antecedent in Verse 13 and this happens When this happens context

Defines who the audience is and Obviously this is crucial for biblical interpretation Many scholars

As well as calvin in his commentary skip past Or miss the ambiguous antecedent And i do think this is how a flawed

Interpretation gets passed on to others And they get popularized and then they get Assumed on as the truth

Paul expresses in ephesians and colossians And also at the end of romans His desire for all to understand

The mystery of the gospel That the gentiles are being grafted In if you go to chapter 16 of romans verse 25 and 26 in a paraphrase it says the

Revelation of the mystery has been Made known to all the gentiles Man And then matthew you came back

I was totally going to do a rapture joke He stepped away During the video and i was totally

Hoping your seat would be empty by the time That would mean that i was the only true And i'm not dispensationalist but i mean i was

The only true Is it only this music get Raptured is that yes I thought

I'm sorry all right guys Romans 1 13 There's an ambiguous antecedent

Uh take us home I can't i can't with This all right first of all yeah

Go ahead and show the screen it is not ambiguous It is not ambiguous It's right here james white says it

To all who are Beloved in rome Grace to y 'all

Okay grace to you all And from then on every time the second Person plural is used it

Refers to this audience that Does not change so when we get To let's let's take a closer look at seven here

I wish i had uh john piper's Little black screen with the Highlighter okay so To the those who are beloved

In rome This is really old This is okay no this is old

Ancient Yeah um grace To you all okay pronoun

Personal dative plural Referring to those who are beloved in rome That does not change in six

Verses there are no Other changes in the who you All you have to go to the nearest

Antecedent the nearest Antecedent in this Discourse is all so When he says brothers in thirteen

Right and i do not want you to be unaware brethren It has not changed Since to all who are beloved

In in rome now that tracks Grammatically that tracks theologically Paul would consider all the beloved

In god in rome to be his brothers So then he says and i'll get to the kicker That you all is there right there

You all you all You all and here's The kicker even as Among the rest of the

Gentiles that is so key So he's talking to y 'all as Compared to this other group who are the

Rest of the gentiles well does what does that mean That means some of the gentiles Are included in that you all

It must be otherwise The rest of the gentiles Would not have any structural

Sense in that sentence so 113 has not Changed the antecedent of the

Second person plural i don't Know where he got that i don't know how He supported that dr.

White who knows Greek a thousand thousand thousand Times better than me understands That better than i do but i think he was

Just so like startled by The silliness of this argument he Had a hard time formulating a cogent

Response because it's so Silly it doesn't make any sense Because it's not derived from the greek

It's not derived even from the english Grammar um that's Just how discourse analysis works

If you wanted to add an Antecedent to that you all That that second person plural

Coming from somewhere else We don't get to one of those until Later in the argument so that You wouldn't apply that previous in the argument

Does that make sense um so It's not ambiguous Nobody thinks that anybody who supports

That does not understand this Now let's listen not Everybody needs to know greek not everybody

Needs to do that but i wouldn't debate Dr. White Make my central argument about Grammar and Do so without greek

That's that's like going To d -day with a super soaker Um you're gonna be ashamed

Pretty quick i love That analogy d -day with a super soaker

I'm gonna write that down that was a good one Going to d -day with a okay All right matthew uh

You want me to leave this up or take it Down i gotta know um Well i'll just say in a larger

Sense the entire book of Romans bretta was correct in that it Is written as a message of reconciliation

Between jew and gentile i mean that that is True um Ephesians has a lot of that language

Tearing down that dividing wall of course but Romans itself Paul If Romans 1 through 8 is simply

Written to the jews then the entire Argument in in chapters 1 through 3 is completely

Pointless chapter 1 Paul addresses the universal sinfulness of man Chapter 2 he turns to the jews and says

You know you had an advantage in that you had The oracles of god and yet that's not enough Apparently because you also

Didn't keep the law and then 323 And i think james white made that point the whole all Sin and fall short of the glory of god you know we have

That on our romans road but the point In the in the argument is all Being the jew and the gentile

Require something To make them right before god And then he starts

In chapter 4 about it's it's Faith it's it and he makes the argument From abraham and so all i

All i gotta say is when Let me put it this way When i am talking

To a potential uh to a New christian about about them getting baptized Um you basically

Cannot give that a full treatment without Spending at least some time in roman 6 You you almost have to Now Under bretta's argument

I guess i'd have to first ask excuse Me are you a jewish of jewish Heritage or are you a gentile because that's

Going to depend that's going to change where i can Go to teach you about baptism like It doesn't

Right like that doesn't make any sense Um if if chapters One through if chapters one through eight

Are written just to jews And then he kind of backpedals on that a little bit And says well there's stuff we can glean from it or Whatever um he

Turned into a little bit of jello and you couldn't really Pin him down on that because i think that When when white just pushed back even

The littlest bit um it was a Needle to a balloon i mean there just wasn't anything Behind it he couldn't he couldn't

Back that point up and so you shouldn't make it Now white made quite a bit of hay In the rebuttal about how dangerous this would

Be and i i do agree with it uh That it would be but on cross man It did not hold up very well

Yeah I i want to say this the the I think

That um As since we're talking about ambiguity I think

That um jason's Opening statement was Somewhat ambiguous because i

Sat there i've listened to it twice i Listened to it live obviously Staring at the back of his head and then i

Listened to it again and i Still don't know exactly what he was saying Because i think if we were to say

Jason you're saying the First eight rom first eight chapters Of romans are to the jews

I think he would say well not really that's not Really my argument i'm just saying That that it yeah

Again that's why i think it's ambiguous if The issue if there's an issue of ambiguity here it's an Issue of what are you saying are you saying

Because when he's challenged on that later like you said In cross he's like well no obviously there are Implications here obviously this is for this and this is

Obviously this is to a gentile or this is That and it's like okay so The whole nailing jello right

You you you you're making an argument I'm not even sure you understand Much which makes me wonder

Where the yeah where the argument came From where where is this an argument he Arrived at exegetically or was this an

Argument that somebody said hey here's something you Can use to fight this battle here's a Tool here's a here's a sword that you've not yet Wielded but i'm going to give it to you

You know like me i i mean i'm A shooter right but i shoot with my guns when Somebody hands me their gun i don't always shoot

As well as someone else's gun because my Guns fit my hand and i know how to i Know how to manipulate my guns

Now i can pick up somebody else's gun that's similar and I can shoot it but if it's not my gun it's Probably not going to hit the same way

And so i know that may be A bad analogy but you get i totally Agree though i got i completely

Agree that he he Read this argument of someone else Liked it and Was not fully

Equipped to make it i mean that's just My my take on it as well is that Maybe somebody else

Was trying To make a similar point and Did so using roman 7 -1 as a turning point

Which i still don't agree with but You know Because you don't get that term ambiguous

Antecedent if you're already Not well versed in How the greek construction is going to Work here so i think he read a theory

Of somebody else's that maybe hasn't Been fully tested or fully vetted or no Idea where it came from and just wasn't

Comfortable enough in his own skin to defend It super well it is my opinion There's this

Meme picture that i posted recently About people using very harsh Biblical language it's a picture of Someone handing a what appears to be like A colt 45 to a raccoon

And the raccoon is just looking up at them like With wide eyes like what is happening while they're Just handing them a gun

And you know if you don't Know how to wield that properly it's Going to be a very bad thing so i've

Even asked you two gentlemen who have done some Original languages work i've said i Want to deepen my understanding and my ability

To take apart the scriptures but I don't want to be that first semester Greek guy how far do i need to go

To avoid that and jake gave some Answers on you need to get to at least intermediate And you know some stuff like that which is very helpful

I wouldn't want to A little greek's a dangerous thing And i wouldn't want to i wouldn't want to do

You know i wouldn't want to Misuse it in that way Two thoughts on this

Witnesses are a great example of that Yeah yeah jehovah's witnesses Are a great example of that they have a little

Bit more greek than your normal congregate And they completely misuse it in a wrong way Yeah Two things i just want to say on that So i mentioned him earlier

And this is very much Relevant to the whole nailing jello To the wall nt wright

Was asked one time you know what do you think about Predestination and so he goes to ephesians One and romans eight and he he talks

About and his argument is Kind of the same thing now he's The infamous example of nailing jello to the wall

Sometimes he says well i think What you have in romans eight is A condensed telling of the story of israel

That's the golden chain those whom he predestined These he also called these he goes That what that really is that's a condensed version

Talking about israel and i was like Okay but it's not Just that is it like but that that's

Where he stopped is is i guess to Avoid the further implication And not make concessions to Say reform theology he just said well

I think this is really about israel which is Not correct i don't think And that's kind of what bretta was

Doing so maybe that's where he got it from i don't know Now just One one other last thing and then i'll be

Done on my soapbox here something White will often say and some of My calvinist friends i love you dearly you

Too would never do such a thing is That whenever someone has A disagreement with a particular part

Of reform theology the answer is Well that's because it's your prideful Self and you just can't stand the

Idea that you're not in control And it's the it's the the Man's and james says this quite

A bit about latent flowers but i've had this Accusation made against me is anyone Who doesn't see it this way it must

Be because they demand to stay in Control and and they're just You know they they can't help but The idea that they don't have

They're not ultimately driving the train here And no that's not That's not always the case um there are

Honest objections i think to certain parts of Reform theology i think that The anyone who disagrees with me

Clearly is just self focused Is a really unfortunate argument tactic But it does

Happen sometimes and i think this Debate was an example of that because You have almost like in um

Looney tunes you have where They're reaching for just anything they can Like a street sign and a baseball bat

And a toaster just to whatever they've Got handy just to beat the other character with I think this romans 138 is really all about the jews

I think that just happened to be the toaster That was sitting nearby that fretta wanted to pick up And try and throw i i do

I really do think that Especially since some of its dave hunts Argumentation he is

Just grabbing whatever he can to Avoid the implications of reform theology I don't think everyone who objects does that But i do think that was going on in this case

Yeah i felt Like he wanted to ultimately in his Clothes he wanted to show boat Provisions that's where he wanted to go

Because at the end that's what he talked about Closing and so this is just how he got to That um which i just it was

It didn't work it's just Linguistically not there sorry So we've got

Two more they're very short Um and these do sort of Hit on what you just Said jake and that is the um

Sort of the last bit Of brita's presentation 222 uh i

Didn't put any of the cross i don't Think this maybe i did no this Is this is the

Well i'll let you hear this is a Comment that's very common There's one verse that contains every

Aspect of the atonement john 3 16 For god so loved the world The intent of the atonement

That he gave his only begotten Son that whoever Extent of the atonement

Believes in him should not perish But have eternal life Application of the atonement intent

Extent and application all in One verse I love

It because he just it's a bold move And and and yeah Well yeah

You caught me i had never considered that Verse before No not even that i i agree

I agree with both Of you it's a bold move you're throwing out the verse We've never thought of right no but Here's the thought he just made my point

Because he said intent Object And extent maybe what was the second one it was

Intense Something and then extent right But his word his third word was extent

Whosoever believes that's my point It's not it doesn't extend To everyone it extends to everyone who

Believes john 3 16 teaches Exactly what we're saying everyone Believes and so like Yes, okay stop

Agree and sit Down because that's that's the point right Like you can say

In percent Yeah, and there's Calvinist who would say That there is a universal aspect to The offer of the atonement or Something like that man not not not that we

Necessarily jake you and i would use that language There are some who would that they would talk about the The the good faith offer the gospel

Things like that the the general Offer the atonement uh or the or The or the the the salvation you

Know that that but in but at the End of the day it's those who Believe who and he said that's

The extent he literally just agreed With the Our position he was going

Against i know he would disagree with what i'm saying but That's that's how i saw that i was like i was like Dude you're there you're

Right where Yeah, okay Y 'all may y 'all may go

Had to have my moment Well i think you would play Every Calvinist Go ahead

I think i think i'll go This would agree with john 316 I'm gonna keep going

But agree with john 316 um we just Have the answer for who are the

Ones who believe the burden is On god The burden is not on the presenter

Of the gospel to be winsome Or convincing and to get To your point keith

Um that there Are roles within the trinity That make the good faith offer

Of atonement able to Be good faith In and we never they didn't go to john 644 and they should have jesus has no

One can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him So christ

Makes the offer of the atonement and it Is the father who sends The holy spirit to do the work

Of regeneration to draw Them to the son the son Is not dying um

I think with with in Mind who is coming to him it is the Father's work through the

Spirit that determines who Will be the ones who believe um i wish They had spent more time on on john 644

Um but but Just so silly to Come to james white with john 316 just such a silly strategy

Because he could Have been a lot meaner than he was Uh in responding to that part all

Right matthew you may go i think i think Bretta probably would back up Into six into 15 rather you know

Just as as moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness so the son of man must Also be lifted up for God loved the world in this way

As i've heard it probably Better translated not so much In terms of degree but so in terms

Of of i don't know if Methodology is the right word but in in Terms of uh qualitative He loved them in this way

And that's where the rest of the verse Goes um I don't want to put words in His mouth but i would imagine that That okay well then what's the what's the

Analogy or what's the old testament reference being made Here it's when the serpents are going And biting people in the camp and then god

Makes a a way by which you can be Saved moses crafts this golden snake And he holds it up and whoever looks upon the snake

Excuse me is Healed of the the venom Or the snake bites or whatever and so Then the argument is well you have to look

You you have to do something Right you have to be the one who looks you Have to that sort of thing

Um as we look at Other atonement passages you look at Yom Kippur or even passover

Which i think there's Elements of the cross that are both passover Because that's the last supper that they were

Celebrating and also day of atonement You have yeah i think you have two different Aspects in it

In passover Um there's this graphic goes around every time Near easter which i really really like and it says

That god didn't check Who was worthy um as long As the blood was on the door they were

They were saved right and Uh you know it didn't matter Um whether the person who did it really

Believed or not Like they they could have still been scared out of their Mind i think i don't want to say that it didn't matter if they

Believe or not they could have been scared out of their mind Not sure if it was going to work but the blood was sufficient As long as it was on the door post

Well again from the provisionist perspective They would say but they had to do something they had To put the blood up there and if they didn't put the blood

Up there then they were you know then they were They were cursed with the death of the firstborn And that's true as far as it goes

But then it does get back into the t and the u It's like well then who is the one who would Believe in john 3 16 who is

The one who would put the blood up there The reform position as far as i understand It would be only those who have been

Drawn by the spirit or Drawn by the father By the mechanism of the spirit and a regenerated

Heart if i've said that accurately Yeah I want to well You mentioned

Okay jake you mentioned Being drawn by the father I just i just found this i threw

This in here while you were talking This is for those who don't know There's a new book and notice

The title the title Of his new book is is is drawn By jesus this is late and i'm just noticing

I haven't read it it's got some funky Photoshop like distortion Going on right there by the the title on The spine i'm kind of wondering what's up there that's

That's oh it's because it was a 3d Photo and i did a screenshot that's my okay All right it was uh yeah yeah it was it was

One of those photos that moves uh you know I see it always makes me feel always makes Me feel like i'm underwater yes but the title

Is drawn drawn by jesus So i i can I again i have not read one word of the book

But my only assumption is That because i know it has to do with john 644 john 665 that That that that jesus draws

Everybody but it's a point that you made Jake that it's actually the father who is The one in the trinitarian

Uh economy it's the Father who draws it's the son who redeems it's the Spirit who regenerates you know those through The power of the spirit right

So yeah he's probably referring To john 12 where jesus says if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men

To myself but there are Reformed answers To that that are that are i mean perfectly

Well exegetical but i would assume that's Probably where he's drawing that distinction It did be in good charity with what i'm

Guessing is his his work Sure sure i just thought it was interesting That what you said in the title i don't know how

Many people saw that and hey and layton if you're Watching this and and and there's a pretty good chance You will uh then

You know uh i just plugged your book Uh i i didn't tell people not to Buy it i said here i haven't i have not

Read it so i can't endorse it or unendorse It i'm sure we would disagree but i will Say this uh if you want to know what layton has

To say you can get it from His uh his book All right and the debate he did

With dr. White last night we'll uh maybe We'll come back in a few weeks and review that guys if You guys want to do this again

All right so uh last one This one is the one that i thought was the The yeah well this

One is this one is the one uh You know and again i'm not not trying to be Negative or ugly or anything

I thought this one was a cheap shot Uh this is one that i thought was Unnecessary but um and i also

Think it's a bad argument that's not that's the Reason why i bring it up but i'll let you guys Uh this is our last video of the day

Um fascinating that martin luther Wrote a book called on the jews And their lies when he was

He was criticized for this for it being Uh hateful rhetoric and Anti -semitic uh not only

Luther but his hero augustine wrote A book called against the jews And could their disposition

Against the jews and the Influence the great influence that both Of these men had

Changed the course of christian teaching And the and the way that people interpret the Bible i think very much yes

So i All right so I'll let you guys go first but i have i

Have some real thoughts on this but Uh but y 'all go first Hello I got you buddy hello

Um yeah Uh i i have a screenshot that i have

Shared if you want to display that that this Was my thought on that I don't oh oh i i didn't see it okay

That that is my thought on That um the face That james white is making yes uh

For the list of james white is doing the double Handed interlaced finger forehead Face palm um

This is uh this is an advanced technique Uh that he's using here so there you go Um All right yeah um

Okay so Uh when silly people Say silly things online Um especially the cringe

Lutherans and i'm not putting all the lutherans In that bucket i'm saying the cringe lutherans And if if the shoe fits

Um then i'll just let that be Uh well you know luther believed this This and this so why don't you believe that and Roman catholics like to do that too i'm like yeah

Yeah luther was wrong And i can say that Because we are sola scriptura affirming

Protestants and like Yeah studying the people who were in That era and doing that thing is useful and All that but ultimately the scriptures

Reign and so if luther was Wrong about something that's fine because He couldn't reform the whole church in one

Generation it took time He was he moved the ball forward massively Uh and we're thankful for him

But just like athanasius had some Whackadoo theology on exaltation Just like gotts chalk probably had some things we didn't

Agree with um just like Even uh you know even 21st Century preachers that we tend to like especially

Your your more reformed guys at Shepherd's conference or whatever Um and i'm geez this is a hand

Grenade but up until like a about six Months ago or three months ago whenever It was um people would put allister

Begg in that category and now there's all sorts of varying Opinions about him um It's it's okay to say people had

Mulligans it's okay to say That uh people made mistakes And if you're attempting to do a character

Assassination On luther first off Very interesting target why would you not go

After calvin if you're in a debate on reform Theology right like all of us Would at least trace most of our

Protestant beliefs back to what Luther did and and a lot of the you Know things about that but this

Weird like Anti -semitism accusation against Luther in a debate on limited atonement

Makes absolutely no sense to me and further If you really want to get to some true anti -semitism Look at johan x book holy

Toledo that was way worse And he was luther's nemesis throughout most of The reformation period so like I i i

I'll say this keith i Respected i respected immensely the job that you did As moderator and if there had been an understanding

Of active moderation earlier in the debate I would have stopped it right there and i'm not i Don't think there was i'm not saying you should have intervened

But if when i when i talk To debate participants and i say do you want me To jump on him if he breaks debate rules

Most of the time they say no let you know Let it let the cream rise to the top But if it was to be a tightly

Moderated debate i would have i would have Fouled him and said nope get back on the topic right now That's dumb you said holy toledo

And that makes me so happy it's just Such a that that's such a great little Holy holy toledo i haven't heard that in a while So i just i mean it made me smile

So i love you so much all right Jake so Yeah so if i understand

The point he's trying to make if i'm Being generous I think what he's saying is

Like now my Argument about the roman Letter being written to jews is not

Popular and the reason it's not Popular is because A seed of antisemitism

Has been planted in the church For so long and that's why we Look at it that way

Um even as being Charitable as i can toward that argument it's Extremely insulting that that Serious bible scholars

Wouldn't reject that idea for other Reasons right it's the same thing today that You hear from woke people and they're like well if you

Don't believe that in systemic You know racism it's because you have A racist bias it's like Like what are you doing with that argument

This is about serious bible study if You could not come with the merits Of the greek prepositions

And pronouns and participles don't Come at me with this weird racist Ad hominem like i

Had a lot of respect for him up Until that point and then i was out At that point i was like bro like That just it's a super sign of Desperation like i get

It i wouldn't want to go up against james white on the greek grammar Either um but the dispensationalist They say the same thing right they're like The only reason you don't buy our argument is because You're antisemitic

And i believe That's a much more antisemitic Argument because we're saying we

Want jews to be one with Us in christ uh with With no distinction you know the way the new testament

Authors said so um in Reference to the picture that matthew Showed i i think i've

Told this story before in this podcast but i'll tell it again Really quick the three of us became friends because Of a debate that james white and michael brown did

At our church that i organized And matthew moderated and that's Where we met keith because he was a long time

Friend of these folks and and one of My favorite things in the world i wish i had brought it today i Don't have it is at the end of the debate i was

Cleaning up uh the table And on the table for james white And michael brown was a single slip of notepaper

Where they had been taking notes and i Don't know if it's dr browns or dr Whites but all it says on the note page

Was this is the least amount of notes I have ever taken during a debate Because it was just so The argumentation was so beneath Them that they didn't need to like keep

Track of a really difficult argument because There was really nothing to keep track Of so uh i just wanted

It to make that point that that's where this is at I have one more thing i want to Talk about that we didn't get a clip of Um so let me know what i could do that keith

I know i'm lagging a little bit behind so i'm gonna Pause out and then you tag me back in Okay So what i want to say about this

Luther uh and the jews Thing and this is gonna this is gonna Go along with what you said jake but it's gonna be

A little little different nuance on What you just said and This is the way i heard this argument

And i like you i'm trying To be charitable i'm trying to say this is what i think He was saying but i want to show

You where i think the issue is essentially He's saying luther was anti -semitic Therefore his

Interpretation of romans missed the jewish Argument right like luther luther Didn't like the jews therefore he didn't see that this was

Pointed to the jews Problem is again it proves Too much if that is what you're

Saying then what you're saying is what luther said About romans which is very Much the heart of protestantism

These doctrines that we call the Five solas which you say you affirm You say you affirm things like Sola gratia sola fide

Sola scriptura sola Christus you say you affirm these things These things are very much

Attributed to the discoveries and teachings Of men like martin luther so if you're Saying well luther really didn't understand romans

Because he had this anti -jewish bias Guess what dude you just cut the throat Of the protestant reformation and There is

More problems You're you're again if you prove this you've Proved too much so that's that's

It goes back to the same argument i made earlier You're throwing uh Complete everything you can

Not realizing that you're attacking More than what you think you're attacking So that's that's my that's my take

On this whole again i think it's a bad argument I think luther's anti -semitism Is not

Irrelevant but in in this case Has nothing to do with how we understand Romans so um it's not

Irrelevant to his life or to who he was as A man and we can talk about that but it's It's irrelevant to how he interpreted

Romans in my opinion so jake you have One more we don't want to have a clip but you have something You want to mention and let's do that Yeah i just saw this when i was

Watching it again this morning um in Breda's closing he kind of draws this big Emotional point around The calvinist doctrine

In the calvinist doctrine you Cannot go to a non -believer and say Jesus loves you and so There's no good news

And i was really thinking about that i'm like well Well yeah we don't Present the gospel by saying jesus loves you

Because nobody In the bible presents the gospel by saying Jesus loves you there isn't a single

Presentation in in the new testament Of an apostle Giving their sermon

With jesus loves you It's repent it's god has Appointed for you to die it's

You know this jesus whom you killed Um the gospel The good news of the gospel is not

That jesus loves you The gospel is that this Jesus is who he says he is

The king of the universe true god of true God who proved that by Raising from the dead and as a result he's

Going to draw a people unto himself For his glory and to me that Just shows kind of getting at matthew's point

Earlier i'm not going to say that people Reject calvinism because they have A certain pride but i

Think any synergist system Ultimately does have a man Centered anthropology

Which at the heart of it if you If you hide the ball or not is Humans deserve to go to heaven

Humans deserve a shot humans Deserve at least a chance To go to heaven um and And the calvinist theology does

Not start by saying jesus loves you Because theology says repent and run to Christ who is our only hope our only

Salvation and he is very loving And he will take those and Love them forever he loves

All of those um to the Uttermost um but no i'm not Going to say jesus loves you because not a single person in the

Bible went to a non -believer and said jesus Loves you it's an unbiblical perspective It's a man -centered perspective so it just Kind of showed at the end he showed all of his cards

Which were he wasn't there to talk about limited Atonement he was there to talk about provisionism Yeah and and i will say that i

Think that the um The the arguments that were made Were pushing towards the provisionist

Perspective not so much Arguing against limited atonement but limited Atonement doesn't fit at least they don't think it fits

Within their system and therefore That that became the basis on Which to argue for that Matthew you have any any

Thoughts on what he uh what what jake said Um i'll just Say i when

I'm declaring The counsel of god to people Um i'm very careful

In my language i actually don't i actually Don't say things like um and i'm Not afraid of this terminology i just think it's

Better and sharper to say it differently Um i don't like to say If you have been saved then

This or that is true for you i like to say if You are in christ because Um unfortunately a lot of people

Have a uh altar call shake The preacher's hand moment and they think yeah I did i did saved i got saved i

Did the thing and so i'll i'll I'll use different i won't run away From the fact to say that those who are

You know in christ have been saved but i'll I'll say if you are in christ then this Is true if you're not in christ then you know then

This is true and i think that That going on the Whole like calvinist can't say

You know jesus loves you And so you know whatever i mean In a

Sense yes and in a sense No i don't have any i think i You gentlemen tell me if you think this is true i

Think it would be perfectly consistent with Performed theology to say um To all who would bow the knee to Jesus you have to understand that he loves you

And you have a perfect savior because you're you're Getting the The um you're making a

Differentiation there you're putting a conditional Out there which is the case that that is True um and so I don't think that argument holds much weight michael brown

Is a big fan of that one too um he's Like i can preach and say to a whole crowd jesus Loved you and died for you and you can't do

That and um I mean you you still kind of can You still kind of can look at the crowd and Say to all who will call upon the name of The lord you will be saved i mean that's

You know that's joel quoted at Pentecost so i don't yeah i don't Find that a persuasive argument um

Yeah yeah and and i Would add i would say uh There's there's two

Different things here um And i and if anybody wants my Or to hear a perspective

On this i did a show with michael schultz On the love of god i think it went really well And and he and he talks about it we

And he and i discussed the different views of the love Of god and calvinism and things like that I think it's possible to say to a group of people

God loves you i don't i I i like you said jake it's not Something we see that's not the way

The gospel is shared typically in the Gospels i think it's different Than saying god loves you than saying christ died

For you i think that is a different distinction Uh to say you know there is a There's a there's an omni omnibeneficence

In god that we see That is in that is consistent with his Nature that we can express to all men that all

Men receive the the benefit Of his loving kindness uh As part of his common grace that all men receive

And so we can certainly say those things And yet at the same time we can say Uh we we shouldn't say i don't think

I i don't think it there's nowhere in Scripture nowhere that even would would Would support the idea of going up and saying

Hey jesus died for you therefore Believe in him right that's just not the Method that we see and And so that's where i would probably draw that line

So if if michael brown says i can stand in Front of anybody and say god loves you well I can say that too but when you say god

Christ died for you that's where i do think the Distinction is and and even then that We could say well in what way and What do we mean and by what extent

And certainly do you believe that that Person who goes to hell receives the same saving Benefits of the cross that the person who doesn't

And therein is the issue right There's the there have been everyone A lot i'm a lot more interested in the question of Do you have peace with god that's

A lot more important question with me do you have Peace with god when god looks at you Though he loves you because he provides you breath

And sunshine and rain those are all Wonderful things but when he Looks at you

Christ he sees your sin and he hates Wickedness but if you are in christ when He sees you then he sees his beloved

Son and he can pour all of his covenant Love and faithfulness and you have peace With him so this is just one of those

Things to say jesus died for you that's Just that's like a billy graham ism that Is not a biblical witness it's

Not a historical witness it's something that's Just novel in Kind of the new charles finney world of How evangelism is done and It sounds really pious and sounds

Really righteous and sounds really loving But it's not biblical what's biblical That's all that matters to me i'm done

Yep All right well hey since we're since we're at the end I gotta i gotta i gotta at least show

This part this was my shining moment Do you believe that the Apostles properly understood

The atonement of course Okay um If the apostles did

How come it wasn't until the end of the 16th century that limited atonement Became the position that was held

To uh, let me point out again Um, have you um Have you read iranians?

Isn't that a lot of Asked questions i'm i'm Okay. All right. Thank you Very much.

Keith. I will get you later for that Um Okay, I can't That was my best part of the debate

I got to stop I learned That from you. I felt like that kid in the commercials Back with the with the dad finds him

Doing drugs who do who taught you this I learned it from you like yeah I learned it from watching you

Throw the flag When I when I when I mailed He looked at me and he do it

He said i'll get you later. So I just Had to throw that in there. I did have that one saved No good for you.

I love dr White but then he's so he's So small when like two minutes later He whispers to you he's

Going over that was one Of the funniest parts of the debate remember that one Yeah, that was he nailed

Me back. He just got me just like guys Equalize the scales Well guys thank y 'all

For coming on uh, we've gone now For an hour and 40, but I tell you what I Think it was very insightful.

Um I know there's going to be people who have a lot Of thoughts and feel free to call Jake his number is 9 -1 -1

You can do that and he'll He'll be happy to answer any of your Questions, uh, but guys

If you want to sign off give any final thoughts Yeah, yeah, if you would like to Uh write out a long treatise in the youtube

Comments, please do so and jake and I Will be absolutely sure to not read them. We Are not reading any of them.

So please feel Free to expend all of your ammo there Um, it'd be great. It's a good Use of your time.

That's sarcasm. Um No in in closing. I'll Never feed the trolls Never feed the trolls, right?

Uh, no In closing. I think I think this Is an important issue. Um Something that I say just from a pastoral

Perspective is um The death Of jesus on the cross and When we ask the question or we

Make the statement did jesus die for your Sins or or we make the statement Jesus died for your sins

It's an important question But what I liked about this debate is it Got to what I think is actually

I don't want to say more important but more Impactful to me personally just on a personal level The intercessory work

I don't want to say it means more To me but the fact that it is Present and ongoing um we

All sin we all still fail and Struggle and sometimes I find Myself having doubts like Um well that was something that happened two thousand

Years ago and it's a detached historical Tragedy or whatever but the way I The way I teach soteriology

Salvation and I have to remind myself is Every time Those who are in christ and I keep using that language

Every time those who are in christ sin Christ is before the father and he says I paid for that one and I paid for that one

And I paid for that one and I paid for that one And every single time he does so That is perfectly and completely accepted by the

Father and you're still standing there in the righteousness Of christ if this If you got anything out of this debate more than Just flinging accusations of anti Semitism which is really unfortunate that that even

Happened you need to know That if you are in christ you have an Advocate before the father who will perfectly

Plead your case and it's a present tense Reality he ever lives To make intercession

The cross was a one and done to tell us I it is finished and I'm glad that it was I'm Glad that we do not have a representation of christ

On the altar every week But the intercessory work Is ongoing and you have a present tense

Advocate for you and I think that That's the beautiful truth out of this Debate that I hope we can focus on Amen Amen jake any last words

Yeah, I just want to say The end result of this is where James white started James White started with That he is able to save to the uttermost

Those who draw near to god through him My savior is able to save Everyone whom he intends to save There will not be a single person at the end

That christ looks at and goes oh I really wanted To save you but I couldn't I really wanted to save you but You wouldn't let me that will not happen

At the end of days my savior is able Please come hang out with us Just say you don't understand reform theology

And move along on facebook I don't debate theology online But I would love to have you and share memes

And we can learn about Stuff together but seriously Do not at me about this video

I will never read it ever And I will never respond to you thank you Alright guys thank you all for being a part of the show

And again I want to thank you guys for being On the your calvinist podcast I know it was a little long we went almost two hours

But I hope it was insightful And got an opportunity to really dig in On this issue again if you have

Thoughts for a future episode or somebody You'd like me to interview or a subject you'd like Me to address please send me an

Email at calvinistpodcasts At gmail .com also If you have an idea for a

News article For church soup you can Tag me on twitter or on Facebook with the hashtag

Church soup also if you Want to support the show go to Buymeacoffee .com

Slash your calvinist Last but not least as I've Been saying and I want to continue to Remember to bring this up this is all done

As part of a ministry of sovereign grace family Church if you're in the jacksville area and you'd like To come and join us we are

Sgfcjacks .org Or you can watch us online You can go to sgfcjacks .org Or just go to youtube and type in Sgfcjacks thank you again

For watching your calvinist podcast My name is Keith Foskey And I've been your calvinist may god