Romans 8:31-34, David Allen’s Article Refuted (Conclusion)

Welcome to the Dividing Line. Again, distracted by Twitter. Yesterday, Pensive Tulip had retweeted a statement. I'd seen this elsewhere, but basically saying, are you all ready for the 2020, the December 2020 baby boom that will result from all the coronavirus stuff?

That's nine months from now is right around my birthday. Bunch of bunch of December babies. But, um, so Pensive Tulip has said, I love this take so much. And I had said, well, this is really looking for the silver lining.

Let's hope so. And so a guy named Dean Klaus just said, and they shall be called the coronials, the coronials. I love it. Dean Klaus wins, wins, wins the Twitterverse of the day. Very good. The coronials, unless he's still on somebody else.

And then that's, that's okay too. That's it's that's perfectly fine. So anyways, well, I hope that you all, um, are done watching, uh, president Trump and all the rest of that stuff. We're going to get your mind off that back on another subject, I think a very important subject.

Responding to David Allen on Romans 8:31-34

And, uh, today we get into a lot of the, uh, uh, the, of the meat of the subject, though. I would say that last program was fairly meaty as well. Uh, but, um, very, very quickly, we are continuing our response to the 11 ,000 word, um, a three part article, article, three articles, three blog articles, or just one article really, uh, by Dr. David Allen of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who is a professor of preaching, uh, but has been pressed over the past 12 years into the role of Southwestern's anti-Calvinist man.

Um, and, um, part of that job, which I think he inherited after participating in the John 316 conference in, um, 2008, um, part of that job, uh, is to deal with the subject of limited atonement. And so, uh, he had written a response to a TGC article.

I had responded to that. Um, I think I actually went back and forth a couple of times before I got his books out. I examined very carefully, um, everything he had to say about Romans chapter eight, verses 31 to 34.

I pointed out the fact and the very fact that he's written 11 ,000 word article demonstrates this was a true observation that there was no exegesis offered of the text in the published works of David Allen until this point.

And I would still say that what was offered falls far short of meaningful exegesis. Um, and we're demonstrating that, um, in this, um, in this response. So we got into the Romans eight material, uh, last time, the Romans 831 and beyond.

We were really in the golden chain up until this point. So 828 through 230, uh, which is fascinatingly disconnected by Allen from what comes afterwards, both in his attempt to explain it as well as his seat.

I think we're, I think we're, we're, we're Allen fails horribly is he, he thinks that quoting from, from commentaries or noting grammatical forms is the same thing as exegesis. If exegesis does not clarify the meaning of the author as he would have been understood by his original audience, it's not exegesis, but Christian exegesis, if it is going to partake of the highest, um, view of scripture should likewise clarify how the author's teaching is relevant to Christian truth as a whole.

Now that's where, that's where you get a lot of division because we, we need to understand this argument is an argument only amongst a minority of people who call themselves Christians because it is an argument that assumes that scripture is consistent with itself.

And I have to keep telling people over and over and over again that that is a minority view that the idea that the scriptures are sufficiently clear in and of themselves, that there is a pan canonical consistency, that it is the, the intention of the Holy Spirit of God to give to us a body of revelation that is sufficient to tell the church what we should be proclaiming and believing, that it is sufficient to define Christian theology.

That's a minority view. That's a small minority view. You go into Bible colleges and seminaries across the Western world, Europe and United States and elsewhere, and you will discover that that is a minority view.

Now, I would argue that was the view that gave rise to Christian theology. That was certainly the view of the early church, but it is not the view of the majority of those teaching in seminaries and Bible colleges today.

That's just simply a fact. And that explains why you can walk into a Christian bookstore and pick up a commentary and start reading and very quickly discover that the author really doesn't believe that the person he's interpreting is either consistent with himself or consistent with other writers in the New Testament canon, Old Testament canon, whatever commentary may be on.

So, having said all of that, we go back, and what we're doing is we're showing, we've linked to, and we are reading directly from Dr. Allen's materials. And I remind you that Dr. Allen specifically said on Twitter that my exegesis of the text is indefensible, and so we're looking very, very carefully at that reality and seeing if what we've been saying about Romans 8 is indefensible, or if, in point of fact, Dr. Allen's material is woefully lacking in its intended purposes.

So, we've come to this point, and this is, I think, where the battle is joined. This is one of the most important paragraphs, and as we get into the application part, this is going to become somewhat repetitive, so we might be able to get done in less than two hours this time.

Quote, oh, we've got everything cool over there? Okay, because we never checked, but you said ever since you did the update that that's not been an issue. It's grabbed it every time, so good. All right, we're all good here now.

Yeah, okay, whatever. People are going to think you just sit around watching that one movie all day long because it's just that one segment. Okay, well, that's a very shallow life. There really is. Really is.

Anyway, the view that Paul is referring to all the elect qua elect, so the elect as the elect as a group, regardless of their spiritual state, is, now listen, listen very carefully, folks, here. We've already seen in Romans 8 where Paul's doing exactly that.

We've seen it. Those who are called according to his purpose, the elect of God, these are being used by God in this exact way, but Dr. Allen says it can't ever be, and here's why. Here's why, folks. The view that Paul is referring to all the elect qua elect, regardless of their spiritual state, is ruled out exegetically and logically for an obvious reason.

Well, okay, here we go. No one, even one of the elect in Calvinist theology who is not already in vital union with Christ, can expect to receive all things while still in an unregenerate state. Okay. Folks, this is some of the most shallow argumentation I've ever seen in my life.

I'm just simply stunned that this kind of material is being put into print. Listen to what's being said. Listen to what a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has just told us, all right?

What he's told us is that there is never a time when God can speak of the elect as a group because there would be a time since God draws his elect out over the generations, then there's going to be a time when some of the elect have not yet been drawn.

So, God can't even talk about all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places, being seated in heavenly places in Christ. He can't talk about what the final wrapping up of all things is going to be until everything's wrapped up.

Until everything's wrapped up. Because he's saying no one, even one of the elect in Calvinist theology who is not already in vital union with Christ, can expect to receive all things while still in an unregenerate state.

That is a tautology. No, duh. But that is not a limitation on God's ability to describe the elect as the elect. Do you understand the price of this kind of thinking, my friends? If this is true, then the promises of the New Testament cannot be valid for you.

Because they can only be valid back then someplace. Think about it. When Paul said, if he did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all, if that's a major statement of the elect as a whole, because that's what he's going to say.

He's going to identify the us there as the elect. So, he's saying he gave his son for the elect. How shall he not also together with him freely give us, the elect, all things? That's the very foundation of why any Christian in any generation can grab hold of Romans chapter 8 and say, this is about me.

Romans 8, 28 is about me. This application is about me. Generations to come in the future is about me. If you buy David Allen's argumentation, you don't get to say it's about you. That's done. He's cut it apart just to avoid the one statement that specifically says that David Allen's own position is wrong.

That is, that the son was given in behalf of the elect, which is why no charge can be brought against them. That's what it says. So, here we have this idea that, well, Paul could not be referring to the elect as the elect for an obvious reason, and it's not an obvious reason at all.

It is twisted. This is not logical thinking. It's not even logical thinking from his perspective, because if you take it this way, then the receive all things is going beyond what is specifically stated, and that is, he gave his son for us, which he says is for all people, most of whom will never be regenerate, or, okay, many of whom will never be regenerate.

We don't know what the numbers are ever going to be. The number of regenerate, the number of the elect, sand is the sea. The sand on the seashore, right? So, the point is, from his perspective, Christ is actually given for people who will never be regenerate.

Christ is given for the people who will be in hell. Now, we can talk about why in the world the Father would do that, why in the world the Son would do that, why in the world the Spirit would do that, but the point is, his own argument is self-defeating, and he is so desperate to find anything to get around the text here, that he ends up undercutting his own position.

What? You keep grabbing that microphone. Are you just holding on out there? Okay, is there an earthquake I'm missing? Yes, you were making me nervous, because I'm figuring, okay, the only reason you grab a microphone is because you're going to raise it up, and that's your way of saying to me that you want to say something, but it just looked like you were just holding on for dear life.

So, I don't know. You could be watching. Yeah, you're all fine in here. Okay, whatever. Okay. You were watching that clip again, weren't you? That's what's going on. Such is simply not possible. Okay, so, what he thinks is, that our understanding is ruled out exegetically, logically, is utterly fallacious and stands refuted, and if you think that he could defend it, then why don't we debate it?

Remember, one of us continually makes the offer to get on a plane, fly to Dallas, rent a car, drive to Southwestern, and walk into David Allen's classes and defend this, because I can guarantee you, in cross-examination, that assertion would fail badly.

That's not a threat. That's an observation. That's a factual statement, and I think it's very important. All right. Such is simply not possible, as Paul makes clear in Ephesians 2, 1 through 3, even the unbelieving elect remain under the wrath of God, even as the rest.

Again, what he tries to do is he tries to, the now and the not yet, he tries to take us back and go, well, you see, since God has to draw his elect over time, then there is a time when they're under the wrath of God until they experience what has been provided for them in eternity past, which I guess, if you quote that, what you're arguing is that there is no elect, that everything that Paul said in Ephesians 1, ignore that, go to Ephesians 2, create this temporal problem, and now you've gotten rid of what Paul said in Ephesians chapter 1.

This is, eisegesis is the nicest term I can use. Scripture twisting would probably be a little bit more accurate. Just because they are among the abstract class of the elect in a Calvinist system does not mean they are recipients of any spiritual blessings included in the all things and their condition of being apart from Christ.

So, Paul uses the same terminology in Ephesians 1. He's using it similarly here, the all things. When were these things granted to us in Ephesians 1? In eternity past. When do we experience these? When God infallibly works in our life, brings about regeneration, repentance, faith, but you see what the result of this is.

You were not in Christ at his death. You weren't. If you take this perspective, how could you say that you're in Christ because in this system, you only get to be in Christ once you, by your free will act, join yourself to Christ, but you're doing that in time, so you weren't in Christ at time of his death, right?

I don't know how any of this works. I know that most of us sing on a Sunday morning that my name was graven on his hands, right? I don't think David Allen can't sing that because it wasn't. You engraved it on his hands when you, by your autonomous will, believed, but this is just simply an overarching argument to try to get rid of the very idea that there is a known, chosen, specific elect in God's decree.

That's all there is to it. Until anyone is in Christ through faith, elect or not, one does not and indeed cannot receive the all things Paul refers to. I'm so muddled. Until anyone's in Christ through faith, elect or not, so there are non-elect people who are in Christ by faith?

The point here, of course, one of the major problems here is you again have the man-centeredness, Allen's perspective, versus the God-centeredness interpretation, and so he's looking at us being the focus of Romans 8 .31.

I'm looking at Christ being the center of this material, and therefore what is actually being asserted is if he did not spare his own son, he's answering us, why can nothing be against us? Who can be against us in light of this?

And he did not spare his own son, how shall he not with him freely give us all things, which would include victory over anything that would come against us, the condemnation of our sins, and the devil, and anything created in height or depth, and famine, and nakedness, and peril, and sword, and everything else will be fine in there.

Then he says Shriner captures the meaning of verse 32 well. The main point of the verse is clear. Believers can face the day of judgment with confidence for those whom God has chosen for his own. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

That word just seems to remember what Allen has done. He's already suggested that that's shorthand for those who have by their own free will chosen God. So God does man-centered, God-centered, massive difference.

Those whom God has chosen for his own will certainly not be accused in the day of judgment. God has declared them to be right in his sight and thus those who would accuse believers will not successfully establish their case.

Notice again Allen's words. Notice Shriner says the verse speaks of believers and nowhere imports the idea of the predestined as such. Did you read what you quoted? It's right there. No, leave it up. Look, the main point of the verse is clear.

Believers, now remember Allen is dragging free will into that which Shriner's not. Believers can face the day of judgment with confidence for those whom God has chosen for his own. Where do those words go?

They get filtered out by tradition. He says it right there, but he doesn't hear it. They are believers because God chose them for his own. So how can you say nowhere imports the idea of the predestined as such?

The text says those whom God chose for his own. The text says the elect of God. It's right there on the papyri, but not in David Allen's mind. This is why I simply state to you, Allen failed to the hundredth point in offering any kind of meaningfully textually based interpretation.

It's stunning. Look at it. It was just on the screen. Stop it. Here's Shriner. If you want to go pick it up, it's available from Accordance and Lagos and all the rest of that stuff. Get it for yourself.

Look at it. Read it. Read the paragraph above, read the paragraph below, and you're going to be left going, where did Allen get this stuff? He does it to Shriner, he does it to Mu as well. In fact, virtually all the key exegetical commentaries interpret Paul's use of us in Romans 8, 23 -34 to refer only to believers, whether the time of writing or for all time.

And again, they're using the term believers as the same as the elect. They are not doing Allens. If belief is back here in Romans 4, then that becomes the determining factor of what believers are in Romans 8, even though the term doesn't appear.

We're going to use that terminology to talk about those who are in Christ. And as we saw on the last program, he specifically, when quoting from Douglas Mu, skips the next sentence, which is a complete refutation of his own view of this central issue.

Until you can deal with that, you're using a broken read here. You're using someone who is clearly not dealing with the sources in a fair fashion. Okay, verse 33 semantically functions as a specific restatement of the collusion claim, verse 31.

Believers, quote, the elect, which cannot be charged with any legal accusation that will stick since it is God himself who is justified for all time, all believers. We need to, how many times do you use the term believers there?

A bunch. Not sure why that's not popping up. Let's take a look at verse 33. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Do you find the term believers anywhere? Now who are God's elect?

Will God's elect believe? Of course, that's not even an issue. But why can't you use Paul's language? Why can't you recognize that up here in verse 28, those who are called according to his purpose, okay?

Those who are called according to his purpose. Here it is. Tois, kata, prothesin, kletois, usin. Right there. Those who are called according to his purpose. You can try to turn upside down and say, well, that just means believers who believe autonomously by free will, etc., etc., and that therefore God calls them because they call themselves or whatever you want to do, but you can't use Paul's language.

I can just use his language. We're talking about those who are called according to his purpose. We're talking about those whom he's foreknown, those he's predestined, those he's called, those he's justified, those he's glorified, and we can actually use the term God's elect because that's what the phrase right there, kata, eclecton, theu, the elect of God.

God is the one justified. So, but notice what Alan does. Verse 33 semantically functions as a specific restatement of the conclusion claim. Verse 31, believers, the elect, cannot be charged any legal accusation that will stick since it is God himself who is justified for all time.

Who? All believers, not the elect. He can't use the language of the text because it will not communicate his narrative. He is the one. This is how you determine who is inserting something into a text.

Who's doing eisegesis? David Allen is. He can't use the language, and he asked it openly as he did on last program. He has to openly say, well, that's Paul's shorthand for this, all based upon this idea that, hey, if he talked about justification by faith back here in chapters three and four, he can't, in chapter eight, go to a higher, even an eternal level in discussing what the basis of all that was.

No, no, no, no, no. We will not allow that. This is eisegesis on steroids at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Okay? All right. So, believers are secure because God himself has justified them.

Yes, God's elect whom he chose are secure because he foreknew them, he predestined them, he called them, he justified them, and he glorified them. That's why they're secure. Right. Exactly. That's not what you believe.

Your system cuts that into ribbons, but the elect are secure because God himself has justified them, and he also, so as to glorify himself, grants them everything that they need so that his gospel can be fulfilled, which includes faith and repentance.

One perspective, consistent, uses the language of scripture. One perspective has to jump out and around and spin in circles and everything in between. So, where the confusion lies, yes, the confusion, lies on part of some who deduce limited to Romans 8 -32, is that Paul's used the word elect.

Why did he have to do that? Why did he have to talk about the elect? Just because that's what he had been talking about in Romans 8 -28 and 29 -30, why did he have to go and do it here? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?

God is the one who justifies. Well, the reason no accusation will stand is because it is against God's elect, i .e. believers, that the accusation is being made. Paul is obviously speaking about believers and not about the abstract class of the elect qua elect, as the term is sometimes used in Reformed theology.

Are we repeating ourselves? We are repeating ourselves. We didn't yell loud enough the first time, so we're going to try it again. Significantly, Calvin applies the meaning of eclectos in verse 33 to believers only and not to the abstract class of the elect qua elect, and nowhere in his commentary on Romans 8 -28 -34 does he suggest the text teaches limited atonement.

Well, I'm not even going to go there because that's not what he was dealing with. But I am going to point out the circularity of this argumentation. Is it not obvious that someone here is trying to get around what the text plainly states?

Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? Well, that follows after the giving of the Son for us all. So, if David Allen was even trying to deal with the text rather than just defend a tradition, he would have to deal with this reality.

We have in verse 31, who will right here, verse 31, what shall we say to these things if God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered to him up, huper, haemon, ponton, for us all, how will he not also together with him freely give to us all things?

Who will bring a charge? Cata, eclectom, theu. Now, Allen has to, at this point, try to break all of this up. The power of Reformed theology in John 6, Ephesians 1, Romans 8, Romans 9, is we don't have to break anything up.

We don't have to break anything up. So, we can follow the text all the way through. And the only folks, listen to me, even those of you who have a real bias on this, because I know that a bunch of you provisionists are watching this thing.

Think with me for a moment. You have to insert a chasm between 32 and 33, because if you don't, you've got limited atonement and Reformed theology staring you in the face. But if there's a chasm, then how can the beautiful law court illustration in verses 33 and 34 explain and function in light of 31 and 32?

Why is it that God is for us? How do we know that? Well, he's the one who justifies. He's the one who's given his son. The son died, raised again, and is the right hand of God the Father interceding for us.

That's why no one can be against us. That's why no charge can be brought against the elect of God. So, it is without question that the us in 31 and 32 is the elect of God in 33. And therefore, at the end of verse 34, and this ties it all together, this is absolutely

Dr. Allen says, my exegesis is indefensible. I say to you, it is without question, it is without question that the us and the elect of God is consistent over only I mean, depending on how you punctuate this.

Four sentences? Look what's at the end of verse 34. Who is the one condemning? Christ Jesus, the one who died, rather the one who was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who also is interceding hu per hamon, in our behalf.

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? There is only one consistent way of interpreting these couple of sentences. May I suggest to you, if we can't figure out what these sentences are saying, then we can't figure out anything about the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, or anything else.

And the only reason that someone would raise questions about this is because they don't like what it says. Their traditions stand in the way. Tradition is the primary reason for exegesis. Tradition is the primary reason.

But you want consistency? You want consistency? Here, look, hu per hamon, verse 31, verse 34, hu per hamon. It's one section. You can't break it up. And so, right in the middle of that, the elect of God identifies who the us is.

Did David Allen provide any argumentation in this article that refutes that? Not a shred and any honest exegete, even on the other side, has to admit. All he did is assert it. He never even got close to any level of meaningful exegetical proof.

That tweet and a statement we're going to see later on in this article is Dr. Allen. Is that what I think that was? Just heard a big crash of thunder outside, folks, so we may disappear all of a sudden.

Hopefully not from that. So water comes in and we Arizonans aren't good at swimming. So, yeah. Looking over here at my radar. Oh, there it is. Yeah, look at that. That's orange. There might be even a little bit of red in there.

So here we go. Dr. Allen's language in saying that my exegesis is indefensible is Dr. Allen whistling as he walks by the graveyard. You familiar with that terminology? You know, I'm not afraid. That's what he's doing.

Because Dr. Allen knows if he had to stand on a debate stage with sufficient time of cross-examination with the Greek text on the screen, he's not going to be able to defend this. He knows it. He knows.

Dr. Allen, you know it. That's the only reason you won't debate it. You know you can't defend this. It can be done. People with strong beliefs can still debate in a meaningful fashion. I stand ready. I stand ready.

It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. Please prove me wrong. That would be great. Okay, so we have seen that my exegesis has been defended. We have demonstrated it. No argument has been made against it of any kind at all.

We've seen misrepresentation of Schreiner and Mu. And there's another one. There's more. We're in notes here. I'm going through. And I understand why this was. He published it in three different parts, so the notes ended up in the middle of things when you put it all together.

And the numeration, the numbering, was from the original. So you couldn't just put them all down at the bottom. All the numeration would have gotten messed up. So that's fully understandable. Not a complaint.

I'm just saying that's why we have to go through all these notes. I did mark this. Notice that Schreiner, Mu, and other Calvinist commentators do not say only for all believers, though Schreiner certainly...

I'm not going to... Here we go. Here's where I wanted to go. It's sort of hard to see. I shouldn't have used red on red here. But anyways, note number 32. This would be on the second article. Notice how Mu refers to the elect here as believers.

In a sense, then, this manner of designating Christians in the question itself is the only answer required. Now, I was like, what? Mu refers to the elect here as believers. Now, why would he even say that?

So we went looking for it, and here it is. So, okay, let me... In a sense, then, this manner of designating Christians in the question itself is the only answer required. Let's go read it itself. Here it is.

Here's the paragraph. Bring a charge is the first of explicitly judicial terms in this context. So Mu is talking about the incredible heavenly courtroom scene that is, whether we like it or not, central to Paul's explanation to us of how we have peace with God and must be understood.

It must be understood, and that's what we have here in Romans 8. The future tense of the verb focuses attention on the last judgment. Who will stand and accuse us at that time? To be sure, Satan, the accuser, may seek to do so.

So may our enemies, and perhaps most persuasively of all, our own sins. But no accusation will be effective because it is against God's elect that the accusation is being made. And as Paul has shown in verses 20 to 30, those who are God's elect ones by virtue of his calling and purpose are assured of glory.

In a sense, then, this manner of designating Christians in the question itself is the only answer required. But it is natural to view the following sentence as a further basis for the ultimate failure of any accusations against us.

It is God who is justifying. Now, is Mu's paragraph completely in harmony with my interpretation and presentation? Obviously. Is it in harmony with Alan's understanding of any of this? It is not. Where did the term Christians appear in there?

It didn't. So, I honestly had to wonder, what on earth is he talking about? Mu refers to the elect here as believers. Well, that, again, has nothing to do with free will or anything else. And then, in a sense, then, this manner of designating Christians in the question itself is the only answer required.

And I think I might have figured it out, but I had to go to the, well, I guess I could scroll back, but it's easier in the paper here because it's it sort of printed in such a way. It's at the top of the page, the believers' security celebrated.

It's just talking about Romans 8, 31 to 39. It's a chapter heading, subheading, yeah. That's David Allen using scholarly resources. You all download it, too. Did you notice that? We have more notes here.

Okay, then theological analysis and implications. This is where we were not given an exegesis of the text. We were told what it couldn't mean. We had repetitive insertions of extraneous material, stuff unfounded in the lexical sources or commentary sources being used.

Basically, we had provisionism crammed in to try to get around. What we didn't have is what we have provided numerous times in this program, what are provided in print as well, and that is an actual exegesis that actually tells you what Paul was communicating to his audience at that time, how they would have understood it, and then application thereto to the overall teaching of scripture.

We did not get that from David Allen, and so his accusation that my exegesis is indefensible has therefore been refuted completely. Once we get to the theological analysis and implications, things are actually going to get more shallow because he mentions people who, like me, represent C, Romans 8, 32—actually, it should be 31 through 34.

It should be Romans 8, 28 through 34, and he mentions John Owen, John Gill, John Frame, Michael Horton, Tom Nettles, and Jonathan Gibson. Gibson was one of the primary writers in—I think it was all the way back in 2011 now.

I didn't grab it. I'm sorry, Jonathan. But From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, the long work on limited atonement, and a number of people there took various shots at Allen's materials. He has felt, I think, slighted that most of them have ignored his attempted responses, but I think we've seen now why.

When you're using sources the way that David Allen uses sources, only people like me invest our time in responding. So he presents Gibson's understanding, which is great, which is the same as mine, and so here, Gibson's analysis founders on several points.

He has made the same logical mistakes that Owen made. I just, by the way, John Owen, David Allen, John Owen, David Allen. What? No, founders. No, that's a ship founders upon rocks. First, nothing in the atonement secures its own application.

Where is this stated in the text or text? I want you to understand what this means. Nothing in the atonement secures its own application. Now, if what you mean by that is that the atonement does not exist in a vacuum, separate from the purpose of the Father and the purpose of the Son and the purpose of the Spirit, it does not exist disconnected from God's sovereign decree, his choice of an elect people, all of that would be true.

That's not the issue here. The Reformed understanding, Paul's understanding of what he says in Romans 8 is that everything he's said up to this point, all of the stuff on justification, the righteousness of God, faith in Jesus Christ, why is all of this true?

Because of what God has done. So, when he talks about the Spirit interceding for us and everything at the beginning of Romans chapter 8, now he gets to the pinnacle, and he's taken us into the law court, and he says, you want to know the foundation of all of this?

Do you want to know what happened in heaven that allows your faith to bring you the righteousness of Christ? It's because of the heavenly law court. It is because you have God justifying. You have Jesus dying and being raised to the right hand of the Father, interceding for the elect of God.

And so, no condemnation can come to them, so the Holy Spirit can come and intercede for them with groanings that cannot be uttered, which is right before Romans 8 28. Even though he's the Holy Spirit of God, he can be in a sinful people because of what happened up there in heaven, because of what happened in the heavenly law court.

That's the foundation. Alan says, you can't talk about that. You have to define everything that comes after chapters 3 and 4 only on that level. You can't go into eternity paths. You can't go into what God's purposes were or the foundation of all this.

No, no, you can't do any of that. No. So, there is a sense wherein the atonement secures its own application because there was an intentionality in the atonement. What was God's intention in giving his son?

David Allen says it was to make salvation possible if mankind will cooperate. The Bible says it was the triune God's purpose to glorify himself, the redemption of a specific people in Jesus Christ, Titus chapter 2.

So, you have tradition versus the biblical text. Just all there is to that. It's just a fact. So, the atonement does secure its own application because the Son sends the Father. The Son comes voluntarily.

The Son is empowered by the Spirit of God and in the resurrection, for example, the Father raises the Son, the Son receives life back in himself. The Spirit raises the Son as well to try an action. And so, the atonement likewise, as part of that divine decree, cannot fail but to bring about the redemption of those for whom it's made.

So, it does secure its own application because it is a part of the entire work of God. Now, it doesn't secure its application in the sense of applying it right at that point in time. But it does secure its own application.