Radio Free Geneva: Mike Winger and Limited Atonement Once Again!

♪♪ You'll constantly hear people that are

Calvinist harp on this. Raaah! Raaah! God's suffering! God's suffering! Raaah! Suffering! Suffering!

Suffering! They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth. ♪♪ ♪♪

Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus. He says, Lazarus, come out! And Lazarus said, I can't.

I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

♪♪ Well, I can talk over your head like that.

I know the Hebrew, the Greek. I've done theology. You can tell I know. ♪♪ Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?

Um, no. ♪♪ Some new

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

♪♪ Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief.

♪♪ You heard like that to him?

You know what it would sound like if he were listening to it? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

He wouldn't make any sense to him. A self -righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk. ♪♪ And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism.

Now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to...

I stand, I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Then don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

♪♪ Leave my book. ♪♪

And now, from our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

Radio Free Geneva! Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory.

♪♪ Well, I see we didn't move the camera. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Very first thing up. Oh, it's still aimed at the

Enterprise back there. Okay, that's fine. Well, I do have a new picture back there, so I guess you can see it from there, so that's nice, but...

Anyways, welcome to the program. Before we jump into our subject today, which is going to be a very quick response, not quick as in short, but quick as in...

Pastor Winger only recorded this last night, so it's pretty quick. Before we get into our response on Radio Free Geneva today,

I do want to acknowledge and give thanks for the posting of a video by Drs.

Hunter and Pritchett that I only saw just a little while ago, was made aware of it this morning, sometime around 11 this morning,

I would guess, and in which a sincere apology was offered in regards to the video that was posted last week in response to my review of the

William Lane Craig interview with Ben Shapiro. You'll recall in the last program, we played excerpts from that, said that someday we would respond to the video.

That video has been removed. It's not that we don't have copies of it, but my hope would actually be to maybe in the future have a discussion about it or maybe respond to some of the key issues, because I really do feel that there are some important issues,

I think some important misunderstandings of presuppositional apologetics, and especially the issue of the relationship of the

Gospel and soteriology to our apologetic methodology that should be addressed and can be addressed in a, hopefully, an appropriate fashion.

So I hope that that can still happen in the future, just without the animosity, and so I'm very thankful for the posting of that apology, and I wanted to acknowledge that right at the top of the program, before I forget, which would be very easy for me to do as I get into a completely different, well, not completely different subject, but a different subject.

Did you, if the microphone's over, I assume something. Yeah, I just wanted to point out, I just finished watching it about 15, 20 minutes ago.

Dr. Hunter had texted me and apparently texted you at the same time and let me know of its existence.

I watched it, and I have to say that in a day and age where so many make apologies in such a political spin kind of manner that somehow turns things around, this was not that.

These gentlemen gave an earnest, heartfelt, they owned it, and that in and of itself can be a lesson to us all as to how it's done and how it's done right.

I appreciate it, yeah. So, yeah, I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of that, and of course, in providing a response today to Pastor Winger, I did this,

I think, last year. I didn't go back and look. The reason I remember it was probably last summer sometime is that I listened.

I remember very clearly listening to his presentation while riding in the dark, and the only time

I ride in the dark is very, very early in the morning during the summer in Phoenix because that's the only time you can ride outside in Phoenix before the sun comes up.

So that would have had to have been June, July, August into September of last year.

And if Pastor Winger responded to what I said then, I've never seen the response.

No one told me about it. And almost always when someone responds to something I've said, someone's going to drop a link at some point.

So I don't know if he did or didn't, but in each of these situations, there has been no animosity with Pastor Winger, so we'll be able to focus primarily upon the issues with this.

Now, I want to start off... Now, I'm going to only...

I don't even know how much of Pastor Winger's presentation I'm going to play. I want to focus on the issues of the text primarily.

But I did want to play this section right at the end, which is weird.

Normally you'd start at the beginning, but this sort of set it all for me. So do you have it over there?

We didn't have to unplug this time. That's interesting. Who knows? Yeah, we'll see.

Anyway, this was right at the end of the video. And what had happened was...

I do not... Like, my Twitter feed's up right now, okay? So some stuff probably is going to scroll by maybe while I'm looking there.

I don't go back and try to find that stuff. I do not try to see everything that goes across even my mentions feed, let alone my timeline.

There's just no way. You can't keep up with it, don't have interest in keeping up with it. So I would say it was somewhat providential that I did see this come through, a tweet came through from Pastor Winger saying that he was going to be doing a live presentation and he was going to be talking about limited atonement.

And so I just... Not... It was somewhat funny, but also, yeah.

I mean, I said, I'll be listening. And I said, and I really hope, because this was part of what we said last time,

I said, I really, really hope that you'll address T -H -I -A,

Trinitarian Harmony in Atonement. The argument that, you know, you can trace it all the way back, but certainly

Owen utilizes it and many have utilized it since then, and that fundamentally is that the only meaningful, biblical way you can address the issue of the subject of the

Atonement is to see it as the act of the Triune God. And hence, you must understand the

Father's role and purpose, the Son's role and purpose, and the Spirit's role and purpose.

You must see the Atonement not merely as one act separated from everything else, but you must see how that act is a part of the specific intention of the

Triune God to glorify Himself. The strongest argument for particular redemption starts with God and moves down through the work of the

Triune God to its final application. It does not start down with the sinner and then reason back up in regards to what

His needs are, His capacities are, His actions are. It is rooted in a recognition that God is accomplishing

His purpose in this world. And so, the fact that the electing action of the

Father, the self -sacrificial work of the Son, and the continuation of that singular work in His being mediator for the people of God, and the

Spirit's application of the accomplished, not potential, but accomplished sacrifice of Christ in their behalf.

And hence, the reality of the elect, their union with their head due to the

Father's sovereign choice and the Spirit's actuation, not due to mankind's response.

All of these things is what presents to us a consistent understanding in theology that deals with all of Scripture, not just what we got from Pastor Winger in his presentation.

It's just about 35 minutes long. I linked to it on Facebook when I made the announcement. I gave the link to the presentation.

You can look it up. You can watch it, because then it goes into questions, as is the case almost all times.

Anybody, for some reason on YouTube, do we have comments open in YouTube right now?

No? Whenever I join a live YouTube thing...

I may have been born at night. But it wasn't last night? It wasn't last night. Yeah, I know. But you have had them on in the past.

That's why we don't have them on now. So, whenever I join one of those things, I don't know what those people are watching or listening to, because the things that are said, the subjects that come up about the only thing that isn't discussed is what is actually in the video at that particular point in time.

Yep. Which is also why audience questions and debates are relatively worthless as well, because it's the same phenomenon, just without the

YouTube part. So, he went into answering questions, and as far as I could tell, none of the questions had anything to do with what he just got done saying.

And he's got to admit, sometimes as the person speaking... And this happens in the chat channel too, but not quite as badly.

But sometimes when you're the person speaking and you see... You know the people in the chat channel right now are watching or something like that, and you see that they're talking about their cats or their cars or something, you just sort of feel like, well,

I'm chopped liver, aren't I? This must be really boring everybody to tears.

And when the only questions that people have to ask are about space aliens after you've just been talking about something else, you're sort of like, okay.

And you just go on from there. So, after about 35 minutes, he went into answering questions, and so it's really not relevant to the subject, so it's not all that long to listen to if you want to do that.

But, like I said, if you go right to the end, let's watch just this one part.

Anyways, thank you guys so much. I appreciate you being here. And James White, if you're listening, thanks.

Thanks for listening in to what I'm saying. I do appreciate it, because he threatened me on Twitter. Oh, I've got to show you guys.

Here, before I let you go, here's what James White said on Twitter. He didn't threaten me. I'm being facetious. But I'm going to show you the tweet for those of you who'd like to see it.

There it is. So, I tweeted out that I'd be dealing with this topic today, and James White, who is a well -known

Calvinist, and a guy who I really respect and love, and he's on such great ministry, especially dealing with things like textual criticism.

His debate with Bart Ehrman was really good. So he says, just so you know, I'll be listening.

Oh, that's funny. Boy, I sure got shiny. It's summertime. That's what happens. So, what's going to happen next, perhaps, and maybe we'll deal with this

Thea de Trinitarian Harmony thing that you can read James White had a question about. That wasn't my topic today, so I'm not going to feel like I need to get roped into it.

Now, there it is. There it is. Okay? That was the whole point.

That is the whole point. If you don't deal with that, you're not dealing with the issue.

At least not as it's being presented by us. It sort of reminds me of how many people, over the years, have come up to me and they've said, you know how you talk about how, if Calvary Chapel doesn't start dealing directly with the subject of Reformed theology and start dealing with it in a meaningful fashion, that they will just continue to produce

Calvinists. And they always say, I'm a living example of that.

And it's true. And so if Pastor Winger wants to provide a meaningful response to the real arguments, he's got to start dealing with what the real arguments are.

And unfortunately, the source he went to, because he mentioned that after I said,

I'll be listening, he called David Allen. And David Allen gave him some information.

Well, that became obvious in the list of verses that were provided. The problem is David Allen doesn't respond and has never responded to the best of our argumentation.

David Allen was opposed to Reformed theology before he knew what Reformed theology was.

That's the problem with David Allen. Remember, he's the one years ago in the original RFG theme was the one who was calling me a hyper -Calvinist.

Well, that immediately shows you you don't know what a hyper -Calvinist is, first of all. But more than that, he had opposed particular redemption before he really understood what particular redemption was.

And once you're dug into something and then you just start trying to find reasons to defend where you've been all along, the result isn't overly compelling in any way.

So if y 'all are going to respond, then you need to hear what we're saying.

And this is the second response I've done to Pastor Winger. I'm hoping this time he'll hear what

I'm saying because I'm pretty sure I've addressed this before.

And so I think it is really, really important. So let me start.

We're going to be spending a fair amount of time in Scripture because Pastor Winger did. He went to a number of texts but unfortunately there were numerous assumptions made.

For example, you had the assumption made that the word world always means all of humankind.

And if you have really seriously dealt with Reformed theology and with our interpretation of Scripture, you know that we make a very strong argument that the default understanding, there will be contexts that will change this, but that the default understanding when you're talking about all the world in the

New Testament would be that is Jews and Gentiles. The individualistic interpretation, which would mean every human being, and the hyper -individualistic interpretation, which would mean every human being who has ever lived, including the

Amorite high priests and the Jebusites and the Babylonian slaves and so on and so forth that lived long before the time of Jesus, that would not be the default assumption of any of the

New Testament writers. You don't find that kind of Western individualism in the mindset of Near Eastern religion up to the time of the founding of Christianity.

You may want to argue that that is a radical change, but the background of the

Jewish writers of the New Testament, Luke being an exception, would not give us that kind of a radical individualism.

And so, even in the texts that were addressed, the Reformed understanding was not addressed or was assumed errantly and not actually understood.

And so, one of the main problems is, what the pastor said was, he wanted to address this because someone had asked a question of him.

regarding 2 Corinthians 5 .15. And so, let me just pull it up here real quick and remind you.

5 .14, For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died, and he died for all, so they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf.

And so, you have, heis huper ponton. So, one in behalf of all died, eris form, therefore, hoi pontes, all, the all, died.

And so, the question that was being asked, that Pastor Winger was wanting to respond to, was, does this, is this referring to limited atonement?

Because what he wants to try to do is to inhabit the middle space, he even had a graphic that he put up, where he's inhabiting the middle space between particular redemption and the issue of universalism.

Saying, well, we're in the middle, so you can divide the atonement up into its extent and its application, and the

Calvinists limit it here, and the Universalists, it's everybody, and we're in the middle.

So, it's for everybody, but it's only applied to some. So, we're the ones in the balance in the middle, and the Calvinists are on one side, we're on the other side.

I didn't put it exactly that way, but that's how it ends up being presented. And so, that was the foundational question that gave rise to this particular presentation.

But here's the problem. I don't believe that you can deal with the

Apostle's theology without recognizing the centrality in his theology of God's action of election, which had no, had no meaningful impact whatsoever on the categories that the pastor would bring into his exegesis of the text.

It's just not there. It is just not a part of what he even allows into the conversation, and that means when he represents the

Reformed perspective, he's very rarely doing so adequately, because he doesn't see that as part and parcel of what we would be understanding, and where we would be going.

So, when you talk about Paul laying out, we'll look at Romans chapter 5, at least

I hope I remember to look at Romans chapter 5, because it did go into that, but I think most people would recognize that Romans is

Paul's thought -out gospel. Corinthians is not a thought -out presentation.

Both of the Corinthian letters are somewhat jumbled in the sense that Paul is clearly having to respond to a number of different things that have gone south in the

Corinthian experience, and he's not doing that when he writes the

Romans. He clearly wants Romans to be a, you know, his magnum opus, his laid -out, this letter will go, has better operative, both

Romans and Ephesians. From Paul's perspective, Ephesus was a major, major city in the ancient world.

Major center of commerce. Lycus River Valley, through the entire

Mediterranean, through seaports. He spends three years there establishing a sound church.

We see that in the Book of Revelation. Romans, all roads lead to Rome, and that means all roads lead out of Rome.

And so, if you have a sound church there, and if that church has a thorough understanding, that that's going to go out from there.

And so, you would think that if we're going to ask the question, what does, what is

Paul's theology on this subject? We don't want to try to derive it from speculating about a statement made here, a statement made there.

When we have entire, what are called didactic sections, where Paul is staying on one subject and seeking to explain his understanding of one particular subject.

And so, we know that in Romans chapter, well, we could go to a number of different places, but we'll go back to chapter 5.

But in Romans chapter 8, and I'm not going to spend too much time on it, I could spend the entire hour on it without any difficulty.

We know that to the ones loving God, all things work for the good, to those who are called according to the, according to purpose called ones who are.

So, there is this concept in Paul's thought of the overriding purpose of God.

This has to be accepted as a part of his theology, and that purpose results in a calling.

Because those whom he foreknew, now, I will in the future, as the

Lord gives time, deal, as I have already in the past, with the amazing assertion that is going around among certain groups today.

That all this means is that God knew about Jews in the past. God knew about Jews in the past.

That he knew Jews before, and that that's all for knowing means.

And this kind of perspective you won't find in much in the way of historical or scholarly commentary, because it just, it's so obviously drawn from a desire to defend a tradition against what scripture is teaching that most people have not wanted to go so far as to actually defend such a perspective.

But there are people who are doing so. Pro -egno is an action on God's part.

It goes back to the Hebrew term yada, to know. When Adam knew

Eve, the result was a child. So, Adam did not simply know where Eve lived.

He did not simply have her phone number. And simply having knowledge of her existence does not result in a child.

Those whom God foreknew, he also predestined. And predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.

So, if you say that God simply knew about people in the past, the problem is,

Paul here is talking about the divine order that brings about the

Church of Jesus Christ and that brings about the truths of predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

And so, it is patently absurd on a scholarly level to take that verb and place it into one category whereas predestination and calling and justification and glorification are obviously over in this other category and sit there and say,

I'm doing exegesis. No. I'm not saying that Pastor Winger has done this. Those who do this know exactly who

I'm talking about. So, those whom he foreknew, he also predestined, these are divine actions, to be conformed to the image of his son.

The reality is that if it is a part of our being conformed to the image of Christ, which would mean all of salvation, all of sanctification, everything that makes us more like Jesus is a part of this predestination.

And therefore, this is why historically, people have recognized you only have a certain number of choices here and so those who go for the mere foreknowledge defense are limited to simply, well,

God knew who was going to accept him because obviously this is about salvation. It's not just simply about knowing which

Jews were which or anything like that. Obviously, this has to do with salvation.

It's being conformed to the image of his son. And that is a personal thing. How each one of us is conformed to the image of Christ is not a cookie -cutter thing.

The path of sanctification of any one of us is going to be different because we're individuals, but we're all being conformed to the same standard.

And so, predestined to be conformed to the image of his son so that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.

Whoever these predestined are, they are the many brethren, which we could then fruitfully go over to Hebrews chapter 2, a frequently abused and misused text, and see how that text likewise presents the specificity of God's electing grace, things like that there as well.

But Jesus is to be the firstborn amongst many brethren. So, whoever it is here who is being predestined, they are being predestined in such a fashion that the result is that Jesus is the firstborn amongst this group.

That's the Church! That is clearly the consistent reality of what is being said.

That's the consistent exegesis. So, firstborn amongst many brethren, those who may be predestined, these he also called, those who may be called, these he also justified, those who are justified, these he also glorified, golden chain of redemption.

What shall we say to these things? Well, what shall we say? Who even cares about these things?

But for whom is this important? For believers. What shall we say to these things? If God is huper heimon, huper heimon, for us, who can be against us?

Well, who can say these words? All mankind? Those who will undergo

God's wrath in hell? Can they all say these words? Of course not. But notice, the one who indeed his own son did not spare or hold back, but in behalf of us all gave him up.

Now, if you're going to say, this is the giving of the

Son. Here you have not passing reference, but specific didactic teaching on the subject of the extent and intention of the atonement.

Here it is. It's right there in front of us. He who did not spare his own son, but in our behalf gave him over.

Paradidomi is used of the giving over of the Son, but gave him over for us all.

How shall he not together with him freely give us all things?

Who is this speaking of? And I realize the synergist goes, whoever chooses to make it of them.

But I'm just simply pointing out to you, that's not what Paul is saying. That's not the worldview he has.

He doesn't have that Western individualism. He just was talking about how

God did all these things, and it was God's choice to enter into a relationship, and it was God's choice to predestine, and it was

God's choice to call, and to justify, and to glorify. Those are all actions that God did.

There is not a human action in the entire chain. So if you just try to massage that by saying, well, you know, the elect is a group that God sort of chooses, and he doesn't choose who's in it.

He just sort of chooses the group, and then we get to jump in if we want. You must understand, you're reading that in from outside.

You're not reading that from Romans 8. You're not reading that from anywhere in Romans at all. You're bringing that in from outside.

So, notice what it says. Who, so who is the us of 832?

Who will bring a charge against Eclecton Theou, the elect of God.

That's the for whom the Son has been given. Romans 8 .32

-33 teaches, the Son has been given over specifically for the elect of God.

Now, I think the argument that Pastor Winger made at one point was, well, yeah, but since he's given over for everybody, that doesn't really mean anything.

He's been given over for everybody. Just because he's given, just because Paul can say Christ died for me, doesn't mean he only died for Paul.

Well, of course, no one would read that in Galatians 2 as meaning that Paul was limiting anything here.

But here, this is in the context, and this is where the synergistic position falls apart because once you have to defend justification by faith and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ on the same grounds that you are dealing with the issue of man's will or the extent of the atonement, that's where I believe the synergistic system becomes incoherent.

It falls apart because he can't use the same argumentation. What you have here, notice it says, who will bring a charge against God's elect?

God is the one doing what? Justifying. Exact same term, dikaion, exact same form used in Romans chapter 4.

So, the one who's justified is the one for whom

Christ died. Okay? Now, the synergist has

Christ dying for all sorts of people who will never be justified. The problem is, the golden chain just before this had already said that won't happen, has already said those who were foreknown, predestined, called, what's the next one?

Justified. All those who are justified are what? Glorified. The chain is unbroken and unbreakable.

And so, with that in mind, God is the one justifying whom? The elect of God. So, for whom does

Christ die? For the elect of God, and as a result of that, they're all justified. So, if you have

Christ dying for people who will never be justified, Paul didn't know about that. Paul didn't have that teaching.

So, it's not, well, you know, there's a, you're making an assumption here that just because it says he died for one group doesn't mean...

Those old canards, which, I'm sorry, are the essence of David Allen's argumentation, have been answered for centuries.

The fact that he's resurrected them and ignores those responses, leave up to him. But they've been answered for a long, long time.

So, who will condemn? Who can bring condemnation? Well, again, if Christ died for all, this is why the

Universalist's argument is a little stronger than I think Pastor Winger gives it credit for. The Universalist says no one can condemn because Christ has died on their behalf.

And so, if you make the atonement universal, you see, some of the folks out there are promoting the idea of what's called provisionism, that God provides.

This is just another word for possibility. That the atonement is a possibility.

That it just simply makes something possible. That is not what any atonement is.

And it's also based upon a misunderstanding of the fact that in the Old Testament, the offerings were not made in such a way that it was up to the person to accept them being made on their behalf.

The atonement was made to God, not to mankind. And so, when it asks, who is the one condemning?

Christ Jesus, the one who died, rather who has been raised, who is also, see, at the right hand of God, and who is now interceding, huper heimon, the exact same phraseology that we have in verse 32, which means in Paul's mind, the audience for whom the

Son intercedes is identical to the audience for which he gives his life.

And it was less than six months ago that Michael Brown and I were on this program, and that's what

I pushed. And I love Michael, but I don't think he had a strong response to this issue.

And that is, the person who promotes this universal atonement concept must, of necessity, unless you're a universalist, reject the idea that the audience for whom the

Son intercedes is the same audience for which he dies. But it's right here in Paul.

So, you can't bring a charge against the elect of God, because God is the one, as judge, who is justified.

You cannot condemn the elect of God, because Jesus Christ, the one who died, rather is raised from the dead, whom also is seated at the right hand of God, who is interceding, who intercedes huper heimon for us.

Consistent exegesis in context, in harmony with Paul's theology, is very strong.

And it is clear in what is being said. So, what does Paul lay out for us here?

The giving of the Son is for a purpose. The giving of the Son is in light of the electing grace of God. The Father and the

Son are in perfect harmony in the salvation of this specific people.

And that salvation is guaranteed not by anything they do, but by the completeness of the work of the

Father and the Son, which then becomes applied by the power of the Spirit. And then, you have after that, who will separate us in love of God.

We love that passage, but that passage is based upon a theology that synergists just don't really believe.

Oh, you may believe it, but you don't have a consistent reason for it, because of your tradition in not accepting this tough stuff that makes it clear that the atonement is actually an atonement.

It actually atones. It doesn't just make it possible. It doesn't just provide provision. It actually atones, that Christ actually saves his people.

Now, I could jump back to John 6, demonstrate that's the teaching of Jesus. It's found there as well. I'm not going to do that right now.

But the point is, when we go into the texts that Pastor Bringer looked at, he never mentions the elect.

You don't have a sovereign decree of God being accomplished. You don't have anything about... Pastor Bringer, if I missed this, if I somehow, if it didn't get through or something,

I don't know. I apologize, but I don't remember you saying anything about intercession and connecting atonement with intercession at all.

I may have missed it. But I think it's vitally important. And until you deal with that, we're never going to get anywhere because I don't think you're really dealing with Paul's theology at that point.

That's important. So, if we go to 2 Corinthians 5, for the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.

Now, I struggled a little bit to really understand the pastor's position on this when he got around to actually dealing with it, but he did recognize that there is, and I think it's a correct connection between this and Romans chapter 5.

So, we will look at that, but just so you can see, from a

Reformed perspective, keeping Romans 8 in mind, what we just saw of Paul's theology, this is not a difficult text for us to understand.

Having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died, and he died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf.

So, the all here would be all those who are in Christ. Well, who is in Christ?

Well, that's really where our big difference is, because I say that is the result of God's choice, and that choice on God's part in eternity past,

Ephesians chapter 1, if we need to walk through verses 3 -11, we could, but that results in my real choice for Christ, which can only happen after regeneration.

Romans chapter 8, those who are according to the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God. My choosing to obey, believe, submit, pleasing to God, obedience to God's law.

That's what God's law says. But if God's law is something I cannot submit to, being in the flesh, then

I need to be something other than in the flesh. I need to be in the Spirit. How does that happen? Regeneration. And so, when

I'm made a new creature in Christ, it is my nature to do those things. And so,

I do do them. We are not saying that those are, we're not saying God believes for us, we're not saying

God repents for us. We believe, we repent, because that's what new creatures in Christ do.

Okay? Consistency, found here as well. So, that one died for all, therefore all died, and he died for all for a purpose.

This is a hinah clause. Hinah hoizontes, in order that the ones living may no longer for themselves live, but for the one who died and rose again for them.

So, this is a specific group. And his death is said to be for all of them.

So, he said, well, I think my interpretation is better, and that is found, if we go down to verse 18.

Now, all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave us a minister of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.

And again, when Pastor Winger sees world, A, he thinks that all we see is elect.

That's wrong. That's just simply not true. Again, some good reading material available out there, at that point.

We see, when we're talking about extent issues, we see men of every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, we see

Jews and Gentiles. Not Western individualism, mankind atomized.

So, but he just says, see, reconciling the world to himself, so that would mean that provision is made for all, but application is only for certain people, et cetera, et cetera, who believe.

And so you divide, you avoid universalism by sacrificing the power of the atonement.

It's no longer an atonement that actually atones. It's an atonement that makes a secondary act of atonement possible in light of human response.

But that's not what atonement means. So, I'm not sure why

I have this in my ear. I'm not having to listen to anything anymore. It's distracting, actually.

Anyway, so he says, see, so this isn't limited atonement because it says he was reconciling the world to himself.

And then he went from there to Colossians chapter 1, which I think is a different context and a different look at what reconciliation means.

There's reconciliation in regards to God's theodicy as creator of all things and the fact that he's summing up all things in Christ, Ephesians chapter 1, verses 10 and 11, and his rulership over his creation and his just judgment of all creation.

That's one aspect of reconciliation. And then there's the personal aspect of reconciliation, which is more salvific.

There is a sense in which all of creation will be reconciled in the final analysis, but that just judgment is a part of that reconciliation because the

Son, to whom all judgment has been given, John chapter 5, will judge justly as the one who took on human flesh, lived the perfect life, and through whom tremendous grace was extended to all of mankind.

So, there is that aspect as well. So, but the important thing to recognize is whatever this reconciling in verse 19 is, it is salvific, not counting, logizimae, imputing.

This is imputation. This is Romans 4. Not imputing to them their transgressions, and he has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

So, whatever else you do here, you've got to keep this reconciliation within the context of what

Paul himself teaches about the nature of reconciliation and who will be reconciled, and his own teaching that there will be those who will enter into eternity as enemies of God.

There's no way to turn Paul into a universalist at that point. And hence, there's no way to turn Paul into a universal atonementist at that point either.

But then, he came to a lot of conclusions before ever getting to verse 21 that really caught my attention.

He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

Now, if you're dealing with folks from the

N .T. Wright perspective, you can go back and listen to the unbelievable radio broadcast he and I did.

We talked about this text, and we focused in upon it. He says this is not about us.

He doesn't even take Pastor Winger's view of this either. He says it's only about the apostles. He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.

So, this is just the apostles. It doesn't have anything to do with us. And so, what you have is that we might become the righteousness of God in him from his perspective so that God's righteousness might be displayed to the world.

So, rather than the great exchange which has been understood down through the centuries for folks who follow

N .T. Wright, none of this is relevant to that. But for those who recognize,

I think that that's a major error, the point is, did

Christ become sin on our behalf or not? That's not the language of mere provision.

That means that our sins were truly born in his body upon the tree. And if that's a universal salvation, then you are still left with how in the world, if that wrath due to that sin has already been fully paid in Christ, that there can be the punishment of that sin upon any individual simply based upon their not quote -unquote accepting something.

And again, that is a backwards understanding of what acceptance means. The only person that there was concern about acceptance in the sacrifice of the

Old Testament was not the people. It was not offered to them. It was God accepting the sacrifice.

And God has accepted the sacrifice. And so, if that sacrifice has been made in behalf of every single individual, then it's already been accepted, and that's done.

Universalism. Or Reformed Theology. The middle is not consistent.

So that we might become the righteousness of God in him. There is a purpose that Christ cries out upon the cross.

There is a purpose why he prays in the garden. And it's not about physical death.

It's about becoming sin. There was no cowardice in the

Son of God. He was facing something that we can't even begin to understand there.

So I was going to look at Ephesians chapter 1, but we're going long as it is. Let me just point out a couple of other texts here that I think is important.

I think we are also looking at Paul's theology when we look at the book of Hebrews. I don't believe he wrote

Hebrews. I believe he preached Hebrews in Hebrew. And I believe it was written down by Luke.

It's not his style, his language, but it is his theology. And I just want to remind us, as we saw in Romans chapter 8, the vitally important and beautiful connection between not only the obedience of the

Son of the Father, again, Trinitarian harmony in atonement. Father, Son, Spirit working to accomplish the same self -glorification.

If you are not focused upon how this brings about God's glorification, you'll never have a biblical doctrine of atonement.

If you try to examine the doctrine of the atonement separate from the

Father's intention, the Spirit's actuation and application, you will never have a biblical doctrine of the atonement.

I believe that's what David Allen does. I believe that's what Pastor Winger did. Watch the video.

Watch this video. Watch his video. What you'll see is you go from verse to verse to verse.

There's no harmony. There's no discussion of the purpose of the Father, Son, Spirit. None of that.

It's just, well, we can go over here and we can look at this, and there is no harmony.

There is no Trinitarian harmony in atonement. But when you see the great grand themes of Scripture, then you see how these texts fit into them, and that's why you don't have to do some of the eisegetical gymnastics that you have to do around Romans 8 and 9,

John 6, Ephesians 1. You can allow those texts to stand where they are.

So here in Hebrews, Hebrews chapter 7, just a reminder, verse 23, the former priests in the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

But Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds

His priesthood permanently without successor, therefore

He is able also to save panteles to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Now, let me see this, since it's up on the screen, see this right here, tus prosercom menus, those drawing near through Him to God.

You want a sort of a metal detector for discovering someone who has been deeply,

I'll use the term, infected by a synergistic mindset?

And we can use this for all of ourselves. When you look at this text in any fair manner, its focus is upon the capacity and power of Jesus.

This text is functioning to demonstrate to Jewish Christians there's nothing to go back to.

There is nothing to go back to. You may be put under tremendous pressure to go back and offer sacrifice in the temple and all the rest of it, there's nothing to go back to.

It's all been fulfilled in Him. And so the focus is upon the mediator's capacity to accomplish the task the

Father has given to Him. And the unity of the Father and the Son in accomplishing these things.

But when someone who has a strong synergistic it's an issue of man cooperating with God, and God can't do anything apart from man's cooperation, when you have that as your overriding interpretational matrix, you will look at Hebrews 7 .25,

which is actually about Jesus' ability to save.

I mean, who is able? It says, dunatai, He is able.

And you get to, you draw near to God by Him, and He always lives to make intercession for them.

It's all about Jesus, but if you're a synergist, the first thing you see is, ah, but I have to draw near to God by Him.

I have to do this. There is an excellent way to find out where someone is at that point.

Jesus can do all this stuff, but, you see, oh yeah, I can't do most of it myself.

I mean, I really need grace, and I need lots of help, but He can't do it without me.

He can't do it without me. When all that is, is a participial phrase to describe the specific people who came to the temple on the day of Yom Kippurim.

And coming to the temple did not add anything to what God was doing.

It just simply means it's a specific group. There is specificity here.

It's not made for everyone. He does not intercede for everyone. And if you say that Jesus is the great

High Priest, the High Priest intercedes for those for whom He made the sacrifice.

If He doesn't, He has failed as a High Priest. And that's what universal atonement says.

Unless you're going to say that Jesus does atone before the Father, for all those people,

Jesus intercedes before the Father for all those people who were already under God's wrath when He died.

And if you confess the foreknowledge of God, that would also mean that Jesus will have to be in the presence of the

Father interceding for those who will be in hell. That's your position.

That's your position. And if it's not, then you need to come up with a consistent way of saying, no,

I haven't heard a consistent way yet. I would invite Pastor Wenger to provide us with an understanding of these things.

I think it's important. He always lives to make intercession for us, and that is the very mechanism whereby we receive salvation, and so it is absolutely therefore clear when we look at Hebrews 9, 24, for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God, huper haemon, this is starting to look familiar, huper haemon, for us, for us, for us,

Romans 8, here it is again, for us. Who does He, before the very face of God, prosopo tu theu, in the presence of God, face of God, in our behalf?

Because we've been united to Him, not by our actions, but by the sovereign decree of God and the work of His Spirit, we're united with Christ, so that the death of Christ is not something that simply makes provision and is impersonal.

The identity of the elect were known to God and was based upon His goodwill, not our goodwill, because we don't have one.

We don't have a goodwill, we always have a badwill. Until we regenerate anyways. And so,

Christ has entered into the heavenly place, in Hebrews chapter 6, we have an anchor within the veil.

Same issue. It's not all human beings, it's only the elect. The elect of God, Romans chapter 8, and He does this only one time, otherwise

He would have had to do this over and over again, but instead, Christ enters,

He has, so Christ also, having been offered once, verse 28, to bear the sins of who?

Many. Not all. This is drawing directly from the language of Isaiah 53.

The same language. He has borne our sins, He has taken them away,

He is able to save to the uttermost, and He intercedes before the Father on our behalf, and that is the foundation of any believer's security.

That's where it is. That's where it is. So, Pastor Wenger, when you said at the end, well, you know, maybe sometime we'll talk about that Trinitarian harmony and atonement thing.

That's when you talk about limited atonement. That's when you're going to talk about particular redemption. Dr. Allen isn't talking about that,

I'm sorry. He's not dealing with the weight of the arguments.

He's atomized them. This text, it could be understood this way, it could be understood that way, this one over here.

No one's ever going to get anywhere that way. The reality is that the strongest argumentation for particular redemption is found simply in the

New Testament's teaching about God's sovereignty, man's deadness in sin, the perfection of the work of Christ, His ability to save all those given to Him by the

Father, John 6, 38 through 39, and the beautiful teaching that we see in Romans 8 and that we see all through the book of Hebrews, the relationship regarding God's role of Jesus as the

High Priest and His role of intercession before the Father. And so, there are a number of other passages.

He brought up all the standard passages, which again, we've dealt with I don't know how many times. 1 John 2 -2, how long ago was it?

Three weeks ago? Less than three weeks ago? Did a whole program. Started off simply walking through 1

John exegetically, 1 John chapter 1, and we finished with chapter 2 verse 2 to show how there are people who simply jump into it ignoring the flow that came before it to try to use it to make a point over here rather than following its context.

We've dealt with all of these things over and over and over again, and it just seems that a lot of our brothers that have this tradition aren't going to take the time to find out what has been said, let alone to really see how all of this fits together into this beautiful, consistent, fully orbed presentation of truth.

But the thing I want to make sure that you understand, if you do not address the subject of the intention and extent of the

Atonement in the light of the harmony of Father, Son, and Spirit, you will never attain to a truly apostolic, biblical understanding of Atonement.

You never will. It will always be too low. It will always be mired in the creaturely rather than being rooted in the heavenly, in a recognition that it's the

Triune God. It wasn't just something Jesus did. Jesus was obeying the will of the

Father. He was empowered by the Spirit. The whole gospel is Triune, and when you see that, that's when you really see the power that is to be found here.

So, there are lots of other things that we could have gotten into. Like I said, I even had the whole audio up here, but I really think

I've addressed what needs to be addressed, and really hope that if Pastor Winger chooses to respond to this, that he'll focus upon what the actual arguments are.

And it's not just me. If you'll read Owen carefully, if you'll go back to some of the great

Reformed writers, you will see this theme coming up over and over and over again. Don't just take what other people say and think that that's going to be a sufficient response.

Look at what we ourselves say, and you'll see that there's more to it than you might have thought.

So, with that, I hope you found that to be a useful examination of a tremendously important, central doctrine of the

Christian faith, once again, based upon the words of Scripture itself. Thanks for watching the program today.

Lord willing, we'll see you next time. God bless. Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say for His own eternal glory.