The Atonement: Defined by Revelation, or Philosophy?

Well, greetings and welcome. I'm coming to you live from evergreen Colorado beautiful Day up here. We've had beautiful weather so far only one little bit of rain since I've been up here just Completed the double triple bypass bike ride done.

This is the third time. I've done it and I have a a piece of advice for everyone learn from my mistakes since I make so many of them anyways if you put like regular sunscreen on like your arms, okay lather it up real good and Then you put those sunshade like arm things on When you take them off You must completely reapply this it won't stay.

No not even if you don't rub it no, the arm shades will absorb all of this and The result is I well you can't yeah. Let's just say that I'm pretty much the color of a very unpopular Washington football team.

Well, not unpopular with certain people associated with this particular program who remain nameless. But the point is there it's their name that is considered Unpopular and that's that name is now descriptive of my arms.

Two days 237 7 .5 miles 20 ,000 500 feet of climbing as high as the beautiful top of Loveland Pass and You know the first time I drove up Loveland Pass in my car I had to drive on almost left side of the road.

I was so scared of the heights now I've lost track of how many times I've gone gone up and down Loveland and it's it's still freaky to look down and see the The little teeny tiny trucks on I -70 that look like ants down there.

They're so far down and that's where you're going and going quickly without any guardrails but Great time I got to ride. I should tell the story very quickly. I rode the first 35 40 percent of the trip with Pastor Eric Ellis and There was supposed to be a group from the church, but we so I had trouble getting together and so Pastor Eric and I And fell by name Forrest.

We were sort of staying together as we're climbing up Juniper Pass. Which we started later in the day later than I normally do and so they're just they're literally thousands of cyclists going up this road the roads closed and So Eric and I start discussing the EFS controversy the eternal functional coordination stuff.

You know, Bruce Weir grew them Karl Truman and all the stuff that's going on the thing. Where if you make any comment both sides will shoot you. But So we're having this in-depth conversation about inter Trinitarian relationships and the meaning of subordination ism and up just all sorts of this kind of stuff Parakaresis and everything and we're passing all these people or a few people are passing us but we're pretty much passing other people and it was really funny to see the expressions and and Somebody just said wow, that's a pretty interesting topic of conversation.

You got going there. It may be the first time that there was an in-depth Trinitarian dialogue going on while climbing to pass on bikes during the triple bypass bike ride in Colorado, but it was Had a great time.

I don't know why did really really well Crushed my record coming back the second day by 47 minutes. I'm not sure how that happened because I wasn't trying to maybe that's why. Maybe being relaxed has something to do that.

I don't know but leave tomorrow and tomorrow evening Lord willing 7 o 'clock and then Wednesday evening 7 o 'clock in Santa Fe. Look at the banner ads at a Omin org. Everybody's going. Look at the banner ads a Omin org.

There's information there. And hey, I actually put identity. I actually put it in the calendar James It's described as he can use it that tomorrow night. But I feel young so I guess I guess anybody can come I'm not sure but you can check with the church but I'll be speaking this next two evenings in Santa Fe and Then I go from Santa Fe to Salt Lake and We have already posted the schedule for Salt Lake the dialogues with Alma all red and with the locally mom there on who is Jesus and speaking at the OPC there in Magna out on the that would be the West sort of Northwest side of the Salt Lake Valley area and that's where I spoke last year around the same time if I recall correctly and then coming back up here to Colorado and Doing the Bob hook Bob hook.

Yeah, Bob hoping you know Bob Cook Memorial Mount Evans Hill climb. I can see mount it. Well, I can't because there's the shades down right now. But if there's well sort of through one of the slats I can see Mount Evans from here if you've ever been to Denver the big huge mountain that predominates the skyline out to the Would it be that Northwest ish direction is Mount Evans and it's the highest paved road in the continental United States the finish line for that particular little race is fourteen thousand one hundred and thirty feet above sea level and If you've never been that high you you can sort of see the curvature of the earth.

It's it's it's so far up there. It's really cool. And it's just beautiful. The only thing you have to do is dodge the the sheep that live up there toward the top who are unfortunately exceptionally accustomed to humans and Don't really care whether you want to get past them or not.

So anyway, so that's what's going on. One of the reasons that I have not been necessarily Commenting on everything that's going on in the world to be honest with you once in a while. You just sort of need to Let something slide.

It's not that I'm not noticing these things. I did post a Facebook article about the fact that you cannot define words like lives and matter without having a meaningful worldview to place behind that and So it's not like I've just gone into it into a shell but at the same time.

And the first thing I do in the morning isn't to jump on social media or check the email or something else like that. And that's that's probably a good thing. In fact, I read reposted a Facebook meme where these two people are talking in the ladies saying to the man right now I'm finding a conflict between my desire to remain well-informed and my desire to remain sane and I get that I really really really do get that by the way on the way up here.

And I finished while I was driving out up here. I listened to a book. This is not a book written by a Christian. It contains some profanity. But that's what you'd expect because we're talking military Police type guy here.

It's a book crisis of character it was the secure the Secret Service agent that was in both the First Bush and then Clinton White House. He was very much involved in the Monica Lewinsky stuff with with President Clinton and He told his story recently he was on Fox News and all the rest that stuff and and I decided I'd listen to the book and so I started on the drive up and then Finished it on some of the rides that I've been doing prior to the double triple bypass.

Or I may have may have actually finished it. Yeah, actually I finished it on the second day of the the turbo bypass. Anyway, it was thoroughly depressing. Thoroughly depressing. The degradation of our nation at the highest levels the degradation of the White House under the Clintons just Shocking much more than I mean, you know, you could sort of guess but the the place I mean.

And I'm sure it's happened under the the second part of this happened in the Obamas, too. When the Clintons first got in he tells the story about how they were just letting everybody in their second cousin into the White House and These homosexual activists were running through the White House plastering gay pride stickers on antiques on Stuff that's just just irreplaceable.

Absolutely, no respect for the People's House or anything like that at all. And of course one of the big things was he Contrasted how things were under the first Bush with how they were in the Clintons.

That's the only people he could he can contrast because that was the only time he was there. But this is a huge difference in respect. In regards to the White House itself and the nation and all sorts of things like that.

But basically the the brothel atmosphere of The White House with Bill Clinton there and just the screaming Insanity of Hillary Clinton just shocking stuff shocking stuff more than I had ever imagined so.

If you haven't, you know, if you have an interest in those things, you know, maybe you just might go well I already know enough about that. I don't need to be triply depressed by it. But the fact that that in all probability, that's exactly where we're going again.

It's just an amazing thing, especially with what happened. You know the whole idea of justice. Any longer it's just it's a joke. When when the Senate failed to convict Clinton when the evidence was was just overwhelmingly clear.

Every time justice is not done. Then the concept of justice becomes dumbed down farther and farther and farther and farther to the point where Most of us recognize we realize in our heart of hearts that justice is now something not something that we expect to be done.

We're almost surprised when it is done. Wow, they got it, right shocking that's when when the when a disconnection takes place between morality and ethics and what the law is that society is. Well as George will said the the Weimar problem, that's what happened to buy my Republic it no longer had the it was it was so corrupt and the culture was so corrupt that it could not maintain a Republic and What came after it was called the Third Reich well, that's where we are.

I'm not predicting a Third Reich, but I am saying that a a nation a republic requires a certain level of consistency and maturity on the part of its citizens, which Is no longer the case I think in in our situation in in the United States and so I Don't know what's coming, but I just comment on it on it briefly now.

The Doctrine of the Atonement and Why It Matters

One of the main things I want to talk about today and I saw something pop up here. Wow, there's a bunch of stuff popping up here. I Guess Oh Eliezer Maccabee somebody who thinks they All about Edomites and Forgetting well, you know, it's nothing like abusing Romans 913 Jacob if I love it, Esau if I hate it, so all white people are Edomites and therefore God hates all white people.

That's I mean face plantingly ridiculous. No connection whatsoever to the text, but these these folks are out there. Wow. Maybe that person's listening. I don't know. Anyway, what I want to talk about was The one thing that I did get a lot of notification on today.

Yes, I know. There are certain articles out there. I I Maybe after some of the time has passed I Might address the Christian news stuff. And the Seth Dunn article maybe maybe not the Seth Dunn article especially would would require me to lower my standards a good bit to address it, but It's out there and The fact that it's been deleted Only makes it all the more popular.

That's how the internet works. Once you hit save once you hit publish it's done. If you pull it then everybody starts looking through the archive files to find out why I got pulled and it gets read more than It would have otherwise.

Maybe that's why I was pulled. Who knows. I don't know maybe we'll look at some of those things, but there's There's just so much more that is how much more important and so much more. You know Valuable and So what I'm referring to is Tony Costa and Bill Roach and a number of other folks sent me the notes this morning about William Lake Craig, I had noted I may have I may have mentioned on the program.

I don't recall if I did I may have mentioned on the program that Bill Craig just Camera angle That Bill Craig is writing on the subject of the Atonement and I I Sort of went. Well, this is interesting.

This is one area. Isn't it interesting that? There's a tremendous amount of controversy. There's a tremendous amount number of people who are attacking a biblical doctrine the Atonement. But it doesn't it doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention As what Apologia Church does to try to raise funds to help establish a church in Hawaii.

It gives you an idea of the priorities of many people. It would be really nice if some of the folks that are just massively focused upon Issues of adiaphora. Well, well, they say that is but they don't act like it is Would actually invest almost any of that energy in dealing with and digging into The people out there who are fundamentally denying penal substitutionary atonement.

You know, that's why I remember what about two years ago year and a half ago or so I played portions from The debate that Michael Brown did defending penal substitutionary atonement At the IHOP event and we listened as That particular subject was addressed and things like that Most of you probably know That dr. Allen from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary ironically, even though his field is preaching has Somehow been selected by that Cadre of Southern Baptists to be the expert in attacking a thoroughly biblical doctrine of atonement and replacing it with the wonderfully nebulous broad And yet impersonal doctrine of universal atonement, which is very popular in many Southern Baptist churches.

But not because it is overly biblical but because it is very much a Very much a tradition that people have embraced and imbibed over time. And so My understanding is his Kindle book is out and then the paper book comes out later Which is I think normally backwards or something.

I have not purchased purchased it as yet I will I would imagine have to in some way Listen to this huge thing at some point I Honestly, wish somebody else would and in fact if there is someone that I know Who has some experience in this area who who teaches New Testament Greek Hebrew so on and so forth It's sound theologically is planning and responding to this book.

Please. Let me know so I don't have to I Would find it distasteful and a distraction from the primary project that I need to be Committed to but we'll see we'll see what happens Along those lines, but the point is the doctrine of the atonement is absolutely central this is this is not an area of adiaphora and yet Similarly to the doctrine of justification trying to get modern Christians overly excited about Imputed righteousness about the union of the elect with Christ and his death Imputation of You know, and there's there's areas of dispute.

Yeah, what about is is You know people to the new perspective into those areas that don't believe in imputation. They don't or if they believe in imputation. It only goes one direction. There is no Imputation of the positive righteousness of Christ just the removal of the stain of sin there's all sorts of issues and you would think these things would be central but My experience is people are far more interested in things like eschatology or Urine tattoos than they are about the subject of the atonement and so for William Lane Craig to be addressing this as a well-known anti reformed individual, but Uh Craig himself identifies himself as a philosopher and so I'm afraid we're gonna be looking at is a philosophical Treatment of the doctrine of the atonement and while there is certainly room to discuss the philosophy of atonement From a Christian perspective once again, just as with Mullen ism.

What is the problem with Craig's Mullen ism? Well, it's a philosophy looking for a biblical text and Instead of deriving your beliefs from the biblical text you have external sources then deriving driving your exegesis of the text and Though Craig obviously deals with theology a lot.

It's not known as an exegete and so It was interesting to look at the article. It was in response to a fellow by the name of Colton and Here's here it was published just today, so I guess we're right on top of it anyways.

Let me just check to make sure. Yeah, okay. Just just making sure Rich hadn't sent me an email or something like that. We're not on the air. Something that I imagine I was seeing something on my phone the question this is William Lane Craig speaking the question of the extent of the atonement is one that I would rather avoid.

As it seems so secondary an issue when it comes to the atonement and I immediately stop right there and go Secondary, how could it be considered secondary? It speaks to the very Definition of what atonement is as to whom it is applied to.

But anyway, I want to focus on the really central questions raised with a document atonement nevertheless One can't help running into this issue when one reads widely on the subject of the atonement. So I'll share here some tentative thoughts on the matter.

Well I'll share some tentative responses on the matter at face value. It seems incredible to think Christ died only for the elect. You couldn't get a much clearer repudiation of this view than first John 2 2.

He is the expiation for our sins not for ours only but also the sins the whole world. Reformed thinkers are forced into exegetical acrobatics in order to explain away the prima facie meaning of such scriptural statements.

And at that point as far as I can tell let me let me double check this at that point as Far as biblical texts relevant to the issue of extent. That's it. There is no interaction later on. There's some quotations from Romans that are that aren't on that particular subject but immediately the first thing to know is It does not seem that in all of his wide reading.

That dr. Craig has bothered with something like the death of death and the death of Christ and It just strikes me this is the normative this is my normative experience with with pretty much everybody from this perspective.

That derives their theology from an external source rather than exegesis. Is first John let me let me just let me just ask a simple question. Do reform folks know that first John 2 2 is in the Bible. Yes, but it's first John 2 2 a text about.

Is it in a an extended discussion about the atonement and its impact and its effects. No, it's not. Is it even in a topic directly relevant to that? No, it's it's it's mentioned in passing and it's mentioned in such a way as To remind believers that God continues to have his elect outside of their particular fellowship.

That exists at that time that God's going to continue gathering his elective. Well at that point for another 1 ,800 years. You know 1 ,900 years and so the question that that I would immediately ask is if we are talking about the resurrection and Craig of course is much more focused upon this and again.

Even when he quotes scripture in regards to the resurrection. You have the problem that he seemingly has a very weak view of inerrancy so you met not exactly sure how he's taking some of the text he quotes, but Leaving that aside If we were dealing with the resurrection Would he allow an objection?

To the resurrection based upon a statement made elsewhere in scripture. That's not specifically on that subject to be his primary foundation. Why is it that when I hear synergists anti-reform folks Armenians if you want to use that term Dealing or attempting to deal with the subject of the atonement.

They don't go to the the extended discussions of the specific intention of Father Son and Spirit in the act of atonement itself. To start there and then once you've laid a foundation from those central passages then look at References that are made in passing elsewhere in scripture.

In other words follow the old dictum that the clear passages interpret the unclear passages. I mean, he wouldn't allow that to happen on Key issues like the resurrection or the deity of Christ. So why then do it here?

Why not show an understanding of the depth and and power of the Reformed understanding of the teaching of the scriptures on this subject and so Before I look at the rest of What Craig had to say, let me just I feel like I need to illustrate that I need to spend some time today looking at a couple of texts and reminding us of what the real issues are here because I'll be honest with you if you if you have a real understanding of What the key issue in regards to the subject of the atonement is in scripture.

Then you will actually eventually become somewhat frustrated with the and I'm gonna take some heat for this but the shallow nature of The argumentation coming from the other side and you'll be able to recognize that they can't just dive into Key texts on this subject and lay a deep biblical foundation.

Instead when you look at these books What you get is a bunch of either theology or philosophy Creating a system up here before you ever get to the application in texts, you know, we saw that in a very very similar vein with the Soteriology 101 thing where they did the hit piece on me in regards to Acts 13 -48 you Establish all this other stuff before you ever get to the text.

Rather than being able to say well, you know what? Let's let's go directly into the text and let's see when when the scriptures are specifically talking about this subject what they said and Then we can draw our perspective out from that.

So obviously I I think some of the most profound powerful Teaching on this and I I'm repeating some of this stuff and some of you who've listened for a long time about you're repeating yourself. Yeah, but we have a lot of new listeners all the time a lot of new viewers all the time.

Especially since this Hebrew Israelite stuff has taken off. There's a lot of folks are listening and so if I repeat a few things, I apologize for that, but it's it's good for reminding and and it's good for the new folks that are joining us, but I've often said that unfortunately for many Christians their theology of the cross is Sentimental rather than biblical it's you know and and I I appreciate this one of my my earliest memories of Anything to have to do the cross was George Beverly Shea singing the old rugged cross and I'm thankful For that music.

I'm thankful that memory. I'm thankful being raised in that context, but I have to recognize that You know, I think on that there was one and few young folks look it up on Google LP Made of as I Showed the word for the first time to my daughter years ago.

She goes what's vinyl I I hear you're laughing Marty. Um and Studio audience of one hiding in the background there, but it was the old vinyl LP sorry summer, but it's a good story and on the same record with the old rugged cross was What is that song?

In the garden is it called in the garden and it's Let's just say it's it's pretty sappy sentimentalism and it's not really good theology but again, you know, it's what I grew up with and I Have learned that I have to examine those things we all do and I can unlike the emergent church folks that just throw everything off.

I am so remember when I when I talked with The guy whose name I can never remember I think I have a hard drive with a bad sector in it because when I when I try to remember Brian McLaren's name there it is when I try to remember Brian McLaren's name.

It's just It doesn't work. Remember the conversation I had with him on unbelievable about what four years ago now four or five years ago Here's a guy had a very similar upbringing bring to me when I read his books.

He was talking about his as a as a as a five-year-old boy. His black pants and his brightly shined black leather shoes and his white shirt and his and his bowtie. I've got pictures of me like that. I Remember one of those shiny white shirts that I wore at one of those What you call the New Year's Eve services where You know in the old Independent Fundamentalist Baptist context you'd meet on New Year's Eve to you know Bring the year in in prayer and normally watch some type of scary.

That's got a logical movie or something like that, too and I Remember so clearly trying to stay awake in the corner of a of an uncomfortable pew. Around five years of age, maybe six or seven somewhere.

And so when I'm reading McLaren's book, I'm going that was me man, you know. How do we get to such completely different places? Well, we both learned that you have to Make your faith your own you have to Examine it you you have to see How deep your understanding really is and if there's traditions you need to examine your traditions the destiny and McLaren is.

He figured you need you do that with everything so the Trinity the Bible nature of the gospel the nature of sanctification everything goes on the table and everybody just gets to reinvent the wheel and I Recognize that's silly.

That's that that's impossible. You can't know no one can reinvent the wheel every generation there's that's not an about that that is in an imbalanced way of doing and So I held on to that which is true and that which is historical and that which is thoroughly biblical and what I could defend using a consistent biblical hermeneutic but and It's not on this issue, but on certain issues I can't if I can't and you know, maybe somebody else can and I'm just not as smart as they are.

But if I can't defend something biblically then I'm not going to be able to hold it as a dogma of the faith and So when it comes to this issue of of the atonement we have to Recognize that this is a central aspect of biblical teaching the problem is That the central passages that teach it are in the most unpopular book of the New Testament.

Well, I suppose third John is probably the most popular book of the New Testament. Sorry John, but In all probability, but when I talk about major books in the Bible It really seems to me that when it comes to New Testament the book of Hebrews It just doesn't rank up there and I've said many times why it is it is it assumes a deep familiarity on the part the reader with the Tanakh with the Torah the Nevi 'im the Ketuvim the law the prophets and the writings and Most people today do not have that kind of familiarity.

And so they find the argumentation they find the the weight of the of the presentation lacking and Yet the longest continuous presentations of what the purpose of Father Son and Spirit in the entire drama of redemption are to be found the book of Hebrews and I Thoroughly believe that it was the unpopularity of that book and the split that took place between the church and the synagogue so much so that the warning of Romans 11 was was ignored and as a result Much knowledge of the Old Testament was lost amongst people and and you cannot understand Hebrews.

If you don't if you don't have that Old Testament background the result of that was a imbalanced unbiblical shallow doctrine of atonement. Anybody who studied church history one of the things we'll be talking about.

I don't know a couple months from now in church history Will be the fact that you do not have a full treatise Specifically on the doctrine of atonement written till the middle of 4th century in church history.

Now, why would that be? Well, it wasn't the focus and part of the reason for that is that the main New Testament presentation of this subject is all wrapped up in the Old Testament view of the high priest and If we don't have high priests anymore and if only the Jews have high priests we don't like the Jews anymore, then why why bother and that's basically what happened and We're sort of living with the results of that even to this day so when we It's even difficult to be honest to just dive into the book of Hebrews at some point because there is such a a Rich context and flow to the book that builds upon itself.

That is very very useful if you're not aware of this I preached through Hebrews over the course of about four years. Not every Sunday, I don't preach every Sunday at my church, but And it's available at sermon audio .com if you want to Get a more in-depth verse by verse run through in in the book, but going to chapter 7 there is a discussion of the Melchizedek priesthood and The concept of the supremacy of Christ priesthood.

To the Levitical remember the key to remembering to understand the book of Hebrews is very simple the argument of the book of Hebrews is addressed to Individuals who are being pressured to go back to the old ways very clearly.

He was was written before the destruction of the temple and these Hebrew Christians are being pressured to go back to the old way and The argument of the book of Hebrews is there is nothing to go back to.

What you have is the fulfillment of and so much better than what you had before despite the fact that in that day Christianity was this little group of persecuted people that were being called cultists and And Judaism had the temple and the high priesthood and the sacrifices and All that stuff despite all of that the reality is that there's nothing to go back to and So this argument is being developed numerous different ways number different threads through the book of Hebrews and in chapter 7 you have this Idea that the Melchizedek priesthood it is given by an oath rather than genetically rather than being passed down.

Because Christ was not of the tribe of Levi. So how could he be this great high priest? Well it's because God had established a pattern before and with Melchizedek who was also not of that tribe and that Melchizedek's priesthood is superior to the priesthood that would be represented by the high priest and Judaism of that of that particular day and so When we jump in to the text in Hebrews chapter 7 it says so much the more also Jesus Has become the guarantee of a better covenant a better covenant and so Jesus is described as as a guarantee the guarantor of this better covenant than the old covenant so there wasn't again anything to go back to and Then starting verse 23 the former priests on the one hand Existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing and so on the old priesthood you had High priests who are priests for only a certain period of time.

But then they cannot continue that high priesthood because they grow old and they die. You're only supposed to have one high priest at one time that was changed by the Romans, but that's a different issue.

Then verse 24, but Jesus on the other hand, so on the one hand you have the old and Now on the new hand, here's here's this is the new covenant. This is how Jesus is a guarantee of this new covenant. Jesus on the other hand because he continues forever holds his priesthood Aparabatam it can be understood as permanently or without successor.

I only mentioned that for two reasons when you're dealing with Mormonism and its idea that Their young men on bicycles at 19 and 20 years of age are actually Melchizedek priests. The biblical teaching is that Jesus does not pass his priesthood on to anyone else.

He is the only Melchizedek priest. There is no other Melchizedek priest. That would take us back to the old ways of a of a repeating priesthood. That had to be have new people coming into it because of death so and so we're no Jesus another hand because he continues forever holds his priesthood Permanent without successor.

He does not need anyone to to step in because he has been resurrected from the dead. He is ascended and is now seated at the right hand of the father. So he holds his priesthood permanently. The other reason I mentioned is as it's an example.

I like to use in talking to Mormons there's no there's no question that the Greek term there is Aparabatam. You know, they tend to seem to think the Bible's been changed so many times and no, in fact, it's interesting me the purest Transmission of any of the New Testament books.

In other words the book with the fewest Highly relevant textual variants is the book of Hebrews and I like to use as an example. But anyways, he holds his priesthood permanently. Well, what does it mean?

That Jesus holds his priesthood permanently. Well, I've said many times whether you believe the salvation is Fundamentally the work of God. Or whether you believe it is something that God makes possible, but it's fundamentally determined by the actions of man Will have a huge impact upon how you hear scripture.

I don't think there's any question as to what the Bible's perspective on that is but You can really tell where someone's coming from when you read a scripture to them and you hear how they hear it. So When I hear it said that he holds his priesthood permanently.

Well if my focus is that it is His power his ability his office his ability to do what the father says the the perfection of his actions as the high priest that will determine my salvation not just the possibility of my salvation but actually Determine whether I will be saved then I hear this and this is this is very meaningful to me.

If it is just a matter of well Yeah, Christ makes salvation possible and he does a wonderful job making us savable. But he doesn't actually save. I'm gonna hear this in a completely different fashion completely different way now.

You might say well then it's just a matter of how you hear it. No, because the next verse can only be heard one way can only be understood one way, but It does in is important to recognize this because first 25 very clearly therefore He is able suds on ice top Ponte less dunata He is able to save either forever Ponte less can be forever or to the uttermost completely Utter-extension, you can see how the two concepts are related in their semantic domain.

He is able to save Forever or completely those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them and Then the very next verse is for it was fitting for us to have such a high priest holy innocent undefiled Separated centers exalted above the heavens.

So this is talking about his high priesthood and Because he holds this priesthood permanently he is able to do something. What is he able to do? I suggest to you that the phrase So design ice top on tell us do not I does not Contain within it a Hypothetical concept it's not saying he is able to make us all savable.

That is a completely different proposition Than to say he is able to save completely. So what's the focus of? The author of the book of Hebrews. Just as it is the focus of The Apostle John in John chapter 6 when when he quotes Jesus as saying I've not come to do my own will.

But the will of him who sent me and this is well He was sent me that of all that he's given me. I lose none of them, but raise him up on the last day. Now if we just listen to that if we just hear that The focus is upon the Father and the Son.

It's really a continuation of the unity of the father and son that was strongly introduced in chapter 5. So the son does the father's will he does it perfectly he must have the ability to fulfill the father's will and the father's will is that he's saved perfectly all those that the father has given to him and What does the sinner just automatically do?

What is the one who who hears the scriptures not? It with the focus upon what God does to his own glory well, the first thing you have to do at John chapter 6 come up with some way of Getting around that assertion.

And so well, yeah, the father gives the son those he foresees are going to believe in him and The same thing happens here in Hebrews chapter 7. Well Even though the whole emphasis of All the verbs and the and the context and the flow of argument is upon Jesus as the perfect Accomplishing high priest and that's that's the whole whole argument of Hebrews.

Is that these people are being told to spit on the name of Jesus to trample underfoot the blood of the Son of God? So the focus is upon Jesus Jesus Jesus all the way through. But what does the sinner just do when he reads Hebrews 725?