What is General Satisfaction of the Atonement? With Austin C. Brown DMW#241

John Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement. Stick around. Exploring theology doctrine and all of the fascinating subjects at the king. Broadcasting from an undisclosed location. Dead men walking starts.

Show Intro and Sponsor Reads

Well, hello everyone. Welcome back to another episode of dead men walking. I'm your host Greg Moore as always you can find out more about us at DMW podcast Dot-com social media dead men walking podcast and of course X Twitter X real DMW podcast.

Welcome back to another episode. Good to have you here. Thanks for sharing with a friend appreciate that. But first gotta tell you about a new podcast that I absolutely love will do to me. It's been going on for a while.

Report with Andrew rap report. We love new podcasts. We love good podcasts. We love godly podcasts. This is one of them. Andrew rap report on the rap report talks about apologetics theology doctrine culture politics.

I mean everything that you need to know about and He doesn't so well. He has all kinds of great guests on. Megan Basham was just on there Gabe Hughes Jay Warren Wallace and the guests roll in they talk about cool stuff.

Go check out that podcast. It's part of the Christian podcast community. We go to striving for eternity org and check out the list of everything that he has going on there. Also squirrely Joe's coffee love these guys.

They got a special offer for dead men walking listeners right now. You can get the best reformed premium coffee a bag of it for free. Just click the link below in the description. All you gotta do is cover shipping.

He's gonna give you one of those bags for free that you select from the website. He's got premium coffee with all kinds of notes and flavors. You can see if you're watching here in the background. I've got a couple bags on the shelves.

I'm working through integrity right now. The compassion and wisdom is also good. I've had all of those and He's just a great partner. We need to be supporting brothers in the Lord that are building things.

He has this coffee business squirrely Joe's coffee, and I'm telling you guys I wouldn't be talking about it if I didn't believe in it. I've had some bad coffee from some Christian brothers. I do not advertise for their coffee.

I don't tell you to go buy their coffee because it's not good coffee. I'm sorry I'm not gonna mention any names, but squirrely Joe's is good coffee. It's premium. It's roasted. He does it all down there.

Go check it out link below. Squirrely Joe's coffee because if you're not drinking squirrely Joe's coffee, you're just squirrely. So with that being said, yeah the opener little teaser for you. John Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement.

What is that all about? Well, we had a brother on his name is Austin Brown. He's a churchman husband father three. He's been in the PCA the RPN CNA. He's an author. He studies theology does a lot of online gaming too.

We didn't talk about that too much though. But he believes in general satisfaction of the atonement. He believes in an election Predestination he's not Arminian. He's reformed, but he doesn't believe in limited atonement and That I found that very interesting and when you go back and kind of look at some of the Reformers including John Calvin.

Many do believe that he believed in general satisfaction in the work of the atonement as well. So we talked about that and I told him hey, I'm a limited atonement guy, but I understand your position. What do you think about this?

What do you think about that? We talked about 2nd Timothy 410. We talked about What does it mean in? John 3 16 and John 3 17. He gave us a little historical context of General or universal satisfaction of the atonement.

We made it clear. We're not talking about Universalism everyone saved everyone, you know comes to know Christ. That's not what we're talking about. Specifically what was it that Jesus died for and rose again?

What did his blood accomplish? What did his atonement accomplish and who was it for? So very interesting episode. I probably ran about 40 minutes I had I needed to be out of there at a certain time probably could have went longer, but I think it was a very concise theologically packed Episode where we did not mince words.

We didn't waste time. He also at the end of the episode which I always ask gave us his theological Journey to of where he came from and how he landed on his views. Which I always find interesting with just about every guest that I have on what their journey is through that because it's always interesting to me when we have two brothers in the Lord looking at the same verse same chapter same book and Come away with two different systematic theologies or two different doctrines out of that and we go.

How do we get there? And what are your reasons behind that? So Very good episode with Austin Brown the next voice you hear will be well the next two voices you hear will be him and I. Talking about general satisfaction.

Here we go. So Austin Austin Brown nice to meet you in. I guess this isn't in person but online. Which is the second best thing we can do right? Yes, I guess I'm a fellow dead man walking, right? Yes, you are.

I think we're all according to Ephesians 2 dead men walking dead in our sins and trespasses. But by the grace of God we have been raised to high and priestly places just like Christ. So, yeah, I want to talk about universal satisfaction because I kind of know of this.

I'm not an expert in it. This seems to be one of your passions. I've watched you debate online and have discussions and go on podcasts with this and it's really kind of In opposition to the limited atonement and for those listening to we're not talking about universalism.

We're not talking about everyone goes to heaven, you know, not we're talking about universal or general satisfaction of what the actual work of Atonement was what it did what it accomplished and I want to have you on to talk about it.

So before we do that, can can you give us a little just personal background though? Like you married kids like kind of what you do a little bit of your testimony. We like to get to know our our guests here a little bit on the yeah I think of myself as a husband.

I'm a father of three a Churchman. I've served as a deacon in the RPC na I've served as a ruling elder in the PCA. I love to write. I've written various books. Love studying theology. Movies and competitive online gaming.

I just I've been playing games since like four years old I had the Coleco vision and it's just never stopped. All right, okay, what kind of books are you writing some theology. So one like one for example is called the case for utter hopelessness.

Why atheism leads to a yielding despair and it really is my book and I'm serious when I say this that if if I 100 believe that atheism were true. I was true. I would I would kill myself and this book is a defense of that choice.

I've written on Satan's fall. I'm a mailman. So I've written about being a mailman some novels and then of course my my my cheeky recent book a boisterously reformed polemic. Against limited atonement.

Okay. Yeah, we'll link that all up to so if you guys are listening or watching anywhere. It'll be linked up. You can click through that and if you want to purchase that peruse his collection, we'll do that.

I've always found to you know atheist atheism really is depressing because it even removes like the common graces of God that the beauty of creation and in the majesty of that to where. You know I believe even you know.

We are without excuse Roman says right like even the unbeliever that shakes their fist at God. Still has some proofs of God still can look at us and go. Okay something created this right? I'm boiling it down to a very basic form, right, but it'd be so depressing.

They just you know, we're all just what a bunch of stardust and flesh bags floating around with no, right. But no purpose no moral standard right like it's all chance and you go man, that's depressing.

Oh big-time like all my moral denunciations. Really mean nothing. They're just preferences. I'm just voicing preferences and and and just the thought of eternal nothingness awaiting you. Like if I could just flip a switch right now, and I'm just off forever.

Yeah. That's that's crushing to the soul. Yeah, I guess their argument would be though that's how it was before you were born and you had no awareness of it sure no basis argument the Grant that I wouldn't care in the least but thinking about that right now is just a horrible thought sure.

The Extent of the Atonement: Universal or Limited?

All right. So let's get into Universal satisfaction or sometimes I hear well general satisfied. What term do you use for that? Yeah, I'm gonna speak Universal satisfaction because I mean colloquially you could you could say unlimited atonement.

But that is so bound up like it's almost like the Armenians have the quarter on that term. Yeah on that phrase and so if you say unlimited atonement, then people are gonna go Oh, either you're an Armenian or you believe in universalism or something like that.

So yeah. Yeah, so we go to a universal satisfaction. All right. So I'm someone who has a basic let's say I'm someone who has a basic understanding of the doctrines of grace. Even from the Calvinistic or the Arminian side.

Because we have what we have reformed guys that listen I have a lot of Pentecostals and charismatics that listen so you're talking to a wide audience here so can you give us the definition in if they have a basic understanding of limit assuming of a basic understand limit limited atonement and Arminianism Calvinism kind of give us the the kind of the foundational definition of what universal satisfaction is.

Right the key question in the debate over the extent of the atonement is this. For whose sins did Christ suffer? Okay, if a person says I Think Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect alone. Well, then you're gonna fall into limited atonement camp if you say I think Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind.

You're going to fall broadly in some in some flavor under universal satisfaction. Okay. So yeah that you got to that quick. I thought we were gonna go another three to five minutes on that definition.

Yeah, I mean we. Yeah, so you would put those in those two camps then of really only they're being universal or. Those are the. Either right because because the logical choice here is either Christ died for the sins of some men or all men, right?

Like there's really no other. It's either summer off, right? So we have to make a you have to make a logical choice steering one of those directions and precisely that is the crux of the debate that began in the you know, 16th particularly the 17th century.

That's that's when all this really kicked off and became a real thing. So are you Calvinistic in your? Systematic theology or not? Yes, you are. Yeah, I would subscribe to I would subscribe happily to like the canons of Dort.

Okay, which is which is what the five points are supposedly based on. Okay, so you would probably be taking that out a lot of tulip though then correct you you would you consider yourself a four-point Calvinist as they say, I don't even like using the three and four point but yeah, see that's what's here.

This is what's interesting. So I have next to me The the creeds of Christendom, you know by shaft. It's a great little thing if and if I open up to the second head of doctrines the second head was actually on the atonement, you know, it's not like the The TUL.

It isn't a perfect one-to-one correlation what they did with tulip, okay, so this is under the second head of doctrine. You know if you look at like article 6 listen to this and Whereas many who were called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief this is not owing to any defect or Insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross.

But as holy to be imputed to themselves. So you have statements like this that What most people don't know is when Dort was being written. You had some Calvinists who were let's call them high Calvinists who would hold to a strict limited atonement.

They would say no. No, Jesus only suffered for the sins of the elect full stop. And then you're gonna have other people like Usher or Davenant or these different figures particularly from the British delegates.

Who are like no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you don't know there is a universal satisfaction going on here and we hold to election and so those two people were kind of battling it out over the language of Dort and They basically agreed upon a consensus statement that allowed both of them to sign on in good faith.

So it's I would say it's deliciously ambiguous. And so in that sense, do I hold to all five points of Dort? Well, yes, so in that sense, I'm a five-pointer. Okay, so for me though in I'm just wrestling through my head some.

Wondering how you make this connection for me. It's almost like that, you know in under the doctrines of grace or tulip as you want to say. The limited atonement kind of hinges kind of foundation for me of All the other points if you kind of pull the rug out of limited of a limited atonement and then say well His the satisfaction was for all the work on the cross what Christ did his blood is potentially You know could save everyone.

Well, then I kind of feel like the other. The other tenants crumble behind that when we start talking about predestination and God's sovereignty and and all that. Am I seeing that wrong? I'm sure you've heard that objection before.

Yeah. So, how do you square that? Right. Well, let's make a interesting historical observation first. Okay, almost all of the early reformers to the man held my view and I think almost without question.

So did Calvin without question men like Ursinus Who was behind the Heidelberg Catechism a reformed confession? He held it obviously Luther held it. Zwingli held it musculus held it you go down like Charles Hodge held it very clearly.

Jonathan Edwards Dabney, you know, you have Really respected names who hold this view. So let's just it would be very odd if I mean nobody questions their let's say Predestinarian convictions right like shows are really established.

So it would be very odd for that argument to be true. Given the fact that so many men who held it didn't see a problem with it now I'm not saying there couldn't be a problem. I'm just saying from a historical perspective It is I would just say it's a it is a little naive to just Press that on me when I mean my goodness a lot of big names held it.

Yeah, I'm not saying I'm questioning them or you I'm just saying I guess then how did they how did they squared? I'm not a church history scholar. I bring people on every week that are much smarter and more intelligent than me and then I just ask some questions I don't know and I've always said this podcast going on five years has been very selfish in that way.

You know, I get to have guys on and have fun discussions and learn. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I go. Yeah, it's mostly for me. So, so how are so how are those squared I guess because when you do some reading of Calvin There's some places where you go.

Yeah, it seems like he's saying satisfied for all. And like you said Jonathan Edwards as well. So when we look at kind of the limited atonement camp where they say look at predestined from before the foundations of the world.

Some for some not against not unto our own doings. Because the freedom of God can choose whom he wants to choose and then we also have okay a general satisfaction. That says the work on the cross Was and let me get this right.

It was I mean, is it is it more? Arminian and saying it's potentially for everyone. But only those who choose is that I mean, I mean, I wouldn't be I wouldn't there's a certain sense of potential which that's Perfectly fine.

Then there's another sense of potential that might hint at certain like Libertarian freewill assumptions, right? So, you know as we but but you know, I'm saying so Let me back up and give a big picture and just like here.

Here's how I would see these pieces fitting together with like predestination. So on the one hand, I Think the Bible is full of like you have generalities and specificities. Meaning like God has a general love for the world and there's a special love for the elect there's Common grace for the world and there's like common or special grace for the elect.

There's a common call a general call and there's an effectual call. There's general revelation special revelation, etc, etc. I think That is also true with the Atonement. And so there is this sense in which Christ Did all that was necessary for the sins of the whole world.

He's of infinite value he really did substitute on behalf of humanity such that there really is an objective provision for Everyone there really can be something objectively offered and something objectively Rejected.

Okay. So then you go. Well, how okay, but how do you square that with predestination? Okay. Well, that would be that John 3 16 kind of love and kind of love expressed in the Atonement. But it's also true that as the gospel goes out to humanity who you know.

You and I would agree. Let's just say that they have a a particular stubbornness regarding their autonomy. And they're like, no, thank you. I like my autonomy. I don't think I'm not that bad. I don't need you, you know.

They raise their fist against God all of humanity does that? God implores them to repent commands them to repent. He does that for all but there are some that he especially Gets a hold of if you will he turns the lights on he grabs them by the lapels he knocks them down on the Damascus Road as it were and That would be the the particularity or the special element like I'm going to infallibly imply the apply the Atonement to you.

By bringing you to faith that has been my plan before the foundation of the world and it will Instantiate in history. So so and then I'm gonna keep them right. Perseverance of the saints. So all these things can work together.

Okay, so this might be a crude analogy, but the way I'm hearing it in my mind you tell me if I'm wrong, so there is a. There is a bucket full of mud and pebbles and we can't see any of the pebbles the Atonement allows all the pebbles to be cleaned off and Kind of raised to the top and then God comes down and chooses which pebbles he wants.

So there's a general satisfaction of the yes, not that God needs that satisfaction. But you're saying the general satisfaction of the Atonement allows even the elect to be elect. Or no, I mean. Well, I mean the election.

The election of God is part of a much larger plan that includes Christ. Infallibly, he's gonna get a sheep. But it's the key thing here. Is that is did Christ do something for the sins of the non-elect.

Limited Atonement is gonna say no, they did not my view is going to say well, yes, they did because it's the saddest. We're going to differ on some and this is where you start to get into the weeds. Like normally the limited Atonement guy is gonna go.

Hey, man. I think your view leads to double jeopardy. Right, you can't you you can't have Christ dying for some money and and then they get punished later or they're gonna come up with like what's called disharmony in the Trinity arguments and and things along these lines and a person's gonna have a long back and forth over texts and concepts and you're gonna wash out on one side or the other but fundamentally to your point either.

Yeah, your bucket analogy. Yeah. Sure. I'm yes. You cleaned. I guess I guess what I'm getting at is so what is so from the the universal satisfaction or general satisfaction view. What what is it that?

Christ Atonement did for them. Right, is it specifically? Yeah. Right, so you could see there's a limited Atonement guy says absolutely nothing which I know a lot of a limited Atonement guys go. Sorry, we still preached everyone because we don't know who is elect but that did absolutely nothing for that guy.

Conclusion right. So so what is what are you saying? Jesus's Atonement did for the one who never believes and is not saved. Yeah and I think a similar question and I'll answer it but let me Come about it from a back door a similar question could be asked with like the Day of Atonement in Israel.

Because obviously the Day of Atonement this the highest of all days was done for all the people it was done for the nation. And so in a very real sense propitiation was made for all the people but Leviticus 23 and other places you see that.

Oh wait, what makes that? When does that apply? Well when they afflict themselves they fast and they Repent and believe right like so you you can have this sense in which yes Christ really does do something on behalf of humanity.

Let's call it a Provision right like it'd be like looking at the Bronze Serpent and going was there healing in the Bronze Serpent even for those? Who were bitten and didn't look. I would say well, yeah.

Yeah, of course in the same way that what Christ did on behalf of humanity is of infinite worth. What was suitable for one man is suitable for a trillion, you know worlds of people. So in that sense, maybe the best word would be to call it a a Provision is there there's something objective a real Savior stands there.

Saying come to me you you will have eternal life through me. Okay, so. So there's a there's a possibility there, but then you still that you hold to election as well though. That's right, correct. Mm-hmm.

So it so the Atonement gives every single person the possibility. But unlike the Arminian you would say God elects instead of it being based on maybe someone choosing God first right because Let's think about the nature of an offer.

Yeah, so You know, this is such a simple analogy. But if I offer you a million dollars, I have to have a million dollars in order for it to be a legitimate offer. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. I mean everybody should agree with that like hey if I'm gonna if it's gonna be a Sincere or legitimate offer.

I got to have a million dollars to offer you a million. And I think the same is true with God's offer of salvation to all of mankind. Christ had to do something in terms of a provision such that he can genuinely offer it to any particular person.

Now we're the quote-unquote irresistible grace and total depravity come in is If I let's imagine you're a anti-vaxxer too, I mean you you are a full-on well, let's not make it. Let's not make it personal.

Let's just imagine some guy by name a Brock who is an anti-vaxxer to the full hilt. He will not accept any vaccine smallpox anything and a doctor offers him the smallpox vaccine. That offer is still legitimate.

Even though he knows that the act the anti-vaxxer is gonna no matter what just turn it down similarly with the gospel God is sincere and true with his offer. Because it is grounded in something real and what Christ did but men in their stubborn rebellion refused to repent and Refused to accept it and it's their fault and you can hold them certainly accountable for that.

But some men he's going to overcome their unbelief and bring them to a point where they're like, yeah, what was I doing? I'm an idiot. Yes, I'll take Christ. Right, so what are some of the Historical, where did we start seeing this and maybe you don't know the answer to this question, but I'm interested because I don't know.

Where did we start seeing? Kind of that splitting of hairs between or the discussions of what actually Christ's Atonement did Limited Atonement verse, you know universal satisfaction. Where did that where do you really start seeing that in church history where it not necessarily divide but people going?

Hey. We've got to figure this out or there is a difference here. Yeah, right like in all in all sincerity and I really I don't think anybody would dispute this that the church for the first 1 ,500 years Believed that Christ died for the sins of all men so they would affirm universal satisfaction.

That was just the view I mean there was like this monk got chalk and like the 9th century who? Yeah, he held to a form of limited Atonement and he was condemned in a few French councils, but I mean essentially no one held it until.

You have the Arminian Calvinist debate and you have Theodore Beza one of Calvin's, you know famous students. He tightened this up. And so then you have Theodore Beza and like John Owen Francis Turretin.

Really popularizing this. And that's really when it began to take hold is, you know, the late 1500s basically. Okay. Yeah, so I guess for those listening to if we're making a distinction between Limited and in general really to my ear and tell me if I'm wrong really the only difference is God's election because the the Atonement has satisfied whatever floor standard I need to be able to For it to be effectual for the Atonement to be effectual every single man Throughout history has had that same opportunity with the death of Christ and resurrection and the difference is Then the election of God.

Overcoming that however, we want to phrase it overcoming the will of man or whatever. Is that will work and in there's many reformers that believe that. Yeah. Yeah, you've put your finger on it. Like you could say election or you could just say what is the intention of God?

You know on the one hand the one intention would be a John 316 kind of intention, you know, whosoever I love the world I'm given this as a bronze serpent as it were anybody can look anybody can be healed.

But I've also got this kind of John 6 or John 10 or John 17 Intention right where it's like no. No, no my my sheep hear my voice and they will follow me I will bring them to me. I will raise them up. And so yeah, you're right the distinguishing element in In on my view is the effectual intention of God and so I'm sure you've heard this this is a famous formula and it was back in like the 12th century I believe this one.

Yeah under Peter Lombard. He was like the famous systematic theologian of the day and he came up with this phrase, which is Christ died sufficiently for the sins of all men. But efficiently for the sins of the elect.

Right and then Aquinas like that Calvin like that a lot of guys have liked that and so I think that's a good summation. Because it kind of captures both elements. So he died sufficiently for the sins of all men.

But efficiently or effectually for the sins of the elect they are going to infallibly be brought to faith and saved. You know since you brought up John 316. What do you think think of this because this really confused me so just to give you a little bit of my backstory I was I was.

The people in the podcast pray hate that. I repeat this to every guest I'm sorry, but You know just the same yeah very quickly brought up non-denominational church, but very legalistic, you know drum beats are bad.

Don't look at anything secular. I mean it was very real in that sense, right? I was sat down when I was 13 said hey. We know you're taking piano lessons and you got a recital you're playing Keith Green you put this love in my heart.

That's a Christian contemporary music song. That's devil music and then you look back and go Keith Green geez, I mean, yeah, you know, I didn't agree I don't agree with him theologically, but what a heart for the Lord.

Anyway, then moved into in my early teens into a very Pentecostal Church. That was you know, Bethel associated and gold from the ceilings and feathers and all that kind of stuff. And can I ask you were you were you doing this alone or were you with was your family family?

Family. Yeah, so then ran from the Lord shook my fist at him. Rebelled for a good eight or nine years and I'm not gonna get into everything and how the Lord brought me through that. But then in my early 20s just went Okay Let's start just reading the Bible because I had questions as a young kid in church and I would never get good answers.

You know, I remember going up to my youth pastor and this kind of this is kind of on subject. So I'll tell it I said, why do people go to hell and he said well for unbelief I go I just read in the Bible that That unbelief is a sin and he goes.

Yeah, and I said, but Jesus died for all sins, right? He goes. Yeah, and I go then why is anyone in hell? If Jesus right and I didn't know as a 13 year old, but I'm wrestling with universal satisfaction and limited atonement like I don't write and they just looked at a Good one and laughs and walked away right nicely Owens one of his famous Arguments.

Yes. Okay. So yeah at that point. I didn't even know I was arguing like a reformer. Maybe it was a little foreshadowing but My point being is I went back to the Bible and I went let's just read the Bible because I feel like the two Major churches I went through my whole life.

We have we've put a lot on tradition. Well, this is the way it's always been done. This is how we our denomination does it right? So I start reading through the Bible. Start falling in love with the doctrines of grace and going.

I didn't know this was in here and one that stuck out to me. Was John 3 16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only son, right? I knew that verse growing up, but I never really read the second verse right behind at 17.

It says for God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world. But so that he so that the world might be saved through him and at like a 23 year old 24 years old I went. Oh, I'm a genius. Look what I found the word cosmos is used in 16 and 17, but two different ways.

How do you understand that and then I realized you know people have been arguing about that for hundreds of years and I wasn't that smart at all, but That one that one kind of stuck out to me because we have people saying well the world means Every single person everywhere for all of time and then the very next verse he's using world in a very general sense.

And it's the same word. So to me whether I'm limited atonement in that I use that for limited atonement or general satisfaction I feel like either one of us kind of have to insert our own Kind of systematic theology to go.

Well, the word is used either differently there or the same there in in between 16 and 17 and that was a real struggle for me and I went oh There's a lot of places in the Bible and look at I know the hermeneutic make sure we zoom out and right.

We're not taking stuff out of context and all that. Yeah but that was a place for me where I went in especially growing up in Pentecostal churches to where they will take one or two verses and they create a whole doctrine on that, right?

It's insane what they can get away with with one verse out of context. So for you when you look at that and you see world being used in 16 and 17 right below it world being used seemingly two different ways.

That that does that give any credence to the limited atonement guy who goes? Hey world just means the cosmos in general the the reality in which he created he loved so much. It doesn't mean every single person will he be generally satisfied by the atonement?

What's your what's your thoughts on that when you hear that argument? I'm sure you've heard it. Oh sure. Yes, and and obviously this would be a this would be like an exegetical question, right? And so yeah, of course the word cosmos can mean like the celestial earth, right?

Like the physical earth. I can but I think if I'm gonna be and I want to be just as honest and transparent as possible and I really mean this and I mean, no no disrespect, but The vast vast majority of New Testament scholars of even reformed types Understand the world to mean the mass of sinful Humanity that's that's really what John means when he talks about the world and I think I think if if we were to spend some Time and go to chapter 1 and establish it and then even look here contextually.

It's I I really I mean if we looked at John Calvin's own Commentary on this verse. It's it is really astonishing how clear he is that yes. It's that God loves all men without exception, you know, and it refers to all of sinful humanity.

I I just think it's if you walk through John and see his juices. It really should be Without dispute in John Owen, you know. He's the one who wrote the famous book the death of death and the death of Christ.

Which is arguably the most famous and well-known book arguing for a limited atonement he took the view that the world meant the world of the elect and and a lot of reformed guys since then have Frankly kind of found that embarrassing and they just have moved away from because it's so hard to yeah prove it.

Yeah, it seemed that's what I'm saying. It seems like you mean in there He might even be injecting a little bit of his systematic in there to get to make that leap you know because I was very growing up in a church where we take where we took traditions and Verses either very literally or not literally at all based upon what we wanted it to say I was very aware of that in my early 20s of really trying to go.

Okay. I don't want to read into this you know, this is what it's what general or universal satisfaction is. So interesting to me because for a very long time I just went oh that makes sense because that's kind of the only it's either one or the other you're either Armenian way over here and You're doing something to earn your salvation or your limited atonement.

And you're one of those good reform boys over here that know that it's all of God, right? And there are many good reform guys. Yeah, I just want to be clear right many many many good Armenians. Well, sure.

Yeah. Like you know I named a bunch of guys on my side live if I name a bunch of guys on the other side. Like I said Beza Owen Turreton, and if you become move into the modern period it's many like sprawl MacArthur Piper right James White like sure these these guys hold them in atonement.

The crazy thing though, this is getting off subject, but I've also found the longer I live in my very short span of life though. You also seem to realize there's kind of like theological. Like eras if I feel I really do feel like people move into a certain thing and they go.