The Atoning Work Of Christ

This evening, the Lord helping us, we will be looking topically at the subject of the atoning work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Before we do that, let's once again ask the Lord to bless our time together.

Let's pray together. Our gracious Heavenly Father, as we consider the central act of the very work of redemption by which you have chosen to glorify yourself, we ask that in the brief moments we have, we lift up our hearts and our minds to once again consider these divine truths.

May our time be a blessing to us. May we be sanctified. May we be encouraged. But may, most importantly, you be honored in all that takes place this evening, we pray in Christ's name, amen. This morning, I mentioned that it seemed wisdom on my part to stay focused upon subjects that I dealt with just last weekend.

Some of you may know that I traveled over to a, well, even the major city I had never heard of before in my life, to be honest with you, Malaga, Spain. And from there, we drove to a smaller place called Mijas.

Evidently, at one point, the sun was setting and my fellow was driving me to the location and said, you see those rocks in the distance out in the ocean? Because we were driving right along the Mediterranean and I said, yeah, that's Africa.

So we were very close to the Rock of Gibraltar and the Straits of Gibraltar there in extreme southern Spain. And I had flown into Madrid and from Madrid down to Malaga and then drove to Mijas. And there on Revelation TV, a Christian television network or station in the UK, which also goes into Europe as well, we did two debates, one on healing and one on the extent of the atonement.

This was by far the more, shall we say, pitched battle. It was much more, I think, focused upon individual texts and exegesis and things like that. But at the same time, I was quite interested to notice something once again.

Now, I'm assuming that most everyone here is a Reformed Baptist, that you know what a Reformed Baptist is. If you don't, you're going to be learning something about that this evening, I would assume. But we are all familiar with the famous or infamous five points of Calvinism.

If you're visiting, we do not discuss them every time we get together. That is frequently what is said about people like us. But this evening, we'll be talking about one of them, at least in some context we will.

And most people recognize that when you talk to someone and they say, well, you know, I'm not a five-point Calvinist. I'm a four-point Calvinist. When someone says that, there's about a 98 chance that the point they don't like is the terrible, horrible L.

That's sadly misnamed of the five points, limited atonement. Now, what does that mean? Well, generally, what people will say is, well, those Calvinists, they limit for whom Jesus died. And, well, there's always a grain of truth to any description.

But a lot of people, you know, they want to back away from that. I remember I was speaking at a church in New York. I'm sorry, London. And I just debated someone. I debated a Muslim and I had a Christian woman come up to me and I really appreciated everything.

But I've just got to ask you a question. You don't believe in limited atonement, do you? And the look on her face was sort of like asking me, you're not a communist, are you? You know, you don't have a demon, do you?

It's the very same look on the face of this particular individual as she asked me this question. You could just tell she was scared to death because she liked what I had just done. But she had heard, you know, those rumors out there that that guy is a Calvinist.

So, you know, and so I had the opportunity to explain to her. I said, well, if what you mean by that is that Jesus Christ offered a complete and perfect atonement on behalf of the very people given to him by the Father so as to secure their salvation and perfection to the glory of the triune God, yes, that's exactly what I believe.

And she sort of looked at me like, what? What do you mean? Obviously, we like to present the belief in a much more positive way than just simply saying, well, Jesus only died for certain people. That's about the most negative and shallow way you can describe the subject.

At the same time, most of the time, what happened in this debate is what happens in our conversations with other people. And that is, I went first and I had only about four or five minutes to sort of lay out a case.

But I laid out a positive case based upon one text that I'm going to look at here in a few moments, eventually brought in others to try to sort of flesh these things out. But television debates are television debates.

And as they went, we had more time than most people were given. I can guarantee you, Piers Morgan wouldn't have given me nearly as much time as I had on Revelation TV. And then my opponents responded, and I was immediately struck by something I have noticed many times, and I imagine if any of you have tried to explain to others, well, why do you go to that church?

I hear they believe weird things. And you try to explain to people, no, it's not weird things. Look in history and so on and so forth. But you may have noticed something. The vast majority of objections to what we believe about the perfection of the work of Christ in behalf of those that God had unconditionally elected.

In other words, the fact that we believe that the work of Christ is perfectly harmonious with the decree of God. We don't have them going different directions. They don't have different audiences. We're talking about the same people.

It's a perfect work. Because we believe that, when we engage with other people, when you listen to their objections, their objections actually aren't against particular redemption or limited atonement.

Their objections are against unconditional election. Their objections are against the idea that God would have a particular people that he has intended to save. That's what the objections are to. And interestingly enough, that's exactly what happened in the debate.

Instead of dealing with the text that I had raised in regards to the extent, and even more important, the intention of the atoning work of Christ. What did God intend to do? What did the Father, Son, and Spirit intend to do at the cross?

What was their intention? Very rarely a question that people in most evangelical churches are ever asked to consider. The objections were all based upon, well, look at all the places where it says all.

And all the places where it says every. And thankfully, my debate partner did not use that term that unfortunately we hear all the time. And that is, all means all, and that's all all means. I'm very thankful that that particular canard, which is so easily disproven and refuted, did not enter into the conversation.

But the argument was primarily based upon rejecting the idea of election itself, rather than dealing with what does the Bible say about the atonement itself. Now, I think most of us here already recognize the fact that if you want to do serious study of the Bible, if you want to do serious theology, that you don't just run around looking for a proof text.

What do I mean by that? Well, if you're going to take into consideration everything the Bible says, you're not going to say, well, I need a verse that says this and nothing more. It's got to put out in these words.

It reminds me of my Muslim friends who say, Jesus never said, I am God, worship me. Therefore, he can't be God. Well, let me think about that for just a moment. It's truly fallacious reasoning. It's very shallow.

It's not really taking the Bible seriously. And so hopefully that's something we all can agree upon. But it is interesting when people ask, well, where does the Bible teach this? Where does the Bible teach this idea that Christ's death was for a specific people, rather than for every single individual?

And the problem is to even ask the question. You've already jumped many, many steps down the road beyond where you have to start to understand what the Bible says about the atonement. What do I mean by that?

Well, let's get a biblical text and fill these things out. Turn with me to where else but the book of Hebrews, because I'll be perfectly honest with you. The book of Hebrews is the clearest, the most forthright.

It contains the most clear teaching on the nature and intention of the atonement in all of Scripture. And here is just, hopefully this evening will be very practical for you. If you want to be sharing with your family members, with your friends, if they have questions about what do you find about this kind of theology that's so attractive, this is often an area where there's a sticking point.

But in my opinion, in my opinion, it may be very well the widest open door for us to explain our faith to other believers. Why do I say that? Because the Bible is very clear on this. The Bible is very straightforward on this.

And most individuals have never studied these texts, and therefore they don't have automatic traditional defenses. And if they really love the Bible, if they really love the Word of God, this is an open door to be able to say, have you ever considered this?

Have you ever thought about this? And it can really be a way of opening the way to explain why we believe that God is sovereign in the matter of salvation, and it's all to his glory, and it's not a cooperative effort where God's doing his best, but man, right now things aren't going real well for God.

That's a completely different perspective. Hebrews chapter 9. We went through this only a couple of years ago, believe it or not. But I would like to submit that the particular redeeming work of Jesus Christ is specifically stated in Scripture explicitly.

This is not just, well, you know, we take this over here, and we put together with this, we put together with that. That may be a perfectly valid way of addressing certain issues. But I would like to suggest there are certain texts in the Bible that are just straightforward, and the only way that they can be interpreted contextually in a meaningful fashion is to recognize that Jesus Christ's death upon the cross of Calvary was for a specific people.

And here's one of those verses. Listen to Hebrews 9 .15. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Now you see why not a lot of people just automatically start jumping onto the limited atonement bandwagon is because most people aren't really thinking about what the book of Hebrews is talking about.

They don't have the background, but we do. We've already been through this text. We already understand the concept of the new covenant. The death of Jesus Christ is what institutes and establishes the new covenant, and it was always God's purpose to bring about this new covenant.

It was the new covenant death. There are no other deaths that establish the new covenant. There's no sacrifices other than Jesus. His is the one new covenant death. The new covenant is with a specific people.

Remember Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8? The people of the new covenant. They're described there. How are they described? They all know the Lord from the least to the greatest. The law is written upon their hearts.

This is regeneration. This is a specific people. This isn't all people on the earth. This is a very specific people. So notice what we have here. He is the mediator of a new covenant. This is one of the key issues, by the way, that came up in the debate.

And right toward the end of the hour, it's on YouTube if you want to look it up. I think it was a very interesting exchange. Especially because my debate partner is an expert in Old Testament, primarily.

His Ph .D. is in Semitic languages. And he's written a tremendous multi-volume work called Answers to Jewish Objections to Jesus. It's one of the best things out there on that particular subject. And so he knows the Old Testament very, very well.

And so I really pressed him on this issue. We have looked at the book of Hebrews. We know what the high priest is to do when he offers the sacrifice, right? He offers. He kills the sacrifice. He offers the sacrifice on that Day of Atonement.

And then what does he do? Turn around and go home? You say, okay, it's done. Let's go home. No, of course not. He has to take that blood and he enters into the holy place and he sprinkles the mercy seed.

Remember? He has to do the work of intercession. He has to be a mediator. It's one act. If he only does one and not the other, he has not fulfilled his role as a high priest. And I really pressed Dr. Brown on that issue.

Because I asked him, who is Christ interceding for today? Who is he the mediator for? Remember Hebrews chapter 7? How is it that he is able to save to the uttermost, verse 25, those who draw nigh unto God through him?

Because he ever lives to what? Make intercession for them. The work of intercession is limited. And I asked him, is Jesus interceding for people who are in hell this evening? And he said, no. But Jesus died for them.

Yes. So what did he just do? He just divided the work of the high priest. The audience for which he offers the sacrifice becomes different from the audience that is involved in his mediation. But that was not what happened in the Old Testament.

That's not the argument in the book of Hebrews. He had to divide them. And I had a lot of people afterwards contact me and say, that was the debate right there. There was the issue. He has to divide that work.

And that is not to be found in the text of the scripture. So here in Hebrews 9 .15, we have the mediator of a new covenant. And so it's a covenant death. So those who are what? Who call themselves? Those who by their act of free will, activated by prevenient grace and all these other things that man has come up with?

No. So that those who are called. So here's the purpose. The purpose of the fact that we have the mediator of the new covenant. So that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

How can they do that? How has their sin debt been dealt with? Since a death has occurred that redeems whom? Them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. There is a specific people in mind here.

And there is a specific death that has a specific result that redeems them, which is directly connected to the act of the mediator of this new covenant. It's all in a single verse. So why is there so much dispute about it?

Well, we've said it many, many times. The book of Hebrews is probably the most closed book of all the books of New Testament to most evangelicals. Why? Because it requires you to have a knowledge of the Old Testament background.

And so a lot of people just find it to be a cold, difficult discussion. They don't really dive into it. They don't see its real relevance to us today. And so even though you have these plain words, they go by most folks, and they don't see.

Instead, what you have as direct teaching in the New Testament is replaced by what? Tradition. Tradition derived from hymns. Tradition derived from the preaching of the preacher that was preaching when you got saved, and so you don't want to question anything that he would say.

That's what's going to rush in and fill in the voids when we don't have serious biblical teaching. Now, you'll notice that the very same concept continues on if you just look down a little bit farther on.

Notice in discussion of what happened with the high priest, we don't have time to go through all of chapter 9, but look at verse 24. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Once again, you have to ask the question of someone, for whom is Christ mediating? You have to emphasize the high priest offered the sacrifice and then he had to sprinkle the blood. The sacrifice and mediation are part and parcel of the same work.

For whom is Christ mediating today? And you press upon someone. Are you saying that Jesus intercedes in behalf of people who will never be saved? Now, thankfully, again, my opponent in the discussion is not an open theist.

He's not one of those people who thinks that God doesn't know or doesn't know what the future is and things like that. God does know, so they have to answer this question. As long as they're an orthodox Christian and recognize that God knows the future, they have to ask the question, does Jesus intercede in behalf of those that the triune God knows are never going to be saved?

Remember, what does Hebrews 7 .25 says? Why is he able to save completely and to the uttermost? Because he ever lives to do what? Make intercession, what? For them. Here we have, he has entered into the holy place, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Who is the our behalf? Those who have received the forgiveness of their sins, as we saw in verse 15. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.

But as it is, he has appeared, and remember we emphasize this very strongly, once for all. That is a temporal adverb, it has to do with time. It's not once for all people, it's once for all time. There's no question about that in the original language.

He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do what? Don't look at it. You already did, right? Ah, well, you know. But why? This is a very important question because so many of our friends, so many of our loved ones, so many of our family members, our neighbors, maybe members of churches that we used to be a part of, that we still have contact with.

They really struggle with why we've done the things we've done, and why we've made the commitments we've made in being a part of this particular fellowship. Here's one of the reasons right here. What did the sacrifice of Christ do?

And this is what takes us to one of the most important things that I'll share with you this evening. Don't get into a discussion with someone about the extent of the atonement, that is, for whom Christ died, without first asking the more basic question that determines the answer to the question of the extent of the atonement.

What is it? What was the intention of the atonement? I was listening to a lecture delivered by one of the primary opponents to our position among Southern Baptists today, Dr. David Allen, who is at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

He's made it his goal over the past number of years to disabuse Southern Baptist Seminary students of this great error of Calvinism. And as he lectured at Liberty University on this particular subject, I found it very interesting that even though once he did mention the subject of the intention of the atonement, he specifically put it long after he had already made his entire case.

That is absolutely backward. It's absolutely backward. When you think about it, just logically for a moment, if we're going to ask the question, for whom did Christ die, what is the most basic foundation that has to be laid before we can even begin to seriously answer that question?

Very simple. What did God intend to do in the atonement? What was the intention of God? Now, for some people, they really can't address that because they view the atonement as something that sort of just happened.

It wasn't a part of God's eternal plan. But we know that as Jesus... What did the angel say in the announcement of Jesus' birth? She calls His name Jesus. Why? He shall save His people from their sins.

So, even before the atonement, it was God's intention, before the atoning act of the cross, it was God's intention that by that life of Christ, and by specifically His sacrificial death, He would not make His people favourable, but He would save His people.

He would not simply make it possible for a people to save themselves. He would not simply remove legal barriers so that we, by prevenient grace, can somehow save ourselves. No. He would save His people from their sins.

So, what was the intention? When Jesus said, it is necessary, I must go to Jerusalem. Get behind me, Satan. When Peter says, it's not necessary for you to die, he sets his face toward Jerusalem. It is necessary that I go, he said.

Why? What was his intention? What was the intention? The Father, the Son, and the Spirit on Mount Calvary. And when you ask it that way, very often the vociferous opponent has to stop, because they've always thought about it backwards.

They've always thought about it because, well, I've heard that Jesus died for everybody, and since He did something really nice for you and me, we should do something nice for Him. Well, that's a nice way of playing on people's emotions.

But I've never had anybody show me anywhere in Scripture where the apostles preached that way. Since Jesus did something nice for you, do something nice for Him. Repent of your sins. That's not the apostolic message.

And so, when you ask the question, when Jesus died on the cross, what did He intend to do? They're forced, if they really think through their position, to say He intended to make every single individual saveable if we will just fill in the blank.

Fill in the blank. Most folks hopefully believe. But then you've got the Church of Christ folks, and it's believe and be baptized. And then you've got the other folks, and believe and be baptized. And the lines of things start getting fairly long after that for various groups out there.

But the idea is the death of Christ makes us saveable, but it saves no one. It is a removal of legal impediments, but it's hypothetical. It's not a real atonement. Because what does atonement mean? The term propitiation, it's a long word, but it's one we cannot let go of because it has two elements to it that we cannot possibly compromise on.

And that is, it is that sacrifice that takes away both the reason for the wrath of God against sin as well as the wrath itself. There's a lot of European theologians that don't like the idea of God having wrath, and so they prefer a different term, expiation, because it doesn't have that wrath stuff involved.

But expiation's in propitiation, but it's not big enough to actually translate the word that is used in the New Testament. And so, is it a real propitiatory sacrifice? If it's a propitiatory sacrifice, it takes away the guilt of the sin and satisfies the wrath of God.

And if Christ has done that in behalf of every single individual who has ever lived or ever will live, there is only one logical result of that, and that is universalism. Everyone's going to get saved.

But we know from the Bible that's not the case. So, how do we fit these things together? Well, the Arminian does so by saying, well, the atonement's a great and wonderful thing, and it's absolutely necessary.

But it doesn't actually save anybody. It doesn't actually deal with their sin. It only does so potentially if, and this is beyond God's control, He may know who's going to do it, but it was only because He created them.

That, oh, look at the people that accepted me. That's wonderful.

That's why the end of this verse is so important. He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do what? To put away sin by the sacrifice Himself. That is not potentiality. That is reality. That is accomplishment.

That's what He did. And therefore, it has to be for a specific people. Even if it hadn't already used specific language in the preceding context, those who are called, we would have to see it anyways.

But it's already there. It's already there in the text. It's already there in the concept of the New Covenant. It's already there in the recognition that the audience would have recognized that we're talking about the covenant death here, and the New Covenant is not with every single human being because God has not written His law in the hearts of every single human being who has ever lived.

And so you have these tremendous texts. And think about another one. I mean, I think Hebrews chapter 9 is about as clear as you're going to get at that point, but we just went through one on Sunday mornings.

And I hope you caught it, and certainly you did and thought about it. We just went through Romans chapter 8, remember? And again, this one, what you might want to do just on a practical level is start here in Hebrews, establish the foundation, and then go to a text that someone might be more familiar with to back that up.

And now with the light from the previous text, see things they've not seen before. And maybe since it's a text that many of them might have memorized and might be more familiar with, it can really have a great effect in helping you to communicate to folks and help them to understand.

Remember Romans chapter 8, after the golden chain, the golden chain of redemption, no matter what it was, those who before knew, active verb, it's something God does. It's not just sitting back and taking in knowledge.

It's something God has done. He has chosen to enter into loving relationship on the basis of His active foreknowing, predestined, called, justified, glorified. They're all active verbs. God is the one doing it.

There's no place in here for God's failure. He tries, tries, tries. No, this is all a divine act. And then on the basis of that, Paul then says, what shall we say to these things? And then follow the logic.

If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, that's the sacrifice, but delivered Him over for us all, same audience, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Now, if you just stop there, there'd be a lot of folks who would go,.

Yeah, but you see, that us is all encompassing.

See, it's anyone who will, it's the whosoever will. That's the us. And I say, so, aside from the fact that the next verse is going to tell us who the us is, without any question, look at it, go ahead.

Who will bring a charge against whom? God will. Here is the us. God's elect. They're the ones who God justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus. He who died, yes, rather, who was raised, and then look at what happens here.

Look at what happens here. Who is at the right hand of God, who does what? Who also intercedes for whom? See the absolute unity and harmony between Hebrews and Romans here. It's beautiful. It's incredible.

Intercession, the New Testament writers can't even begin to address the atoning work of Christ without recognizing that He stands in the presence of the Father today, in the place of those for whom He died.

But even if that were not there, when people say the us,.

And all these things, let me just ask you a simple question. And this has helped,.

I've seen this help a number of people. So, take it for what it's worth. But, and I'm not trying to say, well, we need to go outside of the biblical text or something like that to come up with something that, you know, just has an emotional appeal.

But since this is a subject where people just have not spent a lot of time considering the biblical evidence on the subject, sometimes it can help to use an illustration to get them to see what it is their position is actually saying.

If you want to force the idea that Jesus substitutionarily took the place of every single human being who has ever lived, which would include entire people groups that no prophet was ever sent to, no missionary was ever sent to, that God knew in His sovereignty and His knowledge, however He has that, would never be saved and yet the Son of God died in their place, bore their sins in His body, so that they might be perfected.

And that raises all sorts of questions as to why they're suffering tonight. Well, it's that lack of faith. Well, I hope Christ dies from lack of faith too, because I frequently have that. But, here's the issue.

I ask people, so you're telling me an individual could go to hell and once the restraint of God is removed from them, their hatred of God and His people and His ways is now unrestrained. I've said this a number of times.

I think the greatest torment in eternity, God's not going to have to send down demons with pitchforks. He's not going to have to be sitting up on the parapets of heaven tossing lightning bolts at squirming souls in hell.

You take someone who is created in the image of God, separate them from their Creator with finality and leave them in their utter hatred of God without any way of hurting Him or His creation or anyone else.

I don't think anyone's going to bump into anybody else in the outer darkness. I hear people saying all the time, I'm not looking forward to going to hell. All my friends are going to be there. I look at them and say, you're not going to see a one of them.

You're going to be alone with your hatred of God and an absolute inability to do anything about it. And I don't think God's going to have to lift a finger. The torment that results from that. The point is this.

Do you really think someone's going to be able to stand upon the parapets of hell and look out toward heaven and scream, I frustrated the very death of the Son of God. He tried to save me. As Paul said, I've been crucified with Christ.

But look, I made Him stale.

I don't think a one of them is going to have that status. I don't think a one of them is going to have that. And yet that's the result. If you turn the atonement into a hypothetical action on the behalf of all people that perfects nobody, rather than a finished and perfect act that perfects exactly those whom God has chosen to redeem from eternity paths.

That gets people thinking just a little bit. Of course, it requires having, I think, a biblical view of man as a hater of God. And many people don't have that. Many people do not even begin to see the restraint that God has placed upon mankind and how often God reigns in the evil of man.

And that when that final judgment takes place, there's no reason for that restraint any longer. And what we see in the most heinous crimes in this world, where God has lifted His finger of restraint, that's what hell.

Most people don't see it that way. In fact, to be honest with you, most people think that when you go to hell, you stop sinning. You ever notice that? Most people, that's how they think about it. Most objections, How could God send somebody to hell for eternity?

They only sinned for 20 years and then they died. So you mean they've stopped? They've gone to hell and become saints? The Holy Spirit's restraint is removed from them and they're now perfect?

No, that's the whole point.

God would be just to punish them, but the point is they don't stop their sinning. They're not down there in the flames of hell bowing, going, Oh, I want to worship God. Why do we assume that that's the case?

And yet, that is a major assumption behind many people who ended up abandoning what the New Testament says about punishment, going, Oh, they just sort of ceased to exist. Think about that sometimes. But, if we can help remove some of the barriers, remove some of the misunderstandings, and what we want to do is present a positive teaching about what happened upon the cross of Calvary.

It was the intention of the Father, the intention of the Son, the intention of the Spirit, the intention of the Triune God, that in that one focal point of history, in that one unique God-Man, to provide perfect redemption for a particular people, so that, in that one sacrifice, the whole realm of the attributes of God are demonstrated.

For those who are in Christ, for those who, out of nothing of their own, but solely free and unmerited grace, their natures are changed, their heart of stone is taken out, they're given a heart of flesh, they're united with Christ, His death becomes their death, His resurrection, their resurrection.

For them, all of the love and mercy and grace of God is demonstrated for eternity. But for those who are justly judged for their sins, God's justice and holiness and power is demonstrated, not His impotence, which I would suggest, if you universalize, the intention of the atonement against the plain teaching of Scripture is what you end up doing.

The atonement of Christ, when you speak of it being made in behalf of those that the Father does not decree to save, and the Spirit does not come to save, which is why, of course, in those systems, you have no divine decree of the Father, and the Spirit comes and tries to save, but what happens?

He fails. He fails. Most of our non-reformed friends have never thought through the issue at that point. I'm not saying we're so much smarter, because we have. They've never been challenged to do so.

They've never been challenged to think about the role of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Gospel. They've never been challenged to think about the consistency of the works of the divine persons in the Gospel.

And when you challenge them on it, they can be made very uncomfortable. And I truly believe that unless the Spirit of God opens a person's heart and mind to these things, you can throw as many copies of Arthur W. Pink at somebody as you want.

It's not going to happen. And sometimes we give ourselves a pretty bad name because we try to do something the Spirit of God is not doing. At the same time, when we are asked, why do you believe that?

How can you believe that? I cannot tell you how many times I have met people, and they've just never had it explained to them, or sadly, when it was explained to them, it was explained to them with prejudice, inaccuracy, warnings of cult and everything else thrown in.

And when they just started hearing what we're actually saying, the perfect harmony of the Father and the Son, the perfection of God's triune decree to glorify Himself, the God-centeredness of this, the uniqueness of the sacrifice of Christ, its perfection, the fact that it does not require some addition of mankind to be effective, their entire outlook was changed.

Some of you have experienced that. You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it completely reorients you. It completely changes how you see yourself, how you see the Gospel. But it also frequently results in all sorts of divided relationships and everything else because there are a lot of people who have very strong ties to tradition.