A “Presuppositionalist” Swims the Tiber, and More

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white. And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line back here in sunny, Phoenix, Arizona where I am. Oh. Happy to announce the dew point has dropped into the 30s. Yes humidity of 10 and For me, that's just a that's a lovely thing and next week highs in the upper 90s.

Yes, it's September. Whoo, I'm excited. You gotta realize when you've survived August in in Phoenix. It's a it's it's a great thing. So Anyway, a couple quick things. I I do want to get to a particular sound file today.

That was posted a couple weeks ago on the called to communion blog which is a blog of apostate Calvinist basically and who have jumped in the Tiber River and some across and are staying over to the side going hey, it's cool over here and It's a an interview with a former PCA fellow Mark Ayers is his name and he says he was a presuppositional Apologist and that that led him to Roman Catholicism.

I think we're gonna hear some pretty interesting things from mr Ayers and once again, we will demonstrate that There's nothing over there on the far side of the Tiber guys. Try to go into the city and you'll see it's all empty facades.

There ain't nothing there. But to me, it's just fascinating how anyone could truly understand justification could truly understand and embrace with their heart the substitutionary Atonement of Christ the perfection of his work and in exchange that for the never-ending cycle of of Roman sacramentalism and an unfinished work and everything else, but we'll take a listen to that.

But before we do that real quickly on the subject of the debates this past weekend. Those of you who listened to the live stream know that I I found a a setting. Yes, I did find a setting not only that but just the setting we were in.

Also was much different and easier to to use on the second debate which was Monday evening. But you could hear Some people said it sounded like we were in the next room. The debate on Monday evening not so much the debate on on Saturday evening, which is a shame but Didn't have a whole lot of people show up for the first debate at all.

It was at a Roman Catholic high school and the Roman Catholics did not show up. Evidently Roman Catholics aren't overly excited about the subject of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary.

I've always felt that the vast majority Roman Catholics don't even believe it actually at least in the United States in the West. Certainly in other countries we would have gotten a lot of folks and in fact we would have had to have had security to do a debate on the Marian topics, but It was quite the interesting debate.

In fact, I want to make sure everyone knows that as soon as this program is over You're your job is not done. As soon as this program is over. You need to switch over to the iron sharpens iron feed and listen to turrets and fan who will be on with Chris Irons in and They're going to be discussing that debate on the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary and Turrets and fan already wrote one article on the subject.

Well actually two but and has another one that he's working on on that subject. So I think you'll find that to be very interesting and that'll be right after this program as soon as this is done just switch on over and listen to turrets and fan and Discuss the subject and give you all sorts of enlightening information.

You're saying why aren't you doing that? Well, because I have four more debates over the next 22 days and I've got things to do and the dividing line is one of them, but doing two hours of discussion a little bit much but The for our debate was a good illustration of again Sola Ecclesia to the max.

It's Believe we say I believe what we tell you to believe don't ask us any questions because we really are not under the authority of scripture or tradition and That will be shown again a week from tomorrow in In Santa Fe in my debates with Roberts and Janice.

I can I can guarantee you right now. We've already we've listened to and I want to get back to the Program where Roberts and Janice discussed the bodily assumption with Matt slick and what was his argument?

I don't need to give you any Bible verses and I don't need to give you any early church fathers Church is spoken. So Ecclesia, that's all there is to it. We say it's true because we say it's true. Just believe us.

That's it. That is fundamentally the reason all the rest of the discussion of for example, Christopher Ferrara's Utilization of one of the many instances where Thomas Aquinas used False sources sources that were not real Aquinas quoted from Augustine about the bodily assumption of Mary well, the fact the matter is that pseudo Augustine and it is not something that Augustine wrote and Aquinas did that a lot.

In fact, if you go to Christian truth comm scroll down the articles page. There will be a very interesting article that William Webster wrote on some of the papal Quotes some of the quotes on the authority of the papacy that Thomas Aquinas used that were absolutely central to the development of papal authority.

But they're all fraudulent. They're all fake now. It wasn't that he was making it up someone else had made it up. But you need to understand something about people living in the medieval period 11 12 13 century.

They suffered from something called anachronism. Anachronism and you can see it in the artwork of the day. A lot of people are not aware of this. But you can see it in the artwork of the day. I've ever noticed that paintings from that time period if They have a biblical theme.

Everybody in the in the painting is still dressed as if they lived in the medieval period. The reason for that is they really honestly thought that nothing had ever changed. They didn't they were they were cut off From the kind of information we have today.

That would illustrate for us the differences in culture in dress and how they lived and how they traveled etc, etc. They really believed that David lived in a castle and rode a horse and and they they did not Recognize that things had changed and what this meant to them is that they were exceptionally susceptible Exceptionally susceptible to Fraud in the area of documentation.

Because how do you how do you recognize? Fraudulent documents, how do you how do you catch those things? Well, let's use a good example that also be educational and that is the gospel of Barnabas that less well-read and consistent Muslims still make reference to this is A document that claims to have written been written by by Barnabas.

So it would written contemporaneously with Jesus. But it is utterly laughable on every level because it is filled with anachronism. It is filled with things that were not around at that time. But if you suffer from an anachronistic worldview of your worldview is such as you think things have always been the same.

Then you're not going to recognize anachronism in a written document see and so the result is that people Were would would take these collections of sayings. For example, like I said, you go to Christian truth calm.

You can read the article where you have a whole series of alleged statements that are attributed to Basil the you know, Basil Caesarea or Augustine or Cyprian or whoever and You can't find them anywhere.

They don't exist. They were made up by people trying to promote a perspective but literary criticism had not really started yet and So that that's Why he utilized that kind of material. Well, that's exactly what happened with the situation in the debate where my opponent utilized a citation and It was simply bogus.

It Does not represent what Augustine himself actually taught or said and as a result You you have that kind of argumentation being presented very very interesting now, I was unfamiliar with that particular citation when mr. Ferrara Brought it up.

But you will hear my response Once we we post the audio from from the debate and by the way Great channel or board operator in there. The DVDs I put on your desk include the for our debate. So we should be able to find out if the sound from his is any better.

So you have all the DVDs from the for our debate sitting I brought them home with me. So You will be able to get that material Take a look at it, but once we have that up you'll be able to to listen to the cross-examination and Unfortunately, mr. Ferrara really tried to utilize his his lawyer Lee background which didn't work very well and He would say that I wasn't answering questions when everybody could tell that I was I talked with folks in the audience Afterwards and they all caught it.

You don't you don't accomplish anything with that kind of thing. But it it was it was very interesting encounter now then Monday evening we had a lot more people there and The the location was excellent that the folks at church they were there early and they had people out in the parking lot directing you were at a park and as soon as you got in someone from the Congregation counties, you know concern I can do for you.

You know, they they offered to you know, take me back to this room and and I I didn't want to do that. I like I like talking with folks and meeting with folks beforehand and stuff like that. And and But the the setup was perfect.

Jonathan Weingarten who did the videotaping was able to plug right into the soundboard. I was able to put my streaming. They had wireless internet. So I was able to be in channel on my Mac while I was while I was doing the debate, which is really neat.

I even kicked people out channel during the debate. That's that's called multitasking. I was able to put the streaming PC right over in front one of the fold-back monitors and put my little microphone.

Right there. So people said they could hear it really well. Excellent lighting. I mean it's really really really good location. For having a debate Mr. Silverman was quite interesting. He you know, my first major experience with atheism was with the American Atheists and The the radio program I did with Brian Lynch one of the national representatives of American atheists that remains.

Just a classic example of The American atheists as an organization. Do not give evidence of much in the way of self-reflection on worldview issues. What I mean by that is they are your stereotypical Atheists and They they don't think through the fundamental issues of their worldview.

They they don't enter into our worldview. They're not trying to provide an internal critique they're not thinking about issues as to whether they as naturalistic materialists are can are consistent, etc, etc, etc, and so I What to expect.

I didn't know where he'd be going. Because the topic did mystify a number of people and Dan but if you go who did the fine job moderating. Even asked me beforehand where this topic come from is the New Testament evil and of course it came from The chapter in Christopher Hitchens book God is not great.

Because that was supposed to be the night that I was debating Christopher Hitchens at that same location. It would have been wonderful, but Christopher Hitchens, of course has esophageal cancer isn't undergoing chemotherapy.

So I'm thankful that mr. Silverman stepped in but I knew he wasn't gonna go the same directions as Christopher Hitchens. But that was the topic and so I I wasn't sure whether he was gonna sort of go the direction the chapter in Hitchens Book did he did not?

But I was very thankful after he got down his opening statement that he went the direction. He did because it allowed for a pretty consistent debate. It was not one of my concerns was it was gonna be the carpet-bombing type thing, you know I don't I don't like this.

I like that. What about this? Well, you know, you throw out 47 issues. And there's just no possible way to address them. It was much more focused and it was pretty much I think the New Testament's evil because the gospel is evil and any God that would judge sinners is evil.

You know and you know the babies in hell thing came out too, but it was pretty much I just don't like your God and that allowed for a you know, a very good debate on that particular issue and So I was thankfully went that direction.

He didn't know how to stop in his opening statement. You know, I mean why is it that people do debates and they don't bring timers. You know what I I didn't you know, I didn't bring one of my beep beep beep timers.

But you know what I've started using is my timer now my 64 gig iPod iPod touch. I have an awesome Timer program on that and all you got to do is swipe it and it resets back to where it was so You know, I'm watching the other guy's time so I can see when he's at a time and then I just swipe and it's back to 20 minutes and starts counting down straight from there and Why don't other people do that?

No, his problem was not that he didn't have a timer. I can barely hear you. I kiss better. Yeah, I don't know. But anyway, his problem was that he didn't have an off button. I Mean he the guy gets a one-minute warning.

Oh and Dan keeps saying so your time is a book. He went what three minutes three minutes over over and I had set my timer for 20. So what I had to do and this is what I love about this is I'm giving my future opponents some suggestions here.

But because I would like them to keep to the time limits. But I just once I got my time was up by the swiped it went back to 20 and I figured okay I've got to 17 and that's how I kept my my time. But so I you give me 23 minutes.

I'll preach for 23 minutes. No problem at all. But you'll notice I did not have a prepared opening. How could I I didn't know which direction you'd go what what you know, what could I do at least like when I debated Barker Barker it had the same arguments in print in a in two different books for 17 years.

Okay. Now he tried to dodge that and didn't present any of that stuff. But at least we have an opponent who's published you can at least but he hadn't published anything. So I had no idea direction he was gonna go.

But it was very interesting because you haven't seen the videos yet but he starts off by just Wandering around the stage looking up and squinting at the ceiling that's a weird way to stop start because you're sort of like Don't tell me he's looking for God.

No. No, he started off by saying if you squint the ceiling looks like the sky. But all the members of James has to squint. You Textual critics and your Bible scholars. You're squinting. Yeah, you're squinting at the news to find.

Do you understand the squint term? Well, he was saying we have to look real hard to find anything good in New Testament that there is a television show Called bones and the FBI agent calls all the scientists squints.

Because all they do is sit at they look at things on tables and they squint at them. Trying to examine them. Yeah, so it was a derogatory term. You're being called a squint. Oh, okay. Well, whatever. It was it was an it was interesting and and he liked to walk around and in fact for cross-examination I thought it was very easy.

He walked over to my podium for cross-examination. He wanted to be as close as it could be it was an intimidation thing very very clearly intimidation thing and What I said was I think you should beat your own podium.

Oh, you don't want me here I said well if you stand there your back's gonna be the audience. Oh, and he went over there. He says well, he's right about that. So it was it was interesting. He wants to debate his assertion that Christianity's origins is found in Egyptian mythology.

Osiris I Don't know that he's gonna want to do that because he said I need to send him my debate with Dan Barker on the subject. And my debate was Robert Price. So I don't think that's gonna happen because look he's just wrong.

I mean, it's just as bogus as a day as long, but I did appreciate in Chris's When he was introducing the debate and he asked how many atheists were in the audience. So I was actually at the break yeah at the break and They raised their hand like they clapped it and it was it was funny because he how did he put it now?

No, you exist because he gave every knowledge your existence because something like that because you've given evidence of it or something like that. Well, I would love to do it and the church would love to have us back so I I hope that that we can we can work that out, but of course, I Don't know what it's gonna be because I'm I'm slammed through February right now.

So but we'll we'll see being maybe figure something out for next next summer or something like that. That church is very good. All right. Eight seven seven seven five three three four one before we go to any phone calls and we now can take even more phone calls than before.

Because we our phone system fried so we had to put a new one in and that rescued a line that has sort of been Languishing so I guess we can take four lines plus Skype at dividing that line. But before we do any of that, I want to get to Herbane channels mentioning the bear theism his closing statement was about how the earliest religions were created by Neanderthals that worship bears.

Just Like oh man, they these stuff atheists come up with is sometimes very humorous. But anyway, I want to get this mark Ayers thing. Because I mean here you have someone who claims to have once been right where we are Presuppositional apologist reformed and now a Roman Catholic and It is interesting to to listen to converts.

It really is interesting to listen to converts. I was listening to a convert yesterday. In fact that I may be talking about in the not too distant future Converts are interesting people and When you as a believer in belief X here reformed theology.

Listen to a person who claims to have once been one of us and now becomes Roman Catholic my consistent experience and There's a spectrum. There are some that you know, try to be accurate in their representation, but they're my consistent experience is I just wonder Where did these folks come from?

Because they say things just make you go what you you say you once believed what. And That's sort of how that that works here. I just can listen to a couple minutes here at the beginning. There's actually two segments here.

But let's let's listen to this this interview with with Mark Ayers and.

Well, I'll stop and start the first things that we studied was the Council of Nicaea, okay and It was something of an eye-opener because his question that he and he just kind of let us Get to this answer said now look what's going on at Nicaea is you have this kind of in-house battle about the very fundamental question of Christianity who is Jesus and How did they resolve that question?

And of course from my PCA standpoint is like well You just open go to the Bible you open it up and you read it there now.

Let me just pause right there from my PCA standpoint. There's a there's a massive amount of naivete in that statement. I Mean, I know what happened to the Council of Nicaea. I know which viewpoints there were I understand the necessity of Examination of questions are being raised about the relationship of the Father and the Son outside of Biblical terminology.

What what do you mean? You just opened about who what serious? Church historian at Westminster Seminary. Would say that Nicaea just simply opened the Bible at the same time. Nicaea is one of the clearest examples of the the fraudulent nature of modern Roman Catholic theories concerning papal infallibility.

Because the one thing they didn't do is go to the Bishop of Rome and say well You're the head of the church. Tell us what to believe. They didn't do that and the Bishop of Rome had little to do with Nicaea and even after Nicaea spoke There were decades in which had to fight For its its definition and it's there that you discover that those that Defended the Nicene symbol did so on the basis of what on the basis of papal infallibility.

No on The basis of unwritten apostolic traditions that we don't have access to any longer. No. How did Athanasius defend Nicaea biblically biblical argumentation from the Word of God so. It really makes you you wonder when when people start talking like this and wow.

You really had that shallow and understanding of church history at that point. That's weird. There it is. There's Trinity. He's God's son. He's got himself.

But he said well now but wait a minute. That's not exactly how they resolved that question. You had different factions with different You know areas had lots of different Bible verses. He had lots of bishops with him, in fact initially more because there were more Eastern bishops there and and.

So it wasn't just open up the Bible and answer the question. And it was through this kind of back and forth and looking at at how they resolved this question. It wasn't just this obvious point that that anyone you know An Arius didn't show up with horns and a cape and to where you could say well He's a bad guy.

Many of the Aryans thought that they were actually defending what they understood to be the true faith.

Yeah, let me just mention something here doesn't seem to be any knowledge or recognition of the middle group. The background of what had taken place. Areas. This is very very simplistic. But listen what's gonna be said about areas here.

Fundamentally what you're hearing here is an attack upon the sufficiency of Scripture. That's what that's what Rome has to do. Rome has to attack the sufficiency of the Bible to be able to answer the question so as to Imbue the church with the authority to answer these things and that's really what Mark Ayers is doing.

So, how do you answer this question. And I began to wrestle with this? I was like, okay well it does seem now that we are attacking or at least questioning the very underpinnings and presumptions of Christianity and I had to come to the realization and eventually I did that the doctrines that we hold to Are not self-evident from Scripture.

In other words you like if you if you handed the Bible to a Martian comes down. He's had no background with Christianity whatsoever. He's never heard of it. He hasn't grown up in America with all the various Christian references.

Now listen to this.

This is this is an excellent example of the the the type of argumentation that these people use. He's he's going to we're talking about Martians here. All right, a Martian comes down takes a Bible back.

Will it will he come back with a nice in faith? Think about what that means. Think about the the false presentation that he as a PCA member should have recognized didn't tells you something about where he was but should have recognized and Let's hope you can recognize it because we've covered on this program many many many many times before.

Jesus being divine and all the rest has no familiarity with it whatsoever and you hand him a Bible. And he just takes it off to Mars and reads it. The idea that he's going to come back to earth with a Nicene Creed is It's possible, but highly unlikely.

There's any number of as we see you know just looking around I mean there's any number of different philosophies that people come up with to. You know in giving him the Bible and honest read they say well.

They put it together in any number of ways.

So did you catch that from their perspective? You can honestly read the Bible. The Bible is so unclear. The Holy Spirit so utterly incapable of self-expression. That you can honestly read the Bible and be an Aryan.

You can honestly read the Bible and come up with Jesus is less than truly God. That's what Rome is saying. Is it any wonder that Roman Catholics are not out there doing apologetics to Muslims? They've got no basis for doing it.

They've capitulated they gave up a long time ago. They don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God in its ability to express itself. It's the Word of God, but you've got to have you've got to have Rome there to interpret it for you.

Which of course they've never done invalidly on anything so you know I guess that you know. It's a circular thing, but that's what you're hearing is is the Word of God is so pathetically inspired That that you could honestly read it and come up with something other than the truth.

Now this is a common Roman Catholic added. This was the attitude during the medieval period this is why it was on the index. I mean you don't don't read that stuff you you need to have the church's guidance.

This just needs to be done by people have the right training. You know because just plain old purpose person reading. This is gonna be misled. This is this is a full frontal attack upon the sufficiency perspicuity.

And I would argue even inspiration the text of Scripture being done by a person calling himself a Christian.

And you just need to understand that. And so this question of authority really kind of got to me.

And I and you know the question that he and by the way did you did you catch the presupposition? The presupposition is it's you and your Bible under a tree again there can be no there. There are no taught and stable men.

There's there's nothing you can learn from the past unless you make that infallible. So it's either us in Rome, or it's you under a tree with your Bible and nobody else. You know the Martian you know no context no nothing.

The middle ground of you know where the Bible would present the church things like that. Oh, don't even don't even go there. Why a PCA person wouldn't catch that immediately. I don't know. But evidently he didn't.

He put to us is all right.

So it seemed like a bunch of men named bishops all got together and voted and Answered the question. Now they either had authority to do this or they didn't now. I'd love to hear Mark Ayers now address.

Eriminem and Seleucia and the history after Nicaea where those same bishops or many of those same bishops got together and said ah you know this is actually what we believe now and. And What do you do then.

What do you do about Athanasius who who stands against the might of the church Against the vast majority of the bishops for decades and says no. What kind of principle is that. Is that a Roman Catholic principle?

How how can you even identify that as Roman Catholic principle and.

So and in and all of this was really kind of shaking my foundation. This is very unsettling because I just thought wait a minute. These are questions that nobody would You know could could ever possibly Have a have a serious debate about.

I mean we're kind of done with these these are obvious points. And I had to realize wait a minute. It's not obvious. Yeah, these things do have to be resolved and they are big essential points. And so it really kind of forced me to view all right, well, how do I justify This and that's where the presuppositional method Kind of reared its head again, but it forced me to the angle.

I had to start asking the question Okay, what is essential in order for a Christian to be able to know defend and define the faith?

Well one things for certain if this guy ever read Vantel he didn't hear him. Vantel is spinning in his grave that anyone could read his material especially his vociferous and and thorough a Critique of the of the man-centeredness of Rome and its incapacity because of its low view of Scripture.

It to to read Vantel on those things and to read what he said about Rome and his identification of as a sub-christian perspective. I don't know. It's it's hard to to see how somebody could, you know, call themselves presuppositionalist.

But of course a presuppositionalist begins with the reality of God's revelation. He's now embraced a system that that begins with natural law. It the the leap that he made either indicates a a gross misunderstanding of the position he once held.

Or just a willful abandonment of it. One of the two. It's hard to say. What do you have to have? And.

Ultimately the answer for that was there has to be a body there has to be a living Speaking body with authority that can speak throughout the ages in order to answer the questions that come up and to be able to teach for example on the nature of Jesus and.

Then just a little bit later on which books are supposed to be in the Bible. Mm-hmm. That's perhaps one of the easiest examples you say well How do you even know that these books. And because what what you really have on the one, you know in in history is.

You've got any number of books and letters that are floating around the churches and some books. Certain churches said well We think that these should be in the canon and were ultimately Excluded and then other churches had other books that they said we need we think that these should not be in the canon that were accepted.

Yet some general agreement on some books, but then a lot of disagreement and ultimately the church came together and just chose.

Yeah, well, no the church didn't sir. I wonder if they ever catch the inconsistency of their arguments. I mean these are such Shallow arguments that have been shown to be shallow arguments for so long that it's it's sad to continue to hear this type of stuff because the first dogmatic Infallible definition of the canon scripture is in April of 1546.

Hippo and Carthage are not ecumenical councils. He said just a few years later. So he's clearly referring to Hippo and Carthage, but there is no dogmatic definition of the can until 1546. Pray tell me sir.

Mr. Ayers. How did Nicaea do what it did? Without a dogmatic definition of the canon scripture. They tell so someone has to tell us what the books are. Somehow Nicaea got the deity of Christ right without that in Fact all the Trinitarian stuff took place long before any dogmatic definition of the canon 1546.

How did that happen? Don't they see this? Converts just lose all Sense of ability to see things it seems it just it's the convert syndrome. Thankfully for some people they get over it. But others just don't.

It's amazing. It really is. I don't want to rush this. There's there's more stuff to get to here and The next section much longer and we've got a bunch of callers. So I'm just gonna leave it there and and pick it up next time around.

Maybe get back to it if we get through our callers real quick, which I sort of doubt we will but Because it's just it's just amazing to me to listen, you know later on. He's gonna say well I was just blown away by what Augustine believed which means he had never read any of Augusta, which is quite probable.

But even then as well Augustine believe the Immaculate Conception. I don't think so. And if you want to have that documented make sure to stay tuned. Well, not stay tuned but tune as soon as this is over over to iron sharpens iron and Listen to turrets and fans discussion.

He'll be going over that but the reality is Augustine taught that Mary died due to sin. Now if you can explain how she how she could die due to sin. Even though she was immaculate to conceive and protected from the stain original sin and did not commit personal sin.

Please tell us how that works. The reality is Augustine did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary and That was recognized down through history. In fact, his influence had to be gotten over before And a fabulous deus could see the light of day.

That was something we pointed out very clearly in the debate. Augustine stands against that but Anyway, we'll get to that and to his errors on that at a later point Lord willing but we've got at least three calls up right now one from Milwaukee, Wisconsin claiming be from London, but we need to go.

I'm sorry. Yes, I know let's go to Marcus in California. Hi Marcus. Hello. How are you doing good?

Thanks for taking my call. I am use scripture to understand. Limited atonement, would you use? Well, there are many. There's a.

Couple chapters on the subject in my book the Potter's freedom. Okay, so. Was there something about the presentation there that was was unclear to you because I I went through a number of texts. Specifically in regards to the high priesthood of Christ the nature of the atonement on the day of atonements in the Old Testament the intermediation of Christ the effect of the atonement being the perfection of those for whom it's made.

There are a number of Presentations that that I that I made there was. Was there something you specifically had in mind?

Yeah, I think you've often said about how. Especially those who believe.

Actually, it's propitiation and actually you just put together Two different texts one is first Timothy 410. The other is first John 2. First John 2 is talking about Jesus as a propitiation for our sins and not ours only but for the whole world, which is a Foundation upon which we are to go out and preach the gospel to all people.

Right. Yeah, it's not an assertion. I don't believe of universal atonement because if Propitiation means what it means and the wrath of God has been satisfied for all people and therefore the wrath of God would not abide on unbelievers.