David Allen on Romans 8 Fully Examined; Fundie Calvinists

Well, greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line, the first real cool day of the fall season here in Arizona. Only going to be getting into the 70s today, got into the mid -40s last night. It's wonderful, it's great, and so we are excited about that and we'll definitely keep you awake for the rest of the program as long as you're watching by a video.

Anyway, I want to do something. I've had the books sitting over here for weeks now, actually, and I haven't gotten to doing the subject. There's been lots of other things in the way and there's lots of things we could be talking about today.

Maybe if I get through this in time, we can talk about some of the weirdness going on in social media and things like that. The fact that we currently have a non-functional United States government and various other things like that, but so does the UK.

If you want to start talking about things, you can just talk forever about what's going on in Northern Ireland and everything else, but we won't do that at the moment. Instead, I want to address, I want to, okay, got to be careful how I say this.

Back in 2000, whenever it was, when I wrote The Potter's Freedom and I was doing the research on it, I was tracking down all of Norman Geisler's books that were cited in his own book and really attempting to do the best job I possibly could in accurately representing him.

We were still on good terms with one another. That wasn't Geisler. Having obtained his books, and I've mentioned before, the initial edition of Chosen Free did not have a scripture index, or at least a meaningful one.

It certainly wasn't exhaustive, and I was actually paying people in the chat channel we had at that time with Amazon gift certificates to go through, page by page, his book and track down every reference to certain verses.

So I'd say, okay, I'll give you $20 to find all the references to such and such a verse. And I had done that with John chapter 6, and so I wrote to Dr. Geisler and I asked him if he had ever anywhere provided a full exegesis of John 6, 35 to 45, the key central text for John 6.

And he wrote back and said, well, yeah, in the book. And the section had been talked about a little bit over here, a little bit over there, a little bit over there. There was no exegesis of John 6. There was, this verse doesn't mean this, that verse doesn't mean that, in different places, but that's not the same thing as providing an exegesis of John chapter 6.

And so I wrote back and provided every page in the book that mentioned John chapter 6 and said, there's no exegesis of John 6 here. And that's when I got the little postcard back that said, if you publish, I will respond.

And that was the last meaningful or semi-meaningful correspondence I had from Dr. Geisler. We have made the statement, we have over the years, in, you know, we almost could have made today a Radio Free Geneva and made everybody excited.

We have over the years made the assertion that Arminianism struggles to provide consistent, coherent exegesis of the key texts where scripture specifically addresses the issue of the relationship between God's freedom and man's freedom, the nature of God's freedom, the nature of man's enslavement to sin, the context of grace, election, choosing, predestination, atonement, the continuance of salvation, apostasy.

These key areas, Arminians really struggle to provide contextual, consistent interpretation of the key texts. And the texts that they say we struggle on are not key texts. The topic is not the subject of soteriology.

So, you know, we're talking about interpreting all of Romans 8 and 9, and they're talking about looking at a phrase in 1 John 2 too. Huge difference between the two. So, a couple months ago, something happened on Twitter in regards to Dr. David Allen and some statements he made about Romans chapter 8.

And so, some blog articles got written. We looked at a blog article that Dr. Allen wrote on Romans 8, and we took it apart, demonstrated it was not exegetically based. And of course, what most people would say is, well, okay, it's just a blog article.

Well, anymore, you can live or die based upon a tweet. But anyway, it's just a blog article. And so, people would say, well, what you need to do is you need to get Dr. Allen's real works. I mean, look at the size of this beast, the extent of the atonement.

You got to get that. Okay. Okay. So, we did. And interestingly enough, that's not what this book's about. This book does not contain exegesis. It's a historical, theological discussion in some ways. I mentioned it.

There's a whole section about me. And in fact, if you look up Romans 8, one of the only references to this section, Romans 8, is in the section about me. White discusses Romans 8, 31 to 34, and Hebrews 7 through 10 as affirming limited atonement, yet nothing in either of these passages affirms limited atonement.

That's it. There's a footnote, number 126. Among high Calvinists on Romans 8, 32, there is a hasty term, generalization. They convert the us into the general term all in the sense of all the elect irrespective of faith, thus arguing that all for whom Christ died will be given all things.

In the context, however, the us explicitly refers to the justified or believers. The idea is that since God gave his son for those of us who believe, how much more will he give us who believe all things?

Paul also uses the same form of the a fortiori argument in Romans 5, 8 through 10. So that's the footnote. And that's similar to what was said in the blog article. But that's all you're given, is the insertion of the necessary idea on Dr. Allen's part that what is key in Romans 8 is human belief.

It's human faith. Now, if you look up the term pistuo, or its related noun form, pistis, in the Book of Romans, you will see it the last time that it is used, specifically satirologically, is in Romans 5, 1.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God, the Lord Jesus Christ. A number of chapters have passed, and it won't appear that way again until Romans 9, the end of Romans 9. So, the term doesn't appear in Romans 8.

That doesn't mean it's not important. That doesn't mean that you can remove it from the context. But what Dr. Allen is doing is he is taking an overarching concept, and then what he does is he reads it into any text to avoid what that text might actually be saying, even if the author didn't feel it necessary to insert such material.

But I'm still looking for the exegesis. So, as most people know, there's another book, The Atonement. Okay, this is not as big, and this is where you at least get some of the biblical argumentation. And Romans 8, 32 -34 garners, let's see, aside from the citation of the text, one, two, a quote, finish of that, three, four, at max, five relatively small paragraphs.

That's all it gets. There is no exegesis. I have not found in how many hundreds, 800 pages on that one and 300 pages on that one, so 1 ,100 plus pages, no meaningful exegesis, no positive exegesis of Romans 8 is provided.

And this is my point. One of the reasons that the potter's freedom had the impact that it had and continues to have is that we can present the Reformed faith positively straight from Scripture. We don't even have to use the terms that are helpful, but I remember very clearly, I've told the story before, when I was asked to speak on Romans 9 at a brethren church in Ireland, Dublin area, and because of certain background issues, I had to be very careful how I did this so as to not cause a food fight or a scene.

And so, I simply exegeted Romans 9. I did not have to use Calvin or limited atonement or almost any specialized terminology that wasn't already in the text itself. And so, we can provide consistent exegesis of John 6 and Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 and all these passages and provide a positive teaching that is consistent with what we would do if we were speaking on the resurrection or monotheism or the deity of Christ or whatever else it might be.

Arminianism just can't do that. The synergistic systems just, you can't walk through these passages and come up with a positive. Instead, what you have to do is say, well, it can't mean this because of this.

And it can't mean that because of that. But what it actually does mean, you're not told. And that's what you see here in Dr. Allen's work is he's writing, he was seemingly almost forced into the position of writing against particular redemption, limited atonement, limiting the damage done by Calvinism to the but he doesn't provide anything positive.

And here you have one of the key, in fact, remember he said in the blog article that this text doesn't necessarily, in fact, I wonder, let me just look here real quickly. I have a search thing here. And let me see here.

No, I don't. I don't see that. James White and the Priesthood? No, it's all, it goes all the way back to 2016. So that doesn't make any sense. I thought it might pop up in Evernote. That's Soteriology 101.

That's close enough. That's almost. But no, it didn't pull up. Anyway, I was going to see, because my recollection was that he specifically used the phraseology that this isn't necessarily about the atonement, but I'll deal with it anyways because it's got some soteriological aspects.

He doesn't make that argument here, which I found interesting. But some might say, well, you know, he's just seeking to respond to you all's misuse of the text. Well, again, the best way to do that is to provide a positive presentation as to what the text means.

So what I want to do is I want to give you everything he said in his own published work. Because remember, we have invited Dr. Allen to debate these issues exegetically. I have said, I will come to Dallas.

I will come to the school. I will come to his classroom. I will come to a large speaking area at the seminary, wherever they would have it. And my invitation would be, Dr. Allen walks in. I walk in. Of course, I won't use this one because the print's too small to see and probably for him too.

But I'll walk in with my, now this would give me an advantage, I must admit, okay, I'll walk in with my Jeffrey Rice rebind, the post-Tenebrous Lux rebind. That'll pretty much win it for me right there, you know, because all the students are like, oh man, look at that.

But Greek New Testaments alone. Hey, the man wrote a commentary on Hebrews for the New American Commentary Series. So no notes, Greek New Testament alone. And let's do the atonement. Or if you don't want to do it that way, fine.

But let's do an exegetical debate on the atonement at Southwestern. We can't do it at Southwestern. Okay, how about a nice large church nearby where the students can still come and would be encouraged to come?

Why can't we do that? Why can't we do that? We can't do that for political reasons, not for any other reasons than that. And I'll demonstrate. Dr. Allen has said, I've written about it. Okay, I'm going to read you everything he said.

Here we go. This begins on page 92. I think this is the current published version from B &H Academic. So this is 2019. So you should be able to find it. So Brodman-Holman, page 92, David Allen. Now I saw stuff on the preceding pages that almost made me...

I mean, this is right after a quotation about Romans 5, 18 through 19 from William Lane Craig. Just let that stand there and speak for itself. Okay, Romans 8, 32 -34, citation given. I guess we might as well.

He would not spare his own son, but delivering him up for us all. How shall I not with him freely, also freely give us all things? Who should bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore, is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Now, of course, I would point out, as we have, we've dealt with this many, many times before, that's not where the passage starts.

This is after the golden chain of redemption. This is after a discussion of predestination election. This is after some of the strongest assertions of the sovereignty of God and salvation in all of the New Testament.

These are the next words. But here is Dr. Allen's treatment. This passage states several truths concerning the atonement. First, as the subject who delivered him, that is Christ, up, God is the one who initiated the atonement.

Second, Paul says that Christ was delivered up, Greek paretikon, terminology that is sacrificial in nature. It's true. Third, Christ was offered up for us all. In this context, Paul is addressing believers and their current status as having been justified because they have believed in Christ.

The focus is on the status of believers who are now in relationship with Christ via justification. I'm going to come back. I just want you to hear it all first, but I'm going to come back. But just please note what was just said there and what I said earlier about the last time faith was mentioned, what the immediate preceding context was, which is not about believers.

It's about what God does. This is what synergism does. You can be in the middle of one of the most important texts about what God does to glorify himself. And what does the synergist do? It's all about man.

It's all about man. Anyway, some have attempted to use this text to support limited atonement. The argument is as follows. The all for whom Christ died, according to this passage, are given all things.

The non-elect are not given all things. Therefore, Christ did not die for them. This is a modus tollens argument as distinguished from a modus ponens argument with an off or Toriore greater to the lesser layer as well.

One, if Christ died for you, the greater thing, you will be given all things, including all consequent gifts, the lesser things. Two, some, i .e. the non-elect are not given the lesser things. Three, therefore, Christ did not die for some, the non-elect.

If P, you are died for the greater thing, then Q, all things are given the lesser things. Not Q, some are not given all things, therefore not P. The argument has a valid modus tollens form, but it is an unsound argument.

Then he lays it out. All the died for receive all things. Some do not receive all things. Therefore, they are not died for. Here is the fallacy. The us in delivered him up for us all, Romans 8 .32, is being converted into all for whom Christ died when contextually, now listen, contextually, the us refers to believers, not all for whom Christ died.

This line of reasoning fails to recognize that Paul is addressing believers and describing their status as believers in relation to God's blessings. It confuses what Paul says to believers and about believers and extrapolates it into an abstract concerning all the elect, whether believing or unbelieving.

But this merely begs the question concerning the extent of the atonement. The all in this passage refers to all believers as context makes clear, though the word never appears in it. Context makes clear to conclude Romans 8 .32, that Christ died only for believers and not for anyone else is to invoke the negative inference fallacy.

Paul's not speaking about the elect qua elect considered as an abstract class, the as yet unborn elect and the living, but unbelieving elect. Paul's point is that no condemnation accrues to believers for whom Christ died the greatest gift and that they will be given all things, the lesser gifts, not that Christ did not die for all unbelievers.

That's it. That's it. Now, no positive effort is made to exegete the text. Not even, not even the start. There is no effort made. The whole thing is to try to provide a reason in light of these words, not to believe what they say, because look, we've, we've walked through this before, but let's just, just briefly, I'll, I'll be, I'll be short.

I won't spend a lot of time on it. I'm going to put this back. We'll spend a lot of time on it. We've already done this, but let's just remind ourselves. The context here began back in verse 28, that, and who is the actor?

God. We know that God causes all things to work together for the good, for those who are the called, for those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose. So, you have the called, you have God causing all things to work together for the good.

You have, you have the specific use of the term kleitos. I just, I did a study Sunday evening at Apologia. I went through all the uses of called and chosen in the entire New Testament in one sermon. Yeah, I know.

It was really exciting. But we're in Matthew 24, and the section about, but for the sake of the elect, those days would be shortened. So, Jeff asked me, it was, had been scheduled a few months ago, you know, it's right after ReformCon, would you have the Sunday service?

And he said, would you be willing to address that issue? So, I thought, you know, I just want to make sure that our people have, have seen the whole, all the evidence. So, let's just look at all the references.

And people really liked it. They liked doing it that way. It's an unusual way of doing things. That's not normally how we do it. Anyways, there's the term, those who are called according to purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed the image of his son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren, not firstborn amongst all of the universe, but firstborn among many brethren.

And these whom he predestined, he also called. Those whom he called, he also justified. Those whom he justified, he also glorified. So, you have the golden chain. You have the clear, you have God's predestination.

Results in calling. This is effectual calling. Why? Because all those whom are called are justified. So, there is a general call, which we are involved in giving, because we don't know who the elect are.

But this calling is what God does. Just as God actively predestines, God actively calls. Those whom he actively calls, he actively justifies. Now, please note something. The same apostle who wrote this had written all the chapters beforehand, which had specifically said, you're justified by faith.

But the word faith doesn't appear here. Why doesn't it appear here? Because that is the means by which we are justified, by God's grace, through faith alone. But our faith does not determine what God can and cannot do.

Our faith is the result of his predestination, his calling. Those whom he calls, he draws to himself. Regeneration gives the gifts of repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are central. They're vital.

But they're the result of what God does. What this text is about is the exact opposite of what Dr. Allen said right here. Because Dr. Allen has to turn this into God's being discussed here, what Paul's discussing here, is about believers.

No, what Paul is discussing here is about what God, the triune God, has done. That's what's right there. So, called, justified, all who are justified by faith. That means if you're called by God, you're going to believe.

This is in perfect harmony with Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians 1, where these things are addressed. Called, justified, all those who are justified. These he also glorified. Now, if you want to object to the idea of viewing the elect as a whole, then you need to object here.

Because that's clearly what's being discussed here. Right? Are these words relevant to us or not? Are they only relevant to the people who'd already died in Paul's day? No. These are general statements, just as in Ephesians chapter 1.

Ephesians chapter 2, you've died, your life is hidden with Christ God. Ephesians 2, you've already been seated in the heavenly places. Well, yeah, as a divine general truth that then's worked out in time, right?

Well, we all recognize that. So, why object to it when we get to it later on? Many, many inconsistencies. So, that is the context. But isn't it interesting that the introductory line of the paragraph isn't quoted by Dr. Allen?

What then shall we say to these things if God is for us, who is against us? Who's the us? I mean, the us is determinative here, isn't it? And given that this is the first line after what God does in saving a particular people whom he has predestined, who are called the kleitos, the chosen ones, the called ones, back in verse 28, we're talking about God's elect, and that's exactly what he's going to say in verse 33.

So, there is a consistency here that is introduced by the author himself. We are not importing this. We are following the exact same hermeneutics that we would use in defending the deity of Christ or the trinity or the resurrection or any of these other central defining doctrines, using the exact same hermeneutics.

So, if God is for us, who is the us? Who can be against us? And then to answer that question is what verses 32 and following are about. Why can no one be against us? He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all.

Now, who is the us? Dr. Allen, his synergistic system says that the us is determined by the human action of faith. The word faith does not appear in Romans chapter 8. It hasn't appeared for three chapters.

What does appear is God's sovereign act of predestination that defines a particular people. And there has been a golden chain of redemption that has said predestination, calling, justification, glorification.

Who can be against us? That's the context. There is no concern for context here. The only concern here is we have to make sure that Southern Baptists don't believe in particular redemption. That's the ultimate drive of what's in these pages.

Not what's in the text of scripture. I read it to you, right? We're going to look at it again. So, he would not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all. How will he not also with him freely give us all things?

Now, I've never made the argument that is presented in these pages. The argument is not that, well, the died for greater thing, lesser things. The argument is who is the us and what does the death of Christ accomplish?

That's what it's about. So, by introducing all this extraneous philosophical look at how I can throw around terms from logic stuff, you're distracting from the reality of what the text is actually saying.

If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own son, and he was right, this is sacrificial language, but delivered him over for us all. Exactly. So, here, this is sacrificial language.

Paretokhen is exactly in the middle of God gave his son. He gave him what? Hupere haemon, for us. So, exegetically, as we're following this through, who's the us? Don't distract us with modus ponens and modus tollens arguments, because that's not the argument.

Ours is a much simpler, straightforward argument. The us are those who are the elect that God predestined. And you know, Dr. Allen, you know that this is as close to a direct statement of particular redemption as could possibly be written, and that's why you're distracting it.

That's why you're going someplace else. You're going, hey, look over here. That's why you're doing it. I'm sorry you've been given this task. I think it happened somewhere around 2007, 2008. You've been given this task and you've been faithfully pursuing it, but not in a proper way.

But delivered, but, and as you know, Dr. Allen, al-hupere haemon. So, the first is, but in our behalf, panton pereidokon al-tan. So, the emphasis is on the substitutionary aspect of what's found in the words, but delivered him over for us all.

That's where the emphasis is found. And why is there an emphasis there? Because what's the question? The question is, if God is for us, who is against us? So, you need to explain why this us has God on their side and it's impossible for even the enemy himself to bring about their destruction.

Why? Because the son has been given over by the father in their behalf. You see, in your view, that would not answer the question. Because in your view, the son was given over for all sorts of people that the enemy will destroy for eternity.

Well, he doesn't do it. He brings about their destruction, he's a means used. But from your perspective, the son has been given over for many for whom condemnation will come. That's your view. That every single person who will receive condemnation will be able to say, the son was delivered over for me.

That's your perspective. It's not a biblical perspective, it may be very common, but that's not what Paul is saying here. So, gave him over substitutionarily for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

With him. That's not some lesser thing. That's all wrapped up in him. The whole point that is not even acknowledged here, not even touched on, is the actual argument of particular redemption. And that is right there, he delivered him over for us all, everything is found in him, and it's for a specific purpose.

How will he not also with him freely what? Give us all things. It's the same us. You see, Dr. Allen doesn't want to have to deal with the fact that he has to play with all sorts of different us's. An us here, and an us there, and us here, and us, and they're all defined based on synergistic categories.

When a straightforward reading is very easy to understand. Very easy to understand. So, here's the question. We've had two questions. Verse 31 is a question, verse 32 is a question. Verse 33 begins the question.

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? How can you pretend to deal with Romans 8, 32, 33 in regards to the subject of atonement and not deal with the fact that smack dab in the middle of it is the direct statement that this is about God's elect?

And if you remember, I'm going to go back, but if you remember, he tries to shift the context in saying, this isn't about God's elect, this is about God, no, this is about the status of justified believers, even though he hasn't mentioned that for three chapters now.

That's what it's about. And people didn't notice this when they read this book. Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one justifying. Same term used in the golden chain. Who was justified?

Those who were called. Who was called? Those who were predestined. So, there's only a couple dozen words between here and there. Has something changed? No. So, God is the one justifying. Based upon what?

In context, his calling. Romans 3, Romans 4 were justified by faith. Exactly. So, what is the calling of God going to inevitably result in in the lives of those thus chosen and predestined and called?

Faith and repentance. That's why they're called gifts. That's why Paul can just easily flip past saying, Philippians 1 29, it has been granted to you not only to believe in him, but to also suffer for his sake.

Oh, granted to me to believe. Yes, it has to be granted to you. See, it's just part of Paul's thinking. It's just, it flows. So, who shall bring a charge against God's elect? God's the one justifying.

Who is the one condemning? Christ Jesus, the one who died? Rather, the one raised, who is seated at the right hand of God and who is interceding for us? Once again, if you're going to attempt to deal with the reformed exegesis of this text and you don't even mention our central argument, you don't even mention the connection, once again, of intercession with atonement.

Here, you have the Son, He's at the right hand of the Father, right hand of God, and He is interceding what? Hupertimon, the exact same words from verse 32, our behalf. There is beautiful consistency.

You cannot tear it apart. You cannot break it up. It's right there in front of you. So, the argument is not a modus tollens, modus ponens with an a fortiori sub-level. It's much more straightforward than that.

It's the text says God predestines, they're the elect of God, Christ dies for them, and because He dies and intercedes for them, no one can bring a charge against them. That's the argument. And until you respond to that argument, you haven't even touched the issue.

After 1100 pages of verbiage, that's the issue. So, this is sort of a study in how to avoid the plain meaning of a text. Now, Dr. Allen, with all due respect, if someone took a text that I had handled in a book and on the basis of the original language pointed these things out, I would have to respond in depth.

People don't do that, but I would have to respond in depth. And if you can skip this and simply say, I've said everything I need to say, you've made my point. You've made my point. So, quotation of the text, true statements, up to this, at the top of page 93.

In this context, Paul is addressing believers and their current status as having been justified because they have believed in Christ. That is a gratuitous attempt to recontextualize the text out of necessity.

That is not the context, and I challenge Dr. Allen, demonstrate that from the context. Explain why the root of belief is used in Romans 6, but it's not being used satirologically there. It's a, we believe we will rise also.

It's not about what belief does in regards to justification. The last uses were at the beginning of Romans 5. So, are you seriously saying that the context is not Romans 8, 28, the golden chain, the immediate context right there in front of us?

You're really saying that our context is found three chapters earlier back in the discussion of justification and works and Abraham. That's not the context. You know that's not the context. So, what you're doing is, because your ultimate answer is it's all about faith, you're inserting it into a place where the author chose not to use the word.

It's not in Romans 8. It's not going to occur until the end of Romans 9 in the future. So, that's, here is an example. This is how, I have a lot of people, a lot of good-believing Christians who live in their lives, work on a hard job, they don't have time to read in commentaries, they don't have time to be reading, learning Greek or Hebrew or something like that, and they say, you know, it's frustrating because I want to understand the word and I do my best, I study as best I can, but I keep running into all this material and one scholar says one thing, another scholar says another thing.

Why is that? Well, because sometimes we use our scholarship in a way that is displeasing to the Lord. We have our traditions and we'll defend our traditions. And that's what you've got here. That's what you've got here.

You have to learn to critically analyze what someone says. Take the good, leave the bad. I had to learn that in seminary. I'm so thankful now, 30 years down the road, that I had to learn that lesson. But it's a hard lesson to learn.

But it can be done. You can learn from people who disagree with you. But you have to learn to demythologize scholarship. You have to learn to think critically and carefully. God made your brain just like theirs.

And so here, when someone says, Paul is addressing believers and their current status as having been justified. Wait a minute. Justified does occur in the context, but it's in the golden chain. And the ones who are justified are those who are called.

And those who are called are those who are predestined. So, and they have been justified because they have believed in Christ. No, they've been justified because they were called. Now they've believed in Christ, but that's the result of their calling.

You see, the synergist is always starting with man and trying to go upward. You can't do that. Because the New Testament perspective is this is what God has done. And there is everything right to call someone to believe in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins.

But that's because we're down here. And that's what we see. This text is talking to us about what God has done, what God sees, and that's the sure foundation of all this. That's why what comes after this, who shall separate us from the love of God?

What's that based on? What God does. This synergistic stuff destroys the foundation of all that stuff. Of all that rejoicing and all that high, praise be to God for all that. Don't have that anymore because you're starting with man.

So, just note that whole, those two sentences at the top of page 93, re-contextualizing. No references are given, no citations are given, nothing that would militate against it is even noticed. Just believe what you're told.

So, then we have this whole canard of, I'm going to show you how to do some symbolic logic, and we'll do some P &Q stuff here, and we're going to talk about modus ponens with modus tollens and an a fortiori layer as well, and I'm going to impress you, and it has nothing to do with the whole point.

Nothing to do with the whole point. The whole point is the text says God predestines a certain people, Christ dies in their behalf, and therefore no one can bring a charge against them because it specifically says the Father delivered Him, the Son, up for them specifically, and the result of that is that He intercedes for them specifically.

So, where do you get, well, yeah, but that's not just them, so the Son is interceding for the others as well, and who can bring a charge against God's elect does not leave room for against God's elect who activate their election by their personal act of faith.