Special March Q&A with Pastor Osman

Opening Technical Setup and Prayer

Didn't quite dress up for this, but I did trim my beard and actually shaved this morning. Brushed my teeth for everyone and I know that some of you are watching in your pajamas, which is unique. This is a totally different experience for me doing this doing a live stream any kind of a live stream.

It's almost something like Like I'm doing a podcast or an interview or something like that, so this is something entirely different. Unique kind of odd weird speaking of unique odd and weird. Peter is here to help us out with all this stuff.

So, thank you Peter for your help and getting all this set up and ready to go. I Don't think I would have been able to do this without him the unique odd and weird one. Vance got talent so bad skills.

All right. It is 930. So I have a list of questions here before we get started on that. We're gonna Open in prayer. We've got According to my stats zero viewers. Tilted down just a little bit just a little bit.

I really can't without the same 29 viewers falling out. My dashboard says zero viewers. Trying to keep my phone in its place here. All right, oh now I see 30 viewers, all right. 30 people in adult Sunday school class via a live stream.

So.

Let's open in prayer and then we'll get started with some of the questions that have been submitted in various channels and we'll get started Let's pray Lord we are very grateful that we have the technology and the ability to do this and it is a blessing even being able To meet online in this way.

This is not optimum, but we know that you know that you know our needs and you know what we are here for and you know what we're trying to accomplish even by a by canceling church for the next couple of weeks and It's our desire that even as we gather together here and and look at your word and understand things from your word that you would Be glorified through our time and our study and thank you for the questions that have been submitted and pray that you give me clarity and in giving clear answers and Help it to be clearly articulated and understandable and that our time here together may be used by you to edify us and equip us And encourage us in your word.

We ask this in Jesus name. Amen. All right, so I got a couple of.

Now.

What is my favorite fictional book. All right, we got we got questions coming into the live stream already. So I'm gonna hold off on those and I'm gonna have Peter collate some of those for us later on.

The Meaning of “Without Wax”

Let's start with something a little light-hearted. Rainy Aaron's asked this question. What does without wax mean. Because I put that on my email correspondence. You know the emails that I send out as well as my written correspondence.

Any letters that I send out to people I have without wax as the signature line.

And.

So I get asked this a couple times a year. Actually, and I had this in a I gave an explanation of this in a random thoughts article in our newsletter a while back. Here's the explanation of it back in ancient times when when Merchants would sell pottery in the marketplaces.

Pottery that had been fired that had no cracks in it at all was considered premium pottery. It was worth the high dollar value. Unscrupulous Merchants would would take pottery that had been fired and had cracks in it and they would fill the cracks in with wax and then They would paint over top of it and make it look as if it had no cracks or no defects.

And then they would sell that as if it were as if it were high high value pottery. So the way you could tell if you were in the marketplace where you could tell if something was The real McCoy was was genuine or not was to hold it up to the light and the light would shine through the wax.

But not through the pottery. So you could take a vase or a bowl or a plate or something and hold it up to the Sun. The light would shine through and you could see where the merchant had filled in the cracks with wax.

So merchants would in order to avoid being suspected for being Unscrupulous they would mark their pottery as sin a Sarah and when which meant was Latin for without wax. Which meant that if you held it up to the Sun you would see that there was no cracks there was nothing filled in there was nothing hidden from the site that the light would reveal and so the the genuine merchants who really wanted to sell good pottery would mark their pottery as Sin a Sarah without wax meaning that if you held it up the light you what you saw was what you get.

They weren't covering over or hiding any defects and so sin a Sarah is the word from which we get our word sincerely which means genuine or true and So it's kind of a it's kind of another way of saying sincerely.

But without wax carries the idea that what you see is what you get. There's no there's no defects being hidden here that if you held it up to light you wouldn't see. You wouldn't see cracks. So that's where it comes from.

So that's where sincerely comes from sin a Sarah least according to the story and I like the story and so I use the signature line Without wax meaning it's sincere or genuine or true. There's nothing hidden.

There's nothing masked over and Sold as if it's something that's not so that's where without wax come from. All right another question Sarah joy asked. I would love to hear a recap of the essential core doctrines or the doctrines that all true Christians must agree on as opposed to The areas we would disagree and still be saved and have fellowship.

Essential Christian Doctrines and Secondary Issues

So.

I'm gonna do here is pull up And excursus on the essentials this we include with our membership class and This is something that we kind of go over when we are in membership class and and cover the essentials of the of the faith there and I'm just going to review these and what what she asked was for a What you say a recap of the essential core doctrine?

So I'm gonna give something of a brief recap of those essential core doctrines here. Anything basically we talked about. Primary issues in theological terms we have primary doctrines secondary doctrines and tertiary doctrines or third-level doctrines.

The third-level doctrines would be doctrines or beliefs that Are not as important or fundamental To the faith. They really have no importance at all. Christians can disagree on some of those things that are really There's so far away from the core essentials that they're almost They're almost meaningless.

Secondary issues would be ones that are connected to primary issues. Then they're not salvific issues. You can disagree on whether you baptize babies for instance. You can disagree on the timing of the tribulation or whether or not there is a millennium.

Those would be secondary issues though. They're all important issues and the primary issues would be the issues that we would say if you have if you disagree on these issues. This strikes at the very heart of whether or not you really are truly a Christian.

So those would be the primary doctrines of the faith. So those doctrines would be doctrines that relate to the person of God the nature of God and obviously connected to that would be the person Of Christ since he is second person of the Trinity.

So we're talking about doctrines the doctrine of God the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of salvation. If you believe something wrong about salvation, you're believing something that will inevitably damn you.

So.

Primary doctrines we would list the Godhead and Included in the Godhead as a as a primary or fundamental doctrine would be the doctrine of the Trinity rightly understood that God is One being one God in three separate and distinct persons that those three persons coexist.

They are co-eternal. They are co-equal in value and in In an eternity and in power and authority. Father son and Holy Spirit. Those are the three persons. So one God three separate and distinct persons not three gods.

That's tritheism. And of course by the doctrine of Trinity We don't mean any kind of Sabellian ism or modal ism the idea that there's one God and one person who manifester Manifestor displays himself in three separate and distinct modes being father son and Holy Spirit.

But that we have three separate industry distinct Persons within the one being that is God and each of those three separate and distinct persons shares fully the divine essence. So you don't need to get the father son the Holy Spirit all together in the room and have to in order to have all That is God.

You can have the son in the room with you and have all that is God and I'm speaking here I'm describing it here in terms that would help sort of explain the doctrine of the Trinity, but these terms are not necessarily theologically accurate because you can never have all that is God without having the Father in the Spirit, but for the sake of discussion to illustrate the difference between modal ism and biblical Trinitarian ism I'm describing it this way.

You don't need to have the Father the Son the Holy Spirit in this room in order to have all that is God. If you had Any one person you would have all that is the being of God in that one person. So that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit each by themselves possesses fully all of the divine nature.

So that would be biblical Trinitarian isms doctrine of God now obviously connected to that is the doctrine of Christ because he is the second Person of Trinity which means that we have to get the doctrine of who Christ is that believe that he is fully God.

That he is separate and distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit that he was born of a virgin. We include and this is the second heading that we include as essential doctrines the virgin birth of Christ.

Without the virgin birth of Christ you have some sort of one of the early church heresies regarding the person of Christ either that he's two separate and distinct natures, or sorry two separate and distinct spirits or or personalities inside of one being like a split personality disorder or you would have to Concede without the virgin birth you'd have to concede that he is in some way conceived Naturally and thus has some sort of an inherent sinful nature.

So the virgin birth which would be the sinlessness of Jesus Christ incorporated with that. So that's all sort of subsumed under the doctrine of God. Another major doctrine would be bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We believe in a literal bodily resurrection from the grave not not any kind of a spiritual resurrection or a Revocation or something like that. Another essential would be the vicarious and atoning death of Jesus Christ.

Meaning that he actually paid the price for sin in his death on the cross. He atoned for or paid the price and expiated the sins of his people through his death on the cross and that it was a Substitutionary death that actually paid the penalty of divine wrath.

The emergent church movement Kind of denied that doctrine years ago as they began to question whether or not where they began to say that the the idea of of a Substitutionary atonement was akin to divine child abuse that God would whip his son for ours our sake.

This was child abuse and imagine me beating one of my children for a sin that you committed. That's how they tried to that's how they tried to sort of posture that belief of vicarious substitutionary atonement.

So.

Wrapped up in in the doctrine of the atonement is the belief that Christ being fully God and fully man paid the divine price met the divine demand of justice on our behalf. So the vicarious atoning death of Christ the second coming of Christ, I think is a non essential.

You can't deny that without denying in some form The doctrine of the Trinity or I think really God's plan for the future. So there's we believe in the second coming of Christ now that breaks down I think immediately into secondary issues whether you're pre-millennial or post-millennial or on millennial whether you're pre-trib mid-trib post-trib pre-wrath rapture.

Or any one of those various different sort of end time scenarios John MacArthur and RC Sproul can disagree on whether there will be a millennium or the timing of that millennium or the nature of a Rapture or the nature of end time events.

Those would be secondary issues. They're important issues but they're not you can you could disagree about the nature of the millennium without being a heretic without denying an essential of the faith and Then salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone it's another essential if you deny that and add works or baptism or Sabbath keeping or Tithing or church attendance or human human merit in any way into that equation.

Then you are denying an essential of the faith and this of course would get to the heart of the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Protestantism though they would agree with the doctrine of the Trinity the virgin birth of Jesus.

Obviously the bodily resurrection from the grave. In some way in atoning death of Jesus though. They don't believe that his death is entirely sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. And of course, they would believe in some form of a second coming, but they would deny this essential.

Not every Roman Catholic would deny this but Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church certainly does. They deny that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and that of course is the heart of the Reformation doctrines of that separates Protestantism from Roman Catholicism.

They deny those they don't deny the salvation is by grace. They just deny that it's by grace alone and they don't deny that it's by faith. They just deny that it is by faith alone in Christ alone. And then the last essential I think that we have on our excursus in our membership class is The belief in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Old New Testament's in the inerrancy of the original autographs.

These I think are essential non negotiable non deniables. And somebody just said Roman Catholic lifts up idols as well. That's absolutely true. That was chat. See how I'm doing this now. I'm watching the chat channel.

I'm looking at the membership excursus and I'm talking to you at home sitting there in your underwear or your pajamas. Alright, so that is answer to Sarah Joy's question. Then we have some tough ones.

David, Saul, and Imprecatory Psalms

This one comes in from the first to third Sunday school class from Jenny. She did oh, you know what we should maybe do. No, I'll return to that in just a moment. She asked why did David's why did David lament Saul's death in 2nd Samuel?

But then write psalms calling for the judgment and destruction of his enemies. How does this apply to how we should treat our enemies two questions there? Let's deal with the first one why did David lament Saul's death in 2nd Samuel, but then write psalms calling for the judgment destruction of his enemies and this is a bit of a tougher question because it gets to the heart of imprecatory prayers and and Imprecatory psalms if you read through the psalms.

I did this. I did a series on imprecatory psalms some years ago in adult Sunday school class. If you read through the psalms, I think it is fully one half if memory serves. It might be a little bit more but fully one half of the psalms contains some sort of imprecatory element that is an announcement.

It either was an announcement of God's destruction on Israel's enemies or God's enemies or David's enemies or it was a desire of that destruction or a description of that description destruction or a prayer for the destruction or the judgment and the justice of God a Lot of the psalms have those imprecatory elements and so one of the questions that comes up when you study the imprecatory psalms is.

Oh.

Well to give you an example of the imprecatory psalm psalm 73 that I wrote the book on the prosperity of the wicked at the End of that he talks about the the wicked being lifted up just for the sake of God.

Destroying them making their judgment even more severe that God puts them in that position that wealth is a Is a method or a way of God's judgment. That's an imprecatory element in that psalm, so a lot of the psalms have that element that imprecatory element and One of the questions that comes up is how do we deal with that or should we be praying in precatory psalms today?

Should we be? Announcing God's judgment like that today and desiring the judgment of God on his enemies today. I think that there is a sense in which all the righteous do desire to see God's justice vindicated in his name vindicated.

There should be there should be something in the heart of every redeemed person that says yes I'm tired of seeing sin and I want to see I want to see those who commit sin. Judged and the and God's name and his righteousness and his kingdom come and vindicated and by the way Even the prayer of thy kingdom come that will be done.

That's an imprecatory prayer when you pray for the kingdom of God to come or for Christ to return. Do you understand what that prayer means when you pray Lord Jesus come quickly or.

Return.

Do you understand what the return of Jesus Christ here is going to mean. It is going to mean? The end of the day of grace. It will mean the destruction of the nation's the judgment of the goats the judgment of the wicked consigning them to their place in damnation and the establishment of his kingdom.

That is going to be a. It's going to be a judgment on the world. So even that prayer is an imprecatory prayer. So there should be something in the heart of the righteous that says I do desire the vindication of God's justice and I do desire that God's name would be made great and that Christ would come and that evil would stop and Sometimes the stopping of that evil requires the judgment of evildoers.

In Scripture.

So David would pray for the destruction on his and his enemies and in the series and I don't want to get into this right now. But in the series on the imprecatory Psalms I made the case that David was in a unique position to pray for God's judgment on his own personal enemies.

Since the establishment of God's kingdom revolved around in the Davidic Covenant sense. Revolved around David and the the continuance of his throne and the prosperity of his descendants the fulfillment of God's covenant to David required the judgment on David's enemies.

And so David unlike you and I David can pray for the destruction of his enemies because in some sense the destruction of David's enemies was the destruction of God's enemies. And so he could be he could be vindicated for praying that or desiring that.

Because he was actually desiring the establishment and the fulfillment of God's personal promises to him.

So.

There's a way in which David could pray those prayers that I don't think you and I can and I think we need to be careful when we pray for That type of judgment that we are praying. Not for our own sake against our own personal enemies.

The guy that cuts me off in traffic. We don't go drop in imprecatory prayers on him. That my neighbor who parks his trailer on my yard again and kills the grass we don't pray our imprecatory prayers upon him but I do think it is valid when we see evil and wickedness going on from people who rule in the nation's tyrants people who are starving their citizens.

People who are killing babies in the womb and doing so with full knowledge. I do think there is a sense in which it is appropriate to pray that that evil would stop and That it would bring mean judgment if that evil would stop and we that we would be happy with that.

We would be content with that. Not that we necessarily Desire to see individual people judged but we desire to see those who do evil judged in a more generic sense. I think there's an appropriateness to that.

So why then would David pray for the destruction of his enemies and then when Saul gets destroyed? When Saul dies he laments it and this I think is a bit more of a personal look at David's heart. It is not inconsistent for me to desire the destruction of the judgment, you know in a holy and righteous sense of those who do harm to God in God's people and Then when that judgment comes for it to have an emotional impact on me.

I Think that those are two separate and distinct things and I hope you can see that in one sense we are asking God judge your enemies, but then when that judgment comes it strikes kind of close to home and.

And it can make you sad it can make you lament that David can pray that Absalom will be put down. But then when Absalom gets put down it hurts to see that happen and those are not inconsistent emotions the desire to see God's righteousness vindicated and his name made great and then when that happens It means the destruction of the evildoer and then all of a sudden we all that hurts.

And so we can have conflicting emotions in the midst of that. How does it apply to how we should treat our enemies. We're called to treat our enemies with love and loving-kindness and graciousness gentleness compassion.

Letting our words be seasoned with salt. Loving them and showing them love and sharing the gospel with them. That's how we should treat our enemies. Because those are our personal enemies. So the guy that cuts me off in traffic.

I don't drop in preparatory prayers his way instead I Back up and I slow down and I let him in and I show that kind of grace and kindness to him. Just like everybody does right? That's how we all respond to that and the people who persecute us I think the book of first Peter.

The book of first Peter answers that we need to to show them love and gentleness and submission and honor to whom honor is due in in the way of Attempting to demonstrate the love of Christ. That's how we handle our personal enemies while at the same time.

It is okay for us to pray for God to vindicate his name even if that means the judgment on his his enemies.

All right.

David’s Multiple Wives and God’s Design for Marriage

Second question from the first and third grade Sunday school class. Was it wrong for David to have two wives? This was before Bathsheba. And yes, it was wrong and scripture records men Abraham Isaac and Jacob all having multiple wives.

David had multiple wives. A number of the judges in the book of Judges had multiple wives. That was not God's design. God's design was laid out in the Garden of Eden in Genesis. So it was sinful and wrong for David to have those multiple wives even before Bathsheba even after Bathsheba.

That was not part of God's design and the fact that God didn't strike them dead for that sin. It was just a testimony of God's grace to them. But it but it it's not a pattern. It's something that's described in scripture not prescribed in scripture.

So it's not a pattern for us to follow. It's just something that's recorded in scripture that was true of those men and it was sinful for them to have that for them to.

Do that. Um.

Jenny had a third question I'm gonna say that for just a second wasn't wrong for David and Jonathan to lie to Saul when they devised the plan for testing whether Saul wanted to kill David because they.

Told.

Jonathan and David told Saul that David had asked to spend the feast in Bethlehem with his family. And of course this revealed Saul's evil intention to to murder and to kill David so the question was was it wrong for David and Jonathan to lie to Saul in that situation.

And Ties us into a question that Dave rich sent in is it ever? Okay to lie and This is a bit more of a complicated one. So I want to save that for a moment and deal instead with a couple other questions that Dave raised.

Reformed Theology, Arminianism, and Hyper-Calvinism

And.

So let's switch gears for a little bit. Dave asked the question and he's I don't know why he's asking some of these questions. So Dave how much time we got left, okay, we got lots of time. So Dave asked the question.

What's distinctive about reformed theology versus Arminian theology? And what is hyper Calvinism and then related to this. If God is not the author of sin Then God cannot be said to be sovereign over all.

And.

So this is the Calvinist conundrum. How can God be sovereign over sin cause sin in that sense and yet not be responsible for it? How can God cause sin by allowing it and yet not be held accountable for it.

And Tying into that question is does God have two wills? So let's deal with what are the what is distinctive about reformed theology as opposed to Arminian theology? And I think the best way to describe that or handle that question would be to simply say that reformed theology makes much of or rests upon a right understanding of the decrees of God and the work of God in eternity past to To will to guarantee and to plan the redemption of man.

There's a number of Distinctives or differences between reformed theology and Arminian theology or you could call it Calvinism Calvinism versus Arminianism, etc. I think most of the fundamental disagreement goes back to How sovereign do we believe that God is and how much do we believe that the will of man? Has a role in the salvation of sinners.

I.

Would say the reformed theology understands properly that That God is a triune God who worked in eternity past to guarantee To plan redemption and then to guarantee the redemption of his people and this is why scripture talks about God predestining some to salvation to a redemption to adoption of sons speaks of God electing a people choosing a people giving those people to his son the son coming into the world to save those people and Make an atonement for those people and then the Spirit of God Regenerating those people sealing those people and then eventually resurrecting them at the end of time.

And all of those whom the father has given to the son. So we've talked about all of those doctrines in some capacity in the past both in adult Sunday school class. Of course when we preach the doctrine of John It's all the way through the gospel of John that eternal plan of God whereby he he plans the salvation of his people and secures Their salvation everlastingly, that's all the way through the gospel of John.

It's it's unavoidable in that gospel. So that is the distinctive of reformed theology I think the understanding of the sovereignty of God in all things and in salvation and particularly in salvation. Arminianism would make much of the will of man man's will in in In salvation and his response to the gospel.

Reformed theology would make much out of the sovereignty of God and God's will in salvation and what that guarantees and what that affects. Related to that. What is hyper Calvinism? And this is a good question because it ties into our understanding of reformed theology.

Oftentimes a minute someone mentions the term Calvinism people automatically think in terms of what they think Calvinism is. So when people ask me the question, are you a Calvinist or is Kootenai Community Church a Calvinist Church?

I will respond to that with a question. I will say you tell me what you think Calvinism is and I'll tell you whether I am one or not. Because it is very rarely that anybody ever asked me that question that they actually know the differences between reformed theology and Arminian theology or they even understand the origins of the debate or even the issues at hand and Most people when they think of Calvinism, they're thinking in terms of hyper Calvinism.

So if I just come out and say look, I'm a Calvinist and people would say oh. So you don't believe that God has any love for the non elect. You don't believe in gospel preaching. You don't believe in sharing the gospel.

You don't believe in sharing your faith, etc. And That's not true at all in fact if you follow our preaching and the teaching at this church and our Emphasis on the gospel and the ministry that we have here then you understand that sharing the gospel is something we emphasize.

We had a whole conference a whole spring conference. Sorry fall conference. We had a whole fall conference on How to share your faith with Andy Rappaport and striving for eternity ministries to equip people to go out and do that.

We have missionaries that we support. Of course, we believe in evangelism so then what is the difference between. So well, let me back up. So people who think that Calvinism believes those things do not understand the difference between Calvinism and hyper Calvinism.

So what is hyper Calvinism. Hyper Calvinism to be clear is not Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion. Hyper Calvinism makes some of the very same errors as Arminian theology makes so let me give you four errors of hyper Calvinism and to go.

To help you out on this I would recommend this book Spurgeon versus hyper Calvinism by Ian Murray. This is a great little book about him. Spurgeon because he was neither an Arminian nor a hyper Calvinist.

He was accused by people in his day of being both the hyper Calvinist would accuse Spurgeon of being an Arminian because he preached the gospel and the Arminians would be Accused Spurgeon of being a hyper Calvinist because he believed in election and predestination and Spurgeon was neither an Arminian nor a hyper Calvinist.

So Ian merging Ian Murray Spurgeon versus hyper Calvinism. Now if you're not familiar with the this this book would be it's biographical, but it's also theological. So this book would be for those who are a little bit more familiar with the issues.

What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna give you the four errors of hyper Calvinism and explain how it would be different from what? I would believe as what I would believe. I'm a biblical Calvinist. Here are the errors of hyper Calvinism first number one.

Hyper-Calvinist deny the universality of gospel preaching. They deny that the gospel promises of Forgiveness and eternal life should be presented to everyone now they believe that the gospel the facts of the gospel that Christ came and died that he rose again and Did this to save sinners?

They would say that those facts of the gospel should be proclaimed to everyone. But the promises of the gospel that you can have eternal life that you can have your sins forgiven. That Christ died for you that those promises of the gospel should only be preached to the elect.

So they would say that the command or the promise that if you trust Christ He will give you eternal life. That should only be addressed to elect sinners. And they would say that no appeal at all should be made to the non elect to sinners to believe the gospel because they would say that if the atonement of Christ is particular that is that it is for his people and not a payment for sins for the whole world and if the election of the son of the Father is particular in that he chose some and not all and If the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is particular that is he doesn't regenerate everybody he regenerates some but not all.

Therefore the preaching of the gospel should be particular. That we only give the promises of the gospel out to those who are the elect. So there needs to be some sort of and this was Spurgeon's objection to hyper Calvinism that there needs to be.

According to hyper Calvinist there needs to be some sort of an internal examination of the sinner to see if he is drawn or inclined or Feels like he should come to God or if God is at work in his heart some sort of an inward look in order to Determine all of that before you can present to them the promises of the gospel.

So hyper Calvinism denies the universality of gospel preaching and obviously I'm not a hyper Calvinist by that measure because I get up and I would preach the gospel to Anyone I have told Sinners even though there are people there That you have no idea what what's going on in their hearts I you can proclaim the gospel to them and declare to them that they must repent and if they do and believe Christ that they Shall be saved.

So hyper Calvinism denies the universality of presenting the gospel promises to all men. They would say it only should be presented to the elect or those who are coming to faith in Christ or we've been Regenerated and then are seeking out God's forgiveness.

Second Hyper Calvinist would deny the warrant of faith or what? This is what Spurgeon called the warrant of faith. They would say that As a Calvinist or as a gospel preacher, I would say we call all men.

We declare to all men everywhere that they should repent and believe on Christ. We preach the gospel to all of creation we we don't discriminate try and discriminate between the elect and the non-elect when it comes to To imploring them to place their faith in Jesus Christ.

So a hyper Calvinist would say you cannot call the non-elect to faith in Christ. Because they don't have the ability to place faith in Christ therefore Until you discern whether or not they're elect whether or not they've been Regenerated and the work of the Spirit of God is going on in their heart.

You can't tell them to place their faith in Christ. You can't you can't tell a non-elect person who doesn't have the ability to believe savingly on Christ. You can't tell them to place their faith in Christ.

So they would say that we would air the hyper Calvinist would say we air if we present the demand for faith to all men without distinction. And so where where the one says you can't the first day I remember was you can't present the promises of the gospel forgiveness and eternal life to all men.

This would say you can't call upon all men to repent and believe because they're not able to do that and so to say that. To say to a non-elect person that they are called to believe the gospel. To the hyper Calvinist that would be a falsehood.

You can't say that to them because they're not called to believe the gospel because they're not elect. A Calvinist would say or a Biblicist would say that all men are called to faith and to believe and that we Don't need to know the extent of the atonement in order to call men to believe upon it.

The extent of the atonement for whom Christ died though. We may say it as particular. I don't need to know that this individual person is among the elect and included in the atonement for me to tell them that they must place faith in Christ and I don't think that us understanding that is Necessary for us to present the gospel and say now our minions.