Woke History and Critical Theory, David Allen and Romans 8, TR Only Mythology

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line, September 17th, 2019. On September 17th, 1862, the Battle of Antietam, or sometimes called the Battle of Sharpsburg, took place between the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac during the Civil War.

So far, the single bloodiest day in American military history, as far as actual, not just casualties, but fatalities in one day, the most pitched fighting. And given some of the later battles during the war, that's saying a great deal.

I was lamenting on Twitter this morning that the vast majority of the American populace has no earthly idea what that was, what it meant, who was involved, what their motivations were, anything. Sadly, I think we could find a large portion of the American populace who wouldn't even be sure who won.

Not just the battle, but the war. Or place it within 20 years, 50 years, 100 years of what even took place. A people who do not remember their own history will be a people who forget their history, or will be a people who are willing to have their history rewritten for them.

I was just on the Paul Edwards program on WMUZ in Detroit. Welcome to all of you who might be joining, because Paul was kind enough to link to us. This program discusses all sorts of things. I do not claim to be an expert on everything, by any stretch of the imagination, but we do talk about stuff on this program that almost nobody else talks about.

We will talk about things like coherence-based genealogical method in New Testament textual criticism, and we will talk about world history and church history and textual criticism, and all sorts of other things along the way from a Christian perspective, from a Christian worldview, as some famous person is always saying.

Critical Theory, Woke History, and Cultural Marxism in the Schools

But speaking of a people losing their history, there is an article on RealClearInvestigations .com. Like growing numbers of public high school students across the country, many California kids, oh my California, are receiving classroom instruction in how race, class, gender, sexuality, and citizenship status are tools of oppression, power, and privilege.

This is straight out of the Woke Handbook. This is critical theory to the nth degree. Cultural Marxism on the rampage and certainly in utter control in California, where you only have one political party.

That is completely sold out to critical theory. They are taught about colonialism, state violence, racism, intergenerational trauma. Intergenerational trauma. Heteropatriarchy. Heteropatriarchy. And the common thread that links them, whiteness.

They forgot about ableism and a few others that are supposed to be thrown in there for the fun of it. Students are then graded on how well they apply these concepts in writing assignments, performances, and community organizing projects.

At Santa Monica High School, for example, students organize and carry out a systematized campaign for social justice that can take the form of a protest, a leaflet, a workshop, play, or research project.

They demonstrate their mastery of the subject by teaching about social justice to middle school students. So you gotta keep pushing it down. You gotta get way down there to the earliest you can get to.

Make the older kids think this is cool, then it's cool. Students at Environmental Charter High School in Lawndale are assigned to write a breakup letter with a form of oppression. Okay, that's all in quotes.

Doesn't make any sense. Quote, breakup letter with a form of oppression. End quote. So you're breaking up with a form of oppression. Such as toxic masculinity. Heteronormativity. Eurocentric curriculum.

Or the Dakota Access Pipeline. Students are asked to persuade their audience of the dehumanizing and damaging effects of their chosen topic. You know, it's wonderful. I loved high school. That was an incredibly formative period in my life.

It really was. And I remember, both junior high and high school, I remember in, but you know, we didn't, this is not what we were debating about. We did have, I remember we did do a debate on whether we should build the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant.

Which is chugging away nicely, 50 miles that direction. No, we don't glow. I don't glow. Do you glow? I do not glow. The lights cause me to glow, but not the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. And we, I remember I was on the side arguing for it.

And it got built, and it's still working, and we need it. Especially all the growth we've had out here. I remember we had a real big debate about which was the better combat fighter. The F -15, or the F -16, that was a big one.

And the F -16, I was on the F -16 side, and it is the one that is still flying much more than the F -15 Strike Eagle did. Anyway, but those are the kind of things we were debating about back then. Heteronormativity?

Nah. Heteronormativity, we all accepted and agreed with heteronormativity. Because it's a good thing. That's what we're doing here. Students at schools in Anaheim, San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco are taught how to write a manifesto to school administrators listing demands for reforms.

And they wonder why the universities are collapsing? Where there's no freedom of speech left? It's just one side? Where even the professors are having to leave because they're not liberal enough? Well, they're pushing it down to high school and junior high after that.

Some conduct a grand jury investigation to determine who is responsible for the genocide of the state's Native Americans. And one class holds a mock trial to determine which party is most responsible for the death of millions of Native Tainos, Christopher Columbus, the soldiers, the king and queen of Spain, or the entire European system of colonialization.

So these are just some of the things going on in these schools. And remember, these folks will be voting. They get into it slowly, but they eventually will be the people voting. And that's the end of that.

That's the end of that. Critical theory, cultural Marxism, and the shutdown of any kind of meaningful cultural discussion. That's what you're seeing in this kind of stuff. It's all around us. And the temptation, of course, you see how dangerous this is, how central it is.

The danger is to then become absolutely, to develop monovision. That this is it. This is all there is to it. Let me back up a second. You can certainly, there are plenty of dystopian movies out there about what happens if these people completely take over.

Starting with the textbook of them all, 1984. Brave New World. Fahrenheit 41. This is nothing new. Those were books I read when I was a youth. And there have been lots of, remember, was it Ryan's? It was Logan's Run.

And there was something about Ryan somewhere. But yeah, Logan's Run was one of them. And there was Soylent Green. And then Schwarzenegger was in Running Man. So dystopian stuff has been for a long, long time.

But it almost dulls the senses. Because now that we see it happening, we're like, yeah, but that's a movie. That can't really happen. It's actually really happening. This stuff has been out there for a long, long time.

Let me just suggest that if what we believe is true, that we are made in the image of God, you can only deceive people so long. I mean, man, if you look at the Soviet Union, that looked like it would never fall.

But it broke down from inside. Because it enforced a worldview on people who are made in the image of God. And they may not have scripture. They may not, once they get out of it, do what they need to do, and hence maybe go back into it.

But the point is, the culture of death can only produce death. And there's only so far this stuff can go. I mean, a lot of us would have thought, it could never get to the point of same-sex marriage.

I mean, how could that, well, okay, it did. But how long can this go? As soon as Obergefell took place, two weeks later, transgenderism is all over the place. It's like, okay, we got that one, hit the next thing.

Transgenderism. Transgenderism is a fundamental rebellion against the very idea that we are created by God. It's also not even close to being consistent, even with a Darwinian worldview. It is a level of self-deception and deceit that is unbelievable.

It's hard to believe that this type of stuff is happening. How long can it last? I'm not saying, well, common sense. Well, it's not common sense. It's created sense. Eventually, this stuff kills itself.

The left turns upon the left.

Eventually.

Once they've silenced all the people they can agree that they need to silence, then they turn upon themselves. And so, when I look at critical theory, when I look at the reality of what it does in cultural Marxism, it can't build anything.

It can't create anything. Even in the dystopian novels, the only way to hold those dystopian, anti-human forms of government together is with absolute power. And no one can maintain that. It eventually collapses.

And something new rises out of the ashes. Of course, we manage to be stupid enough, and this is a real issue. If we manage to be stupid enough to be playing with the human genome, at the same time that we're stupid enough to think that we can determine our own...

I'm a... Yesterday, I saw a video clip where... Oh, this name just escaped my mind. British guy on... Britain's Got Talent. The first few years, sat over on the left. Price. Bryce. Price. Pierce. Pierce.

Whatever it is.

Huh?

Pierce Morgan. Thank you. Who I have... Who has just angered me horribly so many times in the past. I mean, he is a lefty. But what was funny was they had... They had this kid on. And he was. Just a kid.

Talking about the BBC and its 100 genders. Teaching kids there are 100 genders. Now, interestingly enough, Pierce now has 4 kids. Funny how having kids changes you.

Oh, yeah.

Dr. Moeller has pointed this out many, many, many, many times. A woman with children, you can predict how she's going to vote. A woman without children, you can predict how she's going to vote, too. Children will change you.

All of a sudden, you realize that all that idiotic leftist stupidity is just that. Idiotic leftist stupidity. And so he's sitting here. He starts reading some of these names. To this kid. That is supposed to be defending this stuff.

And he's like, what does any of this mean? And so he asked about a... Neutrosis, I think, was what it was. It had neutral in it. Not neutral, but neutrosis or neutrosi. I think it was neutrosi. The kid didn't have a clue.

He was sent there. Evidently didn't read the list. Or, if he did, didn't know what they referred to. Because think about it. Two-spirit, three-spirit, gender-neutral, gender-queer. It's all just insanity.

It's absurd on its face. It's all made up. There's no science behind this. And so, this kid has no idea. Wait a minute. You're the expert in all this stuff.

You don't even know what this stuff is.

Why are we telling our kids this? Now, even Pierce said there are only three genders. Male, female, and none.

I'm like...

See, he's still a lefty. But even people on the left recognize this stuff is stupid. And so he finally read what neutrosi or something was. And again, it's just all... I don't want to fit into the binary thing.

I don't want to be what God made me to be. I want to claim the right to define myself otherwise. But that's what I was thinking about this. When even Pierce Morgan is going, What are we doing? This is getting crazy.

Then, yeah. It can't build anything. It all comes tumbling down. Now, we may have to go through a whole lot. You've got to realize something. You allow the current economic system to collapse. Which, if we stop having children, it will.

The Green New Deal, end of the economy. I mean, almost any element of the Green New Deal. End of the economy. The fundamental desire is to completely change the culture of the United States. And hence, to destroy its military power, its leadership power, to destabilize everything.

Critical theory breaks everything down. You do that, and the death toll will be huge. Not just from all the little dictators that now don't have to worry about our F -22s coming in and taking them out.

Because they're not around anymore, because we can't fly them anymore. But just the medical system, the food production system, the Pax Romana, which existed prior to the time of Jesus, and which, in God's providence, God used to allow the Gospel to go everywhere.

There is a USA Amana, a Pax Americana today, that allows world travel, world commerce. You can buy stuff from all over the world today. And the primary reason is the United States of America. I'm not being vain about that.

We've got a lot of problems here. But the fact of the matter is, since World War II, that's why it is. Who does everybody look to when the pirates start going after their ships and everything else? They look to the United States.

We just launched... I don't know, have you seen what was the name of it? We just launched the world's largest aircraft carrier. This sucker makes the Nimitz-class carriers look like tugboats. This thing is a floating city.

It has, I think, four times the nuclear power generation capacity that any ship has had before. Double the aircraft with a smaller crew. I mean, it is a technological... it's technologically unbelievable.

I forget what the name of it is, but it's huge! Massive! Talk about being able to project your power all around the world. Now, the world didn't have to worry about that too much as long as we were doing the right thing.

And I realize we don't always do the right thing. I get that. But the Chinese and the Russians, their aircraft carriers still use the slingshot. Have you ever seen them? The front end goes up like this.

You've got to throw the sucker up in the air and hope it doesn't crash. They don't even have our... and our new catapults are not the steam-powered catapults that we've used in the past. These are Magneto.

I mean, we've got tech in this ship that nobody in the world is even close to. Even close to. Well, that takes a real healthy economy and a lot of money. And right now, there's a whole group of people running for president that would destroy every single bit of that.

And that's why, and I've mentioned this before, when I travel, I am stunned at how much people around the world know about our elections. In fact, the sad thing is, there are people in Australia and South Africa that know more about the people running for office in the United States than most of the people in the United States know.

Because they recognize that as far as their overall economic stability and stuff goes, what's happening here is probably more determinative of that than what's happening there locally. We don't even think about that.

How many Americans have a clue who Boris Johnson is? How many have any idea what Brexit is? How many know who the Prime Minister of Australia is? Don't. A lot of people know who Putin is. That name sticks.

And that's because he's sort of king for life. And Xi? Yeah, maybe heard of him. Probably know more about the North Korean dictator than anybody else. But that's only because he's on the tube all the time and threatens to launch missiles at us and things like that.

But we don't really care too much about what goes on elsewhere, unfortunately. So, if we go down, distribution of medicine, distribution of food, distribution of fuel. We are the largest fuel-producing nation now, believe it or not, astonishingly enough.

Yeah, Saudi Arabians, drone attacks. Not all those governments over there are very stable. The world suffers. People die. You need to understand something. The green people, the Green Initiative people, they recognize the only way to get carbon.

By the way, carbon dioxide is actually a minor element to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is the primary thing. We know, and someday I'm going to do a program on this, because we know if you simply know your history, you know the Earth has been significantly warmer than it is today.

If you just know your history. I learned that in seminary. In seminary. In fact, what was interesting back then was in the 1970s, we were told we were about to freeze to death. The great danger was global freezing.

And so, in seminary, when I learned that the north of England had once had vineyards in it. You can't grow vineyards in north of England today. Not without building a structure. But outside, there were vineyards in the north of England.

There's only one way that could happen. If England used to be a whole lot warmer than it is today. Which means carbon dioxide ain't what changes things. There's something else going on. And there have been a number of times.

If you study the Black Death. Sorry, I'm wandering around here, but it is interesting. If you study the Black Death, Europe's population had doubled in the century and a half, two centuries. Prior to about the year 1300.

Why? It was a whole lot warmer. And you could cultivate a whole lot more land, because when it's warmer, there's more rain. And so, that changed. And it got cold. And that land that had been cultivated could no longer grow anything.

You started having famines. And then what happened starting in 1347?

The Black Death.

The Black Death comes along and wipes out minimally half of the European population. If it hadn't doubled beforehand, what might have happened? All sorts of this type of stuff. Fascinating stuff. But it could happen again.

We take it so for granted that we can just get in our fossil fuel car. And drive to a building that has electrical lights and electrical coolers and everything else. And buy our food. That is a relatively modern thing that most of us wouldn't know what to do with.

We couldn't do that. And you gotta understand, these people, they want us back in the 1800s. They want us plowing our own little plot of land. And the only way that's going to work is if you drop the world population to around a billion.

How are you going to wipe all those people out? Well, partly just by not having kids. So there's a huge attack upon families. But there's got to be another way to do it. And war and famine, very effective.

You're saying there are actually people who want that? Yep, sure do. Now, they don't want that for them and their families, but for everybody else. That's just... How did I get onto that? I don't know how I got onto that.

Oh, they certainly do. They want to rule over everybody. And if history has taught us anything, we know exactly what that's going to result in. I promised to address a couple of issues. And I'm not sure how many I'm going to get through.

But there was a discussion in Twitter with Dr. David Allen. And Dr. Allen had put out a tweet that basically made... He put out an article, said, yes, Jesus did die for the sins of everyone. And this was a response to an article that I think had been in TGC or one of those particular websites.

And it was a response to Eric Raymond's article presenting particular redemption. And he made claims that, you know, I assume he writes his own tweets. I write my own tweets. I know there are people on Twitter who do not write their own tweets.

I doubt that Piper is actually writing his own tweets. I think someone's taking stuff from sermons, whatever. Fine. I'm not arguing that that's a good thing or a bad thing. But I, like many people, he made the accusation that Scripture never says it's God's intention only to save the elect and that the Bible never connects together atonement and election passages to say that God intends only for the atonement to save the elect.

And a lot of us were like, uh, you did. And so here on the program, I went to Romans chapter 8, walked through the text, and a number of other people likewise pointed out to Dr. Allen that this was a text.

Romans 8, Particular Redemption, and the Golden Chain

And so he put out an article responding to my responders a couple days ago. And he did not make any reference to me, of course. He did, in passing, in fact, let me scroll down here. To those seeking a formal debate on this issue.

That's me. Yeah, to the nameless, faceless people out there that I will not deign to even note by name, though I have in the past falsely accused them of being hyper-Calvinist. To those seeking a formal debate on this issue, my response is there is no need to do so.

I have published more than 1 ,200 pages on this subject, including arguments by Calvinists since the Reformation against limited atonement. I have often said that most of the best arguments against limited atonement are made by Calvinists themselves who reject it, and their number is legion in the past and today.

That's Tony Byrne, by the way. That's just him speaking directly. John Owen's double-payment argument and triple-choice argument have been refuted and debunked a hundred times over by Calvinists. I have cited the sources and explained the arguments.

I would love to see Calvinists who affirm limited atonement engage what I and others have written on this subject, as if they haven't already. That's the whole point of debate, is to bring the two sides together so that people can see, instead of just going over here to read this book, over here to read this book, when in a debate you have something called cross-examination.

And that's when you find out whether an argument can hold water or whether it cannot. So, he says, I have published more than 1 ,200 pages on this subject. You have not published 1 ,200 pages on Romans chapter 8, have you?

Of course not. Now, I'm not sure how many pages from there to there is. That's a whole lot more than 1 ,200. More than 2 ,000, 3 ,000, 4 ,000? I don't know how many pages. Lots, lots, lots, lots of pages.

But, so what? I found that to be an exceptionally unsatisfying response to being challenged on the merits of your case. But, let me give further reason. In response to my tweet, there is no atonement text in Scripture stating that God intends to save only the elect.

David had written, wow, sure there is, Romans 8, 31 -39. Which, I did 8, 31 -34. So, similar response. The hue and cry over the statement in the article in the tweet is a misreading of what I wrote, coupled with a misinterpretation of Romans 8, 31 -39.

So, I've noticed that for Alan, whenever you start pushing him on something he said, well, you're just misinterpreting me. Well, that's possible. You might be extremely unclear in what you say. That's where debates come in.

Because in the debate, when someone challenges you on the point and says, you've said this, but this says this, you can go, oh, you're misinterpreting me, and here's how. See, that's how it works. That's why debate is such a good thing.

That's why scholars do debates. At least they used to. Now, listen to this response and see if it's really substantive. Notice, I did not say that atonement and election are not related. Well, how would they be related?

Or the Bible doesn't teach election. Now, of course, we know that what he thinks is election and what the Bible teaches is election. Again, this is why debates are so useful. As I said in the article, there is no text, period, that teaches Jesus died only for the sins of the elect.

I also claim that there is no atonement text in Scripture that limits God's intention to save only the elect. And we say, yes, there is. Romans 8, 31 through 34 is an atonement text, specifically speaks of the giving of Christ in atonement, and it limits that to the elect.

Here it is. So how does he deal with it? Romans 8 is not a text whose focus is atonement. But let's grant, for the sake of argument, that it is, since Romans 8, 32 states, He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall ye not with him also freely give us all things?

Okay, so Romans 8 has broader implications, broader connections. It has connected all of soteriology to the predestining will of God. All the way back to Romans 8, 28, that it does. No question about it.

So you've got everything in there. You've got God for knowing. That's an active verb, not a passive. Predestining, called, justified, glorified, it's all stuff God does. Yep, this is all about soteriology.

It's all about salvation. It's all about God's power to save His people. I agree. Interestingly enough, the central focus of the earlier part of Romans, which is the empty hand of faith, which meets the hand of grace.

So you can't bring anything in that hand. If you bring something in that hand, then you can't grasp the grace of God. Or God's grace can't grasp your hand. I'm not using it in the synergistic concept.

But that focus upon faith, justification by faith alone, apart from works of the law, the one who believes, not the one who works, Romans 4, 4 -5, to gain something from God, that is not a part of what's in Romans 8.

That is not a focus. And when he goes to the golden chain of redemption, there isn't anything there about believers. Now, we know that when he says he justifies, the only way to be justified is by faith, so we're not confused as to what Paul is saying.

But justification is a divine act. Calling is a divine act. All those who are called are justified, which means faith has to be something that God accomplishes in those who are called because they are then justified.

All who are called are justified. All who are justified are glorified. So if justification by faith is true, and it is, then faith must be the gift of God that is given to the elect of God who are regenerated by the Spirit of God on the basis of the finished work of God in Christ based upon the election of the Father.

Well, that's Trinitarian, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Yep, exactly right. Makes perfect sense. It's balanced. It's consistent. It's consistent with Paul's theology. It's consistent with his teaching. Until you introduce synergism to it, which makes the whole thing fall apart.

Because then you've got lots of people being called who aren't justified, which would, of necessity, break up the chain. Then you've got people. Do you have people who are being justified who are not being glorified?

You do in Roman Catholicism. That's sort of a necessary element of it. So, anyway, back to the article here. Why say that Romans 8 is not a text whose focus is atonement? You then say, well, but let's grant for the sake of argument it is, since Romans 8 .32 does say atonement.

Doesn't use the word, but delivered him up for us all. But then notice the shift. It's the last sentence in the paragraph. Sometimes you miss the last sentence in the paragraph if you're going really fast.

Paul is addressing believers and their current status as having been justified because they have believed in Christ. Now, you have a true statement not drawn from the text, inserted specifically to provide a way around the emphasis of the text.

Paul is not emphasizing our status as believers. He is emphasizing that God is the one accomplishing all of this, that God has predestined, and God has called, and God has justified, and God has glorified, and now in the holy court of heaven, God is the one who justifies, Jesus is the one who dies, rather is raised again, and therefore there can be no condemnation.

There is no one that can bring a charge against whom? God's elect. But you see, when you're a synergist, you can't reason with scripture from the divine perspective down to man. You always have to be going from man up to God because man's the one in ultimate control.

God can do everything he wants, but without man's cooperation, it's not going to accomplish anything. They can say that's God's sovereign will, but the point is that God tries and tries and tries, but the final determining factor is man.

And so what you do here is you bring in human faith, which in Paul's theology is the result of all this other stuff, God's sovereign will, regeneration, gift of faith, gift of repentance, so on and so forth.

Bring in faith, which is something we do, and so we have this status because we have believed in Christ, not because God's chosen us, but because we've believed in Christ. So rather than draw from the text its terminology, which is the phrase God's elect, verse 33, who will bring a charge?

Cata eclecton Theou, the elect of God. We don't like elect of God, so what we'll do is we'll change it over to those who've believed in Christ.

Okay?

So having said that, he says, to suggest this text teaches limited atonement is faulty logic. We're not told why. The exegesis isn't touched. But he goes on, all those died for receive all things. Some do not receive all things, therefore they are not died for.

This is a quotation from someone else. He says, here is the fallacy. Okay, let's see what the fallacy is, because Dr. Allen loves talking about fallacies, but Dr. Allen does not want to defend his assertion about these things in debate against people who could point out his fallacies.

That's...

If, I mean, honestly, if Dr. Allen really believes that we are the ones doing the fallacies, how much benefit would there be to do a debate with me and prove the fallacies in cross-examination? Because if they are fallacies, I'm not going to be able to disprove them.

Right?

Right?

Right?

Okay.

Here is the fallacy. The first us, in Romans 8 .32, is being converted into all for whom Christ died, when contextually, the us refers to believers, not all for whom Christ died.

Really? Huh.

Well, I'm looking around here, and...

Let's see.

Let's figure that the context starts at verse 28. We've got those who love God. We do have that. And you can't love God without believing in Him. That's true. But then, those are defined as to those who are called according to His purpose.

So they're the kleitos, the called, the elect ones, called, chosen. So they're the elect, so it's the elect who love God. And we know that if you're an enemy of God, you don't love God. There are some, there are some who would say you have to love God before you can believe in God, and you've got to do that in and of yourself, so that dead men actually have the ability to love God, and to bring about their own salvation.

There are plenty of them out there. They're called Pelagians. They're semi-Pelagians. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become a conformed member of His sons, that He would be the firstborn of many, many brethren.

That's God acting there. And those whom He predestined to be called, called, justified, justified, glorified, golden chain, all divine actions, what then shall we say to these things if God is for us, who is against us?

Well, the only us here are those predestined, called, justified, glorified. Right? These are the elect, the called ones. And if they're, if all the called are justified, then this isn't just a general called ones, which would be the general calling that we do when we preach the gospel.

We don't know who the elect are. No, this is specific. Unless you're going to become a universalist, where all those who are called will eventually be glorified. That is consistent. It's unbiblical, but it's consistent.

What then shall we say to these things? Who's the we? If God is for us, who is against us? Now, if this us is all of mankind, then God is against a whole portion of mankind because they're outside of Christ, and therefore His law requires that His wrath come against them.

So this us isn't all of mankind. But what Dr. Allen is saying, this us is believers. Well, where'd you get believers? The context is that these are the called, and the next verse is going to say that they are the elect.

So if you allow the text to define, and you draw your meaning from the text, why would you jump chapters back someplace to a different context when you've got a context right here? Well, because you have a tradition you're defending, and your tradition is in opposition to the exegesis of this text.

That's why. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all. So here, so there is a specific terminology being used here.

Hupere haemon. Hupere haemon. I pointed this out last time, but now we have a response from Dr. Allen. I am laying out where Dr. Allen is exegetically wrong. If he thinks he's exegetically right, then he needs to do something more than just simply keep going back and forth.

One of us has offered to come to Texas at his leisure, at his schedule, at his school, or at a church of his choice in that area, to lay these things out. Be happy to do it. This is important. But you have hupere haemon in verse 31.

If God is hupere haemon for us, tithkath haemon, who can be against us. So the very next sentence is, he who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up, hupere haemon. You can't change who this is talking about.

You can't change it. So, God is for every single one of those for whom God gave up His own Son. It's the same group. You can't break that. But delivered Him over, hupere haemon, how will He not also with Him freely give us tapanta?

By grace, karisatai. So, perfect consistency here from the Reformed perspective. Absolutely perfect consistency. But the other side has to, well, no, this is, but, you bring this over here, and then you put this over here.

You can't walk through the text. It's like John 6. You gotta jump over here, jump over there, pull this into the, you can't walk through the text, just like Romans 9. We've done that one too. Romans 8, Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians 1.

You people can't walk through these texts. And until you realize that, you're gonna keep losing people. As long as we have the freedom to respond, you're gonna keep losing people because you can't walk through these texts.

You have to bring in other stuff.

We don't.

We can let the language say what the language is saying. How will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who is the us? Same us. Who will bring a charge against kata eklekton theu? Against the elect of God.

Well, this is the us. Are you really serious? You're gonna say, well, up till now He was just talking about believers, even though He doesn't use that term, and now He's just talking about something more general.