Covid-19 is a Darwinist's Dream, Two Full Hours in Response to David Allen

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:35

And Greggs, welcome to the Dividing Line. Even if the rain outside ends up ending our possibility of webcasting, we will of course be recording this and getting it posted as quickly as we possibly can.

00:48

We have the unusual situation in the Phoenix area of days' worth of rain now, and I know that those of you in Seattle are like, yeah, so?

00:59

But for us, it's very unusual, and we've just noticed over the years that our internet connection gets wonky when it gets wet, which in Phoenix is not all that often, but this is not the first time something like this has happened.

01:13

So we're going to do our best, and if it breaks up and stops and dies, I'm actually not even going to ask

01:19

Rich to tell me so that I'm not distracted because we've got other things to do. And I don't have,

01:26

I don't really, in fact I'm even going to drop Twitter here, so there's really nothing that would tell me one way or the other.

01:32

So that's probably the best way. Today on the program, as you can see by the stacks of commentaries on the

01:41

Book of Romans, and by the fact that the last thing I was trying to do was to get to a certain page on this particular book here, right at the end, there we go.

01:54

Um, let's see if that works there. Yes! We'll see if that actually got me to where I need to be.

02:02

We'll find out when we get there. Anyway, on the program today, we are going to be looking at the 11 ,000 -word response by Dr.

02:13

David Allen of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary to the program we did last year on the subject of Romans chapter 8.

02:21

We, as you may recall, I should have grabbed them, I didn't, but as you recall, last year,

02:26

I think it was in December, early December, I went through both of the major works published by Dr.

02:37

Allen on the subject of the Atonement, and we looked very carefully at what he said about Romans chapter 8, because he had written an article in response to an article in TGC, I think, on the subject of the

02:50

Atonement. We pointed out there really was no meaningful exegesis offered in either one of these books, even though each book has a little bit of a different tenor than the other, and we provide a response, a rather lengthy response, based upon walking through the text of Romans chapter 8.

03:12

And so, it was, I don't know, a month later, something along those lines, I don't remember exactly when it was, but there was a response.

03:22

I saw the first one, and then I sort of figured, since it was broken up into parts, there would probably be, you know, some space of time.

03:28

It was only a few days. And this three -part, 11 ,000 -page response was provided.

03:36

Of course, I immediately read it and said, oh man, it's gonna take some time to respond to, just because of its length and because how disorganized it is.

03:45

It is not organized well. It is, as we will see in the middle of the paragraph, you'll all of a sudden go flying off to another area, and so it's not an easy thing to respond to it in a coherent fashion.

04:01

But we've had a lot of other things going on. There's a lot of stuff going on in a lot of different areas in the world today, and that's relevant to a

04:10

Christian worldview and Christian apologetics and things like that. And so we will get to that response in the following period of time today, but obviously something happened today that is extremely important, and because it's extremely important, we need to take a look at it.

04:34

And that specifically is the reality that, you know,

04:41

I wonder, I didn't see anybody talking about this, but I wonder if this is the first time this has ever happened.

04:52

But the General Conference, the LDS Church, the thought crossed my mind with what's going on in regards to COVID -19 and the proper concern together with toilet paper panic.

05:14

There is a proper concern, however, there are far more people dying of other diseases that no one's talking about every day, but because we are accustomed to it, then we aren't talking about it.

05:35

There are more communicable diseases, though it's very communicable. There are deadlier diseases, though it's primarily deadly in regards to certain people and certain conditions.

05:48

Average age of the person who's died so far is 80. And the reality is

05:53

Italy is getting hit harder because of pre -existing conditions and because of the older population. I was aware of this, but the average

06:00

Italian is over 10 years older than the average American. It's a very aging population.

06:07

And having been there, I know that a lot of the places are very small, people are close to one another, easy to carry, and all

06:16

Italians talk with their hands and they hug and they kiss. The Chinese are behind a lot of this stuff.

06:30

That's another subject for another program, I think. But anyway, the reality is that there's a lot of concern, and certainly when you have older relatives, friends, things like that, these individuals should be protected.

06:57

And I personally think the handshake is done. And I hope so.

07:04

When I think of how many hands I have shaken over the years and then gone into a restroom and immediately washed or had hand sanitizer and everything else, in the back of my mind there was always this, this is not the smartest thing we've ever done.

07:23

And then the funny thing is, I think the live long and prosper thing is great, but there are many people who are genetically incapable of doing this.

07:33

Pat Madrid. I just jokingly responded to Patrick Madrid on Twitter and I said, there are certain people who just aren't able to do this.

07:42

And he said, I'm one of them. He said, get these two, but these two will not do that. Not if these two are doing this.

07:51

The older you get, the less they cooperate. But the point is, there are certain wise things.

07:59

But it's funny though, as soon as somebody walks up to me and you stick your hand out, it's just second nature. You can't stop yourself.

08:07

And I think the same thing in Italy, and more so, even more so, because it's a kiss and you're dead.

08:19

But the point is, when you think about it, certainly not all the people who attend the

08:27

General Conference Salt Lake City are elderly, but a number of them are. And yeah, it's a big building, a lot of space in it, but they've just decided that they're going to go virtual.

08:44

And so it may be the first time, I don't know if this has happened in the past, maybe during a period of war, you know, maybe in 1918 when there was a true pandemic,

08:56

I mean, true pandemic, millions, millions of people died.

09:04

Maybe they did then, I don't know. But what this does mean is that a

09:14

General Conference I was really looking forward to, because it is, from the LDS perspective, the 200th anniversary of the first vision, spring of 1820.

09:23

Now we know it wasn't spring of 1820. We know it could not have happened in the spring of 1820. We know that there is documented evidence that it did not happen in the spring of 1820.

09:32

And it's not just one piece of evidence, it is literally dozens of pieces of evidence from independent sources that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no first vision in the spring of 1820.

09:44

So they're going to miss the spring of 1820 General Conference, but the actual history of when it could, the earliest it could have happened, is still the spring of 1824, 1824 -1825.

09:58

So maybe they can, maybe by then they'll liberalize so much, they'll go ahead and do something, I don't know.

10:04

It's possible the way things are going in Utah. Weird. So right now, we are still planning on doing the dialogue with Alma Allred, he's going to sit on one side of the stage, and we're going to be in isolation masks, and no audience.

10:26

No, no, that's not what we're going to do. And then the debate with the two gentlemen on ethics and morals without God is currently still scheduled.

10:43

We are obviously at the mercy of the

10:48

University of Utah at that point. If they make a decision, they're not going to be having meetings of more than 50 people, which is happening in certain places.

10:59

There you go. Same with BYU. Are we going to end up having to reschedule all this stuff for the fall when

11:07

I think most of this will be in the rearview mirror? All of it will be in the rearview mirror.

11:13

Yeah, probably. We'll see. I don't know. We'll let folks know. But what

11:18

I wanted to do here at the beginning, very quickly, was to point something out, and that was when we think about COVID -19, this is sort of in regards to the debate that's still scheduled on morals and God.

11:44

From an evolutionary perspective, now just really quickly, I was a biology major at a

11:51

Christian college, but I was the only creationist in the biology department. All my professors were minimally theistic evolutionists.

12:01

And so in high school, public high school, I had still one of my favorite teachers.

12:08

In fact, when they ask you to fill out who your favorite teacher was, I still use this teacher's last name.

12:13

Well, I won't tell you more than that, because then all my accounts will be compromised. But he would bring me articles, college -level articles, university -level articles, on Darwinism and neo -Darwinian micro -mutational evolutionary theory.

12:34

We'd sit there at lunch, and we would have long conversations and battle through this stuff.

12:41

I had to do the same thing at university. I remember Dr. Ned Grossnickle was one of my professors.

12:48

Best limnology teacher ever, but that was about the only class that he was the best limnology teacher in. But he knew limnology like the back of his hand, but from an evolutionary perspective.

12:59

And so on these long trips, we're going out to do surveys. So I battled through a lot of this stuff.

13:05

When I graduated, the first book I read after I graduated from Grand Canyon could have had a

13:13

B .S. I should have taken the B .S. I took a B .A., but I'd finished the work for either one.

13:20

It was Darwin. Yeah, Dawkins.

13:26

It starts with a D. Dawkins' book. And the

13:32

Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. I went after all those books as they came out to read them and familiarize myself with the

13:41

Darwinian viewpoint and understanding. And if you are familiar with those books, then you know that from the

13:48

Darwinian perspective, getting your genotype into the next generation is the greatest good.

13:56

Now, Darwinists have come up with really very, very brilliant—I mean, they've had to put some real thought into this—reasons why you might have some members of a community that you sort of sacrifice to try to fit

14:15

Darwinism into certain social modes. But the reality is that if nature is just red in tooth and claw, that it is merciless and pitiful, has no pity upon anyone, then the

14:34

Darwinian perspective is that COVID -19 is good. COVID -19 is one of the greatest things that I think man has ever designed, because I think it was.

14:47

Why? Look what it does. Who does it kill? And who doesn't it kill?

14:54

It doesn't even seem to affect kids. They're like, okay, that was done.

15:00

And that's it. So it doesn't kill the members of the population that can reproduce.

15:09

Who does it kill? The weak. It's natural selection as a virus.

15:19

It is a natural selection virus. So it kills the elderly, who are, from a

15:25

Darwinian perspective, a drain upon society and a drain upon the population. They've already fulfilled their purpose from the

15:32

Darwinian perspective. I mean, that's really what was behind—was it Ryan's run?

15:38

Logan's run. Was that the one where they went up in this thing at 25 years of age and poof?

15:47

Okay. That was a long time ago, man. Yeah, yeah. Anyway, well, 25 was a long time ago for you and me, but the movie was even longer than 25 years ago.

15:59

But that's the same thinking, is that from a Darwinian perspective, once you've had your kids and invested yourself in raising them and they're ready to have kids, you should just be done away with.

16:11

You're a drain. You're worthless. And so the other people it kills are people with pre -existing health conditions.

16:18

In fact, do you know who it's killing in Italy? Obese people. Obesity. Diabetes.

16:26

Heart issues. If you're not in shape. Hey, this is, again, this is

16:33

Darwin's greatest dream. COVID -19 is the natural selection virus.

16:40

It really is. And so from a Darwinian perspective, and what else does the world have to offer?

16:47

I understand that in Western culture today, it's all based on feelings and that the vast majority of my fellow citizens have no earthly idea what

16:57

Richard Dawkins actually believes. And even though they saw recently, remember, what was it? Two months ago? Maybe not even two months ago.

17:05

That he was quoted on Twitter multiple, multiple, multiple times over and over and over. I don't know how many people sent it to me.

17:12

Saying, you know, that eugenics and, you know, that nature, this is, you know, nature naturally does this type of stuff.

17:21

And so if man did it, you know, what would be the big deal? And la la la la. Yeah, of course. I realize that in our society right now, it's all emotional stuff, you know?

17:32

And so talking about Darwinism this way and saying, hey, COVID -19 is the perfect Darwinian natural selection virus.

17:40

It prunes, it improves, it literally improves the herd.

17:49

COVID -19 for humanity does what we do with our crops.

17:56

You prune, if you're looking at a branch in a vine and, you know, you want it to produce more fruit, you cut out the bad stuff, the stuff that's taken away the life of the vine.

18:07

Only leave the good stuff. That's what COVID -19 does. Get rid of the old, get rid of the infirm, don't kill the kids.

18:12

We're good. So from a secular perspective that actually takes seriously the scientific basis of secular thinking.

18:25

What's wrong with that? What's the problem? How is that wrong?

18:33

Why isn't that something that's being celebrated as something that's good? I can guarantee you that there are

18:40

Darwinian geneticists who are celebrating this. They will not say that publicly. But in the privacy of their own brains, they're sitting there going, man, this is the best thing that could happen.

18:53

Best thing that could happen. You're getting rid of the old, you're getting rid of those that are just a drag on society, and you're getting rid of the infirm.

19:01

These are people that have taken up resources that can be used for the more genetically advanced. And isn't that what we're saying is good about designer babies and stuff like that anyways?

19:10

Isn't that what's behind aborting girls and only having boys and stuff like that?

19:17

Isn't that the same mindset? We just aren't consistent about it. Something to think about.

19:25

Something to think about because if we are getting to the point where we are electing to office, those people who will use their authority to create a totalitarian state where the state determines morality and ethics, and this is the only foundation they have, then why are we panicking about COVID -19?

19:47

Something to think about. Something to think about. I can't find this thing. And that's a bummer. So I'm going to have to go by memory, but that's okay.

19:56

I mean, I posted it on Twitter, so I suppose I could probably pull it up that way, but I'd have to look at my own stuff to do that.

20:06

That's not always something that I do, but I'll look at it here really quickly.

20:12

But again, just in passing, by the way, on Twitter, I did post something linked to the informationisbeautiful .net.

20:20

It's a coronavirus infographic data pack. Man, it's really well done. It's really, really, really well done.

20:26

I mean, whoever put that together knows graphics like the back of their hand.

20:33

They're really, really good. And so look that up if you want.

20:41

But no, it's not coming up anywhere. There it is.

20:48

Found it. Ding, ding, ding. Okay. So I was giving you some of the background to the exchanges we've had.

20:58

Well, the one side exchanges we've had with Dr. David Allen. We have, of course, offered to engage in public debate on this subject because I think that is obviously the best way to do it.

21:08

You get to have cross -examination. You get to hear both sides interacting with one another, but that has been an invitation that has been consistently declined.

21:19

And so I mentioned on the program when Dr. Allen responded that I would get around to my response.

21:27

I took all these commentaries on Romans Home, started putting some material together.

21:34

The wife was like, I don't want all those things sitting around the front row. I had to hide them. And then a bunch of other stuff came along and I'll be perfectly honest with you.

21:43

I haven't asked you. No one asked me about it. No one asked me when you can get around to responding to David Allen.

21:52

I wasn't getting anything on Twitter or Facebook or emails. Nobody seemed all that interested.

21:59

And so it wasn't at the top of my plate. I'd always look over. I'd see the commentary. I was like, oh yeah,

22:05

I need to get to that. I just know it's going to take hours because it's just so long. And so on the 27th of February, just found it thankfully, someone,

22:18

J Drew McLeod or something like that, maybe it's, I don't have all of it here, but had said something to David Allen about it.

22:27

And so David Allen says, not to my knowledge, that is, did White ever respond to you? I was told he said in late

22:35

December, I think that's his way of saying I refuse to listen to him. Um, or, or maybe it's just a passive aggressive thing.

22:42

I don't know, but I was told he said in late December, he planned to respond by mid January at this point.

22:47

I doubt he will. His position is basically indefensible exegetically.

22:55

Well, given that I still would submit that after 11 ,000 words,

23:04

Dr. Allen still hasn't given us a meaningful exegesis of the text. Oh, he's now talked about a lot of grammatical issues here and he's quoted a lot of commentaries, but we obviously have a completely different understanding of what exegesis means.

23:21

I believe exegesis is giving you the meaning of the author in his context, as it would have been understood by his original audience, not telling you all the things that it doesn't mean or couldn't possibly mean because of something else.

23:40

And so I'm not going to go back over everything we've already done multiple times on this program on Romans chapter eight, we've already given our exegesis.

23:52

But what I do want to do is I want to work through and I will have to be somewhat disciplined.

24:02

It will be hard to do. I don't think we'll get done today, especially since I spent the first 20 minutes on the

24:10

COVID -19 situation. But I want to look at the article and begin anyways, walking through it for two reasons.

24:22

First of all, I want to demonstrate once again that Romans eight, when allowed to speak as a whole, rather than breaking it up into little parts and breaking up, for example,

24:36

I would submit that Dr. Allen breaks the connection between 828 -30 and 3134 on a very artificial level.

24:45

He says, hey, it doesn't matter what, it doesn't matter what conclusions you come to on the golden chain and stuff like that.

24:53

Because there are Calvinists who believe that's teaching election that don't believe this is teaching limited atonement.

25:00

Now, okay, they could be inconsistent or consistent or whatever else. But the idea is from his perspective, it doesn't matter what you believe of that.

25:06

Well, yes, it does. Of course it does. It's fundamentally the case.

25:12

Because if you're going to offer an exegetical explanation of the text, it's going have to stand as a whole.

25:20

We've seen this over and over again. We have seen people piled higher and deeper all over them.

25:28

We've seen Norman Geisler. We've seen others chop John chapter six up into little parts and skip over 37 to 39 and skip to 40, then read it backwards into 37 and do all this kind of stuff to try to avoid the fact that we can start anywhere you want in Romans eight or earlier for that matter.

25:52

And we can simply walk through the text. Let's go through the argument and this means this and this.

25:59

And we can just walk all the way through it. But one of the fundamental arguments that Alan makes is, no, you can, whatever you believe about 28 to 30 doesn't really matter.

26:12

It doesn't impact 31 to 34. Well, of course it does. But the most important thing, as we do this response, you need to learn to demythologize scholarship.

26:25

You need to learn to demythologize scholarship. And hopefully I will be able to show you how that works.

26:33

Because you can look at something like this. And what I'll show you is how in the middle of a paragraph, all of a sudden you will have the insertion of material that is completely irrelevant to what is being spoken at that time.

26:50

It's extraneous and it's an error. It's a tradition, but it's vitally important to the person's argument.

26:57

And once you see them doing that, then you know that they're not actually drawing their conclusions from the text. They already have their conclusions drawn out and they're doing what they need to do with the text to get to their conclusions.

27:09

And so hopefully by seeing this being done, you learn to recognize it and don't be cowarded by the large amount of verbiage or the number of references to a grammatical form.

27:26

If that grammatical forms are relevant to the argument, and most of the time in here, it was. And so the last thing, real quickly and jump into this, fundamentally, what the argument you're going to see is, and this doesn't come out with nice, clear clarity.

27:50

I did have one, yeah, here.

28:00

I will get to this, but I want to explain this so that people can understand where Alan is coming from and what the fundamental argument is.

28:15

It started coming up in the last time I mentioned it in the last time, in the last time that we dealt with this. Basically, what

28:25

Alan is saying is that what you have in Romans 8 is about believers.

28:33

And as a provisionist, believers are such by the exercise of an autonomous free will.

28:44

And since Paul discussed justification by faith in chapters 3 -5, which come before chapter 8, and since he's talking about believers in chapter 8, then the free will act, the autonomous free will act of faith precedes whatever's in chapter 8.

29:06

And so Paul is not allowed in any way, shape, or form, having discussed justification by faith, to at a later point in the same letter, go back earlier into history, into eternity itself, to discuss the foundations upon which justification by faith is possible.

29:30

So in other words, because he's already talked about justification by faith, and faith is a free will act of God, then everything after that has to be interpreted in the light of the primacy of the action of the human being.

29:44

So combine that with his repeated assertion. It's a false assertion.

29:49

We will document it. But he repeats it as an absolute given axiom that cannot be questioned, where he says, nowhere in scripture does any inspired writer ever speak of the elect qua the elect, the elect simply as the elect.

30:08

This is a given for David Allen. It's so much a given that when you see him referring to the elect as the elect, it can't be that.

30:17

It is a filter. It is an axiom. It simply must be interpreted. Everything in scripture has to be interpreted like that.

30:25

So you take those two things, believers, which means their action is first and determines everything that God does in light of their action.

30:34

And God never talks about the elect as the elect. You put those two things together, and then you use that as the lens to redefine

30:41

Romans chapter eight. That's what you're going to encounter. So Paul cannot, in chapter eight, take us back into eternity.

30:54

He can't talk about God foreknowing and predestining and calling and justifying.

31:00

You can't go back before chapters three, four, and five and talk about the foundation of all this.

31:07

No, no, no, no. Once he starts off where he did, that's it. And now everything after that has to be interpreted in light of the freewill of man to believe.

31:20

So one example of this, and then I'll start at the beginning.

31:25

The next link in the chain brings us back to the central theme of Romans one through four, justification.

31:32

In those chapters, long before any mention of predestination,

31:42

Paul repeatedly stresses the necessity of faith leading to justification. So the idea is, long before Paul mentions predestination in the golden chain, back in chapters one through four, he had talked about justification.

32:02

Therefore, that must become our interpretive grid, and we cannot allow

32:09

Paul to go back into the basis upon which justification by faith can be. That's not allowed.

32:15

This becomes it. You can't go any farther back than that. That's it. Now, does he ever provide us any reason for that?

32:21

No, it's just a given. It's an axiom. It's just thrown in there repeatedly in the article.

32:29

And once you recognize it is just simply a given on his part, but it's never argued for and can't be argued for, what basis could you argue that if an author talks about justification by faith in chapters three, four, and five, that he cannot, in a later chapter, go back into eternity and ground the very action of God that makes justification by faith possible?

32:54

There's no rule that says, ah, no, you can't have an author talking about stuff even earlier.

33:03

That's not allowed. There's no rule. That's absurd, but that's what we have.

33:11

So, diving into the text itself. That's fine.

33:18

Are you going to show the text? Okay. So, he says,

33:24

I appreciate James White's engagement at this point because, quite frankly, few other Calvinists who have firm limited atonement have shown any willingness to engage my work on this subject.

33:33

This was something he had mentioned in an earlier article as well, and I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I simply believe it is because the vast majority of Reformed people look at this type of argumentation and they just go, this is fallacious on its face.

33:53

And a lot of scholars don't engage in quite as much public discussion and so may not be aware of how many people are picking these types of things up or whatever.

34:12

He says, White asserts on his two aforementioned dividing line broadcasts that I offer no exegesis in the text of scripture supporting my claims regarding Romans 8, 32 -34.

34:24

This statement carries a certain irony since it is common among limitarians, that's those who believe in limited atonement, to sidestep the exegetical evidence that clearly supports unlimited atonement.

34:34

Now, I'll get to that one in just a moment, but fact number one, there was no exegesis offered in his books.

34:41

If there was, why did he have to write 11 ,000 words? Why couldn't he just refer to what was in his books?

34:47

Because there is no exegesis in his books! There wasn't any. The very fact that he's written 11 ,000 words now demonstrates that what

34:56

I said was true. It was true on its face.

35:02

Very, very clear. Then, notice what's said here. This statement carries a certain irony since it is common among limitarians to sidestep the exegetical evidence that clearly supports unlimited atonement in many

35:12

New Testament texts and appeal to broader theological logical issues, which we are told should be considered as paramount in deciding this issue.

35:19

On this approach, the clear text affirming unlimited atonement simply do not teach unlimited atonement.

35:24

It must be filtered through deductive, logical, theological arguments, such as double payment, triple choice, Trinitarian disharmony, universalism entailed, etc.,

35:31

none of which occur in Scripture. So, do you all recognize this? I hope you recognize this. You need to recognize that this is the source of Mike Winger's argumentation, and Mike Winger has admitted that he has talked with David Allen about this.

35:48

And that is what we've already said, correct me if I keep looking up there, and that is what this side does is you take texts that are not about the extent of the atonement, but that you can assert must be relevant to that.

36:06

They're talking about another subject. You imply unlimited atonement from them, and then you create a system out of that, and then the texts that are extended discussions, whether it's

36:21

Hebrews 7, 8, 9, here in Romans chapter 8, those have to be subjected to the allegedly broader amount of evidence.

36:30

And so, yes, what we're saying is there is a consistent teaching of Scripture on the purpose of God and salvation, on the subject of God's sovereignty, on the subject of man's deadness and sin, the subject of the relationship, predestination, election, and the purpose of God in the atonement and everything else.

36:47

And this is someone saying, let's not worry about theology when we interpret the

36:53

Bible. That's what somebody's saying. So, for example, double payment. Okay, so that's the issue of if Christ paid for your sins, if Christ actually endured the wrath of God in your behalf for your sins, then how is

37:10

God just to then punish you for the same sins that he punished the Son for? All right, that's a perfectly valid question.

37:18

It's a wonderfully valid question, and I think Alan's response to that has been horrific. By the way,

37:24

I don't think David Allen wrote all of this. Tony Byrne wrote part of this. I can tell. It's just the language, especially some of the footnotes.

37:31

Very, very clear, especially when you get into the free offer stuff and some of the footnotes definitely came from someone who used to be in our channel.

37:38

Why not he, if you remember years and years ago? Plainly came from his material. But notice

37:45

Trinitarian disharmony. Yeah, you know, we shouldn't worry about whether we introduce disharmony into the

37:52

Godhead when we're interpreting Scripture. Yeah, okay. Universalism entailed? Yeah, that does seem to...

37:58

These are all completely valid questions, but what he's hiding here is the fact that his primary texts aren't actually on the atonement.

38:07

They are someplace else. He is implying something from them, and this is the argument that is being put forward here.

38:18

So, next, notice here he says, my twofold thesis is simple.

38:24

Number one, it is common among the Reformed to speak theologically of the elect as an abstract class. However, the New Testament always speaks of the elect as either the body of believers as redeemed and in a justified state, or in reference to an individual believer, as in Romans 16, 13, never in the abstract of the elect as all the predecessors as such, the elect in an unbelieving state and or as yet unborn.

38:45

So, there it is. That's an axiom. God cannot talk about the elect.

38:52

Now, theologically, and this is fundamental, provisionist people like that, they do not want to be nailed down on what they actually believe about the issue of God's knowledge.

39:03

They don't want to be nailed down on it. So, you can listen to Leighton Flowers, and Leighton Flowers on Unbelievable was saying, well, you've got

39:12

Molinism, and you've got simple free will, and you've got blah, blah, blah, blah, and he goes all over the place, and hey, there's all these different options, but they don't want to be nailed down on that because they don't have a coherent, consistent systematic theology that consistently brings these issues together.

39:26

So, your doctrine of God and your doctrine of atonement, it'd be nice if they actually fit together. Now, if you don't believe that the

39:32

Bible's coherent and consistent enough to do that, that's one thing. I mean, people on the left don't believe that.

39:41

But if you do believe that, then these things should be brought together. But here is an axiom that is basically saying that God in eternity past could not speak of those who would be his elect people.

39:57

Even if you use their elect as a class filled by our free will choice stuff,

40:04

God cannot speak of the elect. Just can't. Not allowed to do that for some reason.

40:11

And so, when we see the elect spoken of in Romans 8, who will bring a charge against God's elect?

40:20

Alan's going to have to say, that was only them then. Okay, so what's your basis of salvation now? Are there any elect today?

40:30

If God cannot speak of the elect in general terms, we have no soteriology left.

40:37

None. None. And the commentaries that you say agrees with him, do not agree with him.

40:43

He reads in the commentaries what he wants to read in the commentary. He's not agreeing with what they're actually saying, as we will see a number of times.

40:52

Number two, a careful reading and exegesis of Romans 8 31 -34 indicates the text does not assert nor does it support limited atonement.

41:01

White disputes both these points. That is for certain, and we will demonstrate that very clearly over the course of this.

41:09

All right. First, my argument is not with White's understanding of predestination election, though I think he is in error here as well.

41:20

He assumes his reformed interpretation of Romans 8 28 -30 is valid, and that other hermeneutical, exegetical, theological options are invalid.

41:28

This is, of course, begging the question on those issues specifically, but the refutation of White's interpretation of Romans 8 31 -34 does not depend on whether one agrees or disagrees with the reformed interpretation of predestination election.

41:39

This, again, is where I say wrong, wrong, thousand percent wrong, thousand percent wrong.

41:46

This is a consistent text. This would be like saying that what you think about John 6 37 -40 is irrelevant to what

41:54

Jesus says in John 6 44. Really? Of course not. Of course not. That's why reformed exegesis has so much power to it.

42:03

That's why it captured my heart, is that it allows the word to be the word and to consistently remain the word without breaking it up into little parts and going, well, you know, that's what's going on here.

42:13

He says, I affirm the biblical notions of predestination election as White does. I merely interpret them differently as do virtually all those in Christendom who are not

42:22

Calvinist. Well, yeah, that's like when Norman Geisler said he was a moderate

42:27

Calvinist, which actually meant he was a full -blown Arminian on everything that was relevant.

42:33

You know, that's like, you can redefine terms all you want. Election has to do with making a choice on God's part.

42:42

You limit that to choosing plans instead of people. That's not the same thing. You can say you affirm it.

42:48

I would suggest to you that you are not affirming it at all. Secondly, there is no need to refute the

42:54

Calvinist interpretation of predestination election in Romans 8 29 -30. Why? All Calvinists who affirm unlimited atonement agree with the

43:00

Calvinist interpretation of the chain of Romans 8 29 -30. That's just Calvinism. So what he's saying is inconsistent

43:06

Calvinists, four -pointers, Amaraldians, they believe Romans 8 29 -30 is talking about election predestination, but they don't believe the rest of what you believe.

43:15

And so therefore it doesn't matter to refute any of that. And again, inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. That's been the problem with that position all along.

43:24

It remains inconsistent. And if Dr. Allen is just simply saying, hey, I can't argue with a consistent interpretation of this text.

43:31

That's why I'm going to break it up. Okay, fine. But he needs to understand that that's why people don't buy this stuff is that when you walk through it point by point, verse by verse, word by word, phrase by phrase, however you want to divide it up, you find a consistency that is being taught by that.

43:52

He says, it is also interesting to discover that many modern -day Calvinists, even some who affirm limited atonement, do not exegete

43:58

Romans 8 32 -34 and use it to support limited atonement as White does, Traumschreiner, and Douglasson would come to mind. He is misinterpreting both of these texts.

44:08

The terminology that is being used, we're going to look at a bunch of these. I have them electronically.

44:16

I may have to grab a couple of them because sometimes the page numbers in the paper and the electronic don't match up.

44:24

So sometimes I may have to grab a couple of those might have a few moments of silence as we're looking at them. But the reality is that as we will see,

44:38

Allen's reading of material is extremely selective. He sees what he wants to see.

44:43

I've seen this many times before. Norman Geisler, John Lennox, Dave Hunt, they see on the page what fits with their tradition.

44:55

And the very next sentence can say something completely different. The preceding sentence can say something completely different. We will see that a number of times as we walk through this.

45:05

Okay, Romans 8 especially highlights the divine initiative, accomplishment, and consummation of salvation for all believers.

45:12

You must understand that when David Allen says this, this is significant to him.

45:19

It has a significance that is not carried into these commentaries, though he assumes that it is.

45:28

For him to say that this is about all believers means that the autonomous free will choice of those individuals to become believers conditions everything that's found in Romans 8.

45:42

I can guarantee you neither Moo or Schreiner are saying that. They're both affirmed the absolute reality of human faith in the whole nine yards, but we're going to read from both of them on this subject eventually here.

45:56

And that's what they're saying. But for Allen, because believers are mentioned earlier in Romans, then that makes their act of becoming believers prior to anything you read in Romans 8.

46:15

Yet, well here, speaking of which, yet Moo correctly cautions this does not entail any minimizing of the importance of the human response of faith that has received so much attention in chapters 1 through 4.

46:30

So see, he sees that there's chapters 1 through 4. There's justification by faith. There's human response of faith.

46:37

This makes believers prior to everything else. Very, very important.

46:44

So here is, now the neat thing is

46:51

I'm gonna be able to do this without you having to take anything down. Watch this. Wow. Pretty good.

46:59

All right, Douglas Moo, New National Commentary in the New Testament.

47:05

That's this one here. Excellent. Moo, Schreiner, and Murray.

47:15

If you don't have them, get them. Here's Hodge. Never been my big favorite, but still so good.

47:24

But Murray, Schreiner, Moo, I think are the best.

47:31

Calvin, you have to have two. Here is what

47:38

Douglas Moo actually says. Now remember, here's the statement, this is in regard to all believers.

47:52

Moo correctly cautions this does not entail any minimizing of the importance of the human response of faith that has received so much attention in chapters 1 through 4.

48:02

From the perspective of Romans as a whole, Paul continues in Romans 8 to expound upon the implications of justification by faith for the believer.

48:12

Now, that's not a quotation from Moo. In fact, as I pointed out on the last program, when was that?

48:20

Could you look that up for me? When did I do the golden chain thing in response to David Allen?

48:28

It was November or December, somewhere last year. Remember, one of the things

48:34

I pointed out was that the term believe and believers had not been used since Romans 5.

48:43

We're now in Romans chapter 8. But for Allen, in his books, he transplants the centrality of that discussion over here to chapter 8, and this could be something he's going to try to get support for doing from these commentaries.

48:59

It's not even something they're arguing about. It's not even something they're thinking about. But he's going to try to do it, and here's where he seeks to do so.

49:08

So I'm going to give you a lot of background. I'm going to give you the preceding paragraph to so you can hear why

49:15

Moo says what he says and then get an idea of who's using the commentaries correctly here.

49:23

Did you track it down? Working on it. Okay. I understand. Okay. Here's what he says, but I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation.

49:33

The New Testament usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage. In the six occurrences of these words in the

49:39

New Testament, talking about foreknowing, only two mean know beforehand. The three others besides the occurrence in this text, all of which have

49:47

God as their subject, mean not know before in the sense of intellectual knowledge or cognition, but enter into relationship with before or choose to determine before.

49:55

The verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of know is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object.

50:03

Paul does not say that God knew anything about us, but that he knew us. And this is reminiscent of the

50:09

Old Testament sense of know. Now let me stop for just a moment. We're talking here about the Old Testament sense of know. It's Yedah.

50:15

When Adam Yedah'd Eve, she had a child. Israel only did God Yedah, which means to choose them.

50:21

He knew Jeremiah Yedah before he was born. Again, these are all places where know means to choose, to choose to enter into relationship with.

50:32

And so we're talking about the golden chain here. And when you use the term foreknow, that's what Mu is talking about. Did you track down?

50:40

Really? Okay. It was all the way back in October 29th is when we provided this response. You can go back and listen to that.

50:48

So if you've read the Potter's Freedom, if you read God's Sovereign Grace, Mu is saying exactly what

50:54

I said. Just look up the sections on foreknow, exact same material.

51:00

Moreover, it is only some individuals, those who having been foreknown were also predestined, called, justified, and glorified who are the objects of this activity.

51:11

And this shows that an action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb.

51:18

If then the word means know intimately, have regard for, this must be a knowledge or love that is unique to believers and that leads to their being predestined.

51:29

Now, let me stop again. See, once you get into the provisionist mindset, when you saw the word believers there, they automatically put in freewill action of man, therefore limits who

51:43

God can foreknow. That's not what Mu is saying. I doubt poor Douglas Mu had ever even heard of this perspective before.

51:52

I mean, it's just not that widely held. Certainly not in that terminology. So you cannot read into him what you want to find in him.

52:05

Okay? So this being the case, the difference between known or love beforehand and choose beforehand virtually ceased to exist.

52:17

It virtually ceases to exist. What then is the meaning of this beforehand?

52:22

While it is of course true that God's actions in of themselves are not bound to created time, it is also clear that the before can have no other function than to set the divine action in the conceptual framework of what we call time.

52:33

The before of God's choosing then could relate to the time at which we come to love God. But 1

52:39

Peter 1 .20 and Ephesians 1 .4 suggest rather that Paul would place his choosing of us before the foundation of the world.

52:47

So let me just point out that the paragraph that Mu has just written is thoroughly reformed.

52:54

It is not provisionistic. It is not based upon some concept of human autonomy. And that's the context of the sentence that David Allen then quotes.

53:07

So where is the quote? Right here. With this first verb then, Paul highlights the divine initiative in the outworking of God's purpose.

53:18

This does not entail any minimizing of the importance of the human response of faith that has received so much attention in chapters one through four.

53:26

Stop. That's what he quotes. What's the next sentence? But this before does make it difficult to conceive of faith as the ground of this choosing.

53:39

As Murray puts it, what is involved is not the foresight of difference, but the foresight that makes difference to exist.

53:48

Not a foresight that recognizes existence, but the foreknowledge that determines existence.

53:54

Now let me just stop right there. That is a 100 % refutation of Allen's position.

54:03

That's the exact opposite. He's making the actions of man the ground of God's choosing and both

54:11

Mu and Murray are saying, nope. And so the context of his statement is completely different.

54:24

It's being used, well, Rich just said it's upside down. Exactly. Now, most people will read an article like this and how many people will take the time to check it out, to go find the references, and be able to cross -reference multiple critical commentaries on the

54:48

New Testament? But here's just a really good example of where, you know, this before does make it difficult to conceive of faith as the ground of this choosing, which is exactly what

55:02

David Allen and the Provisionists say. Huh. It's the very next sentence. I wonder why that wasn't quoted.

55:08

Because it doesn't fit the narrative, obviously. And so the utilization of the sentence, inappropriate, and the very next sentence, refutation of the position being taken.

55:21

So, all right. Okay. So Romans 8, 1 through 30 contain five semantic paragraphs in the

55:33

Greek New Testament, each functioning as justification for the final claim and conclusion of Paul in verses 31 to 39.

55:40

Now, think about verses 31 to 39. I just preached on this on Sunday, as Rich knows.

55:50

And I didn't get into past 34, really. But I did mention that tremendous explosion of praise.

56:02

Who will separate us from the love of God? Tribulation and sword and famine and nothing created in the heights and the depths.

56:10

Nothing shall separate us from the love of God, which is ours in Christ Jesus. It is really, people have called it the pinnacle of New Testament revelations.

56:19

Beautiful. A lot of you get really angry at me, really angry at me for pointing something basic and fundamental out in these conversations.

56:31

There is a man -centered way of reading Scripture, and there is a God -centered way of reading Scripture. And in this situation, this is a conflict between man -centeredness and God -centeredness.

56:42

And it is not. You are such a jerk and blah, blah, blah. Think about it.

56:48

Think about it. Think about this last section of Romans 8 and how it talks about nothing will separate us from the love of God.

56:58

What is that focus on? It is on God. It is on God's love.

57:05

It is on God's accomplishment. Right? What does David Allen say? Each functioning is justification for the final claim and conclusion of Paul in verses 31 through 39.

57:17

No one can prevail against the believer. And no one or nothing can separate the believer from the love of God.

57:26

It doesn't matter whether Paul—see, nowhere does Paul use the term believer in Romans 8.

57:34

He does say the elect, but we don't want to use that. So, we insert our idea of the autonomous believer in, and that now becomes the focus.

57:47

That now becomes the focus. And no one or nothing can separate the believer from the love of God from the perspective of the overall semantic structure of Romans 8 verses 31 through 39 constitute the most important information the author is conveying.

58:02

All of Romans 8—you ready? Are you sitting down? If you're driving, slow down a second. All of Romans 8 is about the believer in Christ.

58:13

All of Romans 8 is about the believer in Christ. I say to you, all of Romans 8 is about God's self -glorification in Jesus Christ and the salvation of particular people in him.

58:25

One's man -centered, one's God -centered. When you have a man -centered reading, you will always end up twisting the scriptures.

58:35

What explains being able to read Romans 8? God causes all things to work together.

58:44

God does this. God does that. God justifies. Jesus dies. Jesus is raised.

58:50

Jesus intercedes. The verbs are all about God, and the conclusion of the provisionist is it's all about the believer.

58:59

No, the believer is the object, the helpless object, the absolutely

59:04

I -need -grace object. And that's why we will never agree on this.

59:11

We'll never agree. Because if you look at Romans 8, it goes, that's just all about man.

59:19

Don't know what New Testament you're reading, but it ain't the same one I'm reading. The focus of the entire chapter is on those who are in Christ Jesus.

59:32

This is a crucial contextual point. Paul is addressing the topic of the life of the believer, as all the major exegetical commentaries on Romans know.

59:40

You can even end up reading people who say the opposite and still think that's what they're saying. We just saw that.

59:48

He read Mu. He quotes Mu. Mu says, this before makes it pretty hard to believe that the choice of man is the ground of this choice.

01:00:00

And that just goes right on past, because it doesn't fit the tradition. What we're seeing here is how you can pick these books up, and you can read them.

01:00:11

But if you don't check your tradition, you end up, yeah, reading stuff that isn't there.

01:00:21

Hopefully, this is one of the things that you're getting to see. This is one of the reasons I chose to do it in this way, is so that you can see these things.

01:00:29

All right? So, we've already seen here. Now we're getting into commentary on Romans 8, 28.

01:00:40

Paul speaks of God's purpose here for believers, as evidenced by his use of those who love

01:00:48

God, and those called according to his purpose.

01:00:55

Now, of course, I read that, and I would say Paul speaks here of God's purpose as being exemplified in his sovereignty in the life of believers.

01:01:11

We're not talking about something completely different, but we do have a completely different emphasis.

01:01:18

There is a difference here between the elect, and given that that's used in the context, and believers isn't, or the lovers of God, or those who are called.

01:01:31

Why not use what Paul uses? That's his terminology. Why do you have to import this stuff and stuff like that?

01:01:38

Because this is part of the argument. This is part of the argument. You've got to recognize this is part of the argument.

01:01:45

Okay? Why not use that terminology? So, the realization of God's purpose in individual believers is the bedrock of the hope of glory.

01:02:03

Okay, but the realization of God's purpose, his purpose is to conform the people he has chosen in his sovereignty to the image of his

01:02:11

Son, to his own glory. It's all to the praise of his glorious grace, not the praise of our glorious grace.

01:02:19

Okay? That's sort of important. The focus of Romans 8, 28 -30 is not on how the elect become elect, but on how believers who are the chosen ones have assurance and confidence.

01:02:33

Are you starting to get how this works? You use the term believers, you import the term believers, but even though these writers would do the same thing, they're not importing the meaning that he is.

01:02:48

What's imported is the idea of the autonomy of the individual in choosing

01:02:57

Christ. That then becomes what determines what God can do for them or will do for them at a later point.

01:03:06

So, the focus of Romans 8, 28 -30 is not on how the elect become elect.

01:03:13

So, for knowing, which is, we've seen, as Mu pointed out, choosing, predestining, nope, nope, nope.

01:03:26

The chosen ones are the ones who are believers. So, their action makes them the chosen ones, and then

01:03:33

God chooses to do stuff for them. See how you short circuit the text this way? And as long as you just remain consistent, and man, it must take some serious energy to do this.

01:03:44

I mean, it's got to be, it's got to take some serious energy to do this, but there you go. There you go.

01:03:53

I'm sorry. Yes, to the praise of our glorious choice. I need to, from now on, identify the source of these statements so that when you all write in or call in, okay?

01:04:13

Now, some of you have noticed recently, have you noticed that Rich has been getting a little twitterfied? He's been doing the

01:04:19

Twitter thing. And I saw someone make the comment, I used to think James was mean to Rich, but now that I've seen

01:04:26

Rich, I realize he's just as mean as James. Meaner.

01:04:34

Well, you said that. You said, I'm an old softie anymore. Well, it's true. I am being somewhat distracted here, because I still have

01:04:46

WhatsApp up, and so there's a big conversation going on amongst the elders at Apology.

01:04:52

It looks good. It looks like a positive thing, but I'm wondering, why is everybody going, praise God, that's wonderful. And I'm like, what's wonderful?

01:04:59

I wonder what I'm missing. I'll find out when the program's over. Anyways, and Jeff almost always listens.

01:05:05

So I'll probably get a note, you know, tomorrow morning. Hey, just saw we were interrupting you. You know, it's like talking to my mom used to be.

01:05:13

Remember how we'd tell her a joke, and then next Christmas she'd get it? Sort of the delay type thing is how that would work.

01:05:20

Okay, anyways, I was making good progress there, and I got, fell off the track. Now we're going to try to get back to it. Those who love

01:05:27

God in verse 28 refers to all believers. Paul's emphasis in this text is

01:05:32

God's intention to bring to glorification conformity to the image of Christ, every person who has been justified by faith in Christ.

01:05:40

So why not, see how consistent this is? Paul doesn't use this terminology.

01:05:48

Everyone God chooses in the golden chain. See, justification is down the line in the golden chain, but for Alan, it can't be down the line because you're justified by faith.

01:06:01

Faith has to be an autonomous act outside of the decree of God. Now, if you actually look at the golden chain, then what you see is

01:06:10

God's gracious choice to enter into relationship with someone, leads to their predestination, to their effectual calling.

01:06:20

That calling leads to their justification. So if justification is by faith, then what does calling include?

01:06:26

Saving faith. Faith is a gift from God. Oh, there goes the entire anthropology of the entire provisionist position just went up in flames.

01:06:34

So the consistent reading of Paul destroys that. We can't have that. So when we're reading these words, we've got to truck something in from someplace else that has a meaning that'll help us to get over those potholes in the road.

01:06:49

Do you see that gif that someone posted? This big old dump truck.

01:06:56

Do you see that? It goes down the road and right as it goes down, this huge sinkhole develops right underneath it as it's going by.

01:07:03

One car goes around to the other side, the other car doesn't see it. That thing must have been 12 feet deep.

01:07:08

I'm surprised anybody got out of that alive. That's what's going on here. You've got a 12 -foot -wide sinkhole for provisionism, and so what you're doing is you're pulling a sheet of toilet paper over it.

01:07:26

It ain't gonna hold much up, but you're doing your best. You're doing your best. There you go. Okay, I'm gonna minimize this thing because it's getting weirder and weirder.

01:07:41

Okay. There is an eschatological cast to this entire section.

01:07:48

Neither Schreiner nor Moo make the mistake of saying all things are given to the elect qua elect, inclusive of the unborn and unbelieving elect, as this would be patently false.

01:08:02

Even the unbelieving elect remain of the Ephesians 2, 1 through 3, as John Piper rightly noted.

01:08:08

Now, here is how you smuggle invalid argumentation into what you're pretending is exegesis.

01:08:18

All right. Neither Schreiner nor Moo is functioning with even dealing with the question or the assertion that Alan's trying to bring up here regarding the idea of believers, or even addressing the question, can

01:08:39

God speak of the elect qua the elect, the elect as the elect, but he plainly is right here.

01:08:51

Those whom he foreknew, how many that he foreknew were in the future when he foreknew them?

01:08:59

That's not a trick question. It's an obvious question. All. Why are these all in past tense?

01:09:06

Why is this all literally in the aorist? So, why doesn't Paul differentiate?

01:09:13

He uses the simplest form of the Greek verb. He does not, if he was talking about just the people in his day, for example, he does not say those whom he foreknew, he predestined, called, justified, and will someday glorify.

01:09:30

He doesn't do that. Because these are all divine actions, and because it's all,

01:09:36

Paul is here in the golden chain, specifically referring to the entirety of the divine action in regards to the elect of God.

01:09:46

And he uses the term the elect of God in a couple of sentences down the road, so don't even try to say that that's an inappropriate insertion, because it's not.

01:09:55

He's going to ask, who will bring a charge against God's elect? So, you show me where he says, autonomous believing believers in Romans 8, and I'll show you where he says the elect, those who've been called.

01:10:10

In fact, he's just said, those who love God, those who are the what? Called according to his purpose.

01:10:18

He's talking about the elect as the elect. And since he speaks of it from the eternal perspective, there's no other way to speak of it.

01:10:29

Demanding, as Dr. Allen does, that the apostle must constantly speak only within a time frame and can never speak of God's intentions from an eternal perspective is the fundamental error he makes.

01:10:44

It is an error not based in scripture, it is an error of tradition, and it stands refuted. It stands refuted.

01:10:52

Because right here, he's doing exactly that. How many of the elect were in the future when

01:10:59

God foreknew? He's speaking of the entirety of the work of God.

01:11:06

And that means that any believer at any point in time is so because of what

01:11:14

God did in regards to all of the elect in eternity past. Okay?

01:11:21

So, notice what's done here. He throws Schreiner and Mouint, they're not talking about him. Then he goes into this inclusive of the unborn and unbelieving elect.

01:11:32

Well, what's this? Well, this is a common provisionist Arminian form of argumentation where you try to bring confusion in and you try to point out that we're always dealing with the now and the not yet as creatures in a fallen world.

01:11:50

So, we're adopted, but we're awaiting the adoption. We've been justified, but there is a form of the final justification in the future, not based upon anything we do, but upon Christ, justification of God's actions, all the rest of that stuff.

01:12:03

So, we're living in God's acted in eternity. And so, what they do is they try to create confusion based upon this reality that's found in scripture over and over again.

01:12:20

So, what they're doing now is that what you've got some, they're unborn and the unbelieving elect.

01:12:28

Well, David Allen was the unbelieving unborn, unbelieving elect at the point this was written.

01:12:35

Does that mean this isn't about him? Does that mean that he can be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus? I predict his answer would be no, as long as I believe.

01:12:46

All comes back to as long as I believe. Everything comes back to that. And so, there's no place in their system for a discussion of, well, where does that saving faith come from?

01:12:57

Because the fundamental assertion of this system is that mankind is capable of doing this in and of himself.

01:13:03

In fact, I don't know where Allen stands on this, but if he is in agreement with light and flowers, any man is capable of doing this without any grace from God at all.

01:13:15

There's no need for pervenient grace. That's what he said. No need for pervenient grace.

01:13:21

Even Roman Catholicism affirms the necessity of grace. The only religious movement to call itself

01:13:28

Christianity in history that says you don't have to have grace is called Pelagianism. So, there you go.

01:13:36

So, there you go. Then he says, Calvinists generally interpret for no to connote something along the lines of to choose or determine beforehand, which is what the entire paragraph that Mu, he quoted from, actually said, or to enter into a relationship with or a combination of the two.

01:13:53

Attempts to construct an ordo salutis from this are always problematic. You know, actually, let me back up.

01:14:02

Much debate centers on the meaning of praegno, foreknow, and orison, predestine, and verse 29.

01:14:09

What is the object of that which is foreknown? Is it believers viewed corporately or individually? Is it faith that is foreknown, or is it people who are foreknown?

01:14:17

Well, we've already demonstrated where the answer to that is. And notice, he doesn't answer this.

01:14:24

He doesn't want to have to take on Mu and Schreiner and all the rest of these guys. He doesn't even answer the question. Most Arminians interpret foreknow to refer to the foreseen faith of believers.

01:14:34

Calvinists generally interpret foreknow to connote something along the lines of attempts to construct an ordo salutis from this text are always problematic.

01:14:40

Why? Why? I would suggest that it is not problematic.

01:14:48

What he will eventually in the article say, well, why doesn't this ordo salutis mention this and this and this and this and this?

01:14:54

So his idea is for an ordo salutis to be non -problematic, it has to be exhaustive.

01:15:01

But that's not Paul's purpose here. Paul's purpose here is to emphasize the divine actions that bring about the grounds of assurance for the elect of God, who, because they're elect of God, believe.

01:15:15

So it's a bogus argument to say unless it's exhaustive. That is somehow problematic.

01:15:22

Here we go. Ding, ding, ding. For Calvinists, the foreknowledge and predestination of Romans 8 .29

01:15:28

is an act by which God unconditionally chooses some people to be the sole recipients of his saving mercy and grace.

01:15:35

Arminianism teaches that predestination to salvation is conditional upon the libertarianly free act of the person.

01:15:45

God predestines to heaven. Those whom he foreknew would meet the condition faith through a free will act.

01:15:51

If that's not a description of provisionism, I don't know what is. But there you have the idea.

01:15:58

Libertarianly, as difficult as that is to pronounce and to use, libertarianly free act of the person.

01:16:06

Not a part of God's decree. That is fundamental. So notice he then goes through the paragraph we read before.

01:16:20

So he knows he read it. He knew what was in the paragraph immediately before the sentence that he quoted.

01:16:27

He says, Moon note of the six occurrences of the verb pro -egno and its cognate noun only two mean know beforehand.

01:16:34

The other four have God as the subject. The verb has a personal object, us, and indicates an action applicable, what?

01:16:40

See what it does? Only to believers. But what does that mean for Alan?

01:16:48

He's bringing all that libertarianly free act of the person creates the believer.

01:16:54

That's not what Moon was saying, but that's what creates the believer. Whatever the meaning of pro -egno, the action is unique to believers.

01:17:04

No, the action is unique in making believers. Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined.

01:17:13

Those whom he predestined, he called. All those he calls, he justifies.

01:17:19

How are we justified, Dr. Alan? By faith. Therefore, if all who are called are also justified, what does the call include?

01:17:26

Saving faith. That's where it comes from. It's not libertarianly free. It's divinely given by grace.

01:17:33

Do you get it?

01:17:41

Making sense over there? Okay. Notice where I am here.

01:17:51

Yeah. Yeah. What's the YouTube maximum length again? Yeah. Yeah.

01:17:57

Okay. Well, maximum we'll go to four.

01:18:07

Because I didn't get started until 20 after. So, you know, come on. That would only be sort of a jumbo at that point.

01:18:16

The action is unique to believers. Paul affirms that believers are those whom

01:18:22

God foreknew. Yes. Not because they were believers. God's choice of foreknowing them resulted in their being believers.

01:18:31

Folks, if you don't get this, you don't understand grace. Because, you see, you need to understand.

01:18:39

If you say that God's actions are determined upon man's actions, then

01:18:45

God's grace is demanded by what man does. Oh, you can say, no, no, no, no, he freely does what he does.

01:18:51

But all you're saying is he freely sets up a system so that he is limited in what he can do based upon man's reactions.

01:19:01

God's grace will be determined by what man does. Not God's grace determining man's faith.

01:19:07

Anything else? Man -centered, God -centered, man -centered, God -centered. We're seeing it over and over and over and over again.

01:19:17

Paul likely has in mind individual believers rather than believers viewed corporately, since the former seems to fit the context better.

01:19:25

Paul's purpose is to assure individual believers. Stop right there. Think about this for a second, guys. What if that's true?

01:19:32

What if that's true? That means this has nothing to do with you. Have you ever been helped out?

01:19:41

Did you quote, pastor, did you ever quote Romans 8, 28 at a graveside? You misused the text.

01:19:47

It was only about people back then. Because it's just about people in Paul's day.

01:19:54

Why is it about us? Because Paul cannot talk about the elect qua the elect. He cannot talk about the elect as the elect.

01:20:02

So he can only talk about within time, which was his time. So what basis do you have for believing this is about you?

01:20:08

And as soon as, because he knows he can't keep this up. He will later on demonstrate that he knows that this has application to believers afterwards.

01:20:18

His whole position collapses. That's why he won't debate this stuff. He'll put it out there.

01:20:26

He'll publish it, but he won't debate it. Because can you imagine, can you imagine if David Allen allowed himself to be put on the hot seat for even half an hour of meaningful questioning about these issues?

01:20:51

I'll do it. I will walk into David Allen's class at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with nothing but this my hand.

01:21:07

Who has confidence in their position here? Oh, it's a bunch of arrogance. It's not arrogance. We've been talking about this for decades.

01:21:15

I was defending this stuff in debate long before David Allen ever opened his mouth about it in 2008.

01:21:24

That's not arrogance. I am tired of seeing this beautiful passage mistreated in this way.

01:21:31

And I'm simply saying, aren't you tired of having to listen to one side, then the other side, then the other side, then the other side, go back and forth?

01:21:39

How about we debate this? We've proven, I've proven, I've never seen

01:21:45

David Allen do a debate. Have you? I've not seen it. Maybe I'm wrong. I've not seen

01:21:51

David Allen do a debate. I've done a few debates. I have proven that with people from a wide variety of perspectives, we can do cross -examination.

01:22:03

A couple weeks, I'm debating Doug Wilson on paedo -baptism and paedo -communion.

01:22:09

And we will have spirited exchange, but it'll be respectful, organized, and meaningful to everybody who listens.

01:22:23

So we can keep going back and forth, but let's let's do this right.

01:22:33

Let's do this right. A certain person that you and I talked to regularly was just calling me, so maybe you might want to call him.

01:22:43

Thank you. Okay. When you do a long program, things like that happen.

01:22:52

Paul's purpose is to assure individual believers in every single generation, which means and requires that he's speaking of what?

01:23:03

The elect is the elect, right? That follows, doesn't it?

01:23:08

Yes, it does. However, it is also true that the context indicates a corporate group as well as individuals are in view, as Schreiner noted.

01:23:20

How do you put those two together? I mean, the only way to put those together to accept

01:23:27

Schreiner is to recognize that he's speaking of the elect as the elect, and therefore, as the elect enter into existence in time, what was said about the elect as a whole becomes true of them in their experience.

01:23:46

Now, that also means that they are regenerated at a particular point in time, that they are enemies of God before that regeneration.

01:23:53

All that's true. We experience things in time. That's how

01:23:58

God has made us. That does not mean that God, therefore, has to act only in time or that God cannot speak of the elect as the elect in an eternal context.

01:24:13

Yeah, so he does want to say, he talks about some other commentators here. Contextually, the former is more likely, though the latter is also true.

01:24:21

So maybe it's about individuals, that's more likely, but it's also true that it's about a group.

01:24:30

Without explaining how those two fit together, the only way they can be fit together is to violate his particular understanding of how this works.

01:24:41

Paul states, man, we haven't even gotten to the key text yet. We're still in the golden chain, but the foundations that he will use to undercut

01:24:57

Romans 8, 31, 34 are laid here. Even though he himself said at the beginning, what you believe about 28 to 30 doesn't matter.

01:25:05

Well, then why are we spending all this time on it again? I don't know. I did get to hold up my

01:25:12

Jeffrey Rice reminder and show everybody that it still smells.

01:25:21

Yeah. Yes. Yes. I accept that. This is the

01:25:28

Tyndale Greek New Testament. Just so everyone knows, I'm over here saying, show up. I'm thankful I don't have my earplugs in, so I can't hear what you're saying.

01:25:35

I'm saying, show up. I'll have to go back and listen to whatever you're going to say. Were you saying this advertisement was not paid for by anyone, but will be paid for by everybody?

01:25:47

Okay. Paul states, God predestined those who may foreknow.

01:25:53

Crucial to note is precisely what Paul says those foreknown are predestined to.

01:26:00

He does not state they are predestined to believe, or on the grounds of their faith, or to salvation.

01:26:08

Rather, the purpose of their predestination is that they would be conformed to the image of his son.

01:26:14

What's that supposed to mean? What's that supposed to mean? Because it specifically does say, and in fact, let's look at this.

01:26:32

For those who may foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son.

01:26:42

Now, I was struck, and I am so thankful that the word is like this, and that God, by his spirit, is still so gracious to idiots like me.

01:26:58

There is a phrase in this verse that that reformed people,

01:27:06

I think, are in danger of passing over, and that non -reformed people just don't even see the relevance of it, to be honest with you.

01:27:15

We're so often focused upon the disputes that we have on this, that we pass this one over.

01:27:24

Notice what it says. Anybody who studies

01:27:31

Paul for any period of time learns this phrase right here, and let me clear it so you can see it.

01:27:39

Aes ta with the infinitive. Aes ta with the infinitive. It is throughout the

01:27:48

Pauline corpus. Aes ta with the infinitive. So that purpose result, it's a purpose result clause, depending on the context, purpose result clause.

01:28:00

If you don't pay attention to Aes ta with the infinitive in Paul, you're never going to figure them out.

01:28:09

Why is this here? Because, for a lot of people, this seems like an interruption.

01:28:18

Why not just go foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified? Nice, clean chain.

01:28:28

Because this is where the uniqueness of the Christian gospel is to be found.

01:28:35

What do I mean? If you read Romans 8 -29 and your focus is primarily upon mankind, you're missing it.

01:28:51

You're missing it. And I was really struck with this in preparation for Sunday sermon. You've got

01:28:58

Aes ta with the infinitive. Aes ta with the infinitive. So that he might be the prototokon, the firstborn, the one having preeminence amongst many brothers.

01:29:11

I'm going to have to change the color of that so it's clear here. Make it so it makes it pop.

01:29:20

I literally sat back in my chair as I was looking at this and went, wow, am

01:29:28

I just getting so old that I've forgotten how many times this has struck me in the past? Or is this the first time it's really striking me with the proper weight?

01:29:37

This verse, this interruption in the golden chain isn't an interruption in the golden chain at all.

01:29:46

Those whom he foreknew and now enters Christ.

01:29:54

He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. This is the whole purpose, is to, so that Jesus might be the prototokos, the one having preeminence amongst whom many brethren.

01:30:18

We're just there to glorify Jesus. And see, we are so man -centered that we see predestined to be conformed to the image of his

01:30:32

Son, and so we're thinking about, you know, all of that means is sanctification and our suffering and all, you know, and that's all there, but it's all secondary.

01:30:47

The focus is on God chooses to lovingly enter into relationship with these people and to join them to his

01:30:55

Son so that his Son would have preeminence in all things and his Son would be the firstborn amongst many brothers.

01:31:03

The brothers aren't the focus. The brothers reflect the glory of the one to whom they are conformed.

01:31:09

This is Christian salvation. We are predestined to be conformed to the image of his

01:31:15

Son. And if you dare, oh, please, God forbid, because I've heard so many people do this.

01:31:23

I've heard so many people do this. All were predestinations never to salvation.

01:31:31

He's just chosen that whoever believes will be made like Jesus. Would you tell me how you're made like Jesus and that faith ain't part of that?

01:31:45

Every aspect of our salvation, our repentance, our faith, our belief, our adoption, our forgiveness, our redemption.

01:31:59

It's all a part of that. You can't be like Jesus. If you're an unbeliever, if you're unrepentant, if you're unregenerated, it's all there.

01:32:13

To say that he has foreknown us so we might be conformed to the image of his

01:32:20

Son means everything we need to be like Jesus is a part of God's choice.

01:32:29

God's choice. So, his predestination is all of salvation, unless you're going to sit there and tell me that you have the capacity in of yourself to be like Jesus.

01:32:45

Remember Romans 5 came before this? Dead in Adam, you know, two humanities in Adam and Christ.

01:32:52

We need to do that one again. I did that years ago when that one book came out, and a lot of people found it really helpful.

01:32:57

And you know what? When I search for it, I can't find it. I cannot find it anywhere. I would love to find it because it was really useful.

01:33:05

We're just going to have to do it again if we can't find it. Well, probably needs to be done anyways. What? Yeah. Yes, yes, we have an entire discussion on the website.

01:33:18

Protodocos, firstborn, obviously the focus there is on the use of protodocos at Colossians 115, and the

01:33:26

Jehovah's Witnesses misuse of it, but protodocos is one of the favorite terms that Paul uses. And by the way, just in passing,

01:33:33

I shouldn't take the time to do this, but I'm feeling really focused today. One of the arguments that people use to try to say that Ephesians and Colossians are not

01:33:48

Pauline is the radically different vocabulary. It's not radically different, first of all, especially for a circular letter.

01:33:57

But what's central to both protodocos, the identification of Jesus as the firstborn, the one having preeminence.

01:34:05

So, the Eistat tells us what the purpose is. The purpose of being conformed to the image of Christ is not about us.

01:34:10

It is so that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. That's why we're conformed to his image because we're united to him.

01:34:18

And it's only in him that all the rest of this makes sense. And my friend, someday you're going to get to heaven.

01:34:25

If you're sitting there and you're going, I don't believe any of this. Someday, if you get to heaven, and I'm not saying that you have to agree with every bit of reformed theology to get to heaven, but you're going to find out that you are way behind on giving

01:34:41

God glory for your salvation because you weren't giving God glory through your entire life for the very fact that your very faith flows from the decision of the

01:34:51

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity past to bring you into existence. And despite knowing all of your sin, to unite you to Jesus Christ, to predestine you, to call you, justify you, glorify you.

01:35:10

Don't worry. There's enough time to catch up. There'll be enough time to catch up because the rest of us, you know, we don't do it nearly as much as we should.

01:35:15

So, we're going to be behind too. All right. I like this program, by the way.

01:35:28

I like both programs. I'm using Accordance on one side, and this is called Scrivener.

01:35:34

And somebody on Twitter was, tell me more about this. I can't. Scrivener can do a thousand things that I don't even know.

01:35:42

I just know that I like it and I can outline stuff and I can put comments on the side.

01:35:48

There's probably a video someplace where I could spend an hour and a half and learn a bunch more things I could do, which would probably help me.

01:35:55

But, you know, you have to, okay. So, Paul is continuing to develop the eschatological benefits that accrue to believers according to God's determined purpose.

01:36:08

Paul speaks of believers in a comprehensive corporate manner. No, he's speaking of the elect in a comprehensive corporate manner.

01:36:15

He is speaking of the elect qua elect right here, which David Allen says can't be because he's already made up a rule that says it can't be.

01:36:23

The passage has less to do with the predestination of individuals to salvation or condemnation.

01:36:33

Well, yeah, the condemnation aspect isn't, I mean, we already dealt with a lot of that in Romans 5, and there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ.

01:36:44

Jesus starts in Romans 8. But anyways, then, you know, the elect, now notice, then he quotes, he has a quotation, the elect were predestined for a purpose to be conformed to the image of his son.

01:37:01

Who? It doesn't say believers, it says the elect. Yes, the elect qua elect were predestined for a purpose to be conformed to the image of his son.

01:37:10

That's the only way of salvation. Yeah, so everything that makes you like Jesus is a part of that predestination.

01:37:20

Faith, repentance, forgiveness, adoption, sanctification. It's all there.

01:37:26

Isn't that beautiful? If you aren't praising the Lord for this, this is why Romans 8 is what it's all about.

01:37:34

Then notice a little bit later on, notice again how both Mu and Schreiner interpret the passages applying to believers. Please notice that, you know, when you see this, that is an argument without a foundation.

01:37:47

He is, again, putting the word believers into his context, freewill choice, libertarianly believed, and then putting those words into Schreiner and Mu's mouth, which is not theirs.

01:38:04

As we saw before, we read Mu saying the before means this can't be the basis of faith, and then he quotes from Murray saying the exact same thing and obliterating this position.

01:38:17

So how can you sit there and say Mu and Schreiner interpret the passages applying to believers when you're trying to communicate believers as you interpret it when they've already said that's wrong?

01:38:29

When they've already said that's not what they believe. Why do this? You're trying to create an impression upon your readers.

01:38:41

And see, in a debate, I'm going to quote this, and I'm going to have the book sitting there, and then

01:38:48

I'm going to quote them, and that's why a debate's not going to happen. That's what scholars do when you debate.

01:39:01

Notice also how Paul interjects the purpose of predestination as conformity to the image of Christ before he continues the golden chain with calling and justification.

01:39:12

This supports an interpretation of the passage that Paul is not talking about predestination to salvation, but rather to the eschatological benefits of salvation, final conformity to the image of Christ.

01:39:24

Think about what this means, folks. Think about what... Here is the cost of provisionism.

01:39:32

The cost of provisionism. Even though the golden chain specifically talks about calling and justification, which

01:39:43

Allen admits happen in this life. They're not eschatological things.

01:39:49

This is not an eschatological calling. This is not an eschatological justification, even though he admits that.

01:39:59

Here, you have the idea that, well, we don't... we want to do everything we can to not have salvation as the direct object of predestination, because that's a free action of God, but as we've just pointed out, so that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

01:40:18

That's all of salvation. You have to repent. You have to believe to be one of the brethren.

01:40:28

God has predestined the elect unto that. His calling is powerful.

01:40:37

His calling is effective. It is efficient. The Holy Spirit of God is actually capable of raising his elect to life right now, powerfully.

01:40:56

Now, so compare, please, the exegesis that we have provided this, where we have gone through Romans 8, step by step, consistently pointing out the meaning throughout to what you're getting here, to where you're getting...

01:41:16

goes off over here, goes off over there. Well, could be this, could be that. Both of them might be true.

01:41:22

We don't know. That's the difference. That's the difference. I don't think these guys get why it is that they lose people when these people take the time to actually find out what the texts are talking about.

01:41:38

Paul then continues, and those who may be predestined, he also called all Calvinists to interpret ekkalison as an effectual call by the

01:41:46

Holy Spirit, which infallibly results in regeneration. Yep. Armenians and non -Calvinists disagree.

01:41:53

All right, let's see how we can make that work. God is indeed the one who calls, but two things should be noted.

01:42:02

Scripture is clear that the call must be accepted. As Paul has made clear previously in Romans 3 through 8,

01:42:09

Romans 9 through 11. Okay, stop right there. So, I can't tell you what it means here, but I'm going to go someplace else, and I'm going to come up with my understanding over there, even though I'm going to have to ignore

01:42:25

Romans 1 and 2 and 3 that says there's none that seeks after God and all that nasty anthropological stuff they've got, suppressing the knowledge of God and and all the rest of that stuff.

01:42:36

I'll ignore all of that. I'm going to definitely ignore Romans chapter 8 that says that we can't even submit ourselves to the law of God, not able to do so.

01:42:44

That's gone. So, because there are in places of Scripture where we believe, we're going to say, this must be accepted.

01:42:54

Now, there's an entire anthropology in Alan's language there. Entire anthropology that is not derived from Paul.

01:43:02

It's a human tradition, cram it in here, and yeah, all those who are called, well, first of all, only those who are predestined are called.

01:43:15

And all who are called are justified, no question about it. So, man, that's a mess, because we want to say that people are justified by their free will action, but if you consistently apply that to what

01:43:27

Paul's saying here, that's the result of God's foreknowing and predestining and calling. And it's limited.

01:43:34

Not everybody's called. So, God is indeed the one who calls, but two things should be noted.

01:43:41

Scripture is clear that the call must be accepted, and number two, nothing in the text excludes the call with the same power of grace to those who don't accept.

01:43:53

To suggest otherwise is to invoke the negative inference fallacy.

01:43:58

Now, this is a phrase that David Allen uses as his magic wand to make all of his contradictions disappear.

01:44:07

This is just how he... So, when you're dealing with a text that says things positively, specifically, the positive teaching is that there is one group who are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

01:44:31

And that the purpose of this action is to conform them to the image of Christ so that Christ, it's all about Jesus, this is what connects this with Ephesians 1, so that Jesus would be the firstborn among many brethren.

01:44:47

So, it has to be effective, or there's no brethren to be the firstborn among. So, you have a positive assertion being made, and the chain is unbroken.

01:45:02

Everyone foreknown is predestined. Everyone predestined is called. Everyone who is called is justified.

01:45:11

So, what does he say here? Well, nothing in the text excludes the call with same power of grace to those who don't accept, except that if they receive this call, they will be justified.

01:45:25

Right? Yes. That's the necessity of the text. And don't talk to me about negative inference fallacies.

01:45:35

That's a canard. It has nothing to do with this. We're talking about what does the meaning of the text communicate, and it communicates that all those who are called are justified.

01:45:47

You say you're justified by faith? Then here you're saying you can be called, but don't accept.

01:45:56

I don't see that in the text. Where is the accept part in the text? Oh, we had to go someplace else to find that.

01:46:02

Always this way. John 6, Romans 9, always have to go someplace else.

01:46:09

You can't just follow the text. You just have to. You just have to.

01:46:16

In other words, whom he called, are you ready folks? Here we go. Here's, you want man -centeredness in full display?

01:46:27

Get that full screen up there. Let them see it in the full size. In other words, whom he called is

01:46:34

Pauline's shorthand for those whom God called and who responded to the call by faith.

01:46:44

The preceding chapters of Romans clearly confirm this contextually.

01:46:50

The initiative is all of God. The faith is genuinely a human activity, regardless of whether one asserts faith as a gift of God given only to the elect as do all

01:47:00

Calvinists or not. His system does not believe in the golden chain, and so you have to find a way around it.

01:47:17

So what do you do? Well, it says otherwise someplace else. I'm not going to tell you how, but it does.

01:47:23

Just believe me, because I say so. Because I talked about the negative inference fallacy, and therefore you don't want to do that.

01:47:37

This is scripture twisting for the sake of tradition, period, end of discussion. It is.

01:47:43

Show me where I'm wrong. From the text, on the basis of the text. This is not exegesis. This is eisegesis.

01:47:49

You want eisegesis? Here's eisegesis, right there. We put it on the screen. I had somebody on Twitter say, oh, you're going to be misrepresenting him, and you're going to be uncharitable, and all the rest of this type of fun stuff.

01:47:59

And I'm like, I'm going through his own words. The other side doesn't do that for me.

01:48:07

They don't do that for me. They're not putting my entire thing up there, and going through, and marking all this stuff, and looking up the references.

01:48:19

So faith is a genuinely human is genuinely a human activity.

01:48:27

It's genuinely a human activity. Well, of course, God doesn't believe for us, but faith and repentance are things demanded by God's law.

01:48:36

And the beginning of this chapter said, those who are according to flesh cannot do these things. So it is a human activity that you must be enabled to do.

01:48:46

And see, they don't have an anthropology that even can begin to understand that, even begin to understand that.

01:48:55

And that's where we came to what I read before. In those chapters, long before any mention of predestination,

01:49:03

Paul repeatedly stressed the necessity of faith leading to justification. So here again, here's what we illustrated before. For David Allen, if Paul first talks about justification by faith, and David Allen understands that to be an autonomous faith, at any point later in that book, the

01:49:20

Apostle Paul does not have the right to then address even more basic issues, foundational issues, eternal issues that give rise to what he has said earlier.

01:49:29

Oh, no, no, can't do that. Can't do that. We've already... And then here is the quotation from Mu that we then contextualized and demonstrated was being abused and misused by Allen.

01:49:48

It is God's settled intention to conform to the image of Jesus. Every person who has been justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

01:49:54

This is one of the strongest statements of scripture, affirming the eternal security of the believer. This is amazing to me. Eternal security, the perseverance of the saints is an utterly absurd belief.

01:50:08

If you do not believe in predestination and election. You got in by free will, but you can't get back out.

01:50:18

You had free will before, but you don't have free will after? I've never understood this part.

01:50:28

And I'm really thankful that David Allen believes in the eternal security of the believer, but the only real eternal security in scripture is based upon what

01:50:38

Jesus said in John 6, 39. I've come down to heaven, not to my own, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all he's given me,

01:50:44

I lose none of them, but raise them up in the last day. The only reason anyone will ever persevere in the faith is because of Jesus.

01:50:54

So if it's my autonomous free will that gets me into this, why can't my autonomous free will get me out of it?

01:51:09

See, the problem here is it's God's settled intention to conform to the image of Jesus, every person whom he has chosen.

01:51:20

And because he has chosen them, then they will be justified by faith in Jesus.

01:51:27

Now it makes sense. Now it's coherent. Now it's consistent.

01:51:34

But by taking God out of the equation and taking his choice out of the equation and saying that it's

01:51:43

God's settled intention to conform the image of Jesus, every person who has been justified by faith in Jesus Christ, which was their free will choice and not

01:51:51

God's, you turn it all upside down, inside out, and it destroys eternal security.

01:51:59

Because logically, if it was your free will, it got you into it. Are you literally saying this text is teaching that we had free will to get into it, but when we get into it, we lose our free will.

01:52:14

Okay, this is one I mentioned before. If viewed as an airtight ordo salutis, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, stop right there.

01:52:22

Airtight ordo salutis? What's that? Who has ever suggested that the golden chain is exhaustive?

01:52:30

Because I think that, is that what airtight means? Exhaustive? Who's ever suggested that? I've never seen, none of these guys did.

01:52:39

I've never seen anybody. You can look at my books. I've never said that the golden chain is an exhaustive ordo salutis.

01:52:47

You can look at Murray's book on the ordo salutis. He doesn't say that it's exhaustive.

01:52:54

So, we have our straw man appearing now.

01:53:03

Thankfully, the flamethrower is not in here, but we do have a straw man showing up here.

01:53:11

If viewed as an airtight ordo salutis, the golden chain has some missing links. Where is regeneration?

01:53:18

Regeneration is specifically and solely the work of God via the Holy Spirit. Unlike faith, regeneration is totally a monergistic act, that it should not be included in the golden chain is odd.

01:53:30

Interesting that we put that way, that it's an absolutely monergistic act, but it's the result of human faith.

01:53:39

So, is it really monergistic? Anyway, that it should not be included in the golden chain is odd. Why? Why?

01:53:48

I mean, you can say it's odd, but why say that it's odd? What's your foundation for that? The assumption, which is not given any basis, that this somehow is supposed to be an exhaustive list, it's not.

01:54:02

Where is sanctification? Sanctification is both positionally totally work of God and thus monergistic in nature and progressive synergistic in nature as believers cooperate in the process, etc.,

01:54:10

etc. Okay, so this is not an exhaustive list.

01:54:16

So, what? Where is the atonement? Apart from atonement, not only does the chain fail to hold together, it becomes non -existent.

01:54:22

Well, yeah, but that wasn't Paul's purpose. So, all of this is a complete canard.

01:54:29

It's irrelevant. If the chain is intended to indicate a complete order salutis, ding, ding, ding, ding, bad assumption, no one said that, fighting against straw men again.

01:54:39

And if Paul wanted to affirm a strictly limited atonement, oh, would he not have written, oh, here we go, whom he did predestine, them he also atoned for, and whom he atoned for, them he also called, and whom he called.

01:54:53

See, this is red meat for the followers to make them feel better.

01:55:00

It's not actually a meaningful argument because no one's making the assertion that everything has to be in there in the first place.

01:55:08

So, you're going after something and going, hey, look at me, chopping this stuff up, when everybody else is going, what's he beating up over there?

01:55:18

I don't know. He's sort of sweaty, but not really accomplishing anything.

01:55:27

So, why is there an absence of atonement in the golden chain? It's coming up in two sentences.

01:55:36

It's coming up in two sentences. He who died and was raised and who is now interceding for us at the right hand of the

01:55:45

Father is a couple of sentences down the road. This is called, this is, what was it,

01:55:53

Ronnie Lott, what was the guy's name? The Dallas guy who recovered the fumble in that Super Bowl, and he started to celebrate before he got there, and the guy caught behind and knocked it up.

01:56:05

Ronnie Lott was that his name? This is David Allen right here. We need someone to take a picture of Ronnie Lott.

01:56:13

He's not in the end zone yet. And the guy behind him with the ball coming out and put David Allen's face right there because that's what you just got here.

01:56:22

This is exactly what you have here. Yes. Not read that part.

01:56:33

No. So, here, why is there an absence of atonement in the golden chain?

01:56:39

Perhaps because it would be untrue since Paul elsewhere affirms Christ died for the sins of all people, as in Romans 5, 18 through 19 and numerous other places in epistles.

01:56:50

Oh, really? Hmm. Uh -oh.

01:56:57

Uh -oh. Romans 5, 18. So, as through one transgression unto all men there resulted condemnation, just as also through one dekaiomatos act of righteousness unto all men eis dekaiosin zoes, justification of life to all men.

01:57:31

Huh. So, if you take it as it's being used by Dr.

01:57:43

Allen here, Dr. Allen just became a universalist of necessity, but not of consistency.

01:57:48

He's not a universalist. I know that. But if you don't understand the two humanities in Romans 5, the one in Adam, the other in Christ, this is the universalist key text.

01:58:08

This is where the universalist goes. So, again, the consistent interpretation of Paul that is

01:58:19

God -centered and recognizes his sovereignty, recognizes there's a people in Adam, we're all in Adam, but the elect are then joined with Christ, so that the one transgression results in condemnation to everyone who's in Adam.

01:58:37

The one act of righteousness for those who are in Christ results in justification of life to all men.

01:58:45

So, here is an all man, which means all kinds of men who are in Christ, men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

01:58:51

See, there's the consistency of biblical revelation. Did you—yes? You've been corrected by Twitter. I'm not watching

01:58:58

Twitter. It was not Ronnie Lott. It was Leon Lett. Okay, it had two

01:59:04

Ts at the end. Ashore Decaleta has already corrected you that it was Don Beebe stripped

01:59:10

Leon Lett, and there's a picture of it on Twitter already. Good. A picture of the strip?

01:59:15

Yes. Okay, but so no one has actually provided me what I need. Well, I'm sure that's going to be it. Someone's working on it.

01:59:21

My son -in -law, Eric, is really fast with Photoshop. Let me know when it comes up, and I will distract myself.

01:59:31

Well, we're out of time anyways. We're out of time anyways. And we haven't even gotten to Romans 8 .31

01:59:38

yet. I know that.

01:59:44

I'm well aware of that. You got another half hour in you? Gonna be pushing it.

01:59:52

I better stop drinking. Let's put it that way. Yeah.

02:00:00

What's he got in that? If you really want to know, it's what's that called?

02:00:07

Stir. I found stuff called stir. It's stevia sweetened, no calories, and none of that stuff that kills everything in your intestines.

02:00:16

Really good stuff, and this is the lemon, and it's good, and their orange is good, and their fruit punch is good.

02:00:22

Stir. They're not cheap, but you get to carry them around. They're good. Anyway. All right.

02:00:30

Another half hour. We'll do a half hour. We'll push through.

02:00:37

Could you turn the fan on? Thank you. And turn it down one more notch, if you could.

02:00:45

So we'll do one more half hour. They'll give us two and a half hours, but it'll only give us two hours on this because I took the first 20 minutes to talk about the

02:00:51

COVID stuff. And then we've got Friday. Now, there's stuff going on in presuppositionalism that I need to talk about.

02:01:00

We'll do our best because the next week, we'll do some programs, but I leave on Thursday, as long as airlines are still flying.

02:01:10

I leave on Thursday to go up to Moscow for the stuff that we're doing up there.

02:01:18

Bring the 1550 with me and all the rest of that kind of stuff. Okay. So we see that the reference to Romans 5, 18 -19 is one that, again,

02:01:29

I don't think Dr. Allen wanted to defend in debate. Not to be missed.

02:01:35

Now, remember, this is supposed to be the exegesis part, but we're getting all sorts of other stuff. Not to be missed is the point that even if Paul taught a limited atonement elsewhere, he does not do so here in the golden chain.

02:01:47

It is significant that even Shriner, who affirms limited atonement, does not give any indication in his commentary on this passage that Paul teaches the doctrine.

02:01:53

Subject is never mentioned. Again, let the reader know whether the golden chain is interpreted in a reformed fashion or not is immaterial to the argument.

02:01:58

Limited atonement is nowhere to be found either way. This is such a canard.

02:02:06

It's utterly irrelevant. It's utterly irrelevant. The atonement part comes next.

02:02:12

It's the next couple sentences. I never said that limited atonement is a specific part of the golden chain.

02:02:20

God's sovereignty is, which is foundational to limited atonement, to make any sense. I do believe that what's in this sentence is relevant to what

02:02:27

Paul writes two sentences later, but this is called canard, complete red herring, whatever else you want to call it.

02:02:40

Okay, then he spends the next amount of time in 8 .31

02:02:47

.39. He says the theme of 8 .31 .39 was begun and developed by Paul in earlier moments 5 .1

02:02:54

-11, you know, if you want. But then he again says, look,

02:03:03

Moo, Shriner, they all talk about believers, not in the way Dr. Allen talks about believers.

02:03:09

We've already seen Moo refuting Allen's entire concept of the autonomous, libertarianly, free, all the rest of that stuff.

02:03:21

We already saw that. But the big thing is, because I had criticized him on this, he tries to take a word that was last used in Romans 5 and cram it into every nook and cranny of Romans 8 to get rid of the freedom of God in salvation, the sovereignty of God.

02:03:42

God's the one who chooses, God's the one who elects, and all the rest of that kind of stuff. Okay?

02:03:49

Sorry, not sure what my phone was about to try to buy there, but it's like, wants to buy something,

02:03:57

I don't know. So, he's trying to take that concept and overlay it over everything where God is the one acting in Romans 8.

02:04:10

So, we have, in every case, the focus is on believers, those who are in Christ Jesus, and not the elect qua elect in the abstract sense of the entire class of those appointed to eternal life, including the unbelieving, or those, even those not yet born.

02:04:26

Not a single major modern external commentary on Romans asserts this sense of the elect with respect to Romans 8, 31 -39.

02:04:31

That's just simply not true. This is a desperate attempt to try to find some foundation for the axiomatic argument that is being put forward that nowhere can scripture ever talk about the elect.

02:04:52

Because we're about to do so. Well, we just were. Those called according to purpose.

02:04:58

That's the elect. Which he tried to turn into Pauline shorthand for people who autonomously believed.

02:05:08

This is such a God -centered text that it must just drive man -centered interpreters insane, and it is.

02:05:19

But, we're about to talk about the elect as the elect.

02:05:26

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? That is true of all the elect. That is true eternally.

02:05:34

That is true in light of the certainty of Christ's sacrifice to them. That is true in every generation.

02:05:43

It is the elect as the elect, because they've been united with Christ. His death becomes their death. You deny that, and you are taking apart the very foundation and essence of the gospel itself, and any foundation for assurance.

02:05:59

So, he wants to say, oh, they don't talk about these things.

02:06:05

They don't even realize it's an issue. This provisionist perspective is so far outside the scholarly mainstream that they're not even taking it into consideration, especially as it's formulated in this odd way.

02:06:22

For a while, it was called traditionalism. Now, it's called provisionalism. Who knows what it'll be called two years from now, but they're not even dealing with it.

02:06:31

So, to try to go, see, I've got them all on my side, is simply, again, another canard.

02:06:38

How many canards can we get in one section like this? Okay. Now, once again, let's just, let's remind ourselves of what we're looking at here.

02:06:56

We've now finally transitioned into the key section here. What shall we say to these things?

02:07:06

What's the immediate preceding context? God makes all things work together for good. In fact, can you show me, in the immediate preceding context, any human action?

02:07:20

Let's see. Well, those who love God, so I guess you could say, but we know we love

02:07:28

Him because He first loved us, and it's the Spirit of God within us that caused us to love God. Those who are called for new, predestined, conformed, firstborn, predestined, called, justified, no, it's all

02:07:42

God. Yeah, it's God, God doing all sorts of really wonderful stuff to His own glory.

02:07:48

And so, what shall we say to these things? If God, who per haemon, is for us, tis kath haemon, who can be katah, against us.

02:08:03

If God is for us, who can be against us? Well, who's the us? Those whom

02:08:10

He's called according to purpose, foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

02:08:16

Right? Is that who this is? Now, see, if you don't allow the text to stand as a single text, then you can, well, it could be these people over here, it could be, but if you read it through, what would the

02:08:32

Romans have understood? The last sentence is still ringing in their ears.

02:08:40

You didn't have all this artificial verse division, everything else, or chapters, divisions, or anything like that.

02:08:49

If God is for us, who can be against us? He, whom

02:08:57

His own Son did not hold back or spare, but in behalf of us all, gave

02:09:06

Him over. Okay, so, no matter, so right here, for Alan, his interpretation is now forced because he believes in universal atonement.

02:09:18

So, everybody, everybody who's ever lived or ever will live is in view here.

02:09:28

So, God's for us, so no one can be against us. There is now no condemnation. Don't worry about the in Christ Jesus part.

02:09:36

It's for everybody. The Amorite High Priest, sacrificing children,

02:09:42

God's for me. God's for me. Because His own

02:09:49

Son has been delivered up for us all. So, the us all has to be everybody, right?

02:09:58

No, it's just believers here. What? Hmm. We'll look at it.

02:10:07

Just reminding you, He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered

02:10:12

Him up for us all, how will He not also together with Him freely give us all things?

02:10:23

All things. That doesn't mean all physical possessions. That means all spiritual blessings in Christ, in heavenly places, to quote from Ephesians chapter one, but they're only in Christ.

02:10:37

And then, without having to explain, without having to write a paragraph, without having to say, now,

02:10:45

I know you weren't expecting this, but here it is. The next sentence is, who will bring a charge, cata eclecton theu, against the elect of God.

02:11:03

Did the subject change? Did something happen? Nope.

02:11:11

The elect of God is the us all, to whom all things are freely given. It is the us all, for whom the

02:11:20

Son is given. It is the us, for whom God is for. In verse 31, just trace it back.

02:11:29

There is no question of this. This is an exegetical certainty. It's as clear as can possibly be.

02:11:41

So, what do we see here? Who will bring a charge against the elect of God?

02:11:50

If the elect of God are the same people in view in verse 32, how is this not a presentation of particular redemption?

02:12:01

If huperhemon and eclecton theu are the same people, the elect of God, us all, then who was

02:12:12

Christ given for? The elect of God. Right? Could it really be that simple?

02:12:19

Yeah, it could. If tradition is kept on the sideline long enough, if you're just willing to listen, who will bring a charge against the elect of God?

02:12:34

God is the one justifying. Could we go back just just a couple sentences?

02:12:43

Those whom he called, these he also... Edekaiosin, he justified.

02:12:51

God is the one justifying. And who is he justifying? The elect of God. So, who's in the golden chain?

02:12:57

The elect of God. Who is Christ given for? The elect of God. What's that called? Particular redemption. So, you can't bring a charge against the elect of God because the judge is the one justifying, the one who says righteous.

02:13:24

Who is the one condemning? Where is the place of prosecuting attorney?

02:13:31

Well, the place of prosecuting attorney has been taken by Christos Jesus Christ, the one who died, rather, who has been raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who is also interceding

02:13:52

Huperhaimon, which is the same Huperhaimon right there. He did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all.

02:14:02

Oh, the high priest's action of giving of himself is for the same people for whom he intercedes, which is exactly what we pointed out over and over again in Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10, which was dismissed earlier as, oh, you know,

02:14:21

Trinitarian... None of that stuff's in the Bible. It's right here. It's right here.

02:14:32

So, the reason there can be no condemnation is because there is an intercessor at the right hand of the

02:14:41

Father who is named Jesus Christ, and he can intercede perfectly. Why? Because he died and was raised again.

02:14:51

The law has been fulfilled. He's died and he's raised again. So, therefore, those who are in him, his death is their death, his resurrection, their resurrection.

02:15:03

There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, which is what Romans 8 started with.

02:15:11

Why is there no condemnation? Because they believed. No, because Christ has died on their behalf. Their belief was purchased by his death, which is why they continue believing and can therefore never, ever claim credit for themselves.

02:15:28

It's all of God. So, that's just to remind you what this section is about.

02:15:37

Now, if you have made your entire scholarly life for the past 12 years...

02:15:45

So, I think the John 316 conference was in 2008. I'm remembering that because I was in England when it happened.

02:15:56

There was one particularly really nice place that I stayed at in England, and I remember that for some reason that's connected in my mind,

02:16:05

John 316 conference, and that's where he did the hyper -Calvinist accusation, all the rest of that kind of stuff.

02:16:12

Number 12, 2008? Yep. Am I right? Yeah, because I was over there in November.

02:16:23

That makes sense. So, if you have made your entire...

02:16:32

I mean, you've published two books on this subject. November 6th and 7th.

02:16:39

Okay, and you now have to...

02:16:47

Finally, you've been forced to deal with a text that is as clear as this.

02:16:54

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is he who condemns?

02:17:01

Christ Jesus is the one who died, yet was raised with the right hand of God interceding for us.

02:17:07

Christ intercedes for the elect of God. That means he's the one who was given for the elect of God.

02:17:14

This is a scary passage for you, not for me.

02:17:20

I think it's awesome. So, what you're going to have to do is you're going to have to really...

02:17:28

This could be talking about a bunch of stuff where you have to bring in a bunch of other things to fill in where you're not really dealing with the text, but we're about to get a studied example of eisegesis.

02:17:46

That's what you're going to get. Okay. Paul's use of huperheimon for us signifies not only that Christ died on our behalf, but that he died as our substitute.

02:17:58

Amen for that. Paul clearly affirms substitution and atonement here and in numerous places throughout his letters, which is why substitution and atonement is a reformed doctrine.

02:18:10

Notice the two uses of us in verse 32, haimon for us all and haimin, give us all things.

02:18:18

Paul states God gave Christ on the cross for us all. If God made such a superlative sacrifice to the sake of believers, inclusive of both

02:18:27

Jews and Gentiles, surely he will grant them everything else with Christ is an argument from the greater to the lesser.

02:18:33

Now, this is actually, you're going to see he's dealing with a greater lesser argument here.

02:18:42

There are different views as to who is included in the us all for whom Christ died. Some take the reference to be all living believers at the time of Paul's writing.

02:18:53

Well, that would be a bummer since that would leave us out. Others see the reference to all believers living or in heaven.

02:19:02

So others broaden the meaning to all believers of all time. How about the elect of God?

02:19:12

How about just what Paul said? The elect of God? It's right there.

02:19:18

I mean, on a piece of papyrus, it would be the next line, right down below, the elect of God, but we can't use that because of what it might mean.

02:19:31

By entailment, how about by direct teaching? By entailment, all believers of all time share in this promise.

02:19:38

One does not share in the promise until one becomes a believer. Well, you certainly don't know that you share in it.

02:19:47

You certainly don't experience it. That's true. But who died with Christ?

02:19:55

For whom is he interceding? This becomes the question. Some like Calvin interpret the meaning to a reference to all people believing and unbelieving.

02:20:05

I looked up the references. I could not find that. Couldn't find anywhere, but I don't have time to get into it right now.

02:20:12

A few Calvinists interpret the phrase to refer to all the elect in the abstract sense of the unborn elect, unbelieving elect, and believing elect on earth and heaven.

02:20:21

Do you get the feeling now that he keeps doing that simply to try to, it's sort of like when

02:20:27

Muslims quote from the Athanasian Creed because they know their people are going to find that sounds so strange because how many times it's been done now?

02:20:38

Yes, God from eternity knows who the elect are throughout all of time.

02:20:43

Yeah. It's not that tough. It's not that difficult. Alan believes that he's not an open theist.

02:20:53

So yeah, God can speak that way. And he does right here. Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

02:21:00

Think about it, folks. Think about it. If that's not the elect qua elect, if it's any of these others, then are you saying that the means of salvation of some people is different than the means of salvation of other people?

02:21:13

That there are some people who no charge can be brought against them because they lived in one period, but there are other people that charge can be brought against them because they lived in another period?

02:21:21

What are you really saying? The certainty of Christian salvation is seen in this text.

02:21:33

How does a man have peace with God? You see, because of the

02:21:38

Alan rule, you couldn't be able to see that Romans, the basis of Romans 5 .1

02:21:47

is now being established. But why do you wait for three chapters?

02:21:53

Because he chose to do so. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

02:22:00

Lord Jesus Christ. Why? Because in the court of heaven, God justifies the son who died, was raised, is at the right hand of the father and is interceding for us.

02:22:14

That's why your faith can justify you because of what

02:22:20

God does. And that's true in every single generation.

02:22:28

If anyone has peace with God, it's because of God did in Jesus Christ. Anyone. So this is the elect as the elect.

02:22:39

Whatever generation, this is how you have peace with God. Isn't that beautiful? Isn't that fantastic?

02:22:47

I mean, I know we're dealing with people that are trying to deny these things, to try to uphold traditions, but don't let that keep you from just stopping and going with coronavirus running around.

02:23:02

I have peace with God because in heaven where there is no coronavirus, I have one who intercedes in my behalf at the right hand of the father.

02:23:17

And Paul, I think through Luke in Hebrews chapter seven, tells us he is able to save completely those who draw an eye into God by him because he ever lives to make intercession for them.

02:23:38

Them, specific group, the elect of God right here. This is particular redemption.

02:23:44

I can't force you to see it. If you want to keep believing that your free will faith is, you know, just,

02:23:54

I can't, I can't convince you. I can show it to you.

02:24:02

I can show you the consistency of the text, the beauty of the text. I can't,

02:24:07

I can't convince you of it. At the very least, Paul refers to all living believers at the time of his writing.

02:24:18

It is possible he's referring to all believers. Notice how much language he has to keep dragging in for somebody else.

02:24:25

Believers nowhere found this text, but you know, and it's appropriate to use it as long as you don't freight it with the autonomy concept that provisionism demands.

02:24:37

Whether on earth or in heaven or all believers of all time, which would be the elect, since what has stayed in the reign of the passage is true in principle for all believers.

02:24:46

The addition of all to us stresses that is for all believers. You in this context that God has given his son, no, however, the text does not say only for all you believers.

02:24:58

So note, however, the text does not say only for all you believers.

02:25:05

So we just got done with the golden chain. We've already seen the consistency.

02:25:11

The only ones who are justified are those who are called. The only ones who are called are those who are predestined. The only ones who are predestined are those who are not.

02:25:17

We've just got done with that. That's a matter of words ago, but you've got to start pressing in man and man's free will, and you got to get it in there someplace.

02:25:32

Even though it just said that if the son is given for you, God will give you all things freely.

02:25:41

And that those, and that it specifically identifies those for whom the son is given, the elect of God.

02:25:50

It is also possible, Paul is referring to all people by the first us, regardless of their spiritual state, such that he is asserting, generally speaking, that Christ died for us all, both

02:26:01

Jew and Gentile. And for those, the second us who are united to Christ by faith, hence the soon alto with him language, he will give them, those who are with him, all things.

02:26:14

However, even some Arminians don't have necessity to interpret the us all in verse 32 to refer to all humanity. For example,

02:26:20

Cottrell limits it to believers only who will constitute the completed family of God. So let's just, we're almost out of time.

02:26:27

So let's just pop over here. It is also possible, Paul is referring to all people by the first us.

02:26:34

Oh, really? Okay. The first us, well, okay.

02:26:44

The first us would be right here. So what then shall we say is things if God is for us, all people, then who is against us?

02:26:59

Outside of Jesus, that would be God because he's going to have to judge sin and outside of Jesus, then you have no sin bearer.

02:27:06

So what? What do you mean it's possible that means all men? That doesn't make any sense.

02:27:17

Maybe it's he who did not spare his own son, but delivered over us for us all.

02:27:23

Okay. What if it's that one? He would not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all.

02:27:28

That's substitutionary language. How will he not also with him freely give us all things?

02:27:38

That's everybody. And since the all things, well, what's the all things?

02:27:46

I'm not sure that he, maybe we can get to the all things down here, but I don't see that there's any discussion about the all thing here until anyone's in faith, elect or not, one does not indeed cannot receive the all things

02:28:06

Paul refers to. So how can it, so if you're not in Christ, then, okay,

02:28:14

I'm going to, I'm going to make a mark right here. I'm going to insert comment, start.

02:28:29

So I like about this one. There you go. Isn't it, isn't it a whole lot easier just to let the

02:28:37

Bible say what it says? I mean, I know it doesn't really fit with certain traditional perspectives, but it is a whole lot easier.

02:28:48

It's a whole lot easier. And it, this is such a beautiful text. And when you have to answer people are trying to, well, you know, it might mean this, or it might be you.

02:28:57

The one thing that positively comes out of this for me is you do get to see more clearly the consistency of the text.

02:29:05

As long as you'll do the work to work through the objections and see, nope, that doesn't work. Nope. That's inconsistent up, contradict yourself there.

02:29:12

And that again is why debates are so useful. Why that cross -examination period is really when you find out where the wheels come off and on a position is when you have to answer specific questions and not just get to pick and choose what you're going to say.

02:29:31

So anyways, two and a half hours. Oh, there you go. But only two hours, two hours and 10 minutes on that.

02:29:38

And we're at least in the section now. I've got some hope of actually finishing that.

02:29:44

Just not a lot, but I have some hope. We'll try to get it done on Friday.

02:29:52

Definitely. Definitely try to get it done in flight. Thank you for hanging through all of that. Did anybody do the meme?

02:29:59

Not yet? Okay. All right. Just wondered. Just wanted to see if anybody was really fast. But we will, as I said, tomorrow,

02:30:07

Apollo GA Radio, I'm going to go ahead and say this because I'm going to be live. We're going to be responding to Trent Horn, finishing up our response to Trent Horn on Soloscriptura.

02:30:16

Wow. Hmm. Jay Dyer, Hank Hanegraaff, Nathan Jacobs, Trent Horn.

02:30:24

You think this Soloscriptura thing is sort of important? Yeah. I think we're shooting for noon on that.

02:30:31

And then on Friday, we'll let you know when we're going to fire things up on Friday. And we will continue with our response at that point in time, unless something like completely wild has taken place that we need to deal with at that time.