A Brotherly, Biblically-Based Discussion and Disagreement with Michael Brown and James White

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is a Wednesday, which is an unusual day for us to be on, but it's a short week. I'm traveling tomorrow, and as I've announced, we are going to have a discussion this afternoon with Dr. Michael Brown, who's joining us, having already exhausted himself, I'm sure, in doing his own program.

Pretty much every time Michael joins us, he's already had to do hours worth of radio and frequently interviews and things like that, so we always are thankful for the effort that is put out there. So, Michael, thank you very much for being with us today, and may I say, you look splendid.

Well, let me say that this is the first time that I've had the occasion to wear this lovely sweater that you gave me last year. I know! We were gonna do something. Did you forget it, or what had happened with that?

I was on the air with you, and I forgot to put it on. So this time, I brought it from home, put it on a hanger, brought it from home, got it here in my studio, I showed the guys, I said, this is what I'm gonna be wearing.

Is this doable? And for all those who despise the unity and friendship we have, just look at this. Take it in, critics. Look at this. I love it. There's, oh yeah, that's, I can see the blog articles firing up even now, even as we're, even as we're going along.

I tried to wear one that was fairly close based on my memory of what I had sent you, but I've, was that one of your books that we were gonna be talking, I've forgotten what it was about now. But anyway, thank you very much for joining us, and for doing so with such resplendent color.

The Sonny Hernandez Debate and Why the Format Frustrated the Discussion

But we've got a lot to get to here, because I believe it was somewhere in mid-December, I, why do I think the 15th? That sounds right, somewhere around there. You, I struggle a little bit to call it a debate, but, but I guess that was what it was called, because there was a moderator, and at least there was a topic, but you did a debate with Sonny Hernandez.

Tell us a little bit about how you thought that went. Yeah, so Sonny had approached me and wanted to discuss limited atonement, and said, listen, what I want to do is, is we'll have a moderator, and we'll go X period of time, you present verses, we'll discuss them, I'll present verses, we'll discuss them, and that's how he wanted to do it, and I had found out when he invited me down to debate his colleague, Dr. Theodoros Zechariadis, last year, I found out in advance that as a strict Dorian Calvinist, he didn't believe that, that I was a believer.

And we had friendly dialogue about that when I was down with him, so I, I wasn't gonna bring that up unless he brought it up. Right. But that was gonna be the format. I said, well, why don't we at least, at least take two or three minutes at the beginning to lay out what we believe, and so he agreed to do that, thought it was a great idea.

So in that sense, as you say, it wasn't really a debate as much as, very briefly, here are some fundamentals of our beliefs, and then here's the back and forth. And when he mentioned at the outset to him, this is an issue of the true gospel, then I wanted to pursue that and explore what he meant by that, because I knew what he meant by it, and he had the moderator, he and the moderator had agreed without letting me know to make sure it didn't go in the direction of who's saved and who's not saved.

I was just pursuing what he said for clarity's sake, so I was a little disappointed it didn't go in that direction, because he broached the subject. At the end, though, he was quite clear in laying out what he believed, which I think was, was eye-opening for folks.

But I, with all respect to him, I don't know that he's a theologian. I know he's very serious about his studies and things like that. I don't know that he was the best representative of his position. I expected more pushback on certain points that I made.

Maybe he was just being respectful. But to me, the biggest issue is what came out at the end, in terms of, to him, this is a matter of salvation. Those who do not hold to lunar atonement are therefore not saved, because they're denying the Gospel.

That I found unfortunate, and I think we've had a more robust debate about it in the midst of our Calvinist debate that we did at Southern Evangelical Seminary. So yeah, but you know, we covered ground anyway.

At least we got to lay out certain things. You did. It was obviously very frustrating for me to listen to it. I mean, obviously, those of us who are Reformed would not necessarily interpret Dortean Calvinism the way that that particular group does, by any stretch of the imagination.

But be that as it may, it was primarily frustrating because of the format. Because I think you'll recall, I was still in the Denver airport, just started listening to it, and I texted you and said, three minutes?

Who came up with that? Because I was like, how do you lay anything out in three minutes and then do 45 minutes worth of examination? I was just like, wow, okay. But of course, the most frustrating thing, well, the minor frustrating thing was the constant citation of and parsing of Greek.

I mean, I love doing Greek on the program. A lot of our people love when I put a cordons up on the screen and we go into the languages and stuff like that. That's lots of fun. But maybe once, maybe twice in the entire discussion, the citation was actually relevant to what was being said.

Otherwise, it was just simply window dressing. And I was like, you know, if you took all the Greek and parsing out, he only got to talk for five minutes. I mean, that's just, that's not a really good tactic when you only have so much time.

Yeah, I'm sorry. It was December 17th, by the way, and I just saw someone tweeted us with a picture of both of us saying epic koogie. So I guess, I don't know if it's up there or koogie, whatever. Koogie.

Sorry. So Charles Spurgeon said something many years ago, obviously, but when he was instructing young pastors and theologians, he said, when you go to a restaurant, the cook doesn't come out and show you, I used all these, these spoons and knives and plates and dishes.

They just bring out the finished product. And that's what he encouraged folks to do, to not parse everything. And, you know, so do your homework first and then just come with your final conclusions. So obviously if we're having a debate, let's say Acts 13, 48 came up and is it, is it middle there?

And so then the parsing becomes part of the debate. How should it be read and can it be read, et cetera. But otherwise, yeah, I, I don't know that it's served a purpose and because he uses modern Greek pronunciation, I don't know how many New Testament Greek students even followed some of it.

Yeah. Yeah. That was just really, really distracting. But obviously for me, the big point was I, there were a couple of times you said some things and maybe if we have time toward the end, I'd like to be able to get to them.

Whereas like, well, there's a setup, answer this. And it never got answered. But the main thing was, and I, I'd expressed this to you even before the, the debate took place. My concern was that there would be a meaningful um, explication of what I think are the strongest arguments and, and the real issues.

And I, I didn't feel like that came out. Uh, even when I agreed with what was being said, it wasn't connected in a holistic fashion. And so I think even before the debate, I had said, Hey, if, if this goes a certain direction, what do you think, uh, could we, could we get together and have a conversation about this?

Because it is a, I think a very important issue. It's rarely discussed without a tremendous amount of emotion. And, uh, you and I have obviously demonstrated that we have the ability to address some difficult subjects without, um, all the fireworks and, uh, the throwing of acid and everything else.

And you had said, yeah, sure. Let's, uh, let's do it. We tried to right before I went to, uh, Germany and Russia and we had technical issues on our end. So here we are. Um, I'm having to have a fan on me because like I said, it's 75 degrees in here, uh, in, in Phoenix right now, but it's getting warm here too.

Yeah. But I had to, but I had to, had to, had to go with it so we could, uh, we could just drive everybody crazy. So let's, um, let's get to it because, um, uh, you just for the audience's, uh, understanding, uh, a certain period of time, what, approximately four or five years, um, you would identify yourself as having held at least a generally reformed or at least Calvinistic view.

Soteriologically speaking, I don't think you were ever involved with a, um, uh, with pedo-baptism or, or, uh, a church that would have like a reformed church government type thing. Uh, you, you were still in a fairly evangelical church, weren't you?

Yeah, it was, it was, it was a congregational church, but it was, you know, pastor as the chief elder, elders and deacons is how we operated. Um, it was listed as a congregational church, but that was our, our government.

Uh, we, we did practice believer baptism, although we had a Presbyterian minister who was one of our elders. And I do remember that we had folks coming to the church that wanted to sprinkle their babies.

So he was asked to come and sprinkle and we just, you know, weren't, weren't keen on it, but we just agreed to it. Uh, yeah, but otherwise I, I really gloried 77 to 82. I really immersed myself. I mean, every banner of truth book I could get and the, the Puritans and the, and the John Owen stuff.

And, you know, uh, I remember teaching on a tulip and saying, you know, the Arminians using the classic thing had a wide bridge that only goes halfway across the river, but Calvinist had an hour bridge that went all the way across.

And, uh, you know, I was, I was quite, quite into it. And, and in that sense, kind of appreciate why someone is a Calvinist. That's why I've never been a Calvinist basher, because I do understand how there is the viewpoint about this is for the glory of God and it's salvation is all of him.

And a Warfield quote, you know, if there is one stitch in the garment of salvation left us, we'd be forever lost. So I, I appreciate those emphases. Obviously I'm not a Calvinist, but 77 to 82, I really identified as a Calvinist, immersed myself in, in literature and theology and, and taught it quite passionately.

Divine Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and the Scope of the Atonement

So in, um, one of the reasons I wanted to have this conversation, um, A, I want to have the opportunity at some point to, well, here, here at the beginning, uh, to sort of lay out a, what I think is the strongest argumentation, which was not presented.

That was one of the concern. It was not presented in what happened back on my birthday, actually on December 17th of last year. Um, but also, um, you have said you've two things, uh, that I've heard you do or say that makes me go, I think I've got him.

And here's what it is. During the debate, you made the statement that, um, you believe or accept the idea that God infallibly knew who would and who would not, uh, have true saving faith and persevere in that faith in Jesus Christ from eternity past.

Did I, did I understand that correctly? Sure thing. Okay. Then how long ago was it that you did the debate at IHOP? Oh, the monster God debate. Sort of. Yeah. Monster God, monster man. Yeah. With, with Brian's on that was, that was September of 2014.

Oh, wow. Time's going by fast. Um, so coming up on five years, but, uh, part and parcel of that debate was that you defended, um, not make sure, I want to make sure that I get all this right. Um, uh, penal substitutionary atonement or just substitutionary atonement.

Would you, would you use both terms? Well, I, I used both terms. The emphasis of my argument was substitutionary atonement. But since I do believe that Jesus paid for our sins and satisfied the judgment due against us, then I was at home with the term penal substitutionary atonement.

I know it's, it's often used as a terminus technicus with, with Calvinists that ties right in with limited atonement. But to me, that was part of the concept of substitutionary atonement. Right, right.

And in fact, if I recall correctly, at one point during that debate, you couldn't help yourself. You made a statement and you said, now, as my friend James White would say, he sees an inconsistency there, but I see it this way.

Yeah. I was chuckling because I, because I was just sitting there going, okay, okay. So those two positions, uh, obviously say to me, all right, we've got someplace we can go here. Now, the problem is in discussing this subject, you can't come to final conclusions without all the material about the sovereign decree of God, uh, election, what's it based upon, does God have an elect people?

I mean, they're all associated. We've, we've discussed portions of this before. And so I recognize it's going to be really hard to just focus in on a relatively narrow spectrum. And so we may get to some points where it's like, well, obviously, if you think there's a, an elect people, then you go this way.

If you don't, then you don't maybe see why I would do that, that type of thing, so on and so forth. But I just thought it would be extremely useful to, in light of the fact that you and I have debated on the same side in defense of the Trinity and therefore have utilized the same type of exegetical, um, standards, uh, in pointing to the errors of our opponents.

Uh, just last year, uh, we had the experience of, uh, debating two homosexuals, just barely debating, uh, as far as there being a real contest, biblically speaking, but I think it was very useful because their perspective is very much what you'll encounter amongst a lot of people.

Um, and I'd be interested in what they have to say about what happened yesterday with the United Methodist Church too. Uh, that would be interesting to find out where they came down on that. But anyway, uh, we just worked hand in glove in dealing with the text of scripture and answering the questions.

And it was, it was a wonderful thing, which means we have, we share a common, um, commitment to exegesis and a common methodology of exegesis. And so with that in mind, uh, if you'd like, uh, even though you, you did at the beginning, uh, of, of the debate, if you'd like, um, if you'd like to just sort of lay out where you're coming from on this, um, I was certainly, I want to give you that opportunity.

I think most people probably know that we're talking about the difference between a, a particular redemption where the specific intention of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the sacrifice of Christ is the redemption of the elect of God.

And therefore the substitutionary act, uh, aspect of it would be limited to those who are united with Christ by the sovereign action of the Father in election versus, um, a universal atonement, which I think your phraseology is Christ dies to infallibly procure the salvation of every person who believes in him, um, and, and, um, perseveres in that faith or continues in that faith, something along those lines.

Would that be a, a proper, uh, designation? Yeah, well, what I would emphasize is that God makes salvation possible to every human being by Jesus dying for the sins of each and every person who's ever lived.

And he infallibly saves those who, who put their, their trust in him and persevere in him. Yeah. So it's the, the, the object of God was one, to demonstrate his love for the whole world by Jesus dying as our substitute and two, to infallibly save those who put their trust in him for salvation.

Okay. So you just used a specific terminology, um, and I want to make sure that I've got this, uh, anyone who is currently alive, ever will be alive, ever was alive. In other words, the entire human family.

Would that be, is that, is that correct? Yes, sir. The world, the entire world, each one, everyone. Yep. Okay. All right. Um, so, uh, with that, let me, uh, let me just lay out what, what I believe, because again, this didn't really come out.

Uh, I mean, you, you, you heard what Dr. Hernandez had to say, but he did not make this aspect of, of the presentation. And I was concerned that it wouldn't come out and let me see if it makes any sense to you or, or a difference in how you would respond, uh, as far as what texts you would refer to and things like that.

I emphasize very strongly the, um, harmony of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the self-glorification of the Trinity as the central reason why, why anything exists, why creation exists. And certainly, um, in the Gospel itself, I, I view the Gospel as Trinitarian.

It, it finds its origin and source in the Father. It always bothers me when I hear Christians talking about, God the Father is the mean God of the Old Testament, and then Jesus comes along in the New Testament and, and makes God the Father a nice guy or something.

I mean, that's just totally, totally wrong. It's so, it's so clear in Ephesians 1 that the origin of the spiritual blessings and everything that God has done in Christ, it comes from the Father. It's accomplished in the Son, in, in perfect obedience to the Father.

He, he does what he sees the Father doing. He speaks the word given to him by the Father. There is perfect harmony, John chapter 5, uh, between the Father and the Son. There is, there is no disharmony.

There could never be. Um, I don't know if you ever heard the debate I did with a fellow up in Denver, um, an open theist fellow, but one of the, one of the times I just about fell off my chair was when he said that the Son could have disobeyed the Father, um, and not done what the Father wanted him to do, just to substantiate his perspective.

I, that's just, that's a total denial of, of, of biblical revelation as far as I, I understand it. And then, of course, the Spirit, the Spirit, uh, makes application of the perfect work that has been accomplished by Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Uh, the Spirit is the one who brings the spiritual life. The Spirit is the one who, uh, comforts. The Spirit is the one who seals us. Ephesians chapter 1, verse 14, he is the Arabon, the, the down payment, uh, for everyone who has faith in Christ that, uh, that God is going to continue that work within him.

And so, you have all three of the divine persons taking different roles. They're distinguished from one another. Um, this is one of the ways we can distinguish between them and the economic trinity, and yet they're unified, and the focus is upon what God is doing.

I, I very strongly emphasize that particular aspect of this, and that there cannot, there cannot be a diminishment of the centrality of God in all of this. It's all to the praise of his glorious grace, not to my faith or, or anything that I might do.

I'm blessed, um, but I'm not, I'm not the reason for all of this. And so, I, I start there. Is there anything there that, that, uh, makes you raise an eyebrow, or that you'd want to go, hmm, not so sure about that?

Uh, no, I, I would, I would just ask if, in your thinking, if, let, let's say that you, you wanted people in a particular isolated village without medical care to know how much you cared for them, how much you love them, how, how much you wanted to help them, so you set up a medical clinic with supplies adequate for all the people, and said, hey, whoever wants free medical help, everyone comes, and let's say half the people come and take advantage of it, the other half don't.

Can, can you see this as, as a valid expression of the heart of God, saying, I want everyone to know the depth of my love, so I'm reaching out my hands to all of you, even though I know ultimately only some of you are going to come, I'm making my love available to all of you.

Does that strike you as, as somehow an inconsistency in divine economy? There would be two aspects of that that I have a problem with. Uh, the first is what we debated before, and that is, I believe very firmly that there is a divine decree that is directly related to divine knowledge.

In other words, God knows all things that take place in time, not passively by observing them, but because they flow from his sovereign decree. And so the, the idea there is that, well, the, there might be some that will take advantage, there might be some who will not, uh, but, but God already knows that and has a purpose for that.

But then the second part is the, the anthropology that flows from that. Um, I don't believe in light of Romans 1 through 3 that there is anybody who, outside of an efficacious work of the grace of God in their life, is going to take advantage of those things, because they're not morally neutral.

They're the enemies of God. They are suppressing the knowledge of God. They are in rebellion against God. And so though they may express that rebellion religiously, uh, or by scientism or atheism, whatever else might be, the fact of the matter is there is none that seeks after God.

There is, there is none, according to Romans 8, who will even submit themselves to the law of God, and, and repentance and faith is part of what God commands. And so I noticed, I did think to myself a number of times during the debate that that particular discussion would have needed to go off into either some of the things that we covered briefly at SES in regards to God's sovereignty and decree and things like that, or even more so, which we didn't, well, we've touched on it in the radio programs we've done and maybe touched on a little bit in the debate, but specifically a biblical anthropology, uh, and especially a biblical anthropology of man in his fallen state.

And the fact that man in his fallen state being dead in sin is not inactive. Instead, he's very active in rebellion against God and suppression of the knowledge of God. And so with those two things, then you can see why the example, which has just basically, you know, villagers who aren't rebels, they're not in rebellion against the doctor, or they're not expressing their hatred toward the doctor, or things like that, wouldn't quite fit with my understanding of the biblical parameters.

Right. So, interestingly, so there'd be those two aspects of divine sovereignty and the state of man, the biblical anthropology, that would prevent you from seeing the analogy. And obviously the analogy was not meant to be precise on every line, as much as could two things be accomplished at once, a demonstration of love, as well as the full knowledge that only some will respond.

Right. What about, what about from the aspect of divine accountability that God is going to hold every man guilty for rejecting the free offer of the gospel, which is salvation through the blood of Jesus.

Whereas in your viewpoint, that offer is, is not real for all those whom God has, to whom God has not granted faith because Jesus did not in fact die for them. So the offer that's coming to them is not a, is not a bonafide offer because number one, you're saying whoever believes come, but they don't have the power to believe.

So it's whoever God is determined to believe will come, but then also come and cry out to God for salvation through the blood of Jesus. But you can cry out all day, even if you could cry out, even if you're inclined to cry out, it wouldn't do any good because Jesus didn't pay for your sins.

Only paid for the sins of the elect. So what about just from the aspect of divine accountability that Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world? So everyone is now accountable to believe and yet man in his rebellion doesn't believe, even if you want it to hold to some doctrine of election that I don't hold to.

What about that aspect of consistency? Well, it's interesting because when we look at the situation with, you know, all the way up to the time of Jesus Christ, you have millions and millions of people being born upon earth to whom no prophets are sent, no law is given, no revelation is given.

I would just simply in passing point out the idea of having Christ bear in himself the penalty of their sin and their wrath when they are already experiencing the wrath of God themselves and no positive effort was made to send them prophets and to send them revelation is, I think, one of the problems that we face when we recognize that the message of the scriptures was given to a particular people to prepare them for a particular role.

And so that's historically looking backwards. But then when we say accountability, there were a couple of things that you said there that came out in the debate and I would have to take a different perspective maybe than what was being presented, especially because the individual you were debating doesn't believe in, well, he does do street preaching, but there is this idea of what salvation really is.

I believe that God commands men everywhere to repent. I also believe that, according to Romans chapter 5, you are either in Adam or you're in Christ. So, I believe very strongly and I would think that you would probably have at least a tendency toward agreement on this because of the strong federal headship representation concepts in the Tanakh.

I mean, what happens at Ai? Why is the perpetrator and his wife and his kids and his cattle and his doggie and kitty stoned after Ai? Because he represents them. And so, there is this very strong concept of representational headship within the Jewish concept of the relationship to God, and he holds men accountable in that way.

And that's the only way I can understand Romans chapter 5, is that we are all in Adam and we can only get from Adam what Adam can give to us, and that is a corrupted spiritual nature and spiritual death.

Then, we can either be in him or in Christ. Now, obviously, any person who's in Christ was first in Adam, and not everybody ends up in Christ. I think we obviously both reject the concept of universalism as popular as it might be in many circles today.

We have to recognize that just simply doesn't fit with a harmonious view of biblical revelations. So, in Christ, then, I receive his righteousness, I receive all the actions of the Holy Spirit of God, which includes the giving of faith and repentance.

And so, when you say, well, he asks men to do something that they can't do, it's because they are in Adam and have fallen in him. So, the greatest commandment, love the Lord your God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Well, I don't think either one of us have ever done that for any lengthy period of time whatsoever because of the fact that we live in a fallen state. And so, if that's the first commandment and we can't fulfill that, that's why we need the righteousness of Christ to be able to avail before a holy God.

But the idea is, it did come up in the debate, when you say, well, he's demanding that we do things we can't do and then holding us accountable for those things. The reality is that the law gave that incredibly high standard and had to, in and of itself, provide for the sacrifices because no one's going to do that.

And so, when you say, well, what about someone who's crying out to God and Jesus didn't die for them? I don't believe such a person exists, and I don't know who the elect are. So, I can only do what scripture tells me to do, and that is God commands men everywhere to repent.

And I can tell you this, Michael, I absolutely firmly believe that there has never, ever been a single person who has cried out with true repentance and faith to God that found Jesus Christ to be anything else than a willing and powerful Savior.

Where we disagree, I think, is that you would say that crying out to Jesus Christ in that way is within the capacity, what would you say, of all people or most people? Are there some people you would say that are given over, or how would you understand that?

Well, some are given over, those, for example, who blaspheme the Spirit, but in ourselves, none of us can do it. But I do believe John 12, 32, that through the cross God rose all men to himself, that the preaching of the gospel, Romans 1, 16, is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes that you first know the Gentiles.

So, with that gospel call comes grace to respond. And yes, every human being, when confronted with the gospel, has the power to say yes or to say no. Okay. That is not works. Faith is specifically, we're told in Romans, that if it's by faith, then it's not by works.

And that one of the things that got me out of Calvinism was when I just went back to the overwhelming word through scripture, choose, choose, choose, choose, choose, choose, choose, and that God then responds based on how we chose, you know, a well-done versus a rejection, that I had to recognize there is human responsibility in the midst of this.

And you quoted Acts 17, 30, a couple of times. So God calls all men everywhere to repent. And then, you know, to me from John 3, 16, and so many other verses, God so loved the world. And then John 17, 6, and John 17, 9, where Jesus distinguishes his people from the world.

I never see anywhere in John where the world specifically means the elect. I see it means either all humanity or those hostile to God. Those are the ones for whom Jesus dies. So yeah, let's just say I'm in your camp and I don't know who the elect are and same theology.

And someone says, you know, John 3, 16, are you telling me God loved me so much that he sent his son to die for me? I can say, absolutely. I don't care who that person is. I can say, absolutely. You would have to say, so remember, we're not debating whether they're crying out or not.

We're not debating whether they have the power to believe in themselves for this moment. Simply, someone says to you, all right, I was reading John 3, 16, and I'm trying to understand that. Does that mean because God so loved the world that he loved me enough to send his son for me?

Is that what the text is saying? I can say, absolutely. Yes. You have to say, I don't know, because I don't know if you're one of those who are elect or not. I just don't stop at verse 16. I let, because not only does verse 16 introduce a specific limitation, the limitation itself that is found there is, do you believe in him?

It says, so that whoever believes in him shall not perish. So, do you believe in him? And if you do, then yes, the son has been given to you because God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but the world might be saved through him.

He who believes in him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already because he has not believed the name of the only begotten Son of God. So, there's, you know, I hear what you're saying, and as I said at the beginning, I haven't even gotten to my presentation on particular redemption yet because we, and I recognize, look, the foundational issues are very, very important.

The biblical anthropology is very, very important. I would love to have more time to look at John 12 .32, for example, because I just would honestly suggest to you that, and let me just throw this out there just for your own consideration, but John 12 .32 not only comes six chapters after John 6, which has already defined what that drawing is and what it's based on, but John 12 .32 is a very unique situation.

It's in, the Greeks have come searching, looking for Jesus, and Jesus does not show himself to them. He does not meet with them. He rejects someone who's searching for him, and he explains why. And obviously, one of the key differences between us in our looking at these texts, which is about, again, we're still on election here, and the all-the-world, all-people stuff is I very firmly believe that the only consistent way of putting together the texts that say that Jesus is able to save a specific people in and of himself and our response to him is a part of his work within us, rather than we do something and then that enables him to keep us over time, that this goes back to the reality that, for example, when Paul says in 1 Timothy 2, when he's talking about Jesus Christ, media between God and men, that he would have all men to be saved, that we have to recognize the utilization of categories.

All kinds of men, just in John 11, when the high priest is supernaturally forced by God to give prophecy, I'm not sure how you, maybe you might not agree with my understanding of that, but I mean, the high priest prophesied that by his death, Jesus would do what?

He would gather all of God's children from all the nations. That's what every tribe, tongue, people, and nation is all about. And so, we could, you know, I think get into some of that. I just think the John 12 thing, just on a consistency basis, does the cross actually draw all men or is it not the biblical teaching that the cross is repulsive to the natural man, that it's foolishness, that he finds it to be the stench of death?

See, I understand John 12, 32, in light of what's on with the Greeks, to be an indication of the fact that when he is lifted up, he will draw all kinds of men, including Greeks, including Gentiles, to himself.

Not that it's a universal thing, especially in light of, you've already got the Amorite high priest that was sacrificing to Moloch, who's been moldering the grave for 400 years under the punishment of God, that's, it doesn't make any sense to say, if I be lifted up, I'm going to draw those people to myself.

Obviously, that can't be what it's referring to. So, again, we're getting into all that stuff. I'll give you an opportunity to respond to that if you want to, but I really, what I really want to do before we get too far, because I know we're about 38 minutes in here, is I really want to get into what I think is the strongest arguments for particular redemption.

But please, go ahead. Yeah, so I'll just make three quick points in response. Obviously, I could expand on all of these, but I would point out when you say that John 12 is six chapters after John six, well, John six is six chapters after John one, as many as received him to them, he gave power to become the sons of God.