Radio Free Geneva: Continuing Response to Mike Winger, Focusing on Intercession/Mediation

You constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this, God's sovereign, God's sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign.

They just keep repeating it, and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth. Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus, he says,

Lazarus, come out. And Lazarus said, I can't, I'm dead. That's not what he did.

Lazarus came out. Well, I can talk over your head like that.

I know the Hebrew, the Greek, I've done theology, you can tell I know. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things?

Um, no. Some new

Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine.

Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief. A verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it?

He wouldn't make any sense to him. A self -righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk. And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to.

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it.

Not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat.

There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. Deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate

Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re -read George Bryson's book, we are

Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory.

I don't think that's the new one. I just don't think that's the new one. I listened to it carefully and I heard nothing new.

So I don't think that's the new theme. I think you got the one before that.

Tim, Tim, calling Tim. Is that the new one? What was it that we added to it just a few weeks ago?

I can't remember what it was, but I didn't hear anything new. So I think that's the one before that.

I really do. So we'll find out from Tim. Tim can tell us. He will be the final authority.

Welcome to The Dividing Line. We are continuing the Radio Free Geneva episode from yesterday where we, yeah, two and a half hours worth yesterday.

And so we decided to split things up just a little bit.

We are responding to a video from Pastor Mike Winger from back,

I believe it was July 23rd. And, you know, some people would say, so, so, so beyond that, that is one of the problems we have on the

Internet today. If it was relevant in July, it remains relevant today, at least as far as the theology is concerned.

So there you go. And so we started jumping in, but actually we're at a good breaking point.

We were at a good breaking point. I can't believe I only got that far. This doesn't seem right. But anyway, this next section, basically, there is a difference in how

Reformed folks approach, how

I put this, the necessity to have an orderly, consistent theology.

In other words, as I said yesterday, what you believe about the Trinity should impact what you believe about the

Gospel, what you believe about the Gospel should impact what you believe about the Church, about evangelism. It all should be brought together and should have relationship to one another, and it really is in Reformed circles, seriously

Reformed circles. In my experience, you have that emphasis, whereas in my experience,

I have spoken in a lot of different contexts, and once I get out of that context, I don't find as much emphasis upon the necessity of consistency and of seeing how things relate to one another.

You know, you could be consistent in one doctrine, but not consistent in how that doctrine would then relate to everything else in the

Christian faith. And of course, again, this is only an issue amongst conservatives. Liberals don't believe that scripture is consistent enough to actually give you anything.

Liberals look at what we're doing and just go, you people are arguing about nothing because the scriptures are not clear enough, they're not perspicuous enough, they're not inspired enough to even produce a consistent theology to begin with.

So what are you people grousing about? They sort of look at us in that way.

So let's dive into it, and I think Mike laid it out here. I am, again, having to play this a little bit fast, otherwise we just, you know, we don't get very far.

You ignored the real issues. So this is how Trinitarian Harmony and the Atonement is used, like a trump card. Like, hey, you haven't even really addressed the major issues,

Mike, you've just skipped over them. And so now this is, I think, often the case.

Okay, I just got evidence on Twitter. You still with me?

Yeah, Gene Kim's not in there. The Gene Kim quote. So yep,

I knew it was in there someplace. And so, Tim, we're sorry, you know, we ask you to do this work.

And then Rich just loses things. I'm picking on Rich today. So it's in there somewhere.

But there's a new one that had Gene Kim doing his wild, crazy thing.

And what was it that Gene Kim did? Remember what quote it was? It was just recently.

And it was just insane. And he popped it in for us. Because I remember which one

I asked him to replace. So when I heard the one replaced, I was like, we played it once.

It's on that computer somewhere. So we will need to look around for it. No, no, as long as it's not playing on that side of the window and not on the air, we're good.

So the Calvinist Watchdog was the guy who said it was Gene Kim quote that was missing.

And then I realized, oh, that's right, that's right. And it was the one about, now

I remember remembering what it was, about me and Jeff and Greek and where he goes, blah, remember?

There you go. All right. Now we remember. Now we remember. Thank you, Calvinist Watchdog, for reminding us of that.

Total disruption to what we were talking about in the first place. But sorry about that, because Mike Winger has never gone blah or anything like that.

So Mike, don't think we're trying to have ever seen Gene Kim. I'm not sure

Mike Winger would even would would even recognize who. But yeah, yeah. Look up Gene Kim sometime. He's he's he's great.

He's he's wonderful. Anyways, let's go back to what we were saying. Now, this is this is,

I think, I think often the case where the the Armenian or I'm not an Armenian, by the way, but the

Armenian or the non -Calvinist, they will bring scripture that says, ha, this refutes that doctrine of Calvinism.

And the Calvinist says, no, no, no, I'm going to bring not not just scripture, but a theological framework, a theological principle that will trump your scripture.

I, of course, started my video the beginning of my video. I wonder if I have a clip here. Notice what I said at the beginning of my video.

I said, I think I have a good reason why this scripture actually trumps your theological framework. So try to track with this, because if you understand this, you understand some of the major differences between Calvinists and non -Calvinists.

If you understand where James White's coming from and where I'm coming from, it seems that the majority of the reasons people offer for limited atonement to support this particular doctrine is philosophical reasoning.

It's not based upon here's what the scripture teaches clearly about limited atonement. It's rather here's what the Bible says about other issues.

And I think logically, when we apply that to a limited atonement, we get the doctrine of limited atonement. I'm not really planning on covering that kind of stuff today, because I'll just say,

I think I can trump that logic or that philosophy by saying, even if you feel your logic and theology is good, if the

Bible disagrees with you, you should reconsider that that logic may be wrong about how you're applying one doctrinal truth to a different doctrinal question.

Okay, so again, this sort of takes us back to where we were yesterday, and that's where we need to pick up. I made the argument from the beginning that what we're dealing with here is the necessity of believing that scripture is a whole.

And so what it teaches about God's relationship to time,

God's relationship to creation, His purposes in creation, His purposes in redemption of a particular people, the sending of the

Son, the relationship of the Father and the Son, obviously, and here, key, intercession, the role of Jesus as high priest, you know, all of these things, all of that does have to be consistent with itself.

And where do we drive those things? We drive those things from close, careful exegesis of the text of scripture.

My assertion to Pastor Winger is when I go into the sovereignty of God, when

I go into His divine decrees, when I go into election and predestination, when I go into the relationship of the

Father and the Son, into man's deadness and sin, we're talking about not using passages that are ancillary, are on the fringe, make reference to something in passing.

We're talking about walking through an entire chapter of the Bible or more, making consistent application.

And when you do that, then yeah, you can't then jump over to a text and say,

I think this implies that all of that consistent relationship of the theology of God proper and the theology of man and God's purposes in creation, all of that has to be thrown out.

And my challenge to you, to all of my synergistic brothers, and you are a synergist whether you redefine the term or not, to all of my synergistic brethren, and of course,

I just angered a whole bunch of folks that I would use that term, would be, are you not making the exact same argument just without realizing that you're making it?

In other words, you have a systematic theology and it is what is determining what you see in these singular passages that you interpret in such a way as,

I mean, that means you can't have limited atonement because in your system, you've already come up with a theology where God's decree is derivative from his knowledge of future events, where God is limited in regards to what mankind allows him to do.

I mean, is there consistency in your system as a whole?

The system's there, whether it's consistent or not is the issue. And I just can't tell you how many people that I've met over the years, that's what eventually got to them, was they realized, well,

I've got to be consistent over here in dealing with the cults or with these religions and stuff like that, but man, it means

I need to be consistent all over. It's not just over there, it needs to be in all of my theology and then there needs to be an application of my theology as well.

And so, especially when we get into some of the statements you made in intercession, and I'm going to try to rush to get there,

I think this is where it gets really important. And I'm going to really have to challenge you on some of the things you said there.

Number one, one problem. It deals, it depends rather, it depends on only a... Okay, this is talking about what

I call Trinitarian harmony in the atonement, the simple fact that the Father, Son, and Spirit are, since they in eternity passed as one

God determined to bring glory through the means of the Incarnation, the demonstration of the attributes of God in the salvation of a particular people, and hence are not working at cross -purposes to one another, that this is very important in understanding the

Trinity, the atonement, and not just making the atonement sort of a peanut butter thing that's sort of just thrown out there, and then whether it's successful or how it relates to the

Father, how it relates to the Spirit, it's all dependent upon us. This is part of the problem, so that's what he's responding to here.

Number one, one problem. It deals, it depends rather, it depends on only a single intention of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the atonement.

It depends on the idea that the Father has a limited intention that Jesus will only die for the elect, because that's what we're assuming.

We're assuming, or I think it's being assumed, because I don't think there's any passage in the Scripture that says it in any clear sense.

And so if I say the Father only wants these elect people saved, that seems to be the crooks of the issue.

I've got to prove that that's all the Father wants before I can say the Son can't disagree with the Father. And that is something I think that is not established in the text of Scripture.

I think the Father elects, the Son pays, the Spirit actualizes, I would agree with that. I would agree with that.

I'm not sure how you agree with that. But I certainly don't agree with it in the way that we do, in the way that we mean it. If you want a text,

John chapter 6, the Son is sent by the Father, not to do His own will, but the will of Him who sent

Him, and what is the will of Him, all He's given Him. He not lose one of them, but raise up the last day.

That requires His sacrificial giving for them. Now you would say, well, that doesn't mean that it's only for them, but that would require you to say, well, then there is a specific purpose that God the

Father and the Son have in the Son bearing the sin of someone who will not be saved.

And since the whole point is the personal nature of salvation, the union of the elect with Christ, why would there be any disharmony, and that's what the whole idea is here, all the

Father gives me will come to me. Now, maybe you could make the argument that the Father gives based upon the actions of mankind.

We have gone over that over and over again. That's why I said in the last program, maybe we can't even discuss these types of things without dealing first with God's sovereign decree and man's deadness and sin, maybe, and the reality of the divine decree of election.

But we're trying anyways, and the Father gives a particular people to the

Son, and it is His task to not lose any of them, and He does that by dying in their place.

So what is the purpose of dying in the place of the individual that the Father does not give to the

Son and does not task the Son with their perfect salvation? Or let me put it this way, would you agree that there is a specific people for whom

Christ dies and that His death for them will guarantee their salvation, but are you simply saying that there is a broader application of the atonement that wasn't intended to save?

Because I've not heard you enunciate that. There is room for a discussion of the issue of reconciliation of all things, and especially that's necessary in responding to Unitarians, again, good

Unitarians. There are Unitarians of fluff, and there are Unitarians of theological study.

But so there's a room to discuss, is there an element of the atonement that is important in the establishment of God's justice in the end, but that is not intentionally salvific?

We could have a discussion about that. You're getting into some of this later on, but you do talk about intercession. And you do talk about, you do make the assertion, again,

I think you're following David Allen, you do make the assertion that without a universal atonement, there can be no true offer of the gospel, assuming that we have to know not only the extent of the atonement, but the identity of the elect, which we do not.

But it does illustrate a difference. It does illustrate a difference between the idea of a true offer separated from the command to repent, and the reality that what the apostles commanded was repentance, and that hence, to the repentant one, there is offered forgiveness.

The only way to hold all that together is to recognize faith and repentance to the work of the Spirit of God, who has raised the spiritually dead sinner from slavery to sin.

Without that, you end up with a contradiction in Scripture. You end up with Scripture contradicting

Scripture. We don't have that problem, but that's an issue for synergists as to how they handle that.

But I think that there's more information that we have in Scripture, so we're not limited to that information. I also think it's actually refuted by clear teaching passes in Scripture, and I share these in my previous video, but I'm going to go into them again, because I know most of you probably won't go and watch that other video right now.

So 1 John— So, I'm going to provide extremely short responses because, again,

I've responded to all of these in print. I mentioned the last time, a little frustrated because, as he goes through this, the interpretation, exegesis that I offered, which

I think has certainly been identified by others as a consistent exegesis, really isn't taken up, and so I can't complain that you spend more time reading

David Allen than me, but if you're going to respond to me, then, you know, when

I respond to David Allen, I read David Allen on the subject. So I would highly recommend doing that as well, at least a chapter on the

Big Three, if not some of the others. You too. This was one I really sat on, and James White objected to this, to my interpretation here.

I'll come to that towards the end of this video, his objections, but let me just put it out here to show you that I think that this clearly refutes

Trinitarian Harmony and Atonement as a fruitful avenue, you know.

And so, 1 John 2 .2, it says, "...he is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Jesus dies not just for our sins, but for the whole world, and I will establish later, as I did in my last video, that whole world here most certainly includes at least some non -elect people.

That's my whole point on the whole world. So— Okay, so, and what I did in the video was

I walked through, beginning in chapter one, I provided an exegesis going back into chapter one in regards to the—

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us, my little children,

I write in these things that you may not sin, and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.

And so I went back and went into the categories of sin and propitiation and cleansing, cleansing us from all unrighteousness and things like this, and then the vitally important reality, if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. And so this concept of intercession, this concept of helosmos, parakleton, the paraclete, we have a paraclete with the

Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one, he is the source of our righteousness, and he is the helosmos, the propitiation concerning our sins and not concerning ours only, but concerning also the sins of the whole world.

And the question then becomes, how can Jesus be a helosmos that is not a helosmos?

That is, I pointed out that the natural reading in the first century of this is that the helosmos, the propitiation, is available outside of just the covenant community.

That is, as John himself had written in John chapter 11 when he quoted the high priest that by that one death, he would gather together all the children of God into one body from Jews and Gentiles brought together in one.

And so the individualistic reading of kosmos is not what the first century default would have been in any way, shape, or form.

And so I provided that, and I obviously don't think that the response took away what was said there.

So he's a propitiation, it's just the Bible clearly says Jesus died for more than just believers.

He died for unbelievers, in particular the non -elect. But the text doesn't say that.

And if I've given a consistent reading of the text, which again is specifically about what should be the focus here, what

I challenge Mike to do is to recognize how often intercession and the atonement are brought together.

Now, that's not the specific topic of this text. We're talking here more about fellowship within the body and things like that.

But still, don't quote 1 John 2 too, if you're not going to then deal with, and you might say, well,

I was going to deal with it later, and that's why I didn't. That's fine. That's why I'm trying to get to it, because I'm looking at the screen here.

And it's a long ways down there before the mark that I have for the intercession stuff. But so I have to keep pressing on.

We'll explain that in more detail later. In 1 Timothy 4, verse 10, and these are not new.

None of these passages are new. Calvinists are like, I knew you'd go there. I knew you'd quote that, Mike. Well, yes, of course you did, because these are the crucial passages.

I'm not surprised you knew I'd go there. But I think that they still hold their ground, even in the midst of the rebuttals that at least

I'm aware of. So 1 Timothy 4, 10, for this end, we toil and strive because we have our hope set on the living

God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. He's the Savior of all, especially of those who believe.

So there's a sense in which Jesus saves all. He's the Savior of all, in another sense, especially of those who believe. This works with unlimited atonement, but limited application.

That works perfectly fine. 2 Peter 2, 1. Now, interestingly enough, if you have the current edition of the

Potter's Freedom, you will see appendix number two, beginning on page, that's appendix one, appendix two, begins on page 363, two controversial texts, and those texts are 1

Timothy 4, 10, which was just cited, and then we went ahead with 2

Peter 2, 1. So it just happens, the exact same two texts, an entire appendix in the

Potter's Freedom. I will simply refer you to those so we can get to the intercession material. Let me get down here a little bit.

...bought them. So they were bought. Jesus, his purchase was made for that reason.

But let me give some other responses to Trinitarian Harmony and the Atonement. I'm going to spend a lot of time on this particular issue. We'll spend less time on some of the other issues.

What else would help refute my position here? Or excuse me, the

Trinitarian Harmony and the Atonement. What would help refute it? It would be just this. I only need the same complexity in the

Father's desires as there is in the work of Christ, so that the Father, he has a genuine desire for all to be saved, but will only save those who have faith in Jesus, and that complexity is in the

Father's intentions. I'm going to send a son to pay for all that whoever believes in him will be saved.

I'm going to send the Son, and I'm going to give a particular people to the Son, and task the

Son with their perfect salvation. That's John 6, 37 -39. That's the specific statement.

That's the specific statement of Ephesians 1. That's a statement of Romans 8, which we mentioned last time.

Again, it militates against that. So, I think you're taking only a portion of the revelation of what that intention is.

So, you have this idea of complexity in the Father's intentions. Well, when it comes to union with Christ, so that Christ's Atonement brings about forgiveness of sins, are you saying that there is a complexity in that?

Again, we can talk about whether the very self -giving of the Son has cosmic meaning to it, but we're talking about specifically

Helasmos, Atonement. The concept of propitiation, forgiveness of sins, that's where the focus has to be.

If that's in the Father's heart, then there's no disunity, there is no disharmony in the Trinity. Then the

Son's sacrifice, it can be for all people, but only apply to those who have faith. The Holy Spirit can call all to come. And again, we tend to point out that the only ones that have true and saving faith are those that are regenerated by the work of the

Holy Spirit, and these are issues that are preceding issues that we've certainly dealt with many times in the past, but it's one of the major differences.

But only regenerate those who have faith. That means we have

Trinitarian harmony in the Atonement. It seems really easy to overcome this seemingly huge objection.

It seems, on my end, it seems very easy to overcome. Well, but I don't think you're overcoming it, because you are basically saying that the

Father has other intentions, so the Son has other intentions in His death other than the specific forgiveness of the sins for those who are united with Him.

You do that by putting all of this in the hands of man. It's by your faith, whether you're going to be given by the

Father, whether you're going to be united to the Son, it's all dependent upon you. It's all dependent upon whether you have faith.

And the fact is that John chapter 6 doesn't say it's dependent upon you having faith.

John chapter 6 says it depends upon whether the Father gives you to the Son whether you're going to have faith.

Those who are given by the Father's Son come to the Son. You're saying by coming to the Son, you allow the

Father to give you to the Son. It turns things upside down. It turns a lot of things in the

Gospel of John upside down. Why don't you hear what I'm saying to you? Because you don't belong to God. Is that how you would answer?

If you were talking to someone who is rejecting what you were saying about Jesus, would you say it's because you don't belong to God, or it's saying because you haven't believed?

You know, there is a major difference there. So do I have scripture that supports this, that shows the Father has an intention that Jesus would die for all people, or his intention, his desire is that all would be saved, you know, and then the requirement is that they might have faith, that they would believe in Christ.

So his intention is to save everybody. So the Father's trying to save everybody, the

Son dies to save everybody, the Spirit's trying to save everybody. Is that really where you're going to go?

Because that doesn't work in the Old Testament, so maybe you have some dispensational discussion about that.

And so maybe it's only a New Testament thing, I don't know. But that's not even the reality today.

It's very obvious that God has blessed certain places with an abundance of light in the gospel that he's not blessed other places with.

So the idea of an equal attempt is not only completely contradicted by the history of Israel, but it's just simply not a reality.

You can pretend it, but I don't see how it's defensible. I think we have this kind of support in scripture.

So Romans 10 .21 says, but of Israel, he says, all day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.

What's interesting about Romans 10 .21 is that this actually has application in Romans to the people of Israel rejecting

Jesus and rejecting his salvation. And God's attitude and posture towards them is, I'm holding out my hands to you, which means a genuine offer.

Now if limited atonement is true, there is no genuine offer of salvation for those who are not elect, because Jesus didn't actually die for them.

So there is no real offer. Okay, now we get into some more of the David Allen objection,

Romans 10 .21 is actually right after Isaiah is very bold and says,

I was found by those who did not seek me. I became manifest to those who did not ask for me. This is simply talking about the fact that faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of Christ.

This message has gone out to Jews and Gentiles. God had been all day long,

I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people. This is actually a word of judgment upon the Jewish people.

And then that's the introduction to Romans 11. And I say then,

God has not rejected his people, as he may never be, for I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a tribe of Benjamin. So the only way to make sense of 10 and 11's relationship together is the lemma, the remnant, that there's always been a remnant, and that it's always been

God's purpose that the gospels can go out to all the Gentiles. So I'll confess how that is relevant to the objection now being made, and that is there is no true offer of the gospel if you believe in particular redemption.

But again, very, very quickly, because we've talked about this many, many times before, I do not have to have knowledge either of who the elect is to be able to say that to anyone who will return and believe they will find

Jesus Christ to be a perfect Savior. I am commanded to deliver that message. And the assumption here is that we then have to have a personal knowledge of who it is that Christ died for, for that to be a meaningful message.

And I understand why those, and I would be surprised if Pastor Winger falls into this camp, but I could be wrong.

I mean, maybe there's, I'm not sure where he stands on the lordship salvation issue.

I would like, I need to find out, that would be relevant. But this fits amongst people who have less than a strong commitment, shall we say, to the concept of the fact that God commands men everywhere to repent, that repentance is absolutely central.

You cannot separate repentance and faith. The New Testament does not. They're both gifts of God by the

Spirit who regenerates and changes our hearts and frees us from slavery to sin. And it's His kindness that leads us to repentance.

It's a gift from His hand just as faith is as well. But what we are commanded to do is

God commands men everywhere to repent. You never find the apostles as an evangelistic methodology saying you should be nice to God because God's been nice to you by having

Jesus die for you. That's not how the apostles preached the message of the gospel, and maybe how we've gotten accustomed to it, but that's not how the apostles did it.

And so the assumption is that we have to know something about this particular person's spiritual status.

Well, we do know something about this particular person's spiritual status, their spiritually dead, but in the decree of God as to whether God is going to grant this person ears to hear, eyes to see, whether He's going to free this person from slavery to sin, raise them out of spiritual death, and everything else, which we do not know.

And we are not, we aren't given that information even within the church, which is why you have apostates and all the other things you have to deal with.

Within the context of the church as well. And so the only thing that constitutes a true offer is, well, in fact,

I won't even use true offer. The only thing that would constitute the true biblical command is to repent and believe.

The rest is left to God. It's up to God at that point what to do with that individual. But to utilize our ignorance in time of God's decree in eternity as an argument against the harmony of the

Father and the Son, and as a result, you got to understand, what's the result of this understanding?

The result of this understanding is an impersonal atonement. You cannot, you, brother

Mike, do you, do you all sing that song before the throne of God? Is it before the throne of God that has the phrase, my name is written on his hands?

Somebody in Twitter tell me. I think it is that that's, that's striking me as, as, as the same song.

It's one of those songs. It's there's, there's like two or three, they're super, super popular. They're new. They're relatively new songs, but they really, over the past 20 years become amazing grace level stuff.

If that is the song, you know the words, my name is graven on his hands. It is, you pull it up.

Okay. You can't say that. You say, you might be able to say, my name was graven on his hands the day

I believed, but when Christ died, well, but for knowledge, but the point is, again, if you're going to say that Christ specifically and substitutionarily dies in behalf of every human being, then again, you may say, well, but not before Christ.

I don't know how that, how you work that out. I'll leave that up to you. But let's say every human being after Jesus, let's just even leave that out as, then you have to deal with what that death actually accomplishes.

If it accomplishes anything at all, or you simply have to go with the, it's a provisionary thing.

Christ dies to make it possible for me to be saved, but not actually to save me.

And given that you raise the objection later on, well, Christ died and there were people alive that day who would be saved three years later, but they're still under the wrath of God.

Therefore, that sounds like that is what you're saying, that you're confusing who was actually united to Christ in his death with the temporal application in time.

I'm saying that my name was written on his hands, that there was a personal atonement, that God's decree is so firm that he knew the identity of everyone who had been given to him, who has been yet united to him, and so that his atonement for their sins is actually for their sins, not sin as a big amorphous blob, but specifically my sins.

So, the atonement is a personal thing. Christ knows his sheep intimately and gives his life for them.

Otherwise, I would press you, brother, that you're turning it into, because David Allen does this, if that's where you're going for your sores, into something that is provisionary, provisional, and hypothetical rather than actual, because my sins were actually paid for at that time.

The application, God determines in my lifetime, but there can be absolutely no uncertainty of the fact that he is going to bring that application to fruition in my lifetime at the time he chooses to do so.

So, this is important. Okay. All right. Do most 21st century

Christians go through their lives without even giving the atonement? Much thought?

Well, that's a sad reality, isn't it? Does that change the fact that we should, and it should be something that we think on far more often than almost anything else in the world?

Yeah, it should be. Well, it'd help if I had my cursor on the right program.

Sure. No genuine offer. And some Calvinists will say there is, and I don't follow the logic there. It seems irrational to say that there's a genuine offer of salvation when

Jesus didn't die for you. Like, that's not genuine. That's not a genuine offer. But yet, Romans 10 .21

implies that Jesus is offered genuinely, but not received. God's reaching his hand out, but they're rejecting it. The application of Romans 10 .21

is the introduction to the next chapter. Well, it's not a chapter. It's the subject. And it's judgment.

It's describing Israel as a disobedient and obstinate people that God has been very merciful to.

But I'm sorry, the connection here is really stretched. Another passage that is sometimes brought up in this debate is

Ezekiel 33 .11, speaking of God's attitude towards those that are—

Trying to respond to an hour and a half. Honestly, yesterday

I said three to one. It's probably more like a four to one. And I'm sitting here looking at the section on atonement, which we keep talking about, and I keep saying, and it doesn't seem to be getting any closer.

I'm going to jump to it. Sorry. I need to be able to get to this.

I've got to get packed for a trip today as well. I'm not going to have any time for packing tomorrow. Tomorrow's going to be a zoo with at least three hours worth of stuff tomorrow, including

Iron Sharpens Iron with Chris Arnzen in the afternoon at two o 'clock our time, so that's four o 'clock

Eastern time. It could be on live with Chris Arnzen. I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about, but we'll cover all sorts of things as we always do when we're on together.

And I'll be doing Apology Radio, which will drop, I think, at five o 'clock, which is going to be really confusing because if we drop it at five o 'clock, it will drop right in the middle of Iron Sharpens Iron.

What can we say? Well, it's all recorded, so you finish listening to the one and then you go on to the other one.

That's it. But anyways, the point is I'm going to head to St. Charles on Thursday, starting

Friday night. Issues of social justice, unity in church, critical theory, transgenderism, homosexuality, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm really going to try to make it positive as I can, because I'll be honest with you, talking about that stuff is normally a major downer.

It really is. And just in passing, since we're live for those of you live, a couple of weeks ago,

I posted something on both of my social media feeds about my fellow elder

Jeff Durbin and his wife Candy. He's a grandfather. He's got one.

He's got a couple in the oven. He's a grandfather. And yet, remember,

I talked about the program, about the supernatural elements, about the adoption of little Augustine Gideon.

Well, Augustine Gideon is due any day. And as soon as he's born, there's going to be at least two weeks worth of operations in the hospital of the spinal spina bifida.

He's up against, I mean, when you're a grandfather and all of a sudden you're going to have a special needs baby in your house, not just visiting, but you're raising this child.

That's, I can't even imagine it. So, you know, just in passing, in light of other stuff going on, imagine that added pressure to be having to deal with slander and just all sorts of stuff like that at the same time.

But prayers appreciated in that situation. I'm going to be gone this weekend. I just get the feeling that that's when everything's going to come down.

But anyways, sometime over the next week or so, that little one's coming to the world. So prayers appreciated for that situation.

It's going to be a challenge, no twist about it. So with that having been said, this is a section where the whole reason that I identified the phrase, because I think

I did, Trinitarian Harmony in the Gospel, is because when

I preached through the book of Hebrews a number of years ago, I was once again struck, and I've said before, the book of Hebrews rose so far up in my thinking, in my favorite books, most important books.

And I've said many, many times, I really believe that the confusion, some of the shallowness that exists in evangelicalism as a whole, the fact that our doctrine of the cross is sentimentality, it's almost never connected to judgment, holiness, demonstration of God's attributes, none of those things.

I think a lot of that's due to the fact that the book of Hebrews is pretty much a closed book in much of the evangelical church.

And the primary reason for that is that it is a book of the Tanakh. It is a book of the

Old Testament. It is a book that is filled with Old Testament citations and assumes a knowledge of the narrative of the

Old Testament itself. And I think that explains a lot, because in my opinion, the longest narrative discussions of the atonement, its purposes, and therefore its application.

Because if we're told what the atonement does, then we're told for whom the atonement is made.

Because if you're a universalist and you believe everyone's going to be saved, then you're going to read that in a certain way.

If you're not a universalist, then you can read it another way. I honestly believe only universalist and reformed people are consistent at that point.

Our synergistic brethren don't have universalism, but they will read these texts in contradictory fashions, because they have to.

And what's a real challenge to me is it sounded like, and Mike, I'm going to need some real clarification here, and in no hurry.

It took me five months to respond to this. I don't care if it takes you six months. But I really need to find out what you believe the atonement actually accomplishes, and whether you believe that the high priest, that when

Jesus is presented as a high priest in the book of Hebrews, is he both high priest and sacrifice?

If he's a high priest, does he do, does he fulfill the function of the high priest? The writer of the

Hebrews plainly emphasizes his going into the holy place. Only the high priest did that.

How do you do that? With his own blood. Well, he went with the blood of the sacrifice. Jesus goes with his own blood, and then he sits down.

There's no place to sit in there, but he sits down at the right hand of the throne of God, because it's the heavenly temple. So I was confused.

I'm going to listen again here. I was confused as to where you really stand on what the intercessory work of Christ does, and whether it has the same audience, because I heard contradictory things.

So let's listen, and maybe I'll get better clarity, and we can go from there.

Okay. All right, number three, third objection. Told you I'd move faster. There is an equation or connection of intercession with atonement, and it's a little bit complicated if you haven't heard it before.

So I'm going to try and break it down as simply as I can, but let me play some clips where Dr. White talks about this issue.

The idea in short is that whoever Jesus intercedes for is the same as the people he died for, and everyone he intercedes for will be saved, and therefore everyone he died for will be saved, and therefore whoever isn't saved, he doesn't intercede for, and he didn't die for.

That's kind of the idea. Let me play a clip from But I don't remember you saying anything about intercession and connecting atonement with intercession at all.

I may have missed it, but I think it's vitally important, and until you deal with that, we're never going to get anywhere, because I don't think you're really dealing with Paul's theology at that point.

Okay, I'm going to play another clip also. Now, I just point out Paul's theology as in 1

Timothy 2, and when you did deal with that, and I might have just skipped over that, sorry, but when you dealt with 1

Timothy 2, and you did at least recognize that we said there are different kinds of people, kings and those, but you didn't go on to there's one mediator between God and man, the man

Christ Jesus. So is Jesus the mediator between mankind universally or between mankind as in those who will be redeemed?

This is important because we have to know what does the mediator accomplish? What's the basis of his intermediation?

How can Christ intercede for someone? He has to have a foundation.

If he's pleading for mercy for his people from the

Father, there has to be a foundation for that, we both know what that foundation is. That foundation is substitutionary atonement.

So is there substitutionary atonement made for all, but then the high priest only intercedes for some?

So he breaks the parallel with the high priest of the Old Testament? These are really important things.

Regarding this in a second, but let me first respond a little bit to that.

The concern is that I didn't mention intercession in my video and that my points are therefore basically irrelevant as a result.

This is something that is irrelevant to my position, irrelevant to what

I've laid out for years. This is all laid out in there, not as extensively as in other people's works, obviously, but it's always been a central aspect to my understanding of the atonement.

I understand here, this is what's showing me, okay, Calvinist, non -Calvinist, we're talking right past each other. Here's me, a list of scriptures that seem to clearly refute limited atonement.

Here's the Calvinist. Nothing you said matters, Mike, because you didn't deal with intercession and you didn't deal with Trinitarian harmony in the atonement, so nothing you said matters.

So we're talking right past each other. So this video, I'm talking right to you guys, this is the idea. So let me play the next clip and we'll see, does this intercession thing really refute the idea that Jesus died for all people?

The person who promotes this universal atonement concept must, of necessity, unless you're a

Universalist, reject the idea that the audience for whom the

Son intercedes is the same audience for which he dies. Bingo. But it's right here in Paul.

Now, I have a feeling when I say it's right here in Paul, I wasn't talking about Hebrews, I was talking about Romans 8. And that, it's been a month and a half since we posted the refutation of all of David Allen's comments on Romans 8.

We have his books, his books are still sitting right there. I have a little cleaning to do in here. And reshelving of books.

And we, everything, everything that he has on Romans 8, we dealt with it.

And that's what I was talking about, is that when you look at Romans 8, he who died, yea, who rather was risen again and is interceding, he's at the right hand of the

Father. For whom? For a specific people that have just been identified a sentence earlier as the elect of God.

Who, a few sentences before that, they were predestined by God. Nothing about, based on their faith, foreseen faith, foreseen merit, whatever else it might be, nothing like that at all.

It's been chapters since any of that was discussed. And so to try to read that in really is a conviction of Paul as having any ability to be clear in what he's stating.

We have to reject the idea that the audience for whom Jesus intercedes is the same as the audience for whom

Jesus died. Right. Is that right? Do I have to? Like, is that really logically required in my view, or can

I just say that Jesus intercedes for all who come to God through him, which is available to all, but only applied to those who believe?

Okay, so if that's what you're saying, then you're still saying that he intercedes, that his intercession is a different group.

So you're breaking, so the shedding of the blood in the sacrifice is different from the intercession.

So Jesus only intercedes for those who draw the eye into God by him, by their exercise of free will.

So his intention in his self -giving is different than his intention in his intercession.

Is that what's being said? Because there's going to be stuff said later that I'm not sure if that really is what's being said, but just so that everyone sees what the issue is.

If you make that, if you break it apart there, that we need to recognize that.

That like the atonement, the intercession of Christ is made available to everybody, but it's only applied to those who believe.

Intercession is made available to everybody. How can intercession, intercession is an act of Christ.

I mean, do you, this sort of illustrates, once you start going this direction, the personal element of atonement is gone, and now the personal element of intercession is gone, because now intercession becomes this thing that is available to people rather than something that Christ actually accomplishes in and of himself.

It's the same thing with atonement. Atonement is something that Christ accomplishes.

It's not just a provision. It's something powerfully and perfectly and purposefully done by the

Son of God. It's not just available. I mean, you know, over the past few days,

I'm surprised that email services can even survive any longer around the days after Thanksgiving, because, oh my goodness, every time, you know,

I'll be sitting here on the phone, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, you know, you're sitting there, checkbox, checkbox, delete, checkbox, a whole screen will go by.

There's another screen. Everything is available. Right now, if you'll just avail yourself of the

Black Friday sales or the Cyber Monday sales or what's today, Tuesday giving stuff, I don't know, but I've gotten more spam email.

I've gotten over a thousand spam emails since the day before Thanksgiving.

Over a thousand. Easily. Just late, late, late, late, late, late, late, late, late, late. And all of them are addressed to me, of course, and we want you.

No, it's impersonal. There's nothing personal about it at all. Is that what atonement is? Is this this big, general, it's available now, come and get it.

You see, it depersonalizes atonement and intercession by its very definition has to be personal.

It's one representing others before another. This is inter -trinitarian. This is between the father and the son, and the son is representing his people before the father in his death.

So if he doesn't represent someone for whom he died, he is failing as the high priest.

So that's why this has to be pressed. This has to be, I need to know what's actually meant here.

And by the way, I appreciate, not only did Mike contact me after the last one, you know, appreciate the attitude, brother and stuff like that.

And I said, you know, we would probably get a long ways if we could get together over a chips and salsa and a good

Mexican meal. Next time I'm in Southern California, we'll try to do that. We probably would get a little farther than just going back and forth, but not everybody else get to listen in.

That's, that's, that's, that's the issue. But this, this subject,

I was thankful that I at least saw in the midst of all the nastiness and that Mike, I'm not sure if you've seen all the nasties going on out there, but it's not really a part of your, your world.

So you may not be seeing it all happening, but in midst of all that nastiness, it was nice to see a number of people saying, you know,

I really appreciate how you guys are doing this, the back and forth. It's very, it's very educational. And it's, it's not filled with rancor and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

And that, that part, very, very true. This subject, you know, a couple of times you've, you've said, yeah, you know, let me explain that because this sort of sounds weird to people.

And no, you're, you're right. It does sound weird to people, but it shouldn't. It shouldn't.

This should be stuff that, this should be, look, let me put it this way. Tell me that I'm wrong, not

Mike, people generally in the audience. And I will hope, I would like to think that Mike would agree with me on this.

I don't, I don't know. But tell me that I'm wrong. The average Christian, the average biblically oriented

Christian should know so much more and should be much more conversant with and spend much more time thinking about Jesus as prophet, priest, and King than said

Christian knows about any form of end times speculation and prophecy.

Tell me I'm wrong, but is that the way that it is? We all know that there's a much higher probability in American evangelicalism that you've seen left behind than you've read a single full length book on the subject of the atoning work of Christ.

Am I right? I think I am. So yeah, this is, this is important stuff.

Really, really important stuff. Pressing on. It makes my theology really logically tight. I think it makes a lot of sense.

In Romans 8, it's speaking of those who have received Christ, not, not necessarily those for whom

Christ exclusively paid for it, right? Okay, this is, this is David Allen. You're, you're, you're pulling from David Allen.

We, with all, all proper humility, took that argument apart.

What we're talking about in Romans 8 are those that God foreknew, and you, you do know what progenosco means there.

You do know that it's an active verb. You do know it's something God does. It's not taking in future knowledge or future events. And predestined, and called, that's effective calling, because everyone who's called is justified.

You've got to, you've got to deal with the reality that the only meaningful, that, that Mike, if you apply the same hermeneutical principles that you would use to defend the deity of Christ to Romans chapter 8, what it's going to teach is that God sovereignly chooses a people.

He predestines them to be conformed to the image of his Son. He calls them. He justifies them.

Justification is a divine act. You say, well, yes, but it's on the basis of faith.

But Paul doesn't put faith in there, because what he's talking about is what God is going to certainly do.

And what he's certainly going to do is going to act upon what he has eternally foreknown, predestined to occur.

And what that involves in time is calling through the gospel. Yes, he grants faith and repentance, that's a given, but he justifies and he glorifies.

And that's all the work of God. And that's what gives us our confidence that he's working all things after, after, for our good.

Same God, he says to Ephesians, works all things after the counsel of his will. And that's when he then says, who can bring a charge against God's elect?

God's the one who justifies. That's the same action as before. Jesus Christ, the one who died, rose again, intercedes for them.

For who? The elect of God, specific people. This is plainly what is taught here, to go back chapters and grab something and say, ah, well, this is just simply talking about, you know, faith is, free will has already been established.

Well, free will was already destroyed in Romans 1 through 3. Free will was buried and the headstone was put on it.

There is none who seeks after God. There's none who understands.

There's none who seeks after God. All of them, every single one of them,

Jew and Gentile, both together, all condemned. There's none that seek after God, but God.

God's the one who has to do these things. So that free will concept was destroyed long time ago.

It's that whole idea of autonomous actions of faith, all of this stuff was already dealt with.

But to then come into Romans 8 and try to drag that back in as a determinative factor is to say to Paul, Paul, you forgot this.

What Paul meant to do, is he meant to repeat all this stuff about faith?

No, Paul is focusing us upon what God does. What God does.

It's all about him. It's not about us. And yeah, that is a huge difference between monergists and synergists.

Whatever kind of synergist, there's all different kinds of synergists, but that is a huge difference, a huge difference indeed.

Romans 8, when you get to Romans, because he connects the intersection with Hebrews and Romans 8 in James White's video. In Romans 8, it's speaking about those who are in Christ.

We've shown we're all lost in sin in Romans 1, 2, and 3. That is by faith that we'll be saved in Romans 4, 5.

We deal with the sin nature and the flesh and all that in Romans 6, 7. And how we're dead and then we're made new in Christ and we're married to him as his bride.

And then Romans 8, it's about the benefits of those who are in Christ. Those who are in Christ. That's the idea. Not just the benefits of those for whom

Jesus died, but those who are in Christ who have received the things for which Jesus did, the things Jesus did. So yeah, his point though, when you get to this concept of intercession, is that Jesus, he dies for just certain people, and because whoever he dies for, he also intercedes for, and whoever he died and intercedes for is automatically going to be saved.

What then shall we say to these things, if God is for us, who is against us?

He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

So if you're even going with what you're going with, this is about those who are in Christ, that would limit the atonement.

Because the connection is made, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

So with him, the all things comes with him. Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns? If you want to make this, again, a universal atonement, who is the one who condemns the ones for whom

Christ has died? You would say

God is, because God will condemn all those for whom Christ died who do not believe.

Right? You want to talk about plain and clear, there's plain and clear. Therefore, you either have universalism and everyone's in heaven, or you have limited atonement and there's no other option.

And this, I think, is a false dilemma. No, I think it's a very solid dilemma, that if you will use the same hermeneutics that you would in defense of the resurrection or defense of the deity of Christ or the person of the

Holy Spirit, if you apply it here in Romans 8. Let me just put it this way.

What if next year you decide to take in the

Phoenix Open? And that's actually January, as I recall. But you decide to take the

Phoenix Open. You come over. Here's the microphone. I get the books out of the way. And we sit here and we just start wherever we want to start in Romans 8.

And we just lay out the text and just start going word by word, phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence, walking all the way through.

Who's going to have to jump out first? I'm not going to have to jump out of that context.

I'm not going to have to. Next week. Next week when

I'm sitting here, there will be a certain

Tyndale House Greek New Testament in red lambskin. I had to.

I had to. Because it's been shipped. So, might even get it tomorrow. That would be nice.

Though I wouldn't take it with me. No way. No, no. I don't have a good enough cover for it yet.

Because the cover would have to have steel plates in it, which means it would never get through TSA. Kevlar.

Maybe I can get Kevlar plates to front and back. Because I'm not going to let that lambskin ever get scratched.

Well, I know who I get to repair it if something really bad happened. But yeah, my

Jeffrey Rice rebind is coming. So, sorry, Mike. See, Mike, if you had Jeffrey Rice rebinds, he'd be a

Calvinist. I don't want to start a rumor that post -Tenebrous

Locks only does Bible rebinds for Calvinists. That's not what I said. I'm, we're being misinterpreted by many people these days.

Purposefully, by some, not by Mike. But yeah, dude, you need to be careful.

Because if you do get together with me and I show you that Greek New Testament, that's it. You're just going to go, limited time, right there.

It's done. Anyway, where are you going to, go ahead, go ahead. I see. Well, you know, you mentioned this and I had to laugh because I'll never forget.

The first really nice Bible that I got in the early 1990s, maybe late 18, 1980s, not 1880s, was,

I believe it was an open expanded edition. Remember that? The open Bible? Yeah, there's an open

Bible right there. Yeah. And I'll never forget taking it to work. And I worked with a bunch of Mormons in the warehouse.

At break time, they would come in and I was the payroll clerk. So, you know, they had a problem with a paycheck or something like that.

They came to me to get it fixed. And so one day about three or four of them came in at once and they had spotted my

Bible and they all wanted to look at it. And they're all standing around murmuring over, this is what a

Baptist Bible looks like. And it's like, so let me get this straight then.

If you read this Bible, it makes you a Baptist. So I guess the same thing would go with Jeffrey's work.

Yes, yes. It's the same concept. So all the Armenians can stand around, pour over the beautiful lambskin cover and automatically become

Calvinists. Yep, they just give in right then and there. More than they could bear. Yeah, so here's the open Bible.

It's not a date in this one, but I can tell it was back there because I love these stickers. It says born again, my little

Bible there. There's a JRW stamp type thing that I put in there.

But yeah, this is unfortunately not even usable.

I mean, okay, a blessed are you, O Lord. Okay, I can read it now, but wow, it's hard.

And this is back when you can see like well, Revelation 20, 21, half the stuff is underlined in all sorts of different colors and stuff like that.

So yeah, so there's the open Bible. How do we get on to that? I don't know how we got on that. I took a break there.

Let's get back into this. Dilemma. I think that limited atonement is being forced on us through a bad reading of scripture.

So we're going to look at the details of intercession and I'm going to share with you guys some refutations that I think are really valid.

And I think they do directly answer the issue of intercession. Now, let me quote to you a little bit of what

James White said on the topic of intercession. I'm going to put up the scripture. He quoted Hebrews 7 .25. He was 7 .25.

Consequently, he's able to save to the uttermost those who... Okay, now this is a possible spot where there might be a little back and forth.

I don't want, again, to destroy the brotherhood or anything.

But let's just, again, Hebrews 7, the former priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

Well, the arguments could be being presented by the author is that Christ, because of his resurrection, is able to bring an end to the partialness of the old covenant and the priesthood because he holds his priesthood permanently.

He does not have to pass it along to someone else. And so, but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood operabaton, without successor, permanently.

There's a whole dividing line on the meaning of operabaton, in fact, if you want to look it up. Therefore, because of his everlasting life, because he holds his priesthood permanently,

Sodzain, Hothankai Sodzain Aistapontelos Dunatai, he is able to save to the uttermost.

Now, what I pointed out, and it's going to be responded to here, is that the next line gives us the ones that he saves perfectly, that he has the capacity to save perfectly.

Which simply means Jesus only saves those who come through him to God.

Not anybody who takes any other direction or anything else. Those who see that Jesus is the way, those are the ones that he is going to save perfectly.

And the why of his being able to do so is he always lives, literally, always living aista, so as to intercede huper alton on their behalf.

And I said, this is really where you get a feeling as to whether someone has a theocentric or reading of the

New Testament. Because I would argue that the natural reading of the text is talking about God's ability in Christ to save perfectly, because that's what fits the context of Hebrews.

Hebrews is talking about the reality that there's nothing to go back to, the old has been fulfilled, the new has come, the

Hebrew Christians are under great pressure to go back, and the answer is no, there's nothing to go back to.

We have, and in fact, the next chapter is going to be the New Covenant chapter, Jeremiah 31 fulfilled.

In the New Covenant, they all know me from the least of grace to them, their sins are forgiven, something you don't have under the

Old Covenant regime, which was about to pass away. I believe Hebrews is written before the destruction of the

Temple in Jerusalem. So, the natural reading is the

God -centered reading. But I have encountered those who, even though it's talking about Jesus, it's talking about him living forever, it's talking about him having his priesthood forever, even it's talking about he is able, he saves, he saves forever, he always lives to make a decision for them.

All of that, and yet you have a descriptive, participial phrase that says he doesn't save everybody, he saves the specific people who come to God through him,

Christians, not Buddhists, not Muslims, not anybody else. And yet there are people who would say, there, there, there, there it is.

Oh yeah, God's everything else. But you see, I'm the one that chooses whether I come to God through him, that's me, there's my control factor.

And I said, that's frightening to me, it really is, it's common as can be.

But that's how to get out of what a text is saying, that's reading something into it that ends up turning it on its head.

And that's what is about to be addressed here. And in a way, it's concerning to me.

And it would help again, if I clicked back into the right program. Come near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

And it's worth noting that he says that the synergist, which I'm not, but I am not a

Calvinist. You're a synergist by any meaningful definition of the term.

You can redefine it, but the historical meaning of the term fits what you say.

And that is, God is acting, you are acting, it does not make you an equal actor with God.

But the final result is determined by two sources.

Neither source by itself can accomplish the desired end, that's synergism.

There can be synergism that gives much more space to the synergist or much less, it's still synergism.

You're not a monergist, so if you're saying it's not monergism or synergism, then what is it?

What else could it be? I don't think there's any reason to not use, feel free to differentiate your synergism from somebody else's.

I differentiate my monergism from a hyper -Calvinist. So there you go.

I would always focus on who draw near to God through him. And he kind of derided the idea, and maybe other

Calvinists would follow his lead here, that we would focus on this concept in this verse. And I would just say, it seems really strange to me to be bothered that I focus on a caveat in the text of scripture about who

Jesus is able to save, those who draw near to God through him. Now did you catch that? Now, Mike, did you mean that?

Because this is big. In fact, it's so big, let's play it again.

This is important, make sure I get the right line here. Don't want a textual error. A caveat in the text of scripture about who

Jesus is able to save, those who draw near to God through him. So the caveat in the text of scripture is, who is

Jesus able to save? Those who draw near to God through him.

He can only save those who fulfill this condition. Not only is that synergism to the max, but that's exactly what

I was saying. That's turning the text on its head and making the action of drawing near to God through him the determinative issue, rather than the ability of Jesus to save, perfectly, a specific people.

Not that he is limited to saving, but they're the only ones that he will save.

I mean, exclusivism is a part of the gospel. There is no other name given among men.

Does that mean that God is somehow limiting? I mean,

I suppose you could say in some sense, yes, God limits it in that way, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have done it otherwise.

So is that really what you're saying? Because that would be really clearly the difference between Erasmus and Luther, but you're on Erasmus' side, not

Luther's side. Since he always lists to make intercession for them, does that mean intercedes for those who draw near to God?

That's consistent with my theology, but James White's perspective here seems to be that rather than Jesus interceding for whoever draws near, it's a whoever thing.

He's there standing interceding. Whoever draws near, he's interceding for them. Rather, he intercedes for a select group of people who he died for, and they're all going to be saved, unless you're going to say

Christ failed in some sense, or he's interceding for people in hell, and things like that. There is no whoever in Romans 7 .25.

Where's the whoever? It's a participial phrase describing the people who, and it's done in such a way that it's just descriptive.

It's not prescriptive. It's not saying, you do this so that Jesus can save you.

No, Jesus saves only those who are described in this fashion. If you're trying to come to God through Buddhism, Jesus isn't saving you.

If you're trying to come to God through Islam, Jesus isn't saving you. If you're trying to come to God through your own works, you have to be coming to God through him, but that's descriptive.

You're turning the description, a participial phrase describing a people, into a prescription of what you must do.

You must do this action to join yourself to this group so that Jesus can save you.

That is an upside -down reading of the text, and it destroys the apologetic of Hebrews, because it takes it back to, it's about you.

And what's the conclusion of this section going to be? After you get through 7, 8 is the new covenant, 9, accomplished redemption, entered into, one sacrifice, one time, and what does it do?

It perfects those for whom it's made. It perfects those for whom it's made. All of it's going to be focused upon the perfecting work of Christ.

None of it's going to be focused upon us. And in fact, the explanation for the apostasy that these people were seeing, people going back, was never on Jesus.

It was never about what he did or did not do. It was always upon whether they were, what does

Hebrews 6 say? Good soil or bad soil? Scripture's consistent on that. I don't know how you handle that particular stuff about apostasy.

I don't know. But my wife wants me to take out 2 .5

sticks of butter. No, I don't know.

No, no. I bought her one of these really nice food prep mixer things.

I mean, it's like this big and, you know, and she's just been watching way too many cooking shows, and she's having too much fun, and she's making cookies and stuff like this, and I'm not even going to be able to fit into my coogies before long.

But she wants me to take 2 .5 sticks of butter out. So we'll wrap up here in six minutes, and I can text her going,

I'm actually not at home, but when I get home, if I get home before you, I will take out 2 .5

sticks of butter. This is live. Can you tell? We're professionals.

We don't let anything distract us. Rabbit, squirrel, whatever. Phone. Remember when

Clementine called me on the air?

You know, we just take ourselves so seriously. There are certain people who think that.

Anyways, we press on. So here's how James White said it. He says, when you look at this text in any matter,

I'm quoting him now, from 55 minutes and 40 seconds into his video, he says, when you look at this text in any fair matter, it's focus is on the capacity and power of Jesus.

The text is functioning to demonstrate to Jewish Christians that there's nothing to go back to. It's all been fulfilled in him. It focuses on the mediator's capacity, and then he goes on and basically says, to bring everyone to God who comes through him.

I can kind of agree with all of that. I don't see any issue with agreeing with all of it right there, except when he says, he goes on to say,

God can't do anything apart from man's cooperation. That, in my view, in the limited atonement view,

I'm saying, Jesus, here he is, he's interceding, but it won't work unless man cooperates. And that God can't, that's a key word, can't save unless we come to God through him.

And I'd say it's not about can't, it's just about what God wants. God could save us, he could just zap us all into salvation if he so choose.

But what you're saying is, he is so chosen not to, so that God cannot save apart from the autonomous actions of man.

We're not talking theoretical, what could have God done? What we're saying is, in your system as you understand it, without the autonomous act of the human being,

Jesus can't save anyone. So, I don't understand how a certain people can be given to Jesus, John 6, 37 -39, and that he can save them perfectly.

I don't understand that. I don't understand how that fits. There's got to be some way that you're finding some room for free will in there.

I don't know where it is. So, it's not just some theoretical thing, it is what you're saying is the way that God has chosen to create his universe, he cannot, he will not, if you want to say cannot, take cannot out, he will not save anyone apart from this particular.

So, Jesus can save perfectly, but he is limited as to who he can save by human action.

Is that the fair understanding? Chooses to do, but he doesn't. He says, no, it's my choice.

You better have faith. This is my condition I'm putting on you. It's fully in the power of God to give us this condition of faith, and it doesn't have to do with limiting

God's power, limiting God's ability, limiting Christ's sacrifice or his intercession with some sort of weakness.

It's a condition that God has placed upon salvation. It's consistent through scripture. You have to have faith. That's a requirement, and that's consistent throughout the book of Hebrews as well.

So, James White's complaint against the non -Calvinist here is that we're saying something like, yeah, Jesus did all that, but I have to come to God through him, and that's a complaint.

But Hebrews 7 .25, the very verse he brought up, that's what it says. Those who draw near to God through him, and you can't fault me for just looking at the text and highlighting what it's saying right there in the text.

I don't think of any way to really fault for that. So, I'm faulting you for taking a text that is directing us to the power of Jesus to save utterly and using a participial phrase that is being used as a descriptor and turning it into the central assertion of the text.

That's what I'm faulting you for. I hope you can hear that. And I just have to ask you, is that not what you're doing?

Do you really think that was the author's intention, was to take a descriptor and make it the prescription that determines who

Jesus can and cannot save? See, again, people get offended when

I talk about God -centeredness versus man -centeredness, but that is the dividing line between monergism and synergism, and how we read so many texts.

And I think that's why so much of the Old Testament's statements about God's sovereignty over human affairs get ignored, because if you want plain, if you want clear,

God does what he desires in the heavens and the earth. He accomplishes it. Psalm 33, what men desire, what men plan,

God frustrates it all. What God desires, God plans, he does. And yet, I think really clear -thinking synergists say, no,

God wants to do all sorts of things he doesn't get to do, because we limit him. And some people even use the mistranslation of the

King James. They limited the God of Israel in Psalms, what is it, 74? It's in the 70s somewhere.

It's a mistranslation, but I've actually had people go there, just to come up with that perspective.

Oh, goodness. Psalm 78? Okay, I knew it was in the 70s somewhere.

Okay, I've got butter to get out of the refrigerator. My mom ain't happy, nobody happy.

I was gonna go for 90 minutes, we've gone for 90 minutes. There's plenty there, hopefully, to... Now, Mike, I think over the next section,

I heard at one point what I thought was two contradictory things. At one point saying, like the beginning there,

Jesus only intercedes for a different group, and then I thought later you said that he intercedes for all those from whom he died.

I would appreciate a clarification on that. Even if it's just a text, which one's which? That would help, but I felt like there was some ambiguity there, some lack of clarity at that point.

So, no program tomorrow, because I'm already doing three hours, minimally, on air tomorrow, just on different venues.

Iron Sharpens Iron and Apology Radio. Then I'll be in St. Charles, fly

Thursday, I'm there Friday, Saturday, Sunday, fly back on Sunday. So, Lord willing, the week after that should be fairly normal, as far as programs go.

I can tell you right now, one of those programs will be a review of the article that was made available either overnight or this morning, one of the two, in regards to Rosaria Butterfield.

I've already corresponded with Rosaria and was unsurprised to discover that her reading and mine lined up very, very clearly, and I was also unsurprised by the fact that exactly what

I predicted was exactly what we got. That is, things like, well, in the bibliography, there's a unbeliever who's actually a bad person, therefore, that must mean associationalism, your standard.

I've encountered this over and over again in my own teaching. Rosaria has a

PhD, she is a professor. When you cite books in your works, you put them in your bibliography, it does not mean you believe what the people of every book you cite believes.

This is just so basic. And there is even, I'll just mention this quickly, there is even, in the article,

Butterfield talks about praying in concentric circles, and then you go read it, and she's talking about, you know,

I start, did I say reading? Praying. I pray. I start praying for, you know, those in the inner circle are going to be family, those immediately around me, and then the next circle is going to be, you know, the people

I see around me in my neighborhood, you know, church. And so what she's saying is,

I start here, and then I move out in concentric circles, farther and farther away from where I have knowledge of people, or maybe interaction with people and things like that.

You know, eventually praying about national things and stuff like that, but concentric circles.

And so you start small, and you get larger and larger and larger. Makes sense. It's a nice way of ordering who you're going to be praying for and stuff like that.

She's a New Ager because of that, because you can Google concentric circles, and New Agers have used the same phrase.

That's exactly what I was afraid of. It's exactly what I was expecting. So, we'll, you know, and I remember when, you know, when

I would teach, well, want a clear example of this? If I say to people, if you're studying the relationship between the

Quran and the New Testament, and if I were to do a class on the

Quran and the New Testament, then as a scholar, you put together your class outline, what's called a syllabus, and then you'll have certain books.

I have frequently in my classes, just to let people know who want to dig stuff up, go find those syllabi are probably still online.

You will find in those syllabi books by non -Christians. In fact, you'll find books by heretics.

You'll find books by heretics, because the only way to actually respond to them is to know what they believe.

And so, anyone who assumes that every book you cite in your bibliography means you actually agree with everything in that book, it's really a problematic thing.

And so, we'll be talking about that. And so, that'll be when we get back. So, no more programs this week.

And those of you in the St. Charles area, hope to see you then, bringing some of my best coogies with me on this trip.