Responding to Pastor Mike Winger on Radio Free Geneva

Trinitarian Harmony in the Atonement and Why Context Matters

You constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this, God's suffering, God's suffering, God's suffering, suffering, suffering. 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. Do you mean to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ?

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.

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 you were listening to it? Bl-bl-bl-bl-blah-bl-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah... He wouldn't make any sense to him, a self-righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk.

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.

You're 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 that the choice of that meat.

From our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Safe from all those moderate Calvinist Dave Hunt fans and those who have read and reread George Bryson's book.

We are Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for his own eternal glory.

And welcome to the dividing line you notice I brought two sweaters in today just because I knew we were doing two different programs and This one a more fun one because I think this will be more fun Because it's more fun to respond to Mike winger than to certain other people who remain nameless By a long shot what in the world?

No. Yeah, sure. Actually, this is one of about the top five colorful coochies that I own so I thought just open it. Don't break a camera. Well, you know if the cameras can't handle it then they're just not up to you know, recording the You know the best that that we have to offer anyhow, I Actually also owe another RFG to Michael Brown both Michael Brown and Mike winger Recorded videos back when I was in Colorado in July yeah July of this year and I think it was because both of them did at the same time I never got to either one of them because I sort of felt like okay.

I owe a response to both and It just takes a long time. Mike's Mike's video is an hour and a half long. So if you figure it takes minimally three times. The amount of time to respond to something you can see what's gonna happen here.

That would take us out to you know, like five hours and then and then it gets. It gets a little crazy after that. So I just didn't get around either one, but I didn't forget them. I had the I had the downloads and and I I knew that eventually we need to get around to him and so I saw Mike on Twitter say something not about this, but something else and I thought you know, I Need to I need to get around doing that.

So I tracked down the the information I tracked down the video and listen to it again. I've listened to it a couple times and so we're gonna we're gonna take a shot at it. My gut feeling is if I do really well we'll get through to a Section where he was talking about Intercession and we'll probably have to do that tomorrow because we're doing in the program tomorrow.

I might as well make it a radio-free, Geneva and I really Because Look I Appreciate the fact that Mike started this video. He he played a mighty fortress on a guitar. You know, he Mike's a really nice guy we had lunch together I Realize there are people who will consider me a Compromiser because I would call him my brother and all the rest of kind of stuff fine.

I'm not gonna Really not like I've said for a couple years now not concerned about the the Calvinist Kids Club these days. But At the same time Mike you frustrate me. You just you frustrate me and here's here's why you frustrate me.

We're gonna play this part. Well, hopefully we'll get to it. You you go to the big three and My assumption Mike is that that you have this. But When you're responding to a verse Numerous verses that I have addressed rather fully in here and then don't Show any knowledge of that it's frustrating, you know for when you when you went to what looked at first Timothy 2 4 and Following and said now some Calvinist say but then you didn't Give the key issue of what Calvinist say you did you did say that Calvinist say these are kinds of people.

Because it talks about kings and those of authority the whole point Paul saying don't limit your your prayers. Even those people who are persecuting you pray for those people are persecuting God has his people everyone but then you didn't go on to See that the rest of the text talks about Christ as mediator.

And in fact When we get into mediation stuff probably tomorrow at one point You said one thing and another point it's complete opposite and so it's got to be some clarification there. But but you frustrate me because either I'm an extremely Inept Communicator of Theology and that's not what people have told me down to the years, but either I'm a really inept communicator or There's something keeping you from hearing what I have to say.

Because for example your definition of the Trinitarian harmony in the atonement argument doesn't really grasp what's actually being said and Fundamentally What we end I ended up hearing from you was you you called that argument as a trump card.

That allows me to dismiss biblical passages and that's The exact opposite of what I'm saying. Let me start from the beginning and Point out because this is this was really I listened again this morning I'm almost afraid to say that I listened on a bike ride.

Because there are certain people who you know, just they're gonna pick on everything. But I listened to it and a number of other things on on a bike ride this morning specifically to have it fresh in my mind and here's Here's what I want you to hear and then we'll start interacting with what you actually said.

I hope Everybody else just gets to listen in to my conversation with Mike basically I'm inviting you all to to participate in in it that in that in that fashion I Get the I get I hear what you're saying.

What you're saying is that you feel that Calvinists have a Philosophical system this term you used a philosophical system that trumps the plain teaching of the Bible and And so when we look at the verses you think plainly clearly refute Limited atonement that we just Subservient them to a Philosophical system and what I'm trying to communicate to you I'm gonna use an illustration and I don't want you to be offended by.

I want you to think it through please To hear what I'm saying. When When I did have debated over the years Roman Catholics on the subject of justification. If you listen to Jerry Mattis X Roberts and Janice the various Roman Catholics that I've debated over the years on that particular subject.

You will see that They will go to Passages of Scripture that are not about justification but that mention the word and Will attempt to build a theology out of them. For example, Jesus at one point says Wisdom is justified by her children.

There's term justification. So Wisdom and you know the works that the children do and and you start trying to develop this doctrine of justification. In I think the first book I wrote I think it's in the fatal flaw.

Which is the first first book I wrote I Think in there or the second one one the two. I use the analogy. I said if you if you want to know what? If you want to know, you know, I got a new car recently.

I got a Subaru Forester, I Love it because it's just got gadgets galore. I mean, I feel like I'm flying a Star Trek space shuttle. I'm really all the stuff. It's It can do and all the rest of stuff. So it's got an owner's manuals.

That's that big and If you go to the owner and so it's only become more real instead of less real over time this illustration. But if you want to know about the lights on your car. You go to the section that tells you about the lights now you may find passing references to the lights in the section on the battery or the electrical system or Maintenance and in a listing of the light bulbs, you know at some point.

But that's not where you're gonna get. It is unwise to not start with the section on the lights and just derive a doctrine of lights. From the section on the battery and the section on maintenance in the section over here.

Because those sections aren't meant to actually tell you about the lights in the same way when. So so I made the application to Roman Catholics if you're going to passages that aren't about justification.

When you have a whole section you have chapters on justification Romans 3 4 5 Galatians 2 3 you've got entire Blocks of arguments and teaching on the subject of justification by faith. You start there and then you interpret wisdom we justify better children in light of that.

Not the other way around you don't overthrow the the lengthy Discourses for the sake of some kind of One-off mention side mention over on the side in the same way when debating with Unitarians who deny the Doctrine the Trinity the Doctrine the Trinity is derived from a a View of the entirety of the revelation of Scripture and in fact in the New Testament.

It is the it's the matrix in which the New Testament even makes sense. It's being written by people who've experienced God in this fashion. And therefore they don't have to stop every time and say oh, this is what we believe.

This is a new doctrine or something like that because it wasn't a new doctrine. It was how God had revealed himself. And so you have to take the entirety of What the New Testament teaches together to understand the doctrine of the Trinity and what Unitarians will do is they'll take a single verse over Here in a single verse of it that may not have anything to do With who Jesus is the deity of Christ or the deity the Holy Spirit the personality Holy Spirit, whatever else might be.

They will take a reference here and say I'm gonna take this to mean that Jesus couldn't be God because of this Side reference over here. Now the topic in that section isn't about who Jesus is. But a reference is made and therefore I'm gonna build a theology out of that.

You have to deal with Unitarians on that level at all time. So those are two areas that you and I would agree. The justification with Roman Catholics Unitarianism with those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity and so you would see yes.

You have to have a consistent Theology that's overarching overall scripture and you need to derive that from the texts that are actually discussing the subject not from texts. That just happen to mention a word or phrase and therefore you develop something out of that.

Well Mike the verses you use Are never about the subject that you then use them to build a systematic theology out of. The verses I use are derived from entire passages. Addressing a particular subject whether it's John 6 John 8 John 10 John 17 Ephesians 1 Romans 8 Romans 9 Etc, etc lengthy blocks of text and The subject is what we're talking about whether it's election whether it's the effect of the atonement the whole argument of Hebrews 7 8 9 and 10 is an argument for Particular redemption and limited atonement if you understand the entire argument of the book of Hebrews.

You can't take a verse over here and a verse over there and string all this stuff together and say this is a biblical presentation but that's what I see you doing so that tells me you have a tradition and I Remember, there's a there's a guy sitting across the the window from me.

I remember the look on his face. The first time in a building doesn't exist anymore the first night. I started presenting Reformed theology and Yeah He had some traditions he had to work through. Yeah, excuse me.

Do you mean what. But what about we'll get to that? But yeah there that was yeah. Mm-hmm. So You could say to me but you have traditions too yes, I do but I hear Where you're coming from and I understand Where you're coming from I understand Where David Allen's coming from who you are very dependent upon and I don't know if you've had time I would highly Encourage you if you choose to respond to this to my response I Would highly encourage you to Look back.

What was it? I don't think it was a full month ago we did a Response there was a decalvinizing Romans 8 as I recall was one of the topics and I Detected in your comments on Romans 8 your reliance on David Allen and we did a Very thorough completely read everything that David Allen has in both of his books on this subject on Romans 8 and I'm I Don't know how to say this without sounding braggadocious, but we refuted it Completely.

I do not believe there is any way to repair The position that he took he was in error just fundamentally and So I strongly encourage you to Listen to those as well Because it'd be very important in in formulating a meaningful response.

So what's frustrating to me is that you think That my asserting the Trinitarian Trinitarian harmony in the atonement is a Philosophical thing. It's not a philosophical thing unless you're taking his philosophy the idea that The triune God will be consistent with himself in bringing about his own glorification.

Because that's that's the heart of what we're saying what we're saying is The Father the Son and the Spirit are in absolute harmony everything to do. I could substantiate the foundations of thia or just simply th in anything.

By going to John chapter 5 and And Numerous other passages of John chapter 5 would be a would be again a whole context. Where you have that theme being developed in the pages of Scripture. Not just a one-off text over here or something over there.

That's not even about the subject. But that's the focus of what Jesus is teaching in John chapter 5 is after after verse 18 is about is The unity of the Father and the Son and the harmony that is theirs in giving life in salvation in all the activities that take place and so it's not a Trump card as you as you described it.

What I'm saying is is that Your position based upon inference texts because see if you're if you take a text Talking about false teachers. And say we'll see he bought them. You're inferring from that something about the extent of the atonement.

That's not what the text is about. You're making an inference. I'm going to text in Hebrews that are specifically talking about Who the atone what the actual? effect of the atonement is that goes on for verse after verse after verse a chapter after chapter and What I'm saying is that's where you should derive your positive teaching and then you look at other texts in light of The clear you kept using the term clear and plain but a Single verse that is not on the topic can never be clear about a topic.

It's not about. Okay, you you can you can wish it it is you can say my inference is clear and So you infer? from first John to to certain things. But that's not what the text is actually attempting to address.

So it can only be an inference. I can provide a different inference that is then consistent with the passages that are specifically on the subject and You build a systematic theology By Taking those central texts Exegeting them consistently and then putting together divine truth.

Now you and I would agree you and I don't have to have the argument that unfortunately You have to have in most circles today as to whether there is a consistent truth. I'm sure you believe in inerrancy.

I'm sure you believe in the full inspiration of the entirety of of God's Word that we're not missing anything do we don't have anything added so we have a Level of agreement there that will should allow us to get to some common some common ground and some some common understandings, so The argument that I'm still hoping that you will encounter, you know You know because what you the way you put it was negatively instead of positively so What you said the Father only elects some people so Jesus only dies for some people and the Spirit only regenerates some people.

Well The point is that the Father the Son and the Spirit in Eternity past so this is this is a Trinitarian theology in eternity past chose to bring about the glorification of the Godhead Through the salvation through the creation of the universe and the salvation of a particular people through the incarnation death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God and Then the indwelling of those people and their sanctification and being conformed the image of Christ by the Spirit of God bringing about a demonstration through creation of God's Of all of the attributes of God so his wrath his power his justice all seen at the cross and Seen in the punishment of those the just punishment of those Who are not united to Christ?

His love his mercy and his grace also seen at the cross. So When we talk about it's a positive thing. It's not just a limitation thing it is a positive thing that the will of the Father in the matter of salvation is consistent with the actions and the will and actions of the Father are Consistent with the will and actions of the Son which are consistent with the will and actions of the Spirit and If I understand your position you know some of the questions I would ask is is God attempting to save everyone equally is it Jesus's desire?

To save everyone equal is a Jesus's desire that his death. That he bear the sin of every individual. Is the Spirit attempting to bring about conviction of sin of Every individual in the same way not just in an inner restraint way, but in a salvific way.

To read is the Spirit attempting well, the Spirit can't raise to spiritual life and less Allowed to by the human act of faith, I guess from your perspective, but Uh. Because you said God could do everything you wanted but you you you said he's chosen not to do so so We'll get to that when we listen to it if we if we even get there I've spent a half an hour doing an overview.

Because I want you I want you to understand what I felt you had and then by the way When I say that you missed. There are a number of times in your presentation you you you know when I said hey If you don't deal with what we're saying about the intention of the Father Son Spirit.

Then you're not dealing with our position and you took that to mean that nothing I said was relevant that all these Bible verses were relevant. That's not what we were saying. What I'm saying is if you actually want to respond to our argument, then you have to respond to our argument.

And if you're not responding to our argument, you can be off there. You know. Shooting away if you want, but you're not actually responding to what we're saying. I'm not sure why you would take it because you did this more than once.

You would quote me and you'd say so everything I said about the Bible is irrelevant. No, but if Your exegesis is not providing an argument against what we're actually saying. Then you're not really accomplishing anything.

Are you? That was that was the point there. And there are a couple times that that you sort of didn't go there. So if we're gonna get through almost any of this, I have to I have to and you talk fast Just as fast as I do.

So Let's get to it, let's see what we've let's we've got here.

The Five Calvinist Objections to Unlimited Atonement

I could be wrong on these topics and I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong and I've been perhaps one day I'll make future content saying I've changed my mind on something. I'm open to this idea I am convinced though.

And while I say I could be wrong I am convinced and it's not just like a completely uninformed convinced. I try to hear the arguments from both sides and I am convinced that Biblically, this is really clear.

And so I want to present what I think is a very clear biblical case for the fact that Jesus died for everybody so James White's video it was not really so much just a response to me. It wasn't exactly he didn't actually deal with most of the content in my video.

He brought up something he thought I didn't address and made that the focus of most of the video. But I'm gonna deal with that issue called trinitarian harmony in the atonement and He also addressed a bunch of stuff that I that I never taught and don't teach that stuff like in T Right or other people he's encountered have taught so it wasn't so much even though the title says it wasn't really about me that much.

But I'll use that as a launchpad to talk about these different issues. And so so here we go. Thanks for joining me. My name is Mike winger. This is the Tuesday live stream every Tuesday at 5 p .m Pacific Time I do this on YouTube and it also goes out to podcast and it goes up later on, you know God willing if we're able to get up on the Facebook page and all that stuff, too.

So, let me lay out for you, here's the overview several Calvinist objections here. They are gonna give you at least five maybe six Calvinist objections to limited atonement. Let me give you all the objections right now.

Then I'm gonna go back over them one at a time and slowly unpack those issues. Some will take longer than others, but that's the plan for today. So the first objection is called trinitarian harmony in the atonement and if I could summarize what this is.

It's the idea that the father elects and I want to speak say it like I'm a Calvinist here. The father elects only certain people to be saved and then he sends the son to save just those people. Then the Holy Spirit only regenerates those same people.

So there's this cohesion in the plan and in the working together of the persons of the Trinity. Now if you're to say the son tries to save all people when the father has only chosen certain ones for salvation.

Then you create a conflict in the Trinity where the son's trying to do something against the plan of the father. That is that is the basic idea of trinitarian harmony in the atonement.

Instead of Jesus all people there there is that that's fairly accurate. There certainly cannot be Disagreement between the the members of the Godhead and there they cannot function at cross purposes to one another and so if the Bible teaches for example that There is a specific people who are united to Christ in his death.

If the atonement is personal rather than just simply generic and I I would challenge you to think about that very issue because I think you are stuck with a I think you have made statements in this video that fundamentally require an absolutely generic and not personal atonement and I want you to think what that means because I think union with Christ is central to the concept of atonement.

I Fear then what I've heard from you. There is a there is a distinction there That you don't really have a personal atonement you you have Christ's death making provision. Maybe you've been listening to Layton flowers or something provisionalism.

Making provision but not actually accomplishing something. Maybe that's based on Your your assertion that well, you know, but there were people, you know, once Jesus died, you know. We can get into some of that stuff, too.

I think there that was a I Think you really missed the point there big time because there is a there is a we the entire people of God all those who All the elect were united with Christ in his death. But we do not experience the results of that until time.

If it were any other way, then only those who were alive at the time could be saved. So to confuse the now and the not yet and say well, but Jesus could have died for somebody. But they're still in the wrath of God and therefore That somehow is a problem.

No, it's not a problem because not only has God determined who the elect are but exactly when he's going to save them at the right time. Paul said God called him and when he called him Paul Paul's it was not Paul's free will.

That determined the outcome of that particular encounter. I can assure you of that.

That was that was rather an effective call. It threatens our theology of who God is. Okay, so that's a pretty big objection. We'll come to answering it later. The second objection is that it's the failure of the Sun objection.

It's the idea that if Jesus died for people for all people then he died for people who will end up in hell many of.

Well, the point is if it was his intention for his death to propitiate the sins of all people and their sins are not therefore Propitiated and they themselves are then punished for those sins. Then there is a failure.

There is a desire unfulfilled.

So therefore Jesus failed at his task. He's a failing Savior. It's all do without objection. A third challenge would be the intercession issue. And this is the idea that Jesus intercedes for whoever he died for yes, you know He ever lives to intercede for us.

Hebrew speaks about this a lot.

He's living to intercede. For who for the people he died for now. And why. Mike why? Because He is the high priest and the high priest when he offered the sacrifice. That wasn't the end. What is what is both?

Both Testaments tell us. Once the blood was spilt it was taken in and sprinkled upon the altar. It had to go into the holy place. Jesus does that in and of himself as the sacrifice himself? So the audience of The sacrifice is the same audience as the intercession.

And I got conflicting responses from what you said as.

To how you respond to that. And whoever he intercedes for is going to be saved yet. Not everyone is saved. Therefore he does not intercede for everyone because they would all go to heaven. Right. So therefore if he didn't doesn't intercede for everyone.

Then he didn't die for everyone because there's a parallel between who he dies for and who he intercedes for.

And that parallel comes from the fact that he's the high priest. That is a biblical category.

I'm so therefore Jesus didn't die for everyone. That's the intercession argument. Then there's a group of false dilemmas a lot to several of them. I was gonna do more but I decided to narrow it down to this one from John Owen famous famous dilemma or trilemma.

You might call and I'll just read to you this dilemma John Owen and I'll put it up on the screen. I'll put it up again later sometimes it helps to hear things twice because it's these are weird ideas if you've never heard them before if you're not a Calvinist you're.

Like wait, what what what what what? I mean, this is a lot of stuff. That's just seems. Like it's coming out of nowhere. And so it's good to hear it more than once. So this is the this is John Owens dilemma or trilemma.

He says I may add this dilemma to our universalists. God imposed his wrath due unto and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either all the sins of all men that's the first option on your screen or all the sins of some men the second option or Some of the sins of all men if the last if it's some of the sins of all men.

Then have all men some sense to answer for and so shall no man be saved. No, I didn't tell you this. I'm actually quoting John Owen from his book the death of death in the death of Christ. This is a famous Calvinist work.

And as I read on he says if the second option if you pick the second option that is that is it which we affirm. That the Calvinists that Christ died for all of the sins of some men. That Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first if you pick the first option Why are not all freed from the punishment of their sins you will say because of their unbelief. They will not believe but this unbelief is a sin. Is it not if not?

Why should they be punished for it if it be then Christ underwent the punishment do it or not if so. Then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died if he died if he did not then he did not.

Die for all their sins let them choose which part they will so this is like a dilemma where you're like if Jesus died for all the sins of all men then it's.

Universalism everyone's going to be saved if you and and this is one thing that I would suggest at this point. I Think our job as Calvinists would be a little bit easier if there were more universalists around that Pete that we actually interacted with.

I Really? I really do. Because I I honestly think that Layton flowers yourself. David Allen. Your positions are wide open to a sharp Universalist. Really are you have? To avoid the Calvinist the dreaded Calvinist onslaught I Would like to suggest that you have adopted positions That would make you highly suspect highly subject.

I'm sorry highly suspect highly subject to serious difficulties in responding to universalist argumentation. But they're just there's aren't that many universalist running around. I mean Most people even use the term could care less about scripture.

So what I mean is a biblical Universalist someone who at least still in some fashion Take seriously Bible as Word of God that would Be if there were more of them. Lots of your arguments against us would not take the form that they do.

I universalism you have to say.

He did he basically died for all the sins of some men because unbelief is going to be included in this. I'll answer this later and then number five fifth thing. I'll deal with. Is the double jeopardy issue?

This is the idea that that if I say Jesus died for everyone and yet people still suffer for their sins. Then I'm saying that there's double jeopardy or double payment for their sins. Let me read to you a summary of this argument goes like this.

If Jesus died for all people than the sins of all people have been paid for there is no wrath left for them. Therefore to punish sin would be to punish it twice once in Christ and again upon the death of the unbeliever.

So there's someone you know suffering in the future in hell. For a sin Jesus paid for so it's being paid for at the cross and in hell wait, that doesn't make sense. So that's the double jeopardy objection.

The conclusion is then Jesus didn't die for everybody. I don't agree with any of these but those are the objections. And then finally at the end after this long video I will get to the part where I'm just gonna say there are clear clear teachings in the scripture that refute the doctrine or the idea that Jesus died for only a certain group of people and not for all people and First John chapter 2 verse 2 was it was a major verse I used in my previous video.

James White actually responded directly to this Verse and I'm gonna continue the conversation. I think my position was misrepresented there and I want to bring clarity to that issue. I don't think was done on purpose or maliciously.

And so we're gonna we're gonna get to there to the clear teaching passage where the Extent of the atonement is directly addressed in scripture and how I think the Calvinist interpretation Doesn't undermine the power of this passage to prove unlimited atonement.

Okay, so that's that's that's just the summary. That's just the intro. Here we go. We're digging in and And yeah, I do appreciate you guys joining with us. I by the way I'm gonna say I don't intend to do this constant back and forth on these issues.

I have a lot of videos people make in response to me and I did pick one of what I'm to respond to today with Dr. James White's video, but don't just for those who are watching don't expect me to respond to everybody's videos or to respond to whatever next Response comes out.

I'll watch it and I highly respect James White and love him as a brother. And I'll definitely consider everything he has to share. But I don't I don't plan on taking my once a week major live stream and making it all response videos to the same issue.

Further down the rabbit hole so to speak so I'm covering new issues and I think it's worth doing this time around. All right Trinitarian harmony in the Atonement. This is the thing that I was told I did not address and because I didn't address it I had completely ignored the issue of limited Atonement.

By the way, James White's videos in the description.

Okay, I I did not say you had completely ignored the subject limited Atonement. What I was saying is if you were given that my response had been focused upon that. If you don't respond to my central argument, then you're not dealing with my argument.

You can deal with somebody else's argument or say you're dealing with John Owen or whatever else it might be and and the fact is Mike I hear the deep influence got the book sitting right over here of David Allen.

Central to my criticism of David Allen since 2008 for 11 years. Has been that he was put on the wrong path when he first started his Campaign against Reformed Theology and he has not left that wrong path and as a result his his books I'm sure if you're Looking for a reason to believe something other than Reformed Theology.

They seem to give that to you, but they really don't once we dig in and that's why I said again I would really highly recommend Listening to the responses that we provided to David Allen. We responded to an article that he wrote and then about two weeks later, maybe we responded to his books both of his books everything that he wrote on Romans 8 and I would highly recommend that you take a look at those.