Radio Free Geneva Jumbo Edition: Steven Anderson on Limited Atonement; WLC on Loving God

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing. For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us low. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the Reformers.

On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we prank the muscle of the world that he gave his only begotten son? They're not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choose.

Ladies and gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. Now, whatever we do in Baptist life, we don't need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists.

Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he.

I said the other day in class that I don't understand the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist. Right, I don't think there is typically any difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.

Read my book.

Michael Brown, Persecution, and Prayer for Peru

And now, from our underground bunker hidden deep beneath Liberty University where no one would think to look, safe from those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who've read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save to his own eternal glory.

And we're still working on the Bruton Parker spot there. The ground's a little bit hard right now because they've had so many hard freezes there in the snow and stuff. It's been hard to get the workers in, especially because the only way we can get the workers in is if they're dressed as Jehovah's Witnesses.

And so it's really slow going, because they're having to use rolled-up watchtowers to dig out. And it's real slow, it really is. But they're dedicated. They are very dedicated. Every one of them is a former student of Eric N. Cannon that wants their money back.

That's what we're working on. Welcome to Radio Free Geneva. I had not thought about that before we got started. I have a special guest in studio with me today. This morning I was playing one of his favorite videos for folks in our channel.

It was this amazing video of a squirrel on a Yankee flipper that just would not give up. It just kept sitting there. I almost threw up for the squirrel as I watched this, because it just went around and around.

And we're talking. I don't know. I could only watch for about two and a half minutes before I was starting to get queasy. And I just could not imagine that little teeny tiny squirrel brain, what it was experiencing.

But your name actually is not Squirrel.

It is not actually Squirrel. That is amazing.

It's senior R .D .A. I see. Actually, I've been told it's actually Gene. And what's going to happen here is we're going to launch off a bunch of speculation here on the part of conspiracy theorists. Because you're one of the few nasty people that has posted stuff on the web about him.

Yes, I have. Yes, yes. And so his people always listen to this program. I think they're looking for me. Yeah. And so now they're going to go, uh-huh, uh-huh. And then they're going to know that I actually spoke up at Reformation Montana last year and that I met that other guy.

The other guy. The other guy with the guns. Yeah, that scary guy. Yeah. And so they're going to put it all together and realize it's a cabal.

Am I the first actual Southern Baptist to ever visit this studio? No. No.

No. I'm thinking. I'm thinking. I just might be. I know Turret and Fanda is not a Southern Baptist.

No, that would not be the case.

And let's see. John Samson's not a Southern Baptist. Never has been a Southern Baptist. I don't think I've had Jeff Neal on because he was once years and years ago. I don't think. No, you might be the first Southern Baptist to have found the bunker.

That's a possibility. It was hard. Well, it's meant to be that way. It's specifically designed to be that way. Because if you could find it easily, then lots of people could be.

If I hadn't bribed Rich with In-N-Out Burger, I never would have gotten it.

That is true. Fred Butler has tweeted to you already. Will you guys be doing the squirrel racing today? Not on four hours sleep. Yes, yes. Radio-free squirrel. Now with more nuts from Wonky. So you do have your fans out there, I guess.

But they can't see you, unfortunately. Because the tilt and pan mechanism on the cheapo camera over there really doesn't exist.

There actually is a little bit of one. I'd try it, but I'm afraid I'd freeze the whole computer up. Oh, well, yeah.

Digitally you can do that. But you'd have to pan over to catch them.

Yeah, but I've actually tried that in tests before while we're running Wirecast. And suddenly the computer, which is being stressed right at the moment, would probably just freeze up and game over.

My chair's on wheels. I can come over here and play.

Can you see that? You got that now? No? You got to go all the way over to here. Yeah, there you go. Okay, now we got you. I just wanted people to know I was not doing a really good ventriloquism thing here.

So that screenshot will end up on a Bruton Parker bulletin board someplace. Dart board. And shoot on sight. Have you seen this squirrel? Yes, Lumpy's printing it out right now. Yeah, something like that.

That'd be great. Anyway, Radio Free Geneva, that's what we're here for. So Squirrel says he's just here for the comic relief. When I get bored or something like that, I can throw it in.

Yeah, you do the serious analysis. I make the comic asides.

Okay, all right. I'll do my best for that. But we do have some interesting material. I was directed, again, on Twitter. I should be very careful what I click on on Twitter. Oh, by the way, before we jump in, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

I did want to mention something. Because last evening I tweeted a prayer request for Dr. Michael Brown. And I wasn't able to explain why, but since he has gone public with it now, I can. Because nobody can stop it now, because it's over.

But Michael told me back when we debated in Spain back in January, that he had an opportunity and was at that time working on firming up an opportunity that was just incredible. And that was that friends of his, people who knew his expertise in the field of homosexuality, biblical response, defense of Christian marriage over against the homosexual agenda, etc., etc., you know that his book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, still one of the best books available on that subject, and I've highly recommended it to you, that he had friends in Peru who had contacted him and asked if he would take advantage of an opportunity.

And the opportunity was to appear before the entire Congress of the nation of Peru to speak on the subject of human sexuality and marriage from a Christian perspective. Obviously Peru, like every other nation in the world, has people who are pushing it to redefine marriage, to profane marriage, as is being done via judicial fiat here in the United States.

And I immediately recognized that if Michael did this, and if his time there was blessed, and the nation voted to not extend these rights and these redefinitions, it's not a right, it's to completely redefine the very nature of rights, that it could be very costly for Michael back here in the United States.

I mean, do not underestimate the tremendous zeal that the homosexual lobby and the homosexual forces will exert against someone. And if you were to have a role in something like that, you would just be demonized.

Not argued against, because we already know that Michael can handle himself on that. We saw what he did to Piers Morgan, but he would just be demonized. And obviously he recognized that as well, and decided that it was well worth the risk.

He's in the Lord's hands, and so that took place today. I have not heard what the results have been. I mean, obviously I don't expect some news today as far as what Peru does, but I haven't heard back from Michael yet as to how he felt things went.

He is in Lima right now, and I recall my internet access in Lima was highly sporadic anyways, so maybe during the course of the program I'll hear back from him. I've dropped him a note to ask him how he felt that it went.

But I certainly had been praying for that opportunity ever since January, and I hope you saw my request last evening and prayed for it as well, and now pray that the Word would have its effect there. And likewise, you know, if the homosexual movement comes after Michael Brown for daring to speak the truth in that area, I think there needs to be some serious standing with a brother on that subject against the attacks that will come.

So that was just today. Michael had contacted me as he got on the plane yesterday, and so I've certainly been praying for that opportunity. So I wanted to mention that, and we'll be looking with great interest as to what is going to happen in the future.

Now, yeah, Farshad says in Channel, I wish our own Congress would listen to Michael Brown for two hours on that subject, and every member of Congress read his book. Me too, believe you me. But we already know that there is a sizable minority in that body that have no interest in hearing what he has to say, or what we have to say.

They are already very intent upon promoting the redefinition and profaning of marriage and the destruction of that godly institution which they gift from God. That is their intention, and that is the reality.

Steven Anderson and Limited Atonement

Now, Radio Free Geneva dealing with attacks upon Reformed theology, and I was directed last evening on Twitter to a three, not quite four minute clip of Pastor Steven Anderson. Yes, Pastor Steven Anderson.

I saw another trailer promo for the new movie. They showed it somewhere in California, and again, we're talking little teeny tiny churches with storefront type little single churches, 50, 60 people, but filled with eight and nine year olds telling us that we need to be King James only.

Which I guess is their version of, well, they had this one guy who was probably 40 or something going, I've never heard about any of this stuff before. That's amazing. Yeah, I'm going to take his word for it.

I'm going to adopt an entire perspective on biblical translation based on that. So anyway, but Steven Anderson, as you know, has some very unique views. I was unaware, unfortunately, when we did the interview a while back, that he is strongly opposed to repentance as a part of the gospel, which means he has no gospel at all, but we did know for a very long time that he was strongly opposed to Calvinism.

You may recall the pulpit kicking incident where he kicked the pulpit, and I asked him if the pulpit was damaged by that, and he said no, but he didn't even know which one it was because I guess he's kicked the pulpit many times.

So he loses it, and he sort of loses it in this one too. At least he has the option now of just going, well, it's because I was tased. When those cops reached through that window, I've just never been the same ever since then.

That did look painful. I'm sure it is. I'm sure it is very painful, and it probably has had an effect.

We could ask Ergen Kanner. He's been tased.

Well, I really am not certain that that actually took place from what I've heard, but anyway, that's another issue. But he posted a video, or someone posted a video called Hard Preaching Against Limited Atonement.

So I listened to it, and I just sort of like, okay, that's hard preaching, huh? It's loud preaching, but I don't consider loud and hard necessarily to be synonymous things. Then I looked at the tags on the video, and there was only one name other than his in the tags, and it was mine.

So he talks about people in here, but he doesn't name them. But mine's the only name in the tags. So you can sort of figure out who he's talking about. So let's listen to the whole thing here, and then I'll go back through it.

There's only really two verses to look at really closely, the only ones he really read. It's more of the scattergun type thing. But here's Stephen Anderson, Hard Preaching Against Limited Atonement.

Hebrews 2 .9, But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. So did Jesus just die for certain people?

I mean, how can you call yourself a Bible-believing Christian, and say, I believe the Bible's the word of God, and then look at this verse, Hebrews 2 .9, and say Jesus didn't die for everybody. You're a liar is what you are.

You're a false prophet is what you are. You don't believe this book. You believe in lies written by man. Whether that man's named John Calvin or whatever his name is, you are believing in lies and heresy.

Let me tell you something. Jesus Christ tasted death for every man. I believe it. Do you believe it? Anybody who doesn't believe it is rejecting the Bible. They're just rejecting the Bible. I mean, they're just looking at the Bible and saying, he tasted death for every man.

They just say, no, he didn't die for everybody. That's a lie. And we've seen how many scriptures. 1 Timothy 2, he said it twice. 1 Timothy 4, Titus chapter 2, Romans 5, Hebrews 2, 1 John 2. He died for all.

He died for all. He died for all. He died for all. He died for the world. He died for the world.

Every man, every man. Limited atonement. Let me explain to you why two people cannot be punished for the same sin.

Shut up, you intellectual fool. You uber intellectual. You Dr. Fat Bottom from so-and-so the seminary with all your degrees and all your accolades of man. You are a fool. And you know what? If any man think himself to be wise, let him become a fool.

Because you know what? The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. And all these man-made logical rational arguments against Jesus dying for everybody are the foolishness of the world. It's nonsense.

Look at 2 Peter chapter 2. I will prove to you yet again. I mean, we've already proved it sufficiently. Let's prove again that Jesus died for the unsaved. He died for everybody. He died for the lost. Look if you would at 2 Peter chapter 2.

You say, well, are Calvinists saved? You know, it makes me doubt the salvation of anybody who can look at Hebrews 2 and 9 and just not believe it. I mean, look, if somebody walked up to me and said, I believe in evolution, wouldn't you doubt their salvation?

If somebody came to you and said, I believe in evolution, wouldn't you doubt their salvation? Well, it doesn't sound like you believe the Bible. You know what I mean? You know, you're coming to me and telling me you believe in evolution.

That's not what the Bible says. It sounds like you don't believe God's word.

Someone on Twitter just said, man, sounds like he needs a hug.

And then somebody comes to you and says, well, I don't believe Jesus died for everybody. They're not basing that on scripture. They're just basically just denying the word of God. I mean, you know, why wouldn't I doubt the salvation of someone who believes this stuff?

You know? You say, well, I can't believe you said that. Look, anybody who's saved can understand the word of God because the Holy Spirit will guide them in all truth. How can you read the Bible and not understand that Jesus died for everybody?

You know? So therefore, it does make you doubt their salvation. Look at 2 Peter 2, verse 1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privilege shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

They're denying the Lord that bought them. So did Jesus pay for them? But are they saved? Well, look at the last part of verse 3. Their damnation slumbereth not. These people are described in Jude as being twice dead.

These people, for them is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. Yet the Lord bought them. Yet he paid for their sins because he died for all. Let me just quickly, I'm going to have to skip a point for time.

And that's where that particular clip ended, was right there. Basically only covering Hebrews 2 .9 and 2 Peter 2 .1, though he mentioned all the other big ones just in passing. Evidently, maybe he had already dealt with them or did the same thing he did with these, which is you read it and go, well, that's plain.

Anybody can see that. And then you just move on. Now, some of you look at that and go, you know, you shouldn't deal with this. The problem is the majority of anti-reformed diatribes are of this nature.

They are based upon ignorance. They are based upon this kind of argumentation where you misquote the Bible in the sense of going, well, you know, the wisdom of man. What you're really doing when you quote those texts, you're saying, well, I'm giving you wisdom, but it's God's wisdom.

And the position I disagree with, I'm not going to explain to you how their position's wrong. I'm just going to identify their position as the wisdom of the world and therefore expect you to dismiss them.

I mean, that's cultic thinking. I've seen it amongst the Mormons many, many times, and Anderson does represent the cultic branch of King James Onlyism. And so, you know, it works for that kind of an audience, unfortunately.

But that gives you an idea of the kind of sermonizing that you have. Now, some people say, you know, why don't we just stick to higher end stuff? I did want to mention, I apologize, I was going to do this right at the top of the program, then I got distracted by rodents in the office here.

But before I get back to that, you know, when people address these subjects, very often I mention on the blog this morning, people will say, well, you know, Pastor Anderson mentioned 2 Peter 2. Could you direct me to some books I could read on this?

People think that if you're online, you're an online bibliography machine. You know, I thought Google worked the same for everybody, but evidently not. I mean, it's amazing how many people, well, what about this?

I know what they're wanting me to do. They're wanting me to cut through their Google responses by saying, well, this is the best and that's the best, so on and so forth. I mentioned on the blog this morning 2 resources.

Logos just came out with a new one and there's one that's been out for quite some time. That if you enjoy Radio Free Geneva and you want to have resources, now, they're both electronic, so those of you who are Calvinists and you just love sitting in your library and looking around at your silent books and going, there's my Puritan paperbacks and there's my Calvin commentaries.

Look at how many shelves that takes up. If you're one of those folks that just sits there sniffing at the smell of the pages and doing that kind of thing, you're not going to really like these resources because they're electronic and so they don't take up shelf space and you can't turn the pages and things like that.

I realize you folks are just sort of out of it. The resource has been around for a long time. It's called the Puritan Hard Drive and it is a PDF-based massive library of obviously primarily Puritan works but other works as well, all from a reform perspective.

If PDF is your way of doing things, if you know how to utilize PDFs, and stuff like that, then the Puritan Hard Drive is well worth you taking a look at. Just Google Puritan Hard Drive and you will find all sorts of videos about it, things like that.

But Lagos just put out a huge, massive, I think the highest, it comes in different gradations, so you've got your basic and then you've got gold and platinum and so on and so forth. If I recall correctly, the platinum has 997 volumes in it, which includes, I didn't put the two side by side, but I would imagine that the Lagos collection has a lot of commentaries and things that might not be the Puritan Hard Drive.

The Puritan Hard Drive probably has more Puritan works and stuff that would not be. I have not compared the two. I'm sure you can do that for yourself. Just open two browser windows and put them side by side and you can see.

But if you already are invested in Lagos, as many of us are, then that particular resource would be a real nice way of grabbing a bunch of stuff rather than getting them individually. Because when you get them as groups, they're less expensive.

So I linked on the blog to the Lagos and the Puritan Hard Drive links so you can take a look at those. Because, hey, face it. You today could carry around on your laptop, or if they keep increasing the size of the drives and the iPad, eventually on your iPad as well, libraries of Reformed works that weren't even available only a few decades ago in any one library.

That's what is amazing. Now, just having access to the information doesn't mean that you're going to take it all in or even understand all of it, but it is nice to be able to do searches and to be able to find out what people said about X, Y, and Z, and about text and things like that as well.

So hit the blog, see the links for that. If you want to stop asking me for bibliographical productions on the fly in our chat channel or things like that. Now, getting back to Steven Anderson here, we're going to replay this, and that may be painful for you to have to go through this while we replay it, but this time we'll stop and start and we'll respond.

But before I do so, I want to point something out. Evidently, I'm Dr. Fat Bottom, and those of you who know me know that that's not really the most accurate description of the guy.

Folks, the dude bikes like 300 miles before breakfast most days.

That's a little bit of exaggeration.

A little bit of an exaggeration, yes. Okay, you're obviously not picking up on the double entendre that he's using there. Freddie Mercury, certain kinds of women ride bicycles. The song name was Fat Bottom Girls.

You're right. So that's the double entendre he's using there. He's backhandedly referring to your cycling. Really? Yes. I had no idea.

Yes. Now, isn't that funny that the independent fundamentalist Baptist separatist knows Freddie Mercury, and I have no earthly idea. I know Freddie Mercury sang a song about champions. Yeah. Am I right about that?

Yeah.

That's the only one I know. Yes, there is in the song Fat Bottom Girls, there is the line, get on your bikes and ride. Wow, there you go.

Thank you. I'm glad that in your pagan years you knew that.

Well, we'll just leave it at that, that it was pagan years. Yes, it was. Well, there you go. So I'm Dr. Fat Bottom.

And, yeah, Tquid and Channel just said, my log off software always takes forever to index the books. Yeah, mine too. I will confess that that is a problem that I have as well. But it's a good problem to have, I guess.

But anyways, okay, so I am definitely Dr. Fat Bottom with all the degrees and all the rest of that stuff. So that's me, myself, and I. So aside from the rather childish element of it, which we've already seen that in sticking my face on the screen when you're talking about the devil and all the rest of that kind of stuff that Anderson and his gang does, that's just part of that mindset.

King James-only-ism produces aberrant behavior on the part of the people that get really deeply into it. But more importantly than all of that, yeah, people are making fun of my deer-in-the-headlights look about that.

Sorry! I actually... Anyways, I wasn't good at that. The key issue for me here, for the person who really wants to know what the Bible teaches and doesn't just want the surface level, let's read one verse, let's not ask questions, let's not think, you know, just read one translation of the Bible, believe what the pastor of your church says, and that's the extent of it.

The person who wants to go beyond that and actually understand Scripture and read all of Scripture... It's funny, in both of the texts we're going to notice the very next verse pretty much refutes what was said from the preceding verse.

This kind of quote-unquote preaching where you're yelling at people and intimidating people, it's rife for this kind of abuse of the text of Scripture itself. But what have I said over and over again about this particular subject of the Atonement?

We're going to be looking at Dr. Allen, David Allen's presentation at Liberty. I've already played you a few clips from it, but more in-depth. And one of the things that I noted in criticism of Dr. Allen's presentation is that he separated intention and extent and dealt with extent before intention.

You can't do that. You will never come to understand and have a fully biblical understanding of the Atonement if you start with, well, I'm going to talk about extent before I ever talk about intent. Think about that.

When you think about what God does in almost any situation, isn't His intention in doing so more logically basic to then asking questions about the extent of His action? Now, one may shed light upon the other, obviously, but especially when it comes to this issue.

My assertion has been for a long time that the vast majority of evangelicals spend far more time talking about extent than they ever do about intent if they have ever even once been challenged to think about what was the triune God's intention as that Roman soldier raised that mallet for the first time to drive that first nail into the body of the sinless Son of God.

What was God's intention at that point? Did He even have an intention? Now, it's not that these folks are not giving an answer to that question. They are. The problem is they're giving it 99 of the time presuppositionally and out of ignorance, not out of actual examining the text of Scripture and coming to a solid conclusion on the subject.

They are assuming that the intention of God was to make all men savable, but even then that doesn't work, does it? Because you immediately have to then ask the question, was it the intention of the triune God to make those millions of people who had already died before the crucifixion savable?

Is that really what God was intending to do? Well, it would make them savable if they had believed, I suppose might be one approach. If they had believed in God's revelation through the God of Israel, like Abraham did, then now they're made savable and so their faith allows them to be saved, I guess.

But isn't that a mockery of God's intention to say that the intention of the triune God in the sacrifice of Christ was to make the Amorite high priest who had been under the punishment of God for a thousand years at this point in time savable?

Why? He's already under the punishment of God. So they've never been challenged to think about this. They've never been challenged to think this through. And even leaving the past behind, when you then come to the current situation, are you really comfortable saying that the intention of God was simply to make a hypothetical atonement so that salvation would be a possibility?

That's what they're saying, whether they want to admit it or not, whether they've even thought about it or not. The sad thing is, I doubt there's almost anybody in the audience of Stephen Anderson's church over there in Tempe who has ever even been challenged to think about the intention of God in the atonement of Jesus Christ.

What was his intention? What was he trying to do? That doesn't come up. That doesn't come up. What you have with both of the texts that are cited, reading of the text, no exegesis of the text, you simply read the text within a context that communicates what you think the meaning is.

This sermon is evidently all on the same subject. So, if you want to be in the group, then you need to get with the program and read the text the way the guy yelling at the front of the room is reading the text.

That's why I say this kind of quote-unquote preaching is rife for abuse and rife for cultism. It really is.

And it's frightening. So let's listen again, and this time we'll respond. Hebrews 2 .9, But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.

So did Jesus just die for certain people? I mean, how can you call yourself a Bible-believing Christian and say, I believe the Bible's the word of God, and then look at this verse, Hebrews 2 .9, and say Jesus didn't die for everybody?

You're a liar!

Okay, let's see if we're a liar, or if maybe the text goes, yeah, I'm going to freeze him right there. Isn't that a good shot? If maybe the text says a little bit more than Pastor Anderson has allowed it to say.

But we do see him, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. Now, stop for a moment. Why is Jesus crowned with glory and honor?

Because of death. I would suggest to you that a fully biblical response to that has to involve the accomplishment of the intention of the Father in his death, which was not merely making atonement possible, or salvation possible.

Especially in the book of Hebrews. The book of Hebrews, he is able to save the uttermost those who draw nigh unto God by him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. By that one will, by that one sacrifice, he perfects for all time.

So only by ignoring the rest of the book can you come up with this kind of simplistic reading. So, because the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God, now let me mention, I think it would be inappropriate.

Let me wake Squirrel up here. Who's Hebrews 2 .9? Do you remember some other guy that really likes to talk about Hebrews 2 .9?

I've had four hours of sleep. No, his name is not.

I've had four hours of sleep. No, I'm sorry, that doesn't work. How about, so that by the grace of God. Sound familiar at all? It does sound familiar. Yes, and you're going to go, oh yeah. This is one of Bart Ehrman's big texts.

It is. Because the Greek is and he recognizes, he points out that there is a very small number of manuscripts that say apart from God, or separated from God. And he makes this big, huge case about changing the entire meaning of the book of Hebrews based upon the difference between chorus and chorus.

So, I just want to mention that. Obviously, Anderson doesn't bring it up and probably could care less. And of course, anyone who is taught by people like Anderson are going to be utterly incapacitated to engage in apologetic dialogue with the world of Bart Ehrman's.

What people like Anderson and his church have is a theological anemia.

Oh yeah. It's incredibly shallow and as a result, I can't tell you how many people who came out of a fundamentalism like this I've encountered who are now atheists and things like that because they just found somebody who could yell louder and longer.

And if that's what your authority is, then there's your problem. There's your problem. So, that by the grace of God, Huper Pantas Giusetai Thanatu in behalf of all he might taste death. Now, obviously, the question is all of who?

And whether independent fundamentalists, Baptist, anti-Calvinists want to admit it or not, there are many places in the New Testament, especially because Huper is used here, so this is substitutionary.

PAS PASAPAN, or in its form here PANTAS, has a meaning that is other than universally every single human being who has ever lived. And logically and rationally to the mind that is not being forced to a conclusion by yelling and screaming, but wants to come to a conclusion based upon reason rather than emotion.

And notice he's going to go off about logic and theology and all the rest of that stuff. Well, you know, God made us as logical creatures, and he will demand you use logic at other points in time. So he's grossly inconsistent at this point.

But, again, what does PANTAS mean? When it says for everyone, that could mean for Jews and Gentiles, that could mean everyone of a certain group, or it could mean everyone as in every single human being.

So you have to ask yourself the question, well, if it's in behalf of every single human being, then what does the book of Hebrews teach about the result of his death, the intention of his death? That's why you have to look at all of this together.

You have to have a fully-orbed understanding. But I want to point something out. How about we keep reading? That's always a good thing to do. Sadly, in most conversations, that's not what happens. You get little proof texts, and you don't keep reading.

And I understand, you know, I've been in situations on a plane or something like that, where you just, you know, you've got to give your proof texts, and hopefully you've done the work to be able to demonstrate that you're not misrepresenting things.