Atonement

Welcome to Have You Not Read, a podcast seeking to answer questions from the text of Scripture, for the honor of Christ, and the edification of the

Saints. Before we dig into our topic, we humbly ask you to rate, review, and share the podcast.

Thank you. I'm Chris Giesler and joining me are Michael Deere and David Kassin.

All right, and we've got a couple of questions today about atonement. What is the purpose of theories of the atonement?

Are there specific ones we should embrace or be aware of? And then also, how can we make a positive case for limited atonement and refute the use of verses like John 3 .16

that are used to argue against it? There is a lot there to unpack. Yes.

Maybe we should start by defining atonement. Yes. So, the word atonement is the creation of an

English reformer, a translator of the Scriptures, Tyndale, who was trying to find an

English word to describe what he saw in the original language about reconciliation and redemption.

So, he took three English terms and put them together. At -one -ment.

To be at one, the condition of being at one with God, he called it at -one -ment.

And we say atonement. So, we say atonement instead of at -one -ment, but that's the whole idea.

He was looking for that particular way of translating and getting it across to his readers. He created that word.

Yes, he coined it. And Tyndale is the classic English reformer who really helped to give the

English Bible. He came after, I think, after Wycliffe, like 150 years later, who really made an enormous impact on our

English Bible. I didn't know he coined that word. Yes, so he coined the term. That's how we have the word atonement. But what he was going after was the ideas that were there in the text to give expression to that.

And so, when it comes to theories of the atonement, we're talking about how is it particularly, according to the

Bible, that we are made one with God, that we were reconciled to God at peace with God.

And so, we're gonna get into some of the background of that, but when the question comes, are there specific ones we should embrace or specific ones that we should be aware of,

I think you should embrace the right theory of the atonement and beware of all the wrong ones. It's my personal opinion as a pastor.

Now, why do we have different theories of the atonement? Not because the Bible is unclear, but that people have different starting points of trying to understand the distance between us and God.

If we think that man is somewhat misguided, all we need is an example to show us the way.

Misguided but basically good? If we think that human life is disordered and that all the problems in human life come from just life being disordered, then we need someone to put it all into order.

So, I've just mentioned two theories of the atonement. One, Jesus Christ dies on the cross as an example to show all men how to live in sacrificial love, and this will save humanity once we follow his example.

And the atonement is more about us coming together in unity, and Jesus shows us the way by sacrificial love.

And in this sense, God, however we understand God, will be pleased.

And so that would be a very, very kind of ecumenical approach to the atonement. Is there a proper term for that?

Like the example approach? Yeah, it would be probably a whole lot of different terms. Not very well established, but there's an idea there.

We're like, well, Jesus was an example. He was a good man. What's the point of him dying on the cross? It shows us the way.

Albert Schweitzer is not paying for sin necessarily, but he's showing you a better way to live.

Yeah, so Schweitzer would hold to this idea, you know, he thought that Christ is a failed prophet crushed under the wheel of history, but that his example, his example shows us the way forward.

Therefore, Schweitzer goes and sacrifices himself for the good of people in Africa, because Jesus shows us the way.

This is the way that we are going to be saved if we follow his example. And so Hugo Grotius would go a little bit further and say, here's the governmental theory of the atonement.

We need Christ to die upon the cross and be raised from the dead to set in order a new way of relating to each other and to God.

Jesus does this for us, and this is how we are essentially saved by Jesus ordering everything properly through the governmental theory of the atonement.

This would be very compatible with all manner of Christian groups who would be more or less interested in talking about salvation, about just the free act of the human will, seeing

Christ in his example, but more than that, more than that, recognizing him as the risen

Lord and submitting to him and being saved because I choose to be saved. And he's going to save us by all of us complying with Christ and very much an obedience based salvation.

And Christ will order us and bring us along just fine. So everybody from the Sassanians to various arms of Armenian ideas and Pelagian, very much

Pelagian ideas, not just really Armenian, all the way to Pelagius, if you hold to those ideas you would be very fond of the governmental theory of the atonement.

Beyond that, we're looking at another theory called Christus Victor.

We're talking about Christ saves us by his victory on the cross. The cross is not a defeat, it's a victory.

He proves this by his resurrection, he's overcoming the forces of darkness in this, and we in living in this victory, we too are victorious and we overcome sin, we overcome evil, we are overcoming, eventually we're overcoming death, all because of our union with Christ through faith.

And there's not really any kind of exchange going on, no, you know, all this expression about blood and sacrifice is it's there, but that's not the main focus.

Now, so far there's been some building up of some false dichotomies. Jesus is our example, and him dying on the cross is shown to us as an example in the text, as Jesus has loved us and laid down his life for us, so we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren and love one another.

Hey, the example is there. Does he reorder and restructure and govern as King of Kings and Lord of Lords in his death and resurrection?

You betcha. And was it a victory? Yes it was. So these are not either -or, these are all part...

They're almost aspects of... Aspects of it, yeah, exactly. But each one of these, if we stop, don't give a full account of all that occurs in the atonement.

More happens than just these things. Are there ones there is an aversion to, say in our culture, or ones that maybe the

Bible talks about but our culture wants to downplay? Yeah, so the classic

Christian expression of the atonement is the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, where Christ dies vicariously in our place and for our sake on the cross so that the judgment, the wrath of God, the hell that we deserve for our transgressions, our sins, our stains, everything,

Christ bears it in our place and for our sake. And all of his obedience and righteousness that he manifested in his life and with which he pleased the

Father completely, that the merits of that is imputed to us, accounted to us by faith.

So that by faith, by faith in Jesus Christ, we find that the entirety of our guilt is completely paid for, atoned for before God.

And not only that, not only is there forgiveness, but there's also justification. Not only is it that we're not guilty, but that we're actually righteous in the sight of God because we have the very righteousness of Christ clothing us.

And this is the point, and it'd be very good to read Romans 3, Philippians 3, to get started, and to see these themes come out, and to follow that up with Romans 4, and so on.

So the penal substitutionary atonement, so penal meaning the punishment, the legal punishment, the appropriate righteous punishment, substitutionary, like it was shown throughout the

Old Testament, the shadows of Christ being the sacrificial system, the Lamb in the place of the sinner.

Well, Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. So he is the

Lamb who is in our place, and for our sake he dies. And so all at once he is both goats on the day of atonement,

Yom Kippur. So the high priest lays his hand upon the one goat, all the sin is symbolically transferred to that goat.

That goat's throat is slit, the blood pours out, the blood is collected, the goat is burned up on the altar, the blood is sprinkled upon the mercy seat in the

Holy of Holies. Once again the high priest places his hands upon another goat, all the sins of the people is transferred to that goat, and that goat is sent out of the camp, out into the wilderness to wander and stagger and die and never be seen again.

So here we have two terms, propitiation, the satisfying payment of our sins to God, and expiation, in which our sins are removed far from us, as far away from God as east is from the west, so he no longer deals with us on account of those sins.

So these are the themes of the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement.

We learn these themes in shadow and type in the Old Testament, and then they are explained in detail and in encouragement in the

New Testament. So you've listed out some theories of the atonement.

I don't think it's exhaustive, but the way you ordered it, they almost kind of built upon one another, and those are aspects of each of those into penal substitution.

You mentioned that there was a misguided, that we're misguided so we needed a better example. Things are disordered,

Christ has to come to put things in order so we have a better government leadership to actually focus us and bring us, it's not just an example, but there's actually some control in there.

Then Christ, as the victorious one, talked about the new life, because of our union with him, actually live in the in the

Christ's life. And then the penal substitution, which according to what you just said, is the theme of the

Old Testament into the new. You mentioned Romans 3, and it says specifically, we all know

Romans 3 .23, which is, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but the verse continues, "...for

all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," verse 24, "...and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom

God put forth as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith."

This was to show God's righteousness, because in divine forbearance he had passed over former sins, and to show his righteousness at the present time, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus.

So we have the great exchange there, we have the taken away sin, because sin had to be paid for, there was a propitiation,

God's wrath had to be satisfied, and that is not something that's mentioned in these previous three versions, or the previous three theories of the

Atonement. We're talking about the governmental and the victorious, we're not talking about being payment for sin, that God is righteously angry with sin, and to pour that out on Christ, and to have the exchange of Christ's righteousness for our sin, makes

God both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ Jesus.

So built upon that, you're saying that that's not something new, that's something that is a theme that has been carried really from the earliest chapters in Genesis.

And so I think we can say that the New Testament in particular supports penal substitution, and then the question was then, what was the purpose behind all these different theories?

And I think you touched on it a little bit, that there were some presuppositions for each one of those, or that there's a reason why they kind of expressed them that way.

Yeah, so there's, depends on your starting point. So when we're thinking about the need for the

Atonement, if there's an appreciation for the Atonement, that there's a sense that Jesus Christ is key, he's central, his death upon the cross means so much, but what does that mean?

The starting points are going to be different. If your starting point with man is going to be something like, we need a better example, we need better governance, or we live in defeat but we need victory, these things might be true, but they're not the total picture, or even at getting to the heart of the matter.

And the heart of the matter, Jesus says, is that we are desperately wicked, and that all manner of evil things come out of us from the inside, and that Paul talks about later in Romans 5, that we are sinners in Adam condemned before God, and we need

God's own righteousness to be right with God. The only way to be at one with God is to, by God's grace and faith, to be in union with the one who is

God, Christ, our Mediator. Everything depends on us being made in the image of God, accountable to God.

What was it that separated Adam and Eve from God? It wasn't that they followed a bad example, though you could kind of see that, it's not that there was a bad governance, it wasn't that they had a defeat.

Particularly the problem was sin, which brought death, which necessitated death, to bring about righteousness.

From the first Adam to the last Adam, there needed to be an appropriate way in which the holiness of God, the glory of the offended glory of God in his wrath, would be fully satisfied.

The starting point has to be God. He's the standard. It's his glory that we have fallen short of.

Very key, you go into Romans chapter 3, that very famous verse, Romans 3, all have sinned, verse before it, for there is no difference.

Between what? Between Jew and Gentile. A little bit further back in Romans 3, and into Romans 2, we learned that not everyone was born under the law.

Well, the Jews were, Gentiles weren't, so how is it that everyone's accountable to God?

Because we are all made in the image of God, therefore we have fallen short of, not the Ten Commandments, we've fallen short of the glory of God.

Because we were made in God's image, we have fallen short of his glory, which was expressed very carefully in the

Ten Commandments. But it doesn't matter if you're Jew or Gentile, all have sinned, so all need the righteousness of who? God, and that righteousness manifested apart from the law and the prophets, though testified by the law and the prophets, that righteousness was manifested apart from the law and the prophets.

Righteousness by faith, upon all, to all who believe in Jesus Christ. That's the beauty of Romans 3 21 through the end of the chapter, but keep on reading chapter 4.

How is Abraham righteous before God? Abraham, who before circumcision, before the law, how was

Abraham made righteous with God? By faith. Faith in the promise of the seed.

Genesis 15 6, God spoke to him of Christ, Abraham believed the promise, and therefore he has the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith.

True of Abraham, certainly true of us, praise God. The grace of salvation. And so,

Jesus Christ had to die. Why did he have to die? Well, that's explained in Romans 3 25 and 3 26, or 3 24 25 and 26 explain why did he have to die?

The propitiation. And we don't have the word expiation, but that's given to us in chapter 4, where David says, how blessed is the man against whom

God does not account his sin, impute his sin. But the sin is gone, as far as it is from the

West, taken away. So, all those ideas come together, and we have to give an accounting for it, and we can't give an accounting for all these wonderful gospel truths, if we only say example, if we only say governance, if we only say victory, we never get to the propitiation, expiation, redemption, atonement, the double imputation, my guilt upon Christ, he who knew no sin became sin for me, and for all for whom he died, right?

He who knew no sin became sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. So, our guilt imputed to him, his righteousness imputed to us.

A great exchange. A great exchange. And people will complain about that, and say, this is a legal fiction, this is a

Western idea of salvation. Actually, it's very Eastern, because it goes all the way back to the

Old Testament, to the ancient Near East, wherein God set down a pattern into the granite of Israel's history, offer up this lamb in your place, the lamb without blemish, without spot, that'll be you, you'll be without blemish, you will be without spot, and the lamb will be the one that dies in your place, and for your sake.

And he embedded that into their history, a very Eastern history. Even the terminology that Jesus uses on the cross, when he dies, totalisti, that's a legal term, which means paid in full, the debt being paid, and an exchange is happening there, and he utilizes that language.

There's some additional terminology, so we've talked about some theories of the atonement, but then the questioner also asks, and we're going to tie in John 3 .16,

why is penal substitutionary atonement so offensive to some?

And I think it also goes to the next question, is can we build a case for limited atonement, or particular redemption?

So the question is about John 3 .16, which actually both of those come up in, it's a famous verse, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten

Son, that's whosoever believeth shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

And so there, Jesus is dying on the cross, he's giving up his life, Jesus is known as the

Son, and so we're talking about penal substitutionary atonement, God is sacrificing his

Son, how is that not cosmic child abuse? Because the terminology is there, this is his

Son, and he loves the world so much that he sent his Son to be a penal substitutionary atonement, so there's that aspect, and then tying it into whosoever believes shall not perish.

He loved the world that he gave his Son, so where do we get this idea of a limited atonement?

We were talking about the theories of the atonement, and generally,

I'm thinking limited or unlimited atonement. You know, that's what I was thinking, and that's not really where we went, that Michael brought up, because those were those first theories, you know, the misguided or misordered, bringing up Eudoxus and Gratias, and maybe some more liberal theories, you know, it's built upon the idea that man's just sick, or man needs a good, you know, man's not really dead, man's not under the judgment of God.

Those are, you know, the more liberal versions of Christianity, if you could even say that.

But when we talk about how the New Testament clearly talks about, uses the terms penal substitution, propitiation, judgment, sin, we're now solidly in the biblical camp, and on that biblical camp, people who support penal substitution, some are limited atonement, and some are unlimited.

Some are more, and you can use these terms differently, or there are different terms that can sometimes be used.

Particular redemption. Yeah, limited atonement is particular redemption. Yeah. And then you've got unlimited atonement, or universal atonement.

Sometimes those are used synonymously. So that is, those are the two competing views of penal substitution, or in the penal substitution camp.

Yeah, so then we have this verse that says, whoever believes shall not perish.

And so how do some people come to the idea that the atonement would be limited?

In what sense would it be limited? How is that term being used? Right, so the limited atonement, the most important thing about that is it starts with the letter

L, and so it's an essential for spelling tulip. It's, so we can say tulip, you know, so that we can easily explain the five points of Calvinism, right?

So L for limited atonement, but most everybody believes in a limited atonement of some kind.

So we start there and say most Christians, and without hardly any exceptions, most

Christians believe that not everybody goes to heaven. Okay, and so Jesus, in dying on the cross, in some fashion, does not save everybody and get them all to heaven.

Now there are some people who have tried to maintain that idea, but it's really hard, especially since Jesus himself says that that is not the case.

And of course we've got a lot to learn there, and trust in God and his glory, and to appreciate grace for what it is, but even somebody who says

I don't believe in limited atonement, what they mean is I don't believe in that L as it's part of the five points of Calvinism.

They don't mean, generally, they think that everybody's just going to go to heaven. Whether they know it or not, like it or not, everyone's gonna end up there.

They would find that idea bad, in bad taste as well. But would they affirm that Jesus died for everyone?

Yes, so they would say Jesus died for everybody, and then if you were to ask them, well then why doesn't everybody go to heaven, what would the response probably be?

Because they didn't choose Christ. That's usually the determining factor.

If we have a general atonement, or unlimited, that is unlimited in scope, that Jesus died for all persons that have ever lived, or would ever lived, the deciding factor must be that person either believed or they did not.

So eternal life is a gift of God. You're not required to take a gift, but it is freely offered to everyone who is informed about it.

So my next question for them would generally go along, and because we need to talk about the real gut punch of Christianity, is that what about all those people who weren't informed about the gift?

Why didn't God arrange for them to all get a notification about the gift? Because we're talking about the atonement.

Okay, if it's limited in the sense of response, let's say that. Okay, Jesus died for everybody, but you're saying that people have to respond appropriately in order to obtain that gift.

Like a mass text would have been nice, just to everyone. Something. So it's limited to the response, which means that it's limited to their exposure.

And so you have billions who have lived and died without being exposed to the message.

So my follow -up question is, why then did God arrange for Jesus's atonement, for him to die on the cross in such a way that it would not secure that opportunity for all these people?

Since he's dying for everyone, but in that atonement, in his death upon the cross and resurrection from the dead, since it was for everybody, but somehow it did not secure the opportunity for everyone.

It secured the gift for everyone, but did not secure the opportunity for everyone. So they're believing in a limited atonement in that sense, because since the possibility of salvation is limited by the exposure to the gospel, that was not provided for in the atonement.

Right, yeah. And particularly given the definition of atonement, at one with God, they are not at one with God, because they did not respond.

So it's going to be very limited. Limited based on missionary efforts, evangelism efforts, technology, availability of the travel or broadcast, getting the word out, and so on.

The point of what I'm saying is that if the atonement is limited by response, well that means it's also limited by the opportunity to respond, which apparently

God did not secure for everyone in the atonement. Are you saying those ideas are just incompatible?

Well I think it's incompatible, but it's one of those things that is not considered. It seems to be, well

God is not heartless in that Christ would only die for some people made in his image.

He has to die for all human beings everywhere equally in the same way, otherwise it's unfair.

It's also a little unfair to only have missionaries there, to only have those first couple thousand people there in what would become

Palestine. If your concern is God being fair, then the problem really isn't the atonement.

The problem is that he didn't arrange for everybody to have the same opportunity to respond to the gospel.

That's actually the issue. And when I share that with folks who reject the idea of a limited atonement in the sense that we're talking about, then they begin reaching for things.

And I can see them being uncomfortable, and they begin reaching for things, and they'll say, well I think that maybe when people die,

God gives everybody an opportunity, you know, kind of post -life debriefing.

Here's what you missed, you didn't get your opportunity, here's the gospel, here's your opportunity to respond before we go ahead and stick you in heaven or in hell.

Nice thought, not in the scriptures, right? Nowhere in the Bible. And most of these folks that I talk to are very much dedicated to the

Bible. And so we would have to come to an agreement that that's a pretty hard gut punch. So even if you reject limited atonement because you feel like that God is being unfair, you still have to say

God is being awfully unfair by not arranging for, in the atonement, equal opportunity for everyone to respond.

So we're not really gaining any ground into the camp of God being fair, even by rejecting limited atonement.

Now the question is, well what about all the scriptures that say Jesus Christ died for the world? I rejoice in those scriptures, right?

I rejoice in those scriptures. He did die for the world. We see that Jesus Christ shed his blood for every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

We can fully affirm that he died on the cross for all without distinction.

But I can't say, I'm gonna say all, I'm gonna rejoice in the word all, and recognize that that's what it means in the context, all without distinction.

It's not just the Jews, but it's Jews and the Gentiles. Not just men, but men and women. Not just parents, but parents and children.

All. Not just masters, but masters and slaves. All, right? Not just civilized people, but also barbarians.

All without distinction. And I rejoice in that truth, and that should drive our missions, and that should drive our evangelism with all kinds of confidence.

But it's not all without exception. It doesn't mean he died for all without exception, because we know there are people he did not die on the cross for.

Why do we know that? Because the Bible also says that as well. And we have to wrap our heads around that.

So John chapter 10, verse 14, Jesus says, I am the Good Shepherd, and I know my sheep, and I'm known by my own, as the

Father knows me. Even so, I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. Who does he lay his life down for?

The sheep. For the sheep. His sheep, his flock. His sheep, that's right. And he says, and of the sheep

I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring. And they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

So metaphorically, he's talking about Jews and Gentiles. He's gonna bring them all in as one. That's Ephesians 2. Therefore my

Father loves me, because I laid down my life, that I may take it again. That dispels the cosmic child abuse thing, because Jesus is doing this willingly, not being forced to do it.

Verse 18, no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down. I have power to take it again.

This command I have received from my Father. Now when the Jews confront him, the religious leaders confront him, and try to argue against him, and so on, he responds in verse 25, he says,

I told you and you do not believe the works that I do in my Father's name. They bear witness of me, but you do not believe.

Why? Because you are not of my sheep. He just said he lays down his life for his sheep, and now he's saying, you're not of my sheep.

So Jesus is not on the cross yet. He's heading towards the cross, and he says,

I'm gonna lay down my life for the sheep, Jew and Gentile, all without distinction.

I'm gonna lay down my life for the sheep, and by the way, you're not of my sheep, which means what?

I'm not laying my life down for you. I'm laying down my life for the sheep. You're proving that you're not of the sheep, because you don't believe.

Hmm. Okay. Notice it doesn't say, you know, you are not one of my sheep, because you don't believe.

That's not what it says. Right. It says, you do not believe, because you're not one of my sheep.

Look at the order of it. Don't change the order. That's right, and so for clarification on this, this is not like the first time this theme has come up in the

Gospel of John. This is underwritten by themes already established in John chapter 6.

So Jesus says in verse 36, but I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

He's saying this to the crowds. Why are these people not believing in him? Well, he begins to explain this, just like he did in chapter 10.

Why did they not, you're not of my sheep, therefore you don't believe. Right, so he says in chapter 10, but chapter 6, he has a very similar situation with some of these crowds.

Verse 37 of John chapter 6, he says, all that the Father gives me will come to me. All. All without distinction.

Jew or Gentile, right? And the one who comes to me I will by no means cast out. So the

Father and the Son, they do this saving work in agreement. They're not working at cross purposes.

For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of the Father who sent me that of all that he has given me

I should lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. So all the Father gives to me will come to me and all that he gives me

I will raise up at the last day. Security of the believer. Preservation of the

Saints. So all who the Father gives to the Son will be saved and saved for all of eternity.

Resurrection included. Verse 40, and this is the will of him who sent me that everyone who sees the

Son and believes in him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up in the last day. That's usually what people kind of focus on.

When you believe in the Son, you will be raised up on the last day. You believe in him, you will be raised up. No one can snatch you out of the Father's hand.

But why do you believe? But why do you believe? And that's what the chapter, the whole paragraph says.

Because the Father gave them to the Son. And well in there, because we're using

Trinitarian language, the Father gave to the Son and then all that were given to the Son he will raise on the last day.

So then if Jesus has died for everyone, every single person, and there he's saying that everyone that is given to me

I will raise, don't you by necessity have universalism? Right.

It's a logical step. Yeah that gets to the other nature of the Atonement, that it was an actual effective, something actually happened in the

Atonement. It wasn't the paving of potential, but it was the doing of something real that changes everything.

And so continuing with the theology of the Trinity and so on, remembering that salvation is for all, not just the

Jews but also the Gentiles, and you get to Acts 11 there was a little bit of consternation amongst the Jews that Peter went and preached to the

Gentiles, ate Gentile food and hang out with the Gentiles, but of course Peter was sent there to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his household, and Peter's trying to explain it to them and saying, but you know this is the whole baptism of the

Holy Spirit thing happened. And then they got quiet and they realized, oh they repented and believed, and this was shown by the

Holy Spirit's work in their life. And so Acts 11 18, when they heard these things they became silent and they glorified

God saying, then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.

And the word granted is just the Greek form of the Greek noun for grace. So God has graced unto the

Gentiles repentance to life. How did he do that? By the Holy Spirit. So God gives these sheep, all without distinction, gives these sheep to the

Son who dies for them upon the cross, laying down his life for them, and in raised to newness of life the

Holy Spirit is sent forth from the Father and the Son to these for whom

Christ died to raise them in spiritual life so that they will be forever belonging to God.

So there's an agreement between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in saving, and something actually happened.

So I think there's a necessity to read this salvation as all without distinction, not without exception, because something actually happened.

Propitiation is a real thing. Right. Jesus actually died, his blood was actually shed, he actually died upon that cross, the sky actually went black for three hours, there was an earthquake, the tombs broke open,

Jesus was actually dead, buried in the grave, he was actually raised from the dead. Something actually happened.

It wasn't imaginary. And it's not, yeah, it's not a possibility of salvation.

It's not just the offer, and that's where we talk about limiting atonement.

One side limits the scope, meaning limited number of people, and the other limits the power, meaning that if Jesus has died for every single person, but not everyone goes to heaven, then his death was not power enough to secure their salvation.

And so what is that number for whom Christ died? Revelation 7 says a multitude that no man can count.

Huge number. From every tribe, tongue, and nation. Yeah, so all without distinction, and so many you can't count them.

If someone tells me, now I'm going to give you a gift of Bitcoin, but it's going to be a limited gift.

Before I start complaining, okay, about this gift being limited, I might want to ask, how much?

Oh, you can't count that high. Oh, okay, well, you don't sound so stingy now, do you? You know, it wasn't like,

I'm gonna give you all of the sats in the whole world. No, I'm gonna give you a limited amount of them, but how many?

More than you can count. Okay, so in that case, we think about the language of limited atonement.

We're not talking about God rejoicing and saving a couple of hundred. Frozen, chosen.

Exactly, us four no more, all of that. That's not what we're talking about, and we're not rejoicing in how few get saved.

Now, there might be some Calvinists who get a real joy in that, and I'm one of them, but that's not biblical.

But a test case, to push, to put this into the test, I would say there is no better testing passage than 1st

John chapter 2. Okay, because in this case, we have both the affirmation of all, and something genuinely happening, a real atonement.

So 1st John 2 verses 1 and 2, my little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin, talking to Christians, and if anyone sins, as we find throughout 1st

John, hey, Christians sin, and we need to confess that sin, and so on. He says, so that you may not sin, but if anyone sins, ah, we have an advocate, with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. So, verse 2, and he himself is the propitiation for our sins.

Every word study of propitiation, in this context, in Romans 3, all the way back into its meaning established by the

Old Testament, means what? This is a satisfying payment by sacrifice.

It means a satisfying payment by sacrifice. So, propitiation is a real, actual, genuine payment.

Something actually happened. Transactionally, spiritually, something actually happens here.

So, he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

And in this, I rejoice. When I say that's for the whole world, I think all without distinction.

Now, I read a commentary one time on somebody who was a four -point Calvinist. So, he believed in tulip, not tulip, which, again, he's like, you've got to have an

L, otherwise it's a nonsense word. So, the L is important, even though it can get a little confusing.

But he believed, oh yeah, God's in charge, and men are very, very sinful.

We need the grace of God to break through and bring us in. And he just didn't believe in that limited atonement part.

And this is a position called... Emeraldism. Yes. Thank you for pronouncing that. And so,

I was thinking, huh, I wonder what he's gonna do with 1 John 2 .2. So, I went over there and I read it. It was very short, a little bit funny, and a little bit disappointing.

He wrote, he wanted to really affirm penal substitutionary atonement, right? That Jesus Christ really, truly sacrificed himself on the cross.

There really was the satisfaction of God's righteousness, God's offended wrath was really dealt with here on the cross.

And that, also, that it was for the whole world. The whole world. Not just the elect, but everybody.

All people everywhere that has ever lived and will ever live. Yeah. So, then the question comes, and he makes that, observes that there's a question about this.

Well, then how do we get away from the idea of double punishment, double payment, in which

Christ suffered the full wrath of God on the cross concerning the sins and transgressions of these sinners.

They don't accept the gift, so they go to hell and suffer the full punishment of all other transgressions and sins, even though Christ already suffered for that on the cross.

How do we avoid this double payment, this double punishment, which would make God unjust?

How do we avoid that? Good question. I think it was about a sentence long. His conclusion was, those who don't receive the gift, their punishment comes back upon their own heads.

Somehow, it's deducted from what Christ suffered on the cross. Retroactively.

Sure. Christ goes into a restaurant, pays 100 checks, and then those people who don't thank him for that, their checks, oh wait, never mind,

I'm just gonna cancel that credit card payment and just gonna give this person that check. Okay, it goes back to them.

That makes sense. The check and the credit card are not actual payments. Just promise to possibly pay, if you believe.

The credit card slip is an IOU that doesn't get resolved for a month, and the check will get maybe resolved in a little bit faster now that they do it all electronically, but those are all

IOUs. But what propitiation is an actual payment. The cost was actually there, but so it was a nonsensical thing, his conclusion.

I thought, well, you know, I was expecting a more robust defense of it, but I think he understands that there's just no way.

He's just gonna have to leave it in mystery and place the mystery there. And to me, a lot of what theology is about is, where do you place the mystery?

In the classic conundrum of God being all -good, all -powerful, sovereign, and so on, and man still being responsible and a free agent.

How is it that we can have both of these things at the same time in the same universe? How can

God be fully sovereign and still be responsible? And some people will put the mystery in places that they feel more comfortable.

Paul leaves the mystery where God is completely sovereign, in charge of everything, and who are you, oh man, to answer to the one who made him that way.

Right. So yeah, okay, leave the mystery right there. There's a fence at the edge of the cliff at the

Grand Canyon that says, don't go past this point, enjoy the view, but don't go past this point. And there are places like that in theology.

You walk up to the edge and the Bible is revealing all these glorious things. You walk up right to the very edge and there's a fence that says, thus far and no further, enjoy the view, mm -hmm, worship, fear

God, revere, but don't go past this point. And everybody who climbs the fence or tries to move the fence ends up with a whole lot, if they move the fence, it's a whole lot less better view.

Sometimes they fall off the cliff. If they try to climb over the fence, they're definitely falling off the cliff. Then you get people like Clark Pinnock who gives up on sovereignty of God, becomes an open theist.

Right. Right. Or you do something where God's looking down the corridor of time to see who will choose him, and then that's who he dies for.

Yeah. In that discussion, so a lot of Calvinists go to Romans 9.

I like to back up into Romans 8, and I've heard this called the golden chain of redemption. Mm -hmm.

Basically, and it's talking about suffering. Again, another, there's a mystery there. God's sovereign, we stop suffering the world.

But in Romans 8, starting in verse 28, it says we know that all things work together for good to those who love

God, to those who are called according to his purpose. So it uses the word call there.

29. For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Moreover, whom he predestined, these he also called. Whom he called, these he also justified.

And whom he justified, these he also glorified. You start messing with those fences, and you start putting things off, this no longer becomes true.

It just starts to fall apart. If he's calling everyone, well, you follow that chain to the end, then everyone will be glorified.

Right? It just says you go down the line, he did this, he did this, he did this. Everyone he calls, he justifies.

So if he's calling everyone, everyone gets justified, everyone gets glorified. It's that golden chain of redemption.

If you remove that L, well, that's right after unconditional election.

And that's right before irresistible grace or effectual calling. Right? The call of the

Holy Spirit is effectual. The atonement is tied to that effectual call. Why would the

Holy Spirit be calling people that Jesus did not die for? If Jesus died for every single person, then there are people in hell for whom he died.

Obviously, those are logical things we can look at, but if you go to Scripture and you just follow through, what does he say?

Everyone that God has given to me I will raise on the last day. If that's everyone, then that's everyone.

And so for the Calvinist, this is where I just want to be clear, it's like we affirm all of this, you know, in its emphasis on God, God's sovereignty,

God's control, God's power, God's choice, God's determination, and so on, to give him glory. And I think our many brethren want to glorify

God too, but I'm just saying that we're gonna fully affirm that while at the same time we're gonna read past Romans 8 and Romans 9 and we get to Romans 10, this is our full -throated affirmation that if you confess with your mouth the

Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God is raised from the dead, you will be saved. Amen. And that's a huge number, a huge number of people.

Yeah, and the Scripture says whoever believes in him will not be put to shame, and whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Thousand -percent amen. Preach this wholeheartedly, warmly, and just because there have been in the past people who in the name of Calvinism, but actually because of their hyper -rationalism, came to conclusions that were unbiblical, where they didn't think that all men have the duty to repent and believe, or they thought that if you don't agree with Calvinism you're going to hell, whatever form of hyper -Calvinism it is, just because some people have done that and said that and believe that because of rationalism, doesn't mean therefore that everybody who holds to TULIP, or you change the acronym to TUPEP, which

I don't know, I just I'm not I'm not really jiving with TUPEP, you know, but anyway, that doesn't mean that we're not preaching for the salvation of all men.

We are. So you mentioned in 1st John 2, and it was that all statements saying there's a real atonement, and you said it was incompatible with unlimited atonement, and that guy knows it.

He knows it. It's incompatible. That really limited atonement is really what makes sense in that, or particular redemption makes more sense in that passage.

You mentioned John 6, which is the bread passage, and those that the

Father has given to the Son, the Son loses none, and raises them up. And then

John 10, the sheep passages, the sheep hear His voice and come, and I will give them eternal life.

So we have, in these two chapters, there are those that have been given to the

Father, the Son loses none, and they have eternal life. There are those that the Father has given to the

Son, they are called, they do come, and He raises them up on the last day.

And there are those, says you do not believe because you're not of my sheep.

The sheep here follow and are raised up. Those who are not the sheep don't.

So we're not just pulling limited atonement out of nowhere. We're saying that the

Bible tells us there are those that, before the foundation of the world,

God chose and gave them to the Son. And the Godhead effects their salvation.

That effect within it causes it. And part of this question was John 3.

So we're dealing a lot with John. We have had Romans, we got 1st John, we got John 6 and John 10, but now we have

John 3. And his question centered around, what do you do with John 3 16?

Is John 3 16 still compatible with John 6, John 10, 1st John, and Romans?

Yeah, so I'm gonna wink at this a little bit. First of all, you know, Nicodemus comes and speaks to Jesus, and then

Jesus gives his answer. I think his answer stops at verse 12. You read carefully, the verbiage, pronouns, stuff change in verse 13.

So I think the story John tells about Jesus and Nicodemus goes verses 1 through 12. And in verse 13,

John, the evangelist, starts evangelizing. Okay, so he starts giving more understanding, more vital information about the gospel.

And so verse 13, no one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven. That is the Son of Man who is in heaven.

So he just said in verse 13. So John is writing this after Jesus Christ, the Son of Man has already ascended to heaven.

No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven, that is the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Now in the story, verses 1 through 12, Jesus the Son of Man is sitting with Nicodemus. But in verse 13,

John's like saying, he's like, I gotta tell you something. Story time's over, preaching time has begun.

Okay, so he's talking about Jesus Christ, he's in heaven. And he's like, okay, likewise, and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the

Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Exalt Christ, exalt the Son of Man, he's ascended for the sake of saving. Saving.

Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Well this sounds bad, perishing, not good. Something's gonna perish.

Verse 16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So something is going to perish, and those who do not believe in Christ are going to perish along with it.

Perish, perish. But they have to believe in Christ. Verse 17, for God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.

Now, what does John mean when he says world? We don't have time for the 12 podcasts that we would need to survey this very rich theme, however, put stock in that whoever.

Put stock in that whoever. All without distinction, right?

And notice the qualifier, whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. So it's not all without exception that are going to be saved, but only those who believe.

And we already found out how that is in the scriptures, because those whom the Father gives to the Son are the ones who believe by the grace of the

Holy Spirit. It's according to the electing grace of God that they believe. The sheep. The sheep, right.

So that gets explained later on in this same gospel. Chapter 6, chapter 10, you know, it's pretty clear.

So we see that God loved the world, but he did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.

Whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. So, he who believes in him is not condemned, verse 18, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten

Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.

For everyone practicing evil hates the light, does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

So the Gospel of John has often been said, it's safe enough for a child to wade, and deep enough for an elephant to drown.

I think that's a fine description of the whole Bible, mind you, but in the layers of this, we don't have to go very deep at all into a study about world or anything else to see that this affirms limited atonement.

But it says, whosoever. Yeah. And I keep hearing that, whosoever, whosoever.

Then, you know, depending on your version, my Bible says whoever. So, you know, there are those who are more

King James only, who would say, you know, the proper term is whosoever, stop changing the Bible.

They impregnate that word with meanings that's not intended. Can you comment on what that word actually means?

Yeah, it means whosoever. It means whoever in the original Greek, it means whosoever. What an amazing, it's a great word.

The point is, is that verse 16 says that some are going to perish. In context, you can read, there are people who are going to perish.

But it's only those who believe in Jesus Christ who are not going to perish. So we know the atonement is limited by that.

Not everybody goes to heaven. And both the Arminian and the Calvinists will both agree on that. Both would agree that it's limited by those who believe.

Absolutely. And so everyone agrees on that. And then the question is, where does that belief come from? John 6 and John 10 answer that.

It's like, hmm, well that's not, that's not really answered in the, in the context. Oh, actually it was answered in the context. You just trickle back up to the top.

There was this big conversation with Jesus and Nicodemus that started John off on this tangent of preaching. And in that context,

Nicodemus himself was like, oh what button do I push to be born again? Please tell me. And Nicodemus was great at pushing buttons.

He was great at doing sacrifices. He was great at doing rituals. He's the teacher of Israel. He's got a double PhD in Second Temple Judaism.

He's the man. And he asked Jesus, what button do I push to be born again? And Jesus says, no.

No, you don't push the button. Those who are born of the Spirit are like, you know, the wind blowing.

You don't control the wind. You can't even see the wind. You hear the sound of it, but you have no idea where it's coming from or where it's going.

So are also who are born of the Holy Spirit. So Nicodemus, there's no button that you push. You are born again by the sovereign, mysterious, gracious power of the

Holy Spirit. That's how Nicodemus is gonna get born again, and that's how whoever believes, whosoever believes in him,

I think that we would all agree, whosoever believes in him, that same whosoever should be described as the whosoever who are born again.

Everybody can agree on that. And people are like, well, you believe so that you are born again. Some people say, no, you're born again so that you do believe, even if we don't want to settle that debate.

We already have Jesus's testimony to Nicodemus that the Holy Spirit does that work apart from you, on you, and that's how you're born again.

Kind of like how you were born the first time. And to make this really clear, this was not a new idea in John 3.

It happened in John chapter 1. I got a funny story about this. Okay, so listen to this. Verse 10, speaking of Jesus Christ as the light of the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. He came, you know, this sounds like John 3 .16,

the world, the world, the world. Verse 11, he came to his own, and his own did not receive him. Some translations, he came to his own place.

Maybe it's his own people, maybe it's his own place, and his own did not receive him. But verse 12, but as many as received him, which sounds like believing in him, right, to them he gave the right to become children of God.

Let's rejoice in the legal saving framework of adoption here. What a beautiful thing.

He gave them the right to become the children of God to those who believe in his name. So receiving him means that you're believing in his name.

That's John 3 .16. All right, so here's the world. He came to the world. People are receiving him and believing in him.

Verse 13, who were born, same people, explaining, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

How did they believe? Not of their will, not the will of the flesh, not of blood, because they had good upbringing or eugenics or whatever, but of God.

They were born of God. That's how they believed. So there was once, and the faithful saint still with his faithful brother, and I love him dearly, but at my previous church we had rotating people get up and read the scriptures, and I brought that in from the church

I interned at, and brought it in here too, but it was time for him to read, and he is the most valiant anti -Calvinist that I have ever pastored.

Like he's more anti -Calvinist than Brother Keck is anti -Arminian. So some of us know what that means.

We love a joke. Dear brother, dear brother, and I love this man, but it was his turn to read the scriptures, and the scripture reading that morning was

John chapter 1, verses 6 through 13. He got up.

Was that Providence or was that? It was Providence. I didn't adjust the order.

I about did, but I thought no, it'll be good for him, because he does believe in the Bible, and he loves his

Bible. His Bible was wore out notes. He preserved his Bible, so he got up to read it, and of course he hadn't read it beforehand.

Well, people are busy. Sometimes it's time to read the scripture. I didn't have time to read it beforehand. I'm just gonna wing it when

I get up there. So he stood up to read the scriptures, and it was announced, it's in the bulletin,

John chapter 1, verses 6 through 13. He read along, and he got to verse 12, and you could tell he enjoyed verse 12.

Oh, he loved verse 12, and then you see a pause hit him as he reads verse 13 before he reads it out loud.

He just kind of stopped and just closed his Bible and was done. He did not read verse 13.

Did it get read the next week? Did somebody read it? Yeah, and so basically there was a skip on that verse, but he just couldn't bring himself to read that verse.

He's like, that doesn't fit. I don't know why it doesn't fit, but I ain't gonna read it. Some of us got tickled.

It's like, I love this man. I've never pastored an exclusively Calvinistic Church ever. He's like, we love him.

We know he disagrees with that, but okay. I really wish you would have read verse 13.

So John 1, John 3, John 6, John 10. It's in aggregate.

It's not that you have to have all of it at the same time. It's gonna be there present if you just read the context.

Yeah, and I think that's really the solution for anyone who brings up whosoever in John 3 .16.

You read all of John 3. You read John 1, all of John 3, John 6,

John 10, and take them all together, and then it is amazingly consistent.

Who are the ones who have eternal life? Those who believe. Who are the ones who believe? The ones who are sheep. How do you become a sheep?

Well, you're called out. You're born again. You're born from above. You're born of the Spirit. God is the one who does it, and He's the one who's...

It says that unless one is born again, it also means born from above, cannot see the kingdom of God.

You have to be born of water and the Spirit. You can't enter the kingdom of God. There's a whole background out of Ezekiel that goes with that one.

The Holy Spirit blows where He wishes, and if you believe in Him, you will have eternal life. That's verse 15, and it just flows right in to 16, and if you believe, you will have eternal life.

And there are those who will perish who do not believe. What's the distinction between the two of them?

Well, it answers that throughout the book, throughout this gospel that John has written, and I think that it shows there are those that have been given to the

Son, and the Atonement is particular to those people.

It has to be, and there's really no other way around it that a completely unlimited, everyone without exception, doesn't seem to fit with the biblical evidence in the gospel of John just alone, by itself.

In particular, if you're using the language of penal substitutionary atonement, if He is standing in as substitute, then you're not there receiving that wrath.

He is. That's what substitute means. Yeah, I think that answers those questions.

Let's move on to our recommendations. Michael? My recommendation is a translation of the

New Testament called the Text -Critical English New Testament, the Byzantine text version, which it was published in,

I think, 2021 by a missionary by the name of Robert Adam Boyd, who is doing translation work as part of his missionary work, bringing in quality translation for those whom he serves on the mission field.

What I like about this translation of the New Testament is that there's a great introduction that talks about the manuscript tradition and why he prefers what's called the majority text or the

Byzantine text type and the reasoning for it, which I find it very refreshing, and also talks about the way in which this

New Testament is translated and printed so that there are many, many footnotes explaining where in the passages that he's translating there will be a difference in what's called the critical text or where the difference is going to be in what's called the textus receptus.

And then even talking about the textual variants and how well supported they are within the

Byzantine text type and so on. And so to me it's refreshing because so much of modern scholarship has just gone whole hog over to the critical text and their presuppositions

I find to be less than warm towards the providence of God, more or less accepting a hermeneutic of suspicion than submission.

And so I just don't agree with the fundamental principles that brought about the critical text. And so this is a translation of the majority text and I really enjoy it and I think he's done a great job and he's put all his cards on the table.

So it's like the new King James in that the footnotes are very, very clear, let you know, give you all the information you need to understand where the variants are.

And I like that in a translation when they put all the cards on the table and say here's what's going on to better equip you, the reader, to make your own decisions about how you're reading this instead of hiding all that.

Right, yeah. David? I'm kind of in preparation for our questions. I looked up a couple of things regarding limited atonement that have helped me over the years.

One, we had mentioned the double payment for sin. That concept I think originated, if not popularized by John Owen, in the the death of death and the death of Christ, which is a big tome.

And if you want a helpful summary, read the introduction by J .I.

Packer. It is an excellent summary. You can get it online, you can get it for free. I really did like that.

In that same vein, J .I. Packer and Mark Dever also wrote a book called In My Place Contempt He Stood, celebrating the glory of the atonement.

And I really enjoyed that book. Again, these are both supporters of penal substitution. There are other books that are out there, like Four Views on the

Atonement is another book that talks about some of those other theories, governmental and such. And I think

Thomas Schreiner does the penal substitution. So I would encourage you to look at these authors, read these books, think through these things yourself, and then, you know, maybe listen back to some of the things that we discussed and go over the verses that we went over.

Those verses out of Romans, 1st John, the chapters in the Gospel of John that we mentioned.

Because that's authoritative. Not necessarily these books, but I just don't see how you can take the

Bible at its word and not arrive at penal substitution. And I think that definite atonement is most compatible with penal substitution.

So hopefully these books will help you think through those issues as well. I've got two resources that are kind of connected.

We've been talking a lot about confessionalism and creeds and covenant theology.

Trying to wrap my head around that. And it seems like many of the catechisms are covenantal.

And so I was thinking, is there anything else out there? And in kind of one of our group chats that the men have, there were a couple resources that were shared.

And I looked into them. Now, caveat, creeds and confessions and catechisms are nice, but they're, for me, conversation starters to get us back to the

Bible. They're not infallible. The Word of God is infallible. So that's obviously our foundation.

But I found these helpful. There's one called the Redeemer Catechism. And it's kind of from a

New Covenant theology perspective. But then one that caught my eye is the New Covenant Catechism for Little Ones, aka catechids.

And he kind of delves into what he was looking for as a parent, looking for a catechism. There's Keech's, 1689, all these different confessions and catechisms.

But this one is called the New Covenant Catechism for Little Ones. That doesn't import a lot of the covenant theology.

Many Baptists will call themselves covenantal. But when I tried to force that covenantal framework,

I started drifting towards Presbyterianism. I think that's a consistent covenantalism.

But then you start looking into progressive covenantalism or different things. So New Covenant Catechism for Little Ones.

That's what I use with my kids. Yeah, okay. You were probably one of them. My youngest three boys will gather around for a Bible story.

And then we'll also do some of the questions out of there. Yeah, very good. Let's move on to what we are thankful for.

Michael? I am thankful for my son, Benjamin, and thankful for his vital help today.

We had an emergency out on our land and he was Johnny -on -the -spot and solid as a rock and very, very helpful.

I can always depend on him. And also that he has volunteered to care for his younger siblings, the rest of our children, while we are going out of town.

Becca and I are going out of town for our 20th anniversary. And Ben just stood up and said,

I'll take care of it. We don't have to have anybody else come in. We're gonna have like some relief pitchers here and there.

But in the main, he just wanted to take up the whole thing and do it himself. So I'm very thankful for him and his attitude, his willingness to serve.

So I really appreciate him. David? I had spoken to someone earlier about just the series of car troubles that they had had on different trips.

And that my own family had a couple things coming back from. Virginia coming into Nashville and there they were preserved.

And I'm just wanting to be thankful that all of our cars are back. I've been able to be home at stretches of time to actually get things done.

You know, the periodic maintenance that needs to be done. I was at basically the auto shop for about eight hours today.

Dealers, because you know, it was just in line and they were trying to figure out some problem. And I've been there many times over the over the years.

And they know that I'm a pretty good customer. And all they charged me for was the air filter that I needed to have done.

They didn't charge me for hours of diagnostics and other stuff. Because they know I'll be back. I got the bill.

I was like, man, this is gonna be bad. And they weren't able to find the problem. I'm gonna pay a bunch of money. And he says he handed me a bill for $35.

I was like, um, what about this? This? Oh yeah, we took care of that. We took care of that. That was a problem. That wasn't a problem.

That wasn't a problem. And I'm sorry that we couldn't find it. I'm sorry that we couldn't fix it. But if it happens again, please bring it back. I'm like, thank you.

And I had time where I could just read and respond to some emails. Respond to chats.

And go over stuff. And send memes. I did some of that too. Excellent. It was great.

But I just had that time. So it was, it was nice. And it didn't cost a whole lot. So I'm just really thankful to have people that I can trust.

And that want my business. And want me to come back. And I certainly will. So I'm very grateful for that.

I'm grateful for my father. As I'm parenting, I'm learning a lot of new things.

And I reflect back onto my upbringing. And see how many times that I have not been grateful for what has been handed to me.

For the foundation that he laid. Many of the things that that I do have sprung out of what he's done for us.

I know that I have like an analytical mind. And I can be critical. And that's wrong. And that's wrong.

And that's wrong. But looking back, I can remember distinct times where he opened the

Word of God to us. Where he sat down and he prayed with us. And I can see differences in our parenting styles.

How we handle different things. But I wouldn't be who I am today in large part because of him.

And his dedication to showing us the importance of following God.

The determination that he had. He still has. And I'm still learning from him. And so I'm very thankful that I still have him around.

For the legacy that he has. That he's leaving. And I'm hoping to see him soon.

We saw him this last Saturday. But I want to just sit down and get some alone time with him. And just you know thank him in person.

And to go through the Bible. And talk. And just to have that new type of relationship. Still father and son.

But it's very different now having children of my own. And it's like how did you how did you you know manage this?

So I'm very grateful for for my father. And that wraps it up for today.

We are very thankful for our listeners. And hope you will join us again as we meet to answer common questions and objections with Have You Not Read?