July 7, 2025 • 53 mins
This is Part 4 of a 5 Part series on the evaluation of Reformed Theology, also referred to as Calvinism. We hope you will join us for this complete series.
The tension between divine sovereignty and human free will has challenged theologians for centuries. Nowhere is this more evident than in discussions around Reformed Theology (Calvinism), where seemingly contradictory biblical passages paint a complex picture of salvation.
In this deeply engaging exploration, we move beyond theoretical frameworks to examine the actual Scripture passages that form the foundation of Reformed thought. Starting with 1 Corinthians 2:14, which describes the natural person's inability to understand spiritual things, we carefully consider whether context supports applying this to salvation or if it primarily addresses spiritual discernment for believers. The profound statements of Jesus in John 6—"no one can come to me unless the Father draws him"—receive particular attention, including analysis of the Greek term for "drawing" and how it appears elsewhere in Scripture.
We tackle passages that strongly suggest divine election (Acts 13:48, 2 Thessalonians 2:13) alongside numerous Old Testament texts commanding people to "seek the Lord" (Deuteronomy 4:28-29, Isaiah 55:6-7). The dramatic moment when Joshua tells the Israelites "you have chosen for yourselves the Lord" presents a particularly compelling case for human volition in spiritual matters. Throughout this journey, we discover Scripture affirming both God's sovereign choice and meaningful human response.
What emerges is not a simplistic either/or proposition but a beautiful theological understanding that respects both God's sovereignty and the reality of human choice. Rather than forcing Scripture into rigid systematic frameworks, perhaps we're invited to embrace how these truths coexist. For those struggling with questions of election, predestination, and free will, this episode offers balanced biblical examination that honors the full testimony of Scripture.
Thank you for listening!! Please give us a five-star rating to help your podcast provider's algorithm spread RTTB among their listeners.
You can find free study and leader resources at the following link - Resource Page - Reasoning Through the Bible
Please prayerfully consider supporting RTTB to help us to continue providing content and free resources. You can do that at this link - Support RTTB - Reasoning Through the Bible
May God Bless you!! - Glenn and Steve
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to Reasoning Through the Bible.
We are in the midst of a seriesthat we're doing a special
topic on Reformed Theology, alsoknown as Calvinism.
Today, this session, we'regoing to start going through a
series of Bible passages andwe're going to assume that
you've been through the firsttwo sessions that we did that
(00:20):
gave an overview of what isReformed theology and our
evaluation of it, with thingsthat are strong and possible
weaknesses.
So today, what we're going todo, what really needs to be done
, which is to go throughindividual Bible passages and
wrestle with what they'reactually saying and try to dive
(00:41):
into the meanings of each.
And since there's many of these, then we're going to just see
how it goes.
This may run into more than onesession, but again, especially
if you're new to Reformedtheology, you really need to
listen to the first two beforeyou get into this one.
And today we're probably goingto see some of the areas that
Steve and I may not see eye toeye on, but we'll also see some
(01:02):
things that we do agree on, andit's always fun to study the
Word I may not see eye to eye on, but we'll also see some things
that we do agree on.
And so there's and it's alwaysfun to study the Word of God.
So we're going to go into agood bit of detail today.
We want to go down through aseries of verses that talk about
and are related to this wholeconcept of salvation and
election and reformed theology.
I want to talk about 1Corinthians 2.14 says but a
(01:26):
natural man does not accept thethings of the Spirit of God for
they are foolishness to him andhe cannot understand them
because they are spirituallyappraised.
Now, that verse, steve, is oneof the ones that the Reformed
theologians would use.
Again, look at what it says.
It says the natural man it'stalking about a lost person
(01:47):
before salvation does not acceptthe things of God, so they
freely don't accept there's freewill right there and they are
foolishness to him.
He cannot understand them.
And that's one of the keythings that the Reformed
theologian would pick in totaldepravity is he cannot
(02:07):
understand them.
He's physically incapable ofunderstanding spiritual concepts
involved in the gospel.
Why Last part of the verse?
Because they are spirituallyappraised.
So a Reformed person would takethis and say see, they're
totally lost in the sense ofdead and trespasses and sins,
(02:28):
cannot understand and thereforeGod has to open their eyes and
cause them to be regenerated inorder to be saved.
That's what the typically usedin Reformed theology.
I'll let you get your response,but mine would be this the
(02:52):
concepts in this passage.
One of the things our Englishtranslations do that are not our
friend is split verses out intoindividually numbered things.
It helps us find things, but itdoesn't help us get the context
, because people come and pickverses like this and apply them
in a different place than whatit's really taught.
(03:13):
This verse, the context of thisentire chapter, is on the
wonderful things that God, thatthe Holy Spirit, reveals to us,
that God is revealing all thesewonderful things to us.
That's the context.
The context is not moving usfrom a state of a lost person to
a saved person.
(03:34):
The concept just I mean thecontext, rather is just not
talking about salvation.
It's talking about things thatGod reveals to us in the
Christian life as beingspiritual things that are
valuable to us.
Therefore, just like a lot ofthings in the book of Romans,
things in the book of Romans arein sections, and where you get
(03:58):
in trouble in Romans is diggingdown under a section, picking
out a verse and then using it tobuild a theological concept
when the section's really nottalking about that?
Now, if you ask the question,could you apply this to
salvation?
Ah yeah, maybe I mean thatconcept's in there somewhere,
(04:19):
but the passage really isn'ttalking about salvation.
Really isn't talking aboutsalvation.
The passage is talking aboutGod revealing high truths of
spirituality to us, not whetheror not we can grasp fundamental
concepts of lostness andsavedness.
It's talking about lofty thingsof the Holy Spirit are not
(04:44):
discerned by the natural man.
So logically I guess it couldapply in a salvation sense.
But that's not really thecontext of the passage.
Your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Well, yeah, the two verses preceding that are giving
a description of a person whois saved, who has the Spirit of
God and what they have, and thenin verse 14, he's juxtaposing
that with a person, a naturalman, who is lost.
So, yeah, context is king.
(05:18):
Read and see what the contextis, rather than just taking the
one verse.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
And again, this is where, again, I've gotten a lot
of benefit over the years out ofsystematic theology.
But what always happens insystematic theology is we, okay,
here's what the concept we'regoing to talk about.
Then we go pick a bunch ofverses here and there and when
you just pick a verse out of achapter, okay, yeah, it may seem
to say that until you look atthe context of the chapter, you
(05:46):
know, steve, somebody ought tostart at chapter one, verse one,
and do a verse-by-verse Biblestudy.
Oh, somebody does.
Next one to talk about.
And these are ones againstrongly used by Reformed guys
John 6, 44.
No one can come to me unlessthe Father who sent me draws him
.
And the next verse not far away, in that same context John 6,
(06:11):
65,.
No one can come to me unless ithas been granted to him from
the Father.
So, steve, I remember I saidearlier I didn't listen to a
whole lot of Reformed guys, butI do remember listening to RC
Sproul at this point where hemade a big deal about see, no
one can the word can meansyou're not able no one can come
(06:33):
to me unless the Father who sentme draws him.
And Sproul made a big deal aboutthe Greek word there for draw.
It was really a strong word.
It really means to kind of drag.
It's a strong word.
That means not just a subtleinfluence but it's more of a
really strong draw.
(06:55):
It has to be really almostforced is what the Greek there
means, according to Sproul, andI would agree.
I looked up the term and he'sright about the definition of
the word.
It is a strong term.
The problem is that that sameword is used when Jesus was in
the temple and he said lift meup and I will draw all men to
(07:20):
myself.
So, rc, if we're going to saythat in John 6, 44, the draw
there is almost a forcefullydrag, then we have to use it in
the same sense over in Jesus,saying I'm going to forcefully
drag all men to myself.
But we know that's not the case.
(07:41):
So we're reduced down to thecase that it really means what
it says, what the translatorsgave it, which he does draw all
men to himself.
And I would take this verse John6, 44 and 6, 65.
It's true, no one can, we arenot able.
Left to ourselves.
I would agree with Reformedtheology in the sense that, left
(08:04):
to ourselves, all we're goingto do is go off into hell, that
we will not come to God, that hehas to draw us.
We don't get from this limitedatonement and we don't get from
this particular election and wedon't get from this verse that
(08:26):
he only does some, because again, some of the same language is
used when Jesus and he says allwho come to me shall drink.
So as long as we're not readingthis through systematic theology
, glasses we can hold.
Yeah, no one is able to.
We do not have the ability tocome to Jesus unless he draws us
(08:47):
.
Good thing, the Holy Spiritdraws us Now and again.
I'm not going to limit thesovereignty of God and say that
he can't sovereignly decide todraw some people more than
others, and that we aresometimes more obstinate in some
cases than others, and some ofit he has to draw a lot harder
(09:08):
to get through my thick skull,and so I just see this.
I don't think this necessarilymeans that all the rest of
Calvinism is true.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, my response to the reformer on this would be
what it doesn't say is it doesnot say no one will come to me,
or no one will come to me unlessit has been granted by the
Father.
So it says can?
It's a conditional statement.
It's just saying no one cancome unless the Father draws
them.
Your example of Jesus sayinglift me up and I'll draw all men
(09:43):
to myself.
And how is it that the man weregranted him from the father?
Well, he came himself and Jesusis the one that died for our
sins.
So anytime that you go out, you, being a believer, go out and
tell someone else the gospelmessage.
You're acting as an agent todraw that person to Jesus, and
(10:09):
that is a method of the way.
One of the methods of the waythat God draws and Jesus draws
people to himself is through usgoing out and giving the gospel
message.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Okay, moving on Next verse.
We're having so much fun.
1 Timothy 6.12, quote take holdof the eternal life to which
you are called.
And you made the goodconfession in the presence of
many witnesses.
So this is Paul speaking toTimothy, giving him advice,
one-on-one.
(10:41):
And a Reformed person wouldtake that and say that they
would say look at this, paul istelling Timothy, take hold of
the eternal life to which youwere called.
And a Reformed, strong, reformedperson would say look, he, god,
called Timothy.
His call is effective.
And that's one of the termsthat gets thrown around in
(11:04):
Reformed theology is theeffectual call.
His call is effective.
When God calls somebody, it'snot going to fail.
And here's a quote from LewisBerry Chafer quote there could
not be failure in one instanceamongst the millions who are
called.
Unquote.
So that's the claim is thatwhen it says here in 1 Timothy
(11:29):
6.12 and in other places whereit talks about being called and
the eternal life to which youwere called that's the reason I
used this quote was it's nottalking about being called into
ministry or being called intosome particular type of service.
No, he's talking about beingcalled to eternal life.
(11:49):
And a reformed person would saysee, that call is effective.
A reformed person would sayGod's not going to call somebody
and it failed.
What God sets out to do, he'sgoing to succeed.
And I would simply reply tothis my opinion that again a
(12:10):
non-secular doesn't follow thatjust because Timothy was called
by God, even in a strong sensethat therefore all of reform
teaching on particular electionis true, doesn't mean limited
atonement.
It doesn't mean that becauseGod called Timothy, even in a
strong sense of election,doesn't negate Timothy having
(12:34):
the ability to believe andreceive and that doesn't follow
that believe and receive is agood work and it doesn't follow
that all these other parts ofReformed theology I would say I
can hold to a strong sense of,even an effectual call, is to
eternal life.
That doesn't mean that allthese other things follow true,
(12:58):
and it doesn't mean that there'sa problem in between God
electing and my receiving, thatthose are somehow mutually
exclusive.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yeah, and the word call here many times the word,
the Greek word, is simply toinvite.
This particular Greek wordmeans to call, to come or go
somewhere.
So but there's a choice thatTimothy still makes here.
This doesn't say anything aboutthat effectual call, right, it
(13:27):
just says to which you werecalled.
Well, timothy could have eitherchosen to follow or not.
I mean, the verse certainlydoesn't exclude that it could
have been something that Timothycould have chosen to come or
not to come.
Whenever Jesus goes intoselecting his disciples, he goes
to Peter with all of them.
(13:48):
Really, he says come, follow me.
Well, they have a choice.
They can either follow him orthey don't have to follow him.
There's nothing there in thescripture that I know of that
says Peter had to go and followhim.
So just because the word hereis used and follow him, so just
(14:09):
because the word here is used,called, doesn't necessitate, in
my opinion, that Timothy had togo.
And follow.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Next verse we'll go into is 2 Timothy 3.9.
Still, paul, writing to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3.9 says quote God
who has saved us and called uswith a holy calling, not
according to our works, butaccording to his own purpose and
grace, which was granted us inChrist Jesus from all eternity.
(14:34):
Now a Reformed person wouldtake that verse and say, look,
it says in there that he calledus.
He called us, and they wouldsay his calling is effective,
it's not going to fail.
And they would say they wouldsay just read the verse.
He called certain peopleaccording to his purpose and
grace and he called these peoplein grace from eternity.
(14:59):
Again, look at the verse notaccording to our works.
And a Reformed person wouldfollow up and say that belief is
a work.
But what it would include isnot according to foreknowledge
of our belief again, which is tothem it's a work, but instead
according to his purpose and hisgrace, which was granted to us
(15:24):
from eternity.
So, regardless about theforeknowledge part, the Reformed
person would look at this andsay, look, it's saying from
eternity.
He called us according to hispurpose and he called us with a
holy calling.
And it is salvation because ittalks about saved us, and so
(15:47):
that's one of the passages thatthey would hold to be that, my
response would be okay, that's apretty strong verse and I would
say it's possible that he evendid this.
From eternity, just like itsays, doesn't mean particular
election, doesn't mean that wedon't have the ability to accept
(16:09):
or reject, doesn't mean thatwe're so dead that we can't
understand it Again.
Just because one little pieceof this is the case, it doesn't
follow that all the rest ofCalvinism follows.
That's what's the case.
It's entirely possible and I'vegranted the point.
He does things from eternity.
Why does he do it from eternity?
(16:30):
Because he doesn't think, nordoes he process things in
sequence and in time.
Everything he does is frometernity, everything he does.
So he chose us, he determinedthings from eternity.
He said this is so.
The New Testament, in Acts,talks about Pilate and Herod and
(16:53):
the Jewish leaders crucifyingJesus according to the
foreknowledge and predestinationof God.
But who did it?
They did it.
Who did it?
The Herod did it, pilate did it.
They freely chose to do it.
Could have done otherwise, butit was according to the
predetermined will andforeknowledge of God.
(17:14):
So we don't necessarily takeaway secondary causes and we
don't take away free will and wedon't take the ability to
understand the gospel or any ofthe other things so I'm right in
line with that in that itdoesn't say it says God has
saved us.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
That's a true statement that it is God who
saves us and that is called uswith a holy calling.
And again, we've talked aboutthat, we've just gone through
all these things as far as whatis the calling from God?
Ok, and so I don't disagreewith anything with this
statement.
It comes back to what theologyis placed on the statement,
(17:59):
right, and I don't think that itsays what the reform theology
would say, that it says thatthis, that God.
When it says God saved us, thatthat means that God gave the
faith to us so that we could besaved before, before, and it
doesn't necessarily mean thatit's an effectual call.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Another series of verses that speak of the concept
of election.
The next one I want to bring upis in John, chapter 17.
In John 17, it's the nightbefore Jesus died.
He's in the Garden ofGethsemane and he's praying to
the Father.
So we have the son praying tothe Father in this very
passionate personal prayer, john17.
The whole chapter is a prayerand there's passages in here not
(18:40):
going to read the whole chapter, but in John 17, he's speaking
to the Father, talking abouthimself, and he says to all
those whom you have given him,he may give eternal life.
And he's talking there aboutgiving him meaning, he's talking
about himself.
So to all those the Father hasgiven Jesus, jesus may give
(19:02):
eternal life.
So to all those the Father hasgiven Jesus, jesus may give
eternal life.
And he goes on to say I havemanifested your name to the men
whom you gave me out of theworld.
They were yours and you gavethem to me.
I do not ask on behalf of theworld, but of those whom you
gave me, for they are yours.
And that's in John 17, verses 2through 9.
(19:26):
So, steve, the reform side wouldsay look pretty clear.
The people he's talking aboutthere are the fathers, they
belong to the father and theywere given to the son, and that
the reason they were in Christ,so to speak, so says the
reformed theologian.
The reason they were in Christ,so to speak, so says the
Reformed theologian, the reasonthey were in Christ is because
(19:48):
the Father gave them to them.
They belonged to the Fatherahead of time.
Quite clear in saying that theywere yours and you gave them to
me.
I manifested your name to theman who you gave me out of the
world.
You have given him that he maygive eternal life.
So it was talking aboutsalvation, eternal life.
(20:08):
So to me it's a fairly strongview of election I would have.
There's a major qualificationto this.
That's fairly glaringly obvious.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
But your thoughts before I Well he's talking here
about his disciples or hisapostles, isn't that the context
that's here?
Yeah, the immediate context arethe 12.
Right?
So as we talk about that andlook at that, can you
extrapolate out of that, that,therefore, that all people,
(20:46):
particular people, are calledfor salvation?
I think here he's talking aboutthe specific apostles that were
called and were given to himfor eternal life.
Now he called 12 apostles.
One of them for sure was not tohave salvation.
He's the one, judas Iscariot,who betrayed him.
(21:08):
So I think, when you put itback into the context that he's
talking about the specificdisciples or apostles there,
that the statement stands on itsown.
I don't necessarily know if youcan now extrapolate that out to
say see, therefore he callseveryone else and to salvation
(21:31):
exclusive of the other people hedoesn't call.
I don't know if you can go tothat case.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And I would have the same same question, the same
concern.
I do think, though, there, thatin this very limited sense, I
think he's fairly clear, and Ithink in this limited sense of
the 12, or you could even saythe 11, that these were of the
Father and that they were thefathers that were given to the
Son and Jesus revealed himselfto them.
(21:58):
And all these things are truein a very strong sense.
I would just agree with you.
It doesn't necessarily follow,although it could, and then
still again, like we said before, it still doesn't mean just
because you have a strong viewof election doesn't mean all
these other points of Reformedtheology follow and that,
therefore, regeneration beforefaith.
That just doesn't follow.
(22:20):
Now the next passage.
I think the reason I put thisone next is because I don't
think it falls under the samelimitations.
John, chapter 6, verse 37 and39,.
Jesus is speaking in the temple, mount to the crowd, the Jewish
leaders, the crowd, everybody,not merely the 12.
(22:42):
And he says this quote all thatthe Father gives me will come
to me, and the one who comes tome I will certainly not cast out
All that he has given me.
I lose nothing but raise it upon the last day.
Now, to me, steve, that's afairly strong explanation of
it's two.
(23:02):
It's a universal claim.
It's done on the Temple Mountto everyone, not just the 12.
And he's saying all that theFather gives me will come to me.
So there's no doubt here aboutwhat the Reformed guys call
effectual call.
All of them will come and I'mgoing to lose nothing, and all
(23:26):
the one that comes to me I willnot cast out.
So again, that even limits thepeople that say well, we can
choose to leave God afterwards.
All that he has given me, Ilose nothing, but raise it up on
the last day.
So it would seem like the logichere is fairly tight and fairly
(23:49):
bulletproof, in the sense thateveryone that the Father gives
me will come to me, they're notgoing to lose, not one, and that
the one who comes to me I'm notgoing to cast out.
So it would seem to be anassurity of salvation for all
that the father gives me andthat there's human beings out
(24:10):
there that are the fathers thatare given to the son for
salvation.
What would you say?
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Right before that in the verses he says I'm the bread
of life.
Right before that in the verses, he says I'm the bread of life
and who comes to me will nothunger and he who believes in me
will never thirst.
And he says but I say to youthat you have seen me and yet
don't believe.
And then he goes on theseverses that you just quoted here
(24:40):
, that all the father that givesto me.
So again in this statementwhere he says all the ones that
the father does give to him willcome to him.
I think it's in conjunctionwith him coming for salvation of
the world to be thesatisfactory sacrifice.
It's consistent with all thosewho are going to be drawn to him
.
So, that said, all the fatherthat gives me.
(25:04):
Is this saying, in your opinion, is this saying that there is
only the ones that the fathercall?
Or is this saying that all thefather that calls and there
could be some outside of whatthe father calls that could also
have salvation?
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Logically in the sentence it's the second one of
what you just said, right,logically in the sentence, it
doesn't say that the only onesthat come to me are the ones
that the Father had previouslyand now again, but the logic of
what it does say is fairlycertain.
The Father has some humanbeings, again, but the logic of
(25:44):
what it does say is fairlycertain.
The Father has some humanbeings.
He gives them to the Son.
All the one he gives are goingto be Christians and they will
get eternal life and they willnot lose it.
And I just think that's astrong view of election that
holds true.
And okay, are you going to saythere's other people that Father
does not own that are going tocome?
(26:05):
Well, it doesn't say that's notgoing to happen, but it doesn't
say it is either.
And again, what I kept sayingall along is it doesn't follow
that necessarily all these otherthings.
Therefore, we don't have freewill and therefore regeneration
before faith, those are thethings that don't follow.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
And I think if you keep reading in verse 40, it
supports what we just talkedabout, that it doesn't
necessarily say that there's alimited amount in those verses
of what the Father calls.
Because in verse 40, he saysfor this is the will of my
Father that everyone who beholdsthe Son and believes in him
(26:42):
will have eternal life, and Imyself will raise him up on the
last day.
So that verse there to me opensit up again to anyone or
whoever believes on him willhave salvation.
So are there specific onespossibly that the Father calls
(27:02):
and that those for sure are theones that are going to become
believers in Jesus Christ?
Yes, but I don't think itexcludes other people outside of
that Right right.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
Next verse, I want to bring up John 15, 16.
This is Jesus again speaking,quote 16, this is Jesus again
speaking, quote you did notchoose me, but I chose you and
appointed you that you would goand bear fruit close quote.
So the Reformed guy would saylook, it's right there.
You didn't choose, I chose you,you did not choose me.
(27:37):
And so a Reformed theologianwould look at that and say how
can you then come up and say wedo choose God, we do receive God
, when it says right there, wedidn't.
And I would merely point outagain, as we said all along,
context is king.
Where is this?
It's in the upper roomdiscourse.
Who is he talking to?
He's talking to the 12.
(27:58):
And we've said from the verybeginning God can choose
individual people for a purpose.
And he did choose these people.
And again you're probably goingto put words in your mouth.
Steve Doesn't mean theycouldn't walk away.
He chose Judas.
But again, at least from thegeneral concept of can God
(28:21):
choose individual people for apurpose and salvation, and does
he sometimes do that?
And the answer is yes.
It's not a categoricalstatement either for universal
election or against universalelection.
It's a case that's saying insome cases, he will reach down
and choose some people and usethem for a purpose, including
(28:45):
salvation.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Well, and this particular verse though I
wouldn't say that it's noted forsalvation it's just saying I
chose you.
You didn't choose me.
I chose you and appointed youthat you would go and bear fruit
.
So the purpose is for them togo and bear fruit.
Maybe you're saying that, well,you bear fruit from your
(29:08):
salvation, you're saved, andthen from that you go and bear
fruit.
But I think here, in thisparticular one, one is talking
to his apostles in the upperroom and that, in this
particular verse, is saying thatyou're going to go and bear
fruit.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Next verse, acts 13, 48, says as many as had been
appointed to eternal lifebelieved.
And this is in the context ofan evangelistic message that the
apostle was giving I believe itwas Paul, he had gone out, he
had preached and the messagethere was some of them were
(29:47):
saved.
And the comment by the authorof Acts, luke, divine, inspired
word of God as many as had beenappointed to eternal life
believed.
Who was the ones that believed?
The ones that believed were theones that had already been, had
been appointed to eternal life,believed.
(30:08):
So this would be a fairlystrong support of election from
eternity, because the naturalreading of the passage is that
the apostle goes out and givesan evangelistic message to a
bunch of lost people and all theones that had already been
appointed to eternal life.
(30:29):
Those are the ones that believe.
And the answer our last issuethat we had with the previous
verse could it be that otherpeople were saved?
Well, this verse would stronglyimply otherwise, in the sense
that who are the ones thatbelieved?
Well, the ones that wereappointed, those believed.
(30:52):
And no one else is what itstrongly implies, so I would
take it to be a strong supportof election in the sense that it
does.
At the very minimum.
It talks about some beingappointed to eternal life and
them being the ones that believe.
So your response.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Well, this is in relation to the Gentiles, right,
that he's going out and he'sgiving this word to the Gentiles
and it says the rejoicing andglorifying for the word of the
Lord that they're hearing and asmany has been appointed to have
the eternal life.
Now, you said it.
You said does this mean thatthis is the case in every single
(31:29):
instance?
I don't say that this says thatthis is saying here that in
this particular case of theGentiles, when they heard, in
this context of what he'stalking about, of the Gentiles,
when they heard in this contextof what he's talking about, had
eternal life and believed, canyou extrapolate that out to now,
(31:49):
every single person in theworld is appointed and only the
ones that are appointed aregoing to have eternal life?
I don't know.
I don't think that you can takethat out of that.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
What I don't think you can get from.
This is what we were talkingabout a minute ago with the
other verse, which is there'sother people that weren't
appointed to eternal life.
They believed too.
Well, no, I don't think you canget that.
I think that it's stronglyimplying otherwise.
It's strongly implying that theones that believe were the ones
(32:17):
that were appointed to eternallife.
Now, my response would be thisLook at what it's saying.
Who believed?
The ones that were appointed toeternal life?
It's not saying God caused thebelief.
It's saying God appointed themto eternal life.
(32:37):
I've held, from the beginning, astrong view of election.
I also have a strong view ofbelief, and if we add the other
verses to it, we're going to seethat belief's not a righteous
work, it's done by theindividual.
Back to Ephesians 1, verses 12and 13,.
I think it was who believed.
They believed, they believedthe people, the individual, lost
(33:07):
people out there believed.
It's as strong of a support forthe belief of the lost person
prior to regeneration, or atleast at the point of
regeneration, not regenerationprior to faith.
It's a strong support for thefact that we can accept or
reject, strong support for thefact that we can accept or
reject.
Now, god had appointed them andI would even say his appointing
(33:28):
is sure and it's going tohappen.
So I can take a strong view ofelection and also take a strong
view of human free will.
Because we focus, we put on ourCalvinist glasses and say we
focus on the part about beingappointed to eternal life and we
miss the other half of whatit's saying who believed?
They believed Belief by theself.
(33:49):
It's not saying God believedthem or God instilled faith into
them.
No, they believed.
They believed it was theirfaith.
They did it.
You have a strong support forthe belief and receiving of
(34:13):
belief by the lost person.
It's both true that we can havea strong election and a strong
human free will.
So, moving on, the next one,romans 9.
And before we get to Romans 9,we're not going to exegete the
entire passage here's what Iwould suggest, outside of this
(34:33):
study, for those of you that arereally really strong on Romans
9.
Take and do a search on theword Israel in Romans, chapters
9, 10, 11.
Start at the end and workbackwards and look at every
instance of the word Israel inRomans 9, 10, and 11.
And what you'll find if you dothat start at the end and work
backwards at the end of chapter11.
And the reason I tell you thatis because the very first one is
(34:57):
the one that throws everybody acurveball, and they miss not
everybody, but a lot of peoplemisinterpret who Israel is
throughout the entire rest ofthe three chapters, and what
you'll find is I forget exactlyhow many times the word Israel
is used in those three chaptersit's 10 or 11.
Every instance it's talkingabout ethnic Israel.
(35:18):
Every single one it's talkingabout ethnic Israel, every
single one.
And if you take the church andmerge it into all those
instances in Romans 9, 10, and11, then the passages make no
sense.
So you've got three passagesworth of things where, if you
take it to mean saved Christiansand not ethnic Israel, then the
(35:39):
sentences are gibberish.
They make no sense.
That one passage up at thebeginning that says it's not
Israel who are all Israel arenot of Israel is the one throws
everybody a curveball.
Another question for another day.
We'll get into exegeting Romans9 when we get to it.
The one I want to read isRomans 9, 11, because this is
(36:03):
talking specifically about Godelecting and choosing.
So let me just read this oneverse Romans 9, 11, quote for,
though the twins were not yetborn and had not done anything
good or bad, so that God'spurpose, according to his choice
, would stand, not because ofworks, but because of him who
(36:25):
calls so?
First of all, steve, we'll dothis and it'll cause a
controversy, but we'll deal withit when we get to Romans.
There's more than one election,and even people like Shedd and
people like Norman Geisler andpeople like Lewis Barry Chafer
(36:45):
have a sense in their theologybooks that there's an election
of saved people in the churchage and there's a different type
of election for the nation ofIsrael, and that Romans 9, 10,
11 are talking about an electionof Israel.
We'll deal with that when weget to Romans.
Separate and apart from that isjust whether or not God chooses
(37:10):
some and not others, and that'swhat I want to talk about here.
So Romans 9, 11, in the senseof does God elect some and not
others?
That's the question here.
It's talking about these twosons that were born.
The twins had not yet doneanything good or bad.
He chose one of them so thatGod's purpose, according to his
(37:35):
choice, would stand, not becauseof works, because of him who
calls so what it's saying thereto me fairly straightforwardly
whatever the purpose he calledthem, it's saying he called one
of them, not the other, notbased on anything they would do
in the future, but solelybecause of his purpose.
So to me, regardless of whatthe election was for, it's a
(38:00):
strong view of election, is itnot?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
For a purpose and again, as I've noted before,
when we see election or choiceor chosen, the question should
be for what?
And in this case the purposewas that Jacob who became Israel
, the Jacob who became Israel,was going to keep the statutes
(38:23):
and ordinances and from him theMessiah was going to come, and
so there's a purpose behind thatparticular selection that he
made.
So, yes, I agree that that theBible does talk about God
choosing and selecting on hisown volition for certain
purposes and, as I've statedbefore, I don't think that you
(38:46):
can necessarily then extrapolatethat to the purpose of
salvation Right right and Iwould agree.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
And the real answer is that it's not talking about
salvation, so that later, for myReformed friends, when it's
talking about is there thereforesin in God?
May it not be.
We can take the strong sense ofthe word, yes, the claim God's
not fair, he's dealing with thatquestion and we can take the
(39:18):
typical Calvinist response andsay you're off base simply
because it's not talking aboutsalvation.
But the question Paul isanswering, the hypothetical that
Paul is responding to, isindeed God's not fair, but it's
not talking about salvation.
It's talking about selectingone of these for a purpose, not
(39:40):
salvation.
Moving on 2 Thessalonians 2.13,quote writing to a church quote
God has chosen you from thebeginning for salvation, unquote
.
So is it not the case there,steve, that he's speaking to a
group of Christians and he'stalking about salvation?
And he's talking about he choseyou from the beginning and in a
(40:02):
biblical concept, the beginningis the beginning from eternity.
From the beginning, he choseyou for salvation.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Yes, and this is the one verse that I think does have
a strong indication.
There, in the verse itself, theGreek word selected for chosen
is aetero, and that's the onlytime that this is used in these
(40:33):
verses that we've talked abouthere, and that particular Greek
word means to take for oneself,and in the BDAG description down
there, someone for something,and in the vines there it says
it's used in the middle voice inthe sense of taking for oneself
(40:55):
or choosing.
So, yes, this particular usagehere in 2 Thessalonians has a
strong indication that this wasa selection for salvation right
From the beginning.
For salvation Does itnecessarily say from the
beginning of what?
Is it the beginning of thefoundation of the world or
(41:16):
before the foundation of theworld?
It doesn't say that, and it isone verse out of the ones that
we've talked about as far asother type of indication.
So again, do we take this oneverse and build a whole theology
around it, or do we take it inits context of the other verses
as well?
Right, right.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Moving on, I have a few more to do.
I want to look at Luke 10, 22.
It says this quote no one knowswho the Son is except the
Father and who the Father isexcept the Son and anyone to
whom the Son wills to reveal him.
Unquote.
So if we just look at thatverse, it seems to be saying
(42:00):
that again, no one categoricalstatement.
No one knows the Son, that'sJesus, except the Father and who
the Father wills to reveal him.
So it would seem there that theonly way people can come to
know Jesus and therefore be inChrist that we said before, is
if the Father, at least the Son,rather reveals himself to them.
(42:26):
So is it not the case that theson would then have a select
group of people of which hewould reveal him?
Can we take this and end upholding to particular election
and all the other parts ofCalvinism?
Speaker 2 (42:42):
This is the context of them going out and witnessing
to the Gentiles or the others,and Jesus is rejoicing that the
Holy Spirit is there.
So does God reveal himself tomankind?
Yes, he's come and dwelt amongthem in the form of Jesus, who
(43:04):
was fully man and fully God.
So, yes, anyone to whom the Sonwills to reveal himself.
The question is does he willfor everyone, or are there only
specific people that he wills?
Speaker 1 (43:20):
Right, right, exactly .
What I want to do now is I hada bunch of these and we're
already going fairly long.
It's getting where I believeit's a little repetitive.
I want to do now what I don'tthink happens a lot and I know
it doesn't happen a lot inReformed circles is to go to
what the Scriptures say aboutthe human ability to respond to
(43:43):
God.
There is a series of places inthe scriptures where it speaks
about lost people responding tothe gospel.
First one I have here isDeuteronomy, chapter 4, verse 28
and 29.
It says this quote there youwill serve gods.
This is talking God is speakingto the nation Israel before
(44:06):
they go into the land of Canaan.
Speaking to the nation Israel,before they go into the land of
Canaan there you will serveGod's, the work of man's hands,
wood and stone, which neithersee nor hear, nor eat or smell.
But from there you will seekthe Lord, your God, and you will
find him if you search for himwith all your heart and all your
soul.
(44:28):
So right there in that verse,god is saying you're going to go
off, you're going to bedisobedient, you're going to
worship idols.
Of all things, you're going toworship idols.
And once you get there, if youseek me, you're going to find me
and I'm going to bless you.
(44:49):
That's basically what he'ssaying right From there.
You will seek the Lord, yourGod, and you will find him if
you search for him.
Now we had a language scholarI've seen recently that said
that should say when you findhim or when you search for him.
But nevertheless it's talkingthere about disobedient people
(45:10):
that are idol worshipers of allthings, seeking God and finding
Him and it's guaranteed it'sgoing to happen.
So, steve, does this not saythat lost people can seek the
Lord and find Him?
Speaker 2 (45:27):
Yeah, I think that this is only one of several,
several verses throughoutScripture that do say that, and
I think again that we've got totake these just like what you're
doing here.
We've got to take these incombination with what these
other Scriptures say to get anarrative over all of what God
(45:48):
is talking about in thescripture.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
More of these passages.
There's a good handful of them.
Jeremiah 33.3, quote call to meand I will answer you and will
tell you great and hidden thingsthat you have not known.
So notice there call to me andI will answer Jeremiah.
If you remember his context,jeremiah is speaking to a people
(46:13):
that had been so disobedientthat it's right before right at
the Babylonian captivity theyhad been worshiping idols for
years, had accepted even worshipof Molech and things like this,
to the point that God wasjudging them for their
disobedience and non-belief.
They were a people underjudgment and therefore he says
(46:34):
call to me and I will answer you.
Obviously, lost people.
God says call to me, I willanswer you.
So why would he command them tocall if they couldn't do it?
The strong implication, in fact, it's a command too right.
And so it says that they willCall to me and I will answer you
(46:55):
.
Is that not free will of a lostperson to seek God?
Speaker 2 (47:01):
It is.
And other places in theprophets he tells the people in
general return to me so that Iwill return to you.
So once again, there's many,many scripture verses that are
out there where God is wantingthe people to give a free will,
response to him and have arelationship with him.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
Next verse in the line showing free will Isaiah 55
, verses 6 and 7, quote Seek theLord while he may be found.
Call upon him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake his wayand the unrighteous man his
thoughts, and let him return tothe Lord, and he will have
(47:45):
compassion on him and be our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
So again, this is Isaiah.
So it's speaking to adisobedient people and he's
speaking to let the unrighteousman seek me.
He's saying let him return tothe Lord and God will have
(48:07):
compassion on him and he willabundantly pardon him.
Pardon from what?
Pardon from sin.
Seek the Lord while he may befound.
He's ordering them to do it.
It's the equivalent of the NewTestament command to repent
Again over and over.
Seek the Lord and he will befound.
He says this to wicked, lostpeople, saying look for me and
(48:31):
I'll find you.
We do have free will becauseGod says we do.
Next one Joshua 24, verses 22 to24.
This is Joshua speaking to thepeople in Israel as before
Joshua was dying.
Quote Joshua said to the peopleyou are witnesses against
yourselves that you have chosenfor yourselves the Lord to serve
(48:55):
him.
And they said we are witnessesNow, therefore, put away the
foreign gods which are in yourmidst and incline your hearts to
the Lord, the God of Israel.
The people said to Joshua wewill serve the Lord, our God,
and we will obey his voice.
Unquote.
Now, steve, I'm reminded ofthat.
He's clearly telling thesepeople seek the Lord.
(49:19):
And he said no, you're not.
He says we're going to do it,we're going to seek the Lord.
So he's commanding them to doit and they're agreeing.
And it says you have chosen foryourselves to follow him.
I'm reminded, steve, I ran intoa guy that was a double
predestinarian one time and hewas all of this you know, those
(49:40):
are the ones that choose to bedamned and choose to be.
God chooses them to be damnedand God chooses them to be elect
.
And he had mentioned AW Pink,who was a double predestinarian,
and I said look, joshua.
I quoted this verse to him andI asked him are you going to
believe Pink or are you going tobelieve Joshua?
(50:02):
And he said well, I believePink.
And so, okay, let's have lunch.
I mean, what else are you goingto do?
And so, okay, let's have lunch.
I mean, what else are you goingto do?
Speaker 2 (50:09):
He's clearly saying you have chosen for yourselves
the divine-inspired inerrantword of God is saying you have
chosen for yourselves the Lord.
I think this is the conundrumwith the Reformed theology is
that the majority of their textsthat they use are in the New
(50:29):
Testament and when you get tothese texts that are in the Old
Testament that clearly, over andover and over again, are
requests, pleas, commands forpeople to follow God, the one
and true God, that they don't goto these verses and look at
these verses.
So I know that you've got manyother ones we're going to look
(50:52):
at here.
This is a conundrum for theReformed theology.
Speaker 1 (50:55):
I think it's a conundrum for the theology, but
not the Word of God.
Moving on Deuteronomy 30,verses 19 and 20.
And before we get into that,really look at the context here.
He had just spent a couple ofchapters where he was saying if
you obey, I will give you allthese blessings.
(51:18):
If you disobey, I will give youall these cursings.
If you obey, or if you disobey,then he says this I call heaven
and earth to witness againstyou today that I have set before
you life and death, blessingand curse.
Therefore, choose life that youand your offspring may live
(51:40):
loving the Lord, your God,obeying his voice and holding
fast to him.
Unquote.
So here is Moses speaking thedivine words of God, saying if
you obey you'll be blessed, ifyou disobey, you'll be cursed.
Choose life, and it's in theconcept of life and death.
You see, I've said before lifeand death.
(52:00):
Choose life.
So, steve, I don't know otherway to do it.
We could say, okay, moses isdealing with human things.
Maybe you could say that.
But why are we damned?
Why are we lost before God?
Because we don't follow hiscommands, we don't follow his
law, we sin and don't want tofollow his law.
(52:21):
He says choose.
Are we not able to?
Speaker 2 (52:25):
choose.
We absolutely are able tochoose, and that's what's set
before them.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
Lest we think it's only an Old Testament thing,
look at the New Testament, 1Corinthians 737, quote.
But he who stands firm in hisheart, being under no constraint
, but has authority over his ownwill and has decided this in
his own heart to keep his ownvirgin daughter, unquote.
Now I'll admit up front that'snot a verse talking about
(52:54):
salvation.
It's not a verse talking aboutsalvation, it's not.
But it is a verse talking abouthumans doing good godly things,
good moral things, and it'stalking to believers in a church
saying this, and it's veryclearly saying we have the free
will.
This is where places like theWestminster Confession, thomas
(53:18):
Aquinas, other theologians,schaeffer, geisler, all these
guys get this idea that we doindeed, as human beings, have
free will.
We're made in the image of God.
We did not lose the image ofGod when we were unsaved, and so
human beings have the image ofGod and we're not a machine.
(53:39):
God didn't go in and justreprogram the machine.
We have a free will, we haveauthority over our own will, and
it is just not the case thatthat goes away when we're lost
completely.
We have authority over our ownwill and that's why those
theologians I just mentionedwould say that he persuades us,
(54:02):
but it's our choice.
Again, moving on John 7, 17.
If anyone is willing to do hiswill, his God's will, he will
know of the teaching, whether itis of God.
Now here it's reallyinteresting.
Again, jesus is saying to thepeople if anyone is willing to
do God's will, this person willknow the teaching, whether my
(54:27):
teachings are true, whether itis of God.
Now think of this, think of theimplications of this.
Jesus spoke this in the templeto everyone, the crowd, the
Pharisees, everybody.
And it would make no sense atall to say if anyone is willing
to do God's will, he will knowwhether my words are true.
(54:49):
But no one can be willing,therefore nobody's ever going to
know.
I mean, that's what theReformed people would have to
say on that verse, because noone's willing in Reformed
theology, therefore nobody'sgoing to know whether Jesus's
words are true.
That's exactly what they say.
Jesus is telling the crowdeveryone if you're willing,
(55:13):
you're going to know whether mywords are true.
And the entire debate inReformed theology is we can't
will to know whether it's true,we can't will.
It's a spiritually discernedthing.
So they would say that Jesus issaying there if anyone's
willing to know whether my wordsare true, then you'll know.
(55:35):
But you really can't knowbecause you can't be willing.
So you have to then beregenerated before you'll know
whether my words are true.
And that's exactly the oppositeof the meaning of John 7, 17.
He's telling the crowd ifyou're willing, then you'll know
.
That's what he's saying.
I don't know how you can.
(55:56):
It's an odd theology that takesthe plain meaning of that
sentence and flips it and sayswell, it really means just the
exact opposite of what it says.
Speaker 2 (56:07):
That really means just the exact opposite of what
it says.
Yeah, I'm reminded of Jesuswhenever he is praying and he's
about to go.
It's in his final week and helooks across at Jerusalem and
says oh Jerusalem, jerusalem,the city that killed the
prophets.
How often that I wanted to takeyou under my wing like a hand,
(56:28):
and protect you under my winglike the chicks.
Right, he says, but youwouldn't permit it, you wouldn't
allow it, and so he lays theirchoice back on them.
Now, this isn't talking aboutsalvation.
It is talking about as far as achoice as to who he was, but he
does lay it back on them.
He wanted to take them underhis wing, but he lays the blame
(56:53):
back on them as far as a choice.
Speaker 1 (56:56):
I'll wrap up by saying to our friends if you've
been listening to all of this,really just interested in this
reformed debate, then I wouldencourage you.
I'll repeat what we said at thevery beginning what we really
do is what's more valuable thanall these discussions is good,
solid Bible exegesis.
That's what everybody needs thetrained theologians and the
(57:19):
average church member and that'swhat we normally do.
Please come back and listen toour regular programs.
We talk about all of this butwe do it in the context of the
passages as we go through them,and it gets a little tedious
doing this and we're just wewere.
I'll repeat what I said.
I'm kind of afraid we'll losesome audience here because we
spend all this time goingthrough the theology.
(57:42):
But I think, steve, it'simportant because people have
these questions.
Our normal thing is what we dois verse-by-verse Bible study,
and I'll wrap up with one finalverse.
Proverbs 8, 17 says those whodiligently seek me will find me,
and I think that's a truestatement that we can say, just
(58:05):
like Jesus would say, or justlike God would say to the masses
if you diligently seek him, youwill find him, and we'll let
God worry about the things onthe other side of heaven and we
worry about what we'reresponsible for, which is
seeking him and finding him, andrepenting and following him.
Speaker 2 (58:24):
Find all of our resources on our resource page
on reasoningthroughthebiblecom.
Also, go and look at all of ourteachings, of the books that
we're going through, and there,as you pointed out, glenn, that
is our bread and butter, verseby verse.
This is what we've been feltcalled to do and we encourage
you to go and do that and studywith us as we reason through the
(58:46):
Bible.
Thank you so much for watchingand listening, as always.
May God bless you.
Hello and welcome to Reasoning Through the Bible.
We are in the midst of a seriesthat we're doing a special
topic on Reformed Theology, alsoknown as Calvinism.
Today, this session, we'regoing to start going through a
series of Bible passages andwe're going to assume that
you've been through the firsttwo sessions that we did that
(00:20):
gave an overview of what isReformed theology and our
evaluation of it, with thingsthat are strong and possible
weaknesses.
So today, what we're going todo, what really needs to be done
, which is to go throughindividual Bible passages and
wrestle with what they'reactually saying and try to dive
(00:41):
into the meanings of each.
And since there's many of these, then we're going to just see
how it goes.
This may run into more than onesession, but again, especially
if you're new to Reformedtheology, you really need to
listen to the first two beforeyou get into this one.
And today we're probably goingto see some of the areas that
Steve and I may not see eye toeye on, but we'll also see some
(01:02):
things that we do agree on, andit's always fun to study the
Word I may not see eye to eye on, but we'll also see some things
that we do agree on.
And so there's and it's alwaysfun to study the Word of God.
So we're going to go into agood bit of detail today.
We want to go down through aseries of verses that talk about
and are related to this wholeconcept of salvation and
election and reformed theology.
I want to talk about 1Corinthians 2.14 says but a
(01:26):
natural man does not accept thethings of the Spirit of God for
they are foolishness to him andhe cannot understand them
because they are spirituallyappraised.
Now, that verse, steve, is oneof the ones that the Reformed
theologians would use.
Again, look at what it says.
It says the natural man it'stalking about a lost person
(01:47):
before salvation does not acceptthe things of God, so they
freely don't accept there's freewill right there and they are
foolishness to him.
He cannot understand them.
And that's one of the keythings that the Reformed
theologian would pick in totaldepravity is he cannot
(02:07):
understand them.
He's physically incapable ofunderstanding spiritual concepts
involved in the gospel.
Why Last part of the verse?
Because they are spirituallyappraised.
So a Reformed person would takethis and say see, they're
totally lost in the sense ofdead and trespasses and sins,
(02:28):
cannot understand and thereforeGod has to open their eyes and
cause them to be regenerated inorder to be saved.
That's what the typically usedin Reformed theology.
I'll let you get your response,but mine would be this the
(02:52):
concepts in this passage.
One of the things our Englishtranslations do that are not our
friend is split verses out intoindividually numbered things.
It helps us find things, but itdoesn't help us get the context
, because people come and pickverses like this and apply them
in a different place than whatit's really taught.
(03:13):
This verse, the context of thisentire chapter, is on the
wonderful things that God, thatthe Holy Spirit, reveals to us,
that God is revealing all thesewonderful things to us.
That's the context.
The context is not moving usfrom a state of a lost person to
a saved person.
(03:34):
The concept just I mean thecontext, rather is just not
talking about salvation.
It's talking about things thatGod reveals to us in the
Christian life as beingspiritual things that are
valuable to us.
Therefore, just like a lot ofthings in the book of Romans,
things in the book of Romans arein sections, and where you get
(03:58):
in trouble in Romans is diggingdown under a section, picking
out a verse and then using it tobuild a theological concept
when the section's really nottalking about that?
Now, if you ask the question,could you apply this to
salvation?
Ah yeah, maybe I mean thatconcept's in there somewhere,
(04:19):
but the passage really isn'ttalking about salvation.
Really isn't talking aboutsalvation.
The passage is talking aboutGod revealing high truths of
spirituality to us, not whetheror not we can grasp fundamental
concepts of lostness andsavedness.
It's talking about lofty thingsof the Holy Spirit are not
(04:44):
discerned by the natural man.
So logically I guess it couldapply in a salvation sense.
But that's not really thecontext of the passage.
Your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Well, yeah, the two verses preceding that are giving
a description of a person whois saved, who has the Spirit of
God and what they have, and thenin verse 14, he's juxtaposing
that with a person, a naturalman, who is lost.
So, yeah, context is king.
(05:18):
Read and see what the contextis, rather than just taking the
one verse.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
And again, this is where, again, I've gotten a lot
of benefit over the years out ofsystematic theology.
But what always happens insystematic theology is we, okay,
here's what the concept we'regoing to talk about.
Then we go pick a bunch ofverses here and there and when
you just pick a verse out of achapter, okay, yeah, it may seem
to say that until you look atthe context of the chapter, you
(05:46):
know, steve, somebody ought tostart at chapter one, verse one,
and do a verse-by-verse Biblestudy.
Oh, somebody does.
Next one to talk about.
And these are ones againstrongly used by Reformed guys
John 6, 44.
No one can come to me unlessthe Father who sent me draws him
.
And the next verse not far away, in that same context John 6,
(06:11):
65,.
No one can come to me unless ithas been granted to him from
the Father.
So, steve, I remember I saidearlier I didn't listen to a
whole lot of Reformed guys, butI do remember listening to RC
Sproul at this point where hemade a big deal about see, no
one can the word can meansyou're not able no one can come
(06:33):
to me unless the Father who sentme draws him.
And Sproul made a big deal aboutthe Greek word there for draw.
It was really a strong word.
It really means to kind of drag.
It's a strong word.
That means not just a subtleinfluence but it's more of a
really strong draw.
(06:55):
It has to be really almostforced is what the Greek there
means, according to Sproul, andI would agree.
I looked up the term and he'sright about the definition of
the word.
It is a strong term.
The problem is that that sameword is used when Jesus was in
the temple and he said lift meup and I will draw all men to
(07:20):
myself.
So, rc, if we're going to saythat in John 6, 44, the draw
there is almost a forcefullydrag, then we have to use it in
the same sense over in Jesus,saying I'm going to forcefully
drag all men to myself.
But we know that's not the case.
(07:41):
So we're reduced down to thecase that it really means what
it says, what the translatorsgave it, which he does draw all
men to himself.
And I would take this verse John6, 44 and 6, 65.
It's true, no one can, we arenot able.
Left to ourselves.
I would agree with Reformedtheology in the sense that, left
(08:04):
to ourselves, all we're goingto do is go off into hell, that
we will not come to God, that hehas to draw us.
We don't get from this limitedatonement and we don't get from
this particular election and wedon't get from this verse that
(08:26):
he only does some, because again, some of the same language is
used when Jesus and he says allwho come to me shall drink.
So as long as we're not readingthis through systematic theology
, glasses we can hold.
Yeah, no one is able to.
We do not have the ability tocome to Jesus unless he draws us
(08:47):
.
Good thing, the Holy Spiritdraws us Now and again.
I'm not going to limit thesovereignty of God and say that
he can't sovereignly decide todraw some people more than
others, and that we aresometimes more obstinate in some
cases than others, and some ofit he has to draw a lot harder
(09:08):
to get through my thick skull,and so I just see this.
I don't think this necessarilymeans that all the rest of
Calvinism is true.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, my response to the reformer on this would be
what it doesn't say is it doesnot say no one will come to me,
or no one will come to me unlessit has been granted by the
Father.
So it says can?
It's a conditional statement.
It's just saying no one cancome unless the Father draws
them.
Your example of Jesus sayinglift me up and I'll draw all men
(09:43):
to myself.
And how is it that the man weregranted him from the father?
Well, he came himself and Jesusis the one that died for our
sins.
So anytime that you go out, you, being a believer, go out and
tell someone else the gospelmessage.
You're acting as an agent todraw that person to Jesus, and
(10:09):
that is a method of the way.
One of the methods of the waythat God draws and Jesus draws
people to himself is through usgoing out and giving the gospel
message.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Okay, moving on Next verse.
We're having so much fun.
1 Timothy 6.12, quote take holdof the eternal life to which
you are called.
And you made the goodconfession in the presence of
many witnesses.
So this is Paul speaking toTimothy, giving him advice,
one-on-one.
(10:41):
And a Reformed person wouldtake that and say that they
would say look at this, paul istelling Timothy, take hold of
the eternal life to which youwere called.
And a Reformed, strong, reformedperson would say look, he, god,
called Timothy.
His call is effective.
And that's one of the termsthat gets thrown around in
(11:04):
Reformed theology is theeffectual call.
His call is effective.
When God calls somebody, it'snot going to fail.
And here's a quote from LewisBerry Chafer quote there could
not be failure in one instanceamongst the millions who are
called.
Unquote.
So that's the claim is thatwhen it says here in 1 Timothy
(11:29):
6.12 and in other places whereit talks about being called and
the eternal life to which youwere called that's the reason I
used this quote was it's nottalking about being called into
ministry or being called intosome particular type of service.
No, he's talking about beingcalled to eternal life.
(11:49):
And a reformed person would saysee, that call is effective.
A reformed person would sayGod's not going to call somebody
and it failed.
What God sets out to do, he'sgoing to succeed.
And I would simply reply tothis my opinion that again a
(12:10):
non-secular doesn't follow thatjust because Timothy was called
by God, even in a strong sensethat therefore all of reform
teaching on particular electionis true, doesn't mean limited
atonement.
It doesn't mean that becauseGod called Timothy, even in a
strong sense of election,doesn't negate Timothy having
(12:34):
the ability to believe andreceive and that doesn't follow
that believe and receive is agood work and it doesn't follow
that all these other parts ofReformed theology I would say I
can hold to a strong sense of,even an effectual call, is to
eternal life.
That doesn't mean that allthese other things follow true,
(12:58):
and it doesn't mean that there'sa problem in between God
electing and my receiving, thatthose are somehow mutually
exclusive.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Yeah, and the word call here many times the word,
the Greek word, is simply toinvite.
This particular Greek wordmeans to call, to come or go
somewhere.
So but there's a choice thatTimothy still makes here.
This doesn't say anything aboutthat effectual call, right, it
(13:27):
just says to which you werecalled.
Well, timothy could have eitherchosen to follow or not.
I mean, the verse certainlydoesn't exclude that it could
have been something that Timothycould have chosen to come or
not to come.
Whenever Jesus goes intoselecting his disciples, he goes
to Peter with all of them.
(13:48):
Really, he says come, follow me.
Well, they have a choice.
They can either follow him orthey don't have to follow him.
There's nothing there in thescripture that I know of that
says Peter had to go and followhim.
So just because the word hereis used and follow him, so just
(14:09):
because the word here is used,called, doesn't necessitate, in
my opinion, that Timothy had togo.
And follow.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Next verse we'll go into is 2 Timothy 3.9.
Still, paul, writing to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3.9 says quote God
who has saved us and called uswith a holy calling, not
according to our works, butaccording to his own purpose and
grace, which was granted us inChrist Jesus from all eternity.
(14:34):
Now a Reformed person wouldtake that verse and say, look,
it says in there that he calledus.
He called us, and they wouldsay his calling is effective,
it's not going to fail.
And they would say they wouldsay just read the verse.
He called certain peopleaccording to his purpose and
grace and he called these peoplein grace from eternity.
(14:59):
Again, look at the verse notaccording to our works.
And a Reformed person wouldfollow up and say that belief is
a work.
But what it would include isnot according to foreknowledge
of our belief again, which is tothem it's a work, but instead
according to his purpose and hisgrace, which was granted to us
(15:24):
from eternity.
So, regardless about theforeknowledge part, the Reformed
person would look at this andsay, look, it's saying from
eternity.
He called us according to hispurpose and he called us with a
holy calling.
And it is salvation because ittalks about saved us, and so
(15:47):
that's one of the passages thatthey would hold to be that, my
response would be okay, that's apretty strong verse and I would
say it's possible that he evendid this.
From eternity, just like itsays, doesn't mean particular
election, doesn't mean that wedon't have the ability to accept
(16:09):
or reject, doesn't mean thatwe're so dead that we can't
understand it Again.
Just because one little pieceof this is the case, it doesn't
follow that all the rest ofCalvinism follows.
That's what's the case.
It's entirely possible and I'vegranted the point.
He does things from eternity.
Why does he do it from eternity?
(16:30):
Because he doesn't think, nordoes he process things in
sequence and in time.
Everything he does is frometernity, everything he does.
So he chose us, he determinedthings from eternity.
He said this is so.
The New Testament, in Acts,talks about Pilate and Herod and
(16:53):
the Jewish leaders crucifyingJesus according to the
foreknowledge and predestinationof God.
But who did it?
They did it.
Who did it?
The Herod did it, pilate did it.
They freely chose to do it.
Could have done otherwise, butit was according to the
predetermined will andforeknowledge of God.
(17:14):
So we don't necessarily takeaway secondary causes and we
don't take away free will and wedon't take the ability to
understand the gospel or any ofthe other things so I'm right in
line with that in that itdoesn't say it says God has
saved us.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
That's a true statement that it is God who
saves us and that is called uswith a holy calling.
And again, we've talked aboutthat, we've just gone through
all these things as far as whatis the calling from God?
Ok, and so I don't disagreewith anything with this
statement.
It comes back to what theologyis placed on the statement,
(17:59):
right, and I don't think that itsays what the reform theology
would say, that it says thatthis, that God.
When it says God saved us, thatthat means that God gave the
faith to us so that we could besaved before, before, and it
doesn't necessarily mean thatit's an effectual call.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Another series of verses that speak of the concept
of election.
The next one I want to bring upis in John, chapter 17.
In John 17, it's the nightbefore Jesus died.
He's in the Garden ofGethsemane and he's praying to
the Father.
So we have the son praying tothe Father in this very
passionate personal prayer, john17.
The whole chapter is a prayerand there's passages in here not
(18:40):
going to read the whole chapter, but in John 17, he's speaking
to the Father, talking abouthimself, and he says to all
those whom you have given him,he may give eternal life.
And he's talking there aboutgiving him meaning, he's talking
about himself.
So to all those the Father hasgiven Jesus, jesus may give
(19:02):
eternal life.
So to all those the Father hasgiven Jesus, jesus may give
eternal life.
And he goes on to say I havemanifested your name to the men
whom you gave me out of theworld.
They were yours and you gavethem to me.
I do not ask on behalf of theworld, but of those whom you
gave me, for they are yours.
And that's in John 17, verses 2through 9.
(19:26):
So, steve, the reform side wouldsay look pretty clear.
The people he's talking aboutthere are the fathers, they
belong to the father and theywere given to the son, and that
the reason they were in Christ,so to speak, so says the
reformed theologian.
The reason they were in Christ,so to speak, so says the
Reformed theologian, the reasonthey were in Christ is because
(19:48):
the Father gave them to them.
They belonged to the Fatherahead of time.
Quite clear in saying that theywere yours and you gave them to
me.
I manifested your name to theman who you gave me out of the
world.
You have given him that he maygive eternal life.
So it was talking aboutsalvation, eternal life.
(20:08):
So to me it's a fairly strongview of election I would have.
There's a major qualificationto this.
That's fairly glaringly obvious.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
But your thoughts before I Well he's talking here
about his disciples or hisapostles, isn't that the context
that's here?
Yeah, the immediate context arethe 12.
Right?
So as we talk about that andlook at that, can you
extrapolate out of that, that,therefore, that all people,
(20:46):
particular people, are calledfor salvation?
I think here he's talking aboutthe specific apostles that were
called and were given to himfor eternal life.
Now he called 12 apostles.
One of them for sure was not tohave salvation.
He's the one, judas Iscariot,who betrayed him.
(21:08):
So I think, when you put itback into the context that he's
talking about the specificdisciples or apostles there,
that the statement stands on itsown.
I don't necessarily know if youcan now extrapolate that out to
say see, therefore he callseveryone else and to salvation
(21:31):
exclusive of the other people hedoesn't call.
I don't know if you can go tothat case.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
And I would have the same same question, the same
concern.
I do think, though, there, thatin this very limited sense, I
think he's fairly clear, and Ithink in this limited sense of
the 12, or you could even saythe 11, that these were of the
Father and that they were thefathers that were given to the
Son and Jesus revealed himselfto them.
(21:58):
And all these things are truein a very strong sense.
I would just agree with you.
It doesn't necessarily follow,although it could, and then
still again, like we said before, it still doesn't mean just
because you have a strong viewof election doesn't mean all
these other points of Reformedtheology follow and that,
therefore, regeneration beforefaith.
That just doesn't follow.
(22:20):
Now the next passage.
I think the reason I put thisone next is because I don't
think it falls under the samelimitations.
John, chapter 6, verse 37 and39,.
Jesus is speaking in the temple, mount to the crowd, the Jewish
leaders, the crowd, everybody,not merely the 12.
(22:42):
And he says this quote all thatthe Father gives me will come
to me, and the one who comes tome I will certainly not cast out
All that he has given me.
I lose nothing but raise it upon the last day.
Now, to me, steve, that's afairly strong explanation of
it's two.
(23:02):
It's a universal claim.
It's done on the Temple Mountto everyone, not just the 12.
And he's saying all that theFather gives me will come to me.
So there's no doubt here aboutwhat the Reformed guys call
effectual call.
All of them will come and I'mgoing to lose nothing, and all
(23:26):
the one that comes to me I willnot cast out.
So again, that even limits thepeople that say well, we can
choose to leave God afterwards.
All that he has given me, Ilose nothing, but raise it up on
the last day.
So it would seem like the logichere is fairly tight and fairly
(23:49):
bulletproof, in the sense thateveryone that the Father gives
me will come to me, they're notgoing to lose, not one, and that
the one who comes to me I'm notgoing to cast out.
So it would seem to be anassurity of salvation for all
that the father gives me andthat there's human beings out
(24:10):
there that are the fathers thatare given to the son for
salvation.
What would you say?
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Right before that in the verses he says I'm the bread
of life.
Right before that in the verses, he says I'm the bread of life
and who comes to me will nothunger and he who believes in me
will never thirst.
And he says but I say to youthat you have seen me and yet
don't believe.
And then he goes on theseverses that you just quoted here
(24:40):
, that all the father that givesto me.
So again in this statementwhere he says all the ones that
the father does give to him willcome to him.
I think it's in conjunctionwith him coming for salvation of
the world to be thesatisfactory sacrifice.
It's consistent with all thosewho are going to be drawn to him
.
So, that said, all the fatherthat gives me.
(25:04):
Is this saying, in your opinion, is this saying that there is
only the ones that the fathercall?
Or is this saying that all thefather that calls and there
could be some outside of whatthe father calls that could also
have salvation?
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Logically in the sentence it's the second one of
what you just said, right,logically in the sentence, it
doesn't say that the only onesthat come to me are the ones
that the Father had previouslyand now again, but the logic of
what it does say is fairlycertain.
The Father has some humanbeings, again, but the logic of
(25:44):
what it does say is fairlycertain.
The Father has some humanbeings.
He gives them to the Son.
All the one he gives are goingto be Christians and they will
get eternal life and they willnot lose it.
And I just think that's astrong view of election that
holds true.
And okay, are you going to saythere's other people that Father
does not own that are going tocome?
(26:05):
Well, it doesn't say that's notgoing to happen, but it doesn't
say it is either.
And again, what I kept sayingall along is it doesn't follow
that necessarily all these otherthings.
Therefore, we don't have freewill and therefore regeneration
before faith, those are thethings that don't follow.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
And I think if you keep reading in verse 40, it
supports what we just talkedabout, that it doesn't
necessarily say that there's alimited amount in those verses
of what the Father calls.
Because in verse 40, he saysfor this is the will of my
Father that everyone who beholdsthe Son and believes in him
(26:42):
will have eternal life, and Imyself will raise him up on the
last day.
So that verse there to me opensit up again to anyone or
whoever believes on him willhave salvation.
So are there specific onespossibly that the Father calls
(27:02):
and that those for sure are theones that are going to become
believers in Jesus Christ?
Yes, but I don't think itexcludes other people outside of
that Right right.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
Next verse, I want to bring up John 15, 16.
This is Jesus again speaking,quote 16, this is Jesus again
speaking, quote you did notchoose me, but I chose you and
appointed you that you would goand bear fruit close quote.
So the Reformed guy would saylook, it's right there.
You didn't choose, I chose you,you did not choose me.
(27:37):
And so a Reformed theologianwould look at that and say how
can you then come up and say wedo choose God, we do receive God
, when it says right there, wedidn't.
And I would merely point outagain, as we said all along,
context is king.
Where is this?
It's in the upper roomdiscourse.
Who is he talking to?
He's talking to the 12.
(27:58):
And we've said from the verybeginning God can choose
individual people for a purpose.
And he did choose these people.
And again you're probably goingto put words in your mouth.
Steve Doesn't mean theycouldn't walk away.
He chose Judas.
But again, at least from thegeneral concept of can God
(28:21):
choose individual people for apurpose and salvation, and does
he sometimes do that?
And the answer is yes.
It's not a categoricalstatement either for universal
election or against universalelection.
It's a case that's saying insome cases, he will reach down
and choose some people and usethem for a purpose, including
(28:45):
salvation.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
Well, and this particular verse though I
wouldn't say that it's noted forsalvation it's just saying I
chose you.
You didn't choose me.
I chose you and appointed youthat you would go and bear fruit
.
So the purpose is for them togo and bear fruit.
Maybe you're saying that, well,you bear fruit from your
(29:08):
salvation, you're saved, andthen from that you go and bear
fruit.
But I think here, in thisparticular one, one is talking
to his apostles in the upperroom and that, in this
particular verse, is saying thatyou're going to go and bear
fruit.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Next verse, acts 13, 48, says as many as had been
appointed to eternal lifebelieved.
And this is in the context ofan evangelistic message that the
apostle was giving I believe itwas Paul, he had gone out, he
had preached and the messagethere was some of them were
(29:47):
saved.
And the comment by the authorof Acts, luke, divine, inspired
word of God as many as had beenappointed to eternal life
believed.
Who was the ones that believed?
The ones that believed were theones that had already been, had
been appointed to eternal life,believed.
(30:08):
So this would be a fairlystrong support of election from
eternity, because the naturalreading of the passage is that
the apostle goes out and givesan evangelistic message to a
bunch of lost people and all theones that had already been
appointed to eternal life.
(30:29):
Those are the ones that believe.
And the answer our last issuethat we had with the previous
verse could it be that otherpeople were saved?
Well, this verse would stronglyimply otherwise, in the sense
that who are the ones thatbelieved?
Well, the ones that wereappointed, those believed.
(30:52):
And no one else is what itstrongly implies, so I would
take it to be a strong supportof election in the sense that it
does.
At the very minimum.
It talks about some beingappointed to eternal life and
them being the ones that believe.
So your response.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Well, this is in relation to the Gentiles, right,
that he's going out and he'sgiving this word to the Gentiles
and it says the rejoicing andglorifying for the word of the
Lord that they're hearing and asmany has been appointed to have
the eternal life.
Now, you said it.
You said does this mean thatthis is the case in every single
(31:29):
instance?
I don't say that this says thatthis is saying here that in
this particular case of theGentiles, when they heard, in
this context of what he'stalking about, of the Gentiles,
when they heard in this contextof what he's talking about, had
eternal life and believed, canyou extrapolate that out to now,
(31:49):
every single person in theworld is appointed and only the
ones that are appointed aregoing to have eternal life?
I don't know.
I don't think that you can takethat out of that.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
What I don't think you can get from.
This is what we were talkingabout a minute ago with the
other verse, which is there'sother people that weren't
appointed to eternal life.
They believed too.
Well, no, I don't think you canget that.
I think that it's stronglyimplying otherwise.
It's strongly implying that theones that believe were the ones
(32:17):
that were appointed to eternallife.
Now, my response would be thisLook at what it's saying.
Who believed?
The ones that were appointed toeternal life?
It's not saying God caused thebelief.
It's saying God appointed themto eternal life.
(32:37):
I've held, from the beginning, astrong view of election.
I also have a strong view ofbelief, and if we add the other
verses to it, we're going to seethat belief's not a righteous
work, it's done by theindividual.
Back to Ephesians 1, verses 12and 13,.
I think it was who believed.
They believed, they believedthe people, the individual, lost
(33:07):
people out there believed.
It's as strong of a support forthe belief of the lost person
prior to regeneration, or atleast at the point of
regeneration, not regenerationprior to faith.
It's a strong support for thefact that we can accept or
reject, strong support for thefact that we can accept or
reject.
Now, god had appointed them andI would even say his appointing
(33:28):
is sure and it's going tohappen.
So I can take a strong view ofelection and also take a strong
view of human free will.
Because we focus, we put on ourCalvinist glasses and say we
focus on the part about beingappointed to eternal life and we
miss the other half of whatit's saying who believed?
They believed Belief by theself.
(33:49):
It's not saying God believedthem or God instilled faith into
them.
No, they believed.
They believed it was theirfaith.
They did it.
You have a strong support forthe belief and receiving of
(34:13):
belief by the lost person.
It's both true that we can havea strong election and a strong
human free will.
So, moving on, the next one,romans 9.
And before we get to Romans 9,we're not going to exegete the
entire passage here's what Iwould suggest, outside of this
(34:33):
study, for those of you that arereally really strong on Romans
9.
Take and do a search on theword Israel in Romans, chapters
9, 10, 11.
Start at the end and workbackwards and look at every
instance of the word Israel inRomans 9, 10, and 11.
And what you'll find if you dothat start at the end and work
backwards at the end of chapter11.
And the reason I tell you thatis because the very first one is
(34:57):
the one that throws everybody acurveball, and they miss not
everybody, but a lot of peoplemisinterpret who Israel is
throughout the entire rest ofthe three chapters, and what
you'll find is I forget exactlyhow many times the word Israel
is used in those three chaptersit's 10 or 11.
Every instance it's talkingabout ethnic Israel.
(35:18):
Every single one it's talkingabout ethnic Israel, every
single one.
And if you take the church andmerge it into all those
instances in Romans 9, 10, and11, then the passages make no
sense.
So you've got three passagesworth of things where, if you
take it to mean saved Christiansand not ethnic Israel, then the
(35:39):
sentences are gibberish.
They make no sense.
That one passage up at thebeginning that says it's not
Israel who are all Israel arenot of Israel is the one throws
everybody a curveball.
Another question for another day.
We'll get into exegeting Romans9 when we get to it.
The one I want to read isRomans 9, 11, because this is
(36:03):
talking specifically about Godelecting and choosing.
So let me just read this oneverse Romans 9, 11, quote for,
though the twins were not yetborn and had not done anything
good or bad, so that God'spurpose, according to his choice
, would stand, not because ofworks, but because of him who
(36:25):
calls so?
First of all, steve, we'll dothis and it'll cause a
controversy, but we'll deal withit when we get to Romans.
There's more than one election,and even people like Shedd and
people like Norman Geisler andpeople like Lewis Barry Chafer
(36:45):
have a sense in their theologybooks that there's an election
of saved people in the churchage and there's a different type
of election for the nation ofIsrael, and that Romans 9, 10,
11 are talking about an electionof Israel.
We'll deal with that when weget to Romans.
Separate and apart from that isjust whether or not God chooses
(37:10):
some and not others, and that'swhat I want to talk about here.
So Romans 9, 11, in the senseof does God elect some and not
others?
That's the question here.
It's talking about these twosons that were born.
The twins had not yet doneanything good or bad.
He chose one of them so thatGod's purpose, according to his
(37:35):
choice, would stand, not becauseof works, because of him who
calls so what it's saying thereto me fairly straightforwardly
whatever the purpose he calledthem, it's saying he called one
of them, not the other, notbased on anything they would do
in the future, but solelybecause of his purpose.
So to me, regardless of whatthe election was for, it's a
(38:00):
strong view of election, is itnot?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
For a purpose and again, as I've noted before,
when we see election or choiceor chosen, the question should
be for what?
And in this case the purposewas that Jacob who became Israel
, the Jacob who became Israel,was going to keep the statutes
(38:23):
and ordinances and from him theMessiah was going to come, and
so there's a purpose behind thatparticular selection that he
made.
So, yes, I agree that that theBible does talk about God
choosing and selecting on hisown volition for certain
purposes and, as I've statedbefore, I don't think that you
(38:46):
can necessarily then extrapolatethat to the purpose of
salvation Right right and Iwould agree.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
And the real answer is that it's not talking about
salvation, so that later, for myReformed friends, when it's
talking about is there thereforesin in God?
May it not be.
We can take the strong sense ofthe word, yes, the claim God's
not fair, he's dealing with thatquestion and we can take the
(39:18):
typical Calvinist response andsay you're off base simply
because it's not talking aboutsalvation.
But the question Paul isanswering, the hypothetical that
Paul is responding to, isindeed God's not fair, but it's
not talking about salvation.
It's talking about selectingone of these for a purpose, not
(39:40):
salvation.
Moving on 2 Thessalonians 2.13,quote writing to a church quote
God has chosen you from thebeginning for salvation, unquote
.
So is it not the case there,steve, that he's speaking to a
group of Christians and he'stalking about salvation?
And he's talking about he choseyou from the beginning and in a
(40:02):
biblical concept, the beginningis the beginning from eternity.
From the beginning, he choseyou for salvation.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Yes, and this is the one verse that I think does have
a strong indication.
There, in the verse itself, theGreek word selected for chosen
is aetero, and that's the onlytime that this is used in these
(40:33):
verses that we've talked abouthere, and that particular Greek
word means to take for oneself,and in the BDAG description down
there, someone for something,and in the vines there it says
it's used in the middle voice inthe sense of taking for oneself
(40:55):
or choosing.
So, yes, this particular usagehere in 2 Thessalonians has a
strong indication that this wasa selection for salvation right
From the beginning.
For salvation Does itnecessarily say from the
beginning of what?
Is it the beginning of thefoundation of the world or
(41:16):
before the foundation of theworld?
It doesn't say that, and it isone verse out of the ones that
we've talked about as far asother type of indication.
So again, do we take this oneverse and build a whole theology
around it, or do we take it inits context of the other verses
as well?
Right, right.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Moving on, I have a few more to do.
I want to look at Luke 10, 22.
It says this quote no one knowswho the Son is except the
Father and who the Father isexcept the Son and anyone to
whom the Son wills to reveal him.
Unquote.
So if we just look at thatverse, it seems to be saying
(42:00):
that again, no one categoricalstatement.
No one knows the Son, that'sJesus, except the Father and who
the Father wills to reveal him.
So it would seem there that theonly way people can come to
know Jesus and therefore be inChrist that we said before, is
if the Father, at least the Son,rather reveals himself to them.
(42:26):
So is it not the case that theson would then have a select
group of people of which hewould reveal him?
Can we take this and end upholding to particular election
and all the other parts ofCalvinism?
Speaker 2 (42:42):
This is the context of them going out and witnessing
to the Gentiles or the others,and Jesus is rejoicing that the
Holy Spirit is there.
So does God reveal himself tomankind?
Yes, he's come and dwelt amongthem in the form of Jesus, who
(43:04):
was fully man and fully God.
So, yes, anyone to whom the Sonwills to reveal himself.
The question is does he willfor everyone, or are there only
specific people that he wills?
Speaker 1 (43:20):
Right, right, exactly .
What I want to do now is I hada bunch of these and we're
already going fairly long.
It's getting where I believeit's a little repetitive.
I want to do now what I don'tthink happens a lot and I know
it doesn't happen a lot inReformed circles is to go to
what the Scriptures say aboutthe human ability to respond to
(43:43):
God.
There is a series of places inthe scriptures where it speaks
about lost people responding tothe gospel.
First one I have here isDeuteronomy, chapter 4, verse 28
and 29.
It says this quote there youwill serve gods.
This is talking God is speakingto the nation Israel before
(44:06):
they go into the land of Canaan.
Speaking to the nation Israel,before they go into the land of
Canaan there you will serveGod's, the work of man's hands,
wood and stone, which neithersee nor hear, nor eat or smell.
But from there you will seekthe Lord, your God, and you will
find him if you search for himwith all your heart and all your
soul.
(44:28):
So right there in that verse,god is saying you're going to go
off, you're going to bedisobedient, you're going to
worship idols.
Of all things, you're going toworship idols.
And once you get there, if youseek me, you're going to find me
and I'm going to bless you.
(44:49):
That's basically what he'ssaying right From there.
You will seek the Lord, yourGod, and you will find him if
you search for him.
Now we had a language scholarI've seen recently that said
that should say when you findhim or when you search for him.
But nevertheless it's talkingthere about disobedient people
(45:10):
that are idol worshipers of allthings, seeking God and finding
Him and it's guaranteed it'sgoing to happen.
So, steve, does this not saythat lost people can seek the
Lord and find Him?
Speaker 2 (45:27):
Yeah, I think that this is only one of several,
several verses throughoutScripture that do say that, and
I think again that we've got totake these just like what you're
doing here.
We've got to take these incombination with what these
other Scriptures say to get anarrative over all of what God
(45:48):
is talking about in thescripture.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
More of these passages.
There's a good handful of them.
Jeremiah 33.3, quote call to meand I will answer you and will
tell you great and hidden thingsthat you have not known.
So notice there call to me andI will answer Jeremiah.
If you remember his context,jeremiah is speaking to a people
(46:13):
that had been so disobedientthat it's right before right at
the Babylonian captivity theyhad been worshiping idols for
years, had accepted even worshipof Molech and things like this,
to the point that God wasjudging them for their
disobedience and non-belief.
They were a people underjudgment and therefore he says
(46:34):
call to me and I will answer you.
Obviously, lost people.
God says call to me, I willanswer you.
So why would he command them tocall if they couldn't do it?
The strong implication, in fact, it's a command too right.
And so it says that they willCall to me and I will answer you
(46:55):
.
Is that not free will of a lostperson to seek God?
Speaker 2 (47:01):
It is.
And other places in theprophets he tells the people in
general return to me so that Iwill return to you.
So once again, there's many,many scripture verses that are
out there where God is wantingthe people to give a free will,
response to him and have arelationship with him.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
Next verse in the line showing free will Isaiah 55
, verses 6 and 7, quote Seek theLord while he may be found.
Call upon him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake his wayand the unrighteous man his
thoughts, and let him return tothe Lord, and he will have
(47:45):
compassion on him and be our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
So again, this is Isaiah.
So it's speaking to adisobedient people and he's
speaking to let the unrighteousman seek me.
He's saying let him return tothe Lord and God will have
(48:07):
compassion on him and he willabundantly pardon him.
Pardon from what?
Pardon from sin.
Seek the Lord while he may befound.
He's ordering them to do it.
It's the equivalent of the NewTestament command to repent
Again over and over.
Seek the Lord and he will befound.
He says this to wicked, lostpeople, saying look for me and
(48:31):
I'll find you.
We do have free will becauseGod says we do.
Next one Joshua 24, verses 22 to24.
This is Joshua speaking to thepeople in Israel as before
Joshua was dying.
Quote Joshua said to the peopleyou are witnesses against
yourselves that you have chosenfor yourselves the Lord to serve
(48:55):
him.
And they said we are witnessesNow, therefore, put away the
foreign gods which are in yourmidst and incline your hearts to
the Lord, the God of Israel.
The people said to Joshua wewill serve the Lord, our God,
and we will obey his voice.
Unquote.
Now, steve, I'm reminded ofthat.
He's clearly telling thesepeople seek the Lord.
(49:19):
And he said no, you're not.
He says we're going to do it,we're going to seek the Lord.
So he's commanding them to doit and they're agreeing.
And it says you have chosen foryourselves to follow him.
I'm reminded, steve, I ran intoa guy that was a double
predestinarian one time and hewas all of this you know, those
(49:40):
are the ones that choose to bedamned and choose to be.
God chooses them to be damnedand God chooses them to be elect
.
And he had mentioned AW Pink,who was a double predestinarian,
and I said look, joshua.
I quoted this verse to him andI asked him are you going to
believe Pink or are you going tobelieve Joshua?
(50:02):
And he said well, I believePink.
And so, okay, let's have lunch.
I mean, what else are you goingto do?
And so, okay, let's have lunch.
I mean, what else are you goingto do?
Speaker 2 (50:09):
He's clearly saying you have chosen for yourselves
the divine-inspired inerrantword of God is saying you have
chosen for yourselves the Lord.
I think this is the conundrumwith the Reformed theology is
that the majority of their textsthat they use are in the New
(50:29):
Testament and when you get tothese texts that are in the Old
Testament that clearly, over andover and over again, are
requests, pleas, commands forpeople to follow God, the one
and true God, that they don't goto these verses and look at
these verses.
So I know that you've got manyother ones we're going to look
(50:52):
at here.
This is a conundrum for theReformed theology.
Speaker 1 (50:55):
I think it's a conundrum for the theology, but
not the Word of God.
Moving on Deuteronomy 30,verses 19 and 20.
And before we get into that,really look at the context here.
He had just spent a couple ofchapters where he was saying if
you obey, I will give you allthese blessings.
(51:18):
If you disobey, I will give youall these cursings.
If you obey, or if you disobey,then he says this I call heaven
and earth to witness againstyou today that I have set before
you life and death, blessingand curse.
Therefore, choose life that youand your offspring may live
(51:40):
loving the Lord, your God,obeying his voice and holding
fast to him.
Unquote.
So here is Moses speaking thedivine words of God, saying if
you obey you'll be blessed, ifyou disobey, you'll be cursed.
Choose life, and it's in theconcept of life and death.
You see, I've said before lifeand death.
(52:00):
Choose life.
So, steve, I don't know otherway to do it.
We could say, okay, moses isdealing with human things.
Maybe you could say that.
But why are we damned?
Why are we lost before God?
Because we don't follow hiscommands, we don't follow his
law, we sin and don't want tofollow his law.
(52:21):
He says choose.
Are we not able to?
Speaker 2 (52:25):
choose.
We absolutely are able tochoose, and that's what's set
before them.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
Lest we think it's only an Old Testament thing,
look at the New Testament, 1Corinthians 737, quote.
But he who stands firm in hisheart, being under no constraint
, but has authority over his ownwill and has decided this in
his own heart to keep his ownvirgin daughter, unquote.
Now I'll admit up front that'snot a verse talking about
(52:54):
salvation.
It's not a verse talking aboutsalvation, it's not.
But it is a verse talking abouthumans doing good godly things,
good moral things, and it'stalking to believers in a church
saying this, and it's veryclearly saying we have the free
will.
This is where places like theWestminster Confession, thomas
(53:18):
Aquinas, other theologians,schaeffer, geisler, all these
guys get this idea that we doindeed, as human beings, have
free will.
We're made in the image of God.
We did not lose the image ofGod when we were unsaved, and so
human beings have the image ofGod and we're not a machine.
(53:39):
God didn't go in and justreprogram the machine.
We have a free will, we haveauthority over our own will, and
it is just not the case thatthat goes away when we're lost
completely.
We have authority over our ownwill and that's why those
theologians I just mentionedwould say that he persuades us,
(54:02):
but it's our choice.
Again, moving on John 7, 17.
If anyone is willing to do hiswill, his God's will, he will
know of the teaching, whether itis of God.
Now here it's reallyinteresting.
Again, jesus is saying to thepeople if anyone is willing to
do God's will, this person willknow the teaching, whether my
(54:27):
teachings are true, whether itis of God.
Now think of this, think of theimplications of this.
Jesus spoke this in the templeto everyone, the crowd, the
Pharisees, everybody.
And it would make no sense atall to say if anyone is willing
to do God's will, he will knowwhether my words are true.
(54:49):
But no one can be willing,therefore nobody's ever going to
know.
I mean, that's what theReformed people would have to
say on that verse, because noone's willing in Reformed
theology, therefore nobody'sgoing to know whether Jesus's
words are true.
That's exactly what they say.
Jesus is telling the crowdeveryone if you're willing,
(55:13):
you're going to know whether mywords are true.
And the entire debate inReformed theology is we can't
will to know whether it's true,we can't will.
It's a spiritually discernedthing.
So they would say that Jesus issaying there if anyone's
willing to know whether my wordsare true, then you'll know.
(55:35):
But you really can't knowbecause you can't be willing.
So you have to then beregenerated before you'll know
whether my words are true.
And that's exactly the oppositeof the meaning of John 7, 17.
He's telling the crowd ifyou're willing, then you'll know
.
That's what he's saying.
I don't know how you can.
(55:56):
It's an odd theology that takesthe plain meaning of that
sentence and flips it and sayswell, it really means just the
exact opposite of what it says.
Speaker 2 (56:07):
That really means just the exact opposite of what
it says.
Yeah, I'm reminded of Jesuswhenever he is praying and he's
about to go.
It's in his final week and helooks across at Jerusalem and
says oh Jerusalem, jerusalem,the city that killed the
prophets.
How often that I wanted to takeyou under my wing like a hand,
(56:28):
and protect you under my winglike the chicks.
Right, he says, but youwouldn't permit it, you wouldn't
allow it, and so he lays theirchoice back on them.
Now, this isn't talking aboutsalvation.
It is talking about as far as achoice as to who he was, but he
does lay it back on them.
He wanted to take them underhis wing, but he lays the blame
(56:53):
back on them as far as a choice.
Speaker 1 (56:56):
I'll wrap up by saying to our friends if you've
been listening to all of this,really just interested in this
reformed debate, then I wouldencourage you.
I'll repeat what we said at thevery beginning what we really
do is what's more valuable thanall these discussions is good,
solid Bible exegesis.
That's what everybody needs thetrained theologians and the
(57:19):
average church member and that'swhat we normally do.
Please come back and listen toour regular programs.
We talk about all of this butwe do it in the context of the
passages as we go through them,and it gets a little tedious
doing this and we're just wewere.
I'll repeat what I said.
I'm kind of afraid we'll losesome audience here because we
spend all this time goingthrough the theology.
(57:42):
But I think, steve, it'simportant because people have
these questions.
Our normal thing is what we dois verse-by-verse Bible study,
and I'll wrap up with one finalverse.
Proverbs 8, 17 says those whodiligently seek me will find me,
and I think that's a truestatement that we can say, just
(58:05):
like Jesus would say, or justlike God would say to the masses
if you diligently seek him, youwill find him, and we'll let
God worry about the things onthe other side of heaven and we
worry about what we'reresponsible for, which is
seeking him and finding him, andrepenting and following him.
Speaker 2 (58:24):
Find all of our resources on our resource page
on reasoningthroughthebiblecom.
Also, go and look at all of ourteachings, of the books that
we're going through, and there,as you pointed out, glenn, that
is our bread and butter, verseby verse.
This is what we've been feltcalled to do and we encourage
you to go and do that and studywith us as we reason through the
(58:46):
Bible.
Thank you so much for watchingand listening, as always.
May God bless you.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.