Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome.
We are Reasoning Through theBible.
My name's Glenn and I'm herewith Steve.
This is the second in a seriesthat we're doing on Reformed
theology and if you didn't seethe first one and you're not
intimately familiar with thetheology, you might want to go
back and listen to the first one.
Last time we established whatReformation theology and what
(00:23):
Calvinism taught, at least bymainline Calvinist teachers.
Today we're going to try toevaluate that and talk about
what we might agree with andwhat we might disagree with.
And, steve, I think before wereally get too far into this, we
need to repeat something and wesaid this once, but it's worth
repeating thing, and we saidthis once, but it's worth
(00:47):
repeating it's unfair of any oneperson or group to broad brush
them with some of these thingsand say they always believe such
and so Any given person maybelieve parts of these
theologies or all of them andany given denomination, things
like that.
And there's really a spectrum.
And it's true with Christiangroups and non-Christian groups
that what you can't do is say,oh, you're in this category,
(01:10):
therefore you believe everythingthat everybody ever believed,
that are in that category.
No, no, there's a spectrum ofbeliefs and there's people that
belong to churches that, okay, Ibelieve part of what my church
teaches and not other parts.
So you always need to look atpeople as individuals and even
(01:31):
denominations as individuals.
They don't all teach the samething, even though they may be
under the broad heading ofReformed theology.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yes, and while that's
true, as we mentioned in last
session, yes, and while that'strue, as we mentioned in last
(02:09):
session, that's why you wentthrough really the basic
theological, documented,reformed theology as what it
would say would be taught inseminaries, and as to what its
original meanings are, andwhereas I have seen, and more of
an anecdotal of the people thatare out there along the
spectrum that go from one farside over to the other far side
and have that type of experience.
So I think it's good thatyou've gone through and have a
baseline as to what reformtheology itself teaches and
that's what we're generallygoing to work off of.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
These two sessions
last time and this one are
really dealing with thetheological system, and we'll
deal with some of the peoplethat teach some of these things
and what to do with that.
Next time, we'll get intoactually looking at individual
Bible passages and go throughthe text of the scriptures in
detail.
(02:48):
Today's really dealing withReformed theology as a system.
We're going to preface thiswith something I think we
mentioned at the beginning ofthe first session, which is this
is fairly deep stuff, and we'redealing with the nature of God,
who's infinite and we arefinite.
So there's always a strugglewith trying to understand things
(03:09):
.
Steve and I don't see eye toeye on all these things, and
what you're going to see usdisagree on is what we're going
to deal with next.
Some of the things that we'reabout to mention, steve and I
will agree, and some things wewon't.
Steve and I have known eachother for quite a long time and
we've wrestled with some ofthese issues and we're still
friends, and so one of themessages is even though we may
(03:31):
disagree with things it's anin-house debate we can still be
friends and we do ministrytogether.
Even though we don't seeeye-to-eye 100% on all these
kind of things, though we don'tsee eye to eye 100% on all these
kind of things.
The old joke I used to tellSteve and it's sort of tongue in
(03:53):
cheek, but I think it's valid Iwould say to people you know,
there's only two people in theworld that get the Bible exactly
correct me and you, and I'm alittle worried about you, right?
So the question if we're onlygoing to hang around with people
that agree with us 100% onevery single little thing, first
of all, it's against Scripture,because Romans, chapter 14 and
(04:14):
other places say we should havepatience with people, even when
they're wrong on minor things.
And secondly, it's just not aloving thing to do to, uh, to
separate from people all thetime.
Uh.
So comment steve, before wereally get into this.
Next section is really the parteverybody has been waiting for.
Which is what?
What do we think the issues are?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
yeah, and as we get
into it, uh, just want to
emphasize what you're saying,that there's while there's a
little bit of disagreement, thenwe might see that there's no
division between us, especiallyon the core values of what
Christianity is and the beliefof who Jesus is and what he's
done in the death, burial andresurrection.
All of that we're completelytogether in it.
(04:58):
So, as we go through this, Idon't want anybody in our
audience to say you know what.
I don't want anybody in ouraudience to say you know what?
You know that they'recontentious with each other and
therefore they they behind thescenes, they have a problem.
We don't have a problem.
We've talked about this stuffseveral times throughout the
years, mentioned it severaltimes that we should put this
down and put it on a, in arecording and think that the
(05:21):
people would like it.
And we've been asked about itand we've been asked about it
and we've been asked about it.
So now here we are, we're doingit and we're putting it down
and it's also now something thatwe can refer to.
If people ask us certain things.
We can say, yeah, we did avideo on that and so go and
watch it.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Okay.
So first thing that I would holdup as being something I would
disagree with, the classicCalvinist position would be that
God chose from eternity pastwho was going to be the elect
and who was going to be saved,and that God has the sovereign
right to do so.
The Arminian would come backand say that's not fair because
(05:59):
it's not giving people the right.
People are being damned,they're not given a chance.
It's not fair.
Calvinist responds by sayingit's completely fair because and
typically they give two thingsOne, everyone is a sinner, we've
all sinned, and it's only God'sjustice.
He's perfectly just incondemning all people and if he
(06:22):
wants to save some, then it'sout of his grace.
And then, secondly, god hasinfinite wisdom and wisely
chooses who to save.
Since he has infinite wisdom,he can wisely choose who to save
.
That's the classic reformresponse to the Armenian
accusation of it's not fair.
The flaw in this is that if wehold to the Calvinist doctrine
(06:48):
of total depravity not what youand I would say, steve, but what
the Calvinist definition oftotal depravity then there's
nothing for God's infinitewisdom to make a wise choice
upon.
In other words, remember theymade a big deal about being dead
in trespasses and sins.
(07:08):
There was nothing, no criteria.
That is in man.
It's completely, entirelylacking anything good in us.
Well, even infinite wisdomcan't find a reason to justify
infinite depravity.
Infinite wisdom would havenothing to make a wise choice
(07:31):
upon.
If we are as dead and asseparated as the Calvinist
doctrine says we're dead, theneven an infinitely wise God has
nothing to make an infinitechoice upon.
If there was any criteria uponwhich God's wisdom was there to
(07:52):
operate upon, then he foundsomething in us which total
depravity says you can't.
A better solution to theproblem is that receiving the
gospel is not a work, it's not agood thing to credit upon and
it's not anything earningrighteousness.
So therefore, the real problemis in this dichotomy we're going
(08:15):
to get to in a second of faithand works which the Reformed
people have all messed up.
But again, just okay.
The Calvinist is right insaying that God doesn't have to
answer to our sense of fairness,but they're wrong in that
they've inconsistently appliedthe total depravity along with
(08:36):
God's being able to make a wisechoice upon nothing to make a
choice upon Thoughts, steve.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Well, I think that
the Calvinist, when they say
total depravity, when you reallyboil it down, there's really
only one thing that they can'tdo and the person can't respond
to the gospel message or respondto God again in their theology
and teaching unless Godregenerates them first to where
(09:06):
they can respond to it.
And I don't think that you know, Scripture supports that
completely.
We look at a man by the name ofCornelius, over in Acts,
chapter 10, and it says there,in the first couple of verses,
there was a man, a Caesarian,named Cornelius.
He was a centurion and he waspart of the Italian cohort, and
(09:33):
it says that he was a devout manand one who feared God with all
of his household and gave manyalms to the Jewish people and
prayed to God continually.
And so this was a descriptionof Cornelius before Peter even
came in to give him the gospelmessage, to which Cornelius
would respond.
And then we have the otherexample of Lydia in the same
(09:54):
vein, that she was a God-fearingperson and then responded to
the gospel message that Paulgave, that Paul gave.
So I think this, when youchallenge some of the Calvinists
on this, they kind of waver andthey're saying well, total
(10:14):
depravity isn't really thatpeople can't be a good person or
they can't do good things, it'sjust that they can't respond to
God.
So that really comes down to onething, and to me all of their
theology, or at least the fivepoints, hinge around this
teaching or idea of totaldepravity.
(10:34):
So, yes, I think we're inagreement, and the way I would
describe it is that, yes,mankind, there's nothing that
they can do.
We can do within ourselves tosave ourselves.
And so, from that particularstandpoint, then we need a
(10:54):
Savior and we have thisseparation from God.
But to take it to the extent ofthe Calvinist takes it to where
there is absolutely nothingthat man could do unless God
takes action first in a veryspecific way with a very
specific people, meaning thatsome of them he chooses to do
(11:16):
this with and others that hechooses not to do it with, I
think is something that's offbase I don't agree with, and I
don't think you agree with thateither.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Well, and I think
those two passages you brought
up are very telling Cornelius inActs, chapter 10, and then
Lydia in Acts 2, I forgot whichchapter both of them.
Have these people prior tosalvation?
It's very clear at what pointin the account they become
Christians, clear at what pointin the account they become
(11:47):
Christians.
Prior to that, they are indeedseeking God.
They are seeking God's favor,seeking to learn about God,
seeking these things, and wecould say the Holy Spirit was
drawing them.
But everybody says that eventhe non-reformed people would
say God draws people in.
The strict reformed person saysthey could not have wanted God
(12:08):
to be in their lives at all orinterested in godly things
unless God had regenerated themfirst.
But the clear point of theirregeneration hadn't happened yet
.
So either the reformed personhas to deny reality, which is
what it's saying, or they've gotan issue with their sequence of
(12:28):
their salvation.
So that's an inconsistency.
Next, the Reformed people talk alot about God's decrees.
There's a lot about God'sdecrees, what he decreed and the
sequence in which he decreed it, and we talked about that in
the past session.
The real answer to the questionof God's decrees is not the
(12:50):
sequence they're in, because Goddoesn't think nor decree in
sequence.
He doesn't know and figurethings out and make choices and
sequences.
If he did, then his knowledgewould be contingent and
dependent upon the creature.
(13:10):
This is one of the sameobjections that we have to
Molinism, which is it makesGod's knowledge contingent upon
a created being, and God can'thave a contingent knowledge
based on a created being.
God can't have a contingentknowledge based on a created
being.
If so, then now we have alimited God that's limited by
the logical dependence on a freecreature.
(13:32):
Instead, there is no sequencein God's decrees, he just
decrees.
There's no sequence in God'sknowledge, he just knows.
So, in a proper sense, there isno foreknowledge in God, it's
just knowledge.
And so if we have a God thatthinks in sequence and acts in
(13:55):
sequence, then we have a limitedGod, and we can't have that Now
.
His actions occur in sequence,and I think that's fairly clear
because we have befores andafters.
There's no befores and afterswith God, or else we'd have
again problems with the natureof God.
Since there's befores andafters with us, then we can see
(14:17):
his actions occur in sequence,but he didn't generate them in
sequence.
He doesn't learn things.
He doesn't have to look atsomething and figure out what's
happening and make a choiceabout it, and so he doesn't
think nor decree in sequence.
If we do, then we have alimited God, and since God's not
(14:37):
limited, then he is timelessand we are not, and we are not.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Yeah, I absolutely
agree with that and that's the
way that I would put it.
It's just God's knowledge.
He knows everything and thatit's foreknowledge to us,
because that's how we live.
We live in a linear fashion.
I was born at one point and I'mgoing to die at another point,
and that's on a line that wecalculate.
As far as that, we call time.
(15:03):
So to us it's foreknowledge,but to God it's just knowledge.
And to give an illustration ofthat is that through scripture,
there's several times that Godgives prophetic events that are
going to happen and they'recalled in the future, based upon
when they were given.
Because again, that's how welive.
We live in that linear form,but God clearly is saying here's
(15:29):
what's going to happen, and togive that event and there's
still some events that are stillout there to our future that
are going to happen, because weknow that God was correct in
those events.
We know that he's going to becorrect in the future events,
but again, it's because of hisknowledge, it's not because of
(15:49):
his foreknowledge.
It's foreknowledge to us, right, and I think we're both in
agreement with that, right.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Next item that we
would see a major flaw in
Reformed thinking is that on onehand there's a difference
between God's determiningsomething to be the case in the
world and whether or not hecaused that to happen.
And Calvinists understand thispart, at least in one area, in
(16:20):
the sense that in the quotes wegave in the earlier session say
this God determines that there'sgoing to be a world with sin in
it, but he didn't cause the sin.
He just determines okay, I'mgoing to make free creatures and
I know these free creatures aregoing to sin.
And so in that sense, goddetermines or ordains a world
(16:43):
with sin in it, but it was thecreature that caused it.
Right, and that's classicCalvinist teaching.
Calvinist would make that pointGod is not the author of sin,
but he ordains there's going tobe a world with sin in it.
So the Calvinist fullyunderstands God can decree,
ordain, determine that there'sgoing to be sin, but the
(17:07):
creature causes it.
The flaw is that they turnaround and say it can't happen
the other way, that when theordaining of the salvation
happens oh, wait a minute thecreature can't do that part.
Well, that's logicallyinconsistent.
There's no logical flaw in thesense that if God can ordain or
(17:31):
decree or determine that sin'sgoing to be in the world.
Well, he can also decree ordetermine and ordain that
salvation is going to happen toJoe and Mary, but Joe and Mary
be a secondary cause of a freecreature that freely accepts the
free gift of salvation, and Godcan ordain that that's going to
(17:54):
be the way that it happens.
And the Westminster Confessioneven alludes to this.
We read the quotes aboutsecondary causes.
That doesn't take away the freecreature.
So a strict Calvinist teachingwould say oh no, god can freely
ordain a world with sin in itwithout being the direct cause.
But God has to be the directcause of salvation.
(18:16):
And I say no, no, if you'regoing to be consistent with that
, then God can ordain a worldwith salvation in it to
individual people, but theindividual person be the one
that freely receives the freegift of salvation, which is not
a work which we're going to seein the passages we talk about in
a minute.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Yeah, and I wouldn't
say that I wouldn't use the term
ordained sin in the world.
I would say that God, when hecreated mankind, that he knew
because of just what we talkedabout, because of his knowledge
that there was going to be sinin the world.
Because sin, both in the NewTestament and the Old Testament
(18:55):
and both the Hebrew and theGreek word, means really just to
miss the mark.
It's mankind missing what Godwants from them, which is mainly
a relationship, but also toworship him and honor him.
And so I would say that Goddidn't ordain and this really
(19:17):
comes into another thing.
You use determined, decree,ordain.
What are those meanings?
What are the definitions ofthose words?
Sometimes I think the Calvinistsand reforms have different
dictionaries as to what thewords actually mean, but I
wouldn't use that particularterminology.
But I wouldn't use thatparticular terminology.
(19:37):
I would just say that God knewthat there was going to be sin
in the world and that he made away for that sin to be forgiven
and for mankind to be reconciledback to him, which is through
Jesus Christ and what he did onthe cross and the death, burial
and resurrection, and heredeemed us back to himself.
So that's how I would kind ofdescribe that particular way,
(19:58):
and of course I would also holdto the point that mankind in
itself is given that choice toeither follow God or not.
To follow God, that was part ofhis original idea in creating
man in the first place.
The very first thing he didwith Adam and Eve is, he said,
he gave him a choice you can eatof anything in the garden, but
(20:20):
you can't eat of the one treeRight off the bat.
In the very beginning ofGenesis there's a choice for
mankind to make either obey Godor disobey God.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Next item on the list
of things that at least I would
have an issue with, withReformed theology, and I had
read from William GT SheddDogmatic Theology earlier.
I just picked him reallybecause he's a straight down the
line Calvinist.
Shedd says and again asrepresentative of a lot of
(20:53):
different Reformed theologians,of a lot of different Reformed
theologians that someone canread their Bible, listen to
Christian preaching, refrainfrom sin, and these are not a
moving of the will, nor can theyproduce it.
He says that in volume 2, page499.
So think of what he just saidLost person, read the Bible,
(21:18):
listen to preaching, refrainfrom sin and express a desire to
learn more, but this is not amoving of the will, nor can they
produce it.
Examples, the one we justmentioned a minute ago Lydia in
Acts and Cornelius in Acts.
(21:39):
That it specifically says weregodly people that were seeking
God and praying to God for amore light, and it happened
prior to their obvious salvation.
So I would say this is no lessthan a denial of reality.
It is no less of a denial ofreality than saying I'm not
(22:02):
sitting here talking to you oryou're not thinking for yourself
.
The way I think of it, steve, isI have a silly example.
You ever put together athousand piece jigsaw puzzle.
Well, you end up with these,these pieces that don't quite
fit, and I think, well, it oughtto fit.
And so, to make it fit, I pullout my pocket knife and shave
(22:22):
off a corner and, okay, now itfits.
Well, that's what has to happenin some of this systematic
theology.
You start off with a good placeOkay, yeah, we're dead in
trespasses and sins, but thetheological conclusion has to be
that Lydia and Cornelius and,as Shedd says, people actually
(22:46):
repenting that, oh well, they'renot really repenting.
It's just flat denial ofreality.
To make the theology fit ratherthan looking at what is real in
the world, make the theologyfit rather than looking at what
is real in the world.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
And for clarification
when Shedd says that they are
not moving of the will, nor canit produce it, the will he's
talking about, the will tobecome a follower of Jesus
Christ.
That's the will that he'stalking about.
I'm asking for clarification.
He's saying is that, yeah, theycan read the Bible, they can
listen to the preaching, theycan refrain from the sin, but
they will not have a desire, orthat's not part of their will,
(23:27):
to move towards God that fromtheir teaching?
God has to give them that will.
Is that clarification?
That's what he's saying?
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Right, that's.
What he's saying is that peoplecan pick up a Bible, read it,
listen to a Christian preacher,realize that the Bible says I'm
not supposed to be sinning, soI'm going to go out and try not
to sin.
I'm going to try to go learnmore about God so that I can,
because I'm having a desire towrite myself, oh no.
To write myself, oh no.
(24:00):
That is not a moving of thewill.
That it's again Cornelius andLydia perfect example.
These were people that were notsaved.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
Yeah, and I'm in
agreement with that.
I think that's a flaw.
This is also what introducessome of their teaching that if
they would say that, oh, if thisis a moving of the man's will
on their own volition, thatmeans that they're going to play
a part in their own salvation.
And I think that's another partthat you'll get to here in a
(24:28):
little bit.
But that's another flaw that,no, we don't.
Because we might move anddesire to move towards God,
because we might move and desireto move towards God, doesn't
mean in any way that we have aplay a part in any shape, form
or fashion in our own salvation.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
So the way I would
just sum that part up is it is a
denial of a brute fact.
In philosophy, a brute fact issomething that just is.
It's a denial of reality to fita theological system instead of
a looking at the scriptures anddetermining whether my
theological system fits.
Next thing on the list theeither-or presentation that we
(25:06):
read in the last session, whereeither God causes it entirely or
man has the ability to receivethe gospel.
That is a false dilemma.
The list of passages thatclearly contrast faith and works
tell us that faith is not awork.
The Reformed theology restsupon a definition of faith that
(25:31):
makes faith a work, whichScripture says.
It's not.
The terms that get used and getbatted around in Reformed
circles is monergism andsynergism.
There was a whole Christiandenominational thing in church
history that was over this, butmonergism meaning God does
everything completely himself,and synergism meaning that
(25:54):
people work along with God.
And they set up this dilemma aseither it's entirely of God
monergism or we helped God alongin some way, shape or form to
some degree, and they say it'seither one or the other.
And what I'm saying is that's afalse dilemma.
It's a false dilemma notbecause I think it is because
(26:15):
Scripture says it is.
Dilemma not because I think itis, because Scripture says it is
.
And the false dilemma is basedupon the idea that faith and
believing are a good work.
And there's just too manypassages that clearly contrast
it.
For example I mean, I'll justread a few of them here, and
these are, as far as I know, allthe primary passages that even
(26:38):
speak of faith and works.
Everywhere where they arementioned together they contrast
them and say that faith is nota work.
Romans 4, 5,.
But to the one who does notwork but believes, who justifies
the ungodly, his faith iscredited as righteousness.
Therefore, his faith iscredited as righteousness.
Therefore, belief is not a work.
(26:58):
Again, the one who does notwork but believes.
Galatians 2.16 contrasts the lawof Moses with faith.
Three times in one verse itsays not of works but of faith.
Galatians 3.2, quote Did youreceive the Spirit by the works
of the law or by the hearing offaith?
(27:19):
Galatians 3.2, quote.
Romans 9.32, speaking aboutIsrael pursuing righteousness.
They did not pursue it by faithbut as though it were by works.
And James 2.26, the kind offamous faith without works is
dead.
Think of it this way, steve.
I always think of.
Okay, here's the analogy You'vegot a parent has a 16-year-old
(27:42):
and the 16-year-old comes up andsays Dad, I want a car.
He says, well, why do you wanta car?
He says, well, I need a vehicleso that I can get to school and
I can get to my job and stuff.
Well, dad says, well, you canhave a car, but you can't have a
vehicle.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
What I mean a car is
a vehicle.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Right Saying you can
have a car but you can't have a
vehicle.
That doesn't make any sense.
Well, the same thing.
If we're going to say thatfaith without works is dead, but
faith is a work, then whatyou're saying is works without
works is dead, or the one whodoes not work but believes what
you're saying is the one whodoes not work but works what.
(28:27):
That doesn't make any sense.
So it's a biblically falsedilemma to say that faith is
somehow a righteous work.
Have you read Galatians?
I submit that you cannot do aphrase-by-phrase exegesis of
Galatians like we did and comeup with a conclusion that faith
(28:47):
is a righteous work.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
And along with that,
glenn, as I noted before, I have
some of the anecdotal evidence.
Of the anecdotal evidence, thisteaching of faith is a work
which stems from their teachingof God has to give the people
that he's going to choose tosave for salvation.
Give them the faith firstbefore they can come to God.
(29:10):
That also leads to other things.
I have seen questions now thatpeople that are under this
teaching that they ask questions, and I saw this particular one
where the questioner came up tothe pastor in a Q&A session and
she said well, is repentance awork?
(29:33):
So you can see some of thelogical conclusions that people
come up with whenever they'retaught these things that faith
is a work and that's why God hasto give you your faith first.
Well, then they start thinkingof other things in addition to
that, such as this person thatasked a question.
(29:53):
Well, then, is repentance awork as well?
So it just causes some problemsand issues.
And, yes, we're in agreement.
I think there too.
One last thing that I would addto it would be that sometimes
you'll hear some of theseReformed people saying, when
they give this either or dilemma, they will say, and I'm not
(30:16):
really sure how that works,because God can do whatever he
wants to, and I'm not reallysure how it works.
Well, if you're not really surehow it works, then I don't
think the person can be dogmaticin saying that faith precedes
salvation.
So I think that's somethingthat to be aware of.
(30:37):
If you don't know how it works,then I don't think either way
that you can be dogmatic aboutsomething.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
Next item on the list
of things that I would take
issue is when we start withsomething good and it follows
too far.
It's what we would call gone toseed.
If you have any agriculturalproduct that you're raising some
sort of a fruit or a grain,there's a time to pick it where
it's ripe.
But if you leave it too long,they use the phrase gone to seed
(31:07):
, which means the fruit's reallybad and it's just a seed pod.
Well, that's what we havesometimes with some Reformed
theology.
Again back to William GT Shedd.
Shedd has a whole section of hisbook on what happens with a
lost person, becomes convictedof sin and asked for salvation.
(31:29):
But that person is notnecessarily saved.
And I'll quote Shedd here.
Quote he God has not promisedto regenerate every convicted
sinner without exception whoasks for regeneration.
Regeneration is according tothe purpose of God in election,
and election does not dependupon any act of the creature, be
(31:53):
it prayer or any other act.
Consequently, the convictedsinner's prayer cannot
infallibly secure regeneration.
And again another in the quotefrom William GT Shedd in the
same section of his book.
In this one he's actuallyquoting John Owen.
John Owen is another classicReformed theologian that the
(32:17):
Reformers hold high.
So here Shedd is quoting Owenand agreeing with him.
Quote may a person who is yetunregenerate pray for the spirit
of regeneration to affect thatwork in him?
Question mark, for whereas assuch he is promised only to the
elect, he meaning the HolySpirit, such a person not
(32:38):
knowing his election seems tohave no foundation.
So what Shedd is saying thereand quoting Owen to support it,
is you have an unregenerateperson that is convicted of sin
that's the term he used,convicted of sin on their knees
(32:59):
asking in repentance, seekingGod, praying for salvation, and
the answer to such a person isyou can't be sure you're one of
the elect, because all thosethings do not secure salvation.
Now I get what their meaning is, steve.
We've seen people that get intoan emotional church service and
(33:24):
maybe they're moved by a verypassionate sermon or something
and oh, I really want to besaved, and maybe they'll say a
prayer, but the next day or thenext week, you know, the
feeling's gone, so they're notreally saved.
So you and I would agree, justbecause somebody says a prayer
in emotional time foxholeconversion kind of a thing that
(33:45):
doesn't mean they're saved, butnevertheless, that's not what he
says.
What he says is that a convicted?
of sin asking for salvation inrepentance.
The answer to them is you can'tbe sure, you're one of the
elect.
(34:05):
And, steve, you and I bothheard recently there's a piece
of video out there of somebodyasking a question of John Piper,
this exact question of sayingthere was somebody that had been
raised in a Reformed churchsaying oh, I'm mad at God now
because I'm not one of the elect.
(34:25):
And so this is what happens.
People get the idea am I partof the elect, am I not?
It's real easy if you haveconfidence in your own salvation
, oh, I'm part of the elect.
But if you're really wrestlingwith the idea, then you come up
with the answer.
It's not an isolated thing.
(34:48):
She had a whole section in histheology text on this.
The answer is you can't be sure.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
That's correct, that
is their teaching.
And you read a verse I think itwas in the last session from
John that says I've writtenthese things so that you might
know that you have salvation.
So scripture is there to giveus the assurance that we might
know that you have salvation.
Now, obviously I think theperson themselves knows, and
obviously God knows, whether ornot they were sincere in that
(35:16):
expression of belief, whether ornot they were sincere in that
expression of belief.
But yes, it does cause doubt insome people's mind in this
teaching and we mentionedperseverance of the saints
earlier in this session and whatthey actually mean in their
teaching of perseverance of thesaints is that if you are one of
the elect, that God willpersevere you, god will cause
(35:42):
you to persevere to the end,which goes in the same vein of
God is going to regenerate youfirst, is going to give you the
faith first.
So it really starts to get downto whether not really, whether
or not somebody is saved or hassalvation.
(36:05):
They'll start getting into justas this person that was asking
the question of Piper whether ornot they're of the elect, and I
think that that is some of thelogical conclusion that some of
these things go to, and it doescause doubt in some people's
minds once they really reallystart thinking about some of
(36:26):
this teaching.
How is it that I know that I'mone of the elect?
Versus the question of how isit that I know that I'm saved?
Well, you know that throughwhat scripture teaches.
How do you know if you're oneof the elect or not?
Well, it depends upon what thesystematic theology of the
Reformed or Calvinists say.
So I think that's the dilemmaand I think, again, we're in
(36:50):
agreement with that.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
So get the force of
this.
What Shedd was saying is thatyou have somebody convicted of
sin, that is seeking salvation,that is wanting to be part of
the family of God, and theanswer to them is you can't be
sure whether you're one of theelect.
(37:15):
That is exactly what he saidand that's exactly what he meant
, and he's got a whole sectionon his book.
Now, the technical word forthat is bad.
It's just bad.
It's just wrong to say that.
Well, what is the answer ofJesus?
What did he say in the templein front of the crowd and the
(37:37):
leaders and the twelve If you'rethirsty, come to me and I'll
give you a drink.
If you're tired, come to me andI'll give you rest.
They don't say well, can'treally be sure.
No, that is against the entireflavor of the gospel message.
It is a theology gone to seed.
(37:58):
It is a theology that, becauseof the theological convictions,
you're telling lost people youcan't be sure, and that he I
mean pages in his book on thisyou know one of the things,
Glenn, that came to mind.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
You said that's
against the gospel message.
Well, the gospel means the goodnews and the gospel message.
That's noted.
I think it's in 1 Corinthiansthat Jesus came, died.
According means the good newsand the gospel message.
That's noted.
I think it's in FirstCorinthians that Jesus came,
died according to the scripturesand rose again according to the
scriptures, and it's the goodnews that we can have eternal
life through believing in himand placing our belief in him of
(38:33):
who he is no-transcript peoplethat aren't elect.
(39:03):
And again, to emphasize whatyou're saying is, even in
Shedd's reasoning here he saysat the end of it that doesn't
mean that they can't be assuredthat they're the elect.
See, he's not even usingsalvation.
They conflate this idea of theelect always in conjunction with
(39:26):
salvation, and I think that'sanother point that we'll talk
about at some point that I thinkthat the elect is used as a
category and not necessarily ofGod's choice to choose, choice
to save some and not to saveothers.
So once again, it comes down towhether you're the elect or not
the elect, rather than beingwhether you're saved or not
(39:49):
saved.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
And lest we say well,
that's just an ivory tower sort
of theology book, technicaldiscussion, and doesn't play out
in reality.
That Q&A video that you and Iboth saw this week.
The guy had the exact samequestion hey, whether I'm in the
elect or not?
And the answer was well, you'relost because you want to.
(40:11):
I mean, that was the responseand I've got quotes here in
history where it's again.
It's not isolated.
I'm going to quote CharlesFinney and don't think I agree
with Charles Finney.
He had fairly decently horribletheology, but I'm not going to
question the man's honesty whenhe gives an eyewitness account
of what he saw.
Finney said about hisPresbyterian Calvinist pastor.
(40:35):
If he preached repentance, hemust be sure, before he sat down
, to leave the impression on hispeople that they could not
repent.
If he called them to believe,he must be sure to inform them
that until their nature waschanged by the Holy Spirit,
faith was impossible to them.
Unquote.
Barton Stone, in a similar timeperiod, gave the same thing.
(40:57):
Calvinists in the 1800s.
The doctrines then publiclytaught were that mankind were so
totally depraved that theycould not believe, repent or
obey the gospel.
That regeneration was animmediate work of the Spirit
whereby faith and repentancewere wrought in the heart.
Now was not the accepted time,now was not the day of salvation
(41:18):
, but it was God's own sovereigntime.
So these things have played outin history and in some circles
are still there today.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
And let me say in
that Barton Stone quote, he says
right there that regenerationwas an immediate work, which we
go back to our example ofCornelius and Lydia, that they
were seeking after God, and saysCornelius was a devout person
and later it says he was arighteous person before they
(41:48):
heard from Peter or before theyheard from Paul.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Before they heard
about Jesus and before they
received the Holy Spirit.
Right.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
So again, Stone says
that regeneration is immediate,
and this is the teaching ofCalvinism.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
And we would hold.
You either have the Holy Spiritor you don't.
You're either saved or you'renot.
I would say it's immediate.
We may not be able to tell theexact minute, but no one is a
halfway Christian.
You either are or you're not.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
Correct and we would
say or at least I would say, and
I think you would say too thatthe regeneration is immediate,
it's upon your belief.
What they're holding to is thatthe regeneration is immediate,
first, right and the faith isgiven to you first, and at that
time then you can respond.
And it's immediate, but it'sthere, given to you by God,
(42:40):
before you have any type ofresponse.
We would say that, yes,regeneration is immediate upon
your expression of belief.
Abraham.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
Abraham believed in
God and God reckoned it to him
as righteousness, whereasCornelius and Lydia, and our
common human experience acrossmany, many, many instances is
that lost people are indeeddrawn in and do end up with an
interest in the gospel beforethey're saved.
That's the Holy Spirit drawing.
(43:10):
We would say no one would cometo God.
We can agree with the Calvinistleft to ourselves we're not
going to be saved.
But what does Jesus say?
Lift me up and I will draw allmen to myself.
So the drawing happens to lostpeople prior to when they're
saved.
Now, lest we think we'repainting all Calvinists with a
(43:33):
broad brush here, I'll bring upone support.
One of the people I always hada lot of respect for was in
times past was a man named DJames Kennedy.
Straight down the lineCalvinist Presbyterian minister
came up with one of the mosteffective evangelism programs in
modern times evangelismexplosion.
And I've heard D James Kennedysermons saying people aren't
(43:57):
able to repent and they don'thave enough free will to be able
to believe on their own.
So here was a guy who didn'tbelieve that people could repent
had come up with one of themost effective evangelism
programs in modern times.
So not trying to paint allCalvinists with a broad brush
(44:19):
here and getting towards the endhere.
We'll give one quote and Ithink it's fairly
straightforward.
There's a Norman Geisler quotehere that I would.
He's another theologian quote.
The vertical freedom to believeis everywhere implied in the
gospel call.
That is, humans are offeredsalvation as a gift Romans 6.23,
(44:41):
and called upon to believe andaccept it John 1.12.
Never does the Bible say besaved in order to believe.
Instead, it repeatedly commandsbelieve in order to be saved.
So, steve, I think that'sreally kind of the crux of a lot
of this.
The strict reformed theologianwould say regeneration before
(45:06):
faith, that God looks down andfinds the dead body on the
bottom of the pond and gives itlife and then it has the ability
to receive.
And again, it's based on thisfalse dilemma of belief and
receiving being a righteous workwhich, again, scripture doesn't
(45:27):
teach.
But the common implicationthroughout many passages is
we're commanded to repent andbelieve in order to be saved,
not the other way around.
Speaker 2 (45:42):
And another is RC
Sproul.
I think people would absolutelyagree that he's a giant in the
Calvinist faith.
He said that the concept ofregeneration preceding faith is
central to reform theology.
So without that that issomething that things would fall
(46:02):
apart on.
So I just think that when itgets down to it, that that is a
dividing line or a red line, forme at least, of this idea and
concept of regeneration beforefaith.
I just don't see that Scripturesupports it from the standpoint
of what it's telling us fromScripture, that God wants us to
(46:26):
come to Him, god wants us tohave a relationship with Him and
that he has provided a way forthat.
And this idea that he selectsonly some and others he doesn't
that I just don't think that'ssupported in Scripture itself.
Now the Reformed people wouldsay no, god does select some,
(46:50):
but the other ones they chooseon their own to not come to God,
they don't want to come to Godand so God leaves them on their
own.
But the logical conclusion, ifyou follow it out, is that if
God's going to select some, thenhe deliberately decides that he
isn't going to select others.
Speaker 1 (47:08):
So now, next, that's
the list of main critiques that
we have.
What Steve and I, I think,would kind of part ways is I
take a little more of a strongview of what the scripture would
say about God's choice andelection, and I'll let Steve
speak for himself.
But what I think is that againit talks about this false
(47:30):
dilemma that it's either God orus and that somehow belief is
some kind of a work.
Well, I just think that's afalse dilemma and I think it's
clearly demonstrable.
The solution, in my mind, isthat we can have a strong view
of election and take the placesin Scripture where it talks
(47:52):
about electing, even forsalvation.
But we can also have a strongfree will, and those are not
mutually exclusive.
Just because God choosesdoesn't mean I didn't receive
salvation.
So what I want to do is haveanother couple of quotes here
and bear with me, if you will.
There's another theologian,lewis Barry Chafer.
(48:14):
He was a four-point Calvinist.
He believed in unconditionalexcuse me, he believed in
unlimited atonement.
But for the rest of the part ofCalvinism, as far as the
election, he was straight downthe line, pure Calvinist, and I
think this quote will give areally good explanation of what
(48:35):
could be the case, at least insome cases.
So hang in there with me.
Let me read this.
Here's Schaeffer quote thevision which he creates in the
heart and the limitlesspersuasion he exercises induce a
favorable reaction on the partof all thus called, which
(48:56):
reaction is rendered infinitelycertain.
So just to right theresummarize, he's saying God has
infinite persuasion and he canexercise that infinite
persuasion on all the people whoare called, and that calling
results in a certain salvation.
That's what he just said.
(49:16):
Moving on with Schaeffer, theimportant truth to be observed
in all of this is that, thoughdivine persuasion be limitless,
it still remains persuasion.
And so when a decision issecured for Christ in the
individual, he exercises his ownwill, apart from even a shadow
(49:38):
of constraint.
The divine invitation still istrue.
That quote whoever will maycome.
However, it is also true thatnone will ever come apart from
this divine call, and that thecall is extended only to his
elect, unquote.
So what Schaeffer is sayingthere is God has the power of
(49:59):
infinite persuasion and hechooses whom he's going to elect
.
And according to Schaeffer, heexercises that infinite
persuasion on the elect only,and that they are certain to
respond.
But it's a true persuasion.
He's not causing them to besaved, he's persuading them to
(50:24):
be saved and it leaves a strongview of the individual making a
choice to receive.
Now Schaeffer says that only isgiven to the elect and we're
going to deal with all the Biblepassages.
I think that part I woulddisagree.
He extends the offer to all men, but nevertheless this, I think
(50:47):
, is closer to the truth in thesense that God does indeed
persuade people and he is sosovereign that he can exercise
more persuasion on some peoplethan others.
But the offer is there toeveryone and I think he draws
all men, as Jesus said, it'sjust some he may influence more
(51:09):
than others.
Some of us are more amenable tothe message than others.
Some of us are more stubbornthan others, are more stubborn
than others, and I think it'sreally just honestly too
simplistic to make it all sayingthat God causes everyone that's
saved and everyone else iseternally damned from the word
go.
(51:29):
I think Schaeffer has a muchmore nuanced approach, as does
Thomas Aquinas.
I've got the quote here.
I won't read Aquinas, butAquinas lived 300 years before
Calvin and he taught basicallythe same thing that left to
ourselves all of us would goastray.
But God exercises his authorityon people, but he keeps our free
(51:52):
will.
Aquinas taught that we all havenatures and it's the human
nature to be able to make freechoices and that he the human
nature to be able to make freechoices and that he works
through the free choice.
That was the reason we quotedthe Westminster Confession thing
about secondary causes.
Even the Westminster Confessiondidn't talk about doing
violence to the will.
(52:12):
So one last quote from CharlesHodge, quote no less clear and
universally admitted, is theprinciple that God can control
the free acts of rationalcreatures without destroying
either their liberty or theirresponsibility, unquote.
So, steve, that's where I liein all of this is.
I think we can have a strongview of election in the sense
(52:36):
that that God indeed does electbased on his sovereign choice,
but that doesn't mean that itdoesn't follow it's a non
sequitur that thereforeregeneration before faith and
therefore we don't have theability to understand and
respond to the gospel.
Speaker 2 (52:55):
And I keep telling
Glenn I think there's more that
we agree with than he thinksthat we do.
So I agree with what you said.
You said that God calls all tohimself.
I think that's I agree withthat.
That.
That is what Scripture teaches.
And I also agree that God mightwork to call certain people
(53:19):
more than others through theHoly Spirit because he wants
them for a purpose.
Paul is an example of that.
He pretty drastically calledPaul, knocked him off his horse,
blinded him and was verydirectly Paul, why are you
persecuting me?
And that got Paul's attention.
(53:40):
But we see what Paul's resultwas.
Paul even says I've been calledto be an apostle and go to the
Gentiles.
Then draw certain people morethan he might draw other people.
(54:00):
To then take that out to saythat he only draws the people
that he wants to save, to elect,I think goes too far.
I would say that he draws allpeople to himself.
The one example of what yougave earlier is that Jesus said
if you lift me up, I will drawall to myself.
(54:21):
And we have the scriptures thatdraw people to him.
We have the Holy Spirit thatworks in people's lives to draw
to him.
We have the Holy Spirit thatconvicted you and I to start
this ministry.
I don't think there's anyquestion about that, that that
was the Holy Spirit working inour lives to do that.
(54:44):
But then to follow along withthat and say that there's only
certain ones that God will dothat and take that action upon
to save, and that he will nottake a similar action in order
to not save others, I think goestoo far and that's where I
would draw the line.
I think it's a universal drawand, yes, he might work on some.
(55:09):
Billy Graham, for instance.
Probably God used in a draw forBilly Graham and he was used as
a great evangelist, and there'sothers throughout history of
things like that.
So, yes, I don't deny that andI don't think scripture denies
that God will, under certaincircumstances, draw people and
(55:34):
to use them for certain purposes.
Now, obviously, billy Graham,in order for him to be a great
evangelist, had to be saved.
But to then again extrapolatethat out to well, therefore that
means that God is only going toselect certain ones for
salvation and other ones he'sgoing to abandon, I think goes
too far and that's where I drawthe line.
Speaker 1 (55:55):
I guess my bottom
line message I'd give to a lot
of people out there is if you'refeeling a tug towards the Lord,
then follow that and pursue it,because the invitation is open.
And if you know, the very firstexplanation I ever heard about
(56:16):
this problem, right after I'dbecome a Christian, and the
first one I ever heard was this,and I still think it applies
after all these years.
You know, jesus told the storyof the way is broad that leads
to destruction, but there's anarrow gate that leads.
Well, it's just one of theseillustrations, but we're still
(56:37):
in this section.
So the illustration is there'sthis broad way that leads to
destruction, but over here wehave this gateway and over the
gateway there's a sign that sayswhosoever will may come, and
anybody that wants to go inthere can, and anybody that goes
in goes in.
And once you enter that archway, after you've gone through now,
(56:59):
you're saved.
And once you enter that archway, after you've gone through now,
you're saved.
And you look back and on thebackside of the archway you see
all the people coming in fromthe Broadway, all the Christians
coming in, and on the backsideof the archway it's got a sign
that says chosen from thefoundation of the world.
So on one side it's whosoeverwill may come, and then all the
people coming in.
(57:19):
Once you look back, oh, we werechosen from the foundation of
the world.
So I still think that it's justone of these cute illustrations
that's no more good thananybody else's cute illustration
.
Next time, I think what weought to do, which is really the
solution and this is closer towhat we normally do is let's go
(57:40):
pull out all the Bible passages,wrestle with them individually.
It's really easy to sit hereand argue logic in a theological
system what does the textactually say?
And try to hold each other'sfeet to the fire about what the
text says, and I think that'llbe even more beneficial to our
audience if we haven't lost themalready.
Speaker 2 (57:57):
Thank you so much for
watching and listening.
May God bless you.