This is Part 5 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 age-old theological tension between God's sovereignty and human choice takes center stage in this illuminating episode. We dive deep into the most common criticisms of Reformed Theology and examine how its defenders respond to these challenges.
What happens when someone claims that Reformed Theology makes God unrighteous? How do Reformed thinkers answer the charge that their theology renders human responsibility meaningless? We examine these provocative questions through quotes from prominent Reformed theologians like R.C. Sproul and A.A. Hodge, while carefully evaluating both sides of each argument.
At the heart of this theological divide lies a fundamental question: does regeneration precede faith, or does faith precede regeneration? This seemingly technical distinction dramatically shapes how we understand salvation, God's character, and human responsibility. We explore biblical examples like Cornelius, Rahab, and Ruth that challenge simplistic theological formulations on both sides.
The debate isn't merely academic—it touches on our deepest understanding of God's nature. Is God's love conditional or unconditional? Does His sovereignty mean He chooses some for salvation while leaving others without hope? Or does Scripture reveal a God who genuinely desires all people to be saved while respecting their freedom to reject Him?
Whether you're a committed Calvinist, a convinced Arminian, a consistent Biblicist or simply curious about these theological traditions, this episode offers thoughtful, balanced perspectives that will deepen your understanding of these vital spiritual questions. Listen now to sharpen your theological thinking and gain fresh insights into how we can faithfully reason through 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):
Hi, welcome back to Reasoning Through the Bible.
This is our series on ReformedTheology and an evaluation of
that.
We had actually completed thisseries and then we realized that
there's one extra area ofcontent that we really needed to
touch on, and so that's whatwe're going to do today, and
we're going to talk about somecommon back and forth that
(00:24):
happened between at least hashappened over the years between
Arminian type people and reformtype people, and so I think once
we get into it, it'll be reallyobvious what we're trying to do
.
But because reform theology hasbeen out in the world for a
good while now, there have been,of course, people that agree
(00:44):
with it and strongly support it,and there's other people that
disagree with it and don'tsupport it, and so what we
wanted to do was to kind of havea touch of the flavor amongst
some of those disagreements.
And again, as we've said before, this whole topic has a lot of
arms and legs and a lot oftentacles, and we could be here
(01:05):
for many moons going over, andthere's ministries that do that.
There's ministries that spendfull time going back and forth
on all these issues.
We're not going to do that, butwhat we are going to do today is
have some claims that have beenmade by people that disagree
with Reformed theology.
What are their claims?
(01:27):
What are their accusationsabout Reformed theology?
And then what has been sometypical responses from Reformed
theology?
How do the Reformed peopledefend themselves?
So that's really what we'regoing to talk about and I think
it'll be real clear as we getinto this.
But the pattern's going to bethis we're going to have a claim
(01:47):
that people that disagree withReformed theology what do they
claim?
What's the accusation againstReformed theology?
We'll have several quotes inanswer from Reformed people and
then at the end of that, steveand I will have a conversation,
or just a quick back and forthabout what we think, which side
we think is fair or if we thinkyou know what.
(02:08):
So that's really kind of theidea, right, steve?
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And I think you have some things written out here
that you're going to go throughright.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Right and, like before, we'll have a claim and
then we may have some quotesthat we have.
Some of them may be a littlelong, but again, hang in there.
We just wanted to be fair tothe people that teach this.
So the first claim againstReformed theology that happens
is sort of a gut reaction from alot of people is that when they
(02:39):
hear the idea of God selectingsome, that God sovereignly
picking some for salvation andnot others, one of the
accusations is that, well, thatjust doesn't seem like a
righteous thing for God to do.
The accusation is well, thatjust doesn't seem right that God
would pick some and not others,especially when we have
(03:04):
teaching where everybody saidwell, god's righteous and God,
he's love.
So it would seem that Godshould love everyone and he
ought to love everybody equally.
And the claim against Reformedtheology would be that it's just
not a righteous thing for Godto pick some and not others.
(03:26):
It's not fair, it wouldn't berighteous of God to look across
the landscape of people, all ofwhich were lost, none of which
could choose him, and he's goingto select some and not others.
It just seems like an arbitrarything.
That would speak to thecharacter of God, with God being
(03:47):
unrighteous in that choosing.
So what is the response fromReformed people?
I'm going to quote some peoplehere.
There was an ArchibaldAlexander Hodge that if you
really want a good summary ofReformed theology, look up a
book by AA Hodge called Outlinesof Theology.
(04:08):
I think it's in the publicdomain now.
It's out there.
It was written for laypeopleand answers a lot of these kind
of questions.
But here's a quote fromArchibald Alexander Hodge.
Quote God righteously deals withthe sinner according to the
measure of his responsibilityand not according to the measure
of his sinful inability.
(04:29):
So what he means there is thatGod is righteous and holy and he
deals with sinful peopleaccording to the measure of
(04:57):
their responsibility is what hesays.
So what he's meaning there inthat regard.
But they had the capacity torespond to God and they decided
not to.
They had the responsibility tofollow God and they didn't.
So he deals with them to themeasure of their sinfulness
(05:29):
measure of their sinfulness.
It would have been unrighteousof God to lower his standards
and then allow some people tocome in without again
regenerating them and not others.
So let me quote another just tokind of make clear this
Reformed theology would say weknow we're right in this,
against this accusation of God'sunrighteousness, because over
(05:51):
in Romans, chapter 9,specifically verses 14 and 15,
paul presents this idea ofelection and he responds to the
exact same accusation that'smade by the Arminians.
In this accusation that God'snot fair.
There's unrighteousness in God.
So in Romans 9, paul has thishypothetical argument and he
(06:16):
says is there unrighteousness inGod?
And he concludes may it neverbe.
God has the right to do what hewants to do with his creation.
He can choose Jacob if he wantsand not choose Esau if he
doesn't want.
But there's no unrighteousnessin God, he says may it never be.
(06:37):
God is always righteous.
The Reformed theologian wouldsay the Bible teaches all people
have already made a free choice.
They've freely chosen to walkaway from God.
It says in Romans 3.11, quotethere is none who understands,
there is none who seeks for God,unquote.
(06:58):
So therefore the Bible teachesthe Reformed theologian would
say people have already freelychosen.
The fair part was God gave themthe choice in the first place
and every last one of themfreely chose to walk away from
God and as a result of the fall,they exercised their free will
(07:19):
to suppress the truth Romans 118.
So they are now of their own,freely suppressing the truth
that God predetermined to savesome but not others reflects his
goodness, because he didn'thave to save any.
So the reformed person wouldsay God is fully righteous.
(07:42):
He doesn't lower his standardsto let everybody in, but his
goodness backs off and lets somein out of his grace.
So that would be a typicalresponse.
So, steve, your thoughts?
Is that an adequate response oris the accusation fair?
When they say there's this ideaof a reformed theology of God
(08:07):
picking some and not others, isthat a righteous God expressing
his goodness or is this anexpression of God?
That's just sort of unrighteousand unfair.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Well, my first thought is that you've used the
term Arminian, and I know thatthat's used quite often by
people of the Calvinists orReformed.
If you're talking to them andthey will throw that out very
quickly oh, you're an Arminian.
And I can tell you that thevast amount of people have no
(08:42):
idea what the arguments werebetween Arminius and Calvin and
to then label them as Arminian.
They have no idea what you'reeven accusing them of, and that
happened with me as well.
I don't even know who Arminiusis.
I do now, but at the time, inmy earlier youth, didn't know
(09:05):
who Arminius was or what he did.
And so somebody saying you'rean Arminian?
Well, I don't know if I am ornot.
All I'm doing is going off ofwhat scripture says.
The other thought that I have isis that this question of that
God is not fair?
I think that this is somethingthat is thrown up and put
forward by the Reformed people,and we include the Calvinists in
(09:25):
that.
Obviously, that is an argumentfrom the other side of God's not
fair and I don't think it hasanything to do with fairness.
I think that it has to do withGod's character as far as his
character that we're shown inthe Bible is one of love mercy,
(09:48):
going to the point of becominghuman in order to provide a
satisfactory sacrifice.
And so, yes, by all means, godcan do whatever he chooses to do
.
But does his scripture reallycome back and say that he acts
that way?
(10:08):
And I think that we have plentyof scripture to show that, no,
that he is open to people tocome to him and that there's not
arbitrariness on his side, butthat he wants everybody to come
to him.
And there's going to be somespecific things here in the next
(10:30):
topic that we're going to talkabout that I don't want to deal
with here.
But this argument of whetherGod is fair we've talked about
this that there is a famousvideo of RC Sproul in his church
and raising this question ofsaying people against Reformed
(10:52):
theology say that God is not.
And then he pauses and thewhole congregation says fair.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
And so Paul now raises a rhetorical question
that is unthinkable.
What then?
Is there unrighteousness in God?
Why does he raise it Again?
He's anticipating your response, my response, the response of
(11:21):
his Roman readership to whathe's just been setting forth,
beginning in chapter 8 and nowinto chapter 9, when he's
talking about the sovereignty ofGod in election, where God,
according to the good pleasureof His will to establish His own
sacred purpose, chooses Jacoband not Esau, not based on
(11:50):
anything foreseen in theirbehavior, not based on anything
that they did or would do in thefuture, but simply that the
purposes of God according toelection, might stand.
He makes this decree Now.
As soon as he makes a radicalstatement like that, he can hear
(12:12):
the hisses and the boos comingfrom the gallery.
You can almost hear hisaudience rise to their feet,
spontaneously, screaming inanger, saying that's not what
Fair?
It certainly seems like it'snot fair that if, for no reason
(12:35):
found in Jacob, no reason foundin Esau, god chooses one over
the other.
Does that seem fair to you?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
the other.
Does that seem fair to you?
To me, it's something that theReformed theologians put forward
as an accusation from peoplethat push back against Reformed
theology.
That again, I think it's not acharacterization of God's
fairness.
It's whether or not God'scharacter that we're giving in
Scripture, if that's beingrepresented in a right way with
(13:09):
Reformed theology.
And so this argument puttingforth over and over again that
the Armenians or the people thatpush back, they say that God's
not fair when they come backwith their arguments such as
what you read here to me it's amoot point, because I don't
really think that that's whatthe people that push back
against Reformed theology aretalking about.
(13:30):
It's more about God's characteritself and what the Bible
teaches about God's character.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
My response to again the back and forth that we
presented a minute ago.
I would say this question thatPaul poses in Romans 9, verses
14 and 15, is thereunrighteousness in God?
I would say that the strictReformed people are correct in
one sense and incorrect inanother.
They are correct in that thatis indeed what Paul is asking
(14:01):
and his response is along thelines of the typical Reformed
person's response.
His hypothetical question inRomans 9, 14, and 15, is there
unrighteousness in God?
The Reformed person hasunderstood that correctly.
He's proposed something Peopleseem to say well, wait a minute.
(14:23):
That doesn't seem to me to befair.
And Paul is saying is thereunrighteousness in God?
May it never be.
God can do what he wants to.
Thank you very much.
He can choose Jacob and notEsau.
So in that sense the Reformedpeople have gotten that correct.
Unfortunately, they've missedthe whole topic of the chapter.
If Romans is anything, it'sorganized and salvation was
(14:48):
settled in Romans, chapter 4 and5.
Romans 9, 10, and 11 are nottalking about salvation.
It is quite clearly talkingabout the nation Israel, and
Jacob and Esau are nations.
The nation Israel and Jacob andEsau are nations.
And if we yes, if we wrench atext.
(15:09):
From its context, we can makeit say lots of things, but
Romans 9 is just not talkingabout salvation.
Yes, it poses the question inthe full sense of the word.
Who are we to question God?
He can do with Jacob and Esauwhat he likes.
Now the Reformed people wouldsay well, if he can do it with a
nation, he can do it with aperson.
Well, yeah, sure, nobody'sarguing capacity of God.
(15:32):
God could turn us all intorabbits and robots.
He's got the power to do that.
But what does he actually do?
He doesn't do that and what heactually does is give us the
chance to have faith or not,which is quite clear from the
passage.
The Romans three verses that arealways brought up again we deal
(15:54):
with that when we deal with thedead and trespasses and sins
say nothing about whether God'sHoly Spirit will give some light
to all people or generally drawall people to trust God.
Yes, it says none seek afterGod and none understand.
It says nothing about how muchGod will draw all men to himself
(16:17):
.
And when we add to that again,faith is not a work which we
deal in this series with.
Faith is not a work ofrighteousness.
So I that again, faith is not awork which we deal in this
series with.
Faith is not a work ofrighteousness.
So I think, yes, it's somewhatof a legitimate question to ask
this question how could God befair when he selects some and
not others?
But the Reformed people, Ithink, are somewhat correct in
(16:40):
the sense that God only doesrighteous things and whatever he
does is going to be good.
I just think that it's.
The whole unconditionalelection thing is just a
misunderstanding of scripture.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And I agree totally with what you said.
I want to add to my comments inthat here in the accusation,
it's not fair for God to lovesome and not others.
See, that's not the questionthat's being pushed back on the
Reformed theology.
(17:14):
It's not a question of Godloving some over others.
There are people that don'twant to have anything to do with
God.
That's a known fact.
There's really no argument inthat.
But Scripture depicts God lovingthe world so much as I put
(17:36):
before that he took on the formof humanity in order to pay that
satisfactory sacrifice.
So the pushback is that Godloves everybody to the point
that he will come and sacrificehimself for them.
The fact that some want tofollow him and others don't, it
(18:01):
doesn't have anything to do withGod's love for them.
It's what they have decided todo.
And where the reformed theologygets it wrong is, as we've
mentioned in our previoussessions is that they believe in
regeneration before faith.
So when you get to thattheology, then you bring God
(18:26):
into the equation of saying I'mgoing to regenerate this person
before they will believe in me,but I'm not going to regenerate
this other person so that theywill believe in me, and then
this is how they form.
This, I think, would be a strawman of this.
(18:46):
Well, god's not fair.
It's them coming up with thisquestion of fairness whenever
the actual pushback is no, godloves the human race in general.
There's consequences to sin,but he loves the human race in
general so much that he camehimself in order to be a
(19:11):
satisfactory sacrifice for them.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Moving on to the next claim against Reformed theology
goes like this you guys over inReformed I'm speaking as if I
was disagreeing so you guys overin reformed theology say that
people are sinners and have nocapacity to respond to God, that
you're dead in trespasses andsins, unable to respond to God,
(19:37):
but then God would hold peopleresponsible for that.
So how could God hold peopleresponsible for rejecting him if
they're incapable of respondingin faith?
How can God punish someone whohas no ability to act otherwise
and without giving them a realopportunity to respond Again?
(19:58):
That would present a God thatis holding people responsible
for something that they'reincapable of responding to.
So in response to thataccusation again back to reform
theologians have responded tothis over the years.
Wgt said, quote the inabilityis voluntary in the sense that
(20:19):
it is the consequence of an actof self-determination.
Another one let me quote one ofthe modern teachers, rc Sproul,
because he just said it in away that was clear.
Quote God has given us mindsand hearts and he's given us
wills, and we exercise that willall the time.
We make choices every minute ofthe day, and we choose what we
(20:42):
want.
We're free from coercion, butwe're not free from ourselves.
We're not free from our ownsinful inclinations and our
sinful appetites and our sinfuldesires.
We're slaves to our sinfulimpulses.
Let me give one more.
This is Archibald.
Alexander Hodge, who was quotingthe Augsburg Confession, says
(21:05):
this quote responsible for theirobedience to God's law.
But the moral state of thesefaculties is such, because of
(21:26):
the perverted dispositions oftheir hearts, that they are
utterly unable either to will orto do what the law requires.
So what they're basicallysaying there is the same thing.
That, like a Jonathan Edwardswho was in the Reformed
tradition, who would say that wedon't have the desire to change
, it's again when we wentthrough the quotes.
(21:50):
What the reform guys are sayingis that people have the moral
free will.
What they don't have is themoral capacity to choose, that
they don't have the desire tochoose it.
Nothing's changed in theirphysical abilities, things like
that.
What's changed with sin is thatthey don't have the desire.
(22:11):
So Jonathan Edwards woulddescribe salvation as a desire
transplant.
You take somebody that has allthe ability to choose, they just
don't want to choose, and Godchanges their desire.
So now that they want to chooseGod, and that would be the
reform response.
So, steve, what do we do withthat?
Do we say that's a reasonableresponse, or is it kind of a
(22:34):
word game?
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Yeah, I think it's both.
I don't think it's reasonableand I do think it's a word game
Many times when you're using ortalking with Reformed
theologians using the same wordsbut with a different dictionary
.
So you have to understand whatdictionary they're using as to
(22:57):
what particular words meanmeaning their Reformed way of
thinking.
We gave an example of Corneliusand Lydia in our former
sessions on this, and Corneliussays that he was a God-fearer
and that he gave alms and he hada desire to worship God, and
(23:19):
this was before he became abeliever in Jesus Christ.
Peter came and visited him,shared the gospel with him and
he then became a believer inJesus Christ.
At that point he was saved.
So we have those examples inScripture as to people that have
(23:40):
the desire to worship God.
We have them also in the OldTestament where they want to
worship God.
When the spies went into Rahabfor Jericho, she said the people
in this town are scared todeath of your God because they
(24:01):
know what your God has done forthem.
All the way back to you comingout of Egypt, they knew about
the parting of the Red Sea, theyknew about the conquest that
they had made across the eastside of the Jordan River.
So the knowledge of God and whohe was and what he was to the
(24:22):
nation of Israel, the people wasscaring the people in Jericho
to death.
They had the knowledge of whoGod was.
Now their desire to followYahweh was not there, but there
was with Rahab.
(24:42):
Rahab recognized who God wasand she made this deal with the
spies to save her and her familybecause she had the desire to
follow their God.
Ruth is another one.
She had the desire to followNaomi's God.
(25:03):
I'm going to go where you'regoing to go.
Your God's going to be my God.
Where you live, I'm going tolive.
Where you die, I'm going to die.
So scripture tells us thatpeople have this desire, and I
(25:29):
believe that there's cherrypicking that is done by the
reformformed side to take outcertain verses and try and put
forth this idea that nobody atall ever desires to want God.
And it comes back once again totheir theology of regeneration
before faith.
See, as long as they have thatin their mind, then they have to
justify it, and I think theyjustify it by coming up with
(25:49):
things like this that say no manwants to ever come to the
knowledge of God and become abeliever in God.
I, at the age of eight yearsold.
I, at the age of eight yearsold, wanted to follow God and I
became a believer.
And my story is not unique.
It goes across the gamut of allpeople that at some point a
(26:13):
person decides I want to followJesus Christ, I want to become a
believer.
How they get to that point aredifferent ways and different
methods.
So I reject this blanketstatement that they make that
nobody can come or desires tofollow God.
(26:35):
I think Scripture tells us overand over again there are certain
people that do desire to followGod and they follow with it.
Now I'll agree that the vastmajority of people don't desire
to follow God and they followwith it.
Now I'll agree that the vastmajority of people don't want to
follow God, just like thepeople at Jericho.
All of them perished, withexception of Rahab and her
family.
So, even though they had theknowledge of God, they didn't
(26:59):
want to follow God.
And we have that example.
But Rahab sticks out, alongwith Cornelius and Lydia.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
My response to that back and forth would be this
there's some of the things thatI would agree with the Reformed
theologians with and some thingsI would disagree.
The Reformed people I wouldagree with when they say that
the Bible teaches that God isgood in all his ways, and a
Reformed person would supportthat God is good in all his ways
(27:27):
.
Therefore what he does is good,and I would agree.
I would also agree with theReformed theologian in the sense
that all people, all people,have already made a choice.
They already made a choice toreject God and therefore God is
just.
If we look at God's justice,he's just if he condemned all
(27:49):
people if he wanted to, and Iwould say the reformed person's
right with that.
The question and here's wherethe rub comes in is not so much
whether God is just incondemning the lost that have
again already made a free choiceto sin.
The question the theologicalrub comes here Is God's goodness
(28:12):
, is the good part of God'snature?
Does that require God to offersalvation to everyone, or can
God still be good and only offersalvation to some?
And I think that's a dilemmafor the strict Reformed person
and it may be a dilemma for aUniversalist.
(28:34):
But it's not a dilemma forthose of us that hold that
accepting salvation and theexercising of faith is not a
work of righteousness.
For those of us that hold thatbelief is not a work of
righteousness, then it's not adilemma to say that God is, on
one hand, perfectly just if hecondemns all men but he also
(28:56):
offers salvation to everyone.
That's only a dilemma for astrict Reed person.
And they try to split the hornsof the dilemma by saying that,
well, god's good in all he does,but it really doesn't get them
out of the dilemma.
The only way God's goodnesscould really be exercised is if
(29:17):
he offered the salvation to allmen.
God punishes people forvoluntarily sinning and refusing
to repent.
That's what he punishes peoplefor.
He doesn't punish peoplebecause they didn't have a
chance to respond.
He punishes them because theyalready responded and chose to
(29:38):
not repent.
That's what he punishes peoplefor.
So just leave, leave that.
But lastly, I would just saythe reformed theologian's
response may show all peoplesinful, but doesn't really prove
limited atonement.
Those passages out of romans 3yes, people are sinful, but that
(30:02):
doesn't prove limited atonement, at least there anyways.
Moving on to the next one, theclaim number three.
What is this?
That God predetermines who willbe saved and who will be damned
and there's nothing we can doabout it.
That's what the accusation isagainst Reformed theology.
Let me just repeat theaccusation is that Reformed
(30:26):
theology has a God that justpredetermines from all eternity
who's going to be saved andwho's going to be damned, and
the people that are involved,the human lives that are
involved, have nothing they cando about it.
It's just God with pieces on achessboard and they're just
instruments of his folly and thepeople have no ability to do
(30:49):
otherwise.
So how do the Reformed peoplerespond to this?
A Reformed theologian would saythat the Bible teaches all
people have already freelychosen to walk away from God.
Romans 3.11, quote there's nonewho seeks for God.
So they already made a choice.
So says the Reformed person.
Therefore, the Bible teachespeople have freely chosen
(31:10):
themselves to be damned and thatall people have done this.
Rather than let all peoplevoluntarily be damned, god, out
of his goodness and his all-wisepurpose, determined that he
would save some in salvation.
And they would also say aReformed person would respond
and say there's no basicdifference between God choosing
(31:31):
Paul for a special ministry, orAbraham for a special ministry,
or Jacob who's Israel, and notchoosing Esau.
They would say there's nodifference in God choosing all
of them for a special purposeand God choosing some for
salvation for a special purposeand not choosing others.
And so a Reformed person wouldalso respond and say there's no
(31:54):
logical or biblical differencebetween choosing some for a
purpose and choosing some forsalvation.
That the accusation againstReformed theology assumes either
some people are morally neutralor that some people want to be
saved and cannot.
And instead the Reformedtheologian would say the Bible
(32:15):
teaches nobody wants to be saved, and that the only way those
accusations are valid is ifsomebody out there is either
morally neutral or some peoplehave a desire to be saved.
And so, steve, what would beyour response to that?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
There's a little bit of a theme that's developing in
my responses here, because RCSproul himself said that the
crux of Reformed theology isthis regeneration before faith,
and the regeneration that's doneis done completely by God, for
that person to have faith in God.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
And the whole dispute is over the question of the
order of salvation which comesfirst faith or being born again.
Because if there's anything thatis unique to Reformed theology,
it is the idea thatregeneration, or rebirth,
(33:13):
precedes faith.
That is, it's a logicalprecession, not necessarily a
temporal one, but the chickenand the egg here Regeneration
comes first and then faith, andthat flies in the face of the
whole history of modernevangelicalism and the appeal in
mass evangelism make a decision, come forward, exercise faith,
(33:37):
and then you will be born again.
And I think a lot of theconfusion here has to do with a
misunderstanding of the wordrebirth or regeneration.
We tend to think of rebirth asthe whole new Christian life
rather than the very first step,and in Reformed theology we
tighten that down and we say no,the first step is the
(34:00):
initiative of God, the work thatthe Holy Spirit performs in our
hearts to change our minds, tobring us to Christ, to bring us
to faith.
And so we say that has tohappen first.
Just like Paul says one canwater, one can plant, another
can water, but only God canbring the increase.
And so that's where the realcollision point is whether man
(34:24):
can believe out of the flesh orwhether God has to change that
heart before we believe.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Their whole theology surrounds this.
So while they might take theseverses from Scripture that say
no one seeks God I just gaveexamples in my previous answer
of three or four people who wereseeking God and for them to
(34:56):
stay consistent they would haveto say well, god regenerated
them first for them to be ableto seek God.
And if that's the faith, thenlogically, following that
argument through or thatposition through means they do
(35:27):
not have the ability to come tosalvation because it's dependent
on God regenerating them beforethey will come to faith.
So them coming back and sayingwell, that's just because no one
seeks All right, well then, noone means no one and the people
(35:50):
that do become faithful to Godand become believers are because
God has decided to regeneratethem so that they would then
believe in him.
That destroys their argument ofthe person not having the
ability to do to choose God ornot.
(36:11):
The logical following of theirown theology brings you to this
(36:43):
position that there are peoplethat will never come to God
because God is not going toregenerate them first, so that
don't want to pursue God.
But if you go with theirtheology, then there's a
decision being made on who willand who won't, and that decision
is solely being made by God,and the other people that
continue to not believe in himwill never believe in him
because he will never regeneratethem first so that they could
have faith.
(37:03):
So to me it's a valid pushbackagainst Reformed theology.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
In order to pose the question this way Steve, you
said you had a theme to youranswers.
I think I've got one to mine aswell, because I'm going to
agree with part of their answerand disagree with other parts.
Again, the accusation was thatGod is choosing some to be saved
and some to be damned, andthere's nothing they can do
about it.
That was how the accusation wasphrased and I would agree with
(37:30):
the Reformed person in somesense.
Is that the recurrent theme ofthe Bible is that God is not
going to be questioned?
I mean, that happens.
That is a theme in many placesof the Bible.
In the last part of Job, jobspends three dozen chapters or
so saying if I could just getGod down here across the
(37:51):
conference room table, we couldreason this thing out.
And God shows up and says whodo you think you are questioning
me?
And so there's many places inthe Bible where God just says
I'm going to do what I'm goingto do and I'm not going to ask
your opinion.
Thank you very much.
I would also agree that thephrase nothing they can do about
(38:11):
it is a little misleading,because they already have chosen
All people have chosen to sinand in that sense they already
did do something about it, whichwas walk away from God.
Now, where I would disagree withReformed theology is that I
would say that it's not alogical problem to say that God
(38:36):
can choose for special servicesomebody like an Abraham or an
Apostle Paul, or choose a Jacobas a nation.
It's not incompatible for himto choose those individuals for
a special purpose but then turnaround and say, well, I'm going
to give all people a choice ofwhether they want to follow or
(38:59):
not.
There's nothing incompatiblewith that.
There's no logical problem withthat.
There's no problem with God'snature that that would challenge
.
I would say that, yes, allpeople are sinful and left to
themselves.
We're all going to run awayfrom God.
That doesn't tell us that God'snot going to draw all men to
himself and even draw some morethan others.
(39:22):
So just because, yes, allpeople left to themselves are
going to sin doesn't mean thatlimited atonement is true and
you only choose part of them,not others.
That just doesn't logicallyfollow.
And so there's not atheological, neurological
incompatibility with saying thatGod can offer salvation to all
(39:45):
and draw all with the HolySpirit and then leave us to make
a choice.
That's not a righteous workagain, which is what it kind of
boils down to Again what we saidvery early on in this is that
there's a very few concepts,just like a large door swings on
a small hinge.
There's a very small number ofconcepts that all this theology
(40:09):
swings upon, and that's one ofthem.
Lastly, one last one accusationsthat would be by people that
disagree with Reformed theologysays in Reformed theology you've
got a God that arbitrarilychooses some to be saved.
You have a God that is in fullcontrol of changing some
people's hearts but choosing notto.
(40:30):
That God wants eternalpunishment for lost people for
his own glory.
That God is out there gettingglory by damning people and that
Reformed theology presents Godas an unloving towards the
non-elect and not wanting arelationship with some and the
people that would disagree withReformed theology says that
(40:52):
that's just against God's nature, because God is all good and
he's not going to get glory outof damning anyone and he's going
to be loving towards all andnot just loving towards the
elect.
So how did the again not thefirst time Reformed theologians
have heard this?
So let me quote a few responsesto this from reformed people.
(41:17):
Westminster Confession says Godonly does things out of his
quote.
Most wise and holy providenceunquote.
And a couple of quotes fromagain, modern teacher RC Sproul
was a strong, reformed person.
Here we must take a distinctionbetween God's doing something
(41:37):
for no reason and his doingsomething for no reason found in
us.
We say clearly that his graceis given not for any reason in
us.
But the fact that there is noreason in me for my salvation
(41:58):
does not mean there is no reasonbehind God's action.
Scripture actually tells usover and over again that God has
a reason behind his choice ofsome for salvation and his not
choosing others for redemptionunquote.
And here's another quote fromthe same person, rc Sproul Quote
in Ephesians 1.5, we are chosenaccording to on the basis of
the good pleasure of God's will.
(42:18):
God chooses and elects usaccording to what kind of
pleasure?
According to the good pleasureof his will.
That word good makes all thedifference in the world, because
there's no such thing as thebad pleasure of God's will.
Unquote.
So the idea here is that, yes,the accusation against Reformed
(42:40):
theology is that God's arbitrary.
He chooses some and not others.
He gets some sort of perversethe Reformed definition of God
gets some sort of a perverse joyout of getting glory of damning
people.
And so the Reformed responsesays oh, didn't you read?
We already said from thebeginning he does things out of
(43:02):
his most wise and holyprovidence.
And just because there'snothing in me doesn't mean that
God didn't use some wise choicein choosing some to be elect and
not choosing others.
So Steve might be a response tothat, I imagine not choosing
others.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
So Steve might be a response to that, I imagine.
Yeah, it's right here inSproul's word himself.
In the first one that you readthere, towards the latter part,
he says salvation does not meanthere is no reason behind God's
action.
And then in the last sentencehe says Scripture tells us over
and over again that God has areason behind his choice of some
(43:47):
for salvation and his notchoosing others for redemption.
So in that particular quotefrom Sproul he is admitting in
his answer that it is God takingaction and making those choices
(44:07):
.
So the pushback above was thatGod is arbitrarily making these
decisions.
His response is no, god has agood reason for making the
decisions.
But the bottom line is it stillcomes back to God making the
(44:28):
decision for some people and notfor other people.
And Sproul says that there.
In that last part Again he saysbehind his choice of some for
salvation and his not choosingothers for redemption.
So Sproul in that answer thereis admitting that from their
(44:52):
theology it is totally dependenton God.
Then in his second responsethere that you read, he says
there we are chosen according to, on the basis of the good
pleasure of God's will fromEphesians 1.5.
So I think that the Reformedtheology has taken
(45:12):
predestination and totally takeit out of its original meaning.
It means destined.
It's predestined for what?
And that's the question that weshould ask, and we went through
some of this whenever we wentthrough our previous sessions.
So the bottom line is is thatin Reformed theology, line is is
(45:42):
that in Reformed theology, godis choosing on his own to save
some and to not choose others tosave them?
I think the Bible teaches thatGod chooses to save those who
want to believe in him and doesnot save those who do not want
to believe in them.
And it's those people.
(46:03):
Their response to God iswhether God chooses them or not.
My personal view is that when aperson becomes a believer and
says God, I want to become abeliever in you, jesus, I want
to become a believer in you andtrust on you, god chooses at
(46:24):
that time.
Is this person sincere?
Are they not sincere?
And yes, it's a choice for Godto accept that desire of the
person or not, but it's basedoff of God's knowledge of
whether that person truly wantsto become a believer in Jesus
(46:45):
Christ.
And God chooses.
There's no question that Godchooses to save and others he
doesn't choose, but it's becausethe others don't come to him
and say I want to become abeliever in him.
So it's set up by the reformers, as noted here.
(47:09):
It's an action that God takesprior to anybody ever wanting to
show any desire to come to him.
I believe that the scripture isclear that whenever you come to
become a believer or want tobecome a believer, god will
reckon it to righteousness.
That's how it's put withAbraham.
(47:31):
Abraham believed and Godreckoned it as righteousness.
Did he reckon it asrighteousness before Abraham
believed?
No, he reckoned it when Abrahambelieved.
So I think that's just oneexample.
I think scripture is clear thatwhen people express a desire,
(47:52):
god chooses them to become partof his family and then we get
all the benefits of what we'repredestined predestined to
become in Christ's image andpredestined to become adopted
and those things.
The question should always bepredestined for what?
Last comment, glenn, you and Iare going to do a topical study
(48:15):
on justification, sanctificationand glorification and I think
it's going to be a great study.
A topical study because Ibelieve, along with others, that
the Reformed theology gets manythings related to
sanctification mixed up withjustification.
So be looking for that topicalstudy that we're going to be
(48:38):
doing on those three items.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
My response to this.
Again, the accusations werethat God is unloving towards the
non-elect and he doesn't want arelationship with some and that
he's arbitrary in choosing someand not others.
The Reform guy's basic answerwas God always does things that
are wise, and just becausethere's nothing in me that shows
(49:02):
doesn't mean he didn't have areason.
I would agree that God doeswise things.
The problem is is that just hasa ring to it and a smell about
it.
That's an incomplete answer.
It's a definition of God doingwise things, but it's not able
(49:23):
to carry it out in practice.
For example, if there really isnothing in me on why I was
chosen to be a Christian or not,then how could God make a wise
choice to choose me?
In other words, think of itthis way you have, for example,
a general in a war, and maybethis general has 20,000 troops
(49:46):
under him and he says I want youto take 100 of those troops and
go attack the enemy, and thecaptain says, well, which 100?
He says, oh, I don't care anyhundred.
Well, that's an arbitrarychoice.
If, on the other hand, he says,no, I want you to take any
(50:10):
names off the hundred names,well then he selected them, and
it just doesn't seem to me thatyou can say it's wise and not
arbitrary.
It's wise and not arbitraryEither he's selecting specific
people or he's choosing anyhundred to go attack the enemy,
in which case it could have beenany different hundred.
So it's just really hard to seehow both of those are true.
(50:32):
You're defining a choice aswise without giving any criteria
for it to be wise.
In other words, it's wise bydefinition, but not by ability
to carry this out.
And I would just say, yes, godis in full control of changing
some people's hearts, but whatdoes he actually do?
(50:54):
And so, steve, we said early onthat this had a lot of arms and
tentacles and we're not goingto be able to satisfy this.
We've probably already lostsome people, and there's several
sections in this.
So if you're interested andyou're still here by now listen
to all of them.
We're going to do the best wecan to even go through the Bible
(51:15):
passages.
We're going to do the best wecan to even go through the Bible
passages.
And I would just wrap this upby saying that we've probably
already lost a good number ofthe people that their eyes
glazed over a long time ago.
Steve, I would say, if we'regoing to do a session on
(51:35):
justification, sanctificationand glorification, we ought to
do one on multiplication,because I'm getting lost in all
of this and we ought to get backto Bible study that I can
understand.
So I trust that this wasbeneficial to you and keep with
us as we continue to reasonthrough it.
Speaker 2 (51:50):
Thank you so much for watching and listening, as
always.
May God bless you.
Hi, welcome back to Reasoning Through the Bible.
This is our series on ReformedTheology and an evaluation of
that.
We had actually completed thisseries and then we realized that
there's one extra area ofcontent that we really needed to
touch on, and so that's whatwe're going to do today, and
we're going to talk about somecommon back and forth that
(00:24):
happened between at least hashappened over the years between
Arminian type people and reformtype people, and so I think once
we get into it, it'll be reallyobvious what we're trying to do
.
But because reform theology hasbeen out in the world for a
good while now, there have been,of course, people that agree
(00:44):
with it and strongly support it,and there's other people that
disagree with it and don'tsupport it, and so what we
wanted to do was to kind of havea touch of the flavor amongst
some of those disagreements.
And again, as we've said before, this whole topic has a lot of
arms and legs and a lot oftentacles, and we could be here
(01:05):
for many moons going over, andthere's ministries that do that.
There's ministries that spendfull time going back and forth
on all these issues.
We're not going to do that, butwhat we are going to do today is
have some claims that have beenmade by people that disagree
with Reformed theology.
What are their claims?
(01:27):
What are their accusationsabout Reformed theology?
And then what has been sometypical responses from Reformed
theology?
How do the Reformed peopledefend themselves?
So that's really what we'regoing to talk about and I think
it'll be real clear as we getinto this.
But the pattern's going to bethis we're going to have a claim
(01:47):
that people that disagree withReformed theology what do they
claim?
What's the accusation againstReformed theology?
We'll have several quotes inanswer from Reformed people and
then at the end of that, steveand I will have a conversation,
or just a quick back and forthabout what we think, which side
we think is fair or if we thinkyou know what.
(02:08):
So that's really kind of theidea, right, steve?
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And I think you have some things written out here
that you're going to go throughright.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Right and, like before, we'll have a claim and
then we may have some quotesthat we have.
Some of them may be a littlelong, but again, hang in there.
We just wanted to be fair tothe people that teach this.
So the first claim againstReformed theology that happens
is sort of a gut reaction from alot of people is that when they
(02:39):
hear the idea of God selectingsome, that God sovereignly
picking some for salvation andnot others, one of the
accusations is that, well, thatjust doesn't seem like a
righteous thing for God to do.
The accusation is well, thatjust doesn't seem right that God
would pick some and not others,especially when we have
(03:04):
teaching where everybody saidwell, god's righteous and God,
he's love.
So it would seem that Godshould love everyone and he
ought to love everybody equally.
And the claim against Reformedtheology would be that it's just
not a righteous thing for Godto pick some and not others.
(03:26):
It's not fair, it wouldn't berighteous of God to look across
the landscape of people, all ofwhich were lost, none of which
could choose him, and he's goingto select some and not others.
It just seems like an arbitrarything.
That would speak to thecharacter of God, with God being
(03:47):
unrighteous in that choosing.
So what is the response fromReformed people?
I'm going to quote some peoplehere.
There was an ArchibaldAlexander Hodge that if you
really want a good summary ofReformed theology, look up a
book by AA Hodge called Outlinesof Theology.
(04:08):
I think it's in the publicdomain now.
It's out there.
It was written for laypeopleand answers a lot of these kind
of questions.
But here's a quote fromArchibald Alexander Hodge.
Quote God righteously deals withthe sinner according to the
measure of his responsibilityand not according to the measure
of his sinful inability.
(04:29):
So what he means there is thatGod is righteous and holy and he
deals with sinful peopleaccording to the measure of
(04:57):
their responsibility is what hesays.
So what he's meaning there inthat regard.
But they had the capacity torespond to God and they decided
not to.
They had the responsibility tofollow God and they didn't.
So he deals with them to themeasure of their sinfulness
(05:29):
measure of their sinfulness.
It would have been unrighteousof God to lower his standards
and then allow some people tocome in without again
regenerating them and not others.
So let me quote another just tokind of make clear this
Reformed theology would say weknow we're right in this,
against this accusation of God'sunrighteousness, because over
(05:51):
in Romans, chapter 9,specifically verses 14 and 15,
paul presents this idea ofelection and he responds to the
exact same accusation that'smade by the Arminians.
In this accusation that God'snot fair.
There's unrighteousness in God.
So in Romans 9, paul has thishypothetical argument and he
(06:16):
says is there unrighteousness inGod?
And he concludes may it neverbe.
God has the right to do what hewants to do with his creation.
He can choose Jacob if he wantsand not choose Esau if he
doesn't want.
But there's no unrighteousnessin God, he says may it never be.
(06:37):
God is always righteous.
The Reformed theologian wouldsay the Bible teaches all people
have already made a free choice.
They've freely chosen to walkaway from God.
It says in Romans 3.11, quotethere is none who understands,
there is none who seeks for God,unquote.
(06:58):
So therefore the Bible teachesthe Reformed theologian would
say people have already freelychosen.
The fair part was God gave themthe choice in the first place
and every last one of themfreely chose to walk away from
God and as a result of the fall,they exercised their free will
(07:19):
to suppress the truth Romans 118.
So they are now of their own,freely suppressing the truth
that God predetermined to savesome but not others reflects his
goodness, because he didn'thave to save any.
So the reformed person wouldsay God is fully righteous.
(07:42):
He doesn't lower his standardsto let everybody in, but his
goodness backs off and lets somein out of his grace.
So that would be a typicalresponse.
So, steve, your thoughts?
Is that an adequate response oris the accusation fair?
When they say there's this ideaof a reformed theology of God
(08:07):
picking some and not others, isthat a righteous God expressing
his goodness or is this anexpression of God?
That's just sort of unrighteousand unfair.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Well, my first thought is that you've used the
term Arminian, and I know thatthat's used quite often by
people of the Calvinists orReformed.
If you're talking to them andthey will throw that out very
quickly oh, you're an Arminian.
And I can tell you that thevast amount of people have no
(08:42):
idea what the arguments werebetween Arminius and Calvin and
to then label them as Arminian.
They have no idea what you'reeven accusing them of, and that
happened with me as well.
I don't even know who Arminiusis.
I do now, but at the time, inmy earlier youth, didn't know
(09:05):
who Arminius was or what he did.
And so somebody saying you'rean Arminian?
Well, I don't know if I am ornot.
All I'm doing is going off ofwhat scripture says.
The other thought that I have isis that this question of that
God is not fair?
I think that this is somethingthat is thrown up and put
forward by the Reformed people,and we include the Calvinists in
(09:25):
that.
Obviously, that is an argumentfrom the other side of God's not
fair and I don't think it hasanything to do with fairness.
I think that it has to do withGod's character as far as his
character that we're shown inthe Bible is one of love mercy,
(09:48):
going to the point of becominghuman in order to provide a
satisfactory sacrifice.
And so, yes, by all means, godcan do whatever he chooses to do
.
But does his scripture reallycome back and say that he acts
that way?
(10:08):
And I think that we have plentyof scripture to show that, no,
that he is open to people tocome to him and that there's not
arbitrariness on his side, butthat he wants everybody to come
to him.
And there's going to be somespecific things here in the next
(10:30):
topic that we're going to talkabout that I don't want to deal
with here.
But this argument of whetherGod is fair we've talked about
this that there is a famousvideo of RC Sproul in his church
and raising this question ofsaying people against Reformed
(10:52):
theology say that God is not.
And then he pauses and thewhole congregation says fair.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
And so Paul now raises a rhetorical question
that is unthinkable.
What then?
Is there unrighteousness in God?
Why does he raise it Again?
He's anticipating your response, my response, the response of
(11:21):
his Roman readership to whathe's just been setting forth,
beginning in chapter 8 and nowinto chapter 9, when he's
talking about the sovereignty ofGod in election, where God,
according to the good pleasureof His will to establish His own
sacred purpose, chooses Jacoband not Esau, not based on
(11:50):
anything foreseen in theirbehavior, not based on anything
that they did or would do in thefuture, but simply that the
purposes of God according toelection, might stand.
He makes this decree Now.
As soon as he makes a radicalstatement like that, he can hear
(12:12):
the hisses and the boos comingfrom the gallery.
You can almost hear hisaudience rise to their feet,
spontaneously, screaming inanger, saying that's not what
Fair?
It certainly seems like it'snot fair that if, for no reason
(12:35):
found in Jacob, no reason foundin Esau, god chooses one over
the other.
Does that seem fair to you?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
the other.
Does that seem fair to you?
To me, it's something that theReformed theologians put forward
as an accusation from peoplethat push back against Reformed
theology.
That again, I think it's not acharacterization of God's
fairness.
It's whether or not God'scharacter that we're giving in
Scripture, if that's beingrepresented in a right way with
(13:09):
Reformed theology.
And so this argument puttingforth over and over again that
the Armenians or the people thatpush back, they say that God's
not fair when they come backwith their arguments such as
what you read here to me it's amoot point, because I don't
really think that that's whatthe people that push back
against Reformed theology aretalking about.
(13:30):
It's more about God's characteritself and what the Bible
teaches about God's character.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
My response to again the back and forth that we
presented a minute ago.
I would say this question thatPaul poses in Romans 9, verses
14 and 15, is thereunrighteousness in God?
I would say that the strictReformed people are correct in
one sense and incorrect inanother.
They are correct in that thatis indeed what Paul is asking
(14:01):
and his response is along thelines of the typical Reformed
person's response.
His hypothetical question inRomans 9, 14, and 15, is there
unrighteousness in God?
The Reformed person hasunderstood that correctly.
He's proposed something Peopleseem to say well, wait a minute.
(14:23):
That doesn't seem to me to befair.
And Paul is saying is thereunrighteousness in God?
May it never be.
God can do what he wants to.
Thank you very much.
He can choose Jacob and notEsau.
So in that sense the Reformedpeople have gotten that correct.
Unfortunately, they've missedthe whole topic of the chapter.
If Romans is anything, it'sorganized and salvation was
(14:48):
settled in Romans, chapter 4 and5.
Romans 9, 10, and 11 are nottalking about salvation.
It is quite clearly talkingabout the nation Israel, and
Jacob and Esau are nations.
The nation Israel and Jacob andEsau are nations.
And if we yes, if we wrench atext.
(15:09):
From its context, we can makeit say lots of things, but
Romans 9 is just not talkingabout salvation.
Yes, it poses the question inthe full sense of the word.
Who are we to question God?
He can do with Jacob and Esauwhat he likes.
Now the Reformed people wouldsay well, if he can do it with a
nation, he can do it with aperson.
Well, yeah, sure, nobody'sarguing capacity of God.
(15:32):
God could turn us all intorabbits and robots.
He's got the power to do that.
But what does he actually do?
He doesn't do that and what heactually does is give us the
chance to have faith or not,which is quite clear from the
passage.
The Romans three verses that arealways brought up again we deal
(15:54):
with that when we deal with thedead and trespasses and sins
say nothing about whether God'sHoly Spirit will give some light
to all people or generally drawall people to trust God.
Yes, it says none seek afterGod and none understand.
It says nothing about how muchGod will draw all men to himself
(16:17):
.
And when we add to that again,faith is not a work which we
deal in this series with.
Faith is not a work ofrighteousness.
So I that again, faith is not awork which we deal in this
series with.
Faith is not a work ofrighteousness.
So I think, yes, it's somewhatof a legitimate question to ask
this question how could God befair when he selects some and
not others?
But the Reformed people, Ithink, are somewhat correct in
(16:40):
the sense that God only doesrighteous things and whatever he
does is going to be good.
I just think that it's.
The whole unconditionalelection thing is just a
misunderstanding of scripture.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
And I agree totally with what you said.
I want to add to my comments inthat here in the accusation,
it's not fair for God to lovesome and not others.
See, that's not the questionthat's being pushed back on the
Reformed theology.
(17:14):
It's not a question of Godloving some over others.
There are people that don'twant to have anything to do with
God.
That's a known fact.
There's really no argument inthat.
But Scripture depicts God lovingthe world so much as I put
(17:36):
before that he took on the formof humanity in order to pay that
satisfactory sacrifice.
So the pushback is that Godloves everybody to the point
that he will come and sacrificehimself for them.
The fact that some want tofollow him and others don't, it
(18:01):
doesn't have anything to do withGod's love for them.
It's what they have decided todo.
And where the reformed theologygets it wrong is, as we've
mentioned in our previoussessions is that they believe in
regeneration before faith.
So when you get to thattheology, then you bring God
(18:26):
into the equation of saying I'mgoing to regenerate this person
before they will believe in me,but I'm not going to regenerate
this other person so that theywill believe in me, and then
this is how they form.
This, I think, would be a strawman of this.
(18:46):
Well, god's not fair.
It's them coming up with thisquestion of fairness whenever
the actual pushback is no, godloves the human race in general.
There's consequences to sin,but he loves the human race in
general so much that he camehimself in order to be a
(19:11):
satisfactory sacrifice for them.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Moving on to the next claim against Reformed theology
goes like this you guys over inReformed I'm speaking as if I
was disagreeing so you guys overin reformed theology say that
people are sinners and have nocapacity to respond to God, that
you're dead in trespasses andsins, unable to respond to God,
(19:37):
but then God would hold peopleresponsible for that.
So how could God hold peopleresponsible for rejecting him if
they're incapable of respondingin faith?
How can God punish someone whohas no ability to act otherwise
and without giving them a realopportunity to respond Again?
(19:58):
That would present a God thatis holding people responsible
for something that they'reincapable of responding to.
So in response to thataccusation again back to reform
theologians have responded tothis over the years.
Wgt said, quote the inabilityis voluntary in the sense that
(20:19):
it is the consequence of an actof self-determination.
Another one let me quote one ofthe modern teachers, rc Sproul,
because he just said it in away that was clear.
Quote God has given us mindsand hearts and he's given us
wills, and we exercise that willall the time.
We make choices every minute ofthe day, and we choose what we
(20:42):
want.
We're free from coercion, butwe're not free from ourselves.
We're not free from our ownsinful inclinations and our
sinful appetites and our sinfuldesires.
We're slaves to our sinfulimpulses.
Let me give one more.
This is Archibald.
Alexander Hodge, who was quotingthe Augsburg Confession, says
(21:05):
this quote responsible for theirobedience to God's law.
But the moral state of thesefaculties is such, because of
(21:26):
the perverted dispositions oftheir hearts, that they are
utterly unable either to will orto do what the law requires.
So what they're basicallysaying there is the same thing.
That, like a Jonathan Edwardswho was in the Reformed
tradition, who would say that wedon't have the desire to change
, it's again when we wentthrough the quotes.
(21:50):
What the reform guys are sayingis that people have the moral
free will.
What they don't have is themoral capacity to choose, that
they don't have the desire tochoose it.
Nothing's changed in theirphysical abilities, things like
that.
What's changed with sin is thatthey don't have the desire.
(22:11):
So Jonathan Edwards woulddescribe salvation as a desire
transplant.
You take somebody that has allthe ability to choose, they just
don't want to choose, and Godchanges their desire.
So now that they want to chooseGod, and that would be the
reform response.
So, steve, what do we do withthat?
Do we say that's a reasonableresponse, or is it kind of a
(22:34):
word game?
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Yeah, I think it's both.
I don't think it's reasonableand I do think it's a word game
Many times when you're using ortalking with Reformed
theologians using the same wordsbut with a different dictionary
.
So you have to understand whatdictionary they're using as to
(22:57):
what particular words meanmeaning their Reformed way of
thinking.
We gave an example of Corneliusand Lydia in our former
sessions on this, and Corneliussays that he was a God-fearer
and that he gave alms and he hada desire to worship God, and
(23:19):
this was before he became abeliever in Jesus Christ.
Peter came and visited him,shared the gospel with him and
he then became a believer inJesus Christ.
At that point he was saved.
So we have those examples inScripture as to people that have
(23:40):
the desire to worship God.
We have them also in the OldTestament where they want to
worship God.
When the spies went into Rahabfor Jericho, she said the people
in this town are scared todeath of your God because they
(24:01):
know what your God has done forthem.
All the way back to you comingout of Egypt, they knew about
the parting of the Red Sea, theyknew about the conquest that
they had made across the eastside of the Jordan River.
So the knowledge of God and whohe was and what he was to the
(24:22):
nation of Israel, the people wasscaring the people in Jericho
to death.
They had the knowledge of whoGod was.
Now their desire to followYahweh was not there, but there
was with Rahab.
(24:42):
Rahab recognized who God wasand she made this deal with the
spies to save her and her familybecause she had the desire to
follow their God.
Ruth is another one.
She had the desire to followNaomi's God.
(25:03):
I'm going to go where you'regoing to go.
Your God's going to be my God.
Where you live, I'm going tolive.
Where you die, I'm going to die.
So scripture tells us thatpeople have this desire, and I
(25:29):
believe that there's cherrypicking that is done by the
reformformed side to take outcertain verses and try and put
forth this idea that nobody atall ever desires to want God.
And it comes back once again totheir theology of regeneration
before faith.
See, as long as they have thatin their mind, then they have to
justify it, and I think theyjustify it by coming up with
(25:49):
things like this that say no manwants to ever come to the
knowledge of God and become abeliever in God.
I, at the age of eight yearsold.
I, at the age of eight yearsold, wanted to follow God and I
became a believer.
And my story is not unique.
It goes across the gamut of allpeople that at some point a
(26:13):
person decides I want to followJesus Christ, I want to become a
believer.
How they get to that point aredifferent ways and different
methods.
So I reject this blanketstatement that they make that
nobody can come or desires tofollow God.
(26:35):
I think Scripture tells us overand over again there are certain
people that do desire to followGod and they follow with it.
Now I'll agree that the vastmajority of people don't desire
to follow God and they followwith it.
Now I'll agree that the vastmajority of people don't want to
follow God, just like thepeople at Jericho.
All of them perished, withexception of Rahab and her
family.
So, even though they had theknowledge of God, they didn't
(26:59):
want to follow God.
And we have that example.
But Rahab sticks out, alongwith Cornelius and Lydia.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
My response to that back and forth would be this
there's some of the things thatI would agree with the Reformed
theologians with and some thingsI would disagree.
The Reformed people I wouldagree with when they say that
the Bible teaches that God isgood in all his ways, and a
Reformed person would supportthat God is good in all his ways
(27:27):
.
Therefore what he does is good,and I would agree.
I would also agree with theReformed theologian in the sense
that all people, all people,have already made a choice.
They already made a choice toreject God and therefore God is
just.
If we look at God's justice,he's just if he condemned all
(27:49):
people if he wanted to, and Iwould say the reformed person's
right with that.
The question and here's wherethe rub comes in is not so much
whether God is just incondemning the lost that have
again already made a free choiceto sin.
The question the theologicalrub comes here Is God's goodness
(28:12):
, is the good part of God'snature?
Does that require God to offersalvation to everyone, or can
God still be good and only offersalvation to some?
And I think that's a dilemmafor the strict Reformed person
and it may be a dilemma for aUniversalist.
(28:34):
But it's not a dilemma forthose of us that hold that
accepting salvation and theexercising of faith is not a
work of righteousness.
For those of us that hold thatbelief is not a work of
righteousness, then it's not adilemma to say that God is, on
one hand, perfectly just if hecondemns all men but he also
(28:56):
offers salvation to everyone.
That's only a dilemma for astrict Reed person.
And they try to split the hornsof the dilemma by saying that,
well, god's good in all he does,but it really doesn't get them
out of the dilemma.
The only way God's goodnesscould really be exercised is if
(29:17):
he offered the salvation to allmen.
God punishes people forvoluntarily sinning and refusing
to repent.
That's what he punishes peoplefor.
He doesn't punish peoplebecause they didn't have a
chance to respond.
He punishes them because theyalready responded and chose to
(29:38):
not repent.
That's what he punishes peoplefor.
So just leave, leave that.
But lastly, I would just saythe reformed theologian's
response may show all peoplesinful, but doesn't really prove
limited atonement.
Those passages out of romans 3yes, people are sinful, but that
(30:02):
doesn't prove limited atonement, at least there anyways.
Moving on to the next one, theclaim number three.
What is this?
That God predetermines who willbe saved and who will be damned
and there's nothing we can doabout it.
That's what the accusation isagainst Reformed theology.
Let me just repeat theaccusation is that Reformed
(30:26):
theology has a God that justpredetermines from all eternity
who's going to be saved andwho's going to be damned, and
the people that are involved,the human lives that are
involved, have nothing they cando about it.
It's just God with pieces on achessboard and they're just
instruments of his folly and thepeople have no ability to do
(30:49):
otherwise.
So how do the Reformed peoplerespond to this?
A Reformed theologian would saythat the Bible teaches all
people have already freelychosen to walk away from God.
Romans 3.11, quote there's nonewho seeks for God.
So they already made a choice.
So says the Reformed person.
Therefore, the Bible teachespeople have freely chosen
(31:10):
themselves to be damned and thatall people have done this.
Rather than let all peoplevoluntarily be damned, god, out
of his goodness and his all-wisepurpose, determined that he
would save some in salvation.
And they would also say aReformed person would respond
and say there's no basicdifference between God choosing
(31:31):
Paul for a special ministry, orAbraham for a special ministry,
or Jacob who's Israel, and notchoosing Esau.
They would say there's nodifference in God choosing all
of them for a special purposeand God choosing some for
salvation for a special purposeand not choosing others.
And so a Reformed person wouldalso respond and say there's no
(31:54):
logical or biblical differencebetween choosing some for a
purpose and choosing some forsalvation.
That the accusation againstReformed theology assumes either
some people are morally neutralor that some people want to be
saved and cannot.
And instead the Reformedtheologian would say the Bible
(32:15):
teaches nobody wants to be saved, and that the only way those
accusations are valid is ifsomebody out there is either
morally neutral or some peoplehave a desire to be saved.
And so, steve, what would beyour response to that?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
There's a little bit of a theme that's developing in
my responses here, because RCSproul himself said that the
crux of Reformed theology isthis regeneration before faith,
and the regeneration that's doneis done completely by God, for
that person to have faith in God.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
And the whole dispute is over the question of the
order of salvation which comesfirst faith or being born again.
Because if there's anything thatis unique to Reformed theology,
it is the idea thatregeneration, or rebirth,
(33:13):
precedes faith.
That is, it's a logicalprecession, not necessarily a
temporal one, but the chickenand the egg here Regeneration
comes first and then faith, andthat flies in the face of the
whole history of modernevangelicalism and the appeal in
mass evangelism make a decision, come forward, exercise faith,
(33:37):
and then you will be born again.
And I think a lot of theconfusion here has to do with a
misunderstanding of the wordrebirth or regeneration.
We tend to think of rebirth asthe whole new Christian life
rather than the very first step,and in Reformed theology we
tighten that down and we say no,the first step is the
(34:00):
initiative of God, the work thatthe Holy Spirit performs in our
hearts to change our minds, tobring us to Christ, to bring us
to faith.
And so we say that has tohappen first.
Just like Paul says one canwater, one can plant, another
can water, but only God canbring the increase.
And so that's where the realcollision point is whether man
(34:24):
can believe out of the flesh orwhether God has to change that
heart before we believe.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
Their whole theology surrounds this.
So while they might take theseverses from Scripture that say
no one seeks God I just gaveexamples in my previous answer
of three or four people who wereseeking God and for them to
(34:56):
stay consistent they would haveto say well, god regenerated
them first for them to be ableto seek God.
And if that's the faith, thenlogically, following that
argument through or thatposition through means they do
(35:27):
not have the ability to come tosalvation because it's dependent
on God regenerating them beforethey will come to faith.
So them coming back and sayingwell, that's just because no one
seeks All right, well then, noone means no one and the people
(35:50):
that do become faithful to Godand become believers are because
God has decided to regeneratethem so that they would then
believe in him.
That destroys their argument ofthe person not having the
ability to do to choose God ornot.
(36:11):
The logical following of theirown theology brings you to this
(36:43):
position that there are peoplethat will never come to God
because God is not going toregenerate them first, so that
don't want to pursue God.
But if you go with theirtheology, then there's a
decision being made on who willand who won't, and that decision
is solely being made by God,and the other people that
continue to not believe in himwill never believe in him
because he will never regeneratethem first so that they could
have faith.
(37:03):
So to me it's a valid pushbackagainst Reformed theology.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
In order to pose the question this way Steve, you
said you had a theme to youranswers.
I think I've got one to mine aswell, because I'm going to
agree with part of their answerand disagree with other parts.
Again, the accusation was thatGod is choosing some to be saved
and some to be damned, andthere's nothing they can do
about it.
That was how the accusation wasphrased and I would agree with
(37:30):
the Reformed person in somesense.
Is that the recurrent theme ofthe Bible is that God is not
going to be questioned?
I mean, that happens.
That is a theme in many placesof the Bible.
In the last part of Job, jobspends three dozen chapters or
so saying if I could just getGod down here across the
(37:51):
conference room table, we couldreason this thing out.
And God shows up and says whodo you think you are questioning
me?
And so there's many places inthe Bible where God just says
I'm going to do what I'm goingto do and I'm not going to ask
your opinion.
Thank you very much.
I would also agree that thephrase nothing they can do about
(38:11):
it is a little misleading,because they already have chosen
All people have chosen to sinand in that sense they already
did do something about it, whichwas walk away from God.
Now, where I would disagree withReformed theology is that I
would say that it's not alogical problem to say that God
(38:36):
can choose for special servicesomebody like an Abraham or an
Apostle Paul, or choose a Jacobas a nation.
It's not incompatible for himto choose those individuals for
a special purpose but then turnaround and say, well, I'm going
to give all people a choice ofwhether they want to follow or
(38:59):
not.
There's nothing incompatiblewith that.
There's no logical problem withthat.
There's no problem with God'snature that that would challenge
.
I would say that, yes, allpeople are sinful and left to
themselves.
We're all going to run awayfrom God.
That doesn't tell us that God'snot going to draw all men to
himself and even draw some morethan others.
(39:22):
So just because, yes, allpeople left to themselves are
going to sin doesn't mean thatlimited atonement is true and
you only choose part of them,not others.
That just doesn't logicallyfollow.
And so there's not atheological, neurological
incompatibility with saying thatGod can offer salvation to all
(39:45):
and draw all with the HolySpirit and then leave us to make
a choice.
That's not a righteous workagain, which is what it kind of
boils down to Again what we saidvery early on in this is that
there's a very few concepts,just like a large door swings on
a small hinge.
There's a very small number ofconcepts that all this theology
(40:09):
swings upon, and that's one ofthem.
Lastly, one last one accusationsthat would be by people that
disagree with Reformed theologysays in Reformed theology you've
got a God that arbitrarilychooses some to be saved.
You have a God that is in fullcontrol of changing some
people's hearts but choosing notto.
(40:30):
That God wants eternalpunishment for lost people for
his own glory.
That God is out there gettingglory by damning people and that
Reformed theology presents Godas an unloving towards the
non-elect and not wanting arelationship with some and the
people that would disagree withReformed theology says that
(40:52):
that's just against God's nature, because God is all good and
he's not going to get glory outof damning anyone and he's going
to be loving towards all andnot just loving towards the
elect.
So how did the again not thefirst time Reformed theologians
have heard this?
So let me quote a few responsesto this from reformed people.
(41:17):
Westminster Confession says Godonly does things out of his
quote.
Most wise and holy providenceunquote.
And a couple of quotes fromagain, modern teacher RC Sproul
was a strong, reformed person.
Here we must take a distinctionbetween God's doing something
(41:37):
for no reason and his doingsomething for no reason found in
us.
We say clearly that his graceis given not for any reason in
us.
But the fact that there is noreason in me for my salvation
(41:58):
does not mean there is no reasonbehind God's action.
Scripture actually tells usover and over again that God has
a reason behind his choice ofsome for salvation and his not
choosing others for redemptionunquote.
And here's another quote fromthe same person, rc Sproul Quote
in Ephesians 1.5, we are chosenaccording to on the basis of
the good pleasure of God's will.
(42:18):
God chooses and elects usaccording to what kind of
pleasure?
According to the good pleasureof his will.
That word good makes all thedifference in the world, because
there's no such thing as thebad pleasure of God's will.
Unquote.
So the idea here is that, yes,the accusation against Reformed
(42:40):
theology is that God's arbitrary.
He chooses some and not others.
He gets some sort of perversethe Reformed definition of God
gets some sort of a perverse joyout of getting glory of damning
people.
And so the Reformed responsesays oh, didn't you read?
We already said from thebeginning he does things out of
(43:02):
his most wise and holyprovidence.
And just because there'snothing in me doesn't mean that
God didn't use some wise choicein choosing some to be elect and
not choosing others.
So Steve might be a response tothat, I imagine not choosing
others.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
So Steve might be a response to that, I imagine.
Yeah, it's right here inSproul's word himself.
In the first one that you readthere, towards the latter part,
he says salvation does not meanthere is no reason behind God's
action.
And then in the last sentencehe says Scripture tells us over
and over again that God has areason behind his choice of some
(43:47):
for salvation and his notchoosing others for redemption.
So in that particular quotefrom Sproul he is admitting in
his answer that it is God takingaction and making those choices
(44:07):
.
So the pushback above was thatGod is arbitrarily making these
decisions.
His response is no, god has agood reason for making the
decisions.
But the bottom line is it stillcomes back to God making the
(44:28):
decision for some people and notfor other people.
And Sproul says that there.
In that last part Again he saysbehind his choice of some for
salvation and his not choosingothers for redemption.
So Sproul in that answer thereis admitting that from their
(44:52):
theology it is totally dependenton God.
Then in his second responsethere that you read, he says
there we are chosen according to, on the basis of the good
pleasure of God's will fromEphesians 1.5.
So I think that the Reformedtheology has taken
(45:12):
predestination and totally takeit out of its original meaning.
It means destined.
It's predestined for what?
And that's the question that weshould ask, and we went through
some of this whenever we wentthrough our previous sessions.
So the bottom line is is thatin Reformed theology, line is is
(45:42):
that in Reformed theology, godis choosing on his own to save
some and to not choose others tosave them?
I think the Bible teaches thatGod chooses to save those who
want to believe in him and doesnot save those who do not want
to believe in them.
And it's those people.
(46:03):
Their response to God iswhether God chooses them or not.
My personal view is that when aperson becomes a believer and
says God, I want to become abeliever in you, jesus, I want
to become a believer in you andtrust on you, god chooses at
(46:24):
that time.
Is this person sincere?
Are they not sincere?
And yes, it's a choice for Godto accept that desire of the
person or not, but it's basedoff of God's knowledge of
whether that person truly wantsto become a believer in Jesus
(46:45):
Christ.
And God chooses.
There's no question that Godchooses to save and others he
doesn't choose, but it's becausethe others don't come to him
and say I want to become abeliever in him.
So it's set up by the reformers, as noted here.
(47:09):
It's an action that God takesprior to anybody ever wanting to
show any desire to come to him.
I believe that the scripture isclear that whenever you come to
become a believer or want tobecome a believer, god will
reckon it to righteousness.
That's how it's put withAbraham.
(47:31):
Abraham believed and Godreckoned it as righteousness.
Did he reckon it asrighteousness before Abraham
believed?
No, he reckoned it when Abrahambelieved.
So I think that's just oneexample.
I think scripture is clear thatwhen people express a desire,
(47:52):
god chooses them to become partof his family and then we get
all the benefits of what we'repredestined predestined to
become in Christ's image andpredestined to become adopted
and those things.
The question should always bepredestined for what?
Last comment, glenn, you and Iare going to do a topical study
(48:15):
on justification, sanctificationand glorification and I think
it's going to be a great study.
A topical study because Ibelieve, along with others, that
the Reformed theology gets manythings related to
sanctification mixed up withjustification.
So be looking for that topicalstudy that we're going to be
(48:38):
doing on those three items.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
My response to this.
Again, the accusations werethat God is unloving towards the
non-elect and he doesn't want arelationship with some and that
he's arbitrary in choosing someand not others.
The Reform guy's basic answerwas God always does things that
are wise, and just becausethere's nothing in me that shows
(49:02):
doesn't mean he didn't have areason.
I would agree that God doeswise things.
The problem is is that just hasa ring to it and a smell about
it.
That's an incomplete answer.
It's a definition of God doingwise things, but it's not able
(49:23):
to carry it out in practice.
For example, if there really isnothing in me on why I was
chosen to be a Christian or not,then how could God make a wise
choice to choose me?
In other words, think of itthis way you have, for example,
a general in a war, and maybethis general has 20,000 troops
(49:46):
under him and he says I want youto take 100 of those troops and
go attack the enemy, and thecaptain says, well, which 100?
He says, oh, I don't care anyhundred.
Well, that's an arbitrarychoice.
If, on the other hand, he says,no, I want you to take any
(50:10):
names off the hundred names,well then he selected them, and
it just doesn't seem to me thatyou can say it's wise and not
arbitrary.
It's wise and not arbitraryEither he's selecting specific
people or he's choosing anyhundred to go attack the enemy,
in which case it could have beenany different hundred.
So it's just really hard to seehow both of those are true.
(50:32):
You're defining a choice aswise without giving any criteria
for it to be wise.
In other words, it's wise bydefinition, but not by ability
to carry this out.
And I would just say, yes, godis in full control of changing
some people's hearts, but whatdoes he actually do?
(50:54):
And so, steve, we said early onthat this had a lot of arms and
tentacles and we're not goingto be able to satisfy this.
We've probably already lostsome people, and there's several
sections in this.
So if you're interested andyou're still here by now listen
to all of them.
We're going to do the best wecan to even go through the Bible
(51:15):
passages.
We're going to do the best wecan to even go through the Bible
passages.
And I would just wrap this upby saying that we've probably
already lost a good number ofthe people that their eyes
glazed over a long time ago.
Steve, I would say, if we'regoing to do a session on
(51:35):
justification, sanctificationand glorification, we ought to
do one on multiplication,because I'm getting lost in all
of this and we ought to get backto Bible study that I can
understand.
So I trust that this wasbeneficial to you and keep with
us as we continue to reasonthrough it.
Speaker 2 (51:50):
Thank you so much for watching and 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.