June 30, 2025 • 42 mins
This is Part 1 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.
Step into one of Christianity's most profound and divisive theological debates as we unpack Reformed theology and Calvinism with clarity and nuance. What exactly is "that election/free will thing" that's caused denominations to split, churches to divide, and Christians to engage in heated debates for centuries?
At the heart of this theological exploration lies a crucial question: What does it mean to be "dead in trespasses and sins"? We carefully examine how Reformed theologians like William GT Shedd and Charles Hodge understand this concept, contrasting their view that spiritual death renders humans completely unable to respond to God with the perspective that Scripture describes lost people in multiple ways beyond just being "dead."
Through direct quotes from Reformed confessions and theologians, we provide an authentic presentation of what Reformed theology actually teaches about God's sovereignty, human free will, election, and regeneration. You'll discover how Westminster Confession carefully balances God's decree that "whatsoever comes to pass" happens according to His will while maintaining He is not the author of sin nor does He violate human free choice.
Despite theological differences, we highlight important common ground: God's sovereignty, His right to choose people for specific purposes, human inability to regenerate ourselves, and the eternal security of believers once saved. The real tension emerges around when regeneration occurs—does God regenerate people before they have faith, or does faith precede regeneration?
Whether you're Reformed, Arminian, or somewhere in between, this thoughtful exploration will deepen your understanding of how Christians have wrestled with reconciling God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Join us for this first installment as we lay the groundwork for a more detailed examination in future episodes.
Thank you for listening!! Please give us a five-star rating to help your podcast provider's algorithm spread RTTB among their listeners.
You can find free study and leader resources at the following link - Resource Page - Reasoning Through the Bible
Please prayerfully consider supporting RTTB to help us to continue providing content and free resources. You can do that at this link - Support RTTB - Reasoning Through the Bible
May God Bless you!! - Glenn and Steve
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome.
We're going to do something alittle different today.
In fact, it's probably a lotdifferent than the tone and
demeanor of what we normally do.
We're going to be talking aboutReformed theology or Calvinism
and usually people at churchstart saying well, is that that
election free will thing?
Well, yes, this is the electionfree will thing and we're going
(00:22):
to go to it in some depth.
But we're going to start offhere by just giving a little bit
of an introduction in why we'redoing this and how we're going
to approach it before we dive indeep into the teachings.
So, steve, first of all, it'shard to talk about this subject
(00:42):
and contain it simply becausethere's a lot of arms and legs
on the octopus and it's reallytough to talk about it without
talking about all of it at once.
And we're going to try tocontain it and kind of organize
this so really quick.
Why is it important?
Election, the concept ofelection and God's choice and
(01:06):
the idea of reformed theologyand Calvinism are important
because one Christians have alot of questions about these and
there's been a lot of divisionin the body of Christ over these
ideas and therefore the issuesneed to be addressed.
I mean, there's beendenomination splits, there's
been local church splits,there's been families that
(01:31):
struggle with this.
The solution to election tellsus whether sinners really can
repent or not.
No less than that.
It deals with what we shouldteach about the nature of God.
It impacts how pastors givesermons.
It talks about how we are saved.
(01:52):
Therefore, it deals withessential doctrines, including
whether you know there'sreformed churches tend to not
give what's called an invitationat the end of the sermon.
In Armenian churches or freewill churches, anybody who wants
to be saved come right now andwe can talk about it, whereas
(02:13):
Reformed churches tend to notgive invitations, and so it
impacts our view of God and hisnature.
Is God capricious?
Is he all wise and how muchpower does he have?
How much power does heinfluence over his creatures and
how much does he do in theworld as opposed to step back
(02:35):
and let it happen?
And so all these questions arereally important ones, and this
idea of reformed theology andelection and free will all this
comes into play with this.
That's why it's important, and,yes, it's deep and there's a
lot of arms and tentacles to it,but it needs to be addressed,
simply for all those reasons.
(02:57):
So now what I want to do in thispart is to address what is
reformed theology, what isCalvinism, and I realize those
are not exactly the same terms,but from our perspective you'll
hear us throw those terms around.
I realize there's nuances.
What I want to do is now quotefrom a series of theologians
(03:21):
that are recognized to beReformed theologians, and it's
going to be people such asWilliam GT Shedd, who wrote a
three-volume set, dogmaticTheology.
You may see some quotes herefrom Charles Hodge, who was
another Reformed theologian.
(03:41):
I have a couple of quotes fromWestminster Confession of Faith,
and those are representativesamples.
I mean, we could go on, and on,and, on, and, on, and on and on
, but we have to limit itsomewhere.
So I picked people that thereshould be no dispute that these
people represent reformedtheology, trying to give a
(04:04):
definition of what is reformedtheology and what does it claim
about itself, so that we canthen, in the next section, next
major section, evaluate whatthat is so from their
perspective.
First of all, a little bit ofcontext.
Most of the discussion onelection versus free will hinges
(04:27):
on this concept of dead andtrespasses and sins, and even
people like an RC Sproul, who isa strong Reformed person would
say that the T in the tulip,total depravity, hinges on this
idea of dead and trespasses andsins.
(04:48):
And just as a large door swingson a small hinge, a large
theological concept and debatedepends on some small key ideas
at the beginning.
So the question is how dead isdead?
And these are the strict,strong, reformed people would
(05:11):
say dead means dead, dead is adoornail, not merely dead, but
really most sincerely dead,completely, totally, 100%
spiritually dead, non-living, nospiritual life whatsoever,
physically alive, but completelyspiritually dead.
And this side would say, well,can't you read?
(05:33):
Says right there in Ephesiansand Colossians says dead and so
dead, and we'll give the quotesto support this that lost people
cannot understand nor respondto the gospel.
The other side would say, well,dead is one description of lost
(05:54):
people and there's others aswell.
And, steve, we dealt with thiswhen we went through Colossians.
When we went through Colossians, 2 Corinthians 4, 4 through 6
gives some.
There's places like Isaiah 53,5, mark 2, 17, titus 2, 14.
And we actually had a graphicthat we listed them all when we
(06:20):
went through Colossians.
My memory is there's 16 or 17different descriptions of the
lost person blind, sick,polluted, needing cleansing, in
need of purification, a slaveneed to be set free, far off,
needed to be brought near Again.
There's like a dozen and a half.
(06:40):
And so these people would saythat it's imbalanced to take one
idea dead and build an entiretheology upon that concept,
while not really dealing withall of the other nuanced views
of what the lost person says.
And this side would also saythat we're commanded repeatedly
(07:05):
to repent and believe, and so ifwe're commanded to repent and
believe, then we can repent andbelieve, or we wouldn't have
expected us to do it.
If we ought to repent, then wecan repent, and so that's kind
of the debate.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
That's kind of the debate.
Yeah, glenn, I want to againcall out that I believe it's
session number 14 in ourColossians study is where we
went into this detail in regardsto totally dead and your
trespasses and sins, and throughthe descriptions that you gave
(07:46):
there, one of our conclusionswas is that it talks about lost
people in all the various waysthat you talked about.
So for a more detailed look atthat of what we went through,
again, I think it's session 14in Colossians.
The other thing just to mentionis that we're going through an
overview here of the Reformedtheology, but in our subsequent
sessions of this we'll probablyhave a little bit more
discussion between you and me onwhat this total depravity means
(08:08):
or what, at least as far as howit's put forward.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
The strict, reformed person is going to say that
there's unsaved people that areunregenerated, that are
completely, entirely incapableof making a decision to accept
God or even receiving thesethings, and since we're so dead
we can't respond.
God has to regenerate us first,give us saving faith as a gift,
(08:33):
and then we have the desire tofollow God and then comes faith.
So these people would sayregeneration comes first because
you're dead, and theneverything else follows after,
that of saving faith and desireto follow God and the ability to
(08:54):
read the Bible and understandit and the willingness to
express our faith.
The second view and again theseare stereotypes, but it's the
only way to kind of explain it.
In actual reality people are ona spectrum and we'll see that
as we kind of go through this.
But the other kind of secondstereotypical view, since we're
(09:14):
commanded to repent, then we'reable to repent and faith is the
condition upon which salvationhappens, and that's really what
they would hold Lost people aredead in sins and which the Bible
clearly teaches.
The question is okay, what doesit really mean to be dead?
(09:34):
And the first view would saythere's passages such as Romans
3.11,.
There's none who seeks afterGod.
A natural man does not acceptthe things of the Spirit of God.
For that's 1 Corinthians 2.14.
So the Reformed person says theperson has to open a person's
(09:59):
eyes and regenerate themspiritually.
John 6.44, no one can come tome unless the Father who sent me
draws him.
John 6.65, no one can come tome unless it's been granted to
him from the Father.
So that's really the idea.
So that's really the idea.
So now what I want to get intois how does the again in this
(10:23):
section, what does Reformedtheology actually teach?
We're going to give some quoteshere from people that support
this and hang in there with us,because a couple of these quotes
are a bit long, but they reallydo the best at explaining what
Reformed theology really is.
There's a number of complex waysthat the theologians explain
(10:47):
how human decision-makingprocess works and this really
comes into play.
One of the questions is whatmoves the will?
Are we able to move our ownwill towards God or does God
have to move our will in thatdirection?
So in William GT, shedd againhad a three-volume dogmatic
(11:11):
theology is what he called it.
If anybody's reformed, it'sShedd.
I mean S-H-E-D-D.
Calvin is right down the line,not an Arminian bone in his body
or Arminian phrase in theentire book.
So Shedd says this.
Quote another instance of moralfreedom with inability to the
(11:33):
contrary.
So again, what he's sayingthere is inability to make a
decision.
Otherwise is that of theunregenerate sinner.
His sin is voluntaryself-determination.
It issues out of the self andit is the working of the self.
It is not another man who sins,but this very man and no other.
(11:58):
This fact establishes his freeagency in this sin.
He is inclined to sin and theinclination is free agency.
Yet he is unable to overcomeand eradicate this sinful
inclination.
Here are two facts A that thewill wills its own sin.
(12:20):
This is self-determination.
B that, having so willed, itcannot unwill its own sin.
This is inability.
So here Shed is clearly sayingthat yes, we have free will, but
our free will is only to sin.
(12:40):
He used the word inability todo otherwise.
So it is unable to will itselftowards God.
It freely wills what it wantsto will, but it only wills
towards God If free agencypeople like Shedd would say
we're not a machine in the sensethat pre-programmed what we're
(13:02):
supposed to do.
Reformed theologian like thiswould say we have free agency.
Now he used the term in there.
This fact establishes his freeagency in this sin.
It's just they always want tosin.
Another quote from Shedd quotethe sinner discovers on making
the attempt that he is unable toreverse his determination to
(13:23):
self.
So what they're teaching thereis they have free agency, but
it's limited in the sense thatit's unable, it doesn't have the
capacity to will anythingdifferent, but it wills what it
wants to will of its own freewill.
It just doesn't have thecapacity to do otherwise.
The Calvinist would say that wecannot move our will towards
(13:47):
God, so God must change the willso it can move the will towards
God.
Therefore, if someone desiresGod, then God must have already
regenerated them.
Changing the will is God, thenGod must have already
regenerated them.
Changing the will the Calvinistlooks at a person and says, oh,
that person is desiring God, soGod already regenerated them to
(14:07):
desire God.
And it's more of aafter-the-fact kind of a thing.
Now, the Reformed view ofelection.
When most Calvinists use theword election, they're talking
about God making a decree thatcertain people will be saved,
certain people will be saved andnot others.
That's election in Calvinistdefinition.
(14:29):
Calvinists talk a good bitabout decrees If you get into
Reformed theology very much,very far at all.
You're going to be hearingabout their decrees.
What did they decree and whatsequence did they decree it in?
And for lack of the six oreight syllable theological words
, there's infralapsarianism andsuperlapsarianism.
(14:52):
But what that really means iswhat sequence did they decree?
Things in the common terms wouldbe single predestination, which
means God permitted people tofreely fall away from him and
then he decreed some to be saved.
That would be the elect.
So a single predestinationwould say God permitted people
(15:16):
to freely fall and he says I'mdecreeing that's going to be the
case, they're going to freelyfall, and then I decree God
decrees rather that some aregoing to be saved.
Then there's a doublepredestination that says no,
it's the other way around.
God decrees in advance some aregoing to be saved and some are
going to be damned, and then hepermits the fall and then he
(15:39):
does the electing.
So Calvinists and Reformedtheologians disagree amongst
themselves about the sequence ofthe decrees and it has to do
with whether God allowed peopleto fall or whether he decreed
some to be damned from alleternity.
And just anecdotally, most ofthe people I bump into that
(16:04):
would call themselves Reformedor Calvinist are the single
predestination variety.
If you want a doublepredestinarian, you can see
somebody like an AW Pink wrote abook.
He was a double predestinarian.
They would quote passages suchas 1 Timothy 6.12, quote take
hold of the eternal life towhich you were called and you
(16:25):
made the good confession in thepresence of many witnesses.
The Reformed would take thatpassage and say God's calling is
effective.
When he calls someone, it willhappen, it's not going to fail.
Lewis Barry Chafer says thisquote there could not be failure
in one instance among themillions who are called.
(16:47):
So the Calvinist would say Godcalls, he elects.
When he calls, it will happen,it's inevitable, it's sure, his
calling is sure.
2 Timothy 3.9, quote God whohas saved us and called us with
a holy calling, not according toour works but according to his
(17:09):
own purposes and grace, to whichwas granted us in Christ Jesus
from all eternity.
The Reformed would take thisand say look, god called us, his
calling is effective, itdoesn't fail.
He called certain people, somepeople, according to his purpose
and his grace.
And God called these people ingrace from eternity and it's
(17:31):
inevitable that they're going tobe called and that they're
going to become a Christian.
Reformed would say that becausehumans are unable to choose God,
god then must cause the personto be saved.
Charles Hodge says quote inthat it depends not on the will
of the person saved but on thegood pleasure of God.
(17:52):
In other words, election toeternal life must be founded on
the sovereign pleasure of Godand not on the foresight of good
works unquote.
So again, reformed theologysays it's God elects, but it's
not on foreknowledge of freewill decision or foreknowledge
(18:14):
of the fact that later you'regoing to choose.
No, they have to regeneratefirst and election to eternal
life must be founded on thesovereign pleasure of God.
It's solely the choice of God.
The Reformed would say eitherwe're able to cooperate with God
in our salvation byunderstanding and exercising
(18:37):
faith, or God is whollyresponsible for our salvation
and our faith.
And a couple of quotes to saythis.
Again, back to Shedd, quotefaith is wholly the gift of God
and saving grace is bestowedsolely by election unquote.
And again from Shedd quote thetenet of election rests upon the
(19:01):
tenet of the sinner's bondageand inability.
Soteriology, and soteriology isjust the study of salvation.
Soteriology here runs back totheology and theology runs back
to anthropology.
Everything in the seriesfinally recurs to the state and
condition of fallen man.
(19:23):
The answer to the question howis the atonement of Christ
savingly appropriated?
Depends upon the answer to thequestion how much efficient
power is there in the sinfulwill to savingly trust in it?
If the answer be that there issufficient power, either holy or
in part, in the sinful willitself to believe, then faith is
(19:46):
either holy or in part from thesinner himself and is not
wholly the gift of God, which iscontrary to Ephesians 2.8.
And justification does notdepend wholly on the electing
grace, which is contrary to 1Peter 1.2.
And redemption is not limited.
But if the answer be that thereis not efficient power in the
(20:09):
sinful will itself, either holyor in part, to savingly believe,
then faith is wholly the giftof God, is wholly dependent upon
his electing grace andredemption is limited by
election.
Unquote.
So all of that what he's reallysaying there is it's an
either-or dilemma.
Either we have the ability tosavingly believe, in which case
(20:38):
he gave a couple of passagesthere that he thought didn't
support that.
So either we have the abilityto exercise belief or God has to
do it all himself.
And if you go back to againdead and trespasses and sins,
people like Shedd said, you'reincapable we read that quote
incapable of exercising thebelief.
(20:59):
Therefore, god has to do ithimself.
Either man cooperates or Godhas to do it all, and a slightly
more nuanced, and this willwrap up this section.
But Westminster Confession ofFaith is a doctrinal statement,
it's a creed done by some of theReformers.
Quote God from all eternity,did by the most wise and holy
(21:26):
counsel of his own, will freelyand unchangeably ordain whatever
comes to pass.
Yet so, as thereby neither, atleast the confession says there
(21:54):
God from all eternityunchangeably ordain whatever
comes to pass.
And so what this is answeringis this objection from many
people saying well, if Godordains whatever comes to pass,
then God's responsible for sin.
And Westminster Confession saysno, no, yes, it's true that God
(22:17):
ordains whatever comes to passand he unchangeably ordains it.
Yet, and what the point of thatwas?
Neither is God the author ofsin God didn't cause sin, nor is
it uses the term violenceoffered to the will of the
creatures nor the liberty orcontingency of second causes
(22:39):
taken away.
And what that's saying is thecreature which is humankind has
the ability to make contingentchoices one way or the other.
It's contingent because Ihaven't chosen yet right.
And so what it's saying is Godordains whatever comes to pass,
and that's unchangeable, it'sgoing to happen.
Ordains whatever comes to pass,and that's unchangeable, it's
(23:02):
going to happen.
Yet as God doesn't cause sin,he's not the author of sin, nor
is violence offered to the willof the creature.
He's not just forcing humans todo what we don't want to do,
it's specifically denying that.
It's saying that it's talkingabout primary cause and second
causes, god being the primarycause and humans being a
(23:25):
secondary cause.
Another quote from WestminsterConfession quote although in
relation to the foreknowledgeand decree of God the first
cause all things come to passimmutably and infallibly, yet by
the same providence, heordereth them to fall out
(23:46):
according to the nature ofsecond causes, either
necessarily, freely orcontingently.
And what that means is that inrelation to God's foreknowledge
and his decrees which, again,the Westminster Confession
already said, that's going tohappen immutably and infallibly,
(24:06):
it will happen, not going tochange.
God decreed from all eternitysome to be saved, and that's the
way it will be.
Nevertheless, by the sameprovenance, it says God orders
them to happen in creation bysecond causes, namely our free
decision, either necessarily,freely or contingency.
(24:31):
So what he's saying is that Godordered these things from all
eternity, but it's going to fallout in our free choice.
That's what it's saying Now, atthis point.
That's our overview of what is,or at least what they say about
themselves.
And here's where a whole lot ofpeople throw up their hands and
say wait a minute, that doesn'tmake sense.
(24:53):
I mean, I've quoted almost thatexact same last quote we gave
and I've had people that werebetter logicians than I saying
wait a minute, that can't makethat work in modal logic.
Well, I can't make it work inmodal logic either.
I'm just saying that's whatthey say and they have
scriptures they believe supportsit.
(25:14):
And I would even point topeople such as Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas lived 300 yearsprior to the Reformation and he
taught basically the same thingas what that portion of the
reform of the WestminsterConfession just taught, which is
Aquinas even said not only canyou not choose God, you can't
(25:35):
even prepare yourself to chooseGod, but God works through the
nature of secondary causes,which is the free will of
creatures.
And so, again, what we just didwas a definition of Reformed
theology by the Reformers, andso we can't say that's not what
they teach by the reformers andso we can't say that's not what
(25:57):
they teach.
What we can say is there'speople all over the map and any
given pastor, any given church,any given denomination will
believe parts of that, otherparts of that.
But what I just quoted wasWilliam GT Shedd, charles Hodge,
westminster Confession, onequote from Lewis Barry Chafer.
And if you're going to saythose guys don't understand
reformed theology, then I don'tknow how to have a conversation
(26:17):
with you, because that isReformed theology.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
Next, you and I and then are going to provide some
breakdown of what that teachingis, the responses that we have
to those particular teachings.
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Yes, and that's what we'll do, and it'll be equally
fun.
Let's at the first here, steve,talk about some of the things
that at least I hope we canagree on, or at least the vast
majority of people can agree on,and after that we'll get into
some of the things that there'sreally some of, the more
disagreements.
So hang in until the end andyou'll see some of the real meat
and potatoes of what I thinkeverybody wants to get into,
(26:55):
potatoes of what I thinkeverybody wants to get into.
So first thing I think, steve,we ought to talk about is last
time we talked about some ofthese theologians that made a
clear distinction between whatGod was responsible for and what
he wasn't, and most of theReformed theologians would say
that yes, god is sovereign andhe ordains things to come to
(27:18):
pass, but he's not the author ofsin, he's not the cause of sin.
Most of them would say a freecreature would be the cause of
sin.
Adam chose to sin, we chose tosin, we chose to sin.
There are some that take thatand run with it and may not be
as nuanced as that, because Iknow, I have heard and I know
(27:46):
you've heard, some people thatwould call themselves reformed,
that go too far.
And one of the ways they go toofar?
I remember a guy on an onlinemessage board that, almost, like
you said, a fatalisticdeterminism the way he phrased
it.
This one guy I was chattingwith online.
He said when Adam bit the fruit, god moved his jaw muscles.
(28:07):
God contracted the muscles ofAdam's arm until he brought the
fruit to his mouth, caused himto put the fruit in his mouth
and God moved the jaw muscles.
It's almost like a fatalisticdeterminism is the term I would
guess like we're a machine thatGod's moving, and I've heard
(28:27):
people say this that God issomehow the author of causing
sin as a direct, efficient cause.
And I would hope that the vastmajority of people would deny
that and say that God is holyand good and that there's a
distinction between God sayingokay, I'm going to allow
(28:48):
something to come to pass andI'm going to decree that people
will.
We're going to freely go outand sin, but it's the people
that sin and God's not causingsin as a direct cause.
I would see a huge, huge issuewith that, wouldn't you?
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Yeah, I would, and I wouldn't necessarily put it as
you put it.
You say God decreed people togo out and sin.
And as you put it, you say Goddecreed people to go out and sin
.
The way I would look at itwould be that God knows that
there's going to be sin in theworld because of his creation
(29:27):
and he has devised a way to beable to take care of that sin so
that that sin could be forgivenfrom them.
But yeah, I've even heard oneperson in the same vein of
example of what you're saying ina debate name and vein of
example of what you're saying ina debate and he said God is so
much in control that he wastalking about the example of
David and Bathsheba that hecould control kings to not
(29:47):
commit adultery whenever hewanted to, and even declare and
have them commit adultery if hewanted him to be in God.
And so to me, that's just way,way too far.
There's no way out of it.
You have God actuallycontrolling people and causing
people to do sinful things suchas adultery, which he has spoken
(30:12):
of, makes the top 10 list, asyou like to say sometimes that
they're going completely againstsomething that he has said that
people shouldn't do.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
I don't know the percentages out there of people
that would teach what I wouldcall more of a classical
Reformed view, and how manypercentage would teach this view
that God's directly causing sin?
There are some would teach thisview that God's directly
causing sin.
There are some.
And so our Reformed friends, ifyou're claiming well, no,
(30:43):
reformed theology has nevertaught that, well I would agree.
I've got the quotes here infront of me.
I'll read them in just a secondClassic Reformed theology does
not teach that God is the directauthor of sin.
All we're saying is that thereare some running around the
countryside that would claim tobe Reformed Calvinists that do
teach that and don't tell methey don't, because we've spoken
to them, we've heard theirvideos online.
(31:04):
There are some, and again, I'mnot guessing at the percentages.
The vast majority of all theReformed people I've met have
denied that, and the classicReformed creeds deny that.
Here's just a few.
A Belgic confession of 1561,god neither is the author of,
(31:27):
nor can be charged with, thesins which are committed.
And the canons of Dort.
It says the cause of guilt, ofthis unbelief, as well as all
other sins, is nowhere in God,but in man himself.
Westminster Confession neitheris God the author of sin, nor is
(31:50):
violence offered to the will ofhis creatures and again offered
to the will of his creatures,and again in Westminster
Confession.
Yet so as the sinfulnessthereof proceeds only from the
creature and not from God who,being most holy and righteous,
neither is nor can be the authoror approver of sin.
(32:11):
So I would hope that everybodyin this conversation would agree
God is not the author of sinand, as I said, the majority of
Reformed people I've ever spokento would hold that that God's
not the author of sin.
There are some I've spoken tothem, we've heard them that do
teach that.
So that part I think we canuniversally deny God is not the
(32:36):
author of sin.
Next point I would hope thateverybody in the conversation
would agree on is God issovereign.
God is indeed sovereign.
God asserts in many places thathe is in charge and he makes
decisions about what goes on inthis world.
It's his world, he's in charge,he can do what he wants with it
(32:58):
.
Thank you very much.
He will not be questioned andgives no pretense to explain
himself, to puny mankind.
Steve, I'm reminded of Job, andin Job these bad things happen.
At the beginning, the first twochapters God brings up the
subject of Job.
God approaches Satan and sayshave you considered my servant
(33:21):
Job?
He does that twice at thebeginning of the book and then
for about three dozen chapters,job and his friends wrestle with
this idea of what would becausing this, and is God mad at
Job or what's the cause?
And at the end of the book Godshows up and the very first
(33:42):
thing God says, when heapproaches Job towards the end
of the book, is who is this thatdarkens counsel by words
without knowledge.
Gird up your loins like a manand I'm going to ask you and you
instruct me.
And God, basically at the endof the book, says who do you
think you are questioning me?
(34:02):
You've spent three dozenchapters now, as the phrase
there darkens counsel by wordswithout knowledge.
You don't know what you'retalking about.
God says and he gives noexplanation for what happened to
Job.
So God is sovereign, he cancontrol his world as he sees fit
and I think he runs hiscreation as he wills and will
(34:26):
not be questioned.
And he has the right and theauthority and the ability to use
some people as he sees fit.
And I think that, as a concept,is something I think we would
all agree on.
I think there's okay.
Then the question of what doeshe actually do?
Does he actually?
(34:46):
How does he play out?
We'll get to that too.
But comment, steve, about justnot dealing with salvation
necessarily, but just the ideaof the sovereignty of God,
wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Yeah and really that's one of the things I was
going to say that this exampleof Job is absolutely.
God doesn't give a specificreason as to why he offered Job
up to Satan from the standpointof have you considered my
servant, job?
But that whole book of Jobdoesn't deal with Job's
(35:24):
salvation, and so I would saythat, yes, absolutely.
God is his creation.
He can do what he wants to.
We have a very good example inrelation to the nation of Israel
.
It's his land, and he even saysthis is my land and I'm going
to give it to you.
So, yes, god has the not onlyability to do it, but the right
(35:47):
to do it and also to takepeople's lives whatever he wants
to.
As it comes to salvation,though, as we use Job as an
example, that particular book isnot necessarily dealing with
salvation.
So, going to that extent and Iknow, like you said, we're going
to talk about that in a littlebit more but taking the case of
(36:07):
God absolutely being able to dowhatever he wants to and then
extrapolating out of that hedoes do, that related to
choosing some for salvation andothers for not, I think might be
a little bit of a stretch, butwe'll get into that a little bit
later.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Next on the list of things that I think we would all
agree on is that God choosesspecific people for specific
things and specific purposes forno other reason than he wanted
to.
God chose Abraham to be thefather of a nation and there's
no evidence in Genesis where hepicks it, that there was
(36:43):
anything good in Abraham priorto or after God chose him.
That gives us a reason why Godwould choose him.
I mean, god chose Abraham inGenesis, chapter 12, because he
wanted to build a nationstarting with this one man, and
there's nothing Abraham didprior to that to deserve it.
(37:03):
And well, what did he doafterwards?
Well, he lied twice about hiswife.
And there's no good in therethat prior to Genesis, chapter
12, or reason why, other thanokay, abraham had faith and
would be declared righteous, buthe didn't have righteousness
(37:27):
before he was declared.
So that's one Abraham.
Another one is Gideon in thebook of Judges.
Remember the story of Gideon?
We meet him.
He's hiding in a hole and Godapproaches him and says I'm
going to make you a mightywarrior that's going to deliver
your people.
And there was nothing in Gideon.
But Gideon had major sin afterthat of creating an idol, and so
(37:52):
there was a lot of problems inGideon's life, king David, king
David was chosen to be King whenhe was the youngest of the sons
and there was nothing in David.
God just chose David.
God says of Paul, the apostlePaul, in Acts 9, 15, quote he is
a chosen instrument of mine,unquote.
(38:15):
So that's before, uh, paul haddone anything.
In fact he was at the time, inActs 9, paul's on the road to
Damascus to arrest and cause thedeath of Christians.
So I think most people in theroom would agree that God has
the sovereign right to choosespecific people for specific
(38:37):
purposes, for no other reasonthan he wants to, and I don't
think a lot of people arequestioning that.
Again, we're not necessarilytalking about salvation at the
point, but just the generalconcept that God has.
There's nothing wrong with theidea of him selecting people for
a job or a ministry.
Speaker 2 (38:57):
I even have a couple more.
Glenn, Jeremiah was selected byGod before he was born.
That's where we get thescripture of.
You were wonderfully andfearfully made God.
I knew you in the womb.
And John the Baptist is anotherexample of he was selected by
God to be the forerunner ofJesus and, of course, he's a
(39:17):
cousin of Jesus.
So, yeah, there's absolutelynothing out of the ordinary that
the Bible says that God selectspeople for specific purposes,
and I know that you qualify thatand I agree with that.
That that's generally.
Where we see is that there's areason and a purpose behind God
(39:41):
selecting certain people to docertain things.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
The next thing I would think that at least we
would deny is universalism.
Universalism says thateverybody in the world is saved.
I think scripture is fairlyclear that some people end up
being saved and in a rightrelationship with God, and some
people are damned, in a wrongrelationship with God, that is,
(40:05):
under God's wrath and punishment.
So we would deny universalismand hold some people end up
being saved and some peopledon't.
Another thing that I thinkeverybody in the room would
agree on is that humans do nothave the ability to regenerate
ourselves.
Regeneration is the biblicalteaching of we are lost.
(40:27):
We need to be found.
Regeneration is the passagewhere it talks in the Bible
about we are a new creation inChrist.
Old things pass away.
Behold, all things become new.
So we must be born again.
Jesus told to Nicodemus in John, chapter 3.
So regeneration is the newbirth, being born again.
(40:49):
We have a new life inside us.
None of us can just up anddecide and say you know, I want
to regenerate myself.
I'm going to go to school orI'm going to get up early in the
morning and try real hard.
And I'm going to get up earlyin the morning and try real hard
and I'm going to regeneratemyself.
Well, we can't do that.
I can't save myself in thesense that, okay, I'm lost, I
don't need you, god, I'm goingto fix myself.
(41:10):
No, god has to regenerate us.
He gave us life the first time.
Then he has to give us a lifein the sense of being born again
.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
I'd absolutely agree with that.
Of course, what comes alongwith that is that okay, when is
it that you're regenerated?
And you touched on this in thevery first session and outlined
some of the basics of Reformedtheology, in that their teaching
is that God regenerates beforesomebody to have faith, and so I
(41:41):
think that comes into thequestion of, yes, absolutely,
it's up to God to regenerate us.
The question is, when does thathappen, and is it before faith
or after faith?
And we also get out of that too, glenn, I think, the kind of
teaching or doctrine that wehave salvation that can't be
(42:01):
taken away Once we'reregenerated by God.
Since we can't regenerateourselves, then there's nothing
that we can do in order tounregenerate ourselves and lose
our salvation.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
There are some that would say that people can lose
their faith, people in, like aWesleyan, followers of John
Wesley.
There are denominations thatwould teach that people can
indeed, once they're saved, theycan decide to be unsaved and
lose their salvation.
We would deny that simplybecause there's too many places,
(42:35):
just, for example, john 10, 28,.
Jesus says this quote I giveeternal life to them and they
will never perish and no onewill snatch them out of my hand.
Unquote.
Usually, when that phrase isbrought up, people focus on the
snatch out of my hand part, andI've even heard people say well,
(42:56):
no one can snatch them out oftheir hand, but you can climb
out yourself, or that's justsilly.
And the main thing, though, isthey're completely ignoring the
first half of the same sentenceI give them eternal life and
they will never perish.
Well, my friend, what part ofnever perish is unclear?
(43:22):
When it says I give it to themand they will never perish, then
what it really means is theywill never perish.
This friend of mine believed youcould lose your salvation, and
I brought up 1 John 5, 13.
It says these things I havewritten to you who believe in
the name of the Son of God, sothat you may know that you have
(43:46):
eternal life.
Close quote, and I brought upto my friend hey, if you know
you can have it and it's eternal, then you can't lose it.
If it's eternal life that youhave and you can know that you
have it, then how can you loseyour salvation?
And he viewed eternal life as acategory of life.
(44:07):
The eternal was like anadjective that modified life and
it was a category of life thatyou could jump into or jump out
of.
And that's just not the spiritof the sentence.
And I would again just throwback John 10, 28,.
What part of never perish doyou not understand?
And the thrust of 1 John 5, 13is quite clear you can know you
(44:31):
have it and it's eternal If youcould climb out of that category
again, it's not eternal life,it was temporary life.
So there are good Christiansthat would disagree, that would
believe you could lose yoursalvation.
Scripture doesn't teach that.
And Steve and I, you and Iwould hold, and I think all of
the Reformed theologians wouldall hold for eternal security of
(44:52):
the believer.
And so those are things that wewould at least agree with with
the Reformers, would we not,steve?
We?
Speaker 2 (45:02):
would agree with them on it Again.
It comes then to the questionof well, when does the
regeneration happen?
And then also the otherquestion is well, you know, the
salvation part of it.
That's really what is thedividing line, at least in my
mind.
So we thank you for joining usfor this session.
(45:22):
We ask that you join the nextsession, because that is when
we're going to carry this on alittle bit further, as always.
Thank you so much for watchingand listening.
May God bless you.
Hello and welcome.
We're going to do something alittle different today.
In fact, it's probably a lotdifferent than the tone and
demeanor of what we normally do.
We're going to be talking aboutReformed theology or Calvinism
and usually people at churchstart saying well, is that that
election free will thing?
Well, yes, this is the electionfree will thing and we're going
(00:22):
to go to it in some depth.
But we're going to start offhere by just giving a little bit
of an introduction in why we'redoing this and how we're going
to approach it before we dive indeep into the teachings.
So, steve, first of all, it'shard to talk about this subject
(00:42):
and contain it simply becausethere's a lot of arms and legs
on the octopus and it's reallytough to talk about it without
talking about all of it at once.
And we're going to try tocontain it and kind of organize
this so really quick.
Why is it important?
Election, the concept ofelection and God's choice and
(01:06):
the idea of reformed theologyand Calvinism are important
because one Christians have alot of questions about these and
there's been a lot of divisionin the body of Christ over these
ideas and therefore the issuesneed to be addressed.
I mean, there's beendenomination splits, there's
been local church splits,there's been families that
(01:31):
struggle with this.
The solution to election tellsus whether sinners really can
repent or not.
No less than that.
It deals with what we shouldteach about the nature of God.
It impacts how pastors givesermons.
It talks about how we are saved.
(01:52):
Therefore, it deals withessential doctrines, including
whether you know there'sreformed churches tend to not
give what's called an invitationat the end of the sermon.
In Armenian churches or freewill churches, anybody who wants
to be saved come right now andwe can talk about it, whereas
(02:13):
Reformed churches tend to notgive invitations, and so it
impacts our view of God and hisnature.
Is God capricious?
Is he all wise and how muchpower does he have?
How much power does heinfluence over his creatures and
how much does he do in theworld as opposed to step back
(02:35):
and let it happen?
And so all these questions arereally important ones, and this
idea of reformed theology andelection and free will all this
comes into play with this.
That's why it's important, and,yes, it's deep and there's a
lot of arms and tentacles to it,but it needs to be addressed,
simply for all those reasons.
(02:57):
So now what I want to do in thispart is to address what is
reformed theology, what isCalvinism, and I realize those
are not exactly the same terms,but from our perspective you'll
hear us throw those terms around.
I realize there's nuances.
What I want to do is now quotefrom a series of theologians
(03:21):
that are recognized to beReformed theologians, and it's
going to be people such asWilliam GT Shedd, who wrote a
three-volume set, dogmaticTheology.
You may see some quotes herefrom Charles Hodge, who was
another Reformed theologian.
(03:41):
I have a couple of quotes fromWestminster Confession of Faith,
and those are representativesamples.
I mean, we could go on, and on,and, on, and, on, and on and on
, but we have to limit itsomewhere.
So I picked people that thereshould be no dispute that these
people represent reformedtheology, trying to give a
(04:04):
definition of what is reformedtheology and what does it claim
about itself, so that we canthen, in the next section, next
major section, evaluate whatthat is so from their
perspective.
First of all, a little bit ofcontext.
Most of the discussion onelection versus free will hinges
(04:27):
on this concept of dead andtrespasses and sins, and even
people like an RC Sproul, who isa strong Reformed person would
say that the T in the tulip,total depravity, hinges on this
idea of dead and trespasses andsins.
(04:48):
And just as a large door swingson a small hinge, a large
theological concept and debatedepends on some small key ideas
at the beginning.
So the question is how dead isdead?
And these are the strict,strong, reformed people would
(05:11):
say dead means dead, dead is adoornail, not merely dead, but
really most sincerely dead,completely, totally, 100%
spiritually dead, non-living, nospiritual life whatsoever,
physically alive, but completelyspiritually dead.
And this side would say, well,can't you read?
(05:33):
Says right there in Ephesiansand Colossians says dead and so
dead, and we'll give the quotesto support this that lost people
cannot understand nor respondto the gospel.
The other side would say, well,dead is one description of lost
(05:54):
people and there's others aswell.
And, steve, we dealt with thiswhen we went through Colossians.
When we went through Colossians, 2 Corinthians 4, 4 through 6
gives some.
There's places like Isaiah 53,5, mark 2, 17, titus 2, 14.
And we actually had a graphicthat we listed them all when we
(06:20):
went through Colossians.
My memory is there's 16 or 17different descriptions of the
lost person blind, sick,polluted, needing cleansing, in
need of purification, a slaveneed to be set free, far off,
needed to be brought near Again.
There's like a dozen and a half.
(06:40):
And so these people would saythat it's imbalanced to take one
idea dead and build an entiretheology upon that concept,
while not really dealing withall of the other nuanced views
of what the lost person says.
And this side would also saythat we're commanded repeatedly
(07:05):
to repent and believe, and so ifwe're commanded to repent and
believe, then we can repent andbelieve, or we wouldn't have
expected us to do it.
If we ought to repent, then wecan repent, and so that's kind
of the debate.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
That's kind of the debate.
Yeah, glenn, I want to againcall out that I believe it's
session number 14 in ourColossians study is where we
went into this detail in regardsto totally dead and your
trespasses and sins, and throughthe descriptions that you gave
(07:46):
there, one of our conclusionswas is that it talks about lost
people in all the various waysthat you talked about.
So for a more detailed look atthat of what we went through,
again, I think it's session 14in Colossians.
The other thing just to mentionis that we're going through an
overview here of the Reformedtheology, but in our subsequent
sessions of this we'll probablyhave a little bit more
discussion between you and me onwhat this total depravity means
(08:08):
or what, at least as far as howit's put forward.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
The strict, reformed person is going to say that
there's unsaved people that areunregenerated, that are
completely, entirely incapableof making a decision to accept
God or even receiving thesethings, and since we're so dead
we can't respond.
God has to regenerate us first,give us saving faith as a gift,
(08:33):
and then we have the desire tofollow God and then comes faith.
So these people would sayregeneration comes first because
you're dead, and theneverything else follows after,
that of saving faith and desireto follow God and the ability to
(08:54):
read the Bible and understandit and the willingness to
express our faith.
The second view and again theseare stereotypes, but it's the
only way to kind of explain it.
In actual reality people are ona spectrum and we'll see that
as we kind of go through this.
But the other kind of secondstereotypical view, since we're
(09:14):
commanded to repent, then we'reable to repent and faith is the
condition upon which salvationhappens, and that's really what
they would hold Lost people aredead in sins and which the Bible
clearly teaches.
The question is okay, what doesit really mean to be dead?
(09:34):
And the first view would saythere's passages such as Romans
3.11,.
There's none who seeks afterGod.
A natural man does not acceptthe things of the Spirit of God.
For that's 1 Corinthians 2.14.
So the Reformed person says theperson has to open a person's
(09:59):
eyes and regenerate themspiritually.
John 6.44, no one can come tome unless the Father who sent me
draws him.
John 6.65, no one can come tome unless it's been granted to
him from the Father.
So that's really the idea.
So that's really the idea.
So now what I want to get intois how does the again in this
(10:23):
section, what does Reformedtheology actually teach?
We're going to give some quoteshere from people that support
this and hang in there with us,because a couple of these quotes
are a bit long, but they reallydo the best at explaining what
Reformed theology really is.
There's a number of complex waysthat the theologians explain
(10:47):
how human decision-makingprocess works and this really
comes into play.
One of the questions is whatmoves the will?
Are we able to move our ownwill towards God or does God
have to move our will in thatdirection?
So in William GT, shedd againhad a three-volume dogmatic
(11:11):
theology is what he called it.
If anybody's reformed, it'sShedd.
I mean S-H-E-D-D.
Calvin is right down the line,not an Arminian bone in his body
or Arminian phrase in theentire book.
So Shedd says this.
Quote another instance of moralfreedom with inability to the
(11:33):
contrary.
So again, what he's sayingthere is inability to make a
decision.
Otherwise is that of theunregenerate sinner.
His sin is voluntaryself-determination.
It issues out of the self andit is the working of the self.
It is not another man who sins,but this very man and no other.
(11:58):
This fact establishes his freeagency in this sin.
He is inclined to sin and theinclination is free agency.
Yet he is unable to overcomeand eradicate this sinful
inclination.
Here are two facts A that thewill wills its own sin.
(12:20):
This is self-determination.
B that, having so willed, itcannot unwill its own sin.
This is inability.
So here Shed is clearly sayingthat yes, we have free will, but
our free will is only to sin.
(12:40):
He used the word inability todo otherwise.
So it is unable to will itselftowards God.
It freely wills what it wantsto will, but it only wills
towards God If free agencypeople like Shedd would say
we're not a machine in the sensethat pre-programmed what we're
(13:02):
supposed to do.
Reformed theologian like thiswould say we have free agency.
Now he used the term in there.
This fact establishes his freeagency in this sin.
It's just they always want tosin.
Another quote from Shedd quotethe sinner discovers on making
the attempt that he is unable toreverse his determination to
(13:23):
self.
So what they're teaching thereis they have free agency, but
it's limited in the sense thatit's unable, it doesn't have the
capacity to will anythingdifferent, but it wills what it
wants to will of its own freewill.
It just doesn't have thecapacity to do otherwise.
The Calvinist would say that wecannot move our will towards
(13:47):
God, so God must change the willso it can move the will towards
God.
Therefore, if someone desiresGod, then God must have already
regenerated them.
Changing the will is God, thenGod must have already
regenerated them.
Changing the will the Calvinistlooks at a person and says, oh,
that person is desiring God, soGod already regenerated them to
(14:07):
desire God.
And it's more of aafter-the-fact kind of a thing.
Now, the Reformed view ofelection.
When most Calvinists use theword election, they're talking
about God making a decree thatcertain people will be saved,
certain people will be saved andnot others.
That's election in Calvinistdefinition.
(14:29):
Calvinists talk a good bitabout decrees If you get into
Reformed theology very much,very far at all.
You're going to be hearingabout their decrees.
What did they decree and whatsequence did they decree it in?
And for lack of the six oreight syllable theological words
, there's infralapsarianism andsuperlapsarianism.
(14:52):
But what that really means iswhat sequence did they decree?
Things in the common terms wouldbe single predestination, which
means God permitted people tofreely fall away from him and
then he decreed some to be saved.
That would be the elect.
So a single predestinationwould say God permitted people
(15:16):
to freely fall and he says I'mdecreeing that's going to be the
case, they're going to freelyfall, and then I decree God
decrees rather that some aregoing to be saved.
Then there's a doublepredestination that says no,
it's the other way around.
God decrees in advance some aregoing to be saved and some are
going to be damned, and then hepermits the fall and then he
(15:39):
does the electing.
So Calvinists and Reformedtheologians disagree amongst
themselves about the sequence ofthe decrees and it has to do
with whether God allowed peopleto fall or whether he decreed
some to be damned from alleternity.
And just anecdotally, most ofthe people I bump into that
(16:04):
would call themselves Reformedor Calvinist are the single
predestination variety.
If you want a doublepredestinarian, you can see
somebody like an AW Pink wrote abook.
He was a double predestinarian.
They would quote passages suchas 1 Timothy 6.12, quote take
hold of the eternal life towhich you were called and you
(16:25):
made the good confession in thepresence of many witnesses.
The Reformed would take thatpassage and say God's calling is
effective.
When he calls someone, it willhappen, it's not going to fail.
Lewis Barry Chafer says thisquote there could not be failure
in one instance among themillions who are called.
(16:47):
So the Calvinist would say Godcalls, he elects.
When he calls, it will happen,it's inevitable, it's sure, his
calling is sure.
2 Timothy 3.9, quote God whohas saved us and called us with
a holy calling, not according toour works but according to his
(17:09):
own purposes and grace, to whichwas granted us in Christ Jesus
from all eternity.
The Reformed would take thisand say look, god called us, his
calling is effective, itdoesn't fail.
He called certain people, somepeople, according to his purpose
and his grace.
And God called these people ingrace from eternity and it's
(17:31):
inevitable that they're going tobe called and that they're
going to become a Christian.
Reformed would say that becausehumans are unable to choose God,
god then must cause the personto be saved.
Charles Hodge says quote inthat it depends not on the will
of the person saved but on thegood pleasure of God.
(17:52):
In other words, election toeternal life must be founded on
the sovereign pleasure of Godand not on the foresight of good
works unquote.
So again, reformed theologysays it's God elects, but it's
not on foreknowledge of freewill decision or foreknowledge
(18:14):
of the fact that later you'regoing to choose.
No, they have to regeneratefirst and election to eternal
life must be founded on thesovereign pleasure of God.
It's solely the choice of God.
The Reformed would say eitherwe're able to cooperate with God
in our salvation byunderstanding and exercising
(18:37):
faith, or God is whollyresponsible for our salvation
and our faith.
And a couple of quotes to saythis.
Again, back to Shedd, quotefaith is wholly the gift of God
and saving grace is bestowedsolely by election unquote.
And again from Shedd quote thetenet of election rests upon the
(19:01):
tenet of the sinner's bondageand inability.
Soteriology, and soteriology isjust the study of salvation.
Soteriology here runs back totheology and theology runs back
to anthropology.
Everything in the seriesfinally recurs to the state and
condition of fallen man.
(19:23):
The answer to the question howis the atonement of Christ
savingly appropriated?
Depends upon the answer to thequestion how much efficient
power is there in the sinfulwill to savingly trust in it?
If the answer be that there issufficient power, either holy or
in part, in the sinful willitself to believe, then faith is
(19:46):
either holy or in part from thesinner himself and is not
wholly the gift of God, which iscontrary to Ephesians 2.8.
And justification does notdepend wholly on the electing
grace, which is contrary to 1Peter 1.2.
And redemption is not limited.
But if the answer be that thereis not efficient power in the
(20:09):
sinful will itself, either holyor in part, to savingly believe,
then faith is wholly the giftof God, is wholly dependent upon
his electing grace andredemption is limited by
election.
Unquote.
So all of that what he's reallysaying there is it's an
either-or dilemma.
Either we have the ability tosavingly believe, in which case
(20:38):
he gave a couple of passagesthere that he thought didn't
support that.
So either we have the abilityto exercise belief or God has to
do it all himself.
And if you go back to againdead and trespasses and sins,
people like Shedd said, you'reincapable we read that quote
incapable of exercising thebelief.
(20:59):
Therefore, god has to do ithimself.
Either man cooperates or Godhas to do it all, and a slightly
more nuanced, and this willwrap up this section.
But Westminster Confession ofFaith is a doctrinal statement,
it's a creed done by some of theReformers.
Quote God from all eternity,did by the most wise and holy
(21:26):
counsel of his own, will freelyand unchangeably ordain whatever
comes to pass.
Yet so, as thereby neither, atleast the confession says there
(21:54):
God from all eternityunchangeably ordain whatever
comes to pass.
And so what this is answeringis this objection from many
people saying well, if Godordains whatever comes to pass,
then God's responsible for sin.
And Westminster Confession saysno, no, yes, it's true that God
(22:17):
ordains whatever comes to passand he unchangeably ordains it.
Yet, and what the point of thatwas?
Neither is God the author ofsin God didn't cause sin, nor is
it uses the term violenceoffered to the will of the
creatures nor the liberty orcontingency of second causes
(22:39):
taken away.
And what that's saying is thecreature which is humankind has
the ability to make contingentchoices one way or the other.
It's contingent because Ihaven't chosen yet right.
And so what it's saying is Godordains whatever comes to pass,
and that's unchangeable, it'sgoing to happen.
Ordains whatever comes to pass,and that's unchangeable, it's
(23:02):
going to happen.
Yet as God doesn't cause sin,he's not the author of sin, nor
is violence offered to the willof the creature.
He's not just forcing humans todo what we don't want to do,
it's specifically denying that.
It's saying that it's talkingabout primary cause and second
causes, god being the primarycause and humans being a
(23:25):
secondary cause.
Another quote from WestminsterConfession quote although in
relation to the foreknowledgeand decree of God the first
cause all things come to passimmutably and infallibly, yet by
the same providence, heordereth them to fall out
(23:46):
according to the nature ofsecond causes, either
necessarily, freely orcontingently.
And what that means is that inrelation to God's foreknowledge
and his decrees which, again,the Westminster Confession
already said, that's going tohappen immutably and infallibly,
(24:06):
it will happen, not going tochange.
God decreed from all eternitysome to be saved, and that's the
way it will be.
Nevertheless, by the sameprovenance, it says God orders
them to happen in creation bysecond causes, namely our free
decision, either necessarily,freely or contingency.
(24:31):
So what he's saying is that Godordered these things from all
eternity, but it's going to fallout in our free choice.
That's what it's saying Now, atthis point.
That's our overview of what is,or at least what they say about
themselves.
And here's where a whole lot ofpeople throw up their hands and
say wait a minute, that doesn'tmake sense.
(24:53):
I mean, I've quoted almost thatexact same last quote we gave
and I've had people that werebetter logicians than I saying
wait a minute, that can't makethat work in modal logic.
Well, I can't make it work inmodal logic either.
I'm just saying that's whatthey say and they have
scriptures they believe supportsit.
(25:14):
And I would even point topeople such as Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas lived 300 yearsprior to the Reformation and he
taught basically the same thingas what that portion of the
reform of the WestminsterConfession just taught, which is
Aquinas even said not only canyou not choose God, you can't
(25:35):
even prepare yourself to chooseGod, but God works through the
nature of secondary causes,which is the free will of
creatures.
And so, again, what we just didwas a definition of Reformed
theology by the Reformers, andso we can't say that's not what
they teach by the reformers andso we can't say that's not what
(25:57):
they teach.
What we can say is there'speople all over the map and any
given pastor, any given church,any given denomination will
believe parts of that, otherparts of that.
But what I just quoted wasWilliam GT Shedd, charles Hodge,
westminster Confession, onequote from Lewis Barry Chafer.
And if you're going to saythose guys don't understand
reformed theology, then I don'tknow how to have a conversation
(26:17):
with you, because that isReformed theology.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
Next, you and I and then are going to provide some
breakdown of what that teachingis, the responses that we have
to those particular teachings.
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Yes, and that's what we'll do, and it'll be equally
fun.
Let's at the first here, steve,talk about some of the things
that at least I hope we canagree on, or at least the vast
majority of people can agree on,and after that we'll get into
some of the things that there'sreally some of, the more
disagreements.
So hang in until the end andyou'll see some of the real meat
and potatoes of what I thinkeverybody wants to get into,
(26:55):
potatoes of what I thinkeverybody wants to get into.
So first thing I think, steve,we ought to talk about is last
time we talked about some ofthese theologians that made a
clear distinction between whatGod was responsible for and what
he wasn't, and most of theReformed theologians would say
that yes, god is sovereign andhe ordains things to come to
(27:18):
pass, but he's not the author ofsin, he's not the cause of sin.
Most of them would say a freecreature would be the cause of
sin.
Adam chose to sin, we chose tosin, we chose to sin.
There are some that take thatand run with it and may not be
as nuanced as that, because Iknow, I have heard and I know
(27:46):
you've heard, some people thatwould call themselves reformed,
that go too far.
And one of the ways they go toofar?
I remember a guy on an onlinemessage board that, almost, like
you said, a fatalisticdeterminism the way he phrased
it.
This one guy I was chattingwith online.
He said when Adam bit the fruit, god moved his jaw muscles.
(28:07):
God contracted the muscles ofAdam's arm until he brought the
fruit to his mouth, caused himto put the fruit in his mouth
and God moved the jaw muscles.
It's almost like a fatalisticdeterminism is the term I would
guess like we're a machine thatGod's moving, and I've heard
(28:27):
people say this that God issomehow the author of causing
sin as a direct, efficient cause.
And I would hope that the vastmajority of people would deny
that and say that God is holyand good and that there's a
distinction between God sayingokay, I'm going to allow
(28:48):
something to come to pass andI'm going to decree that people
will.
We're going to freely go outand sin, but it's the people
that sin and God's not causingsin as a direct cause.
I would see a huge, huge issuewith that, wouldn't you?
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Yeah, I would, and I wouldn't necessarily put it as
you put it.
You say God decreed people togo out and sin.
And as you put it, you say Goddecreed people to go out and sin
.
The way I would look at itwould be that God knows that
there's going to be sin in theworld because of his creation
(29:27):
and he has devised a way to beable to take care of that sin so
that that sin could be forgivenfrom them.
But yeah, I've even heard oneperson in the same vein of
example of what you're saying ina debate name and vein of
example of what you're saying ina debate and he said God is so
much in control that he wastalking about the example of
David and Bathsheba that hecould control kings to not
(29:47):
commit adultery whenever hewanted to, and even declare and
have them commit adultery if hewanted him to be in God.
And so to me, that's just way,way too far.
There's no way out of it.
You have God actuallycontrolling people and causing
people to do sinful things suchas adultery, which he has spoken
(30:12):
of, makes the top 10 list, asyou like to say sometimes that
they're going completely againstsomething that he has said that
people shouldn't do.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
I don't know the percentages out there of people
that would teach what I wouldcall more of a classical
Reformed view, and how manypercentage would teach this view
that God's directly causing sin?
There are some would teach thisview that God's directly
causing sin.
There are some.
And so our Reformed friends, ifyou're claiming well, no,
(30:43):
reformed theology has nevertaught that, well I would agree.
I've got the quotes here infront of me.
I'll read them in just a secondClassic Reformed theology does
not teach that God is the directauthor of sin.
All we're saying is that thereare some running around the
countryside that would claim tobe Reformed Calvinists that do
teach that and don't tell methey don't, because we've spoken
to them, we've heard theirvideos online.
(31:04):
There are some, and again, I'mnot guessing at the percentages.
The vast majority of all theReformed people I've met have
denied that, and the classicReformed creeds deny that.
Here's just a few.
A Belgic confession of 1561,god neither is the author of,
(31:27):
nor can be charged with, thesins which are committed.
And the canons of Dort.
It says the cause of guilt, ofthis unbelief, as well as all
other sins, is nowhere in God,but in man himself.
Westminster Confession neitheris God the author of sin, nor is
(31:50):
violence offered to the will ofhis creatures and again offered
to the will of his creatures,and again in Westminster
Confession.
Yet so as the sinfulnessthereof proceeds only from the
creature and not from God who,being most holy and righteous,
neither is nor can be the authoror approver of sin.
(32:11):
So I would hope that everybodyin this conversation would agree
God is not the author of sinand, as I said, the majority of
Reformed people I've ever spokento would hold that that God's
not the author of sin.
There are some I've spoken tothem, we've heard them that do
teach that.
So that part I think we canuniversally deny God is not the
(32:36):
author of sin.
Next point I would hope thateverybody in the conversation
would agree on is God issovereign.
God is indeed sovereign.
God asserts in many places thathe is in charge and he makes
decisions about what goes on inthis world.
It's his world, he's in charge,he can do what he wants with it
(32:58):
.
Thank you very much.
He will not be questioned andgives no pretense to explain
himself, to puny mankind.
Steve, I'm reminded of Job, andin Job these bad things happen.
At the beginning, the first twochapters God brings up the
subject of Job.
God approaches Satan and sayshave you considered my servant
(33:21):
Job?
He does that twice at thebeginning of the book and then
for about three dozen chapters,job and his friends wrestle with
this idea of what would becausing this, and is God mad at
Job or what's the cause?
And at the end of the book Godshows up and the very first
(33:42):
thing God says, when heapproaches Job towards the end
of the book, is who is this thatdarkens counsel by words
without knowledge.
Gird up your loins like a manand I'm going to ask you and you
instruct me.
And God, basically at the endof the book, says who do you
think you are questioning me?
(34:02):
You've spent three dozenchapters now, as the phrase
there darkens counsel by wordswithout knowledge.
You don't know what you'retalking about.
God says and he gives noexplanation for what happened to
Job.
So God is sovereign, he cancontrol his world as he sees fit
and I think he runs hiscreation as he wills and will
(34:26):
not be questioned.
And he has the right and theauthority and the ability to use
some people as he sees fit.
And I think that, as a concept,is something I think we would
all agree on.
I think there's okay.
Then the question of what doeshe actually do?
Does he actually?
(34:46):
How does he play out?
We'll get to that too.
But comment, steve, about justnot dealing with salvation
necessarily, but just the ideaof the sovereignty of God,
wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Yeah and really that's one of the things I was
going to say that this exampleof Job is absolutely.
God doesn't give a specificreason as to why he offered Job
up to Satan from the standpointof have you considered my
servant, job?
But that whole book of Jobdoesn't deal with Job's
(35:24):
salvation, and so I would saythat, yes, absolutely.
God is his creation.
He can do what he wants to.
We have a very good example inrelation to the nation of Israel
.
It's his land, and he even saysthis is my land and I'm going
to give it to you.
So, yes, god has the not onlyability to do it, but the right
(35:47):
to do it and also to takepeople's lives whatever he wants
to.
As it comes to salvation,though, as we use Job as an
example, that particular book isnot necessarily dealing with
salvation.
So, going to that extent and Iknow, like you said, we're going
to talk about that in a littlebit more but taking the case of
(36:07):
God absolutely being able to dowhatever he wants to and then
extrapolating out of that hedoes do, that related to
choosing some for salvation andothers for not, I think might be
a little bit of a stretch, butwe'll get into that a little bit
later.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Next on the list of things that I think we would all
agree on is that God choosesspecific people for specific
things and specific purposes forno other reason than he wanted
to.
God chose Abraham to be thefather of a nation and there's
no evidence in Genesis where hepicks it, that there was
(36:43):
anything good in Abraham priorto or after God chose him.
That gives us a reason why Godwould choose him.
I mean, god chose Abraham inGenesis, chapter 12, because he
wanted to build a nationstarting with this one man, and
there's nothing Abraham didprior to that to deserve it.
(37:03):
And well, what did he doafterwards?
Well, he lied twice about hiswife.
And there's no good in therethat prior to Genesis, chapter
12, or reason why, other thanokay, abraham had faith and
would be declared righteous, buthe didn't have righteousness
(37:27):
before he was declared.
So that's one Abraham.
Another one is Gideon in thebook of Judges.
Remember the story of Gideon?
We meet him.
He's hiding in a hole and Godapproaches him and says I'm
going to make you a mightywarrior that's going to deliver
your people.
And there was nothing in Gideon.
But Gideon had major sin afterthat of creating an idol, and so
(37:52):
there was a lot of problems inGideon's life, king David, king
David was chosen to be King whenhe was the youngest of the sons
and there was nothing in David.
God just chose David.
God says of Paul, the apostlePaul, in Acts 9, 15, quote he is
a chosen instrument of mine,unquote.
(38:15):
So that's before, uh, paul haddone anything.
In fact he was at the time, inActs 9, paul's on the road to
Damascus to arrest and cause thedeath of Christians.
So I think most people in theroom would agree that God has
the sovereign right to choosespecific people for specific
(38:37):
purposes, for no other reasonthan he wants to, and I don't
think a lot of people arequestioning that.
Again, we're not necessarilytalking about salvation at the
point, but just the generalconcept that God has.
There's nothing wrong with theidea of him selecting people for
a job or a ministry.
Speaker 2 (38:57):
I even have a couple more.
Glenn, Jeremiah was selected byGod before he was born.
That's where we get thescripture of.
You were wonderfully andfearfully made God.
I knew you in the womb.
And John the Baptist is anotherexample of he was selected by
God to be the forerunner ofJesus and, of course, he's a
(39:17):
cousin of Jesus.
So, yeah, there's absolutelynothing out of the ordinary that
the Bible says that God selectspeople for specific purposes,
and I know that you qualify thatand I agree with that.
That that's generally.
Where we see is that there's areason and a purpose behind God
(39:41):
selecting certain people to docertain things.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
The next thing I would think that at least we
would deny is universalism.
Universalism says thateverybody in the world is saved.
I think scripture is fairlyclear that some people end up
being saved and in a rightrelationship with God, and some
people are damned, in a wrongrelationship with God, that is,
(40:05):
under God's wrath and punishment.
So we would deny universalismand hold some people end up
being saved and some peopledon't.
Another thing that I thinkeverybody in the room would
agree on is that humans do nothave the ability to regenerate
ourselves.
Regeneration is the biblicalteaching of we are lost.
(40:27):
We need to be found.
Regeneration is the passagewhere it talks in the Bible
about we are a new creation inChrist.
Old things pass away.
Behold, all things become new.
So we must be born again.
Jesus told to Nicodemus in John, chapter 3.
So regeneration is the newbirth, being born again.
(40:49):
We have a new life inside us.
None of us can just up anddecide and say you know, I want
to regenerate myself.
I'm going to go to school orI'm going to get up early in the
morning and try real hard.
And I'm going to get up earlyin the morning and try real hard
and I'm going to regeneratemyself.
Well, we can't do that.
I can't save myself in thesense that, okay, I'm lost, I
don't need you, god, I'm goingto fix myself.
(41:10):
No, god has to regenerate us.
He gave us life the first time.
Then he has to give us a lifein the sense of being born again
.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
I'd absolutely agree with that.
Of course, what comes alongwith that is that okay, when is
it that you're regenerated?
And you touched on this in thevery first session and outlined
some of the basics of Reformedtheology, in that their teaching
is that God regenerates beforesomebody to have faith, and so I
(41:41):
think that comes into thequestion of, yes, absolutely,
it's up to God to regenerate us.
The question is, when does thathappen, and is it before faith
or after faith?
And we also get out of that too, glenn, I think, the kind of
teaching or doctrine that wehave salvation that can't be
(42:01):
taken away Once we'reregenerated by God.
Since we can't regenerateourselves, then there's nothing
that we can do in order tounregenerate ourselves and lose
our salvation.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
There are some that would say that people can lose
their faith, people in, like aWesleyan, followers of John
Wesley.
There are denominations thatwould teach that people can
indeed, once they're saved, theycan decide to be unsaved and
lose their salvation.
We would deny that simplybecause there's too many places,
(42:35):
just, for example, john 10, 28,.
Jesus says this quote I giveeternal life to them and they
will never perish and no onewill snatch them out of my hand.
Unquote.
Usually, when that phrase isbrought up, people focus on the
snatch out of my hand part, andI've even heard people say well,
(42:56):
no one can snatch them out oftheir hand, but you can climb
out yourself, or that's justsilly.
And the main thing, though, isthey're completely ignoring the
first half of the same sentenceI give them eternal life and
they will never perish.
Well, my friend, what part ofnever perish is unclear?
(43:22):
When it says I give it to themand they will never perish, then
what it really means is theywill never perish.
This friend of mine believed youcould lose your salvation, and
I brought up 1 John 5, 13.
It says these things I havewritten to you who believe in
the name of the Son of God, sothat you may know that you have
(43:46):
eternal life.
Close quote, and I brought upto my friend hey, if you know
you can have it and it's eternal, then you can't lose it.
If it's eternal life that youhave and you can know that you
have it, then how can you loseyour salvation?
And he viewed eternal life as acategory of life.
(44:07):
The eternal was like anadjective that modified life and
it was a category of life thatyou could jump into or jump out
of.
And that's just not the spiritof the sentence.
And I would again just throwback John 10, 28,.
What part of never perish doyou not understand?
And the thrust of 1 John 5, 13is quite clear you can know you
(44:31):
have it and it's eternal If youcould climb out of that category
again, it's not eternal life,it was temporary life.
So there are good Christiansthat would disagree, that would
believe you could lose yoursalvation.
Scripture doesn't teach that.
And Steve and I, you and Iwould hold, and I think all of
the Reformed theologians wouldall hold for eternal security of
(44:52):
the believer.
And so those are things that wewould at least agree with with
the Reformers, would we not,steve?
We?
Speaker 2 (45:02):
would agree with them on it Again.
It comes then to the questionof well, when does the
regeneration happen?
And then also the otherquestion is well, you know, the
salvation part of it.
That's really what is thedividing line, at least in my
mind.
So we thank you for joining usfor this session.
(45:22):
We ask that you join the nextsession, because that is when
we're going to carry this on alittle bit further, as always.
Thank you so much for watchingand listening.
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.