Reasoning Through the Bible
Taking a cue from Paul, Reasoning Through the Bible is an expository style walk through the Scriptures that tells you what the Bible says. Reviewing both Old and New Testament books, as well as topical subjects, we methodically teach verse by verse, even phrase by phrase.
We have completed many books of the Bible and offer free lesson plans for teachers. If you want to browse our entire library by book or topic, see our website www.ReasoningThroughTheBible.com.
We primarily do expository teaching but also include a good bit of theology and apologetics. Just like Paul on Mars Hill, Christianity must address both the ancient truths and the questions of the people today. Join Glenn and Steve every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday as they reason with you through the Bible.
Reasoning Through the Bible
What is Dead in Sin? || Understanding Reformed Theology || Part 1 of 5
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
Hello and welcome. We're going to do something a little different today. In fact, it's probably a lot different than the tone and demeanor of what we normally do. We're going to be talking about Reformed theology or Calvinism and usually people at church start saying well, is that that election free will thing? Well, yes, this is the election free will thing and we're going to go to it in some depth. But we're going to start off here by just giving a little bit of an introduction in why we're doing this and how we're going to approach it before we dive in deep into the teachings. So, steve, first of all, it's hard to talk about this subject and contain it simply because there's a lot of arms and legs on the octopus and it's really tough to talk about it without talking about all of it at once. And we're going to try to contain it and kind of organize this so really quick. Why is it important?
Speaker 1:Election, the concept of election and God's choice and the idea of reformed theology and Calvinism are important because one Christians have a lot of questions about these and there's been a lot of division in the body of Christ over these ideas and therefore the issues need to be addressed. I mean, there's been denomination splits, there's been local church splits, there's been families that struggle with this. The solution to election tells us whether sinners really can repent or not. No less than that. It deals with what we should teach about the nature of God. It impacts how pastors give sermons. It talks about how we are saved. Therefore, it deals with essential doctrines, including whether you know there's reformed churches tend to not give what's called an invitation at the end of the sermon. In Armenian churches or free will churches, anybody who wants to be saved come right now and we can talk about it, whereas Reformed churches tend to not give invitations, and so it impacts our view of God and his nature. Is God capricious? Is he all wise and how much power does he have? How much power does he influence over his creatures and how much does he do in the world as opposed to step back and let it happen? And so all these questions are really important ones, and this idea of reformed theology and election 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.
Speaker 1:So now what I want to do in this part is to address what is reformed theology, what is Calvinism, 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 quote from a series of theologians that are recognized to be Reformed theologians, and it's going to be people such as William GT Shedd, who wrote a three-volume set, dogmatic Theology. You may see some quotes here from Charles Hodge, who was another Reformed theologian. I have a couple of quotes from Westminster Confession of Faith, and those are representative samples. I mean, we could go on, and on, and, on, and, on, and on and on, but we have to limit it somewhere. So I picked people that there should be no dispute that these people represent reformed theology, trying to give a definition of what is reformed theology and what does it claim about itself, so that we can then, in the next section, next major section, evaluate what that is so from their perspective.
Speaker 1:First of all, a little bit of context. Most of the discussion on election versus free will hinges on this concept of dead and trespasses and sins, and even people like an RC Sproul, who is a strong Reformed person would say that the T in the tulip, total depravity, hinges on this idea of dead and trespasses and sins. And just as a large door swings on a small hinge, a large theological concept and debate depends on some small key ideas at the beginning. So the question is how dead is dead? And these are the strict, strong, reformed people would say dead means dead, dead is a doornail, not merely dead, but really most sincerely dead, completely, totally, 100% spiritually dead, non-living, no spiritual life whatsoever, physically alive, but completely spiritually dead. And this side would say, well, can't you read? Says right there in Ephesians and Colossians says dead and so dead, and we'll give the quotes to support this that lost people cannot understand nor respond to the gospel.
Speaker 1:The other side would say, well, dead is one description of lost people and there's others as well. And, steve, we dealt with this when 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 graphic that we listed them all when we went through Colossians.
Speaker 1:My memory is there's 16 or 17 different descriptions of the lost person blind, sick, polluted, needing cleansing, in need of purification, a slave need to be set free, far off, needed to be brought near Again. There's like a dozen and a half. And so these people would say that it's imbalanced to take one idea dead and build an entire theology upon that concept, while not really dealing with all of the other nuanced views of what the lost person says. And this side would also say that we're commanded repeatedly to repent and believe, and so if we're commanded to repent and believe, then we can repent and believe, or we wouldn't have expected us to do it. If we ought to repent, then we can repent, and so that's kind of the debate.
Speaker 2:That's kind of the debate. Yeah, glenn, I want to again call out that I believe it's session number 14 in our Colossians study is where we went into this detail in regards to totally dead and your trespasses and sins, and through the descriptions that you gave there, one of our conclusions was is that it talks about lost people in all the various ways that you talked about. So for a more detailed look at that of what we went through, again, I think it's session 14 in Colossians. The other thing just to mention is that we're going through an overview here of the Reformed theology, but in our subsequent sessions of this we'll probably have a little bit more discussion between you and me on what this total depravity means or what, at least as far as how it's put forward.
Speaker 1:The strict, reformed person is going to say that there's unsaved people that are unregenerated, that are completely, entirely incapable of making a decision to accept God or even receiving these things, and since we're so dead we can't respond. God has to regenerate us first, give us saving faith as a gift, and then we have the desire to follow God and then comes faith. So these people would say regeneration comes first because you're dead, and then everything else follows after, that of saving faith and desire to follow God and the ability to read the Bible and understand it and the willingness to express our faith. The second view and again these are stereotypes, but it's the only way to kind of explain it. In actual reality people are on a spectrum and we'll see that as we kind of go through this. But the other kind of second stereotypical view, since we're commanded to repent, then we're able to repent and faith is the condition upon which salvation happens, and that's really what they would hold Lost people are dead in sins and which the Bible clearly teaches. The question is okay, what does it really mean to be dead? And the first view would say there's passages such as Romans 3.11,. There's none who seeks after God. A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. For that's 1 Corinthians 2.14. So the Reformed person says the person has to open a person's eyes and regenerate them spiritually. John 6.44, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. John 6.65, no one can come to me 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 into is how does the again in this section, what does Reformed theology actually teach? We're going to give some quotes here from people that support this and hang in there with us, because a couple of these quotes are a bit long, but they really do the best at explaining what Reformed theology really is.
Speaker 1:There's a number of complex ways that the theologians explain how human decision-making process works and this really comes into play. One of the questions is what moves the will? Are we able to move our own will towards God or does God have to move our will in that direction? So in William GT, shedd again had a three-volume dogmatic theology is what he called it. If anybody's reformed, it's Shedd. I mean S-H-E-D-D. Calvin is right down the line, not an Arminian bone in his body or Arminian phrase in the entire book. So Shedd says this. Quote another instance of moral freedom with inability to the contrary. So again, what he's saying there is inability to make a decision.
Speaker 1:Otherwise is that of the unregenerate sinner. His sin is voluntary self-determination. It issues out of the self and it is the working of the self. It is not another man who sins, but this very man and no other. This fact establishes his free agency in this sin. He is inclined to sin and the inclination is free agency. Yet he is unable to overcome and eradicate this sinful inclination.
Speaker 1:Here are two facts A that the will wills its own sin. This is self-determination. B that, having so willed, it cannot unwill its own sin. This is inability. So here Shed is clearly saying that yes, we have free will, but our free will is only to sin. He used the word inability to do otherwise. So it is unable to will itself towards God. It freely wills what it wants to will, but it only wills towards God If free agency people like Shedd would say we're not a machine in the sense that pre-programmed what we're supposed to do.
Speaker 1:Reformed theologian like this would say we have free agency. Now he used the term in there. This fact establishes his free agency in this sin. It's just they always want to sin. Another quote from Shedd quote the sinner discovers on making the attempt that he is unable to reverse his determination to self. So what they're teaching there is they have free agency, but it's limited in the sense that it's unable, it doesn't have the capacity to will anything different, but it wills what it wants to will of its own free will. It just doesn't have the capacity to do otherwise. The Calvinist would say that we cannot move our will towards God, so God must change the will so it can move the will towards God. Therefore, if someone desires God, then God must have already regenerated them. Changing the will is God, then God must have already regenerated them. Changing the will the Calvinist looks at a person and says, oh, that person is desiring God, so God already regenerated them to desire God. And it's more of a after-the-fact kind of a thing.
Speaker 1:Now, the Reformed view of election. When most Calvinists use the word election, they're talking about God making a decree that certain people will be saved, certain people will be saved and not others. That's election in Calvinist definition. Calvinists talk a good bit about decrees If you get into Reformed theology very much, very far at all. You're going to be hearing about their decrees. What did they decree and what sequence did they decree it in? And for lack of the six or eight syllable theological words, there's infralapsarianism and superlapsarianism. But what that really means is what sequence did they decree?
Speaker 1:Things in the common terms would be single predestination, which means God permitted people to freely fall away from him and then he decreed some to be saved. That would be the elect. So a single predestination would say God permitted people to freely fall and he says I'm decreeing that's going to be the case, they're going to freely fall, and then I decree God decrees rather that some are going to be saved. Then there's a double predestination that says no, it's the other way around. God decrees in advance some are going to be saved and some are going to be damned, and then he permits the fall and then he does the electing. So Calvinists and Reformed theologians disagree amongst themselves about the sequence of the decrees and it has to do with whether God allowed people to fall or whether he decreed some to be damned from all eternity. And just anecdotally, most of the people I bump into that would call themselves Reformed or Calvinist are the single predestination variety. If you want a double predestinarian, you can see somebody like an AW Pink wrote a book. He was a double predestinarian.
Speaker 1:They would quote passages such as 1 Timothy 6.12, quote take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. The Reformed would take that passage and say God's calling is effective. When he calls someone, it will happen, it's not going to fail. Lewis Barry Chafer says this quote there could not be failure in one instance among the millions who are called. So the Calvinist would say God calls, he elects. When he calls, it will happen, it's inevitable, it's sure, his calling is sure. 2 Timothy 3.9, quote God who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purposes and grace, to which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. The Reformed would take this and say look, god called us, his calling is effective, it doesn't fail. He called certain people, some people, according to his purpose and his grace. And God called these people in grace from eternity and it's inevitable that they're going to be called and that they're going to become a Christian.
Speaker 1:Reformed would say that because humans are unable to choose God, god then must cause the person to be saved. Charles Hodge says quote in that it depends not on the will of the person saved but on the good pleasure of God. In other words, election to eternal life must be founded on the sovereign pleasure of God and not on the foresight of good works unquote. So again, reformed theology says it's God elects, but it's not on foreknowledge of free will decision or foreknowledge of the fact that later you're going to choose. No, they have to regenerate first and election to eternal life must be founded on the sovereign pleasure of God. It's solely the choice of God. The Reformed would say either we're able to cooperate with God in our salvation by understanding and exercising faith, or God is wholly responsible for our salvation and our faith. And a couple of quotes to say this. Again, back to Shedd, quote faith is wholly the gift of God and saving grace is bestowed solely by election unquote. And again from Shedd quote the tenet of election rests upon the tenet of the sinner's bondage and inability. Soteriology, and soteriology is just the study of salvation. Soteriology here runs back to theology and theology runs back to anthropology. Everything in the series finally recurs to the state and condition of fallen man.
Speaker 1:The answer to the question how is the atonement of Christ savingly appropriated? Depends upon the answer to the question how much efficient power is there in the sinful will to savingly trust in it? If the answer be that there is sufficient power, either holy or in part, in the sinful will itself to believe, then faith is either holy or in part from the sinner himself and is not wholly the gift of God, which is contrary to Ephesians 2.8. And justification does not depend wholly on the electing grace, which is contrary to 1 Peter 1.2. And redemption is not limited. But if the answer be that there is not efficient power in the sinful will itself, either holy or in part, to savingly believe, then faith is wholly the gift of God, is wholly dependent upon his electing grace and redemption is limited by election. Unquote. So all of that what he's really saying there is it's an either-or dilemma. Either we have the ability to savingly believe, in which case he gave a couple of passages there that he thought didn't support that. So either we have the ability to exercise belief or God has to do it all himself. And if you go back to again dead and trespasses and sins, people like Shedd said, you're incapable we read that quote incapable of exercising the belief. Therefore, god has to do it himself. Either man cooperates or God has to do it all, and a slightly more nuanced, and this will wrap up this section.
Speaker 1:But Westminster Confession of Faith is a doctrinal statement, it's a creed done by some of the Reformers. Quote God from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own, will freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass. Yet so, as thereby neither, at least the confession says there God from all eternity unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass. And so what this is answering is this objection from many people saying well, if God ordains whatever comes to pass, then God's responsible for sin. And Westminster Confession says no, no, yes, it's true that God ordains whatever comes to pass and he unchangeably ordains it. Yet, and what the point of that was? Neither is God the author of sin God didn't cause sin, nor is it uses the term violence offered to the will of the creatures nor the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away. And what that's saying is the creature which is humankind has the ability to make contingent choices one way or the other. It's contingent because I haven't chosen yet right. And so what it's saying is God ordains whatever comes to pass, and that's unchangeable, it's going to happen. Ordains whatever comes to pass, and that's unchangeable, it's going to happen. Yet as God doesn't cause sin, he's not the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature. He's not just forcing humans to do what we don't want to do, it's specifically denying that. It's saying that it's talking about primary cause and second causes, god being the primary cause and humans being a secondary cause.
Speaker 1:Another quote from Westminster Confession quote although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God the first cause all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely or contingently. And what that means is that in relation to God's foreknowledge and his decrees which, again, the Westminster Confession already said, that's going to happen immutably and infallibly, it will happen, not going to change. God decreed from all eternity some to be saved, and that's the way it will be. Nevertheless, by the same provenance, it says God orders them to happen in creation by second causes, namely our free decision, either necessarily, freely or contingency. So what he's saying is that God ordered these things from all eternity, but it's going to fall out in our free choice. That's what it's saying Now, at this point. That's our overview of what is, or at least what they say about themselves.
Speaker 1:And here's where a whole lot of people throw up their hands and say wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. I mean, I've quoted almost that exact same last quote we gave and I've had people that were better logicians than I saying wait a minute, that can't make that work in modal logic. Well, I can't make it work in modal logic either. I'm just saying that's what they say and they have scriptures they believe supports it. And I would even point to people such as Thomas Aquinas.
Speaker 1:Thomas Aquinas lived 300 years prior to the Reformation and he taught basically the same thing as what that portion of the reform of the Westminster Confession just taught, which is Aquinas even said not only can you not choose God, you can't even prepare yourself to choose God, but God works through the nature of secondary causes, which is the free will of creatures. And so, again, what we just did was a definition of Reformed theology by the Reformers, and so we can't say that's not what they teach by the reformers and so we can't say that's not what they teach. What we can say is there's people all over the map and any given pastor, any given church, any given denomination will believe parts of that, other parts of that. But what I just quoted was William GT Shedd, charles Hodge, westminster Confession, one quote from Lewis Barry Chafer. And if you're going to say those guys don't understand reformed theology, then I don't know how to have a conversation with you, because that is Reformed theology.
Speaker 2:Next, you and I and then are going to provide some breakdown of what that teaching is, the responses that we have to those particular teachings. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: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 can agree 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's really some of, the more disagreements. So hang in until the end and you'll see some of the real meat and potatoes of what I think everybody wants to get into, potatoes of what I think everybody wants to get into. So first thing I think, steve, we ought to talk about is last time we talked about some of these theologians that made a clear distinction between what God was responsible for and what he wasn't, and most of the Reformed theologians would say that yes, god is sovereign and he ordains things to come to pass, but he's not the author of sin, he's not the cause of sin. Most of them would say a free creature would be the cause of sin. Adam chose to sin, we chose to sin, we chose to sin. There are some that take that and run with it and may not be as nuanced as that, because I know, I have heard and I know you've heard, some people that would call themselves reformed, that go too far. And one of the ways they go too far?
Speaker 1:I remember a guy on an online message board that, almost, like you said, a fatalistic determinism the way he phrased it. This one guy I was chatting with online. He said when Adam bit the fruit, god moved his jaw muscles. God contracted the muscles of Adam's arm until he brought the fruit to his mouth, caused him to put the fruit in his mouth and God moved the jaw muscles. It's almost like a fatalistic determinism is the term I would guess like we're a machine that God's moving, and I've heard people say this that God is somehow the author of causing sin as a direct, efficient cause. And I would hope that the vast majority of people would deny that and say that God is holy and good and that there's a distinction between God saying okay, I'm going to allow something to come to pass and I'm going to decree that people will. We're going to freely go out and sin, but it's the people that sin and God's not causing sin as a direct cause. I would see a huge, huge issue with that, wouldn't you?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I would, and I wouldn't necessarily put it as you put it. You say God decreed people to go out and sin. And as you put it, you say God decreed people to go out and sin. The way I would look at it would be that God knows that there's going to be sin in the world because of his creation and he has devised a way to be able to take care of that sin so that that sin could be forgiven from them.
Speaker 2:But yeah, I've even heard one person in the same vein of example of what you're saying in a debate name and vein of example of what you're saying in a debate and he said God is so much in control that he was talking about the example of David and Bathsheba that he could control kings to not commit adultery whenever he wanted to, and even declare and have them commit adultery if he wanted 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 actually controlling people and causing people to do sinful things such as adultery, which he has spoken of, makes the top 10 list, as you like to say sometimes that they're going completely against something that he has said that people shouldn't do.
Speaker 1:I don't know the percentages out there of people that would teach what I would call more of a classical Reformed view, and how many percentage would teach this view that God's directly causing sin? There are some would teach this view that God's directly causing sin. There are some. And so our Reformed friends, if you're claiming well, no, reformed theology has never taught that, well I would agree. I've got the quotes here in front of me. I'll read them in just a second Classic Reformed theology does not teach that God is the direct author of sin. All we're saying is that there are some running around the countryside that would claim to be Reformed Calvinists that do teach that and don't tell me they don't, because we've spoken to them, we've heard their videos online. There are some, and again, I'm not guessing at the percentages. The vast majority of all the Reformed people I've met have denied that, and the classic Reformed creeds deny that. Here's just a few. A Belgic confession of 1561, god neither is the author of, nor can be charged with, the sins which are committed. And the canons of Dort. It says the cause of guilt, of this unbelief, as well as all other sins, is nowhere in God, but in man himself. Westminster Confession neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of his creatures and again offered to the will of his creatures, and again in Westminster Confession. Yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature and not from God who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin. So I would hope that everybody in this conversation would agree God is not the author of sin and, as I said, the majority of Reformed people I've ever spoken to would hold that that God's not the author of sin. There are some I've spoken to them, we've heard them that do teach that. So that part I think we can universally deny God is not the author of sin. Next point I would hope that everybody in the conversation would agree on is God is sovereign. God is indeed sovereign. God asserts in many places that he is in charge and he makes decisions about what goes on in this world. It's his world, he's in charge, he can do what he wants with it. Thank you very much. He will not be questioned and gives no pretense to explain himself, to puny mankind.
Speaker 1:Steve, I'm reminded of Job, and in Job these bad things happen. At the beginning, the first two chapters God brings up the subject of Job. God approaches Satan and says have you considered my servant Job? He does that twice at the beginning of the book and then for about three dozen chapters, job and his friends wrestle with this idea of what would be causing this, and is God mad at Job or what's the cause? And at the end of the book God shows up and the very first thing God says, when he approaches Job towards the end of the book, is who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge. Gird up your loins like a man and I'm going to ask you and you instruct me. And God, basically at the end of the book, says who do you think you are questioning me? You've spent three dozen chapters now, as the phrase there darkens counsel by words without knowledge. You don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1:God says and he gives no explanation for what happened to Job. So God is sovereign, he can control his world as he sees fit and I think he runs his creation as he wills and will not be questioned. And he has the right and the authority 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 does he actually do? Does he actually? How does he play out? We'll get to that too. But comment, steve, about just not dealing with salvation necessarily, but just the idea of the sovereignty of God, wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 2:Yeah and really that's one of the things I was going to say that this example of Job is absolutely.
Speaker 2:God doesn't give a specific reason as to why he offered Job up to Satan from the standpoint of have you considered my servant, job? But that whole book of Job doesn't deal with Job's salvation, and so I would say that, yes, absolutely. God is his creation. He can do what he wants to.
Speaker 2:We have a very good example in relation to the nation of Israel. It's his land, and he even says this is my land and I'm going to give it to you. So, yes, god has the not only ability to do it, but the right to do it and also to take people's lives whatever he wants to. As it comes to salvation, though, as we use Job as an example, that particular book is not necessarily dealing with salvation. So, going to that extent and I know, like you said, we're going to talk about that in a little bit more but taking the case of God absolutely being able to do whatever he wants to and then extrapolating out of that he does do, that related to choosing some for salvation and others for not, I think might be a little bit of a stretch, but we'll get into that a little bit later.
Speaker 1:Next on the list of things that I think we would all agree on is that God chooses specific people for specific things and specific purposes for no other reason than he wanted to. God chose Abraham to be the father of a nation and there's no evidence in Genesis where he picks it, that there was anything good in Abraham prior to or after God chose him. That gives us a reason why God would choose him. I mean, god chose Abraham in Genesis, chapter 12, because he wanted to build a nation starting with this one man, and there's nothing Abraham did prior to that to deserve it. And well, what did he do afterwards? Well, he lied twice about his wife. And there's no good in there that prior to Genesis, chapter 12, or reason why, other than okay, abraham had faith and would be declared righteous, but he didn't have righteousness before he was declared. So that's one Abraham.
Speaker 1:Another one is Gideon in the book of Judges. Remember the story of Gideon? We meet him. He's hiding in a hole and God approaches him and says I'm going to make you a mighty warrior that's going to deliver your people. And there was nothing in Gideon. But Gideon had major sin after that of creating an idol, and so there was a lot of problems in Gideon's life, king David, king David was chosen to be King when he was the youngest of the sons and there was nothing in David. God just chose David.
Speaker 1:God says of Paul, the apostle Paul, in Acts 9, 15, quote he is a chosen instrument of mine, unquote. So that's before, uh, paul had done anything. In fact he was at the time, in Acts 9, paul's on the road to Damascus to arrest and cause the death of Christians. So I think most people in the room would agree that God has the sovereign right to choose specific people for specific purposes, for no other reason than he wants to, and I don't think a lot of people are questioning that. Again, we're not necessarily talking about salvation at the point, but just the general concept that God has. There's nothing wrong with the idea of him selecting people for a job or a ministry.
Speaker 2:I even have a couple more. Glenn, Jeremiah was selected by God before he was born. That's where we get the scripture of. You were wonderfully and fearfully made God. I knew you in the womb. And John the Baptist is another example of he was selected by God to be the forerunner of Jesus and, of course, he's a cousin of Jesus. So, yeah, there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary that the Bible says that God selects people for specific purposes, and I know that you qualify that and I agree with that. That that's generally. Where we see is that there's a reason and a purpose behind God selecting certain people to do certain things.
Speaker 1:The next thing I would think that at least we would deny is universalism. Universalism says that everybody in the world is saved. I think scripture is fairly clear that some people end up being saved and in a right relationship with God, and some people are damned, in a wrong relationship with God, that is, under God's wrath and punishment. So we would deny universalism and hold some people end up being saved and some people don't. Another thing that I think everybody in the room would agree on is that humans do not have the ability to regenerate ourselves.
Speaker 1:Regeneration is the biblical teaching of we are lost. We need to be found. Regeneration is the passage where it talks in the Bible about we are a new creation in Christ. 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 new birth, being born again. We have a new life inside us. None of us can just up and decide and say you know, I want to regenerate myself. I'm going to go to school or I'm going to get up early in the morning and try real hard. And I'm going to get up early in the morning and try real hard and I'm going to regenerate myself. Well, we can't do that. I can't save myself in the sense that, okay, I'm lost, I don't need you, god, I'm going to fix myself. No, god has to regenerate us. He gave us life the first time. Then he has to give us a life in the sense of being born again.
Speaker 2:I'd absolutely agree with that. Of course, what comes along with that is that okay, when is it that you're regenerated? And you touched on this in the very first session and outlined some of the basics of Reformed theology, in that their teaching is that God regenerates before somebody to have faith, and so I think that comes into the question of, yes, absolutely, it's up to God to regenerate us. The question is, when does that happen, 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 we have salvation that can't be taken away Once we're regenerated by God. Since we can't regenerate ourselves, then there's nothing that we can do in order to unregenerate ourselves and lose our salvation.
Speaker 1:There are some that would say that people can lose their faith, people in, like a Wesleyan, followers of John Wesley. There are denominations that would teach that people can indeed, once they're saved, they can decide to be unsaved and lose their salvation. We would deny that simply because there's too many places, just, for example, john 10, 28,. Jesus says this quote I give eternal life to them and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand. Unquote. Usually, when that phrase is brought up, people focus on the snatch out of my hand part, and I've even heard people say well, no one can snatch them out of their hand, but you can climb out yourself, or that's just silly. And the main thing, though, is they're completely ignoring the first half of the same sentence I give them eternal life and they will never perish. Well, my friend, what part of never perish is unclear? When it says I give it to them and they will never perish, then what it really means is they will never perish.
Speaker 1:This friend of mine believed you could lose your salvation, and I brought up 1 John 5, 13. It says these things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. Close quote, and I brought up to 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 you have and you can know that you have it, then how can you lose your salvation? And he viewed eternal life as a category of life. The eternal was like an adjective that modified life and it was a category of life that you could jump into or jump out of. And that's just not the spirit of the sentence.
Speaker 1:And I would again just throw back John 10, 28,. What part of never perish do you not understand? And the thrust of 1 John 5, 13 is quite clear you can know you have it and it's eternal If you could climb out of that category again, it's not eternal life, it was temporary life. So there are good Christians that would disagree, that would believe you could lose your salvation. Scripture doesn't teach that. And Steve and I, you and I would hold, and I think all of the Reformed theologians would all hold for eternal security of the believer. And so those are things that we would at least agree with with the Reformers, would we not, steve? We?
Speaker 2:would agree with them on it Again. It comes then to the question of well, when does the regeneration happen? And then also the other question is well, you know, the salvation part of it. That's really what is the dividing line, at least in my mind. So we thank you for joining us for this session. We ask that you join the next session, because that is when we're going to carry this on a little bit further, as always. Thank you so much for watching and listening. May God bless you.
