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
Issues and Disagreements || Understanding Reformed Theology || Part 2 of 5
This is Part 2 of a 5 Part series on the evaluation of Reformed Theology, also referred to as Calvinism. We hope you will join us for this complete series.
The age-old theological tension between God's sovereignty and human responsibility takes center stage as we evaluate Reformed theology and Calvinism. Building on our previous overview of Reformed doctrines, we now assess their biblical validity and practical implications for Christian faith.
We tackle several problematic aspects of classical Reformed teaching, particularly the concept that regeneration must precede faith. This foundational Calvinist doctrine creates unnecessary contradictions with Scripture's clear pattern of "believe and be saved" rather than "be saved in order to believe." Biblical examples like Cornelius and Lydia demonstrate that unregenerated people can genuinely seek God before their salvation moment, challenging the Reformed understanding of total depravity.
At the heart of our discussion lies the false dilemma Reformed theology creates between God's work and human response. Scripture consistently distinguishes between faith and works, showing that believing is not a "work" that earns salvation. By recognizing this distinction, we can affirm both God's sovereign election and genuine human responsibility without theological contradiction.
Perhaps most troubling is how some Reformed teaching creates uncertainty about salvation when people wonder if they're among "the elect." This stands in stark contrast to 1 John 5:13, written "so that you may know that you have eternal life." We propose a more balanced approach that honors God's sovereignty through His "infinite persuasion" while maintaining that the gospel invitation remains genuinely open to all.
Though we disagree on certain theological points, we demonstrate that Christians can engage these complex issues with mutual respect and without division on core gospel truths. Join us next time as we examine the specific Bible passages addressing election, predestination, and free will to determine what Scripture actually teaches.
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 are Reasoning Through the Bible. My name's Glenn and I'm here with Steve. This is the second in a series that we're doing on Reformed theology and if you didn't see the first one and you're not intimately familiar with the theology, you might want to go back and listen to the first one. Last time we established what Reformation theology and what Calvinism taught, at least by mainline Calvinist teachers. Today we're going to try to evaluate that and talk about what we might agree with and what we might disagree with.
Speaker 1:And, steve, I think before we really get too far into this, we need to repeat something and we said this once, but it's worth repeating thing, and we said this once, but it's worth repeating it's unfair of any one person or group to broad brush them with some of these things and say they always believe such and so Any given person may believe parts of these theologies or all of them and any given denomination, things like that. And there's really a spectrum. And it's true with Christian groups and non-Christian groups that what you can't do is say, oh, you're in this category, therefore you believe everything that everybody ever believed, that are in that category. No, no, there's a spectrum of beliefs and there's people that belong to churches that, okay, I believe part of what my church teaches and not other parts. So you always need to look at people as individuals and even denominations as individuals. They don't all teach the same thing, even though they may be under the broad heading of Reformed theology.
Speaker 2:Yes, and while that's true, as we mentioned in last session, yes, and while that's true, as we mentioned in last session, that's why you went through really the basic theological, documented, reformed theology as what it would say would be taught in seminaries, and as to what its original meanings are, and whereas I have seen, and more of an anecdotal of the people that are out there along the spectrum that go from one far side over to the other far side and have that type of experience. So I think it's good that you've gone through and have a baseline as to what reform theology itself teaches and that's what we're generally going to work off of.
Speaker 1:These two sessions last time and this one are really dealing with the theological system, and we'll deal with some of the people that teach some of these things and what to do with that. Next time, we'll get into actually looking at individual Bible passages and go through the text of the scriptures in detail. Today's really dealing with Reformed theology as a system. We're going to preface this with something I think we mentioned at the beginning of the first session, which is this is fairly deep stuff, and we're dealing with the nature of God, who's infinite and we are finite. So there's always a struggle with trying to understand things. Steve and I don't see eye to eye on all these things, and what you're going to see us disagree on is what we're going to deal with next. Some of the things that we're about to mention, steve and I will agree, and some things we won't.
Speaker 1:Steve and I have known each other for quite a long time and we've wrestled with some of these issues and we're still friends, and so one of the messages is even though we may disagree with things it's an in-house debate we can still be friends and we do ministry together. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye 100% on all these kind of things, though we don't see eye to eye 100% on all these kind of things. The old joke I used to tell Steve and it's sort of tongue in cheek, but I think it's valid I would say to people you know, there's only two people in the world that get the Bible exactly correct me and you, and I'm a little worried about you, right? So the question if we're only going to hang around with people that agree with us 100% on every single little thing, first of all, it's against Scripture, because Romans, chapter 14 and other places say we should have patience with people, even when they're wrong on minor things. And secondly, it's just not a loving thing to do to, uh, to separate from people all the time. Uh. So comment steve, before we really get into this.
Speaker 1:Next section is really the part everybody has been waiting for. Which is what? What do we think the issues are?
Speaker 2:yeah, and as we get into it, uh, just want to emphasize what you're saying, that there's while there's a little bit of disagreement, then we might see that there's no division between us, especially on the core values of what Christianity is and the belief of who Jesus is and what he's done in the death, burial and resurrection. All of that we're completely together in it. So, as we go through this, I don't want anybody in our audience to say you know what. I don't want anybody in our audience to say you know what? You know that they're contentious with each other and therefore they they behind the scenes, they have a problem. We don't have a problem.
Speaker 2:We've talked about this stuff several times throughout the years, mentioned it several times that we should put this down and put it on a, in a recording and think that the people would like it. And we've been asked about it and we've been asked about it and we've been asked about it. So now here we are, we're doing it and we're putting it down and it's also now something that we can refer to. If people ask us certain things. We can say, yeah, we did a video on that and so go and watch it.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 1:So first thing that I would hold up as being something I would disagree with, the classic Calvinist position would be that God chose from eternity past who was going to be the elect and who was going to be saved, and that God has the sovereign right to do so. The Arminian would come back and say that's not fair because it's not giving people the right. People are being damned, they're not given a chance. It's not fair. Calvinist responds by saying it's completely fair because and typically they give two things One, everyone is a sinner, we've all sinned, and it's only God's justice. He's perfectly just in condemning all people and if he wants to save some, then it's out of his grace. And then, secondly, god has infinite wisdom and wisely chooses who to save. Since he has infinite wisdom, he can wisely choose who to save. That's the classic reform response to the Armenian accusation of it's not fair.
Speaker 1:The flaw in this is that if we hold to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity not what you and I would say, steve, but what the Calvinist definition of total depravity then there's nothing for God's infinite wisdom to make a wise choice upon. In other words, remember they made a big deal about being dead in trespasses and sins. There was nothing, no criteria. That is in man. It's completely, entirely lacking anything good in us. Well, even infinite wisdom can't find a reason to justify infinite depravity. Infinite wisdom would have nothing to make a wise choice upon.
Speaker 1:If we are as dead and as separated as the Calvinist doctrine says we're dead, then even an infinitely wise God has nothing to make an infinite choice upon. If there was any criteria upon which God's wisdom was there to operate upon, then he found something in us which total depravity says you can't. A better solution to the problem is that receiving the gospel is not a work, it's not a good thing to credit upon and it's not anything earning righteousness. So therefore, the real problem is in this dichotomy we're going to get to in a second of faith and works which the Reformed people have all messed up. But again, just okay. The Calvinist is right in saying that God doesn't have to answer to our sense of fairness, but they're wrong in that they've inconsistently applied the total depravity along with God's being able to make a wise choice upon nothing to make a choice upon Thoughts, steve.
Speaker 2:Well, I think that the Calvinist, when they say total depravity, when you really boil it down, there's really only one thing that they can't do and the person can't respond to the gospel message or respond to God again in their theology and teaching unless God regenerates them first to where they can respond to it. And I don't think that you know, Scripture supports that completely. We look at a man by the name of Cornelius, over in Acts, chapter 10, and it says there, in the first couple of verses, there was a man, a Caesarian, named Cornelius. He was a centurion and he was part of the Italian cohort, and it says that he was a devout man and one who feared God with all of his household and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. And so this was a description of Cornelius before Peter even came in to give him the gospel message, to which Cornelius would respond. And then we have the other example of Lydia in the same vein, that she was a God-fearing person and then responded to the gospel message that Paul gave, that Paul gave.
Speaker 2:So I think this, when you challenge some of the Calvinists on this, they kind of waver and they're saying well, total depravity isn't really that people can't be a good person or they can't do good things, it's just that they can't respond to God.
Speaker 2:So that really comes down to one thing, and to me all of their theology, or at least the five points, hinge around this teaching or idea of total depravity. So, yes, I think we're in agreement, and the way I would describe it is that, yes, mankind, there's nothing that they can do. We can do within ourselves to save ourselves. And so, from that particular standpoint, then we need a Savior and we have this separation from God. But to take it to the extent of the Calvinist takes it to where there is absolutely nothing that man could do unless God takes action first in a very specific way with a very specific people, meaning that some of them he chooses to do this with and others that he chooses not to do it with, I think is something that's off base I don't agree with, and I don't think you agree with that either.
Speaker 1:Well, and I think those two passages you brought up are very telling Cornelius in Acts, chapter 10, and then Lydia in Acts 2, I forgot which chapter both of them. Have these people prior to salvation? It's very clear at what point in the account they become Christians, clear at what point in the account they become Christians. Prior to that, they are indeed seeking God. They are seeking God's favor, seeking to learn about God, seeking these things, and we could say the Holy Spirit was drawing them. But everybody says that even the non-reformed people would say God draws people in. The strict reformed person says they could not have wanted God to be in their lives at all or interested in godly things unless God had regenerated them first. But the clear point of their regeneration hadn't happened yet. So either the reformed person has to deny reality, which is what it's saying, or they've got an issue with their sequence of their salvation. So that's an inconsistency.
Speaker 1:Next, the Reformed people talk a lot about God's decrees. There's a lot about God's decrees, what he decreed and the sequence in which he decreed it, and we talked about that in the past session. The real answer to the question of God's decrees is not the sequence they're in, because God doesn't think nor decree in sequence. He doesn't know and figure things out and make choices and sequences. If he did, then his knowledge would be contingent and dependent upon the creature. This is one of the same objections that we have to Molinism, which is it makes God's knowledge contingent upon a created being, and God can't have a contingent knowledge based on a created being. God can't have a contingent knowledge based on a created being. If so, then now we have a limited God that's limited by the logical dependence on a free creature. Instead, there is no sequence in God's decrees, he just decrees. There's no sequence in God's knowledge, he just knows. So, in a proper sense, there is no foreknowledge in God, it's just knowledge.
Speaker 1:And so if we have a God that thinks in sequence and acts in sequence, then we have a limited God, and we can't have that Now. His actions occur in sequence, and I think that's fairly clear because we have befores and afters. There's no befores and afters with God, or else we'd have again problems with the nature of God. Since there's befores and afters with us, then we can see his actions occur in sequence, but he didn't generate them in sequence. He doesn't learn things. He doesn't have to look at something and figure out what's happening and make a choice about it, and so he doesn't think nor decree in sequence. If we do, then we have a limited God, and since God's not limited, then he is timeless and we are not, and we are not.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I absolutely agree with that and that's the way that I would put it. It's just God's knowledge. He knows everything and that it's foreknowledge to us, because that's how we live. We live in a linear fashion. I was born at one point and I'm going to die at another point, and that's on a line that we calculate.
Speaker 2:As far as that, we call time. So to us it's foreknowledge, but to God it's just knowledge. And to give an illustration of that is that through scripture, there's several times that God gives prophetic events that are going to happen and they're called in the future, based upon when they were given. Because again, that's how we live. We live in that linear form, but God clearly is saying here's what's going to happen, and to give that event and there's still some events that are still out there to our future that are going to happen, because we know that God was correct in those events. We know that he's going to be correct in the future events, but again, it's because of his knowledge, it's not because of his foreknowledge. It's foreknowledge to us, right, and I think we're both in agreement with that, right.
Speaker 1:Next item that we would see a major flaw in Reformed thinking is that on one hand there's a difference between God's determining something to be the case in the world and whether or not he caused that to happen. And Calvinists understand this part, at least in one area, in the sense that in the quotes we gave in the earlier session say this God determines that there's going to be a world with sin in it, but he didn't cause the sin. He just determines okay, I'm going to make free creatures and I know these free creatures are going to sin. And so in that sense, god determines or ordains a world with sin in it, but it was the creature that caused it. Right, and that's classic Calvinist teaching. Calvinist would make that point God is not the author of sin, but he ordains there's going to be a world with sin in it. So the Calvinist fully understands God can decree, ordain, determine that there's going to be sin, but the creature causes it. The flaw is that they turn around and say it can't happen the other way, that when the ordaining of the salvation happens oh, wait a minute the creature can't do that part. Well, that's logically inconsistent.
Speaker 1:There's no logical flaw in the sense that if God can ordain or decree or determine that sin's going to be in the world. Well, he can also decree or determine and ordain that salvation is going to happen to Joe and Mary, but Joe and Mary be a secondary cause of a free creature that freely accepts the free gift of salvation, and God can ordain that that's going to be the way that it happens. And the Westminster Confession even alludes to this. We read the quotes about secondary causes. That doesn't take away the free creature. So a strict Calvinist teaching would say oh no, god can freely ordain a world with sin in it without being the direct cause. But God has to be the direct cause of salvation. And I say no, no, if you're going to be consistent with that, then God can ordain a world with salvation in it to individual people, but the individual person be the one that freely receives the free gift of salvation, which is not a work which we're going to see in the passages we talk about in a minute.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I wouldn't say that I wouldn't use the term ordained sin in the world.
Speaker 2:I would say that God, when he created mankind, that he knew because of just what we talked about, because of his knowledge that there was going to be sin in the world.
Speaker 2:Because sin, both in the New Testament and the Old Testament and both the Hebrew and the Greek word, means really just to miss the mark. It's mankind missing what God wants from them, which is mainly a relationship, but also to worship him and honor him. And so I would say that God didn't ordain and this really comes into another thing. You use determined, decree, ordain. What are those meanings? What are the definitions of those words?
Speaker 2:Sometimes I think the Calvinists and reforms have different dictionaries as to what the words actually mean, but I wouldn't use that particular terminology.
Speaker 2:But I wouldn't use that particular terminology. I would just say that God knew that there was going to be sin in the world and that he made a way for that sin to be forgiven and for mankind to be reconciled back to him, which is through Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross and the death, burial and resurrection, and he redeemed us back to himself. So that's how I would kind of describe that particular way, and of course I would also hold to the point that mankind in itself is given that choice to either follow God or not. To follow God, that was part of his original idea in creating man in the first place. The very first thing he did with Adam and Eve is, he said, he gave him a choice you can eat of anything in the garden, but you can't eat of the one tree Right off the bat. In the very beginning of Genesis there's a choice for mankind to make either obey God or disobey God.
Speaker 1:Next item on the list of things that at least I would have an issue with, with Reformed theology, and I had read from William GT Shedd Dogmatic Theology earlier. I just picked him really because he's a straight down the line Calvinist. Shedd says and again as representative of a lot of different Reformed theologians, of a lot of different Reformed theologians that someone can read their Bible, listen to Christian preaching, refrain from sin, and these are not a moving of the will, nor can they produce it. He says that in volume 2, page 499. So think of what he just said Lost person, read the Bible, listen to preaching, refrain from sin and express a desire to learn more, but this is not a moving of the will, nor can they produce it. Examples, the one we just mentioned a minute ago Lydia in Acts and Cornelius in Acts. That it specifically says were godly people that were seeking God and praying to God for a more light, and it happened prior to their obvious salvation. So I would say this is no less than a denial of reality. It is no less of a denial of reality than saying I'm not sitting here talking to you or you're not thinking for yourself.
Speaker 1:The way I think of it, steve, is I have a silly example. You ever put together a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. Well, you end up with these, these pieces that don't quite fit, and I think, well, it ought to fit. And so, to make it fit, I pull out my pocket knife and shave off a corner and, okay, now it fits. Well, that's what has to happen in some of this systematic theology. You start off with a good place Okay, yeah, we're dead in trespasses and sins, but the theological conclusion has to be that Lydia and Cornelius and, as Shedd says, people actually repenting that, oh well, they're not really repenting. It's just flat denial of reality. To make the theology fit rather than looking at what is real in the world, make the theology fit rather than looking at what is real in the world.
Speaker 2:And for clarification when Shedd says that they are not moving of the will, nor can it produce it, the will he's talking about, the will to become a follower of Jesus Christ. That's the will that he's talking about. I'm asking for clarification. He's saying is that, yeah, they can read the Bible, they can listen to the preaching, they can refrain from the sin, but they will not have a desire, or that's not part of their will, to move towards God that from their teaching? God has to give them that will. Is that clarification? That's what he's saying?
Speaker 1:Right, that's. What he's saying is that people can pick up a Bible, read it, listen to a Christian preacher, realize that the Bible says I'm not supposed to be sinning, so I'm going to go out and try not to sin. I'm going to try to go learn more about God so that I can, because I'm having a desire to write myself, oh no. To write myself, oh no. That is not a moving of the will. That it's again Cornelius and Lydia perfect example. These were people that were not saved.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I'm in agreement with that. I think that's a flaw. This is also what introduces some of their teaching that if they would say that, oh, if this is a moving of the man's will on their own volition, that means that they're going to play a part in their own salvation. And I think that's another part that you'll get to here in a little bit. But that's another flaw that, no, we don't. Because we might move and desire to move towards God, because we might move and desire to move towards God, doesn't mean in any way that we have a play a part in any shape, form or fashion in our own salvation.
Speaker 1:So the way I would just sum that part up is it is a denial of a brute fact. In philosophy, a brute fact is something that just is. It's a denial of reality to fit a theological system instead of a looking at the scriptures and determining whether my theological system fits. Next thing on the list the either-or presentation that we read in the last session, where either God causes it entirely or man has the ability to receive the gospel. That is a false dilemma. The list of passages that clearly contrast faith and works tell us that faith is not a work. The Reformed theology rests upon a definition of faith that makes faith a work, which Scripture says. It's not.
Speaker 1:The terms that get used and get batted around in Reformed circles is monergism and synergism. There was a whole Christian denominational thing in church history that was over this, but monergism meaning God does everything completely himself, and synergism meaning that people work along with God. And they set up this dilemma as either it's entirely of God monergism or we helped God along in some way, shape or form to some degree, and they say it's either one or the other. And what I'm saying is that's a false dilemma. It's a false dilemma not because I think it is because Scripture says it is. Dilemma not because I think it is, because Scripture says it is. And the false dilemma is based upon the idea that faith and believing are a good work. And there's just too many passages that clearly contrast it. For example I mean, I'll just read a few of them here, and these are, as far as I know, all the primary passages that even speak of faith and works. Everywhere where they are mentioned together they contrast them and say that faith is not a work. Romans 4, 5,. But to the one who does not work but believes, who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Therefore, his faith is credited as righteousness. Therefore, belief is not a work. Again, the one who does not work but believes.
Speaker 1:Galatians 2.16 contrasts the law of Moses with faith. Three times in one verse it says not of works but of faith. Galatians 3.2, quote Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Galatians 3.2, quote. Romans 9.32, speaking about Israel pursuing righteousness. They did not pursue it by faith but as though it were by works. And James 2.26, the kind of famous faith without works is dead. Think of it this way, steve. I always think of. Okay, here's the analogy You've got a parent has a 16-year-old and the 16-year-old comes up and says Dad, I want a car. He says, well, why do you want a car? He says, well, I need a vehicle so that I can get to school and I can get to my job and stuff. Well, dad says, well, you can have a car, but you can't have a vehicle.
Speaker 2:What I mean a car is a vehicle.
Speaker 1:Right Saying you can have a car but you can't have a vehicle. That doesn't make any sense. Well, the same thing. If we're going to say that faith without works is dead, but faith is a work, then what you're saying is works without works is dead, or the one who does not work but believes what you're saying is the one who does not work but works what. That doesn't make any sense. So it's a biblically false dilemma to say that faith is somehow a righteous work. Have you read Galatians? I submit that you cannot do a phrase-by-phrase exegesis of Galatians like we did and come up with a conclusion that faith is a righteous work.
Speaker 2:And along with that, glenn, as I noted before, I have some of the anecdotal evidence. Of the anecdotal evidence, this teaching of faith is a work which stems from their teaching of God has to give the people that he's going to choose to save for salvation. Give them the faith first before they can come to God. That also leads to other things. I have seen questions now that people that are under this teaching that they ask questions, and I saw this particular one where the questioner came up to the pastor in a Q&A session and she said well, is repentance a work? So you can see some of the logical conclusions that people come up with whenever they're taught these things that faith is a work and that's why God has to give you your faith first. Well, then they start thinking of other things in addition to that, such as this person that asked a question. Well, then, is repentance a work as well?
Speaker 2:So it just causes some problems and issues. And, yes, we're in agreement. I think there too. One last thing that I would add to it would be that sometimes you'll hear some of these Reformed people saying, when they give this either or dilemma, they will say, and I'm not really sure how that works, because God can do whatever he wants to, and I'm not really sure how it works. Well, if you're not really sure how it works, then I don't think the person can be dogmatic in saying that faith precedes salvation. So I think that's something that to be aware of. If you don't know how it works, then I don't think either way that you can be dogmatic about something.
Speaker 1:Next item on the list of things that I would take issue is when we start with something good and it follows too far. It's what we would call gone to seed. If you have any agricultural product that you're raising some sort of a fruit or a grain, there's a time to pick it where it's ripe. But if you leave it too long, they use the phrase gone to seed, which means the fruit's really bad and it's just a seed pod. Well, that's what we have sometimes with some Reformed theology. Again back to William GT Shedd.
Speaker 1:Shedd has a whole section of his book on what happens with a lost person, becomes convicted of sin and asked for salvation. But that person is not necessarily saved. And I'll quote Shedd here. Quote he God has not promised to regenerate every convicted sinner without exception who asks for regeneration. Regeneration is according to the purpose of God in election, and election does not depend upon any act of the creature, be it prayer or any other act. Consequently, the convicted sinner's prayer cannot infallibly secure regeneration.
Speaker 1:And again another in the quote from William GT Shedd in the same section of his book. In this one he's actually quoting John Owen. John Owen is another classic Reformed theologian that the Reformers hold high. So here Shedd is quoting Owen and agreeing with him. Quote may a person who is yet unregenerate pray for the spirit of regeneration to affect that work in him? Question mark, for whereas as such he is promised only to the elect, he meaning the Holy Spirit, such a person not knowing his election seems to have no foundation.
Speaker 1:So what Shedd is saying there and quoting Owen to support it, is you have an unregenerate person that is convicted of sin that's the term he used, convicted of sin on their knees asking in repentance, seeking God, praying for salvation, and the answer to such a person is you can't be sure you're one of the elect, because all those things do not secure salvation. Now I get what their meaning is, steve. We've seen people that get into an emotional church service and maybe they're moved by a very passionate sermon or something and oh, I really want to be saved, and maybe they'll say a prayer, but the next day or the next week, you know, the feeling's gone, so they're not really saved. So you and I would agree, just because somebody says a prayer in emotional time foxhole conversion kind of a thing that doesn't mean they're saved, but nevertheless, that's not what he says.
Speaker 1:What he says is that a convicted?
Speaker 1:of sin asking for salvation in repentance. The answer to them is you can't be sure, you're one of the elect. And, steve, you and I both heard recently there's a piece of video out there of somebody asking a question of John Piper, this exact question of saying there was somebody that had been raised in a Reformed church saying oh, I'm mad at God now because I'm not one of the elect. And so this is what happens. People get the idea am I part of the elect, am I not? It's real easy if you have confidence in your own salvation, oh, I'm part of the elect. But if you're really wrestling with the idea, then you come up with the answer. It's not an isolated thing. She had a whole section in his theology text on this. The answer is you can't be sure.
Speaker 2:That's correct, that is their teaching. And you read a verse I think it was in the last session from John that says I've written these things so that you might know that you have salvation. So scripture is there to give us the assurance that we might know that you have salvation. Now, obviously I think the person themselves knows, and obviously God knows, whether or not they were sincere in that expression of belief, whether or not they were sincere in that expression of belief.
Speaker 2:But yes, it does cause doubt in some people's mind in this teaching and we mentioned perseverance of the saints earlier in this session and what they actually mean in their teaching of perseverance of the saints is that if you are one of the elect, that God will persevere you, god will cause you to persevere to the end, which goes in the same vein of God is going to regenerate you first, is going to give you the faith first.
Speaker 2:So it really starts to get down to whether not really, whether or not somebody is saved or has salvation. They'll start getting into just as this person that was asking the question of Piper whether or not they're of the elect, and I think that that is some of the logical conclusion that some of these things go to, and it does cause doubt in some people's minds once they really really start thinking about some of this teaching. How is it that I know that I'm one of the elect? Versus the question of how is it that I know that I'm saved? Well, you know that through what scripture teaches. How do you know if you're one of the elect or not? Well, it depends upon what the systematic theology of the Reformed or Calvinists say. So I think that's the dilemma and I think, again, we're in agreement with that.
Speaker 1:So get the force of this. What Shedd was saying is that you have somebody convicted of sin, that is seeking salvation, that is wanting to be part of the family of God, and the answer to them is you can't be sure whether you're one of the elect. That is exactly what he said and that's exactly what he meant, and he's got a whole section on his book. Now, the technical word for that is bad. It's just bad. It's just wrong to say that.
Speaker 1:Well, what is the answer of Jesus? What did he say in the temple in front of the crowd and the leaders and the twelve If you're thirsty, come to me and I'll give you a drink. If you're tired, come to me and I'll give you rest. They don't say well, can't really be sure. No, that is against the entire flavor of the gospel message. It is a theology gone to seed. It is a theology that, because of the theological convictions, you're telling lost people you can't be sure, and that he I mean pages in his book on this you know one of the things, Glenn, that came to mind.
Speaker 2:You said that's against the gospel message. Well, the gospel means the good news and the gospel message. That's noted. I think it's in 1 Corinthians that Jesus came, died. According means the good news and the gospel message. That's noted. I think it's in First Corinthians that Jesus came, died according to the scriptures and rose again according to the scriptures, and it's the good news that we can have eternal life through believing in him and placing our belief in him of who he is no-transcript people that aren't elect.
Speaker 2:And again, to emphasize what you're saying is, even in Shedd's reasoning here he says at the end of it that doesn't mean that they can't be assured that they're the elect. See, he's not even using salvation. They conflate this idea of the elect always in conjunction with salvation, and I think that's another point that we'll talk about at some point that I think that the elect is used as a category and not necessarily of God's choice to choose, choice to save some and not to save others. So once again, it comes down to whether you're the elect or not the elect, rather than being whether you're saved or not saved.
Speaker 1:And lest we say well, that's just an ivory tower sort of theology book, technical discussion, and doesn't play out in reality. That Q&A video that you and I both saw this week. The guy had the exact same question hey, whether I'm in the elect or not? And the answer was well, you're lost because you want to. I mean, that was the response and I've got quotes here in history where it's again. It's not isolated.
Speaker 1:I'm going to quote Charles Finney and don't think I agree with Charles Finney. He had fairly decently horrible theology, but I'm not going to question the man's honesty when he gives an eyewitness account of what he saw. Finney said about his Presbyterian Calvinist pastor. If he preached repentance, he must be sure, before he sat down, to leave the impression on his people that they could not repent. If he called them to believe, he must be sure to inform them that until their nature was changed by the Holy Spirit, faith was impossible to them. Unquote. Barton Stone, in a similar time period, gave the same thing. Calvinists in the 1800s. The doctrines then publicly taught were that mankind were so totally depraved that they could not believe, repent or obey the gospel. That regeneration was an immediate work of the Spirit whereby faith and repentance were wrought in the heart. Now was not the accepted time, now was not the day of salvation, but it was God's own sovereign time. So these things have played out in history and in some circles are still there today.
Speaker 2:And let me say in that Barton Stone quote, he says right there that regeneration was an immediate work, which we go back to our example of Cornelius and Lydia, that they were seeking after God, and says Cornelius was a devout person and later it says he was a righteous person before they heard from Peter or before they heard from Paul.
Speaker 1:Before they heard about Jesus and before they received the Holy Spirit. Right.
Speaker 2:So again, Stone says that regeneration is immediate, and this is the teaching of Calvinism.
Speaker 1:And we would hold. You either have the Holy Spirit or you don't. You're either saved or you're not. I would say it's immediate. We may not be able to tell the exact minute, but no one is a halfway Christian. You either are or you're not.
Speaker 2:Correct and we would say or at least I would say, and I think you would say too that the regeneration is immediate, it's upon your belief. What they're holding to is that the regeneration is immediate, first, right and the faith is given to you first, and at that time then you can respond. And it's immediate, but it's there, given to you by God, before you have any type of response. We would say that, yes, regeneration is immediate upon your expression of belief. Abraham.
Speaker 1:Abraham believed in God and God reckoned it to him as righteousness, whereas Cornelius and Lydia, and our common human experience across many, many, many instances is that lost people are indeed drawn in and do end up with an interest in the gospel before they're saved. That's the Holy Spirit drawing. We would say no one would come to God. We can agree with the Calvinist left to ourselves we're not going to be saved. But what does Jesus say? Lift me up and I will draw all men to myself. So the drawing happens to lost people prior to when they're saved.
Speaker 1:Now, lest we think we're painting all Calvinists with a broad brush here, I'll bring up one support. One of the people I always had a lot of respect for was in times past was a man named D James Kennedy. Straight down the line Calvinist Presbyterian minister came up with one of the most effective evangelism programs in modern times evangelism explosion. And I've heard D James Kennedy sermons saying people aren't able to repent and they don't have enough free will to be able to believe on their own. So here was a guy who didn't believe that people could repent had come up with one of the most effective evangelism programs in modern times. So not trying to paint all Calvinists with a broad brush here and getting towards the end here. We'll give one quote and I think it's fairly straightforward. There's a Norman Geisler quote here that I would. He's another theologian quote.
Speaker 1:The vertical freedom to believe is everywhere implied in the gospel call. That is, humans are offered salvation as a gift Romans 6.23, and called upon to believe and accept it John 1.12. Never does the Bible say be saved in order to believe. Instead, it repeatedly commands believe in order to be saved. So, steve, I think that's really kind of the crux of a lot of this. The strict reformed theologian would say regeneration before faith, that God looks down and finds the dead body on the bottom of the pond and gives it life and then it has the ability to receive. And again, it's based on this false dilemma of belief and receiving being a righteous work which, again, scripture doesn't teach. But the common implication throughout many passages is we're commanded to repent and believe in order to be saved, not the other way around.
Speaker 2:And another is RC Sproul. I think people would absolutely agree that he's a giant in the Calvinist faith. He said that the concept of regeneration preceding faith is central to reform theology. So without that that is something that things would fall apart on. So I just think that when it gets down to it, that that is a dividing line or a red line, for me at least, of this idea and concept of regeneration before faith.
Speaker 2:I just don't see that Scripture supports it from the standpoint of what it's telling us from Scripture, that God wants us to come to Him, god wants us to have a relationship with Him and that he has provided a way for that. And this idea that he selects only some and others he doesn't that I just don't think that's supported in Scripture itself. Now the Reformed people would say no, god does select some, but the other ones they choose on their own to not come to God, they don't want to come to God and so God leaves them on their own. But the logical conclusion, if you follow it out, is that if God's going to select some, then he deliberately decides that he isn't going to select others.
Speaker 1:So now, next, that's the list of main critiques that we have. What Steve and I, I think, would kind of part ways is I take a little more of a strong view of what the scripture would say about God's choice and election, and I'll let Steve speak for himself. But what I think is that again it talks about this false dilemma that it's either God or us and that somehow belief is some kind of a work. Well, I just think that's a false dilemma and I think it's clearly demonstrable. The solution, in my mind, is that we can have a strong view of election and take the places in Scripture where it talks about electing, even for salvation. But we can also have a strong free will, and those are not mutually exclusive. Just because God chooses doesn't mean I didn't receive salvation. So what I want to do is have another couple of quotes here and bear with me, if you will.
Speaker 1:There's another theologian, lewis Barry Chafer. He was a four-point Calvinist. He believed in unconditional excuse me, he believed in unlimited atonement. But for the rest of the part of Calvinism, as far as the election, he was straight down the line, pure Calvinist, and I think this quote will give a really good explanation of what could be the case, at least in some cases. So hang in there with me.
Speaker 1:Let me read this. Here's Schaeffer quote the vision which he creates in the heart and the limitless persuasion he exercises induce a favorable reaction on the part of all thus called, which reaction is rendered infinitely certain. So just to right there summarize, he's saying God has infinite persuasion and he can exercise that infinite persuasion on all the people who are called, and that calling results in a certain salvation. That's what he just said. Moving on with Schaeffer, the important truth to be observed in all of this is that, though divine persuasion be limitless, it still remains persuasion. And so when a decision is secured for Christ in the individual, he exercises his own will, apart from even a shadow of constraint. The divine invitation still is true. That quote whoever will may come. However, it is also true that none will ever come apart from this divine call, and that the call is extended only to his elect, unquote. So what Schaeffer is saying there is God has the power of infinite persuasion and he chooses whom he's going to elect. And according to Schaeffer, he exercises that infinite persuasion on the elect only, and that they are certain to respond. But it's a true persuasion. He's not causing them to be saved, he's persuading them to be saved and it leaves a strong view of the individual making a choice to receive. Now Schaeffer says that only is given to the elect and we're going to deal with all the Bible passages.
Speaker 1:I think that part I would disagree. He extends the offer to all men, but nevertheless this, I think, is closer to the truth in the sense that God does indeed persuade people and he is so sovereign that he can exercise more persuasion on some people than others. But the offer is there to everyone and I think he draws all men, as Jesus said, it's just some he may influence more than others. Some of us are more amenable to the message than others. Some of us are more stubborn than others, are more stubborn than others, and I think it's really just honestly too simplistic to make it all saying that God causes everyone that's saved and everyone else is eternally damned from the word go.
Speaker 1:I think Schaeffer has a much more nuanced approach, as does Thomas Aquinas.
Speaker 1:I've got the quote here.
Speaker 1:I won't read Aquinas, but Aquinas lived 300 years before Calvin and he taught basically the same thing that left to ourselves all of us would go astray.
Speaker 1:But God exercises his authority on people, but he keeps our free will. Aquinas taught that we all have natures and it's the human nature to be able to make free choices and that he the human nature to be able to make free choices and that he works through the free choice. That was the reason we quoted the Westminster Confession thing about secondary causes. Even the Westminster Confession didn't talk about doing violence to the will. So one last quote from Charles Hodge, quote no less clear and universally admitted, is the principle that God can control the free acts of rational creatures without destroying either their liberty or their responsibility, unquote. So, steve, that's where I lie in all of this is. I think we can have a strong view of election in the sense that that God indeed does elect based on his sovereign choice, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't follow it's a non sequitur that therefore regeneration before faith and therefore we don't have the ability to understand and respond to the gospel.
Speaker 2:And I keep telling Glenn I think there's more that we agree with than he thinks that we do. So I agree with what you said. You said that God calls all to himself. I think that's I agree with that. That. That is what Scripture teaches. And I also agree that God might work to call certain people more than others through the Holy Spirit because he wants them for a purpose.
Speaker 2:Paul is an example of that. He pretty drastically called Paul, knocked him off his horse, blinded him and was very directly Paul, why are you persecuting me? And that got Paul's attention. But we see what Paul's result was. Paul even says I've been called to be an apostle and go to the Gentiles. Then draw certain people more than he might draw other people.
Speaker 2:To then take that out to say that he only draws the people that he wants to save, to elect, I think goes too far. I would say that he draws all people to himself. The one example of what you gave earlier is that Jesus said if you lift me up, I will draw all to myself. And we have the scriptures that draw people to him. We have the Holy Spirit that works in people's lives to draw to him. We have the Holy Spirit that convicted you and I to start this ministry. I don't think there's any question about that, that that was the Holy Spirit working in our lives to do that.
Speaker 2:But then to follow along with that and say that there's only certain ones that God will do that and take that action upon to save, and that he will not take a similar action in order to not save others, I think goes too far and that's where I would draw the line. I think it's a universal draw and, yes, he might work on some. Billy Graham, for instance. Probably God used in a draw for Billy Graham and he was used as a great evangelist, and there's others throughout history of things like that. So, yes, I don't deny that and I don't think scripture denies that God will, under certain circumstances, draw people and to use them for certain purposes. Now, obviously, billy Graham, in order for him to be a great evangelist, had to be saved. But to then again extrapolate that out to well, therefore that means that God is only going to select certain ones for salvation and other ones he's going to abandon, I think goes too far and that's where I draw the line.
Speaker 1:I guess my bottom line message I'd give to a lot of people out there is if you're feeling a tug towards the Lord, then follow that and pursue it, because the invitation is open. And if you know, the very first explanation I ever heard about this problem, right after I'd become a Christian, and the first one I ever heard was this, and I still think it applies after all these years. You know, jesus told the story of the way is broad that leads to destruction, but there's a narrow gate that leads. Well, it's just one of these illustrations, but we're still in this section.
Speaker 1:So the illustration is there's this broad way that leads to destruction, but over here we have this gateway and over the gateway there's a sign that says whosoever will may come, and anybody that wants to go in there can, and anybody that goes in goes in. And once you enter that archway, after you've gone through now, you're saved. And once you enter that archway, after you've gone through now, you're saved. And you look back and on the backside of the archway you see all the people coming in from the Broadway, all the Christians coming in, and on the backside of the archway it's got a sign that says chosen from the foundation of the world. So on one side it's whosoever will may come, and then all the people coming in.
Speaker 1:Once you look back, oh, we were chosen from the foundation of the world. So I still think that it's just one of these cute illustrations that's no more good than anybody else's cute illustration. Next time, I think what we ought to do, which is really the solution and this is closer to what we normally do is let's go pull out all the Bible passages, wrestle with them individually. It's really easy to sit here and argue logic in a theological system what does the text actually say? And try to hold each other's feet to the fire about what the text says, and I think that'll be even more beneficial to our audience if we haven't lost them already.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much for watching and listening. May God bless you.
