Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
Jeremy approaches Bible teaching with a passion for getting the basic doctrines explained so that the individual can understand them and then apply them to circumstances in their life. These basic and important lessons are nestled in a framework of history and progression of revelation from the Bible so the whole of Scripture can be applied to your physical and spiritual life.
Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
NT Framework - Without Limits
What if “world” in John 3:16 really means the world—and what if that doesn’t force universalism? There are big question of the atonement’s scope that we must look at with clear eyes and open minds, pressing past modern slogans to what the authors actually say.
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament framework. Today, the full lesson from Jeremy Thomas. Here's a hint of what's to come.
SPEAKER_02:I mean, if we're going to be consistent, right, with this idea that Christ is ransomed for all types of people, then again, we have to read all the all's in this concept in this context in the same type of way as just referring to all types of people. Not everybody. Not everybody. No.
SPEAKER_00:In other words, what? All doesn't really mean all. I have long been annoyed by this idea in our culture that any person can redefine the meaning of a word. I've been in too many presentations, watched too many videos, where somebody says, I am using the word grit, and what I mean by grit is this. No, I'm sorry, but you don't get to redefine a word. You do not get to define what the meaning of that word is. Words have meanings and they are commonly accepted, and if they aren't, then how can we possibly communicate? I can use a word thinking you know what I mean, and yet you hear something completely different. This topic is very relevant today as we talk about many, all, some? Do these words in the Gospels, in the Old Testament, in the Epistles, do they really have only one meaning in the context? Or can we define them to fit our viewpoints? Let's dive in. Because God's nature, his very reputation, is on the line.
SPEAKER_02:We've been going through basically historical historical background for the modern discussion of the extent of the atonement. The extent of the atonement is the question: how far does it extend? I mean, is it for each and every person in the human race, beginning from Adam and until the end of history, or is it for just a subset of the human race, that is, the elect? And so historically, the two schools of thought that have kind of basically dominated the stage have been Calvinism and Arminianism. Beginning a little over 400 years ago, uh, this question of the extent of the atonement became quite divisive in Europe. And that that debate between Arminians and Calvinists has continued on to our own day. So, in order to understand the theological milieu that we live in today, you have to back up and understand the historical background. It's like anything that you you study. Uh you are and I, we're born at a particular place in history, and and we're not born at the beginning of history. So there's already what I like to view as if you have a river, you go to a river, there's an upstream, and there's a downstream, you come into the stream at some point. Um history is like studying what is upstream from you. It's like it's going back and it's saying, uh, why is the river the way it is where I am now? Well, that has to do with forces upstream, right? And history is the way it is now because of previous uh ideas and discussions that have driven uh the sh and shaped thought. So it's very important to go back and try to understand why people think in terms of Arminianism. Uh last week we worked with Calvinism and in particular their view of the atonement, which is what we call limited atonement, right? But this week what I want to do is I want to turn to Arminianism and talk about unlimited atonement. Just a brief review of the two positions, limited atonement, which is the Calvinist position, uh, that is now in a lot of creeds, you know, especially from the 1600s, like the Westminster Confession and other creeds, Belgic Confession and things like that, that many churches today, Reformed, Presbyterian, and so forth, will align with this view of the atonement, that God the Father's intention for his son's death was that he die only for the elect, which were chosen from before the foundation of the world. And this atonement automatically saves this elect group by regenerating them before they have faith. So this is the idea of regenerating regeneration preceding faith. This is the idea of unconditional election, and that's directly related to uh limited atonement, meaning that it was limited in its scope of intent. It intended to only be provided for the elect. He did not die for the sins of the whole world, he died for the sins only of the elect. And this is a group of people whom God loves, whereas he does not love uh the non-elect, he hates the non-elect. And so and and so you need to be familiar with this because you will run into this if you're in conversations with other Christians for any amount of time. The other view that we'll look at today is unlimited atonement, and just basically this states that God the Father's intention for his son's death was that he die for each and every person, and apply that salvation to those who believe by regenerating them. So, in this view, of course, faith is preceding regeneration, or at least when a person believes, that's when God regenerates them, makes them alive in Christ. But the the big difference is the scope of intent, right? In unlimited atonement, it the purpose of God in the Son is that he die for the sins of each and every person. So we'll look at this. Let's make a few clarifications. If we mean Christ paid the penalty of sin for all people without exception, then we need to state what this does mean and does not mean. Okay, and first of all, unlimited atonement does not mean all people are saved. In other words, if Christ died for all people, the question then would be, well, does that mean everybody's saved if he died for everyone? Usually the Calvinists will say, well, yeah, I mean, if he died for each and every person, then each and every person must be saved. Uh, because in their way of thinking, the atonement automatically applies itself to the elect. And since in this case the whole world would be the elect every each and every person, then everybody would be saved. So they tend to try to push this and say, well, then if Christ died for each and every person, then everyone is saved, but that's universalism. We know that's not true. But that's not what unlimited means. It does not mean that each and every person is saved. Okay. Um, second, unlimited does mean all people can potentially be saved. That the price has been paid for everyone, and therefore everyone potentially can be saved by Christ's finished word. And unlimited also means that the atonement is unlimited in its scope of intent, which we've said, meaning it's just for each and every person. So that was the Arminian view that was uh presented uh in in 1609 at the what was called the Remonstrance. And this has continued on to our own day, and um we want to look at it. And I'll just say up front that I agree with a lot of this, but I everything in Arminianism I definitely don't agree with. And so um what I'll try to do is put forward some of the major passages that are used to support unlimited atonement and and why. And of course, I'll also give you the rebuttal from the other side. It's only fair, right? The Calvinists should have their say on these verses, and then I'll give you know a little bit more to explain what I think about that. And then what I really want to do, because this honestly, I'm not that interested in this anymore. I've been doing this for 25, 30 years. So I've been through this debate a lot and and discussion and read a lot and whatnot from both sides. It's not that interesting to me. So, what I'm gonna do when I get done is start, if we have time or next week, walk you through what I think is much closer to the end. I in fact, I don't think either one of these as a total picture are even close to what the Bible actually teaches. Okay. So that's what I'm gonna do. But today let's look at unlimited atonement from the Armenian point of view. By the way, they don't all agree amongst themselves. So Jacobus Arminius held to one thing, and Wesley, who came later, had a modified Arminianism. So, you know, this is just the way it is. I won't go into those differences, but I do recognize the differences. Supporting passages. First one that is mentioned in the remonstrance in 1609 is 1 John 2, verse 2. So let's look at it. Start to 1 John.
SPEAKER_01:First, second, 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
SPEAKER_02:A lot of pastors put the verses up there. I'm not saying that's wrong, but I like people to open their Bible. If you don't open your Bible, what? You're just gonna look at a PowerPoint all week? Uh you need to know your Bible, right? So 1 John chapter 2, verse 2. Let's just read it out of context. That's the best way to do it first, and then back off. Uh and he himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world, or also for the whole world. Now, in context, you know, he we could back up. And he says in verse 1, My little children, I'm writing these things to you so that you may not sin. So there's a purpose clause. Why is Paul right, or John right? So you may not sin as believers, you know, little children. But he says, and if anyone does sin, you know, believers do sin, right? And if you do, he says, we have an advocate with the father. That's like an attorney, okay? Someone who uh hears our and handles our case on our behalf. We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He's the righteous one, and he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only, but for those of the whole world. So it's basically saying we have a legal attorney representing us in heaven. Whenever we sin, he represents us, and he basically says, Hey, look, I when we confess, he says, I paid for that. Because we have an accuser, Satan, right? And Satan is every time a believer sins, Satan is like, Ah, did you see that? Ah, did you see that? You can see this is going on a lot because believers sin. And so this is constantly going on. He still has access to the third heaven, he still accuses us day and night, right? But every time he makes accusation, Christ says, Well, I paid for that. I paid for that, I paid for that. And the Father, of course, forgives us when we confess. And so this is what's going on. So in that context, 1 John 2.2, Christ made propitiation for our sins as well, it sounds like, as all people's sins, the whole world, right? And the purpose was to encourage John's audience to go to their advocate, Christ, and confess their sins for fellowship. I mean, if he's the propitiation for our sins, he will do that for us. But I mean, it's even more than that, right? He's the propitiation for the whole world's sins. So we really should have no reticence going to him and confessing. Because we can be confident, then of course he will forgive us and restore us to fellowship. So that seems to be the idea in 1 John 2. The counterview, which is the Calvinists, they're going to come along and they're going to say, well, the world can be used in a limited sense. That Greek word cosmos, world. And because it can be used in a limited sense, it must be used here in a limited sense, because otherwise all people would be saved. That's their logic. I mean, if Christ died for them, then they will be saved. Therefore, if he died for the whole world, the whole world will be saved. That's obviously not true, so therefore, world must be limited. Now, world can be limited, but we know that in from a context. We know if the world is limited from a surrounding context. This is just like English. I don't know why I know why people have a hard time studying the Bible. Um, but it is really quite simple. Uh all words in the English language have typically several meanings. Just look them up in the dictionary, right? Um you know, like somebody used to make I they would use the word run. Now, if I just say the word run and I say, what does run mean? Now you all have an idea in your mind right now about what the word run means. But you don't know any context of how I'm using I'm thinking of the word run, do you?
SPEAKER_01:I'm talking about a route. Run. You know the length of the run of a route. You probably weren't thinking that. You were probably thinking this. Or I say to my wife, I'm gonna run to the store. That means I'm gonna drive. So run can mean drive. Um I run a four-to-one transfer case.
SPEAKER_02:Now, some of you don't even know what I'm talking about. Uh but that's that's a particular thing that I have on my vehicle, okay? And you're thinking, oh, that's what I have in my setup. That's what I mean there. Uh she has a run in her hose, if women still wear hose. I don't know. Um he hit a home run. You know, this word has like a hundred different meanings. And in the Bible, uh, words, there are words too in Greek and Hebrew. They guess what? They have lots of meaning usually. So you you have to go by the context, right? I'm just illustrating that. You just have to go by the context. There doesn't seem to be anything in this context which would limit the sense of world to just the elect, does it? But that's the Calvinist view of 1 John 2 2, because otherwise, then everybody would be saved, is their form of thinking. But see, my rebuttal to that is, of course, no one is saved automatically, the cross doesn't apply itself. People must believe in order to be saved, right? So faith, as I mentioned last week, in Calvinism, is kind of downplayed as far as its role. In fact, you have to be regenerated first, and then and only then can you believe, because in the regenerating work, they say that faith is given to the individual. And um so their view is that you know faith is the gift of God. Whereas I think the biblical view of Ephesians 2.8 and 9 is that salvation is is the gift of God. 2.5 says, for by grace you have you been saved. And then 2.8 says, for by grace are you saved through faith, through faith. You're not say by faith, you're saying through faith, and not not of yourselves, it's the gift of God. What's the gift of God? The salvation, the by grace salvation that comes to us through faith. That's the gift of God. But the Calvinists says, No, that's faith that's the gift. Um that has a lot of grammatical problems that I've covered in teaching elsewhere. But so lots of passages that talk about, you know, a person must believe for God so loved the world. John 3 16, that whosoever believes in him believes. See, somebody has to you have to believe, right? Shall not perish but have everlasting life. It's not that you just automatically get saved by the cross. So 1 John 2.2 seems to say that yes, he's a propitiation for our sins, that is, believers, but also for the sins of the whole world, indicating the potentiality that others who are not believers can be saved. All right. Hebrews 2.9, let's turn over there because it's just a few pages to the left.
SPEAKER_01:Hebrews chapter 2, verse 9. I don't remember this one being used as a remonstrance, but it's in the it's in the discussion now. Nowadays.
SPEAKER_02:But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus in the incarnation, right? He uh came and was, so to speak, lower than the angels. Because of the suffering of death, that's his cross work, crowned with glory and honor in his exaltation after his death and resurrection, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. He might taste death for everyone. So everyone in the unlimited view is as well, I mean, Jesus came to die for you know everyone, like each and every person. The counterview is that when it says all or every person here, it is using it in a limited sense, as in the word many. We mentioned this last week. There's there are passages that says he would die for the many. People say, Well, the many, that's not everybody.
SPEAKER_01:That's just many of them.
SPEAKER_02:Um first of all, I looked up, I did word study on many, because this is an aside, but I did this out of interest. If you do this word study, you find out that many is a term that you use in context of like most.
SPEAKER_01:I mean, you wouldn't say like many people got saved, you know, and it was only like two out of a hundred.
SPEAKER_02:Um but I mean like in in reality, how many people do you think are saved compared to the full population? If we have eight billion people, um wouldn't many be the majority of those eight billion people? It is in the Greek, because there's another word for some or few or the minority. This is the word for the majority. Do you think the majority of the human race are saved? On the Calvinist view, he died only for many, but that would still have to be the majority. And if that's actually true, then more than half of the human race must be elect. That does not seem right to me. Back in the flood, you know, and you can do projections, creationists have done projections on the population. If you start with creation and you work your way up by years to the day of the flood, and you look at the age people were living, they were living over 900 years, and you do the population, you know, growth chart. You could get a good idea of how many people were on earth at the time of the flood. I don't have the exact numbers right now, but it's in the millions. How many were saved? Eight. Are we really going to say that before the foundation of the world, God elected eight people to be saved, and the rest, he predestined to go the milli the millions and millions and others, he predestined to go to the lake of fire.
SPEAKER_01:I mean, do you think that is a an adequate or proper picture of who God is that we get from the Bible? Well, okay. I'm talking about a lot of other things related to this question, but it does it just does not seem correct.
SPEAKER_02:Sure, there was only eight people on the ark, but why were only eight people on the ark? Because only eight people responded to God's revelation favorably and by believing. It wasn't like God said, Well, I decreed that you eight people would be saved, and the rest I just had already decided before the foundation of the world to send all these people to hell. Why why does it say in chap Roman and Genesis 6 that God was grieved? Why would He be grieved if He had chosen those people to go to hell forever? Does that even make sense? Why are you grieving over what you chose to do? You chose to send millions of people to hell and only save a if if Calvinism is true. See, it just doesn't make sense.
SPEAKER_01:Um I mean, was the Spirit striving? It says they were.
SPEAKER_02:He was striving against men's appetites for sin. Well, I guess the spirit didn't strive enough or he wasn't powerful enough to stop it, right? No, that's silly. That's a silly idea. Absolutely ridiculous. So, no, that that idea doesn't make sense. But the the rebuttal to this type of thing when they say, well, many doesn't mean all. I'm gonna show you later in Romans 5 that many and all are used as synonyms. It was a Jewish idiom for everyone. When Jesus says at the last Passover that he's gonna die for the many, that's a Jewish idiom for everybody. It didn't mean a limited group of the human race. No, it never meant that in Jewish thinking. And when you do Bible study, you have to find out the original intent of the author in that original language. You don't just pick and choose what fits your theology, you know, because that makes you feel better about yourself and you're right. That's irrelevant. It's what did it mean to the author? That's what we're trying to find out. So no, he tasted death sea for everyone. That seems to indicate that all people, without exception, can potentially be saved by the grace of God. A third one, 1 Timothy. Let's turn over there, turn to the left, a couple books.
SPEAKER_01:1 Timothy 2 3, 4, 5, and 6. Actually, I'll talk a little bit about verse 8 as well.
SPEAKER_02:You'll notice here he's talking about, you know, the importance of praying, right? In verse 1, making petitions, thanksgivings on behalf of all men. There's an all men, by the way. You see, all, all, all, all, all. It's the same word used in a few verses. Same word used in verse 8, when it says in all places or every place. Same exact word. So he's urging prayer on behalf of all men, kings, all who are in authority. Why? So we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Savior, who desires who to be saved? All men to be saved, and to come to and all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. Why? For there's one God, one mediator also between God and men. He's the man Christ Jesus, the one who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time, and he says, For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle. Therefore, verse 8, I want the men in, here's the same word, all, translated every, every place or all places to pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension. So 2 Timothy 2, Jesus gave himself, it says, as a ransom for all. They're supposed to pray for all, and people in all places are supposed to lift up holy hands. Okay. All all all. Now the counterview is well, all doesn't mean all, it means all types of men, all kinds of men, as in people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, but not every people in every tribe, tongue, and nation. Just all tongues, tribes, and nations. And you know, the Bible uses that terminology, right? It says when we get to heaven, there's going to be people from all tribes and tongues and nations, right? Sure. So they're using that biblical terminology. Does that terminology mean that God elected these people to be saved from before the foundation of the world? Is that what it means? Or does it mean these are the people who responded favorably to the revelation that they had and believed, you know, and were thereby saved, see? So they read, they use the biblical language, but it's kind of a it's tricky, you know, because you say, Well, yeah, that sounds right. All tongues, tribes, and nations. Um, but it it doesn't seem that that is what all means here. If it does mean that, then guess what?
SPEAKER_01:We should not pray for all people, we should pray for all types of people. And in verse 8, he doesn't want men in all places to lift up holy hands. He wants people in all types of places.
unknown:See?
SPEAKER_02:I mean, if we're going to be consistent, right, with this idea that Christ is ransomed for all types of people, then again, we have to read all the alls in this concept in this context in the same type of way, as just referring to all types of people. Not everybody. Not everybody. No. In other words, what? All doesn't really mean all. This is a way, and they're very clever at it. But this is a way of turning the Bible on its head and making it say exactly the opposite of what it says. Exactly the opposite. So if we are to pray for all men, is that without exception, or is it just some? See? If it's without exception, then God desires all men to be saved without exception.
SPEAKER_01:And see, here's it, let's talk about God's desire. Um does God really desire that all men be saved?
SPEAKER_02:Well, the Calvinists say, well, no, if he desired it, everybody would be saved. This is their idea, because this Greek word, fellow, right? Sometimes translated wish or sometimes will, God's will. Especially they like the word will because, of course, everything that happens, they say it's God's will. Well, then when I sinned, that's got to be God's will too, right? I mean, you see, this type of thinking doesn't work. It's obviously not God's will for me to sin. Is it God's will for you to sin? No. Do you sin? Yes, you do. Is that God's will? I hope you would say no. Because over and over in the Bible, God is telling us not to sin. So it can't be his will for us to sin. So does everything that happens in the world, is everything that happens God's will? No. It's most definitely not. And so in um in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, in, I mean, the Lord's, what we call the Lord's Prayer, John 6, Matthew 6, he says, pray in this way, that thy will be done. There's the Greek word, thy will, fellow, be done on earth as it is in heaven.
SPEAKER_01:Now, why would we need to pray that if his will is always being done? It doesn't make any sense. What we're waiting for is God's will to be done on earth.
SPEAKER_02:Now, it's always done in heaven. Okay? And that's the point. We want heaven, so to speak, to come to earth, so that God's will, which is always done in heaven, is always done on earth. That's what we want. That's what we're praying for. And what Jesus is telling them to pray for is the kingdom, the kingdom to come, because the kingdom will come on earth and Jesus will rule and reign it, right? Then God's will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. But see, it's not now, and so obviously, God's will does not always happen. So, can God desire or will or wish that all men be saved, as this verse says, and yet not all men be saved?
SPEAKER_01:Obviously. Obviously, this is really not that complicated.
SPEAKER_02:It's not. Most people can read this and say, yeah, God desires everybody to be saved.
SPEAKER_01:Without exception. But we're told that's not what it really means. 2 Corinthians 5. 2 Corinthians 5. Here's some of the it's more all.
SPEAKER_02:Having concluded this, that one died for all. Therefore, all died. And he died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but live for him who died and rose again on their behalf. Now, um, let's go through this. Love of Christ controls us, it's the believers, right? Having concluded something. Okay, in other words, why does the love of Christ control us? Because we drew a logical conclusion from the events of the cross. Because on the cross, what's Christ doing? He's he's showing his love for us. So that constrains us. It leads us to love others as he loved us. That's the point.
SPEAKER_01:So one died for all, therefore all died. Now, who did he die for here? Just the elect? Or did he die for all? Without exception. Or is he saying, well, he just died for all believers?
SPEAKER_02:You know, you can see how people get ideas, but Therefore all died. Now wait, now wait a minute. If he died for all, who are those who died all who are the all who died? All is actually used in two separate senses here. It's used first of all for all people without exception.
SPEAKER_01:And it says then, therefore all died. Okay. Well, let me back up. This is this this can be confusing. You died for all. All died in Adam, right? Yes or no? We all died in Adam.
SPEAKER_02:Romans 5. Therefore, uh, therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. Somehow we were seminally in Adam, meaning we derive ultimately from him. If you trace everybody's genome back, we will also all be traced back to Adam. Even Eve will be traced back to Adam because she was taken out of Adam, right? So there is a single source from which every human comes, and that single human is Adam. And when he sins, somehow then we were in him, right? And therefore we sinned in him. Now, that sets up what Christ does on the cross, right? He died for all. Now, is it limited? I mean, did everybody die in Adam, but not at die, Christ didn't die for everybody? Like, that doesn't make sense. It would seem that if Adam, if we all died in Adam, then Christ would die for all who were in Adam. And that's what he's saying, okay? So verse 15, and he died for all. There it is. He died for everyone. So that why? They who live. Now that's different. That's a different group, isn't it? They who live might no longer live for themselves. Who are those who live? Those who have everlasting life. Believers. Believers. See? The covenant says, well, um, all without exception did die in Adam, they agree with that. But he did not die for all without exception. Jesus didn't do that. Because if he'd done that, then everybody'd be saved. Universalism. So they say, well, the all in that case must mean the elect. He only died for those who are the elect. That is those who live. So they limit the all here again. In other words, again, all doesn't really mean all. Because if it did mean all, everybody'd be saved. Okay, this is just games. This is just games. Okay, this one was used at the remonstrance. Everybody knows this one, John 3.16. Let's go there because there's a lot of other verses around John 3.16 that are nice. I'm going to show you next week that both of these while I think that in the end the Arminian position has much more to commend it in terms of the extent of the atonement. I don't think it's a system at work at all. But I'm going to show you that both Calvinism and Arminianism commit the error of reductionism. This error is actually committed a lot, so you're probably familiar with this error. The error of reductionism means you take a complex of facts and you reduce it to simpler terms so that you really don't deal with all the issues. Both of these systems are oversimplifications, is another way of saying. They don't deal with all of the biblical texts and they don't deal with the complexities of the real world. I'm going to show you that obviously from what the Bible teaches, it's much more complicated, and things are involved that are not brought into these five points or whatever. And they make way more sense. So while it is more complicated, it makes more sense with the real world because it's the way things are. And I think you'll resonate with what I talk about next week. But John 3 16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten or unique son, unique one, that whoever or whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life, right? So the Armenian says, well, this means God demonstrated the way he loves every person. And that's what it means. For God so loved, um, it doesn't mean how much he loved. It's not talking about the volume of his love or the quantity, it's talking about the manner in which he loved. In other words, how do we uh how did God love the world? By sending his unique son, by giving him, right? This is how God showed his love for the world. By sending his son as the object of people's faith. You know, you put your faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Now, the counterview from the Calvinists says, well, no, the world can mean all kinds of people. Here we are back to the types of people argument. Not necessarily all people, and so, and it can't mean all, they say, because all within would be saved. And obviously not all people are saved. You've heard that a hundred times. That's what they say. And then they would add to this, they'd say, well, this participle where you say, Whosoever believes, no, it's not really how it should be translated. It should be translated the believing ones. Which that's fine. That really doesn't change anything, honestly. Because still you have to be a believing one to enjoy the salvation that he's talking about. But they would say, well, it should be translated the believing ones, and this is important, they say, because it means that they are the elect and not just anybody. And they say, Well, that's obviously got to be true because no one can believe. Um, you remember, you have to, in Calvinism, you have to be regenerated first before you can have faith. Because they're seeing you as totally depraved, and in their definition, that means unable to believe. You're incapable of believing. And therefore, God has to regenerate you first, make you alive, and then you believe. Now, how many times do you ever read in the Bible that a person has to be born again first and then believe? What would be the point of needing to believe if you're already born again?
SPEAKER_01:Is another way to kind of challenge the point. But how many times does do you read, you must be born again and then believe?
SPEAKER_02:You don't ever read it. You have to you read you have to be born again. In fact, in this chapter, John 3, verse, is it verse 5? True that, true, do you say to you, unless one is born of water in the Spirit. Okay, you can't enter the kingdom of God. We can talk about that. But uh he said in verse 3, truly true, that I say to you, unless one is born again, he can't see the kingdom of God. But the that we all know that. We all agree with that. Yeah, you you you can't go to the kingdom unless you're born again. But how do you get born again? That's the question. You believe. That's what this whole chapter is about. This whole chapter is about Nicodemus was not believing, and therefore he wasn't born again, and he wasn't gonna see the kingdom. It's not complicated, really not, but they've they've complicated for people. So um the rebuttal to this is well, frankly, it just doesn't make sense. I mean, I understand what they're saying. Uh I mean it's verbs and nouns and subjects and predicates. I got it. I understand what you're saying, but it just doesn't make any sense. It's not logical. It's not logical. Jesus didn't, in this chapter, it says Jesus did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
unknown:No.
SPEAKER_02:But wait a minute, in Calvinism, he definitely did come to send the non-elect to hell and just to save the elect. So, how do these verses fit?
SPEAKER_01:Well, they don't fit Calvinism, they just don't fit. There's no way you can make that make any sense.
SPEAKER_02:That's John 3.17, by the way, right after 3.16. For God did not send the Son, so we have the Father sending the Son. He did not send the Son into the world to judge the world. But in fact, he did, if Calvinism is true.
SPEAKER_01:Right? Because they're the non-elect. He came to conform a basis of condemnation for them, to send them to hell. Okay.
SPEAKER_02:But that the world might be saved. Well, if he it's the whole world, then I mean, again, you know, this doesn't make any sense. He came to save the world. Not all the world was saved, but he did come to save the world. People say, well, they'll say, well, then he was unsuccessful. If he came to save the world, but all the world's not saved, then he's unsuccessful. Okay, well, I mean, you're gonna have to deal with the Bible. I mean, if you can't get over all this and you can't figure it all out, and I'm here we are, I guess the Holy Spirit hasn't revealed it to you. That's all I can say. I mean, Matthew 16, remember when Jesus asked Peter, who do you say that I am? And he says, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus says, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who's in heaven. Can God give understanding to certain people and not to others?
SPEAKER_01:Yes. So is it highly possible that Calvinists have not been given this understanding? And all God's people said amen. Now, why? Okay, well that's a that's a much deeper theological um question, isn't it? But the Bible definitely talks about it. The Bible definitely talks about it. It's not comfortable. And that's why people don't want to talk about what the Bible talks about when it talks about it. Especially with the Pharisees, just trace their career in the gospel. I mean, did they have revelation from God? It was staring them in the face. Did they know the Torah? Oh, they memorized it. They knew it word for word. Far better than me. But how had they interpreted it? They had manipulated it, hadn't they? They had manipulated the meaning of the text. Now, when you manipulate the meaning of God's word, God shuts down giving you revelation. I mean, Jesus says it.
SPEAKER_02:If you believe Moses, I mean the Pharisees, oh Moses, Moses, Moses. If you believe Moses, you'd believe me because Moses spoke of me. Isn't that what the Bible said? Isn't that what Jesus said? So did they really believe Moses, even though they memorized Moses? No, they didn't believe Moses for a moment. They believed their interpretations of Moses.
SPEAKER_01:And see, when people start to finagle the Bible into their own little scheme, they don't understand the Bible. Just like the Pharisees did. Because God's saying, Well, you're not you're not listening to me. And I am the authority. And if you don't listen to me, I'm not gonna let you in on all the things that my word has to say. Now, if you'll listen to me, you'll not harden your heart toward me, then I'll give you understanding.
SPEAKER_02:There's a whole parable about this. Remember the parable of the four soils? The guy comes along, he's sowing the seed, he throws some beside the road, it gets trampled down, then he comes, he throws some, he gets on the rock, right? It kind of spurts up, but then it wasn't enough moisture in the soil, so it didn't they didn't go on to fruition. Then he throws some more seed down and it lands among the thorns, and it starts to grow up, but it gets choked out by the thorns. And then the last seed, it fell on good soil, remember? And it says that it grew up and it bore 30, 60, 100 fold. Remember? Soil. It's about four different types of soil and the preparations of the soil. Neither the first one didn't even accept it. It was hard ground, soil, seed didn't even get in the ground, right? That is the picture of some people's hearts. They're so hard, just like the Pharisees, that the word never even penetrates them. Then you've got the second soil and the third, they're very similar, rocky soil, thorny, right? Both of the soils received the seed, and both of them sprouted up, but they never bore fruit, right?
SPEAKER_01:They kind of withered or whatever. But they did receive the seed. So they they are believers, but it never went on to fruition.
SPEAKER_02:They were excited about it for a little while, then they kind of fell away. Both of those. Only the last one was a well-prepared soil, and it received the seed and it grew up and it bore this giant crop, right? Now they're believers too. I'd say there's three believers here. That's very clear. But only one went on to productivity. The big question becomes why? Why? Why? It had to do with heart preparation. The type of soil that the seed landed on is depicting the human heart. Can a person then arrange themselves to receive God's word? This is a very controversial idea that I'm throwing down here because this isn't Arminianism or Calvinism. Okay? This is just Bible. Okay. Can a person arrange themselves so that then when they hear the word of God, they're receptive to it and they receive it and they take it and they run with it? Well, according to the Bible, yes, I can. In fact, in Acts 13, Paul uses a word, tasso, a Greek word, that basically means to arrange yourself towards something in a positive fashion. And it says the Jews, they didn't, but the Gentiles did. And because they had arranged themselves toward this message, they believed. We're going to talk about this more next week when I get into the real world, not the worlds of Calvinism and Arminianism, but the real one. Another passage, John 4.42, just a couple chapters over, or one chapter over, you see something very similar to John 3.16. John 4.42, they were saying to the woman, this is the Samaria, it is no longer because of what you said that we believe. Does world mean the elect?
SPEAKER_01:I mean, is world a synonym for the elect? No. Nowhere. Only in Calvinism. They made that up.
SPEAKER_02:He's not just the same. If it if if if the world here is the elect, well, I mean, that kind of really changes the meaning of world because elect doesn't mean the whole world.
SPEAKER_01:Elect means a subset. So Jesus has made all men savable by his substitutionary death.
SPEAKER_02:This is the important part, right? Um they the Calvinists like to say that if Jesus just made men savable, then his death did not accomplish anything.
SPEAKER_01:It doesn't save anyone. It only has, they would say, the potential to save.
SPEAKER_02:Well, uh, maybe Arminianism is saying that I would not agree with any of these ideas. I would say 100% Christ's atonement accomplished something. The question is, what did it accomplish? It didn't accomplish automatically saving people. It doesn't just automatically save. People have to believe, right? So it's not automatically saving people. What is it doing then? It's satisfying the justice of God. It does that entirely. When Jesus said it is finished on the cross, did he mean that all the elect were saved? Or did he mean that the sin penalty for the whole world had been paid and it was done? That's what he meant. He meant the sins of the world had been paid for. That's why it was dark for three hours on the cross, right? It was during that time that resolution was taking place between the Father and the Son. For the sin penalty of the whole world was being paid. Now, God, at that point, the Father, I mean, He's free now to justify anybody who believes. That's what's happened. That's what happened on the cross. It set the Father free to justify anyone who believes in Christ.
SPEAKER_01:And we've got some more verses there we can look at. Well, John 1 29 is close, so let's look at that one.
SPEAKER_02:John 1 29. Remember what John the Baptist said when he saw him at the Jordan River coming toward him? It says the next day John here saw Jesus coming to him, and he said, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the elect.
SPEAKER_01:That just doesn't quite have the same ring, does it? But we would be told that that is ultimately what it really does mean. From Calvary. But that that's not again, that doesn't have the same ring. The world is not a synonym for elect. Romans 5, 16 to 18.
SPEAKER_02:I'll do this one. Romans 5. I told you there was a passage that uses many and all as synonymous.
SPEAKER_01:Similar to the 2 Corinthians 5, but a little bit different. So we'll finish with this one. Romans 5.
SPEAKER_02:What's considered to be the sh watershed of theology, these last 11 verses or so. 12 through 21. Which we mentioned earlier, verse 12. Therefore, it's just through just as through one man sin entered the world. That one man, everybody hopefully would agree, is Adam. Death entered through sin. So death spread to all men. How many? Would we say that's every person or just all types of people, but not every one of them? See? Obviously it means everybody, because all sins. See, somehow we were in him and we sinned, because seminally the whole human race comes from him. Or until the law, that's till the Mosaic law, sin was in the world, surely enough, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned. So it was not can death, it was not contingent on the Mosaic law. We're saying everything, this death goes back to the very beginning, the first couple, you know, well, the first individual, Adam. So verse 14, nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses before the law, right? Even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come. In other words, the sin we committed in Adam was not in the identical fashion that Adam committed it. That's not hard to understand. Because a lot of people say, Well, why am I being held accountable for Adam's sin? I wasn't there. I didn't eat that fruit. I wouldn't have eaten that fruit. Oh, well, that's where he overstepped. But you were in him, and no, so you no, you did not commit the sin in the same way that Adam did, which was consciously. His wife said, Here, eat some of this is good stuff, eat this. Oh, okay. See what happens. I didn't, you didn't die, so maybe I won't either. And he ate. And then it says, then both of their eyes were open. Why? Well, because they'd sinned. Now they had died. Spiritually, they had died. But um that's what those first three verses are there about 5, 12, 13, and 14. But the free gift, now this is salvation, right? The free gift is not like the transgression. So he wants to make a contrast with the original transgression that Adam committed. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, there's the word many. Now, didn't he just say in verse 12 that all died?
SPEAKER_01:But here he says many. Yeah, they're synonyms. This is not complicated, is it? So the many and all are being used synonymously in this passage.
SPEAKER_02:And the many is not a limited group of people, it's every single person who ever has been or ever will be. So if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Now, if the many died in Adam, wouldn't the many here also refer to everyone? The grace of God being extended to everyone through Christ? Well, I mean, if words mean anything, if we want to change the meaning of the word, then I mean I don't know what you're talking about anymore. You lose me when you do that, right? Verse 16. Now the gift, salvation, is not like that which came through the one who sinned. So it's not like it doesn't happen the way that it happened in Adam. Okay, we were caught up in that because we were in him. But the way that you get in Christ is not the same way.
SPEAKER_01:You actually have to believe to be in Christ.
SPEAKER_02:That's what he's getting at. And that should be clear. He just finished that. Chapter 3 and 4 are all about faith. Faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith, faith. You know, you read in context. We should already know what that is. How do we get in Christ? Okay. For on the one hand, the judgment arose from one transgression, that's Adam's, resulting in condemnation. But on the other hand, the free gift arose from many transgressions, resulting in justification. So there's a difference. One was many, one was only one. Verse 17 for if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through that one, much more. Now look, what does it say right there? Those who what? Those who receive the abundance of grace and receive the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one Jesus Christ.
SPEAKER_01:Now, that's actually the key to the whole passage. Right? Those who receive. Does do the all receive? Do the many receive? No. But some do. And those people are believers, right? Those people are believers. But here you can see the all and the many are synonyms. We all died in Adam. Christ paid the penalty for all. The many died in Adam. Christ died for the many, right? That means everybody. But only those who receive.
SPEAKER_02:See, only those who receive, verse 17, will reign in life through Jesus Christ. So then, Paul says, as though, as through one transgression there resulted condemnation, here we go again to all men, without exception. Even so, through the one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. You say, well, not everybody's justified. Right, he already told us in verse 17 you have to receive it. So let's not be silly here when we read. Don't be silly. Okay? We know what this means. It's available for all, but only some receive it. That's what we know, because that's what it says. But apparently they don't teach reading anymore. They just teach theology and then you read the Bible to fit your theology. No, you don't do that. You learn to read and you read it for all its worth. Okay? And you you read it like a regular thing that you're supposed to be reading and trying to understand. Verse 19, for as though, as through the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners. Here it is, many again, didn't say all, but we know it's all. Because he said that in verse uh 15. So come on. Even so, through the obedience of the one, that's Jesus Christ, the many will be made righteous. But we know the many who are made righteous, even though it's the same word as the many were made sinners, we know it's your only provisional. Because you have to receive it. Verse 17. This is or should be at least obvious. Verse 20. The law came in, time of Moses, so that the transgression would increase, you know, more transgression, so people would realize they're sinners, right? I mean, that's the whole point. But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. See, it only comes through Jesus Christ our Lord, and it only comes to those who receive it. He said that in verse 17. So Paul has been, in my mind, very, very clear. There's similarities between Adam and Christ. There's also differences. That's his point. And all died in Adam, and provision was made for all. But it's not the same because with this one, you've got to believe. You've got to receive.
SPEAKER_01:Is receive a good synonym biblically for believe? Yes or no? Yes. Chapter and verse. Let's go.
SPEAKER_02:John 1, 12, and 13. There it is. As many as received him, he gave the right to be called children of God, even to those who believe in his name. Receive, believe. Very good. Right? This isn't difficult. It's really not. It's when we come with our theology and we say, this has to fit what I was taught in seminary, or this has to teach uh fit the Belgian confession, or this has to fit the Westminster Confession. And you're reading the eyes, you're reading the Bible through the lens of creeds and confessions and theologies that you can't see. You can't see what is there. Because you've already preconceived what it must mean. But that doesn't matter, does it? One of the hardest things we have as people is setting aside our biases. But that's the whole goal of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics or the or how how you interpret literature. If you've been to law school, you you you are involved in hermeneutics all the time. Because it's all about how to interpret. Right? I mean, there's a whole branch of our government that is involved in hermeneutics. It's the judicial branch. Right?
SPEAKER_01:I mean, when they go to court, the Supreme Court meets, are they there to interpret the law? Please say no. No.
SPEAKER_02:It is, it means what it means. You're not supposed to reinterpret it to mean something else. I mean, like, for example, in the 14th Amendment, does anybody find abortion in there? The Supreme Court did.
SPEAKER_01:The Supreme Court found abortion in the 14th Amendment in 1973.
SPEAKER_02:But go read it and see if you can find it. Somehow they read into it or reinterpreted it in the court. And that means legislature legislating or making law from the bench.
SPEAKER_01:And you're not supposed to do that. Laws are made in the legislative branch, right?
SPEAKER_02:Not the judicial branch. But the most powerful branch has become, in in some cases, in many, in many ways, the judicial branch, because they've taken what the legislature has written and they've changed the meaning of it. Do people do that with the Bible?
SPEAKER_01:Absolutely. They do it all the time.
SPEAKER_02:Now, um, the substitute, here's some criticisms. Uh let's skip the let's skip those real quick. I want to do this. From my point of view, Arminianism has several problems, just like Calvinism, but it has more merit, much more merit on the extent of the atonement being unlimited than Calvinism does being limited. Because God did intend to send Jesus to pay the sin penalty for the whole world, every person, in order to satisfy God's justice so that anyone who believes in him is saved. However, uh, it's not true that the atonement restored free will to all people who are naturally depraved. This is the idea of Wesley and some other Arminians that you're born in a state of natural depravity, but that depravity gets erased by what Jesus did on the cross, so that now you have free will and you can cooperate with God in salvation. That is Arminianism. That's classic Arminianism. Salvation is a process by which you as a human, by your free will, are cooperating with God in this lifelong process of salvation. Do you believe that? You may say, well, I believe in free will, but do you do you think of it in terms of the Arminians? No, no, no. You're not thinking that. You're thinking just, you know, well, believe. I can believe the gospel or something like that. That's not what they're talking about. They're talking about this cooperative effort. You plus God working together in salvation, which is a lifelong process. That's Arminianism. That's why I say I don't agree with it. Nor is it true that once a person is saved, they could lose their salvation, which is also Arminianism, right? You would lose it by your failure to continue to cooperate in the salvation effort that you and God are expending along the way. Because, in their view, see, you don't get saved in a moment in time. You are saved through the process. And no, I don't believe that. So I'm not going to say, oh, I'm a Calvinist or I'm an Arminian. Because I don't, while I may agree with parts of what they are saying here and there, overall the systems are defunct. They're over 400 years ago that people came up with this stuff. They put it in creeds and then they got it in their charters of their churches, and it's trickled down to our own day. And that's why the pastors are afraid to leave these creeds and confessions, right? Because they're a part of a hierarchical church, and if they get out of step with that, they may lose their job.
SPEAKER_01:In a nutshell, that's What's going on? We're an independent Bible church. Teach the Bible.
SPEAKER_02:Ultimately, then, neither Arminianism nor Calvinism are true. After over 400 years of discussion and debate, these positions are highly evolved, rationalistic systems that block people from knowing the truth that is derived from reading the Bible in a normal, straightforward manner. Neither of those two views actually fits reality. That's why I'm gonna, next week I'm gonna take some time. And I worked something up this week. So since everyone is all talking about all flowers, you know, tulip and lotus and whatnot, I guess I'll just take the leaves. Because, you know, you can't get flowers without leaves, because leaves take the sunlight and used with the nutrients from the soil, they're able to do photosynthesis. And only then will it actually blossom into a beautiful flower. So I'll take the leaves and I'll talk about and I'll explain what I mean by these terms. Limited depravity. Be careful. I had to, you know, some of these are a little e, but I was trying to use an acronym. So limited depravity, I'll talk about what that looks like. Elect status. Election's definitely in the Bible, but I want to talk about what I think it really means. Available atonement. That one's pretty obvious. You can see it's available for everyone, right? Veritable grace, which is another way of saying true grace. We'll talk about what grace really looks like and how it's uh sent out to all people. And eternal security. There's your leaves, right? I think I got it. Yep, leaves.
SPEAKER_01:Um this one I think is you'll you will resonate with you. It's it's you're gonna say, Well, I've experienced this. Yeah, you know why? Because it's true. That's why. You know, our experience doesn't tell us what's true, right?
SPEAKER_02:It doesn't tell us what's true. We can have false experiences and things like that. But the it when our experience aligns with the truth that's objectively understood from the reading of the text in a normal manner, it gives us that sense of, oh, this is really ring rings of truth. Yeah, that does describe what my life is like. And you know, we have lots of illustrations in the Bible, it's not just it's not, it's a lot narrative, right? Stories. Well, why does the Bible have so many stories?
SPEAKER_01:Because our lives will line up with these stories. That's why.
SPEAKER_02:Um and then it has objective or abstract theology, and that has to fit the illustrations in the Bible. It also has to fit our reality. All of this has to work together. Do we worship a God who is really sovereign over this real world that we and we really live in it and we really have real choices to make? Well, yes. Yes. But what what way of thinking about these five points actually fits that real world? Which one does our experience actually align with? That's all I want to ask. And so we'll we'll talk about it next week. And this is what I really like to do. This is gonna be fun. This is gonna be a blast.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube, UnderSpook and Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app. And until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.