Bunyan Conference Houston 2008: Session 4B

Unconditional Election. Unconditional Election. Salvation is not earned.

Amen. No question about it. Again, if you're reformed here this evening, is that what

Unconditional Election is? Not even close. Not even close. Again, I don't know how you could...

The only way you could do this, and assuming honesty on the part of the individual, is all you've read has been what the other side says, rather than reading

Scroll, reading some of the historical works. There's just...

That's the only way you can do this. Unconditional Election is not about earning salvation. Unconditional Election is the assertion that God elects, and I guess he's already defined elect as believers, rather than anything having to do with the choice of God, but that God elects those who are going to be saved from eternity, and he does so without anything in the creature being the determining factor.

When God chooses to save his elect people, he does not go, Well, here's a person who's going to believe in me, so I will choose him.

Here's a person who's more righteous than other people, so I'm going to choose him. Here's a person who's taller than other people.

I like tall people in heaven, and so I'll choose this person. No, there is no... We could all be in trouble.

There is no condition, because God's grace is free.

It is Unconditional Election. It is not the idea that God, in essence, is responding to our actions.

Instead, the election is absolutely free and totally based upon his good pleasure, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 1.

If you want the final answer as to why one and not another, it's to the praise of his glorious grace.

In the final analysis, it is going to be to the praise of his glorious grace.

Not because I was smarter, not because I had more sensitivity, not because I had more spiritual insight.

I always ask the Arminian, if you think that you're the one who chose. God didn't choose you, you chose, and then he chose you because you chose him.

It gets rather complex after a while, but that you're the one who made that decision. Then let me ask you, when you're staying in heaven someday, aren't you going to be able to turn around and look at those who are in hell, who are screaming their hatred of God and saying,

God did 99 % of it, but you know, I'm the one who figured out the gospel. I'm the one that was more sensitive.

I'm the one that was willing to have faith. If it's you, if it's of your choice, then you're going to be able to say that.

I don't believe anyone's going to be able to boast in anything staying before the throne except one five -letter word of grace.

Unconditional election is not that salvation is not earned. And so at this point, to be perfectly honest with you,

I could turn this off. Because if you've missed it here, if you've misdefined total depravity, you've misdefined unconditional election, you're not even dealing with the real issues, it's only going to get worse from there.

You can't, you can't do, it's not possible for you to do anything more than continue to erect a straw man at this point.

But there are some verses that are brought up that it's worth taking a look at. So we'll read verse 289.

For by grace you are saved, not of yourselves, not of works, so that no man can boast. It is a free gift of God.

Now, all of us slaughter some verses when we are quoting them in texts, in sermons.

But that was a particularly bad slaughtering of Ephesians 2 because the whole point got missed.

What was missing in that? By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves is a gift of God.

And the word that there is the Neuter Demonstrative Toutat, which is wrapping up everything that came before it, including the salvation, the grace, and the faith.

It is not of yourselves. And so the text is actually rather militating against this position, but the way it sort of ended up getting quoted.

It's sort of like how many times people misquote Matthew 23 -37. And they keep dropping a certain phrase out of it that sort of changes their interpretation.

And it seems to happen with Ephesians 2 as well. Now this point has some tension in it. It has some tension.

This is a difficult, very difficult theological point. Tension. I learned to hate the word tension in seminary.

Because when you went to Fuller, tension was the buzzword for contradiction. Now that's not how he's using it, but sort of.

Tension can become sort of the chicken's way out, let's be honest with ourselves.

Well there's tension here. What does that mean? Well that means we're going to take one of two positions, but we don't want to really defend our taking one of two positions.

So we'll say there's tension, and we'll appeal to mystery. And just sort of hope no one really challenges us to be consistent on this point.

That's eventually what ends up happening. There's tension here. We'll find out there really isn't.

It's really, that's when the Bible runs over my tradition. As I get tense, when the

Bible runs over my tradition. The question though, is does everyone have a chance to respond to Christ?

That blank there is for you to fill in, yes or no. Does everyone have a chance to respond to Christ?

If somebody is unable to respond to God, then God's going to move in that arena, and He's going to bring it to pass.

It's going to be total God sovereignty. If somebody is unwilling, then they have a chance to respond to Christ, and their response is important.

Well, not exactly. Again, we see the problem once you've mystified all your terms before that, is it gets farther and farther away from a meaningful discussion.

But I remember Paul's lengthy discussion about chances to respond to Christ. That's found in 4th

Hesitation, Chapter 3. In case you're wondering, and sadly for some folks,

I need to clarify that. There is no 4th Hesitation, Chapter 3, and there is no discussion in the

New Testament about chances. I mean, the very idea of using the term chance, oh, it grates on my nerves to hear it.

Does everyone have the chance? If you had a meaningful doctrine of depravity, you'd start from the right perspective there.

And that is, would God truly be merciful to reprobate sinners?

Would God be merciful to the objects of His wrath? You see, when you start putting it, does everybody get a chance?

You cannot help but have this idea of these wonderful, innocent, neutral human beings.

They're not despicable rebels against God who've taken all of His gifts and spat in His face.

Oh, no. They're wonderful people, see, and they need a chance.

And you mean Calvinists say they don't get a chance. You see, if you start this conversation with an unbiblical view of God, you have no concept of the holiness of God.

You've never considered Isaiah 6, and you've never spent time just silently contemplating the angels that surround the throne.

And all they say is, harosh, harosh, harosh, holy, holy, holy.

Then it's real easy to talk about chances. Because then you're not going to have a biblical doctrine of sin.

You're not going to recognize the righteousness of God in bringing

His wrath to bear. You're going to really struggle with the Old Testament stories about the wiping out of the Canaanites, as most modern evangelicals do.

Because they don't see the wrath of God, they don't believe in the wrath of God, they don't accept the wrath of God exists. And that God is righteous and just to bring punishment to bear upon sinners.

And so you're going to bring every possibly wrong presupposition to this subject, to the grace of God.

And the result is an absolute mess. The issue is not, does everyone have a chance?

It's sort of like, you know, R .C. Sproul likes to do things that jar people. But I really appreciate what he said on this particular subject.

And that was, he made mention of the fact that all the time you hear people say, what are you going to do with Christ?

May I suggest to you, a far more relevant question is, what is Christ going to do with you?

And that's the difference between the weak, offenseless Jesus, who stands at the door of the painting, knocking on the novelist's door.

Based upon a text in Revelation, it's about the church. But knocking on the novelist's door and the very same book of Revelation's presentation of the powerful, glorious King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Because you see, when it comes to the main thing he has done to bring himself glory, we want to say we control that, not you.

You can try and try and try, but ultimately whether you succeed or fail as Savior will be up to us.

You see, this is all focused on man. Where is God in this? Where is

God's purposes? Where is the glory of the gospel? I don't see it. And that's why it's important.

Is it something that, from the very foundations, this person did not have a chance?

Calvin put it like this in his book, in Calvin's Institutes, book three, chapter two.

John Calvin, if you're listening, God, not all men are created with similar destinies. But eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.

And he said that. And that is a true statement. But once again, may

I suggest to you that the error that is being expressed here is the very same error that causes people to stumble when they read

Romans chapter nine. And they see that text, Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.

And they look at it and they go, that's not fair. That's not fair. Esau never had a chance.

Esau never had a chance. Is that not what people think? Maybe you're sitting here this evening going, yeah, that bugs me.

Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. Esau never had a chance. May I suggest to you that what is absolutely dumbfound about that text in Romans nine is not

Esau I hated. It's Jacob I loved. Why?

Because if you really understand God's holiness and you really understand the sinfulness of man, that is an outstanding statement.

Jacob I loved. There wasn't anything in Jacob to attract that love. This is free.

This is sovereign love. It is unmerited. It is demerited.

That's the amazing part of the statement. The Esau I hated is easy. But you see, from this perspective, no.

Man isn't a vile creature worthy of God's wrath. God's lucky to have me.

And he'd like to have you too. Will you make God lucky today? Is that not what is being said?

Is that not why so many people in the church today, they'll be there only as long as you entertain them and as long as you don't challenge their autonomy and their sinfulness.

As soon as you start preaching the holiness of God and Godly living, they're out the door to the next place that will entertain you.

It's because we don't preach the bad news. And the result is a warped gospel.

So the question is, does everyone have a chance to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Or has it already been said that your grandson, your uncle, your friend, your co -worker, he's going to hell?

That came straight from George Bryce. I can pretty much tell you. I think someone did get hold of the dark side of Calvinism because that was his argumentation in our debate.

This man here is telling you that the person sitting next to you, if they're a loved one, may be damned to hell.

There's nothing you can do about it. And boy, that preacher's nice and emotional, shuts down the mind, ends all interest in the exegesis, text of scripture, and it's real easy.

It works well. And I got up and said, you know, the presentation we were just given tells us that it's up to you to convince your loved one to believe in Jesus Christ.

It's up to you to somehow. This person who's spiritually dead, this person who's an enemy of God, this person who loves their sin, it's somehow up to you to convince that person who loves their sin to abandon their sin.

It's somehow up to you to change it from being a natural person to being a spiritual person, from a

God -hater to a God -lover. And I'm here to tell you, that's what God does, that's not what you can do.

And don't tell me that it's a better message that, well, we just leave it up to the sinner.

Hopelessness, where's the power in that? You mean you'd rather trust your persuasive abilities than the spirit of God bringing the word of God alive?

Oh my. And yet that's what people on emotional appeals will embrace.

Someone needs to go back there and take the battery out of the clock. I'm not halfway through here, and we've only got half an hour left, and that ain't working too good.

It is that man does not have a response to God. I want to give you a couple things to think about.

That means that God is very geographical in his election. There are far more

Christians in Alabama than there are in Yemen. There are far more Christians, European and North American, than there are in the

Middle East. Well, the Europeans would be shocked at that, but leaving that aside. As soon as I heard that statement,

I stopped it and went, Do you have an Old Testament in your Bible?

For how long was there one tiny little people who had any revelation from God, special revelation from God at all?

The only people who had the law of God, the only people who had sacrifices. When Moses gave the sacrifices, he didn't send missionaries down to Egypt and say, you guys join in.

For all those centuries, all those generations, this argument would have been very valid against Judaism and all

God was doing. In creating a people of Israel to create the Messiah to bring him into the world. It really seems to me that many evangelicals are canonically challenged.

They've only got 27 books in their Bible, and only parts of them.

I was amazed at that statement. That is the biggest point of tension, because there's verses to break every box.

You can look at some verses and go, wow, okay, that's over here. There's different verses.

There's verses to break every box. Would anyone here allow that kind of assertion about the

Trinity? We don't really know, because there's verses to break every box. Deity of Christ, we don't really know.

Verses to break every box. Resurrection, we don't really know. Verses to break every box, right? Is that what you do with God's truth?

That teaches the people of God to distrust the sufficiency of the word. That's dangerous.

That's dangerous to the people listening to this. There's ones that are very challenging. It says this in 2

Peter 3. Talking about does everybody have a chance? The Lord is not slow in keeping his promises.

Some count slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Now, if you're waiting for Ephesians 1 to be read, Romans 8 and 9 to be read, the

Golden Chain of Redemption, if you're waiting for 2 Timothy or anything like that, don't bother.

They're not going to be read. All you're going to hear are the classic, and not even a large number, but the classic

Arminian texts. They're never going to be executed. They're just going to be read. And I'm going to be honest with you.

That is what 95 % of Arminian theology is about. You throw the text out there.

You don't worry about the context. You don't worry about the verses that say something else. You just hope that's enough to get you through to a different subject.

Second Peter 3 and 9, 1 Timothy 2, 4, and Matthew 23 and 37, I call the big three. He doesn't do

Matthew 23 and 37. He's about to do 1 Timothy 2, 4. An entire chapter in the

Potter's Freedom. My time is really, really limited, so I'm going to have to pick things up. But with the

Potter's Freedom, I think we still have it out there. If you want to read a much more in -depth exegesis of these texts, please do so.

But the Lord is not slow about His promise, in some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Why do you automatically assume that even though it's addressing a particular people, that all of a sudden changes audience halfway through one sentence?

That's what you have to believe. He is patient toward you, not wishing for any.

Now, naturally, in some other context, we would interpret any to be any of you.

But the Arminian goes, oh, no, no, no, no. I'm not worried about the you part. Forget the you part. I don't even care who this is written to.

I'm not even going to mention that 2 Peter 1, 1 says this is written to the elect of God. I'm not going to mention that at all, because that was going to ruin my use of this text.

In fact, I'm just going to rip it out of this text. I'm not going to tell you that this is actually a discussion about the coming of Christ.

And why the parousia has been delayed. Why is the parousia been delayed? Because God, aren't you glad the parousia has been delayed at least until 2008?

Or until the day of your redemption? Because if it hadn't been, you wouldn't be here and you wouldn't be saved.

God is gathering his elect. He has delayed the parousia to fulfill his purposes in gathering all of his elect together, because he is not willing for any of them to perish, but for all of them to come to repentance.

But you won't hear even the acknowledgment on these people's part of that reading of the text.

They will not even allow for it. They just automatically read it in one way.

They place it in a context which is going to give you that understanding and move on.

And they never do it in the deity of Christ. They never do it in the resurrection, but they do it on this. That's the problem.

1 Timothy 2 verse 4, we went over it last week.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. There is a tension in this.

There is a tension in this. I really don't understand that. 1 Timothy 2 verse 4 is addressing all sorts of people.

We have been told to pray for all men, especially those of authority. So you have classes of people.

I don't believe what the apostle was saying is go get the Ephesian phone book,

Timothy, and start with the alphas and end with the omegas. He is saying pray for all men, including those of authority.

Why would he have to say that? Because it was those of authority who were persecuting the Christians. So the all men is all kinds of men.

And so he says that God is one who desires all men, Jews, Gentiles, including even

Timothy, the people who are persecuting you. And we see in Romans some of them did come to faith in Christ. Some of those in Caesar's household.

All men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator, also between God and men, the man

Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all the testimony given at the proper time.

He didn't go to verse 6. But I would like to go to verse 6 to point something out to you. When people go there, they say, see,

Jesus is a ransom for all. Every single individual. Not Jews, Gentiles, not all kinds of people, despite the fact that all through 1

Timothy 2, all is referring to kinds of people. We're going to ignore that. We're not going to put it in its context. But what's the result of this?

If you say Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all, then you must say that Jesus is the mediator between God and all men for whom he gives himself.

Well, what does the mediator do? What does the book of Hebrews say? Because he ever lives to make intercession, what is he able to do?

He is able to save to the uttermost. And so you have to either come up with the idea, as universalists do, that because Jesus dies for all men, he intercedes for all men.

Therefore, all men are going to be saved, whether the spirit of God ever brings them to repentance or not. That's what universalists teach.

Or you're going to have to engage in real sophistry and be grossly inconsistent. And say that even though Jesus gives himself for all men, he doesn't intercede for all men.

Which would be a violation of his role as the high priest. Because once the high priest gave his sacrifice, he had to take the blood into the

Holy of Holies and present it before God. He presented it for the same audience. The same audience of the sacrifice is the same audience as the mediation.

Or you're just going to have to realize that your entire doctrine of atonement makes no sense at all. And recognize that if Jesus Christ gives himself for every single individual, then he intercedes for every single individual.

And if every single individual isn't saved, it is either because there is dissension in the Godhead and the

Father chooses not to save the people the Son intercedes for. Or the triune God cannot save those whom the triune

God desires to save. And sadly that becomes the position many end up taking. Have a consistent theology.

Jesus Christ saves the uttermost those who draw nigh unto God by him. He stands in the presence of the

Father in our place. And secures perfect salvation.

The choices are not between Calvinism and Arminianism. It's between Calvinism and Universalism. Arminianism is a self -contradictory mess.

That can never defend itself. Someone get that clock up for me.

Chapter 2 verse 23. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge.

And you with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him on the cross. Did you hear that verse?

This man was put to death set by God's foreknowledge and purpose. But you put him to death by nailing him on the cross.

You're the ones that are responsible. Though it was God's planning from the very beginning. So there is a tension.

Biblical doctrines have tensions. That's not tension. That's called compatibilism.

Joseph and his brother in Genesis chapter 50. What you intend for evil God intended for good.

Assyrian Isaiah chapter 10. They have one intention. God bringing them down upon Israel. He has another completely different intention.

He has a perfectly just and holy intention. Man has a sinful intention. Jesus piloting the

Jews in Acts chapter 4. They all had different reasons for what they were doing. But their certainty of doing it was a part of God's sovereignty.

That's called compatibilism. But it doesn't mean there's a tension. What it means is

God accomplishes his sovereign decree through the use of means.

It doesn't mean the means can end God's purpose. God purposed for Jesus to die at the exact moment in the exact way that he did.

And the idea that pilot or Roman soldier or Jewish leader could have completely disrupted that purpose of God's plan is to me absurd.

It's barely theistic. And yet, that is the position that is forced upon people when they don't allow all of God's word to speak.

Jesus is 100 % man. Jesus is 100 % God. If you take

Jesus as 100 % man only, then Jesus is just a great guy. If you take Jesus as 100 % God only, then you're a

Gnostic. You only believe in just the spiritual aspect. Faith without works is dead.

There's a tension. The Trinity. Explain that one.

There's a tension. We just need to see a copy of the

Forgotten Trinity. We're just going to go after that. Romans tells us that there's faith to believe are used 60 times in the book of Romans.

Whosoever appears 110 times in the New Testament. Well, isn't that...

I cannot help but be reminded how many times I've had people that are not even close to pale of orthodoxy.

Victor Paul Weirwold in his book, Jesus Christ is not God, argued that since Jesus is called the son of man where he's called the son of God, that means he's not

God. What does that mean? What does whosoever mean? What's the context?

I believe whosoever will may come. Who's going to will? And if the text like John 3, 16, which you're about to look at, it's not even in the

Greek text as we will see in just a moment. He's going to bring it up and I got it. I ain't going to get anywhere near here.

L is limited atonement. Limited atonement. Remember the word atonement means

Christ paying the price for our sins. He atoned. He paid for our sins. Is Christ's provision limited?

Excuse me. Is Christ's debt limited in its provision or its application?

Now hang with me. I'm speaking to smart people. You're smart now. Hang on. Take a look. Is Christ's debt limited in provision or application?

Now, I'm sorry, but I don't think I could have stood being in that room that day.

And again, with all due respect to the man, maybe he just knows his people better than I do.

But talk about talking down to somebody. Talk about it.

I just said a big word. That word has three syllables in it. So y 'all stick with me now.

I mean, it sounds like a continuing Aggie joke. I don't. It was amazing to me.

So listen to this. Besides that, again, this isn't the issue. No one is saying the provision is limited.

No one is saying that Jesus's death only provides a certain amount of forgiveness. The issue is what was the intention of the triune

God in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary? What did

God intend to do there? Did he intend to save every single human being?

Did he intend to place upon Jesus the sins of those that he, in his foreknowledge, knew would spend eternity in hell, suffering for the same sins?

Did he make his son suffer for sins that he never intended to see forgiven?

Is that what he intended to do? Or was it the intention of the triune

God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that the elect people of God, chosen without any condition fulfilled in themselves, chosen solely according to the grace of God, that those people's sins, they would be united with him in his death, his burial and resurrection.

So if the rack of God is completely fulfilled on their sins in Jesus Christ, so that the

Spirit of God can come at the appointed time, bring that individual to spiritual life, and they themselves then can experience justification and adoption into the family of God and eventually glorification.

All to the glory of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Was that the intention of God? That's the question, and it's never even asked.

And if this is all I had, and it's not a lot to judge on, I don't get the feeling that this gentleman even knows that that's an issue.

Has never had it presented to him, and I hold those who have been his mentors, his teachers, and his seminary professors, or whatever else it might be, responsible for that.

That doesn't remove the responsibility from him, but I hold them responsible for that.

Because that is the issue, and that's not something that is unknown. That's not something that's new or recent, hidden away, secret.

It's been known for a long time. Here's what happens. Unconditional election.

The logical outgrowth of that is limited atonement. If only these certain people have an opportunity, these are the only people that have the opportunity to come to Christ.

The only people that are ever going to go to heaven that have this opportunity to go to heaven. Then we've got to come and we've got to have a construct with the cross.

And so limited atonement is that Jesus Christ died only for those who will believe in him.

Called the elect. He died only for this sliver of the pie. He didn't die for the world.

He died for this section. The atonement, you see it, is limited to the people that will be believers.

It's limited to that. Now that is more logical than it is biblical. There's not biblical references to find that.

There are no biblical references to find that. The sad thing is,

I think he really does believe that. And that once again proves he has never bothered to even take the time to expose himself to even semi -meaningfully form greater.

Because the doctrine of the atonement, and I sort of have a feeling that Pastor Brad is chomping to come up here and take over at this point.

Because from some of the comments that he made in the sermon. The doctrine of the atonement is so rich and so consistent with the intention of God.

And the provision of perfect redemption for the elect of God. So full and so glorifying to God.

That to even hear it placed in these man -centered terms. People who have an opportunity to come to Jesus.

No, people who from eternity are the objects of God's grace. Who in God's sovereignty, the spirit of God comes at the time that God ordains.

And he powerfully raises them to spiritual life. It's called regeneration.

And it's a biblical concept. Not the opportunity to come to Christ. My.

And to hear, there's just nothing in the Bible about this. I'm starting to preach.

I'm sorry. I need to get at least some of these verses. What? What time do you start throwing things at me?

Okay. Okay. All right. Please feel free. If you've got to.

You've got to go. I fully understand that. Some of you have babysitters and things like that. That's fully understandable.

I will not be offended. But you want me to press on the end of this. All right. I'm going. Here we go.

I'll be quick. This is what it says. Hebrews chapter two, verse nine.

But we see Jesus who was made lower than the angels, not crowned with glory and honor, because he suffered death.

So that by the grace of God, he may taste death for everyone.

Now. Thus, by the grace of God, he might taste death.

Who pair on toss in behalf of his translation says everyone.

It says all all who it amazes me that people could just throw a text.

And I understand sometimes in a burp in it, in a message, you throw out text and you don't execute every single one of them.

I wish these folks would try to execute one of them in a sermon at some point. This is so consistent for their perspective to just throw things out.

Look at what Hebrews chapter two says. What does this mean? Let's read some of the rest of it. Hebrews chapter 2 verse 10 says,

For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Who? Many sons? I thought this was every person on the planet. Instead, the author all of a sudden starts talking about many sons, through whom are all things, he's the creator of all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Sounds to me like we have a problem here. For both he who sanctifies and whom?

Those who are sanctified. And if you read the book of Hebrews, that's the very same phraseology used in chapter 10, saying that those who are sanctified are perfected by the one work of Christ.

Are all people, is every man on earth perfected? Every woman and child who's ever lived?

Was Pharaoh perfected by the sacrifice of Christ? I don't think so, that's certainly not the teaching of Hebrews.

And those who are sanctified are all for one father, for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying,

I will tell of your name to my brothers, in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise. It sounds like he's talking about a very specific people here.

He's not talking about every single person on the earth, including pagans and so on and so forth. Verse 12, keep going, you can do it, here we go, there we go,

I keep hitting the wrong button at that point, because I'm talking too fast. Verse 13, and again, I will put my trust in him, and again, behold,

I and the children, God has given me. Who does God give to the son, but the elect themselves?

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

So has the devil's power been made powerless in the life of every single human being on the planet?

I don't think so. And might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Who does he free from slavery? Just let the text speak for itself.

It normally does so with a whole lot of power and courage. John 3 .16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

Ah, well, John 3 .16 is always a good one just to throw out there. Isn't that the final argument? But what does it say?

He only quoted a part of it. For thus, in this fashion, God loved the world so that, it says, he gave his only begotten son.

Why stop there? Because it's the rest of the verse that contains the particularity that these individuals don't want to see.

In order that, pas ha piscuum, everyone believing in him might not perish but have eternal life.

How many times? Some of us remember a Southern Baptist. A well -known

Southern Baptist who passed away not too long ago. Who loved to say, so that whosoever believes.

We also like the word world. Right? Well, I'm not sure if pronouncing it stronger somehow changes the meaning of the original language.

I didn't get that exegetical teaching in seminary. I know it says, so that whosoever believing.

Whosoever who believes. But what does that mean? Don't we want to know what

John wrote that is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God? What it meant in his context? In order that, pas ha piscuum, everyone believing.

The promise of John 3 is that there is never going to be anyone who has true faith in Jesus Christ who will not receive eternal life.

But it says nothing about who's going to do that. That is not the point of the text.

That is not the realm of the text. And when the Gospel of John gives us clear and extensive revelation on that subject in John 6, why do we ignore it?

Because it's our tradition to do so. And that's not a good thing.

2 Peter chapter 2 verse 1 But there are false prophets, false prophets among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you.

They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Sovereign Lord, who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Know extra Jesus. Read the text. Throw it out. Emphasize the part you want people to read something into.

And consider that proclamation of the Word of God. What about 2 Peter 2 verse 1?

Notice he says, who bought them. Can anyone recognize this translation?

I forgot to look it up to see which one it was. Because at least it used Sovereign Lord. It didn't say the

Lord who bought them because the assumption is that the Lord who bought them is Jesus and that the bought is the price of redemption.

Just a quick couple of points here. 1. Always derive satirological truths, truths about salvation from satirological passages.

This isn't one of them. 2. Lord is despotes, which means it's a sovereign title.

That's why his translation said Sovereign Lord. This is not podios, the satirological title used of Lord Jesus.

What does that term mean? Is that relevant? I think that it is if we look at these other points.

And it takes 5 seconds. I've got to start timing these better. 3. Is this the

Father or the Son being referred to here? Can it be proven? The only reason you call 2

Peter 2 .1 is if you can absolutely prove that this is the Son not the

Father. But can you prove that? The term bought, agrazo, has no purchase price mentioned in 2

Peter 2 .1, which would be the only time that happens in the New Testament if this is a satirological reference.

In other words, every single time that the term agrazo, to purchase, to redeem, appears in the

New Testament in reference to the work of Christ on the cross, the price is mentioned, normally redeemed through his blood.

This would be the one place that would be the exception to that rule if, in fact, this is a satirological reference to the sacrifice of Christ.

The passage says, the master did not potentially purchase these men, but that he did, in fact, purchase these men.

Sovereignty, not redemption. Look at Deuteronomy 32 verses 5 -6, just write it down, we don't have time this evening.

Look at Deuteronomy 32, 5 -6 for a parallel usage of this to be found in the

Old Testament. Finally, do I extend the atonement from Hebrews where it discusses it in Hebrews 9, 10, 7, etc.,

etc., not from 2 Peter's reference to false teachers. In this we see these verses talking about that God sent

Christ to die for the world, not just a sliver of the pie, but the entire world.

Well, I love Revelation chapter 5, don't you? Where in heaven we have the song that is sung there and there, when it's all said and done, the praise and honor given to Jesus Christ because by His blood

He has purchased for God what? Men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

Their's world. But you see the wonderful thing is, He actually purchased them and caused them to be a kingdom of priests unto

God. He didn't spill His blood in vain trying to do so in vain. That's where you go to find the information on atonement.

Here's my question. All of us limit the atonement at some point.

If you don't limit the atonement at some point, then you're a universalist. That means you think, everybody's going to heaven.

You're a human being, you're going to heaven. It's not on the cross, everybody's going to heaven. It doesn't matter what you think about anything, it's just everybody's going to heaven.

We limit the atonement at some level. Here's where we are as a church, where I am as a pastor, where we've been for decades.

The atonement is limited in its application, not in its provision.

That's right. I was right in the middle of a really great point about the atonement and Mel Gibson in Roman Catholicism once, some poor guy right there, his phone went off, and I said, hey, that's

Mel right now. And this is all I could do. I just... I don't even remember what the point he was making.

No. Application. Okay, there is an element of truth here. We've got to admit the element of truth.

We agree. But the question is, was it God's intention in causing

Christ to substitute for the person who will never be saved, for that person to experience double jeopardy in their sin?

That is, Christ suffers their sin. He suffers the full penalty of the wrath of God, but for eternity they're going to also suffer for the same sins.

That becomes the question. He says, well, our church is on the issue of application. Well, what this does is it makes

Christ's sacrifice an issue of, well, basically, everybody has full forgiveness, but it's a matter of applying it, you see.

It's application. And that's up to you whether it's going to be applied. That's in essence what he's saying. But when you ignore the intention question at the beginning, and you ignore the biblical references that teach that those for whom

Christ died are perfected by that work, it is this kind of theology that leaves him wide open to Roman Catholicism's teachings on the nature of the mass.

I can't develop that tonight, but if you want to see how that works, see the debates I've done on the subject of the mass with Roman Catholic apologists.

This man could not argue as I argue against the Roman Catholic mass. Can't do it because it doesn't have a sufficient document to tell me.

Christ died for the world, but those who apply Christ's death in their heart will be saved.

Could someone show me where the Bible talks about anyone applying Christ's death in their heart?

I mean, seriously. Is there anything that's even remotely like that?

In all of Scripture, in all of the apostolic proclamation, where do you find anything even remotely like applying

Christ's death in your heart? I don't know. I can't...

First equestrians. See, obviously it's after 9 o 'clock and the crowd's starting to get ruined.

There's a parallel on second opinion. The limitation is in the application. Where does that come from?

Old Testament. Exodus chapter 12. It talks about the Passover.

In verses 3 and 4, it says, take a lamb. Slay the lamb. If you don't have a lamb, use your neighbor's.

Y 'all can share one. Now, the slaying of the lamb, one to none. Now then, it says, in verse 12, take the blood and apply it to the doorpost of your house.

So the Passover happened because of the application. The provision was there.

If you don't even have a lamb, you can share with your neighbor. But the application is what changed it.

And so if Jesus Christ is our Passover lamb, it comes from the application of the blood of the lamb to the doorpost door.

And evidently, that's something we do. And again, that must have been the argument of the writer of the

Hebrews, right? Why didn't he use that argumentation? Why does he use the sacrifice on the

Day of Atonement as his illustration of Christ's work? Because you see, when the high priest offers that sacrifice, for whom was the sacrifice made?

Was it for the whole world? Could the Egyptian army come rolling up to the tabernacle of the temple and decide they want in on this?

Were the Babylonians redeemed by the offering each day on Yom Kippur? No. There was a particular audience for whom that sacrifice was made.

And it wasn't the matter of, well, the provision's there, but it's your application.

Really what you're hearing here is the difference between a man -centered theology and a God -centered theology.

And it impacts the way you understand what the Gospel says. This is a little bit of semantics.

We've done T, we've done U, we've done L, now to I. Irresistible grace.

This gets to be a word for it. Is it forced? Is it made willing? Or is it invited to respond?

Forced. I'm reminded of Norman Geisler's constant accusation that Reformed theology involves divine rape.

He's going to read a quotation about basically Jesus being a gentleman.

And I know that certain people don't like this application, but I remember so clearly one time talking to someone on the radio about this.

First of all, this is not what irresistible grace is. Irresistible grace simply means that there is a point in time where God, in His sovereignty, determines that He is going to raise one of His elect people to spiritual life, and the

Spirit of God comes, and the Spirit of God brings spiritual life. And dead men cannot stop the

Spirit of God in accomplishing His purposes. That's what irresistible grace is. That's regeneration.

It's something God does. It's a divine act. It's divine work. And the only reason anyone will ever stand before the throne of God is because He can do it really well.

And we should be very thankful for it. And I really do believe that many of the people spouting this stuff today will someday stand before the grace of God and be so thankful for irresistible grace.

They'll be a little embarrassed that they didn't understand it, and they spoke against it, but they're going to be there, and they're going to be awful thankful for irresistible grace.

But I was on the radio with a lady, and I was giving her an illustration. She was so adamant that man has the final decision.

I said, man, let me ask you a question. In John chapter 11, Jesus comes to the tomb of Lazarus, and it is very clear, it's purposeful, that He has specifically delayed so that Lazarus would be in the tomb for four days when

He gets there. And He comes, and He stands outside, and the Jews are gathering around.

He's already said to the sisters, He's the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in Him will never die.

They shall have eternal life. And He calls out, and He says, Lazarus come forth.

Let me ask you a question, man. This is on the radio. She's calling in. I said, ma 'am, could

Lazarus have said, no, thank you. You don't know what it's like to live with those sisters.

Stand here. She said, yep. He sure could.

That's a consistent free will. The very

Son of God could fail in His commands, fail to do what is glorifying to Him, all because man's will says no.

That's what's amazing to me when they try to find ways around this, and they go, well, you know, in Acts 7, you're always resisting the

Holy Spirit. See, no irresistible grace. Yeah, I'm certain that what

Stephen was saying there was that God, by His Spirit, was seeking to bring about spiritual resurrection of these individuals, and they successfully resisted it.

Not exactly the context. But some people, quite honestly, and I could name some names here, but I'll skip it for now, really get close,

I think, to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The reason being, they love to use language that is just mockery of God's sovereign ability to bring people to spiritual life, not dependent upon their actions.

And they'll talk about divine reign, they'll talk about rewiring our brains, and yet, what is one of the most glorious illustrations, biblically, of this truth, is it not the text from the

Old Testament that says He has taken out a heart of stone, and He has put in a heart of flesh.

What true believer could ever mock that sovereign action? When God blows

His breath across that valley of the dry bones, those bones have no right to tell

Him to go away. Those bones have no ability to resist that sovereign move.

Why would the redeemed want to rob God of His glory? I don't understand.

John chapter 6 is where these verses come from. 37 and verse 44 are the most popular verses for the irresistible grace thought.

But when you read 37 through 47, you'll see that it's God calling man responding, God calling man responding,

God calling man responding. There's a tension. I think it would probably be good to finish up with John 6.

What do you think? I've got more to do, but it'll take me five or six, but that'll be about the right time. Because if I keep going like this,

I may say something that I don't want on YouTube. So...

God calling man responding, God calling man responding. Tension. Let's live in the middle.

Where is this tension? Jesus is talking to men that most evangelical churches would make deacons within one month of the time they showed up at the door.

Because they're seeking Jesus. I mean, already they've done more than most people in most churches today.

They rode across the lake to hear Jesus speak. We can't people get up on Sunday morning to go to Sunday school.

And so they're searching after Jesus. They are seeking Jesus. And Jesus says to them, but I said to you that you have seen me and yet you are unbelievers.

You are not believing. These are people who the day before wanted to make him king.

They sat for hours listening to a sermon. And Jesus says, you are unbelievers.

Why are they unbelievers? Jesus says all that the Father gives me will come to me and the one who comes to me

I will certainly not cast out. Now everybody likes the end of that verse.

Oh, isn't it wonderful? The one who comes to me I will never cast out.

Oh, that's so precious. What a precious promise from God. And they're right, it is.

But who are you to take half of a sentence and isolate it from the first half?

Because the only reason that we have true certainty that the one who is coming to Christ will never be cast out is because of the theology of the first half of the sentence.

All that the Father gives me will come to me. The action of the giving of the

Father to the Son precedes and determines who comes to Christ.

It is not God looking down the corridors of time to see who will believe in Him and then giving them the

Son. The reason we come to the Son is because the Father in His sovereign majesty and love to glorify

Himself according to the kind intention of His will to the praise of His glorious grace gives a specific people to the

Son and all of those will come to Him. That's why at the end of this sermon these men turn around and they walk away and Jesus does not stop them.

But He says to the disciples will you also go away? And what's

Peter's response? To whom shall we turn for only you have the words to each other.

Why will He never cast out one who comes to Him? By the way, I haven't seen the call respond, call respond thing.

Maybe we'll find a little later on, but why will He not cast Him out? For I have come down from Heaven not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me.

The Son is doing the Father's will and here's one of those texts where amazingly God pulls aside the veil of eternity and allows us to see the relationship between the

Father and the Son. Here is the Father's will for the Son. This is the will of Him who sent me that of all that He has given me

I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. Here He uses a neuter of all that He has given me.

He doesn't use the masculine which would normally be used to people. He uses the neuter to gather together the entire group as a single whole.

And of all that He has given me, what is the Father's will for the

Son? That He lose nothing. Nothing but raise it up on the last day.

The Father's will for the Son is that He be a perfect Savior.

That He never fail. What is absolutely necessary for Christ to fulfill the will of the

Father? He must have the power and capacity to save perfectly.

And can Greg Mott say he has that ability apart from my cooperation? Yes or no?

Not from what he said in that sermon. Not from what he said in that sermon. Has anyone ever spoken that firmly to him about it?

I doubt it. Why will none ever be cast out?

Because the Father's will for the Son is that all that He has given Him, He lose nothing.

Raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father that everyone who beholds the

Son, present tense, ongoing, coming is also present tense and ongoing, everyone coming to Him, everyone who beholds the

Son, everyone who believes in Him, will have eternal life. As John 3 said, everyone who is looking to Christ, has true saving faith, will have eternal life.

He will fail to save none of them. And I myself will raise Him up on the last day.

I will be a perfect Savior. I have the capacity to raise Him up on the last day.

Well, this causes the Jews to be concerned. They start grumbling, who does this man think he is?

And so we go on, and we'll be done with this in just a moment. Verse 41, 44, I'm sorry.

He says, stop grumbling amongst yourselves, in verse 43. No one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

No one has the ability, u dunatai, no one can come to me unless something else happens.

Unless there is the supernatural drawing of the Father. And I know, immediately, what people do, who take the perspective we've been reviewing this evening, is oh, well isn't it wonderful,

God draws everyone. That doesn't explain why these people should stop grumbling. That doesn't explain why these people are unbelievers.

And it doesn't say that he draws everyone. Oh, it does over in John 12. Stay in John 6 for a moment.

They needed to understand what this said. If the only way you could figure that out is to go to John 12, then they couldn't have understood what

Jesus was saying. That's called eisegesis. Besides that, that's not what John 12 actually teaches. But you have a major problem if you want to say that the

Father draws all men. Because it says, unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

It's the same him. There is no way you can insert into the text some major difference between the word him in the text.

It's not there. And so if you take that perspective that everyone's drawn, guess what?

You now just became a universalist because everyone's going to get raised up on the last day too. And that's having eternal life.

What is the nature of this drawing? Verse 45 says, it is written to prophets, they shall all be taught of God.

Literally they shall be disciples. They shall learn from God. There is a revelation that takes place.

There is an opening of our eyes to the glory of Jesus Christ that takes place in this drawing to him.

Everyone who has heard, everyone who has been taught, learned from the Father comes to me.

The Father through the Spirit reveals to us our sin, the wrath of God, and the perfection of Jesus Christ as Savior and draws our hearts out unto him.

And that work of the Spirit of God is so perfect that none who are thus regenerated, none who are thus made sensible to their sin and shown the revelation of Jesus Christ ever fail but to have saving faith in him.

All to the glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in John chapter 6 about God's call, man's response,

God's call, man's response. Even John 6 .40, if you just allow it to stay in the context, has nothing to do with that kind of presentation.

Now there is more, but I preached too much and to be honest with you, we pretty much covered everything that needs to be said about this presentation.

Now please, don't take this and go tomorrow running down the street to Houston's First Baptist Church and nail it on Greg Mott's door, okay?

I mean, if I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to him about these things, I'd love the opportunity to do so, but he's probably never even heard of it.

But hopefully what you have heard this evening is that these things cannot be relegated to some secondary importance.

It results in truth rot. It results in our lacking confidence in the revelation of God, its clarity, its perspicuity, its ability to tell us what

God is up to in this world. The results are manifest for the way that we preach the gospel.

Let me just mention this. If your heart is grieved when you see the church turned into a place of entertainment, a place where you have to try to trick people to come through the door with a dog and pony show, you are seeing the result of that theology.

If you can't trust the spirit of God to apply the gospel of Christ to the hearts of his elect people and bring them to salvation, you're going to have to start reaching around for something else.

And that's what we see today. Theology matters.

God is not glorified when we edit his gospel. God is not glorified when we show that we really don't trust him to save his people.

These things are important. May God give us the proper spirit, yes, a zeal for his truth, but one that is based on maturity and love to share his truths with others.