Why Theology? :: Limited Atonement

What is up guys, my name is KJ and this is Y Theology.

Today we had a very special guest.

His name is Pastor Jeremiah from Jonesburg, Arkansas.

He came on board today to help me discuss the topic of limited atonement.

So when we come back, we'll be dealing with limited atonement.

What is up guys, this is Y Theology.

My name is KJ, short for Khalil Jones, and today I have a very special guest, Mr. Jeremiah, man, can you introduce yourself?

Yes, hello everybody, thanks for tuning in.

My name is Jeremiah Nortier.

I live in Jonesburg, Arkansas.

I love my wife so much, she is my best friend and she is my

lifelong partner.

Her name is Allie Nortier.

We are looking forward to adopt, hopefully one day in the near future.

So anybody listening in can keep us in prayer about that.

And I serve at a new church plant in Jonesburg, Arkansas called 12 -5

Church.

So that actually comes from Romans 12, verse five, where it just articulates that even though we are many in

the body, we are one in Christ.

So that's just a brief introduction of myself, KJ.

I got you, how long have you been married, man?

Or don't tell my wife, it took me this long to think about it, but it's a little bit over five years now.

Okay.

That's good, that's pretty good, man.

I made my wife to marry, it'd be two years this May, so.

Oh, yeah, well, I'll let you know.

Once I figure out all the nuances to marriage, I'll tell you, I'll put you in about everything.

God bless you, man, God bless you.

Now, how did you and your wife meet, man?

So that's a great question.

And I'll tell you a little bit more than maybe she would want me to know, I'm just playing.

But we met at the Baptist Collegiate Ministry.

Wow.

At ASU, and she was supposed to go to a Church of Christ organization,

and to meet a guy, and she accidentally ended up at the BCM, the wrong place, where I met

her, and she never went back to the other place.

That was God's providence.

And he literally brought her to you, huh?

Uh -huh, uh -huh.

Now, how long have you been in ministry?

How did God put you there, or what's the story behind that, man?

Yes, so in college, I was the typical student that could not make up

my mind what I wanted my major to be in.

And so it was around my junior year, I changed my major from business to

computer science and all these things.

And I just found myself wanting to be in ministry to serve at the church, and I didn't know how it

happened, but some godly accounts in my life talked about how communication is always gonna be

vital in that.

So I majored in communication, and I started thinking about the future and how I wanted to go to seminary.

And God was laying on my heart, the Master's Seminary in California, Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville,

and I was just thinking, okay, I wanna go residentially to seminary.

And then in that time, I met my wife, Allie, in college, and I told her, hey, this is kind of my

trajectory, I wanna go to seminary.

And over time, I met a local pastor in Jonesboro, and

he was like, hey, come on staff, we really would like a youth pastor.

And I said, well, I really want to do seminary first, then go into the ministry.

And I loved this man's guidance in my life.

He said, that's great, and we can work that out.

He said, but let us come in and mold you just as through discipleship.

And he encouraged me to go ahead and just pursue the calling that I felt in God's life.

And so I did ministry before seminary, and I was just captivated.

I went through the good, the bad, and the ugly side of ministry, and I kept finding myself that this is exactly

where God has me.

So hopefully seminary will happen one day in the future, but I'm a huge advocate of the church equipping the saints

for these things, not having to simply send them off somewhere, even though I think there's some godly

seminaries, but man, if you can get plugged into a local church, I really do think that's where it's at.

That seems kind of like the biblical model as well.

You know, I think like Paul was telling Timothy, like, you know, he was raised up in the church, kind of like what you just said.

But I know like a lot of churches, you know, it's not made to, I guess, good solid churches nowadays that can, you know, has

resources to do so, so they do send them out.

Yeah.

I think you mentioned earlier about wanting to go to Masses Seminary, so I'm assuming John McArthur, I know this probably, but John McArthur is one of

your greatest influences right now.

Yes, absolutely.

Who else do you kind of like?

Yeah, so there's been multiple figures in my life that I'm so thankful to the Lord for

having just the technology and the means to get really good teaching.

Like I love the name of your podcast, Why Theology?

We gotta understand that theology is just simply studying God.

Everybody has a conviction about who God is, whether He exists or not.

So everybody's a theologian, to put a shameless plug for R .C. Sproul's book,.

Everyone's a theologian.

And so he was another major influence in my life.

So McArthur really drilled in home for me that the scripture is preeminent

and the walk of a Christian, that's the final authority.

Jesus had sanctified them in your truth, your word is truth.

So McArthur really taught that as Christians, we live and breathe the word of God, that's how we have relationship.

And so R .C. Sproul, he not only taught that, but he opened up just a huge door

into church history and just showing me how Christ has been building his church for 2000 years.

And I love that.

I love the rich doctrine and history of the church through R .C.

And then another major figure in my life that God has used is Dr. James White.

He kind of had the best of both worlds in my mind.

He would use the scripture as an apologetic tool.

And he was also well equipped with church history.

And it's like, I got to see those used together to contend for the faith and to give a defense for the hope that

lies within us.

And then I started seeing other guys ministries that were just super influential in my life, like Todd

Friel, his wretched radio ministry and wretched TV.

I fell in love with his heart for sharing the gospel evangelistically.

And he would record those episodes.

And I found myself not only being sanctified, like understanding these truths more and more, but just seeing

how he is fulfilling the great commission.

Like he's actually going out preaching the gospel, making disciples.

And so guys like Todd Friel and Ray Comfort, I got to see a hands -on experience of

sharing the gospel.

So there's a lot more men, but those are probably the ones that come to the forefront of my mind who've just been

super influential in my life.

That's amazing, man.

I know you just mentioned R .C. Sproul.

We're actually gonna be talking about a subject that R .C. Sproul kind of delved into a lot, you know, when he was alive.

And so today's subject at hand is limited atonement.

Now, before we get canceled, I guess let's kind of take a step back before we even define limited atonement.

What do we mean when we say that?

Cause I know this is kind of associated with TULU, but what is TULU kind of, I guess, you want to give us kind of brief history about?

Yes.

So this is where like me and like R .C. Sproul and James Watt have helped me understand that church history is

important when defining terminology.

Now, obviously the scripture, the terms that the scripture uses, that is the one we should be most familiar with,

but we're all bound to use the vernacular of our own context, our own day and time.

And probably one of the best examples of this is the word Trinity.

You know, guys like me and you, men that believe in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we understand

we believe the Trinity and yet we don't see that term.

So church history can tell us how these terms developed.

And no matter what terms we use like limited atonement or the whole acrostic of TULIP and what that

entails, we must say, okay, what does that mean?

And what does the Bible teach?

And the Bible teaches that, well then praise God, right?

We embrace that doctrine, you know what I mean?

So it's guys like James Watt that really made me think, okay, I'm gonna test all things and

hold fast to that which is good.

So really I've heard just people saying, well, that word, that term is not found in the Bible, but we

should look past that and say, well, what does the Bible teach?

And what does that term from church history mean?

So I just wanted to kind of set that up to say that limited atonement falls within that

acrostic for TULIP, right?

Now, a lot of people may be familiar with this, maybe not, but TULIP is an acrostic.

Like it stands for something, right?

And so TULIP are essentially the five points of Calvinism.

And when you say, you know, I've had conversations with people and they're like, Calvin who?

Like there's totally no context at all.

And I totally empathize with that because at one point in time, I was right there where they're at currently.

So what really helps is understanding church history.

And so these five points of Calvinism were written as a defense against the five

articles of the remonstrance.

Now, this is important to understand because the church was pretty well unified on who God is according to the scripture

and who man is according to the scripture.

But you had men like Jacob Arminius and kind of some of his followers that they came up with five

articles to say, well, we disagree with some of these key doctrines that the church has been teaching.

And so TULIP was written as a defense or a response to these five articles of

the remonstrance.

And so something I wanna say real quick, KJ, is that when something is written as a defense,

you don't always have the leisure of presenting something in a clear, positive fashion.

So these five points were written as a defense and if history could re rewrite itself, I

think a lot of advocates for Calvinism would really rewrite this

acrostic with more precise terminology because something like the term limited Tom,

it carries some baggage to it.

You know what I mean?

So, like I said, I think if we understand church history, we understand that TULIP was written as a defense,

it can kind of clear up some of the misconceptions that are attached to it, you know?

And kind of like what you just said too, this acronym kind of is describing how God is sovereign.

And we kind of see throughout the scriptures, you kind of mentioned as well, like Jacob Arminian, or Arminius, if you go back to like

Augustine or some people call him Augustine, you know, he had his disputes with Pelagian,

I think, and kind of like that old, it kind of stemmed it, right?

It's kind of started there in church history.

And that was like early 300s AD, I think.

So it's kind of been going on for a little minute.

The life of them, I guess the great majority of church history, they've always held to like, kind of, you know, these

doctrines in a sense.

I mean, I've been kind of spoken as a TULIP, but they've always kind of held on to God is sovereign, even in the midst of salvation.

So, yeah.

I guess my next question, man, is now that we kind of like, I guess define, you know, TULIP, you know, a T is total depravity,

the U is unconditional election, and that L that we're talking about today is limited atonement.

Now I've done a whole series about this, but I want to kind of focus on this one particular, because a lot of stuff we didn't unpack, but how would you

define, I guess, limited atonement?

Yeah, I think that just very briefly, limited atonement carries some baggage to it, but really what

it's getting at is that Jesus is the perfect savior to all that the father has given

him.

So kind of as another setup, going back to the acrostic TULIP, this was kind of a joke

that James White had said a while back.

He said, but if the acrostic could have been rewritten differently, it would have been STULIP, right beginning with an S,

which would be for the sovereignty of God.

And so everything else in the acrostic would flow from the sovereignty of God.

So that's where church history didn't really have the advantage of rightly qualifying

these five doctrines of grace, because we see God's hand graciously,

mercifully, working out a plan of redemption for a people that do not deserve God's grace, yet

out of his love and compassion, he is regenerating a people to be a

bride for the son, and the Holy Spirit is not only regenerating them, but sealing them to the day of

redemption.

So that's one, the five points of Calvinism are seen as the doctrines of grace.

We really try to help explain people that God is sovereign, he's working out a plan of redemption,

and we are saved by his grace, nothing that we bring to the table by our own human works.

So that's where the U kind of falls, we're really focusing on the U of,

or the L for limited atonement, but that has to be within a context of God's sovereignty.

So I think that kind of helps us get the ball rolling that the L is limited

in its scope, but not necessarily in its effect.

So I actually prefer a different term when we're talking about limited atonement,

particular redemption is probably how I would begin to explain to people what we're actually

talking about, that Jesus is once again, the perfect savior for a particular

group of people that the father has chosen by his grace and his mercy, according to

his decrees, if you will.

And Jesus is the perfect savior to redeem that particular group of people.

His atonement is definite for them, very specific for them.

So not only is particular redemption a good, probably a better phrase, but

also definite atonement.

So do you see how really pulling back the curtains, looking at church history and trying to look at more

passages of scripture, we understand that limited atonement might carry some baggage with it.

Like, oh, is God limited where he can't do something?

It's like, man, we're talking about Jesus being the perfect savior for all that the father has given you.

Now, are there any like verses in the Bible to kind of support the definition?

Yes, so there's a ton of them.

One of the questions that you sent me beforehand, I liked it because it was, did Jesus believe

in limited atonement?

And I started thinking about that and I'm thinking, well, absolutely, yes.

But for just a second, I was thinking, there are a lot of Christians that really put more emphasis

on the red -lettered portions of the Bible, red -letter Christians, maybe people have heard.

You know, they think that there's more, it's more special if Jesus said it rather than the

apostle Paul.

And I know guys like me and you, we see right through that.

But since all scripture is God -breathed, well, we got to look to the whole counsel of God,

all of scripture to build a doctrine, right?

So we see the value in not only the red letters, what Jesus said, but also what the apostle Paul said, what the rest of the Old

Testament said.

So we kind of, we really come to the scripture as a systematic whole on some of these things.

You know what I mean?

So I guess, first of all, if I really, you know, we try to unpack what limited atonement means or

particular redemption, Jesus in John chapter six, he said this in

verses 37 through 40, all that the father gives me will come to me and

whoever comes to me, I will never cast out.

For I've come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose nothing of all that he has given me,

but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my father, that everyone who looks on the son and believes in him

should have eternal life.

And I will raise him up on the last day.

So we see here, Jesus is going to save perfectly to the uttermost all

that the father is giving to him.

So when I'm talking with people and we might get, we might bring up some of the controversial passages, and trying

to understand the atonement, like John 3, 16, 1 John 2, 2.

And I'm saying, look, what Jesus is saying is that it's the father's will, it's the sovereign triune God's

will that is going to be accomplished.

And so it's not that Jesus is not able to save more people or something like that, no, but his

work of atonement is very specific to all that the father has given to

him.

So I think that helps have a right perspective on what we're talking about.

Is it limited atonement for the elect?

Yes, but it's really more of an emphasis about Jesus being the perfect savior.

What do you think?

That's a pretty good definition too.

I know as well, I think it's in John 10, where Jesus says, I lay my life down for my sheep.

And like the illustration that I love kind of using, it's like, imagine like, like a modernized idea,

it's like imagining you was going to your school, like your children's school.

And like, you went into the classroom and you say, hey, I don't know your children's name, but let's say your children's name, like John,

Mary.

So hey, John and Mary, come on, let's go, I'm taking you out.

The other kids in the classroom wouldn't look at you because you're not your parent, but like John and Mary, if you're like their father, they will look at you

because they know your voice.

And they're your children.

Well, in the same way, doing that context back in the day when Jesus says, I know my sheep, my sheep know me.

I lay my life down for my sheep.

If Jesus, like a shepherd, wouldn't go to like the fence or whatever, and he called out his sheep, the rest of the sheep wouldn't move

because they don't know that shepherd.

But the shepherd, you know, I guess a sheep that know that shepherd's voice, they would directly come to him because he's a shepherd of that

flock.

Well, in the same way, like you just said, Christ, he lays his life down for a definite or a particular group of

people, which is like the world.

Yeah, and that's perfect.

Because when he says, my sheep hear my voice, there's an intimate relationship

going on.

So that's like you said in John 10, 27, 28, saying my sheep hear my voice and I know

them and they follow me.

I give them eternal life and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

So like you're saying, he lays his life down for his sheep, a very specific group of people.

And he's the perfect high priest mediator, intercessor for those people.

So that's how we're kind of building this doctrine.

The atonement is a substitution atonement.

Jesus actually paid the penalty of sin on the behalf of a very particular group of

people.

So when we're talking about, you know, what did Jesus specifically said, maybe before we get into what the apostle Paul said or

Isaiah 53, he goes into a high priestly prayer.

A lot of us are familiar with in John 17.

And he says this and we can't miss it because a lot of times people wanna look at the word world, cosmos,

and then instantly assume that it means every single person to ever exist without exception.

And you and I know that we gotta always let context develop our understanding of what the scripture

is teaching us.

And we gotta be familiar with the Greek and the Hebrew words of what words can

mean and what they don't mean.

And context always shows us what that is.

And so to me, it's inescapable of what Jesus is saying in relation to all that the father has given to him

and the contrast of what the world looks like.

So in John 17, Jesus says, I have manifested your name to the

people whom you gave me out of the world.

Yours they were and you gave them to me and have kept your word.

I am praying for them and I am not praying for the world, but for those whom

you have given me for they are yours.

And so once again, you notice how Jesus is not praying for the world, but for those whom the father has given

him out of the world, right?

So once again, he's a perfect mediator.

He's a perfect intercessor.

He's the paraclete or the advocate for the people of God.

You know what I mean?

That's perfect, man.

That's perfect.

Something that I guess is kind of helps us like kind of with this, you know, I guess I don't wanna say you call it an argument, but kind of

like help, I guess, kind of define it even better is like a doctrine, you know, theology known as substitutionary atonement,

that Christ was a substitute for our sin.

And so like, if that is true or since that is true, that means that all my past, present, and future sins

have been wiped away.

And so for those who truly profess in Christ, they won't end up in hell.

But like, if there are people in heaven right now and there are people in hell, then we know there's no way in the world Christ could have died for

every single body.

That's kind of another way you can look at it as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I think you just put your finger on, I guess a hard question for people on the

other side of this issue that hold to a universal atonement.

I think a hard question is that they have to answer is did Jesus die for every sin,

including unbelief?

Well, you know, for those of us that are reformed and believe, I would say, consistently with penal substitutionary atonement, we can

say, yes, he actually died for the sin of unbelief for all the elect.

And if you do not affirm that and deny that, then I think you have trouble

harmonizing passages out of Colossians 2, 13 in particular, and then 1 John 1,

7, that says by the blood of Jesus, he accomplished

salvation for all who believe and he completely forgives all sin.

So you see how that's gonna be, I'll tell you what, I can actually pull up Colossians 2, 13

because it's all inclusive.

And you who were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive

together with him, having forgiven us all of our trespasses.

And so the idea is, well, is it all of them or is it all of them except

our unbelief?

And that's where we would, I think, be consistent and say, yeah, well, Jesus's death even covered the sin of

unbelief for the elect.

So I think that is something that we all gotta wrestle with is is Jesus, his

atonement, is it truly a substitute?

Did it cover all the sin?

If it did, then that's where we understand salvation.

We don't bring any of our works, not even our good decision -making or our wisdom to the table.

Jesus is the one that accomplished all that.

I guess we could look at it because this is probably another issue that might arise out of this kind of what we discussed.

And I guess some Christians may think of, I guess in this sense that yes, indeed,

Christ does have elect, but these are elect are the ones that God looked throughout the quarters of time and see that they would make a

decision.

And Christ, then therefore Christ chose that person.

And now, those are the ones Christ died for.

First, it's kind of been a sovereign election of God.

Yeah, so I do think that is a good point to raise.

And it kind of, once again, we're talking about particular redemption in the

context of God being sovereign.

So I do think before people can really appreciate and understand the depths of

the doctrines of grace, you really got to have that foundation of the sovereign God of the scripture.

And when we talk about Jesus being a perfect savior, I really want to emphasize that that is

exactly what we're talking about.

And so I wanted to shift real quick to the Apostle Paul, if that's okay with that.

Because I wanted to read something out of Romans chapter eight.

I believe it's around, okay.

So verse 34, where we read, Christ Jesus is the one who died.

And more than that, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding

for us.

And so when we see that Jesus is the perfect savior, his substitutionary death

is not only applied to all those who believe, but even his resurrection

is crucial for him being a perfect interceder and savior, because

we also get the benefits of his resurrection.

We too will receive resurrected bodies fit for eternity one day.

And so when Paul says, not only did he die, but more than that, he was

raised, he indeed intercedes for us.

Paul is not talking about a generic us, all of mankind, but at the very

beginning of Romans chapter eight, he says that there is no longer any condemnation for those

who are in Christ Jesus.

So he's talking about Christians there.

The benefit of his substitutionary death and his resurrection life are

for us as believers.

And once again, it goes back to that motif we're talking about, is Jesus is the perfect high priest.

He not only intercedes for us, but he is also the sacrificial,

he's the sacrifice for us.

So he is both the sacrificial lamb and he is the high priest.

That's why he sat down at the right hand of the father.

He offered his life up, which was totally perfect.

And then he wasn't like the old priests, the priests of the Old Testament, where they would have to leave

the temple, get other sacrifices year after year after year.

He gave his life as a perfect sacrifice.

And then he sat down as the perfect high priest on our behalf.

So my big point was his death and his resurrection are perfectly applied for

the elect of God, for those of us that have experienced God's grace.

I think about this too.

I guess, before I say this next topic, we're probably gonna, I'm gonna, I guess, move us, I guess shift our direction a little bit

to something that's very controversial, but before I do that, I just wanna make sure that we're all in agreement, I guess, the acronym

we're dealing with, again, talking about the doctors of grace, which means the number one, God is sovereign, but not only is God sovereign, he's

sovereign in his electing of people to be saved.

So the first letter is T, which means total depravity.

Romans three, no one is good, not even one.

Why is that?

When we look back in the garden, when Adam sinned, he was our federal head.

And so when he sinned, the whole world went into damnation or into sin.

Psalms 51 verse five says, David, he says, I was born a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me.

So the moment that David's mother was pregnant with him, he was already a sinner.

Not because he sinned, but because he was born a sinner.

That's why he sinned.

And that's why the world around us is like in sin or it's like broken.

And so humans right now, they're totally incapable of picking God or choosing God or apart

from his, you know, God's electing grace.

So in that context, that's kind of what we're dealing with.

And so let's pick up a conditional election.

It's not that God picks us based on something that he foresaw in us throughout time.

He, therefore he acts, but rather because of the tea that mankind is totally incapable of doing

good or picking God himself.

He chooses us not because of anything and that's because of his favor.

But here's my question.

We know these things, but like, how do we kind of deal with, if what we're teaching is true, that God is sovereign and

that he, you know, he died for a particular group of people.

Does that mean that God, he has predestined song for salvation and sovereign damnation?

How are you gonna deal with that?

Yeah, well, I'm glad you went back to the S and kind of the joke of Stulip because

everything really does flow from God being sovereign and kind of like what you touched on

with total depravity.

One of the key things for me is inability.

When we read in John 6, 44, no man can come to me unless the father who sent me

draws him, right?

And so the natural man, we cannot choose God.

Like we are not, we don't have the power or the ability.

That's where Paul says that all these things we cannot understand unless the spirit works

within us.

So I liked how you went back to a deeper issue with who man is.

We don't naturally seek God, but in light of that, God is sovereign.

And I do think this, I think this is where the rub really, I think this is where it all goes back

to, is God free to create history?

Literally his story in such a way where he's in control.

He has appointed purposes for every person.

Is he free to choose a people to lavish his grace and his mercy upon?

Or is he also free to have a purpose for unregenerate

man who actually chooses to sin to let them die in their sin so that his

justice and his wrath and his holiness are put on display?

I think we're getting back to a key fundamental question.

Is God free and allowed to be sovereign over his creation?

So within that, I loved your last podcast with Creston because y 'all talked about

God's eternal decrees, right?

Especially the way the 1689 lays it out.

And I've had these conversations with a few different people.

And I think one of the most staggering passages in all of scripture is Isaiah 46, right?

You're probably very familiar, KJ, with where I'm going with this because when I read this for the first time,

I thought, you know what?

It seems like all of creation is unfolding the way that God is declaring the end from the beginning.

Everything has a purpose in God's created order.

So this passage says, remember the former things of old for I am God and there is no other.

I am God and there is none like me declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient

times, things not yet done saying my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my

purpose.

Calling a bird of prey from the East and a man of my counsel from a far country.

I have spoken and I will bring it to pass.

I have purposed and I will do it.

So this is a good passage for us to really grapple with.

I think there's other clear passages in the Bible as well but what we're seeing is that God is the one declaring

all of history and how it's taking place and it has a purpose because God is the one speaking it

into existence.

So when we start thinking about particular redemption, I would say that yes, God in of

himself, I think the way that Ephesians one kind of paints this picture is you have the Trinitarian counsel of

God, God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and they are almost

conversing about what a created world will look like and what will take place, the end

from the beginning.

And I know you referenced in one of your episodes or maybe we talked about it but R .C. Sproul

in Chosen by God did a really good job of painting this picture that the way that God

has determined to intercede with his grace and his mercy, his compassion and love for his

elect is categorically different than how God has ordained the

non -elect or how some theologians have said the reprobate.

He does not intercede in their life the same way.

We wanna avoid a heresy called equal ultimacy.

For the elect, we see that God is demonstrating grace, mercy and love.

And by on the flip side, God is decreeing whatsoever comes to pass

but within that decree, God is not forcing evil men or good men to

act against their nature to make them evil.

God's decree is simply declaring what's going to come about, the end from the beginning.

And so when we see that playing out from a human perspective within space and time,

we see the unregenerate man choosing to do sin according to their

innermost hearts and desire.

So we see a compatibility here.

Yes, God is sovereign.

He has a purpose in all things that happen in his creation.

And yet we see man being accountable for his desires and his

choices.

So does that kind of help paint the picture of how it really does go back to is God sovereign over his creation?

Does the pottery, does the clay have any right to look to the creator and the molder and say, hey,

you can't do something.

Well, the overwhelming testimony of scripture says, no, God is God and we are man.

So we don't have any standing before God to tell him that he can or cannot

do something.

So I really think it's how we also define what free will means.

I believe man is free to choose according to what he wants to do.

We are just not free apart from God being sovereign over his creation.

So do you wanna chime in on any of that?

I felt like I just had a machine gun going on.

Excellent explanation, man.

I wanna kind of unpack this part right here.

I know this is why a lot of people say that, well, they're a three -point Calvinist or a four -point Calvinist.

And usually like the two things they kind of disagree with is irresistible grace.

And then we're talking about right now, the limited atonement.

So if we're speaking in a sense that God is sovereign, according to scriptures that he's the one that chooses

who it is, who will be saved, who it is, who will not be saved.

We know there's a verse in Romans nine that says, no, Paul, he quotes, I think Exodus, how God, he

hardened Pharaoh's heart.

And so you have God saving people and then you have people who God's hardened their heart.

So in a sense, some people, some Christians out there, they would say, are we robots?

If God the author of sin, God is sovereign over our freedom, that means that God is the one

that's allowing the sin to come about.

He's the one that's doing the sin.

And that's why they kind of four -point Calvinist because they don't kind of understand.

But like, let's kind of, I guess talk about that a little bit.

Yeah, so R .C. Sproul had a special name for four -point Calvinist.

He called them Arminians.

And you know what?

I totally empathize with people.

I've been there and it's not that I've arrived, but these things are hard to grapple with.

And hopefully our hearts desire us to be, okay, God, you speak truth into my life.

I love how Proverbs three says, trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding.

Acknowledge him and he'll make your path straight.

So the big point is we can't hang on to our presuppositions, our

traditions, and bring them into the text.

We need to be willing to try to do some introspection, figure out what our biases are, and

try to set them aside and let God's counsel, his word, speak truth into our lives.

When we start there, I think we have a better chance of getting, understanding a lot of these

hard to understand doctrines.

Because when we start talking about the sovereignty of God, that perhaps is the deepest possible thing we could be talking about.

You know what I mean?

So I just want to say, I empathize with people that maybe do not see the harmony of just the five

points of Calvinism.

But once again, I think we got to go to that, which is even more foundational, which is we have to grapple with,

is God truly sovereign over every aspect of life in his created world?

Or is it something different?

Because however one comes down on that issue, you know, I've talked to a Roman Catholic about this point.

You know, does God have omniscience before creation or after his creation?

And I think a lot of people, just a knee jerk reaction would say, yes, well, God would have omniscience

before he created.

And I think there's obviously, you know, very clear scriptures that teach us that.

But if we think about that for a second, that means God has a knowledge in of himself that I think Ephesians

one kind of articulated the Trinitarian counsel.

Well, think about how he chose, you know, any number of worlds that could have come in.

Can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear me okay?

Sorry.

Yeah, you could have.

I had a phone call.

Sorry, it's all good.

But yeah, I think if we really think about kind of this fundamental concept, does

God have knowledge and all comprehensive omniscient knowledge before he creates or

after he creates?

Think about the implications of that because most people say, yes, God is omniscient even before he created the world.

Well, that means he had all sufficient knowledge in of himself.

That means that any number of worlds that he could have created, the triune God chose one

in particular and then chose to speak that in the creation.

So God doesn't learn anything.

Everything is fixed from God's perspective.

And I'm saying that's simply what the reform side of things are saying that God has a decree.

God, you know, between father, son, and Holy Spirit counseled about what was going to

come to pass and they had a will.

That means that they came to a decision and nothing is going to deviate from their

plan that was decreed and planned before the foundation of the world.

So that's where Ephesians 1 .11.

Let me pull it up just so I don't misquote it.

But I think this really gets to the heart of is God free to do what he wants with

his creation?

In him, we have obtained an inheritance having been predestined according to the purpose of

him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

And so I heard another influential man in my life, Steve Lawson, he really pointed out how this makes

order.

Everything kind of stems out of this eternal will of God.

From that will, meaning a decision was made, involved a

counsel.

So you had this counseling of the triune God and they made a decision.

And from that, everything in this created world is flowing and God is

monergistically him alone working all things to a created end.

So that's why predestination is huge within it.

From God's perspective, everything has a purpose.

Nothing is firing around arbitrarily that God doesn't know about or he's learning as we are learning.

But God is truly the omni -king in the sense that he is

omnipotent, he is omniscient and he is omnipresent.

He sees everything, everything has a purpose.

So I really think when we start talking about reprobation and election, we really have to

determine in our hearts is God truly sovereign?

Is he unfolding this plan that was determined even before the foundation of the world?

So that's where scriptures like Revelation 13, eight that says, yes, Jesus Christ,

he is the lamb slain even before the foundation of the world.

God has always had plan A and he's not really trying to go to plan B or C or

man or Satan kind of mess things up.

I don't know, he's accomplishing everything for a particular purpose.

I did, maybe you can have someone out there.

That kind of has that kind of problem.

Where like, if they kind of believe everything you're saying, but they're, I guess the problem is if they do continue to

believe that, then they have to probably kind of balance in human responsibility and then God's sovereignty and

then the sin kind of in the world.

How do we kind of deal with, you know, passages like, you know, I got a Paul Romans nine that God's heart is people's heart.

Does that kind of mean that like, God has forced people to sin or, you know, what does that kind of mean?

So for one, I think that's an excellent question that even throughout church history, people are like, okay, you know, we

get that God is sovereign, but we know he's not the author of sin.

I think that's where the 1689 really helps us understand that question in terms that we can better understand.

So when we get into hardening and we get into, you know, how man is responsible for sin,

I think we need to carry this compatibilistic perspective that God has decreed and

planned everything that comes about in his creation.

No matter what one's theology is, if you believe in a personal creator who's omniscient, everybody has to

grapple with this same issue, right?

So I just want to say that this isn't just unique to Calvinism.

Everybody has to wrestle, well, did God know everything before creation?

If the answer is yes, well, then nothing's going to deviate from how God already knew it and then chose to

create.

So how I better harmonize this is I want to understand that there is a vast

chasm between the creator and the creation.

There's a huge distinction.

God's will and choice is absolute and eternal.

That makes sense to me.

That's what the Bible presents God as having this eternal perspective and he's sovereign.

Man is limited in our scope and our view.

And yes, we have a will, but it's not absolute and eternal like God.

So I want to carry these two paradigms with us when we go to hard to understand passages.

So a lot of times we could say, okay, from whose perspective is things determined or

are things seemingly open for us to make decisions?

I would say from God's perspective, these things are determined.

From our perspective, we are free to choose according to our heart's desire.

So with that in mind, when we look at passages in Romans 9 about hardening, I think

what we got to understand is the creator -creation distinction.

Because I would say from before the foundation of the world, God had decreed that,

we'll take an example like Pharaoh.

He was going to harden his own heart.

That was decreed by God.

So as that's playing out in real time, Pharaoh is the one choosing in

of himself to harden himself against God.

Yet we know both are true.

And we even see God hardening Pharaoh's heart multiple times within time and space

because Pharaoh would have eventually gave in just for the sake of saving his own people.

But we understand Paul's argument goes on to say, but no, no, no, God is going to display his mighty

power and his glory.

So he had a bigger overarching purpose.

So I think we got to carry those perspectives.

God, I believe has even decreed how he's going to come into time and space to

interact with people.

This is really what sets our view of compatibilism apart from what's called deism, where God

kind of winds up the proverbial clock and then he just lets it go.

I would say God has an eternal plan, but even within that eternal plan, he has marked out times where he's

going to intervene.

So that's where R .C. Sproul talks about, God allows us or

allows man in his sin for his own purposes.

And I'm saying that makes a lot of sense how within time and space, you don't see God's effectual

hand coming in, displaying mercy and grace and love and kindness, but he simply

for that allotted time allows them to stay in their sin, stay in their rebellion, and they will

receive a justice that is due.

So we're talking about that hardening.

We always got to carry that Isaiah 46 and Ephesians 1 in mind that God is

truly sovereign and has a purpose, but that doesn't negate man's desire

to continue to harden his own heart.

Yes, God marked that out.

Yes, man really does suppress the truth and unrighteousness and the more truth that he hears and

the Holy Spirit isn't coming in to regenerate their heart, to make them receive it.

Well, yeah, that will become a more and more calloused heart, but I think compatibilism

is the bigger scope of what we must contend for.

That God is sovereign and that man is responsible for the choices that he makes.

So what do you think?

Does that kind of help get down to these issues?

Yeah, that's spot on too.

I know also like in R .C.'s book, he talks about like passive hardening and active hardening.

You can touch on that if you want to.

And then we got another question for you.

Oh, absolutely.

And I love how the 1689 London Baptist Confession talks about how God is the

primary cause and source of all things.

He's the creator of his world.

And I believe it's in Acts 17 that just says we live and move and have our being.

And the point is because God is sovereign and eternal and literally upholds the world.

So we got to have no matter where would you land in theology, right?

Why theology?

You got to realize that God is the primary source and cause of all things, but he

uses secondary causes or secondary means to accomplish those end purposes.

So I think it was Martin Luther.

He said that the devil is God's devil.

It's like he's on a leash and God is simply the one holding the leash and letting Satan do what

Satan wants to do.

So you see that God is primary and he even uses Satan as a secondary means because

wherever we land, we must understand that God tempts no man.

He can't be tempted and he tempts no man.

God is not like Satan that is literally tempting God's people and accusing them

day and night.

God is sovereign over his plan of redemption, but that doesn't mean that he is effectually hands

-on tempting people to sin like the devil does.

So that kind of makes sense of just understanding categories of primary cause

versus secondary cause.

And when we get into the active and passive hardening, I think we got to carry that distinction

of primary causes and secondary causes.

So I think you may have to help me here.

Romans nine says something in a very particular way that makes me think about passive

hardening.

So let's see.

What if God desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power

has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction

in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which is prepared beforehand by glory.

So when you go back and you look at vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, this seems

to be a passive act.

Like God is leaving sinners in their simple state to continue to be

hardened and calloused to the truth.

The more truth they hear is really to their destruction because the more truth they hear, they're becoming more calloused and calloused over

time.

That doesn't negate an eternal decree made before the foundation of the world.

But what we're seeing in actual time and space is God not moving his

hand of mercy and grace, which can't be demanded by any man.

He is simply allowing them to stay in their sin.

So do you see how we have all these working categories that we see from other important places of scripture

coming into play?

Yeah, that kind of helped.

I guess when we understand too, like the passive hardening and active hardening, it kind of helps us even kind of further understand how God

is knocking off their sins.

And you kind of did a great job kind of explaining that kind of the primary and then secondary causes, how you even say Martin Luther, the devil

was God's devil.

So in that, I guess the best example is kind of like the story of Job, how like the

devil wanted to tempt Job and God was like, in a sense, God was behind it, but he allowed it to happen.

He didn't directly touch Job and do those things, but at any moment he could have stopped it, but yet he chose to

allow the devil to do those things.

One the same way, kind of what you just said, I guess like the active hardening in the sense of like, if God will

attempt to people himself to get them to sin, to bring about his purposes.

First is what we see in scripture is more about the passive hardening, how God like, there's sin already in,

for example, Pharaoh's heart, there's sin already in people today, but yet in a sense, I think how R .C. Sproul

explains it is that God hardening someone's heart is simply giving them over to their own desires and their own

desires in a sense kind of hangs them and kind of, it'll kill them in the end.

And so in that story, when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, he just simply gave them over to desire.

He didn't tempt them to sin, but he gave them to one desire.

He kind of like took the restraints off his heart.

I think like right now is, you know, we talked about people being totally depraved and when we say

that, we don't mean that the world is as evil as it can be.

When we say why, that's because like God is, he's kind of restraining evil people from being so evil in a sense.

We have like, you know, polices, we have, you know, parents, you know, some parents, I guess, you know, giving authority in the home.

There's a lot of restriction that God has in the world that if any moment, if God took his hands off, you know, those restrictions, we

will all kill each other in a sense.

But in the same way, when God hardened someone's heart, it's the same thing.

He's like restraining us from like, you know, being as evil as we can be, but at any moment he can, you know, want us to go deeper in sin.

Yeah, I think that's perfect because especially from a human perspective within time and space, we see the heart of

man is evil continually and we are bent that way.

And yet we're not totally given over to those desires.

And it's because of God's restraining hand of grace, even on mankind.

And so when we swing the pendulum back to God's sovereign perspective for the foundation of the world, everything that

is going to take place in this world is already fully known and determined by the

triune God.

And so when I hear people talking about how these things are kind of, you know, too

inscrutable for us to understand, I empathize with that because the Apostle Paul tells us to not go beyond

what is written, but I want us to be students of the word to actually study what God has

actually revealed to us.

I understand there are certain mysterious things that aren't revealed to us, but when we read passages like Isaiah 46,

Ephesians one, and when we look about the early church in Acts chapter four praying to the

sovereign Lord, who everything is being accomplished by his predetermining

plan.

Those are things that we can't just, you know, kind of take the marker and just mark out of our Bible that makes us feel

bad.

We got to understand that God is the creator of all things and that we are simply playing a part

in God's redemptive plan.

And if we've experienced grace and mercy, then we should praise God and understand that literally everything that we are

doing is by God's hand.

Does that make sense?

But also understanding those distinctions of secondary causes.

So like when you mentioned Job, this helps me a lot.

We understand that God allowed Satan to afflict Job, right?

Satan was the secondary cause, but even Satan couldn't just do what he wanted to.

He had to get permission from God.

So he was the means to bring about strengthening, sanctifying Job's faith.

And Job had a really good theology.

He said, it's the Lord that gives and the Lord that takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.

And yet he didn't blame Satan.

He didn't blame, you know, God from, you know, being evil.

And he maintained that healthy balance of God being sovereign in all things.

And then, and I think the only verse that alludes to Job in the New Testament is James 5

.11, which says, you have heard of the steadfastness of Job and you have seen

the end purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

So God had a plan with Job's life.

It was to display mercy and compassion on Job, but look at the means that he

chose to bring that about.

His means was choosing Satan for a task to afflict Job and for Job to

lose everything only to bless him again in the end.

And so that's how God in the Bible works.

He uses the secondary means of sinful man or Satan to bring about his

grand overall purposes.

So only a sovereign God could accomplish that.

Well, at that time, we got like, you know, time for one last question.

We got three minutes.

It's definitely a great day, man.

Having you on here, man.

Within the realm of secondary causes, people are under their centers.

The Bible talks about us being sinners and the Bible speaks of only one way a person can be justified before

God.

Can you kind of like, kind of share the gospel real quick?

You know, I guess, you know, two or three minutes.

The point is because, you know, a lot of people can be puffed up with theology and never know the Lord truly personally.

So I kind of give you a shout out there real quick.

Absolutely.

Like I said, I'm the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through me.

What Jesus has to offer is a relationship to anybody that would repent and believe in

him.

And I love that because what he's saying is you can't rely on yourself, your good words or look to anything else in this creative world.

You have to look to God, the son, who became flesh, was perfectly obedient to the law.

And then he died an atonement for sin, paid the punishment for sin in

every way.

And so when you put your trust in Jesus, the only savior, then his perfection gets

accredited to your account and all of your sin, past, present and future will be

retroactive, put on the cross and totally paid for in full.

And that means that you now have eternal life with Jesus, that you have a relationship with him that not

only starts here and now, but will continue on into eternity.

And that's where we have a huge blessing and opportunity to be plugged into a local church

around other believers to sharpen each other in the word and to lean on each other during the hard times because we were created for

community.

And so that initial point is we got to trust in Jesus.

And so when we do that, we now step into a relationship with him and we also have the opportunity to have relationship with other

Christians.

Perfect man, perfect man.

I definitely thank you so much, man.