13. Open Air Theology Conference Q&A Panel

All right, should we get started here gentlemen Well, welcome to the question and answers

Session, excuse me You know a lot of these guys up here that preach thought they have the hardest job

I actually have the hardest job trying to keep scholars and theologians from talking Hours on end on a subject in a question.

So we're gonna try to wrangle this We're gonna try to keep it moving along try to get through all of these Hopefully quickly obviously we'll give time where time is due, but we have

What do we have here? there 14 questions, so let's see if we can get through them and Some of them we might just Whoever wants to kind of pop in maybe others will be directed towards others.

So thank you gentlemen for doing this. So question number one How do the theological differences of Calvinism and Arminianism affect their approaches to evangelism and missions?

Do the beliefs? Lead to different strategies, I'm gonna throw that one out there for anyone who wants to bite on the first one the beliefs

Lead to different strategies when it comes to evangelism for Calvinism and Arminianism Yes Primarily I think in the sovereignty of God and we think about evangelism

As we are going out and sharing our faith and we're sharing the gospel of Christ The Calvinist recognizes that God is sovereign in salvation.

So our responsibility is not to produce converts or persuade

To the point where it's in our own power to do so or trusting in the sovereign work of the Spirit through the gospel to say whereas And Arminian is is feeling

I would think a much greater burden to try to get you know a response So, yeah,

I think the sovereignty of God is huge in that Anyone else want to follow that up heard of Kevin, dr.

White I Mentioned as I spoke our work up in Salt Lake City out at the

Mesa Easter pageant and How much opposition we got from non reformed?

Evangelicals for doing that you're bothering these people. This is a special event. They have blah blah blah blah and I do

Honestly believe no, I I think I think the better Synergists, let's go

Arminian is a very specific thing And I think if we stick with synergist, we're a little bit closer to a broader description

I think the better synergists Borrow some of our

Theology to make their outreach work. Why are why would you pray? Before you go out witnessing to people if God's already doing the best he can

You know, he's already done everything you possibly can do. So Why would you why would you be praying that God would open hearts like Lydia's or something along those lines or?

Pray that that we would be used that we would be Particularly sensitive to the spirits leading and things like that And of course their response would be well if you think everything's decreed that nothing matters

Anyways, and I just go just read the rest of the Bible. It's it's right there in front of you We are used as the means by which these things will take place.

And so I do think that as reformed people we have a

Foundation to resist some of the silliness that comes down the road as far as evangelistic methodology

And I think all of us have been in situations where you know by the 32nd stanza of just as I am

You were getting ready to be converted again But sadly as Most of us

I think recognize we've seen the results of that in the number of people who made

Emotional commitments and then, you know three weeks later three years later, whatever.

They're they're nowhere to be found You know that that can happen to anybody but the the methodology that produces it

I Think we have a better foundation to deal with them. Yeah, that's good.

All right this next one may be for Jeffrey or Jeremiah or maybe even

Claude since they have such beautiful beards is the Calvinistic community Unfriendly to the unbearded non -white or female

Why do we all look so similar and does it indicate we could or should be more welcoming or kind to others who don't look?

Like us. Hey, hey, I have a perfectly short beard. I Just want to say

I didn't even know I could grow a beard until I started studying reform theology There's something to that I can't explain it the aroma of grace just allows it to grow, you know

But do any of you just throw it out there Do you any of you think there is an issue with that because there it might

I'm not sure the writer of this joke Was a writer of this question was making it a joke Well, but but there are similarities within certain tribal, you know,

I mean you can become tribal a little bit and we have Doctor do you does the seminary have a facial hair policy?

So, I don't have a beard because I'm reformed I got one because I don't have a chin And for the person who wrote that question,

I think it's for most of us up here that's why we have a beard All right, he said he's got one because he's got two chins

But there's mean people in in every branch, right I mean I speak against the

Calvinist who are angry and mean and I speak against the Armenian who are the synergist who is angry and mean and if you really want to see mean people get into the premillennial dispensational face group

Groups and you and you disagree on Patriot a mid trip and all this other stuff you you'll get kicked out the kingdom

Are You about to bring up Bigfoot with the beard or somehow So this next question here,

I Will say this that as somebody who has a very humble beard and I don't drink alcohol.

I don't smoke I don't have any tattoos my perception of the reformed male community was they smoke they drink they have tattoos they have big beards and Getting with these guys has actually broken me of that because I'm like, yeah some of them

But not all of them and not the best of them, you know Now hold on That's Good that's good

And honestly, I think that's a kind of a cliche too because if you go to any conferences or hang out in churches and believe

Me I've got 750 people in my church and it's a lot of women and children and families and not everyone has beards and those things so yeah

What's that? Just half the women have beards, you know us

Presbyterians All right

So this one might be a Keith question or I would be interested in Braden's response to this coming out of Mormonism and and Keith Having a podcast called conversations with the

Calvinist and your Calvinist Do you refer to yourself as a Calvinist when in a group of non Calvinist? Or do you avoid using that label because of its common misunderstandings even dr

Waldron might be able to answer to being in ministry so long and seeing terms change as well What do you guys think you use that term?

I do. I have a long list of terms. I like to identify with I'm a covenantal theologist 1689 federalist.

I lay it out and I think terms are helpful because if we can define the terms I think it helps with miss

Representations and so if somebody knows I'm a Calvinist and they see me being respectful and having a good dialogue with them that helps

I think that helps destroy what they've put in their mind as a Strawman or a association fallacy of what they thought and that Calvinist was

I think at first right out of the gate if that like I'm not gonna go around introduced I'm Braden the

Calvinist right? But if that comes up, I'm like Keith does yeah, maybe maybe maybe But I do think it's helpful at trying trying to build that relationship the longer those dialogues go yeah

I have a video on my channel why I call myself a Calvinist It kind of goes along with what he said I said if I caught if somebody says they're a

Christian I have a thousand questions if somebody says they're a Calvinist I have fewer questions. That's all I you know what

I believe about the the doctrine of justification You know what? I believe about the the Bible is

God's Word things like that So it's a simplification, you know, I don't say hey look at that animal with the long face and the big bowling ball eyes

And no, it's a horse because that's the name right? So a name has meaning and it's helpful in certain contexts

But the name of my show Actually came about because there was a pastor in town who had

Found out that I was a Calvinist. I walked into a restaurant he's sitting with a group of people from his church and he says that guy's a

Calvinist and Then he noticed I heard him and he like turned away like he didn't even know me

But that's what he called that guy's a Calvinist and I said, I guess I'm the neighborhood Calvinist And that's where the conversation with a

Calvinist show Was based on that sort of moment where like this is how I'm known in the community.

So it was okay for me That was where that came from awesome let's move along then in 2nd

Thessalonians 2 11 God sends upon them a Deluding influence I think it's delusion so that the so That the people will believe what is false

Why must God do this if the default nature of man is to love sin and suppress truth?

Doctor well, look what it's talking about there is if you don't mind me giving you my giving you my eschatology is the final period of tribulation at the end of the age

Led by a global assault on the church by the man of sin or the man of wall is the lawlessness and that and that Sending of a deluding influence on people is

I think Pardon me for saying it again. What revelation 20 is talking about when it says that Satan is loose

So these are people that did not receive the gospel and who are now being led into the delusion

Following the Antichrist to the final destruction of The world and the coming of Christ and the new heavens and new earth

Anyone else or did he is the real king of our millennialism. I just want y 'all know that Sam Walden everybody

All right, let's move along then Oh, I forgot

I was trying to make I was actually gonna make a serious comment. I'm not sure if we're allowed to do that in this

But I think there's also a principle that that needs to be kept in mind

That's not necessarily just identifying exactly what that text about and doing the eschatology thing I think there is a principle it needs to be kept in mind that God uses means and there are times when for example

Pharaoh God had to harden Pharaoh's heart to accomplish his purposes because there were a bunch of times when

Pharaoh Would have done what God commanded him to do just simply to save his own hide Where there are things where people will were sinners who are in rebellion against God who love their evil

Will do the right thing but for the wrong reasons and so God uses means to bring judgment and think sadly

In our own nation right now if we look around us we can see God using means

To bring incredible judgment upon a people who have been given tremendous light and have decided to spit in God's face when

When the Biden regime whoever is running it certainly not Joe Biden Lit the

White House up in rainbow colors I that's a extended middle finger aimed at heaven and Unfortunately when judgment comes very often even

God's people You know experience the results of that of that judgment. So God can bring judgment.

God is bringing judgment And there are times when people will do the right thing to avoid judgment

But God then hardens their hearts and puts them in that situation And let me just say amen to that and I think there is a larger principle of that is there in 2nd

Thessalonians 2 because the evil influence being sent to dilute people's that then followed by The reference to electing grace and how the

Spirit is sent to teach people the truth. So amen All right, how can

It be God's will that not any should perish 2nd Peter 3 9 but God's will would elect some and not others slash all

So, I think they're having an issue with 2nd Peter 3 9 He wishes none should perish but then would elect some and not all

Well, everybody keeps looking down at me In the potter's freedom

I have a chapter called the big three where I deal with The text in Matthew and I deal with 1st

Timothy 2 and I deal with 2nd Peter 3 9 There is an interesting article on the

OPC website where they had committees draft two different differing understandings of how to understand 2nd

Peter 3 9 and I'd recommend it to people so you could read both sides I I take a particular side on that because I'm reformed

Because I apply the same hermeneutics by which

I defend the deity of Christ and the resurrection with Muslims Mormons whatever

When I apply that same hermeneutics to the subject of salvation, I am forced to be reformed

Okay, and so when I look at 2nd Peter 3 9, I follow the pronouns and the pronouns tell me

What the text is talking about that? It's not some just general broad statement where I have to do

The multiple wills of God issue answer, which is one side in the

OPC argument I understand what's being said there in reference to Well, the only reason that any of us are in the kingdom of God today is because God has delayed the parousia to the bringing in of his elect people and that's however long that's going to take

When that number is filled then God brings the end and that's what I think he's talking about there

It's not some general statement that would in any way be contradictory to Well the entirety of the

Old Testament history Because if you understand 2nd Peter 3 9 that way then you really have to go.

So why wasn't Israel sending? missionaries to all the people around and then the

Amorites and what was that that section in Genesis where the The the iniquity of the

Amorites has not been filled up yet. What's what's all that about? It really makes you go Don't you see the exclusive nature of the of the worship in?

Israel in the ancient world and there were lots and lots of other nations, but there weren't prophets sent to those other nations

But they were they were sent to Israel. So that's that's my take on that one Let me just say that I agree with that interpretation.

I do think it's a particular text and That it's talking about the bringing in of the elect before Christ's second coming.

That's the way I understand the text as well But I will I do have to say that if you go read

John Kelvin on the text He's going to refer it to God's revealed will and the free offer of the gospel

So there's a long -standing dispute about 2nd Peter 3 9 among among reformed people

Kelvin himself, right? I saw you you nodding your head So I think you're familiar with the OPC the minority and majority

Reports on that and I thought they did a good job laying out the two sides on that and that's available at OPC org if you want to look it up Awesome Let's move along.

What is the correct view regarding the Unrepentant who died we touched on this a little bit

Just now in the last question that God has passed over them Leaving them in unrepentant sin or God has hardened their hearts as he did to Pharaoh So, how do we view the unrepentant who died?

Is it is it one of those two categories or is there a third? Yeah, well,

I mean it was just touched on earlier as well When we think about predestination we think about election.

It's God is electing his people unto salvation Predestination is for the elect and so we talked about hardening earlier from Romans 9 just as dr.

White just just referenced He and in Romans 1 in our own nation, we're seeing that God is giving them over to their sin and You know the worst thing to see happen is when

God takes his hands off of you in that sense And so as God again and again Hands people over to their own sin.

He leaves them to their own sins and devices And so I would say it's a it's a both and not either or We concur, okay, we're we're in agreeance.

Okay, this this one's a little different I'd like to hear from some other people in this maybe maybe

Andrew or somebody hasn't spoke yet What was the state of free will prior to the fall?

I'll give you the easy one Andrew Oh Claude Sorry. Yeah, so so I think

I think that for a lot of Christians that have a such a hard time and a challenge making that distinction that identification of free will that question there goes back to The creation we have to go back to the beginning

Adam and Eve were created unlike any other person That has ever been created.

They truly were able to sin or not to sin They chose sin and we know the rest of the story as the scripture says as a script human stop

Oh Yeah, yeah, so so of course with again going back to scripture

Greg's and getting out of my hands I've tried to say it like this so going back to the scripture right sin it was

Pronounced upon all and so from incense Adam and Eve. No one has come into Existence without the sin nature so truly they were able to sin or not to sin.

We don't have That choice when it comes to free will so I guess that the fear an hour -long episode of soteriology 101 that I'll be on The reality is

No, you're you're six hours, you're six hours Hi Layton Uh Why are we even talking about a free will

The scripture is kind of clear. It's an enslaved will There there is a will we kind of put this as two words as if they're now one

You know, what does it mean to be free? We're not free.

We don't have a free will until we're in Christ we have a will and it's bound by sin and if if the effect of Adam and Eve If that curse affected our intellect our emotions and our volition then our will is not free

Which is exactly what Romans says? I? Would like to add just one other thing to that is that God was still sovereign even in that state before the fall everything that they did in that garden was still according to God's plan and his his his decree is what it was and When they fell what took place was prior to the fall

They were in a state where they could have used their gardening ability to please God but immediately after the fall they took that same gardening ability that they had and Displeased him by trying to cover up their own sinfulness with the fig leaves

And so that's what the state now that we are in is we have a lot of the same Actions that we could do but it is never pleasing to God There's a permanent cessation of ability to please

God apart and outside of Christ and that's what Ephesians I would argue is what Ephesians 2 1 through 5 is a teaching about spiritual or the

Being dead in your sins and trespasses. It's saying that we have a permanent cessation of ability to please

God outside of Christ And that's what they fell into Yeah, I'm not adding anything substantial here.

I just wanted to say to the person that asked this question I think the definitive work on this is gonna be gonna be

Thomas Boston's fourfold nature of man If you're looking into what was the nature before the fall after the fall?

What's our nature gonna be like after we're glorified in heaven Thomas Boston's fourfold nature of man's definitely when you need to pick up Yeah, so my understanding would be

Which please correct me if I'm wrong But Christ was plan a him entering into creation becoming flesh

Living the life that we cannot live taking upon himself the punishment that we deserve is plan a

Christ was not a plan B. So although I would agree with everything that they had a free will unlike we have

But I would say that their fall was predetermined because Christ was not plan

B So this one we might have some disagreement on here is the

Calvinistic position that all babies who die go to hell No, that's that's not an official position just answer the question directly

No, you do not have to believe that to be a Calvinist and you don't have to be a Calvinist to believe that or disbelieve in it, so Maybe he should go last

Because I can see he might have a strong opinion on this one So evidently

I don't know about a month ago On a program which will not be mentioned moment an individual made a vile comment about Calvinist parents that Our idea is hey as long as we get in we don't care about the kids the kids can can go to hell they can be

Damned as long as we get ours and and I respond to that maybe I shouldn't have but I Respond to that because it's just it's vile and it's stupid and it should have been immediately challenged for the insanity that it is that resulted in the creation of a fake controversy online, which is really easy to do all you need is a

Hashtag to create a fake controversy and in as a result

We thanks to someone in this room and it's not who you think it is Thanks to someone in this room all everything

I have said in my sermons dividing line debates sermons at other churches back to 1998 is

Fully searchable on our website and that's only within the past year that the gentleman who did all this work came up to me last year at the conference and and and that's how it all started and so it's really easy to Track you want to want to say there see the man in the back waving

Let's not church And and if you go to the transcripts page at a omen org, that's what that's what you're getting is is his work

Which is really helpful to me, but it's also really helpful to people who don't like me however, what happened in this situation was

We started going back through what I've said Consistently for a quarter century and I've said the exact same stinking thing all the way along Which is exactly what the

Westminster Confession of Faith says which is exactly what the London Baptist Confession of Faith says and talks about the issue of elect infants and I I Got a little upset about all this because I'll be honest with you.

This is an issue that should be dealt with pastorally within your own church Turning it into a baseball bat to smack somebody with is vile and childish

I was a hospital chaplain. I Had to stand there when six -month -old babies were dead on a hospital gurney

I take this very seriously. I don't use it as a football in a theological game and so I think whatever you come down to look most people default to the

All babies who die go to heaven that's pretty much what Zwingli said. He said I can't prove it You can't disprove me. Let's just not worry about it type of situation.

Okay, I get that My assertion has always been that God has the exact same freedom to save with infants as he does with adults but it will always be by grace and therefore if scripture doesn't give me anything more than that then

I need to stand right where that is and That's what the confessional position has been and I have always

Enunciated that that position even when I've been on panels like this With folks from like Master's Seminary where that's not the position they take

They take the all infants who die in infancy no matter what Are automatically going to heaven and you simply have to allow

For the discussions that have taken place on this subject Over a lot of years and you have to deal with it.

I think in a mature fashion So in light of what was what all he went into very practically

I have a 15 month old baby boy that I look forward to rocking every night and You know us having the high view of God and God uses means

I trust in the just Judge of all the earth to do right and so I see scripture that talks about how for such

Little children of the kingdom of heaven. I trust God in these hard matters Aren't absolutely clear on But I find comfort knowing that every night

I want to pray for baby JJ's salvation that God would take out his heart of stone and give him a heart of flesh and So I found comfort in these conversations and looking to the high view of God's sovereignty and I am a hospice chaplain so I want to be able to preach the gospel in these situations and Love on them and trust that God will give the increase in these moments

And so maybe the question dr. White didn't come from whatever controversy but out of what

I had said You know, let me just reread what I said about the the counter remonstrance

They're they had eight points of their original one one of them said believers children are to be considered as elect and they if they die in infancy as Saved so I don't know if that's where the question is coming from But I think that I've my position is really clear.

I don't know I don't think scripture says one way or the other I've heard the arguments

David's child things like this That is an idiom a

Jewish idiom that is saying that that David could die, but the child can't come back to life I don't think he's saying that he's going to see the child

I don't think that you could use that because David actually had supernatural knowledge

Got a prophet told him he was gonna lose the child Maybe he also had it that he was gonna see a child if that was in fact what he was saying

But I I don't think there's any arguments or any passages that clearly state children who do go to heaven

I lost a child while in the womb It's not from a pastoral perspective. I don't sit there and say oh your child's going to heaven to make someone feel better But I'm also not gonna say that your child's going to hell because I don't know that But what

I will say is God knows better than us and he is sovereign and I agree wholeheartedly with what dr

White said that God can save through the same means of grace an adult as he can an infant

Yeah, I would echo everything that's been said with with that being I'm so I'm a firefighter

For my full -time work and I run into this all the time and I think the way that we need to Counsel and direct people's eyes to hope is to turn them towards God and his justice and righteousness love mercy all of that and so I I would

Dr. Waldron told me to read the confession when he tells you to read the confession Chapter 10 paragraph 3 in the 1689

It says elect infants dying and infancy infancy are Regenerated and saved by Christ through the

Spirit who works when and where and how he pleases The same is true of every elect person of who is incapable of being outwardly called

By the ministry of the word and so I I would say that I think this is the pro of Calvinism Is that it sets a way that God's Word has revealed?

Everybody is saved beforehand known or loved beforehand loved predestined called

Justified and glorified and that's that's regardless of the ages And so the person that's that that that's saved before they're on their deathbed

It's the same means that I'm saved by and it's the same means if there is elect infant, they are saved by as well

That's good So maybe we'll get in Keith or Michael or Claude on this one is regeneration simultaneous with Spirit indwelling or does indwelling happen with confession?

What order does salvation happen in if I may? Yes, go Jeff. We're not answering this question because that's my sermon

So come back tomorrow Okay, I should have said that about the will of man and I would like to make a loving remind everyone.

I mentioned in my sermon. It's not our thunder to steal That's why he's the preacher's preacher

God will rebuke us all So where does sanctification fit into God's election?

Is it also a gift like faith? Yep Okay, next question expand on that unless well

There's something I think needs to be clarified That's really important. I don't know if any of you saw my debate last

Saturday evening with Trent horn of Catholic answers on purgatory in Houston But as every debate

I've done in purgatory with a Roman Catholic representative has demonstrated We need to really understand the distinction between justification and sanctification

We need to understand how they're intimately related They cannot be separated from one another but they must be distinguished because if they are not distinguished you end up with the sacramental system of Rome and you end up with a relationship to God that is dependent upon your continued faithfulness in Accessing grace through the sacramental system.

And so I think it's appropriate to talk about Positional sanctification and experiential sanctification because the

Bible gives us examples of these types of things but I think it's very very important that we recognize the difference between our justified state the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ is the basis of our peace with God and Then in that situation we will want to experience sanctification in the sense of being conformed to the image of Christ But they are not the same thing and if we make them the same thing

We will end up having nothing to say to Rome in essence I just want to add one thing to get that more clearly

Open air theology. The next conference is going to be on sanctification. It's gonna be called how then shall we live?

So if y 'all want to see that dove into your real deep so you're saying buy tickets now for next year's conference

That's the next one so we're gonna really dive in deep into the whole idea of sanctification

Yeah, I was just gonna add that Philippians 2 12 and 13 is always the text that I go to for this because I think it helps to to illustrate

The way this works so Paul writes therefore my beloved as you have always obeyed

So now not only as in my presence, but much more in my absence Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

So there is absolutely a human responsibility to our sanctification But then verse 13 says for it is

God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure So I think it's good to emphasize just you know, both aspects of that that sanctifying work

Yeah, and this actually before are we good on that question? Did anyone want to add to that because kind of goes into our next question, but a very common

Question that I've gotten to and I know you guys have to how is it fair that a person received judgment if they didn't have a choice

So I just want to start by saying they had many choices

Their whole life rebels against God. The question is who gets ultimate decision -making?

Ultimate and so when we speak about ultimate categories, it's always God. That's why

Romans 9. Who are you? Oh man, it's pointing back to God is the ultimate you don't get to answer back to your creator and say hey

I would have done things ultimately a different way. Guess what? You are not God. And so the point is they did have a choice

It just wasn't ultimate We have to understand that when we are working out our salvation with fear and trembling you make genuine choices according to your heart's desire a

Non -Calvinist would say well, you're you believe your desires bent on evil and we're like, yes, we see that working out in the world

But that's genuine and true It's just not ultimate it's compatible with what

God has eternally chosen There's a debate in the reform community that's been going on for probably a hundred years and it's rearing its head again

Which is does God give a genuine offer of salvation to the unelect? Is the free offer of salvation genuine and Claude covered this

I told him after a sermon I said, I can't believe you came to a Calvinist conference and preached the free offer of salvation because that's a controversial topic

And I think that I've you know, I've already set myself up to get burned later But I think that if you don't believe in the free offer of salvation, you're departing from historical

Christianity. I really believe that There's never been anybody that said yes to God and God said no to them

There's never been anybody that did that genuinely placed faith in God and God said well you weren't elect you go to hell

Anyway, that's never happened So we believe that God genuinely presents the gospel the gospel offer to all people and they reject him

So, I guess I would just ask a series of questions is it fair that the

The angels rebelled against God and God didn't give him a second chance Is it fair that dogs don't have an intellect and ability like we have is it fair that birds can't have a true choice?

Who are we to sit here and say that God owes us anything that we have to say it's not fair from God Yeah, I was just gonna reiterate something

I read earlier which is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession chapter 3 paragraph 1

Says it better than I possibly could so God hath decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will

Freely and unchangeably all things whatsoever comes to pass yet So as thereby is

God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein Nor is violence offered to the will of the creature

Nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but rather established in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things in power and faithfulness and Accomplishing his decree.

So again to reiterate There are decisions being made but The issue is it's it's all taking place within the context of a fallen nature that loves its sin

Right, and it's only a work of God's grace that gives us a new heart that actually desires the things of God and has a genuine love for God Keith did you have something to say a lot of good answers and I Hesitate to even try to add anything, but I do want to get to the heart of the question

The issue is fairness, is it fair and I and I appreciate what you said

Andrew About you know what dogs can't do this and that's true

But I want to take that a step further just for a moment on the issue of fairness Because I understand the heart of the question as You know

If God if God said if God made us and I'm unable to do this then it's not fair that he should that he should judge us that we not and yet we step back and we look at the subject of fairness and Fairness and justice are not the same thing in the sense that it is not fair that I was born in America rather than in the deepest part of the

Congo where I'm fed. Well, I Am you know able to do so many things here?

and I there's a church every 10 feet that I can go and hear some version of the truth and There are some people who live their whole life without ever hearing that truth

And so I think we have to step back and say there is a sense in which if we want to judge this entire experience of our existence by the idea of fairness then there's a

Billion people in the third world who could say it ain't fair that I didn't have Keith Foskey's life If that's how we're looking at this in the sense of fairness

But is it unjust that I was born here? No, it's not unjust

The life's not fair Yeah And I I know I'm the questionnaire

But I would just say my own personal experience as someone who always wanted the answer to a question and thought he deserved it boy when

I read Romans and Paul says the answer is you don't get to ask God why that was a real pride buster for me

It put me in my place and a lot of people don't like that answer because it is a pride buster They still want an answer and Paul's going.

Sorry. You don't get one You don't get to look at God and ask that question. So this is my two cents. Okay, we only have a couple left

Let's move right along if man does not have the capacity to choose God Why are there so many commands in the

Bible to believe and to choose this day whom you will serve? I Think dr.

Waldron wants this one. I heard it. I heard a deep sigh Fuller who agreed with Jonathan Edwards that we must distinguish between man's natural ability and his moral ability

Man does have natural ability if that's what you want to call capacity to to believe

He believes all sorts of things. He loves all sorts of things. He just refuses to believe the gospel and love

God But he does not have the moral ability to do so His moral ability is described in the

Bible as cannot come to me that he might have life So there's an important distinction that we ought to make as Calvinist between natural and moral ability and I think the confession of faith makes it to Anyone got a follow -up on that I would just say to you there's a great chapter

Refuting Dave Hunt and debating Calvinism with dr. James White Because he got hung up on this a few of the chapters in that book

So go buy that book and and there's some good answers in there On why those verses are there and how we respond to those?

Okay, we have two left Does the common statement faith is experimental?

Indicate God allows us to think we found him in place of an irresistible call of election

Experiential instead of experimental Experiment is it experiential

Looks like experiential it could be experimental Yeah, experiential, okay.

Thank you. Yeah, so this is also something that I'm going to be covering But I will say this

Yeah, just give you a spoiler Just to give you a spoiler

Faith is something that we all experience in one way, but not saving faith

It's the faith that it takes to be saved is not something you experience But whenever you do have saving faith

When you recall your conversion you recall it as an experience that that happened in your life.

I Came to Christ and I'll speak more about that tomorrow It's good

All right These last two I think might be aimed towards Jeff and some of the rest of you Is there a biblical basis for belief in Bigfoot?

No Is that the worst hermeneutics you ever

I didn't ask that question No, there wasn't

Is Calvinism enough Jeff We can't skip the Bigfoot question.

No, it's a demon if anything Next year's conference has changed.

I Guess two speakers are out from next year Y 'all

Bigfoot is Yeah, so I would say that Calvinism is not enough.

Okay, right. I would say that Calvinism is a tool in the tool belt I would say that if all you experience is

Calvinism without a foundation. I made this this comment yesterday I had a had my glass of water

And it was on the table when I picked it up and I moved it off the table I said what would happen if I let this glass of water go and they said it would fall and hit the ground

But then I put it back on the table with my hands still on us and now what would happen if I let it It rests on the table, right?

If all you have is Calvinism It's so easy to depart from it. But when you have a foundation such as covenant theology

Calvinism becomes a tool in the tool belt All right with all you have is Calvinism you got a hammer and everything's a nail

But if you have a tool belt, you can build a house Yes, good Any other follow -ups on that I'd say the foundations the

Bible. Yeah. Yeah. I was just glad we can all agree on covenant theology. I Would say that all of us are gonna hold to the sufficiency of Scripture, right so so We interpret scripture and and the truth of God's Word is is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godly living

Are we done? Okay, you still got some more Okay.

All right. I just I didn't want anyone to feel like I'm just I just don't want to deal with this anymore. I Told I told

I told that yeah, the Bigfoot question did me in Seven o 'clock our time this evening.

I'm doing a Marlon Wilson is doing a Interview with me for an hour and a half on the subject of the

Trinity before the Council of Nicaea So I still have a fair amount of work to do this evening.

And so I've got to get back to my my mobile studio And so I want to thank everybody and just didn't want you to feel like I'm just walking out

So, thank you Before you finish that just to reiterate

Listen if all you have is the bus that's the problem with just saying that it's the Bible But it's really how you interpret the

Bible because a lot of because those people who say that they just have Calvinism They have the Bible to a man can have a

Bible under a tree and interpret the way he wants to he's got to interpret It with some kind of historical roots and I would say that my way of interpreting the

Bible would be Baptist covenant theology That is the foundation upon which I read the

Bible Just to kind of add a little bit. So we're talking about the five points of Calvinism tulip

And my sermon I mentioned that this presupposes what? Dr. Wyatt calls stool up the s before to the meaning these five points only make sense in the sovereignty of God Now, you know, there are non

Calvinists that use the word sovereign also and we get into what it what a sovereign team mean right because we got to define our terms and I would say biblically it's not just a

So you have a king that's sovereign over a province or something like that who has a general decree of saying hey

I want you to do this. I don't want you to do that that that human has limited knowledge and limited capabilities

But when sovereignty is applied on on the the creator of the universe who's omnipotent and knows all things

Well, this sovereignty covers everything that comes to pass necessarily and so there you got to have that backdrop in order for Calvinism to continue to make sense and hold together and I agree you have to be able to interpret the scripture consistently in light of those things as well.

Amen Yeah, that was a great answer for a Bigfoot question Wow All right last one

Why won't Jeff it just admit it he's secretly a Christian national theonomist Because I'm not

And here here I thought we could possibly get through a Q &A with Jeff and not mention the word theonomy

What's that Even if I did

I wouldn't tell you There's anyone as we wrap up here. Does anyone want to touch on theonomy?

It's a hot -button issue right now. A lot of people arguing about a Christian national if not theonomy you mean

We'd like to hear you Theos numos

God's law, right so the idea is is is that should

Should our government use God's law as a way to make law and I would say as our confession

It says if you're using it as in general equity but if you're saying that we should implant

Moses into America the Mosaic law into America and cover underneath the Judea value

I would say no but Galatians is clear Galatians chapter 3 that that The Abrahamic Covenant according to the flesh and Mosaic law was only until Christ And it's a someone is willing to debate me on that point.

They had the theonomist has no argument It was only on till Christ.

It was our tutor on till Christ Now should we use the law?

As general equity, I would say yes But I will be weary of who's in the room using the general equity

And I would also add that when you're referring to general equity We're referring to the moral law not the ceremonial civil law.

Would you agree with that? When we talk about general equity theonomy we're talking about applying the moral law of God we wouldn't say we would apply

Things such as sacrifice and things like that. Certainly not the ceremonial law general equity applies to the civil law of Israel So I guess yeah,

I'm sorry Yeah, okay, I would just like to say as a just a disclaimer,

I know this is coming from me I see a lot of guys that say well if you don't believe in theonomy you're serving

Satan That it's either you're serving God or you're serving Satan And the guys like that I just say would you just calm down?

Like just calm down for a minute because I feel like that's not that's not true. That's not a true dichotomy

I've got friends that are theonomist present company Great guys. I'm glad they're here

I want them in our churches and I've got guys that think that theonomy is insanity and I'm like, you know,

I calm down You know because we we don't need to just be so rude with each other If you're getting a theme here

Don't be a jerk Just be nice, how about you know, I know that's the 11th commandment and a

Southern Baptist would say it but Maybe calm down a little bit because we're we're

Christians and Theonomist are Christians and guys that are not sold out on theonomy are Christians And if we you're saying it's a hot hot, what'd you say?

Yeah from Kentucky, we don't use words like that But I'm sorry, it's a real big deal it's a big and yeah

There we go Yeah, and I'd love for us to sort it out, you know the

Puritans went through that too they they used to say that the the government should enforce the second table of the law and the church should enforce the first table and That didn't necessarily work out perfectly for them either and So we're gonna figure this out, but I don't know why

I felt like I needed to add that But maybe we just need to kind of calm down a little bit They shut it off they knew what

I was gonna say, I mean, so I think this goes back to the old question Is it helpful to call yourself a Calvinist?

Right, there's terms that that mean things to us right when somebody typically says I'm a theonomist most the time

It's it's what you were referring to typically, right? And so that's where I mean going around this room.

Are any of us an antinomian? Absolutely, not we all love God's law, right?

you can't be a Christian not love God's law because the law of God's written on your heart and upon your mind as a new covenant member and so We of course love

God's law and it's just it what I think that's where if we're saying theonomist is meaning

I'm going to try to mandate in a very the nation of Israel type of law today for the

United States No, we're I wouldn't be on board with that So since someone was saying, you know asked for definition of theonomy

Let me let me just give a practical thing case it you get challenged with it You know common challenge that I get from theonomists is well you believe in God's law

Don't you and if you say yes, they go. Well, then you're a theonomist Okay, it's a logical fallacy that they're doing there.

It's called a fallacy of equivocation They're using the word theonomy two different ways one as was mentioned for God's law

Two for a theological system that carries the same name So if you get challenged with it just be you you want to be able to point out, okay

Let's look at what you're saying. It's a logical fallacy because the fact that as was mentioned that we love

God's law does not mean that we fit into a theological system known as theonomy

I Would echo that even for Christian nationalism too. It depends on how there were defining things and and and whatnot

Yeah We good on that guys All right. Thank you for Yeah, thank you so much to all the