Radio Free Geneva: Ephesians 1 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Radio Free Geneva on Ephesians 1 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13

We had started a Radio Free Geneva last week, and we actually didn't end up getting into the primary material that we needed to get into, and that was responding to James McCarthy's sermon on Calvinism.

Let me once again remind you that Radio Free Geneva is, sometimes we have to deal with some really bad argumentation. Sometimes the people responding are just so far out in Loonyville that it's not even funny, and that's not what we're doing here.

James McCarthy would be a brother in the Lord. We have some differences here, and we are responding to what those differences are, and I thought that there was enough unique, so far there hasn't been anything unique, you know, the class election type thing, and in Christ, and so on and so forth.

We're looking at some things that we've looked at before, but especially when we get into some of the specific texts, the approach is unique enough to allow us to think through another perspective, shall we say, and so that's why we are doing the Radio Free Geneva today, and we'll finish off, and it will be, for those of you who are concerned about this, looking at the clock, it will be a jumbo edition, especially because, well, there won't be any dividing lines next week.

Well, of course, there's dividing lines all the time, 24 -7 on the Wayback Machine, but there won't be any, you're not going to shut down the Wayback Machine, are you? No, all the Calvinists are crying out.

Well, no dividing lines next week. How can that be? Yes, indeed. Anyway, so we were listening to Brother McCarthy talking about being in Christ, and he was talking about, you know, why is it that grandparents love their grandchildren?

Because those grandchildren are their children's children, see? And so if you're in Christ, then that's where that's coming from. So let's pick up, and hopefully I haven't turned the volume all the way down, let's pick up with what he was saying at that particular point and continue our examination of his sermon.

The Father's Love, Imputation, and Union with Christ

I know you're a great bunch, but frankly, God doesn't love you strictly for yourself. He loves you because of his son. Didn't the Lord Jesus teach that, that, what did he say, he said that the Father loves you, why?

Because you have loved me. I mean, but God, don't you love just me? He goes, no, I actually don't, you're actually kind of...

I'm trying to figure out where that reference was. The Father has loved you because you have loved me? Is, I'm not, I couldn't find that one. I'd like to know what text is being paraphrased at that point, because that would make the Father's love of us dependent upon something we're doing, and I think something was misstated there, I'm not sure.

Selfish and sinful and lustful, but in your, my son, who saved you, God loves you. And this is the amazing thing, that God, the Father, has chosen us for himself in his son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, think about this theologically, he didn't have to do that.

Could you be saved and not chosen by the Father for himself? Well, theoretically, I guess you could. I mean, if you look at Adam was up here, and then he sinned, and he was way down here, we could just get back up to the garden, and that'd be pretty good.

I mean, you're not going to hell, you're living in paradise, and you're God's creature. I mean, that's not so bad.

I'm not following this at all. I'll have to admit at this point, I've completely lost, there would be no way to restore us to moral neutrality. That wouldn't bring about eternal life. How would that happen?

If our sins are forgiven, you know, this, one of the things that concerns me about this concept is that if you are familiar with the subject of imputation and the discussion of imputation, then you know that it was, wow, has it been, has it been 10 years now?

It's been at least, yeah, it's been 10 years now, that there was a kerfuffle over in Southern California where a, an individual wrote a paper opposing the concept of the imputation of the positive righteousness of Christ, that righteousness which was his having perfectly lived God's law.

The paper was opposed to the concept of the imputation of that righteousness to believers based upon dispensational reasoning. And it created quite a, quite a stir. And then that was picked up by some New Covenant guys who likewise grabbed hold of this and were saying, no, there is not this positive imputation of the, this imputation of the positive righteousness of Christ.

But there is only a, a forgiveness of the sins that have been committed, which takes us back to this moral neutral point. Well, that, I consider that dangerous and I consider that to be very, very problematic.

So I'm not sure if that's what's in the, in the background of what's being said here. I really don't understand exactly what's being said here. We don't want to go back to Adam. We don't want to go back to the garden.

The whole argument of Romans chapter 5 is that the free gift is not like the trespass. For by one man's sin, the many were made sinners. So much so by the righteousness of the one, the many were made righteous.

One is a free gift and it results in life to all those who are in Christ Jesus. So there's a, there, there, there's something even greater that which is given in the second Adam Christ is much greater than what was lost in, um, in the, in the first Adam.

So I, uh, I'm not sure if that's where he was going or not, but we'll see. That's not what's happened.

That's not what happened. We are down here and now we're up here. We have been chosen as sons of God. Christ saved us and now the father has adopted us into his own family and we're going to spend eternity in the presence of God with the Lord Jesus.

He didn't have to do that. He didn't just, okay, you guys, you really caused a lot of trouble. Get back to the garden and stay out of my hair and we'll be okay. Could have done that. I'd be there in the garden going, that was a close one.

I mean, I'm glad to be in the garden, but that is what happened. God the father has chosen us for himself.

See, just on a theoretical basis, I just, I, that's very troubling to me. Maybe because I start with the fact that the Bible presents a God of purpose and I believe that God had the purpose of electing a particular people in Christ Jesus unto salvation from the very start.

That it's not a backup plan. It's not, well, that didn't work out too well. Let's try it this way. Maybe that's what is just causing me to go, no, I just, I just don't even like how this is being stated.

I, I don't know.

How many of you got saved by going to the father for salvation? You can't do it. You can't go directly to the father. You have to go through the son to the father.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, in the sense of the mediator, but never allow that truth to become imbalanced and be separated from the reality that the father is the fountainhead of salvation. Now it is his will, it is his decree that the way into his presence is only through one way.

You know, there's, there's only been one way opened up into the holy place, only one way through the veil and that is the body of Jesus Christ. So you have to be in him. There's no question about that, that, but that is the result of his decree.

That's his, his will being worked out in that way.

And there's no salvation in the father. The salvation is in the son.

See, I would never, ever, ever, ever say that because salvation is a triune activity. I would just, I would never say there's no salvation in the father. The appropriate way of saying it is that the father is the very fountainhead of salvation.

The son by his ministry accomplishes that salvation and the spirit by his ministry applies that salvation. I would never, ever say there is no salvation in the father.

We go to the son for salvation to learn the great truth that God has chosen us in him for himself, that we've been invited into the family of God to receive every blessed heavenly places in Christ, that God wants to make us co-heirs with Christ and dwelt with the Holy Spirit and live with God in heaven forever.

That's the good news. That's, that goes so far beyond, you know, are you saved? Did you escape hell? Yeah, I escaped hell, but I mean, I just went right out through Eden and into heaven and I got the whole thing.

It's like, it's like, you know, I was a pauper and now I'm part of Bill's family and I'm getting apartment buildings in Pacific Heights and I'm going, how did that happen? You know, what did I do to deserve that?

Nothing. Now, I believe that's what verse three, verse four teaches. The father has chosen us in him, not apart from him. The father can't choose us apart from him because there's no salvation apart from him, is there?

So, so you go back to, now maybe, maybe this isn't John Gallup.

Now, now again, let's, let's remember, basically what's going on here is an attempt, as, as I see it, to shift the emphasis of the text away from the fact that you have the direct object of the choosing being personal.

Remember Ephesians, we're talking about Ephesians 1, 4. Just as he chose us in him, the direct object of the choosing is us and that's personal. I don't believe there's any way in Ephesians 1 to make it impersonal because predestination is under what?

Sonship. And what do you have then? Who is the we who has been chosen and predestined? The we then, in verse seven, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. Now, there are people who just want to make this, well, all it's talking about is just this, this, this group.

And God has predestined that there would be this group that'll be in Christ. It's up to you who's in it. He doesn't choose. It's an impersonal thing. It's just a group. It's a, it could be a small group, big group.

God's not really in charge of that. He does the best he can to get as many people in there as possible. But no one really knows, you know, he technically, he could have just had a few. And once you get in the group, then he predestines that if you're in the group, then you could be adopted.

And then once you're in the group, then you can say you have forgiveness of sins and things like that. But you see, it's all meant to depersonalize the knowledge of God in eternity past and depersonalize the choice he made.

He chose a group. He didn't choose you. This is one of those places where the you, it is a plural, Hamas is plural, but this is one of the places where the plural would be taken as a collective plural.

And hence, since it's a collective plural, there really can't be a personal application. Now, you gotta be really, really careful when you start going down that road. Because if there's nothing in the context to, to take you to that conclusion, then how many other places in the New Testament do we have plurals used that, that we take as personal promises to us that now you'd have to say, well, we're really not sure about that.

I mean, there's all these other places where a plural is used and maybe that's just the group. Maybe it's not me as an individual. You know, I, I don't know. That's, that's, that's troubling at that point.

But this would certainly be the, the more extreme form of Calvinism that developed after Calvin. They, they're so adamant that what God did in the secret councils of his will and his foreknowledge, he knew all individuals that would ever be born.

And he selected, apart from anything about them individually, that they would believe, that they would repent, that they were good, they were bad. Apart from any of that, it is secret.

Well, you know, I would want to ask, uh, Brother McCarthy, did God know? I mean, I, I don't get any feeling, uh, that he's an open theist, which I find to be very consistent Arminianism, but if he's not an open theist, then God did know, didn't he?

And what's the basis of his knowing? I mean, is it again, that passive taking in of knowledge? What is it? Um, I'm not sure that I communicated that last point with clarity that I, that I wanted to. Um, I really, really think there is a huge difference between an impersonal act of electing a nameless, faceless group and the incredible condescension that is seen in the reformed understanding.

And that is that what God has done is he has joined and elect people, a specific elect people, fully knowing the depth of their sin and their depravity. He has joined them. He has foreknown them. When you look at foreknow, it's not to have merely to have knowledge of future events.

It's always personal when God's the one doing it. It has been properly identified as foreloved. He extended mercy and grace and love to us fully knowing who we are, even before we came into existence by uniting us to his son.

And that is the whole grounds of our salvation. It's not a theoretical thing. The atonement's not a theoretical thing. It's a personal thing. I think there's all the world of difference between those perspectives.

There really is. And so to liken it to just, ah, well, you, you, and you, and the rest of you to hell. I understand that that's what you'd expect from people who oppose reformed theology, but if you really understand it, then you know it's a caricature and it's not accurate.

Okay? It was a sovereign, free choice of God, totally separate from anything we would do or be. I want to tell you, that's impossible. A holy God cannot choose you, Frank Blaise, for himself. He can't.

You couldn't just walk into the president and God say, oh, I chose you. Come on in. If he could do that, what do we need the cross for?

Now, that illustrates a real fundamental misunderstanding of reformed theology that hopefully even in the response we've given so far, um, is very, very clear. And why do I say that? Well, why do you need the cross?

The cross is part and parcel of the same decree. It's those people that are united with Christ in his death. That is the very mechanism by which the triune God is being, is being glorified. And that's the mechanism by which their sin is dealt with.

How, how can you possibly think that there's some, that the sovereignty of God's choice makes the cross of no effect or some secondary thing? I don't even, I don't even begin to understand that. Um, clearly, once again, and, and, and one thing we have certainly seen over and over and over again on Radio Free Geneva is that those who oppose reformed theology almost never accurately represent it.

And here's an example. I mean, with all due respect to Brother McCarthy, um, that commentary just wasn't even close to being, being on target.

What do we need Christ for? If, if God is so sovereign that he could just have chosen who would be saved by his, his decree.

What reformed person says that God is so sovereign? What does that mean? That's, that's like saying so alive or so powerful or something. God is omnipotent. He has all power. He is totally sovereign over his creation and he is sovereign over the mechanism by which he will glorify himself.

And so, I, again, I, I don't even follow this, this type of, of thinking that, that he is so sovereign he can just choose. Well, of course he chooses. It's part of, it's part of his decree. But he, he does so.

What reformed person does not see right there in the text, and I'm pointing at my computer screen, see right there in the text, just as he chose us in him. There are two parts of, intimately connected of his sovereign decree.

It's the mechanism by which he will choose himself. He will choose to glorify himself. There's, there's nothing about the sovereignty of the choice that separates it from the sovereignty of the method chosen to bring about his glorification.

I, I think that's very important to see.

Well, why the cross? I mean, that seems unnecessary. But, but you see, if, if I could, if I could pull out some photographs right now of a bunch of children ages, you know, five to 15 and show them to Gene and say, Gene, my wife, the Lord has given me these pictures.

You want to see what your grandchildren look like? You want to see the pictures of those girls you could do those, make those dresses for? Yeah, I'd really love to see those. I mean, you love these children before they're even born.

Because you love for your children. This is what God has done for us in Christ. There is no, this is, this word chose, just as he chose us is, is, is from the Greek word from which we get the word elect.

God has elected us, chosen us, selected us in Christ. Okay, not apart from Christ. He chose us in him, went before the foundation of the world. Here's what he chose us to be. Holy and blameless before him.

Now, now, if you see, you're seeing exactly what I predicted was going to happen here. You have a direct object, just as he chose us. That gets rushed over. In him, and this whole, you know, foreign concept has been imported in him, so we've got this nameless, faceless group.

And then, ah, before the foundation of the world. Before the foundation of the world. This is an eternal choice. And I can see why the point of the choice would, the temporal point, or in this case, logical point if it's eternal, would be irrelevant if you're just talking about a group.

But what makes Ephesians 1 -4 so amazing is that even this next phrase cannot, this next phrase, evidently, Brother McCarthy doesn't see that it completely militates against his own interpretation. And do you see why?

Here's why. That we might be holy and blameless before him in love. Now, notice something. If you're looking at the Greek, if you're looking, and there's, we have a number of folks in the audience that will look at the original language.

If you're looking at the Greek, you notice something. The hemos, kathos, exalexata, hemos, just as he chose us and alto in him. Pra, katabales, cosmo, before the foundation of the world. And then you have, in infinitive, aenai hemos hagios, so that we might be holy and blameless before him in love.

Now, there's a question about whether you should attach in love to predestination, the next verse, or whether it's continuing the thought here, but don't let that distract you for a moment. If the first hemos is an impersonal group, do you really think the apostle Paul was saying that it is an impersonal group that is made holy and blameless before him in love?

How can you even discuss holiness and sanctification, holiness and blamelessness, holiness and purity, outside of a personal application? And so, if the second hemos is clearly personal, as it has to be in regards to holiness and blamelessness, holy and blameless before him, and if in love, goes with this first verse, as it's divided here in the Nasiallon text, that even more emphasizes the reality that this is personal.

Because in love, this standing before him, this appearing before the Father, as objects of love, is this love impersonal? I just love that group. I mean, on one level, you know, we mentioned that I'm waiting to become a grandfather too, and we had the kids over for the holidays, and it was great having them there, but I imagine some comment was made at some point about, yeah, you guys have been married quite a while now, haven't you, you know?

And, you know, we always try to get a little something in there. And talking about my son, my daughter's only been married five months, so we'll give them a little time. But I suppose there's a sense in which you can say, I love my grandchildren, but they don't exist yet, and I'm not a timeless being.

I'm not a timeless being. And while I will love my grandchildren because they are my children's children, it better become much more than that once those kids are born. It needs to be love for them personally, as individuals.

And so if this love here, we're talking about holiness, sanctification, before him, in his presence, this is talking about personal relationship. And again, I'm saying, if you don't take these texts as Reformed theology has taken them, you have to depersonalize them.

You have to depersonalize them. And I think you end up losing a lot in the process.

How can you be holy and blameless before a holy God apart from Christ? Only in Christ is that possible. That's true. He predestined us.

That's true. But notice that the element of verse 4, the personal nature, has been removed. And all the personal aspect has been thrown onto Christ, who of course is personal. But how is it that we have holiness and blamelessness?

By union with him. And that union is personal.

He predetermined in advance. He predestined us to what?

To adoption as sons. Now, now, wait a minute. Predetermined in advance or predestined? Because, you see, predetermined sounds like, I predetermined that we are going to do a jumbo DL today. Okay? But notice, again, looking at the Greek, take Kathos out of the beginning of verse 4, which is connecting it back to 3, and both of these verses begin with a verb with God, the Father, as the one acting.

And what comes immediately after each verb? The personal plural pronoun, hemos. So it's the same group that was chosen. It's the same group that is going to be holy and blameless before him. And now it's that same group that is the direct object of the active verb of the Father.

This is something the Father does. Oh, Twitter's an amazing thing. Guess what? My son's listening. And he gives me some background information that says, when that's in progress, you'll get your grandkids.

Thanks, Josh. Appreciate that. Hope you don't mind. There is a drawback to being the son of James White, and that is you get to be used as an illustration. But, hey, James McCarthy started it first, okay?

He's the one that brought up the grandkids thing, and I'm much younger than him, so I just had to get into it. Anyways, make sure you see the parallelism. It's personal in verse 4, and obviously verse 5 is personal as well.

Predestined us unto sonship by means of Dia Jesu Christu unto himself. It's all the actions of God the Father. He is actively doing all of these things. It's vital to see.

Now, that may sound to you like salvation, but that's not salvation. That's way beyond salvation.

That may sound to you like salvation, but it's way beyond salvation. Adoption? Well, I would say adoption is part of salvation. But the one thing, and this is why it's very important to see this, the one thing that you cannot possibly escape, you cannot possibly allow to get by, is that you can have adoption without salvation.

Without salvation. That's very, very important. If we have been predestined, See, this is where these folks want to go. Well, this predestination is impersonal, and it's a choice that God makes that all those who get themselves into Christ will be adopted, you see.

Rather than what Paul actually says, he predestined, for the foundation of the world, same context here, he predestined us unto this intimate relationship of adoption into the very family of God by means of Jesus Christ for himself.

Do you see the major difference between those two? There is a major difference. Norm Geisler doesn't get it, and Dave Hunt doesn't get it, and Eric Cantor doesn't get it, but there's a major difference between those two readings.

Huge difference.

He doesn't say he predestined us to be saved. He doesn't say he predestined us to be forgiven of our sins. He predestined us to be adopted as sons. That's far better.

That's far better? Again, can an unforgiven sinner be adopted in the family of God? Of course not. Can an unredeemed, unregenerate person experience sonship? No, it's all a part of what God has done. I mean, it's those who are holy and are blameless.

He makes his children holy and blameless. He cleanses us in Christ Jesus. It's all of one to try to start separating these things out and say, well, he doesn't say we're predestined to salvation. If adoption demands justification and calling and holiness and regeneration, then you better believe it's saying we're predestined unto salvation.

I mean, that's just as clear as it can be. It's amazing when people start trying to divide up the work of salvation and say, oh, well, he predestined us unto this, but not unto that. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.

What do you mean? How can you divide that up? It does not make any sense at all. And just being saved.

And there's a few things that Scripture says that God has predetermined for those who are in Christ. One, right here, adoption of sons. He's also predetermined that we'd be conformed.

Now, notice, what Paul says is, he predestined us unto this. Now, that has been shifted over to, well, he predetermined adoption for those who are in Christ. Are those synonymous phrases? No, they're not.

Not in this system, they're not. So, predestined us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, and then you have the beautiful, I mean, verses, the end of verse 5 and all of verse 6 is, I think, one of the ultimate answer texts in all of the New Testament.

When people ask why. When people ask the why question. According to the purpose, the good purpose, the kind intention of his will to the praise of his glorious grace. A regenerate heart finds that to be a sufficient answer to the why question.

A regenerate heart finds that to be a sufficient answer to the why question.

Formed to the image of his son. He's also predetermined that we'd be co-heirs with Christ in heaven. Joint, an inheritance with him. Nowhere does the scripture say he predetermined who would be saved.

Now, I'm sorry that that leap is so huge, and it is so unfounded that we just have to say that's just downright wrong. If all he's saying is, well, these specific words don't appear, well, then that's no more of the argument than we get from our Muslim friends that say, well, Jesus never said, worship me, I am God.

Does the Bible reveal that Jesus is God, that we are to worship? Yes, it does. Does the Bible reveal that God's choice brings about all of our salvation, from regeneration to the gift of faith, the gift of repentance, the forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, adoption as sons of God, the justification, calling, all of it is, is that not what the Bible teaches is the entirety of God's work in bringing about the salvation of his people?

Yes. Yes. So, you know, he made just brief allusion to Romans chapter 8 and predestination there. That includes everything. The calling, the justification, and the glorification. That would be like saying, God predestined us unto glorification, but he did not predestine the means by which we would get there.

That is not even semi-logical or sensible or anything that would have suggested itself to someone who seriously listens to what the Apostle Paul is saying. It's just not there. See, he's predetermined what the blessings are, but not who gets to have them.

That's not what Ephesians 1, 5 says. The direct object is us, not the blessings. Direct contradiction of the text. He's got to do it because, folks, the Bible teaches Reformed Theology. That's why we believe it.

But when you have traditions, when you have these, and whether James McCarthy wants to admit it or not, he's got traditions. And his traditions just had him take praoresas haemas and turn it into something completely different.

It's no longer us who's being predestined. It's no longer personal. Now it's blessings. And see, we pointed this out with Norman Geisler. All these folks eventually have to. They'll read the text. But they eventually have to reinterpret that text away from what the words themselves in their original context meant.

It's just got to be done. And now you're seeing it happen.

What's predetermined? The gifts. Not the people. Impersonal. Not what Paul says. Bill? It was predetermined before, I don't know, you could almost say before he was born, but certainly at that time his father had wills and contracts and living trust, that all this was going to go to him.

Predetermined. By the decree of his father. I propose to you, if you stick to Scripture, know where it is in Scripture to teach, that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will not. There isn't a verse in the Bible that teaches it.

I would propose to you that there isn't even a verse that says he's chosen anybody for salvation anywhere. So there you go, folks.

There's the tradition kicking in. And I don't know, it's hard for me to imagine how with your Bible open to Ephesians 1 -5, you can make that kind of statement. But there, behold the power of tradition.

And isn't that exactly the conversation that I had 11 years ago, over 11 years ago, with Dave Hunt on KPXQ in Phoenix, and look what that resulted in. At least two books, three books I could think of, at least three books came from just that one conversation where I said, Dave, that's your tradition.

I have no tradition. I have no tradition as James. Now, I would like to think that James McCarthy realizes he does. But it is pretty amazing to me that you can have your Bible open to Ephesians 1 -5 and say, well, it's not there.

There's no predestination to salvation. That's just, that's predestination of blessings of sonship upon anybody who's in Christ Jesus. Well, that's not what it says. That's an impersonal reading of the text, and it is not what it says.

In fact, if you take the strongest verses of Calvinism, I propose to you that every one of them is taken out of context.

Every single one of them. Now, you know, I played this at the beginning, the last time, so you could hear what he was going to be saying. And I've read his book, and I would be more than willing to debate the brother on this, because I really think that if we get into the text, that we would be able to demonstrate very, very clearly that that is untrue.

We're certainly seeing that with Ephesians 1. We're going to end up going to John 6. And in fact, as we go through each one of the texts that he will present, we will actually demonstrate that it's Brother McCarthy who is removing the context for the sake of his tradition.

And that's what we've seen many, many times before.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 and the Context of Salvation

I recently wrote an article. If the brother's here, you can put on your website a sermon by Charles Spurgeon, the prince of the preachers, on election. He's preaching on 2 Thessalonians 2 .13. And he's the prince of the preachers, the most eloquent preacher of all time.

And from that verse, let's go over and take a quick look at that verse, 2 Thessalonians 2 .13. But we should always give thanks to God for you brethren.

Before we go there, let me just, because I think Ephesians 1 gets lost at this point. We didn't finish Ephesians 1. Didn't even get close to finishing Ephesians 1. Didn't even talk about according to the riches of his grace.

And there's so much more that can be said there. I will submit to you that it is only the Reformed exegete that can walk through Ephesians 1 and let the text speak for itself. If this was the first time I had ever done this program, you might be able to say, ah, well, you know, you're just, you know, that's your tradition.

But folks, we've been doing this for years now. And how many times have we heard these accusations coming from all sorts of different angles? And we go into the text and we ask the questions. Really? Let's see.

And over and over again, what do we find? Just the exact opposite. We find Reformed theology being established and attacks upon it either being shown to be based upon straw men or just utterly misrepresenting the text.

And that's what we just saw in Ephesians 1 -5. And if we had kept going, we could have just kept building the crescendo of what that text was actually talking about. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that when it says, according to the kind intention of his will, that all that was was, well, God just chose great blessings for people who decide to get into Jesus.

To the praise of his glorious grace, which he graced us in the beloved one? Do you really want to make that us impersonal? I mean, we could just keep going with Ephesians 1. And I think it makes sense that you don't keep going with Ephesians 1.

Okay, let's listen to what Mr. McCarthy has to say about 2 Thessalonians 2 -13.

Brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation, through sanctification, by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Again, if you're steeped in Calvinism, you're going, well, I mean, how clear could you say it?

Right there, you're chosen from the beginning for salvation.

You know, I don't think you have to be steeped in Calvinism. But we are debtors. We ought, a philo, a philemon is the term there, To give thanks, eucharistain, a beautiful word that unfortunately has been stolen from us by its constant misuse in Romanism.

But eucharist is a beautiful, beautiful word as long as you realize that it means Thanksgiving and not a semi-pagan practice. Eucharistain, to give thanks, totheo, to God, always, pontete perihumon, in behalf of you.

Why? Adolfoi ega menoi hupa koriu, brethren beloved by the Lord. Now, that particular form that is used there emphasizes something for us about the fact that the reason for giving thanks is going to be stated, there's a Hathi clause here, because we're going to be told why that is, but in describing them as beloved of the Lord, that love distinguishes them from others.

And I've been having a little bit of a Twitter back and forth with a guy named Erwon Dave. And I don't know anything about Erwon Dave, I just happened to see a message from him. It was sent to Lecrae and some others, and saying, love your music, but I'm just not down with your Calvinism, and then for some reason he put John Piper and me, our Twitter thing, so we'd make sure to see this.