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

Hey, 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, that we once again remember, 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 Looneyville 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, there were some, 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.

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, 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? 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 something even greater. That which is given in the second

Adam Christ is much greater than what was lost in the first Adam.

So 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 could have 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.

He 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 ourselves. Just on a theoretical basis, 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 don't even like how this is being stated. 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. 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 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. But that is the result of His decree, that's

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 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 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, 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 4 teaches, that 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, you go back to, now maybe this isn't

John Gallup. Now, again, let's remember, basically what's going on here is an attempt, 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 7, 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 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 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, 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 got to be really, really careful when you start going down that road. Because if there's nothing in the context to take you to that conclusion, then how many other places in the

New Testament do we have plurals used 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 don't know. That's troubling at that point.

But this would certainly be the more extreme form of Calvinism that developed after Calvin.

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, 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 Brother McCarthy, did

God know? I mean, I don't get any feeling 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? I'm not sure that I communicated that last point with clarity that I wanted to.

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 the 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 presence of God and say, oh,

I chose you. Come on in. If He could do that, what is it, what do we need to cross for? Now, that illustrates a real fundamental misunderstanding of Reformed theology that hopefully, even in the response we've given so far, 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 glorified. And that's the mechanism by which their sin is dealt with.

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. Clearly, once again, 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, that commentary just wasn't even close to being on target.

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

What Reformed person says that God is so sovereign? What does that mean? 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, again,

I don't even follow this type of thinking that He is so sovereign He can just choose.

Well, of course He chooses. It's part of His decree. But 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 nothing about the sovereignty of the choice that separates it from the sovereignty of the method chosen to bring about His glorification.

I think that's very important to see. Well, why the cross? I mean, that seems unnecessary.

But you see, if I could pull out some photographs right now of a bunch of children, ages 5 to 15, and show them to Gene and say,

Gene, my wife, the Lord has given me these pictures. Do you want to see what your grandchildren look like? Do you want to see the pictures of those girls you drew 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 of your love for your children.

This is what God has done for us in Christ. There is no, this word chosen, just as He chose us, 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, have you seen 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 because he chose us and auto in Him.

Pra, katabales, kosmo, before the foundation of the world. And then you have, in infinitive, ainai 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

Nessialan 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?

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 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, uh, 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 and 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?

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, um, 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 the image of a son he's also predetermined that we'd be co -heirs with Christ in heaven enjoy an inheritance with him nowhere does the scripture say he predetermined who would be saved

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 Jesus never said worship me I am God does the

Bible reveal that Jesus is God the way 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 justification, calling 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 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 but he's predetermined what those blessings are I tell you in our 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 pro -oresos hemos 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 in our linen closet,

Jesus got all those dresses lined up I don't know where he keeps the quilts they're somewhere those kids are predetermined to receive those gifts if and when they ever show up they're theirs, predetermined what's predetermined?

the gifts, not the people impersonal, not what Paul says my friend

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 faith and trust that all this was going to go to him predetermined by the decree of his father now

I propose to you, if you stick to scripture nowhere does scripture teach that God's predetermined who will be saved and who will not there isn't a verse in the

Bible that teaches 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 2 books 3 books

I could think of at least 3 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 unto 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'd propose to you that every one of them is to take it out of context every single one now

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 I recently wrote an article 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 was the prince of the preachers 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 to 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 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 and 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,

Eucharistine a beautiful word that unfortunately has been stolen from us by its constant misuse in Romanism but, uh,

Eucharist is a beautiful, beautiful word as long as you realize that it means Thanksgiving and not a semi -pagan practice

Eucharistine, to give thanks totheo to God, always pontate perihumon in behalf of you, why?

Adolfoi egamenoi hupacoriu 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 is distinguishes them from others and I've been having a little bit of a

Twitter back and forth with a guy named Air1Dave and I don't know anything about Air1Dave 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 make sure to see this so obviously he was looking for commentary and so we've been going back and forth a little bit and one of the things

I've tried to point out and it's very difficult doing a back and forth debate in 140 characters, for some reason my version of TweetDeck won't let me do longer updates anymore and I download the new version of it and the new version is horrible in comparison to the old version so I immediately deleted it and went back to what

I had but anyway one thing I've been trying to get this fellow to see is that like Dave Hunt he demands that God's love have no differentiation, unlike man's love we can differentiate between the objects of our love, but not

God no not God, he's can't do that what does it mean beloved by the Lord, brethren beloved by the

Lord isn't everybody beloved by the Lord if you believe in this non -distinction of God's love that's just like peanut butter, you just spread it all over the place then how do you explain this phrase, brethren beloved by the

Lord, that doesn't tell you who it is I mean really, honestly, if you're going to take that perspective couldn't this be written to the

Roman senate in that day because they were beloved by the Lord right? couldn't this be written to the high priest of Mulloch or something like that just the same no there's something special here

I mean when it talks about the disciple whom the Lord loved is that just nonsense language is that nonsense language for those who refuse to admit that there are gradations and variations and decisions in God's love, that's nonsense language he just loves everybody the same no, he doesn't and here we have a description these

Thessalonian believers are beloved by the Lord beloved by the

Lord that would probably be especially in relationship to Christ's love for them they're beloved by the

Lord and then why must the apostle give thanks because God chose you, now there's a textual variant here and I try to remember, we'll find out here in a moment,

I apologize if I don't remember the specifics but there's a of the sermon there's a textual variant here that does impact the reading you have either op arcane or op arcase, there's basically one letter difference between the two op arcane op arcane would be chose you as first fruits and op arcase was chose you from the beginning and that obviously would impact how you interpret the text but there's one letter difference between the two what

I was saying is I don't recall whether he brings this up we will obviously find out together when

I click on the start button you know in his entire sermon Charles Spurgeon didn't dedicate one word to the context of this verse not a single word and I want to propose to you, if you just take it apart from its context that is a good verse to prove

Calvinism and there's others but when you put it back into its context, it doesn't say what he makes it to say at all not at all look carefully at that verse but we should always give thanks to God for you brethren that's the

Thessalonian Christians 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

I want to say, if you want a proof a context to prove the five points of Calvinism that's a great...

let's take a look at the context um the context before this is of those who refuse to love the truth and it is a wow a strong text verse 9, the coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders with all wicked deception for those who are perishing notice those who are perishing a standard phrase used by Paul in 1

Corinthians over against those who are being saved so with all wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved therefore

God sends them a strong delusion so they may believe what is fault in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness so you have

God's judgment here you have God's judgment upon all who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness now what you're going to hear here is an attempt to say ah this has nothing to do with salvation because this is all in the end times and it's a dispensational interpretation in light of the activity of Satan in light of a theory about when this is going to take place and therefore it can't have anything to do with salvation because it actually doesn't have anything to do with the

Thessalonians but when you don't have that inappropriate addition you will notice that after verse 14 you have to this he called you to what?

could be salvation or be first fruits but it's always salvation because Soterion is in either one but either first fruits of salvation or chose you from the beginning for salvation but salvation is right there by sanctifying work of the spirit and belief in the truth if that's not salvation folks what on earth would the apostle

Paul be talking about and then verse 14 makes it so clear unto which also he called you

Kaleo by means of the gospel to this he called you through our gospel so that you may obtain the glory of our

Lord Jesus Christ what's the end of the the golden chain of redemption oh glorification calling gospel how can anyone who knows

Pauline theology look at this and go that ain't salvation this is this is where it gets a little concerning for me to be perfectly honest with you because if you can see and you know what makes it even more concerning for me is that James McCarthy deals with Roman Catholics why is this concerning because verse 15 is one of the most commonly cited texts of Roman Catholics and if you're going to deal with verse 15 what is the strongest way to deal with verse 15 keep it in it's context so then brothers stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us either by our spoken word or by our letter what is that tradition stegate and in verse 15 are talking about standing in the gospel not traditions about Mary immaculate conceptions papacy's sacerdotal priests and all the rest of the mythology that Rome has developed over the years the tradition that he's talking about is the proclamation of the gospel that was in the written material that was presented and in the preaching that they presented and so you want context yeah context is all over this one and context very clearly tells us that the reformed interpretation has been correct all along a verse but maybe somebody would like to look at it do you see any problems with using this verse to prove that God has predetermined who will be saved and go to heaven and who will go to hell there's major problems with that verse what's the context is this now this was in Galatians and Paul was talking about justification he was talking about who gets saved and who doesn't well this would be this would be an interesting verse what's the context is the

Thessalonians were all confused they thought in 1st Thessalonians Paul had told them listen you guys were all concerned about the day of the

Lord the final judgment the great tribulation listen that's not going to happen until the apostasy comes first the man of lawlessness is revealed we're going to be taken off this earth and in the rapture and none of that happens so don't be so upset that the day of judgment hasn't started and then after he sent that letter somebody said well

Paul's changed his view the day of the Lord is already upon us the judgment started and he writes 2nd Thessalonians he says what

I didn't say that somebody said that wasn't me he said that's not going to happen we got major theological things that have to happen before that happens and when it happens the man of lawlessness is going to be revealed he's going to display himself as God all are going to worship him

God is going to put a deluding influence upon the whole earth and they're going to believe that which is a lie but you

Thessalonians in contrast to that you should give thanks we give thanks to God for you beloved because God has chosen you for salvation not to go through the tribulation not to go through the delusion and the time of the antichrist

God has chosen you from the beginning for deliverance salvation from the very beginning the church is going to be raptured it's not going through the tribulation whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa you see this this salvation so we've just moved from God has chosen you for salvation by the sanctifying work of the spirit and belief of Pistis Pistai in the truth by which he also called you by our gospel to now you won't go through the tribulation wow okay

I know that there are some in the audience who really appreciate what we do but you were brought up in dispensationalism and you're going yeah that's what

I see but can you step back far enough just for a moment disassociate yourself from that just a moment and look at that and go wait a minute if the apostle

Paul is talking about giving thanks to God these are beloved by the Lord and then you have choosing you have whether it's from the beginning or as first fruits you have soterion you have hagiadzo hagiadzo sanctification by the spirit

Pistai the normal verb for belief in the truth truth of the gospel and unto this you were called by our gospel and yet that's not really salvation all these terms that we can prove over and over again

Paul uses in completely soteriological context and he's not speaking soteriologically because of an eschatological theory you have really see that gets scary to me that gets scary to me that's where we really really really need to be thinking about some hermeneutics and context and things like that that's that's scary he's chosen you from the beginning for salvation how?

through sanctification through holy living you're going to be delivered from those bad times and through faith wait a minute maybe

I don't know I don't know the form of dispensationalism there's so many different forms

I can't keep track of but I know there are forms that say that certain people

I think there's a form my recollection is correct anyways there's a form that says that if you're going to be saved in the tribulation or through the tribulation or from the tribulation it's going to be by your good works because it's no longer by grace because the spirit's been removed isn't that true?

isn't it? I don't think that's necessarily what he's saying but there are people who take that view um but really the sanctification of the spirit and belief in the truth this salvation which is by sanctification of the spirit and belief is by means that they're going to be delivered because they've been good people that's what

Paul's talking about in the truth if you stick to scripture now you're not born again through sanctification where does the bible teach that?

through holy living it can't be talking of eternal salvation whoa okay now we have sanctification being completely disconnected from regeneration justification see how many times the whole unitary god centered glorious work of salvation has to be cut into little parts by the

Armenian I'm not an Armenian well okay by the Synergist you have to cut into little parts because here you have

Paul giving thanks for these brethren beloved by the lord and he's giving thanks for them right then not somewhere down the road not somewhere in some eschatological situation he's contrasting them who love the truth notice the preceding verses said oh they refused to love the truth therefore god sent deluding influence on them what are these people?

they have faith in the truth they believe in the truth is that because they were better than those other people? no it's because god shows them from the beginning for salvation and that choosing has worked itself out in the sanctifying work of the spirit and believe in the truth all of that comes from god, sanctification comes from god, our faith in the truth comes from god all of that is what they're called to by the gospel the gospel calls us to repent and to believe who repents and believes?