Preservation of the Saints

Welcome back to a episode of the Laborer's Podcast, where tonight we're going to talk about some

Calvinist doctrine called, is it Perseverance of the Saint or is it Preservation of the

Saint? Obviously, we'll get into some of that and we'll get some of the input from the laborers who hold to this particular doctrine.

And as soon as I find the input, the intro, we'll get started.

Thank you all for coming along and watching. Welcome to the Laborer's Podcast, which is a part of the

Truth in Love Network. Join us as together we strive to grow up together in all things into Christ.

Subscribe and follow the Truth in Love Network on Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, and iTunes.

Now, let's join our laborers for tonight's broadcast. All right.

How's everybody doing tonight? Doing well. Happy to be here. Doing good. Doing good.

So, Reform Berean, is this your first podcast on Thursday night with the

Laborer's Podcast? It is. Yes. But I did a previous live cast with Rob on the

Truth in Love Network. That's right. That's right. We want to welcome Elias Gonzalez. Would you like to say anything as an introduction, tell anybody anything you want to say?

I didn't warn you. I was going to ask that. That's my bad. No, that's all right. Yeah, no. My name is Elias Gonzalez, the

Reform Berean. I have a YouTube channel called the Reform Berean. You guys can go check that out.

And, you know, I'm a Reformed Baptist. And so, you know, laborers,

I love Laborer's Podcast. I always loved it. And so, you know, joined it. And it's just a blessing to be a part of it.

You know. Glad to have you. Glad to have you aboard. And of course, we got the

Bread of the Word podcast with Tyler Noy. And then on route to locations barely known because of the nondisclosure agreement that I signed earlier in the month.

I'm not allowed to dictate exactly where Rob is going. How are you doing tonight, Rob, on the road?

I'm doing good. We need to change your name to that this night to Rob on the Road. Road Dog Rob.

Let's see if I can. I don't know if I can figure that out on my phone. If you can do what? I don't know if I can.

Hang in there, Rob. Yeah. Excuse me. I don't know if I can figure that out on my phone. You got to breathe,

Rob. You got to breathe. We're just rolling with the punches tonight. Tonight's going to be a little bit different because I've hijacked the show.

As most of you know, I'm not a Calvinist, though I'm sympathetic to the doctrine.

And I think it's an important doctrine that we are to investigate. So that's what we're going to do tonight.

And I've sent the guys some questions. And for full disclosure, I didn't send them questions that I have altogether.

So much as I sought out people from my camp and some of the questions that they repeatedly ask that they feel like people aren't answering.

And I've fielded some of these questions. Some of them I've actually defended the reform doctrine because I believe it's a good answer to some of these questions.

However, I would like for y 'all to give it from y 'all's point of view. Is that fair? That sounds fair.

Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I'll go ahead and say this at the very beginning because I think this will come up and continue to come up a little bit later.

Just the ability to correct maybe some misunderstandings. So the

Preservation of the Saints was labeled a Calvinistic doctrine. But it's also...

Hang on, Rob. Hey, Rob. Hang on, Rob. You cut out. So let's go back and start over.

You said you wanted to clear up some things. And so that stream of thought again. So we didn't leave nothing out. You there?

You got me back? You got me back? Yeah, I got you back. Go ahead. Say it again. Okay. I was just going to say that before I was a

Calvinist growing up Baptist, I held to a form of that doctrine. So it's not necessarily solely a

Calvinist doctrine. I understand. So what you're saying is the topic of—and

I want to make sure I'm not going to sell y 'all short. Online it says Perseverance of the

Saints. But I've been told that that's changed in recent years to Preservation of the

Saints. Which one is it? I would say both. Both?

Okay, that's one for both. Brother Tyler? See, traditionally it's usually been

Perseverance of the Saints or Perseverance of the Elect. Me personally, I prefer the term

Preservation. We can get into that a little bit later if you like. How about you,

Rob? Yeah, I don't think it's officially changed. I think the P in TULIP still stands for Perseverance of the

Saints. Just, you know, going after that particular verse. But I think the transition for that conversation has come up just because, like Tyler said, there's a lot of folks who like the language better, like the word better.

Just because you can also, when you speak of Perseverance, it can lean toward thinking as if man is doing something to preserve himself,

I think. And so that's why some folks are leaning more toward Preservation, where it's an act of God who's preserving us.

I have a quote from a book. Maybe this can clear it up.

So the book I'm going to be quoting from is R .C. Sproul's book called What is Reformed Theology?

And he breaks down the history of Reformed Theology in this book, but also towards the end, he breaks down every five points of the

TULIP. Let me just, if you guys allow me to read the quote, maybe this is going to help understand better.

The P of TULIP stands for Perseverance, the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Like other terms represented by the acrostic

TULIP, Perseverance is somewhat misleading. It suggests that the continuity of faith and obedience is accomplished by the believer alone.

Indeed, the believer does persevere in faith and godliness, but this is due to the gracious work of God in his behalf.

More accurate than perseverance is preservation. We persevere because we are preserved by God.

OK, so with that being said, let's go a little bit into our first question and who wants to take that first question?

So what does Perseverance of the Saints mean? Or in my case,

I would say Preservation. Simply put, what we mean by that concept, whether it's

Perseverance or Preservation, is this idea that a person standing before God is final when we're talking about salvation.

That there's not a concept of backsliding or losing it, but that God keeps his people.

And I would probably point to John chapter 10, picking up in verse 27.

My sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Alright, if somebody else wants to pick up and give their answer to the question. I'm going to remain as neutral as possible.

Those people that follow my channel more than maybe some other reformed stuff,

I want you to pay attention to some of these answers. And one of the things that I would encourage you, if you're like me, you're not a

Calvinist, that you would listen to the motivation behind the doctrine. And don't get lost in your own personal convictions just yet.

Listen with an open mind and an open heart and just listen to the intent behind the doctrine.

That's the one thing I can appreciate is the intent behind the doctrine. And I'll explain that in just a second.

Brother Rob or Brother Gonzales, do you want to add anything to Tyler's definition?

Big John, I just want to say that as someone who disagrees, I want to say that that was very gracious.

And I really appreciate that heart that you have there. And I would lean toward what

Tyler was saying. You couldn't say it much better than that. And the definition that R .C.

Sproul gave, that Elias read, that's pretty much on point. So it's what people would call once saved, always saved from the other can.

I think that's a fair statement. I've heard it likened to once saved, always saved.

We might add some different nuance to fleshing that out a little bit. By all means.

I'm sorry? By all means, if there's something you think that needs to be. If there's a definitive distinction between perseverance of the saints or preservation of the saints, once saved, always saved.

In terms of the way I've always heard it defined. Now's your chance to. I would say

I do agree with how Dr. James White puts it. Dr. James White doesn't like that terminology, once saved, always saved.

He does prefer the language we're using right now, perseverance or preservation of the saints.

Because with the language of once saved, always saved, it always comes with an annotation or an understanding that you're saved.

And now you can now a person who's in Christ can do whatever they want with their life. They're always going to be saved.

Perseverance of the saints, the doctrine we're talking about today, does not say that.

It doesn't say, oh, you're saved. A person can just live how they want. And, you know, it's not that.

So that's that's what I would say. I don't like using that terminology. I would say because it comes with that kind of connotation or assumption where a person can do whatever they want.

I understand. And I also think that's why that the language transition from once saved, always saved, eternal security.

We moved away from that and used more of that language. We're exactly the reason that Elias was talking about that.

I think the intent was to go ahead and stop that. That false misunderstanding that that argument against the doctrine before it even starts.

So, you know, a lot of people would come after the doctrine because of race abusers.

So you're saying that you can do whatever you want to whenever you're saved and still keep your salvation.

Well, no, you can't. And so that's why we use the stronger language, the stronger wording.

I think just to stop that conversation or that argument before it even starts.

Now, I would add that with the question about once saved, only saved, that is a valid question.

I want to validate that. That is not out of the ordinary and that's not just poking us in the eye.

But when we talk about grace and being kept by grace, I think that's a fair question to ask.

I think Paul was anticipating questions like it when he wrote Romans. We get Romans chapter six and he starts off with, shall we send more that grace may abound?

And if we are forgiven eternally, wouldn't we just send up a storm? And I think that's a valid question to ask.

I think that's a question that Christians have been wrestling through for a long time. Whether we call it

Calvinism or Arminianism or we just strip off all the isms and we can pick a decade.

We can pick a generation and we can find people wrestling with these ideas, wrestling with who

Christ is, what he did and how that works in our lives. That's good.

I'm going to take a small pause for the calls. Everybody, prepare your ears. There's a conference coming up and this promo is a little bit loud, but I want to share a quick 30 -second commercial for this upcoming laborers conference, which will be free of charge at Reformata Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee.

And it'll be the weekend of April the 26th through 28th. Let's see that promo. You are thoroughly and thoroughly warned.

Well, how much is that conference, Big John? Zero dollars and zero cents.

It's free! We ask that you register online. That's just so we have an idea of how many people are coming.

We say seating is limited, but obviously I think that there will be as much of an attempt made to seat everyone as humanly possible.

I know that if you get there and there isn't one, you sure can have my seat. I don't mind standing and giving it to you.

We will go to standing room only if we need to. That's a fact. And in April in Tennessee, it'll probably be pretty.

We can do it outside. Don't threaten me with a good time. Okay. I think if you do want to help cover some of the costs of the conference, visit

Matt Breeding. He is graciously helping us cover some of that cost by,

I don't know what you exactly call it, offering some great deals.

One of them was a rafting trip. I think one is to a museum in Pigeon Forge, a

Christian retreat camping area in the area of Knoxville.

They graciously have given us a certificate for, I think, like two nights and three days, a stay in one of their cabins.

I think it's a two -person cabin. I think that's still available. So, find

Matt Breeding. And if you're going to be in the Knoxville or Pigeon Forge area, take advantage of those offers and help with the cost of the conference.

Absolutely. Absolutely. And thank you for that, Brother Rob.

So, we pointed to John in terms of scriptural definition for your take on this doctrine.

Now, question number two. Using this doctrine, explain the differences we see in an

Old Testament reference of King Saul and King David. Because I think that an argument could be made that both men were used of God, both men were called and anointed for the same office, and both men sinned.

And I feel like I'm teeing it up for you at the same time, but on the other hand, I just kind of want to hear it from y 'all's point of view.

Can you apply this doctrine to the Old Testament? I'm not sure that you can.

And I think, well, I want to retract.

If we believe that God has full ordained, if he's elected for the foundation of the world, then those who are

Old Testament saints were always going to be Old Testament saints. So, there is an idea of preservation of the

Old Testament saints, I think. And this goes back to the conversation that we were having on here a while back, a really good conversation about Old Testament saints.

And I don't see that concept of the spirit sealing in the

New Testament. I think that's where we can all get that language and that concept from the

New Testament of the spirit sealing. And that would be, of course, one of our arguments for preservation or perseverance.

That if you're sealed, you're sealed. And that comes from the New Testament. You broke up there for a little bit.

Brother Tyler, do you think you could fill in where he skipped out? So, where Rob was taking us was that we don't have some of the

New Testament language in the Old Testament that we would expect. So, when it says in 1

Samuel 16 that the spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David, we can't necessarily take that as being what we see in Romans 5.

He has poured the Holy Spirit into our hearts as a picture of regeneration or something like that. And so, it gets sticky with trying to sift through this because we have the spirit coming upon Saul, it says, but then it leaves him.

And then we're told that God sends an evil spirit to torment him. And so, the issue with,

I think, with the dichotomy of Saul and David is can we necessarily identify

Saul as being saved and then he lost that. I'm not sure that we have enough information on that to say that he was.

We feel like we have enough information to say that David was soundly saved, don't we? I would say so, yes.

So, then salvation in the Old Testament is not necessarily a problem with the doctrine, is it? No, I don't think it is.

I was honestly leaning on the Saul side with approaching the question. But in the case of David, yes,

David did sin. David sinned many times. And he actually does pray in Psalm 51, take not thy

Holy Spirit from me. Exactly. Which I don't believe is in conflict with this idea of preservation.

So, Brother Elias, you want to jump in there? Well, I was looking at Bible references and stuff like that.

I would agree where I think it's more. We can definitely say

David was saved, but I would say now Saul where now, like, because I know it says that he was tormented by a spirit.

It's definitely not as clear whether he was saved or not. But I don't think that would, like Tyler said, it doesn't affect the doctrine of the

Spirit of the Saints. Like Hebrews says, throughout time, it's always been saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, even in the

Old Testament, right? They were looking forward in that time, but now we're looking backwards at Christ's sacrifice.

I would say, to be honest, I would say I don't know about all.

I wouldn't know. I think it's not as clear as you see with David. So I suppose my kickback to you would be that David sure seemed to think that there was something special about Saul and so much that he wouldn't even lift his hand against him.

Right. And I don't know that that means anything from a salvific point of view, but it sure seemed to mean something to David.

And I would honestly agree with you on that, that it may not have been a salvific, because he does refer to Saul as the

Lord's anointed. Exactly. I don't think that's necessarily salvific, but I do think we see a level of respect that David carries, because God has kept him in the office that he's in.

It says in Proverbs that the heart of the king is in the Lord's hands, and he turns it whichever way he pleases.

And I think when we see Saul – I mean David's apprehension to striking

Saul, to acting against Saul, that that is probably more a picture of submission than a salvific – that's what we're looking for – admission, if that makes sense.

I mean, that's valid. I'm not trying to throw roadblocks out so much as some of the questions online that I read would have said that Saul would have been saved and then backslid because of his sinful decisions.

And that his refusal to repent would have further – he would have further kicked him down this road of backsliding and where David cried out to God for forgiveness and God forgive him after he sinned.

And I would definitely say Saul was anointed to be king, right?

He was anointed in that sense of kingship. And you even see that where before Saul became king, when the people of Israel were asking for a king,

Samuel obviously was kind of fighting them with that, saying we have God as our king.

So Samuel was actually teaching the people what kingship meant and what does a king mean to rule over people.

And so I would definitely say Saul was definitely anointed as king in that sense, like even in medieval times how kings were – or even knights were anointed to be knights.

Kings were anointed to be king. So I think what David saw, especially when he said the

Lord's anointed, he knew that ultimately God anointed him to be king through the prophet

Samuel, right? So that's how I see it. It could be

David knew maybe he was anointed in a salvific sense, but I think it was definitely in a more kingship sense anointed.

I feel like I lost volume for some reason, but I hear you all fine.

So anyway, everything's fine. We'll move on to the next question because I thought we'd move quicker than we are, so apologies.

Explain from your point of view why the Scripture reference, I would that you sin not, but if you do sin, you have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ righteous. Explain why this isn't a license to sin and if salvation cannot be lost.

That's 1 John, isn't it? Indeed. If you want to take that whole section of John and break it down from your worldview, then obviously you're welcome to do so.

Which part of 1 John is that? So that would be, I didn't write down that reference, so I'll have to read it right quick.

You see what I'm doing here? To those at home, the happy Calvinists, give me a

Bible. Oh, I found it. 1 John 2 verse 1. Oh, you found it?

Okay. I did. It says, My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, and if any man sin, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith,

I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected.

Hereby know we that we are in him. And I realized midway through that passage that I had grabbed my

King James again. You're good. You're good. I personally love reading out of the King James.

Not everybody else does, but... I like reading the Psalms out of King James. For some reason or other,

I remember the King James. When I'm reading Scripture, I remember it better than I do...

Go figure, right? I don't know. I'm the same way, Big John. And so, what was the question for that text?

All right, so, well, it was kind of an open -ended question. If you want to take and explain from the

Reformed doctrine why this Scripture reads the way it does, if salvation is something that is once attained, unable to lose, so the way it's worded in the question is, nobody's insinuating that this is a license to sin, right?

I don't think anybody would insinuate that this Scripture would give anybody a license to sin. But if salvation is something that cannot be lost, explain the necessity of writing it this way,

I suppose, is one question. Or one way of reading the question. You can read it any way you want to. Do you have a copy of the questions,

Brother Gonzales? No, is it in the chat? It should be. We've got to get you set up on the

Google Drive. Oh, that's right. It's in the Drive. I had a link to Google Drive, and I don't know if I lost it or what.

If I had the link, I'd lose it somewhere in there. I probably don't know where to go back. So here's exactly what the question reads.

Explain why I would that you sin not. But if you do sin, you have an advocate with the Scripture that Brother Tyler was reading.

Explain how this isn't a license to sin if salvation cannot be lost.

The importance of saying that. Why isn't it a license to sin? Well, one thing

I love about Reform Theology, because the question does bring it up, whereas we do allow

Scripture to speak for itself. Especially if you keep on going with the verse, like Tyler read,

By this we know we have come to know him. That is speaking in verse 3. By this we know that we have come to know him.

That is speaking in a salvific sense, knowing him. And so if we are saved and we can't lose that salvation, and this is how we know we are saved, if we keep his commandments.

The one who says, I have come to know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar. The truth is not in him.

Whoever keeps his word is in him, in him the love of God. So there you go right there. It's saying if you are saved, then you will do his commandments.

So it says if someone is saying, oh, I know him, but doesn't keep his commandments and living how he wants to, then he's a liar.

That's what the verse says. So just to kind of, I don't want to say play the devil's advocate, because obviously

I hate that terminology. But to make you defend that point of view, when you say don't live like you want to, to me what

I'm hearing is kind of a circular logic. For instance, we would say from, or say we in a more plural sense, the reformed theology would say that if you are saved, then your fruit will bear out that you're saved.

And if your fruit ever indicates anything other than salvation, then you never were saved because it would make it impossible, because it's impossible to lose salvation.

Therefore, it would be evidence that you were never saved. And we say that this is evident because we don't live the way that we want to.

But the idea that I think I understand about salvation is that our intentions are supposed to be made new in Christ so that the things that we do are both pleasing to God and are things that we want to do.

And when I'm saying we don't live how we want to, that's according to the flesh, because we do have new desires, we do have new wants in the

Lord. And this is what Paul gets at when he's talking about the flesh and the spirit and war within us.

So I'm talking, when I mean we don't live, like even Paul says, I do the things that I don't want to do, and he's talking about sin and all that.

So that's what I'm saying. When we're saved, we're not living in ways according to our flesh wanting to and just feeding the flesh forever and never even, what's the word, never listening to our spirit, because if you are saved and you have the

Holy Spirit in you, you will follow the commandments of the Lord. So that's what

I kind of mean when I'm saying we don't live as we want to, according to the flesh, according to our own flesh. Okay, that's fair.

I'm just trying to throw that out there. If somebody says this sounds like circular reasoning, how would you defend the logic that it is not circular reasoning?

I would supplement 2 Peter 1 to that, picking up in verse 3.

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things pertaining unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue, whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Simply put, that we become partakers in a different nature. That when we keep the commandments, that's not something we have within ourselves.

To be a quote -unquote good Christian, that's not something I can do. That goes against my very nature.

And so to keep the commands, as John says, is a testimony that I've been changed.

It's a testimony that God has put something in me that wasn't there before. That God has begun a work in me that he will continue until the day of Christ Jesus.

So, Brother Rob, do you have anything you want to add? If you're able to hear me, then...

Right now we can. Okay, I think what Elias and Tyler, the information that they just gave to me, helps answer the question of why it's not circular reasoning.

And, you know, that's why I love John, because John helps a dummy like me help understand the context, because he kind of gives it to you.

You know, in John he says, I write these things so that you may believe. And then in 1 John he says, I write these things to you who believe, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

And so he's writing to Christians, you know, as a test to shore up, to give confidence to their salvation.

So, we have a high view of what the work of the Holy Spirit is, what the Holy Spirit does in a man's life.

He makes us a new creation. We were once dead, and now we've been made alive.

He gives us a new heart with new desires. He's got the heart of stone and gives the heart of flesh. And so, therefore, the reason you can say, why is this verse not a license to sin, is because a regenerate person, because of the

Holy Spirit, would not think that way, or would not use it in that way, because of the

Holy Spirit. And for the record, I'm not saying I disagree with any of that.

These questions are largely from the internet, right? In fact,

I think I give you all a link to where some of these questions came from. Yes, there's a link to an article on question five.

Okay, and that might be where the website was that most of these questions came from. And what I did do, some of the questions were worded in a way that I don't think there was a right way to answer them.

So I did modify them, because the website is very, very hateful towards Calvinists, right?

And obviously, we don't adhere to that kind of behavior on the

Labors podcast. If we're in Christ, and I believe that each one of you are in Christ, and you're my brothers, and I'm not here to try to do anything but help, right?

So those kinds of divisive questions, I think it was necessary to alter the way that they were worded.

So you'll see that's why they're changed. The fourth question kind of harkens back to the first question, right?

If we remember, those who are just tuning in, what does perseverance of the saint mean?

Point to a scripture reference that backs that decision. Now, question number four says, In light of question one, can lordship salvation be used to describe perseverance of the saint?

And I use the term lordship salvation because I read a book by Johnny Mack one time. I think

I got it here. No, I'll give it to somebody else. I didn't need nobody in my Pentecostal church seeing I had a book called

The Gospel of Jesus Christ by John MacArthur on my shelf. So I give it away for somebody to see it. I still got one of the study

Bibles, but he made a humongous deal out of this lordship salvation concept, which seems, if I can be honest with you, kind of a ridiculous thing you need to say.

I don't understand how Christ can be lord of everything and not lord in you.

I don't understand how that can be even a point of discussion. But apparently it is a point of discussion. So I want to get your point of view on that from this

Calvinistic doctrine, knowing that John MacArthur is obviously Calvinist. Well, see, that's an interesting concept because I've come across some material from my own personal history in the church bashing this idea of lordship salvation because I'm coming from a very pragmatic background.

I was brought up in churches where there was no talk about obedience, repentance, things like that.

The gospel was basically believe in God and be nice. So any talk about the law, the

Ten Commandments, any of that was legalism. Really? Right.

We were not very friendly with the Old Testament, and not quite the Andy Stanley extreme.

But we stuck to the New Testament where Jesus was, and the commandments of God were not exactly a point of high stress.

So then what does the Great Commission look like? Really big churches. Okay. So then

Acts chapter 2, repent and believe. Anyway, we're not getting into that.

Hold on to the conversation. Yeah, take it away, Brother Tyler. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead,

Brother Gunther. I'm trying to read the question from the drive, and I can't find – I think I'm having trouble opening up the questions. Question number four.

I think it's labeled POTS. Yeah. Oh, I think I saw it. POTS, is that what you said?

Yeah. Hold on. POTS. Oh, right here.

Got it. And I think the tension with this thing we call lordship salvation is –

I think Jesse, Chicano Knox, I put it quite well when I had him on Bread of the

Word earlier this year about the idea of God as Christ's Savior and Christ as Lord, that we have a tendency to lean either one way or the other.

And he's a great Savior, but we don't always give enough attention to the other, or we focus all on Lord, all on obedience, and not enough on grace.

Okay. And so with lordship salvation, that's often how it's been interpreted, is that you're supposed to be a good

Christian and God will love you for it. And it kind of devolved into legalism a little bit.

And so I understand the apprehension to the terminology. It's not language I personally like to use because of its affiliation, but the question of the law is we don't necessarily hold that we are saved by the law, but that we will bear fruit, that those who are in Christ will engage in fruit -bearing, and that that is a product of the faith that he has put in us.

That we have been granted faith, we've been granted repentance, and that what we are doing now is being conformed to the image and likeness of Christ.

And that's not because I'm that great of a person, not because I'm that smart or that virtuous, but because Christ is in me.

Christ is changing me. Yeah, speak on that.

Now I can read a question. I posted them in the group chat too. Okay, good, good.

And so, yeah, same thing like Tyler, I wouldn't necessarily use that term, words of salvation, because I think it has led into legalism.

And obviously, I don't know if you're familiar with this, John, where there's an opposite view of that called free grace.

I don't know if you're familiar with that. I'm not. Oh, well, yeah, so some say

Lordship Salvation was in response to free grace, and some people say all free grace was a response to Lordship Salvation.

Well, Lordship Salvation, like Tyler said, to the extreme of it, it can tend to get legalism, and it's very heavily on watching.

It's called fruit watching, where you're constantly watching for fruit. And that's when the legalism can get in, because then now you're starting to wanting to do work, because one can be scared of not bearing fruit enough.

And then they have to do the work. So that way, they can feel pleased that they're in the Lord and all that stuff, where free grace was more like, you know, there's no fruit necessarily needed at all.

And there's an extreme view as well. Where I kind of fall in the middle, where, yes,

Jesus is Lord and He is Savior, and yes, there will be fruit.

I do agree with Lordship Salvation. Where I disagree with Lordship Salvation, and basically kind of Tyler already explained it, like I said,

I've been repeating myself. It can fall into legalism, and like I said, you can just always constantly watching for your fruit.

That's all you're looking towards, where this is where I kind of like the free grace side, where the free grace, some free graces, not all, but some free graces point to Christ.

Where we should not be looking at our fruit, but to Christ. So I would say we do bear fruit, and there is fruit in the believer's life.

Now, obviously, every believer's life of sanctification is different. You know, some might bear more fruit than the others, but they will be fruit nonetheless.

But we should be looking at the Christ and not our own fruit. Okay. Brother Rob, Truth and Love Network.

Hopefully, I can stay on. I think the answers that both those guys gave were excellent, and I'm glad that Eli's brought up the free grace aspect of it as well.

I think part of the language that was used at one time as well was,

Jesus is your Savior, but you've got to make him

Lord. And so that's why I appreciate what you said, John, at the very beginning, that this, you know, the conversation is really unnecessary, because you don't make him

Lord. He is Lord. You need to submit to his Lordship. And that comes when you're repenting of your sins and putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ.

You're, in essence, submitting to his Lordship, recognizing his Lordship.

And to me, I guess that's where I would make the connection with Lordship, Salvation, and Preservation of the

Saints, is that he is Lord. And when the Lord saves you, he will be faithful to finish what he started.

We're moving right along. I may be able to get to—I've saved a curveball question, and if we get to it, we get to it.

If not, you know, it's no big deal. Question five. Respond to some who believe in internal security that aren't

Calvinist, that claim that Perseverance of the Saints is circular. Oh, we don't answer that question.

Man, I didn't mean to get ahead of myself, but I sure did. Well, if there's anything somebody wanted to say about that, that I didn't give them plenty of time, now's your time.

That is Perseverance of the Saints circular reasoning? Yeah, well, I mean, there's some people that adhere to eternal security that aren't

Calvinist. It may have been maybe you, Brother Elias, who was saying that there's people who believe in eternal security, but they're not

Calvinist. I would not adhere to that belief system, either one, eternal or Calvinistic aspect of it.

But we've talked about that in some podcasts in the past, and that's not what this one's about.

But if there's something you want to say to that, those who aren't, maybe we need to explain it that.

Yeah, and it does have a quote to attest to the question. Go for it. So the quote says

Perseverance of the Saints, because it says claim that Perseverance of the Saints is circular reasoning as described from this website.

And it says, quote, Perseverance of the Saints is basically a Calvinist trying to figure out who is elect and who is not by their works.

Calvinism is another gospel, as Paul called it in Galatians. As much as Calvinists will deceive themselves into thinking that they are the only one to believe everything about salvation is

God's work. It is here that they contradict everything they just said.

Perseverance of the Saints says a saint will persevere in the faith. Only those who persevere in the faith are true

Christians. Those who not persevere in the faith are lost. Real Christians will return to the faith before their demise. So, I'm assuming whoever,

I know you said you got these questions from the internet. So whoever is citing this quote from this website is saying

Calvinists is circular reasoning or something like that or contradicting itself. Yeah, this has a lot of stuff in it.

A lot. I can say this where Calvinists aren't trying to figure out who are the elect.

Right. We are not called to know. I believe all Calvinists would agree with me on this.

We are not even called to know who the elect are. Right. We're not called to know that. We're just we're just called to preach the gospel to everyone.

Only God knows who the elect is. And again, it says to figure out who the elect are by their works,

I guess. Like I said, like that's the extreme view of Lordship Salvation to where like you could if you're on the extreme view side, you're just constantly watching for the fruit or the works of somebody to see if they're in the faith where that's where I kind of give a pushback.

Because like I said, not every believer is going to have the same amount of fruit and the fruits can look different.

Like I said, you get you get a new believer in the faith, try to compare them to someone who's been in the faith more or even if you get two new believers, one might grow faster than the other.

You know, and then they'll produce more and then are you going to go to the believer that's not producing as much fruit?

Not as fast saying, oh, you're not in the faith. So it can get so extreme view. And like I said, not all

Calvinists are watching people's works to see if they're in the faith. And that quote saying

Calvin is another gospel. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have highlighted all that and put that in there.

But I wanted I wanted to when we're ending, I want to make sure that we stand firm on this on this gospel message.

Yeah, because personally, I think that and the website is the website is listed where that came from.

Right. I don't know who wrote that in terms of what the author is.

Right. One of the things that we that we hold on to here is a solid gospel message in our disagreement.

And and I started out the podcast, making sure that people that aren't

Calvinists understand that just because we hold to different, different doctrinal teachings on issues like salvation.

It's not because we have a different gospel. And what

I said was I wanted to talk a little bit about the intention behind Calvinism and why I'm so sympathetic towards the towards a doctrine or principle that I don't

I don't believe the way that you do. What I what I hear, at least from your mouth, all of you, when you when you testify, these things is

God's sovereignty in all of it. I hear over and over and over again how

God is supreme and authoritative in everything. And I have no problem with that teaching whatsoever.

And I'm glad that the that the boast of Calvinist, if there is one thing they are boasting on, it is that God is

God and there is no other. And I love that. I love that. It's an unapologetic stance that I hold to that stance.

Right. God's God and God's God alone. He doesn't get counsel from anyone. He needs no help from anyone.

He was in the beginning before all things, and he'll be in the end long after everything. He could just everything else could cease being but God.

Right. So with that being said,

I'm not I'm not sure what's happening here, but we have two robs. Oh, there you go.

OK, so those that are listening that don't hold to this, this doctrinal principle, that's fine.

But listen at the heart of the man who hold it, at least hold it in the regards that you feel is hold it.

Now, I know that there's already it was called a hyper Calvinist. And I don't know what your thoughts are on that.

Does anyone want to explain what that is? Yeah, I.

Yeah. Go ahead, Rob. I was just going to say my simple understanding of it is a hyper

Calvinist. Somebody who believes that, of course, God has elected chosen those who are going to be saved.

So there's no need for really evangelism. But and that's just oversimplification,

I think. Right. The hyper Calvinism oftentimes also makes the claim that the elect were justified before the foundations of the world.

And this is what we're talking about is nowadays should be this fringe view that isn't really the core.

This this that's not something any of us here affirm, because every person that we believe to be elect is predestined to Christ before the foundations of the world.

But they're not actually declared righteous until they receive faith.

And that's, I think, the distinction between what we're calling hyper Calvinism and what we're trying to talk about tonight is we have these extreme outworkings that I think you do wander into territory of possibly another gospel at that point.

You know, I've even heard some aspects of hyper Calvinism where there are what

I call hyper Calvinist when they are preaching the gospel. They try to see if there are signs of election in you.

And then if they do see a sign of election in you or regenerating power of the spirit, then they'll preach the gospel to you.

I've heard that aspect as well. So the reason that I bring that up is because I'm going to assume and truthfully,

I'm hoping that this website's author that I that I selected in here is referring to that group.

Right. Of quote, unquote, hyper Calvinist. There's some things there's some questions that I'm afraid we don't have time to answer.

I know we ain't got time to answer. If I open this can of worms, there's no way. There's absolutely no way. So we're going to save the curveball for another night.

And I want to matter of fact, I'd like to to see the look on Rob's face when I ask it anyway, not see a circular emoji.

I'm ready for it. I know you are. I know you are. I don't want to. I don't want to be that way.

I just want to say one last thing, because I missed when you guys were covering the quote from the guy and his four points,

ABC and D. I didn't have a problem. I didn't have a problem with A and B. But the one thing that I mentioned at the beginning of the episode was some of the misunderstandings and then arguments made based on misunderstandings.

The C and D portions of his quote,

I think, come from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the doctrine itself.

And so I would have problems with his conclusions or suggestions from.

And if you want to read them, that's those two are the ones I have problems with.

OK, so for the sake of the sake of clarity, I'll read them. The the

Web site is BBC Beville dot org. This article was written in April 2017 or was posted

April 2017. And the quote says Perseverance of the Saints is basically a Calvinist trying to figure out who is the elect and who is not by their works.

Calvinism is another gospel, as Paul called in the Corinthians and Galatians, as much as Calvinists will deceive themselves into thinking that they are the only ones who believe everything about salvation is

God's work. It is here that they contradict everything that they just said. When Perseverance of the

Saints says a a saint will persevere in the faith, be only those who persevere in the faith are true

Christians. See those who do not persevere in the faith are lost. The real

Christians will return to faith before their demise. And as somebody who's not a

Calvinist, I would say that Delta question

D is just stupid or just stupid because he says real

Christians will return to the faith. So that's an oxymoron. If they are Christians returning to the faith,

I mean, they're lost. Right. So you understand the ignorance in the way he's worded this.

So I've got the article pulled up right now, and it's that's something. Yeah, it sounds like it could be something now.

Yeah. Like returning to the faith. If you're if you're a Christian, you never left the faith. You just and and I was going to I was going to kind of ask this point to Tyler when he brought up a little bit of a term called backsliding.

Now, I've heard different different definitions of backsliding. OK, I use it as a term in a sense of a believer committing sin in a way where he doesn't normally sin.

And maybe he's, you know, getting into temptation and maybe a point point in his life. He's falling into temptation more than he usually does.

And so, like, he has like maybe a moment in his life or a season like he kind of tends to backslide.

But he you know, but by the grace of the Holy Spirit, by the power of the Holy Spirit, he the

Holy Spirit will aid him and help him in that in that battle of sin. And, you know, he would, you know, stop sinning.

And so there's some things that me might still battle even until death. Right. So, yeah,

I think backsliding is just a term, maybe a point of season in your life where you might be doing a particular sin or some some type of sin where, you know, you don't normally do.

So, I mean, let me let me do this. This is not written down and this isn't the curveball question as a as a believer.

It is my is my belief that we're to be believers everywhere we are. When I'm at work,

I'm a minister of the gospel. Anytime I get to be one, I try my best to let not just my my work ethic be one that is that is indicative of a believer.

I try to be someone that people, especially lost people, can approach with their questions and more more than lost people.

Brothers in Christ will come up to me sometimes with prayer request or questions or this one particular fellow.

I don't know whether he's listening or not. I'm not going to say his name because I didn't tell him I was going to do this. He asked me a question about how how to approach people who were raised in church, raised.

His his word was raised Christian. And then they got out on their own and they fell away from faith.

And then, you know, sometime later, they they decided to come back to the Lord. They got married, had kids and they're raising their kids in church.

He said, you know, I always warned people that if they died while they were away from God, that they were going to go to hell.

Or what happens when those people who are Christians who walked away? And I thought when he told me this, this is where I would say that I probably would sound like a reformer.

Because we don't we're not made Christians because our parents are being raised in church.

Doesn't make you a Christian any more than walking through McDonald's makes you a Big Mac. And and the fact that someone like I have four daughters,

I've raised them in church. I've raised them on God's word, in prayer, around God's word, around God's people.

And I've shielded them wherever I can from the things of the world. But that's not what gives me any kind of indication that they're saved.

What gives me indication that they're saved are the things that they do on their own. The pursuit of God that they have whenever I'm not asking them to.

Right. And if they were to move out of my home and the first thing they quit, they quit was their

Bible reading, their prayer and church attendance. If they quit these three things, then I would know for sure that I failed in raising them.

Right. And and that's that might be a harsh way to put that. That's what

I feel in my heart. And not necessarily failed. Like I said, you can raise someone in the

Lord, which which we are commanded to do as believers. Right. In Christ, if we have children, we are commanded to raise them up in the

Lord. Which you just you just described you. You have been doing ever since their birth. And we all know ever since my salvation, they were born before I was saved.

Oh, I'm sorry. I wish I wish that were true. I wish that I had been a Christian my whole life, but I haven't been.

I was already a father of four before I came to faith in Christ. So I'm just saying that this this man's question he posed to me,

I couldn't answer his question because he was asking me the question as if to say that predicated on what he was saying was truthful statement.

It's not it's not what what he was saying was what is indicative of most American people that are raised in our part of the country.

And this may not affect you as much, Brother Elias, because you're not raising you're not living in the

Bible Belt. But for the longest time and the section of the country where I've lived, good people went to church.

And it was a sign that you weren't a good person whenever you stopped going to church. And if you went to church, you were a

Christian. And if you stopped going to church, you lost your salvation. Right. And there's so many problems.

So many problems with with with the way that people phrase this kind of thing that that man's question he he was predicating his entire belief system that that was the reality of the way the world works and the way that the church works.

And I had to say, no, no, wait a minute. That's not that's not how this works, because it is my belief that you can lose your salvation.

But it is not my belief that once it is lost, it is something that is readily obtained again.

And we could get into that in a whole nother time or you can go back and listen to some of the podcasts we've had with the with the reformed drinking.

And I were talking about it, I believe. Or maybe it was Brother Jeremy. I don't I don't remember now. And I can you know, we can talk about that, like I said, at another time.

But in any case, the fact of the matter is, I believe we've gotten so comfortable with accepting the fact that people play church twice a week makes them

Christian, that we've lost so much of the reality of what it actually means to be a Christian.

And largely, I believe that we have far more in common with Calvinist than we have a difference.

And it's it's poor understanding of salvation and justification that has got us where we are.

Mm hmm. Yeah. And if I can add to that, we're absolutely it's true, even though I don't live under the

Bible, but there is that type of culture up here as well, especially where I grew up in. I grew up in that culture where, you know, one might be born and born in a church family and raised in church.

But once they leave church, they lost their salvation. It's like you just said, well, you're assuming that they were saved just because they were born in a church family and they went to church all their life.

You know, and we're not we're not to assume that.

That's right. We're to which to, you know, in order to be saved, whether they're a pastor's kid or someone visiting from the church where they have to preach the gospel to them.

You know, they had to be saved by Christ. And like we've been saying all along, they will bear fruit.

They will bear fruit. Now, every believer, like we've been saying, has different, you know, amount of fruit or, you know, their sanctification looks different, but they will bear fruit.

That's what Jesus said. You shall know them by their fruit. And so, yeah. Let's do this.

We've we've we're going to make that we're going to make us really close to an on time podcast as your debut.

My reformed Berean brother, will you share the gospel of Jesus Christ with everyone? And then, Brother Tyler, will you close us in prayer?

Absolutely. Take it away. All right. Well. What I always start with the gospel is, you know.

We always got to start with from the beginning. And so God made man upright and perfect.

When man sinned, Adam fell, right? We all fell in Adam, right?

Because Adam represented the whole human race when he said he broke God's law.

God told him not to eat the fruit of the tree. And he did. He did. He did willingly.

He wasn't deceived. He wasn't deceived. And so we all fell in him. And once he fell, he he he.

The Lord said, you shall surely die. And even though he didn't die physically, which was mercy on God's part, but he did die spiritually that day.

And everyone coming forth from Adam, which is all every every every human being.

You are you are born dead spiritually, right? You are. That's why we are born dead in our sins and trespasses.

And and ever since then, God has been giving grace to man by reaching down to man, being the first responder and giving man mercy and letting him know about God's law and and giving him the promise.

Right. What what what did God tell Eve, the seed of the woman, right? That that is the first promise to save them from their sin and from the wrath of God.

Right. Because their sin and our sin, it there's punishment.

Right. The wages of sin is death. Right. And so to save us from the wrath of God.

Right. Because God, our sin. Right. Needs it needs to be there.

It has to be payment. Right. That's why we see throughout the Old Testament that God required sacrifice of animals.

Right. It has to be a payment of sin. And so God gave mercy upon Adam and Eve and gave told

Eve that the serpent that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent.

That is the first promise of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. And so God gave his perfect and holy law throughout throughout history to his to his people.

And we see that in the Old Testament in Israel, the nation of Israel was to be the light of the nations.

And to come from that, Israel is the coming of the Messiah, which is Jesus. And God gave his law as a mirror to show us, hey, this is my holy and perfect law.

You guys have broken every one of them. And I am sending a savior.

To to fulfill the law, to fulfill my law. Right. And so Jesus came down to live the perfect life and to live according to the law on our behalf, on people's behalf, who will believe in him.

Right. And that's why that's why God, that's why John 3, John 3, 16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

That's whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That Christ fulfilled the law, he lived, he lived according to the law perfectly.

And he died according died according accordingly.

Right. He died for our sins, for the sins of his people. Right. Because he died.

He took our place. He died the death that we should have been punished. Right.

He took our punishment. God, he lived the life we should be living and he died the death we should have died.

But he so he died on our behalf for the propitiation for our sins. Right. The wrath of the wrath of the father was poured out on him.

And so those who believe in him will not perish, but have eternal life. Right. You can escape the wrath of the father.

And I call everyone listening to this repent of your sins, turn away from your sins and run to the mercy of Jesus Christ who had died for the sins of the world.

Amen. Amen. Discuss something really beautiful about the way you work in our lives.

That my ability to obey does not come from myself. But it is solely given by you.

I am becoming something that I was not before. That you are shaping me, you are molding me as a potter with clay.

And I'm delighted to, even through just through technology, to gather with other believers and talk about that.

To try to wrestle with how you work. Not for the sake of being smart, but to know you and to know you more.

I thank you for these brothers. I thank you for the people you've brought for us to speak to.

I pray for what was heard in this episode to go forth for your glory.

You would plant seeds of faith. You would call people to repentance.

That you would save souls through your gospel. In Christ's precious, precious name.

We pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. We thank you for sticking around for this wild adventure.

I want to thank you brothers for sticking it out with me and putting up with my ignorance on the fact.

I pray that this was in any way enlightening or edifying to the church. Until next time, here's that outro.

Thank you for joining the Laborer's Podcast. Remember, Jesus is King. Live in the victory of Christ.

Speak with the authority of Christ. And go share the gospel of Christ. Be sure to tune in next time for the