Keep sharing good news without ads.
Going back through the Q&A from the “Why Calvinism Conference”
Well, hello and welcome to everybody out there in Facebook and YouTube. This is the Apologetic Dog, where it's our heart's desire to contend for the gospel of grace. And so if you're familiar with this ministry, this is Apologetics Ministry.
I try to ground this ministry in 1 Timothy 6, verse 20, where Paul says to Timothy, O Timothy, guard the deposit that's been entrusted to you, and he says, avoid irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.
And so here at the Apologetic Dog, we believe in sola scriptura, right? We understand that God's word is the sole infallible rule with how we are to live lives and to give glory with our lives and how we relate to one another.
And so thank you so much for tuning in this evening. I'm getting better with the live streams. People are like, why don't you advertise it beforehand? I don't know when these things are going to be. I just kind of do it as we go.
But that's okay. That's what makes this fun and lively. I also serve as a pastor and elder at 12 Five Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. So if you're in the Jonesboro area, Northeast Arkansas area, please come search us out.
We're in downtown. We'd love to meet you and for you to check out our fellowship. And so I want to give a quick announcement coming up in a matter of weeks. I believe April 5th at 6 p .m. I will be engaging in a debate with Mike Hysaul on baptism.
And so this is going to be good. Mike Hysaul is a gentleman and a scholar, and we have been interacting a little bit through social media, just trying to build up that hype. And so you don't want to miss it.
That's coming up here in just a few weeks. We're going to be talking about baptism because maybe some people think baptism is what washes our past sin away. I'd say that's a distortion of the gospel. And then you have people on the other end of the spectrum that don't think that baptism is important at all.
And that is the furthest thing from the truth. And so we're going to be getting into this in just a couple weeks. You don't want to miss it. Once again, that's April 5th at 6 p .m. We're going to be having this debate live at 12 Five Church in person.
So once again, if you want to come travel and come meet us, we're going to have plenty of seating. And if you're not able to make it, we're going to be live streaming this debate here at the Apologetic Dog, April 5th at 6 p .m.
So now, why am I going live this evening? Well, I want to put out more content out there for y 'all. And so this is just exciting to be able to have a studio here set up at my home. My lovely wife has given me permission to be able to use the North Tier home to be able to put out content for y 'all and just to contend for the gospel of grace.
She says, wifey and the puppy are watching from the living room. I love y 'all out there. So today, I want to go back through some of the questions from the Why Calvinism Conference. Many of you know, I was blessed to be a speaker at the Why Calvinism Conference in Tennessee, Tullahoma.
Got to meet Jeff Rice and the gang. Many men just from all over were able to come together and we had very specific topics about the application of Calvinism. And many of you know that here in the Deep South, that's a bad word.
And a lot of times that's because it's a misunderstanding of what Calvinism is. And a lot of times we call it Reformed Theology or we call it the Doctrines of Grace because we see these as beautiful things, harmonizing God's sovereignty with the responsibility of man.
And so yeah, John Calvin in church history, I believe, is a wonderful theologian that I don't believe on everything. I'm not Presbyterian. And yet I look at John Calvin as the proto-Presbyterian. And so John Calvin is just a man.
We don't worship him. We don't hold him in higher preeminence over any other saint. Rather, we're to test all things and hold fast to that, which is good. And so I just want to encourage people, before we start looking at a particular label, ask.
Questions.
What is the substance of that and what does the Bible teach? So with that being said, the more I was thinking about doing an episode and I thought, you know, I'd love to have an opportunity to be able to speak to some of the questions that were brought out at the Q &A panel that all of our speakers got together and we had many questions sent in and we went through it.
And so our Q &A panel had a lot of wonderful, brilliant men on stage, a lot of brain power up there. And I could have spoke to every single question, but I don't want to hog time. Obviously, Dr. White was just a little bit to my left, so I was fangirling a little bit up there, just sharing the same platform as Dr. White.
But anyway, my point is, I wanted to share so much, but you're up there with many other people and so you just want to kind of maybe speak to some of the questions that you're most familiar with or if there's kind of a dull moment, maybe use that as a time to speak.
So I also just want to say for anybody that's out there listening, whether you're on YouTube or Facebook, I see some of y 'all tuning in on Facebook. I can tell who's watching, by the way, just so you know.
You can send me questions in the side chat because this is kind of an episode not only where I want to go through questions of the Q &A from the last conference I was a speaker at, but I want to give this time to you to ask me questions, whether it be on a personal level, whether it has theological questions, and you may just stump me and I'll be like, oh, I'm going to ignore that question altogether.
I want nothing to do with that one. No, I'd like to think that I'm charitable when it comes to not knowing the answer to a question and just saying, hey, that's really good. I want to look more into that.
And so thank you all for tuning in. Let's see, we got somebody else out there in YouTube world. Let me adjust my end. Adam Carmichael. What is going on, sir? So Adam, you're not allowed to ask me questions, man, because you know my weaknesses and you know the hard questions that I know the answer to.
I'm just totally kidding. Adam, you especially, if you have a question, send it in. And it could be a question that we've talked about in some length and you just want to hear me talk about it and ramble and get a little preachy.
Adam knows how preachy I can get. But the way I figured we would do this a little bit is I have a number of clips from the actual conference in Tullahoma, and I thought I would play them for you, and then I'll give you my thoughts how I would answer it.
I don't have everybody's responses, and so there's about, I think, 11 questions or so, and send me some of your questions along the way, your input. Got someone else joining us. I love this name, by the way, Sola Scriptura.
And this is another reason why I'm presuppositional in my apologetics. John Frame once said that presuppositionalism is sola scriptura applied. And so I've never forgot that, but that's, and I don't discount evidences.
I just think all evidences point back to the one true God who necessarily exists. So thank y 'all for joining in. If you haven't already, please like this video if you enjoy this content. The more likes you get, the more this channel is able to gain recognition, and that encourages me to put out more content and interact with you guys.
Oh yeah, if you have any questions about this over here, you're going to have to ask me about it, but I was really proud about putting this sign up. Okay, so let me play our first clip that I would like to cover from the Q &A panel at the Tullahoma Conference, Why Calvinism?
So question number one, how do the theological differences of Calvinism and Arminianism affect their approaches to evangelism and missions? Do the beliefs lead to different strategies?
So I thought this was a good question. Firstly, about evangelism. Does it matter if you're convictionally Arminian or a Calvinist? And depending on your convictions, does that affect your strategy of evangelizing?
And so on one hand, I want to say, look, you can be confused about the doctrines of grace, aka Calvinism, not have a full grasp or be a new Christian and don't even know what those words mean, but you know the Great Commission.
And so on one hand, I just want to say that scripture calls us, regardless of our theological perspective, to share the gospel, to go as you are going, to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that presupposes that you are contending for the kingdom of God, telling people that they must repent and believe the gospel in order to have their sins forgiven.
Thank you, Gavin. Oh man, I just want to brag on this gentleman real quick. Gavin and I, we disagree on much, but we've had fruitful interactions. We actually, Gavin, was it about a year ago where we actually got to debate on essentially baptism itself and how that relates into salvation and whatnot?
I just want to say that I've appreciated Gavin's interaction. He had to endure watching me un-cultish call out the Church of Christ, and yet, and sometimes those are just heavy fighting words for a lot of individuals, and yet Gavin was a gentleman.
We've continued to. I would call you a friend. Maybe, hopefully, he would feel the same way towards me, and we message each other and ask questions all the time, and so Gavin, if you've got any more questions, man, if you've got any questions, fire them my way.
But going back to what does the strategy look like in evangelism, number one, I would say no matter where you're at on the spectrum, we're called to be obedient, to share the gospel, to preach it with boldness and conviction.
So I will say I think it matters greatly whether you are Calvinist or Arminian in terms of your prep and strategy for evangelizing. Why do I say that? Well, as a Calvinist, as someone that holds dearly to the doctrines of grace, I believe my evangelism efforts have 100 success rate, and I remember talking to a gentleman one time, he's talking about percentages, if we knock on X amount of doors and we get so many people asking X questions, how do we qualify or quantify that type of success or not success?
And we were able to say, no, no, no, God's Word does not return empty. And so when we're preaching the gospel, it goes out exactly how it's meant to. It's going to fall on all different types of soils.
It may fall by the wayside, and we may not see any fruit, we may see indifference, we may see people hostile to the gospel. That's okay. That's what was meant to happen. As someone who's Reformed, we trust God in His sovereignty.
We trust God with His decretive will. And so we're called to be obedient, and for me, my strategy is trust the Lord. I don't have to think back on how well I may or may not have presented with the utmost clarity and precision the gospel and think, man, that person may go to hell because I just did not give an adequate gospel presentation.
I don't want people to mishear me and think, well, I guess it doesn't matter how precise we share the gospel because God's just determined everything and in control of everything, so it doesn't matter.
I want to caution against that mindset. Just because God operates differently than man, that gives meaning and a foundation for everything that happens in this universe. And because God is sovereign, because He has commissioned me to preach the gospel with boldness, I want to do it with precision.
I want to do it to the best of my abilities, knowing that my efforts cannot fail in an ultimate sense. And I've talked with those that are more of the Arminian persuasion—oh, I got distracted a little bit.
I've had conversations with people that disagree with Calvinism, and then we can shake hands and say, hey, however that cashes out in real time, we still trust God at the end of the day. I imagine if God wasn't absolutely sovereign in whatsoever comes to pass, then I think I would be more prone to saying, well, I have to make sure I go down the Roman road with great precision, not misquoting anything because then it's on me for this person to hear the gospel or not.
And so if you are a non-Calvinist, share with me your thoughts on if you would identify as being Arminian or Provisionist—a little bit of a shout out to the Flower Patch Kids there—on what your strategy is for sharing the gospel, and perhaps we will have a lot of common ground as we do that.
Okay, just so everybody knows, there's a whole farm of us, and the—oh, goodness, this bear, I'll say, I don't want to mispronounce his name. There's a whole farm of us, and so we're united together and contending for the gospel of grace.
So, yeah, the question is, what's your opinion on mauling your opponents? You must maul your opponents with grace and love. Good question, good question, I appreciate that. Okay, Reformed Mike in the house.
Just not this house. Appreciate you for being able to make it. Okay, so with that being said, I want to move on to my next question. And like I said, I just want to encourage people in the side chat, I don't see any interaction on Facebook World except Tom that says, boom!
Thank you for tuning in.
All right, let's move on to question number two.
This next one may be for Jeffrey or Jeremiah or maybe even Claude, since they have such beautiful beards. Is the Calvinistic community unfriendly to the un-bearded, non-white or female? Why do we all look so similar, and does it indicate we could or should be more welcoming or kind to others who don't look like us?
This is a hilarious question. Y 'all let me know in the side chat, can y 'all hear that okay, or is the volume too low? If it is too low, I'll try to see if I can do something about it. But Greg Moore brought up the question, what's the deal with all the beards?
Is there some partiality going on? Are people going to feel left out if they can't grow good beards? I've got to throw this up here. That's true. I'm not sure if this person even has a beard. The apocalyptic bear seems to just be hating on my beard, man.
No, this person may or may not have a beard. You don't know that. You're going to have to reveal yourself one day, who you are. So when we talk about beards, it's so funny because for me, well actually I just want to show you, I actually responded to this question on the Q &A panel, so check this out.
I just want to say, I didn't even know I could grow a beard until I started studying Reformed Theology, so there's something to that, I can't explain it.
The aroma of grace just allows it to grow, you know.
My favorite moment about that was watching Dr. White laugh. That's a rare occasion when you see that man laugh. If I could speak to this, I think when you study Reformed Theology, maybe it does just start making it where you can grow a beard.
But I see men like John Calvin, John Knox, many others that just have beards. And so that is odd to me how that is kind of this Reformed culture, the beard is just kind of a part of that. Obviously you know Jeff Durbin is maybe a quintessential someone, Reformed Baptist has this red beard.
And again, I actually really appreciate this. A lot of people say, you look a lot like Jeff Durbin, and I'm like, thank you, that is genetics. It just kind of happened like that. Okay, so we do have a question from Reformed Mike, let me see if I can put this on the screen for everyone.
Okay, let's see, hopefully we can read this okay. Okay, my question is John 6 and Matthew 12, James mentioned this in the debate, the Father draws to the Son, but in Matthew 12, Jesus reveals the Father to whom he wills.
What is the difference here? I feel like, and maybe I'm thinking of the wrong verse, but I thought it was Matthew 11, 27, so Reformed Mike, if you could tell me that verse in Matthew 12, if you give me that verse specifically, I want to address it.
But in just the chapter earlier, Matthew 11, I don't know why, I got my Bible here, but why not just put it on the screen for everyone else? Oop, oop, oop, don't look at my background. Am I not going to be able to do this?
There we go.
Okay, let's see here. So as Mike tells me what verse exactly he's talking about, I want to share with you my initial thoughts. I believe it's Matthew 11, 27, actually, I want to start back in verse 25.
So yeah, I do want to relate to this. I see a strong connection here with Matthew 11 and John 6, and so once again, Mike, if you have a different question or a different verse in mind, just let me know and I'll look at that here in just a moment.
But here, at the time Jesus declared, I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and have revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
I want to pause. I believe these things pertain to salvation, these things of knowing who Messiah is and having your sins forgiven. We see this is what Jesus is revealing himself as the Messiah throughout the gospel narrative.
And what's so interesting here is he's actually thanking the Father for veiling, hiding these things from the wise and understanding. So in the context, this would be the Pharisees, those during the Second Temple Jewish time frame that have taken the law of Moses and distorted it into meriting salvation by obedience to the law.
And so we all have to wrestle with scriptures like this, that Jesus is thanking God the Father in his perfect will, that not everyone understands these realities. So we can get into judicial hardening and so forth here in a moment, but I want to keep.
Going.
Verse 27, all things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal. Okay, I'm going to come back over here, see as I comment on this, what Mike's, okay, oh, before Mike, I was told I was correct.
So yeah, I just wanted to double check. Now, in Matthew 11, you've got to think, those two verses that I read, that's right before Jesus commands everyone that has ears, who labors, that's all of us, that have heavy yoke of bondage, well, that's all of us, come to me.
And that's not just an invitation, that is actually an imperative for all to come. That's why in Acts we can see that it's commanded for all men everywhere to repent. Mark 115, we are to repent and believe the gospel, that is a command for all people, it's not merely an invitation.
Why is that? Because Jesus is Lord of all. So I think the same truth is being communicated in John chapter 6, and so if we, if you are not aware, make sure I can pull this up, I want to go to John 6 now.
So there's been a lot of hoopla, if you've been keeping up in the debate world. We recently, I said we, had a debate between James White and Layton Flowers over John 644. If you've not heard of this debate, then get out from underneath the rock that you're apparently sleeping under, because that was a debate for the decade, and I was there in person.
And so I've done a debate review on this with A .K. Richardson, I actually got to do a debate review with the man himself, Dr. James White. We actually did a debate tour review of all five of his debates that he did in about a month's time.
And so to reform Mike, I think the same truth is being communicated here, because you've got aspects where the Trinity is involved, and Jesus during the Incarnation is submitting his will to the Father.
He can do that because he's positionally lower than the Father, and says that the Father is greater than us. So we do see in the economic Trinity a submissive will from Jesus to the Father. But this doesn't negate the eternal triune counsel before the foundation of the world.
But this verse says, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. Got to read verse 45 here, because people will say, Ah, you're taking this verse out of context, Jeremiah.
It's not the first time I've been accused of that. But verse 45 says, It is written in the prophets, and they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
And so, yeah, during the Incarnation, you see a submissiveness of, you know, those Jews of old that have heard from the Father, been taught from the Father, and are responding to that. Yes, this is a result of the divine hand of God.
And those people that have been drawn by the Father, that are in the New Covenant, that are believers, believing Israel, well, of course, they're going to respond to the Gospel. So, with that being said, let me go back to y 'all's questions.
They're going to have to keep me aligned out. Let's see here. Is the epileptic bear still out there? Epileptic. I just want to give super props to whoever this person is, because epileptic, I think I'm saying that right.
I looked at that, and I thought it said the apologetic, and then I was like, oh, you misspelled.
It.
And then I'm like, oh, no, this is a fierce, angry bear that's mauling them kids. Okay, okay, Reform Mike, did that help? Okay, got some feedback here. Reform Mike says, I wanted to ask, because flowers made a separation, the Father draws through prophets, but now Jesus draws.
So I thought about these verses. I love using Leighton and the Flower Patch Kids terminology against them, but that is a distinction without a difference. And what I mean is, just because in the Old Covenant you have promises of the Gospel, the promises in type and shadow form, it's still the Gospel.
That's the power of God unto salvation. That's being promised in the New Covenant in which Jesus shed his blood for. Our justification has always been by grace through faith in the salvation of the New Covenant.
And I emphasize these things because I am not Presbyterian. I believe it is the New Covenant that saves to the uttermost. And so these Old Testament saints honor the Old Covenant. They get the saving benefits, no matter how you want to splice it or dice it, by the New Covenant, what Jesus accomplished on Calvary.
And so, yeah, Leighton wanted to separate the Father draws from Jesus drawing. Does not matter. God draws by his revelation, by his Word. Whether that be under the Old Covenant in Gospel seed form, it's still pointing forward.
And that is how God is always saved. Faith has always come by hearing and hearing of the Word of Christ. And we all drink of the same rock, baby, of Jesus Christ. My point is the Old Testament saints are saved, justified by grace through faith in the coming Savior.
And we too are being drawn by God, having our hearts regenerated and illumined to the truth of who Jesus is. And we put our faith in everything that Jesus did. And so just because there's an Old Covenant and New Covenant, salvation is the same way.
The drawing is a divine act, an effectual divine act, if we want to open it up back in John chapter 6 some more. Me and A .K., we went round and round and round on that reform. Mike, I don't know if you listened to my interaction with A .K.
Yes, that Trinitarian harmony for sure. Thank you. Reform Mike, if you haven't listened to my interaction with A .K., we go round and round and round, and he's trying to grill me in a nice way. He's trying to say, Jeremiah, it just don't say that.
And I'm like, yeah, but it does. You just don't like it. And you got to be able to agree to disagree. So anyway, thank you for that interaction, Reform Mike. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. One of my favorite peoples out there, it's okay, Christ Rescue Me, you're late, but I'm glad you're here.
I was going to say, better late than never. I just want to also encourage people, this individual, she wrote a book called Christ Rescue Me, and I was able to interview Miss Leanne Ferguson. She doesn't, I'm sure she doesn't care, since she wrote a book and let me interview her.
Go check out my interview with Miss Leanne. She wrote a book called Christ Rescued Me from the Church of Christ. And so, Leanne, thank you so much for your ongoing support and interaction. I just want to ask everybody, if you've appreciated this content, please like, subscribe, and share.
It just helps the ministry. One day I would love to be able to do this full time. I'd love to be full time at 12 .5 Church as one of the undershepherds, pastors, and elders there. And my church family wants me to pursue apologetics with every fiber of my being.
And so, we'll see what doors the Lord opens up there. All right, I'm getting some good interaction in the side chat. Okay, let's answer this question, too. And so, if you're just now tuning in, I'm going through questions from the Why Calvinism conference back when I went and spoke at the conference in Tullahoma.
Words are hard sometimes. And it's live, so there's no editing that out. But I'm going through the question-answer panel questions where I was up there with just a bunch of brilliant men. And so, I only got to engage here and there a little bit.
I got Dr. White to laugh, so that was a highlight moment for me. But I thought this would be a good time to go back and give my input on some of those questions. And some of those are really hard questions, and I'm not really listening to all of them.
It's not super fresh, so I want to give you a fresh take on some of my initial thoughts on some of those questions. But as I do that, I want to be able to answer some of your questions that you have for the apologetic dog.
And so, Paul Henderson, back to life, says, Does regeneration mean the same as born again of the Spirit? Absolutely. When we look at John chapter 3, Jesus talks about that no one can see the kingdom of God unless you're born again.
And I would argue that this is the same meaning that the Apostle Paul has in Titus chapter 3, when he talks about being renewed and regenerated by the Spirit. So absolutely, being born again is synonymous with regeneration.
Excellent question.
Okay.
All right. Oh, all right. I got to bring up this question. This is my boy, Everett Young. Ask a fantastic question. And this might get brought up in the Q &A panel questions that I may cover in a minute, but Everett's such a studious young man.
In fact, Everett has shared his testimony on the apologetic dog and let the fishbone, Trey Fisher and I, interview him about how God has saved him by his amazing grace out of the Church of Christ. And that's not out of meanness, but the Church of Christ preaches a false gospel that cannot save.
When you say that baptism is necessary to have your past sins away, then you are necessarily saying, yeah, you got to get up and participate and do your part in order for God to do his. So it distorts the gospel.
It can't save. And so Everett asks, Jeremiah, should we drop our Calvinistic theology when our free will brothers find offense at it? Great question. So I want to number one, say that very well may be the case.
Paul says we become all things to all people that we may win some. And so definitely that's in a context where we preach the gospel. We become all things to all people, all things. We have liberty in all things, but we try to proceed forward in wisdom.
And so a little bit of that, I think in evangelical circles where maybe using certain terminology that triggers people, that'll be unprofitable conversation, absolutely. I would say we want to tread cautiously for the sake of the weaker brother.
And when I say that, the weaker brother, some people get triggered by certain phrases, labels, and be sensitive to that. Don't wave your Christian liberty in their faith or in their face. And I'm using the principle from, I believe it's Romans chapter 14.
Someone correct me up there. I miss quote verses all the time. And I tell people because I'm from the South and they just look at me and like, yeah, that's not going to work. But I think I have a tinge of dyslexia.
And so when I start firing a bunch of numbers out there, they get flip-flopped in my brain a little bit. On the flip side though, I believe that using certain labels can be very helpful. And you see me, I've already started this podcast, internet cast, YouTube video, Facebook video by using very precise words.
And so when people hear me talk about why Calvinism, that's going to offend some people. And I'm over here saying it's not meant to be offensive. So Everett, I just want to, for one, thank you for asking a good question.
I think it depends. I think it depends who you're talking to. And like you said, our free will brothers. If you think it might offend them, then I would definitely not purposely use words and labels that may trigger, oh, I see David Lewis is watching.
Oh, he just sent something. So you have to forgive me. I have not figured out how to get the Facebook quotes, questions up there on the screen. But David Lewis said, question, are you subliminally putting it out there that you are actually a provisionist with the flower patch kids in the background?
No, I'm not.
I didn't even realize it said that over there. How did that get there? Last time I looked back there, it said John 17, 17, thy word is truth. So I really enjoy calling Layton Flowers and the provisionist crew, the flower patch kids.
I mean it out of love. There's a lot of nicknames that David, you and I have been called and I just look at it as a nickname. So I enjoy getting the change of sign, but I want to tell y 'all, changing that sign back there, that takes some effort.
There's a lot of letters. So I don't enjoy always changing that out. All right, all right. Let me move on to my next video clip. I believe this is maybe the third question. So here we go.
All right. So this one might be a Keith question or I would be interested in Braden's response to this coming out of Mormonism and Keith having a podcast called Conversations with the Calvinist and your Calvinist.
Do you refer to yourself as a Calvinist when in a group of non-Calvinists or do you avoid using that label because of its common misunderstandings? Even Dr. Waldron might be able to answer this too, being in ministry so long and seeing terms change as well.
What do you guys think?
Do you use that term?
I do.
I have a long list of terms I like to identify with. I'm a covenantal theologist.
So we basically just answered this question and just to kind of repeat, it depends. If you're going to be around people that that might, the word Calvinism may cause sparks to fly, don't do it. There's so many other great terms.
I mean, we got biblical verses to turn to and we can just say, hey, here's what I believe who God is, right? He sees all things. He sustains the universe by the word of his power. Nothing escapes his sight and this whole Ephesians 111 says that he's working all things together after the counsel of his will.
We don't have to bring up any terminology to say, that's what Paul said, not me. And so, yeah, you got to be sensitive to who you're talking to because we do want to deal with these types of things with love and grace.
And so I thought it was a great question. Real quick, got some people chiming in. Daniel Motes, hey Jeremiah, from your Reformed website guy, this man is a champion. That's all you need to know. Daniel is a champion.
Look forward to seeing you again, Daniel, in person. All right, what else in the side chat? All right, let's see, let's see, let's see. Oh my goodness, I don't know, are women saved by childbearing? Yes, that's what Paul says.
So yes, I believe MacArthur has really good commentary on that particular verse that just says the woman's role is saved, meaning it is restored by being obedient to what she is called to do as a godly mother, rearing up her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and submitting to her husband as unto the Lord.
Her role is restored. But that verse, I even know it was probably meant to be a joke, is not referring to a person's regeneration or justification, but what was lost at the fall with Eve is restored through the Spirit, illuminating a godly woman's heart to be obedient to all that God has commanded us in the role that she is designed for.
All right, Daniel, love you too, brother. And who else?
Everett.
All right, I got essentially a thumbs up from Everett. Okay, let's move on to the next video clip.
Let's move along then. In 2 Thessalonians 2 .11, God sends upon them a deluding influence, I think it's delusion, so that the people will believe what is false. Why must God do this if the default nature of man is to love sin and suppress truth?
Boom, boom.
Okay, I may have to replay that because I got a little sidetracked over here. So a question from Devin, where can I find this original video from the conference? Go to the YouTube channel, Open Air Theology, and that channel is by Jeffrey Rice, and so all the sermons, all the lectures from all the different speakers are over there.
Yours truly. I got to speak on Calvinism in Tribulation. So I got to talk about how we can rest in the sovereignty of God while we are suffering. And so when you go to that YouTube page, you'll find this original video that I've spliced.
Up.
And so, yeah, float over there. And so Miss Leanne, you may have to tell me if I missed something, but Christ Rescue Me, she says, saved by childbearing, obviously, obviously cannot literally mean that women are saved by giving birth, for that would contradict Ephesians 2, absolutely.
And so that's a thing. Ephesians chapter 2 is talking about justification, right, how we are declared right before God. It's by faith, not by works, and then we are created in Christ Jesus for good works.
And so, obviously, this is where other scriptures would be articulating our progressive sanctification.
So let me play this question again, if you don't mind.
Let's move along then. In 2 Thessalonians 2, 11, God sends upon them a deluding influence, I think it's a delusion, so that the people will believe what is false. Why must God do this if the default nature of man is to love sin and suppress truth?
Okay, so I think the verse is in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, was it 2, 11? Peoples.
Let me know if y 'all can't see this, hopefully y 'all can. Therefore, God sends them a strong delusion so that they may believe what is false. Verse 12, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
So I believe the question is just saying, why did God have to send a delusion if they're already dead in their sins and trespasses? So maybe if I misunderstood the question, but, so why a deluding spirit if we're born unable?
Now, 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 does have a context and it's highly controversial how this relates to the end times eschatology. You got the man of lawlessness and so forth happening, it may not be that chapter, it may be.
And so y 'all let me know in the side chat if you're like, hey, you did not answer that sufficiently, just remind me, I'll go back to it. But, so, this, a couple different things. When we affirm total depravity, obviously this laser focuses in on man's inability to respond positively to the gospel, okay?
So man is dead in sin and trespasses, does not seek God, we need divine intervention to illuminate and regenerate that cold, stony heart, okay? Now, that is also compatible. So the backbone of the doctrines of grace, the five points of Calvinism, is the sovereignty of God understood in compatibilistic categories, meaning both are true.
God determines and wills eternally, and man determines and wills and makes choices temporally according to our heart's desire. And so as long as that's the foundation, then this is easily understood. Yeah, God could have decreed different means to bring about a certain end, but when God sends a delusion, I don't know exactly how this restraining hand is accomplished in real time, but God is restraining His grace somehow.
We see principles all throughout the book of Romans that illustrate that God hands people over to a debased mind. This is God interacting in real time. And so He can interact in real time by restraining His hand, by effectually working in the elect's hearts with regeneration, or God can send deceitful spirits.
And so what do I mean? And I don't know if this directly relates to 2 Thessalonians 2, I imagine spiritual warfare is at play, but I think about the satanic wager in Job 1 and 2, God can permit and allow Satan to afflict the saints, to persecute the saints, all these things.
And one criticism I get is, so Jeremiah, you're just telling me God permits what He decrees? I'm like, yes, those are compatible. Could He have decreed different means? Sure. But God in His holy and wise counsel has decreed whatsoever comes to pass.
I can just simply quote the prophet Isaiah saying, He is the one truly that declares the end from the beginning, and that means everything in between. He doesn't force these things to happen, in real time He can permit these things to come about with secondary means that He has eternally ordained, but they are compatible.
And so however you understand God sending a strong delusion, that is God's permission through secondary means, whether He is allowing Satan to be kind of that dominating influence like He did in the time of Job, or He's just pulling back His hand of restraint and allowing people to be even more deluded in their fallenness.
So how'd I do on that one? All right, gotta check out you people. Oh no, my arch nemesis is here. This is an unapologetic cat. This is my arch nemesis. I'm so glad that you could join us. I have no idea what mayhem you're causing in the side chat, but I just love showing people that your account exists out there, an unapologetic cat.
I'm telling you, there's a whole farm of us. I gotta double check. Oh, Steve Christie, and I don't know if he's still out in Facebook world, but we would love for you to be able to have made it to the conference as well.
Okay, let's see here.
I just want to remind everyone, if you have any questions, spam them in the side chat, because if I missed it earlier, it's going to be hard to kind of go back. But I want to invite the unapologetic cat.
What you got out there? Got any apologetics questions out there? I doubt it, because you're a cat. And your cat doesn't have a beard, so I just want to point that out. Okay, I'm not seeing any. Let's see.
David Lewis. Get, shoot, get out of here, cat. Weird dog people. For real. For real. Okay, let's go back to the next clip. I believe we played the one about God sending a delusion. I think that was this one.
Let's move along then. In 2 Thessalonians 2, how can it be God's will that not any should perish, 2 Peter 3 9, but God's will would elect some and not others, slash all.
All right, this is worth going to 2 Peter 3 9. Let me get there.
A second, Peter.
Now, I remember we all, on the panel, I remember a lot of us, we were looking at Dr. White and Sam Waldron, saying, okay, these two bigwigs need to handle this one, this question. And so they gave good answers, and I don't think they gave the same exact answer.
And so, actually, I want to play this clip again, just to make sure I understand the question correctly.
All right, how can it be God's will that not any should perish, 2 Peter 3 9, but God's will would elect some and not others, slash all.
Good question, Greg Moore. He's just such a fantastic host of the conference, or moderator. Okay, so the verse in dispute is, the Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come, or all should reach repentance.
So I just want to give some book plugs, they're around here somewhere. But Dr. White wrote a really good book called The Potter's Freedom, and it was a response to what I'm just going to call an Arminian take to who God is and how man relates.
But he has a chapter called The Big Three, and I believe it's this verse, 2 Peter 3 9, 1 Timothy 2 4, and it was, I think it's Matthew 22 37 or something like that, where it's kind of the three big proof text.
That a lot of Arminians will kind of say, see, God has this equal desire that all men be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, or He's patient to everyone equally the same, and for them to come to repentance.
And so I want to, yeah, I do want to kind of touch on this context real quick. So I may be able to turn faster, and you can kind of look with me in my digital Bible here. But all the pronouns are in question.
Who are the you, the any, and the all? So do y 'all see that here in verse 9, the Lord is not slow to fill His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient to you. So we ask the question, who is the you here?
Not willing that any, who is the any here, should perish, but that all, who are the all, should come to repentance. And so maybe faster than I can flip there, I can just use my Bible in front of me. So the way I would answer this is exactly how Dr. James White answered in his book The Potter's Freedom, but I want to give another alternative answer that I think is perfectly consistent with the harmony of Scripture.
But in verse 8, we see the Beloved being referenced, I believe. But do not overlook this one fact, Beloved, that with the Lord one day is a thousand years and a thousand years one day. And so I would say contextually, Peter seems to be talking to the Beloved.
Now we can look to many different places in Scripture to say, oh, these are those who are in Christ. They are the Beloved. It reminds me a lot of Ephesians chapter 1. But the name of the apologetic game is you've got to stay within the immediate context as you start branching out into the canonical context.
And so if you look with me, in the opening verse of chapter 3, we get another reference to the you, which I would say is the any and the all, it's the Beloved that he's writing.
To.
Peter says, this is now the second letter I'm writing to you, Beloved, keyword. In both of them, I'm stirring up in your sincere mind by way of reminder. And so Peter is writing a second letter to the Beloved, and I believe this is a clear indicator of who he first addressed this letter to back in his first letter.
He said, Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. This is all according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and in sanctification of the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for the sprinkling with his blood.
May grace and peace be multiplied to you. So this to me, I know foreknowledge and predestination are intricately woven together. You can't have one without the other. But these are talking to Christians.
And so I hope that makes sense. The you, the any, and the all that Peter is referencing that God is not slack but is long suffering towards are the elect, those who are going to come to saving faith, and there are more people that are going to be saved.
And so God is not going to judge the world in righteousness right now because there are more people that he desires to be saved and come to a knowledge of the faith. Now I want to say, maybe Johnny Mac, let me see if I can change my screen here, I believe Johnny Mac takes a different approach to this verse.
And if I'm wrong, somebody call me out. But we have another doctrine called the disposition, the will of disposition of God. How God has revealed his loving heart in his word. And Ezekiel 18 I think is the passage that says, God does not delight in the death of the wicked.
Even though it's necessary how God has created this world to work out all things into a particular way, he is telling us that his heart does not rejoice in categories that we can understand when a wicked person dies in their sin.
He will be justified, absolutely. He is holy, and that is a holy justice that deserves wrath. But make no mistake about it, it grieves the heart of God when people die in their sin. And so some people take that principle and say, oh, that's what we're seeing in 2 Peter chapter 3 verse 9.
So how am I doing, chat? Follow the pronouns is what the apologetics from the attic is telling me. I'm trying to, David. What y 'all don't know is David Lewis taught me everything I know. David, we need to do another live stream soon, man.
I was disappointed. You did an episode reviewing the roundtable talk between Justin Peters, another gentleman, Michael Round, and Sam Storms, and you got to call up the Apollo Jack Dog to review stuff like that.
I thought you did an excellent job, and I want to tell, oh, Adam Carmichael is watching.
On Facebook.
I just thought y 'all should know that. Oh, Dan Chapa is about to ask me hard questions I don't know, which I love. Let's see, what else are you saying over here? Ezekiel 18 is about God not desiring the death of the Son for the sins of the Father.
That's the context. Thank you. Thank you. See, this is why I need you. I forget what I was saying, but, oh, so I did a debate review with AK Richardson recently, and I pretty much did not prep at all to be able to talk about the context of John 644.
And I knew AK would grill me, and I'm just like, let's just see what happens. But what I did do, David Lewis, is I watched your first review on Times Two Speed, I'll remind you, on your take of Leighton Flowers' opening statement.
So you gave me a good primer, and that was the exact amount of sauce that I needed to step into that. I remember you were bringing up the point of John chapter 3, talking about how all men love darkness back in John chapter 3.
And this is the depravity of man. This is why we need a divine, effectual work of God to draw us, right? Because we're not going to come to God on our own, because men love darkness. All right, chat, okay.
Let's see. Dan Chapa. This man. I really enjoy watching your content, Dan. Even though we disagree on a lot, we need that iron sharpening iron. So I believe Dan does a lot of interaction with Turretinfan, which Turretinfan is Presbyterian,.
I think.
But I love you.
Anyway.
And so let's see what Dan has to say. He says, you're right about who he is talking to, but not what he is talking about. He's talking about the end of the world. I do want to agree with you that in terms of eschatology, this is talking about the whole creative world, right?
Just like in the days of Noah, which is earlier, how God judged the world then is not going to be the exact same. He's not going to judge it with water, but he is going to judge this physical world and all unrighteousness in a fiery judgment.
So Dan, if you don't mind telling me, what is your eschatology? If I had to guess, I'm going to guess that you're pre-millennial, but I'm just curious, like I said. All right. If you're just now tuning in, I see some people in the chat.
And hello again to Facebook world, Habs Addison out there on Facebook. See, I know who's watching. So if you're not the biggest fan of the apologetic dog, just know, I know you're keeping tabs on me out there.
But if you're just now tuning in, please like this content if you have benefited from it in any way. It really helps my ministry and helps the algorithm to circulate more content out in.
The world.
Sure.
Let's move on to our next question.
What was the state of free will prior to the fall?
Yep. This is, this was a doozy. What was the state of free will prior to the fall? Really good question.
Let me see here.
I believe it's Ecclesiastes. There's a few ways that I've answered this in the past. I guess I can take y 'all with me.
Let's see here.
I want to show y 'all a verse from Ecclesiastes. I'm not sure exactly which one it is. Maybe it's towards the end. Yep. See this alone I have found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices.
Now this doesn't say just a whole lot, but it's just reminding us that in the beginning, God created, you know, six days, young earth creationists for you peoples out there, but I love my old earth creationists, and I don't have much love for theistic evolution.
I don't know if I have any love out there for that craziness, but in the beginning, God was creating, it was good, it was good, and when he created man upright, he created him very good. So Adam and Eve did have free will before the fall, depending what we mean by free will.
They had a will that was not tainted by sin, okay, because we have to distinguish a difference from the will of Adam and Eve before the fall versus all of us, Adam and Eve's posterity, children of Adam and Eve after the fall, that we are dead in our sins and trespasses.
Now, I will say this, this does not mean that Adam and Eve had libertarian free will. Libertarian free will, I just, Dan don't hate me, I think it just totally undermines the necessary attributes of God.
Free will, I think, is consistent with man after the fall, man before the fall, and even God himself to choose according to one's nature and desire. That's true with God, that's true with Adam and Eve before the fall, they chose what they want to do, they weren't marred by sin and they still were tempted by the devil, and then man continues to do that.
Even when we are regenerated, we have a will that chooses according to our heart. Now, Romans chapter 6, John chapter 8 does talk about man's will being enslaved, either enslaved to sin or enslaved to righteousness, but we have to understand that is compatible with man choosing according to his heart's desire, but your heart's desire may be enslaved to sin, or it may desire to please God with your entire life because the Son has set you free indeed.
So I would say that before the fall, there wasn't libertarian free will that was lost, it's just man had a will that wasn't in bondage to sin and was led away into temptation. So how'd I do, Leanne? Are you still out there?
Oh, Dan Choppa, yes, I'm pre-mill. Well, I've been doing, so I left pre-mill, I don't know how long it's been, it's probably been over a year ago, just know I was Johnny Mac, pre-millennial dispensational pre-mill for a good eight years, and I left it, I left it.
And I still have residue where I'm like, oh, I miss the pre-mill days where I just, I had everything fitting in a good slot, and so I don't wanna, I just want everybody to know, I am so, so charitable when it comes to eschatology, pre-mill, all-mill, post-mill, and then those variations that kind of bleed over in between, because I've seen the uptick, the small uptick, it went from maybe three full preterists to five full preterists, unfortunately, in my backyard here in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
But oh my goodness, I did not realize that eschatology could take a turn for the worst and distort the gospel of grace, distort the nature of Jesus, distort the timing of Jesus' return, and distort the resurrection of the dead.
So anyway, just know I have so much love for my pre-millennialists out there. Dan, I am curious, are you dispensational or historic pre-mill? And so if you're tuning in, if you've got any questions, oh, Daniel Motes, the champion.
Calvinist question. We say regeneration precedes faith, and you come to faith by hearing the word of Christ. James 1 .18 says that birth happens through the word of truth. So yes, and maybe if it's a question that I'm missing, or if you're responding to some in the chat, ask it another way.
But something I want to say is, there is a logical priority that we would contend for as being Calvinistic and Reformed of just saying, yes, there's an instantaneous miracle where faith comes by hearing of the word of God, but in a miracle, a miraculous moment, the light switch is turned on.
Now, we did not turn that light switch on. Someone else, the Holy Spirit, turned that light switch on that was eternally decreed before the foundation of the world. But in real time, it has to be understood as an instantaneous miracle.
But we are dead. What do dead people do spiritually? Hate God. Don't seek God. We are like the Saul of Tarsus going the opposite way, a chief of all sinners, until Jesus knocks us off our donkey and he seeks us.
And so tell me if that makes sense in light of your question, slash, point to maybe somebody in the side chat. Oh, Dan Choppa, Dispy. We're going to have to have a separate side conversation about this dispensational premillennialism.
Much love, though.
Let's get back on track. Leanne, did I answer that last question correctly? I want to know your thoughts. Yes, Dan, I do miss the charts of premillennial dispensationalism. Shalom, truth defenders. Defend that truth.
And I will join forces with you on that. All right. Let's see if I'm on the right clip.
What was the state of free will? So this one, we might have some disagreement on here. Is the Calvinistic position that all babies who die go to hell?
Oh, I remember. I remember when this question was asked on the panel. I don't know if you can see Dr. White, but he was, he was Gungus moving over there. He was groaning, because there's a little bit of a back history with this type of question.
And I mean, I don't want to just, you'll have to look it up. Just look up hashtag bell gate, and that'll fill you in on all the fuel that comes in behind this question. But I want to play it again, make sure I understand it so I can answer it properly.
Did not play.
Hit that play button again.
So this one, we might have some disagreement on here. Is the Calvinistic position that all babies who die go to hell?
Wow.
All babies?
See, this is, I had a professor back in college. When I let him know that I really liked John MacArthur, he said, are you one of those baby hating Calvinists? And I was like, those exist? So be on the lookout.
That is a way to poison the well with questions like that. And maybe people are asking sincerely. So I would say no. I would say in fact, most Calvinists historically believe that all babies go to heaven.
Now I will say the Westminster Confession of Faith and London, Second London Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith use the term elect infants. Now some people like the flower patch kids are quick to say, well, that means there's a subset of infants that are elected and others that aren't.
The reformed perspective is saying, we don't know. God is equally as free to save adults as extending mercy and grace as he sees fit just as to.
Infants.
Now I will say, like I said, most people do not, I mean, I actually, I saw a debate between J .D. Martin and some guy that I think he did take the position. I've never heard of such craziness before that all infants that die in infancy go to.
Hell.
I think that is the most wildest thing I've ever heard. But I take the view that since I don't know, since I'm trusting the just judge of all the earth to do right, who saves to the uttermost, who saves the meek and lowly, those that cannot save themselves, that I tend to lean with MacArthur's view that says, yeah, it seems to be the case that children of such of these little ones are the kingdom of heaven, looking at principles of King David, realizing that he cannot go to his baby that has passed on and he doesn't cry anymore.
He just says, you know what, sorry, I got a text message, make sure that's not important from the wifey. There's a principle there that just says he knows that he can't, his son can't come to him but he will go to him.
Maybe that's just talking about Sheol just in general, don't know, good case to be made for that. But I do know when Absalom, his wicked son dies, he weeps and mourns and people have pointed out that why would he do that?
Well, if he knew his son was wicked and did not have forgiveness of sins, well then wouldn't you weep if you had strong assurance knowing that your son or daughter was not saved? That would cause great mourning.
I believe in Romans chapter 9, the Apostle Paul said such strong words that for I wish that myself could be accursed for the sake of his fellow Israelites. So my big point is, yeah, I think it's very likely and possible that all babies mentally handicap those that do not have a mental ascent to some recognizable degree of God's general revelation and law written on their heart to go to heaven.
But I want to stress this point, and this is where MacArthur has always done a good.
Job.
It would not be because they have avoided total depravity, and then I would add in there, it's not because they've avoided the federal headship of Adam that plunged all of his posterity into condemnation.
If all babies are saved, it's an act of sovereign grace in spite of that infant having a corrupt nature. And so that's where I'm kind of at, and I love having ongoing conversations with Adam Carmichael.
Adam Carmichael, if you're out there, make yourself known. I want to put your big old head on the screen if I can, I'm just kidding. But Adam Carmichael and I, we talk about the justice of God. If it is the case that not all babies go to heaven, then God is perfectly just.
Because they would have a corrupt sin nature, and God is holy, holy, holy. And Romans 9 talks about before Jacob or Esau were born, God is sovereign. And my pushback to the Jacob and Esau point is just saying, yeah, but God saw their entire.
Life.
And so an infant that dies in infancy, God sees that infant's entire life. But the infant argument does not therefore mean that total depravity is not true, and that the federal headship of Adam is somehow not true.
Let's see what old David Lewis has to say. Certainly, original sin presses us at least posit a way that Christ's work is applied to infants, not that they are born innocent. That's absolutely right. I just want to stress that point.
If it is the case that all infants, or many, or whatever that number is, they are being saved in spite of themselves, and it's solely upon the grace of God. So y 'all grill me in the chat if y 'all did not like that answer.
That's what I would have answered on the question answer panel. Let me text the wifey.
Let's see.
We may go, let's see. We have about four more clips, so I'm going to tell her about 30 more minutes or so. Something I said, if you go back and watch the actual Q &A on the panel, I did speak to this question, because Dr. White, let me just say you've got to go listen to it.
He was not happy with that question. I tried to speak to the practical side of that question. Can you hear me better? Sometimes I like to stick my beard in the mic. Forgive me. But there have been people that say, well Calvinists share the same energy as Baal worshipers, and it's just total nonsense, because Baal worshipers are literally sacrificing their children to Ashtaroth, Molech, and I mean it's just awful.
That goes against the revealed will of God. Not only are you murdering, but you're committing idolatry and worshiping pagans, but just to speak practically to how, let me share with you my energy. I have a baby boy that's about 17 months or so, if Wifey Unchained out there is listening, remind me, I think he's almost 17 months, but almost every night I pray for baby JJ, the apologetic puppy, that God would one day take out that heart of stone and give him a heart of flesh, that the Holy Spirit would illuminate JJ's mind one day to recognize his sinfulness before Almighty God and would cling closely to the Savior in saving faith.
So if people want to accuse Calvinists as being baby haters and having the same energy as Belgate and Molech worshipers, I mean, most people aren't going to take that serious, and I think Dr. Wyatt and Marlon Wilson have rightly been infuriated by that, and I'm just over here saying, you know, whatever.
Say what you want to say. I'm sure a lot of that is just trying to hype up drama to get more viewership and whatever. Okay, we got a question. Actually, if I missed your question, please spam it a little bit in the side chat.
Okay, an unapologetic cat asked the apologetic dog a question, what are your views on eternal security of babies? We kind of just covered this, so if you were able to listen to it, I'm under the persuasion that God says to the uttermost.
That's a Bible verse. I don't know, Hebrews 7 .25, and so the elect cannot fall away, and so it may be the case that every single infant that dies in infancy and unborn children, stillborn children, many lay handicapped, are all elect, and they're not going to lose their salvation.
I mean, because of God's sovereign grace and the Trinitarian harmony of salvation, no one loses their salvation, so hope some people have some questions about that, and that kind of relates back to the doctrines of grace.
The fifth point of TULIP is, to me, the best way to articulate eternal security, meaning that we are being preserved by the Holy Spirit unto glorification. All right, let's see here. David Lewis says, but Jeremiah, you are happy to throw J .J. to the fires of hell to please God, correct?
McGrew has issues. Yeah, like I said, I get all the people out there that were upset about Warren McGrew's comments. Please, people, know that that's what he wanted. I mean, he even made a song about it, and if that's what he has to do to get views, then so be it.
I mean, he believes that God doesn't know the future, just so people know. This gentleman that despises Calvinism, he talks about dynamic omniscience. That's just a fancy way of saying, God don't know the future.
God is open. God is in process. God is learning, and I'm like, that sounds like a bigger version of man. I mean, literally, I don't think you could make more of God into your own image if you tried.
Oh, we got some Church of Christ people trying to get me to talk about baptism. Hey, I got a debate coming up, so you got to wait. You just got to watch the debate to see what I got to say about baptism, peoples.
All right.
Let's see if this is the right clip.
Is regeneration simultaneous? So this one, we might have some disagreement on here. Is the Calvinism, is regeneration simultaneous with spirit indwelling, or does indwelling happen with confession? What order does salvation happen in?
Good question. I got to show the, I say the, but unapologetic cat some love. How does God not know the future? That's what I'm saying. Maybe we can be a part of the same farm and team up here. Open theists deny that God, open theists deny that God knows the future, which directly contradicts many scriptures, but I think it's 1 John 3 .20 that says, God knows all things.
Our heart may condemn us because we're fallen people, right? Even redeemed by grace. When we look inwardly, when we know our sinfulness, even though we're being sanctified, that can really cause us to be like, man, there's no way I can be saved.
But God knows all things, and so we can trust the truth of his word and his promises that tell us that there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus by faith apart from works. And so if that's true, then we can be, our heart and mind can be renewed with the promises of God of saying, man, I've been saved by amazing grace.
He tells me in his word and he cannot lie, and he knows all things and sees all things. And so I'm with you, cat, that open theism is just ridiculous and just basically is a mega Zeus version of God. Not the creator and ground of all being that sustains the word or the universe by the word of his power.
Let me replay this question.
Is regeneration simultaneous with spirit indwelling or does indwelling happen with confession? What order does salvation happen in?
Yeah, so this is basically a question on the ordo salutis. Let me see if I can recall this question. I may leave out some of the details, but I believe that depending on how we're looking at the order of salvation, the ordo salutis, regeneration in terms of our experience has to come first.
Now we can keep pressing this all the way back to God's foreknowledge, predestination, and all those things pushing it back, but we're getting to the very beginning point of our salvation experience. That begins logically with regeneration.
That regeneration transforms our heart to repent and believe the gospel, a saving faith, a repentant faith that looks to King Jesus for forgiveness of sins, and you're declared.
Righteous.
You are justified. You are adopted from a child of Satan to a child of God. And my thing is that is all one instantaneous miracle, temporally, but logically we can see how these things actually parse out.
And so when some people say, you know, is that confessing Jesus as Lord? Well, I'll show you a Bible passage that's very important to this conversation. What about confessing, Jeremiah? Isn't that a work that you have to do?
If you're new to the apologetic dog, I get grilled all the time by Church of Christ. Oh, y 'all can't see it.
Okay. Okay.
And so what they like to say is, well, Jeremiah, see, you got to confess with the mouth. That's a work according to your definition of work. And I'm going to say, well, actually, confessing, confession, this is a heart of worship.
And so confession necessarily engages the heart, and then it manifests with words of affirmation. Jesus says, whatever flows out of the heart will proceed out of the mouth. Probably misquoted that verse, but I believe Jesus says that in so many words in the Sermon on the Mount and in Matthew's Gospel.
But what's true on the inside will come out of your mouth. And so I do believe this is going back to that time in your life that is an instantaneous miracle when you call upon the name of the Lord. Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
And so for people that say, you must say the right prayer, no. Confessing with the mouth is a reference to someone who's been changed internally. And it's not only what they say, but how they want to live their entire life to the glory.
Of God.
How do I know that? Book, chapter, and verse. Just keep reading. For with the heart, one believes and is justified.
So this is a didactic reality being explained to us in scripture. But Paul kind of gives us the flip side from another person's vantage point of seeing someone who is being saved or this own person's experience.
And with the mouth, one confesses and is saved. So this is all an instantaneous miracle. But what Paul does not want us to lose is that we are justified by faith apart from any works, anything that we can do, even the incantation of pray this prayer after me.
Prayer begins at the heart. Because last time I checked, you can pray without saying any words. Prayer traverses from the heart to the external world. And I would say, yeah, that's a type of working out of what is true on the inside.
Um, so let me flip back over here. See what kind of stuff is going on in the side chat to you crazy people out there. Ah, Paul Day weighing in. Paul Day is just a wonderful gift to the church. He has been saved by God's amazing grace out of the Church of Christ cult.
And me and him have actually been able to, I've been able to interview Paul on my channel about his testimony. And so he says logical priority versus temporal priority is the key to understanding this.
Issue.
Amen, brother. Amen, brother. All right. So if you're just tuning in, even though I'm coming up on an hour and a half, if you haven't already liked hit that like button or as Tim Tant likes to say, smash that like button.
And just know that that just helps my channel. That helps YouTube say, Hey, I may actually recommend this to more people when you like and subscribe and share. So that would be much appreciated.
Before I play that next clip, are there any questions out there? Quit asking me about baptism. I have so much material already out there on my views about that. And I got to play my cards close because I'm about to have a debate coming up in April.
5th.
So just a few weeks away at 12 five church with Mike Hysaul.
I don't see any questions at the moment. Oh, I've not shown Facebook any love in a hot minute, hot minute.
I'm not seeing anything in Facebook. Land. All right. Onward.
So where does sanctification fit into God's election? Is it also a gift like faith?
This is an excellent question because what about sanctification? As I'm turning to passage, I want to share with y 'all. The conference next year for open air theology is going to be on sanctification.
Believe it or not. So we're actually going to cover this question in great depth. And so if I'm remembering the question that was just asked, what about sanctification? Is sanctification a gift like faith?
And so I want to firstly say, yes, sanctification is a gift, even though it's a little bit different than how faith is gifted to us. And so I want to show you a little bit more what I mean. I think I turned.
Yeah. Yeah.
So I'm flipping in chapter two. I believe it speaks to this. So in what way is sanctification a gift? Well, it's a gift in this way. You realize that your sanctification isn't based on your efforts of being obedient to the law of Christ or whatever commandments that we've been given in the New Testament.
Now people that believe you can lose your salvation, well, your libertarian superpower of free will is the mechanism that is in your court, buddy, to make sure that you are being.
Obedient.
And if you don't, then you can walk away. You can lose your salvation. So I would say in these synergistic models of libertarian free will, sanctification is not a gift. But in the reformed paradigm, we definitely see sanctification as being a gift because the Holy Spirit is preserving us along.
He's indwelling us and causes us to walk in God's statutes. And so my point, though, is sanctification, we get to participate in. And so this gets into a lot of other questions. If Adam Carmichael were in the side chat, I'd bring him up because we go round and round about this too because we often say, you know, is sanctification monergistic or synergistic?
And I'm like, ah, in a sense, it's both. And so I may define some of those terms more here in a second, but I really want to speak to how I understand that sanctification is a gift similar to faith. But there is a distinction I want to make here in a moment.
So look with me at Philippians chapter 2, verses 12 and 13 together. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so start thinking sanctification. So now, not only in my presence, but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
OK, so there is a reality that we experience sanctification. There's a reality in which we see God's revealed will and his word, and we are called to be obedient to that. Now, here's the mystery. When you're obedient, the Holy Spirit is fueling your heart, guiding you, drawing you to the word, renewing your heart and your mind, and he gets all the glory.
And in fact, I want to show you why I say it in those terms. In 1 Peter chapter 1, I believe we referenced this verse earlier, but look with me at verse.
2.
According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ. And so, the Holy Spirit is carrying us along, causing us to walk in the statutes of God.
This is the promise of the new covenant and the Holy Spirit's work in us, and this is why God gets all the glory. It's not your own efforts and achievements that, oh, I prayed this prayer, I got baptized, and now it's all on me to make sure I work out my salvation with fear and trembling, my sanctification.
No, it's the Holy Spirit at work in you, and so since it's the Holy Spirit at work in you, this is by the grace of God and therefore is a gift. So what about faith? Is faith synergistic? I would say no.
We are dead in our sins and trespasses, and so God does a miraculous work on our heart in spite of who we are and what we're doing as we are rejecting God. So we literally do not participate in bringing about faith.
But there is a really good quote from church history, the only thing that you contributed to your salvation was that you sinned to make your salvation possible. And so in that sense, no participation in your faith, and I'm sure this will be brought out in my debate with Mike Hysaw coming up, but it definitely got brought up in the cross examination question of John 6, 44, my interaction with AK, but believing is a work of God.
This is a gift graciously from above that the Holy Spirit works in you and grants you. And so my point is, I'm okay with saying sanctification is us working out our salvation, right? But that's from our perspective.
From God's perspective, He's working all things together after the counsel of His will, but He intervenes in real time, regenerates a heart. And He who began that good work in you, He's going to see it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus, and He is going to be working in and through your will by virtue of the Holy Spirit.
So what do y 'all think? Did I answer that one? What do you think? Dan Choppa? I know we disagree probably on this. Sanctification is not good works. It changes us so we do good works. Yeah, but it's the Holy Spirit that's carrying us along in spite of ourselves.
Maybe, maybe we agree there. All right. I'm moving on.
This may be the same one, but I'll change it.
Next question, but a very common question that I've gotten too, and I know you guys have too. How is it fair that a person receive judgment if they didn't have a choice?
Yeah. Okay. I know this is a very good question. So Reformed theology says you do have a choice, but your choice hates God. And so it's funny because AK Richardson, I want to recommend people go listen to my debate with AK.
Last summer, we debated on libertarian free will, and I got to bring up the worldview of compatibilism that just says, hey, God's sovereign, and you are not. And what I mean by sovereign is that he not only knows all things, but he has purpose in all things.
And that is the thing that Arminian theology, incompatibilists cannot work through. Because if God is all-knowing and then chose to create this entire world with everything that's going to happen, well, your libertarian free will didn't help you out a whole lot because at the moment of choice, you cannot choose other than what God infallibly knows.
And so that totally dismisses the whole premise of libertarian free will. No matter how they want to try to get around it, if God knows before he creates, then that's your eternal decree. Everything is happening one way according to God's purpose.
And you might say, well, he's not forcing people to sin. We're saying, whoo, we affirm that. He doesn't force anyone to do other than what they desire to do according to their heart's desire. And so that's the key here in this question.
If God chooses to display mercy and grace to some, he has done no injustice for people that willingly, according to their heart's desire, despise God. Now you may say, yeah, but God has a predetermined purpose for whatever comes past.
Yep, ultimately, you're not God. And on Judgment Day, you will not be held accountable for what God has eternally decreed and has ultimate purpose in all things. You will be held accountable for what you chose to do according to your heart's desire.
And so we're all fallen men and women, we're all fallen in Adam. And so our heart is bent towards evil from the time of birth. And so that's why we pray for God's mercy and his grace, the Holy Spirit, to change our hearts.
And so as long as you don't presuppose libertarian, categorical ability, incompatibilism, as long as you're not presupposing those and allowing God's whole counsel to inform us of truth, these are realities that we can trust God to be God, and we can realize that we will be held accountable for how we stewarded our life.
Was it to the praise of his glorious grace? As far as from our perspective, were we trying to live to glorify God? Or were you rebellious against God, in which you will glorify God on the day of judgment and in his wrath?
Man, somebody gave me a thumbs down. Y 'all have to counter that thumbs down with more thumbs up if you've not already liked this video. All right, last clip, and we just, okay, so we're at an hour and 38 minutes, so this will be good.
One last question.
Let's move right along. If man does not have the capacity to choose God, why are there so many commands in the Bible to believe and to choose this day whom you will serve?
Now this is good because it ties in with the other question. There's so many commands because God is working out salvation, but salvation is by grace. For somebody to respond to that command is a mercy of God.
People just don't like the fact that there are commands given to people that are corpses. I saw a meme or something like that where somebody said, man, it's like a life insurance agent is going to a graveyard and trying to sell this to dead people.
Yeah, that's what's going on, and you may not like that, but that is the depiction of our state in Adam, that we love our sin, we're dead in our sins and trespasses, yeah, we're like walking zombies, but we're not seeking after God.
We hate God and his revelation. That's the disposition that we are born from the time that we entered into this world, and so this is the beauty. Why would God give commands to people that cannot and do not want to respond?
Because salvation is of grace. And think about it, it's beautiful because God is perfectly just and holy, and he's also able to show mercy, love, and grace. It all goes back to the cross, it all goes back to God's sovereignty, it all goes back to God being eternal, and we are a part of the creation.
And so that's a doctrine that you need to wrap your mind around, is we cannot blur the creator-creation distinction. God is in a transcendent category that we merely reflect. We are not God. We are made in his image.
And so the flower patch kids, the arch flower patch kid, has said, and I mean that totally in fun, but Leighton Flowers has said that just as God spoke this universe from nothing into existence, that we too, as the Imago Dei, we can bring about our faith from nothing.
And as much as I love Leighton, and I think he does a good job of being articulate and at least presenting his position clearly, I think he's totally, totally missed the mark on this. He said this in a two-on-two debate with two, I think, hyper-Calvinists, and this was in his closing statement.
But when you say, when you say that we get to speak or bring faith into existence from nothing, you are elevating man, and you are taking God in his transcendence, and you are saying that there is a shared principle that God wills and chooses, and I would say, identically as man.
It's no more a reflection. You don't get to say that God eternally chooses contra-causal free will, and then man temporally contra-causal free will.
Nope.
It's the same principle. And when God, and when you tell me that God can limit his power and limit his sovereignty to let you make a decision, well, you have an inherent contradiction because God is omnipotent, his rule is transcendent, and that cannot be, or that by definition is without limit.
And so when you try to say that that's veiled or limited, God cannot deny himself. And so that's why libertarian free will can't exist if we're going to be consistent with who God is. If he is omnipotent, if he knows all things, if he is absolutely sovereign in his rule about everything in this universe, well, his sovereignty is not like man, right?
We may reflect God. You may have a king over a kingdom that sends out a decree and gives a will, but he doesn't know all things in his kingdom, and people can rebel and resist him. And we're saying not the sovereign king of the universe in one sense, because all things have meaning and purpose in his world.
All right. We are going to wind it down. I just want to thank you all for tuning in to this live stream. I just want to thank you to my babe of all babes, Allie Nortier. She has been so gracious to allow me to set the studio up here in the house.
And just as a way of reminder, if you have forgotten or didn't know, I have a debate coming up, and I'd love to show you a graphic that I am just not able... There it is. I'm having a debate coming up April 5th at 12 Five Church.
This is going to be live and in person. And I'm really excited because Mike Hysall and I are going to be talking about baptism. What does that mean? Is it important? Is it necessary for our justification before God?
And so obviously the Church of Christ, they believe it's absolutely necessary. And I believe when you make baptism necessary in that way, then you have destroyed the gospel of grace that's to be received by faith apart from our works.
So you don't want to miss it. I'm sure there's going to be fireworks in the sense that I'm sure it's going to be charitable. I'm sure it's going to be kind. It's going to be loving because we both want to emulate Jesus Christ's behavior.
And so that's one of my favorite things about doing debates is being able to debate in a way that brings clarity and not like a food fight that I see a lot of times in these side.
Chats.
Y 'all crazy people out there. So you don't want to miss that. That's going to be April 5th, which I believe is just in a few weeks. It's going to be live and in person at 12 Five Church. And lastly, just like and subscribe and share this content.
I hope to be able to continue to make more live streams coming at you. And I hope to make some just good quality videos just in general, answering pithy questions, making certain points. One ministry that I've really benefited from is Gabe Hughes in What? When We Understand the Text.
I want to make videos. You'll probably see the apologetic dog, my face in them, but I just I love a premise of 90 seconds addressing a type of topic. So we'll see. Don't forget to look out for those flower patch kids.
So thanks so much for tuning in. God bless.
