A Review and Refutation of Provisionist Confusion

This from home. I just wanted to do a quick program today. We've got the program tomorrow with John Cooper. I didn't want to just tack this on to that program, sort of distract from it, things like that.

And so I also didn't want to do it on Friday. Friday programs tend to get sort of lost with the weekend stuff and things like that. So here we are doing a quick program. I don't know how long this program is going to last.

It could be 20 minutes, could be an hour and 20 minutes. I don't know. Whatever it takes to cover what we need to cover. And what I wanted to cover in this brief program was sometime, I don't know, three or four days ago, when Seth Dillon and I were having a quick back and forth on Twitter regarding the nature of yet once again, I made a comment.

And the comment that I made sort of after we finished going back and forth, and I haven't quite figured out exactly what marks the end of one of those conversations. They sort of just die slowly. I made a comment and I basically said, you know, people ask if the Reformation is over.

And I said, if you know the subject of the Reformation, you know that we were just debating those issues. I've said many, many times, it was one of the first series that we did back when we were still on radio.

I did in response to a comment that Norman Geisler made on the Bible Answer Man broadcast about the difference between the necessity of grace and the sufficiency of grace. Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is absolutely necessary.

But the reality is the debate at the Reformation wasn't about the necessity of grace. It was about the sufficiency of grace. Almost everybody, there are people today, quite questionable, but almost everybody agrees that grace is necessary.

But is it sufficient? Is it a saving power or is it an aid? That was the debate that was very much a part of the debate. Between Luther and Erasmus, they were focused upon the nature of the will, but it's the will that's being worked upon by grace.

It's the whole subject of election, predestination, they're all related. This is what was going on in the Reformation. The majority of those who would be technically considered the descendants of the Reformation are no longer Reformed and no longer know what the issues were.

I mean, when you run into people who think that Protestant means that people were protesting and that's the majority of folks, that's not where the term came from. That's not what it was actually referring to.

I know you'll hear church history professors saying that, but that's just not what it was all about. And so today, when we encounter different kinds of beliefs, it's not sufficient to just go, oh, that's just heretical or that's just not Reformed.

You have to explain why, what the reasons and issues really are. And so a meme, I guess, is the term, was posted by Leighton Flowers, Stereology 101. And it, once again, in light of some other things have been going on at the same time, illustrates it's not enough to have gone to some conferences where you studied the five solas or the five points or something and, oh, R .C. Sproul believed this, therefore it must be true.

That is not enough. There has to be much deeper levels of thought so that you can give a consistent answer and really recognize what's going on amongst people who are denying original sin, denying federal headship, denying the divine decree, and are fundamentally going back to the foundations that Rome used, but actually going past Rome into a whole other sphere that I think eventually, you know, once, not necessarily these individuals, but when they start organizations, churches, movements, groups, and you go this direction and you have such a unbiblical anthropology, unbiblical view of man, those churches are doomed for eventually universalism, full-on apostasy, just denial of the inspiration of scripture, whatever it is.

That's what's happened in the past when people started going this direction. It may take time or it may happen really quickly. All depends. But anyway, I wanted to look at the meme that was posted, so let me share that with you, and this is going to be different, Rich, than what I was showing before, but in fact, the really tricky part is going to be, there it is.

That's actually not that difficult to do. There. Bing, bing, bing, bing. All right, so here is the meme that was posted. I hope that's clear and usable on your end, but here you have the meme as it was posted by Soteriology 101.

Predestination. A destination is marked out beforehand for whosoever believes in Christ. Calvinism versus a provision. So let's, and I'm, there's no reason to be looking at me and my green screen and stuff like that, so I'm just going to leave this stuff up here, and it's no big deal.

We have, oh, we have a number of times in the past dealt with the assertion that predestination is like getting on a plane that is predestined to go to Chicago. Okay, this is not what predestination means, all right?

It's just, we will see when we look once again at Ephesians chapter 1 that it is people that are predestined, not destinations that are predestined. That is playing on the English translation translation of Greek terms.

So you're taking that destination part, you're taking it out of the translation going, ah, see, it's just the destination. So whosoever believes, that means everybody has the ability to believe, so whosoever believes will get to this destination, which is glorification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc., etc.

That is the assertion that Leighton Flowers has made over and over again. That's a very common kind of mechanism to try to get around what is being actually said in this situation. So when it is said a destination is marked out beforehand for whosoever believes in Christ, that is a true statement in and of itself, but it's not relevant to what predestination means.

There is a destination. God has a purpose in what he is going to do in the lives of all those that he brings to faith in Christ, because we assert that there is a difference between true saving faith and false faith, and that true saving faith is a gift of God.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit of God. It's a divine thing. When we talk about the difference between God-centered theology and man-centered theology, this is one of the key issues. Why does anyone's faith persevere?

We say it is because it is God who gave them that faith. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to the glorification of the Father and the Son. Other perspectives say, because you're smarter, because you have better insights, because you are choice meats.

You're the choice meats. You're the grade triple A, straight out of Texas beef, and so you persevere, whereas the grade B, tough, chewy guys out of Iowa, they may not persevere. They may not make it, but it's all dependent upon man.

It's very much human-oriented. No matter how hard they try, they can't get around the fact that they are promoting a human-oriented understanding of all these things. So it is true that it is God's intention that those upon whom He sets His love in eternity will be forgiven.

They will be adopted. They will be glorified. All these things that Scripture talks about, those things are all true, but not in the way that is being phrased in this particular situation here. So notice Calvinism versus Provisionism.

Predestined. Who is predestined to what? So in Calvinism, who equals individuals mysteriously selected by God for no revealed reasons before the world began? To what? To become believers in Christ by irresistible means so as to receive the blessings for those chosen to be in Him.

Provisionism, that new kid on the block that wants to pretend like it's ancient orthodoxy. Provisionism. Who? The faithful in Christ, Ephesians 1, 1 through 2. Whosoever puts their trust in Him, John 3, 16.

To what? To receive the blessings promised to all who trust in Christ to be conformed to His image and made holy and blameless. So once again, the Provisionist tries to contrast his position with that of Calvinism, and of course has to strawman Calvinism in the process, which is just what we have seen over and over and over and over again, even though so many of these who call themselves Provisionists claim to be former Calvinists.

I'm not sure why they can't represent their former faith very well, but that's just sort of how it works. So let's look at what is said. Who? Individuals mysteriously selected by God for no revealed reasons before the world began.

Now, as soon as I made a comment about this on Twitter, Leighton Flowers jumped in and said, well, he knew that this is inaccurate. He knew it, and he knew it when he posted it. He said, well, I'm not saying that in Calvinism, the glory of God is not a stated reason, but that the reasons why a particular individual is chosen is not revealed.

And of course, that's because the reason given to us is God's good pleasure, not something found in the creature himself. So individuals mysteriously selected by God. So I guess mysteriously here is not being used in the New Testament sense of mysteriously.

That is something that was hidden under the Old Covenant and revealed in the New Covenant. It's being used in some other mysterious way. And evidently, if God freely chooses on the basis of his own will, rather than the basis of the actions of creatures, this somehow is mysterious.

Okay, well, that's an odd use of the term, but there you go. Individuals mysteriously selected by God for no revealed reasons before the world began. Now, we all know that if he had really wanted to, he could have accurately expressed the Calvinistic perspective, saying something along the lines of sinners chosen from eternity past without reference to their own actions, but solely on the basis of the free grace of God.

That's probably more than he wanted to have space-wise, but that is the accurate statement. That is what it is that we believe. Actually, I'm able to do this, and so I will. So we have mysteriously, and then we have no revealed reasons, okay?

Let's keep that in mind. We will discover that there are revealed reasons, and that they are more than sufficient revealed reasons that are to be given to us. To what? To become believers in Christ by irresistible means.

To become believers in Christ. Well, if faith and repentance are gifts of God, which the New Testament describes them as, then that is partially true. By irresistible means simply means by effective grace.

The Holy Spirit can actually accomplish what the Holy Spirit wants to do. When the Holy Spirit wants to raise someone to spiritual life, the Holy Spirit's able to do it. What an astonishing thing that dead sinners cannot resist the almighty power of God.

What an astonishing thing that the Son of God stood outside Lazarus's tomb and said, Lazarus, come forth. Lazarus actually came forth. What an amazing thing, but we need to call that irresistible means.

Okay. So as to receive the blessings, well, he should know, obviously, that the way we would say is so as to be conformed to the image of Christ. This is God's purpose in the sanctification of his elect people is to have them live the life of Christ.

They are to be conformed to his image and receive all the blessings of the inheritance. And that has been the promise from the beginning. And we will see that is what is taught in Scripture. But I want us to note especially what provisionism over here says.

The who. Okay. Who is the who? Now, over here, at least, the accurate part is right here. Selected by God. Okay. So the who in Calvinism is determined by God. Okay. That is God's choice. You go over to provisionism and the who has nothing to do with God because he has provided provided for everybody.

He wants everybody, but he can't get everybody. And evidently, he knew that from eternity past, so he still has to answer the question as to why. You can't get around that one unless you become an open theist or a advocate of dynamic omissions, which we'll be getting to at some other point in time.

Anyway, that's just a fancy way of saying open theism, but trying to dodge what it actually means. We'll, like I said, talk about that later. So who? The faithful in Christ. So what this is saying is, predestination is for the faithful in Christ.

This is something you do because predestination cannot bring you faith. It cannot bring you effective grace that will cause you to believe. It cannot bring you repentance. These are all within your capacity, and that grace cannot assure that you will actually be faithful in Christ.

But you, because you have more spiritual insight, because your choice meets, you are the faithful in Christ, whereas other people are not. You're better than they are. You have more spiritual insight.

You're the choice meets. You are the ones who are more willing to be submissive and humble, and you're spiritually better. They can try to say, well, we don't really mean that. No, you do. You do really mean that.

Just be honest about it. That's what you're promoting. You believe man has that capacity, and then that's what predestination is for, is just simply saying God predestines that if you will believe in Him, this is your destination.

You're not actually predestined. The destination is predestined. So it's a totally different meaning of the word. You'll notice. It is different. It is different. And then John 3, 16, whosoever puts their trust in Him, so whosoever believes, all the ones believing, of course, in John 3, 16, to what?

To receive the blessings promised to all who trust in Christ, or to all that the Father chose in Him before the foundation of the world. So you'll notice, as we're going to see here in a moment, cites Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 1, 4, but Ephesians 1, 4 is just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

It is amazing that anyone could quote these texts in trying to basically say it's really all up to us. It's not all up to God. That is an amazing thing. It really is. So this is what was put forward, and obviously many people immediately were going, wait a minute, that's not possible, in light of what we have in Scripture.

And so let's go to Scripture, and let's look at what Scripture says, and let's once again analyze provisionism on the basis of what we find in God's inspired Word. And since Ephesians 1 is so important and was cited a number of times, let's look at it.

I think it's important to take a look at it and to see how it works. So Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus, by the will of God. Now let me just stop. If we are making the introduction of the epistle, which is what you have right here, first two verses, if we're making this the deciding factor, as we saw even in the little meme, because of this right here, who are faithful in Christ Jesus, the assumption being they are faithful because they have that innate capacity and ability in and of themselves.

This isn't a gift from God. This isn't a result of the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only sort of helps you along, but you have that capacity. You have that ability as an unregenerate person to be faithful in Christ Jesus.

Then why can't we say, well, before it said that, it said in regards to Paul being an apostle. Is apostleship, is that something that's okay, that that's determined by the will of God, but faithfulness, salvation, predestination, election, those things are not by the will of God?

Why is it that one here, well, yeah, okay, yeah, by the will of God, we'll let God choose who his apostles are, but he can't choose who his saints are. There you go. To the saints who are in Ephesus, that's actually a textual variant, you'll notice right there.

There are some sources that do not have N-epheso, and I think that's because this was a circular letter that was distributed amongst the churches in Lycos River Valley. Anyways, the saints who are in Ephesus and faithful, so this actually goes, there's the saints, the ones in Ephesus, faithful in Christ Jesus.

This is a description of the ones to whom the letter is being written. So, if this faithfulness is able to come from our own abilities, why can't that? Why can't being saints? That's holiness. Well, we recognize that's the work of the Spirit.

Why isn't this? Oh, okay. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who blessed us in or with every blessing spiritual, every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.

All right, so what is the focus here? The blessing, eulogetos, is hathaios, God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Why? Because of some things that God did. And so, the ha is putting us back to this.

This is God. God is the one who blessed us. He blessed us. There is a specific direct object. This is an accusative. Hamas blessed us with every spiritual blessing. This is from God. Through Christ, all these spiritual blessings, all through here, we're going to see in Him, in Christ, in the beloved one.

Anytime you walk through Ephesians chapter 1, you just have to stop and go. There is no place for pluralism. There is no place for anything outside of the centrality of the work of Christ in all of this.

No question about it. The one who blessed us with every spiritual blessing. So, us would be Paul, the apostle, joining with the saints who are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus. This is a description, and he's saying, we're the ones who are blessed by God with every spiritual blessings in the heavenly places.

So, this is in the heavenly places. This is not the realm of human activity. We aren't there. This is a transaction that is heavenly. So, if you're going to say, well, okay, yeah, and it is in Christ, and Christ, of course, is seated at the right hand of the Father, but it's all determined by what happens in time on earth.

If you want to say that, but this is in the heavenly places. And why do we have this blessing? Well, let's scroll up here a little bit so that we can get all this in, and then go back to annotating. This is sort of cool.

I'm glad we're able to do this. It's sort of what I can do on the flip board at the big studio, and here I am at home able to do the same thing. It's nice. Just as, so Kathos takes us back to these spiritual blessings.

He chose us, direct object, accusative, direct object, once again of the finite verb. He chose us in Him, that would be in Christ, before the foundation of the world. Before the foundation of the world then becomes the context, the temporal context for the choice, before the foundation of the world.

And then there is a reason for this expressed by the infinitival phrase, so that we, and it's the same we who is right here, the direct object of the choice, so that we might be holy and blameless before Him.

Now, you'll notice there's a, there's some question concerning the punctuation and different translations. We'll punctuate this differently. Some will put, in love He predestined us unto adoption, and then other people say before Him in love.

It is hard to know exactly what to do with N agape. Certainly the choice up here as well as the predestination here are all done in love, so it doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of the text as to what you're doing.

But it is important to know who is the one doing the choosing right here. That is Him. God the Father chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. He did not choose destinations. He did not choose blessings.

He chose a people in Christ. Every non-reformed understanding that I've ever encountered has to take this hamas right here, us, and make it impersonal, make it impersonal. He chose a nameless, faceless group, so that if they put themselves in Christ by faith, then everything else will follow.

The problem is to be holy and blameless, and everything else that comes after this is part work of the Spirit of God, as is faithfulness, as is repentance. So if you allow Paul to speak for Paul, he is teaching that God the Father chose us in Christ, and this selection was before the foundation of the world, before we did anything.

And his selection of us has a purpose expressed by the infinitival clause, so that we might be made holy and blameless before Him. All right? So, in love, again, you can say that before verse, this verse, I like it with in love, He predestined us.

There it is again, that same first person plural accusative pronoun, He predestined, not a destination, but a people. And here it's even more personal, because you see unto adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself.

Adoption is about as intimate and personal a thing as you can have. So this cannot be some impersonal, undefined group. What you have to do here, again, if you are a synergist of many kinds, is you have to say, well, we weren't really predestined, but once we believe, then we're in the sphere of predestination.

And once we put ourselves in the sphere of predestination, then we experience adoption. You can see why they have to have a very different view of man than the Bible has, because what they are saying is you here have not rebel sinners, not people in rebellion against God.

These are people who want to be adopted. They desire to be in submission to God. This is what they want. And so they put themselves in the position of experiencing this through their faith in Jesus Christ.

That's how they do it. Now, if we lay that kind of thinking aside and just look at the text, once again, God the Father is the one predestining us, and the result of that predestination is adoption through Jesus Christ unto Himself.

We are united to the triune God through the God-man. And what then is the basis? Now, up here, we had a time element before the foundation of the world. Now, we have the foundational element for that choice.

Here it is right here. According to the kind intention of His will. Kata. According to. Now, in provisionism, it's kata, the good intention of the human being, because that's the determinative issue, because it's we who determine who is there.

It's our free will choice. We respond to the gospel message. We have the capacity, and we have more spiritual insight. We are the choice meats. And the choice meats, the more humble, the more sensitive, the more spiritually insightful, we see that it would be good to be here.

And so it's according to the kind intention of our will. But that's not what the scripture says. This predestination is according to the kind intention of His will. And though I'm sure it bothers them to no end, the provisionists would love to see thalamatos used in a positive sense, presented as the great power of mankind, the key issue upon which everything else in soteriology must be based.

They'd like to see it placed that way. Instead, man's will is, in scripture, enslaved, enslaved to evil desires, enslaved to the power of sin. And the only eudaicheia is God's goodwill, kind intention of His thalamatos.

And that's why, then, it can be, to the praise of the glory of His grace, or of His glorious grace. I like to the praise the glory of His grace, actually. It could be understood either way, but the point is, unless we see that, so far, the verbs have all been divine, the action has all been divine, none of this has been dependent upon the human will.

Unless we see that, then this phrase becomes empty. Under the praise of the glory of His grace? Why? Especially if you say that He has extended that grace to every single human individual. He has tried to save every human individual equally.

If He has not done so, then you have predestination and election. If this grace is free, it's His grace, it is free, it is powerful, it results in bringing His elect people into sonship, the relationship of adopted sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, then that, we understand, is to the praise of His glorious grace.

And that is fundamentally the reason why man's religions of every kind introduce all these mechanisms to try to control the grace of God, and make it the fundamental action of man that controls the grace of God.

Oh, they'll always say, well, we, well, okay, I'm not going to say they will always say. The vast majority say, oh, we always need the grace of God, no matter how small or large a role they give to it, but it always must be controlled by the will of man, but not in Scripture, not in Scripture.

It's the kind intention of His will to the praise of His glorious grace. So the only reason this grace would be praised is if it actually accomplishes, is able to accomplish, what God intends it to accomplish.

And this grace you'll notice right here, was graced to us. I love that, was graced to us, was given to us, granted to us, in the beloved. Now, it's funny because I remember very, very clearly as a young person in church, when the King James would be read, we used the term beloved.

You know, my dad would say, beloved, you know, we've gathered here together. Beloved, it's good to be with you today here at, in the Lord's church and so on and so forth. Beloved was a term that we would, we would use, but you'll notice beloved is singular in the beloved one.

That's in Christ. That's in Christ. So once again, absolute exclusivity found in the text. There is no pluralism here. There is no room outside of the person of Christ for any of this. God is under no obligation to extend this powerful grace outside of His incarnate Son.

We were granted and notice, there we are again, which, which Hamas is that? Isn't that, that Hamas right there? Which is that Hamas right there, right? Which is that Hamas right there, right? Of course, of course, there's a consistency.

There's a consistency, but this is in time. This was in eternity. Huh? How does that work? Well, because God's decree, God knows who is going to exist. God has His elect people. And He knows because His decree does determine the very fabric of time.

And that's why people fight against that so ferociously because they know if that's the case, then grace must be all powerful, or there could be no salvation. There could be no salvation. So in the beloved one is in Christ, and we receive this grace in Him, which would then tell you a lot about what it means to be in Christ, why someone is in Christ.

And in this context, going back before we even existed, how God is thinking about us, how could it be possible that God would have an error in His thinking as to who was going to be in Christ? No, because then He'd be giving grace to people who will not actually end up receiving that grace.

It doesn't, doesn't make any sense. In whom, so singular going over here to the beloved one, in whom we have the redemption through His blood, and then using a positive, the forgiveness of trespasses according to the riches of His grace.

So in Christ, in whom we have, so if you've been following the verbs, there has been nothing that mankind has done here so far, except I suppose you could see something here. It's our sin. We do the sinning, but that's it.

The redemption through His blood is for, and see, I shouldn't have drawn through that here, but Ecumen and Hamas go together. It's we, we have the redemption. So it's the same we who's been chosen all along that then has redemption through His blood.

Hmm, sounds like particular redemption. The forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace. The depth of that forgiveness is kata ta plutas tes karatas autu. That is, how much can God forgive?

Look at the cross. Look at the cross. That will answer the question for you. Which He made to abound to us, there's Hamas again, I'm sorry, Hamas again, us, going back up to here to ecumen, plural, the forgiveness of our trespasses, which He made to abound in us, to us in all wisdom and understanding.

Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to, there's His kind intention again, which He then set apart in Christ. And He goes into summing up all things in Christ. And unfortunately, I wonder what would happen here.

I haven't used this before. Hold on just one second. Let me see if the world blows up here. I hope that's still working. I'm looking over here at Signal to see if that messed things up, because I've never resized a window before.

And yeah, as in it looks okay, or yeah, that messed things up. Yeah, it doesn't tell me a whole lot. It's good. Okay. Thank you. So I can go back to the annotation here. So He made known the mystery of His will, according to the kind intention, which He purposed in Christ, in Him, singularly again.

That is this administration of the fullness of times, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things upon the earth, in Christ. And then He says, in Him, in whom, in Christ also, we have obtained an inheritance pro-orescentes, having been predestined according to the purpose of the one working all things according to the counsel of His will, not our will.

So there's pro-orescentes. And so who is it that is the direct object, or what is the direct object? We have obtained, so it's found in the we at the end of the finite verb, we have obtained an inheritance having been predestined.

Predestined based upon what? His purpose, the one working all things after the counsel of His will. Not man's purpose, not man's actions. This is the same truth we saw, we see in John chapter one, not man's will, God's will, all found here in Ephesians chapter one.

So when we look back at the statement from the meme, no revealed reasons before the world began. Let's remind ourselves, what was a reason given back here? Was a reason given for the choice? Was the reason given for the first appearance of Pro-Orizzo?

Predestination, that both had the same direct object both times. Was a reason given? We are given a time frame for the foundation of the world. We're given a purpose in the infinitival phrase. Infinitive followed by the accusative, so that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love.

We are also given the purpose. It is said to be according to the kind intention of His will, for the purpose of the praise of His glorious grace. And so my comment this morning on Twitter was this right here.

I posted that and I said, that is sufficient for the redeemed heart. That is sufficient for the redeemed heart. So when you read the Apostle Paul, what you get is something very different than what you get when you listen to the provisionists who have, as their overriding intention, the issue of the will of man.

The issue of the will of man. Now I'm going to try to move this. It does not want to move for some reason. There we go. I'm going to change my screenshot here and see if I can look at one other meme that was posted quite some time ago.

This was also from Layton Flowers. I don't like these images of Jesus. I am not, I don't believe that all images of Jesus are sinful, but I don't like this particular one. Anyway, Calvinism has taught the church that we should all be shocked that God would show mercy to even one unworthy sinner.

But anyone knowing Jesus and His selfless sacrifice on the cross should be shocked that God would refuse to show mercy to even one unworthy sinner. He died for all. All right. So wet the whistle here a second.

I've been talking for a while. Wow. It's 3 .48. Look at that. Who knew? I wondered if Rich didn't chuckle a little bit when I said, yeah, we might get, this might only last 20 minutes. And I'm sure he's like, yeah, right.

I've been doing this long enough to know you ain't doing anything in 20 minutes when you get on this subject. Calvinism has taught the church that we should all be shocked that God would show mercy to even one unworthy sinner.

All right. So let's think about this one too, shall we? Okay. Here's the first issue. Mercy. Grace. Can mercy and grace be demanded? Is there such thing as an unworthy sinner? Is there such thing as a worthy sinner?

No. So you see what's missing here, as is common in this kind of thing. What's missing here is the holiness of God. Calvinism has taught the church this, that's true, because Calvinism has taken seriously what Isaiah saw in Isaiah chapter six.

Calvinism has taken seriously the reality that for God to show mercy, he must provide a foundation for that mercy. And so we should be shocked in light of God's holiness that he would have such transcendent mercy, grace, and love.

So as to self-sacrificially give himself in the person of his son to redeem rebel sinners. But anyone knowing Jesus and his selfless sacrifice on the cross. Now selfless sacrifice. If what you mean by that is Christ humbled himself, then that's fully understandable.

But Christ fully understood that the result of his condescension would be his exaltation the right hand of the father. And the only name in which we are to glory is the name of Jesus Christ, his name.

But his sacrifice on the cross, anyone knowing Jesus and his selfless sacrifice on the cross, should be shocked that God would refuse to show mercy to even one unworthy sinner. So what is the assumption here?

The assumption is that mercy, because see this word refuse, that means mercy, grace can be demanded. Everybody has to get it or it's not fair. Everybody has to get it because, well, God's trying his best for everybody.

So the idea is, no, if Christ gives himself upon the cross, that it is God's intention to save every single individual. And if any individual is not saved, then God is going to be disappointed forever.

Because that was his intention. So once again, the issue becomes, you know, I've told the story many, many times, but you know, I think I did tell Dr. Martin that I remembered this. I hope that I did before he passed on because there's been many times I've had people come up to me years after attending a teaching that I did or something like that.

And they said, you know, you said such and so, and I don't even remember saying such and so, but it changed their lives. And Dr. Martin pointed out in a class one day, and I'm not sure who else was listening, but he said, really, when you think about it, there's three choices.

God can choose to save everyone. God can choose to save no one, or God can choose to save someone. In which of those three can God's attributes, freedom, and choice be demonstrated? If he saves no one, if he saves everyone, there is no demonstration of his power, love, majesty, justice, judgment, anything.

But when he saves, not based upon choice meets, but based upon the kind intention of his will, and does so perfectly, then that is a demonstration of his true mercy. His judgment and his justice remain as firmly established as ever.

And that certainly is what we see in Scripture. Trying to stop that share, but it, oh, I know why. I'm still getting used to it. There you go. There you go. All right. So, a few biblical thoughts to provide response to those who absolutely seem intent upon promoting a Christian message that starts from man, starts from certain philosophical presuppositions about creaturely freedom, and then seeks to reason up to God.

I'm going to tell you something right now. If you don't start with the divine revelation of who God is, and then move downward to his creature, you will always end up with falsehood about the creature and God.