Ephesians 2:8-10

Thank you. We are continuing in chapter 2, the beginning of chapter 2, the first three verses, the desperate situation of all mankind, dead in trespasses and sins, basically slaves to the evil one.

And then those amazing words at the beginning of verse 4, Odetheo, but God, and how that brings about this transition from absolute death to a situation where we are actually elevated with Christ.

And at the end of that, it actually says that even this is for the glory of God. That's where we were last week.

Jeff gets, I think, one of his favorite sections. I love this passage. But you'll open us in prayer.

Father, we come to you knowing our desperate situation, and then also knowing the depth and the power of your love bringing us to you.

We come to you with anticipation, knowing that the message from now, the message of grace, the message of your love, the need for faith, and how you have worked out according to your sovereign will, our very lives.

We anticipate this lesson and we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Amen. Let's open with a question for the audience.

You can phone a friend if you don't know. Why is purgatory such a dreadfully heretical doctrine?

Answer one, it's not in the Bible. Okay, that's good. That's good.

Very good. In 1 Corinthians 3, they would say that the wood, hand, and stubble, gold, silver, precious stones, that you will be saved, but as through the fire.

Roman Catholics would point to that verse as evidence of it. However, that verse is in the context of Paul built and Apollos came along and built on what

Paul had established. And if anybody is ministering the gospel and is building with wrong materials, that work is not going to stand.

And they will be saved. The point is, they themselves are rescued and saved. It doesn't mean as through the fire that they're going to have to then go into the fire for a thousand years to pay off what remains.

That's not the point of the context of 1 Corinthians 3. Remember, just like in real estate, location, location, location, three rules.

In Bible interpretation, context, context, context. That is not teaching purgatory in any way, shape, or form.

And there is no other evidence, except something in Maccabees, which actually is not part of the Bible.

And that also contextually was not what that was about. So the Apocrypha actually was canonized by the

Catholic Church to validate the teachings of purgatory and indulgences.

Wow. Yeah, it's true. Rick. I think also purgatory offers a...

What do you mean by that? A false sense of hope. For people to think that if I don't make it to heaven, then

I have a second chance. Wow. It won't be that bad. Eternal conscious punishment is kind of off the table.

It's like, I might have to suffer for a thousand years, but eventually I'll get there.

A false hope. Okay. I'll give two theological reasons why it is so dreadfully heretical, and it includes both of those answers.

It's not biblical, false sense of hope. Number one, purgatory would render

Christ's propitiation ineffectual. That's right. Tetelestai, the last thing

Jesus said before he committed his spirit to the Father, it is finished. And that means it is paid in full.

The work that Christ did actually propitiated the wrath of God. And if there is something left for you to pay, some amount of suffering after this life, then it's

Christ's work plus your work. Right. Okay. So the first reason is it actually undercuts the very propitiation that Christ provided.

So that's bad. It's striking right at the finished work of Christ. The second reason is that it would esteem the work of men for their own salvation.

Whatever amount you pay for and you accomplish by your suffering in purgatory, whatever amount you contribute would be ground for your own boasting.

And that is key in Romans 3 and then here in Ephesians 2, 8, 9.

Any work that you're doing in purgatory, whether it's a work of suffering for your own sin or just being purged and getting better morally to make yourself fit for heaven, that work would itself become a ground of boasting.

And the point of the gospel and of Christ's propitiation is that you have no ground for boasting whatsoever.

You contribute nothing. Christ has paid it all. We should just sing, Jesus paid it all.

All to him we owe. Now, there's a secondary impact then because then the concept of purgatory and eventual cleansing and restitution and everything else then became the practice of loved ones praying for their loved ones that are in purgatory so that they might be relieved earlier, which then became, as a coin drops in the basket, so a soul is released from purgatory.

Tetzel's teaching. So this question of salvation by faith alone versus faith plus some element of work is really the dividing line of all

Christianity. Mormons will add, you are saved by grace after all that you can do.

That's how the Book of Mormon renders Ephesians 2, 8, which is a travesty. Jehovah's Witnesses have the actual work of witnessing to be part of the 144 ,000.

You better be out there on the boardwalk and do a certain amount of work, and really only 144 ,000 are going to earn their place in heaven.

Roman Catholicism insofar as they teach works, whether it be the sacramental work of purgatory, but even if you go and confess your sin to a priest and he prescribes for you what you need to do, say 100

Hail Marys or say this number of our fathers, now you are maintaining your justification by that sacrament.

Were you about to say something? No. Oh, yeah. So whatever the religion is, the work that a person contributes is antithetical to salvation by faith alone.

That's the issue. Christianity teaches salvation by faith alone. Now you think, okay, well then

Christians will do no good work, but that misses the point.

The one who completely disesteems his own contribution to salvation, that's the one who's poised to work because God will make this person a new creation in Christ Jesus to do good work.

But here's the key. The fruit comes from the tree, not the other way around.

The tree itself must be born of God to produce good fruit. It cannot be that you make yourself a new tree and that is part of your salvation.

No. Works follow saving grace and do not contribute to grace, but works do in fact indicate that something is real.

A tree that never bears fruit is probably not a genuine living tree, right? Ephesians 2 .10.

Ephesians 2 .10. Let's get to it then. So John, would you read it for us? We picked up at verse 8 through 10.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of your own doing. It is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Okay. What is the gift of God in Ephesians 2 .8?

Now, I'll warn you before you blurt out an answer. This is highly debated, even among evangelicals.

John Wesley will take one perspective and George Whitfield will take the other. Is there a right or wrong answer?

Yes. God, the problem is never with God and his word. There is an objective truth here, and one side who's saying one thing opposite another, one of them is in error.

We're not going to become postmodernists and say, well, both sides are true for them. Now, if I err in interpreting scripture, the error is in me, not in God's word.

So our job now as exegetes is to handle the text rightly, okay? The problem's not in the

Bible. If there's a dispute, a theological difference, the problem is with men, right?

And I would say in this case, Wesley had it wrong, Whitfield had it right, but it's not about men. It's about what does the word say?

Let's look at it. For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this, what is the this?

Faith. Faith, interesting. Salvation. Salvation, the broader.

Right. I would say it is salvation, and the two prepositional phrases, by grace, through faith, are included under that umbrella.

So the whole of it is a gift of God. Your salvation is a gift of God.

And I would go on to say then that that includes all three elements present in the preceding verse.

Grace is a gift of God. Your salvation is a gift of God. Your faith is a gift of God.

And that is the point of division, okay? So everybody would agree with the first part.

You're not an evangelical if you can't agree that salvation is a gift of God, and that's something that you work, right?

Right. Nobody would argue that grace is a gift of God because that's definitional, right? Grace is unmerited favor.

The point of division between Arminian and Calvinist, the point of division is, is faith a gift of God?

Or is that something that you, from within yourself, from your own will, that you conjure up to have?

Does it come from within or from without? I obviously argue that faith is a gift from God.

You're not going to be able to muster it from yourself. It's part of what's being described here as a gift.

So when it says this, faith, to me, is included in that verse through faith, okay?

Now, how would we go about deciphering which is which? From this verse, I don't know that we could be 100 % dogmatic to say that I'm right and John Wesley's wrong, but I think the scripture does actually teach on this subject.

So let's look at some of those. Who will be my first reader today? Okay, raise your hand if you don't want to be called on.

Okay, all right. So I won't call on those, anybody who raised their hand. So I'm going to start with you, Rich. Would you read for us 1

John 5 .1? Guys, you can follow right in the notes if you don't feel like flipping. We make notes every week, put them in the

Thursday email, Pastor Graham. Rich, will you read for us 1 John 5 .1?

Everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the

Father loves whoever has been born of Him. Okay, to understand the significance of that verse, we need not the law of real estate, but the law of theology,

Bible interpretation, hermeneutics, context, context, context.

So John uses a phrase in this passage that refers to regeneration.

Another word for being regenerated is to be born again, right? The word in the

Greek is gegenitai, and it goes on to say ex auto, ex of, auto, him, born of him.

To be born of him, born again, born from above, the theological word for that is regeneration.

Has this phrase appeared prior to chapter 5, verse 1? We're in 1 John 5 .1.

Has this appeared earlier in that letter? Context, context, context. Context number one, 1

John 2 .29. Context number two, 1 John 3 .9. Context number three, context, context, context, chapter four, verse seven.

Somebody turn, Ivan, will you get 2 .9? Joyce, I'm sorry, 2 .29.

Joyce, would you get 1 John 3 .9? Antoinette, 1

John 4 .7. So 1 John 2 .29 is, if you know that He is righteous, you may be sure that everyone will practice...

Okay. Has been born of him. How do you know that somebody has been, past tense, born of him, regenerated?

The evidence of regeneration is practicing righteousness. That's one. Okay. Joyce, this is in your notes.

The second evidence will be breaking the practice of sin. Chapter three, verse nine. Joyce, 1

John 3 .9. Now that one's not in your notes as far as having the verse printed, but the reference is printed.

Sorry. 1 John 3 .9. And then Antoinette, you're going to do 4 .7.

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

Because he has been born of God. Gegenitai ex auto.

Born of him. Same exact Greek construction. Regeneration.

Born of God. How do you know that somebody's been regenerated? The fruit that comes from that reality of regeneration is you've broken your practice of sin.

You no longer make a practice of sinning. So evidence number one, fruit number one, is that you now make a practice of righteousness.

Evidence number two, you've broken your old practice, your habit, your control of sin.

Doesn't mean you'll never sin again. That's also in 1 John 1 .9 and 10, but it means you're no longer willfully practicing, making a practice of it.

Number three, Antoinette, if you would, please. Sure. 1 John 4 .7. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and he who loves is begotten of God and is coming to know and understand

God. Awesome. Where you have the translation is begotten of God, same exact Greek construction.

Gegenitai ex auto. Right? Now flip one page to chapter five, verse one.

1 John 5 .1. Everyone who believes, this is the last thing

John will say, having faith that Jesus is the

Christ, gegenitai ex auto. So in biblical theology here, in John's theology, what comes first, regeneration or believing that Jesus is the

Christ? What do you think, Ivan? Absolutely, yes. Regeneration is really the discovery that happens into a person and realizes through repentance, then faith comes out of this.

You're regenerated unto faith, not the other way around. You don't believe, you don't conjure faith within yourself in order to be born again.

No, there's a sovereign work of the Spirit inwardly drawing you, opening your eyes, giving you ears, a heart that believes, and that is a gift of God.

Regeneration precedes faith, according to 1 John 5 .1. Somebody won't believe me yet, so we're going to go to, first, we're going to go to Philippians 1 .29.

And Carol, would you mind reading that? It's in the notes, in this case. Oh, okay.

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ, you should not only believe in him, but also suffer for his sake.

Right. The large point here is suffering is granted of the Father. Granted, the word is same as gifting.

It's gifted by God to you that you suffer, but notice what that is compared to.

The analogy is to faith. Even as faith is gifted, so suffering is gifted.

Do you see that, 1 .21? Not only believe in him, but also suffer.

So even as you were gifted faith, believing in him, likewise, you should expect to be gifted suffering.

Now, we don't ordinarily think of suffering as a gift, but God has a good purpose in that suffering, and he explains that more in 1

Peter and other places. It has been granted to you. We could drop the other language within it.

You could say, it has been granted to you to believe in him. That's a true statement, drawn out of Philippians 1 .29.

All right. 1 Thessalonians 1, 5 to 6. Yeah. I just wanted to add John 6 .44.

Yep. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him to me.

Correct. That, as well as John 6 .37, taken together is perfect evidence of the same.

Yeah. The drawing has to come in order for the person to come. Very good.

Regeneration proceeds faith. 1 Thessalonians 1, 5 to 6, Barb, if you will. Because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power, and in the

Holy Spirit, and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we prove to be among you for your sake, and you became imitators of us and of the

Lord. For you received the word in much affliction with the joy of the Holy Spirit.

Okay. The outward call of the gospel is not enough to save.

What does it say here? Our gospel came to you not in word only, me preaching Christ to you, but also in the power of the

Holy Spirit with full conviction. And that refers to how Paul preached with the genuineness that came from the

Holy Spirit, and with words taught by the Spirit. But then it goes on to say, and you received, you became imitators of us and of the

Lord. For you received the word in much affliction with the joy of the Holy Spirit.

There needs to be this inward work. The Spirit has to come powerfully from the genuine preaching, but also working inside the believer, which

Paul elaborates on in 2 Thessalonians 2 .13. But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the

Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, listen to this, through sanctification by the

Spirit and belief in the truth. The Spirit must take up a sanctifying work in the heart of the believer in order to believe the truth.

The belief in the truth has to be empowered by the sanctifying work of the

Spirit. Now, if you say, well, that's referring to sanctification, as in the process by which we're conformed into the image of God, as Paul uses the term in Romans.

Now you have a problem. Now you have your justification dependent on your sanctification.

That's a problem, theologically. In other words, your work of being conformed as Christ works in you, that that will contribute to you getting saved in the first place.

No, that's not how Paul is using sanctification of the Spirit here in 2

Thessalonians 2 .13. He's talking about how you were chosen as the firstfruits to be saved.

You're chosen to be saved through the sanctification of the Spirit.

That's the work of the inward call of the Spirit working in you to have belief in the truth. Now, all of that to bring us back to what

John taught us last week, which is the implication and the clear teaching of Ephesians 2.

Turn to Ephesians 2. John taught this last week. Before faith is ever introduced as an instrument, in verse 8, our salvation has already been ascribed as a sovereign work of God by grace, which is the larger concept, and faith becomes an instrument that God affects this grace through.

Make sense? 2 .5 comes before 2 .8. Okay? Context, context, context.

Ephesians 2 .5. Even when we were dead in our trespasses, now don't miss the significance of that.

It's referring to your spirituality, your connection with God. It's not just sick.

It's not just adrift at sea. It is dead. You don't have the ability to come to Him because you are dead, like Lazarus in the grave.

Even when we were dead in our trespasses, who did this?

This is about God from verse 4. God made us alive together with Christ.

That's resurrection language. That's dead heart starts beating like Bob Ball with the paddles.

But this dead heart has been dead since birth. There's no physical, human way to bring this heart to life.

It is a sovereign work of grace. Okay? That's the concept of Ephesians 2. If you don't get that, you've missed it.

This is what Paul is saying. Only God can make the dead come to life, and it's by grace.

It's a merciful act of God to the dead sinner who can't help himself at all, who contributes nothing.

And so the point of 2 .8 through 10 will be a negation of our doing, our work, our boasting.

It's all to negate our contribution to our salvation. So if you come around the back door and try to sneak it in through faith, well, it was actually the act of my will that did it.

You are introducing that to Paul. He did not introduce that in Ephesians 2. He did not esteem your contribution to your salvation in any way, shape, or form.

That's not in the context. That is theology interpreting the text.

It really began in 1609, not in 1517 at the start of the Reformation. It began with Jacobus Arminius almost 100 years later with this newfangled technology of free will being the ultimate decider here.

We'll get to that in a minute. So the text, I think, is very clear. Couldn't be any more clear. So the year is 1517.

The most prominent scholar in the Roman Empire is Desiderius Erasmus.

And along comes this firebrand in Wittenberg, Germany, and he writes a document against indulgences, the 95

Theses. And he nails it to the door. He does that to provoke a debate. It was a provocative act, but it was actually more common than you'd realize.

He's a theologian wanting to debate this with the theologian. So in response to the 95 Theses, what does

Erasmus write? A treatise called the Freedom of the

Will. And Luther reads Freedom of the

Will and commends Erasmus, not for getting it right, but for fully understanding the core issue.

Why would Erasmus write the Freedom of the Will in response to the 95 Theses and the new

Reformation that's breaking out in Europe? Luther will answer and say, you alone,

Erasmus, are putting your finger on the crucial spot. In the Bondage of the

Will, which is Luther's response to Erasmus, Luther will write this, it is the highest degree wholesome and necessary for a

Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation.

Indeed, let me tell you, that is the hinge on which our discussion turns.

Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, in response to Erasmus, says that this question is really the hinge upon which this whole thing turns.

It's free will. When Luther denies free will and writes a book called the

Bondage of the Will, he is not saying that humans don't make real choices.

He is saying, yes, we have creaturely will, okay? When I take this pen and drop it,

I did that. That was me. That was my choice to do that. You didn't know if I was going to throw it at internet or I was going to drop it or what was going to happen.

My will was real and it was active. But the Bondage of the Will says your creaturely will, you made in the image of God, having a real will, who are making choices and they're real, that those choices are bound in sin.

He who sins is a slave to sin. And you are so dead in sin that you are unable to come to Christ.

The gospel sounds like folly to you. It's a stench to your nostrils. You're blinded to it by the devil.

First 2 Corinthians 4, 4, 4. You are a slave to sin. You don't know it, but you're a rebel.

You're a rebel to the throne and you don't want to come. You don't will to come.

You are morally corrupt. And so you're bound in sin. The Bondage of the

Will does not deny real creaturely choices. It denies your ability to come to Christ.

Make sense? And that was the whole point of the Reformation. It stuck together for almost 100 years, from 1517 until 1609.

And then a Dutch theologian, Jacobus Arminius, came along and remonstrated, which is a strong protest.

The remonstrance, which was his five points that he introduced to fight the

Reformation of which he was a part. This was introduced in 1609.

And then you get the response of all of the theologians from throughout the entire

European Reformation, from England and Scotland and from Geneva, meeting at a place called

Dort, where they write a response to the remonstrance. They answer those five points of Jacobus Arminius and they write the

Canons of Dort, which is where we get Tulip, right? Total depravity. Unconditional election. Limited atonement.

Unconditional election. Irresistible grace. And perseverance of the saints. You don't need to know all those, but the point is, listen, the big point is, listen, the

Reformation was unified around Luther and Calvin and these points from the very beginning.

It was the Arminian theology that interposed 100 years later, which then eventually becomes the dominant stream in America through Wesley's Methodism, right?

That's the theological context. So you have debate between men, between the

Calvinists and the Arminians. But what, what's our favorite saying from the evangelical?

Where stands it written? Where stands it written? What does the scripture say? That's the question.

Where stands it written? What comes first? Regeneration or faith? Regeneration precedes faith, according to John in 1

John 5, 1. The one who believes has been born of God. Where else do you have language of regeneration?

Well, you have it in John 3, where Jesus is teaching and he says, just as using the same word, except it's a different form of it, gegenum manos.

As the wind blows and nobody knows where it comes from, it goes where it wills.

There's, there's talking about the will, right? The will of the wind. So it is those who are gegenum manos, born of God, regeneration.

The comparison in that verse in John 3, I think it's verse 8, is what? As the wind goes wherever it wills, so it is with God.

His will is free. Do you see that? There's just like the wind is free.

God is free to send his spirit and regenerate whom he wills.

The freedom of the will that is actually taught in the scripture regarding regeneration is the freedom of God's will.

John 3, just like wind. Hold on, I'm just going to keep going for a minute. And there is language regarding human will in these matters because John is writing a consistent theology.

What does he say of the human will in John 1, 13? He says it is not of the will of the husband, in other words, to impregnate his wife because he's talking about being born of God, nor of the will of man.

It's not of the will of man. So in the new birth of John 1, 12 and 1, 13, the will of man is explicitly excluded.

It doesn't have to do with your will. It's God's will. That's his point.

In Romans 9, the will of man is brought up and what is said of the will of man in that context?

Anybody remember? Romans 9, 16? I'm all worked up.

I got to let somebody else read this one. Come on, John, read some Romans 9, 16.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.

So what does it say about the willeth? Yeah, so the runneth is the one who runs, the one who works.

The exertion of yourself. It's not your exertion. What about your will?

It's not your willeth. It's not your will. It depends on him who shows mercy.

It's so clear. It is what the scripture teaches. I don't care what Erasmus says. Here's where those objections come from.

The philosophical difficulty that humans have in reconciling

God's freedom to save. With our understanding of what his justice ought to look like.

Namely, fairness that should be extended equally to everybody in every way, shape, or form. We take that philosophical objection to the text and we look for ways to make it make more sense, to be easier to evangelize out there.

That's why people do it. That's why Jacob Arminius made this up. But it was never in Paul's thinking nor John's or any apostle who wrote on these matters.

In fact, they're teaching pretty explicitly in Ephesians 2, 8, 9. So what does John do?

We'll move on to verse 9. What does, I'm sorry, Paul do in Ephesians 2, 9?

He does not commend human contribution to salvation. There is nothing of that in Ephesians 2.

What does he do? He explicitly negates any of your supposed, he does it three times.

Exactly. Correct. In verse, this is his whole point. Verse 8 is the first of them.

The first negation, and this is not negating your own doing.

That's Paul's point. It's not your doing. Then he says it is the gift of God. Here's the second negation.

In case you missed it, it's kind of a restatement of it in slightly different words. Not your energy.

It's not your work. Third negation. What does he want to negate ultimately?

Same concept as Romans 3, 26 to 30. He wants to negate anybody's boasting.

Anybody's boasting. So that no one may boast.

So our doing, our works, our boasting are completely negated. You know how

I dropped this pen? That was John Piper's analogy. John Piper went to seminary as an

Arminian with a Baptist preaching father who would go from place to place evangelizing. Godly man

John Piper loves his father. But John brought that baggage into his theology classroom.

And this professor was teaching the free grace of God. And Piper went up to him after class and he said,

Professor, I did that. And he asserted his will.

And he strongly stood on his ability. And he fought that professor tooth and nail. And then he wrestled like Jacob in the book of Genesis, wrestled with God, the angel all night long.

In Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 2 and John 6, 44. And John Piper was convinced, not by the professor, but by the word of God that this is what the scripture teaches.

You see, our will always wants to take some credit.

I did that. The boasting of your work, John and I were talking about this earlier today, is not just in the physical work of your hands.

I dropped that pen. I plowed that field. I carried my neighbor's groceries. But so much of our work is in the mind.

There are intellectuals whose entire work, their philosophy is all in the mind. They write, they put it on paper.

My wife made the cover for my new book. I just released a book on Monday called Blood Red Church. And I would check in with her.

I didn't see her working on her computer to design the cover. And she kept telling me, I'm working on it.

I'm working on it. This is a beautiful thing. She was working on it in her mind.

She wasn't doing anything physically. She was thinking, how does Blood Red Church, how redemption colors our politics, how could that be represented in imagery?

And in her mind, she was thinking about the blood of Christ. So she ended up making that a blood drop coming from redemption in the color of redemption, the blood drop, which is falling on the church.

We're washed in the blood. And she came up with this amazing image. It took her days of thinking. She was working for days without lifting a finger.

This is what so many people miss. Even your thinking is work before God.

So what was it that conjured up faith in you? Was it that you were more humble than your neighbor? You could think better.

You were able to figure it out. Oh, Jesus is the Christ. That's what Paul is eliminating, even the work of your mind.

You can boast in your mind. In fact, that's where boasting happens. The haughty look on the face that Proverbs talks about, it comes from the heart.

Does that make sense? Paul is outlawing all boasting, even the intellect.

So where did your faith come from? Were you smarter than your neighbor? Did you figure it out?

It came from the spirit of the living God. He regenerated you. You were chosen by the

Father. You were interposed for with the precious blood of the Lamb. And the spirit of the living

God came to you in the outward preaching, but also in the inward work that made you think about these things.

Somebody else isn't even thinking about it. Why were you so concerned about this? Why did you start reading the scripture?

Why did your heart stir? It was the hound of heaven. The Holy Spirit was after you and was working in you.

So that work is often in the mind. And here's Paul's point. He negates, I'm going to Rick. He negates our work entirely to give all the credit, all the glory to God himself in your salvation.

Rick. He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Yes. The question remains, why did he choose?

Right. And that's the question that's left unanswered in Romans 9, right? That's God's sovereign choice.

Now he has a purpose according to Ephesians 1, 3 to 5. We talked about this. He does according to the praise of his glorious grace that he would be glorified.

He doesn't tell us why, but here's what he does tell us. It's not based on anything in you.

It's not your work. It's not your mind. It's not your humility. This is what we're supposed to come along with.

It's grace. It's his choice of me, not my choice of him. It's him that gets the glory.

So I got an angry email this week. And somebody doesn't like my Calvinism.

Yeah. I just was thinking I was raised in convent schools. Yeah. And so we never heard of the

Holy Spirit. Yes. From kindergarten to 12th grade, I was raised in convent schools.

Yeah. And I don't think I really ever accepted it because I was always in trouble.

Right. From not obeying the convent school nuns.

And it wasn't later. And I don't even know how I got into scripture. But I could see the pattern.

And that's why I love the Bible. Amen. It really takes away from all those outside churches.

That's right. That do not teach from scripture. Many people get saved, maybe still in the

Catholic church, because they've come to believe in Christ. And they then mature out of Roman doctrine into the full counsel of God.

As we mature, right? And I'm going to bring up some of the points of this angry email that I got about my

Calvinism. Because it says in chapter 2, verse 10, We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which

God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. That's the relationship of faith and works. The works come as a result of being a new creation that God has saved you, made you new, all of his grace.

Now we do walk. That's us. We do work. Yes, we exert energy and thought and all of these things.

That is the fruit of what God has done in us. Okay? And this is the point that Roman Catholics don't get.

Erasmus was mad at Luther and wrote the freedom of the will. Mormons are mad at Christians. Everybody's mad at the

Bible -believing Christian who takes these things at face value. So I got this email and I'm going to read a couple of the things that you'll hear.

Calvinism kills churches and seminaries long term. That's the first point of the angry email.

And yet, it was Arminianism introduced in 1609 that broke up the

Reformation unity. Ironic. And the master seminary, John MacArthur, Calvinist, has held faithful to the text, whereas the more

Arminian, Dallas Seminary, four -point Calvinism, but not even that, that takes more of an

Arminian, has begun to drift. Over and over again. It's quite the opposite.

Right. Well, okay, let me clarify something. Arminianism is not heresy.

It's an inconsistent theology. We need to welcome Arminian brothers as brothers, okay?

But it's error. There's a difference between damnable heresy and error.

We all have error. I have error in my theology. If I knew what points those were at, I would correct it. That's why we're constantly reforming.

Semper Reformando. Constantly reforming. We want the word of God to be constantly changing our wrong ideas for the true teaching of the word.

Where stands it written, okay? So the idea, though, that seminaries and churches go awry by Calvinism is completely contradicted by the history of the church.

And yet that's the objection. Notice it's not an objection from scripture. It's a straw man, you know, attack from evidently this person's observations.

Calvinism makes God out to be a despot. Have you heard that one? He's so controlling that he's despotic.

Our God is all powerful. That's the meaning of omnipotence. Yeah, he's not a despot because that's a derogatory

English word meant to malign rulers who overstep their authority. But guess what?

God has all authority in heaven and earth given unto him. Yeah. When he says, I will have mercy on whom

I will have mercy. Yeah. That suggests choice on his part, not despotism.

Right. It's his freedom to choose. And he is free. He has the right to do that because he's God. Number three,

Calvinism magnifies people because people then think they are so special to be chosen by God.

Isn't that convoluted reasoning? The one who thinks that they've done something to contribute to their own salvation is the one who has ground for boasting.

That's Paul's point. But to say that I bring nothing but my sin. I'm a wretch. Amazing grace that saved a wretch like me is actually to say, who am

I that you would choose me like Solomon in the book where he dedicates the temple or David as he reflects back on his life.

I'm the shepherd boy. I brought nothing and you chose me. That's the point of grace, quite opposite of the criticism.

Arrogance shows in a lot of Calvinist circles. You never answered me. Did you get saved through preaching at a

Calvinist church? Was your church formerly now cornerstone, not Calvinist, but you're trying to turn it into Calvinism? A string of angry rants, which

I would define as arrogant to demand answers to these questions. And I never said a crossword to this particular individual, but the accusation is that Calvinists are arrogant.

Who here in this room struggles with pride? All of us struggle with pride, and that's what we need to mortify, mortify in our flesh arrogance.

But the problem is nobody sees pride in themselves. They always see it in somebody else. And it's again, just an attack that you could make on anybody.

I'll do this quickly. A couple more minutes. If God is totally sovereign and did not give us free will, then who is causing child pedophiles to do what they are doing?

Right. Free will, right? Creaturely will.

We don't deny that people have creaturely will. They are really choosing and they are responsible. And the

Bible always holds sinners responsible for their sin and clearly says that God is not the author of sin.

So you have difficulty putting all these things together? Argue with God. But the problem is human sinfulness.

So who's doing those things? We're not saying people don't have creaturely will. We're saying they're so sinful and so dead in sin that they can't come to Christ.

Why do pedophiles do what they do? Because they're dead in sin as described in the

Bible. That actually confirms the teaching of total depravity. It's not one or the other.

So we don't deny creaturely will. We deny the freedom to come as if you morally, virtuously could come to Christ.

No, you're so dead. You're actually opposed to him. You do have a real choice, but your nature has been corrupted in Adam.

And that's why nobody comes apart from grace. Regeneration follows being saved.

Did you hear the crickets after I said that? There was no scripture reference. It was an assertion, a philosophical assertion, a theological assertion, but doesn't come from the text, which actually teaches the opposite as we've demonstrated today.

We could go on and on. It's just straw man kind of hits one after another, and we'll stop there.

But the point is, human reason is not to be trusted. Your own philosophical objections do not override the text of God's word, where he clearly teaches in Ephesians 2 .5

that salvation is by grace because you were dead and you needed to be made alive.

That's regeneration, to be made alive. That must precede faith, which is only instrumental.

What unites you to Christ, it is a gift of God. All of this comes from God and not from us.

Amen. Would you close in prayer? Lord, we confess that our heart is desperately sick and wicked without you.

It is dead. Yes. We are in awe that you would even love so much that you sent your son and now you give grace and you even send your spirit to soften our hearts that we might respond to you and that it is a gift.

We say thank you for that. We confess, Lord, it is not of us, not of our own doing.

It's a gift of God. So, Lord, we come to you in that way as your children. In Jesus' name, amen.